Talk:Sabra and Shatila massacre/Archive 5

Sayeret Matkal

Why are there no details on the murders by Sayeret Matkal, neither here nor on the dedicated page? It doesn't appear to have had any political repercussions, even though that was the Israeli army itself doing the killing, which arguably is worse than "merely" allowing another group to murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.165.8.243 (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps someone still has to write it. kashmiri ^TALK 11:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

On 15 September 1982, 63 Palestinian intellectuals, notably lawyers, medical staff and teachers, were individually identified and killed by an Israeli unit called Sayeret Matkal.

Can someone clarify these claim & sources (quotes, etc.). Any way, it should be attributed. --Igorp_lj (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have not verified these claims. One of the sources is in French, which I cannot read. The other source (Trablousi) mentions Sayeret Matkal going into the camps but not this incident specifically. I will ping Nishidani to see if he has the time to rustle up something. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Ehud Barak and Moshe Ya'alon were senior Sayeret Maktal operatives within Beirut at the time. Perhaps we should email them. They certainly know what happened.

sur place, persuadés que leur statut de non-combattants les plaçait au-dessus de la mêlée. La premiére série de liquidations de civils palestiniens dans Sabra et Chatila se termina en fin d'après-midi, lorsque les groups du Sayeret Mak'tal israélien quittèrent les camps aussi discrètement qu'ils y étaient entrés. Le massacre avait commencé, deux autres équipes de tueurs devaient prendre le relais.'p.470

(subject missing) 'convinced that their non-combatant status put them above the fray. The first series of liquidations of Palestinian civilians in Sabra and Shatila was completed by the end of the afternoon, when groups of Sayeret Maktal left the camps as quietly as they had entered it. The massacre had begun, two other squads of killers were to take over.

He follows this up with a long para quoting a foreign correspondent (Robert Fisk?) with long service in the area to the effect that it would be inconceivable for Israel not to have used its special forces to undertake such a preliminary operation against the Palestinians.

Lacking the preceding page, I suspect Ménargues is surmising. Another source not considered here says that Ménargues is in fact saying that Sayeret Maktal special operations groups engaged in an initial groups of targeted assassinations,' 'fait apparaître qu'une première série de meurtres ciblés sera faite par les commandos israéliens du Sayeret Maktal chargé des opérations speciales,' (Maghreb, Machrek 2006 p.125)

That Israeli special operation agents were in the camp during the slaughter of 1,700 is attested by eyewitnesses (Robert FiskThe Great War for Civilization pp.1021-1026) The Israelis, 'after the slaughter was reported, handed over to the Phalangists, who had initially nbeen blamed for all of it, another 300 Palestinians who were kept in containers in hills as possible hostages, and when no deal was made, taken out and machine-gunned, and buried by a local chapel, that still exists. I'll keep looking (sorry for being late: power shortages) Nishidani (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd think that despite the sources, it requires for the moment (a) attribution (b) just more work. If any one can supply Ménargues p.469, it would be a help.(c) Fawwaz Traboulsi should be looked up in a library: he definitely mentions sayeret maktal on p.218 in the context of the slaughter. (d)Ménargues uses a source, so his footnote should be checked.Nishidani (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Despite attempts, I can't confirm the 63 as the number individually selected.That must be verified.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Trablousi (p 218):

On Wednesday 15th, units of the elite Israeli army ‘reconnaissance’ force, the Sayeret Mat`kal, which had already carried out the assassination of the three PLO leaders in Beirut, entered the camps with a mission to liquidate a selected number of Palestinian cadres. The next day, two units of killers were introduced into the camps, troops from Sa`d Haddad’s Army of South Lebanon, attached to the Israeli forces in Beirut, and the LF security units of Elie Hobeika known as the Apaches, led by Marun Mash`alani, Michel Zuwayn and Georges Melko.

He cites Menargues, and another author: Shimon Shiffer, Opération Boule de Neige: Les secrets de l’intervention israélienne au Liban (Paris: J.C. Lattes, 1984), pp. 172–3 Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The Shiffer source would be important because there is a controversy about this theory, especially as presented by Pierre Péan,'Sabra et Chatila, retour sur un massacre,' in Le monde diplomatique September 2002. Péan has influenced several writers including Dominique Vidal. The Péan thesis runs thus:

'Sharon et Bashir Gemayel, who used the Israeli secret services directed at the time by Abraham Shalon, who had been ordered to linquidate all the terrorists. The Lebanese militias were nothing more than agents in a chain of command that led back, via the secret services, to the Israeli authorities.'

Péan's key source for this stating that the massacre was agreed to by Sharon and Bashir Gemayel (Davar and Amir Oren) state no such thing. One theory is that Elie Hobeika spread this version, and the bit about Sayeret Maktal, to absolve himself of complicity in the massacre by blaming the Israelis, with whom he once collaborated before siding with Syria. The journalistic investigation deconstructing this dismisses it as a legend, at least in this version. Shiffer however predates this by 18 years. It is also true that Robert Fisk, the only person who, with things like this, went round and cross-checked names of victims, interviewed relatives etc., does note that Israelis were handing over Palestinians to the Phalangists even after the massacre, Palestinians subsequently machinegunned and buried in a mass grave whose site is known; and that two people who survived mention being ordered by loudspeakers from Israeli outposts, and Israeli officers, during the massacre. In this kind of mucky world of spin, counter-spin, disinformatsiya and intelligence muddling of the waters, we simply cannot know, and should rely on historians like Henri Laurens, who habitually gives all versions, suggests which is more likely, but concludes that we will never know. The few people who do know have no interest in the truth, since for them 'real' history doesn't function that way (as Karl Rove more or less said). I'm sure Henry Laurens will deal with it in his final volume of La Question de Palestine, and if I'm still around will notify the board of his analysis.Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

:To recap: Kingsindian restored to the article a claim that 63 civilians ware massacred, based on one source he didn't read and can't read because it is in a language he does not understand, , and a second source which does not give the number 63, nor does it say civilians were massacred. This is about as gross a falsification of sources as I have come across. I am removing it, and if it is returned again based on these sources, expect to see a WP:AE report. All Rows4 (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@All Rows4: I was not the one who added the statement initially. You removed the statement based on a wholly improper use of WP:REDFLAG. Both of these sources are WP:RS, contrary to what you claimed in your edit summary. And you did not bother to check what they said, instead, you simply removed the statement. I simply restored the statement based on WP:PRESERVE. I was the one who bothered to hunt down the sources and check what they say. I was in fact planning to remove the quote myself, and I am not planning to restore the statement while the status of the statement is unclear. If you feel that I have falsified sources, please feel free to go to WP:AE, otherwise I will appreciate it if you strike that very serious personal attack. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I neither know nor care who originally put that statement in - but when you restored it, you take responsibility for it. My removal was perfectly in line with WP:REDFLAG , per the explanation I gave - such an incident, if true, would have been headline news, with multiple high quality sources. WP:PRESERVE doesn't mean you blindly reinsert material - you do so only after you verify it. Per you own account, you did not verify one of the sources (and can't, as you don't read French), and the second source which you did verify, does not support the claim that 63 civilians were executed . I am happy to hear you don't plan on reintroducing that source falsification back into the article. All Rows4 (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop this nonsense. Kingsindian did verify the source by getting it translated. You falsified the other source by suppressing what Trablousi explicitly writes, and he is RS. Editors are, here, working on the issue, without haste, suppression, or premature conclusions. That is why clarify tags are posts, talk pages are used, and requests are made among editors for collegial work. Rapid removalism is not an option here, whatever the pretext.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Take a close look in the mirror before accusing Others of "nonsense. Kingsindian first restored WP:REDFLAG material to the article then explicitly wrote "I have not verified these claims. ". Trablousi does not remotely support the claim, and in fact, neither does Ménargues , who is not a reliable source, in any case. People have been topic banned at WP:AE for far less. All Rows4 (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@All Rows4: I am sorry, in a war involving up to 20,000 people killed, what makes you think that 63 people killed will make headline news? And in fact, the source states that Sayeret Matkal entered the camps to liquidate a certain number of people, though it does not state how many. I and Nishidani were working to clarify the facts, after another editor flagged the issue. Because one page of the Alain Menargues book was unavailable, I was holding off on the edit. We already determined above that attribution should be used and it should be rewritten.

I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually thought WP:REDFLAG was applicable. Your removal of two perfectly WP:RS sources without checking them is grossly improper. The I/P area is filled with people who remove sources giving wrong justifications. And, again, you make the very serious charge that I falsified sources. I again ask you to remove the allegation or go to WP:AE, otherwise I will do that myself. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

My removal was perfectly inline with WP:REDFLAG - perhaps it's time for you to actually read that POLICY: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;" The claim that 63 innocent civilians were executed is quite clearly a surprising and important claim, which is not covered by mainstream sources. Neither one of your sources is high quality, and one of them is not even a reliable source. I am willing to bet you have no idea who Menargues is, and what his track record is. Do some Googling and save yourself some embarrassment.

I seriously doubt you don't understand the distinction between people killed in warfare - either as combatants or as collateral damage, and the claim that 63 individual civilians were deliberately selected and executed. On the off chance that you truly don't understand the distinction, try the following instructive example: Over 50 million people were killed in World War II, at least 2/3 of them civilians. Yet a mass execution along the lines alleged by your worthless sources, of 173 innocent civilians who were simply selected and executed in revenge was not only headline news at the time, but is well documented today, with multiple academic books written on the topic and numerous artistic tributes created to it in commemoration.

You quite clearly falsified sources. Neither one of your sources mentions 63 people executed, yet you re-added that material, without even reading one of them. The only source you actually checked before adding the material says only that the Israeli forces came into the camp to kill Palestinian cadres - but does not say civilians, a very key distinction. Perhaps it was an innocent mistake, though your one-sided editing in this topic area leaves me skeptical about that. So no, I am not going to strike out my calling a spade a spade. You will not be editing my comments, either, per WP:TPO. If you believe I acted wrongly, take it to WP:AE, where we will hash out your source falsification and hopefully get you removed from editing this topic area, which you are apparently unable to do in accordance with Wikipedia polices. All Rows4 (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is it an 'exceptional claim' to say that, after (a)Israel sealed off the camp (b) had manned guardposts with an overview of the area set up (c)Israel may have scoured the camp with its special forces before, the next day, allowing (d) the Phalangist-Haddad troops were allowed to enter it and rampage, as Israeli observers watched? I'm personally not convinced of the story, but it is in two RS, but few were convinced of the Kahan commission either, which you are citing.Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You need to start paying attention if you want to be treated seriously. Neither your (a), (b), (c) nor (d) was what was being claimed and what was objecting to. All Rows4 (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, you refuse to take your own advice, and pay attention so I won't treat you seriously.Nishidani (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, you need to start paying attention if you want to be taken seriously. The text you suggest above as being non exceptional is not what was being objected to. All Rows4 (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The text above, the whole basis of your revert being based on a policy of exceptional claims. You quoted it yourself above.

My removal was perfectly inline with WP:REDFLAG - perhaps it's time for you to actually read that POLICY: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;"

This was your fundamental premise, this motivated your removal, this is what you repeated on the talk page, and this is what I asked you to clarify, i.e., to warrant using WP:REDFLAG you should have shown prior cause on the page that this is an 'exceptional claim', justifying your claim that it is so. Since deletionists/removalers don't google to check anything, they should exercise the courtesy to ask beforehand competent editors who do so, to clarify. Igorp does this, for example. You and others don't. Had you, as witness here, you would have had within a day several good sources citing it. Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Re-Read the text that I objected to. Then re-read the text you suggest is not controversial. They are not the same or even similar . You need to start paying attention and demonstrate basic reading comprehension if you expect editors of this encyclopedia to take you seriously . All Rows4 (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Still another source & info

• Michael Young : Embarrassing 'secrets' and Bashir Gemayel's rise to power, 2004 (!)

The fourth revelation, which is perhaps the most intriguing, is that there were three groups, not one, in Sabra and Chatila on Sept. 15-17, as the Israelis moved into West Beirut. Menargues suggests that Israeli commandos of the elite Sayeret Metkal were the first in, and executed 63 Palestinians from a list they carried. They were followed by members of the Israeli-funded South Lebanon Army of Saad Haddad, and only later by Lebanese Forces units under Elie Hobeika.
Menargues' source for the allegation about the Israelis is the Lebanese commission that investigated the massacres, but also the person who supervised it, former military prosecutor Asaad Germanos. Unfortunately, the Germanos inquiry report was never published (and it's unclear how or even whether Menargues read it), and those morsels that did leak out hardly showed it to be impartial. So are Menargues allegations, which are political dynamite as regards Israeli behavior, true?
That and many other issues discussed in "Secrets" have been woefully under-investigated in the past decades. Menargues has done a service by asking the right questions, but also by trying to answer several of them. Hopefully, from now on more Lebanese authors will pursue that belated task.

--Igorp_lj (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Igorp. That is very useful. Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That is simply an opinion piece by a journalist, so can't be used for facts, but it does say that Menargues makes this claim of 63 people killed in his book. I will try on resource exchange to see if someone can get the Menargues source. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting that despite of Young's (2004) "Hopefully, from now on more Lebanese authors will pursue that belated task" it's still hard to find any new info. --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Report on Global Anti-Semitism, January 5, 2005

Government officials at the highest level vigorously and publicly condemned acts of anti-Semitism. In October, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs called comments by Radio France International editor Alain Menargues "unacceptable." In an interview publicizing his book on the West Bank security barrier, Menargues called Israel a "racist" state. Menargues was forced to resign as a result of his comments.

• • French news chief resigns over anti-Semitic remarks, 20 october 2004

--Igorp_lj (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Another clarification: the Shiffer source is probably cited for another claim in Trablousi. (I can't exactly make out what statement it is cited for). So it is possible that Menargues is the ultimate source for this claim. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think what Igorp is suggesting, perhaps I am wrong, is that Alain Ménargues's Les secrets de la guerre du Liban,. Albin Michel 2004 (pp.459-494 deal with Shatila and Sabra) can neither be trusted nor cited because after being appointed (July that year) editorial director of Radio France Internationale (RFI), he published another book in September, Le Mur de Sharon, which was then accused of having copied anti-Semitic material from negationist and neo-Nazis web sites. He was eventually fired for this, and for calling Israel a 'racist state'. He first touched on the camp slaughter in an interview with Françoise Germain-Robin, published in L'Humanité, 14 September 2002, entitled 'Un massacre soigneusement planifié.'

There it is announced that in his forthcoming book:

Dans un livre à paraître chez Albin Michel, Alain Ménargues, ancien correspondant de France Inter au Liban, fait de nouvelles révélations sur l'existence de trois équipes de tueurs : la première israélienne, la seconde de l'ALS et la troisième des Forces libanaises. Selon lui, c'est bien Ariel Sharon qui a ordonné ces massacres, qui ont duré trois jours.(In a forthcoming book to be published by Albin Michel, Alain Ménargues, veteran correspondent of France Inter au Liban, makes new disclosures concerning the existence of three murder squads: one was Israeli, the second belonged to the South Lebanon Army, and third belonging to the Lebanese army. According to Ménargues, Ariel Sharon was the man who ordered the massacres which lasted three days')

Alain Ménargues had lived in Lebanon for many years (1982-1995), entered the Shatila camp on the 18th of September, and had very good contacts inside the Maronite groups there, and their militias. I've reporting what a blog site, which is highly defensive about any claim re Israel, reports. One has to be careful here because it takes Ménargues to task for writing 'Admouni' when referring to Nahum Admoni, the head of Mossad at the time. The difference in vocalization is taken as proof of his 'phenomenal ignorance' of Israel and Israelis, and that kind of nonsensical hairsplitting doesn't augur well for the analyst's neutrality. In the 2002 piece, he is said to have attributed the blame not to regular units of the Phalange, but marginalized Maronites recruited by Elie Hobeika. It is only in the 2004 book, it is also said, that the additional information is added that Israeli special forces killed 63 cadres (This is not quite correct: but I'm rushing). The blog author thinks this is added to get the Lebanese off the hook. Pure blog speculation, with a visible intent to absolve any Israeli actor of any connection to the event, notwithstanding the fact that archival research has shown the Americans, from the first day, privately raising hell about what was occurring some yards away before the eyes of observers in the Israeli guardposts, when the camp had been surrounded and sealed, and Sharon vigorously insisting that nothing was to be done for a few more days, as through the night the IDF shot flares to keep the area lighted, though the Americans said these were civilians: he insisted they were all 'terrorists'. (Seth Anziska, A Preventable Massacre, New York Times 16 September 2012.). I'll look further.Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This is what Ménargues says in the 2002 interview

" J'ai réussi à me procurer des documents et à retrouver des témoins qui attestent que, le 15 septembre, un premier groupe de militaires sont entrés dans les camps. Ils étaient israéliens et il s'agissait de trente membres de l'unité spécial Sayyeret Makkal, chargée de la liquidation ciblée des activistes palestiniens. C'est d'ailleurs toujours la même unité qui opère aujourd'hui dans les territoires autonomes. Cette unité était commandée par un certain " colonel Ouri " qui avait en main une liste de 120 personnes à " liquider " que lui avaient procuré A'Amal, les renseignements militaires. Les soldats israéliens disposaient d'informations précises sur ces personnes, savaient exactement où les trouver et se déplaçaient dans le camp selon des itinéraires soigneusement préparés. Ils se sont fait ouvrir les portes des domiciles à perquisitionner ou les ont forcées, et quand ils trouvaient la personne qu'ils cherchaient, ils la faisaient sortir et l'exécutaient séance tenante d'une balle dans la nuque. Ces informations, plusieurs fois recoupées, m'ont été confirmées par un médecin légiste militaire libanais, le docteur Marcel Prince, qui était venu examiner les corps après les massacres. Il a trouvé dans les blessures trois types de balles de calibres différents correspondant aux armes utilisées par les trois équipes.

I've managed to obtain documentation, and to turn up witnesses who testify that on the 15th of September, a first group of military personnel entered the camps. They were Israelis, some 30 members of the special unit Sayeret Makkal (sic), whose task it was to to perform targeted assassinations of Palestinian activists. It's the same group, I might add that still operates in the Palestinian territories these days. This unit was under the command of a certain "Colonel Uri" who had a list, military intelligence which Amal had obtained for him, of 120 persons to be "liquidated", The Israeli soldiers had access to precise information concerning these people, they knew exactly where to find them and moved through the camp according to carefully prepared itineraries. people were made to open their doors so their houses could be searched, or else the houses were broken into, and when they found a person they were looking for, they had them leave the house and executed them summarily with a bullet in the neck. A pathologist in service with the Lebanese army, Marcel Prince, who had examined the corpses after the massacre, confirmed for me this information, which has been cross-checked a number of times. (His examination) uncovered three types of bullets, with different calibres, corresponding to the weapons used by the three squads.

Somethings here don't sound quite right to me, but then again most things I read don't sound quite right. I'll leave it to others to decide on how to deal with this.Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The dismissal which followed on the fierce campaign charging Mènargues with anti-Semitism was brought to court. The Court of Appeal said no disciplinary action should have been taken against him since that would violate his inviolable right to freedom of speech, his dismissal was without legal foundation, and his employer was forced to pay him all that was his due, indemnities, etc., for unjust dismissal after 32 years of service. this verdict was confirmed by the Court of Cassation.Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

(The comments are in-between all the others so it is hard to read) My general feeling is that the Menargues source should only be used with attribution, since there is a paucity of research on his thesis. This portion refers to a separate (earlier) phase anyway, before the Phalanges were introduced into the camps and the main massacres took place. It can be given a short mention, that's it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I proposed that above, so we are agreed. It is the obvious solution. Menargues point is minor: what the article fails to do is to give the full scholarly record on what happened when Israel unilaterally broke the ceasefire agreement with America, invaded West Beirut, enclosed the camps, and ferried(several sources) or allowed the Phalangists to enter a camp they had assumed control of, and then watched as the massacre predicted by Raphael Eytan, the Americans, and many other parties then slowly proceeded over two days. This is all extremely well-documented but there's no significant trace of all of the varied elements in the article.Nishidani (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I will respond in the other dedicated section which you opened. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Menargues is not a reliable source, and his fringe theories deserve no mention whatsoever in this article. All Rows4 (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

From my very first comment, I had invited you to discuss the reliability of the sources cited. I am glad that finally the discussion has come towards it. Menargues is WP:RS because:

• It is cited by the Traboulsi source.
• Secondly, the theory that Israeli special forces were the first in the killings is cited in other sources as well. For instance, here Menargues is cited explicitly by name. Hezbollah: A History of the "Party of God" by Dominique Avon, Anaïs-Trissa Khatchadourian, Jane Marie Todd, Harvard University Press. (p 22) I have added this source to the article.
• Menargues's book is also cited in other matters by Shlomo Ben-Ami (former foreign minister of Israel and scholar) in his book Scars_of_War,_Wounds_of_Peace:_The_Israeli-Arab_Tragedy.
• You have given no reason why you think that Menargues is not reliable.
• Prima facie, the source is totally WP:RS. It is by a mainstream French publisher. The reporter was a long time correspondent in Lebanon with good contacts among the Christian actors, and also the military prosecutor involved. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

An exceptional claim, that despite fitting all known criteria, Ménargues is not RS requires strong evidence for it to be treated seriously. None has been provided. To the contrary, it has emerged via Kingsindian's evidence that it is used by very good secondary sources. It's RS.Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

An aside: I just got the following link from Resource Exchange. The relevant excerpt from Menargues 479-480 seems to have been reproduced here. While it cannot of course be vouched for fully, the commenter on WP:RX states that the part which is available on Google Books (pg 470) seems to match the excerpt. It seems that the initial statement was substantially accurate, quoting Menargues correctly. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

We've had for over a day his own words that this figure is what his thesis argues ( Selon les résultats de mon enquête, les Israéliens ont ainsi " liquidé " 63 des 120 personnes qui figuraient sur leur liste.=According to the results of my investigation, the Israelis liquidated 63 of the 120 persons on their list' , entitled Un massacre soigneusement planifié, L'Humanité, 14 September 2002) which I mentioned above. But I'll look at the excerpt. Thanks for the work on this.Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The claim that Israeli forces perpetrated a Lidice-style mass execution of 63 civilians is a WP:REDFLAG claim. As such, it requires multiple, high quality sources. We have a single source - Menargues - for this claim (all other sources state he is the source), in sources that are far from high quality. Menargues himself seems to have only recently discovered that unusual "claim - his earlier works on the topic blamed only Lebanese units for it. The book was published by a non-academic publisher, which performs no fact checking. Menargues himself, far from having a reputation for being a high quality sources, carries as his main claim to fame the dubious distinction of someone who was accused of blatant anti-semitism not just by Israeli or Jewish critics, condemned for those anti-semitic statements not just by the US State department or the French government - but by his colleagues. This is a man who believes and perpetuates the anti-semitic falsehood that Jews voluntarily created Ghettos for themselves. We would no more quote such a blatantly biased source on issues related to Israel than we would quote David Duke on issues of race. All Rows4 (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Serious academic sources don't arbitrarily pass along random gossip: it is their job to sift through claims and see what is reasonable and what is not. The other WP:RS sources cite him on this matter, therefore they accord him at least an amount of credibility. I have already given 2 high quality sources; I have done enough, in my opinion. The rest is simply WP:JDLI, and deserves no detailed response. All I am in favour of is an attributed, short statement of Menargues. See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources.

I would also advise you to strike or rephrase your last two sentences about Menargues. Stating that "Menargues was accused of anti-Semitism" is fine, but "he is an anti-Semite" is not. WP:BLP applies to all pages, including talk pages. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If you show me where I wrote "he is an antisemite" I will strike it out. If you fail, I expect an apology. All Rows4 (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I already stated that the last 2 sentences were problematic to me. To compare someone's attitudes to Jews to David Duke on race, seems awfully close to stating that "this guy is anti-Semitic". You are free to disregard my advice: I do not plan to do anything about it, but others may have different opinions. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

So, no apology, even though what you claimed (that I wrote "He is an anti-semite ') is false? I decided not to press the issue of your source falsification at WP:AE, but if you continue to carry on like this, I may rethink that approach. All Rows4 (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Feel free. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

'The claim that Israeli forces perpetrated a Lidice-style mass execution of 63 civilians is a WP:REDFLAG claim.'

To repeat: why is such a claim intrinsically extraordinary? It only would be such to someone souped up on purity of arms. Benny Morris as everyone knows listed 24 massacres, mostly of villagers, lined up and shot after Israeli forces entered an area to be cleansed, in the 1948 war. The Safsaf massacre is one of the better attested but we only have 3 or 3 sources- It's happened several times since. Hardly any of them are listed, not to speak of the Arab historiographical conclusion that massacres took place in 33-66 villages just for that period, A lot of armies do this, a lot of colonial histories note this. They also note that given that most of the people either died or were dispersed into forgotten illiterate lives, much of this was rarely if ever recorded. It is extremely difficult, virtually only Joe Sacco has done some partial work, to get otherwise multiple sources for the way under Ariel Sharon,Israeli forces killed over a thousand Palestinian youths were killed in a period when even no war was on, 1971-2, in the Gaza Strip. Your premise is that unless a belligerent, in this case the victor, documents something in its records that a massacre occurred, no one who tries to piece together a picture of what might have happened can be trusted, and it reminds me of the controversy about Keith Windschuttle's absurd rewriting of Australia's colonial genocide. If he couldn't find a whiteman's report corroborating a native oral memory, he said the event never occurred. Well, the whites never had an interest in documenting what they did because it was a criminal act which, under the British, would have led to executions. As Uri Avnery said, in strategy, 'it is the maxim of the Israeli army to avoid casualties at any cost – any cost to the enemy, that is. To save one soldier, it is permissible to kill ten, twenty, a hundred civilians on the other side.' I don't think the US China Russia or any other nation I know of is so admirably protective of its men in combat, but it works out, in terms of the designated enemy, to mean systematic killing of large numbers of innocents, every time there is a war. Ménargues' report contextually is not 'extraordinary' and just repeating it is pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 July 2015‎ (UTC)

To repeat a point made several times, but which you fail to understand : compare the amount of documentation available, by high quality sources about Lidice, or about the massacres that happened in 1948, and the single source for this wild claim. If you have trouble following this simple argument, let me know, and I'll see if there are smaller words I can use. All Rows4 (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Please spare me your condescension. I understood your point perfectly well from the beginning. The fact that there are not more sources which independently confirm Menargues is precisely why I urge caution, (see my first comment) and support using him with attribution. His findings were found credible enough to mention in two WP:RS, and I see no reason at all not to include a short mention in the article here. I will waste no more time on this broken-record argument. You are free to use other venues such as WP:RSN or WP:RfC if you wish. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

My comment was directed at Nishidani,. Some clues are that it is a response directly below his comment, and counterarguments that go directly to his "arguments", not yours. The argument against using Menargues, even attributed, is WP:FRINGE. Please do not re-insert this material without obtaining consensus here, first. All Rows4 (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought you were addressing me. However, your argument that I should not "re-insert the material" is wrong. The material was already present in the article (since 2013 actually, by an editor who is no longer active on WP), you removed it, I reverted you. Per WP:STATUSQUO, it is you who has to get consensus to remove it. In any case, in this discussion, I see only you who is objecting to inclusion. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, no. WP:STATUSQUO is a personal essay, and has zero weight. In contrast , WP:ONUS is Wikipedia policy, and it clearly states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." All Rows4 (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

All Rowse, consensus does not mean getting your approval. We have a rough consensus it may go in with attribution, which is what was obvious from the outset.Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

To repeat a point made several times, you are the only editor to invent an analogy with Lidice, and the irrelevance of the analogy was noted. We go by RS confirmation, not by editorial caprice. If other RS confirm the appropriatness of Ménargues's theory, then that is sufficient. Nishidani (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Menargues is a well-known and respected French journalist of investigation who was in Lebanon in 1982 and who wrote a reknown book on the topic. Given what he writes is not accepted by all scholars it should just be attributed but the information is relevant. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No. Far from being respected, Menargues is a journalist forced to resign in disgrace, after he was condemned by the French government and after his colleagues objected to his blatant antisemitism. His opinion is fringe, and deserves no mention here. All Rows4 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

They took exception to several things in a book of his, which they considered anti-Semitic. he was dismissed. He took the case to court, and the court determined that he was exercising a guaranteed right to freedom of speech, had been wrongfully dismissed, and had to have all of his rights restored, together with damsges. The highest court of appeal in France, the Court of Cassation, confirmed the judgement. I don't know whether he is an anti-Semite or not. One has to be very wary here. Generally in this area, polemicists spend infinitely more time trying to nail the anti-Semite charge to critical journalists, scholars than they do actually studying the specifics of the topic, presumably to strange at birth anything critical. Same technique used with with Max Blumenthal, Steven Salaita, Norman Finkelstein and a large number of public intellectuals etc. I find the evidence (so far as I can see it) against him on this amibiguous, less so than the case for making the same judgement (taking "anti-Semite" as hatred of Palestinians) about numerous eminent institutional figures in Israel who make analogies comparing Palestinians to bugs, animals, donkeys, viruses, metastatic cancers, an inhuman species of probably extraterrestrial origin, moles, lice, cockroaches, leeches, ants, snakes, etc. deserving extermination). In the end, it's a determination I can't as editor make, but only the scholarly community makes by either citing his work, or not. Scholars within the profession almost never cite for facts, or theories, the works of known anti-Semites. So far it appears he has been cited several times.Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

If you think "anti-semite" means hatred of semites , you are not competent to edit this topic area. All Rows4 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@All Rows4: No matter. See WP:NOCON, which says the same thing. In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. You invoke WP:ONUS wrongly. The burden was already met when this material was added, and indeed was in the article for 2 years. In any case, consensus does not mean that everyone has to agree. I only see you disagreeing. Kingsindian ♝

♚ 10:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I invoked WP:ONUS perfectly in line with [Wikipedia policy. See WP:CCC. I clearly object to this text , and it is not clear to me what User:Igorp_lj's position is. If you want to show there is clear consensus for your position, start a RFC. All Rows4 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with All Rows4 that Menargues's version seems as wp:FRINGE one.

But if it'll be consensus for its retaining, it should be follow by POV about its controversial reliability, such as Yoing's one or others. See my reply in "Arbitrary break 2 (Michael Young)" (14:30, 4 July 2015) --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@All Rows4: And what happens if the RfC says no consensus? Your logic says that the phrase should be removed. That is simply wrong. See for instance the closing opinion here.

There is no consensus on whether or not to mention the rockets in the closed UNRWA schools. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, a standard outcome is to retain the version that existed prior to the discussion. In this case the material was already in the article, and should remain.

You are simply mistaken on policy. I will not be opening an RfC, though you are free to do so. This is my last comment on this matter. I have already wasted enough time. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I am correct on policy, and coming from someone who a few hours ago tried to invoke a personal essay as support for his position, I am going to take your personal opinion on what is Wikipedia policy with a large grain of salt, because you quite clearly don;t understand what policy means. If the RfC ends in no consensus, we can have an administrator decide the outcome, but you don't get to declare the consensus is in your favor without explicitly showing it is, via an RfC or some other dispute resolution mechanism. All Rows4 (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I have now gone and clicked on the link you provided, and surprise , surprise , you were lying about what it said , and falsified the quote. What the link actually says is "There is rough consensus for the proposed language", not There is no consensus. Seems you are just begging to be topic banned. All Rows4 (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@All Rows4: I linked to the wrong section by mistake. The correct link is this. You can check there, and see that I did not falsify anything. It would have been easy to search for what I quoted, instead of drastically failing to WP:AGF and assume I was lying. I have told you before to go to WP:AE if you have problems with me. This repeated insinuation that I am a liar is unacceptable. As to the rest, I have already made the change to the article, and I have no intention of opening an RfC for this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

So, you made a mistake, but I am somehow to blame for not reading your mind and realizing you made a mistake? The corrected link you have now provided says "I ... am happy to discuss my interpretation of consensus " - which is what I suggested we do here, if there is disagreement. The material you added to the article , which does NOT include the original outrageous claim that 63 civilians were executed, is roughly ok, if attributed. I will be making some NPOV adjustments to it shortly (e.g to remove the POV "killers", and replace it source-based "units"), but in it current form , while still WP:UNDUE in my opinion, it could stay. All Rows4 (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@All Rows4: Well, I am happy that you are fine with the text. The "killers" is from the Traboulsi source and the other source also says "3 waves of massacres". I think killers is appropriate language here. As to the rest, I did not blame you for my mistake. I blamed you for not WP:AGF and immediately assuming that I must be lying. Anyway, I am glad this nightmare is over. I hope we never meet again, though I doubt it.

Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

'killers' is not NPOV, even if a source uses it. I will be reverting to something more neutral. Not that per @Igorp lj:'s note below, you do not have consensus for this change. All Rows4 (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

"as discussed on talk"? @Kingsindian: There is no consensus for this your change. Pls self-revert it or someone else will have to make it. --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, this is not finished. I don't agree with the addition of the wording "before the massacre". It flatly contradicts the last source which states that it was the first wave of the massacre. I have therefore removed it. I am mystified as to why "killers" violates NPOV. The source says "killers". Is there any source which contradicts it? Why do we need to remove this word then?

I do not understand Igorp_lj's statement. From All Rows4's last comment, he was happy with the text in the form I wrote it, with disagreement about some minor issues. Who is objecting now, and why? Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Killers is PoV, as it implies that these were not regular armed forces carrying out a military operation, but an execution squad , killing innocents. Ditto for the claim that the Matkal squad was the "fisrt wave' of the massacre. Menargues' fringe theory is not enough to support such claims. Please note that you are no clearly edit warring without consensus, to add highly contentious material from a very questionable source to an article covered by WP:ARBIA sanctions. Yoiu have also broken WP:1RR with you latest edit, and I strongly suggest you undo it before you are reported. All Rows4 (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I'm still waiting for your self-revert to prev version, without "killers", false "Palestinian cadres" and with {{clarify}}, till a consensus about Menargues will be reached. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Two both the above. Kingsindian made his last edit, on this Saturday night' at 19:05. If he is where I gather he might be, young people usually go out of an evening. Since he is is a rule-observant fellow, I expect he will examine the complaint and if there is a 1R infraction, he will revert. I can't tell because 1R is a mystery to me, and all I can see is him adjusting and adding to a text I edited in the meantime, enriching it. Wait till tomorrow, just in case. I'll ask Nableezy to look into it. He's a 1R expert, in the meantime.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for anyone to look into anything. I always self-revert when asked, even when I don't think I'm wrong. I see now that this has to be done the hard way. There is simply no trust here among the various sides. I will open an RfC. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: ? Your revert isn't what I've asked you at 15:14 & 20:54, 4 July 2015 --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: I reverted my last edit, to the version by All Rows4. I cannot revert any further without breaking WP:1RR because All Rows4 made an intermediate change. By the way, the phrase you added, "PLO cadres", is incorrect. The source says "Palestinian cadres". I simply corrected it. I can add a clarify tag, if you want, but what do you want clarification for? Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

(already not waiting for :) Ok, see my tmp edit & let's continue in your RfC. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2 (Michael Young)

• "Serious academic sources don't arbitrarily pass along random gossip" -

Yes it should be right, in ideal case (: But in real life there are a lot of other reasons for siting & support such gossips. :(

I'd offer to retain reference to Menargues only along with others refs who sited his version, also adding other existing POVs evaluating this his version, i.e. Michael Young, etc. --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Igorp_lj: Unfortunately, as I noted above, the Michael Young source is simply an opinion pieces by a journalist, with no special qualifications on the topic. If there are some other sources which discuss this, they can be used. In any case, the rest of the article squarely puts the blame on the Elie Hobeika group, it is not as if there is a problem of WP:NPOV here to include one other viewpoint. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: FYI (after simple googling :): "Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Lebanon, where he writes a weekly column. He is also a contributing editor at Reason magazine in the United States. He writes a weekly commentary for The National newspaper in Abu Dhabi and for the NowLebanon website in Beirut. Young's first book, 'The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon's Life Struggle' was selected by The Wall Street Journal as one of its 10 notable books of 2010, and was awarded the Silver Prize in The Washington Institute for Near East Policy's book prize competition." --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

++ The Ghosts of Martyrs Square: An Eyewitness Account of Lebanon's Life Struggle, By Michael Young --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Igorp_lj I am unclear about your point. At a glance, the book seems to be dealing with events in 2005 and afterwards. It is not clear how this relates to the 1982 war. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

? For your "simply an opinion pieces by a journalist, with no special qualifications on the topic" here and above --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Igorp_lj I am still unclear on your point. Some journalist writing a book about something in 2005 does not make him have any qualifications about 1982. Usually, dealing with historical articles, we rely on scholarly sources instead of newspaper articles. See WP:HISTRS, that is just an essay, not fixed policy though. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

As I've proved, Young isn't less specialist than Menargues: both them are journalists working in Lebanon+, as well as both them are books' authors. So his opinion about reliability of Menargues' version should be mentioned in the arricle if we decide to retain it.

Moreover, Young seems me more respectable source till we have no such scandal & controversial info as it's for Menargues. --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Igorp_lj I am afraid that not correct. Just being a journalist in Lebanon and writing a book on something does not make one an authority on a totally different subject. As I said, I am happy to include better sources if they come along. A random opinion piece in a newspaper does not make the cut. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It means only that both us have different POVs, not more. :) Let's wait for other ones. --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The Whole article needs a drastic revision

The page assumes one version, as the truth. Christian Phalange militia men did the killing. The lead is emphatic, the victims are Lebanese Shiites and Palestinians. There is a lot of evidence that members of Haddad's southern Shiite Army participated: survivors recall that many killers called each other with typically Shiite names. Robert Fisk even documented that 2 Israeli Hercules C130s arrived at Beirut airport, according to local officials and an ONU observer, offloading jeeps and troops, 24 hours before the massacre. (Robert Fisk, Pity the Nation:Lebanon at War, pp.373ff., whose account, he was there before the massacre was completed, is completely neglected) These left in trucks, some wore Haddad insignia, others Phalangi. Haddad's army, under Israeli control, was allied to the Phalangists. One could go on, but this has been written overwhelming according to the Israeli official report, which effectively absolved Israel of any complicity, while many historians of the subject have never been convinced.

@Nishidani: While there could be details added, the "Attack" section does state that the IDF surrounded the camps and about the introduction of the Phalangists while their animosity to the Palestinians was well known. I noticed you added a quote from the NYT source based on declassified transcripts, which is good. (By the way, why is that silly Jillian Becker Authorhouse source still being used?). What other things need to be added, or is it such that the basic frame of the article is wrong? What suggestions do you have? Which section do we start with? Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

My dissatisfaction is always with the panoramic view, which just misses everything. I'm a details man. The best background from a participant in the background to all this I have ever read in George P. Shultz Turmoil and Triumph: Diplomacy, Power, and the Victory of the American Deal, Simon and Schuster, 2010. Compare there the details of negotiations with the general 1982 Lebanon War article, and this which is the specific incident, and one starts to realize the problem. Must rush.Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

back. From memory. The whole background basis for this lies in the Americdan-PLO-Israeli negotiations (even if Begin forbade Americans to negotiate at a distance with Palestinians less than 300 metres.) The key Palestinian point was that withdrawal from Beirut could onoly occur if guarantees could be given by the US that either their forces or an international force arrive the same day they shipped out, and protect the refugee camps. Begin and Sharon kept rejecting this, insisting that the Lebanese Army could do that. The Palestinians knew what the Maronite Kataeb would do if there was a power vacuum. Eventually, Americans got assurances from Israel. Israel broke its pledge, entered the camp areas, sealed them off, and then arranged for the Phalange to go in. And, as the PLO, some Israeli senior commanders, all American and European diplomats forsaw if the pledge was not maintained, a slaughter occurred. It is totally irrelevant whether Sayeret Maktal was there or not. of course, there are many versions, but the above is the main outline of events leading up. We need maps of the layout, we need the order of events after Gemayel's assassination, the times of surrounding entry, diplomatic warnings in the period, the reactions in sequence as news leaked out on day 1 of what was going on; what the several journalists who were there observed, more details from the Kahan report (which intervened Israeli soldiers who witnessed the event), etc. This was, after all, the second biggest massacre in the area in its postwar history, and is a defining point of its history. Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added a small paragraph on the background, on Bashir's "radical solution" to the Palestinians. Traboulsi states that the massacre was presented as a response to the assasination, but was really the fulfilment of his earlier plan to provoke a Palestinian exodus. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Role of Sayeret Matkal in the article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus for including the information. A good portion of the majority opinion also requested a little more context. Another point is that it be attributed which it appears to be. The minority discussion centred around WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:FRINGE. Looking at these PAG and applying them I found that WP:FRINGE requires applying WP:WEIGHT. I find that WP:FRINGE is not applicable considering the size and placement. WP:EXCEPTIONAL and also WP:FRINGE both have problems because the book used as a refluence is cited by numerous historians. AlbinoFerret 13:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Should "The attack" section contain the following?

According to Alain Menargues, on 15 September, an Israeli special operations group of Sayeret Matkal entered the camp to liquidate a number of Palestinian cadres, and left the same day. It was followed the next day, by killers from the Sa'ad Haddad's South Lebanon Army, before the the Lebanese Forces units of Elie Hobeika entered the camps.

References

Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes: The conventional viewpoint is that the Israeli Forces were only at the perimeter of the camps, and the Phalanges carried out the actual massacre. Menargues, however, claims that the massacre occurred in three waves. First, by Israeli unit Sayeret Metkal, then by South Lebanon Army, and then by Elie Hobeika's forces. The basic source here is Alain Menargues's book Les secrets de la guerre du Liban published by Éditions Albin Michel, "one of France’s foremost literary and educational publishers". It is cited by two WP:RS sources on this matter, linked above, which gives it a fair amount of credibility. I have properly attributed this theory to Menargues, as the latter source does. The section overall still follows the conventional viewpoint, so I do not see any WP:NPOV problem. There is a long discussion about this here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, for the reasons given by Kingsindian. WP:UNDUE appears to be satisfied. That said, the present wording is weirdly context-free. The reader wonders "who the hell is Alain Menargues, and why should I care?" It should be qualified in some way. I don't know anything about Menargues or his book, so I don't know what it should say. Something like "investigative journalist Alain Menargues", or "military historian Alain Mengargues", or "Alain Mengargues, commander of [unit whatever] during the conflict", as needed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• No, first of all there's an obvious REDFLAG issue as this sort of thing would be reported by more than one source if it really happened. Second, Menargues himself is a very problematic source, he was forced to resign from France Radio for anti-Jewish and anti-Israel comments [1] [2] which makes the REFLAG even worse. We now not only have this exceptional claim from only one source, the source it comes from is tainted. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• No, WP:exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Menargues is not reliable enough.--Averysoda (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• No. This is a fringe theory, with a single , unreliable source (a journalist widely condemned for anti-semitism, and forced to resign because his colleagues found his behavior unacceptable) who only recently "discovered" the alleged role of Sayeret Matkal - it was conspicuously absent from his earlier accounts of the topic). WP:REDFLAG requires multiple, high quality sources for such claims, which we do not have here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by All Rows4 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 5 July 2015‎ (UTC)
• Yes. No one has given any evidence that it is a exceptional claim to suggest Israeli special forces were on the ground and might have killed dozens of people before the actual Phalange mopping up (the word the IDF repeatedly used) operation, guided by the IDF, took place. (b) the article shows Israel higher command and secret service intelligence officers quite aware within hours that the Phalange were executing batches of civilians, and not regarding these as a problem. If they didn't think killing a lot of people problematical, it's not an exceptional claim, as asserted, to state that earlier, one special Israeli force did precisely the same thing (c) Three good sources refer to Menargues theory, so it is a minority view, to be accorded a mention as such, not fringe (d) attempts to smear Ménargues by referring to his dismissal as an anti-Semite don't work because the highest French court reviewed the dismissal, and found it was unjustly motivated and awarded him damages, which his employer was required to pay. (e) All critics of Israeli actions are mechanically hit with this accusation, and unless proven it shouldn't be used to erase a source's reliability, when that source is reliably published.Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comments Given the hypothesis of "the 3-waves operation" is based on a testimony of the Lebanese investigator who discovered Israeli military equipment in the camps and is only reported by Menargues ; and given Menargues is wp:rs, we have a minority and controversial view. I would not insert this material in the "attack" section but in a section named "controversies" in which other theories diverging from the 'mainstream' could be reported. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• No. As I've already mentioned above, just after Menargues's book was issued in 2004, Michael Young, Daily Star columnist++, has written about his doubts in Menargues's allegations' reliability. He's also expressed a hope that such explosive for Israel charges would be clarified by others. And? After more than 10 years, there are only references to same Menargues's charges. And that's all. So see wp:EXCEPTIONAL + wp:FRINGE recalling Menargues's record. --Igorp_lj (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. The problem is this book is cited by numerous historians. The greatest modern historian of Israel/Palestine, Henry Laurens calls it an 'indispensable work' (Henry Laurens,La Question de Palestine, tome 4: Le rameau d'olivier et le fusil du combattant (1967-1982), Fayard Paris 1911 p.516. That alone means all the objections by anonymous editors collapse.Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC))

• See my "In fact, I do not understand what's changed..." in Discussion (14:16, 6 July 2015) --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• No, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:FRINGE. If this claim had any chance of being correct, surely many other researchers would have collaborated it. At very least, this claim has to be balanced by counter-claims if available per WP:NPOV. “WarKosign” 20:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, in attributed form fr:Alain Ménargues is a well known investigative journalist, and his views on this specific question have been widely cited. The key difference between a fringe claim which should not be in an article vs. a fringe claim which should, is its Notability. That is what this discussion should be about. IMHO the widely cited nature of the view means it qualifies very clearly. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Yes per Oncenawhile. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Conditional yes, if, as per  SMcCandlish, some context and ideally more sources are provided. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• No - frankly i was going to tend to neutral, but then saw previous remarks by Nishidani, which encompass quite obvious fringe elements and conspiracy theories. Don't see any point to input an editorial view into this article.GreyShark (dibra) 06:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I am happy to include a short qualifier ("according to investigative journalist" or some such thing). As to the claim that Menargues has been accused of so and so (for a different book, I add parenthetically), therefore he is not reliable: that is a total red herring and WP:JDLI. No reason whatsoever has been given about his unreliability on this matter, in contrast to two high quality sources which cite him on this matter. Even if one accepts that he is biased in some way, Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources clearly states that such sources may be used with attribution, which is the case here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Pluto2012's comment above also makes sense. Currently, there is a sad section on "Role of Elie Hobeika", woefully underreferenced and incomplete. That could be expanded to look into the roles of the various actors, including Israel, South Lebanon Army, the Multi National Force and the US, and this statement could be included there. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Pluto's solution seems a perfect resolution of the issue. Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a technical issue here. Since Ménargues work is widely used in scholarly sources on Leban on generally, and acclaimed as an 'indispensable book' for the period, it satisfies RS. So the status is not in doubt. One detail in the acclaimed book is being challenged. What is the technical ruling here?Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Well, my opinion is already expressed above, others can weigh in. The book is specifically cited on this matter by the sources I listed. As I said above, serious academics don't pass along random gossip: it is their job to evaluate and interpret claims. I could add that this book is also cited (on a different matter) by Shlomo Ben-Ami, historian and former foreign minister of Israel, in his book, Scars of War, Wounds of Peace. Both in general terms, and on this specific matter, the book is WP:RS. This is a minority viewpoint, but that is made clear in the section, and can be clarified more if needed.
• WP:FRINGE does not apply, because multiple secondary sources refer to this theory. If other people had confirmed this independently, we would not be attributing this to Menargues, but simply stating it in Wikipedia's voice.
• Finally, it is not Menargues' fault if people didn't follow up on this, but the sad fact is that not many people care about what happened to a couple of thousand refugees in 1982. See for instance the lament by Robert Fisk here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I'd not propose to count "(on a different matter) by Shlomo Ben-Ami" case :) The book is only referenced in Bibliography along with 100+ other one. I am not sure that Ben-Ami even open it. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure that your "it is not Menargues' fault" is true for his "allegations, which are political dynamite as regards Israeli behavior". Practice shows that the smallest opportunity to accuse Israel became a cause for (justified or not) investigations at all levels --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

In fact, I don't understand, what is changed. In our case, it doesn't matter, why and in what (?) context Laurens has praised the Ménargues' book as a whole. Only if he somehow has confirmed specific Ménargues' accusations what we discussing here. If not, they are still questionable.

And to the question why :) May be because of or not, but in 2004 both them received either PNA's "Prix Palestine pour la culture, les arts et les sciences humaines" or "Association of Franco-Arab Solidarity"'s one.{{clarify}} The only difference is that Ménargues' received a prize named just after the terrorist Mahmoud Hamshari. :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Arafat and Begin, both terrorists and making the apology of terrorism as a political mean to reach their goals received the Nobel Peace Price... So receiving a price doesn't mean anything.

The fact that Laurens praises Menargues work astonishes me (because I don't trust Menargues) but the fact remains there and doing so, Laurens (wp:rs++) gave credit to Menargues as wp:rs(basic). I feel at ease stating so because I had exactly the same situation, but for the other side, a few months ago with Jeffrey Herf. At the end he is wp:rs despite his political views and there is no other way to manage this.

Praised by Laurens, Menargues became wp:rs (still with attribution).

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't "buy" your attempt to equate Arafat and Begin, but it's not a subject here.

We're talking about reliability of specific Ménargues' accusations, not about a praise to his book.

So I repeat a main question: who, from above mentioned sources, proves them?

There's not any new factual advance nor a claim one since 2004. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to buy Plutoìs argument. as I and Pluto have done, you took should buy Henry Laurens' book, read it and respect more than your own opinion on this book, the judgement of one of the great historians of our times. What peers do and say of a book prevails over what anonymous editors who may or may not have some vague knowledge of the issues think. Pluto is the only person here who has actually read both Ménargues's and Laurens work. He dislikes the former, and has a good feel for things like this. But he accepts Laurens' judgement over his own, because, like any good editor, he understands the principles of policy, that RS verdicts must prevail over personal feelings even informed private judgements. The rest of you are totally ignorant of both, and quick to judgement.Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Your panegerik to Laurens has no relation to my questions. I repeat them:

• Who, from above mentioned sources, proves Ménargues' WP:EXCEPTIONAL 2004 accusations-?
• In what context (preferably with quote) Laurens has praised Ménargues' book?

--Igorp_lj (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"One the the great historians of our times" says an anonymous editor on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, it seems his magnum opus hasn't even been translated into English, 15+ years after the first volume was published? He may have made a general statement about Menargues' book, but unless he addressed the specific READFLAG issue we're talking about, that doesn't seem to solve the problem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A non-argument. Sergei Starostin was one of the greatest linguists of modern times. His Реконструкция древнекитайской фонологической системы is universally regarded as a fundamental contribution to ancient Chinese philology and hasn't been translated since it was published 26 years ago. Why, because people who study these subjects usually read everything in the original. To regard translation into English of such a elegantly straightforward 5 volumes (4 at the moment) of French prose into English as indispensable for attesting to its monumental achievement is extremely naïve. Since you haven't read any of these books, you can't judge. His neutrality is famous, things like,'Je parle toujours avec une note en bas de page. Quand je dis que le Hezbollah est une organisation terroriste qui tue plus de militaires que de civils, et que Tsahal est une organisation démocratique qui tue plus de civils que de militaires, j’avance les chiffres.'The only REDFLAG issue here is editors waving one when they panic at the complexities of scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

People who study the history of the Middle East usually "read everything in the original"? I'm going to have to call bullshit on that one. "His neutrality is famous" says an anonymous editor on Wikipedia.

So, did he Laurens say anything about the specific incident we're discussing here or not? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any arguments which I have not already addressed, so I won't say anything else. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Idem. Quite pointless.Nishidani (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IDF Complicity and recent reverts

Actually, the long standing version of the Infobox simply stated "Perpetrators Kataeb Party militia under Elie Hobeika". This was in the article for several years, until an anonymous IP editor with less than 50 edits added the words "with the complicity of the Israeli Defense Forces" in February ([3]) - and that language has never accepted consensus as far as I can tell - note the still on-going edit warring over it. Accordingly I am removing it, pending consensus for inclusion. Bad Dryer (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The edit-warring is over "indirect"/"direct" mostly by IPs and sockpuppets. Is there any dispute about the statement? Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I object to the info-box saying "with the complicity of the Israeli Defense Forces", either "direct" or "indirect", if that wasn't clear. Bad Dryer (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Stating as fact there was "complicity" is unacceptable POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I will open an RfC for this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Stuff about Michael Young

• ( @Kingsindian: I'd say Stuff from Michael Young - if you agree, let's change a title. --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC))

I have good faith reverted the stuff about Michael Young. As I mentioned before, this is simply an opinion piece by a journalist, with no special qualifications on the matter. The article is not about Menargues, it is not WP:DUE to include a quote like this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

"As I mentioned before" :

I've proved, Young isn't less specialist than Menargues: both them are journalists working in Lebanon+, as well as both them are books' authors. So his opinion about reliability of Menargues' version should be mentioned in the arricle if we decide to retain it... --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

So Young's opinion about Menargues' allegations (not about his personally) has a right to be represented along with these allegations. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Igorp_lj, as I said already, you have not proven anything like that. Young is a journalist, who wrote a book on Lebanon about something in 2006. That does not make him an expert on the 1982 war. Secondly, this article is not about Menargues, it is about the 1982 war. You cannot arbitrarily add a random op-ed about Menargues's book here. It is WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously, writing that a main difference between these two journalists/writers is that Menargues has wrote his book 2 years before Yang? :(

And again: it's not about Menargues, Yang has reviewed just the book and he was quite delicate. I restore my edit. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

My objection has nothing to do with Menargues writing his book 2 years before Young. I suggest you read my comments (I have discussed this before as well) again. Young's review of Menargues is not relevant here, because I said already, this is not an article about Menargues. Please get consensus before adding this again. 07:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Pls explain where are "this is not an article about Menargues", etc. in the following Young's text what you're reverting (?):

According to Alain Menargues, on 15 September, an Israeli special operations group of Sayeret Matkal entered the camp to liquidate a number of Palestinian cadres, and left the same day. It was followed the next day, by "killers" from the Sa'ad Haddad's South Lebanon Army, before the Lebanese Forces units of Elie Hobeika entered the camps.

Lebanese journalist Michael Young wrote in 2004 that Menargues' allegations were based on the Lebanese commission investigated the massacres and former military prosecutor Asaad Germanos' report. Young has also noted that this report was never published and expressed a hope that Menargues' allegations which "are political dynamite against Israel", will be clarified by Lebanese authors.

What I see is not about Menargues, but about the allegations in his book. --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

---

References

@Igorp lj: Your statement that it is not about Menargues, but about the book is correct, but not relevant. The two other sources cited in the article are scholarly sources, which have evaluated the book and cite it on this matter. Young's comment is just an opinion column by a person who is not a specialist on the topic. If you can demonstrate why it should be included, it will be. I do not want to keep repeating my points, perhaps we can ask for an informal WP:3O on this matter? Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: FYI: the question about Young as a specialist, isn't closed. I haven't now a time for, but and I'll return to it later.

Rehov's documentary

At the moment. I do not understand your removing the information about Pierre Rehov's documentary and return it. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Igorp lj: I have not seen the documentary, and we don't generally quote documentaries. In any case, he is simply repeating what is said in the previous paragraph. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Israeli involvement

I want to point out, first, that the Palestinian forces had already evacuated by boat days before the massacre, leaving the people in the camps unarmed and defenseless. There can be no real pretense that there was any serious resistance. Secondly, anyone capable of a You Tube search can find videos that establish with certainty that Israel was patrolling the streets of Shatila and directing Kataeb fighters. 2602:306:8B80:52E0:D4CA:A560:E827:66E6 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on Sabra and Shatila massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061030121144/http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org:80/publish/article_252.shtml to http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_252.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041028063313/http://www.wsws.org:80/articles/2002/feb2002/sab3-f25_prn.shtml to http://wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/sab3-f25_prn.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060714051037/http://www.thejerusalemfund.org:80/images/informationbrief.php?ID=40 to http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/informationbrief.php?ID=40
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040512001055/http://www.free-lebanon.com:80/News/Documents_of_Note/DOC_chap8/doc_chap8.html to http://www.free-lebanon.com/News/Documents_of_Note/DOC_chap8/doc_chap8.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110403135700/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2010/997/special.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2010/997/special.htm#1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120429183049/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/426/01/IMG/NR042601.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/426/01/IMG/NR042601.pdf?OpenElement
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604072753/http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.jsp?profile=voting&index=.VM&term=ares37123d to http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.jsp?profile=voting&index=.VM&term=ares37123d#focus
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070609152022/http://www.nuigalway.ie:80/human_rights/Staff/william_schabas.html to http://www.nuigalway.ie/human_rights/Staff/william_schabas.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070203051331/http://brookekroeger.com:80/articles_newspaper/Sharonloses.html to http://brookekroeger.com/articles_newspaper/Sharonloses.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080910230718/http://www.redress.org/publications/UJ%20Update%20-%20Dec03%20-%20final.pdf to http://www.redress.org/publications/UJ%20Update%20-%20Dec03%20-%20final.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041224213824/http://www.zmag.org:80/chomsky/ni/ni-c06-s06.html to http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c06-s06.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051225181635/http://english.aljazeera.net:80/NR/exeres/B26B8CE1-49E1-47FF-9ED5-8E1AE1305CC4.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B26B8CE1-49E1-47FF-9ED5-8E1AE1305CC4.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041028063313/http://www.wsws.org:80/articles/2002/feb2002/sab3-f25_prn.shtml to http://wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/sab3-f25_prn.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041218002425/http://www.allaboutpalestine.com:80/sabrashatillapics.html to http://www.allaboutpalestine.com/sabrashatillapics.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041204231300/http://www.allaboutpalestine.com:80/index.shtml to http://www.allaboutpalestine.com/index.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060209114602/http://domino.un.org:80/UNISPAL.NSF/0/faabb796990cf95a852560d9005240cf?OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/faabb796990cf95a852560d9005240cf?OpenDocument
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110817063153/http://www.counterpunch.org:80/fisksabra.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/fisksabra.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sabra and Shatila massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/indictsharon/Kapeliouk.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140911212745/https://www.archives.gov.il/ArchiveGov_Eng/Publications/ElectronicPirsum/KahanCommission/ to http://www.archives.gov.il/ArchiveGov_Eng/Publications/ElectronicPirsum/KahanCommission/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)