Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 1130 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
orathaic (1009 D(B))
15 Jan 14 UTC
Net neutrality, and what it really means
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25743200

Interesting, court prevents regulation - or at least FCC is not allowed enforce an even playground. What is the politics behind this?
20 replies
Open
NigeeBaby (100 D(G))
17 Jan 14 UTC
Devil Baby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUKMUZ4tlJg
4 replies
Open
Amon Savag (929 D)
16 Jan 14 UTC
(+1)
Wow
My last game was in 2010. Am I too old to play here again?
7 replies
Open
hawkeye855 (5 DX)
16 Jan 14 UTC
Assigning Countries
A general question about assigning countries:
So, if me and a group of friends want to agree to pick the countries ourselves, is there a way to do that? I know mods can reassign countries based on previous threads, but is there a way that, if all the players in the game agree, they can be changed without the use of a mod? The game I'd like to have specific countries for is gameID=133754, if that helps at all. Thanks
40 replies
Open
mapleleaf (0 DX)
11 Jan 14 UTC
KING OF GUNBOAT - 2
7 replies
Open
Triumvir (1193 D)
13 Jan 14 UTC
(+1)
Something New: School of War Study Group
We had so much player interest in the Winter SoW game that it was suggested we do a Study Group game for those not in the main game. Details inside.
34 replies
Open
ScooterBrown (100 D)
15 Jan 14 UTC
Anyone up for a live game around 12:00 pm Eastern?
Trying to find a quick game around lunch time. Anyone interested?
2 replies
Open
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
16 Jan 14 UTC
Weekend Sitter Needed!
Hey all,
A player needs 3 of his games sat for this weekend, so I'm posting on his behalf. 14hr Full Press, 24hr Full Press, 25hr gunboat. If interested, please PM me.
Thanks!
3 replies
Open
semck83 (229 D(B))
15 Jan 14 UTC
(+3)
Beauty
Post things -- songs, paintings, photos, poems, mathematical proofs, or anything else -- to which you react, simply, "Dang, that's beautiful."
47 replies
Open
President Eden (2750 D)
15 Jan 14 UTC
(+1)
Poetry
I don't get it, someone explain it to me
7 replies
Open
Honeywillow (0 DX)
15 Jan 14 UTC
(+1)
I AM DC35 REINCARNATE
<3
4 replies
Open
misfit815 (209 D)
15 Jan 14 UTC
Consequentialism versus Deontology
In the game of Diplomacy, the emphasis is - in my opinion - on one's mastery of Realpolitik. To borrow from Wikipedia, it is "politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral or ethical premises." In other words, making the best of the situation.
2 replies
Open
nesdunk14 (635 D)
15 Jan 14 UTC
World Diplomacy!
One more spot! gameID=133445
0 replies
Open
krellin (80 DX)
14 Jan 14 UTC
Ban Seat Belts Now!!
It's time to end the madness - the seat belt must go, as it is known to be a risk factor for injury during accidents! BAN Seat Belts NOW!
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/533761_3
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1996397
71 replies
Open
shield (3929 D)
15 Jan 14 UTC
View: Threads, replies
What triggers these to add new discussions in the profile? I haven't had anything new show up since November.
2 replies
Open
y2kjbk (4846 D(G))
14 Jan 14 UTC
A good read
https://medium.com/p/81 D10230282f

Love to hear thoughts from religious and non-religious folk on this. Thoroughly enjoyed reading through this (it's not too long at all).
5 replies
Open
LordDavion (265 D)
14 Jan 14 UTC
Looking for someone to pick up England
http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=132640
3 replies
Open
MrBrightside (0 DX)
10 Jan 14 UTC
TIME Personality Quiz can determine your politics?
http://science.time.com/2014/01/09/can-time-predict-your-politics/

I took it and it was fairly accurate. TIME is reporting a correlation of r=0.604 after 17,000 responses.
34 replies
Open
dirge (768 D(B))
13 Jan 14 UTC
Climate Engineering?
dumb idea if you ask me.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140112190807.htm
11 replies
Open
Dharmaton (2398 D)
14 Jan 14 UTC
(+1)
Made it into the Hall of Fame !
yeah!
8 replies
Open
Yonni (136 D(S))
06 Jan 14 UTC
2014 GR Challenge
It's a new year and I'm sure some of you are looking for games. Similarly to what was done regularly in the past and what abg(or someone) organized in December, let's have some GR challenge games. Post here with your WTA FP rank, and anon and turn length preference if you're interested.
101 replies
Open
ChrisVis (1167 D)
14 Jan 14 UTC
Somebody contacts you in a gunboat game ... what do you do?
Let's say you are playing in a gunboat game, and somebody sends you a message by email, Skype, or some other out-of-game communication method. The message refers to the gunboat game, and says something like "support me to Timbuktu", or "DMZ Timbuktu?".

The only thorough and complete way to rectify the damage done, is to cauterise the part of my brain which remembers the content of the message. Ouch!
4 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
Ex-Israeli PM and Strongman Ariel Sharon, 85, Has Died
http://news.yahoo.com/former-israeli-prime-minister-sharon-dies-85-125933133.html Love him or hate him, after David Ben Gurion himself, Sharon's probably done more to define Israel as a PM than anyone else...I know I'd still rather him than that nut Netanyahu...Sharon could be ruthless, but he knew the peace process was necessary, whereas Netanyahu's West Bank dealings are short-sighted and endanger the long-term welfare of Israelis and Palestinians.
Page 2 of 3
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
Putin33 (111 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
RIP

The more I read about the man, the more I appreciate him as a leader.
Putin33 (111 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
" illegal land

It's not illegal. No state has title to the West Bank. Israel acquired it from Jordan, who never had title to it.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
"Zionism says Jews have a right to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland. I agree it's kind of a silly idea, but Israel exists now and just like every state it has the right to continue to exist."

I'm naturally biased, so I think it both is and isn't a "silly idea" (do I think that, for cultural reasons, a state of Israel is a good thing? Yes, as I said before. Should it include Jerusalem? Frankly, I think that city needs to be an international city because it's too much of a nightmare for any one nation to control, and always has been. Does it have to include all it does today, and are wars over territory on religious grounds necessary? Absolutely not.)

"As for the Palestinians, they have had great wrongs inflicted on them, yes. But Zionism does not preclude the creation of a Palestinian state. Even Netanyahu has committed to the creation of one, and it's hard to say he's not a Zionist. What's really going on here is you expressing your swivel-eyed hatred of Israel."

While I agree the Palestinians have met with great suffering over the years...

I again feel compelled to point out that the Jews were perfectly-happy with a two-state solution in 1948, and it was the Palestinians who wanted the land all for themselves...as such, while I do feel for the Palestinians today, I likewise feel it's a bit unfair to place all the blame on Israel as, again, Palestinians COULD have just accepted a two-state partition from the start...I have sympathy for them, but it's mitigated by the fact that they gambled and lost (and in their gamble sought to put Jews in a similarly-poor state.)

As for Netanyahu...frankly, I don't believe he is committed to a two-state solution, hence my issues with him, but I'll address that below.

And yeah...there's some serious Israel-hate going on there with rollerfiend.

"No, it's still just that you've decided to hate Bibi and love Sharon. While the personal relationship between Netanyahu and Obama is awful, the ties between the countries on security issues has never been closer. While Sharon presided over and even PROVOKED the Second Intifada, Netanyahu has kept Israel stunningly safe even as Syria melts into anarchy and Egypt abandons its friendly policies."

To say it again--I DON'T "love Sharon."

I think he was a talented Machiavellian PM...if you don't mind throwing morality to the wind in some cases.

I'd also argue Israel's safe more due to the general unrest between governments and rebelling factions (ie, the Muslim Brotherhood) than any brilliant diplomacy or statesmanship on Netanyahu's part.

"The West Bank has never been quieter than it is now under Netanyahu, and these talks with John Kerry could realistically produce a Palestinian state which doesn't even include the Jordan valley, an unparalleled victory for Israel."

Except Netanyagu keeps jabbing the PLO in the eye with these settlements, thereby threatening that peace, and announces 1800 new apartments just as Kerry leaves. I'll admit that it's good to hear them talking about the creation of a Palestinian state, but I don't think it can happen with Netanyahu or--to be fair--his party in power. Simply put, I think Israel needs a regime change, the obvious problem with that being that a new person/party could hamper the peace talks...

So they're stuck with a PM who--at least in my view--is tactless or else elect a new PM and risk rebooting the whole process.

"By the same standards you use to prop up Sharon, Netanyahu should rise too. But since you've already decided he's an evil right-winger you refuse to acknowledge it. And I also notice you haven't addressed Sharon's actions in Lebanon, where he helped Maronite fascists carry out an unspeakably horrible massacre."

I think I did address Sharon's Lebanese actions previously, as I referenced his military career? Granted Lebanon happened when he was Defense Minister and I said his military career, so I guess I should've been more specific rather than conflate the two.

I'm again strictly saying that as a *PM only* I'd take Sharon over Netanyahu.

And yes, I do take issues with Netanyahu's conservative take on a lot of things, as frankly it's the Ultra-Orthodox/conservative Israeli faction that poses the biggest danger to peace on the Israeli side of the equation. That's not to say Sharon didn't have his moments of conservatism in one way or another, and perhaps I'm being more unfair to Nentanyahu because he's more recent and time forgets, but still...

I just don't see Netanyahu as either committed to diplomacy enough or else not a good enough Machiavellian leader to pull things off.
Invictus (240 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
(+2)
The settlements are illegal. Everyone besides the extreme right of Israeli politics and some US Congressmen acknowledge this. It is against international law for states to transfer population into occupied territory.

Probably the strangest thing about Putin33 is how he fully supports arguments about the illegal Israeli colonization of the West Bank which are only advanced by the wackiest Likudniks and Christian Zionists.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
"The more I read about the man, the more I appreciate him as a leader."

I have to admit I'm shocked to hear you say that, Putin...

I thought you took issue with Israel?
Invictus (240 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
Edit that, obiwanobiwan. It's a mess and too long for me to bother dealing with.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
"The settlements are illegal. Everyone besides the extreme right of Israeli politics and some US Congressmen acknowledge this. It is against international law for states to transfer population into occupied territory."

Yes, and this is precisely why I dislike Netanyahu--

Courting the extreme Israeli-right/Orthodoxy,
Throwing international law and opinion out the window,
And all for what? 1800 apartments?

Sharon keeps getting compared to Nixon as a statesman...

And as flawed as the two were--

I can't see either tempting international opinion that much over so little...

"At least" when Nixon had his fiascoes with Cambodia it was larger scale than that, and when Sharon had his gambits it was more than for a few measly apartments...

This is an appeasement move to the far-right in Israel, and I'd argue the far-right for both the Israelis AND Arab States are exactly the opposite of what we want in terms of people negotiating a peace plan, since both far-right factions are historically extremely-religious and dead-set against the rival side...which is usually a bad recipe for peace.
Invictus (240 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
"Yes, and this is precisely why I dislike Netanyahu--

Courting the extreme Israeli-right/Orthodoxy,
Throwing international law and opinion out the window,
And all for what? 1800 apartments?"

Sharon started the settlement movement! Good God, obiwanobiwan. You're so willfully biased on this.
Putin33 (111 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
"It is against international law for states to transfer population into occupied territory."

It's not transfer. People are settling voluntarily in disputed territory.
Invictus (240 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
That's what transfer is.
Ogion (3882 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
As far as I am concerned there are two sides. ON the one side we have the rabid nationalists, represented by the Palestinian terrorist organzations that refuse to work for peace, like Hamas, and the Israeli terrorist organizations that refuse to work for peace, like Likud and the Israeli right wing extreme zionists. On the other side of this dispute we have those Palestinians and Israelis and people around the world who reject rabid nationlism and feel that the best solution is one in which parents can raise their children without fear of rockets, tanks, mortars, or airplanes.

THOSE are the two sides in this fight.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
"Sharon started the settlement movement! Good God, obiwanobiwan. You're so willfully biased on this."

But my point is AT LEAST when Sharon made that kind of move he did it for more/got more in return for it!

What does this net Netanyahu in the end except what he has now, increased hostility from the international community and as bad a PR image for Israel has there has been since the 2006 Israeli-Lebanon War, which itself wasn't entirely a bad war from a PR standpoint given that it was Hezbollah Israel was fighting and over what at least some considered a legitimate grievance...it went on a bit longer than it should have and Israel could've come out of it a bit better if they'd curtailed operations just a bit sooner, but still.

When Sharon made a high-risk move, like the settlements, at least he had some high-reward goals in mind.

Can you really see the high-reward for Netanyahu/Israel here, except Bimi pacifying the radical-Orthodox Israeli right?

In Diplomacy terms--

If you're going to take a high-risk gamble and stab someone big and risk condemnation, the potential reward better be worth it.

I can't say that with Netanyahu, and he seems like he'd get a "political puppet" rating for sure, given how influenced he is by that radical-right.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
"THOSE are the two sides in this fight."

That's overly-simplistic thinking, Ogion.

There are far, far more than two sides here.

There's the PLO in the West Bank,
Other groups in the West Bank trying to gain power,
Israeli Settlers in the West Bank,
Hamas in Gaza,
Others in Gaza that hate Hamas and want a return to terrorist-free rule there,
Those in Palestine that feel that every scrap of land is theirs,
Those in other nations that feel all that land is Muslim Holy Land,
The Ultra-Orthodoxy in Israel that feel the same way but from a Judaic standpoint,
The Secular Israelis in Israel who want the Orthodoxy out of power,
The far-right in both Israel AND Gaza AND the West Bank,
Israeli Moderates that are a mixture of viewpoints,
Palestinian expatriates living in foreign lands who want the Right of Return...
There's Hezbollah on the borders of Lebanon and other areas,


And that's not even touching on neighboring states like Lebanon, Syria, Iran, etc.

And all of them have at least a slightly different vision of what they want.

There are far, far more than simply two sides.
Invictus (240 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
"What does this net Netanyahu in the end except what he has now, increased hostility from the international community and as bad a PR image for Israel has there has been since the 2006 Israeli-Lebanon War"

With regards Israel's power over the Palestinians it's never been a better position. The West Bank has never been quieter. A Palestinian state on Israel's terms is more likely than ever. Netanyahu is as effective a PM as Israel's ever had on the most important issues to Israelis, which is why this solidly left wing country has elected this Thatcherite three times. The "villa in the jungle" idea has never been truer than it is now. The high-reward for Netanyahu is the continuation of the status quo (on which all he does is win) and the ever stronger hold of Israel on wide swaths of the West Bank, which limits what the future Palestinian state will have.

Sharon and Netanyahu broadly pursue the same policies. You can't fairly say Netanyahu is much worse than Sharon. It's putting style over substance.
Putin33 (111 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
"That's what transfer is."

The Geneva Accord section regarding transfer explicitly refers to deportations and forcible transfers, such as those which occurred during WWII, the prohibition of which was the purpose of the accord.


Invictus (240 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
How can you think you can get away with a lie like that? We all have Google. Here's the link to the text of Article 49, the relevant section.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/380-600056

The relevant clause: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

That's what Israel does with the settlements. Israelis cross the Green Line, build some houses, then the Israeli military eventually moves in and protects those houses. Then infrastructure like limited access roads are built to support the settlements, and Israelis are given tax incentives to move to the settlements where the Israeli government controls the issuing of building permits much like it does in Israel proper. This sort of thing is exactly the kind of actions the treaty seeks to prevent, namely the de facto annexation of occupied land by the occupier creating facts on the ground that integrate the occupied land into the legitimately owned territory of the occupier.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
"The high-reward for Netanyahu is the continuation of the status quo (on which all he does is win) and the ever stronger hold of Israel on wide swaths of the West Bank, which limits what the future Palestinian state will have."

Maintaining this status quo, where Israel continues to slip out of international and now even US favor a bit (still nothing to cry or worry about too much with the US-Israel relations, but it's beginning to trend a bit more towards a marriage of necessity than the--in theory, at last--"good feelings"-style alliance that the US, UK and Canada all enjoy, where those countries will support each other because they have shared interests and do, in general, tend to "like" one another on the whole) and rocket attacks continue from Gaza is not what I'd call a reward worth winning.

At best you could argue it's worth it for Netanyahu himself, as it appeases his base and population enough for him to keep getting elected, but it's still not a real victory for Israel in the big picture, because what Israel has gained in leverage over the Palestinians it has lost in the international community--

Israel's had the upper hand over Palestinians since 1948.

Since 1948, if they wanted a state, it'd be on terms that were neutral-good for Israel, as Israel's never really lost a war, at least not badly enough to cede that advantage, and it's international support has always been the clincher.

While his moves corner Palestinians, that likewise corners Israel on the international stage...they don't have to be above reproach, but Israel always has to appear to the West to be the better/nicer alternative between the two, or there goes its biggest chip--

Israel's biggest defense system isn't the Iron Dome, but the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and a US President giving the go-order to drop troops and defend Israel if anyone seriously threatens the state.

With Americans as war-weary as they've been since the end of the Vietnam War (to the point "no boots on the ground" is quickly becoming a key phrase in political discussions regarding national policy) and the international community increasingly pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel in the face of these incursions...

Where's the big reward there, when Netanyahu's squandering his biggest advantage for one his state has had, to varying degrees, since 1948?
Invictus (240 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
"what Israel has gained in leverage over the Palestinians it has lost in the international community"

Has it? And does it matter? I don't think Israelis care what other countries think about them as long as their own land is safe and a Jewish majority is maintained.


At any rate, you're switching issues, as usual. The point is whether one can praise Sharon's actions while condemning Netanyahu's, and since they were more or less the same one cannot do so fairly. It's just sexy to shit on Bibi while making Sharon a Kennedy-like figure anyone can project their hopes on. Netanyahu has done plenty of stupid things, but to criticize him by comparing him unfavorably to Sharon is ahistorical, political axe-grinding.
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
"Has it? And does it matter? I don't think Israelis care what other countries think about them as long as their own land is safe and a Jewish majority is maintained."

1. I'd say it has,
2. It's say it matters, because
3. Yes, the Israelies do care about their own land being safe, and
4. As I've argued repeatedly now, Israel's biggest defense against attack is and always has been international support, especially from the West...they have a Top 10 military, but that won't matter if they ever lose that international support, and it's beginning to become a bit strained.

"The point is whether one can praise Sharon's actions while condemning Netanyahu's, and since they were more or less the same one cannot do so fairly. It's just sexy to shit on Bibi while making Sharon a Kennedy-like figure anyone can project their hopes on."

Sexy or no, I think the Kennedy/LBJ parallel does fit, albeit loosely...

And it's the same issue, but extended.

Sharon wasn't perfect, but his policies still won Israel some international support, and no one but no one was going to call Ariel Sharon of all people soft on security...a leader without his credentials (and here I do point to Netanyahu) couldn't have dragged Israeli settlers out of Gaza and still survived, politically and otherwise.

If I were to compare him in that regard, I'd say that he's a bit like Ike in that way--

Who but Eisenhower, Allied Commander in WWII, could ever give a speech about the dangers of the Military-Industrial Complex?

If anyone else had given that speech but one of the most celebrated generals in American history (and one of the most popular people in the world following WWII) they'd have either never given the speech or floundered in the execution and be lambasted by the press.

Netanyahu simply doesn't have what Sharon had, credential-wise or otherwise, and between that and his ties to the radical-right, he's simply not a good choice for Israel at this time.
Invictus (240 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
You're such a messy writer.

"Israel's biggest defense against attack is and always has been international support, especially from the West"

Not international support, American support. That is stronger than ever right now. One can only imagine how close things will get when an authentically pro-Israeli president like Hillary Clinton or any Republican is in the White House.


It all really comes down to the fact you've decided to really not like Netanyahu (itself perfectly legitimate) but really like Sharon (itself perfectly legitimate). You can't do that and be consistent. Everything you praise Sharon for Netanyahu is doing, everything you criticize Netanyahu for Sharon did. You're simply parroting the liberal critique of Netanyahu and hijacking the solidly right-wing Sharon as a stick to hit the current PM with.
Octavious (2701 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
I think media reports saying he lived to 85 are pushing things a tad. The poor sod hasn't lived for a decade. This current trend of keeping people alive past their time is disturbing. It was bad enough with Mandela, but this was sickening.
mapleleaf (0 DX)
11 Jan 14 UTC
(+2)
Zionism is racism.
Hot Fuzz (159 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
Mapleleaf is a bit deaf.

Wow, when it's rhymed it sounds sooo smarttt and must be true!
Tolstoy (1962 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
The Legacy of Ariel Sharon
by Robert Fisk
The Independent, February 6, 2001

This is a place of filth and blood which will forever be associated with Ariel Sharon. In Israel today, he may well be elected prime minister. Then he will be master of the most powerful nation in the Middle East; he will travel to America, he will visit the White House and shake hands with President George W Bush. But for everyone who stood in the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in Beirut on 18 September 1982, his name is synonymous with butchery; with bloated corpses and disembowelled women and dead babies, with rape and pillage and murder...

Even when I walk these fetid streets today, more than 18 years after what was ­ by Israel's own definition of that much-misused phrase ­ the worst single act of terrorism in modern Middle East history, the ghosts haunt me still. Over there, on the side of the road leading to the Sabra mosque, lay Mr Nouri, 90 years old, grey-bearded, in pyjamas with a small woollen hat still on his head and a stick by his side. I found him on a pile of garbage, on his back, fly-encrusted eyes staring at the blazing sun. Just up the lane, I came across two women sitting upright with their brains blown out, next to a cooking pot and a dead horse. One of the women appeared to have had her stomach slit open. A few metres away, I discovered the first babies, already black with decomposition, scattered across the road like rubbish.

Yes, those of us who got into Sabra and Chatila before the murderers left have our memories. The flies racing between the reeking bodies and our faces, between dried blood and reporter's notebook, the hands of watches still ticking on dead wrists. I clambered up a rampart of earth ­ an abandoned bulldozer stood guiltily nearby ­ only to find, once I was atop the mound, that it swayed beneath me. And I looked down to find faces, elbows, mouths, a woman's legs protruding through the soil. I had to hold on to these body parts to climb down the other side. Then there was the pretty girl, her head surrounded by a halo of clothes pegs, her blood still running from a hole in her back. We had burst into the yard of her home, desperate to avoid the Israeli- uniformed militiamen who still roamed the camp; coming in by back door, we had found her body as the murderers left by the front door.

And as I walked through the carnage on 18 September ­ the last day of the three-day massacre ­ with Loren Jenkins of The Washington Post, a fierce, tough, Colorado reporter, I remember how he stopped in shock and disgust. And then, with as much energy as his lungs could summon in the sweet, foul air, he shouted, "SHARON!" so loudly that the name echoed off the crumpled walls above the bodies. "He's responsible for this fucking mess," Jenkins roared. And that, just over four months later ­ in more diplomatic words and in a report in which the murderers were called "soldiers" ­ was what the Israeli commission of enquiry decided. Sharon, who was minister of defence, bore "personal responsibility", the Kahan commission stated, and recommended his removal from office. Sharon resigned.

And so today, in this fetid, awful place, where Lebanese Muslim militiamen were ­ three years later ­ to kill hundreds more Palestinians in a war which produced no official inquiries, where scarcely 20 per cent of the survivors still live, where brown mud and rubbish now covers the mass grave of 600 of the 1982 victims, the Palestinians wait to see if their tormentor will hold the highest office in the state of Israel.

"Ariel Sharon was responsible," a well-dressed young man shouted at us from an apartment balcony yesterday morning. And who could disagree? Israel had invaded Lebanon on 6 June 1982 with a plan ­ known to Sharon but not vouchsafed to his Likud prime minister, Menachem Begin ­ to advance all the way to Beirut and surround Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organisation guerrillas in the Lebanese capital. Officially named "Operation Peace for Galilee" (the real Israeli military codename was "Snowball"), the invasion was supposedly a response to PLO rocket attacks across the Israeli border.

But the rocket attacks had followed a series of Israeli air-raids on Lebanon which had ended a UN-brokered ceasefire and which were supposedly in "retaliation" for the attempted murder of the Israeli ambassador to London ­ though his would-be killers came from the Abu Nidal group which had nothing to do with the PLO and hated Arafat. But Sharon had anyway received an earlier American "green light" for his operation from Alexander Haig in the spring of 1982. After two months and almost 17,000 deaths, most of them civilians ­ the majority killed by Israeli gunfire and air attack ­ the PLO withdrew from Beirut under international protection, leaving their unarmed families behind. At which point Sharon announced that 2,000 "terrorists" remained in the Sabra and Chatila camps. These mythical "terrorists" prompted a small advance by Israeli tanks ­ contrary to an agreement with Washington ­ towards the Palestinian camps. A French UN officer who tried to photograph the advance was shot dead by an "unknown" sniper. Sharon repeated his extraordinary claim that "terrorists" remained in the camps. And it was then that the Christian Lebanese president-elect, Bashir Gemayel ­ the leader of the Phalange militia which had already murdered thousands of surrendering Palestinians in the Tel el-Zaatar camp in 1976 ­ was assassinated.

Sharon paid his condolences to Gemayel's father, Pierre. He must have known the old man's history. Pierre Gemayel had founded his party after being inspired by the Olympics in Nazi Germany in 1936 ("I liked their idea of order," he once confided to me). Not for nothing did Israel's militia allies use the fascist "Phalange" as their name. As the Christians prepared to bury their hero, Sharon ­ again contrary to assurances he had given the Americans ­ ordered the Israeli army into west Beirut to "restore order". The Israelis then asked the Christian Phalange ­ armed and uniformed by Israel and allied to Israel since 1976 ­ to enter the Israeli-surrounded camps to "liquidate" the "terrorists". Which is why, on Thursday 16 September, guided by signposts which the Israelis had laid across a Beirut airport runway, the Christian gunmen walked through the southern entrance of Chatila, some of them drunk, a number on drugs ­ all under the eyes of the Israelis ­ and embarked on a war crime.

Today, much scarred by later wars, the lanes of Chatila still follow the same paths I walked down 18 years ago. There are always survivors who have never told their stories to us before. Yesterday I wandered up an alleyway ­ rippling with water pipes and running with rain and sewage ­ to find a middle-aged woman buying tomatoes from a stall. I was 30 metres from the road where I discovered Mr Nouri's body almost two decades ago. She took me to her family home and introduced me to her daughter, Nadia Salameh. Nadia was only 12 when Ariel Sharon's soldiers watched the Phalangist militia slaughter their way through the camps.

"At the end of this alleyway outside our home, we were all shocked by what we saw," she told me, her voice slowly rising with the memory of horror. "I saw corpses there, seven deep, some decapitated, others with their throats slit. One of our neighbours was lying there, Um Ahmed Saad, and her body had grown big with the heat. Her hands had been chopped off at the wrists. She used to wear a lot of bracelets, a lot of gold. The Phalange obviously wanted the gold."

Each house I enter contains the faded photographs of young men killed in the war, some by Israel's allies, others by Shia Muslim gunmen in the later 1985 camps war. But their memories have not faded. Old Abdullah ­ he is 78 and pleaded with us not to use his family name ­ talks without looking at me, eyes staring at the wall. The ghosts are returning again. "The Phalange were led by Elie Hobeika," he said, "but who sent them into the camps? The Israelis. And who was the defence minister? Sharon. They put their tanks round the camp. I was part of a delegation that tried to negotiate with them. We carried a white flag. When we got near, there was a man's voice on a loudspeaker telling us to have our identity cards ready. But I didn't have my ID. So I went back home. And it turned out the loudspeaker was being used by a Phalangist. And they murdered all the men in the delegation. I was the only one to survive."

There was no doubt that the Israelis could see what the Lebanese Christian Phalange were doing. The Kahan commission was later to quote Lieutenant Avi Grabovski, deputy commander of an Israeli tank unit that was helping to encircle the camp: he watched the murder of five women and children and wanted to protest, but his battalion commander had replied to another soldier who complained that "we know, it's not to our liking, and don't interfere". Up to 2,000 Palestinians were murdered ­ two mass graves remain unexhumed in Beirut ­ and Sharon's reputation, already besmirched by the much earlier slaughter of more than 50 Palestinian civilians by his Commando Unit 101, seemed as buried as the Palestinian victims.

But like the garbage that has collected over the only known mass grave, the historical narrative ­ save for that of the survivors ­ has become overgrown. History moves on. Arafat recognised Israel and found himself trapped by an agreement that would give him neither a real "Palestine" nor secure the return of the refugees ­ including those in Sabra and Chatila ­ to what is now Israel. And the new leader of Israel is, within hours, likely to be the man who allowed the killers into the Beirut camps more than 18 years ago.

With power, of course, comes respect. CNN now calls Sharon "a barrel- framed veteran general who has built a reputation for flattening obstacles and reshaping Israel's landscape", while the BBC World Service on Sunday managed to avoid the fateful words Sabra and Chatila by referring only to his "chequered military career". As for Nadia Salameh, "Sharon's role here shows what he is capable of. If Sharon is elected, the whole peace process falls by the wayside because he doesn't want peace." It's a relief to recall that up to a million Israelis demonstrated their moral integrity in 1982 by protesting in Tel Aviv against the massacre. And equally chilling to reflect that some of those one million ­ if the polls are accurate ­ may well be voting for Mr Sharon today.
Putin33 (111 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
How is that, transfer, Invictus? Transfer has always meant force and that whole section deals with force, not voluntary settlement. This has been recognized by the opponents of settlements which is why in 1998 they initiated an addition to the text of 4th Geneva to make it relevant to settlements. Furthermore the Israelis and Palestinians signed a peace deal rendering the whole thing moot anyway. Settlements are to be an item that is negotiated bilaterally.
Invictus (240 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
This is a settled issue, Putin33. The ICJ says the wall and the settlements are illegal. The UN says they're illegal. The US says they're illegal but is quiet about it for political reasons. Every country but Israel says they're illegal. Essentially all international legal scholars and international human rights organizations say they're illegal. This isn't a controverisal issue unless your familiarity with the conflict is at a Glenn Beck level of understanding.

You're right that the ultimate ownership of these settlements will be settled bilaterally. Just because Israel will probably end up keeping the settlements on its side of the wall if/when the Kerry talks yield a Palestinian state does not mean those settlements were created in accordance with international law.
Invictus (240 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
(+1)
"How is that, transfer, Invictus?"

I don't see how anyone can think it isn't transfer. Israelis entered the West Bank, built houses, and then were protected by the Israeli military and intwined with the infrastructure of Israel proper. The Israeli government encourages people to move to the settlements and to a great extent Israeli law applies there.

Are you really saying that because the government didn't physically empty Tel Aviv neighborhoods and drive those people to a Judean hilltop then this isn't transfer? If it's that easy to get around the modern international prohibition on colonization then Article 49 is a dead letter. You're just being silly.
Tolstoy (1962 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
"if/when the Kerry talks yield a Palestinian state"

Jeez. What is the wellspring for your perpetual and unbounded optimism in all things? I'd like to get a whiff.
Invictus (240 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
No, it's close to a done deal. The wall is the border. Unless something crazy happens like Abbas is shot or some starts a Third Intifada it's all over but for the crying.

And I wouldn't say I'm optimisitic. While I think Israel deserves East Jerusalem no Palestinian state is economically viable without it. We'll have peace of a sort, but not the kind that will mend things.
mapleleaf (0 DX)
11 Jan 14 UTC
Fisk tells the truth.

Page 2 of 3
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

88 replies
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
12 Jan 14 UTC
So Teddy Roosevelt, Ernest Hemingway, and Jeremy Bentham Go Rhino Hunting...
http://news.yahoo.com/black-rhino-hunting-permit-auctioned-350-000-033224692.html While it's admittedly morbid to auction off the right to hunt a living creature...if the rhino really is "male, old, and nonbreeding" and the $350K really does go to benefiting the rest of the black rhino population, and this particular rhino's already proving something of a problem because of his aggressiveness...is humane sentiment more important than practical aid in the way of the $350K?
58 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D(B))
11 Jan 14 UTC
'Half of US Congressional politicians are millionaires'
src:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25691066

my only question is, which half?
34 replies
Open
Tolstoy (1962 D)
14 Jan 14 UTC
Do you want to beat a schizophrenic homeless man to death for fun and get away with it?
Become a cop first:
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Former-Fullerton-Officers-Manuel-Ramos-Found-by-Jury-in-Kelly-Thomas-Trial-239924741.html
4 replies
Open
pangloss (363 D)
12 Jan 14 UTC
(+1)
"Where Life Has Meaning: Poor, Religious Countries"
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/where-life-has-meaning-poor-religious-countries/282949/

What do you guys think? Aside from The Atlantic's dire need for proofreaders, of course.
17 replies
Open
nesdunk14 (635 D)
12 Jan 14 UTC
(+2)
Stupid ban
My account was banned, now unbanned, but I have lost all website points, and the leading spot in a world game. I would like to be refunded.
33 replies
Open
mapleleaf (0 DX)
12 Jan 14 UTC
Neil Young at Massey Hall tonight.
Be there or be square.
4 replies
Open
Lopt (102 D)
11 Jan 14 UTC
(+1)
Don't You Hate...
People who insist playing after a game is ruined by NMR's...
175 replies
Open
Page 1130 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top