+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

'Nothing will happen. Maybe some more terrorists will be killed'

Declassified documents from meetings held before and during the Sabra and Shatila massacre in 1982 reveal Ariel Sharon’s contempt for Palestinian lives. Published last week by the New York Times, the documents demonstrate the arrogance of Sharon and a young Benjamin Netanyahu in their dealing with American diplomats and officials, who expressed justified concerns over the fate of Palestinians in areas conquered by Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Minister Ariel Sharon (photo: Saar Yaacov, Government Press Office / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

The Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashana) also marked the 30th anniversary of the massacre in the Sabra and Shatilla Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. At least 800 people, including many women and children, were killed by the Phalange militia, which was armed by Israel and at times operated by it.

The massacre wasn’t planned or executed by Israel, but the Phalange, whose leader Bashir Gemayel had been assassinated a couple of days earlier, were ordered by Israel into the camps. Furthermore, soldiers stationed around the camp witnessed the executions of women and children and reported them to their commanding officers. By the second day of the massacre, news had reached higher ranks in the army and several cabinet ministers, including then Defense Minister Ariel Sharon – but that same night, the IDF fired flares into the sky to help the Phalange in their “fight.” Only on the third day did the IDF order the Phalange out, and the massacre ended.

Last weekend, The New York Times published three recently declassified top secret documents (see the bottom of this text) detailing meetings between Israeli and American officials at the beginning of the massacre, during it, and right after it. Three of the Israeli names in those documents later became prime ministers: Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, and the deputy chief of the Israeli mission in Washington, Benjamin Netanyahu. The conversations are telling, and they draw lessons that are still relevant, especially on the ways Israeli officials dealt with American diplomats and officials.

The first couple of documents demonstrate Israeli disdain – bordering contempt – for the Reagan administration’s pleas to move the IDF out of Beirut. Israel also demands that the United States not publicly link the situation of the Palestinians in South Lebanon to those in the West Bank. (At the time, the Begin government was gradually retreating from its commitment in the Camp David treaty with Egypt to grant autonomy to the Palestinians in the occupied territories.) Researcher Seth Anziska from Columbia University, who uncovered the documents, has a very good piece in the Times detailing how American diplomats were bullied and manipulated by the Likud cabinet members, especially Defense Minister Sharon.

The cover letter for the first document, concerning a meeting in Washington with Under Secretary of State Laurence Eagleburger (who made it known he was speaking on behalf of President Reagan), is written and signed by Netanyahu, summarizing Israel’s problems with the American position objecting to the Israeli invasion of Beirut, which took place a couple of days earlier:

The ambassador [to Washington, Moshe Arens] vigorously rejected the claim that Israel misled the United States and that it violated the agreement. He also rejected the assumption that the IDF’s operation is not desirable, and emphasized its importance at this time.

At a certain moment in the first meeting (which took place on September 16, on the first day of the massacre), following Under Secretary Eagleburger’s intention to publish a statement by the State Department about Israeli actions being “contrary to assurances,” the young Netanyahu, only a deputy envoy, doesn’t hesitate to reply:

… I suggest you delete this […] Otherwise you will give us no choice but to defend our credibility by setting the record straight. We’ll end up in a shooting war with each other, and that’s not good for either of us.

As they were speaking, the Phalange, thirsty for revenge over the death of their leader, were entering the refugee camps. The Americans would soon learn that their concerns were well-founded.

What did Sharon know?

From an Israeli perspective there is no way to avoid the conclusion that had the Likud ministers listened or respected the U.S. diplomats, the Phalange invasion of the camps could have been avoided without any damage to Israeli national security, despite all the angry rhetoric Sharon threw at the Americans.

The second conversation is the most interesting. It took place at 12:30 PM on the September 17, the second day of the massacre. The most senior American official present was Mideast envoy Morris Draper. It’s not clear whether Ariel Sharon had any knowledge of the events in the Palestinian camps when he spoke to the Americans; though he knew that the Phalange were ordered to enter the camps.

Towards the end of the conversation, the American envoy demands that the Israelis began the evacuation of their forces on the same day (the 17th). The Israelis refuse:

Sharon: Nothing will happen. Maybe some more terrorists will be killed. That will be to the benefit of all of us, for the benefit of all of us.

Shamir: Let us hope that there will be quiet.

Sharon: For every peace-loving man in the world, just to reduce a little bit this threat of these international syndicated terrorists.

It’s worth noting that by September ’82, the PLO had already left Lebanon. Sharon must have known that most of the people in the camps would be poor, innocent refugees. Yet the view of every Palestinian as potential terrorist is already evident in his thinking.

Later, Mr. Draper warns Sharon of the exact same things that was taking place as they spoke, should the IDF stay in West Beirut and the Phalange operate in the refugee camps. Citing possible critiques of Israel, he says:

The hostile people [critics of Israel – NS] will say sure, the IDF is going to stay in West Beirut and they will let the Lebanese go and kill the Palestinians in the camps.”

To which Sharon replies:

So, we’ll kill them. They will not be left there. You are not going to save them. You are not going to save these groups of the international terrorism.

Sharon should have known what having the Phalange “conquer” the refugee camps would mean. In a Northern Command meeting three months earlier, he told the IDF generals:

“[We] should stop asking them [the Phalange] to take part in military action… leave them alone. They’ll do nothing. Maybe, later, when everything won’t exist and it will be possible to loot, to murder, to rape, yes. Then they will rape, loot and murder.”

(This document was revealed by Amir Oren on Haaretz in 2008. Oren also mentions a report from this era on the arrests and murder of no less than 500 people in checkpoints established by the Phalange, prior to the Sabra and Shatila massacre. This information was the obtained by the Mossad, who managed the contacts with Israel’s Christians allies in Lebanon before and during the invasion.)

By the night following the conversation between Shamir, Sharon and the U.S. envoy, there was concrete news of the massacre. At night, Israeli journalist Ron Ben Yishai, stationed in Beirut, called Sharon at his home to tell him of the numerous reports he had received, urging him “to do something.” Sharon thanked him and went back to bed.

The third and final document published by the Times is a conversation between Secretary of State Shultz and Israel Ambassador Arens once the news of the massacre had been made public. You can view the three documents here:


U.S.-Israel meetings on Sabra and Shatila

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Danny

      These documents are about 20 years too late in being uncovered. Had they been brought to light 20 years ago, we might have been spared both Netanyahu’s and Sharon’s governments. Too bad.

      Reply to Comment
      • RichardL

        Nice sentiments, but who might we have seen in their place who would not lie to the world, consolidate the occupations, expand the settlements and treat the Arabs like vermin? The same processes have gone on consistently throughout Israeli history regardless of who has been in power. There has not been an Israeli Prime Minister without blood on their hands.

        Reply to Comment
    2. aristeides

      Aunt Sally: “Good gracious! anybody hurt?”

      Huck Finn: “No’m. Killed a nigger.”

      Aunt Sally: “Well, it’s lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt.

      Reply to Comment
      • Weindeb

        Wwll done.

        Reply to Comment
    3. ToivoS

      I find it incredible that Israelis, left, right or center, are unable to admit that it was Israel that was responsible for these massacres. The evidence is over-whelming. Israeli soldiers had surrounded the camps, were looking down into them witnessing what was happening, controlled who could escape or enter, provided night time flares so the actual killers could see their targets at night and in spite of all of these facts Israelis still debate what did Sharon actually know at what hour. Sharon a serial liar denied knowing anything. So what.

      Reply to Comment
    4. I once chanced upon a Latin American Marxist urban guerilla manual from the 1970’s. It recommened fleeing into the poor areas after an attack to intice the police/army to follow, these harming innocents, vindicating the guerillas and garnering fresh support. Terrorism works similarly, generally. This is not to say there is not a causal nexus of terrorism or violent resistence, or that violence is a good thing. One need not adore somethng to understand it.

      The effect of this police/military response to withdrawing terror is to remove the concept of innocence entirely. Innocence becomes the place where terrorism is incubated. This is one of terrorism’s greatest tools, for it proclaims hatred is all there is. The State comes to define “peace” as ITS solution, as Sharon, above. “If you are not with us, you are against us” means only group idenity is. Innocence is a place beyond all group branding, an abomination for original sin; and I have come to believe most need original sin placed somewhere.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Barry Rosen

      Noam Sheizaf, i’m wondering why haven’t you documented the Palestinians racist blood libel media against Jews which is controlled by Pal leaders.
      Its all right here.

      Also a must read article.

      Jewish reaction to thousands of antisemitic Arab cartoons: No riots, no injuries, no deaths
      Sep 23, 2012.

      Reply to Comment
    6. Barry Rosen

      Noam, why didn’t you write an article on the anniversary of the Damour Lebanon massacre by Arafat and the PLO.

      During the 12 year Civil War in Lebanon, caused by Yassir Arafat’s assuming power through terror, his terrorists committed mass murder. Whole villages of Christians like Damour were massacred, chopped into pieces with machetes. Out of the 30,000 Christians, 10,000 were slaughtered by Arafat’s PLO. The town was then occupied and kept as Arafat’s stronghold. David Shipler of the New York Times wrote the story of Damour June 21, 1982. There were individual murders.! One horrific, but typical, example is when the Muktar (leader) of a village refused to be cooperative with Arafat and his terrorists. The Muktar’s teenage daughter was abducted and raped. Her breasts were cut off and she was delivered to the doorstep of her father in a sack.

      Reply to Comment
      • I have no doubt such things happened, and I think guilt baiting of Israel’s past to be counterproductive; people generally don’t apologize for their great country–to this day, Russia has remained silent on the Soviet gulag system. All sides of this conflict have been put into monster making situations. Recognizing that all–all–sides have been so is the only way out. Each can then help pull up the other from that pit. Abbas is not Arafat, no matter what color you place on Arafat. You have to allow difference and improvement to be possible. So, while looking for the horrors of the enemy, look too for the oppoiste therein.

        Reply to Comment
    7. The meaning of the quotes is obviously dependent on the context, for which we are being told to rely on the author, who is obviously intensely hostile to the Israeli side. Moreover, reading the quotes carefully, some do not quite fit the claimed context and import — with some, the fit is strikingly bad. For example, take, ” I suggest you delete this […] Otherwise you will give us no choice but to defend our credibility by setting the record straight. We’ll end up in a shooting war with each other, and that’s not good for either of us.”
      What did the writer want deleted? Why the elipsis? Where is the evidence that the Americans were raising issues about Phalange actions? What is Netanyahu hinting the Israelis could expose about U.S. actions? What Shezaf — and the Times — are doing is not history, but propaganda using history-like excerpts as props.
      — Jared Israel

      Reply to Comment