Steve again,
Their troops were in total control of the area and they stood aside to allow the Christian phalangists, their allies, to enter those camps to do the killing.

They had a legitimate reason for sending them into the camp, and no possible motive for wanting a massacre.
That is not a minority opinion except among despicable regimes with real blood on their hands."enter those camps to do the killing."

a history book written by a living historian in the last thirty years, preferably one on the shelves of a reputable bookshop. It will assuredly confirm what I've just said,

I have yet to find one that does, Please suggest one.

You said that Wheatcroft called Taylor fraudulent when Wheatcroft had said no such thing. You said this more than once. You want us to think that you're not thick and that you are the bearer of the sword of truth. But you read the Guardian the same as I did that day (unfortunately for you), and only a complete imbecile would have "innocently" made that mistake.

I quoted the Guardian accurately that day, but dropped one of the words used to dismiss the books some days later.
Sorry about that, but it did not alter the meaning.
Both books say the same thing and both were contemptuously dismissed by Wheatcroft.
Your seizing on one word instead of two was a desperate act of trivia because Wheatcroft supported my case not yours, leaving you with no genuine argument.