I'm confused about Sharon...Help!

[serryjw]

I hated the man and his policies for years. WHY all of a sudden is he considered a good guy? I put him in the same league with Bushit

[CatholicEdHead]

1. He has made some peace pushes

and he is not the most rabid of the rabid. While his human rights record was bleak, he looks like a clear moderate compared to Bibi Netenhayu (sp).

[serryjw]

8. Sooooo I'm still OK to hate him?

Sorry, death does not fix this shit. I will dance the day this entire administration passes over to the 'darker' side.

[shraby]

2. Because he's dying and thou shalt not speak

ill of the dead. :eyes:

[JVS]

24. One would think that would prompt people to get their last kicks in...

before he dies.

[Scurrilous]

25. De mortuis nil nisi bonum

"Let nothing be said of the dead but what is good."

[Wilms]

3. Cause he is grave medical condition.

When he dies, he'll be an even greater guy.

It's one of the reasons why I'm glad the SS keeps an eye on the pRez. If anything happened to him, we'd be saddled with a martyr.

[Wordie]

4. Not to mention, Cheyney. eom

[RagingInMiami]

5. When a public figure is on his deathbed

He turns into a saint.

[benburch]

6. Because all of the present alternatives are actually WORSE. nt

[Jim Sagle]

7. Because you now realize Sharon RRRRRRRAWWWWKSSSS?

:shrug:

[Cults4Bush]

9. Is that a freeperism?

Granted all alternatives suck even worse but the lesser of two evils doesn't become a good choice from an ultimatum.

...and we really dont know what his intentions were with the pull out, though hey it takes big giant brass ones to realize you were horridly wrong about something so massive and public and then reverse footing. I'll give him that.

[Jim Sagle]

15. I'm no freeper and neither is Sharon.

He's da man, doin' the best he can...to make the world a better place.

[Cults4Bush]

17. Sorry wasn't calling you a freeper... but uhmm I think Ill just leave this

alone.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

31. .

:eyes:

[bpilgrim]

41. Sharon is a TERRORIST and his miserable record in the ME proves it

i will never understand the attraction to RW extremist on this board :crazy:

peace

[Jim Sagle]

61. Actually the extremists are very unhappy with him.

Do try to keep up.

[Violet_Crumble]

66. Not all of them, apparently...

n/t

[Jim Sagle]

116. I'll bet the yobbos in Oz don't like him AT ALL!

;-)

[Violet_Crumble]

119. The yobbos wouldn't even know who he is....

n/t

[TokenJew]

79. Was Arafat a terrorist?

How about Abbas?

The situation in the middle east has made those with power engage in often times despicable behavior. It's not excusable in anyway, but saying so and so is a terrorist is meaningless unless they currently are engaged in terrorism.

[Djinn]

140. if you consider

killing women and children and disapearing hundreds from Sabra and Chatilla making the world a better place, personally I call that vile and criminal but your entitled to your own opinions on ethnic cleansing I guess Sagle

[madmark]

10. he pulled israel out of gaza

[lvx35]

11. He pulled out of Gaza and abandoned Likud

He was working on building a more liberal peaceful party when he died...If he was in any way poisoned or assasinated, (unlikely) that's why. People speak positivly of him not because what he lived doing, but what he was doing when the stroke came. That's why Pat Robertson made his comment as well, the shift in Sharon's policies that preceded his stroke.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

56. he pulled 3-4 settlements out of Gaza, and continued to build others

By many standards, this was a faux withdrawal. Other palestinian lands continue to be occupied, even bolstered. The wall continued to be built, destroying olive tree stands, residences, businesses, and schools.

This man was not searching for peace, more like a piece of land.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

106. Oh please

Gaza is as Judenrein as the Lodz Ghetto after VE Day - or King Fahd's University's main campus.

[Wordie]

109. "This man was not searching for peace, more like a piece of land."

Very nice. Apt.

[AlCzervik]

12. Netanyahu is far scarier, Sharon approved the pullout so give him that at

at least, you don't need to love him or anything.

[Cleita]

13. I feel like you. I never thought he was any different than

Arafat. I thought both of them did more to increase the problem than to solve it. So I guess he made a few concessions toward peace in his old age. It doesn't really make me like him though.

I thought the people whom he destroyed without a thought in trying to bulldoze Arafat's compound was an unforgivable act. I'm neither pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. I am for peace though between them.

[Sgent]

14. Sharon

is arguably (we'll see) one of the few Isreali polititions that could have sold a land for peace deal. In the future, we are likely to see the situation degenerate if not get worse.

The "liberal" party is seen as weak for their unsuccessful negotiations with Arafat, which were seen to endanger Isreal's security and gain nothing.

The Likud and religious parties would have never settled for the current situation without being bullied by Sharon. They believe in the "divine right", and are likely to want to reaquire abandoned areas, and expand and dislocate palestinians.

Similar to McCain being one of the few polititions that could have advocated normalized relations with Vietnam, peace will be much harder to accomplish w/o a military hero leading Isreal's government.

[karynnj]

16. Although It wasn't just McCain - it was the whole POW/MIA committee

that contained every Vietnam Vet in the Senate, McCain's history made his agreement more significant- after all the tortured him for 5 years. McCain discussed in his book the meeting he and Kerry had with Clinton to convince him. Kerry outlined all the arguments and made the case for normalization. McCain then says he just said he agreed with Kerry.

Though Kerry was chairman of the committee and did far more (from the descriptions in McCain's book) to guarantee that all members agreed and that they got an unusual degree of cooperation from the Vietnamese - McCain saying simply that he agreed (and would say so publicly) had at least as much weight as all the reasons for doing it did.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. Help for you.

I don't think most here have given him a free pass on past events. However, quite a few of us realize circumstances are different in his country and region than they are in ours. Some have also realized that he has done more for the peace process and creating an independent Palestine than any other leader. Unfortunately, too many liberals, not unlike 'freepers,' don't think for themselves and "hate" whomever we are "supposed to hate" and "love whomever we are supposed to love." The other 'downside' is so few, especially Americans, really understand the conflict, its history, and the players. There are also the 'knee-jerk' responses from those that are anti-Israel casting blame solely on Israel and her politicians; completely failing to see that TWO entities are involved in the conflict and should be involved in its resolution.

You asked another poster if it is still OK to hate him. That is, of course, your prerogative. However, it would be more prudent to review the situation (the man), past and present, and go with your own opinion, not the one the "liberals" may or may not have. If you really think he is in the same league with B*sh, then you really haven't explored Sharon.

[goclark]

45. Thanks for your interesting post

I believe I understand it better now.

Did he make those decisions about creating an independent Palestine because he was told to do it by Bush?

Did America,under the rule of Bush, pay him to do it or was this brave move done because he sincerely believed it would bring PEACE to the region?

That part I don't understand.

[Behind the Aegis]

60. Reply

I can't answer your questions with anything other than speculation. I'd have to hunt down actual interviews and such to give you insight to Sharon's motivations. However,...

..."Did he make those decisions about creating an independent Palestine because he was told to do it by Bush?" He had as much input as the situation in Lebanon...meaning B*sh had about 0%.

"Did America,under the rule of Bush, pay him to do it or was this brave move done because he sincerely believed it would bring PEACE to the region?" There was no 'payment' to speak of. I believe Sharon made the move because it was best for Israel's safety. I don't think he had any real motivation on the part of the Palestinian people, but that is my opinion. I also think he saw that the past conflict would not change without some concession, he chose Israel to make the concession.

Despite some of the other opinions here (not this thread, just in general), Israel doesn't run the US, nor does the US run Israel. Because of the close relationship, it may seem that way on occasion, but consider our close relationship with the UK. I don't think I have ever seen a post here stating the UK runs the US or vice versa.

[goclark]

62. Thanks again, that helps a lot

If he is wise enough to see that the move should be done to protect the people of Israel, I have to give him some points.


I only wish that GW could see the wisdom of letting the Iraqi's try to live in PEACE. Killing them so that they can have a "Democracy" like we have doesn't work for me.

We need to stay out of the lives of other countries, we are not Big Daddy.


Interesting.


Am I being too simplistic to believe that Sharon was trying to co exist with Palestine?

If that is true, how I wish we could take a lesson from that, maybe there is hope.


I am sincerely trying to understand the other points of view.

I am coming from a mind set that " We should study War No More but study to Coexist."

[Behind the Aegis]

63. More answers...I think.

I am certain (IMO), that the withdrawal from Gaza was for Israeli security and peace of mind.

Your statements about staying out of other's business is a good one, on the surface. For the most part I agree, but it should be trumped for humanitarian reasons. The war in Iraq was certainly not!

I don't think you are being too simplistic, maybe a little "pollyanish." But that is just my opinion, because I don't feel (opinion) that Sharon made his move not because he was wanting to co-exist with Palestinians, his primary concern was Israel.

Someone said that Sharon and B*sh were "cut from the same cloth," so to speak. Nothing could be further from the truth. I look at it this way...B*sh's war is taking place thousands of miles away and Sharon's war is literally in his own backyard. It is easy to judgmental when one can go to the mall and not worry about being blown-up will thumbing through magazines at the "Barnes and Noble." It is just as interesting to point out how many here (at DU...I am not concerned with freepers, et all for this argument) will try to "understand" terrorists, but trying to also "understand" their victims/enemies seems to be beyond their grasp. Also, scan the board on your own, looking for recent Sharon threads, and look at the number of ignorant and hateful remarks based on nothing other than Sharon is the right person to hate for liberals. It really is no different than if you ventured over to FR and looked at the vile spewed at Chavez, even when most don't know the first thing about him.

I like the idea of not studying war, but that would be like placing our heads in the sand. It is an ugly reality of our lives, like poverty, terrorism, and intolerance. We can choose to ignore them, allowing them to flourish, or we can confront them, study them, and learn how to avoid or correct them.

I hope this helps.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

73. And Sir Neville didn't - when he abandoned the Jews of Europe to Hitler?

NT

[julianer]

75. I don't see your point

perhaps you could explain.

[Coastie for Truth]

76. If I have to explain - you'll never see it or understand.

<>

[Violet_Crumble]

122. That's coz the comment made no sense at all...

n/t

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

89. Then, you are not reading things correctly. n/t

[goclark]

72. That helps a lot

and I sincerely understand the insensitive remarks that take place right here at DU regarding race and religion.

I am African American and I have felt the sting here many times.

That is why I tried to frame my remarks regarding this sensitive issue in a way that I hope will not be hurtful to anyone.

I really thought about your words that what
Bush did was far away from his homeland and Sharon was protecting his people on their own land.

Thanks again.

[Wordie]

74. It's good to be sensitive to others...

but it's also crucial to understand that the position of those supporting the Israelis in no way corresponds to that of the civil rights workers of our own struggle.

Here's just a brief glimpse of the situation from the other side. It is from an interview by Democracy Now! and published by San Francisco Indymedia. Note that Brian Avery is a US peace activist shot in the face by Israeli forces while on a peace mission to Jenin, in the Occupied Territories.

AMY GOODMAN: Brian, can you describe the day that you were shot? Where exactly you were, what was happening?

BRIAN AVERY: Yeah. It was in Jenin in the West Bank and we were -- I was working with the international solidarity movement at the time. And at the time, there was a curfew in the town, which was not very uncommon. It was very usual for us to be out on the streets during the curfew. And this was the case. At the time, it was in the afternoon, there had been some gun fire in the area and once that was quieted down, we went outside to go see if there was any of the local medical emergency teams that needed assistance, which was some of the groups we worked with the most in that area because they were often harassed and prevented from doing their jobs by the Israeli military a lot. And just a routine situation. We went out and, you know, we weren't two blocks from our apartment when an Israeli convoy of two vehicles, a tank and an armored personnel carrier, drove up the street from the direction that we were walking from. And so as we heard them coming closer, we stepped off to the side of the road to let them pass by, which was again, you know, a very, very typical situation for us to encounter the soldiers. even during the curfew, and for them just to pass on by, you know, really without taking much notice of us. And so we stood to the side of the road, we put our hands out to show we didn't have any weapons and weren't, you know, threatening them in any way. And I was wearing a fluorescent vest to, you know, try to make ourselves as visible as possible. And once they drove within about 30 meters of where we were standing, they opened fire with their machine guns and continued shooting for a very long time, probably shooting about, you know, 30 rounds of ammunition, which is quite a lot when you see them in action. And I was struck in the face with one of the bullets and, you know, was knocked to the ground immediately. And as soon as the soldiers finished shooting , another I.S.M. member, Tobias Karlsson, standing right next to me and there were four others who were close to the scene who were able to witness the scene and once they finished shooting, they drove off.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, now William Schultz is here for Amnesty International. I’d like to -- you did a -- your organization did a report on some of these incidents. Your perspective?

BRIAN AVERY: Well, obviously Amnesty has grave concerns about these kinds of incidents, these kinds of attacks on civilians, the Rachel Corrie case, Brian's case, and Amnesty has called for investigations of these cases. We want to see an independent look taken at these cases. We understand that Israel, of course, has the right to defend itself, but it also has to do so within the confines of international law and standards.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/02/1723626.php

So you see, in the case of the I/P conflict, it is the Israelis who are threatening human rights.

Another site you might want to check in order to get a more balanced view on the subject is Jewish Voice for Peace, a US organization working for a just settlement of the hostilities: http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_243.shtml
They have recently issued a press release applauding the Human Rights Watch call for American economic pressure to stop Israeli settlement expansion, and that's what the link will lead you to, but the site is worth exploring beyond that one article for good information on what the peace movement in this country is up to.

And there is also this: http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp
B'tselem is the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. That site can provide you with a good overview on the nature of the problem, from the peace activists POV.

[TokenJew]

90. ISM has a long history of working against Israel

and aiding and abetting the militants in the territories. They are a Palestinian activist group rather than a peace group. Their stance on terrorism (they condone it) as well as their own actions make their members suspect.

[Wordie]

96. So you do not condemn Israelis shooting an unarmed man in the face?

There is no excuse for the Israelis shooting an unarmed man in the face, nor for anyone to condone such behavior, however much one might disagree with the ISM.

[TokenJew]

98. No, there is no excuse

nor is there any excuse for suicide bombings. But boy, ISM and its members sure find plenty of ways to pretend like there are.

You're trying to paint Israel as bad and Palestinians as victims. All I'm saying is that's a false picture. Plenty of suffering to go around and fake peace activists like ISM aren't helping matters.

[Wordie]

101. Thank you. That's better.

I agree. There is violence on both sides that needs to stop. I think both "sides" have made grave errors. But Israel has far superior financial, military and other resources. Sharon as far as I can tell never intended to implement the road map, nor to negotiate and compromise with the Palestinians - these did not conform to Sharon's ideas of what was good for Israel. It is Israel that is engaging in an illegal occupation of another people's land. Consequently I believe the onus is on Israel to stop the settlement activity. I further think that the Gaza disengagement was meant to distract from the increased settlement activity in the West Bank.

I'm not trying to paint the Israelis as all bad and the Palestinians as all victims. This subthread involved another poster painting an overly rosy picture of Israel's actions. He neglected to mention any errors at all on the Israeli side, nor did he correct the misperception that it is a case of racism motivating the the words and actions of liberals who recognize the legitmate claims of the Palestinians. (And this is a liberal website!)

Many highly pro-Sharon and pro-Israel posters frequently imply that criticism of Israeli policies and strong objection to the occupation is tantamount to anti-Semitism. It seems another poster, apparently new to the topic, has believed that. Someone needed to provide balance.

It is unfortunate that we got off into a discussion of the ISM, which was not really my point in posting about that incident. What I was trying to show was incidents of Israeli unprovoked violence against civilians do occur. In a comparison with our own civil rights movement it would not be Israel that was the oppressed party. I had posted links to other sites for the poster to explore, and I hope this tangent has not dissuaded him/her from doing so.

[TokenJew]

102. Balance at the expense of reality is unneeded

I've always been disturbed by this need to show balance in a situation where there is no balance. Basically, it ignores the reality of the situation and instead uses almost a mathematical formula to determine who needs to do what. You do so yourself by saying that, as the more powerful nation, Israel bares more responsibility.

But where does that end? You yourself don't acknowledge the cost and consequence of the Gaza withdrawal. You clearly don't have any trust of moves made by Israel. But on the same note, you fail to acknowledge that when it comes to trustworthiness and transparency, Israel is head and shoulders above the PA.

If you want balance, why don't we start with a balance in accountability? Hold each side equally accountable for their actions and failure to act.

Then we can discuss "balance" realistically.

[Wordie]

104. Israel tries to set up "rules" to support Israeli expansion. Not balance.

The "accountability" argument is frequently used in such a way. Why should concerns about Palestinian "accountability" trump the larger issue, which is that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land, and increasingly attempting to illegally settle so much of it that any Palestinian state on the remaining land could not possibly be viable? I don't buy the "accountability" argument, which I presume Sharon intended to use to try to convince the US to approve his land grab in the West Bank and Jordan Valley.

The Pals are doing about as well as might be expected for a people whose infrastructure has been under attack, and who themselves are living under a brutal occupation. What the h*** do you expect? I abhor the violence but my approach is 1.) to give them a reasonable time to regroup (the disengagement from Gaza happened only a few months ago, and 2.) to end the conditions which prevent them from establishing their own country on their own land.

You never said what you thought about my other two links, in the post a while back, Jews for Justice and B'tselm, btw.

[TokenJew]

105. I find both those groups to be good at heart

but just simply saying the same thing as the non-Jewish pro-palestinian groups say. Their beliefs are generally shared by most progressives, but to me, those views fail to take into account the issues important to Israelis.

Your point about what trumps what is my main problem with the approach of groups like them and others, namely that the biggest problem is Israeli occupation. As if prior to 1967 there was peace in the region and up until then Israel was considered legitimate by its enemies. Obviously, anyone following the region knows these two statements are false, so how can it be about the occupation?

I agree that the occupation needs to end if for no other reason that it makes incredible fodder for the Palestinians to use to sucker many naive people into believing that they are somehow victims as opposed to equal participants in the conflict. One need only look at the Gaza withdrawal and the "progressive" response to it to see what will happen when Israel does withdraw from the West Bank: they will continue to claim the occupation continues, they will scoff at what Israel did and they will claim it wasn't enough.

And so, the cycle will continue.

[Wordie]

107. Progressive response: 8,475 illegal settlers removed, 430,000 to go.

What's hard to understand about that? Gaza is only one small part. I understand the wish to make a big deal about it, but in the larger picture, it isn't as significant as Sharon wanted us to believe. Until the occupation ends, progressives will of course "claim" it has not ended.

[TokenJew]

108. The significance lies in what it means

It means that Israel has shown a willingness to remove the settlers and to leave Palestinian claimed territory. It's a step in the right direction, one that far too many progressives rejected completely out of hand. For quite some time,I heard the refrain that Israel "must leave the West Bank and Gaza". Well, once they left Gaza, did anything change with these people? for some, yes, but most just rejected it, as you did, as a trick.

Say what you will of Sharon's motives, but even if it is a trick, why haven't progressive groups used this as a springboard to further concessions from BOTH sides? Isn't the goal peace? If so, then this was an opening to push forward.

But as usual, the approach by many progressives was damn near totalitarian in nature: "Israel didn't give up all, so they must have given up none."

A foolish approach in my very humble opinion.

[Wordie]

112. Look...

http://www.fmep.org/maps/map_data/redeployment/disengagement_options_feb2005.html

Do you see how much illegal settlement has been created in the West Bank? How much Palestinian land has been gobbled up by Israel? And you are honestly asking why the Palestinians don't make more concessions in these circumstances???

...and we haven't even touched on the issue of the WALL (also illegal, btw).

[TokenJew]

113. Check out the date

that's an old map, pre-withdrawal and pre-Israeli court changing the route of the wall.

[Wordie]

114. It's from February 2005. Any changes have been minor. n/t

[TokenJew]

115. The route was changed shortly thereafter

On February 18, 2005 the Israeli cabinet approved a new route for the barrier which would leave approximately seven percent of the West Bank and 10,000 Palestinians on the Israeli side. Before that time, the exact route of the barrier had not been finalized, and it had been alleged by opponents that the barrier route would encircle the West Bank, separating it from the Jordan valley. However, there is no indication in government plans or work on the ground that support such allegations.

[Englander]

131. Couldn't you find a bigger map? n/t

[Wordie]

134. Apologies. There was no way to reduce the size.

I had posted a small one earlier, but it was so small, that it didn't really tell the story, and there is no way that I know of to reduce the size of an image when posting it on DU.

To me, the chopping up of the Palestinian Territory becomes so much clearer when I can see it graphically. And all the settlements...you can see how many there are.

My apologies to you and anybody else for whom the size may have been problematical.

[Englander]

136. I meant the map in post # 115.

The one you posted was fine, Wordie, it wasn't 3x bigger than it needed to be.
The map in post #112 was perfect.

This one;

[Englander]

128. Link please?

For any of the claims you've made?

[Englander]

138. I thought not. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

88. Glad it helped.

You framed your questions very nicely! :hi: :)

[julianer]

70. Of course there are many, many people

who say that the UK is dominated by US interests.

People in the UK talk about our 'supine' posture before the US. The idea that the US has a determining influence on our foreign policy is absolutely commonplace.

[julianer]

69. Sharon has no desire to see an independent Palestine

He is doing, has done and, if he survives, will do all in his power to prevent an independent Palestinian state worth its name.

His withdrawal from Gaza was part of a strategy to create a security state, encompassing much of present Palestinian land and bordered by the separation wall.

Zionists (extreme Israeli nationalists) want to see a greater Israel that extends far beyond its present borders. The problem is that this land belongs to someone else. The only true peace involves a recognition of the rights of Palestinians who have had their land stolen and also an end to the present racist practices and policies of the Israeli state.

In short there is a mass of propaganda trying to paint this murderer as a 'peace lover'. I suggest you read the Fisk article elsewhere on this thread to see his complicity in the murder of over a thousand Palestinians at Sabra and Chatila.

[TokenJew]

86. Zionists are not extremists

Zionists are believers in a Jewish state. Nothing more or less.


Please cease using the incorrect definition.

[Violet_Crumble]

124. I wasn't sure how to read it...

If Julianer was saying that extreme Israeli nationalist Zionists are extremists, then they're correct. But if they're saying that Zionists are extreme Israeli nationalist extremists, then they're wrong...

Violet...

[julianer]

127. Will you please provide me with one

that isn't offensive. I've been accused of using the word in an anti-semitic way, which is why I qualified by use of it. I have also been criticised on another board for using the word 'nationalist'.

I say extreme nationalist because zionism is obviously a movement about the 'right' to a Jewish state and I say extreme because they don't see a problem in taking other people's land on which to establish their state.

For me saying that zionists are 'simply beleivers in a zionist' state doesn't adequately describe the actions of the zionist movement over the last century or so. They have done much more than 'simply believe' in their project - they have implemented it.

As I say, I await your definition with interest.

[julianer]

68. I asked you on another thread

exactly what 'peace process' Sharon had contibuted to. You didn't answer - perhaps you didn't see my reply.

So what has Sharon done as part of a peace process?

[TokenJew]

85. Gaza

Israel no longer has a presence in Gaza. The Palestinians control Gaza now.

[Violet_Crumble]

123. That wasn't a peace process....

There was no negotiation at all when it came to that. It was done unilaterally and there was no pretence on Sharon's part that it was a peace process. There's a lot of difference between that and Oslo, which even though it did fail, was a peace process...

Violet...

[Englander]

132. No they don't.

'Israel withdrew its military forces and settlers from the Gaza Strip in August and September. Nonetheless, Israel continues to hold responsibility for ensuring the well-being of Gaza's population for as long as, and to the extent that, it retains effective control over the area. Israel still exercises full control over Gaza's airspace, sea space and land borders with Israel as well as its electricity, water, sewage and telecommunications networks and population registry. Under the disengagement plan, Israel reserves the right to reenter Gaza militarily at any time. '

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/22/isrlpa12345.htm

[Colorado Blue]

135. Personal note to Token Jew:

A friend says you should visit this site:)
http://www.cafepress.com/tokin

or if you prefer, this one:

http://www.cafepress.com/aleph

[Englander]

137. Hilarious. n/t

[fujiyama]

19. I'm not one

to look past a person's faults just because they are ill or dying. Sharon had a history of violence. I still would find myself hard pressed to call Sharon a 'good guy', but I do realize that compared to the alternatives, he was much better.

Sharon did have the guts to get Israel out of Gaza, inspite of it cutting him off from his own party. I think that was a courageous move.

Compared to someone like Netanyahu, who is a freakin nutcase, Sharon seems downright moderate.

[High Plains]

20. I would have a much higher opinion of him if he had had the good

grace to die in 1980.

Sabra and Shatila.

[Colorado Blue]

21. Sabra and Shatilla were LEBANESE massacres. Sharon's

guilt in that case was not to have foreseen that the Maronite Christian fighters, bereft over the assassination of their leader, Gemayal, would take take such a bloody action on innocent people in the camps.

The said they were seeking the militants responsible and it turned into a bloodbath, some 800 people were killed with the Israeli army camped nearby.

It was a tragic situation BUT - it was one of many dreadful massacres that occurred during the Lebanese Civil War. The Syrians also committed a massacre in the Palestinian camps, that killed something like 2,000 people and the PLO has been accused by human rights and other Lebanese groups, of being responsible for the deaths of up to 100,000 Lebanese Christians.

They were subsequently evicted from Lebanon; they had previously been evicted from Jordan for trying to kill King Hussein (Black September in Lebanon.) This resulted in a near civil war there, killing some 10,000 people.

People who hate Sharon lack perspective on the world he was living in. He began his career in Israel's first war, which commenced on the first day of her existence, and which was a war that HAD to be won - the consequences of failure don't bear even thinking about. Many believe he saved Israel from catastrophe in the Yom Kippur War of 1973, and indeed the Egyptian commander against whom he fought, has sent his regards and expressed his respect, during this crisis.

Almost immediately after Arafat died, Sharon's outlook began to change radically and he moved dramatically to the center, politically, and engineered the withdrawal from Gaza - a move which caused great angst in Israel and forced at least 8,000 Israelis from their homes and businesses. It was an act of political and personal courage.

Subsequently he formed Kadima, the new centrist party, which hopefully will continue his policies of further withdrawals and the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state. However it will be difficult to find a leader of the stature and charisma of Sharon, who has defended his country in every war since 1948, and who has been able to pull together the often conflicting factions in Israel's outspoken democracy.

Anyone truly interested in peace and in the I/P situation must do a deep study of at least 100 years of history and realize that the situation looks different from any one of several angles. The extreme violence that has gripped the world as a whole, including the Middle East, has left the United States essentially untouched - so it's difficult for us to sit here and judge the actions of a person and of nations who are directly in the line of fire.

Sharon will leave a legacy of a warrior who, in the end, worked hard for peace. That must be respected. And the corrolary must also be acknowledged: the Arabs must lay down their swords as well, and their boycotts and their refusal to admit that Israel exists, and that she can contribute enormously to the future of the Middle East - if only people will open their minds and work TOGETHER to find solutions to the problems that beset all who live in the region.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Englander]

34. Close, but, no cigar.

From the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into
the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut
(The Kahan Commission)
(February 8, 1983)

' >snip

Personal Responsibility

The Minister of Defense, Mr. Ariel Sharon

>snip

Giving the Phalangists the possibility of entering the refugee camps without taking measures for continuous and concrete supervision of their actions there could have created a grave danger for the civilian population in the camps even if they had been given such a possibility before Bashir's assassination; thus this danger was certainly to have been anticipated - and it was imperative to have foreseen it - after Bashir's assassination. The fact that it was not clear which organization had caused Bashir's death was of no importance at all, given the known frame of mind among the combatant camps in Lebanon. In the circumstances that prevailed after Bashir's assassination, no prophetic powers were required to know that concrete danger of acts of slaughter existed when the Phalangists were moved into the camps without the I.D.F.'s being with them in that operation and without the I.D.F. being able to maintain effective and ongoing supervision of their actions there. The sense of such a danger should have been in the consciousness of every knowledgeable person who was close to this subject, and certainly in the consciousness of the Defense Minister, who took an active part in everything relating to the war. His involvement in the war was deep, and the connection with the Phalangists was under his constant care. If in fact the Defense Minister, when he decided that the Phalangists would enter the camps without the I.D.F. taking part in the operation, did not think that that decision could bring about the very disaster that in fact occurred, the only possible explanation for this is that he disregarded any apprehensions about what was to be expected because the advantages - which we have already noted - to be gained from the Phalangists' entry into the camps distracted him from the proper consideration in this instance.

As a politician responsible for Israel's security affairs, and as a Minister who took an active part in directing the political and military moves in the war in Lebanon, it was the duty of the Defense Minister to take into account all the reasonable considerations for and against having the Phalangists enter the camps, and not to disregard entirely the serious consideraton mitigating against such an action, namely that the Phalangists were liable to commit atrocities and that it was necessary to forestall this possibility as a humanitarian obligation and also to prevent the political damage it would entail. From the Defense Minister himself we know that this consideration did not concern him in the least, and that this matter, with all its ramifications, was neither discussed nor examined in the meetings and discussion held by the Defense Minister. In our view, the Minister of Defense made a grave mistake when he ignored the danger of acts of revenge and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population in the refugee camps.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/kahan.html

[Behind the Aegis]

37. self-delete

[Behind the Aegis]

58. No cigar

CB said: "Sabra and Shatilla were LEBANESE massacres. Sharon's guilt in that case was not to have foreseen that the Maronite Christian fighters, bereft over the assassination of their leader, Gemayal, would take take such a bloody action on innocent people in the camps."

Your very own site says: "The Commission determined that the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla was carried out by a Phalangist unit, acting on its own but its entry was known to Israel. No Israeli was directly responsible for the events which occurred in the camps. But the Commission asserted that Israel had indirect responsibility for the massacre since the I.D.F. held the area, Mr. Begin was found responsible for not exercising greater involvement and awareness in the matter of introducing the Phalangists into the camps. Mr. Sharon was found responsible for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge when he approved the entry of the Phalangists into the camps as well as not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed..."

Colorado Blue said: "Sharon's guilt in that case was not to have foreseen that the Maronite Christian fighters, bereft over the assassination of their leader, Gemayal, would take take such a bloody action on innocent people in the camps."

Englander's source said: "Mr. Sharon was found responsible for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge when he approved the entry of the Phalangists into the camps as well as not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed."

Sounds like what CB said.

As she also said, it was one event in his life. There are many others. No one is trying to make him a "saint" but rather, trying to paint him as a complicated individual, much like the situation in Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

67. Thanks for the reality check...

Attempts to distance Sharon from his involvement in the massacres and to paint the Israeli govt as totally innocent aren't really all that convincing...


Violet...

[TokenJew]

81. The reality is that Sabra and Shatilla were but one massacre

There were quite a few in Lebanon during the civil war, including several perpetrated by the Palestinians against the Christians.

[Colorado Blue]

93. Indeed. Somehow people forget about the Christians. They

were massacred by the thousands.

Also, I find it appalling that the massacre of Palestinians by OTHER ARABS results in no outrage.

The Syrians attacked a camp in Lebanon and there are many Palestinians living in camps in Syria to this day. Because it's a closed society we don't really know what is happening to them.

One would think the progressive community would be concerned about this, and about working with regional governments to help the Palestinians receive compensation for their losses and find new homes.

Probably they also need job training and host of other services, which could be provided if people would only find the willpower to do so, and stop waiting around for Israel to die and/or be blown off the map, as a means to "solve the problem."

[TokenJew]

95. The progressive community is full of people who view

the world as narrowly, if not more so, than any Republican you could find. This has been the influence of the hard left (your ANSWERnistas et. al) on the left. The concept that there is not one almighty bad guy that deserves our disdain is as much a part of progressive thought as it is a part of Bush's program. And therein lies the irony: by raging so hard against Bush, the left has essentially adopted many of his tactics.

More on point, it is is not just the progressive community, but the world in general that ignores the crimes the Arab world commits while making sure to emphasize those committed by Israel. Just look at the UN. This is the institution that never cited Syria for the Hama Massacre (up to 20,000 people murdered in a single day), hasn't lifted a finger about Darfur and has spent nearly quarter of its existence damning Israel.

It's no wonder many consider Israel the "Jew" of nations.

[Colorado Blue]

99. Sad but true. Your statement that the hard left has actually

come to sound like Bush is correct, unfortunately.

And the UN - you're right. The Darfur situation should be the focus of UN attention (and leftist attention!) along with Uganda and the Congo, as well as protecting human rights - the rights of women are sadly abrogated - gays - children - minorities - but instead a primary focus is Israel.

The UN is showing SOME signs of reform, though. I believe they have recognized the fact that having some of the worst human rights violators in charge of overseeing human rights violations, is a bit of a sham.

With regard to Israel, sometimes I think the world now has the traditional scapegoat all nicely centralized and isolated. It is scary.

I've done a lot of study this past year on the topic of rising antisemitism, the "new" antisemitism, and unfortunately very few people seem to take this seriously.

This bothers me, and it bothers me that many on the hard Left don't realize how dangerous this is - but also that it seems contrary to progressive ideals to ignore or even foster it.

Beyond that, I wonder if there isn't some holdover from the days of the Soviet Union? Many Socialists, et.al., learned to hate Israel from the days when the Soviets were funding the PLO and other Arab states and militias?

Certain politicians, Galloway for example, seem to be adhering to this line of thought.

Another example of this: reducing Israel's existence to an exercise in "colonialism/imperialism". This strikes me as being both inaccurate, but also reflective of a mid-20th century hard left worldview; and similarly seeing the conflict as an issue of "invaders" vs. "indigenous peoples", which of course is also inaccurate, as is the South African paradigm.

It's a way of applying certain words to a situation, that define it in terms which might be easy to understand, but which are pejorative, even inflammatory; and also which didn't and DON'T, apply to Israel. Those words in and of themselves make it very hard to actually SEE the situation, since their mere presence is blinding.

Also, I've seen some posts that condemn Zionism, along with selectively edited quotes from Herzl, et.al., that seek to cast it in a very negative light, almost a "white supremacist" sort of light. That of course is also innaccurate and unfair, but so is retroactively judging a 19th century situation by 21st century leftist values. Yet, fair or not, this is another of the misinterpretations of Zionism which has entered the political discourse.

[Violet_Crumble]

121. Uh, the UN hasn't lifted a finger about the Israel/Palestine issue either.

And the UN doesn't damn any member state, so that's a totally ridiculous claim to make...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

120. And how many of those involved in massacres are lauded like Sharon?

Apart from that, this thread's about Sharon. Pointing out that other unsavoury characters have done crap things doesn't put him in a shining light or diminish the part he played in the massacre he was found indirectly responsible for...

Violet...

[TokenJew]

80. He was held responsible for his inactions

rather than his actions. He allowed the massacres to occur; his men nor he committed the atrocities.

And seen in the larger context of Damour and the various other Philangist vs. Palestinian massacres, Sabra/Shatilla is but one incident. One which seems to be over reported while the others are under reported.

[Englander]

129. Nice strawman.

Wrong, but nice all the same.

Sharon was found *indirectly*responsible* for the massacre, here's an explanation of the
meaning of the term, from the Kahan Commission Report;


'The Responsibility for the Massacre

In this section of the report, we shall deal with the issue of the responsibility for the massacre from two standpoints: first from the standpoint of direct responsibility - i.e., who actually perpetrated the massacre - and then we shall examine the problem of indirect responsibility, to the extent that this applies to Israel or those who acted on its behalf.'

The idf held the area, the Israeli military & political leaders took the decision to
send the Phalangists into the camp, therefore Sharon & others are *indirectly*responsible*
for the massacre that occured.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TokenJew]

82. I wonder what Fisk has to say about the "ruthless men"

who carried out the attacks in Damour.

[Coastie for Truth]

91. Sabra and Shatilla, and Sunni versus Shiia vs Kurd and

Palestinian versus Israeli, Sunni versus Alawite versus Druze, growth of Wahabism --- all flowed from the carving up of the Turkish Empire at the close of WW 1, from the map redrawing by the Continental European Colonial as they played based on the old rules of "European White Man's Burden" and "Divide and Conquer" and "Manifest Destiny" and "Euro-Centrism" and protection of far flung colonial empires.

ME History did not begin with Nabka or Herzl. It began far far earlier.

To blame the "Zionists" for the sins of the Eurocentic colonizers just shows an ignorance of European History.

[Djinn]

141. the Kahan Commission disagrees with you

they found Sharon PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE

It is utterly disengenuous to give Sharon a pass and you know it,

[Scurrilous]

29. "THE ACCUSED"

RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC-1 DATE: 17:06:01

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_17_06_01.txt


KEANE: Ariel Sharon went to see the Phalange at their headquarters to discuss the Beirut operation.
Among the commanders was a close friend of the murdered Bashir Gemayel, a man called Elie Hobeika.
His name will appear many times in this story. Now, a day after their leader's murder, the Israelis were
asking the Phalange to fight in Palestinian camps.

Could Ariel Sharon have been in any doubt about what would have happened if you sent the Phalangists
into a Palestinian refugee camp, an undefended camp?

MORRIS DRAPER
US Special Envoy to the Middle East, 1982
Well you'd have to be appallingly ignorant. I mean I suppose if you came down from the moon that day you
might not predict it.

[Englander]

38. Another snippet from the BBC Panorama programme -

'>snip

KEANE: But what about those whom the Kahan Commission said had indirect responsibility, those
accused of disregarding the danger to civilians and of failing to ensure the proper protection of civilians in
the areas under their control?

I understand that as a judge of a South African court you don't want to get into labelling people in other
countries as war criminals, but in your assessment of command responsibility, isn't it reasonable to say that
if responsibility goes all the way to the top, to the person who gave the orders, that potentially makes Ariel
Sharon a war criminal.

Judge RICHARD GOLDSTONE
Former Chief Prosecutor
UN War Crime Tribunals, 1994-96
Well it depends very much on the facts, but if the person who gave the command knows, or should know on
the facts available to him or her, that is a situation where innocent civilians are going to be injured or killed,
then that person is as responsible, in fact in my book more responsible even than the people who carry out
the order.

KEANE: One lawyer who was part of an independent commission that investigated Sabra and Shatila
argues that Israel's then Defence Minister had clear legal responsibilities.

Professor RICHARD FALK
International Law, Princeton University
Sharon's specific command responsibility arises from the fact that he was Minister of Defence in touch with
the field commanders, that he actually was present there in Beirut, that he met with the Phalange leadership
and it was he that gave the directions and orders that resulted in the Phalange entering the camps in
September.

KEANE: Professor Falk argues that Ariel Sharon's failure to meet the responsibility to protect civilians
from abuse and death should have legal consequences.

FALK: I think there is no question in my mind that he is indictable for the kind of knowledge that he either
had or should have had.

KEANE: So let me be absolutely clear, you are in no doubt that Ariel Sharon is indictable as a war
criminal.

FALK: No doubt whatsoever.

[Wordie]

142. Some reports say that Sharon told the Phalangists that the Pals

killed Jeymayel. But oh no, he wasn't at all responsible. <:sarcasm:>

Here's more:

...Of course no one will be able to produce a written order signed Ariel Sharon directing the Lebanese militiamen to slaughter civilians in the Sabra/Shatila area. But such a document is not necessary. In most judicial systems -- and certainly in war crimes tribunals -- all that is necessary is evidence of control of the area in which crimes are carried out, and a hierarchy of military command. Let us first remind ourselves of the notion of "command responsibility" as divided into three kinds: a) if the person concerned ordered the criminal acts; b) if he failed to take action to prevent the occurrence of acts that he could reasonably foresee to be a violation of international humanitarian law; c) if having discovered the commission of violations of humanitarian law by his subordinates, he failed to take action to discipline or punish them.

Of the three, the first is of course the most serious, the second and third less so. From this some jurists have argued that while Sharon may be accused of negligence, he cannot be accused of agency. I propose a counter-thesis, that Ariel Sharon knew perfectly well what the Lebanese militiamen were likely to do in the camps, and that he intended the massacre, using non- Israelis as its instrument...

...Sharon's own autobiography supports evidence given in Ze'ev Schiff and Ehud Ya'ari's Israel's Lebanon War that long before the 1982 war began Sharon planned an invasion that would reach Beirut, "take out" the PLO and its infrastructure, and set up a Lebanese government friendly to Israel. The US-brokered Habib Accords, by guaranteeing the security of the civilian population of West Beirut, threatened Sharon's grand strategy. Only terror could bring about the mass flight that would deprive the PLO of any possibility of a come-back. Sharon himself recounts how he proposed to Philip Habib "a swift, fast move...which will cause such heavy casualties to the terrorists that they will not stay there as a military or political factor."

...In assessing the question of "command responsibility" we need to scrutinise Sharon's movements on 15 September, the day the IDF advanced into Beirut and established control of the periphery of Sabra and Shatila. In the early hours of that day IDF Chiefs of Staff met with Lebanese Forces heads (Hobeika, Frem, Abi Nader) to secure their agreement to enter the camps. Sharon himself met with some of them at 9am at the IDF headquarters outside Sabra/ Shatila. Yet after this he found it necessary to go to the Lebanese Forces headquarters in Qarantina, before carrying on to Bikfaya to condole with the Gemayel family. Since the cooperation of the Lebanese Forces for the "cleansing operation" was already secured, what was the reason for the detour to Qarantina? Lawyer and historian Karim Pakradouni, ex- Lebanese Forces spokesman, says that Sharon harangued the mourning militiamen, telling them: "Why weep like women? Take vengeance like men."

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg//2001/545/op1.htm

[Coastie for Truth]

53. Question

How would you have extracted the Maronite Christian militia from Sabra and Shatila?

Please submit a copy of your solution to:
Director
Marine Corps Development and Education Center
Quantico, Virginia

and cc:
"Honorable" Donald Rumsfield
Departmemnt of Defense
Arlington Virginia

[Colorado Blue]

22. Please see post #21. I've tried to explain a few reasons

why you should temper your hatred, if you must hate at all, with respect and understanding.

Shalom.

[Englander]

35. That's a very good suggestion, CB.

I think it would make a suitable slogan;

~~Drop the Hate~~

[JVS]

23. Pat Robertson is a very influential man

Only he can say something so powerfully mean and stupid that people who normally hate Sharon's guts feel sympathy for him.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JI7]

33. a lot of it has to do with what he did in more recent days

and breaking with some of the most extremist types. many realize Bibi would be far worse.

also, no matter what one thinks of Sharon, Pat Robertson's comments are just disgusting to say about almost anyone. especially someone who is currently losing their life.

but of course Pat Robertson already thinks Sharon and all the other non believers are going to end up in hell anyways so we should not be surprised.

[Lithos]

36. All

Currently this thread is being allowed outside of the I/P forum as an exception because Sharon's illness is deemed a major news story. This does not mean that it is not being reviewed appropriately and appropriate behavior given to a topic known to cause problems.

Any attempt to shift this to a discussion of anything but the man, his illness, and the political future caused by the removal of Sharon, will either be removed or cause this thread to be locked along along with appropriate action given to those who hijacked it.

Lithos
DU Moderator

[Maddy McCall]

50. Please put all of this back in the I/P forum.

I can see where an exception might be made in LBN, because changes to his health status would qualify as breaking news. But please wrangle all Sharon discussion and cram it back into the I/P forum. For the good of GD, please.

[bpilgrim]

51. yeah, we can't have an open discussion in GD

if there are going to be opposing vies :eyes:

peace

[Maddy McCall]

52. No, that's not the point.

It's always been in I/P and there's no reason to bring it into GD now. That's my point.

Some of you are so used to the combativeness in I/P that you create the same when none was intended.

[bpilgrim]

54. well the mods have made an exception for some reason

but that is the way i see this nonsense of not being able to discuss these important issues elsewhere.

peace

[Maddy McCall]

57. There is a whole forum devoted to I/P matters.

Is that not enough?

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dogmudgeon]

43. Like most leaders, he's a "mixed bag"

He's done some good things. He's done some REAL BAD things.

As one of those larger-than-life characters, he's done plenty.

Compare Sharon to Bush, for instance. Each have done both good and bad, but Sharon was, as I said, "larger than life". Bush, on the other hand, is a small, petty, little man. Therein lies the difference.

Don't feel bad about the conflict. It's like the props some of us give John McCain -- he's a guy most of us can respect (recent brown-lipped treatment of Bush aside), but he's The Enemy. I would personally oppose just about all his policies if he were to become President. But also note, he may be The Enemy, but he's not petty or little.

Almost nobody is so simple that they can be reduced to a set of decisions they've made -- e.g., Ariel Sharon, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Moammar Khadafi, Joe Lieberman, and other occasional DU hate objects. But, in the case of some people, like George Bush, the caricature is often more complex than the actual man. Most of the Religious Right is like that, too; and Saudi and Iranian mullahs have the same tendency. I guess it comes with the territory.

--p!

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[goclark]

46. GW is not a mixed bag IMO......

He is a CROOK, I can't think of one thing that he has ever done that was done for the good of ALL of us.

[bpilgrim]

47. for more background on the IP conflict see this interesting video...

Focced - the movie - Scott Ritter, Ramsey Clark, Denis Halliday, Stan Goff

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x77259

peace

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AntiCoup2K4]

49. It's not so much that Sharon is a saint......

.....as much it is the fact that the Likud party has become so completely fascist and out of control that they even scared Sharon. And that's saying something. So he formed his own party, drafted Shimon Peres from the Labor party, and this third party suddenly had a huge lead over Likud and Labor.

Most of the concern you see isn't so much for Sharon himself as it is for the continuation of the party he started, and the need to keep Likud and that piece of shit Netanyahu out of power.

Think of Sharon as Reagan and Netanyahu as Chimp, for a good analogy. Reagan was certainly a bastard in his own right, but wouldn't you prefer even his rotting corpse back in the White House right now, if it meant getting Chimpy out of there.

Hell, I was suspicious of Sharon's motivations myself. It's hard to believe that a man who was such a butchering bastard most of his life suddenly wants to do the right thing.

But we KNOW Likud will do the wrong thing. And in conjunction with the PNAC bastards in this country (whom Netanyahu's Likud helped originate) they have some VERY wrong things in mind.

That's probably the best explanation of this soap opera you're going to find.

[UTUSN]

55. Me, too. He gave me (negative) chills when he walked the Temple Mount n/t

[Cocoa]

59. it sounds like you don't know why you hate him

[Wordie]

64. Israel removed 8,475 Gaza settlers; 436,000 settlers remain in West Bank

Your confusion may stem from the rather successful PR campaign to distract from the facts.

This should clarify:

But the Israelis did not get out of Gaza. A big fuss was created about the great sacrifice Israel was making and how painful it was for settlers to leave. If you steal a piece of land and keep it for 20 years, of course it becomes painful to leave it but it is still something stolen that should be returned to its owners. Prior to the disengagement, a total of 152 settlements existed in the occupied territories: 101 in the West Bank, 30 in East Jerusalem, and 21 in the Gaza Strip. These figures do not include the settlements that Sharon and the Israeli army have created in the West Bank without officially recognizing them. With the disengagement, and the evacuation of settlements in Gaza and four small settlements in the Jenin area of the West Bank, 127 settlements have been left in place.

The total population of settlers -- illegal under international law, and under the 2004 ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which states that the separation wall and every settlement in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem must be removed -- numbers some 436,000: 190,000 in Jerusalem, and 246,000 in the West Bank. Just 8,475, or two per cent of the total number of illegal settlers in the occupied territories were removed from the Gaza Strip and Jenin area. Yet in the same period, the settlement population in the West Bank has grown by a massive 15,800.

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=0108062...

[Behind the Aegis]

65. .

:eyes:

[TokenJew]

78. Comparatively, how many militants have the Palestinians arrested?

How many guns and other arms have the PA collected?

While I agree this is not an end to the conflict, it must be viewed not only against what is left to do, but what the Palestinians have/have not done.

and as far as I'm concerned, they've done very little.

[Wordie]

83. The topic was Sharon and the OP question was about the debate about him.

I provided some context for inaccuracy of the "man of peace" label he has recieved for the withdrawal from Gaza.

And when you really get down to it, "withdrawal" is not at all the correct term, as the Israelis still maintain control over Gaza, although they no longer have settlers there.

I appreciate your comment about it not being an end. My concern is that a takeover of the West Bank is going on as we speak, under the cover of a very limited disengagement (Gaza represents only 2% of the occupied territories). It appears to be a "look over there!" strategy.

And tragically, Sharon bears partial responsiblity for the rise of those militant factions, as he treated Abbas as a "no partner" and refused to negotiate with him. What a different position we might be in today if he had been willing to negotiate and had given Abbas some solid and meaningful concessions. Instead, we have the rise of Hamas.

[TokenJew]

84. The alleged takeover of the West Bank

seems to involve expanding existing settlements in the larger settlement blocs, the ones that Sharon has publicly stated Israel will annex. Now, clearly this is a matter of controversy and just because he says so doesn't make it so. However, I look at the Gaza withdrawal as an important first step and one which should have been greeted with an equal step by Abbas. A basic one would have been to establish a rule of law and begin arresting extremists. That would have not only helped Israel and peace, but would have strengthened Abbas himself.

Getting back to the original point, I think it's hard to characterize Sharon as a "man of peace" when one considers his career was built on the blood of many dead people. What i will say is Sharon has always done what he believes was beneficial to Israel even when it seemed to contradict his previous stance. And if anything, that's where the change occurred.

[Wordie]

100. The takeover of the West Bank is what the fighting is about in large part!

And it's hardly "alleged" as you say. There were nearly twice as many new settlers taking land illegally in the West Bank than there were settlers removed from Gaza in the same time period. Sharon removed just 8,475 settlers from Gaza (just 2% of the total number of settlers in the occupied territories); 15,800 new settlers moved into the West Bank.) There are about 436,000 illegal settlers over all. Yet you seem not to recognize this as driving the problems that Israel experiences. (Not to mention that attacks on Israel overall are down by a significantly greater percentage, surely far greater than the 2% withdrawal that the Gaza disengagement represented.)

So, as far as settlement activity is concerned, and return of land, the Gaza withdrawal was a net loss. And Israel continues to have de facto control in Gaza anyway. Israel controls the borders (except for Rafah), the airspace and the utilities. Furthermore, Abbas would have had a better chance of control if Sharon hadn't dismantled the PA's infrastructure in the first place.

As for your comments about Sharon, there we are in greater agreement. He truly was not a man of peace. The problem is that what Sharon thought was good for Israel over the years (the illegal settlement policy was largely his invention), was actually very bad for Israel. Negotiations, treating the Palestinians as genuine partners in the peace process would have been far better.

[Violet_Crumble]

126. I agree with some of what you said...

..and because it's about Sharon (who is the subject of the thread) I'll focus on the second part of yr post:

"Getting back to the original point, I think it's hard to characterize Sharon as a "man of peace" when one considers his career was built on the blood of many dead people. What i will say is Sharon has always done what he believes was beneficial to Israel even when it seemed to contradict his previous stance. And if anything, that's where the change occurred."

First up. Kudos to you for pointing that out. What I find so silly is when people go to extremes, either portraying him as a man of peace who has never had any blood on his hands or as the devil incarnate who is directly to blame for every act of violence in the conflict from the very first day it started. I do believe people can change and turn from hawk to dove, and it has happened in the past in Israel, but in the case of Sharon, his change wasn't from a hawk to a dove, but to a hawk who'd clipped his own wings and bluntened his claws a bit. He gave no indication that he had what it took to negotiate a peace settlement with the Palestinians, and it was clear that he had no sympathy for or empathy with the Palestinian people. If his change had involved the beginnings of negotiations with the Palestinians, I'd think differently, but with his words and actions, his change showed that he was prepared to be pragmatic and give up territory that didn't belong to Israel and could never attain a Jewish majority in order to strengthen his hold on a much larger bit of territory that didn't belong to Israel. What his legacy may be is that his unilateral actions in Gaza could have made the way easier for a future Israeli leader to negotiate a just settlement with the Palestinians and remove most if not all of the settlements from the West Bank. Then again, maybe Bibi could become PM and just roll the tanks back into Gaza and then there won't be any Sharon legacy to remember...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

97. The oldest litigators trick in the Boalt Hall student manual...

scream "The topic was ____ and the OP question was about the debate about ___." if it looks like one of the opponents "protected ones" will get dragged into the discussion.

See a lot of that on I/P.

[pelsar]

125. wordie...soooo typical...

"Sharon bears partial responsiblity for the rise of those militant factions, as he treated Abbas as a "no partner" and refused to negotiate with him."

blaming sharon (israel) for abbas failures (PA failures)....life doesnt work like that, responsable adults take responsability for their situations..and dont go an blame "somebody else"....we do that as kids and are then taught to "grow up"

(those militants of yours are hardly new, they're the fruit of arafat...do i really have to find the dates of when they are came into existance or perhaps you just dont know?)

The PAs situation is the PAs doing...of course perhaps if you would like to excuse israels inactivity about the settlers because of the PAs influence on israel....

[Wordie]

133. You'll notice I said *partial* responsibility. n/t

[TokenJew]

77. well, for one

He has actually accomplished something that no other Israeli leader has done; that being, removing Israelis from Palestinian claimed land. Not sure it makes him a good guy, but it does make one reconsider his legacy.

[pelsar]

92. sharon has done more than removing israelis....

he's the first prime minister to give the palestenains a chance to rule themselves....

he's the one who, at the sametime (at this point in time) has shown the folly of giving them the westbank, since they cant control their own population....and cant control those that insist on trying to kill israelis with missles

With the above two, he's created a general concensus in israel, that the palesteanians first have to learn to create a lawful society before israel can endanger its knesset and other institutions that would be in range of their kassams from the westbank.....

i shall recall abbas statement last week, about the kassams being israels problem and not his...

________________________________

and for those who disagree with the above, please see the post about suggestions for stopping them, or explain how the general chaos in gaza today would not happen in the far more complex west bank....

[Colorado Blue]

94. Sharon was not only the first Israeli to give the Palestinians

a chance to rule themselves - I think he was the first person PERIOD.

That should stand for something. And I hope it's an opportunity that won't be squandered, but built upon, something good to carry into the future.

[julianer]

130. It is not the role of an Israeli politician

to 'give' chances to Palestinians. It is to lead a government that respects international law.

[Colorado Blue]

139. SOMEBODY had to give the Palestinians a chance. There

never has been an independent Palestinian political entity, though there could have been one in 1948 and thereafter, most recently under Arafat.

No, it shouldn't have been the duty of an Israeli. It should have been the duty the of the Arab leaders in 1948. It should have been the duty of Yassir Arafat.

[Wordie]

110. The wonderful thing about the "Sharon Legacy"...

is that it might be exactly the thing that leads to peace, just not in the way Sharon himself may have desired or wanted. In a recent Israeli newspaper poll, 49% of the respondents said they would consider the return of the Palestinian parts of Jerusalem, as well as other territory. It may be that all the talk about him beind a "man of peace" (although false imo), will be what ultimately prepares the Israeli public to do what they must do.

Btw, do you think the results of this survey means that 49% of the Israeli public are now "loony leftists"?

[Coastie for Truth]

111. No.

The "loony leftists" are the ones that want a "single state" solution, with the Israelis going back to the "Pale of Settlement" and Muslim Lands from whence they came --

[pelsar]

118. israeli public...

the israeli public in general has no problem in helping the palestenains get a state on the westbank, gaza and even jerusalem.....

thats not the problem...the problem is with the palestenians, you may not like to hear it, but open your eyes. Gaza is now in 'self-rule mode", with chaos and the result is that israel is attacked daily....with the governing body explaining that its not their problem.

Jenin, the local boys have told the intl observers to "get out of town"......

if the palestenians get the west bank its pretty clear that there will be no single governing body to control the different factions, just as they cant control them in gaza..and that will lead to mortors and kassams within israel from another direction directly onto a major city.

We'v been there before, and didnt like it the first time, no need to repeat the experience.

so far you've not even responded to what israel should do about the kassams, if anything, perhaps you think that they are a "legal response"..if so, say it clearly, if not, propose a solution.

for with the continuing chaos in gaza and missles flying daily, it would be foolish beyond stuipidity to give the palestenains more land so they can expand their chaos (and in fact, i would suggest that many in the westbank looking at gaza today may have some second thoughts about it as well....at least for the short term)

[occuserpens]

117. The idea is actually quite simple

Arik is presented as a centrist dove. This way, hyper-rightists to the right from him are presented as center-right while far-rightists to the left from him appear to be center-left.