View Full Version : Ariel Sharon
joeSoap
13/01/2006, 10:58 AM
I wonder if anyone would be upset if this guy died screaming?? I know I wouldn't.:mad:
dcfcsteve
13/01/2006, 11:35 AM
I personally wouldn't be so harsh.
Sharon is everything that Trimble should've been in Northern Ireland. He'd shown himself to be tough and very much working in the selfish interests of the state of Israel in the past (which is where a lot of the unsavoury stuff occurred), but he then cashed-in that clout to force through unpalatable changes that literally no-one else could've made to the State.
Without Sharon there would still be Jewish settlements in Gaza. Without Sharon, withdrawal from the West Bank would still be a Palestinian pipe-dream, whereas it is now largely an inevitability whether he survives or not. And without Sharon there wouldn't be a centrist moderate party in Israel - let alone one that looks likely to assume the reins of government (even without him).
So the guy undoubtedly did bad things in his previous military roles. But rather than take the easy route and lord around in leadership off the back of those, he instead used them to force through unpalatable changes that no-one else would've had the clout/trust to do. The Midlle East is currently a better place for his political leadership.
The fact that the Palestinian authorities themselves are unnerved by Sharon's illness says it all. The fact that the second Intifada has ceased after 5 years also says a lot.
So - rather than not be upset if Sharon dies screaming, I'm more upset that there's no equivalent to him ANYWHERE in the Arab world (and particularly amongst the Palestinians). The Palestinias and the rest of the Arab world need somee who likewise has the balls and raw leadership required to make the decisions required for peace, dragging those pathetic regimes into the 21st Century and making a brave Arab contribution to Middle Eastern peace.
finlma
13/01/2006, 11:47 AM
Without Sharon there would still be Jewish settlements in Gaza. Without Sharon, withdrawal from the West Bank would still be a Palestinian pipe-dream, whereas it is now largely an inevitability whether he survives or not. And without Sharon there wouldn't be a centrist moderate party in Israel - let alone one that looks likely to assume the reins of government (even without him).
Without Sharon the women and children of Sabra & Shatila would not have been raped and horribly murdered.
I hope the man dies a slow painful death. I rate him along with Hitler.
joeSoap
13/01/2006, 12:04 PM
I have been (understandably) asked by the moderator to expand upon my reasons for opening this thread, and wishing a slow painful death on someone.
My opinion of Ariel Sharon is that he is one of the all time worst butchers of human life in history. I despise him and every thing he stands for. I believe that any human rights advocate on this planet feels the same way, and yes, wishing a cruel death upon him is probably hypocrisy and contradiction on my part. I refer primarily to 1982 and the massacres at Shatila and Sabra. This was mass genocide perpretrated by Sharon. He has brought misery and suffering to many hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
In 1953, he founded and led the "101" special commando unit which carried out retaliatory operations.
As commander of the notorious Unit 101, Sharon led attacks on Palestinian villages in which women and children were killed.
The massacre in the West Bank village of Qibya, on October 14, 1953, was perhaps the most notorious. His troops blew up 45 houses and 69 Palestinian civilians -- about half of them women and children -- were killed.
The U.S. Department of State issued a statement on 18 October 1953, expressing its "deepest sympathy for the families of those who lost their lives" in the Qibya attack as well as the conviction that those responsible "should be brought to account and that effective measures should be taken to prevent such incidents in the future." (Department of State Bulletin, Oct. 26, 1953, p. 552).
Sharon was appointed commander of a paratroop brigade in 1956 and fought in the Sinai Campaign.
On 16 August, 1995, Ohad Gozani in Tel Aviv, writing for The Daily Telegraph, in an article entitled, "Israelis Admit Massacre", reported:
"Reports of how Israeli paratroopers killed about 270 Egyptian prisoners of war 40 years ago are straining relations between the two countries. Egypt has demanded an investigation into the alleged atrocities, which date back to Israel's involvement in the 1956 Anglo-French campaign to take the Suez Canal.
The killings were revealed in a paper on the Sinai campaign commissioned by the army's military history division. They were described in graphic detail in newspaper and television interviews.In all, 273 Egyptians, some of them Sudanese civilian road workers, were killed in three separate incidents, according to the accounts.
Arye Biro, a retired army general, admitted shooting the Sudanese at a quarry two days into the campaign at strategic Mitla Pass in central Sinai. Mr. Biro, then a company leader in the 890 Paratroop battalion, said the 49 terrified prisoners were taken into a quarry and shot dead. He said: "We couldn't take care of anything else before we got done with them. One escaped with bullets in the chest and in the leg, but came back on all fours because he was thirsty. He soon joined his [dead] comrades."
Mr. Biro said he and his troops later killed 56 Egyptian soldiers and irregulars as they were advancing in a truck to the oil port of Ras-al-Sudr on the Gulf of Suez.
"Six survived the initial bursts of gunfire," he said. "They later went to sleep with the rest. Blood was coming out of every hole in the flatbed truck and in huge quantities."
A witness told the newspaper: "When the rear flap was lowered, all the bodies poured out in one mass. I couldn't bear the thought that we shot people without a fight." Another 168 Egyptian soldiers were cut down as the paratroopers headed South.
As minister of defense in 1982, Sharon orchestrated Israel's invasion of Lebanon, a military operation that killed tens of thousands of civilians as Israeli forces sought to destroy the Palestine Liberation Organisation's infrastructure in the region. According to the statistics published in the Third World Quarterly (Volume 6, Issue 4, October 1984, pp. 934-949), over 29,500 Palestinians and Lebanese were either killed or wounded from 4 July 1982 through to 15 August 1982, 40 percent were children. Israel's stated motive for its "Operation Peace for Galilee" invasion of Lebanon was to bring peace to frontline Israeli communities in Northern Galilee. In fact, the disastrous events of 1982-85 were the very catalysts of the Hizbullah Shi'a resistance movement in South Lebanon. Previous to Israel's military interventionism in the early 1980s, the Shi'a of south Lebanon had not professed any aggression or hostility towards the Israelis.
Ariel Sharon is responsible for the massacre of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, on the southern outskirts of Beirut. The slaughter in the two contiguous camps at Sabra and Shatila took place from the evening of September 16, 1982 until the morning of September 18, 1982, in an area under the control of the Israeli armed forces. The perpetrators were members of the Phalange (Kata'eb, in Arabic) militia, the Lebanese force that was armed by and closely allied with Israel since the onset of Lebanon's civil war in 1975. Prior to the massacre, Sharon had meetings with the Phalange forces.
For over 60 hours -- aided by an Israeli siege around the camps and guided by the light of Israeli flares -- forces belonging to the Israeli-allied Phalangist militia went through the camps, killing Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. Some were lined up against walls and mown down by machine-gun fire. Others were left in heaps on the floors of their homes or on the streets of the camps. Children were shot dead, women and girls were raped and mutilated and men were disembowelled prior to being executed.
The precise number of victims of the massacre may never be exactly determined. The International Committee of the Red Cross counted 1,500 at the time of the massacre but by September 22 this count had risen to 2,400. On the following day 350 bodies were uncovered so that the total then ascertained had reached 2,750. Israeli military intelligence estimated that 700 to 800 were killed.
"The Israelis established observation posts on top of multi-storey buildings in the north-west quadrant of the Kuwaiti Embassy. From these posts, the naked eye has a clear view of several sections of the camps, including those parts of Shatila where piles of bodies were found."
(Source: Newsweek, 4 October 1982, Ray Wilkinson; The Guardian, 20 September 1982; and The New York Times, 26 September 1982.)
"Throughout the night flares lit up the sky. They were fired at the rate of two a minute, as reported by an Israeli soldier from a mortar unit."
(Source: The Jerusalem Post, 21 September 1982.)
From 1992 to 1996, he served as a member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.
In 1996, Ariel Sharon was appointed Minister of National Infrastructure and was involved in fostering joint ventures with Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinians.[
Yet again, Sharon was in charge of settlement construction. In the post-Oslo period, Israel established 30 new settlements and thus nearly doubled the settler population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip from 109,000 in 1993 to nearly 200,000 in 1999 (figures exclude new settlements in the greater Jerusalem metropolitan area). Source: Foundation for Middle East Peace.
Only four months before his election, the ever-confrontational Sharon visited al-Haram ash-Sharif on 28 September 2000 and sparked off the Second Palestinian Intifada that has so far seen 393 Palestinians killed up to March 8th, according to the Palestine Red Crescent Society. On 19 October 2000, the United Nations Human Rights Commission, meeting in an emergency session, adopted a resolution titled, "Grave and massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel," which condemned:
"the provocative visit to Al-Haram al-Sharif on 28 September 2000 by Ariel Sharon, the Likud party leader, which triggered the tragic events that followed in occupied East Jerusalem and the other occupied Palestinian territories, resulting in a high number of deaths and injuries among Palestinian civilians."
A NOTE ON SHARON'S RECORD AND INTERNATIONAL LAW:
War crimes and crimes against humanity are particularly henious crimes. Responding to the atrocities committed in the course of the second World War, the international community set itself an objective to combat such crimes. This ambition has found expression in a number of international treaties, notably under the aegis of the United Nations.
Article 147 of the Convention states that the grave breaches noted in Article 146 include willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
dcfcsteve
13/01/2006, 1:15 PM
Without Sharon the women and children of Sabra & Shatila would not have been raped and horribly murdered.
And without Sharon, such incidents would possibly still be occurring in Israel now - and would continue happening for probably many more decades to come.....
No-one is denying that Sharon did some very bad things in his years in the military - I am not a historical revisionist, nor am I an apologist for him. But at the same time someone in Israel needed the bravery/balls to stand-up and say 'This current situation cannot continue endlessly. The only way to stop it is to do some things that will be very unpopular, but which we must do to bring our country peace'.
Sharon's ruthless reputation as a military leader put him in the unique position of having the trust of the people that was required to do this. The easy thing for Sharon to do would've been to continue the status quo in Israel - seeing out his political career and life the easy way, with his reputation as a military 'hero' untarnished. Instead, he choose to take the difficult and unpopular route to do what was right for the longer term interests of Israel and peace in the Middle East.
His contribution in this way cannot be ignored. It doesn't in any way make up for what he did in the past - but likewise it does provide some redemption to his legacy. No matter how belatedly and regardless of his motives, Sharon has gone down the route of a peace-maker. I personally would not wish death to anyone who is working for peace - particularly in such a troubled place as the Holy Land.
And for anyone to compare him to Hitler is absolutely absurd.
Paisley in Northern Ireland is in many ways a character similar to Sharon. Paisley has constantly been seen as the arch-defender of Ulster, and in this way has a lot of trust from the protestant community. If only he had the wisdon, intelligence, vision and courage to lead the Unionist community down its own route of unpopular but necessary changes in-order to provide real peace and protect their position in the longer term.
finlma
13/01/2006, 1:23 PM
And without Sharon, such incidents would possibly still be occurring in Israel now - and would continue happening for probably many more decades to come.....
Don't for one minute think that the Gaza withdrawal had anything to do with the good of the Palestinian people or peace - it did not. Sharon is looking after his people, his own greedy interests and the horrible doctrine of Zionism.
I hate him and all he stands for and as JoeSoap said so should any human rights advocate. He is responsible for the murder of thousands including women and children - how can he have any good points.
I stand by my slow and painful death comments - the more painful the better.
If you dwell too much on the past there is no hope of changing for the future.
The Israelis & Palestinians need strong leaders to keep their factions in check. Without Sharon as said already would be no hope of Israel moving out of Gaza which is surely a big move forward...?
dcfcsteve
13/01/2006, 1:54 PM
Don't for one minute think that the Gaza withdrawal had anything to do with the good of the Palestinian people or peace - it did not. Sharon is looking after his people, his own greedy interests and the horrible doctrine of Zionism.
Withdrawing from Gaza is actually anti-Zionism. The doctrine of Zionism declares that the Israeli's have a biblical right to all the land that is currently the state of Israel, plus sizeable chunks of Jordan and arguably also Sinai.
I hate him and all he stands for and as JoeSoap said so should any human rights advocate. He is responsible for the murder of thousands including women and children - how can he have any good points.
I stand by my slow and painful death comments - the more painful the better.
Let's not forget that people like Gerry Adams and Nelson Mandela were 'terrorists', and themselves directly and indirectly responsible for the death of innocents - including everyone's beloved women and children (though how killing a defenceless woman is considered less acceptable than killing a defenceless man, I fail to understand...!?). Times change, as often do people. Regardless of his motives, Sharon moved from actions that were clearly against the casue of peace in the Middle East to promoting actions that were aiding that cause.
finlma
13/01/2006, 2:01 PM
If you dwell too much on the past there is no hope of changing for the future.
Sure there'd be no need for prisons then Pete - forgive and foget. The fact that a man who was is responsible for the massacre of thousands of innocent people is allowed to run a country says a lot about Israel. They will stop at nothing to protect their own interests.
The Gaza withdrawal was nothing more than a symbolic gesture and they've shelled it plenty of times since that withdrawal with no good reason.
finlma
13/01/2006, 2:12 PM
Let's not forget that people like Gerry Adams and Nelson Mandela were 'terrorists', and themselves directly and indirectly responsible for the death of innocents
Adams, Mandela, Guevara, whoever else were fighting for the freedom of their people. Sharon is fighting to supress the Palestinians. To say that Sharon is leading a fight for peace is seriously misguided in my books. I've done a lot of research into the Israel/Arab conflict and he is one of the main perputrators of agression and the last man to look for a peaceful route to solve a solution. A leopard doesn't change his spots and Sharon never has.
Issues are rarely black & white so very difficult to criticise Israel & not hold the Palestinians to the same standards.
dahamsta
13/01/2006, 2:44 PM
And without Sharon, such incidents would possibly still be occurring in Israel now - and would continue happening for probably many more decades to come.....I hate this argument, it's just plain meaningless unless you're saying that those incidents are ok, which of course you aren't. So why bother? They happened, and although they may have happened anyway without Sharon around, they did happen with him around, so he is responsible. That makes him a war criminal, period, end of story.
adam
dcfcsteve
13/01/2006, 2:55 PM
I hate this argument, it's just plain meaningless unless you're saying that those incidents are ok, which of course you aren't. So why bother? They happened, and although they may have happened anyway without Sharon around, they did happen with him around, so he is responsible. That makes him a war criminal, period, end of story.
adam
Doing something wrong is clearly bad.
But which is better - for a person to continually do something wrong ad-infinitum, or for them to stop doing it at some point? Both regard actions that are clearly wrong - but one route is obviously more desireable than the other....
I've lost my bearings. I thought it was only Pat Robertson who said that Sharon deserved to suffer.
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_06018robertson.shtml
Even if an agonising death was an appropriate response, I would not ever wish that the medical clinicians, who are attempting to care for him, should see anyone suffering in such a way.
dcfcsteve
13/01/2006, 3:05 PM
Adams, Mandela, Guevara, whoever else were fighting for the freedom of their people.
It's never that simple Finlma. Guevara wasn't even Cuban ffs ! He was an Argentinian who had bought lock, stock and barrel into Marxist revolutionary ideology and then whorred himself around South and Central America trying to make it happen. He was largely unsuccessful, with only his struggle in Cuba bearing fruit, and he eventually died in pursuit of that revolutionary doctrine in a holoe in Bolivia. So he was CLEARLY not fighting for the freedom of "his people" (spending most of his time involved in non-Argentinian causes) - just HIS IDEOLOGY.
There were plenty of individuals "fighting for their people" in Ireland and South Africa - some of whom were direct and bloody competitors in between each other (IRA V INLA / Stickies v provos etc). Why ? Because they were first and foremost fighting for their own vision of freedom for their people. Many of them would be just as happy killing a competitor within their own struggle than killing a member of the declared common enemy. Let's not get all misty-eyed about the motivations of political and military leaders - Adams was just as happy/willing to sanction the bombing of a pub in downtown Belfast as Sharon was to sanction the shelling of a house in a Palestinian settlement. Both were acting in pursuit of their own narrow vision of 'fighting' for their people. Both have since expanded that vision to encompass less reliance on military means.
Sharon is... the last man to look for a peaceful route to solve a solution.
And if the last man to do that is lying on his deathbed, then peace in the Middle East is fecked - as are arguably the Palestinians.....
dahamsta
13/01/2006, 3:32 PM
But which is better - for a person to continually do something wrong ad-infinitum, or for them to stop doing it at some point?It depens on the wrongdoing. In my view, Sharon's doings should have precluded him from his position, and should preclude him from any respect from anyone, ever. It's not parking offenses he oversaw...
I could use a certain moustachioed gentleman to make the point more forcefully, but I won't for fear of falling foul of Mr Godwin.
adam
A face
13/01/2006, 3:44 PM
I dunno ... i just find it had to take a guy with two girls names seriously .... Ariel Sharon, pftt !! :rolleyes:
:)
finlma
13/01/2006, 3:45 PM
It's never that simple Finlma. Guevara wasn't even Cuban ffs !
Thats an argument for another day. Just watch Motorcycle Diaries last night actually, good flick.
Like Adam said Sharon should never have gotten into the postion he got but the Israeli's love thier aggresive hawks.
rebs23
13/01/2006, 4:01 PM
but the Israeli's love thier aggresive hawks.
I suppose in fairness to the Israeli's that's got something to do with concentration camps, ww2 etc and being surrounded by states that did not accept the right of the Israeli state to exist and numerous attempts over the years by those countries surrounding them to invade etc, etc.
A face
13/01/2006, 5:31 PM
I suppose in fairness to the Israeli's that's got something to do with concentration camps, ww2 etc and being surrounded by states that did not accept the right of the Israeli state to exist and numerous attempts over the years by those countries surrounding them to invade etc, etc.
Not in a position to comment cos i aint fully up to speed on whats going on out there, or the history etc.but would i be rightin saying that Israel have never done anything to appease the situation with their neighbours ?? Thats the way it seems anyway.
dcfcsteve
13/01/2006, 5:52 PM
It depens on the wrong doing. In my view, Sharon's doings should have precluded him from his position, and should preclude him from any respect from anyone, ever. It's not parking offenses he oversaw...
Regardless of the actions of Sharon etc, the ultimate aim in the Middle East is to secure peace. Now - that will probablly be an imperfect peace in Palestinian eyes, given the dominant position of the Israeli's. But that is the political reality that has to be worked within. The alternative is endless violence in the Holy Land ad Infinitum - you cannot just pretend the reality that is there doesn't exist.
As the ultimate aim is to secure peace, the question then becomes what is the best way to do that and who is best placed to deliver - all the while acknowledging the political realities of the situation. I ask you to name me one other Israeli leader who had the kudos and political power of Sharon to make the changes that will be the Israeli contribution towards the imperfect peace (but opeace none-the-less ) in Israel ? The only other Israeli leader I can think of EVER who was working towards the same goal as Sharon was Rabin. And he's dead. So - bearing in mind the ULTIMATE AIM of the best possible peace within the political realities of the Middle East, who else do you think would've delivered ?????
Also - there are people in East Belfast and elsewhere who use exactly the same language to describe Gerry Adams as that which is being used about Sharon here. Should Gerry Adam's/Martin McGuinness's IRA pasts stop them from assuming any position North or South ? What about the Derry man who blew up our city hall (the Guildhall) in the 1970's, but is now an elected Councillor in that same hall ? What about DeValera and numerous other 1920's Irish 'terrorists' ? So should Nelson Mandela's terrorist past have stopped him from becoming President of South Africa ?
The ultimate aim is more important than sating individual people/groups thirst for revenge. If the price of Sharon not coming to power in Israel was the guaranteed continuation of serious violence there for another 20 years - would that be an appropriate sacrifice made in order to 'punish' one man ? And who would the retribution have hurt most - Sharon, or the Palestinians ?
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Likewise, one man's state oppressor is another man's security enforcer. Time's change, views change, and most importantly - political realities change. If people who'd done things that were 'wrong' in the past were forbidden from political office, we'd have failed states in numerous trouble-spots around the world, and little hope of changing them. When time and political realities change, it's time to move with them. Or would we all rather the Intifada was in full-flow, Israel had troops in Lebanon and was building more settlements in Gaza, the IRA was still bombing Britain and Ireland, blacks were still an oppressed minority in South Africa etc....??
If the world adopted the same attitude to Sharon that some people have on here, then we'd never make progress on anything. Sometimes the unpalatable has to be swallowed, as it is the only way to ensure the ultimate aim/good is delivered.
dcfcsteve
13/01/2006, 5:56 PM
Not in a position to comment cos i aint fully up to speed on whats going on out there, or the history etc.but would i be rightin saying that Israel have never done anything to appease the situation with their neighbours ?? Thats the way it seems anyway.
What neighbours - the Palestinians or the surrounding Arab states ?
A face
13/01/2006, 6:14 PM
What neighbours - the Palestinians or the surrounding Arab states ?
The Arab states around them, when i said "haven't done anything" .... i meant convincingly, in the eyes of the world.
Poor Student
13/01/2006, 7:01 PM
I think DCFCSteve is absolutely right here. There's no room for moral absolutes in such bitter reconciliation processes. A line has to be drawn and a lot of pride and bitterness swallowed to move on. I will be sad to see Sharon's political career and possibly life ended. I admire the leadership he has offered the last few years. He has shown a drive and energy and a willingness to step up onto the plate with real actions as Steve said if only he had an equivalent on the other side.
dcfcsteve
13/01/2006, 8:07 PM
The Arab states around them, when i said "haven't done anything" .... i meant convincingly, in the eyes of the world.
A Face - I'm not being rude when I say this, but I strong suggest youy swot-up a bit on the Middle East. Exactly what are you saying that Israel hasn't done for its neighbours ? None of Israel's surrounding Arab states have any genuine continuing inter-state grievances against Israel, bar the ideological and theological issue of whether it should exist at all. Let's go through all the possible issues.
AGGRESSION
The historical balance of aggression between Israel and its Arab neighbours is heavily weighted in the Israeli's favour. Since its foundation, every country surrounding Israel has at one time or other in its history had a declared aim of seeking the destruction/removal of the Israeli state. Some still do. In that time, the Israeli state has faced 3 unprovoked attacks/invasions from its neighbours. On the one occassion that Israel attacked them (1967 6 day war), it was ostensibly at least a pre-emptive response to aggression from Egypt (who was massing troops on the Israeli border, and banned Israeli shipping from its waters). Israel was guilty of invading the Lebanon in 1982 when that state was collapsing in civil war, though that was ostensibly to stop PLO bombing of Northern Israel. Lebanon was also invaded by Syria at that time, who as we know have only just left - which shows that the Arabs are just as happy to invade their Arab neighbours as is Israel.
LAND
There are 2 swathes of land within the current Israeli state that they took from their neighbours. Both were seized during the 6-day war in 1967. The only other large chunk of land Israel ever took form its neighbours - the Sinai penninsula from Egypt - was also siezed in 1967, but was returned in 1979. The West Bank was taken from Jordan. Jordan recognises that it won't be getting it back, and is happy for the Palestinians to have it as their 'state'. That leaves the Golani Heights. Syria would love that back - but that is as much due to their ideological opposition to the state of Israeli as it is a desire to see a small chunk of land returned to them. The Gaza Strip, meanwhile, was an historical anomoally that didn't technically belong to anyone. Egypt looked after it until the 6 day war, when Israel siezed it and had international control up until it was handed over to the Palestinian Authority.
So there are no disputes between Israel and its neighbours based purely on land.
PEACE AGREEMENTS
Let me begin by again stating that the Arab's have historically been the aggressors in the Arab-Israeli wars (I'm talkling here about international relations, not Israel's attitude towards the Palestinians). Israel was still technically at war with its neighbours until Egypt recognised their right to exist and signed a peace deal in 1979, and Jordan did similarly in 1994. Syria and Lebanon have yet to sign peace deals with Israel
REFUGEES
The biggest inter-state issue is that of Palestinian refugees. This is of particular note for Jordan, where c.20% of the population are Palestinian. They have had to share the burden of the Plaestinians who fled/were kicked out of Israel during the various wars (particularly 1967). Israel steadfastly refuses to recognise their right to return, which is a stumbling block in negotiations. However - it should also be pointed out that the Arabs themselves are guilty of using the Plaestinian refugees as a political football. The standing of the refugees in Jordan is poor - with many of them still living in shanty developments 40 years after they first arrived. There is also animosity from a lot of Jordanians towards the Plaestinians (as I noticed myself whilst travelling there). If Jordan is so concerned for the welfare of its Palestinian brothers, why not seek to lift the position of those who've been within their borders for 40 years?
A Face - I really don't know what you're claiming Israel needs to do with respect its neighbours ? What have they not done, let alone not doing convincingly ???
Bald Student
13/01/2006, 8:32 PM
That leaves the Golani Heights. Syria would love that back - but that is as much due to their ideological opposition to the state of Israeli as it is a desire to see a small chunk of land returned to them.I think you're dismissing Syria's position here a bit quickly. Israel took the land in a defensive war and international law says they have to give it back. The only reason Israel want to keep it is because it's nice. It has vinyards and a ski resort. That's not a good enough reason to keep bits of a country and it's reasonable for Syria to continue to be hostle towards Israel untill it's returned.
Israel is quite clearly trying to expand it's borders and some of it's neighbours clearly would like to see israel disappear. Both opinions are equally wrong and both sides are equally to blame.
A face
13/01/2006, 8:41 PM
A Face - I really don't know what you're claiming Israel needs to do with respect its neighbours ? What have they not done, let alone not doing convincingly ???
Well, thats me back in my box for a while !! :p
Éanna
14/01/2006, 12:12 AM
I suppose in fairness to the Israeli's that's got something to do with concentration camps, ww2 etc
Thats the tired old argument that Israel's allies always bring out- it wasn't the ****ing arabs who committed a holocaust- if the jews/zionists wanted their own country, why wasn't it formed on German soil, or in Europe where most of them came from.
Ibeing surrounded by states that did not accept the right of the Israeli state to exist and numerous attempts over the years by those countries surrounding them to invade etc, etc.What right DOES Israel have to exist?! I'd love it if someone could finally give me ONE valid reason why a group of people have the right to march into another country, boot out the rightful occupants (and slaughter them if they resist) and declare it theirs, and STILL receive the support of the international community. Israel exists only because Europe (and the US) had a guilty conscience.
Éanna
14/01/2006, 12:23 AM
I hope Sharon suffers as much pain, agony and torture as every single one of the murdering *******'s victims. The man is a muderer, a killer and a war criminal and the support he received from the israeli public is indisputable proof of the fact that the country heralded as a shining example of democracy in the middle east is nothing but a right-wing genocidal entity committed to as much murder and mayhem as they can get away with to cement their position in their made-up country.
FFS, there was moral outrage (and quite rightly too) in Austria when Waldheim was elected president due to his past, yet apparently its ok in Israel because of something that happened 50 years ago- its double standards and its disgusting.
As for people saying he was a force for peace in recent times?! Come on- he (and many Israelis) knew that they've been pushing their luck in recent times and the solution he attempted was utterly pragmatic. it was a case of "lets grab as much as we possibly can and give away what we won't be able to hang onto anyway, but lets make it look like we're doing it for the goodness of our health." If anyone wants to think about solution- get onto the UN and have a look at the resolutions passed there. Resolutions which apply to every other country bar Israel it seems.
And to compare Gerry Adams or Nelson Mandela to Sharon?! IMO, its bad enough mentioning Mandela in the same sentence as Adams, never mind a butcher like Sharon. Get real. What ever the crimes of Mandela and Adams, whatever violence they used, it was nothing on the scale of what Sharon was responsible for. And another thing- both Adams and Mandela served time in prison for their crimes (real and/or trumped up charges). How long was Sharon locked away for?!
The man is a butcher and I hope he suffers unimaginable pain. And any concern for those treating him deserves total contempt- what person in their right mind would administer any sort of aid to scum like Sharon?
dcfcsteve
14/01/2006, 4:16 AM
I think you're dismissing Syria's position here a bit quickly. Israel took the land in a defensive war and international law says they have to give it back. The only reason Israel want to keep it is because it's nice. It has vinyards and a ski resort. That's not a good enough reason to keep bits of a country and it's reasonable for Syria to continue to be hostle towards Israel untill it's returned.
Israel is quite clearly trying to expand it's borders and some of it's neighbours clearly would like to see israel disappear. Both opinions are equally wrong and both sides are equally to blame.
Ballax. Firstly on Golani, the juxtapositioned word 'Heights' might give a clue as to why Israel wants to retain it. It's because it overlooks the plateau of Northern Israel, and therefore has immense strategic military importance. This is a nation that has been attacked physically/militaristically by its neighbours on numerous occassions, and that is still effectively at war with a number of them - including Syria As if after 50 years of threat they genuinely give a feck about ski resorts and vineyards, let alone the fact that it is "nice" !! It's a country under a permanent state of siege - not an 18-30's club. Have you been to the Golani ? It's primarily a lump of elevated rock. They'd be a thousand times more concerned about it as the source of the River Jordan than as a ski resort. Catch yourself on..... :rolleyes:
Secondly - what is your evidence to support the view that Israel is "quite clearly trying to expand its borders" ? The last 2 changes to the state of Israel were the country giving land away - Gaza to the Palestinians (who have made a right dog's arse of the area since) and Sinai to the Egyptians. They also withdrew from Lebanon years before the Lebanese's Arab 'brothers' from Syria did. If you're going to claim the so-called 'peace wall' is Israel trying to expand its borders - the simple fact is that it currently owns/controls the land on both sides. How can you expand your state within territory you already own/control ?? It'd be like claiming a wall built through the middle of South Armagh was the British trying to claim more land !!
Student Mullet
14/01/2006, 5:14 AM
Secondly - what is your evidence to support the view that Israel is "quite clearly trying to expand its borders" ?See your first paragraph, they've kept the Golan Heights for one.
Israel currently controls all of it's own teritory and some of its neighbours' which they show no sign of giving back. They've even gone so far as to settle people into the west bank. They obviously wouldn't have done that if they didn't plan to stay.
Your south Armagh analogy is not apt because it's land Britain has controlled for about half a millinum now and the land is internationally recognised as belonging to Britain. The West Bank and the Golan Heights are not a part of Israel and the Israeli's are trying to make that control permanant by settelling people into the area (much like Britain did in Ulster 500 years ago).
dcfcsteve
14/01/2006, 5:20 PM
See your first paragraph, they've kept the Golan eights for one.
Israel currently controls all of it's own teritory and some of its neighbours' which they show no sign of giving back. They've even gone so far as to settle people into the west bank. They obviously wouldn't have done that if they didn't plan to stay.
They've owned Golani and the West Bank since 1967 - almost 40 years ago. That's very, very past tense, and doesn't equate to looking to expand their territory NOW as is being suggested. Unless we're going to also accuse the French of currently looking to expand their territory - as they fought against Algerian Independence in the 60's; the English of looking to expand their territory by resisting Kenyan Independence in the 60's; the Russians of looking to expand theirs, through suppressing the Prague riots in 1968 etc etc :rolleyes: Ridiculous....
The West Bank and the Golan Heights are not a part of Israel and the Israeli's are trying to make that control permanant by settelling people into the area (much like Britain did in Ulster 500 years ago).
You're factually naive about the 'West Bank' area of Israel. The West Bank was supposed to part of the Arab state that was to be created alongside a Jewish state in the Holy Land in 1948. However, the Jordanians themselves didn't want this, so THEY invaded the area and annexed it onto THEIR own country. I repeat - the Jordanians DID NOT WANT A PALESTINIAN STATE IN THAT AREA, so siezed the land for themselves and annexed it onto their own country !! Only one country in the world legally recognised this annexation (the Brits). NO-ONE ELSE DID ! Look it up - this is all factual.
Jordan had every opportunity after then to create a Palestinian state in the area they had illegally annexed, but they didn't - preferring instead to try to absorb the Plaestinians into this new greater Jordan by giving them citizenship. So, for the 2 decades during which the West Bank was under Jordanian control, and Gaza was under Egyptian ownership (they also siezed that area in 1948) there was NEVER any talk of establishing a Plaestinian homeland in that area. Talk of that only arose amongst Israel's Arab neighbours after they lost control of the land in 1967. Hmmmm - I wonder what caused that change of heart.....?
Bizarrely, and ironically, it is only under Israeli control now that the Palestinian dream/promise of having a state in that area appears likely to happen. Their 'friends' in Jordan actually stopped this from happening by illegally occupying and then annexing the land that the British mandate had earmarked for the creation of a Plaestinian state.
And as Jordan signed a peace deal with Israel in 1994, they gave explicit acceptance to Israel's border with them at that time. Hence - 11 years ago Jordan said it accepted Israeli control of the West Bank. There was no gun held to their head on this.
The problem with Middle Eastern politics is that everyone is long on opinions, but short on facts/knowledge about it.....
Student Mullet
15/01/2006, 3:28 AM
They've owned Golani and the West Bank since 1967 - almost 40 years ago. That's very, very past tense, and doesn't equate to looking to expand their territory NOW as is being suggested.1967 is not that long ago. Someone born then (in Syria) would be about about 38. People older than this who saw the border move in Israel's favour might conclude that Israel expanded it's borders. I would agree. The bottom line on this issue us that the international law says that a country cannot keep land it won in a war. Israel is attempting to do this.
Unless we're going to also accuse the French of currently looking to expand their territory - as they fought against Algerian Independence in the 60's; the English of looking to expand their territory by resisting Kenyan Independence in the 60's; the Russians of looking to expand theirs, through suppressing the Prague riots in 1968 etc etc :rolleyes: Ridiculous....
The French had no business of trying to hold onto Algeria, the British Kenya or the Russions Czechislovakia. Equally the Israeli's have no business holding onto the West Bank. The Russians had control of Prague for about as long as Israel has had control of the west bank. It didn't mean they had rightfull ownership of it.
If, as you say, that the west bank is a part of israel, why do people living in the west bank not automatically have the right to vote in israeli elections?
However, the Jordanians themselves didn't want this, so THEY invaded the area and annexed it onto THEIR own country.Correct, as israel has done since then. Neither Jordan nor Israel has rightfull ownership of the west bank.
The problem with Middle Eastern politics is that everyone is long on opinions, but short on facts/knowledge about it.....
That's fair. If any of my factual statements are incorrect or if any of my opinions are not based on fact please feel free to correct me.
rebs23
15/01/2006, 3:43 PM
Thats the tired old argument that Israel's allies always bring out- it wasn't the ****ing arabs who committed a holocaust- if the jews/zionists wanted their own country, why wasn't it formed on German soil, or in Europe where most of them came from.
What right DOES Israel have to exist?! I'd love it if someone could finally give me ONE valid reason why a group of people have the right to march into another country, boot out the rightful occupants (and slaughter them if they resist) and declare it theirs, and STILL receive the support of the international community. Israel exists only because Europe (and the US) had a guilty conscience.
Somebody remarked that Isreali's like their hawks. I was just stating that their is a reason the Israeli's like their hawks. As they percieve it numerous attempts over the years have been made to wipe them off the face of the planet. That is why they like their hawks and it's hard to blame them.
As for the other arguments about their right to statehood and why they chose Israel and if they are wrong etc,etc I wasn't commenting on any of that and I won't be. As far as I am aware the Palestinians and most of the other Arab states have accepted the right of the Israeli state to exist in it's present location and are trying to work towards an accomodation in the Middle East that accepts Israel as a legitimate state in that region.
dcfcsteve
15/01/2006, 4:16 PM
1967 is not that long ago. Someone born then (in Syria) would be about about 38. People older than this who saw the border move in Israel's favour might conclude that Israel expanded it's borders. I would agree. The bottom line on this issue us that the international law says that a country cannot keep land it won in a war. Israel is attempting to do this.
The French had no business of trying to hold onto Algeria, the British Kenya or the Russions Czechislovakia. Equally the Israeli's have no business holding onto the West Bank. The Russians had control of Prague for about as long as Israel has had control of the west bank. It didn't mean they had rightfull ownership of it.
SM - an accusation was made that Israel is trying to expand its territory. That statement clearly related to the HERE AND NOW - not events of 40 years ago..... .
That's why I pointed out that, rather than seeking to expand their territory, Israel's last couple of activities regarding territory (Sinai and Gaza) have been to give land away/back, not to expand as was suggested. No-ones talking about what they did 40 years ago as every dog in the street knows they took land then....
That's fair. If any of my factual statements are incorrect or if any of my opinions are not based on fact please feel free to correct me.
It's more about the use/awareness of facts than the accuracy of any facts reported. Everyone is very quick to lambast the Israeli's for their treatment of the Palestinians and for denying them statehood - and rightly so. Yet I've NEVER ONCE heard any of these supposedly informed people criticise Jordan for being as equally, if not more, culpabale for the denial of a homeland to the Palestinians. And I bet you that's because they just don't know the FULL facts. It's very fashionable to know that the facts about Israel, but little is likewise known about the betrayal the Palestinians have faced at the hands of their supposed Arab 'friends' - who use them only as a political football to kick against the hated Israeli's.
dahamsta
15/01/2006, 9:23 PM
For the record, I don't believe in the view that Sharon should suffer now; I don't believe in an eye for an eye, at least with regard to physical pain. However I won't shed a tear if he pops his clogs. I have no respect for him, and I think a belief that he's done what he's done for the good of the Middle East is extremely naive. Sorry, but just like I'm wired not to believe in an eye for an eye, I don't believe Sharon is wired for caring about people; except himself of course.
adam
dcfcsteve
15/01/2006, 9:43 PM
For the record, I don't believe in the view that Sharon should suffer now; I don't believe in an eye for an eye, at least with regard to physical pain. However I won't shed a tear if he pops his clogs. I have no respect for him, and I think a belief that he's done what he's done for the good of the Middle East is extremely naive. Sorry, but just like I'm wired not to believe in an eye for an eye, I don't believe Sharon is wired for caring about people; except himself of course.
adam
I'm not in the least bit naive about Sharon's motives. And to be honest, I care very little for his motives - but a lot for the actual result of them.
Nothing vaguely positive has occured for decades in the Middle East. The situation there has actually got worse since the "global war on terror" (!?) began.
So the fact that someone, ANYONE has been making decisions that have had a vaguely positive impact there should be cause for celebration in itself. The 'why' behind those actions pales in significance when compared to the long-awaited benefit they have started to deliver.
If only the Palestinians could produce an equally strong leader to sort out the sh!t that their own communities are spiralling head-first into.
joeSoap
18/01/2006, 11:45 AM
Sharon undergoes surgery to replace faulty breathing tube
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has undergone surgery to replace his breathing tube as doctors continue their efforts to wake him from his two-week coma.
The 77-year-old has been unconscious since suffering a massive stroke on January 4th.
In a statement today, Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem said his breathing tube was changed overnight due to a technical problem and Mr Sharon remained in a critical but stable condition.
hamish
27/01/2006, 10:51 AM
I'm afraid Sharon was an important figure in furthering the peace process - despite the fact he was a murdering b.astard with regard to the slaughter in Lebanon in the 80s.
Palestine also suffered as a result of poor leadership and corruption. However, we should also note that Israel has had decades of corruption and mismanagement too. Didn't Sharon escape by the skin of his teeth recently (I think members of his family and other associated are due before the courts soon) on some subject relating to bribery and so on)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3416565.stm
I feel that without the huge imput Israel received annualy from the West and especially the US, Israel would be in just as big a mess as their Arab "neighbours".
Now, we have the ultimate horror combination in the area. Sharon is now out of politics through illness and Hamas wins the Palestinian election.
I suppose realpolitik will take over and the US and others will (unofficially, of course) commence secret talks with Hamas at some stage to cobble together some rough agreement. They're all probably talking already.
God, what a mess.:(
rebs23
27/01/2006, 12:20 PM
As far as I am aware the Palestinians and most of the other Arab states have accepted the right of the Israeli state to exist in it's present location and are trying to work towards an accomodation in the Middle East that accepts Israel as a legitimate state in that region.
Well thats all changed now hasn't it!:(
hamish
01/02/2006, 1:32 AM
I see Kaufman, the Labour (and Jewish) MP gave Sharon an awful b.ollocking in The Guardian last week.
A triumph for Sharon
Hamas's victory is the inevitable result of the failure to do anything about the oppression which Palestinians suffer
Gerald Kaufman
Saturday January 28, 2006
The Guardian
Lying in a coma in Hadassah hospital, Jerusalem, Ariel Sharon has achieved his final triumph. The Hamas victory in Wednesday's Palestinian elections is not only the inevitable outcome of everything Sharon did as prime minister, but is precisely what he would have wished.
Last week I argued in the House of Commons that "If Hamas does well [in the elections] as it may well do, the responsibility for that will lie with the Israeli government for nourishing the roots of Hamas. The sad thing is that Hamas and Likud and Kadima need each other. Israelis can say, 'We've got to do what we're doing because Hamas and Islamic Jihad are so dangerous'; Hamas and Islamic Jihad can say, 'We've got no alternative because the Israelis are oppressing us'." The Hamas landslide is the direct outcome of the utter frustration felt by Palestinians at the failure of anybody to do anything about the abject poverty and oppression under which they spend every day of their lives.
Neither the present Israeli government nor Hamas want a negotiated settlement bringing about a two-state solution. Hamas has been in a constant state of insurrection throughout its existence; and that suited Sharon perfectly. The current issue of the New Yorker contains a long article by the Israeli journalist Ari Shavit, reporting on 20 hours of conversations he had with Sharon stretching over six years, right up to Sharon's stroke. Shavit traces the development of the Sharon policies which, as he puts it, "led to the transformation of a relatively modest and ascetic state [Israel] into an occupying bully".
He provides conclusive evidence that Sharon never wanted a settlement with the Palestinians. What he did was to take unilateral actions to reinforce Israel's dominance of the old British Palestinian mandated territory. When, not out of generosity or as part of a staged settlement, Sharon withdrew settlers from the Gaza strip and Shavit asked if the next step would be a major Israeli withdrawal on the West Bank, Sharon responded: "There isn't any possibility of doing this... There is only one unilateral move. There will not be another unilateral move."
Western politicians were gullible enough to believe that the Gaza withdrawal was a stage in the road map that would bring about a two-state solution. Palestinian voters, living in their hopeless predicament, knew better. Their vote for Hamas tells the world: "If we can't have our state, we will opt for armed resistance." When Yitzhak Rabin was defence minister and refused to negotiate with Yasser Arafat, I warned him: "If you don't talk to the PLO you'll be left with Hamas." Rabin learned. Sharon did not want to learn.
Nor does the Israeli policy that deliberately fostered support for Hamas end with Sharon. Ehud Olmert, who has succeeded Sharon as prime minister, is even more recalcitrant than Sharon, as I found when I interviewed him for a BBC film a little while ago. When he talks, as he has done since taking over from Sharon, about withdrawals on the West Bank, he does not do so foreshadowing productive negotiations with the Palestinians, but as part of a plan to make Israeli military deployments more secure. His immediate response to the election result was to assert that he would not negotiate with a Palestinian government that included Hamas.
The American neocons who surround President Bush swooped with grim glee at the Hamas victory. It suits their plans for the next stage for the region. Binyamin Netanyahu, extremist leader of Likud, stated his and the neocons' position with glib clarity: "Today Hamastan has been formed, a proxy of Iran in the image of the Taliban." The Israeli government has already warned of possible reaction if Iran proceeds with its nuclear programme: an act of especial hypocrisy, in view of the fact that Israel played a key role in supplying Iran with arms in Ronald Reagan's Iran-Contra conspiracy - not to mention that Israel has possessed nuclear weapons for nearly 40 years.
The consequences of the Iraq war are plain for all to see, as many of us warned before the war began. An American-Israeli war against Iran - even if on this occasion Britain resists being dragged into it - would be a catastrophe, not simply for the region but for the world. Regardless of the undeniably odious nature of Iran's government, it is a fact that Iran (unlike Iraq, Israel and, for that matter, the United States) has never waged an aggressive war against another country.
Our own government, in statements by Tony Blair and Jack Straw, has reacted sensibly. We must now use any influence we have with the White House to insist that the road map must be implemented. Bush's own reaction has so far been less bleak than might have been expected: "When you give people the vote, give them the chance to express themselves at the polls and they're unhappy with the status quo, they'll let you know."
We must build on that, and we must lose no time. Armageddon, after all, is a place in Israel.
· Gerald Kaufman is the Labour MP for Manchester Gorton
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.