QuoteWhat neighbours - the Palestinians or the surrounding Arab states ?Originally Posted by A face
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.
Last edited by dcfcsteve; 13/01/2006 at 4:55 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.
The SFAI are the governing body for grassroots football in Ireland, not the FAI. Its success or the lack of is all down to them.
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.
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 ???
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.
Well, thats me back in my box for a while !!
The SFAI are the governing body for grassroots football in Ireland, not the FAI. Its success or the lack of is all down to them.
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.
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?
Last edited by Éanna; 13/01/2006 at 11:27 PM.
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.....
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 !!
Last edited by dcfcsteve; 14/01/2006 at 3:28 AM.
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).
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
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.....
Last edited by dcfcsteve; 14/01/2006 at 4:32 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.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
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?
Correct, as israel has done since then. Neither Jordan nor Israel has rightfull ownership of the west bank.
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.
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.
Cork City FC
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....
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.
Last edited by dcfcsteve; 15/01/2006 at 3:26 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
Last edited by dahamsta; 15/01/2006 at 8:29 PM.
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.
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.
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.
Well thats all changed now hasn't it!
Cork City FC
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks