|
06 Jan 06 - 06:15 AM (#1642752) Subject: BS: Good News From Israel From: Pied Piper Ariel Sharon, or to give him his real name Ariel Scheinermann is no longer a force in Middle Eastern politics. This is the best news for peace since the death of Arafat; now moving on is at least a possibility. PP |
|
06 Jan 06 - 06:38 AM (#1642753) Subject: RE: BS: Good News From Israel From: Ron Davies PP-- You have not been keeping up with recent developments. Very recently Sharon changed from the ultimate hard-liner to much more of a pragmatist. Now Israel confronts a political vacuum. It is not at all a good assumption that the government which eventually takes over will be much more reasonable than Sharon, in his recent incarnation as a moderate, would have been. And instability anywhere in the Mideast is not good. Jubilation is out of place. |
|
06 Jan 06 - 10:31 AM (#1642758) Subject: RE: BS: Good News From Israel From: katlaughing An offensive thread title, imo. ANd, he is not dead, yet. A Palestinian was quoted as saying that he admired Sharon's leadership and wished the Palestinians had someone like him.'It would suffice to have half a Palestinian Sharon because he worked hard to serve his people. He was also the one who could make peace with us.'" |
|
06 Jan 06 - 11:05 AM (#1642780) Subject: RE: BS: Good News From Israel From: Alba Nasty Thread title. |
|
06 Jan 06 - 11:22 AM (#1642796) Subject: RE: BS: Good News From Israel From: number 6 "An offensive thread title, imo." "Now Israel confronts a political vacuum." Israel needs Ariel at this time ... it is Dark News from Israel. sIx |
|
06 Jan 06 - 11:36 AM (#1642820) Subject: RE: BS: Good News From Israel From: Stilly River Sage If one of the Clones would simply remove the "Good" from the title of this thread then a more suitable forum will be in place to discuss the contributions, pending death, and political outcome of Sharon's defacto removal from office. Anti-semitic rants aren't useful to anyone. Best thing Sharon could do was to remove those outposts in Gaza, and there are some others that need removal also. I don't think we can count on Bebe to do anything in this direction. SRS |
|
06 Jan 06 - 11:52 AM (#1642823) Subject: RE: BS: Good News From Israel From: GUEST,G Precisely, Ron Davis - too bad Pied Piper is out of touch with reality. |
|
06 Jan 06 - 12:00 PM (#1642829) Subject: RE: BS: Good News From Israel From: CarolC I didn't celebrate Arafat's death, and when Sharon dies, I won't celebrate his death either. Whether or not the removal of either of them from politics has any positive impact on the Middle East is something we will only know in the course of time. |
|
06 Jan 06 - 12:09 PM (#1642833) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: wysiwyg I would hope people have taken note that this thread originally had a different title than the one it now has. This is the third thread I know of that has been started (two by guests) to gloat and negatively bloviate while a human being lies dying. At least the (new) thread title invites positive comment as well as whatever else people might want to say. My feeling is this-- I am not from Israel, I am neither Jew nor Palestinian. I have no idea what this all means to the people to whom I am sure it has tremendous everyday significance on a deeply personal level. It's not up to us to judge the situation as though our own lives are as imminently affected. Why is it so hard to leave it in the hands of the people living in the land it all involves? ~Susan |
|
06 Jan 06 - 12:09 PM (#1642835) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: Joe Offer I changed the thread title to something that I hope will apply to the entire spectrum of opinion on the issue. Our thread titles are an index - opinions should be stated in messages. I suppose I could have left the thread title, but rejoicing when another person is near death is a bit too much. If you want to rejoice at someone else's misfortune, do it in a forum message. I have to say that I have never had much respect for Ariel Sharon, and I don't completely trust his recent move to a more moderate stance. I realize that Israel is an impossible situation in many ways. Perhaps Shharon has been effective in honoring the needs of the various factions, and perhaps not. I certainly don't like his "Berlin Wall" that separates Palestinians from shopping and jobs and education. He was wise to evacuate Gaza, but I think he needs to mke concessions on the West Bank, not new settlements. -Joe Offer- |
|
06 Jan 06 - 12:11 PM (#1642837) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: artbrooks If the existing Likud party retains control of the government, and Bibi Netanyahu regains control of Likud, than the prospects for anything like "peace" (really an armed truce) and any level at all of security for the Israelis and Palestinians will go right down the drain. |
|
06 Jan 06 - 12:28 PM (#1642853) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: alanabit There was a gloating thread by some anonymous creep yesterday, which I was glad to see the back of. Like many others, I have very mixed feelings about Sharon. I have never forgotten the pitiless masacres of the eighties in Lebannon, for which he was largely responsible. On the other hand, he was wiling to make a determined stand to back down the hard liners of the Likud Party. He has tried to make some sensible concessions, to reactivate the peace process. I find it hard to like the man, but he is capable of doing good as well as evil. I do not think it becomes us to gloat over the death of any human being. |
|
06 Jan 06 - 01:37 PM (#1642889) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: GUEST,Apprehensive There is more to fear from the passing of Sharon than political instability in Israel. The upcoming elections in Gaza and the almost certain election of many of the candidates of Al Aqsa and Fatah mean that the area is going to become even more unstable. When you put this together with the fact that the Palestinian Authority now controls a border crossing into Egypt and you have a recipe for disaster. The leader of Iran declares that Israel should be obliterated, and all Jews relocated to a homeland in Europe. While Fatah declares that Israel should be obliterated too, but without the trouble of relocating the inhabitants. Nothing short of death will satisfy them as a solution to their Jewish problem. I can foresee an alliance between Al Fatah and Iran with weapons supplied by them and imported via Egypt being fired into Israel from Gaza. I don't just mean little penny ante weapons like Katusha Missiles either. |
|
06 Jan 06 - 02:38 PM (#1642925) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: GUEST,B Sharon is toast. Bush is worried all hell will break loose. Wil Israel Nike Iran in a pre emptive strike? He calls in all the big geezer dogs to see if anyone has some new ideas to keep the middle east on track toward peace. Pretty smart I sez. 'Course some accuse him of being hard headed, not asking others what to do and won't listen to anybody. After this the same folks will say "see he has to ask others about what to do" Loose / Loose Bush discusses Iraq strategy with present and former officials Iraq-USA, Politics, 1/6/2006 The US President George W. Bush invited a former US secretaries of state and defense to the White House to hear their input on the US strategy being followed in Iraq. He met in the White House with several senior former and current officials in the American administration including Republicans and democrats, with many of them opponents for the war in Iraq, in a step described by Franc Carlucci, the defense secretary in Ronald Reagan administration as a unique initiative "he does not remember any other one similar to in the modern American history." Bush said the United States has a "dual track strategy for victory," by encouraging an inclusive political process and preparing Iraqi forces to handle their own security. Noting the experience and expertise of meeting participants, the president said, "I'm most grateful for the suggestions that have been given [and] we take to heart the advice. "I've had a chance to listen to their concerns, their suggestions about the way forward," he said. The former secretaries of state participating in the meeting were Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, Lawrence Eagleburger, James Baker III, George P. Shultz and Alexander Haig Jr. The former defense secretaries were William Cohen, William Perry, Frank Carlucci, Harold Brown, James Schlesinger, Melvin Laird and Robert S. McNamara. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said January 4 that the meeting was arranged in the same spirit as the president's discussions with members of Congress in December 2005. "It is an opportunity for these key leaders of previous administrations to hear about our plan for victory and hear about the progress we're making directly from our civilian and military leaders on the ground," McClellan said, adding that it was also an opportunity to "hear from this bipartisan group and get their ideas." Bush said that the foreign secretary Condaleeza Rice, the defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Washington's ambassador in Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad and the commander of the American forces in Iraq George Casey briefed the former officials on the victory strategy pursued by the Bush administration. Bush admitted that that his vision for the situation in Iraq does not win unanimous consent and that that not everyone at the bipartisan meeting agreed with the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, but they "understand that we've got to succeed now that we're there." Bush said that Washington's strategy is based on two pillars. They are the success of the political operation and enabling the Iraqis to transfer the war "to the camp of the enemy which wants to stop democracy." He stressed that the American administration achieved great progress on the two fronts. Former Secretary of State, Lawrence Eagleburger, who was invited to the meeting, jokingly remarked that the group invited to the White House, as a "has been" group who themselves were part of the government at some time, and hinted that, in the presence of the President Of The United States, a group such as this would find it difficult to express their true convictions forthrightly, as they may otherwise do somewhere else. |
|
06 Jan 06 - 04:34 PM (#1642986) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: lesblank Pied Piper and Pat Robertson ought to be shut up in a dungeon together for the next ten years and forced to smell each other's B___S___ !! |
|
06 Jan 06 - 07:59 PM (#1643081) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: GUEST Slaughtering the innocents in bloody massacres is OK, so long as you have a great political career to shine up any tarnished image as a war criminal. Odd, no one is talking in such glowing terms about the war criminals dragged before the International Criminal Court. But because Israel and the US refuse to recognize it, that means we should presume this gives legitimacy to a butcher? I don't think so. The double standards around here are breathtaking, as is the censorious impulse. I'll travel to Israel just to dance on his grave. |
|
06 Jan 06 - 08:03 PM (#1643087) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: Peace So go. |
|
06 Jan 06 - 08:30 PM (#1643116) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: GUEST,Clogger I do not care whether he was a sinner or a saint! It looks to me that he was preparing for some major concessions to the peace process! If this was so then his illness is tragic. Given the reputation of Mossad a tiny part of me wonders......... |
|
06 Jan 06 - 08:40 PM (#1643130) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: Bill D Sharon and Arafat spent years exacerbating the problems with their personal animosities....it is ironic that Sharon was hit with this stroke just as he was learning a bit about pragmatism. If he is unable to return, let's hope his successor and Arafat's can sit down and ***COMPROMISE***...and that the hotheads on both sides will even try to make a compromise work! There are young fools on both sides who have made unyielding hate a part of their credo....sad.... |
|
06 Jan 06 - 10:14 PM (#1643202) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: michaelr Oooh -- the Mudcat PC police is here! I'll get this out of the way first: anyone who thinks Sharon would give the Palestinians the sweat off his balls without ulterior motives needs to have his/her head examined. Now: Would it be OK to applaud Hitler's suicide? The downfall of Stalin? Pol Pot? Idi Amin? Was Papa Doc Duvalier a monster but Baby Doc not so much? My point is: Are there degrees of evil? Where do we draw the line? And who gets to draw it? Although I detest him, I would not gloat if "Martin Gibson" had a debilitating stroke today. But then, he's not a mass murderer, AFAIK. To see Sharon taken out of power, I for one am glad. Cheers, Michael |
|
06 Jan 06 - 10:18 PM (#1643203) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: GUEST You are just as sick as the rest Michaelr. |
|
07 Jan 06 - 07:13 AM (#1643249) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: Pied Piper My problem is a lack of selective amnesia; you see I remember Sabra and Shatila. PP |
|
07 Jan 06 - 07:37 AM (#1643259) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: Pied Piper Not to mention the Qibya "operation". |
|
07 Jan 06 - 07:53 AM (#1643272) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: Bobert Well, well, well... This one is a toughie... Here's a guy that in different times might have ended up in a World Court charged with war crimes... Yet here's also a guy who has made pragmatic changes in Isreali policies toward the Palestinians that has been generally positive... The Christian in me can forgive the war crimes... Not that I do because Shron never asked for forgiveness from the world community or more specifically from the Palestian families who lost loves ones to Sharon's actions... So, yeah, this is a toughie and I don't feel it is a situation where any thinking and caring person can camp out with just one thought... Bobert |
|
07 Jan 06 - 09:28 AM (#1643299) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: GUEST The political and military situation in Israel and Palestine is tragic--not Sharon's illness. That is a blessing for the world and the peace process, which Ariel Sharon has done more to block than almost any other Israeli politician. Believe me, both Sharon and his lynchmen DO NOT have the interests of "peace" in mind with their so-called 2 state peace plan. What they have in mind is some conspiracy or other to exploit a political opportunity to their and their cronies benefit. |
|
07 Jan 06 - 09:47 AM (#1643310) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: GUEST,Apprehensive Well this soon degenerated into a hate thread didn't it? Why are you vindictive posters not thinking about what happens now, and what might happen tomorrow. You are all so busy digging up the past and mud slinging. Of course terrible things were done by both sides, people were killed, bomb factories were hidden in refugee camps, none of it was right on either side. Two wrongs only ever made two wrongs. We should all worry about what happens next in the Middle East, why else did Condi Rice cancel her visits? |
|
07 Jan 06 - 09:53 AM (#1643312) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: freda underhill For years, secular and orthodox Israelis have resented the settlements that were established in pursuit of a religious superstition. Their children died to protect these settlements, while the ultra-orthodox jews who settled there were exempt from military service. Polls show that the centrist party Ariel Sharon established prior to his sudden illness has the support of a majority of Israelis. The Israeli newspaper, Haáretz, comments, "There is no longer room for a ruling party that is responsive to the interests and dreams of the settlers and leads the country to the brink of destruction solely because of a desire to retain settlements that have no right to exist and whose presence in the heart of Palestinian areas generates friction, hatred and exploitation for generations to come." Many Jewish people have wanted peace, and at last a Jewish leader was prepared to listen. What a pity he was struck down. |
|
07 Jan 06 - 10:22 AM (#1643342) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: GUEST,Dax I don't believe that any Jew who survived Hitler's "solution" could ever again allow themselves to be put in so vulnerable a situation as to trust an enemy. This mistrust is a roadblock to peace but it is oh so understandable. Perhaps there is hope that younger Jewish generations will see a way to compromise. Of course it will have co-operation from both sides. When I see kids in Palestinian camps playing with toy AK-47's it pains my heart. They seem to be raised with so much hatred but I pray that they outgrow it, or that my perception is wrong. The only solution in the mid-east lies with it's youth, and it must start with an upbringing of tolerance on both sides. |
|
07 Jan 06 - 11:17 AM (#1643402) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: Once Famous Let's hear from a real Jew now. Guest, Dax above has got it pretty right. Fred Underhill's description of Judiasm as superstition shows her biasness against Jews in general and denial of what Israel really and truly means to Jews. Yes, it's a two way street. I dish it out and I take it. The Pied Piper deserves all of the heat and rat droppings he is getting here. And MichaelR who I have PM'd directly and told him how completely full of crap he is, is spineless. Go away MichaelR. You should be banned. Sharon will be missed and peace is the ultimate goal. But Israel is not going to let itself be provoked by terrorists who want to see it dissapear. |
|
07 Jan 06 - 11:38 AM (#1643420) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: Bill D I'm not the Dylan fan some folks are...but this one ought to be played more for some folks. Oh my name it is nothin' My age it means less The country I come from Is called the Midwest I's taught and brought up there The laws to abide And that land that I live in Has God on its side. Oh the history books tell it They tell it so well The cavalries charged The Indians fell The cavalries charged The Indians died Oh the country was young With God on its side. Oh the Spanish-American War had its day And the Civil War too Was soon laid away And the names of the heroes I's made to memorize With guns in their hands And God on their side. Oh the First World War, boys It closed out its fate The reason for fighting I never got straight But I learned to accept it Accept it with pride For you don't count the dead When God's on your side. When the Second World War Came to an end We forgave the Germans And we were friends Though they murdered six million In the ovens they fried The Germans now too Have God on their side. I've learned to hate Russians All through my whole life If another war starts It's them we must fight To hate them and fear them To run and to hide And accept it all bravely With God on my side. But now we got weapons Of the chemical dust If fire them we're forced to Then fire them we must One push of the button And a shot the world wide And you never ask questions When God's on your side. In a many dark hour I've been thinkin' about this That Jesus Christ Was betrayed by a kiss But I can't think for you You'll have to decide Whether Judas Iscariot Had God on his side. So now as I'm leavin' I'm weary as Hell The confusion I'm feelin' Ain't no tongue can tell The words fill my head And fall to the floor If God's on our side He'll stop the next war. |
|
07 Jan 06 - 01:42 PM (#1643484) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: freda underhill More from editorial, Ha'aretz: Over the last two years, the personal revolution that Sharon underwent has been shared by a large segment of the public. The settlement enterprise, which he led for years, has lost its prestige; the settlers have turned from trend-setters into a stubborn minority; and the evacuation of settlements suddenly seems feasible. The relief that the public felt after the evacuation of Gaza is what generated the momentum for Kadima's establishment. This healthy sentiment does not depend solely on Sharon's leadership. Thus Kadima is not just Ariel Sharon, but the basis for establishing a moderate coalition. It is the party of national sobriety, which, together with Labor, Meretz, Shinui and the Arab parties, could continue dividing the land between Israelis and Palestinians and establish a border between them. The disengagement from Gaza established the precedent that even in the absence of a diplomatic process, it is still possible to advance toward this goal unilaterally. |
|
07 Jan 06 - 02:03 PM (#1643506) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: michaelr Guest 10:18 and Martin Gibson -- calling me sick, spineless and full of crap does not qualify as discussion. So go away, Martin. No one has yet addressed the point I raised. |
|
07 Jan 06 - 02:13 PM (#1643521) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: Ron Davies The sentiment for compromise in quest of a permanent peace in the Mideast does not depend entirely on Sharon---but he was by far the strongest figure on the Israeli political scene, had the trust of most Israelis---and therefore was the best chance for negotiating towards peace. It's a tragedy for peace that he's been struck down. People have to start living in the present, not dwelling on past injuries. It's the only way to improve the world situation--and the only way to hope for the future. |
|
07 Jan 06 - 04:04 PM (#1643576) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: Once Famous MichaelR, you are sick. No one wants to address the point with a moron. |
|
07 Jan 06 - 04:12 PM (#1643581) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: Peace I would like to state that freda underhill is as far from anti-anyone as a person could get. She is pro-people. I know she dislikes hatred and war. Calling her anti-Jewish is ridiculous. Calling her anti-Anything except anti-Bad is just not right. FYI. |
|
07 Jan 06 - 04:23 PM (#1643585) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: Ron Davies I second the observation on Freda. She is well-informed, very humanistic, and basically everybody's friend. Anybody who would criticize her is just showing that he or she is not reading what Freda has written. To make a sensible comment on anything, it really does pay to read carefully--and careful reading is not something we have much of, it seems. |
|
07 Jan 06 - 05:02 PM (#1643616) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: GUEST,Homey Who gives a shit about a court composed of criminals? I presume this is a bunck of lawyers who get paid for their time or is it all Pro Boner? |
|
07 Jan 06 - 05:06 PM (#1643617) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: Wolfgang The Rise of the Hard-liners? (A view from Switserland) Sharon vs. God and God vs. Everyone Else (A comment from a usually iconoclast German Jew) Wolfgang |
|
07 Jan 06 - 05:46 PM (#1643649) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: GUEST,Big down under Freda is fair bonzer mates, and she's OK by me. People see what they want to see in every post. |
|
07 Jan 06 - 07:05 PM (#1643694) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: Big Mick First to the idiot who started this thread. May you rot. You, and those of your ilk on both sides, are responsible for the continuing bloodshed. Your expression of glee at the illness and impending death of the leader of your foe shows you have no understanding or desire of what it takes to have peace for these two peoples. Real warriors understand that those we battle believe just as strongly in their cause as we do in ours. Those, like you, who are cowardly little worms with an opinion on all things that you don't really have to fight in, seem to embrace the death caused by conflict. Otherwise you would bemoan the incapacitation of one of those looking to find a resolution. I am not defending Sharon's record, he will have to do that on the next leg of the journey. I am attacking those who can't get by their prejudices long enough to know that the children of this conflict deserve something better. With Sharon at lease we were on the way of change. I am praying for wisdom on both sides during this time. This is a test to see if they are of sufficient will to pursue the hard work of making the peace. Please, God, help them succeed. Mick |
|
07 Jan 06 - 07:16 PM (#1643702) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: GUEST,G Excellent, Big Mick! When you had a lot of the Palestinians saying good things about the leader of their "enemies", to me, that meant hope springs eternal. May all follow his lead. |
|
07 Jan 06 - 07:17 PM (#1643704) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: freda underhill thanks for your kind comments guys. I am not a mudsaint and have bad foot in mouth disease on occasion. I am sorry if I offended you on that one Martin. re "religious superstition" I was referring to the belief that the Messiah wouldn't return until certain real estate had been acquired. correct me if I'm wrong Martin, but it's that view that has had Israel stretching its borders here and there, or at least has had the political leaders using that belief to gain more territory. I don't see them risking their lives in Gaza, their homes are in much safer parts of the land. I was not referring to the whole of Judaism here, but I guess that comment shows I don't accept that particular idea as being divinely inspired. For the record, Rabbi Apple from Sydney is one of the most remarkable people I have ever heard speak, having both a brilliant mind and being able to handle very difficult situations with tact, diplomacy and incisive intent. And yes, I have close frienships with Jewish Australians. my comment was like picking out the anti-polyester bits of the bible and condemning all Christianity for it. Again, I'm sorry for any hurt caused. freda (Big, down under!) (what a difference a comma makes!) |
|
07 Jan 06 - 08:25 PM (#1643742) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: GUEST Peace with Ariel Sharon? Don't make me laugh. You all have VERY selective amnesia about the Middle East peace process. Question: which Israeli politicians wrecked the Oslo accord? Answer: the Likud party. Who are the two big guns in Likud responsible for it? Netanyahu, who followed Rabin and Peres as prime minister running on an anti-peace platform, and; Sharon, who followed Barak as prime minister running on an anti-peace platform. Being anti-Israeli right wing extremism isn't being anti-Semitic, anti-Jew or anti-Israel. It's taking a stand against fascist extremists like Sharon and Netanyahu, and calling a spade a spade. Those of you who wish to keep playing this deluded game of romanticizing a dying war criminal, and painting him as a saint for peace, go right ahead. You just look like the ignorant Americans you are. |
|
07 Jan 06 - 08:34 PM (#1643749) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: Peace And in case it needs being said, the various Palestinian leaders and terrorist groups who worked so hard to fu#k it up may have had a bit to do with the Israeli reactions. |
|
07 Jan 06 - 08:48 PM (#1643757) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: Peace 'You all have VERY selective amnesia about the Middle East peace process.' Maybe you do, too, GUEST. "After the election of Ehud Barak as Prime Minister in May 1999, Ariel Sharon became interim Likud party leader following the resignation of Benjamin Netanyahu. In September 1999, he was elected Chairman of the Likud. He also served as a member of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the Knesset. Sharon insisted on visiting the Temple Mount Haram al-Sharif compound in September of 2001. His visit triggered or served as the excuse for a wave of violence that put an end, in practical terms, to the Oslo peace process and brought about the fall of his rival, Ehud Barak. ( See commentary on the end of the Oslo Peace Process)" From here. |
|
07 Jan 06 - 10:32 PM (#1643854) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: GUEST Well duh. That was my point exactly in the 08:25 PM post, fer chrissake. Likud is an extremist, pro-settlement right wing party and it's leaders for the better part of 2 decades have been Sharon and Netanyahu, peace wreckers both. For the life of me, I will never understand why people delude themselves about history, just because the current official establishments of Europe, the US and Israel says Sharon is a admirable, security and peace loving "centrist" beloved by the Israeli people (and our studies prove our polling is accurate). |
|
07 Jan 06 - 10:51 PM (#1643887) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: CarolC Oslo ended long before Sharon went to the Temple Mount Haram al-Sharif, Peace. Oslo ended when Rabin was killed. |
|
08 Jan 06 - 12:40 AM (#1643973) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: michaelr I'm quite well, thanks. Still not addressing the point, I see. Nothing intelligent to say, as usual. |
|
08 Jan 06 - 01:57 AM (#1643998) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: GUEST So CarolC, what is your point? BTW, I wouldn't say Oslo was dead after Rabin was assassinated. I would say it was dead when Likud realized Barak and Clinton just might be able to pull off the peace. |
|
08 Jan 06 - 10:35 AM (#1644100) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: GUEST And of course, let us remember the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree--there is Baby Sharon--Omri--currently embroiled in scandal as well. |
|
08 Jan 06 - 12:20 PM (#1644169) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: CarolC Just making a factual correction, Guest, 08 Jan 06 - 01:57 AM. Netanyahu was quite open about his hatred of the Oslo process, and his intention to kill it. And even though Barak gave the appearance of accepting Oslo, more settlements were constructed while he was prime minister than anyone else. But I don't think it's particularly constructive to focus too much on Oslo. It was a flawed process that did not specify any particular resolution. Prior to Oslo, the Palestinians had already lost more than 70 percent of their homeland, and all the Oslo agreement did was to make that official. Beyond that, it did not guarantee that they would be able to keep any of the land they still had, and it did not provide an end to Israeli military rule in the occupied Palestinian lands. |
|
09 Jan 06 - 11:25 AM (#1644956) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: Pied Piper Thankyou Big Mick for thoughtfull and profound coments. Have a nice day PP |
|
09 Jan 06 - 11:52 AM (#1644979) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: GUEST,Clogger This thread epitomises exactly what is wrong in the middle east! Everyone takes a side and is unwilling to look at "their own side's" faults / misdoings, whilst at the same time rabidly pointing out the faults of "the opposition". This means that EVERYONE is categorised into one camp or the other! Nobody is in the "middle" so if a point criticising "your" side occurs you are fully justified in slagging the other off without having to look at any points made, much less answering them. The middle east is a big pile of poo ..... if you go playing round in it you WILL SMELL BAD! If you distrust your enemy to the extent that you cannot believe in them (or their emissaries) you have lost YOUR humanity! The opposition HAS done bad stuff! ..... so have YOU! For what it is worth Sharron seemed to be changing direction! |
|
09 Jan 06 - 12:14 PM (#1645005) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: Wolfgang Michaelr, perhaps you are only playing the Shamblesk clown here and imitate his style of completely out of proportion comparisons. But just in case you are serious, yes there are degrees of evil in my eyes. A much closer (both in number of people killed and in geography) comparison would be King Hussein of Jordan. He also was responsible (though also not at a direct personal level) for many killed Palestinians in the Black September killings. Most estimates of the Black September killings of Palestinians put the number at 'only' about the tenfold of those killed in Sabra and Shatila, but at least that's roughly the same order of magnitude. And no, I did not rejoice about his death in a way I would have (had I been alive) or did about the deaths of the brutes you have mentioned. On the balance Hussein was a good ruler and did a lot for peace and reconciliation later in his life. Sharon has done more for peace than he ever intended. He's just a soldier leaving an untenable position. But he may have started a movement in Israel for more compromises than he ever had in his mind. The way he has dealt with the opposition of the settlers may have opened the door for more of the same. For that reason, it would have been good if he had been in power longer than he will (assuming that he will not recover enough to retain the job). Wolfgang |
|
09 Jan 06 - 07:24 PM (#1645288) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: michaelr Oh, so evil is a function of how many people killed? What's the magic number, then? How many victims are necessary to make applauding the killer's demise OK? Michael |
|
15 Jan 06 - 11:42 AM (#1648782) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: GUEST |
|
15 Jan 06 - 04:57 PM (#1649029) Subject: RE: Comments on illness of Ariel Sharon - Jan 2006 From: GUEST He's pulling a Franco on us. The thing that refused to die. Or maybe they are going to try keeping him alive until closer to the election, when his death would be more useful to the current prime minister. |