The new Ariel Sharon

[sharonbn]

We are witnessing history in the making: For the first time, Sharon referred to Israeli presence in GS and WB as occupation.

On Monday, 5/26, Sharon attended a meeting of all Likud Knesset members. The topic was the conditional approval of the road map by the government, which effectively accepts the establishment of a Palestinian sovereign state as part of the solution to the conflict.

After nearly every Likud MK threw angry accusations at the governemnt decision, Sharon delivered a response that reiterated several times his determination to "reach a political agreement, because I think it is important for Israel.”

He said: "I think the idea that it is possible to continue keeping 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation - yes it is occupation, you might not like the word, but what is happening is occupation - is bad for Israel, and bad for the Palestinians, and bad for the Israeli economy. Controlling 3.5 million Palestinians cannot go on forever. You want to remain in Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah and Bethlehem?”

I believe Sharon now deserves a honorary membership in Meretz for his newly expressed point of view :D

Btw, two key faction members who did stay silent were Sharon's son, Omri and Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

[richcrassus]

For what sharon is saying i wouldnt be suprised if he was to follow Rabin. Talking about occupation like he was a hamas member or something, how dare he, he is just a puppet of the US, how dare he even think about giving away jewish land to those evil infidels who we call 'palestinians', makes me sick.
Does he really think giving the pals a state will stop suicide bombings, or is he just saying all this to mislead everyone and in the last second he was say, ummm no we cant establish a new arab state cos doing something so stupid will be a step to destroying israel.
Who knows whats in the minds of these politicians, they all say one thing and do another.
Arafat says he wants peace to the western media but in arabic to his own media he says destroy israel, i guess sharon does the same he says theres an 'occupation' of land thats not even theirs, but in hebrew he probably says there will never be a palestine.
Trying to figure out whats fact and what isnt is like trying to pick the winner of race 1.
The only thing that is true is that a pal state is the worst thing that will happen for israel, and a good thing for hamas.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by sharonbn
I believe Sharon now deserves a honorary membership in Meretz for his newly expressed point of view :D

Pretty soon, you'll be joining Likud. I'll save a seat for you. :)

Good thread.

But this is the true spirit of the Right. A real desire for peace -- with the capability of achieving it.

[tandem]

i still can't believe he said that. granted, he is right on some fronts, like you can't keep israeli troops in there forever and that the intifada is hurting israel's economy

the status of the territories, however, is disputed. the palestinians will never get 100% of the land israel captured in 1967. there are jewish communities there, some of which need to be expanded. then there is the security issue. israel will probably seek some kind of buffer zone between it and a palestinian state. then there is the issue of jerusalem, which in my opinion, must never be divided

israel is not occupying the west bank and gaza. israel is operating in the territories temporarily to dismantle terror organizations that the palestinians are all too eager to unleash against israeli civilians. the israelis never had any intention to go into the territories and rule over the people if there was no terror. that's why i believe sharon shouldn't have used the term "occupation"

[alexbmn]

LYING SCUM.There I said it. He said a million times how there will not be any concessions that will jeopardize Israeli security and here he is offering to pull out the troups from PA cities although Abu Mazen hasnt lifted a finger against Hamas or any other group. This was the only measure that was somewhat successfull in reducing terrorism.How will they be able to stop a mega attack now? So what will Sharon say if there's an attack that will claim hundreds of lives God fobid? "Painfull concessions"?

[richcrassus]

When the pals get a state sharon wont be able to order troops intothe west bank anymore will he, of course not cos it would be seen as invading palestine, a sovereign country, and a declaration of war, wonder what their gonna do when they do get a state and the attacks start up again??
hmmm??

[JustPat]

Originally posted by richcrassus
When the pals get a state sharon wont be able to order troops intothe west bank anymore will he, of course not cos it would be seen as invading palestine, a sovereign country, and a declaration of war, wonder what their gonna do when they do get a state and the attacks start up again??
hmmm??
Ah ha! There is the light. The PA gets its own state, it sends even one suicide bomber into Israel and it is an official act of war. Israel, under the terms of war can then legally and strategically defend itself and the world court/UN blabber mouths will be nailed to the wall with their own rules. It won't be any different than today other than Israel will be able to beat them at their own game using their rules! I like it. :)

[richcrassus]

I can already see the anti semitic headline now
ISRAEL INVADES PALESTINE, and the P authority will just we we didnt send the suicide bombers, we had nothing to do with them, we cant control them.
Its israel who will ALWAYS get the blaim for everything that goes on their.
On Yahoo Australia today, there was a heading on the main page saying
SHARON DOSENT WANT TO GIVE UP JERUSALEM.
its all either stupidity or anti semitism, its implying israel should give up jerusalem, cos if they dont and theres more attacks on israel, its just israels fault for not giving up jerusalem.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by richcrassus
I can already see the anti semitic headline now
ISRAEL INVADES PALESTINE

JustPat, please please don't be so naive.
Take a look at what's going on between India & sovereign Muslim state of Pakistan for 5+ decades.

Add to that Arab oil + money + demographics in the ME, Europe and the US. Add weapons technology & proliferation. Mix all that with world-wide anti-semitism that's only growing + upcoming generations of brainwashed zombies whose only goal in life is shahida, just to terrorize the qafirs.

That said, I'm sure they don't have a chance of winning. But I don't hold my breath hoping for the UN's help.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
JustPat, please please don't be so naive.
Please don't mistake my sarcasm. I know that no matter what, the world is the victim and Israel is the villian. Those of us who truly support Israel are a minority, a remnant, if you will.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by sharonbn
We are witnessing history in the making: For the first time, Sharon referred to Israeli presence in GS and WB as occupation. I liked sharon calling the territories by their name.

"occupied" not "disputed".... :D

[danholo]

He never called the territories occupied. He corrected his words the next day. I'd stop misquoting people...

The territories are disputed, since the territories are not claimed by another state, nor belong to one.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by danholo
He never called the territories occupied. He corrected his words the next day. cherchez l'erreur..

[Canajew]

Originally posted by yehudi
I liked sharon calling the territories by their name.

"occupied" not "disputed".... :D

did you (or anyone else) ever maybe think that they could be both occupied AND disputed? Because they are. the Palestinians live under occupation in their cities. That is clear. However, the borders between the two areas have never been settled or recognized, and therefore the border area is disputed, to be negotiated and settled between the parties. While there is undoubtedly a power imbalance, that is no reason to pretend that the border is not disputed.

And please don't refer to the armistance line as the recognized border. It is nothing of the sort, nor was it ever intended to be. it was a temporary cease-fire line to allow the Arab states to regroup beofre launching another large attack, and the ceae-fire allowed the Arab states continued belligerancy rights across that "border". And they used these belligerancy rights almost continuously until 1967, when the evil Israelis launched their war of aggression on the hapless poor Arab farmers and stuff.

Just as you think that it is an obsticle that the Israelis never recognized the area as occupied, you (and those with your opinion) are also an obsticle if you do not perceive sovereignty in at least SOME of that land disputed. becuase it is. And simply ignoring this, while making your perscription for solving things more simple, only makes the prospects of a good solid functional peace initiative less likely.

And this again shows that rather than peace, you really want the Arabs to win. Peace is only a pretext. Like occupation is only a pretext for terrorism rather than its root cause.

[redcake]

notice that the word "occupation" is being abused and over used? even pro-war bush supporters call u.s. troops in iraq now an occupation. it's as if the pr spin of the palestinians that started during the clinton years has won out, and we've all adopted this word.

i haven't heard the original speech, but i doubt he's being misqouted if he corrected himself the next day. though if the speech was in hebrew i would wonder who translated it, etc.

it sounds like the u.s forced his hand. they were apparently drawing up a lis of sanctions to threaten israel with, and this is supposedly the issue bush counts on getting him re-elected. he wants this all to happen with a palestinian state by the end of 2003.

i wouldn't be shocked if sharon goes the way of rabin. i'm sure he's added to his security team, but let's not forget...rabin's hit was probably an inside job in part.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by redcake
notice that the word "occupation" is being abused and over used? even pro-war bush supporters call u.s. troops in iraq now an occupation. Well it turns out the US troops 'invaded' and 'are occupying' iraq. Why do you feel the need to hide behind politically correct speech? At least the neocons call a cat a cat.




Originally posted by redcake
i wouldn't be shocked if sharon goes the way of rabin.So you see you can be frank too sometimes... Most people here hide behind nice words, but talking a bit with them, it turns out in the end what they deeply want now is to have the palestinians as a people eliminated (not 'individually killed' but deported , moved, dispersed ... and colonize lands that were 'empty anyway' .. understand, they need a 'buffer zone' - and then a 'buffer zone for the buffer zone').

And nothing can deter them from this objective. Just look behind the surface: when the terrorism slows down or there is hope for peace they call for an assassination .

"Jews are always ready for peace"... maybe they were at a point in history, but now the majority of israeli jews equate peace with 'annihilation of the other party' .



Originally posted by redcake
let's not forget...rabin's hit was probably an inside job in part. You said it.

.

[redcake]

What's wrong with you? I mean besides you inability to understand my post.

I never hid behind politically correct speech. The word "occupy" isn't politically correct at all... it depends on your politcs right? You want to turn this into a semantic debate? Are you denying the word has gained popularity in part due to a Palestinian pr campaign?

You're a simple minded fool if you believe those who express a displeasure with the term "occupation" and it's usage in relation to Israel are secretly admitting they want all the Arabs deported. Certainly Israel can make consessions and COEXIST without admitting guilt for crimes they never commited. There is a difference. If you can't see that, and if you truly believe that Jews have a problem living amongst Arabs, then you're just an idiot who sucks of ancient blood libels for truth...and you shouldn't even bother pretening to have a valid opinion in that case. Seriously. Tell that to the one million Arabic Israeli citizens.... tell it to the million Jewish exiles of Arabic countrys.... and tell it to the members of the Israeli parliment that ARE arabic.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by redcake
What's wrong with you? I mean besides you inability to understand my post.

I never hid behind politically correct speech. The word "occupy" isn't politically correct at all... it depends on your politcs right? You want to turn this into a semantic debate? Are you denying the word has gained popularity in part due to a Palestinian pr campaign?

You're a simple minded fool Ok Ok calm down. Maybe I justmisunderstood your post. I though your were alluding to the killing of Rabin. Remember the terrible news "Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated tonight in Tel Aviv by a gunman at the conclusion of a rally in support of the government and its peace policy in Malchei Yisrael Square." (5 November 1995)

I thought you were actually threatening to 'understand' the future assassination of Ariel Sharon, because he seemed to be taking the path of peace.




If I am wrong and you are ready to make real efforts for a just and equal peace, and pacific coexistence like you seem to say:
if you truly believe that Jews have a problem living amongst Arabs... then, sorry redcake, sorry

.

[Groucho]

Originally posted by yehudi
Ok Ok calm down. Maybe I justmisunderstood your post. I though your were alluding to the killing of Rabin. Remember the terrible news "Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated tonight in Tel Aviv by a gunman at the conclusion of a rally in support of the government and its peace policy in Malchei Yisrael Square." (5 November 1995)

I thought you were actually threatening to 'understand' the future assassination of Ariel Sharon, because he seemed to be taking the path of peace.




If I am wrong and you are ready to make real efforts for a just and equal peace, and pacific coexistence like you seem to say:
then, sorry redcake, sorry

. :confused: I would think that after everything that has happened to us, talking about assissination should be the last thing on our minds. Agree or disagree with Sharon but lets remember that we are all jews and brothers/sisters. In my opinion, the greatest tragedy since 1948 has been the murder of Rabin. I didnt agree with his policies but I certainly never considered the idea that a jew would kill another jew - and to make it worse, using the name of G-d to justify his actions. A chillul Hashem (a desectration of G-d's name) if ever there was one.

[redcake]

ok when did i call for sharon's assasination? i'm suggesting he's treading a thin line exposing himself to this danger.

oslo took several years to be implemented and it was a disaster for both jews and arabs. bush has plans to bring a palestinian state into existance in within a year.

rabin made a mistake. reread his words and you can see he was hoodwinked. even his own family, and supporters have agreed. he attempted to negotiate, for the first time, with the plo. it has not resulted in peace. end of story. the process he created has only fueld more conflict. rabin was not a representative of peace now or any of the so called "peace" movements, but he bowed to their pressures and played into the idea that "if we try" it can't hurt, and if it fails then the world will see the situation for what it really is. that hasn't happened. Rabin believed oslo was reversable. it's not. i now blame him for shaking arafat;s hand, for legitamizing the plo, and for the deaths of hundreds of jews. this doesn't make me an extremist. it does not mean i refuse to live amongst arabs.

a lot of us understand the reasonings for rabin's assasination. some of us can even discuss the talmudic law that authorizes such actions. remember, moses was a leader, but he was punished for his mistakes. there is a burden and responsibility here.... i think sharon realizes that.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by redcake
rabin made a mistake. reread his words and you can see he was hoodwinked. even his own family, and supporters have agreed. he attempted to negotiate, for the first time, with the plo. it has not resulted in peace. end of story. the process he created has only fueld more conflict.
Hoodwinked though he may have been, at least Rabin believed in what he was pursuing. He negotiated in good faith with a cur who has no honor and knows nothing of integrity. Unfortunately, Arafat stabbed him in the back politically and a fellow Israeli stole his life. At least Rabin's heart was right in his love for Israel and the people he loved so dearly. I cannot say that his assassin was so minded.

Originally posted by redcake
a lot of us understand the reasonings for rabin's assasination. some of us can even discuss the talmudic law that authorizes such actions. remember, moses was a leader, but he was punished for his mistakes. there is a burden and responsibility here.... i think sharon realizes that.
Moses was judged by G_d. When you have the same qualifications to either lead Israel or judge her leaders, call me. I won't wait up. Personally, I think King David set the standard when he refused to assassinate Saul even though G_d had chosen David as Saul's legal replacement. You may justify murder from the Talmud, but not from the Torah.

[Groucho]

There is no justification for Rabin's murder, not mideraita (from the torah) or miderabanan (from the Rabbis). The fact that Amir used G-d's name to justify his act was as bad as the act itself. I can't understand how anyone, in particular an orthodox jew can find any justification for murder - in particular by one jew of another. Amir's "religious" motives emanated from the mind of a disturbed and troubled individual who mistook love of country with the sacred value of life. Rabin may have been wrong. We are entitled to disagree with his actions, but there are ways and means. Israel and the Jews attach great pride to the fact that Israel is a democracy (aren't we forever harping on how Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East"?). We have a duty to support the true political tools being established in a democratic society. If you don't like a politician and/or his political machinations, vote him/her out.

If we descend in any way to the mind of Amir (i.e by stating that "you may justify murder from the Talmud...) you are already going down the road of Amir's actions. Murder is murder. It is wrong. It is against everything that Judaism believes in. There is no justification. Not in the Torah, Not in the Talmud. Nowhere.



Originally posted by JustPat
Hoodwinked though he may have been, at least Rabin believed in what he was pursuing. He negotiated in good faith with a cur who has no honor and knows nothing of integrity. Unfortunately, Arafat stabbed him in the back politically and a fellow Israeli stole his life. At least Rabin's heart was right in his love for Israel and the people he loved so dearly. I cannot say that his assassin was so minded.


Moses was judged by G_d. When you have the same qualifications to either lead Israel or judge her leaders, call me. I won't wait up. Personally, I think King David set the standard when he refused to assassinate Saul even though G_d had chosen David as Saul's legal replacement. You may justify murder from the Talmud, but not from the Torah. Whoever saves a life, its as if he has saved the whole world (sic)

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by Groucho
Murder is murder. It is wrong. It is against everything that Judaism believes in. There is no justification. Not in the Torah, Not in the Talmud. Nowhere.


1. AFAIK, Torah is full of killings. David, Moses...
2. Isn't killing whoever directly threatens your life justifiable?

[Groucho]

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
1. AFAIK, Torah is full of killings. David, Moses...
2. Isn't killing whoever directly threatens your life justifiable? you know ful well there is no comparison between personages in the torah and those of today. More crucially, the people in the torah were instructed to carry out their acts. When they were wrong, they were punished. Amir is not comparable to moshe or david in any way!

Rabin was not responsible for the palestinians' actions! They are responsible for themselves. They arent children! They are thinking people who know exactly what they are doing. Rabin didnt threaten anyone's life. Maybe only his own.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by Groucho
you know ful well there is no comparison between personages in the torah and those of today. More crucially, the people in the torah were instructed to carry out their acts. When they were wrong, they were punished. Amir is not comparable to moshe or david in any way!

Rabin was not responsible for the palestinians' actions! They are responsible for themselves. They arent children! They are thinking people who know exactly what they are doing. Rabin didnt threaten anyone's life. Maybe only his own.

Agreed here. Your previous statement sounded so absolute. Maybe Rabin was wrong too?

[redcake]

you're taking my comments out of context.

*i'm* not calling for an assasination. *i'm* not justifying it. *i'm* not quoting the talmud or torah....

but i am bringing up the point that some are or will....and i do understand their perogative. you should too. otherwise you're living in a bubble.

while rabin is not responsible for the palestinian's actions he is partially responsible for opening the door, and allowing the oppurtunity. he is responsible for arming and training the pa. he is responsible for treating arafat like a diplomat and he is responsible for the dispursement of funds that were routed through means of fraud towards terrorism against jews. he rewarded violence, and negotiating with the greatest enemy to peace possible. wake up.

i'm sure there are some scholars on this board who can educate you a little better on how your own scriptures deal with issues of treason. if we were to apply the "well i'm not david, or moses or g-d" standard towards any of the teachings, then nothing would apply to any of us now would they?

[Groucho]

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
Agreed here. Your previous statement sounded so absolute. Maybe Rabin was wrong too?

I think i may not have made myself as clear as i wished to. I was not judging Rabin's actions. I was only expressing my deep felt feelings that one should not in any way condone Amir's actions. What he did was wrong. Whether or not I agree with Rabin's actions is irrelevant. I don't think one should equate Rabin's actions with a justification for his murder. If he was unsuitable in some peoples' eyes, he should have been replaced via the democratic process. To use murder as the tool was wrong.

I do however accept that my statements might have been open to misinterpretation