Temple mount and the start of the Intifada?

[Mr. Pumps]

Was it Ariel sharons vist to the Religious site that starts the current uprising or was it agressiveness built up over time waiting to come out? :)

[Ezra]

I guess you can call it "a good excuse" for the Palestinians to express their unconditional and internal hate toward Israel (or Jewish in general).

[Iori Yagami]

Was the murder of the austrian(?) ambassador the reason for the Christal Nacht in 1938?

[elke]

Was the murder of Archduke the reason for WWI?

[L@mplighterM]

Did the chicken or the egg come first?

[elke]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Did the chicken or the egg come first?

Oh, No! Philosophy again! :)

[danholo]

Here is some info on the start of the new Intifada:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf19a.html#a

[unienglish26]

Ariel Sharon received permission from the Wakf to visit the Temple Mount (which he should never have needed to receive in the first place). The Intifada had been months in planning prior to his visit. I think that the Wakf gave permission in order to "create" the reason for the Intifada. And the world bought it.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
Was it Ariel sharons vist to the Religious site that starts the current uprising or was it agressiveness built up over time waiting to come out? :)
From the horse's mouth:


PA minister says intifada planned

Mohammed Zaatari
Daily Star correspondent

A Palestinian Cabinet minister said on Friday that the five-month-old uprising against Israel had been planned since the Camp David peace talks failed in July, contradicting past contentions of a spontaneous outburst from Palestinians on the street.
Imad Faluji, the Palestinian National Authority’s Communications Minister, said during a PLO rally in Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp outside of Sidon that it was a mistake to think that the intifada was sparked by Israeli Prime Minister-elect Ariel Sharon’s controversial visit to Al-Aqsa mosque compound in late September.
“It had been planned since Chairman Arafat’s return from Camp David, when he turned the tables in the face of the former US president (Bill Clinton) and rejected the American conditions,” Faluji said.
At the US presidential retreat of Camp David, Maryland, Clinton had pressed Arafat to make concessions, particularly on the return of Palestinian refugees, in response to outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s willingness to surrender some Jerusalem neighborhoods to the Palestinians.
Barak’s unprecedented step is widely viewed as contributing to Sharon’s election victory.
Faluji’s remarks contrast with previous Palestinian statements blaming Sharon’s visit to the mosque compound for sparking a spontaneous uprising by Palestinians frustrated with the peace process. Israel has long contended the intifada, in which more than 400 people have been killed, was planned.
Faluji did not elaborate on the planning or who was involved.
He also said the PLO was reviving its “military action” groups to escalate the fighting against Israel and called for a meeting of Arab defense ministers to “face up to Israeli aggression.”
“The PLO is going back to the 60s, 70s and 80s. The Fatah Hawks, the Kassam Brigades, the Red Eagle and all the military action groups are returning to work,” he told a crowd of nearly 2,500 people who included local Palestinian faction leaders.
Faluji warned Israel that it would not “enjoy a single night of calm” if Palestinians continued to be killed at the hands of the Jewish state.
He praised the stand adopted by Lebanon and Syria in backing the Palestine cause. “What the Zionist entity faced in south Lebanon will be a picnic compared with what it will face when the Palestinian people become enraged,” he said. “The Palestinian resistance will strike in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and in every inch of Palestinian territory.
“Palestinian vengeance will be harder and stronger than many expect … we won’t let Israel enjoy a single night of calm as long Palestinian blood continues to flow.”
He argued that Palestinians were in Lebanon temporarily “and it’s not permissible to encroach on the right of refugees to return (to their homeland) in accordance with United Nations Resolution 194.” with agencies

http://archive.dailystar.com.lb/leb/2001/March01/03_03_01/N9.HTM
"Daily Star" is a leading Lebanese newspaper.

[elke]

So, who is the horse? Mohammed Zaatari or the "Palestinian Cabinet Minister"? ;)

Sorry, it just slipped out... :)

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
Was it Ariel sharons vist to the Religious site that starts the current uprising or was it agressiveness built up over time waiting to come out? :)

Actually it was a Monarch butterfly flapping its wings somewhere in Southern Oregon that started it.

[Mr. Pumps]

My reply to "Actually it was a Monarch butterfly flapping its wings somewhere in Southern Oregon that started it."

Well, Muslim opinion of Ariel sharon before the uprising was outright hostile, a Jewish Hitler determine to wipeout Muslims left and right. And that exact man who Muslims claim is a far right mass murderer showed himself in a place, sacred to the people he wants to get rid off .

I think if Jorge Haider of Austria's Far right freedom party made a tour of the largest synagogue in Germany that would spark a similar Jewish reaction, am I wrong.

Such things are not tolerated at all and Ariel Sharon showing up at such a unstable place was stupid and foolhardy to begin with.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps


Such things are not tolerated at all and Ariel Sharon showing up at such a unstable place was stupid and foolhardy to begin with.

Actually, it's outrageous that Muslims think they can declare outdoor, public places off limits to Jews in Israeli controlled areas.

They destroy synagogues and then build mosques on top of them -- and then declare the area theirs. This is also how they "prove" that there is no Jewish link to Jerusalem.

To say Sharon should not have visited the Temple Mount is to give in to the extreme intolerance of Israel's enemies.

Imagine if the shoe had been on the other foot. Would Arabs had let Jews have soveriegnty over their own religious sites?

Well, the shoe was on the other foot. Prior to 1967 Jews were not even allowed to visit the Western Wall.

[Mr. Pumps]

Originally posted by ibrodsky


To say Sharon should not have visited the Temple Mount is to give in to the extreme intolerance of Israel's enemies.



Why Sharon have should have entered the site given his Past and extremist views.

That is why I mentioned the Haider example, given what we know about all his speechs and actions would it be wise to him to step into a Synagogue in Germany or any other country.

Given his Past and Far Right think agianst Muslims it was'nt right to have such a Hatred and precieved mass-murdering man such as him at that place. Violence was inevitable and wanting.

Your most extreme thinking politican walking around the Debated and contested site was entirely counterproductive to say the least, even foolhardy.

[Vic]

Originally posted by elke
So, who is the horse? Mohammed Zaatari or the "Palestinian Cabinet Minister"? ;)

Sorry, it just slipped out... :)
Let us vote :D

But there is some truth in your remark: we do do tend to accept the Arab/Muslim media sources at face value, without asking what game they might be playing behind the scenes, what they are trying to achieve with one publication or other, especially when these just happed to be written in English.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps


Why Sharon have should have entered the site given his Past and extremist views.

That is why I mentioned the Haider example, given what we know about all his speechs and actions would it be wise to him to step into a Synagogue in Germany or any other country.

Given his Past and Far Right think agianst Muslims it was'nt right to have such a Hatred and precieved mass-murdering man such as him at that place. Violence was inevitable and wanting.

Your most extreme thinking politican walking around the Debated and contested site was entirely counterproductive to say the least, even foolhardy.
I've read an interview with a Palestinian activist somewhere around the end of 2000 - I rack my memory for it, but I really cannot remember who it was - who commented on the whole affair. He said there was no point in getting so cooked up about it, after all the Arabs are famous for their hospitality, so the best thing for the Palestinians themselves would have been to greet "Mr. Sharon" politely and let it blow over...

Just noticed: there is a "Mr. Pimps" and a "Mr. Pumps" in this forum. Are you one and the same person, by chance?

[Mr. Pumps]

:D yeh! Mr. Pimps=Mr. Pumps......Potato=potato

You know it is a hormone, horny young male thing!

[Mr. Pumps]

It is just clear to me a man of his views approaching the Temple mount was like a match striking pouring gasoline. I too have seen news stores before the "Intifada" about Palestinians youth training to fight the IDF and a Botched Israeli uncover raid where 3 agents died by friendly fire. So the climate was there.

I am wonder which had more of a impact?

[elke]

Originally posted by Vic

Let us vote :D

But there is some truth in your remark: we do do tend to accept the Arab/Muslim media sources at face value, without asking what game they might be playing behind the scenes, what they are trying to achieve with one publication or other, especially when these just happed to be written in English.

Should we?

I saw an interview Ashleigh Banfield did with a correspondent at Al Jaseera - which is touted here as the light to the nations: "an independent (sic!) news station owned by Qatar government" (yes, Vic, I am aware of the oxymoron here... ;) ). It was very enlightening! Ashleigh asked him whether he would accept an exclusive interview with Sharon, and he said "NO! Because I wouldn't want to GIVE HIM A PLATFORM FOR HIS VIEWS!" How is that for "independent" and "impartial"?!

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
My reply to "Actually it was a Monarch butterfly flapping its wings somewhere in Southern Oregon that started it."

Well, Muslim opinion of Ariel sharon before the uprising was outright hostile, a Jewish Hitler determine to wipeout Muslims left and right. And that exact man who Muslims claim is a far right mass murderer showed himself in a place, sacred to the people he wants to get rid off .

I think if Jorge Haider of Austria's Far right freedom party made a tour of the largest synagogue in Germany that would spark a similar Jewish reaction, am I wrong.

Such things are not tolerated at all and Ariel Sharon showing up at such a unstable place was stupid and foolhardy to begin with.


I don?t know where you get your foolish notions. Are you really serious when you compare Ariel Sharon with Hitler?

As far as Sharon being a mass murderer you very well know that?s a lot of nonsense. Why don?t you go and cut your neighbors lawn and if he doesn?t have one cut it anyways.

[Pushtak18]

I think that people have made to much commotion about Sharon and Temple mount.

infact, i dare anyone who asked why Sharon been there in the 1st place! You know....after all, It is holy to Jews as well as muslims and even so, out of 200 arabs there i doubt even 1 of them would recognized and confront sharon, because probably many did not know him.

The History of the 2nd Infifhada would take you in August 2000, but for me, i would like to take it all the way to Febuary 2000.


In Febuary 2000, Israel Unilaterally and without and agreement withdrawled from South Lebanon. Ehud Barak's Primary goal was to have his soldiers out of Lebanon and to make peace process. Eventually he did. What happened in Lebanon was that the Arab world, including there networks saw a withdrawl as showing that Israel is weak and with the might of terrorism it can make Israel go on there knees...But instead, the Israeli army, along with a new prime minster decided that the 18 year mission is and should finish and thus what happened. And yet, after a withdrawl, there is fighting and kidnapping and killing on the border. So in a sense, would this kinda drama occur when Israel withdrawls from all of WB/GAZA????

Along now to July 2000, where peace talks were blooming and a chance for hope was in. Israel made an offer, who ehud made a concession that was far greater than any other Prime Minster of his time and, without a doubt Arafat took that proposal and walked away from it, telling everyone he is disgusted. When going back he contacted Hosni Moubarak and a couple of other foreign associates and all had encouraged him to suspend talks.
As Arafat left for WB, he was greeted as a vicotrious leader. His fame grew very well within his people. He saw that he won the Peace game by outsmarting the US & Israel in there own game.

And now to August 200, where in NY Times and USA today was talking about the aftermath of Camp David. There were rumours that there might be another talks, but all went on def ears. Arafat found momentum and even as people were telling him that there "MIGHT" be violence in the coming months, he ignored it. He even encouraged summer camps to teach kids about "LIBERATING PALESTINE", even so, there were Summer 2000 pictures of palestinian kids learning how to shoot rifiles in preprations for a liberation that Arafat wanted, which would have been a liberation at around September 14, 2000 with Jerusalem being invaded...how nice......

And in September 2000, way way before the Sept 28 incident at temple mount... There was roadside explosions, scattered riots in Ramallah and Nablus and i recall on the eve or a day before Rosh Hashanna, which was i think September 24.... A Palestinian who was doing Co-Duty on East Jerusalem screamed "ALLAH IS GREAT" and shot an Israeli solder dead and wounded the other before being shot.
After the September 28 incidents, the riots started to increase..there was alot of them and then it started to get inside Israel, and eventually...... By October it gotten nasty with Youth rock throwers. Israelis started to fear and one of the main things that was shocking was the Lynch in Ramallah which was what?? only on Oct 6??? so you see how the palestinians felt already before the issues happened.

As process to revamp the peace occured. Whenever we had a breakthrough at Taba or Sharm El Sheik, there would be a bombing like the one in Jerusalem that killed 2. Even so, when Ehud ordered arafat to control the violence and give him 14 hours or 'else'. Arafat looked Defiant and talked more rhetoric.

At the boiling point in November, Arafat still was the one who laid back in the chair and talked about a forceful end to the occupation while Ehud was making all concessions. And when he couldn't reserve Israelis security he resigned and called for an Early election. Thats when Sharon came in.........

So you see, there was a good timeline and possibly even a bigger one hopefully about this.

And as you know, many people have forgotten about the Mini-Infifhada that happened in 1998 on the temple mount. Where a English Archelogist found a tunnel under the Temple Mount. The Palestinians raged, Arafat was angrier. He sent his troops to shoot at Israeli Civilians and he managed to kill some too! Not until the Israeli Defence Forces came in and did a shoot out that it was calm. But what made it more calm was the outcry people had.......Everyone condemed arafat and he was pressued and he stoppped.

The reason that the palestinians got away this time, was that the UN and all major bodies firmly condemend israel with excessive use of force? which was obscurd when you have Israelis moving 2-4 KM back and having anything like synagogues and major installation that was behind us destroyed, than there being extremely biased here!

[unienglish26]

First of all the Temple Mount has been THE holiest site for Jews ever since King Solomon built the Temple there. A mosque was built on the site (replacing a church that had been previously built there) in order to "wipe away" the Jewish connection with the place. Anywhere a Jew prays he/she faces in the direction of Jerusalem. And if he/she is IN Jerusalem he/she faces towards the Temple Mount. The Western Wall is the last remnant of that Temple (until it's built again when Mashiach comes). There is NO mention of Jerusalem in the Koran. The mosque on the Temple Mount has no more significance than a mosque in London. Now concerning Ariel Sharon - he received permission from the Wakf - the Islamic governing body of the Temple Mount which Moshe Dayan stupidly gave them at the end of the Six-Day War - BEFORE Sharon took his famous walk. And besides that, it is quite well known that the Intifada had been planned months before this took place. There is NO connection between Sharon's walk on the Mount and the current Intifada. The Arabs are great manipulators. The greatest manipulators of political propaganda perhaps since Goebbels.

[Iori Yagami]

I reject that. I think that Saeb Erekat is a better manipulator than Goebbels, because his words are thought to be legitimate, a privilege that Goebbels didn`t have outside of Germany.

[elke]

Originally posted by Iori Yagami
I reject that. I think that Saeb Erekat is a better manipaltor than Goebbels, because his words are thought to be legitimate, a privilege that Goebbels didn`t have outside of Germany.

I agree. According to some sources, this was achieved by hiring a top PR firm. As discussed elsewhere in this forum, Israeli PR is pretty poor, especially lately.

[Mr. Pumps]

Originally posted by elke
Was the murder of Archduke the reason for WWI?

No actually it was the Agressive additude of Tsarist Russia to Make war with Germany first, as a weak attempt by a pathetic leader to forget the problems at home.

It is funny, the Kaiser was never anti-semitic, but Tsar Nicholas II sure was, the progroms of 1905 used as pro-monarchy propaganda to put down the revolution following Bloody Sunday proved that.

Also funny is how the allies blamed the War on Germany after the close of the War even if the Anti-semitic tsar was the lead starter who declared war first.

That lead to germans taking their anger on minorities after the conclusion of WW1 and the signing of the "treaty of Versailles" in essence, blaming everything on a country who declared war after others declare war on them first. Because the allies were asking for absurb amounts of repayment even though the germans did not start the war and it Was France and Russia who wanted the war in the first place.

Russia started the war for the Imperial government to get the peoples minds off revolution. A distraction.

France declared war shortly afterwards to redeem itself from the embarrassing Franco-Prussian War Of the 1870's.

And we all know the disaster after WW1 by the coming of the Nazis.

Maybe the "Allies" should have blamed their overly Agressive values before War World 1 and never have minded finding a scape goat to blame everything The great war did, on a single nation. A war they clearly started, too bad everyone had to jump right in, but there was no other choice.

Vastly More good would have came out of it. And History would have been totally different I am sure.

[Pushtak18]

I agree, i think that the Arabs used this walk to build anger, but once again i am encouraging arabs to say how much they know Sharon. its like you see an old man and you assume he is in power, and i doubt that most people do know him!!!


The mosque was build not because of the significance of jewish power there, but because of the height. It was the place to kinda build it i guess. None the less they build it on our site and for the many many years, this mosque is not a holy mosque but rather a political mosque where you have un-islamic rhetoric just to protect it which Israel does.

If Israel was smart and Dayan was SMARTER, we would have taken a missile and blown it up after the 6 day war! We could have done that ofcourse, but we didn't.

The WAKF (islamic supervision over temple mount) states that the reason they are there and heavily funded is because of the fact that Israel was aggressive in the 6 day war and had damadged it, which is pure false notification! What really did happen was that in the east side of the mosque which faces to Jordan, it was heavily damadged by Mortar shells and gunfire! Just like the entrance to Jerusalem, which had bullets in them, the same happened to the Mosque. And ofcourse that is false statement, because it was the Jordanians who didn't care alot.

They also use the name of Roth guy, whom in 1968 went to the temple mount and burned it! Now, roth is not Israeli, he is Australia. He is not sane, he is insane, and most of all he is not jewish but a Protestant Chritian who had read the old testament and belive in the 3rd temple.

[elke]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
No actually it was the Agressive additude of Tsarist Russia to Make war with Germany first, as a weak attempt by a pathetic leader to forget the problems at home.

Bingo! That was exactly my point, Mr. Pumps. "Nothing new under the Sun" - fast-forward to year 2000 in Jerusalem, and what do you see? "The weak attempt by a pathetic leader to forget the problems at home". Better yet, to find someone to blame these problems on.

It is funny, the Kaiser was never anti-semitic, but Tsar Nicholas II sure was, the progroms of 1905 used as pro-monarchy propaganda to put down the revolution following Bloody Sunday proved that.

You are telling me! :) My great aunt lived in Ukraine during the WWI German occupation. She refused to evacuate when the Germans came in 1941, because as she said, "they were always such gentlemen. They never hurt civilians". She and her 11-year-old granddaughter were buried alive by the "gentlemen".

Maybe the "Allies" should have blamed their overly Agressive values before War World 1 and never have minded finding a scape goat to blame everything The great war did, on a single nation. A war they clearly started, too bad everyone had to jump right in, but there was no other choice.

Well, I wouldn't idealize the Kaiser. He really wasn't a particularly good man; although making Germany pay all the reparations does seem unfair as well as, in retrospect, plain stupid.

[Mediocrates]

I saw an interview Ashleigh Banfield ....



AAAAAAAAEEEEEEEIIIIIIIIIIIIII !!!!!!!!! Square glasses & dyed red hair do not a war correspondent make. I heard an interview with her and she went on for 5 minutes how she dyed her hair from Blonde to Red so the Pakistanis wouldn't think she's American and 'shoot me like Daniel Pearl'. That's a quote.

[elke]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I saw an interview Ashleigh Banfield ....



AAAAAAAAEEEEEEEIIIIIIIIIIIIII !!!!!!!!! Square glasses & dyed red hair do not a war correspondent make. I heard an interview with her and she went on for 5 minutes how she dyed her hair from Blonde to Red so the Pakistanis wouldn't think she's American and 'shoot me like Daniel Pearl'. That's a quote.

Funny! :D Maybe not, but it does not negate the guy's comments. A "Platform"? These people don't even understand the concept of what "press" is supposed to do, let alone "free press".

[ranair34]

This URL might help in your question

http://www.bushcountry.org/news/apr02_news_pages/n_041402_what-sparked-mideast-crisis.htm

[Mediocrates]

Al- Jazeera is impartial? Let me get than snow cone from hell now.

[elke]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Al- Jazeera is impartial? Let me get than snow cone from hell now.

? Stupid question, I know, but... what is "snow cone from hell?" :confused:

[Mediocrates]

when al-Jazeera is impartial they'll be selling snow cones (ices) in hell.


or operating kosher hot dog stands on the moon.

[unienglish26]

Originally posted by Iori Yagami
I reject that. I think that Saeb Erekat is a better manipaltor than Goebbels, because his words are thought to be legitimate, a privilege that Goebbels didn`t have outside of Germany.

[unienglish26]

Ior Yagami - First of all, made a mistake and re-posted your comments about Erakat. Am still a little confused how this site works. Anyway, let's not nitpick about who is a greater manipulator. The current Great Manipulators are the Arabs. Did you know that Atta (one of the WTC 19) tried to manipulate a female loan officer to give him $650,000 so he could start a crop- dusting business? She turned him down. She feels incredibly awful that she didn't pick up on some of the things he was saying about the pictures in her office of The White House, the WTC, and other places in the U.S. He even in a veiled manner made threatening comments. She just felt sorry that she couldn't help a new immigrant to the US.

[elke]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
when al-Jazeera is impartial they'll be selling snow cones (ices) in hell.


or operating kosher hot dog stands on the moon.

Don't dis operating kosher hot dog stands on the Moon: it may come sooner than you think, and certainly sooner than Al Jazeera becomes impartial :D

[Mediocrates]

Yes, isn't one of the shuttle astronauts a Sabra?

[cerulean]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Yes, isn't one of the shuttle astronauts a Sabra?

Yep.

http://asp.washtimes.com/printarticle.asp?action=print&ArticleID=20020527-4565612

[elke]

Originally posted by cerulean


Yep.

http://asp.washtimes.com/printarticle.asp?action=print&ArticleID=20020527-4565612

This is awesome! Imagine the kinds of debates that will ensue when humans begin colonizing other solar systems!

[rmrblacksmith]

Originally posted by Mr. Pumps
Was it Ariel sharons vist to the Religious site that starts the current uprising or was it agressiveness built up over time w
aiting to come out? :)

That is like claiming the crow makes the sun rise.

[Mediocrates]

an odd culture those Palistinians - such a thin skin that 100 Jews walking around a mosque for 20 minutes outrages them to the point of violence yet murdering a 9 month pregnant woman as they did yesterday does not faze them.

[Pushtak18]

To make up excuses regarding the walk Ariel Sharon did is nonsense. I think that in a casual busy tourist holiday day in Jerusalem maybe 6,000 if not more non-muslims take pictures around the mosque and go up, and even inside it.


1 out of 200,000 Palestinians would not regognize Ariel Sharon, so thinking he was the one who started the intifhada is ridiculous. The palestinians have had chances to quell the violence in the early days, but it only got worse. Infact, the same kinda talk Arafat gave in October 1, 2000 is the same talk he is giving today!


He is the problem here!

[MGB8]

Palestinian leaders have admitted on multiple occasions that the intifadah was pre-planned.

But, lets just say for argument that it was a result of Sharon's visit.

Could you please explain to me why a Jew visiting a site holy to both Jews and Muslims, a Jew who DID NOT order the massacre of Muslim Arabs, btw, although he should have taken some actions to prevent the massacre of Muslim Arabs by Christian Arabs, why should that be grounds for a revolt?

If thats the case, then any time a muslim visits the temple mount, it should conversly be the cause of a Jewish war on Muslim Arabs.

[Pushtak18]

MGB8,


im not really understanding your point!

You are going all over the place with this.

The thing is that, muslims do get soveignty over the temple mount. IN peaceful times, they have huge gatherings for Friday prayers and have no problem with going there what-so-ever. While jews are not! Many jews hardly ever go to Arab-East-Jerusalem.

About the massacre...to this date there is no hardcore evidence that can link up Sharon to the murders. If you want him to put a stop its like asking you local police officer to stop a crime before it happened. The Chritian arabs wanted this to be a sort of surprised, they never even used one gun in there rampage. As far as i am concerned, Sabra and Shatilia were in Syrian controlled Lebanon, and not Israel. That is why at the morning they found 4 dead syrian officers along with another 4 UN workers!

So whats the blame for sharon then?

[Iori Yagami]

Originally posted by Pushtak18
MGB8,


im not really understanding your point!

You are going all over the place with this.

The thing is that, muslims do get soveignty over the temple mount. IN peaceful times, they have huge gatherings for Friday prayers and have no problem with going there what-so-ever. While jews are not! Many jews hardly ever go to Arab-East-Jerusalem.

About the massacre...to this date there is no hardcore evidence that can link up Sharon to the murders. If you want him to put a stop its like asking you local police officer to stop a crime before it happened. The Chritian arabs wanted this to be a sort of surprised, they never even used one gun in there rampage. As far as i am concerned, Sabra and Shatilia were in Syrian controlled Lebanon, and not Israel. That is why at the morning they found 4 dead syrian officers along with another 4 UN workers!

So whats the blame for sharon then?
That was exactly his point.