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

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

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"....

[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"....

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.