NationStates Jolt Archive

I cant stand all these people who think that Ariel Sharon is such a terrible leader. The fact is he's the first Israeli Prezident to offer to withdraw from any of the occupied territories. Ok he's not perfect and probably a bit corrupt but he should be applauded for standing up to his party and creating progress in the peace process.

Meh, personally I think they are all as bad as each other.

Sharon's not that bad!

Shall we just ignore the fact that the only reason he avoided trail for the war crime of the killing of 2,000 people in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla in September 1982 during the invasion of Lebanon is because of the immunity granted to him as a national head of state?

Meh, personally I think they are all as bad as each other.

so true.

Also, He's on the end of his carreer to my opinion,
so after killing thousands of Palestinians (mostly inocent, mostly)
during his career as a militairy strategist in the eighties,
and a couple of hundred/thousand more during his career as politician,
it's time to do something so that the world can forget his past cruelties.

but that's just an example, so please don't hold back on more examples,
oh wise members of NationStates. :shock: :wink:

Sharon's not that bad!

Shall we just ignore the fact that the only reason he avoided trail for the war crime of the killing of 2,000 people in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla in September 1982 during the invasion of Lebanon is because of the immunity granted to him as a national head of state?

Actually he was cleared of charges by an impartial review board..at the time General Sharon had no forewarning from the Christian Phalangist Militia of what their intentions were in the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Shatilla...true....he did have a command post 200 meters from I think Sabra, can't remember..but he personally could not..indeed..did not order the Phalangist into the Camp..nor did he or could he order them to commit the atrocities that occured in the camp...if you must have anger toward anyone..direct it to the Phalange party and their militia..for they did the actual killing.

Sharon's not that bad!

Shall we just ignore the fact that the only reason he avoided trail for the war crime of the killing of 2,000 people in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla in September 1982 during the invasion of Lebanon is because of the immunity granted to him as a national head of state?

Actually he was cleared of charges by an impartial review board..at the time General Sharon had no forewarning from the Christian Phalangist Militia of what their intentions were in the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Shatilla...true....he did have a command post 200 meters from I think Sabra, can't remember..but he personally could not..indeed..did not order the Phalangist into the Camp..nor did he or could he order them to commit the atrocities that occured in the camp...if you must have anger toward anyone..direct it to the Phalange party and their militia..for they did the actual killing.

I will get back to you on this when I do some more research.

Sharon's not that bad!

Shall we just ignore the fact that the only reason he avoided trail for the war crime of the killing of 2,000 people in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla in September 1982 during the invasion of Lebanon is because of the immunity granted to him as a national head of state?

Actually he was cleared of charges by an impartial review board..at the time General Sharon had no forewarning from the Christian Phalangist Militia of what their intentions were in the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Shatilla...true....he did have a command post 200 meters from I think Sabra, can't remember..but he personally could not..indeed..did not order the Phalangist into the Camp..nor did he or could he order them to commit the atrocities that occured in the camp...if you must have anger toward anyone..direct it to the Phalange party and their militia..for they did the actual killing.

Ummm...no. The US actually told Sharon that because those people and their safety were his direct responsibility, he was responsible for their deaths. There is evidence also that he had a hand in arranging for them to be killed by the Phalange party, and had foreknowledge of what they were about to do. Some of his response times were extremely suspicious after the fact.

This is why I find it ironic when he attends a memorial service for holocaust victims, because he's no better than Hitler was when you look at it. I was frightened when he was elected in Israel, because I knew his track record for crimes against humanity and human rights violations beforehand.

Some Research (http://www.jafi.org.il/education/actual/sabra-shatilla/)

They all seem to have the wrong frame of mind. I mean, seriously, using helicopter gunships to disperse a crowd?! *smacks forehead* Duuhhh!
The video from that incident looked like 9/11 - people running screaminfg in disbelief. And then they get angry and go and blow themselves up! It's a viscious circle! And George Bush isn't helping - he needs to put troops in Israel to secure the situation.

In my humble opinion...

Sharon's not that bad!

Shall we just ignore the fact that the only reason he avoided trail for the war crime of the killing of 2,000 people in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla in September 1982 during the invasion of Lebanon is because of the immunity granted to him as a national head of state?

Actually he was cleared of charges by an impartial review board..at the time General Sharon had no forewarning from the Christian Phalangist Militia of what their intentions were in the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Shatilla...true....he did have a command post 200 meters from I think Sabra, can't remember..but he personally could not..indeed..did not order the Phalangist into the Camp..nor did he or could he order them to commit the atrocities that occured in the camp...if you must have anger toward anyone..direct it to the Phalange party and their militia..for they did the actual killing.

Ummm...no. The US actually told Sharon that because those people and their safety were his direct responsibility, he was responsible for their deaths. There is evidence also that he had a hand in arranging for them to be killed by the Phalange party, and had foreknowledge of what they were about to do. Some of his response times were extremely suspicious after the fact.

This is why I find it ironic when he attends a memorial service for holocaust victims, because he's no better than Hitler was when you look at it. I was frightened when he was elected in Israel, because I knew his track record for crimes against humanity and human rights violations beforehand.

Some Research (http://www.jafi.org.il/education/actual/sabra-shatilla/)

And an Israeli General should be held responsible for UN refugees from a military force that is native to the country where the Palestinians were squatters in? Pray tell..why should he have listened?

Like I said...an impartial review board cleared him of any wrongdoing in the massacres at the Sabra and Shatilla camps..no matter how much people wanted to believe he did.

Now..should he have used his personnel to defend the Pals from the Phalangists?..who up until that time had been their allies in their invasion into Lebanon in pursuit of the PLO?..That is a moral issue best left up to whatever God he worships..but from a legal standpoint..he was in fact cleared of any wrongdoing...

"Sharon's not that bad!"

I'm going to assume you're joking... because you can't possibly believe that and if you do.. *shakes head* :shock:

The Bush administration and all of the administrations since the formation of Israel as a country have always supported the Israelis in all that they do. This is because they are a powerful lobbying group through their connections in the US.

Funding Report (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3003likud_usgangsta.html)

Don't forget, there has always been some cooperation between the Jewish community and the Italians in american organized crime, as well as influential lobbyists in the more affluent groups.

Politically we have a long history of funding them as well. Some More (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html)

Still More (http://www.jerusalemites.org/news/english/feb2003/22.htm)

but he shouldnt be forced to deal with Hitler In a Headscarf aka Yassar Arafat. He is the grandfather of Modern Terrorism and Sharon or anyone trying to broker peace with Arafat is like the USA trying to broker peace with Osama Bin Laden.

He's a terrible leader.

Not that I am 100% in support of PLO tactics, but can you really blame a people who up until then were in their native land, and then at the end of WWII were told that they'd have to give up a chunk of it to the Israelis, who were going to colonize, viewed the idea with some justified trepidition. This was because they could see what was to come. They were to be dispossessed of their own homes and lands, and made into refugees in their homeland.

Some History (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/timeline.htm)

Also, Sharon had a big part in the killing during the Six Day war. He IS responsible for some terrible atrocities.

Six Day War (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_qibya_1953.php)

More on Sharon (http://www.isreview.org/issues/17/Ariel_Sharon.shtml)

Not that I am 100% in support of PLO tactics, but can you really blame a people who up until then were in their native land Yes I can blame them for terrorist tactics or do you condone the willful, deliberate targetting of civilians? and then at the end of WWII were told that they'd have to give up a chunk of it to the Israelis, who were going to colonizeactually Jews have continously lived within that regime of the Middle East despite the Diaspora, just as Arabs have, the question is, to whom does the better claim reside..that was solved by the UN Resolution, which gave BOTH sides a piece of the pie, but the Arabs, who by the way, not one of them voted for partition in 1948,in fact not one day after the Jews declared their State they were invaded by no less then 4 Arab armies, all the while their Arab brethren told the Pals to leave saying that don't worry..after they crushed the Jews and mowed them into the sea they could come back and take over Jewish lands, viewed the idea with some justified trepidition. This was because they could see what was to come. They were to be dispossessed of their own homes and lands, and made into refugees in their homeland.actually 70% of the people labeled "Palestinian" are in fact Jordanian, Arafat himself is Egyptian

Some History (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/timeline.htm)

Also, Sharon had a big part in the killing during the Six Day war. He IS responsible for some terrible atrocities.

Six Day War (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_qibya_1953.php)

More on Sharon (http://www.isreview.org/issues/17/Ariel_Sharon.shtml)

Not that I am 100% in support of PLO tactics, but can you really blame a people who up until then were in their native land Yes I can blame them for terrorist tactics or do you condone the willful, deliberate targetting of civilians? and then at the end of WWII were told that they'd have to give up a chunk of it to the Israelis, who were going to colonizeactually Jews have continously lived within that regime of the Middle East despite the Diaspora, and they were allowed to live there in peace and visit their holy places, IN their traditional homeland and in the traditional way, before they insisted on returning the favor by refusing the same rights to the Palistinians, whether they be Jordanian or not, as well as putting them out of their homes and the farms and lands they had tended for generations. just as Arabs have, the question is, to whom does the better claim reside..that was solved by the UN Resolution, which gave BOTH sides a piece of the pie, but the Arabs, who by the way, not one of them voted for partition in 1948,in fact not one day after the Jews declared their State they were invaded by no less then 4 Arab armies, all the while their Arab brethren told the Pals to leave saying that don't worry..after they crushed the Jews and mowed them into the sea they could come back and take over Jewish lands, viewed the idea with some justified trepidition. This was because they could see what was to come. They were to be dispossessed of their own homes and lands, and made into refugees in their homeland.actually 70% of the people labeled "Palestinian" are in fact Jordanian, Arafat himself is Egyptian

NONE of that erases the fact that Sharon is, indeed, a monster, and his policies frighten many Israelis living there and abroad.

Some History (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/timeline.htm)

Also, Sharon had a big part in the killing during the Six Day war. He IS responsible for some terrible atrocities.

Six Day War (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_qibya_1953.php)

More on Sharon (http://www.isreview.org/issues/17/Ariel_Sharon.shtml)

Ariel Sharon is an Israeli Hitler

I cant stand all these people who think that Ariel Sharon is such a terrible leader. The fact is he's the first Israeli Prezident to offer to withdraw from any of the occupied territories

Yeah, umm . . . what good is his pullout if there's still that wall? Also, his regime has caused too much bloodshed up to now

Ariel Sharon is an Israeli Hitler

I wouldn't go that far, but he still hinders the peace process by a long shot.

Ariel Sharon is an Israeli Hitler

I wouldn't go that far, but he still hinders the peace process by a long shot.

If news articles werent banned here I can show you where the Israeli Justice Minister said that Sharons latest war crimes in Gaza reminded him of the holocaust

also explain to me why the war criminal Sharon destroyed a ZOO filled with innocent animals??? --he also had israeli troops murder a 3 year old girl who was buying candy. Hes the same babykiller who refused to punish the bulldoze operator who murdered Rachel Corrie--her death shouldve resulted in the US suspending all economic welfare to Israel until her murderer was prosecuted but we all know what a toolbag Bush is

I agree that Sharon can be pretty reckless and his strategys to keep the peace are too agressive but i think hes heading Israel in the right direction.

Also idl like to point out that Palestine was never a country. First it belonged to the Ottoman Empire then it was handed over to Britain. Britain decided to turn two thirds of their mandate into Jordan and one third into a homeland for the jews called israel.

I agree that Sharon can be pretty reckless and his strategys to keep the peace are too agressive but i think hes heading Israel in the right direction.

Reckless is too soft a word for what Sharon is. "Murderous" might be a more suitable word for him. Still, compared to other murderous military dictators, he's just a big 'ol softy. I mean, he's no Pol Pot or Idi Amin, or even a Stalin. He doesn't kill his own people. No, he's more like Hitler, and like Hitler, he has the support of everyone in denial in his country. They like what he's doing enough to ignore the means to the end. Maybe you should watch Shoah, and see all of the germans saying things like, "I didn't kill them, I only laid the foundations of the camp.", or "I didn't murder Jews, I only drove the truck."

All excuses to absolve themselves, to wash their hands clean of the murder they took part in, either directly or indirectly, in support of their leader and in the name of their homeland and people.

The irony of your position is almost tangible.

I agree that Sharon can be pretty reckless and his strategys to keep the peace are too agressive but i think hes heading Israel in the right direction.

Reckless is too soft a word for what Sharon is. "Murderous" might be a more suitable word for him. Still, compared to other murderous military dictators, he's just a big 'ol softy. I mean, he's no Pol Pot or Idi Amin, or even a Stalin. He doesn't kill his own people. No, he's more like Hitler, and like Hitler, he has the support of everyone in denial in his country. They like what he's doing enough to ignore the means to the end. Maybe you should watch Shoah, and see all of the germans saying things like, "I didn't kill them, I only laid the foundations of the camp.", or "I didn't murder Jews, I only drove the truck."

All excuses to absolve themselves, to wash their hands clean of the murder they took part in, either directly or indirectly, in support of their leader and in the name of their homeland and people.

The irony of your position is almost tangible.

I'll remind you of how "murderous" Sharon is, when one of Arafat's Al-Asqa Matyrs Brigades homicide bombers takes out a Pizzaria full of children in a mall.

I agree that Sharon can be pretty reckless and his strategys to keep the peace are too agressive but i think hes heading Israel in the right direction.

Reckless is too soft a word for what Sharon is. "Murderous" might be a more suitable word for him. Still, compared to other murderous military dictators, he's just a big 'ol softy. I mean, he's no Pol Pot or Idi Amin, or even a Stalin. He doesn't kill his own people. No, he's more like Hitler, and like Hitler, he has the support of everyone in denial in his country. They like what he's doing enough to ignore the means to the end. Maybe you should watch Shoah, and see all of the germans saying things like, "I didn't kill them, I only laid the foundations of the camp.", or "I didn't murder Jews, I only drove the truck."

All excuses to absolve themselves, to wash their hands clean of the murder they took part in, either directly or indirectly, in support of their leader and in the name of their homeland and people.

The irony of your position is almost tangible.

I'll remind you of how "murderous" Sharon is, when one of Arafat's Al-Asqa Matyrs Brigades homicide bombers takes out a Pizzaria full of children in a mall.

I'm not disputing the evil in the tactics of the Palistinians, although I'd say at this point it's retaliatory. I'm saying that Sharon is no better. He is just as bad. I'm saying that his tactics are NOT justifiable under ANY conditions.

I agree that Sharon can be pretty reckless and his strategys to keep the peace are too agressive but i think hes heading Israel in the right direction.

Reckless is too soft a word for what Sharon is. "Murderous" might be a more suitable word for him. Still, compared to other murderous military dictators, he's just a big 'ol softy. I mean, he's no Pol Pot or Idi Amin, or even a Stalin. He doesn't kill his own people. No, he's more like Hitler, and like Hitler, he has the support of everyone in denial in his country. They like what he's doing enough to ignore the means to the end. Maybe you should watch Shoah, and see all of the germans saying things like, "I didn't kill them, I only laid the foundations of the camp.", or "I didn't murder Jews, I only drove the truck."

All excuses to absolve themselves, to wash their hands clean of the murder they took part in, either directly or indirectly, in support of their leader and in the name of their homeland and people.

The irony of your position is almost tangible.

I'll remind you of how "murderous" Sharon is, when one of Arafat's Al-Asqa Matyrs Brigades homicide bombers takes out a Pizzaria full of children in a mall.

I'm not disputing the evil in the tactics of the Palistinians, although I'd say at this point it's retaliatory. I'm saying that Sharon is no better. He is just as bad. I'm saying that his tactics are NOT justifiable under ANY conditions.Sharon just as bad huh...how...let's just go by your points one by one...if you'll put them out there shall we.

I agree that Sharon can be pretty reckless and his strategys to keep the peace are too agressive but i think hes heading Israel in the right direction.

Reckless is too soft a word for what Sharon is. "Murderous" might be a more suitable word for him. Still, compared to other murderous military dictators, he's just a big 'ol softy. I mean, he's no Pol Pot or Idi Amin, or even a Stalin. He doesn't kill his own people. No, he's more like Hitler, and like Hitler, he has the support of everyone in denial in his country. They like what he's doing enough to ignore the means to the end. Maybe you should watch Shoah, and see all of the germans saying things like, "I didn't kill them, I only laid the foundations of the camp.", or "I didn't murder Jews, I only drove the truck."

All excuses to absolve themselves, to wash their hands clean of the murder they took part in, either directly or indirectly, in support of their leader and in the name of their homeland and people.

The irony of your position is almost tangible.

I'll remind you of how "murderous" Sharon is, when one of Arafat's Al-Asqa Matyrs Brigades homicide bombers takes out a Pizzaria full of children in a mall.

I'm not disputing the evil in the tactics of the Palistinians, although I'd say at this point it's retaliatory. I'm saying that Sharon is no better. He is just as bad. I'm saying that his tactics are NOT justifiable under ANY conditions.Sharon just as bad huh...how...let's just go by your points one by one...if you'll put them out there shall we.

If you insist, I'll re-link all of my points again. OR you could go to my previous posts and read through the material in the links. I worked hard to make my sources as impartial as I possibly could, but then again, it's not me that would like to try defending the indefensible. I suspect, Salishe, that you are now simply trolling, and I should know better than to feed the trolls.

I agree that Sharon can be pretty reckless and his strategys to keep the peace are too agressive but i think hes heading Israel in the right direction.

Reckless is too soft a word for what Sharon is. "Murderous" might be a more suitable word for him. Still, compared to other murderous military dictators, he's just a big 'ol softy. I mean, he's no Pol Pot or Idi Amin, or even a Stalin. He doesn't kill his own people. No, he's more like Hitler, and like Hitler, he has the support of everyone in denial in his country. They like what he's doing enough to ignore the means to the end. Maybe you should watch Shoah, and see all of the germans saying things like, "I didn't kill them, I only laid the foundations of the camp.", or "I didn't murder Jews, I only drove the truck."

All excuses to absolve themselves, to wash their hands clean of the murder they took part in, either directly or indirectly, in support of their leader and in the name of their homeland and people.

The irony of your position is almost tangible.

I'll remind you of how "murderous" Sharon is, when one of Arafat's Al-Asqa Matyrs Brigades homicide bombers takes out a Pizzaria full of children in a mall.

I'm not disputing the evil in the tactics of the Palistinians, although I'd say at this point it's retaliatory. I'm saying that Sharon is no better. He is just as bad. I'm saying that his tactics are NOT justifiable under ANY conditions.Sharon just as bad huh...how...let's just go by your points one by one...if you'll put them out there shall we.

If you insist, I'll re-link all of my points again. OR you could go to my previous posts and read through the material in the links. I worked hard to make my sources as impartial as I possibly could, but then again, it's not me that would like to try defending the indefensible. I suspect, Salishe, that you are now simply trolling, and I should know better than to feed the trolls.

Trolling??..on the contrary...I must admit to being somewhat lazy..as giving me a synopsis on one post would be easier to go over your points but I shall make the attempt to review your other posts and give you a brief summary of my responses to it..

btw...I don't troll..not in my nature to see the pathetic glee in someone who trolls just so they can piss off people.

Some Research (http://www.jafi.org.il/education/actual/sabra-shatilla/)

Funding Report (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3003likud_usgangsta.html)

Some More (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html)

Still More (http://www.jerusalemites.org/news/english/feb2003/22.htm)

Timeline, aka: Some History (http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/timeline.htm)

Six Day War (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_qibya_1953.php)

More on Sharon (http://www.isreview.org/issues/17/Ariel_Sharon.shtml)

My points are, in order:

1. Sharon was responsible, and so was his administration, for the safety of the Palistinian refugees. Women, children and the elderly. In failing to see to their safety, he and his administration were responsible for their deaths.

2. The US government will not step in or say anything about the atrocities being committed by the Israeli government under Sharon, for the entire history of the country since it was established in 1948, because they are under too much pressure politically to do so.

3. This is not the first time that Sharon has overseen a massacre. He started early on in the Six Day War.

4. The British were colonialists who continued into that time period to make policy decisions which were not approved of or in the best interest of those who resided in their colonies at the time. Refer to Partition in India or the Zulu war in Africa. Their decisions regarding the disposition of the territories of Isreal cannot be legitimized by saying that their interests were benevolent or benign.

Also idl like to point out that Palestine was never a country. First it belonged to the Ottoman Empire then it was handed over to Britain. Britain decided to turn two thirds of their mandate into Jordan and one third into a homeland for the jews called israel.if palestine was never a country then why does the word PALESTINE exist at all?

I agree that Sharon can be pretty reckless and his strategys to keep the peace are too agressive but i think hes heading Israel in the right direction.

Reckless is too soft a word for what Sharon is. "Murderous" might be a more suitable word for him. Still, compared to other murderous military dictators, he's just a big 'ol softy. I mean, he's no Pol Pot or Idi Amin, or even a Stalin. He doesn't kill his own people. No, he's more like Hitler, and like Hitler, he has the support of everyone in denial in his country. They like what he's doing enough to ignore the means to the end. Maybe you should watch Shoah, and see all of the germans saying things like, "I didn't kill them, I only laid the foundations of the camp.", or "I didn't murder Jews, I only drove the truck."

All excuses to absolve themselves, to wash their hands clean of the murder they took part in, either directly or indirectly, in support of their leader and in the name of their homeland and people.

The irony of your position is almost tangible.

I'll remind you of how "murderous" Sharon is, when one of Arafat's Al-Asqa Matyrs Brigades homicide bombers takes out a Pizzaria full of children in a mall.the hate that Sharon causes is directly responsible for that

The other side of the story is that the US is directly collaborating with the Sharon administration to broker a peace deal that leaves the Palistinians out of the negotiations and also gives them almost nothing as their part of the deal. If you wonder why the Palestinians are angry, I think that should speak volumes.

Peace Deal (http://www.palestine-pmc.com/details.asp?cat=1&id=1279)

Sharon's Ethnic Cleansing, Indoctrination of the Young by Government Order (http://www.mediareviewnet.com/Sharon%20embarks%20on%20ethnic%20cleansing.htm)

Also, the people of Israel themselves are growing very concerned with his tactics, some of them refusing to serve in the Israeli army, and saying that this brings disaster to both sides. Impeding Peace (http://www.midan.net/nm/private/news/icp_statements_on_shooting.htm)

There is even a group called Jews Against The Occupation which opposes the "transfer" of the Palestinians. JATO Website (http://www.jatonyc.org/fact.htm)

Sharon is a liability to humanity, peace and politics. It would do Bush and all other leaders to have no ties to him, because he whips up hatred against Israel and any openly allied to them. It may very easily be the case that our alliance with his government only serves to put our soldiers in Iraq in worse danger. More (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/mar2002/isra-m09.shtml)