Sharon shows his own and Likuds true intentions

[a_unique_person]

Sharon was never interested in a peace deal, nor was Likud. The settlements never stopped, the proof of the intent in the past, and his triumphant boasts confirm it. The right wingers were never going to settle for anything less than taking as much of the West Bank as they could.

Israelis have made a pact with the devil.

Quote:

Speaking to a gathering of about 500 of the 30,000 residents in Maale Adumim, the West Bank's largest Jewish settlement, Mr Sharon said that their homes would "continue to be built as part of Israel, for all eternity".

Quote:

"We'll hear no more of that nonsense about the unique Jewish morality, the moral lessons of the holocaust or about the Jews who were supposed to have emerged from the gas chambers pure and virtuous. No more of that. The destruction of Eyn Hilwe (and it's a pity we did not wipe out that hornet's nest completely!), the healthy bombardment of Beirut and that tiny massacre (can you call 500 Arabs a massacre?) in their camps which we should have committed with our own delicate hands rather than let the Phalangists do it, all these good deeds finally killed the ******** talk about a unique people and of being a light upon the nations. No more uniqueness and no more sweetness and light. Good riddance."

....

And you can write that I am disgrace to humanity, I don't mind, on the contrary. Let's make a deal: I will do all I can to expel the Arabs from here, I will do all I can to increase anti-Semitism, and you will write poems and essays about the misery of the Arabs and be prepared to absorb the Yids I will force to flee to this country and teach them to be a light unto the gentiles. How about it?"

http://www.voicesofpalestine.org/ArielSharon.asp

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Following the 1967 war Israel seized East Jerusalem, forced out all of the 6,500 residing Palestinians, and bulldozed their religious centers. The UN reported that by 1971, 48 Palestinian villages were destroyed, and by 1974 the Red Cross counted almost 20,000 Palestinian homes crushed by Israeli bulldozers. The surviving refugees joined their 1948 counterparts in squalid camps. Meanwhile, Israeli leaders had come to a certain consensus about the nature of their victims, namely that they were all animals. "Two-legged beasts", "grasshoppers", "snakes", "drugged insects", "cockroaches"-terms employed not by random Israeli fanatics, but rather very well-placed ones, i.e. prime ministers, defense ministers, and so forth-have been used to describe, or rather dehumanize, Palestinians. One wonders if Israeli leadership plans on erecting zoos across the country to house the newly dispossessed 'Negroes': it would be a welcome respite from the hovels and ghettoes that comprise much of the Occupied Territories.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.counterpunch.org/alam20713.html

Quote:

Informed of Palestinians' reaction, Sharon was quoted by two well-informed Israeli columnists covering his White House visit as saying: "They have a better understanding of the significance of (Bush's) letter than most Israelis. I said that we were going to deal them a lethal blow, and they were dealt a lethal blow."

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle...t&section=news

Quote:

'A MORTAL BLOW'

"My plan is tough on the Palestinians. A mortal blow. In a unilateral process there is no Palestinian state. This situation could go on for many years," Sharon said before he saw Bush.

Many Palestinians believe Sharon seeks to push them into crippling internal strife to scuttle any chance of negotiations that would require more significant handovers of territory.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle...t&section=news

Sharon has never wanted anything less than this. He has worked away, either as leader, or in his other official capacities, to deny the Palestinians a State.

A big question now is, what will happen to the Palestinians. Sharon owns them, and he is not interested in them or their plight whatsoever.

This is the attitude the Palestinians have been up against from day one. There has never been a chance of peace while people like Sharon made sure that there was violence enough to cause enough instability for them to take control.

He is a racist thug who was never going to settle for anything less than victory on his terms.

There are two big questions now.

1) Can they really go it alone against the rest of the world? Sharon doesn't care what others think of him. Not everyone else is so insensitive. They seek approval and recognition.

2) Does this mean that Israel now rules Palestine, with it's population living in a legal twilight world, not citizens of any country. Israel rules them, but they have no independant country.

[Cleopatra]

You see Unique the Israelis have the option not to vote for Sharon if they wish an option that the Palestinians do not have.

So, do not vote for Ariel Sharon when you will become an Israeli citizen and get over Sharon.

His existence is not connected with your well-being in Australia.

Jesus! Some people play video games, others start threads about Sharon to amuse themselves in Saturday evenings.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You see Unique the Israelis have the option not to vote for Sharon if they wish an option that the Palestinians do not have.

So, do not vote for Ariel Sharon when you will become an Israeli citizen and get over Sharon.

His existence is not connected with your well-being in Australia.

Jesus! Some people play video games, others start threads about Sharon to amuse themselves in Saturday evenings.

It's Sunday.

Sharon has finally admitted what he wanted all along. He sold himself as being able to defend Israel. This is only secondary to what he has wanted all along.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It's Sunday.

Sharon has finally admitted what he wanted all along. He sold himself as being able to defend Israel. This is only secondary to what he has wanted all along.

Sharon was elected in 2001, what did you blame everything on before then?

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft


Sharon was elected in 2001, what did you blame everything on before then?

There has been a constant tension between the expansionists and those who want a civilised settlement of the issue. Giving someone a country to live in when he has none, and you control the land he is living on, appears to be a sensible start. If you don't, he might get angry.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There has been a constant tension between the expansionists and those who want a civilised settlement of the issue.

There has also been a constant tension between those that want to destroy Israel and those who want a civilised settlement of the issue.

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Giving someone a country to live in when he has none, and you control the land he is living on, appears to be a sensible start. If you don't, he might get angry.

Now close your eyes and pretend it's 1947 and say that.

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft


Sharon was elected in 2001, what did you blame everything on before then?

I'm not sure...who was the last Zionist in charge of land theft before Sharon?

As you so kindly point out in your sig line Mycroft. There is no place for Arabs in the future plans of Sharon....

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
I'm not sure...who was the last Zionist in charge of land theft before Sharon?

As you so kindly point out in your sig line Mycroft. There is no place for Arabs in the future plans of Sharon....

Yeah? What's Sharon doing to the 1.2 million Israeli-Arabs?

[The Fool]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft


There has also been a constant tension between those that want to destroy Israel and those who want a civilised settlement of the issue.

Let me guess...

civilised settlement = Israel takes whatever it wants.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool
Let me guess...

civilised settlement = Israel takes whatever it wants.

If you need more straw for that, you can have mine. I don't use it.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by The Fool


I'm not sure...who was the last Zionist in charge of land theft before Sharon?

As you so kindly point out in your sig line Mycroft. There is no place for Arabs in the future plans of Sharon....

You could try to claim the million, but Randi might point out everyone already knew that.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You see Unique the Israelis have the option not to vote for Sharon if they wish an option that the Palestinians do not have.

So, do not vote for Ariel Sharon when you will become an Israeli citizen and get over Sharon.

His existence is not connected with your well-being in Australia.

Jesus! Some people play video games, others start threads about Sharon to amuse themselves in Saturday evenings.

I guess the other point is that, since the Palestinians are ruled by Israel, they should get a franchise to vote for it's leader.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft


Yeah? What's Sharon doing to the 1.2 million Israeli-Arabs?

A work colleague saw first hand. He was being shown around Jerusalem by an Arab guide. When the guide wanted to walk past a guard, he was told he wasn't allowed to walk there, he had to go to the same destination by a much more roundabout route. The Arab was furious, but did as he was told, as the guard was armed, and he wasn't. Why was he told to do that? According to my colleague, just to intimidate and humiliate him. Don't worry Mycroft, a fried of my father was also outraged by similar acts of discrimination and humiliation.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I guess the other point is that, since the Palestinians are ruled by Israel, they should get a franchise to vote for it's leader.

Well, there are about 200,000 in Jerusalem who have rejected that offer.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft


There has also been a constant tension between those that want to destroy Israel and those who want a civilised settlement of the issue.



Now close your eyes and pretend it's 1947 and say that.

The Jews were all citizens of countries, at least they had that. Palestinians don't even have that, in the the land they live in.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The Jews were all citizens of countries, at least they had that.

The benefit there being what?

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Palestinians don't even have that, in the the land they live in.

Tragic.

Someone recently made a list of opportunities for Palestinian statehood starting from the UN partition plan all the way to Camp David in 2000. What were there, a half-dozen or more of them?

[geni]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
His existence is not connected with your well-being in Australia.

Really? Has Isreal decomisioned it's nukes while I wasn't looking?

[charley_bigtime]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft


The benefit there being what?



Tragic.

Someone recently made a list of opportunities for Palestinian statehood starting from the UN partition plan all the way to Camp David in 2000. What were there, a half-dozen or more of them?

I think they wanted their state, not the bits that Israel was offering them, even as it created more settlements. I don't even know why they had to ask? Where did that bit come from? As it is, what they have is absolutely nothing, not citizens, not owners of land where the title is worth the paper it is written on, with laws created for them by a so called democracy.

[Skeptic]

Well, even if all that comes off, I don't see the great injustice involved. Why SHOULDN'T israel extract a penalty in land from the Palestinians for a three-year terror war of annihilation they started?

If the Palestinians are re-offered the same deal again and again, regardless of their behavior, the sole result is to encourage terror and violence, since they know they've got nothing to lose: if they win the war, they destroy israel, but if they lose it, they still keep all the territory.

[Skeptic]

I think they wanted their state, not the bits that Israel was offering them,

The "bits" israel offered were all of the Gaza strip, 97% of the WB, and territory from inside israel to compensate for the other 3%.

Sounds like more than "bits" to me.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, even if all that comes off, I don't see the great injustice involved. Why SHOULDN'T israel extract a penalty in land from the Palestinians for a three-year terror war of annihilation they started?

If the Palestinians are re-offered the same deal again and again, regardless of their behavior, the sole result is to encourage terror and violence, since they know they've got nothing to lose: if they win the war, they destroy israel, but if they lose it, they still keep all the territory.

A military occupation is an act of war. Israel has been at war with Palestine for over 30 years. Perhaps they don't like that. Then they have to beg for the war to be over.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
A military occupation is an act of war. Israel has been at war with Palestine for over 30 years. Perhaps they don't like that. Then they have to beg for the war to be over.

Or at least ask for peace.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
I think they wanted their state, not the bits that Israel was offering them,

The "bits" israel offered were all of the Gaza strip, 97% of the WB, and territory from inside israel to compensate for the other 3%.

Sounds like more than "bits" to me.

Sounds more like fantasy to me. Take the best bits of the West Bank, include such insanity as the Hebron settlement, and give away some useless bits of the West Bank. What part of giving back the West Bank don't you understand, not to mention a right of return to property that was owned before the ethnic cleansing during the war.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft


Or at least ask for peace.

They have been asking for just that. Why should they have to bargain for an end to a war. They have had a war imposed on them for over 30 years, and they have to beg for it to end. If they fight back, they are branded as terrorists. They more desperate they get, the more it suits Sharon. He has already said exactly that. He is the ultimate player in 'Wedge Politics'.

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person


A military occupation is an act of war. Israel has been at war with Palestine for over 30 years. Perhaps they don't like that. Then they have to beg for the war to be over.

How could they be at war with 'Palestine' when they took that land from Jordan, Egypt....etc?

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Sounds more like fantasy to me. Take the best bits of the West Bank, include such insanity as the Hebron settlement, and give away some useless bits of the West Bank. What part of giving back the West Bank don't you understand, not to mention a right of return to property that was owned before the ethnic cleansing during the war.

Do you have any documentation of which parts of the West Bank are the "best bits?"

If you insist that events of the Israeli war of independence constitute "ethnic cleansing", do you have an explanation for all the Arabs that were not cleansed, who's descendents are still living in Israel as Israeli citizens?

Can you provide a reasonable explanation why events of the Israeli war of independence should be characterized as "ethnic cleansing" even though so many Arabs were not moved and were actually protected by Jewish forces in that war, but the removal of Jewish settlements from Gaza and the West Bank should not be called ethnic cleansing?

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by ssibal


How could they be at war with 'Palestine' when they took that land from Jordan, Egypt....etc?

Jordan and Egypt just gave up. The people who actually live there, who never seem to figure in the equation, are the ones who have been subjet to war for over 30 years.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
They have been asking for just that.

When? How?

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Why should they have to bargain for an end to a war.

Because other ways to end wars are far less pleasent.

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
They have had a war imposed on them for over 30 years, and they have to beg for it to end.

You say “beg” but another word for that is “negotiate”.

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If they fight back, they are branded as terrorists.

Certainly when their method of “fighting back” involves random slayings of people riding busses and eating in restaurants, yes.

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
They more desperate they get, the more it suits Sharon. He has already said exactly that. He is the ultimate player in 'Wedge Politics'.

Perhaps. And? Are you suggesting that the inverse is not true, that the more desperate Israeli citizens get it doesn’t suite Arafat and Hamas more? That Arafat and Hamas are uninterested in “wedge politics”?

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft


Do you have any documentation of which parts of the West Bank are the "best bits?"

If you insist that events of the Israeli war of independence constitute "ethnic cleansing", do you have an explanation for all the Arabs that were not cleansed, who's descendents are still living in Israel as Israeli citizens?

Can you provide a reasonable explanation why events of the Israeli war of independence should be characterized as "ethnic cleansing" even though so many Arabs were not moved and were actually protected by Jewish forces in that war, but the removal of Jewish settlements from Gaza and the West Bank should not be called ethnic cleansing?

I am sure you have heard all about how vital water is in a desert country.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Jordan and Egypt just gave up. The people who actually live there, who never seem to figure in the equation, are the ones who have been subjet to war for over 30 years.

I suppose "just giving up" is another way of saying they decided that peace was better than war.

I fail to see how you can say the Palestinian-Arabs have never figured into the equation. It seems to me they have been the primary factor in the equation.

[Skeptic]

A military occupation is an act of war.

Oh really?

So the war in Germany didn't end in May 1945, and the war in Japan didn't end in August 1945, but both only ended in the early 1950s when the US and other troops stopped occupting the countries?

What was all that "VE" and "VJ" bruahaha all about, then?

Israel has been at war with Palestine for over 30 years.

Only according to your defintion of "war".

Perhaps they don't like that.

They could have stopped it at least three different times since 1967, but the condition in each case was actually recognizing that israel has a right to exist. That is a no-no for the Palestinians.

What they REALLY don't like is israel's existence. The rest (including "the occupation") is merely an excuse.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft


When? How?



Because other ways to end wars are far less pleasent.



You say “beg” but another word for that is “negotiate”.



Certainly when their method of “fighting back” involves random slayings of people riding busses and eating in restaurants, yes.



Perhaps. And? Are you suggesting that the inverse is not true, that the more desperate Israeli citizens get it doesn’t suite Arafat and Hamas more? That Arafat and Hamas are uninterested in “wedge politics”?

Why should you have to negotiate for an occupying power to leave, unless that power is just a brutal imperialist. In that case, sure, you have to negotiate, otherwise, if you are civilised and democratic and Western, as we are constantly being told, then you just leave.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I am sure you have heard all about how vital water is in a desert country.

So you plan to document which parts of the West Bank have better access to water?

Shall I take your non response on the other issues as acceptance of those points?

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
A military occupation is an act of war.

Oh really?

So the war in Germany didn't end in May 1945, and the war in Japan didn't end in August 1945, but both only ended in the early 1950s when the US and other troops stopped occupting the countries?

What was all that "VE" and "VJ" bruahaha all about, then?

Israel has been at war with Palestine for over 30 years.

Only according to your defintion of "war".

Perhaps they don't like that.

They could have stopped it at least three different times since 1967, but the condition in each case was actually recognizing that israel has a right to exist. That is a no-no for the Palestinians.

What they REALLY don't like is israel's existence. The rest (including "the occupation") is merely an excuse.

Can't you get it numbskull. Of course they don't like the fact that Israel exists. It's creation has been the biggest source of misery for them for the past 60 years. It has taken their land, their dignity, their freedon and their lives. Do you expect them to hold a 'celebrate the creation of Israel Day' evey year?

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft


So you plan to document which parts of the West Bank have better access to water?

Shall I take your non response on the other issues as acceptance of those points?

Israel already has this well documented.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Why should you have to negotiate for an occupying power to leave, unless that power is just a brutal imperialist. In that case, sure, you have to negotiate, otherwise, if you are civilised and democratic and Western, as we are constantly being told, then you just leave.

As far as I know, there are only two ways to end a war: 1) Complete victory with unconditional surrender of the vanquished. 2) A negotiated settlement.

Personally, I prefer the second. If you can show me a conflict that ended in a different way and demonstrate how it might apply to this situation, I'd like to see it.

Shall I take your non response on the other issues as acceptance of those points? Let me enumerate them for you:

1) You didn't respond to when and how the Palestinian-Arabs aksed for peace, so they did not ask for peace.

2) You use of the word "beg" really does mean "negotiate", you don't expect the Palestinian-Arabs to negotiate anything.

3) Their method of fighting back is terrorism.

4) You concede the point that the Israeli population becoming desperate does suit Arafat and Hamas, and that Arafat and Hamas are also practicioners of "wedge politics."

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Can't you get it numbskull. Of course they don't like the fact that Israel exists. It's creation has been the biggest source of misery for them for the past 60 years. It has taken their land, their dignity, their freedon and their lives. Do you expect them to hold a 'celebrate the creation of Israel Day' evey year?

None of these things were lost to their perpetuating war for 60 years?

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Israel already has this well documented.

Is this an article of faith on your part, or can you show this?

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic
A military occupation is an act of war.

Oh really?

So the war in Germany didn't end in May 1945, and the war in Japan didn't end in August 1945, but both only ended in the early 1950s when the US and other troops stopped occupting the countries?

What was all that "VE" and "VJ" bruahaha all about, then?

Those were the final acts of the war, and a part of the peace settlement. The Occupying forces returned control of the countries to the people who lived there as soon as possible. In each case, it was just a few years. Those people were still Japanese or German citizens, and got to keep their own homes. There were no 'settlers' turning up.