Sharon fighting for his life...

[Abraham]

Israeli Prime Minister Sharon suffered a severe stroke last night and the chances seem slim that he might ever be an effective political leader again, if he even survives. Apart from this personal tragedy, it will have a tremendous inpact on Israeli politics.

Sharon had just founded the new Kadima (progres) party, breaking with his former Likud party. The main idea was to unilaterally withdraw from much of the occupied territories without consulting the Palestinian leadership. After Sharon left the Labor party the leadership of this party was taken over by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netaniahu. At about the same time the Labour party suffered a crisis: old-timer Shimon Peres was replaced by a much youger and more progressive trade union leader Perez. Shimon Peres consequently joined Sharon's Kadima, as did many of Sharon's Cabinet Ministers.

Sharon is (was) the first Israeli politician to take the drastic step of giving up land without anything (peace) in teturn. He not only got away with it, but became highly popular in Israel.

Personally, I think that Sharon, having been a hard liner in the past, was the only Israeli politician who could withdraw from the occupied territories an give up settlements, and politically come away with it. In the democracy that Israel is, any concession towards the Palestinians need broad political support and the Palestinians are not really convincing the Israeli's to give that support for concessions...
Sharon's demise would have serious consequences for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the more so since the Palestinian Authority seems to be completely eroded and the Gaza Strip seems to have turned into a complete anarchy.

[joea]

Well I don't know. :-? He was a huge (no pun) :shifty: figure in Isreali politics. I do wonder why he didn't take better care of himself though, I mean high stress job (first military then even worse politics) and that excess weight is not a good combo. This is the worst time to leave the scene.

[The Avon Lady]

Makes no difference.

Abraham, I disagree with your statement:

"Sharon is (was) the first Israeli politician to take the drastic step of giving up land without anything (peace) in return."

The first was Rabin.

Some would argue the first was Begin.

[Abraham]

Makes no difference.

Abraham, I disagree with your statement:

"Sharon is (was) the first Israeli politician to take the drastic step of giving up land without anything (peace) in return."

The first was Rabin.

Some would argue the first was Begin.
Begin gave up Egypthian territory after a peace accord with Sadat, sponsored by Jimmy Carter. That was "land for peace", a long held principle of Israeli foreign policy. By the way, the withdrawl from the Sinai desert was realized by defense minister Ariel Sharon.

Rabin was prepared to give up land after the Oslo Accord with Yassir Arafat, sponsored by Bill Clinton. As far as I know Israel did not actually withdraw - and certainly not unilaterally - from occupied territory but gave several levels of limited autonomy to the Palestinians.

[The Avon Lady]

Makes no difference.

Abraham, I disagree with your statement:

"Sharon is (was) the first Israeli politician to take the drastic step of giving up land without anything (peace) in return."

The first was Rabin.

Some would argue the first was Begin.
Begin gave up Egypthian territory after a peace accord with Sadat, sponsored by Jimmy Carter. That was "land for peace", a long held principle of Israeli foreign policy.
Those that would argue otherwise will point out that Egypt's government and people internally continue to talk about and refer to the demise of Israel.
Rabin was prepared to give up land after the Oslo Accord with Yassir Arafat, sponsored by Bill Clinton. As far as I know Israel did not actually withdraw and certainly not unilaterally withdraw from occupied territory
I do not know what "occupied" means.

In any case, you seem to have forgotten that areas were designated as "A", "B" and "C". Areas "A" are in complete independent control of the PA, "B" are jointly controled and "C" are Israeli controlled.

[tycho102]

I do not know what "occupied" means.

"Occupied" means that France, Germany, Denmark, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Russia, Cambodia, India, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Morocco, Sudan, South Africa, Iceland, Norway, Austria -- through the United Nations -- do not recognize the land mass as belonging to the currently dominant force in the area. It's an international thing. A popularity contest like winning the Nobel Peace Prize. If the UN votes that it's not yours, you're "occupying" it. Crush the resistance, bribe France and Italy, and the UN might make it a "territory".

And Israel gave up the Gaza for international support. They didn't give it up for "peace", or at least, not directly. They gave it up so when the Palestinians are launching 100 Quassam rockets every month since the beginning of 2000, it's "morally justifiable" when they return 10,000 artillery shells into the nearest damn city (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/crusader/). They gave it up so they can say "we came close to a civil war, so what the hell have YOU done lately?" I certainly have less sympathy for Abbas' fears of a civil-war in Palestine.



On the original topic, I'm just glad it wasn't a Jewish law student this time. Sharon's obesity was his own failing.

[Abraham]

I do not know what "occupied" means.
I'll be willing to use whatever term you call more appropriate, like the Old Testamentical 'Judea' & 'Samaria', as long as we all realise that the Palestinian people living there regared it as "occupied" by the Israeli army.

...And Israel gave up the Gaza for international support. They didn't give it up for "peace", or at least, not directly. They gave it up so when the Palestinians are launching 100 Quassam rockets every month since the beginning of 2000, it's "morally justifiable" when they return 10,000 artillery shells into the nearest damn city (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/crusader/). They gave it up so they can say "we came close to a civil war, so what the hell have YOU done lately?" I certainly have less sympathy for Abbas' fears of a civil-war in Palestine.
The only motivation for Sharon that I could see was his vision of what was in the best interest of Israel, which is perfectly valid for a political leader.
Sharon certainly didn't act to gain international support, because he wasn't much into international popularity in the first place.
Your thought that he was forced by 100 Qassam rockets a month since 200 does not show much knowledge of the personality of Sharon and leaves the question why he waited till mid 2005.

Furthermore it creates the ( wrong) impression that Israel can be forced to withdrawn under military pressure and not through political negotiations, which is basically the Hamas and Islamic Jihad point of view: to continue military or terror attacks on Israel works and will finally bring about the destruction of Israel.
It is the gravest error of judgement the Palestinians could make. It is not at all unlikely that they have learned nothing from two failed Intifada's that only brought them sufferings and that they will make that grave mistake during the coming elections.

As a progressive, left-wing, Palestinian befriended Israeli friend of mine once told me: the Palestinians have the unique capacity never lose a chance to lose a chance.
Let's wait and see till the Palestinian elections...

[TteFAboB]

Why do palestinians have to be poor and live in misery with state aid in ""Palestine"*" if they could be poor and live in misery with state aid in France?

Sharon was the palestinian's last chance to prove themselves, if he's gone and with him his plans we might go back to the same ol' same ol', their leadership created and bred a society that accepts terrorism, uses it as a tool of "freedom", a "weapon" of oppressed people, if you hand them what they want, they'll ask for something else next, there is far too much power in their hands to let go, they have the sympathy of most European leaders, their people don't value their lives and are willing to suicide wherever they are pointed at, what would be the next target after the destruction of Israel?

The whole idea of not valueing their lives turns their demands insignificant, if their life has little value and they can be used as mere weapons, then why do they want a state? Why do they want independency? If they are happy to stay at home everyday, surviving with state charity, and do nothing but hate Israel and eventually suicide in a terrorist attack what will they do with the land they claim?

From personal experience with these people I came to the conclusion I always have a higher chance of identifying my values with someone who spent most of their life in Israel, be it a Jew, an Arab or whatever, for all I care, these "palestinians" who don't value their life do not deserve to live, I would treat them like cattle, because that's how they behave as a society, when the good men of palestine are the majority, when they are willing to build and create instead of destroying, then they can leave Israel if they want and reach an agreement, because we'd be dealing with human beings, not animals.

[U-552Erich-Topp]

So far the poll indicates that a settlement is far from obtainable. That doesn't look very promising or peaceful.

[Marhkimov]

So far the poll indicates that a settlement is far from obtainable. That doesn't look very promising or peaceful.
Well, ya can't really blame people for being honest and truthful... :roll:

[CCIP]

I don't think it's a good thing. I've generally been supportive of his track in the recent while - as far as the pullout goes, anyway - not strongly in any way though. I won't say anything either way at this point though - I'll wait and see. How things go in Israel is too important to me personally to speculate at this point :hmm:

[Iceman]

Matthew 5

[9] Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Sharon is (was) the first Israeli politician to take the drastic step of giving up land without anything (peace) in return. He not only got away with it, but became highly popular in Israel.

I like to think he did it just for peace's sake itself....He can stand before God with a clear concience knowing he tried wholeheartly for peace for the land which is constantly at war and "Did Not" demand anything in return.

Maybe I am wrong and don't know Isreal as well as others but that deed to me also seemed rather selfless....:hmm: Good Show Ole Boy :up:

[Konovalov]

Pat Robertson has a theory (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4589270.stm) on the sad situation of Ariel Sharon. Here is another link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/05/robertson.sharon/) and this (http://www.patrobertson.com/PressReleases/ArielSharonPR.asp) is Pat Robertsons spin media release in response to the Whitehouse and general uproar.

[Abraham]

Thanks Konovalov for your links.
Wise and brave reaction from the White House towards a man who considers - falsely - the Bible to be a roadmap for Middle East policy...

[TteFAboB]

Enough with Pat Robertson, what is this a cult to mediocrity?!

I could care less what Pat Robertson has to say, I know what he will say about anything before he opens his mouth.

Pat Robertson is as predictable as this other guy:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060105/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel_sharon_1

Are these guys a surprise to anybody?

[Abraham]

According to me the fastest way to bring Sharon back to live from his medically induced coma is to whisper softly in his ear: "Best wishes from Yassir Arafat!", to sit back, and see if/how he reacts...
:D

[Oberon]

According to me the fastest way to bring Sharon back to live from his medically induced coma is to whisper softly in his ear: "Best wishes from Yassir Arafat!", to sit back, and see if/how he reacts...
:D

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I can't imagine any leader who can bring a peace to Middle East. Sharon made a ambiguous desision to remove settlements - even this couldn't stop terrorists from attacking Israel. Sharon is a very strong leader. And I thing that after him, things will go worse: either "hawks" will intencify the conflict, or "pigeons" will make dramatic concessions.