If Palestinians don't mourn Ariel Sharon, we have no moral right to condemn them for it.

[Ken Burch]

Last edited Sun Jan 12, 2014, 02:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Palestinians will always remember Sharon for allowing the massacres of innocent Palestinian refugees at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon to occur. during the illegal Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon.

The Phalangist president-elect of Lebanon, Bashir Gemayel, had just been killed and Palestinian militias were accused of the act. Phalangist militias showed up at Sabra and Shatila and demanded to be allowed inside(supposedly, to "question" and "investigate".)
Sharon KNEW they were there to exact vengeance, knew they would go on a rampage, and let those militias(whose roots derived from the Lebanese Christian fascist party of the 1930s)inside the camps anyway.

between 762 and 3500 refugees were slaughtered by the Phalangists, and Sharon did nothing to stop the killing, even though he knew that innocent, unarmed people were being killed. To Ariel Sharon, the lives of these people were of no value.

And before and after that, Sharon oversaw some of the most brutal IDF tactics during the West Bank and Gaza occupations, and spent decades doing all he could to aid and abet the illegal West Bank settler movement, a movement that exists almost solely to take up enough land to make the creation of a viable Palestinian state impossible.

We have no right to expect Palestinians to see such a person as a "man of peace".

Yes, Sharon made some mild moves towards peace later, but by then, he'd done the damage. By then, it was no longer even remotely possible to expect Palestinians to forgive the man for what he had done for most of his life, or to expect them to mourn his passing.

It would be like expecting Native Americans to mourn Kit Carson, or former slaves to mourn the bounty hunters who returned escaped slaves to bondage. Or like expecting Holocaust survivors to mourn the guards at their camps.

The oppressed can never be expected to mourn their oppressor.

[ProgressSaves]

1. Yep. Death does not cleanse a man of his actions in life. nt

[rateyes]

2. +1000+

[hlthe2b]

3. Agree n/t

[TeeYiYi]

4. Agreed...

Even more so, it would be like expecting Black Americans to mourn the passing of Senator Robert Byrd.

A change of heart in the 11th hour is a step in the right direction but it can't be construed as a panacea.

TYY

[Ken Burch]

5. George Wallace would be a better example than Byrd, but fair enough I suppose.

n/t.

[TeeYiYi]

7. Him too. ..nt

TYY

[Ken Burch]

8. Just so you know(and this probably wasn't your intent, but I thought I should tell you)

Bringing up Robert Byrd has been a right-wing tactic used against Democrats since the early 2000's. On one or two occasions, there was a 50-50 split in the U.S. Senate, and Byrd's continued presence brought the Democrats to that level. The right was essentially arguing that Democrats should force Byrd to resign. This would have given Republicans interim control of the Senate until Byrd's seat was filled, after which the 'pugs assumed that they were certain to win the special election for Byrd's seat and get a 51-49 majority, as the white man's God wanted them to have, of course.

Wallace was actually responsible for a lot of people being injured or killed during the black freedom movement era. There's no evidence that Byrd, by contrast(though he should have known better than to even spend the brief period of time he did spend in the Klan early in his life)ever actually harmed anyone.

[TeeYiYi]

11. Senator Robert Byrd was a racist...

...as well as an outspoken advocate and member of the Ku Klux Klan. He eventually renounced the KKK but not before filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

His fickle stance on the subject of racial equality is the reason I chose to support your OP by using Senator Byrd as a comparison to your example of Ariel Sharon. My intent was to support your position. Perhaps a better example, in your eyes, would have been to reference a republican; Strom Thurmond, for example…

My intent, however, remains the same. So, why does it feel like you're accusing me of right wing tactics? That's a funny way to reward someone for supporting the premise of your OP.

TYY

[Ken Burch]

12. My intent wasn't to attack you, and I apologize for phrasing my response badly.

I was simply trying to discuss some of the reasons Byrd(who was a racist, but was not the author of violence in the same way that George Wallace and Lester Maddox and others were)has been singled out for opportunistic mention by the Right.

Wasn't meaning to say that you intended that, but wasn't sure if you realized why Byrd gets brought up so much.

Thanks for your post and for participating in this thread, which, happily, has now been unlocked.

[TeeYiYi]

15. Apology accepted...

I, too, am happy that the thread was unlocked after having been hastily relegated to the I/P dungeon.

TYY

[sabrina 1]

16. Tyy, Sharon bears no resemblance to Byrd. Byrd was ignorant, due to where and the times he grew up

in, but he was an intelligent man and he gradually began to learn and was a big enough person to listen and absorb ideas that were new to him. And once an intelligent, but ignorant person begins to learn how wrong they were, the process for THEM can be very painful. As it was for him. As he stated many times, there was no way for him to erase the ignorance he was raised with, but once he became aware of how ignorant the culture he grew up in was, he was ashamed of it and constantly acknowledged it. You can't cure pure hatred, but ignorance is easily cured with facts.

And I don't agree re African Americans and Byrd. He developed close relationships with many African Americans throughout his life and most AA, unless they are Right Wingers, that I have known, friends, family etc, came to love and respect Sen. Byrd because there is something courageous and admirable about being willing to let go of beliefs you were raised with when you realize how wrong they were, when the opportunity to learn presents itself.

I wish more people were willing to do that.

I always respect your pov, TYY, but just wanted to say that while I didn't know Byrd personally, I do know people, AAs included, who did know him and all stated that the sincerity of his awakening was very real and was committed to work towards an end to ignorance and bigotry for the rest of his life once he learned how wrong he had been and how wrong the culture in which he grew up was.

Sharon, by contrast, never wavered as far as I know, in his attitude towards the Palestinian people. It takes an open mind and a willingness to acknowledge being wrong and a sense of justice and respect for human rights, qualities Byrd possessed, but Sharon did not. I agree with the OP obviously.

[TeeYiYi]

18. Comparing Byrd to Sharon was most likely short sighted...

...and a poor analogy in hindsight.

Ariel Sharon was a Zionist vulture; a butcher and a war criminal that never faced justice. His being in a coma put him out of sight and out of mind (somewhat) but that does not diminish his legacy as an evil murderous racist who massacred thousands of innocent civilians.

TYY

[sabrina 1]

45. No problem TYY. I totally agree with your assessment of Sharon. Evil, hate filled, brutal with zero

compassion for people. To be honest I always wondered why the silence regarding his condition for so long. It's very unusual to keep someone on life support for so long. I doubt he ever would have faced justice however, even if he had lived. But it's odd how he seemed to just disappear until now.

He was, if I recall, the 'father' of the settlements, but it's been a while since I gave him a thought.

If there is an after life somewhere, and I hope there is, because so many evil people manage to sail through this one with no consequences, I hope it is a place where people like Sharon face the justice, and their victims, that they did not face here.

[Vashta Nerada]

6. Agreed.

[DonCoquixote]

9. there are some 11th hour conversions

But the ones that matter are done when the person still has the power, and decides to stop them. As hateful as Strom Thurmond was, he realized that his side lost the war, and started listening to and promoting Afro americans during the last decade of his term in office, key term, IN OFFICE.

[kiranon]

13. May he rest in peace. n/t

[Ken Burch]

14. So may the victims of Sabra and Shatila.

I'm glad the man's suffering is over, but again, you can't expect Palestinians to shed any tears for this man.

[AnalystInParadise]

17. I can agree to this

I had a week long awesome mood when Arafat began his eternity of damnation, so how could I be mad at the Palestinians?

[Ken Burch]

28. Arafat was no saint, but there was no alternative to negotiating with the PLO.

And all the Israeli government fixation with marginalizing him and sidelining his group ever accomplished was to cause the rise of Hamas.

It was never going to be possible to make peace WITHOUT getting buy-in from the people with guns. It would have been useless to negotiate ONLY with the nonviolent.

[joshcryer]

19. Uh, I don't gravedance. I have all mortal authority to criticize gravedancers.

I find it amusing that you are criticizing Sharon for not intervening in an atrocity when I suspect your position in the past on other atrocities was anti-intervention.

[Ken Burch]

22. None of the interventions I opposed were about stopping atrocities.

And having your troops, who are right there in the camp, step in and stop the massacre of innocent people(which is what happened in Sabra and Shatila)has nothing in common with ANY U.S. military interventions in recent history.

The U.S. doesn't intervene to save lives...it intervenes solely to defend "American interests&quot which are usually U.S. corporate interests).
This isn't the fault of U.S. troops(most of whom have better values than either their generals or the politicians)but of the U.S. foreign policy tradition.

[joshcryer]

24. Nice move of the goal posts.

May your gravedancing commence.

[Ken Burch]

29. I'm not gravedancing...but them, I wasn't the victim.

It goes without saying that no one is entitled to tell the Palestinians that they should treat this man's memory with respect. You wouldn't if you were one of them.

And I moved no goalposts. The IDF moving in to protect the refugees at Sabra and Shatila wouldn't have had ANYTHING in common with the bombing of Kosovo-the intervention I assume you're referring to, and one that may not have had anything to do with stopping the suffering of Kosovo Albanians at all. And intervening in Kosovo had nothing to do with humanitarian concerns...it was done solely because Milosevic was seen as a threat to "Western interests".

And even if Kosovo was acceptable, it doesn't make the case that you want it to make...it doesn't vindicate all other U.S. interventions.

[joshcryer]

34. You absolutely moved the goalposts.

It went from "interventionism" to "the USA cannot conceivably be interventionist in any way whatsoever."

If you believe that nonsense how can I possibly respond? When the US parks a fucking nuclear powered aircraft carrier off of a tsunami or earthquake affected zone to produce fresh water that's not interventionist? It's pathetic. You actually appear to think that interventionism necessitates war or violence. Could Sharon intervened in said atrocity without violence? It's damn possible. An underground railroad and an offer for amnesty and protection would've been enough.

[Ken Burch]

37. It was U.S. military intervention I objected to...and that pretty much ALWAYS means war.

Or at least the imminent threat OF war.

I'm not talking about providing safe drinking water, for God's sakes.

But you raise an interesting point for another thread...we should have a structure to provide emergency humanitarian involvement(rather than intervention) done in a totally non-military way-sort of a cross between FEMA and the Peace Corps. And we should always do that without expecting the country we help to, say, open their markets to our goods and let our corporations come in and plunder. But that's another discussion.

The real issue is that there was no excuse, none whatsoever, for Sharon to let the Phalangists into Sabra and Shatila. he KNEW they were there to go on a rampage, and he didn't care. And he did nothing to stop the rampage even when he knew it was happening). And technically, stopping the Phalangist berserkers wouldn't have been intervention, since the IDF WAS ALREADY THERE.

That doesn't have anything in common with the things you are talking about.

[joshcryer]

39. What do you think a nuclear aircraft carrier is?

Peanuts?

Seriously Ken, you and I both know what we're saying, you are wrong.

[Ken Burch]

40. What, as you see it, am I saying?

And why are you dragging U.S. interventions into this thread at all? That's inappropriate.

[joshcryer]

42. You positively mentioned interventionism.

I am OK with interventionism (and internationalism). I'm tired of the double fucking standard.

You claimed that &quot Sharon's potential interventionism) has nothing in common with ANY U.S. military interventions in recent history. The U.S. doesn't intervene to save lives...it intervenes solely to defend 'American interests'." Your words.

I say that is objectively wrong because military interventions in the form of aid as done by the US have been done to save lives. Now it might have been in America's interests to save those lives, but it wasn't the sole reason.

[Ken Burch]

44. But this wasn't a thread about the U.S....so why are you discussing U.S. interventions here?

OK, some U.S. interventions may have had the effect of saving lives(and my thanks to the troops who did that).

But that doesn't mean that U.S. military intervention is GENERALLY a good thing, or generally benevolent.

And it's perfectly natural for other countries to find, say, the presence of a foreign nuclear submarine in their territorial waters, for WHATEVER reason, to be disturbing and uncomfortable.

We should set up a structure to provide humanitarian emergency help on an international basis WITHOUT the involvement of the military-not because military people are intrinsically evil(they aren't, anymore than anyone else is, and there are serving military people in my own family)but because it is dangerous to blur the line between humanitarian assistance and "force projection". Humanitarian assistance should be humanitarian assistance and nothing else.

Is that such a terrible thought?

[sabrina 1]

46. Intervention generally does refer to 'military' intervention where people usually get killed.

You are correct about that. And we've all seen what Western Imperialist intervention has done in the places where they claimed to be going to rescue people.

Intervening in order to administer humanitarian aid, so long as it isn't used as an excuse, as in Libya eg (see Libya now, the slaughter continues, but NATO is nowhere to be found to protect innocent civilians proving the real intent of NATO in Libya) is a different thing but better done by groups who have no 'interests' in the country. No one wants US intervention after the past few places we brought 'democracy' to.

From all we've seen of 'intervention' over the past several decades people are better off sorting out their own problems, if we let them.

[NuclearDem]

31. Actually, you have zero moral authority

to tell the Palestinians how they get to react to the death of someone who was never held responsible for his role in the slaughter of hundreds of Palestinian civilians.

None. At all.

[joshcryer]

33. I don't pretend to tell them what to do.

That's different from criticism.

If it makes you feel any better I don't really criticize gravedancers because I consider them just pathetic and not worth my time.

[NuclearDem]

35. Glad to know their grievances are "pathetic" and "not worth your time."

Or maybe you're confused between DU grave dancing and victims reacting to the death of the person who victimized them.

Who the hell knows.

[joshcryer]

36. Grave dancing is pathetic and not worth my time.

Don't conflate the issues.

I won't be writing threads criticizing Palestinians celebrating Sharon's death. Big deal.

[Ken Burch]

38. If it's not worth your time, why are you posting here?

You could have just stayed out of the thread.

I changed "celebrate" to "not mourn". DOes that satisfy you?

And the point stands-Palestinian have every right to see Sharon as a butcher, and just as much of a butcher as Israelis see most Palestinian leaders.

Agreed?

And would you have spent this much time condemning the typical Israeli response to Arafat's death?

[joshcryer]

41. I'm objecting to your loyalty pledge.

Fuck that, if I want to criticize grave dancers, I can and damn sure will and no one will take that from me with their petulantly false moral equivalence.

I damn hell as sure had criticisms for the Israeli response to Arafat's death. I probably was more compelled to say something about that. But I didn't because grave dancing is bullshit.

When Bin Laden was killed and fucking Americans went to the streets to celebrate I had a little knot in my throat. Now I know I expressed here that I didn't care one way or another I made sure to express that it wasn't the ideal outcome. Grave dancers are literally the most pathetic commentators on a death that can exist.

You know I covered Libya, you know you shit on me for it (and this is why you're conflating military intervention to violence and war as opposed to other acts which can be non-violent and non-warlike). But I didn't cheer when Gaddafi was killed and I mourned for the convoy which got taken out meant to take Benghazi, even as others in my thread were OK with it, this is after someone I knew had just been murdered in Libya. So please don't question my anti-grave dancing stance. It serves absolutely no positive purpose.

[Ken Burch]

43. I never "shit on you" about anything. I made no personal comments about you at all.

And actually, I didn't know about your service in Libya(if I'd heard about that, I'd forgotten). No disrespect meant to you at all. Sorry.

And I'm not demanding "loyalty". Just saying that people who aren't oppressed(and no white American ever truly can be in the way that people in other countries are)aren't entitled to lecture those who are oppressed on the propriety of their responses to the death of an oppressor.

To tell them how they can and can't respond to the death of a butcher is to treat them with total disrespect and contempt. It means to tell them to pretend that their reality didn't happen and that nothing they feel is real. I can't do that to anyone who is oppressed. It's as morally numb as the "man in the silk suit" in the Bruce Hornsby song deciding to tell the women in the welfare line to "get a job", and thinking that it was funny for him to do so.

And you really can't compare Palestinian responses to the U.S. reactions to Osama and Saddam's deaths...Neither Osama nor the U.S. were ever under military occupation from Al Qaida or the Iraqi Army. Iraqis and Jihadis weren't destroying American food crops(as the IDF and the settlers have destroyed Palestinian olive groves)or restricting the access of ordinary Americans to drinking water...or stealing American land and dispossessing American citizens. 9/11 was one day...just one day. The Occupation of the West Bank has now been forty-six years and counting.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

48. "Grave dancing is pathetic and not worth my time."

Yet you are engaging in accusing the OP of grave dancing.

[aikoaiko]

20. OK

[AtheistCrusader]

21. There are times when it is politically counter-productive.

There was a republican rep recently surprised by, and appreciative of the outpouring of support he received, from Democrats. He specifically thanked 'us' as a group for it.

Holding out a hand like that, can pay unexpected dividends.

So I caution people against grave-dancing, but if you gotta, you know, in some cases, I understand. I may not like it, but I understand.

[Ken Burch]

25. OK, but saying that is different than sanctimonious condemnation.

It's one thing to offer humble advice, but finger-wagging attacks wouldn't be appropriate.

Besides which, Netanyahu would mock ANY expressions of sympathy on the Palestinian side even if they were offered.

Palestinians have just as much right to regard Sharon as a butcher as Israelis have to feel that way about Arafat.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Yeah, I wouldn't feel right doing that.

Sharon was a polarizing figure, and he knew that, I think he can take the heat, in fact.

[William769]

23. Ariel Sharon, May you rest in peace.

You servred your Country well from it's inception in 1948 & helped your people to the promised land.

"I lift my eyes to the mountains -- from where will my help come?
My help will come from the Lord, Maker of heaven and earth.
He will not let your foot falter; your guardian does not slumber.
Indeed, the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.
The Lord is your guardian; the Lord is your protective shade at your right hand.
The sun will not harm you by day, nor the moon by night.
The Lord will guard you from all evil; He will guard your soul.
The Lord will guard your going and your coming from now and for all time."

Shalom

[Ken Burch]

26. He didn't serve his country well by letting Sabra and Shatila happen.

Nor by abetting the right-wing, anti-peace West Bank settlers.

His "dovishness" at the end was trivial by comparison.

[Scootaloo]

30. Depends on what one defines "good service" as...

[Ken Burch]

32. i'll define it here as "serving in a way that HELPS one's country",

Sharon didn't do that by abetting brutality against innocent Palestinian refugees(thus increasing Palestinian rage at Israel and, in this case its neo-fascist Lebanese "Christian" allies)and by encouraging the most divisive and anti-peace policy the Israeli government ever adopted...the policy of creating settlements on what that government knew was the territory of Palestine.

Sharon did massive damage to Israel(if we assume that the interest of the Israeli people, as opposed to their government, is peace)by approaching the Palestinians, until almost the end, not as another nation with whom peace be made and respect and parity established, but as nothing but a soulless, psychotic enemy to be crushed...and crushed...and crushed yet again. Sharon never got it, until nearly the end of his conscious life, that it wasn't possible to crush the Palestinians into permanent submission, because a people with a just cause can never be truly crushed at all.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

47. I believe that he was known as the Butcher of Beirut.

[nilesobek]

49. Sharon was in a coma for 8 years.

You had to figure he was in grave shape and at 85 years old going to die sooner than later. People are real sensitive on both sides of the Palestinian issue in regards to Sharon's death.

There's no reason to do cartwheels over someone's death when it does zero to mitigate the ongoing occupation crisis. On the other hand, there is no reason to lionize this murderer either.