The Whitewashing of Ariel Sharon

[realFedUp]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-makdisi7jan07,0,7417483.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

The whitewashing of Ariel Sharon
The 'man of courage and peace' story ignores his bloody and ruthless past.

By Saree Makdisi
SAREE MAKDISI is a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA.

January 7, 2006

snip

From the beginning to the end of his career, Sharon was a man of ruthless and often gratuitous violence. The waypoints of his career are all drenched in blood, from the massacre he directed at the village of Qibya in 1953, in which his men destroyed whole houses with their occupants — men, women and children — still inside, to the ruinous invasion of Lebanon in 1982, in which his army laid siege to Beirut, cut off water, electricity and food supplies and subjected the city's hapless residents to weeks of indiscriminate bombardment by land, sea and air.

As a purely gratuitous bonus, Sharon and his army later facilitated the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians at the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, and in all about 20,000 people — almost all innocent civilians — were killed during his Lebanon adventure.

Sharon's approach to peacemaking in recent years wasn't very different from his approach to war. Extrajudicial assassinations, mass home demolitions, the construction of hideous barriers and walls, population transfers and illegal annexations — these were his stock in trade as "a man of courage and peace."

Some may take comfort in the myth that Sharon was transformed into a peacemaker, but in fact he never deviated from his own 1998 call to "run and grab as many hilltops" in the occupied territories as possible. His plan for peace with the Palestinians involved grabbing large portions of the West Bank, ultimately annexing them to Israel, and turning over the shattered, encircled, isolated, disconnected and barren fragments of territory left behind to what only a fool would call a Palestinian state.

[bemildred]

1. Thanks, I liked that one too.

It's one thing to not kick him when he's dying, and another to pretend he was Gandhi or something.

[Spiffarino]

2. Fuck him. Kick Sharon when he's up, down, or whenever.

Sharon is an evil, brutal, heartless mass-murderer. Dubya calling him a "man of peace" merely reinforces the truth. Just like when he uses terms like Clear Skies, Healthy Forests, and Homeland Security. It means exactly the opposite of what he says.

[Jim Sagle]

3. Sharon RRRRRRRAWWWWKSSSS!!!!!!!!

[Djinn]

69. of course he does

if you admire right wing politicans anyway - but hey there's no reason why someone posting on a liberal board shouldn't :eyes:

[Coastie for Truth]

4. I love what these UC and CSU profs do on MY CREDIT CARD

--almost enough to make me regret that I didn't vote for Dan Lundgren. (only kidding - but it is enough to make me look more favorably on the Boobengrabber).

<>

[realFedUp]

5. what are they doing on your credit card? nt

[Coastie for Truth]

7. Exercising their full rights of freedom of speech

a little bit unbalanced - but that us Californians.

[realFedUp]

8. you bet.

glad we haven't lost all our minds in this country.

[thebigidea]

13. gotta love the guy who professes admiration for Hitler, eh?

[Behind the Aegis]

16. missed the irony, eh?

[Poppyseedman]

6. As difficult as it may be,

Sharon must be taken in the context of history of the region.

Was he ruthless and blood thirsty? Yes, he was.
Was that a response to a continued year after year attack upon the state of Israel? Yes.
Does that justify his methods. I don't know. Time will tell.

This article is tainted based on the writers assumption that Israel " few seem to have noticed that it's not really a sacrifice to return something that wasn't yours to begin with. " doesn't have a legitimate presence in the region

The Palestinian are responsible for as much of their problems as Israel's is. They have received literally billions and billions of dollars that was stolen by their leadership. They have very little to show for it.

[realFedUp]

9. I guess I like the whole story, not just the ones people want to believe.

one person's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

[regnaD kciN]

10. What is ironic...

...is that those who hail Sharon for having "become a man of peace" are the same ones who will assert that Arafat should never be considered as anything other than a vicious terrorist...

...and vice-versa.

:eyes:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. I agree.

Last time the State of Israel belonged to someone, it was the British. There, lived Israeli Jews and Israli Arabs (which were not a nation, but began to call themselves Palestinians after the conflict began).

The British left the nation in the hands of the UN with the sole purpose of having it divided between the Israeli Jews and the Israeli Arabs. The Israeli Jews were in favor of it. The Israeli Arabs disagreed. In fact, their response was to swear they were going to kill off all the Israeli Jews, whereupon they asked all Arab nations for help, and 5 or 7 Arab nations gathered their armies and attacked the Israeli Jews living in Israel. At the time Israeli Jews had no military. That was the beginning of the conflict which persists to this day. Anything else is historical revisionism and bs. To this day, the descendants of the Israeli Arabs continue to refuse any agreement with Israeli Jews.

[DavidDvorkin]

12. Well said.

That history gets ignored. Today's political left is particularly guilty of ignoring it.

[julianer]

23. That is the zionist version of history

It has some pretty basic errors and omissions. Who are the Israeli Arabs you describe after the British left for example? Do you mean Palestinians?

Israeli Jews? Israel didn't exist until 1947.

Also, the UN didn't come in to existence until after WWII.

You really need to get a better grasp of the history of the region if you hope to convince people who do know some history. Fortunately, there is a more balanced version available here:

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

This site seems to accommodate all views and tries its best to be balanced, though I haven't looked at it extensively.

[TokenJew]

30. Israel didn't exist, but Jews did

in fact, the land partitioned in 1947 was 65% Jewish.

and why do you use "zionist" as another term for "wrong"?

[Djinn]

70. where do you get that figure from

because it's a total crock

[gulfcoastliberal]

95. You are glaringly ignorant.

Who were the people in Jerusalem who fought the Romans? Oh, that's right, the Jews. Before the religion of Islam.

[thebigidea]

14. people could use the same weak excuses for Bush

oh, he had to be ruthless and brutal. We were at WAR! There was a threat! Islamofascism! and stuff!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

15. Iraq did not attack the U.S.

Israeli Arabs DID attack Israeli Jews in the 1940s (not the other way around), with the requested aid of the armies of many other Arab nations. I forget if it was 5 or 7 Arab nations that fought alongside Israeli Arabs against Israeli Jews (who, at the time had no military).

The land of Israel belonged to the British, who wanted it partitioned by the UN between Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews. Israeli Arabs said no. Instead, they swore to kill off all the Israeli Jews.

To this day, Israeli Arabs' decendants continue to want to kill off Israeli Jews, rather than make peace.

No comparison to Bush.

[wellst0nev0ter]

17. Every One Seems To Forget Plan Dalet

Or the fact that historic Palestine was unequally divided between the Jews and the Arabs.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

18. Where is this written? Or is it mythology by anti-semites?

Again, the issue is that no sooner had the British given up ownership of Israel and asked the UN to partition Israel between Arabs and Jews, than Israeli Arabs said the entirety of the land was theirs, that they refused any partition, swore to kill off all Israeli Jews, and asked Arab nations to attack Israeli Jews (which they did).

To this very day, as we speak, Israeli Arabs' descendants still lay claim to the entirety land and want to kill off Israeli Jews.

Funny how history is purposely forgotten to make the original victim seem like a vicious beast.

[Behind the Aegis]

22. Not funny...but ironic, for sure.

I know you didn't mean 'funny' as "ha-ha." But, I am sure you can see that even today, look at some the other posts, that history is irrelevant, unless it means that Israel is "evil." I see, and I am sure you have too, how many people talk out their asses when discussing Israel. They are unable (more likely, unwilling) to admit that the situation is more complicated than "Israel has occupied territory."

"Funny how history is purposely forgotten to make the original victim seem like a vicious beast." Best line....EVER! :thumbsup:!

[Wordie]

74. The "best line ever" could also be applied to the Pals, who had their land

taken from them.

[julianer]

24. This is the zionist version of history

i.e. not true in specifics or generalities.

[Behind the Aegis]

25. those pesky Zionists...

...racists, all of them! :eyes:

[Colorado Blue]

44. You know what's scary? This revisionism. It's amazing.

Here we have a person actually using the term "zionist version of history", yet this same person actually thinks Israel and Jordan acted in concert in the war of 1948 and thereafter, as per THIS thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=111144&mesg_id=111410

Those are astonishing allegations and they are complete misinterpretations of history.

Jordan itself was created out of the eastern 78% of the Palestine Mandate. The ENTIRE Mandate was to have been the Jewish homeland but even the tiny strip illustrated in the map I linked to, in Wiki, was rejected by the Arabs in 1948 and several Arab armies attacked the newborn state on its first day of existence.

There was no partnership, informal or otherwise, between Jordan and Israel. THAT is revisionism, personified. The armistice lines were drawn up by the UN, willy nilly, and never represented an actual negotiated or commonsensical border. The fact that the Palestinian state wasn't declared is hardly the fault of Israel and nor is the result of collusion between Israel and any other Arab entity. How could it be?

Israel wasn't even recognized by ANY of the 22 Arab League states including Jordan. In fact, Jordan evicted all the Jewish citizens of the West Bank, though part of the city was held by Israel due to that miraculous road I mentioned earlier, which the UN recognized as a link to Israel proper.

Silliest of all is the allegation that Israel had some powerful, European-trained army. In fact, when war broke out it had something like 3 airplanes, and in one battle they were bombing tanks with bottles of seltzer from a piper cub. Any "European Training" was derived from the fact that Palestinian Jews had fought for Britain in WWII, which rewarded their loyalty by disarming them in the face of Arab aggression.

And in fact it was an American, Colonel Marcus, who rescued the disorganized Jewish militias, wrote training manuals and helped forge them into a unified army. Some of the fighters were just kids, some were women, many were Holocaust survivors fresh off the boat with no training at all. In one battle they died with the safety catches on their rifles still in place.

Indeed, at one point the British actually threatened to fight on the side of the Arabs and didn't recognize Israel for months, in spite of the fact that Churchill urged them to do so.

"Zionist" history? Indeed.

[liberalpragmatist]

47. The Israel-Jordan Connection is not revisionism

There wasn't some kind of "axis" between them, but there were may talks held between King Abdullah of Transjordan and Golda Meir representing the Zionist leadership. There were also tacit discussions about Transjordan taking control of the Arab alotted to the Arabs in the UN partition plan, although ultimately no agreement was made.

Moreover, there continued to be discussions and contacts between Abdullah and the Israeli leadership. This remained the case with King Hussein. Both Abdullah and Hussein were personally willing to recognize Israel but did not due to opposition from their population and from the Arab League.

Of course, this has to be balanced by the fact that all the Jews were expelled from the West Bank after Jordan came in control of the territory, but that doesn't negate the existence of contacts between the two leaderships.

This has all been written about many places, such as LaPierre and Collin's O Jerusalem!. Says Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

Meanwhile, frantic diplomatic activity took place between all parties. On May 10, Golda Meir represented the Yishuv in the last of a long series of clandestine meetings between the Zionists and Transjordan's King Abdullah. Whereas for months there had been a tacit agreement between the Zionists and Transjordan to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, with Transjordan taking over the Arab areas, at the May 10 meeting Abdullah offered the Yishuv leadership only autonomy within an enlarged Hashemite kingdom. This was unacceptable to the Jewish leadership. Nevertheless, with one exception, the Transjordanian army refrained from attacking the designated Jewish areas of Palestine in the ensuing war.

On May 13, the Arab League met and agreed to send regular troops into Palestine when the Mandate expired. Abdullah of Transjordan was named as the commander-in-chief of the Arab armies, but the various Arab armies remained largely uncoordinated throughout the war.

Also, from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_I_of_Jordan

Abdullah, alone among the Arab leaders of his generation, was a moderate with a modestly pro-Western outlook. He would actually have signed a separate peace agreement with Israel, but for the Arab League's militant opposition. Because of his dream for a Greater Syria comprising Jordan, Syria, and Iraq under a Hashemite dynasty, many Arab countries distrusted Abdullah, and the rivals of the Hashemites, the Saudis most of all.

[eyl]

48. There's no question

that Jordan and Israel continued to hold talks throughout the years, despite being in a formal state of war - and that Jordan was friendly (in a strictly relative sense) compared to the other Arab states.

However, whatever agreements, formal or otherwise, may have been discussed, it's clear that by the time the war started, Jordan was firmly in the enemy camp; as can be seen by their eradication of all traces of Jewish settlement in the territory that came under their control - including in territory that was not slated for the Arab state but rather was designated as an international zone.

[liberalpragmatist]

49. Fair enough

My point is just that the previous post seemed to press a black-white view of Israel-Jordan relations, which wasn't really the case.

But you summed it up pretty well.

[Colorado Blue]

60. I understand and appreciate what you are saying. However,

the "diplomatic activity" cited is a far cry from an "axis".

And actions speak louder than words: war did break out, the Jewish people were expelled from the West Bank and their communities destroyed, Jerusalem very nearly starved, the holiest sites in Jewish history were cut off from Israel until 1967.

As far as Abdullah being more moderate and Western-minded, why not? That is hardly a bad thing and nor should it be regarded as such.

Had everybody been more open-minded and tolerant, and recognized the plight of the Jewish immigrants in the 1920's and 1930's, as well as the essential rights of Jews among other minorities in the Middle East, to which they are indigenous if anybody is, we wouldn't be in this situation today. The Emir Faisal and Chaim Weitzman, and Faisal and Felix Frankfurter, had correspondence which is meaningful and revealing today.

As if was, however, Haj Amin al Husseini and others of his family and association, insofar as they represented Palestinian leadership, were dead set against such ideas, were instrumental in stirring up violence against Jewish people as early as 1920; and Haj Amin al Husseini, of course, allied himself with Hitler and vowed to wipe out every Jew in the Middle East.

Therefore these events need to be placed into context.

[Englander]

68. ~Star Wars Ep I - Attack Of The Nazi Arabs~

n/t

[Wordie]

75. Yet that "tolerant" Israeli society denied land ownership to Arabs for

decades. The Palestinians objected to a exclusively Jewish state; it was not anti-semitism that motivated them. From their perspective, as the people indigenous to the area, that just was not unreasonable, CB. They were not responsible for the European Jews' plight.

The fact that that law was immediately passed in Israel upon it's creation in 1948 ought to say a lot about the Pals' objections. (It's only just recently been rescinded.)

[Jim Sagle]

64. Oh yes it is...and everybody goddamn well knows it.

[gulfcoastliberal]

82. Prove it's not true.

Give us the historical specifics, generalities, and facts.

Not disgusting hyperbole.

[Colorado Blue]

62. "Historic Palestine"? And what would that be?

You are right though. It was unevenly divided.

The Palestine Mandate became: 78%, Kingdom of Jordan, tiny strip along the sea + Negev Desert, which even today = more than 50% of Israel - Israel; the rest, undeclared Arab state.

Please see the map of enormous Israel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Israeli_conflict

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RJnAbbysNana]

20. The origin of the Palestine- Israeli conflict

The origin of the Palestine- Israeli conflict

Published By Jews For Justice In The Middle East
April 05, 2002


<snip>

The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine to reclaim their ancestral homeland in the late 19th century. Jews bought land and started building their Jewish community their. They were net with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs` inherent anti-Semitism. The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today. The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in this booklet shall show. What really happened was that the Zionist movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present). The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence to Arab society in Palestine.Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the Population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century (over 1200 years).

In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world-view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn’t matter. The Arabs` opposition to Zionism wasn’t based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.

One further point: Being Jewish ourselves, the position we present here is critical of Zionism but is in no way anti-Semitic. We do not believe that the Jews acted worst than any other group might have acted in their situation. The Zionists (who were a distinct minority of the Jewish people until after WW II) had an understandable desire to establish a place where Jews could be masters of their fate, given the bleak history of Jewish oppression.

Especially as the danger to European Jewry crystalized in the late 1930s and after, the actions of the Zionists were propelled by real desperation.

But so were the actions of the Arabs. The mythic "land without people for a people without land" was already home to 700,000 Palestinians in 1919.

This is the route of the problem, as we shall see.

more here..........

http://www.zmag.org/content/Mideast/jewsfjustice.cfm

Sometimes one has to search out sources of truth, because all too often typical history books as used in America's classrooms only tell what the government of this country wants us to believe.

Regards,

RJnAbbysNana

[TokenJew]

32. The definition of Colonialism

A policy by which a nation maintains or extends its control over foreign dependencies.

Tell me-which country were the Jews representing?

and who were these colonialist Jews?

were they not people fleeing persecution and genocide?

[Behind the Aegis]

26. "If Americans Knew"

:rofl:

[eyl]

27. "European-trained soldiers with up-to-date weaponry"

BS

For example, the "up-to-date fighter and bomber airplanes" your article describes consisted of a few civilian airplanes - they attacked by dropping Molotov cocktails out the window.

[tinnypriv]

29. Correct

Most from the Czechs I believe. Hard to say that Israel had up-to-date aircraft until at least the attack on Egypt in 56 (after all, Germany had fighter jets in 1945). By then I think the French contracts were signed.

Whoever wrote that "history" is pretty much an idiot.

[Coastie for Truth]

28. Check your source - and who they sleep with and are funded by

This is Allison Weir's vanity web site - tied to discredited former Congressman Paul Findley. Funded by the same people who funded Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Arkansas Project.

[TokenJew]

31. A site run by the Washington Report on Mideast Affairs

a publication which is vehemently anti-Israel

Will you post from Radio Islam next?

[Coastie for Truth]

35. Congress Creep Paul Findley and Lieutenant Jim Ennes - NT

[Colorado Blue]

39. THIS SITE IS FULL OF FACTUAL ERROR AND BIAS.

This is the Paul Findley/Allison Wier site, which is far right and I would say, antisemitic.

And it has nothing to do with truth, but rather with an agenda that has nothing to do with progressive politics.

[TokenJew]

42. Findley blamed "the Jewish lobby" for how americans

viewed the Arab world post 9/11.

as if the 3000 dead at the hands of Arab funded terrorists had nothing to do with that.

[Coastie for Truth]

50. In his 1982 campaign where he lost to Durbin

Mr Findley sent the word out to "Government Relations VP's" (id est, "lobbyists") in the oil, chemical, petrochemical, and A&E companies that he needed contributions (big enough to post names of donors - about 12% of a month's pay) from employees with "Jewish sounding names" - to counter charges of anti-Semitism - and to show that he had Jewish supporters (or at least contributors with "Jewish sounding names").

This was not just in Peoria or in Illinois, but nation wide.

I got hit up - and when I complained, my next appraisal was "Not a Team Player" and my pay raise was zero, zilch, nada, "the cupboard was bare." And I was gone shortly therefater.

So, I don't like MR. Findley or his heavy handed tactics.

[Jim Sagle]

65. This IS a Democratic board, isn't it?

So why is a Republican asshole like Findley getting so much favorable play?

It's just tooooooooooooo puzzling.

[Djinn]

72. not half as puzzling as your constant defense

of a right wing war criminal - a man that even an Israeli commission decided was personally responsible for the slaughter of men, women and children. But hey I guess if rape and murder do it for you then yeah Sharon raaawwwkks

[Jim Sagle]

73. The commission decided no such thing. Check it out.

And yes, Sharon RRRAWWWWWWWKSSSSSSS!!!!!!!

[Djinn]

76. have you ever read it?

if you have I suggest some remedial reading classes because it does indeed say that, really no need to repeat yourself though Jim, I get it, murder, rape, torture, killing kids it all raaawkks, even if he wasn't covered in blood his politics are an odd thing for a liberal to support, can you find a single reference here BTW of anyone claiming Hamas or Arafat RAAWWKKS? nope, I guess it's only you that supports crimes against humanity

We have found, as has been detailed in this report, that the Minister of Defense bears personal responsibility. In our opinion, it is fitting that the Minister of Defense draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office - and if necessary, that the Prime Minister consider whether he should exercise his authority under Section 21-A(a) of the Basic Law: the Government, according to which "the Prime Minister may, after informing the Cabinet of his intention to do so, remove a minister from office."

[eyl]

77. What the report actually found Sharon responsible for

It is our view that responsibility is to be imputed to the Minister of Defense for having disregarded the danger of acts of vengeance and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population of the refugee camps, and having failed to take this danger into account when he decided to have the Phalangists enter the camps. In addition, responsibility is to be imputed to the Minister of Defense for not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the danger of massacre as a condition for the Phalangists' entry into the camps. These blunders constitute the non-fulfillment of a duty with which the Defense Minister was charged.

We do not believe that responsibility is to be imputed to the Defense Minister for not ordering the removal of the Phalangists from the camps when the first reports reached him about the acts of killing being committed there. As was detailed above, such reports initially reached the Defense Minister on Friday evening; but at the same time, he had heard from the Chief of Staff that the Phalangists' operation had been halted, that they had been ordered to leave the camps and that their departure would be effected by 5:00 a.m. Saturday. These preventive steps might well have seemed sufficient to the Defense Minister at that time, and it was not his duty to order additional steps to be taken, or to have the departure time moved up, a step which was of doubtful feasibility

What he was found personally responsible for was negligence, not for causing the massacre.

[Wordie]

78. You are downplaying a report that many already considered a whitewash!

...Of course no one will be able to produce a written order signed Ariel Sharon directing the Lebanese militiamen to slaughter civilians in the Sabra/Shatila area. But such a document is not necessary. In most judicial systems -- and certainly in war crimes tribunals -- all that is necessary is evidence of control of the area in which crimes are carried out, and a hierarchy of military command. Let us first remind ourselves of the notion of "command responsibility" as divided into three kinds: a) if the person concerned ordered the criminal acts; b) if he failed to take action to prevent the occurrence of acts that he could reasonably foresee to be a violation of international humanitarian law; c) if having discovered the commission of violations of humanitarian law by his subordinates, he failed to take action to discipline or punish them.

Of the three, the first is of course the most serious, the second and third less so. From this some jurists have argued that while Sharon may be accused of negligence, he cannot be accused of agency. I propose a counter-thesis, that Ariel Sharon knew perfectly well what the Lebanese militiamen were likely to do in the camps, and that he intended the massacre, using non- Israelis as its instrument...

...Sharon's own autobiography supports evidence given in Ze'ev Schiff and Ehud Ya'ari's Israel's Lebanon War that long before the 1982 war began Sharon planned an invasion that would reach Beirut, "take out" the PLO and its infrastructure, and set up a Lebanese government friendly to Israel. The US-brokered Habib Accords, by guaranteeing the security of the civilian population of West Beirut, threatened Sharon's grand strategy. Only terror could bring about the mass flight that would deprive the PLO of any possibility of a come-back. Sharon himself recounts how he proposed to Philip Habib "a swift, fast move...which will cause such heavy casualties to the terrorists that they will not stay there as a military or political factor."

...In assessing the question of "command responsibility" we need to scrutinise Sharon's movements on 15 September, the day the IDF advanced into Beirut and established control of the periphery of Sabra and Shatila. In the early hours of that day IDF Chiefs of Staff met with Lebanese Forces heads (Hobeika, Frem, Abi Nader) to secure their agreement to enter the camps. Sharon himself met with some of them at 9am at the IDF headquarters outside Sabra/ Shatila. Yet after this he found it necessary to go to the Lebanese Forces headquarters in Qarantina, before carrying on to Bikfaya to condole with the Gemayel family. Since the cooperation of the Lebanese Forces for the "cleansing operation" was already secured, what was the reason for the detour to Qarantina? Lawyer and historian Karim Pakradouni, ex- Lebanese Forces spokesman, says that Sharon harangued the mourning militiamen, telling them: "Why weep like women? Take vengeance like men."

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg//2001/545/op1.htm

[eyl]

79. "Downplaying"?

If you want to use the report to prove a point, surely what it actually said is relevent?

[Wordie]

83. Many feel the report did not go far enough.

That doesn't mean that what it said was not relevant, but that there was still a great deal still left unsaid. As it is, many of the posters here seem to feel that there was no responsibility borne by Sharon, even despite the report!

Although I personally believe Sharon was directly responsible, I have to give credit those who at least managed to recognize his indirect responsibility.

[eyl]

84. I'll leave my personal opinions on the matter

to another post another day. My point is that if you quote the report to prove he was "personally responsible", you can't ignore what the report found him responsible of

[eyl]

85. I'll leave my personal opinions on the matter

to another post another day. My point is that if you quote the report to prove he was "personally responsible", you can't ignore what the report found him responsible of

[Jim Sagle]

80. Let me explain something to you, Djinn.

This board is called DEMOCRATIC Underground, not PALESTINIAN Underground. There is NO requirement to toe anyone's Middle East party line in order to post here.

Furthermore, many Democrats support Israel more than the Palestinians. If you don't like it, too bad, so sad.

[Djinn]

86. no-one said it was

I'm not talking about supporting Israel Sagle and you damn well know it, you are supporting a RIGHT WING POLITICIAN.

If someone constantly faffed on about how great John Howard or David Cameron were, I would say the same thing, you support a right wing politician, perhaps YOU need something explained to YOU, right wing = right wing and you can support Israel without being a cheer squad for a right wing murderer, but hey find your heros where you will, it speaks volumes

:eyes:

[Englander]

54. Oh, the irony.

It's *HUGH*!!11!!

From the archives;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=103307#103577

[Djinn]

71. what?

are you honestly claiming that Jews were not attacking Arabs pre the establishment of Israel? are you REALLY that misinformed? What did you think the Stern gang, Palmach, Haganah etc etc were all doing? politely asking Arabs to leave and that's why they all fled in fear? There are even museum in Israel dedicated to glorifying the terrorists for God's sake, for all the "lefties ignore history and are "mean" to Israel" posts here there some highly convenient witewashing of Israeli history going on

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TokenJew]

33. Those who do not agree with me are simply Nazis

and eat babies.

Meanwhile, back in reality...

[Coastie for Truth]

36. That's why they call me GLOCKSTER

(I walked the same picket line against Gubernator Boobengrabber as the Law Enforcement Professionals, the brave Fire Fighters, the dedicated Rescue medics, and the Nurses)


"Coastie The Glockster"

[Colorado Blue]

40. WHAT???????????

One hesitates to ask where these "facts" originated.

[tinnypriv]

34. You should know

That Ariel Sharon personally presented a gift to a known terrorist¹ quite recently, and the State of Israel officially honored another bunch of known terrorists.² Sharon also personally carried out terrorist actions which he admits were designed to cause "maximum casualties" amongst a civilian village.³

In all three cases, there is no claim of "self-defense" from "year after year attack upon the state of Israel".

In the first example, it was revenge against parties known to be innocent of carrying out attacks (instantly known at the highest levels in Israel). In the second example, it was terrorism simply to influence western policy in the region (frankly admitted in Israel where there was recently a documentary about it). Finally, in the third example, the terror was carried out before the PLO was even founded, and the nation involved (Jordan) was trying to prevent attacks (again, as known at the highest levels in Israel).


---

1. Ze'ev "Zambish" Hever. Sharon presented him with the "Begin Prize", which is in the world of Orwell, quite apt.
2. The attackers of Cairo and Alexandria (known as the Lavon Affair).
3. Qibya. Compared to Nazi atrocities at the time in the Jewish American press.

[Coastie for Truth]

37. John F. Kennedy

(Bobby and Teddie's older brothewr) created the Green Berets.

Harry Truman dropped two WMD's and created the CIA.

"Coastie The Glockster"

[TokenJew]

38. FDR interned Japanese Americans in concentration camps too

[Wordie]

41. Your argument for Israeli actions says more about those actions...

than I ever could.

[TokenJew]

43. what argument have I made defending any particular action?

The only action I believe I defended was the creation of the West Bank wall, a decision that only came after two years of relentless suicide attacks from the West Bank.

[Wordie]

45. To use the Japanese internment in WWII as a defense of that...jeez. eom

[TokenJew]

46. not a defense

just an example of how leaders, no matter how admirable they are, tend to have alot of evils on their resumes.

[Wordie]

51. Ahhh, the old "But mommy, Johnnie did it, so I should be able to." thing.

To cite the example of an earlier evil, done by another, is not a reasonable example to use in a debate of Israeli practices, imho.

[TokenJew]

52. So "Do as we say, not as we do" is the rule of the day, eh?

Nope, no special standard for Israel it seems.

[Wordie]

53. I'd hold my own leaders to the *highest* standard. Should I give Israel

a pass? That past leaders of any country have failed to meet the standard shouldn't be the issue, should it? Should any past failures by other countries to meet a high standard mean those standards can reasonably be abandoned by Israel? Or that past failures of other countries should be used to halt debate of Israeli policies?

[TokenJew]

55. Seems like the debate is hardly being halted here

But as to your point, when you hold Israel to high standards that no other country is held to, that seems a bit unfair. Notice that Syria got a free pass up until last year. Notice how Morocco is given a free pass in Western Sahara. Notice how the world ignores Sudan's actions in Darfur.

And those are just examples using Arab nations; there are dozens of others similarly situated.

[Wordie]

56. Again, the "But Mommy, Johnnie did it" argument, which I reject as having

relevance. Should dissent and criticism of the US cease, because other nations make errors, too?

[TokenJew]

57. Nope. No one said end dissent.

[Coastie for Truth]

58. I think it is the height of racism

to hold Israel to a higher standard then any other member of the community of nations.

Instead of dividing the Progressive Community - YOU are using a weapon of mass diversion and distraction to divert and distrcat us from stopping Bushco.

And I think a lot of self crowned Progressives are using Israel as a proxy for Bushco's United States because in the wanabe progressive mind Israel is some kind of stand in for the US.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

97. Plenty of people here do care...

n/t

[Colorado Blue]

61. Another way to put this:

"What is it about Israel that brings forth this ill will from the left? Why this exceptionalism about Israel? Alan Dershowitz once wrote an article describing a visitor from another galaxy who comes to earth, and spends several weeks visiting major American colleges and universities. At the end of his tour, the visitor would learn that of all the nations of the world other than the one he was visiting, only one is subject to a divestment effort for a university’s endowment, only one is viciously described in literature regularly distributed to students on campus, and in essays and editorials in college papers and magazines, and only one is discussed in classes across the humanities curriculum with relentless rebuke and scorn. And this country is not, say Sudan or Nigeria, where millions have died in vicious civil wars perpetrated for the most part by Muslims against Christians, or other countries in Africa that still practice slavery, or Saudi Arabia, where women have no rights, and those who try to practice a religion other than Islam are arrested or expelled, or the Palestinian territories, in which homosexuals or those suspected of being homosexual, are tortured or mutilated in the same way as captured Israelis. It is not in fact, any of the dozens of other unsavory places on the planet that provide little or no freedom for their citizens and ruthlessly exploit their country’s workers and resources for the benefit of the ruling few. This much maligned country of course is Israel."

quoted from this article:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5106&search=why

[Colorado Blue]

63. You know what worries me? What exactly is the goal of this

"debate"? To see Israel completely destroyed? Internationally and retroactively delegitimized? Starved out of existence? Or WHAT?

[Coastie for Truth]

67. Once again you are wrong

In international law the customaryt practice of nations defines "customary" international law". This is described at as

"Customary international law is derived from the consistent practice of States accompanied by opinio juris, i.e. the conviction of States that the consistent practice is required by a legal obligation. Judgments of international tribunals as well as scholarly works have traditionally been looked to as persuasive sources for custom in addition to direct evidence of state behavior."

and

"In law, custom, or customary law consists of established patterns of behaviour that can be objectively verified within a particular social setting. Generally, customary law exists where

* a certain legal practice is observed; and
* the relevant actors consider it to be law (opinio iuris).

(snip)
In international law, customary law refers to the Law of Nations or the legal norms that have developed through the customary exchanges between states over time, whether based on diplomacy or aggression. Essentially, legal obligations are believed to arise between states to carry out their affairs consistently with past accepted conduct. These customs can also change based on the acceptance or rejection by states of particular acts. Some principles of customary law have achieved the force of peremptory norms, which cannot be violated or altered except by a norm of comparable strength. These norms are said to gain their strength from universal acceptance, such as the prohibitions against genocide and slavery. Customary international law can be distinguished from treaty law, which consists of explicit agreements between nations to assume obligations. Many treaties, however, are attempts to codify pre-existing customary law.

Cornell Law School's WEX data base states

"Customary international law results when states follow certain practices generally and consistently out of a sense of legal obligation."

Since you like NGO's, here is a definition of "Customary International Law" on the

1. What is customary international law?

Both treaty law and customary international law are sources of international law. Treaties, such as the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, are written conventions in which States formally establish certain rules. Customary international law, on the other hand, derives from the practice of States, such as expressed in military manuals, national legislation, case law and official statements. A rule is deemed customary if it reflects a "widespread, representative and virtually uniform" practice of States accepted as law.

A cavalier "Ahhh, the old "But mommy, Johnnie did it, so I should be able to." thing. ... To cite the example of an earlier evil, done by another, is not a reasonable example to use in a debate of Israeli practices, imho." is an urban legend that will get you a big, fat F in an International Law Course.

[Violet_Crumble]

98. Wordie wasn't wrong...

There are practices carried out by Israel that are not condoned under international law, and for those practices the excuse that 'johnnie did it!' isn't a justification, neither morally (which I notice you don't address), nor legally....

Violet...

[Malikshah]

81. Sounds very much like the arguments folks use to

support terrorist activities.

Context doesn't cut it.

Sharon killed many many more civilians (exponentially) than Arafat and yet the latter is deemed the epitome of murderers... go figure.

[ppaul2005]

87. The demonization of Ariel Sharon

First I have to apologize for my English since My english is not good.
I am portuguese and I live in Lisbon.
When it comes to the subject..., Sharon is not being whitewashed. It is the other way around. Sharon was demonised , has been demonised , for years.

Actually both Sharon and Arafat , were responsible for human right abuses during the Lebanese Civil war.



QUOTE
January 20, 1976, Palestinians and their leftist allies launched their final assault on the Christian town of Damour which lay across the Sidon - Beirut highway about 20 km south of Beirut. The relentless pounding the town received resulted in the deaths of many. In the siege that had been established on 9 January the Palestinians cut off food and water supplies and refused to allow the Red Cross to take out the wounded. Infants and children as well as the elderly died of dehydration.


/........./



the majority of the population of Damour was evacuated by sea but about 500 civilians defended by some 20 mostly Ahrar troops did not make it out in time. Damour was captured, the defenders were executed, the civilians were lined up against the walls of their houses and shot, their houses were then dynamited. Many of the young women had been raped and babies had been shot at close range at the back of the head. 149 bodies lay in the streets for days afterward and 200 other civilians were never seen again. In all about 582 civilians had been murdered. The horror did not end there, the old Christian cemetery was next, coffins were dug up the dead robbed, vaults opened, and bodies and skeletons thrown across the grave yard. Damour was then transformed into a stronghold of Fatah and the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine

/........./
( END OF QUOTE)

Arafat was involved in these crimes, not to speak about the munich massacre , back in 1973.


So the question , is
Why the media does keep pointing the finger At Sharon and does ignore the crimes of Yasser Arafat ?

The attacks against Sharon are politically motivated since the fellow that actually did the massacres of Sabra and Chatilla , Hobeika, afterward became a member of the Lebanese Government , and in the media he was almost forgotten.

Arafats crimes were also forgotten.

Therefore at least compared with hobeika as well as Arafat one might say Sharon was , has been demonised.

Both Sharon and Arafat did contribute to killings in Lebanon , but while the deeds of Arafat were forgotten , people are constantly reminded of the role of Sharon .



http://www.cedarland.org/war.html

[barb162]

88. Ola, muito gusto

And a very nice first post, welcome to DU

[ppaul2005]

89. Thanks a Lot

Thank You very much.
I have a kind of board in which I did post some interesting stuff. The most interesting thread I did was about the Warsaw Guetho.

The Warsaw Guetho, 1940 / 1943

http://www.chatarea.com/MdioOriente.m2945373



Warsaw Guetho 1943 ( The Warsaw Guetho Uprising)

http://www.chatarea.com/MdioOriente.m2947340-1

Thanks for the warm welcome

[barb162]

90. I will look

Thank you for letting us know about it

[ppaul2005]

92. YW

You welcome.

[Behind the Aegis]

91. Boa vinda!

Você fala o inglês bem!

I know a little Portuguese, but it has been years. Welcome to DU!

[ppaul2005]

93. I wish my english were better..,

Thanks for the compliment. Congratulations for your portuguese.I wish my english were better.
Sometimes it does get somewhat hard to convey ideas I do have.
To speak in one mothers tongue is like walking . To write in a foreign language is like climbing a wall..,lol. Everything is much harder..,thoughts do not flow..,

[barb162]

94. I wish my Englidsh were better too

[ppaul2005]

96. i agree

:shrug:

yes

[barb162]

99. Especially since I can't seem to spell "English"

in my previous post

:hi: