And I reassert that Sharon knew what was going to happen. Does David Duke have the right to show up at the Million Family March? Yes. Would some shit go down because of it? Yes. Sdimbert, I’m having trouble following your reasoning. According to your sources, rocks were piled, terrorists were recently freed, and Sharon shows up at the Mount with a security force of a thousand not expecting any problems?
I am not posting this as a Palestinian sympathizer- I’m actually Jewish. I am posting as I think there are “Sharons” on both sides whose actions are standing in the way of peace. Neither side has upheld all of the tenets of the peace agreement and until both sides are upfront about this, they’ll be stuck in their current situation, claiming that it was something the other side did that “set them off” and caused them, through no fault of their own, to retaliate.
I concur (mostly) with Mojo, that I think there is plenty of blame to go around. IMHO, Sharon should not have chosen THIS PARTICULAR time to visit an area that he knew was abroil. But similarly, there is plenty to blame on Mr Arafat and his cronies, in deciding to use violence. If we must have the powder keg analogy, then Arafat is the one who spilled gasoline all about, waiting for a lit match to drop; and Sharon accomodated him by dropping the lit match.
The problem is that the press has (sometimes subtly) portrayed this as one-sided. And it’s nowhere close to one-sided.
Except that I am obliged to note that Sharon does not represent the Israeli government. He is an individual. He does not speak for Barak, nor for Israel. Arafat DOES represent the Palestinian government, and he DOES speak for his people, and he apparently enjoys the publicity he gets by putting children in the front lines.
Mojo, as with most analogies, I believe yours suffers from scale. Of course “some shit” would “go down” if Mr. Duke showed up at the Million Family March (is that different from the Million Man March?). The question is how much shit would go down, and for how long would it keep going?
Do you seriously mean to tell me that Ariel Sharon’s visit (along with other MK’s) to a public place, a place to which he has every legal right to go, is justification for over 2 weeks of sustained violent protest?
Let’s assume that David Duke showed up at the Million Man March. Let’s assume that he brought with him a million of his own men, all armed and screaming violent anti-black epithets:
Would violence break out in DC? You bet.
Could some of the blame be placed on Duke’s shoulders? Yup.
Could we blame him for the damage caused by rioting black teenagers in Mulefelch, Nebraska a fortnight later? You answer that one.
**
Hang on:
[ul]
[li]“Rocks were piled.” Yes - Sharon saw them during his visit.[/li][li]“Terrorists were freed.” I never said this, though it is my understanding that this week the PA released dozens of convicted terrorists from prison.[/li][li]“Sharon had a security force.” Again, agreed. Sharon did visit the Temple Mount with a large security force. But I repeat, he had with him other Members of K’nesset. We might check history books to see if large groups of MK’s ever travel Israel’s hotspots without large security forces.[/li][/ul]
Patently false. Which tenets of the Oslo agreements have Israel broken unprovoked?
No new settlers to the West Bank. Although I think this is mostly beyond Barak’s control, Jewish settlers have been coming to the West Bank in droves. IIRC, they were to remove settlers and the number has actually increased. Once again, it comes back to Sharon who urged settlers to seize more land.
I repeat- to claim that Sharon was not aware of any problems that may arise from his visit is a baldfaced lie. Was it deserving of the response, weeks of fighting and killings? No. Is Sharon a representative of the Gov’t? Not yet- but Barak is working on changing that after this incident. Strange coincidence, that happening so soon after this incident. I can’t imagine they’re connected.
Sdimbert, do you really believe Sharon? I barey follow Middle East politics but I know that Sharon is very pro-West Bank settlement, anti-peace treaty (“hawkish” is an accurate description for him), and is reviled by Palestinians. When I heard that he had gone to the Mount, I knew trouble was brewing. I can’t believe that he would not be aware of this while I am.
Slightly off subject, but interesting link for you, with perspective on the situation in the Midle East. This seems to be a man of reason…
It’s from Worldnet Daily here
Tradesilicon, I had numerous problems with that article. From the implications (he never comes out and directly says this), the author seems to say that if you’re Jewish, you’ve got a 5,000 year-old birthright (backed by archaeological and historical evidence) to the site but if you’re one of the people who lived in modern day Israel prior to '67, you’re a ficititious “Palestinian” guilty of “Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness.” using “phony excuses for the rioting, trouble-making and land-grabbing.” I’ll agree with him that something is giving diplomacy and peacekeeping a bad name- I think it is articles like this one.
Looks like to me that this guy is just preaching his own brand of fanaticism.
My biggest problem is this whole birthright stuff, which is simply ethnic nationalism, just not yet in such a violent form as in, say, Kosovo.
I fear the day when extremists gain power in Israel.
The arab side went over the edge long ago.
Why does Israel have to stay a Jewish nation anyway?
Factual inaccuracies? No. I disagree with his opinions which are never fully stated, just implied. Re-read the article and keep in mind the generalizations I point out above. I think his bias is fairly obvious.
But I will disagree with the “But that’s too much for the Arabs. They want it all.” statement (as well as his other generalizations) and the implication that all jews received the same treatment at the Mount that Sharon did. If I were to find a Jew who wasn’t treated as Sharon was or an Arab who doesn’t “want it all” would it invalidate his argument?
Mojo, I’ll go re-read the article, and look for your points. But what I found interesting is the bit of History about the name ‘Palestine’ which (if true) sot of paints a different picture for me. The fact that the ‘Palestinians’ did not exist as a group before Israel controlled certain territories, and the fact that these folks never wanted to fight Jordan for a homeland…(or perhaps they tried, but we don’t hear much about that)
I don’t know, it just seems like there is a bit more to the line of thinking that there are outside sponsors for some of these uprisings, and that the ‘Palestinian’ people are being used. I do agree that he may generilize a bit much.
