The Legacy of Ariel Sharon

Ibn Warraq:

I know you included a “catch-all” category, but I think there’s one more specific group you excluded from your list, and that’s “utopian peaceniks who always blame the winner of a battle for the consequences of it.”

You break it, you bought it.

Sad but kinda true. I don’t think individual middle-easteners want genocide or war or violence all that much more than anyone else, but when they do they’ve got thousands of years of history to fuel it. Did Cheney have it in for any particular groups? I figure he was mostly a death for profit kind of guy.

Then you own it.

But Israel won’t own it. They won’t annex the OT, they won’t make Israeli citizens of the Palestinians. The Pals are stateless persons, neither in Israel nor out of it. There’s really no excuse for that, and that part of the situation is entirely and solely the Israelis’ fault.

True, dat.

FWIW I really haven’t formed an opinion of A.Sharon. Israeli/ME politics are so messy & hopeless, I do my best to ignore the news from that part of the world completely. :frowning:

Brain Glutton:

Egypt and Jordan are equally, if not more, at fault.

Why? Should the OTs be Egyptian or Jordanian territory? Certainly they want no part of it, and why should they? And even if Egypt and Jordan did offer to annex the Gaza Strip and West Bank respectively, I doubt the Israelis would ever agree.

BrainGlutton:

First of all, if not for the opposition - both political and military - of the bloc of Arab states that both Egypt and Jordan (then Transjordan) belonged to (and which Egypt effectively led) to the 1947 Partition Plan, the Palestinians might have had a state as soon as the British withdrew in 1948.

Second of all, once the 1948 Arab-Israeli war was over, Gaza and the West Bank came under the control of Egypt and (Trans)Jordan. If Palestinians were stateless people, that limbo-like status preceded Israel’s control over those populations, so laying the blame at Israel’s feet is wrong-headed.

Third of all, if Egypt and Jordan hadn’t attacked Israel in 1967, then those territories would never have come under Israeli control.

Finally, if Egypt and Jordan had been willing to negotiate the status of the territories with Israel, rather than insist that only the PLO could represent them, then they would have found Israel to be very willing to relinquish the territories to a responsible governmental body. If they wanted to then turn them into a Palestinian state (which they failed to do the first time these territories were in their power), they could have easily done so after negotiating the land’s release from Israel.

I don’t think Sharon particularly hated Arabs. They were just the enemy. He would have been just as happy killing Swedes if he felt they were a threat to his country.

That was my mistake.

I thought BG had quoted a well-known homophobic bigot.

He’d actually quoted the man’s son.

Even for you this is an exceptionally ignorant comment.

You think the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Lebanese, the Kuwaitis as well as the various self-appointed leaders of Palestinian leaders have no say in this.

Please stop pretending you give a fuck about them.

When you do you insult them and irritate those of us who care about them and their cause.

I remember a 911 widow once saying to a truther, “Don’t make what happened to my husband, your hobby.”

Yes, but he was one of those Israelis who felt it was always 1939, and every meeting was Munich.

I’ll assume you’re familiar with the event regarding the Jordanian village and the Lebanese camps I’d rather not say out loud since it’ll spark the knee-jerk Israeli-haters to run towards google as quick as they can to find more reason to justify their feelings towards Israel and pretend they actually care about the Palestinians.

I’m familiar with both cases, and even if he is truly at fault for both - something that has not been fully resolved - how is that different than say, FDR ordering the strategic bombing of Japanese cities, other than the fact that they involved much fewer casualties?

Anyway, I think you’re mis-characterizing him with your comment about 1939 and Munich. I think it’s more that in his mind, it was actually 1941, not 1939, and he was Churchill or Zhukov. Sharon didn’t think Israelis were like European Jews because to him, Israelis were fighters.

In the latter case, the war was already over and there was no strategic value in the action. As to the idea that he had no idea what was going to happen while his troops popped up flares to illuminate the area and facilitate the actions being taken, I find that preposterous, though understand if you disagree.

As to the first event, no, he was more like William Calley except Calley and his men were examples of people snapping under pressure and losing control. Arik was the opposite and Arik, unlike Calley wasn’t cashiered. He also never showed a trace of remorse for it and rather clearly saw it as both an eye for an eye and preventative medicine.

Sharon let the Phalangists into the camps ostensibly to look for terrorists, but mainly to twist some arms, slap some people around, maybe break a few kneecaps. Hardly admirable, to be sure, but they were his allies and he didn’t want to lose them. I honestly don’t think he expected them to start killing hundreds of people.

Of course, YMMV.

Yes, he probably did think of it that way. I won’t deny that he was a brutal man, just not a hate-filled one.

This is probably off topic, but how is Sidney Blumenthal a well-known homophobic bigot? He’s well known for other things, most notably being an attack dog for the Clintons, but if he’s homophobic, I don’t think he’s well known for that. I can’t think of any homophobic comments he’s made off the top of my heads (not that I’m saying he’s never made any), and he isn’t a public opponent of gay rights.

Except for the last, why would they have any say in this?

:rolleyes:Sharon was a very able and intelligent man. I highly doubt he was so stupid to believe that would not happen. And I doubt you do either.

He famously leaked the names of members of Ken Starr’s staff to the press he thought were closeted gay men.

I’ll admit if they were married men having affairs that would have been one thing, but they weren’t and someone who thinks being gay is comparable to adultery is homophobic.