Philzone.org Discussion Board: Archive 2004: Politics Archive 2004: Ariel Sharon.........

in light of Arafat's death i see this as the deveolping story........

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6629502/

netanyahu (sp?) is waiting in the wings then all bets are off.

NOTHING new here

is he a real likely canidate? and then we have what? more insurection?

Ariel Sharon has done a heroic thing by going against the religious right and planing a Gaza pullout. Originally I thought he was bad for his country as Prime Minister, but now I see him as a bold leader who is not afraid to perform a peaceful retreat from the 'palestinian' lands. He seeks peace with security, and an end to the intifada that he himself helped create. He speaks of dismantling settlements, and although he is painted as a war monger by the American and European leftists, will be the one leader in the region who can make a lasting peace.
As every great general in world history, he knows the cost of war and is searching in his Golden years for a respectable peace.

But, in a democracy, no leader can remain in office forever. Sharon may have routed the Egyptians airforce in a single day, but politics is trickier than warfare. I just hope for an end to the suffering on all sides, and I pray that we may see this in our lifetime.

Umm, the pullout will really not change anything for Gaza at all. Under the Sharon plan, Israeli forces will continue to surround Gaza on land, patrol its coastline and its skies. The military cordon that remains will allow Israel to continue to control the flow of all goods and people into and out of the territory. Gaza will remain dependent on Israel for water, sewerage, electricity, telephone access, trade and currency, which will of course remain the Israeli shekel. The disengagement will only mean that Israel will continue to hold the key to Gaza's social and economic development, while at the same time shirking its responsibilities as an occupier because it supposedly "withdrew". As long as Israel holds the veto over Gazans' ability to support themselves economically, it will continue to bear an occupying power's responsibility to ensure their welfare. And when most of the Israeli government would like to see all Palestinians dead, you know their welfare will attract very little attention.
So tell me Hypo, how was this a bold move on Sharon's part? Just wondering.

It is a bold move, because many in the government do not want to leave the territories at all. And those same people are Sharon's base.

About Gaza's territorial rights...
Initially Israel will control the surrounding areas of Gaza, as it is geographically surrounding it and the Palestinian Authority does not yet have the capability to insure that rogue bombers do not attack civilians or the IDF. Hopefully, the democratic swing in Palestinian politics will create an environment of Palestinian security and allow the Israelis to make more concessions.

Politically it could be seen as a mistake, but I for one beleive the Israelis seek peace, they just don't feel as though there is a real authority in the Palestinian leadership. Until they have a legitimate partner to make peace with, they will try to just back away from the conflict. They will pull out Jewish settlements, forceably in many cases, build up their wall, and wait for a consolidated Palestinian government to form.

And that day may come, as long as the Palestinians support leaders who seek peace and not the end of Israel's existence. The goals of leading groups like Islamic Jihad, PFLP, Fatah, Hamas and the PLO are to take over Israel and kill all of its citizens. It's hard to trust a person when he's always trying to drown you, and that has always been the reality of the situation.

>>>>Initially Israel will control the surrounding areas of Gaza, as it is geographically surrounding it and the Palestinian Authority does not yet have the capability to insure that rogue bombers do not attack civilians or the IDF.

There is a far greater number of concerns other than territorial rights. Water, freedom of movement in Gaza, trade, etc...
My point was that withdrawing troops from within Gaza does very little to change the dynamic between the two parties. Which is why it is not bold. The conservative right in the Likud no longer holds the majoriy in the Knesset. Again, how is this a bold move?

And you're talking about the ultra-orthodox right wingers, correct?

There is a coalition between various right wingers, including and excluding different types of ultra-orthodox pundits. It is bold because in Israel's system not only do you have to please your own party, but enough of the other ones to form a majority.

What's your solution chris? It sounds like you've got some good ideas.

Have you been to Israel? Do you know that there have been peaceful eras, and that disengagement can work with a real Palestinian authority? Or do you base your assertions on the American media's confused idea of what's going on in the land?

Are you aware that Sharon's leadership and Arafat's death have led to a massive amount of economic support for a Palestinian state alongside a virtual end of terrorist attacks within Israel?

These are facts, and once again Sharon leads his nation well, despite ignorant and anti-semetic left-wing criticism from the west.

I criticize Sharon so that makes me anti-semitic? And, by the way, Palestinians and other Arabs are semitic too.

Sharon's policy is to "withdraw" from Gaza, while actually continuing to control it via water rights, etc., while at the same time consolidating Israel's hold on the West Bank and further "cantonizing" the prospective Palestinian state and making it impossible for Palestinians there to freely move about.

While you criticize remember to offer your plan for peace....


And I wasn't calling any Zoners anti-Semitic, just the extreme left-wing western opinion.

Sorry for the insult

Hypo - yes i have been there. worked there. West Bank. Also have spent the last six years of my life researching and writing on this "topic". Out of interest, when was the last time you visited the region?
If you'd like to attach a dismissive label of ignorance to a view which is not your own, fine by me.

>>>>These are facts, and once again Sharon leads his nation well, despite ignorant and anti-semetic left-wing criticism from the west.

This sort of statement i find aggravating. One you only hear in the US. Only the American right would describe criticism of Sharon's dirty policies of collective punishment as anti-semetic. It is exactly for this reason that i will not enter a discussion of this issue with a conservative American. There is truly no point. Somehow this will end simply (as it already has) with me being called anti-semetic, a lefty, and ignorant. I am none of the above.
One question - what of the xenophobic school of thought that erected the wall?
Ah yes, and one last thing hypo - i do not work for nor buy into the American media. The media, yes, but not in this country.

gotcha... apology accepted.

peace plan forthcoming...
this will take a while.

spelling correction.
uhh, semitic, not semetic.

Sorry again Swisschris, for the knee-jerk response against you and the left-wing ideals...
I, too recently was in the Israel and Palestine and find the situation sad, scary, and in dire need of help. I worry that without an American leadership role in the way of peace that the area will fall deeper into chaos. This is why I support Sharon. I believe he sees the need for a viable Palestine and I hope he is workingfor peace. After Rabin's assasination Israel's political situation has been incredibly damaged, and the liberal parties have given way to the right-wing. But, Sharon did just make a deal with the Labor party, and in my humble opinion is trying to find real peace.

thanks man, but it's really not a problem hypo, seriously...
and i WILL get back with a, uhh, plan.

right...
That's what Sadat said

Just need some time to get centered, clear my head, that sort of thing...

while yer at it try gettin rid of the one-sidedness