Bush calls Sharon a "man of peace"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Originally posted by STING2:
Salome,
Well if you support Israels right to defend itself against terrorism, then you should support the military action in Jenin that uprooted one of the largest terror cells on the West Bank.
I do support military actions when negotations don't work, when it's clear what the results are that you trying to achieve and when chances are that you will achieve your goals with the actions taken
so I do support Israel in taking military actions to prevent further terrorism
here military actions ended up in acts of terrorism themselves
I do not support that

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it
 
STING2;

You argue exceedingly well sir, and your arguments are not only cojent but fair as well as balanced. And you almost convince. However, I still don't see why Britain should commit itself when the rest of Europe aren't really bothering.

Ant.
 
But what acts of terrorism were committed by Israels military incursion? Even the most liberal of human rights groups have now admitted that a massacre did NOT happen in Jenin. But the investigation is still continuing.
 
Britain has an interest in the stability of the Middle East because of that regions vast reserves of oil and the effect instability and war, or the sudden loss of supply of that oil, would have a dramatic effect on the british economy and way of life. Saddam Hussain has shown that he is a threat to the region by launching wars against Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. His willfull destruction of the environment, slaughter of civilians, and pursuit of Weapons of Mass destruction, that could cause mass loss of life in the UK, through direct use by Iraq or indirectly through a terrorist group, in total constitute a threat to the United Kingdoms interest that cannot be ignored.
Certainly, the threat to other European countries is just as great. But most other European countries do not have the power projection capabilities that the British military has. France is the only possible exception. The French unfortunately believe that Saddam is a dove that can be engaged.
 
Salome, I generally like your answers... There short and simple.... and convey a simple and genuine answer.

---
I do believe that though relgion is a factor within this conflict... The two main issues are the geographic problems and lack of good leaders..... I wish Palestine could rebuild itself, and have a good leader with it.... I wish Israel fount a less corrupt leader....
I wish we could have peace on earth...
--------------------

Sting, do u think Sharon is a man of peace...?
 
Originally posted by STING2:
But what acts of terrorism were committed by Israels military incursion? Even the most liberal of human rights groups have now admitted that a massacre did NOT happen in Jenin. But the investigation is still continuing.

What I've heard and read a massacre (thankfully) did not occur. But human rights groups do say that there are cases of gross misconduct by the Israelis. Until now 52 dead bodies are found, but of those 52 dead almost half are not people Israel suspected of terrorism, but children, old women, etc. There are claims that Israelis willfully destroyed houses while knowing that people were inside. And Palestinians were used by Israelis as a human shield while the Israelis fired from behind them, claims supported by Israeli reserves (as broadcasted on CNN yesterday).

BTW, here's a link with a little bit of information about the situation in Jenin (and the two main reasons Israel is blocking the fact-finding mission there): http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/29/un.jenin/index.html

Marty


------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle
 
I'm surprised that the religious right didn't jump up in arms about that because some believe that's a pseudonym for 'the Antichrist' (ref. the book of Daniel).

'Man of peace' Dan 11:17

Or did they? I'm not in America - so I'm interested if there were any noises about this.

Always looking for trouble!!!
 
I am not sure if Sharon is a man of peace or not simply because I am uncertain of the true role Sharon played in Beirut in 1982. Evidence to directly link him to the slaughter there has not surfaced.

One thing you have to remember is that Sharon is not a dictator. He is the elected leader of the only true democracy in the region. Foreign policy is not formed by Sharon alone, but everyone in his cabinet. While I'm unsure if Sharon is a man of peace himself, his government is a government of peace.

The investigation so far does not point to a massacre, but there continue to be unresolved claims of IDF misconduct. So far only 21 civilians have been found dead which seems to be amazing(except for the civilians families and friends) considering the intense fighting that occured. Just as there was no massacre of 3,000 civilians as the Palestinians claimed weeks ago, what ever claims of IDF misconduct will have to be proven. Right now there are only claims, just like there was claims of 3,000 dead civilians a couple of weeks ago. The use of civilians as human shields is not Israely army policy, so if it is found to be true, then those soldiers who engaged in such actions should be punished. I would hope that the Israely military will consider using active military units rather than reservist the next time it engages such a sensitive terrorist or military target.
 
from The Boston Globe...

Claims of massacre go unsupported by Palestinian fighters

By Charles A. Radin, Globe Staff and Dan Ephron, Globe Correspondent, 4/29/2002

JENIN, West Bank - Palestinian Authority allegations that a large-scale massacre of civilians was committed by Israeli troops during their invasion of the refugee camp here appear to be crumbling under the weight of eyewitness accounts from Palestinian fighters who participated in the battle and camp residents who remained in their homes until the final hours of the fighting.

In interviews yesterday with teenage fighters, a leader of Islamic Jihad, an elderly man whose home was at the center of the fighting, and other Palestinian residents, all of whom were in the camp during the battle, none reported seeing large numbers of civilians killed. All said they were allowed to surrender or evacuate when they were ready to do so, though some reported being mistreated while in Israeli detention.

Palestinian Authority leaders have asserted that more than 500 people, mostly women and children, were killed in the camp and that many of the dead were buried by Israeli forces in mass graves. Investigators for Amnesty International said that Israel failed to provide safe passage from the camp to noncombatants.

The Palestinian allegations led to the creation of a UN fact-finding team for Jenin, but Israel yesterday barred the team from arriving amid allegations of an anti-Israel bias.

Israel says that those Palestinians killed in the Jenin battle were almost all fighters, that none were buried in mass graves, and that ample chance was given to fighters to surrender and for civilians to leave. It initially estimated the death toll at 100 to 200, and has since revised that toll downward to 50.

Meanwhile, a British military adviser to Amnesty, Reserve Major David Holley, was quoted yesterday by Reuters news service as dismissing the Palestinian allegations of a massacre and predicting that no evidence would be found to substantiate them.

Jamal al-Shati, who was appointed by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to document events at the camp, said last night that 52 deaths have been documented, including those of three women and five children under 14. He asserts that the Israelis secretly removed bodies from the battleground.

Munir Arsam, 15, a member of Islamic Jihad, said that during the siege, which began April 3 and ended around April 11, he did scouting work for older militants, threw homemade pipe bombs, and helped with ambushes of Israeli troops. He said he was one of 50 boys, divided into groups of 10 by militant leaders, who were assigned these tasks.

In contrast with allegations by some Palestinians and Amnesty investigators, Arsam said women and children were able to evacuate the camp before the climactic battle began. Even at the height of the struggle, fighters were able to put down their weapons and surrender, he said, though he also said, as did the Amnesty investigators, that those who surrendered were beaten and otherwise mistreated while in detention.

Arsam said he knew of five fighters in houses bulldozed by the Israelis, at least two of whom were wounded and screaming for help when the bulldozers came. ''The men in the tanks and bulldozers could not hear them,'' he said.

He said he saw Sheik Ri'ad Abu Abd, 57, of Tulkarem, one of the Palestinian heroes of the battle, wounded with a bullet in the leg near the end of the fighting, and asked him if he wanted to surrender.

''He said `No, I want to die, I want to fight and die,' and a while later that house was bulldozed,'' Arsam said. On the last day of the battle, with no ammunition left, Arsam buried the weapon he had acquired during the fighting and surrendered.

''They destroyed all the houses in Hawashin,'' he said, describing a now-demolished neighborhood in the camp. ''I was in the last house, and they called out, `Surrender or we will fire at you.' There were only two of us, so we left, and they destroyed the house.'' He said the Israeli soldiers held him for four days, frequently beating and kicking him to make him confess to membership in Hamas or Islamic Jihad, then released him.

Asked if he felt any massacre had occurred, Arsam said: ''We killed them and they killed us, but we were victorious.''

Abdel Rahman Sa'adi, 14, another Islamic Jihad grenade-thrower, said he was one of a group of 11 adults and seven young men who surrendered upon Israeli demand. He said they were confined in a courtyard near the camp to which the Israeli troops brought dozens of other men and women.

''They told all the small kids to just leave, and they let all the women go after they checked their bags,'' said Sa'adi, who has braces and was wearing a baseball cap. ''None of them were kept for questioning.''

''Of course the Palestinians won'' this battle, he said, because ''they did not shake our morale. This was a massacre of the Jews, not of us.''

Prompted by bystanders, he revised his statement. ''I think there was a massacre here - maybe 100 people,'' he said.

Khalid Mohammed Taleb, 70, lay on a concrete slab from his ruined house, shaded by a makeshift plastic awning, watching with a blank expression as people clambered over the rubble yesterday and buried mines and grenades occasionally exploded.

''I come every day,'' he said. ''I lived here 50 years.''

Taleb and his extended family of 11 people stayed in the camp rather than evacuating because ''we thought it would be like the first invasion, they would make an incursion and leave. I used to say I wouldn't leave even if they buried me in this house, but I saw the bulldozers killing people and I left.''

That was around midnight, on the day before the battle ended.

Taleb said he raised a white flag and walked at the front of a group of 20 people - his own family and those of two neighbors. The destruction of his house and the surrounding buildings occurred after the civilians left, he said, when only fighters remained.

He said several times that no civilians were killed, but after repeated questioning from reporters and bystanders, he said: ''Well, maybe one or two. It was a big battle.'' Was it a massacre? ''Perhaps,'' he said. ''Both sides lost.''

An Islamic Jihad leader, who insisted on anonymity, said he was wounded as the battle drew to a close, and crawled 300 yards to where other fighters were gathered.

''There were 35 of us, and they were bringing down houses on us, so we surrendered,'' he said. Israeli soldiers ''threw me on the garbage near the hospital at noon'' on the last day of the battle, ''and I remained there until 1 a.m.'' The Israelis did not attempt to confine or question him, and he returned to the camp Saturday, he said.

All the fighters said that the Israelis failed to wipe out the militant leadership in the camp, which long has been known as an Islamic Jihad stronghold.

''Of course we are reorganizing,'' said the Islamic Jihad leader, who walked with a cane and was thronged by comrades near the wreckage. ''I don't know what is the plan, what is the strategy, but people are full of hatred.''

Arsam, the 15-year-old fighter, said leaders of Islamic Jihad and other factions were taking new groups of youngsters to a hill near Jenin every day for military training, teaching them to fire automatic weapons and to make bombs.

A spokesman for the Israeli army asserted, meanwhile, that Palestinians were moving bodies of people not killed in the Jenin fighting into graveyards around the camp ''to score points with the UN committee due to arrive to investigate the happenings in the Jenin refugee camp.'' The military said this charge was based on information received from Israeli intelligence agencies, and refused to elaborate.


This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 4/29/2002.
? Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.
 
You know, I have been very silent on this thread and anything like it for a while now. Reason why? I really don't like either side. Let them blow each other up into oblivion. I'd be inclined to have a bit more sympathy for Arafat and his cause, had it not been for the fact that it's not like they're the only Islamic nation around that area. Why aren't the "good" nations of Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt taking care of their own people? Of course, at the same token, what kind of silly thought is it to resurrect a long dead nation? When is enough enough? It is just as silly to me as the thought of slave reparations 140 years after the fact. Multiply that by 10 and you have the ridiculousness of resurrecting Israel. I think its due time to resurrect an old American Indian nation, and make Los Angeles the capital. Sounds silly, right? Such a nice little gift we received from religious zealots on all sides...

Melon

------------------
"Still, I never understood the elevation of greed as a political credo. Why would anyone want to base a political programme on bottomless dissatisfaction and the impossibility of happiness? Perhaps that was its appeal: the promise of luxury that in fact promoted endless work." - Hanif Kureishi, Intimacy
 
Melon,
I think you might fail to understand some of the history that is behind this area. Of course I could be wrong. But let me explain some things. There has been a Jewish community, however small on a continuas basis in Palistine since 1900 BC. Since the time of Christ the area has been controled by Romans, Christians, then Muslims, Then Turks, then Egyptians, and then in 1517 the Ottoman Empire which controled the region until 1918 and its defeat by British forces and Muslim and Jewish rebels in the region. For the first time in over a thousand years, the people in the region had an oportunity for Independence from any foreign power. From 1918 to 1947, the british tried to resolve the question of statehood for this region. Again there had never been an Independent State in this region in over a thousand years. The arabs rejected the proposal by the British for Arab and Jewish sectors. They then handed the problem of the area over to the UN. The UN proposed in 1947, an Arab State and a Jewish state. The Arabs rejected it but the Jews accepted and formed the independent State of Israel. The next day after their independnce they were attacked by 5 Arab states. The population in all of Palistine and Israel at this time was 600,000 Jews, and 1,300,000 Muslims.
The bottom line is that Jews living in this area have just as much right to a state as the muslims do to have theirs. A state or states suddenly had to be created because Empires that had controlled the region for over a thousand years no longer existed. A state or states had to be created. Why would muslim claims to have a state for the first time in over a thousand years, defeat any Jewish attempt to have a state there as well?
 
Sting, bottom line is, many wish that these to states could live together side by side in peace.... This could possibly happen, if and only if, their were no corrupt leaders in the picture.... ARafat and Sharon are two corrupt leaders who shouldn't be leading the states....... Sting, i don't see how u think sharon is somewhat a man of peace? Thats kind of twisted.
 
Originally posted by Amna:
Sting, bottom line is, many wish that these to states could live together side by side in peace.... This could possibly happen, if and only if, their were no corrupt leaders in the picture.... ARafat and Sharon are two corrupt leaders who shouldn't be leading the states....... Sting, i don't see how u think sharon is somewhat a man of peace? Thats kind of twisted.

I agree. THis much is certain, if there is any peace to be had in the Middle East, it will be without Sharon and Arafat.

Ant.
 
Amna,
If you think Sharon is Satan, please provide the indisputable evidence to prove it. I said I was uncertain if Sharon was a man of peace or not. But his government is a government of Peace. Engaging in defensive military action does not mean your not peaceful. Those that do what is militarily neccessary for security and to prevent war I find to be more peaceful than pacifist who allow themselves and others to be taken advantage of and tempt others to do so.
 
Sting, what do u call a man (and governement) who is willing to kill over 3000 innocent lives within Sabra and Shatilla camps? During a Peace accord treaty him and his army invade the mount temple? A man who is willing to continue opressing people who are trying to build a state? A man who knows that if he withdraws the IDF from the West Bank it might eliminate terrorists acts just like when they moved out of the Gaza Strip (the latest terrorists act have come from the West Bank (not the Gaza))? This is a man of peace? Did all those lives have to be taken? And don't tell me that sometimes lives have to be taken in situations like that...... When one life is taken from one side, it is going to stir up more anger.... Its definently not a good strategy in finding peace. Defending one self is one thing.... But what is the IDF defending itself from, they are in the West Bank, stirring tension up..... Of course people are going to react to that..... In ways that I don't agree with.... But when the IDF is going to choke the West Bank, its not an act of defense.... Also, throwing bombs at kids while they are playing on the streets is not necessarily PEACEFUL.... Where did I get that proof... Well I got that proof from a video shown at WPI, but can not be put in public because the man snuck that video into the country... If he didn't sneack it in, the whole video would have been censored.... Because America wouldn't like the US seeing the whole picture....
Any innocent life taken is not justifiable..... (I think Arafat is almost just as bad)Especially if its from a "Government of peace".... I swear, you ask for proof, well, the proof is right infront of you... It's your character that will judge another character.... So, if you think Sharon is a man of peace, well, honestly, thats your oppinion, and so your oppinion really does judge your character.....

Sharon is def. like the devil in disguise.... If he has the odasity in killing over 3k lives in Lebanon.... Why the hell visit 911 site.... For support of the US? And why go on "Prime Time" and say that you don't hate anybody..... When really, we all know that u and Arafat hate eachothers guts.....
All I'm saying is that I think it was irresponsible of Bush to label Sharon as "a man of peace" , when really he is def. not......

peace,
Amna
 
Amna,
No one thus far has proved beyond any resonable doubt that Sharon was responsible for the massacre that occured in 1982. There for unlike you, I decline to judge someone without knowing all the facts.

You have not produced any evidence to prove your claim of IDF murder and abuse. I'm not saying that individual cases have never happened in the past 35 years, but there is no state directed terrorism from Israel. The Palestinians said that 3,000 innocent civilians were killed at Jenin, so far the investigation has revealed only 21 civilians have died, and while human rights abuses are suspected, none have been proven to have happened.

This is not about occupation but the security of Israel. The West Bank and Gaza were occupied and continue to be occupied because of the regional invasions by Israels Arab neighbors and the constant risk of being overrun.

In the 1990s Israely troops left most of the Occupied terrotories and local security became the job of the Palestinians. The Palestinians in turn, starting in 2000, have supplied and aided a terrorist bombing campaign, with proven aid from countries like Iran.

What the IDF has done over the past month is what the Palestinians themselves have failed to do. The Israely's had no choice but to go back into the West Bank to root out the terrorist infrastructure that had grown in their absence.

Violence from Gaza has occured in the not to recent past, and their may be an IDF operation in Gaza in the coming weeks. Hezbolah continues to fire rockets and threaten Israel long after Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon. So just simply withdrawing from an area is not neccessarily going to produce a peaceful situation.

The IDF has done an effective operation in the West Bank which has reduced nearly to 0 the number of suicide bomb attacks targeting innocent civilians in Israel. They are withdrawing now from several areas, but will certainly return if there are more terrorist acts. The way to peace is for Palestinians to reject terrorism, which is the targeting of innocent civilians. Only through non-violent action and outside mediation will they secure the opportunity to have an independent State on the West Bank and Gaza. In 50 years of attempting to destroy Israel, while rejecting nearly all peace attempts, the Palestinians and Arab states have continued to make the situation of Palestinians worse. War and Terrorist action by them have not succeeded in achieving any of their goals. Only through non-violent action and outside mediation will the Palestinains ever achieve an independent state.
 
Originally posted by STING2:
Melon,
I think you might fail to understand some of the history that is behind this area. Of course I could be wrong. But let me explain some things. There has been a Jewish community, however small on a continuas basis in Palistine since 1900 BC. Since the time of Christ the area has been controled by Romans, Christians, then Muslims, Then Turks, then Egyptians, and then in 1517 the Ottoman Empire which controled the region until 1918 and its defeat by British forces and Muslim and Jewish rebels in the region. For the first time in over a thousand years, the people in the region had an oportunity for Independence from any foreign power. From 1918 to 1947, the british tried to resolve the question of statehood for this region. Again there had never been an Independent State in this region in over a thousand years. The arabs rejected the proposal by the British for Arab and Jewish sectors. They then handed the problem of the area over to the UN. The UN proposed in 1947, an Arab State and a Jewish state. The Arabs rejected it but the Jews accepted and formed the independent State of Israel. The next day after their independnce they were attacked by 5 Arab states. The population in all of Palistine and Israel at this time was 600,000 Jews, and 1,300,000 Muslims.
The bottom line is that Jews living in this area have just as much right to a state as the muslims do to have theirs. A state or states suddenly had to be created because Empires that had controlled the region for over a thousand years no longer existed. A state or states had to be created. Why would muslim claims to have a state for the first time in over a thousand years, defeat any Jewish attempt to have a state there as well?

I'm going to rewrite this passage in a *hypothetical* situation that would be more applicable to America.

Let's imagine that an American Indian nation is established in America, right around where Washington, D.C. is. The U.N. established this small nation to make up for the fact that the U.S. massacred them during the 19th century. All occupants, including the government seat, is evicted without compensation. The United States resists this, and attacks, occupying 1/2 of the city. The Indian nation, however, is quite powerful, and, quickly, the "war" deadlocks.

If such a situation occurred, should the U.S. defy the U.N. and attack the new nation, plopped right on top one of our most important cities? You can argue that there has been a continuous community of American Indians in America for probably 10,000 years. The area, starting with the arrival of Christopher Columbus, was occupied primarily by the Spanish, the French, and the English, before being won by the Americans only a mere 225 years ago.

Now, tell me, what would you think of such a situation? Would we be any more "grown up" than the Arab states in regards to Israel?

Melon

------------------
"Still, I never understood the elevation of greed as a political credo. Why would anyone want to base a political programme on bottomless dissatisfaction and the impossibility of happiness? Perhaps that was its appeal: the promise of luxury that in fact promoted endless work." - Hanif Kureishi, Intimacy
 
Hey! I got a idea! let the whole world nuke itself! No more arguments! No more fighting! No more humans! The world for once in its life will be....peaceful?
 
Melon,
You missed a very key point in my post. There had not been an independent state called Palestine when Israel was established for well over a thousand years and there still is not because the Palestinians reject every offer to have one, although they claim they want one. Remember for the past 300 years, this area of land had belonged to the Ottoman Empire or essentially the Turks. Other foreign empires owned the area before that. The Ottoman Empire was defeated, with the help of the Jews and Muslims living in the area of Palestine by the British during World War I. For the first time in over a thousand years, the British and the allies would help to create Independent states in the area that used to belong to the Ottoman Empire and before that other Empires.

With all this land no longer in the control of the Ottoman Empire, or any Empire for that matter, the British and allies had to form structure or essentially states out of a very large area because they had no plans of governing or controlling this area. 6 states that had either never existed before or not existed in over thousand years had to be created. These brand new states were Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, and the 6th, the area of Palestine was held back because of the difficulty of talks between muslims and Jews living in the Area. After 30 years of having a mandate to create a new state or states in the area of Palestine, the British gave up and handed the problem to the UN.

The UN plan in 1947 was for two states, one Israel, the other Palestine. Jerusalem would become a UN city. Israel was given land they were already living on, the Palestinians were given the land they were living on. But the Palestinians rejected the plan and with the Arabs attacked Israel when they declared their independence. Coming close to being overrun, Israel threw back 5 Arab armies and the Palestinians and in the course of battle took one half of Jerusalem. It is only at this point that you have the creation of Palestinian refugees. But that would never of happened if they had a agreed to the UN plan.

Your example with the Indians and the United States is not a good example for several reasons. First of course is the fact that NO state existed at the time the British took control of the area from the Ottoman Empire. In the area of what would become Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Jews made up 1/3 of the Population already! The UN plan did not take land from anyone except Jerusalem which it took for itself because the sides it seemed would never agree to share it. The Jews would get the land they were living on while the Muslims would recieve the land they were living on. The Muslim area was half the land but more importanly completely connected. The State the Jews recieved was divided into three parts. But the Jews accepted this. Then they were attacked by the Palestinians and Arab armies from 5 countries.

To sum up, there was no Palestinian state when the need to create a state in the aftermath of the Ottoman Empire happened. Suddenly, the british are in control of an area that is 1/3 Jews, 2/3 Muslim, and each wants to have its own state for the first time ever except the Muslims do not want the Jews to have their own state. The UN took on the problem and suggested the fairest compromise to the problem. If the Muslim population had agreed, they would be in far better position today than they could ever dream of, and Israel would be an Independent state divided into 3 parts. But they chose war instead of the opportunity to have their state and peace with an Israely state.
 
Back
Top Bottom