This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
A NEW BEGINNING?
Published on January 7, 2006 By Bahu Virupaksha In Politics
Ariel Sharon was, may be the past tense is not proper, is a bold politician. His single minded withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza strip, no matter how imperfectly done, represents a radical departure from traditional LIKUD ideology of not vacating seized territories. While his ruthless pursuit of Israeli interests earned him many admirers at home, the policy of targeted assassinations against Palestinian militant groups remains highly controversial. Yet his imminent sign off from the political scene bodes ill for the peace process in the Middle East.

Ariel Sharon, the butcher of Shatila,can hardly be remembered as a man of peace. Yet it is a sign of changing times that the same man whom even the Israeli Parliament holds responsible for the massacre of nearly 856 Palestinian refugees at Shatila in 1982 when IDF invaded Lebanon's today hailed by both friend and foe as a statesman who took the first step toward the two state solution envisaged by the "road map". The fact that he withdrew Israeli settlements from occupied territories of the West Bank itself demonstrates the courage of Sharon. It is doubtful if any other politician could have survived this radical decision. Only a tough, battle tested politician like Saron could have made this decision and pull it through in the face of stiff opposition.

In March this year there will be elections to the Kenneset. Sharon's Kadima Party is likely to do well as a large number of Likud votes will go to the new party. The fact that Ariel Sharon staked his political survival on peace in the Middle East should not be forgotten.

We can see the glimmer of hope on the landscape. If negotiations are held on the basis of the road map surely a new beginning will be made.

Comments
on Jan 07, 2006
today hailed by both friend and foe as a statesman who took the first step toward the two state solution envisaged by the "road map".


it just goes to show ya how short the global attention span really is. west bank settlements are still being built today. he had no intention of following that ridiculously-named roadmap. let's not forget the current infitada was sparked by a desperate campaign stunt nearly as cynical and machiavellian as the reichstag fire.
on Jan 07, 2006

let's not forget the current infitada was sparked by a desperate campaign stunt nearly as cynical and machiavellian as the reichstag fire.


Yes, he walked over the temple mount. Because that's the same as arson and blaming it on the enemy. The Intifada was also planned before that. But it's obviously the Jew's fault. The Jew is the only race vile enough to cause incidents in the past by his actions in the present. That's how Ariel Sharon single-handedly caused the Intifada.

And what have we learned today? A Jew walking over the temple mount is as cynical a trick as starting a fire in a parliament building and blaming it on others.

I'll tell you when there will be peace in the middle east.

There will be peace in the middle east when

a) the Arabs begin to love their children more than they hate Jews (and ultimately prefer their children alive rather than dead with as many frags as possible).

the Jews are no longer assumed to be able to travel in time (and whatever an Israeli does after an Intifada is planned is no longer assumed to be the cause for the Intifada).

c) the Jews are no longer assumed to be responsible for whatever evil deeds are done (when for example a Christian Lebanese militia kill hundreds of "Palestinians" it will be the Christian Lebanese militia who will be held responsible).

d) Israel is no longer held responsible for the "Palestinians'" failure to adhere to the peace treaty (surprisingly enough continued terror attacks and starting an Intifada were not, technically, part of the peace agreement).

That's when you will have peace in the middle east.

The "Palestinians" could have had their own state several times, between 1948 and 1968 and in 2000. Why they always refused we will never know. But I am sure it will be Israel's fault. Presumably Ariel Sharon's.
on Jan 07, 2006

If negotiations are held on the basis of the road map surely a new beginning will be made.


The road map also assumed that the "Palestinians" would stop the terror attacks. They did not. How on earth will there be peace when the "Palestinians" sign peace treaties but terror attacks continue?

What is needed is not a peace treaty, but something that makes the Arabs stop killing Kurds (we found a method), stop killing Sudanese Christians, stop killing Jews, and stop killing any minorities in the region.

As long as Arab nationalism and Muslim fundamentalism exist, there will be no peace.
on Jan 07, 2006
Good comments, Leauki.

One might add that "the butcher of Shatila" failed to stop Christians from taking revenge on the Muslims that had destroyed their country. Neither Sharon nor Israelis killed anyone. The "butchers" were the Phalangist militias, Lebanese Christians. However, the world has never taken action against them. Christian attacks Muslim, blame a Jew for not stopping it.

Do you know who Elie Hobeika was? He actually LED the massacre. When asked what to do with 50 Arab women and children taken prisoner, Hobeika replied ""This is the last time you are going to ask me a question like that. You know exactly what to do." Never convicted of war crimes, he became a minister of the Lebanese goverment. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Hobeika for more details.

You also should add that the place he had the "audacity" (Sarcasm) to walk was the Temple Mount, the site of the old Temple. There a Temple of the Hebrews there MILLENIA before Mohammed was born. How dare a Jew walk there? Certainly that is sufficient reason for decades of violence.
on Jan 07, 2006
good comments both leauli and larry, but your both wasting your time tring to reason with an avowed anti-semite.


elie
on Jan 07, 2006
I know who Elie Hobeika was.

I also know about the Mitchell report. It states that the Intifada was planned before Ariel Sharon's visit to the temple mount.

I take it that our friends here either didn't know about the Mitchell report and assigned blame to the Jew by default, or that they knew about the report but still blame the Jew.

But obviously blaming the Jew by default is not anti-Semitism.
on Jan 07, 2006
Israeli opposition leader states that Jerusalem will forever be a part of Israel: reason for war.

"Palestinian" opposition (Hamas) state that Jerusalem (and all of Israel) will forever be part of "Palestine": no reason for war.

Why is that?
on Jan 08, 2006
he walked over the temple mount


if only it was so simple and simplistic huh?

how many subsequent walks did sharon embark upon? why did he feel compelled to take his walk precisely at a time and in such a manner as to ensure the anticipated reaction would do him the most good in his campaign against barak?

to characterize his actions that day as having anything at all to do with peace is an outrage.
on Jan 08, 2006
I take it that our friends here either didn't know about the Mitchell report and assigned blame to the Jew by default, or that they knew about the report but still blame the Jew.

But obviously blaming the Jew by default is not anti-Semitism.


i've read the mitchell report.

it has nothing to do with blaming jews. i'm blaming a ruthless israeli politician who was determined to sabatoge the progress made in oslo.

i had no similar problem with rabin, perez or barak.
on Jan 08, 2006
wasting your time tring to reason with an avowed anti-semite.


if you're referring to me, you're way outta line.