Jump to content
aberdeen-music
Sign in to follow this  
Hog

Ariel Sharon

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure what will happen if he dies, I can't say I have any sympathy for him atall since he was responsible for the sabra and shatila massacres in 1982 and sundry other crimes against humanity even up to the point of his stroke. I just hope whoever supercedes him is a realist rather than a nationalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer : I'm not the most knowledgable about Middle East affairs, and could be barking completely up the wrong tree here.

I think if Sharon goes, it's unlikely he'll be replaced by someone with as much vision. Ignoring his "crimes", Sharon has had a very definite will and desire to do things his way - including taking the IDF to the settlements to remove them, something that was totally against the will of the Israeli people. He has done things of dubious legality, such as the building of the West Bank Barrier, but ultimately, he has persued a policy of securing safety for Israel, something that they've had to fight for ever since their declaration of independence.

Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that the Arabs and Israelis are never going to get on in a million years - so if the final settlement means that the Palestinians and the Israelis are completely seperated in every day life, with some annexation of territory on Israel's part and a complete end to hostilities, who can complain?

I fear that terrorist organisations in the Middle East may use Sharon's illness to destablise things - and equally, I dare say that some elements in the defence forces will use it to persue their own motives.

Either way, it's not looking good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know nothing about the middle east either, but I do know that if he is now stable he'll probably survive, It'll just be a long slow road to recovery and someone is bound to muscle in on his power in the mean time. I can't see that having very good consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tv tanned

Best case scenario: A continuation of current policies.

Worst case scenario: Netanyahu becomes the new Prime Minister.

Forget the roadmap or any other peace process. As long as the neo-cons in the White House are pulling the strings, there's no chance of a Rabin-Arafat style handshake on the White House lawn.

The best that can be hoped for is a similar unilateral withdrawal a la Gaza, but as long as the Palestinians are kept out of any negotiations there won't be a peace process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Disclaimer : I'm not the most knowledgable about Middle East affairs' date=' and could be barking completely up the wrong tree here.

I think if Sharon goes, it's unlikely he'll be replaced by someone with as much vision. Ignoring his "crimes", Sharon has had a very definite will and desire to do things his way - including taking the IDF to the settlements to remove them, something that was totally against the will of the Israeli people. He has done things of dubious legality, such as the building of the West Bank Barrier, but ultimately, he has persued a policy of securing safety for Israel, something that they've had to fight for ever since their declaration of independence.

Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that the Arabs and Israelis are never going to get on in a million years - so if the final settlement means that the Palestinians and the Israelis are completely seperated in every day life, with some annexation of territory on Israel's part and a complete end to hostilities, who can complain?

I fear that terrorist organisations in the Middle East may use Sharon's illness to destablise things - and equally, I dare say that some elements in the defence forces will use it to persue their own motives.

Either way, it's not looking good.[/quote']

anyone with an ounce of sense knows that palestians need to be part of israeli life to make money and provide for their families. most of the well paid jobs are in israeli territory. i'd imagine palestinians will complain and complain rightly about their annexation and imprisonment. also the removal of settlers from the gaza strip was a token withdrawl to allow the israelis to further cement their settlements in the west bank and around jerusalum. as good a move as it was there was, as always, an agenda behind it.

like you cloud, i don't know enough about the conflict to go into great detail about it but there does appear to be many genuine complaints which can be directed at the israeli government. the security barrier is a backward step which can only serve to further seperate a people who are both determined to be on that land. surely working towards appeasement and reconciliation is a much better way forward. it's not going to happen overnight but surely it can happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tv tanned

I did some work on Israeli security during my Masters course in 2002-2003.

I can't remember enough off the top of my head, suffice to say Sharon has not been as bad as everyone thought he'd be, but not as good as he needed to be, for the peace process to have any real function.

With Arafat dead and Sharon dying, two of the greatest figureheads in Palestine and Israel, yet two of the greatest barriers to a settlement, will have been removed.

Unfortunately there is still the spectre of Netanyahu lurking in the background, if he grabs power then don't expect anything approaching a resumption of the roadmap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Main Agent

Well you know that phrase an eye for an eye, Arafat's turn has already passed.....;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anyone with an ounce of sense knows that palestians need to be part of israeli life to make money and provide for their families. most of the well paid jobs are in israeli territory. i'd imagine palestinians will complain and complain rightly about their annexation and imprisonment. also the removal of settlers from the gaza strip was a token withdrawl to allow the israelis to further cement their settlements in the west bank and around jerusalum. as good a move as it was there was' date=' as always, an agenda behind it. [/quote']

But do they have a right to be a part of Israeli life? The impression I get is that the Israelis don't want them on their territory, so their right to access it is a questionable one, especially as Arab countries in the Middle East aren't exactly welcoming to Israelis.

As for the annexation - from my understanding of the situation, one side was always going to annex part of the other's territory, and it simply so happened that Israel managed to do it first. In the grand scheme of things, Israel hasn't tried to annex too much territory - enough to give them a buffer, but not enough to make the West Bank unviable. Jerusalem is an interesting study, but from what I've found, both sides have been equally guilty as far as annexing territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Jerusalem is a pretty fascinating article on things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank_Security_Fence is also pretty fascinating.

From what I understand about the whole deal, Israel wants to completely close off the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, while allowing limited through traffic between the two. Is that so bad? Do Palestinians have a right to access Israeli territory? The annexation isn't a good thing, but Israeli are the undisputed power in the region and powers tend to make the rules.

like you cloud, i don't know enough about the conflict to go into great detail about it but there does appear to be many genuine complaints which can be directed at the israeli government. the security barrier is a backward step which can only serve to further seperate a people who are both determined to be on that land. surely working towards appeasement and reconciliation is a much better way forward. it's not going to happen overnight but surely it can happen.

I don't think the Israeli mentality will tolerate anything short of a total barrier between the people - so why try and force them into anything else? If the end result is an Israeli state and a Palestinian state, seperated by a barrier and with little contact between the two sides, what would be the problem in the long run? It would mean an end to terrorist attacks in Israel, and an end to IDF attacks in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, meaning that both sides can go about their daily business without fear.

As far as I really understand things, both sides have commited some awful things - neither of them are blameless, and Israel is attempting to finally divide the people for good. It might not be a totally happy solution, but anything that brings peace to the region (even at the cost of annexation of some territory) isn't a bad thing in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did some work on Israeli security during my Masters course in 2002-2003.

I can't remember enough off the top of my head' date=' suffice to say Sharon has not been as bad as everyone thought he'd be, but not as good as he needed to be, for the peace process to have any real function.

With Arafat dead and Sharon dying, two of the greatest figureheads in [b']Palestine and Israel, yet two of the greatest barriers to a settlement, will have been removed.

Unfortunately there is still the spectre of Netanyahu lurking in the background, if he grabs power then don't expect anything approaching a resumption of the roadmap.

You didn't do enough work then on your Masters course if you made that blunder. There never was a 'Palestine'.

In fact if you wanted to understand the situation you'd need more than a one year MSc to do so.

Unfortunately the proper roadmap got lost. It was called Transjordan.

I hope the next leader has more backbone against the USA/EU/Quartet and PLO/Islamic Jihad/Hamas/Fatah/Force 17/et al terror than Sharon did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But do they have a right to be a part of Israeli life? The impression I get is that the Israelis don't want them on their territory' date=' so their right to access it is a questionable one, especially as Arab countries in the Middle East aren't exactly welcoming to Israelis.

As for the annexation - from my understanding of the situation, one side was always going to annex part of the other's territory, and it simply so happened that Israel managed to do it first. In the grand scheme of things, Israel hasn't tried to annex too much territory - enough to give them a buffer, but not enough to make the West Bank unviable. Jerusalem is an interesting study, but from what I've found, both sides have been equally guilty as far as annexing territory.

[url']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Jerusalem is a pretty fascinating article on things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank_Security_Fence is also pretty fascinating.

From what I understand about the whole deal, Israel wants to completely close off the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, while allowing limited through traffic between the two. Is that so bad? Do Palestinians have a right to access Israeli territory? The annexation isn't a good thing, but Israeli are the undisputed power in the region and powers tend to make the rules.

I don't think the Israeli mentality will tolerate anything short of a total barrier between the people - so why try and force them into anything else? If the end result is an Israeli state and a Palestinian state, seperated by a barrier and with little contact between the two sides, what would be the problem in the long run? It would mean an end to terrorist attacks in Israel, and an end to IDF attacks in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, meaning that both sides can go about their daily business without fear.

Yep.

Israel has better things to do with it's money than send IDF conscripts into danger into PA territory to find wanted terrorists, rocket factories and the like.

It's quite a simple solution PLO etc stop the terror (it looks like the terrorists have stopped but it's in fact the separation fence) Israel doesn't have to make incursions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the basic problem:

http://london.mfa.gov.il/mfm/Web/Main/pic.asp?pic=24726.gif&tit=

The yellow areas on that map are Arab countries (this is merely a subset of Muslim countries e.g Indonesia) with membership and influence of the UN. Oh and they have OIL.

The tiny wee sliver of blue in the middle is Israel and even a fair chunk of that has Arab territory. The Yellow countries don't like the Joooooz having even that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tv tanned
I feel so stupid. I have no idea about politics or anything like that' date=' so what does this guy do and what happens if he dies.. eep I really have no idea haha[/quote']

are you expecting a pat on the back?

It's unfortunate that people think being clueless thickos is either amusing or commendable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...