Ariel Sharon taken to a Jerusalem hospital

[eleny]

On FoxNews now. They say it's been confirmed by news sources. The story is developing.

[maddezmom]

1. here's a link

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051218/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_sharon;_

[medeak]

3. lost consciousness.. uh oh

Channel 10 TV, quoting police sources, said Sharon apparently lost consciousness. He was taken directly to the emergency room of the hospital, the media reports said. Officials in Sharon's office were not available for comment.

[jus_the_facts]

5. didn't know he had a conscience.....

:evilfrown:

[leftchick]

17. me either

:eyes:

[malaise]

21. 78, grossly overweight

I suggest that his fans should really prepare for the worst. Really sad because I wanted all of them at the Hague at the same time.

[ShockediSay]

90. Too many pork chops

and God punished him (probably what we'll hear next from Pat Robertson).

[Andromeda]

98. Jews and Muslims don't eat pork...

:thumbsdown: on the other white meat.

[eyl]

99. Observant ones don't

but AFAIK, Sharon isn't especially religious

[Violet_Crumble]

175. Yeah, that's what I thought too...

n/t

[Scurrilous]

2. Report: Sharon rushed to hospital after minor stroke

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/659324.html

<snip>

"Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was rushed to hospital in Jerusalem on Sunday evening after suffering a minor stroke, the Israeli media reported.

According to Channel 2 television, 77-year-old Sharon was taken to Hadassah University Hospital, Ein Karem, after complaining of feeling unwell.

Channel 10 news said that the prime minister was unconscious when he arrived, but later regained consciousness."

<snip>

"Channel 10 quoted the hospital as saying that the prime minister was not in danger of his life.

Hospital spokeswoman Yael Bossem-Levy said that Sharon was undergoing tests. She would not give additional details. She told local television that as far as she knew, Sharon was conscious."

[jus_the_facts]

4. AND * is giving a speech tonight.....coincidence or not......

:tinfoilhat:

[eleny]

6. He had a minor stroke according to FoxNews - a "tia"

[maddezmom]

7. FAUX reporting Sharon had a minor stroke (called a TIA)

similar to what Harry Reid had earlier this year.

[IndianaGreen]

8. This is not good!

Last thing one wants is the revival of Likud with a scum as Bibi Netanyahu as its leader.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Ha'aretz: Sharon rushed to Jerusalem hospital after minor stroke

Last update - 20:43 18/12/2005

Sharon rushed to Jerusalem hospital after minor stroke

By Haaretz Service and Agencies

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was rushed to hospital in Jerusalem on Sunday evening after suffering a minor stroke, the Israeli media reported.

According to Channel 2 television, 77-year-old Sharon was taken to Hadassah University Hospital, Ein Karem, after complaining of feeling unwell.

Channel 10 news said that the prime minister was unconscious when he arrived, but later regained consciousness. Channel 2 said that Sharon was in a confused state, and that he had been taken for a neurological scan.

"He lost consciousness on the way to hospital and then regained it," said one medic.

According to Channel 2, Sharon was hospitalized a little before 8 P.M., and was taken straight to the trauma room.

Channel 10 quoted the hospital as saying that the prime minister was not in danger of his life.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/659324.html

[lovuian]

10. Sharon is 77 and overweight ... He is in poor health

He's been hanging on here...Hopefully he has a second in command here...

We are all mortals... I disagree with the hospital ... you never know

[IndianaGreen]

11. Ehud Olmert will take over as premier!

Finance Minister Ehud Olmert, who is also deputy prime minister, will take over as premier until Sharon recovers.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/659324.html

[leftchick]

18. what if he doesn't recover

please tell me Netanyahu won't make a power grab here.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Shaul Mofaz, the defense minister, left Likud to join Kadima

Mofaz is very popular and he is seen as a tough cookie. He will lead Kadima if Sharon falters.

I wouldn't count Sharon out!

[IndianaGreen]

12. Sharon Was Meeting Peres When He Blacked Out (Arutz Sheva)

Sharon Was Meeting Peres When He Blacked Out
20:42 Dec 18, '05 / 17 Kislev 5766

(IsraelNN.com) Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has regained consciousness after blacking out in his office while meeting with Vice-Prime Minister Shimon Peres.

He was transported in a stretcher to a vehicle, where he was transported to Hadassah Ein Karem Hospital's Trauma Unit.

Sharon received an MRI and several other tests as doctors try to determine the cause of the "minor neurological incident" he apparently suffered.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=95051

[GatoLover]

83. Oh, wow, what are you doing using a rightwing source like Arutz 7?

:-)

[IndianaGreen]

104. This thread was in LBN when that was posted

and I was looking for an English text for a breaking news story.

[0007]

13. I think they caught it in time. I don't think he'll be an aphasia

patient.

Channel 10 quoted the hospital as saying that the prime minister's life was not in danger.

The Prime Minister's Office said that the decision to hospitalize the premier was taken after he patient.

said he did not feel well while working in his office.

[IndianaGreen]

15. Ehud Olmert to be Acting-PM if Sharon Incapacitated (Arutz Sheva)

Ehud Olmert to be Acting-PM if Sharon Incapacitated
20:35 Dec 18, '05 / 17 Kislev 5766

(IsraelNN.com) Army Radio's Amit Segal reports that if Prime Minister Ariel Sharon loses his capacity to serve as prime minister, according to "Basic Law: Knesset" Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will become acting-Prime Minister.

Whether Olmert or Vice-Prime Minister Shimon Peres would fill such a role was the topic of disagreement between the two parties last year, when the Labor Party joined the Sharon government.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=95048

[0007]

20. If Mr Olmert becomes acting PM, is that until a new vote is taken?

Ehud Olmert, former Mayor of Jerusalem

Ehud Olmert was born in Binyamina in 1945.

He served in the IDF as combat infantry unit officer and was a military correspondent for the IDF journal Bamachane. A lawyer by profession, he holds B.A. and LL.B. degrees in Psychology, Philosophy and Law from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Ehud Olmert was a Knesset Member from 1973, serving on the House, Constitution, Law & Justice Committee, State Control, Foreign Affairs && Defense, Finance, Education & Culture, and Internal Affairs & Environment Committees.

From 1988-1990 he served as Minister Without Portfolio responsible for minority affairs, and from 1990 until 1992 as Minister of Health.

In November 1993, Olmert was elected Mayor of Jerusalem, subsequently resigning from the Knesset in 1998. After his re-election to the Knesset in 2003, he resigned from his position in February 2003.

In February 2003, Ehud Olmert was appointed Minister of Industry and Trade, and Deputy Prime Minister.

He is married, with four children.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Elections are scheduled for March

There will be a new government in March. Sharon's Kadima party was leading in the polls, followed way behind by the remnants of Likud and Labour.

[daleo]

14. A stroke at 77 is not medically surprising

I wonder whether this will derail the plans for a new political party? If it does, you can bet on speculation of foul play. There was certainly no lack of speculation over Yassar Arrafat's passing.

[IndianaGreen]

16. Information on Sharon's Condition Scarce

GSS Blockades Hadassah Emergency Room, Information on Sharon's Condition Scarce

20:48 Dec 18, '05 / 17 Kislev 5766

(IsraelNN.com) Shabak (GSS) forces have blockaded the entrances to Hadassah Hospital's emergency room.

Unconfirmed reports from the hospital say Sharon may have spoken a number of words, but it is "unclear if he is incapacitated."

Even Sharon's son Omri is having difficulty getting direct reports on his father's condition, Israel Radio reports.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=95052

[lovuian]

25. Sharon has been in complete power since 2000 this is bigtime

stuff and this shows the triad of england israel and America

maybe going through changes soon...

[GatoLover]

28. Sharon was in opposition in 2000

Ehud Barak was Prime Minister.

[IndianaGreen]

52. Sharon rules at the pleasure of the Knesset

He can be toppled by a vote of no-confidence.

The only person in "complete power" is Bush, who can ignore whatever laws he chooses to ignore.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Weissglas, Olmert, Omri Sharon on way to visit PM at hospital

On the Ha'aretz crawler:

Top Hadassah University Hospital neurologists summoned to hospital (Channel 2)

Weissglas, Olmert, Omri Sharon on way to visit PM at hospital (Channel 2)

On edit:

PM`s sons, Gilad and Omri, arrive at Hadassah University Hospital Ein Karem (Haaretz)

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/

[DavidDvorkin]

24. An interesting development

Middle East politics are scary, but they certainly are more interesting, most of the time, than the stodgy stuff that happens in democracies.

[IndianaGreen]

26. Sharon to be discharged "soon"

21:42 PM said to be `speaking and joking` after apparent minor stroke (News Agencies)

21:56 Hospital official: Sharon to remain hospitalized, will be released `soon` (Israel Radio)

http://www.haaretz.com/

[IndianaGreen]

27. Sharon speaking, joking, moving all parts of his body

From Ha'aretz crawler:

Unidentified doctors: Sharon speaking, joking, moving all parts of his body (Reuters)

http://www.haaretz.com/

Following tests, the prime minister was transferred to an internal medicine ward at the hospital, where he will remain overnight. Doctors said that Sharon would be discharged "soon."

"He is conscious, speaking and joking, and moving all parts of his body," Channel 1 said, quoting unidentified doctors.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/659324.html

[CountAllVotes]

57. uh huh

just love those lies - just heard he was conscious but unaware of what is going on around him.

Great eh?

:kick:

[sabbat hunter]

29. Israel’s Sharon hospitalized after fainting

Prime minister being tested for minor stroke, aides say

what will it mean if he cannot continue in office?



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10519823/?GT1=7516

[leveymg]

30. Is Cheney next to have a "minor stroke"?

Or, another "minor heart attack"?

[GatoLover]

31. It means that Israeli politics are in a huge mess

They are anyway. Sharon has turned the entire Israeli party structure upside down, having pretty much decapitated both Likud and Labor. On the other hand, there is a tradition in Israel of new parties failing to last for more than one election. Kadima is Sharon's personal instrument and I think all hell is about to break loose.

[sabbat hunter]

32. sharonalso

help found likud many years ago. if this party has a calling among the israeli public it will last beyond sharon.

[GatoLover]

35. No, there's a difference

The Likud was not exactly a new party. It combined a number of small rightwing parties with the main rightwing party, Herut, which was led by Menachem Begin. Herut, in turn, was derived from Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement which dated from 1920's. Kadima, in contrast, is ab initio. Furthermore there have been, over the past ten years or so, a number of attempts to start a new "center" party. One was Mercaz (literally, Center) and another Derech ha-Shlishi (The Third Way). As I said before, neither made it to a second election.

[sabbat hunter]

36. this is though

the first time a sitting PM started a new party. that may give it staying power if sharon is able to continue or even if he cant considering how many left labor and likud to join the new party.

[GatoLover]

39. Well, it might

although remember that Ben-Gurion's personal vanity party didn't go very far, and he had Moshe Dayan at his side.

The thread started, though, on the question of what happens if Sharon is incapicitated now. Kadima has barely gotten off the ground. Furthermore, President Katsav's proclamation dissolving the Knesset does not take effect until, I think, December 28. Even now there's been an attempt to kobble together 61 votes to unseat Sharon before the Knesset goes out of existence. If this were to succeed, the elections would not take place until November, 2006.

[sabbat hunter]

49. i think

i think that the election date can be moved up to a much earlier date if the president of israel so declares. the president of israel is mainly a ceremonial postion but he can dissolve parliment and call for new elections. currently the elections are called for march. dunno if they can speed up the process at all.

if sharon cannot continue a interm or provisional PM would be named by the president and would serve until the elections.

i think this provisional PM is excempt from a no confidence call as earlier elections are already in place for march.

[GatoLover]

51. The March elections are not locked in yet

Only when the Knesset is dissolved next week.

[eyl]

100. The previous small parties, however

were competing with already existing parties for ideological territory. With first Mitzna and then Peretz taking Avoda to the left, and Sharon's gutting of most of the Likud's moderate wing, Kadima has an ideological vacuum to establish itself in. If Kadima also manages to take over some of the Likud's grass-roots basis, it could very well survive and flourish. However, if Sharon gets out of the game now, it could demolish the whole thing.

[Botany]

33. I hope an Arab doctor saves him .....

The man is :puke:

He and AIPAC helped get us into Iraq. Along w/ other horrors Sharon is responsible for.
Such as letting Christian Lebanese slaughter thousands of Palestinians in the 80s or sparking
up the infatada (sp?) by going to the Golden Dome in the 1990s.

[sabbat hunter]

34. temple mount

he didnt go to the golden dome in the 1990s he went to the temple mount which anyone is allowed to go to. the intifada had already started before his visit. his mistake was the large bodyguard force tha accompanied him to the temple mount.

sharon had nothing do to do with us going into iraq.

[leveymg]

37. Re: "sharon had nothing do to do with us going into iraq. "

Tell that to Michael Ledeen -- no, Ledeen can tell it to the OSP-AIPAC Grand Jury.

[sabbat hunter]

40. we went into iraq

because * wanted to help his oil buddies out and 'avenge' his father (the neo cons see that bush I failed by not taking out sadaam in hte first gulf war)

has nothing to do with Sharon, unless you are saying that israel controls american foreign policy.

[leveymg]

43. Google "Michael Ledeen and Niger yellowcake forgeries'

[Botany]

48. He went there to taunt the arabs ......

..... it was gasoline on a fire. And it was deliberate action.

He had (I don't know if he still does) a home in east Jerusalem that was like a fort w/ a huge Israeli flag over it.
And that was a to deliberate taunt the Palestinians too.

Sharon in the 1950 did not lift a finger when Jordanians killed thousands of Palestinians. He had the power to
stop it too.

AIPAC has it's fingerprints all over our Iraqi policy ..... Faith let an Israeli agent into the pentagon .... he got
to work with the Office of Special Plans, Israeli Intel showing Iraqi WMD programs somehow got into the
mix too, and somehow we wind up with Chertoff (an Israeli) heading homeland security. Wolfowitz & Pearle
are not clean either.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050809/bigger_than_aipac.php

to say that AIPAC was operating outside of Sharon's knowledge and influence to me pushes credibility.

I support Israel's right to exist but they are have and still a major irritant as far as peace in the middle east
is concerned.

[eyl]

102. In 1950,

as far as I can make out, Sharon was company commander. What exactly was he supposed to do? For that matter, I don't remember any Jordainian massacres of Palestinians in 1950. Are you sure you don't mean 1970? At which time Sharon was head of Southern Command. Surely you're not sugegsting he invade Jordan? (and the decision wouldn't have been his, anyway)

And surprising as you might find it, AIPAC isn't the Israeli PM's personal arm in the US.

[Colorado Blue]

50. Thank you! nt

[Englander]

95. See post #94

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1994498&mesg_id=1995432

[Englander]

94. No, that's not correct.

Temple mount = Dome of Rock & Al-Aqsa Mosque. Jabba's deliberately provocative
visit was the *spark* for the 2nd intifada. It started *after* his visit.


2000: 'Provocative' mosque visit sparks riots
Palestinians and Israeli police have clashed in the worst violence for several years at Jerusalem's holiest site, the compound around Al-Aqsa mosque.

The violence began after a highly controversial tour of the mosque compound early this morning by hardline Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon.

Under heavy guard, Mr Sharon entered the compound with a right-wing Likud party delegation.

He crossed from the west side of the compound to the east and back again, to the sound of enraged protests from demonstrators outside.

BBC correspondent Hilary Andersson said the visit was clearly intended to underline the Jewish claim to the city of Jerusalem and its holy sites.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/28/newsid_3687000/3687762.stm

_____________________


Al-Aqsa Intifada timeline
The second Palestinian intifada or uprising broke out at the end of September 2000 and is named after the Jerusalem mosque complex where the violence began.

Frustrations that years of the negotiation had failed to deliver a Palestinian state were intensified by the collapse of the Camp David summit in July 2000.

Ariel Sharon, then the leader of Israel's opposition, paid a visit to the site in East Jerusalem known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif, and to Jews as Temple Mount, which houses the al-Aqsa mosque - and frustration boiled over into violence.

The timeline below highlights the key events.

28 September: Ariel Sharon's visit to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount - against the background of the failure of the peace process - provides one of the sparks that ignites a cycle of violence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3677206.stm

______________________


Middle East timeline: 2000

29 September 2000
Violent rioting breaks out in Jerusalem after Ariel Sharon, the hawkish leader of the opposition, visits the most holy Muslim shrine in the city. Surrounded by hundreds of riot police and accompanied by a handful of Likud party colleagues, he spends 45 minutes on the Haram al-Sharif compound, home of the al-Aqsa mosque. By the time he leaves East Jerusalem is in uproar, and hundreds are injured. It is the start of the al-Aqsa intifada (uprising).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,554625,00.html

_____________________________

Rioting as Sharon visits Islam holy site

Special report: Israel and the Middle East

Suzanne Goldenberg in Jerusalem
Friday September 29, 2000
The Guardian

Dozens of people were injured in rioting on the West Bank and in Jerusalem yesterday as the hawkish Likud party leader, Ariel Sharon, staged a provocative visit to a Muslim shrine at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Surrounded by hundreds of Israeli riot police, Mr Sharon and a handful of Likud politicians marched up to the Haram al-Sharif, the site of the gold Dome of the Rock that is the third holiest shrine in Islam.

He came down 45 minutes later, leaving a trail of fury. Young Palestinians heaved chairs, stones, rubbish bins, and whatever missiles came to hand at the Israeli forces. Riot police retaliated with tear gas and rubber bullets, shooting one protester in the face.

The symbolism of the visit to the Haram by Mr Sharon - reviled for his role in the 1982 massacre of Palestinians in a refugee camp in Lebanon - and its timing was unmistakable. "This is a dangerous process conducted by Sharon against Islamic sacred places," Yasser Arafat told Palestinian television.

Mr Sharon's second motive was less obvious: to steal the limelight from the former prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, who returned from the US yesterday and could become a challenger for the Likud party leadership after Israel's attorney general decided not to prosecute him for corruption.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,374838,00.html

[eyl]

101. Actually, the violence began

two days before, when an Israeli soldier was killed - and the next day, a Border Guard policeman was killed by his partner in a joint patrol.

[Englander]

103. No, the violence never ends, which the timelines illustrate.

The incidents you've mentioned are business as usual, not the 'uprising'.
The clue to the origins of the 2nd intifada is in the title;


~Al-Aqsa Intifada~.

[eyl]

105. Nope

The last lethal terrorist attack prior to 27/9/2000 happened over a year before.

And the title - which only came into vogue some months later - is a result of the "Sharon caused the intifada" narrative, not an indicator of its accuracy

[GatoLover]

38. Sharon's history

Sharon was held responsible for negligently allowing the Shatila massacres -- by an Israeli government commission, no less! -- but I'd like to see a little outrage directed toward the militias who actually did the killing.

As for Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in November, 2000, what exactly was wrong with that? I've done the same thing. What's the objection to Jews visiting our own sacred site?

[leveymg]

41. It's what he said when he was there on the eve of the deadline for

implementation of the second stage of the Oslo Accords that called for Israeli withdrawal of settlements on the West Bank. He said forget it, all of Jerusalem is part of Israel (including the Temple Mount - al Aksa).

That was calculated to set off the Palestinians, and it did.

[GatoLover]

45. Sharon called for a united Jerusalem

So has almost every other Israeli politician for the past 38 years. So what?

Furthermore, even if you think the statement is wrong, or uncalled for, whatever, how do you justify the Palestinians using it as an excuse to start a five year long war (which they lost). I seem to recall that, in 1992 as part of the Oslo Agreement, the PLO foreswore violence.

[sabbat hunter]

46. jerusalem

is part of israel. it was never meant to be part of a palestinian state. it was supposed to be an international city under UN auspices, but the UN failed in its job by not even sending a force into jerualem to protect the city when they knew war was inevitable upon the declaration of an israel. from 1947-67 jerusalem was closed to non muslims. jordan even built in the area of the western wall but since 1967 for the most part anyone can visit the holy sites in jerusalem.

david

[Wordie]

54. UN SC declared the act making Jerusalem the Israeli capital "null & void"

And to say it was never meant to be part of a Palestinian state confuses the issue. It was equally never meant to be part of the Israeli state. It is an Islamic holy city as well as a Jewish one.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 478, declared that the 1980 Knesset law (the Jerusalem Law) declaring Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal and indivisible" capital was "null and void and must be rescinded forthwith". The resolution instructed member states to withdraw their diplomatic representation from the city as a punitive measure, which the few countries with embassies in Jerusalem did, relocating their embassies to Tel Aviv. Most countries already located their embassies in Tel Aviv prior to resolution 478.

The vote, which took place on August 20, 1980, was passed 14-0, with the United States abstaining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_478

And here is the link to the full text: http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/dde590c6ff232007852560df0065fddb?OpenDocument

[Chautauqua]

58. Israel has had Jerusalem as its capital since 1949

The US under many Republican and Democratic administrations disagree with your claim and believes that Israel has a right to place its own capital in any city in its own country.

Israel has had their capital and seat of government in Jerusalem since 1949. It was always the official capital but the government offices weren't moved during the war following the 1948 Arab invasion until the 1949 cease fire ended the war.

Seeing how the US has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel since at least the Carter administration and the capital itself had been there since 1949 perhaps you can explain what it was that actually came up in 1980? The UN may have objected to something in a specific Knesset law in 1980 but it sure wasn't that Israel's capital was in Jerusalem since that had been true without objection for 41 years.

[Wordie]

64. 49% of Israelis back Jerusalem division, according to recent poll.

According to the Yedioth Ahronoth and Mina Tzemach poll, released Friday, 49 percent of Israelis back a compromise that would see Jerusalem’s Arab neighborhoods and Arab areas adjacent to the capital handed over to the Palestinians, with Jewish neighborhoods and the Western Wall remaining in Israeli hands.

The same figure, 49 percent, said they would object to such an arrangement. The implication of the results is that even before talks on Jerusalem’s status have been launched, half of the Israeli public is already willing to accept a compromise in exchange for a peace deal.


The survey was undertaken following remarks by an advisor to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who was quoted by Newsweek magazine as saying the PM is ready to cede parts of Jerusalem. The poll aimed to check whether the threat that “Sharon would divide Jerusalem” has the same effect on Israelis as similar threats had several years ago."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3185313,00.html

And to say that Jerusalem has always been the capital of Israel is not accurate. After the Second Revolt, in the second century, AD, the Jews were forbidden to even enter the city, and it was not until the mid-19th century that a substantial Jewish presence was felt in the city. During much of the intervening Muslim control of the city, there were peaceful relations between Jews, Muslims, and Christian (and yes, I know that there were periods of oppression and unrest, too. I'm just stating the overall.)

Since Jerusalem is a city of such deep significance to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, a settlement that takes into account the needs of all those groups must be found, imho.

[Chautauqua]

78. Totally different issue

Jerusalem is the capital. Whether that includes neighborhoods in East Jerusalem or not is a totally different issue.

I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time getting a poll that has Israelis saying that despite the government being located in the Knesset building in Jerusalem for longer than most of them have been alive they really think the government is actually located in an undisclosed location in Tel Aviv...

[Wordie]

85. The post I initially responded to said this:

jerusalem is part of israel. it was never meant to be part of a palestinian state.

It was in reply to that statement that I made the statements about the UN. And as I presume you know, the Israeli law to which the UN Resolution was a response said that Jerusalem was to be an "eternal and indivisible capital."

But Jerusalem is to be part of the Palestinian state as well. A surprising number of Israelis recognize this (I applaud them). You jumped in, and if you were on some other tangent, that doesn't mean that I was.

[Chautauqua]

91. No

The discussion was on Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. You changed the subject. Now, if you DID know the law, you'd know that the 1947 UN resolution that established Israel made Jerusalem a neutral city under UN control until 1958 at which time a vote of Jerusalem residents would decide whether it would be part of Israel or the arab state that would have been established had Jordan not stolen the land after the 1949 cease fire. Since Jews were the majority residents of Jerusalem for decades and the plurality largest ethnic group since they started taking a census of Jerusalem in the 1860s there's no question that it would have gone to Israel in 1958 had the arab states allowed the UN plan to come to pass.

Now, care to discuss history more? I'd suggest you do some reading first.

[Wordie]

107. Here's the history:

GatoLover
45. Sharon called for a united Jerusalem
So has almost every other Israeli politician for the past 38 years.
Although this is an accurate historical quote, the opinion of Sharon may have changed (see below).

sabbat hunter
46. jerusalem is part of israel. it was never meant to be part of a palestinian state.

So then I responded thusly:
Wordie
64. 49% of Israelis back Jerusalem division, according to recent poll.
...The survey was undertaken following remarks by an advisor to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who was quoted by Newsweek magazine as saying the PM is ready to cede parts of Jerusalem.

So you see, whatever Sharon's beliefs may have been, they appear to have changed.

I realize that many are vehemently opposed to the division of Jerusalem. But according to the report I quoted, Sharon indicated a possible willingness to compromise on this thorny issue, which has been a major stumbling block for decades. I sincerly hope the illness of Sharon does not impede the efforts to find a just peace and achieve an equitable solution to the status of Jerusalem.

[GatoLover]

62. You could have quoted the original 1947 internationalization resolution

but it's a dead letter, too.

I won't bore you with the bulk of the Jewish religious and historical claim to Jerusalem. Suffice it to say that it cuts across almost all Israeli and Jewish political disagreements. The Jewish claim both predates and overwhelms the Muslim/Arab claim. In fact, the Muslims were almost completely uninterested in Jerusalem until 1947.

[Wordie]

63. Are you unaware of Jerusalem's al-Asqa mosque, 3rd most holy Islamic site?

Yet here you are claiming that there was no Muslim interest?

Any settlement of the Jerusalem situation must consider the needs and religious and historical claims of BOTH sides. Because the Israeli religous claim predates the Islamic one is not a reason to say that the Islamic one is less valid. And it appears to be only those who believe that the Israeli claim are the only ones with merit who belive that the Muslim/arab claims are "overwhelmed" by them.

This is a very sensitive situation; it requires balance to achieve a solution.

[GatoLover]

65. I've been inside the al-Aqsa mosque

back in 1993 when it wasn't such a huge deal for Jews to ascend to our most sacred site.

Tell me this. Following the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem and the construction of the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa, approximately 1,400 years ago, Jerusalem has been the capital of which Muslim empire or country?

Again, it would be tedious and boring to cite the devotion to Jerusalem found in the Hebrew Bible and in the Jewish daily prayers. Why? Because of the volume of such material! We have prayed for the restoration of Jerusalem three times a time for more than 2,000 years. Find me some similar material in the Koran, the hadith, or the Muslim prayers.

[Wordie]

66. Jewish religious devotion is not the issue on which a political decision

should be made, is what I'm saying. I know about and have respect for the deep Jewish religious devotion to Jerusalem; I just don't think that translates into a political claim that should trump all other issues.

[GatoLover]

68. Then why is alleged Islamic religious devotion supposed to have political

consequences? I mean, who cares that the mosques are up there? Let's knock them down and erect the Third Temple.

:sarcasm:

[Wordie]

71. You didn't grasp what I said. I was saying one group's devotion does NOT

trump any other group's claims. Seems pretty obvious to me.

And those other comments are not deserving of reply.

[daleo]

76. The idea of a religious claim to territory is unprovable

It amounts to saying "God gave territory X to religion Y", which is obviously unprovable. Historical claims make some sense, including something like "religion Y's sacred sites have always been in territory X". But a religious claim per se has no meaning outside of the circle of religious believers.

[GatoLover]

80. The Muslim claims seem to carry a lot of weight

The sacredness of the Temple Mount for Muslims derives from the belief that Mohammed ascended to heaven (and returned) from this site.

From a Jewish perspective, the reluctance of the outside world to honor our claim is regrettable but is simply one more political/military obstacle to be dealt with.

[daleo]

87. The notion of Mohammed ascending to heaven doesn't carry weight for me

As I say, though, I can accept the idea that some given territory (generally limited in extent, such as the Temple Mount or Wailing Wall) can constitute a holy ground for any given religion. To claim large territories as a warrant from God can't be logically justified to any but those within a faith system. At that point, the issue is political and military, not religious.

Since you are coming from a specifically Jewish perspective and my perspective is secular, we may not agree on these points.

[Chautauqua]

93. From a secular perspective, then

How about, "The traditional ancestral homeland. A people who have literally voiced a hope for return to their occupied ancestral homeland every day for close to 2,000 years despite persecution from virtually every other land and continued persecution from a history of occupying powers who took turns at occupying that homeland while only being consistant at keeping any significant return to that land impossible."

Seems secular and absolutely compelling.

[daleo]

109. That claim has much more validity to me

Clearly, there can be debate about the extent and political character of an ancestral home (internal and external debate), but the principle seems reasonable.

[GatoLover]

186. Coming from a secular perspective, one needn't accept religious claims

Mine or anyone else's. But you should be aware of them. The Jewish claim to Jerusalem and the land may mean nothing to you but it means EVERYTHING to us. Some posters here expect the Jews to walk away from our aspirations, fulfilled at last after two thousand years. Dream on...

[Scurrilous]

70. Bush Suspends Move of U.S. Embassy in Israel (12/14/05)

http://newsblaze.com/story/20051215084527nnnn.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/Top-Story.html

<snip>

"President Bush suspended the move of the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem for an additional six months December 14. The U.S. Congress adopted legislation in 1995 calling for the relocation of the embassy to the city Israel claims as its capital, but former President Clinton and President Bush have delayed implementation of the legislation for 10 years citing "national security interests."

Many in Washington believe that the move would be ill-received by Palestinians, who also see Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, and that it would therefore undermine U.S. efforts to secure a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

[sabbat hunter]

72. it is

the third most holy place in islam, the first most holy in judaism.

it was SUPPOSED to be an international city under UN auspices, but the UN failed and didnt even try to make it one by defending it in 1947 against the invading armies. IMO the UN gave up any right it had over jerusalem that year. under israeli control muslims, christians, jews alike have been able to go to their various holy sites. the temple mount itself despite being a holy site to two religions has been and should continue to be under the nominal control of islamic leaders.

i dont see why israel should give up any of the old city of jerusalem.

i think what will eventually happen is that a suburb of jerusalem will go under palestinian control in a way that both sides can claim victory to their people in ruling jerusalem.

[Wordie]

74. See post #64 for what the Israeli public thinks. eom

[Chautauqua]

79. Only if you want a different topic

Since that post changed the subject when it turned out the original post was wildly inaccurate.

[GatoLover]

81. Jewish control of the Old City

Our friends on the board should be reminded that, from 1948 to 1967, in contravention of the armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan, Jews were forbidden to visit the Western Wall, much less the Temple Mount. The Muslim position is that Jews have no ownership or even visitation rights to the site.

[Chautauqua]

82. And if we really want the truth

The Jordanian occupation of Jerusalem from 1949 until it was liberated in 1967 was in total violation of the UN, International Law and the 1949 cease-fire agreement and was never recognized by any of the players involved (including the Arab states, the US or the USSR) except by the PLO in the pre-1967 version of the Palestinian Covenant which asserted that the PLO had no claim on any of the land held by Jordan and ceded its rights to Jerusalem and the West Bank to Jordan.

Funny how few people know any of this yet claim expertise on the conflict.

[IndianaGreen]

84. You guys are totally off-topic, this thread is about Sharon's health

and its political impact on Israel. If you guys want to discuss the underlying I/P conflict, you should do so in the Israel/Palestine forum where it belongs per DU rules.

I don't mean to single just you out, Chautauqua, but I chose to reply to what appears to be the most recent posting of this exchange.

[Wordie]

86. I would have to agree-it's easy to slide into these discussions. Apologies

[IndianaGreen]

88. Thank you, Wordie. n/t

:grouphug:

[Chautauqua]

92. Absolutely off topic

I understand that you didn't mean me in particular.

I, on the other hand, wasn't going to allow factual inaccuracy on top of topic drift. I feel that's been answered.

If the other posters will delete the posts I responded to, I will do the same to take it back on topic and remove the temptation.

[Wordie]

106. Now rethinking this a bit. Status of Jerusalem has everything to do with a

political impact on Israel. Comments about Jerusalem, given Sharon's illness, and his recent comments suggesting a willingness to compromise on the status of Jerusalem, certainly do seem to fall within a "political impact" criteria.

If the thread was solely about the illness itself, then it would be unseemly to get into these other issues. But, as you say, the thread addressed wider issues, so comments about the status are reasonable, imho.

[IndianaGreen]

110. Comments about the status of Jerusalem belong in I/P not LBN

this thread was properly started in LBN and it should have remained there had it not been for the compulsion that some DUers have to turn every story about Israel into a debate about whether Israel should exist or not.

[Wordie]

167. Not one comment I can see is questioning Israel's right to exist, Indiana.

I would agree that perhaps it would have been better all along in this case to restrict the comments to Sharon's health only, which is indeed news of international proportions, but as soon as the door was open to discussing the political ramifications...well, the door was then open! And at that point perhaps you were correct in suggesting that it did belong in I/P.

As I stated before, I'm not sure it's even possible to separate the man from the policies. That being said, I would agree that there are a few entirely inappropriate comments in this thread.

[Violet_Crumble]

176. I've just read the thread and no-one's made those comments...

n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

177. Can't speak for IG...

...but, perhaps she is talking about those who think that a "bi-national" state is best. Those who think that are condemning Israel to death, as well as her Jewish residents.

[Violet_Crumble]

183. The US is rather hypocritical then...

The Jordanian occupation of Jerusalem from 1949 until it was liberated in 1967 was in total violation of the UN, International Law and the 1949 cease-fire agreement and was never recognized by any of the players involved (including the Arab states, the US or the USSR)

Yet the US does recognise the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem. Interesting...

Violet...

[sabbat hunter]

42. his only error

his only error in visiting the temple mount was the large security force that was with him.


hells he even had the 'permission' of arafat to visit the mount. not that he needed it.

[leveymg]

44. Read the speech he made.

[Englander]

96. Link, please?

--hells he even had the 'permission' of arafat to visit the mount.--

:)

[Violet_Crumble]

178. I'd like to see the link as well...

Because I think it was Barak who was the one who gave Sharon 'permission' to visit the Temple Mount, not Arafat....

Violet...

[barb162]

108. What would be wrong about a Christian or Jew or Buddhist

visiting a mosque that people should riot?

[IndianaGreen]

111. Non-Muslims are not allowed inside mosques

However, they can walk around the ground of the mosque.

The riot that the poster is referring to was the one triggered by Sharon's visit to the Noble Sanctuary, aka Temple Mount. Some will argue that the riot was not triggered by Sharon, but by Barak's use of the security forces the day following Sharon's visit. I suggest that you Google sites such as the BBC to read the coverage of that event in a rather neutral environment.

There is a scene in Leon Uris novel Exodus in which the question is asked about who has the most legitimate claim to Palestine. The answer is that both sides do, and because of that, it is the side that wins that becomes the most legitimate.

[barb162]

169. Thanks IndianaGreen

I was asking a rhetorical question and probably should have stated that. Actually I have read a lot about that particular Intifada and the beginnings of it; tensions were raised before Sharon got near that mosque. In any case, what I was trying to get at is that most Christians probably wouldn't have a problem if a Moslem wanted to see the inside of a church. Or a Buddhist, Hindu, etc. Likewise, I think Hindus, Buddhists, etc., allow others to visit their houses of worship. There's a certain openness with most religions, I believe, in having non-believers visit their houses of worship. There seems to be a major difference on this issue with Islam among the major world religions and I wonder why it is.

[Englander]

173. See post #172

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=108136&mesg_id=108315

[Violet_Crumble]

181. Add post #179 to that...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x108136#108328

[barb162]

199. This is the last post I am doing on this because it is completely

off-topic to the OP. But what I meant by all this is that if all of the mosques were open to other groups, people could go in and appreciate the art, the symbolism, ask questions about Islam, etc. I was in the Great Mosque of Cordoba and it was exquisite.

[Englander]

212. Who introduced the subject?

Who 1st mentioned the comparison of Islam with other religions, & the quote,
'lack of openness'?

[Englander]

174. If it were true, you'd have a point.

Here's an eg, of someone visiting a mosque. I wonder if he's a non-Muslim?
:)


'Monday, 7 May, 2001

Mosque visit crowns Pope's tour

By Barbara Plett in Damascus

The Pope's visit to the Umayyad mosque in the Syrian capital Damascus was an historic highlight on his three-nation tour retracing the steps of Saint Paul.

>snip

Then there was a change in focus at the end of the day, as the Pope made history by entering the Umayyad mosque.

Syria's Grand Mufti greeted his guest, and the two men went on to deliver speeches about the need for forgiveness and dialogue rather than conflict.

Islamic official Farouq Akbik said it was a ground-breaking moment in Christian-Muslim relations.

"It is important because it is high time the barriers of ignorance, of mistrust be pulled down.

"Once the Christians see the Pope is being warmly welcomed at the Umayyad mosque, then people will ask, what is this Islam, what is this religion? What is being presented to us is something very negative.

"It is high time we knew the real value of Islam, its beautiful teaching and this big, open heart for others."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1316812.stm

[barb162]

198. What about the mosque in Mecca?

I'm pretty sure non Muslims can't go into it. Do you know?

[Violet_Crumble]

204. I'm pretty sure they can't either...

But since when has Mecca been all mosques, which was after all what the original claim was?

I'm sure most religions have ceremonies and places where only other co-religionists can go. I don't really understand why other folk get so worked up about it, and if it's really bothers them so much and they think something sinister's being hid from them, maybe they should pretend to join that religion and go and take a look...

Violet...

[Englander]

208. What about it?

Mecca = not all Mosques.

[eyl]

210. Non-Muslims

are barred from Mecca period, mosques or no mosques

(except for a few service types quietly brought in)

[Englander]

211. I think barb already knew that -

which is why the eg of Mecca was suddenly introduced, it's an obvious strawman.

On a vaguely related tangent, an eg of a non-muslim visiting Mecca;

Sir Richard Francis Burton:
A Pilgrimage to Mecca, 1853

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1853Burton.html

[eyl]

216. Yeah

But that predated Saudi Arabia's existence; the prohibition on non-Muslims in Mecca is Saudi law (I have no idea whether there's a prohibition in sharia or not)

[Englander]

172. Is that correct?

The claim about non-Muslims being allowed in mosques? I didn't know that, I'm
not an expert on the matter, but that doesn't sound right. Do you mean the Noble
Sanctuary, or other mosques? A quick look on Google shows the claim regarding all
mosques is incorrect;

http://www.google.com/search?hs=lud&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=mosque+non+muslim+visit&btnG=Search

For eg, there were a couple of documentary programmes I watched recently where
the presenters were explaining the history of various mosques, they were inside
the mosques, & I'm pretty sure the presenters were non-Muslims.

There's no need to go Googling for the BBC's reporting of Jabba's visit, the link
is already in this thread;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x108136#108186

:)

[Violet_Crumble]

179. No, it's not correct...

Based on the above Fatwas, we can say that non-Muslims, including Christians and Jews, are allowed to enter mosques, but they should abide by the following conditions:


1- Non-Muslims are allowed to enter mosques – other than the Sacred Mosque in Makkah – with a prior permission of Muslims.


2- They must have a sound reason for entering the mosque.


3- They should respect the decorum of the mosque and keep in mind that it is a sacred place of worship.


4- Both men and women are not allowed to uncover their `Awarah (parts of the body which should not be exposed in front of others) when entering the mosque.



With regard to the issue of restoration, we can say that Muslims should have the priority in carrying out such work, unless it is necessary to seek the help of non-Muslims. There must be a need to seek their help, especially in issues related to mosques.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543870

The general rule of thumb seems to be that if you want to visit a mosque, yr expected to show some respect for it being a place of worship. If anyone has a problem with showing respect when inside any place of worship, no matter what religion, I'd be wondering why that is. :)

btw, this took me all of five seconds to locate with a quick googling session. I just thought I'd mention that...

Violet...

[IndianaGreen]

202. Most mosques today are closed to non-Muslims

The rise of Islamic fundamentalism is having an impact as to who can enter a mosque:

Most mosques today are closed to non-Muslims, but this was a regulation that was developed through the first century of Islam. There was an increase in the emphasis on the sanctity of the mosque, more and more elements of the mosque was regarded as sacred, and any mosque was commonly regarded as bayt allah, 'House of God'.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/mosque.htm

[Violet_Crumble]

203. No, they are not...

Did you read the information I posted? Is there some reason Islam Online is considered not to be reliable when it comes to information about Islam? Personally, I'd be inclined to believe what Muslims themselves say about their own religion, than a few lines in some internet encylopedia...

Violet...

[Englander]

209. No, they're not. See above. n/t

[eyl]

184. It's incorrect, and besides the point in any case

since Sharon didn't enter (or declare he intended to enter) the mosques

[Englander]

193. I was correcting the false claims made in 108 & 111.

So, my comments were relevant.

That's correct, Jabba didn't intend to enter the Mosques. Since he's a
'middle of the road' kinda guy, as he's a 'centrist', he merely walked between
the two, he went straight down the middle.
With a few hundred armed guards.

[eyl]

194. I see

can you supply a cite where Sharon either went into the mosques, or say he intended to do so?

[Englander]

195. I think you've misunderstood me, here eyl.

When I wrote --That's correct, Jabba didn't intend to enter the Mosques.--
I was agreeing with you.

I'll try & be clearer. I meant that Sharon walked through the compound, with
Al-aqsa on one side of him, & the Dome on the other, I meant that he walked
between the two Mosques. Whatever the equidistance is between the 2 mosques,
he walked that route. I found a diagram yesterday that showed his route through
the compound, but I can't seem to find it in the browser history, it showed that
he didn't go near the Mosques.

How's that?

[eyl]

196. OK, got it

sorry for the misunderstanding

[IndianaGreen]

185. Remember when Clinton attended King Hussein's funeral?

He was not allowed inside the mosque because he was a non-Muslim.

[Violet_Crumble]

190. One funeral does not equate to 'all non-Muslims'...

Is the information I posted a few posts up incorrect?

Violet...

[Englander]

192. The operative word there being "funeral".

I'd imagine there are specific rules for attendance, & decorum, of a Muslims funeral,
& it's probably related to the faith of any attendees. Isn't that the same for other
religions?

[IndianaGreen]

47. dupe

Here is the earlier thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1994498

[cal04]

53. Sharon stable after 'stroke'

ISRAELI Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, battling for re-election after spearheading a Gaza pullout, suffered a minor stroke today and was rushed to hospital, where doctors said he was in stable condition.

"The prime minister is conscious. He is undergoing tests. His condition is stable," Professor Shmuel Shapira, director of Jerusalem's Hadassah Hospital, told Channel 1 television.

Aides said Mr Sharon, 77, felt unwell after finishing a series of meetings at his Jerusalem office and was taken to Hadassah hospital, where he underwent a brain scan. "He lost consciousness on the way to hospital and then regained it," one medic told reporters earlier.

Channel 1 said doctors believed that Mr Sharon's condition was not life-threatening but that he would be kept overnight in hospital for observation and tests. "He is conscious, speaking and joking," the television quoted an unidentified doctor as saying.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17608926%255E1702,00.html

[...of J.Temperance]

55. Putting politics aside for a moment...I wish Ariel Sharon a full recovery

Afterall I'm human, so I wish him well.

[Wordie]

67. I'll join with you in that wish. eom

[IndianaGreen]

56. Decision on when to discharge Sharon from hospital will be made Monday

Ha'aretz's crawler:

22:39 PM aide: Decision on when to discharge Sharon from hospital will be made Mon. (AP)

http://www.haaretz.com/

Sharon's motorcade then sped to Hadassah, where doctors diagnosed a minor stroke caused by a blockage of blood to the brain, hospital sources said.

Doctors usually have a three-hour window in which to administer a drug, called TPA, to try to dissolve a blood clot in the event of a stroke.

Following tests, the prime minister was transferred to an internal medicine ward at the hospital, where he will remain overnight. Doctors said that Sharon would be discharged "soon."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/659324.html

[GatoLover]

59. Israeli law on the incapacity of the Prime Minister

http://www.jpost.com

Dec. 18, 2005 22:06
When a PM can't continue his duties
By DAN IZENBERG


Following Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's hospitalization on Sunday night, many began to speculate on what would happen were the prime minister unable to continue in his position.

The Basic Law: Government takes into account two scenarios in which the prime minister is unable to continue with his duties. The first is if he dies in office. The second is if he is permanently incapacitated.

According to Paragraph 20 (a), if the Prime Minister dies, his government is regarded as having immediately resigned.

According to Paragraph 20 (b), if the Prime Minister is permanently incapacitated, the government is regarded as having resigned after 101 days, during which time his deputy will serve as Prime Minister in his place.

According to Paragraph 7 (a), in case of the death of the Prime Minister, the President of the State will consult with the Knesset factions in order to give a mandate to an MK to form a new government. In such a case, the candidate will have 28 days to form a government and may obtain a maximum extension of 14 more days to do so.

Although the law does not specifically refer to a situation where the Prime Minister is incapacitated and his deputy replaces him for 101 days, it appears from Paragraph 7 (a) that the President has seven days in which to give a mandate to an MK to form a new government.

The death or incapacitation of a Prime Minister does not automatically lead to new elections. But should that happen in the case of Sharon, new elections have already been called and will be held.

[IndianaGreen]

60. According to this, the March 28 elections will still go on!

The question is if Kadima will hold together with Sharon gone.

Sharon's prognosis appears good so far.

[GatoLover]

61. The only way to derail the March elections

would be if a 61-member Knesset majority were to vote Sharon out of office this week. Some rightwingers in the Likud and the National Union have been trying to orchestrate this and have been getting nowhere.

[sabbat hunter]

73. even if

if there was a vote of no confidence this week against sharon, a caretaker government would be formed at the behest of the israeli president. new elections would be set. likely the caretaker government would keep the election date where it is in for march as all sides need time to campaign.

[Hyernel]

69. Fatty should lay off the bacon sandwiches.

Tee hee!

:evilgrin: :evilgrin:
:evilgrin:
:evilgrin::evilgrin:
:evilgrin:
:evilgrin::evilgrin:

[IndianaGreen]

75. Sharon: "I'm fine... I should have taken a few days off for vacation."

News update just posted on the Ha'aretz website:

Close to midnight, Sharon repeated this message in a conversation with Haaretz. "I'm fine," he said. "Apparently I should have taken a few days off for vacation. But we're continuing to move forward" a play on the name of his new party, Kadima, which means "forward."

Dr. Goldman said Sharon will remain in hospital for at least 24 hours, and possibly for several days. A Sharon aide said that the decision on when to discharge Sharon from hospital will be made Monday.

"I told him I was going home, and if I were worried about his condition I wouldn't have left," he said.

"It's true that the 77-year-old prime minister is under great strain, but he has no medical problems," Dr. Goldman said.

"I feel fine," Sharon was quoted as saying by aides. Israeli television said he had quipped to doctors: "You're not getting rid of me yet."

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/659324.html

[daleo]

77. A "minor stroke" is not a medical problem?

That's a novel way of looking at things. If it was me, I might be thinking of a new doctor.

[entanglement]

89. Not an admirer of Sharon, but I wish him a speedy recovery

Hell, compared to Netanyahu and American Likudniks Sharon appears positively moderate

[Violet_Crumble]

97. I'm no admirer either...

..but I had a what was called a minor stroke two years ago (and no, I wasn't fat, elderly, or under incredible amounts of stress), so I know how nasty even the minor ones can be. I hope he makes a full recovery and doesn't have any permanent effects from it...

Violet...

[catmother]

112. sharon has a stroke and palestinians are celebrating, giving out

candy, shooting guns in the air. can someone explain this to me. didn't israel just give the palestinians the land that they wanted? can there ever be peace anywhere in the mideast? it just seems like so much in-fighting between different groups in so many countries that has been going on for as long as i can remember.

why are we wasting time, money and lives in iraq when once we leave, be it now, or 10 years from now they will start fighting each other again.

[Skidmore]

113. Massacres, dead children, spouses, parents aren't soon forgotten

in that area of the world. Revenge is part of the code on both sides.

[bullimiami]

114. because sharon is seen as a butcher

the palestinians havent forgotten the sabra and chatila massacres and they hold him responsible.

[Colorado Blue]

140. Sabra and Shatilla were LEBANESE massacres. Maybe

they should hold the Lebanese responsible.

Maybe Sharon could have stopped them, maybe not. The Israeli army was nearby, perhaps they could have stepped in. The Israeli government believed they could, and should, have tried to stop the disaster.

But I don't see similar hysteria about the Syrians and they have ALSO massacred Palestinians in refugee camps. The Lebanese Civil War was a terrible, bloody disaster. But to blame Sharon for an Arab attack is just wrong, IMO.

[Tom Joad]

148. The Israeli army was not just nearby, but this area was under

Israeli military control. An Israeli court found Sharon resposible for the massacre. End of story.

Please, to say this was not Sharon's responsibility sounds like historical revisionism. It is not appreciated or helpful.

[Englander]

152. Maybe, baby.

The Phalangists, obviously, are responsible.
Sharon & the idf Chief of Staff of the time *are* responsible.

Don't rewrite history.

[Scurrilous]

149. They haven't forgotten Unit 101...

...and their handiwork, such as the Qibya massacre, either.

[sandrakae]

115. I wonder what people in the world would be doing.

I wonder what people in the world would be doing if that stroke was a little west.

[catmother]

116. are you talking about bush?

[sandrakae]

121. Please keep in mind, we are no protected by the constitution anymore.

[Cha]

129. Big Brother is watching

and we must talk in code.

The Whole World would be celebrating because the World needs something to celebrate. There has been nothing but news getting worse ever since the new century came in.

[beam me up scottie]

117. They don't call him "The Butcher" because he slices corned beef.

The day he was elected was horrible.

[catmother]

118. but what about the rest of the middle east? why is there

continuous fighting in that part of the world?

[beam me up scottie]

120. Hoo boy.

Now there's a question.

There are entire libraries written about that subject.

You could spend years researching the info on the internet alone.

Perhaps one of the nice posters can suggest a good one-stop source?


Edited to add I'd start with BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2001/israel_and_palestinians/timeline/

Here's another good link: http://www.mideastweb.org/history.htm

[catmother]

123. thanks for the links. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

126. You're welcome.

I'm glad you didn't get flamed for asking an honest question.

It's a touchy subject, to say the least.

[catmother]

128. yes. i thought i might get flamed. i want to point out that i am not

jewish or christian and both sides have valid issues and i wonder if they'll ever be worked out. i've heard that the arab world wants the jews completely out of the middle east. i've also heard that this has to happen before the second coming. what's scary is that bush might be trying to fulfill the biblical prophesy.

[Douglas Carpenter]

132. actually the vast majority of Arabs (I live and travel in the ME a great

deal) have long accepted the permanence of the Israeli state for at least the last 25 years or more. In fact, Arabs and Jews have lived together in the region in peace for thousands of years. It may not have been perfect but nothing comparable to the Holocaust or the inquisitions or mass expulsions ever happened like they did in the West.

The current conflict is relatively new.

[Douglas Carpenter]

124. I feel this is an excellent source published by the pro-Peace

Jewish Americans and pro-peace Jewish-Israelis organization, Not in My Name -- they have a great deal of historic and other analysis -- this link is a history of the conflict

http://www.nimn.org/Resources/history_landing_page/000028.php?section=History%20of%20the%20Conflict

[beam me up scottie]

127. I was just checking it out from your other post.

That's a great site and a wonderful group of people.

Thanks.

[Douglas Carpenter]

130. you are more than welcome

this is an issue which I avoid discussing on DU because it provokes such emotions --

[jody]

133. Is the site legitimate or is it a front? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

134. A front for what?

What a ridiculous thing to ask.

See?

This is why we can't discuss this peacefully in the main forums.

[Douglas Carpenter]

136. that's exactly what I was afraid of

[0007]

137. Shhhhhhhh

bean me back down scottie.

[beam me up scottie]

138. Oops. Did I forget to use my indoor voice again?

:evilgrin:

[0007]

139. I think agent Mike may have detected a slight difference in

the octave of your outside speaking articulation.

[Douglas Carpenter]

135. It's legitimate

[Tom Joad]

144. Why is the "West" continually making war on poor countries?

Iraq
Vietnam -- 2 million dead
Dominican Republic (invaded by LBJ because the wrong man won an election)
El Salvador
Haiti
East Timor (US sponsored occupation, over 500,000 dead)
Indonesia (CIA provided list of leftists. Hundreds of thousands killed by US sponsored regime)
Nicaragua
Aid to Israel to occupy Palestine

These are just a few places the US has invaded and carried out massacres or sponsored massacres. The list can be very long if it were really inclusive. Details would be grisly. What is it with Christians? Why are they so crazy? Why can't they be civilized?

[savemefromdumbya]

119. the next one

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/659329.html

In the event that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is unable, for health reasons, to continue running the affairs of the state over a period of days or weeks, Finance Minister Ehud Olmert, who also serves as deputy prime minister, would need to step in.

As interim prime minister, Olmert would be authorized by law to exercise all the powers granted to the prime minister for a period of 100 days, at the end of which the serving prime minister would technically be viewed as having resigned his post, triggering the resignation of the entire government.

[Douglas Carpenter]

122. no they did not give Palestinians the land the wanted

The Israelis withdrew from the direct land occupation of the Gaza strip while maintaining a number of other controls over the Gaza -- They actually redeployed to the West Bank which is a far more central issue in the conflict.

Here are two articles I would recommend. Let me say that not everyone would agree with these sentiments expressed in these articles.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

http://www.nimn.org/Resources/roadmap/000256.php?section=The%20Roadmap

and another concerning historical background:

http://www.nimn.org/Resources/history_landing_page/000028.php?section=History%20of%20the%20Conflict

[catmother]

125. you guys have given me a lot of reading. thanks.

but no one has answered my question about the rest of the middle east.

[beam me up scottie]

131. It's not a question that can be answered in one post.

Or even an entire thread.

Plus, as DC said in post #18, it's not a subject that can be discussed in GDP.

You could try asking for a brief synopses in the I/P forum.


If you need an example WHY we can't discuss it here, see post 21

[liberalpragmatist]

141. Why is there so much unrest?

It's a HUGE and complicated topic. Actually, for all the talk of the Middle East being unstable, historically it hasn't really been so. Certainly there were wars, but remember that historically wars were commonplace. And for centuries, while Europe was embroiled in religious warfare, the Middle East war largely pacified. The conflicts today all arose from the end of World War I and the collapse of the Ottomon Empire. Since then, the Middle East has been dominated by outside Western powers who have supported puppet regimes and dictators in order to obtain the region's oil resources and in the case of Egypt, access to the Suez Canal. The U.S. later supported a lot of secular dictatorships (including Saddam's) because they were anti-Soviet. The other big issue is Israel, which Arabs see as a colonial power. Boiling it down:

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - Zionist Jews began settling in the region of Palestine in the late 1800s. While initially there were few tensions, as political Zionists eventually sought the creation of a Jewish state, conflict arose between Arabs and the Zionist community. Israel considers the land its historical homeland and believes Jews have a necessity for a Jewish state. Arabs believe that Israel is a colonial power, a US and European proxy that has invaded Arab lands and is taking Palestinian land. Resentments include the millions of Palestinian refugees who fled during Israel's war of independence due to fears of being killed and they weren't allowed to return. Since 1967, Israel has controlled the West Bank and the Gaza, which moderate Palestinians want to be made into a Palestinian state. In the process, they've inflicted a pretty brutal occupation regime which has divided Palestinian territory into tiny cantons surrounded by Israel. Palestinians can't go anywhere without going through millions of checkpoints. Israelis continue to seize Palestinian territory to build Israeli settlements. Now, the Israelis argue that many of the brutal occupation tactics are necessary to fight terrorism, which has been gripping Israel for the better part of the past 30 years and has really accelerated in the past 10. Most people now realize there will be a Palestinian state alongside Israel - the question is how to get there, as Israel says it will not negotiate until the Palestinians stop terrorism, and the Palestinians generally saying they won't stop terrorism until the Israelis withdraw from the West Bank and the Gaza.

Iraq - Iraq was a state that was cobbled together by the British. Most Arabs, whether Sunni or Shi'ite, believe in a single state of Iraq, but argue over who should control it - Sunnis or Shiites? And the Kurds are not ethnically Arab and have long been oppressed by the Arabs and want a Kurdish state. Under Saddam, state institutions completely collapsed, and ethnic genocides against the Kurds and the Shi'ites inflamed sectarian tensions. Now, the US claims its trying to create a democracy, but while a democracy would be laudable, there has been utter chaos since the US invaded. Government authority has completely collapsed, there's no law-and-order, and because there hasn't been a functioning political system for decades, the only political movements that remain strong are the religious movements.

Radical Islam - Radical, political Islam is actually quite a new phenomenon in the Middle East. Up through the early 1970s, the chief political movements in the Arab World and the Mid-East were secular. Either 1) Secular Arab Nationalism (Socialist or Fascist), and 2) Communism. People were still generally religious, but many were secular and even those who were religious weren't particular fervent. There were even many popular progressive Muslim leaders. Since then, the failure of secular governments to provide development or democracy and their corruption, plus anti-US, anti-Israel, and anti-Globalization sentiments have caused a resurgence in Islam. A newer conservative generation of Islamic scholars and figures have swept throughout the MidEast in the past few decades, and with it have come demands for theocratic rule, plus greater support for terrorism. And without democracy or institutions, there hasn't been an open forum within which people can change the government or enact a popular will. As a result, violence is usually the way most political movements end up expressing themselves.

Saudi Arabia is also a big funder of radical Islam. The US supports the Saudi Monarchy because it provides stability and keeps the oil flowing. But they're incredibly oppressive and have a stunningly radical strain of Islam known as Wahhabism. The al-Sauds when they conquered Arabia, made a deal with radical religious figures to support them. In the process, they suppressed more moderate movements in Islam in Saudi Arabia and have since funded a lot of Islamic schools and the spread of fundamentalism.

Here's a VERY general overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Middle_East

[GatoLover]

151. Millions of security checkpoints

It is not often mentioned that the security checkpoints and other restrictive measures have NOT been a constant feature of the Israeli occupation. They have come and gone, rather, as a response to various terrorist operations perpetuated against Israel. When I lived there thirteen years ago, movement across the Green Line was effortless.

[liberalpragmatist]

166. Yes, but it's still a collective-punishment

I'm not going to pretend there's an easy answer. Obviously, the Israeli public isn't going to tolerate getting bombed by terrorists operating from the Palestinian territories. But on the other hand, by instituting the checkpoints regime, they've completely devastated the Palestinian economy and caused enormous suffering among the Palestinians. Personally, I think the best solution would have been to build the wall (ideally, closer to the Green Line than what's being done) and open the rest of the area up so to allow some space. The checkpoints regime causes an enormously destructive cycle and feeds the perception that Palestinians are living in an Apartheid-like state, whether true or not.

Moreover, while I recognize that there are justifications for checkpoints, there is NO justification for the settlers. Israel has taken prime land from the Palestinians, evicting Palestinian farmers and villages, destroying olive groves and farms and creating truly Apartheid-like Israeli-only roads that offer direct access into Israel but are blocked for Palestinian use, destroying Palestinian contiguity and making a future Palestinian state totally unviable. And settlers have also made clear moves to prevent Palestinians from purchasing homes in settlements - some Jerusalem Palestinians have tried this lately and while some have succeeded, other communities are passing ordinances banning sales to Palestinians.

[Tom Joad]

142. Duplicate. Self-delete

[Tom Joad]

143. Sabra - Shatila, the continued expansion of West Bank settlements

the building of the Wall that will destroy Palestinian communities, the destruction of homes. The destruction of crops. Settlements throughout the West Bank. All this goes on.

To say "they got what they wanted" is a sign of ignorance, maybe. Perhaps the poster knows nothing of the current situation and the history, like most Americans, and thinks reading a headline in the newspaper is enough to say "they got what they wanted". It is really sad. It is really tragic.

To blame "the Arabs" (blaming the victims) for the problem is also ... well, racist. Yes, different Palestinians do conflict in ways to resist and end the occupation, but the problem lies with the occupier, the injustice being perpetuated against a people who simply want to live in their homeland.

If we want to stop wasting money... stop arming Israel, the occupier ... $5 BILLION US money per year, down the toilet of war and militarism.

[GatoLover]

150. You forgot to mention one other characteristic of the security fence

and that is that it has dramatically reduced the number of suicide bombers who have been able to get through to murder innocent Israelis.

[Tom Joad]

153. Thousands of Palestinians are locked down on the Israeli side of the

apartheid wall. Why is that? Even though they live in the West Bank, behind the green line, the border before 1967. Is it perhaps because putting the wall further to the east annexes to Israel fertile farmland and important water sources?

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GatoLover]

159. There are also Jews "locked" on the east side of the fence

and most of them aren't very happy about it, either.

I most certainly do the Palestinians as people. It's clear, however, that there are certain aspects to their society -- namely, their propensity to send suicide bombers -- that requires a protective barrier. You may recall that the fence was not originally a "right wing" idea. The Israeli right wing was against it until the level of violence left no alternative.

You have noticed that the erection of the fence has coincided with a big drop in suicide attacks, haven't you?

[Tom Joad]

160. Yes, why are Israeli Jews locked into an occupied territory?

Good thing to bring up. The Geneva Convention makes it very clear that there is to be no transfer of a civilian population into military occupied territory. Unlike the Bush administration, i think the Geneva Convention is relevant, and not merely "quaint". Hey, just call me old-fashion.(see link below). I think the transfer of Israeli Jews into exclusive settlements made the security situation infinitely more difficult for Israel. So if you think this has to do with security you are deluding yourself. It has to do with dispossessing Palestinians of their homeland, and from that standpoint, it makes sense.

There have been no drop in attacks by Israel, by both the military and settlers on Palestinian homes, crops, water sources. This is terror also, whatever else you may call it.

That both major Israeli parties, Labor and Likud (both parties that promote a State for Jewish people, and not for all its inhabitants) promoted the wall that is destroying Palestinian communities does not diminish the fact that it is still violating the human rights of Palestinians. It just shows there are some aspects of Israeli society that do not believe in human rights for all. Not the first nation to do such a thing, but it should never be condoned.

From Amnesty International:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150852003?open&of=ENG-ISR

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention(1) states categorically: "...The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population in the territory it occupies." And Article 55 of the Hague Regulations(2) forbids the occupying State from changing the character and nature of state property, except for security needs and for the benefit of the local population. Israel’s building of settlements, roads and related infrastructure for Israeli civilians in the West Bank and Gaza does not meet these two exceptional criteria.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

162. What do you mean as a "Jewish State"?

I need to understand what you mean by that before I answer.
I do believe that states should be for all that live there. To say it is not also for the indigenous population is a crime.

There used to be wide consensus (among those in power) in the South Africa that this it was for White Europeans. That notion, fortunately, is largely abandoned.

Also, why didn't you reply to the main question? Why is a civilian population transferred to an occupied territory in violation of the Geneva Convention? Why is the US propping up such an arrangement?

[GatoLover]

163. I mean a Jewish State as described in the scroll of independence

Here's the link:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Dec_of_Indep.html

[Tom Joad]

164. I still need to understand what that means. You mean reserving almost

all state land for the exclusive for only Jewish people (and most land--90% +-- in Israel is State land)? Do I support that?
What fair-minded person would?

You also do not define the boundaries of the Israeli state. What is up with that? Does it go to the Green line? does it go into the West Bank? does it go into Jordan, as some have claimed?

Link to a map of this "Jewish State" you have in mind.

[GatoLover]

165. This is what I mean by a Jewish state

In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.

This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.

.....

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.

This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.

ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.

.....

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles....


So far as the borders are concerned, I understand that to be subject to negotiation. My personal preference is expansive and unlikely -- no, impossible -- to be agreed to. So I'll settle for less. I sure as heck won't settle for the 1949 armistice lines.

There was never any "resettlement" of population as contemplated by the Geneva Convention. No one was moved against his or her will (to put it mildly!) and, to pick just one interesting example, one of the more notorious Jewish "settlements" is the one located in Hevron, Judenrein since 1929 when a Jewish community native there for hundreds of years was massacred. I do not understand the principle upon which Jews are supposedly forbidden from living there.

[Violet_Crumble]

182. Yes, there has been resettlement of population...

Tom Joad already posted the relevent part of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention(1) states categorically: "...The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population in the territory it occupies."

Whether a population moves willingly or not is not relevent. If it was, Article 49 would read "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population against their will in the territory it occupies."

For every story of now-empty Jewish settlements, there's a story of now-empty Arab villages in Israel where the Arabs are supposedly forbidden from living there. All very sad stories, but they have nothing to do with any discussion of the legality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank...

Also, just curious, but you said yr personal preference for Israel's borders was expansive and not likely to be agreed upon. Exactly how expansive is yr personal preference?

Violet...

[GatoLover]

187. I want the West Bank of the Jordan

As I'm sure you know, the more extreme elements of the right wing aspire to the East Bank as well.

I'm willing to give up part of the West Bank on pragmatic grounds if it would bring peace. It's part of Eretz Israel -- Jewish land! -- and it would hurt like hell, but I'd do it.

[Violet_Crumble]

207. Yr views sound indistinguishable from this quote:

"On the ideological plane I believe in the vision of Greater Israel, but on the practical level, I seek to stand with two feet on the ground of reality, and whether we wish it or not, the reality is that a Palestinian state is an existing reality, which it is impossible to ignore. It is recognized in the world as a state and has all the markings of sovereignty. Therefore, a diplomatic accord with the Palestinians, if achieved, will have to be based on that reality of a Palestinian state."

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=239353&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Just curious, but as most of the more extreme elements of the right wing aspire to the West Bank being part of Eretz Israel, why don't they respect the even more expansive views of their kindred extremists?

Personally, I have major problems with any view that is as absolutist as that one, regardless of whether it's personal preference dulled by pragmatism, or not. Denying a people their history and right to their land is what drives the Greater Israel and Greater Palestine schools of thought....

Violet...

[GatoLover]

214. Yep! My view is indistinguishable from that

Part of me is embarrassed to be on the same wavelength as Avigdor Lieberman but, then, he has finally come around to my point of view.

I am very concerned about denying a people their history and the right to their land. That's why I'm so insulted by Palestinian attempts to deny that the Jewish Temple was built on the Temple Mount. That's why I oppose any effort to deny that Hevron is the cradle of Jewish history or that it is Jewish land.

[barb162]

168. do you have a link re

"There have been no drop in attacks by Israel..."
and what period of time are you using when you make this statement

[Scurrilous]

145. PM hospitalized – Israel, Gaza extremists rejoice

Jewish extremists pray for Sharon’s death following prime minister’s arrival at hospital after suffering mild stroke; Palestinians in Gaza fire celebration shots upon hearing news

<snip>

"Jewish extremists prayed for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s death following the prime minister’s arrival at Hadassah Ein Kerem hospital after suffering a mild stroke.

Upon receiving word of Sharon’s hospitalization, members of the extreme right Kahane Chai (Lives) group began to hold prayers calling for God “to rid them Sharon,” who they referred to as a “dictator.”

One extremist told Ynet that the “special prayers” were aimed at preventing Sharon from “causing further damage to Israel.”

However, the rightists said they do not necessarily wish death on the prime minister, but that they would like to see him “go to a hotel or a home for the elderly, but not return to politics.”

“This is a man who uprooted thousands of Jews from their homes and devastated their lives; such a man person should not return to politics. Many other Israelis feel the same way,” one extremist said."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3186428,00.html

[eyl]

156. Nice to know

these idiots can agree on something, I guess.

Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, dosen't it?

[barb162]

158. extremists of "both" sides celebrating

[occuserpens]

146. This is war

Just in case somebody has forgotten

[Violet_Crumble]

155. Apparently it's only war when Israel says it is...

Which probably explains the rather nauseating glee and disgusting comments made in Israel and in the western media during Arafat's illness....

Violet...

[barb162]

170. Not full out, open, declared war yet

but I think it may be getting there

[Violet_Crumble]

180. If there's no war, why is there a war-zone?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x107548#107773

:)

[barb162]

197. I didn't hear Abbas or Sharon declare war, did you?

Although rockets flying around, etc., certainly seems like war

[Violet_Crumble]

205. I don't recall mentioning Abbas or Sharon...

My link was to a thread where there were quite a few claims that the Occupied Territories are a war-zone, so that gives the IDF justification for what they do...


Violet...

[IndianaGreen]

147. Welcome to the Middle East, catmother!

When Rabin was assassinated there were ultra-religious Jews dancing and singing in celebration!

I don't know which was more offensive, the video of some Palestinians passing out sweets in celebration of Sharon's stroke, or the endless looping of that video by Faux News.

[barb162]

171. Abbas phones Sharon, conveys best wishes

http://www.geo.tv/main_files/world.aspx?id=98692

Abbas phones Sharon, conveys best wishes

RAMALLAH: Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas has telephoned the office of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to wish him a speedy recovery following a minor stroke, a Palestinian statement said.

Abbas contacted Sharon's office to find the latest news "and wish him a prompt recovery", the brief statement said late on Sunday.

Earlier in the day, 77-year-old Sharon was rushed to a hospital in Jerusalem after suffering the stroke, doctors said.

Sharon, who is seeking re-election early next year, had regained consciousness and was communicating with his family and aides but was to remain in hospital overnight.

[GatoLover]

188. This is a nice gesture

Doesn't hurt.

[barb162]

189. Yes

Certainly a million times classier than the Palestinians cheering in the streets

[Violet_Crumble]

191. Classiness tends to go out the window when people are occupied...

If it were our countries that were under occupation, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be sending get well cards to the frontman for the occupation...

Violet...

[GatoLover]

200. Occupied land

I'm curious. Is Tel Aviv occupied land? Is Hevron occupied land? Both? Neither?

[Violet_Crumble]

206. Hebron is occupied...

Tel Aviv isn't. Hope that helps...

Violet...

[GatoLover]

213. How is Hevron occupied but Tel Aviv isn't?

Could you find a single Hamas spokesman who would agree with you on that? I don't think so!

[GatoLover]

215. Actually I can make a better reply

The Jewish claim to Hevron is actually much stronger than the Jewish claim to Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv was part of the land of the Philistines, there's no Jewish history to speak of at the site, it was started 100 years ago as a Jewish suburb of an Arab town. Hevron was the home base of Abraham, the burial place of the Jewish patriarchs and one of the four sacred Jewish cities. Hevron just happened to wind up on the wrong side of the armistice line in 1949.

[occuserpens]

201. Pressure on Israel?

Bush to Sharon: Exercise, diet and work less hours: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/660375.html

[Lithos]

217. Locking

This issue has run its course.