Printable View
Sharon is sedated right now after 9 hours of surgery, after suffering a massive stroke. Recovery is unlikely, and even if he does he will never be able to take part in politics anymore.
What are your thoughts? Does Kadima, Israels youngest party still have a future without him? Is his successor (Olmert probably?) going to follow the same line as Sharon as party leader?
Discuss.
Ah just when he is turning good..
Well i hope he gets a fast recovery.
I doubt Kadima will have legs without Sharon's "dignitas" and "gravitas." Few Israelis have that kind of clout and the only one who strikes me as close, Netanyahu, does not seem to be the biggest fan of Kadima.
I wish him a complete recovery, however unlikely, or if his time is here a gentle passing.
Just when I actually started to kind of like the guy, he keels over. Hopefully he recovers, and if not, may he rest in peace.
Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said God nailed Sharon because he was giving land to the Palestinians. Robertson said in the Bible, the prophet Joel "makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who 'divide my land.'"
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1475540
So is it okay to make fun of or mock those who just died, or suffered a great, crippling stroke?
As to the topic-I doun't know how agressive the politicians who'd take over are compared to Sharon. If his successor is percieved as weaker, it could spark another wave of palestinian suiciders. An aggressive one could say 'nuts' to the press and invade palestine, inflaming tensions.
Crazed Rabbit
Isn't it some stereotype that Jews are good businessmen? If so, politicians are like businessmen so everything will be fine. But seriously, I think Sharon may continue giving advice to his party IF he recovers.
Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said God nailed Sharon
Robertson is not the only religeous nut celebration Sharons' medical problem
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull
If I didn't know better I would think that thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
is from "The Onion" :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by article
Yes, the same happened with regard to Yasser Arafat during his sickbed and death. However, I agree that it is rather tasteless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Nobody knows. Olmert is a right-wing nut who in his heart of hearts would love to re-invade Gaza and rebuild the settlements, which is certainly not the way to go. Peretz is a left-wing idealist who wants to talk directly to Abbas and bypass any roadmap, which I am not sure is the best way to go. A final settlement would have to involve the wider region, and this in turn would have to involve the great powers and the UN.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Well I don't know if its tasteless or not but I do find it a tricky question how I am supposed to feel when a war criminal suffers a stroke. As a human, I am sorry for him, as a politician, not so sure.
On the purely political front whoever succeeds him the break in continuity right now seems likely to be unhelpful IMHO.
Suspicious how he manages to keel over just when he started work on making a lasting peace with the Palestinians.
Well - he is 77, overweight and probably didn't get a lot of rest lately - I don't really think that a stroke is that surprising.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spetulhu
He's currently in surgery, (again), I was horrifed when he was voted in, & have been more & more suprised by the direction he took, I can't see him getting back into politics, even if he survives the next few days. Its a damn shame, because I don't think Israel has anyone with enough political clout & credibility to finish the outstanding moves he's made toward some realistic form of peace.
Ol' Pat is entitled to his opinion but I don't like it when he and the barbarians (HAMMAS, Islamic Jihad, et. al.) seem to be saying the same thing. :wall:
I'd say he has come around with his opinions, just like Sharon did and late PM Rabin.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
He's back on the operating table right now...I keep hoping for the best, but it doesn't look good.
Aye when Pat Robinson, Hamas and Soly all agree you know theres something dreadfully wrong with the stance taken.
Can't say I like him as a politician, but he was doing quite a good job of things. There are certainly far worse alternatives waiting in the wings, when what the region needs is a person who can keep the peace process going in a relatively stable manner; whatever his faults or his reasons he was keeping things moving in the right direction, and I'm not confident a new leader could do that as well.
I do hope his departure acts as a catalyst fro peace and not a hindrance (although that seems unlikely) i must say i never really liked him however his recent moves in Gaza etc. were a step in the right direction. With a bit of luck we might get a slightly more open leader for israel and resolve the dispute (although honestly because of the mix of religous and positional hostility and the length of time its been happening that that is very unlikey)
I really don't think the Palestinian problem will be resolved without cutting off their support from Syria, Iran, etc. I think the Israelis care more for the Palestinians than the Arabs who basically use them as shock troops. How many thousands were killed by the Jordanians in the '50's?
hmm, i do feel that the palastinians deserve their country back, and its natural for them to be supported by other muslim counties...
It was never "their country". It was only renamed Palestine after the Romans crushed the Jewish uprisings, then it belonged to the Byzantines, then the Egyptians, Crusaders, Egyptians, etc. Arab countries don't support them, they use them. Note that none welcome the Palestinians with open arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
hmm, but western influence removed the palestinians whop had it most recently (before israel) and i feel it was a huge mistake although sadly now an unretrievable situation...
I would argue that it is a bit irrelevant to argue over who had the country hundreds of years ago (romans had just about every country) but i can se you point :)
I do think that if they are being used by the arab countries its still to the palestinians advantage to be backed by them,
I think I can agree with you in that the young UN made a poor decision when it designed the state if Israel. Not founding the state mind you but by creating a nearly indefensible state in the middle of a den of adversaries and saying "See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya." ~:wave:
Putting the state near Jerusalem might of been a mistake, but i suppose the UN was pressured, and very sympathetic towards the suffering in the WW2
i doubt the UN put it quite like that :)
They kicked out the British after WW2 using terrorist tactics...Then declared independence, & the US went along with it, that's a nutshell history of the founding of the state.
The above is not a flame at either the US or Israel btw, but I do believe its factually correct.
They also invented something called, "Pre-emptive strike" (see 6 day war for further details)
If you want to blame anyone for "where they were put" after WW2, I suggest you first consider how the allies at the end of WW1 decided to divvy up the middle east; & the bible.
:wall:
if this thread turns into another israel vs palestine then it's gonna get locked. keep in on sharon, and yes it is possible without going totally over into i vs. p and he said/she said.
Please excuse me.Quote:
Originally Posted by solypsist
The statement wasn't meant as a red rag...It was rather as reminder as to how much was/is? possible where there are viable politicians willing to make certain compromises whilst maintaning their countries *votes*...
Sharon could in no way be considered a person who capitulated, however he had the political strength to invest in a wall...Which in the most fundmental terms equates to "if you cannot blow us up, we don't have to kill you in retaliation"
I appciate that some may scoff, & that the above is simplistic in the extreme, however Sharons' policies were working.
Ask yourselves over the next few months whether his policies were correct or not.
He seems to have felt that he required another political party to complete his objectives its a sad day when those ideas cannot be realised.
That's rather hillarious. If you consult any person learned on the conflict, from EITHER side, they will not have very nice things to say about the Arab nations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
"They" is a massive generalization, yet another "the Jews did this" statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodigal
There was a very small terrorist group that did perpetrate several bombings against the British, with (relatively) little loss of life.
Keep in mind that this is factual:
The U.N. voted to partition the territory of Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state. The British government's vote was an abstention. If you think that a little bombing was what moved the U.N. to do such a thing, I suggest you read up on similar rebellions (if this could be called such) in history. A total of zero resulted in similar action by the rest of the world.
Pre-emptive strikes: See Pearl Harbor. In any case, I don't think the Arab states were planning on doing anything nice with all that airpower, see the Israeli War of Independence for further details. In that war, by the way, war was declared by almost every Arab nation on earth for no really legitimate reason.
Read up on your history, and do please try to avoid partisan sources when doing so.