1. eotw said:

I disagree with your second criticism. Preparing for succession is something that totalitarian dictators and royalty must occupy themselves with, not democratic heads of government.

2. daniel said:

This is truly terrible news. Sharon can't leave us now. Who's going to have tha gravitas to expel Jewish terror victims from their homes and hand them over to Hamas after Sharon moves on? Who is going to continue to order police to physicly beat woman and children in the cities of Judea and Samaria? Who is going to continue the persacution of religious and right-wing citizens? Who is going to be "couragious enough to create a Hamas and Hizbalah terror state? Who is going to match Sharon's record of corruption and mafia style politics? Indeed Sharon truly was an indespensable leader.

3. jamal said:

His abiturary should be true to form and include words such as butcher, bulldozer, murderer, corrupt, and terrorist.

4. eotw said:

Both Daniel and Jamal's comments show the two extremes of sickness in this part of the world. Hopefully Sharon's situation can bring about the cross-party, cross-conflict unity of moderation needed to fight the damaging influence that both of these idiots' comments stand for.

5. daniel said:

eotw; Name me on sick or false thing that I wrote. It's untrue that Sharon expelled terror victims from their livlyhood and gave it to terrorists who are now using it as a base to launch rockets against Israel? Is it untrue that he dispatches the police to brutalize woman and children? I refer you to the article posted on this website yesterday about the brutality applied to the Hebron residents. There are numerous cases of woman and children being sent to jail for false, trumped up charges. And don't even think about denying that fact that he is the most corrupt politician in Israel's history. Jusy yesterday police confirmed that he received a 3 million dollar bribe.

He instituted the expulsion in the most undemocratic way by threatening and rewarding the Likud ministers to go along with him. This is someone who has told some of the most profounf and tragic lies in Israel's histoy. He was elected in a landslide victory on a right-wing platform on the premise that he would never do anthing close to an expulsion. In fact, during a debate with Amrom Mitznah after Mitznah declared his support for a minimum disengagement, Sharon dramaticly stated that the fate of Gush Katif will be the fate of Tel Aviv. Then, just 9 months later after being hounded by Labor and the media, he suddenly did a complete 180 by delaring his plans to expel Jews from Gaza. He then sacked all the Ministers who disagreed with him while joining in a Gov't with Labor. Thus, he usurped the mandate of the electorate which bestowed upon the Likud a record 40 seats on the premise that they would presreve the land of Israel and it's security, and instead reserected the sidelined Labor party in order to carry out his plan. He still didn't have a majority so he sent Omri ( who was already indicted for bribe taking) to threaten, bribe, and intimidate 12 more ministers to go along with him. It became an understood fact that if you wanted to advance in the Likud, it was either Sharon's way or the doorway.

Then, under pressure from several fronts, Sharon agreed to except the decision of a Likud Party referendum as final. Well, it turned out that Sharon's plan was decimated at the polls ( the only time that the citizens got their input throughout the process) by a 22% margin. Guess what Sharon thumbed his nose at the decission and decided to move along with it anyway. Despite the clear warnings that this would lead to the infiltration of Al Quieda, Hizbulah, and an endless supply of guns an rocket into Israel via Egypt, he turned a blind eye and even allowed Egyption soldiers to "guard" the border!

Sharon went on to unleash a vicious campeign against these terror victims through agent provocatouring that the Shabak later admiited to carrying out. He directly suspended all civil rights during the protests leading up to the expulsion by shockingly usurping freedom of speech, engaged in religious discrimination, ordered police beatings even to woman and children, and the appaling incarceration of numerous young girls as young as 11 for as long as four months. I don't even have to write about the shocking and scandelous treatment of the refugees that is still taking place even as we speak.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. If this is not an example of a profoundly corrupt person, then that person does not exist. Instead of expousing simple cheap rhetoric about beind an extremist you should learn a little about the current state of affairs in Israel over the last couple of years. I challenge you to refute one fact that I have expressed as sick, extreme, or wrong in a factual diolauge.

6. Ed D said:

Daniel, I totally agree with your assessment of Sharon's vilany. As a man in my later years, I understand the change of concepts of idealism and pragmatism as one grows older. Although, politicals leaders in the US, have stated that his health is catostrophic, I believe that G-d has interjected himself, in the interest of Israels's survival. Peace, as precious as it is, can not last unless all parties wish it. That is not happening; therefore, let's go to war and resolve this once and for all.

7. daniel said:

Ed; you are absolutely correct. The evidence is clear that Sharon's change in heart was not the source of some late life pragmatism because it is now clear that we are on the path to another Holocaust and he is still speaking about more expulsions. We predicted that there would be a massive influx of rockets into Gaza which will be able to hit Ashkelon and that is now happening today. We predicted the infiltration of Al Quieda and Hizbulah bases and that has come true. We predicted the rise in violence on the northern border and that has come true. We prdicted the emboldenment of the terrorist's sentiments towards Israel's destrution and that has come true. Only because of divine providence we have escaped a more profound calamity (miraculously the rockets always slightly miss the target). This is the same divine providence that has suddenly taken down this pompous tirant for his unrelentingly brutal treatment of terror victims. However, once they begin shooting rockets from inside Israel then there will be a fullscale calamaty. The IDF reported this week that indeed a rocket was fired from within northern Shomron. Imagine if Sharon would have went through with his expulsion plan from half of Israel. They would have been completely surrounded by an unrelenting enemy. Thank G-d this will not come to furition.

Now I am not a military expert and yet I was able to predict every single strategic quagmire that was to arise from the expulsion plan. So how did Sharon, the celebrated General overlook these strikingly obvious negative predicaments that would occur as a result of the expulsion? The answer is unrefutably clear that this was not done out of a show of pragmatism or concern for his citizens, rather as a means to quell the ongoing investagations into his unprecidented corruption. Why else would the leader of a party that won a landslide victory with enough seats to form a majority willingly join the defeated labor party in a Gov't, while appointing the oppisition leader as Vice Premeir? This would be equivalent to Bush, upon his 2004 victory, appointing Kerry as Vice Pesident. It is now clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that Sharon intented to turn his worst enemies,i.e. the media and Labor, into his strategic partners, thus pre-emting any attempt to impeach him.

Sharon wasn't satasfied just to carry out his plan. He had to spice it up with religious discrimanation, agent provacatouring, police brutality, and political persacution in the style of the Russian Gulag. If this was purely a change in heart then why the brutality? Why the persacution of young girls? Why the total sacking of civil rights? Why were the refugees treated like prisoners? Why was all their property looted in Gaza? Why were the remains that were stored away sent to the desert with 120 degrre tempetures so all their belongigns would be destroyed? Why were there no houses available for most of them for months if Sharon had a year and a half to prepare? How come every time that supplies were sent from America to aid the victims the storage rooms completely looted? How come every calamity and tragidy that could possibly happen to a human being was bestowed upon them?

The answer is that beyond a shadow of a doubt there was a concerted effort on the part of Sharon and his thugs to break the spirit of these fine Jews in a horrendous manner in the hope that future expelles will go willingly. There is a story currently posted on Isreal National News that Olmert is going to slap a 28% tax on the clothing sent to Gush Katif residents from the U.S. If this is not evil then evil has no meaning. This proves incontrovertably that the Sharon gov't was in fact behind the raiding of the humanitarian supplies. If people will delv into these topics and extrapalate upon them further they will come to the conclusion that yes, indeed there is a profound divine retribution taking place before our eyes.

8. Bill Narvey said:

Daniel, if all you say is true and not a view colored by your antipathy towards Sharon, why did Israelis en masse not rise up against Sharon? Israelis are not known for being shrinking violets.

In order for Sharon to have done the things you say, the way he did them, it seems the majority of Israelis are either approving of Sharon's thinking and political style or just plain apathetic.

Israel would in my view, benefit from a revamping of its political structure. Until now, Likud and Labour usually must seek support from single issue splinter parties in order to form a government and those single issues usually do not fit all that well into Likud's or Labour's platform of policies.

In the U.S. or Canada as you know, candidates and parties seek to appeal to the largest sector of electoral society so that they can appeal to even a majority of single issue voters.

In Israel, having a single issue seems enough to get you party status even though that party does not promote an overall national agenda and has no interest in being a national party. Rather such party seeks election only for the purpose of offering its support to the highest bidder between Likud or Labour.

Secondly, it would be prudent to go to an American or Canadian style system of one man/woman - one vote - for one specific candidate who will be made more accountable to his electorate as will the party put in power by getting the majority of their candidates elected.

Daniel, simply castigating Sharon only reveals your negative views of the man, but there are more important issues that you should deal with in that regard.

Since you seem to know much on the subject of Israeli politics and society, Sharon's accomplishments for good and bad and presumably how he managed to do that and why Israelis allowed him to do what he did, hopefully you can elaborate further and begin to answer these and other obvious questions that arise from your posted views on Sharon.

9. Robert Hand said:

Shalom! Bill, you and I are normally in more agreement, and, in a sense, maybe we're not so far apart, even now. The failure of Israelis to rise up against Sharon's criminal and dictatorial actions of the past year+ is due, I believe, to a combination of apathy and (totally) blind trust. It's quite certain that a very large number of Israelis did stand up against Sharon, many of those to be bludgeoned down and left with no recourse. This man is a shame and disgrace to Yisrael, in my opinion, and, though I stop just short of stating that G-d brought him down, I would not be at all surprised, if that were fact. He divided the Land, and G-d says He'll not hold such guiltless. His partner in crime, our idiot president (who may have been his instigator), may be next on G-d's "hit list". He certainly has, in my opinion, brought judgement on this nation with his wicked "Roadmap to hell". I can pray for Sharon as a human being, but I can't bring myself to pray for a most unlikely full recovery that would put him back in his office, to continue his attempted destruction of his nation. Were it Bush in the same circumstances, I would have to view him in the same manner. Let G-d sort 'em out!

10. Bill Narvey said:

Shalom Robert,

I am not one who ascribes to the notion of G_D intervening to save Israel from Sharon by striking him down. I am also not one to rejoice in his illness or characterize Sharon as a criminal. Further, I do not share Daniel’s vitriolic view of Sharon.

My views of Sharon have been expressed in several different posts, but I will try to summarize those thoughts here.

From the time Sharon first floated the idea of unilateral disengagement from Gaza to the point that he garnered sufficient support in the Knesset and amongst the Israeli populace to carry out his decision, he explained his view as I recall that Israeli occupation stoked the fires of resentment and hatred of Palestinians, encouraged terrorism and practically from an economic standpoint, it was exceedingly costly in terms of both money and troop moral to commit so many IDF troops to guard 7,500 Jewish residents in Gaza spread over I think 30 or so communities of varying size.

Sharon’s critics railed that to unilaterally disengage to give the Palestinians what they wanted by dispossessing the Gazan Jewish residents of their land that they were so deeply attached to, amounted to Sharon rewarding Palestinian Jew hatred and terrorism by forcing Jews to suffer.

Further critics warned that to go out of occupation of Gaza would be seen as weakness on part of Israel and reaffirm in Palestinian and radical Islamic minds, the virtues and justification for their Jew hatreds and terrorism and it would allow Jew hatred and terrorism to grow unrestrained as would the intensity and growing number of Palestinian demands.

What the critics warned has come to pass.

In the points and counter points of the debate of unilateral disengagement, I saw merit to both arguments and felt that Sharon and Israel were in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.

I sided more with the critics perhaps because I still held onto the pipe dream that Israel should be tough to wait for the right time and circumstances to somehow manage to take over and annex Gaza, Judea and Samaria and induce by force, if necessary, Palestinians to emigrate, just as Jews were forced to emigrate from Arab lands.

Still, I did not find in that debate, answers to fully satisfy me.

I surmised that one of the goals Sharon had in mind was that by disengaging from Gaza, it would put the Palestinians to their first true test of what their true intentions were when it came to the Western nations’ goal for Palestinians that they have their own independent state and whether they would be able to govern their own affairs in preparation for such day.

Further I surmised that Sharon would be thinking that with the Israeli departure from Gaza, if the Palestinians demonstrated an inability to govern themselves, the world could no longer have any reason to blame and pressure Israelis and Palestinians would be seen as so consumed by Jew hatred and their own fractious rivalries that the notion of an independent Palestinian state was beyond them.

I heard and read no such explanations coming from Sharon or the pro disengagement camp.

Still, just as the warnings of the critics of disengagement have come to pass, so too has my surmise as we are witnessing the Palestinian descent into chaos and anarchy.

What also is ignored in judging Sharon’s actions is that in spite of his disengagement plan and its implementation being his own decision, Israel has been under tremendous pressure from the quartet to move forward along its Road Map to peace which Israel signed onto. Add to that American and world pressure including the weight of world anti-Semitic resentments of Israel.

The most recent example of Israel being forced to cave to such pressure is the Rafah agreement which deprived Israel of control of the Egyptian-Palestinian border and made the notion of contiguity between Gaza and the West Bank, first offered by Barak in his package deal in 2000, that much more a realizable goal for Palestinians.

Giving Palestinians such contiguity however means that Israel will cease to be contiguous.

In pushing through his unilateral disengagement policy, Sharon the bulldozer as he has been called, got his way. Interestingly, for all his strength of purpose and his doubtless concern for Israel’s security and welfare, even if his critics are more or less right that he was misguided, he did not seem to have possessed that same inner strength to resist being pressured into the Rafah agreement. Again, that may well illustrate just how powerful the pressure was on Sharon.

The Rafah agreement forced on Israel is most unfair and prejudicial to Israel and one can only hope that it falls apart as is the way with most one sided unfair agreements.

Further with UN Resolution 242 following the Six day war in 1967, which binds Israel, Israel was committed to going out of occupation of territories captured, though not necessarily all, in exchange for peace. That idea of going out of occupation has been a central theme in the series of agreements starting with the first Oslo accord that Israel has entered into.

Perhaps Sharon, recognizing that Israel going out of occupation was an inevitability, he saw Israel’s only choice was to try to make the best of it by Israel alone choosing how and when it would go out of occupation.

Further, though Israel has denied it, the security fence was seen by the anti-Israel factions as an effort to unilaterally establish the new border between Palestinians and Israelis and that such fence would unilaterally be further built to separate Israel from those lands of the West Bank that Israel would ultimately disengage from.

The situation and political dynamics relating to the Israel-Palestinian war and indeed the whole of the Middle East are ever changing. It creates opportunities for a confluence of new facts that can create a significant new dynamic that can lead to substantial change.

The Palestinians are daily proving more and more they are incapable of governing themselves and that their Jew hatred and dream of destroying Israel is the only glue that binds them. Even that seems not enough to halt their own self destructive nature that has put them on a slide down their own slippery slope to chaos.

Should the Palestinians continue their descent to crash at the bottom, perhaps the pipe dream that UN Resolution 242 will be shattered and withdrawn, of changed circumstances that would induce Palestinians to emigrate elsewhere and of Israel taking all of Gaza and the West Bank to restore Israel whole, could be that much closer to the realm of reality.

Regardless of what Sharon’s detractors say of him, no one can deny he has been a giant on the Israeli political scene, towering head and shoulders above his political rivals. Sharon as a general, successfully directed Israel’s war efforts in its 4 wars by relying on his unique ability and capacity for innovation, creativity and unconventional thinking and was able to use the power of his personality to get the job done his way. He brought those same skills and abilities along with his forceful personality to his career in politics.

Sharon, the giant is the last of the old guard of Israel. Hopefully we will see the likes of him, much sooner than later for G_D knows Israel needs a powerful wise leader now as now is its time of need. Unfortunately, it seems that Israel has no one at the moment who can step up and fill Sharon's shoes.

11. daniel said:

Bill Narvey; You still havn't refuted or debunked any of my arguments. Even if it were deemed necessary to retreat from Gaza but why the brutality? Why the religious discrimination? Why the political persacutions? Why were the refugees treated the way they were? Do you dispute the fact that these things took place? Surely these facts have appeared in articles on this very website countless times over the past year.

What about the undemocratic way in which Sharon implemented his policies? Are there any false allegations in what I wrote? As far as the antipathy that you accuse me of, it's comparible to one who exposes the many injustices and outrages of a brutal regime and a third party acusses him of garnering apathy towards that regime. Well, gee, obviously after all the facts and observations about Sharon over the last two years and after the grave suffering that many Jews were compelled to endure, I certaintly garner apathy towards him. Your argument would only be valid if I garnered some preconceived hatred towards Sharon. However, like everyone else I strongly supported him when he ran in 2002 and when he declared that the fate of Nitzarim is the fate of Tel Aviv.

You still havn't explained how Sharon ran on this platform unambiguously in order to get elected and then nine months later adopted a platform to the left of his defeated opponent. Certaintly, he didn't discover the demographic problem of 35 years after just several months. Certaintly he couldn't have discoverd that we were fanning their hatred in just 9 months. This proves uncontrovertably that he either told one of the most tragic and profound lies during the election or if he was sincere during the election then that means that his epiphany was not due to some sudden realization but rather due to political corruption and scandals.

As to why the populace didn't rise up in masse, that is like asking in regard to any reprresive regime like Catro or Stalin why there wasn't a cue. You can't dispute factualy documented abuses and injustices simply by posing a question with the tone of " if so why not this". Furthermore you saw how many thousands of soldiers were dispatched to surpress peacefull rallies so how could you be perplexed as to why there were no violent rebellions? We both know what would have happened.

As far as Israely public oppinion is concerned it is a fact that at the beginning a majority was opposed to his plan. But as we both know, the Hebrew media is monolithicly ultra-liberal and unleashed terrible disinformation about the settelers for months on a daily basis. Sharon had control of 100% of the public resources to implement his agenda. It's not like the U.S. where we have talk radio and the conservative media. In Israely media there is no room for dissent.

In your response you wrote that I am quite knowledgable of Israey politics. Well I can asure you that I am one hundred times more affluent in American politics. I must therefore inform you that your assumption that Sharon was pressured into this by Bush at that specific time is scandales.

Early 2004 was a time in which the road map was completly dead and Bush was at the point of totally realizing what we all believe in and that is that it's impossible to make peace with those that only desire your annihalation and a Palastinian State would be suicide. Then, due to Sharon's scandals he begged Bush to go along with the plan; not the other way around. Bush was initially opposed, and Cheney and Rumsfeld warned that a withdrawl from Gaza would repete the disastorous effects of the Lebanon retreat ( the globalization of Hizbulah) except on a much larger scale and with consequences of a greater magnitude. Sharon then sent advisor Dov Weisglass to the White House in April 2004 to convince Bush that it would be in his best interests to collaberate with them. This account of those events is confirmed by Uzi Landau, Congressman Dan Burton (R-Indiana), and frankely as an astute observer at the time. So it is irrifutable that Sharon received no pressure from the White House and quite the contrary, it was Sharon himself who begged Bush to support the plan.

On a personal note I would like to know; Do you really believe that Sharon's plan to retreat from half of Israel will lead to peace? Will they not use their newly aquired strategic advateges to further facilitate their ultimate goal of destroying Israel? Wasn't this the debate during the runup to the expulsion and do we not see which side is correct? ( all the evidence is in my previous comments) How many more illistrations of this unending cycle do you need to see before you discover the reality that I understood already in 1993? Also, you must realize one more thing. This is not just dirt and grass we are dealind with. This is the lives, blood, sweat, and tears of over 15000 Jews that we are dealing with.

12. daniel said:

I guess anything more intelligent or infomative that name calling is too much for comment #4. They always say that the definition of a racist is one that wins a debate with a liberal. He declind the challenge to debate the facts. As for Bill Narvey, if this topic gets deleted from the Blog before you get a chance to respond, feel free to email me at usacon@verizon.net.

13. Bill Narvey said:

Daniel,

While I have followed the Israel – Palestinian issues fairly well, I have not followed Israel politics specifically. It was for that reason that I had asked you to elaborate on your views.

It appears that my comments really got you riled. That was not my intent. Nor did I seek to debunk or refute your arguments as you presented them more in the nature of angry accusations and characterizations.

You have now presented some alleged facts to go along with your views, but your comments and anaylysis is still replete with accusations, pejorative characterizations and charges against Sharon.

I will now respond to some of your points.

I do not know what you are getting at with accusing Sharon of being guilty of religious discrimination, unless that is a veiled reference to the Gazan Jews, all orthodox being torn from their homes in Gaza. As I am not certain what your concern is, I will say no more on that matter.

As to Sharon turning 180 degrees from being against unilateral disengagement, Sharon was asked a question along those lines by a reporter. Sharon’s reply was to the effect that things looked different from here (ie. – in power) than there (before the election).

Whether it was assuming the mantle of power that changed his perspective, that he was privy to information not before had, or that assessing the situation as leader as opposed to candidate for leadership influenced his thinking, he changed his view. I do not believe anyone knows with certainty why Sharon changed his view, but your reaching for some malevolent objective without citing any evidence to support that, is not at all convincing and really inappropriate to any anaylsis.

Your stating that Sharon ran his campaign for election based on a lie is not at all an incontrovertible conclusion. That suggestion is a guess and your spin borne of your anger.

It is far more plausible that Sharon’s perspective changed after he was elected.

As for the fate of those Gazan Israelis who were removed from their lands and still have not been fully relocated in Israel proper, this indeed was a miscalculation on the part of Sharon and a failure of his government to handle the problem.

I would remind you Daniel that Sharon anticipated there would be great expense to relocate the Gazan Israelis. Sharon approached Bush to assist in financing the relocation and almost certainly anticipated that funding would be forthcoming. The timing unfortunately was all wrong for America was still reeling from the devastation of hurricane Katrina and was facing enormous cost to rebuild the devastated cities, the worst being New Orleans and to relocate far more people than the Gazan Jews.

Bush, to Sharon’s surprise turned him down. That certainly put a monkey wrench into the relocation process Sharon had planned out and Sharon’s government failed to adjust and adapt to the situation.

I did not accuse you Daniel of harboring antipathy to Sharon prior to his election.

It is apparent however that you were against Israel’s unilateral disengagement when you voted for Sharon. That Sharon reversed his position and then managed to turn around political and Israeli thinking to gain support for unilateral disengagement must have been particularly galling to you as you were powerless to stop him as many were because of his forceful nature.

That disengagement necessitated tearing 7,500 Jews from Gaza which they had developed deep emotional attachment to, would tear up any caring person’s heart. Further, you were influenced in your views of Sharon in that he was during his administration touched by scandal, though no charges were laid.

All this adds up to the fact that your expectations in Sharon were not only not met, but you felt personally very sorely betrayed by the man you supported and you extend that to view Sharon as having betrayed Israel. Your antipathy for Sharon is understandable.

You say that it was not the Bush administration that pushed unilateral disengagement on Sharon, but rather he pushed the idea on the Bush administration and did so, you suggest to overcome the scandals Sharon was then immersed in.

I see no link between the Sharon scandals and Sharon’s unilateral disengagement plan and you have provided no evidence in that regard. Further you make the charge that Sharon’s unilateral disengagement plan was borne of his political corruption. Again, there is no evidence you cite to make that connection.

On the face of it Sharon’s unilateral Gaza disengagement plan had nothing to do with alleged scandals and political corruption that you claim tainted Sharon.

Most significantly you took issue with me believing I had said that Bush forced the unilateral disengagement plan on Sharon. You are wrong. I said quite the opposite.

Sharon devised Israel’s unilateral disengagement plan on his own, though I understand the idea had its origins with Ehud Olmert and it was he who initially persuaded Sharon to his thinking. That plan of course was a 180 degree turn from the election platform that at least in part led to Sharon winning the election.

I have already commented on the pros and cons of Sharon’s plan for unilateral disengagement from Gaza and will not repeat myself here.

I did say that Sharon was pressured into the Rafah agreement which was in my view is very prejudicial to Israel’s interests for a number of reasons. Recent events bear out my grave misgivings.

As for your questions at the end of your critique. Neither I nor you have a crystal ball to know whether Sharon’s unilateral disengagement plan will be a step to peace or a step to war. I do hope that the Palestinian descent into chaos and anarchy will translate far more as a step to strengthening Israel's position vis a vis the Palestinians and the world, than increased Palestinian terrorism threatens Israel.

I do not know what realization you came to in 1993 as you failed to set it out so I will let that one pass.

As for the 15,000 Jews you refer to, I presume you mean those Jews dispossessed of their homes in Gaza. It was 7,500, but in any event of course my heart goes out to them. That is not evidence however that Sharon’s unilateral disengagement plan was wrong. It is evidence of how painful that decision was and I have no doubt, it was exceedingly painful for Sharon who, as you know many years ago shepherded the government initiate to promote Israeli settlement in the occupied territories.

Ariel Sharon has not been a perfect person, but he has been a powerful leader who devoted his life to protecting Israel, in spite of his mistakes.

Your comments in the main amount to character assassination of Sharon because of your anger over his not having met your expectations and his having implemented his unilateral disengagement policy that you vehemently disagree with.

In your condemnations of Sharon, you go way beyond the pale to suggest that he has betrayed all that he has stood for in his life, which has been the protection and preservation of Israel and all Israelis.

Having more carefully considered your views Daniel as per your challenge, I am compelled to conclude that your thinking is borne more of anger and malice than facts, logic and reason.

14. eotw said:

Re: Daniel:

"Instead of expousing simple cheap rhetoric about beind an extremist you should learn a little about the current state of affairs in Israel over the last couple of years"

"I guess anything more intelligent or infomative that name calling is too much for comment #4. They always say that the definition of a racist is one that wins a debate with a liberal. He declind the challenge to debate the facts."

Your first comment just made me laugh. Do you even live here?

As for your second comment - if your facts are as "rock solid" as these: "It's not like the U.S. where we have talk radio and the conservative media. In Israely media there is no room for dissent."

"This is the same divine providence that has suddenly taken down this pompous tirant for his unrelentingly brutal treatment of terror victims."

...then yes, I respectfully decline your challenge to debate these facts.

Oh ya...and by the way, it was Shabbat in Jerusalem the whole time you were having this dialogue with yourself....so maybe that had a little something to do with my lack of posting.

Suggestion: Maybe you take some time and "learn a little about the current state of affairs in Israel over the last couple of years" and by Israel I don't mean a bunch of New Yorkers who came to Gaza for Summer Camp this year.