Interview with Ariel Sharon - A Must Read

just give it a read
i just cant say anything right now
the person disgusts me

Interview with Ariel Sharon published in the Israeli daily Davar Dec. 17, 1982)

"Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there, I don’t care. And I don’t mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg Trial and then jail me for life. Hang me if you want, as a war criminal. Then you can spruce up your Jewish conscience and enter the respectable club of civilised nations, nations that are large and healthy. What you lot don’t understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it. True, it could have been finished in 1948, but you interfered, you stopped it. And all this because of the Jewishness in your souls, because of your Diaspora mentality. For the Jews don’t grasp things quickly. If you open your eyes and look around the world you will see that darkness is falling again. And we know what happens to a Jew who stays out in the dark. So I am glad that this small war in Lebanon frightened the Yids. Let them be afraid, let them suffer. They should hurry home before it gets really dark. So I am an anti-Semite ? Fine. So don’t quote me, quote Lilienblum instead [an early Russian Zionist - ed.]. There is no need to quote an anti-Semite. Quote Lilienblum, and he is definitely not an anti-Semite, there is even a street in Tel Aviv named after him. (C. quotes from a small notebook that was lying on his table when I arrived:) ‘Is all that is happening not a clear sign that our forefathers and ourselves…wanted and still want to be disgraced? That we enjoy living like gypsies.’ That’s Lilienblum. Not me. Believe me. I went through the Zionist literature, I can prove what I say.

Full Interview

An interview from 1982 to prove....?

I mean, hardly anyone here suggests that Sharon is a "Man of Peace". Whats your point?

It is very common to find faults with jews. The other side of history, never and never read, just find the enemy, blame him for everything, make noise as much as you can. The fault of Sheron is that he is in politics or how a Jew in Israel can think the other way…

Let us read this article, let us talk if it is true.

http://www.rbooker.com/roots/articles/mideast_pal.htm

Middle East Myths
“The Myth of Palestine”

 Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda and Information, said that a big lie that is told often enough and long enough will eventually be accepted as truth. With cooperation from the world's media, coupled with ignorance, apathy, and anti-Semitism among the nations, Israel is being presented as a giant Goliath killing little Davids who are only armed with stones. There would be peace in the Middle East if only Goliath Israel would agree to little David's demand for a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. This is one of the many lies constantly repeated to the uninformed West. The purpose of this presentation is to expose some of the myths (read that big lies) regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Myth #1 - The Myth of Palestine

 In an article entitled, "The Lesson of Palestine," printed in the Middle East Journal, October 1949, Arab activist, Musa Alami, wrote, "how can people struggle for their nation, when most of them do not know the meaning of the word? „£ The people are in great need of a "myth" of imagination. The myth of nationality would create "identity" and "self-respect."

The Arab world has certainly demonstrated great skill in the “myth” of imagination. They have done such a good job that they have convinced much of the world that their “myths” are facts. Perhaps their biggest myth is the myth of Palestine. The Arab world would have us believe that the Palestinians have been in “Palestine” from “time immemorial” but were displaced by the Jews when Israel became a state in 1948. But what are the facts?

 While we are not certain of the exact dates, Joshua conquered the Land God promised the Jews in the 13th century BCE. King David established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel around 1000 BCE. King Solomon built the Jewish Temple about 960 BCE. This was almost 1000 years before the beginning of Christianity and 1600 years before the rise of Islam. As Prime Minister Barak has noted, "When Jesus came to Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts, he didn't come to a church or a mosque, he came to the Temple." It is not the Church Mount or the Mosque Mount that is fought over, it is the Temple Mount. It was the Temple Mount centuries before Christianity tried to make it the Church Mount and Islam tried to make it the Mosque Mount.

 However, not to be confused with facts, in a personal audience I had several years ago with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was appointed by Arafat, he boldly declared that the Arabs had been living in the Land for 10,000 years. Based on conservative Bible chronology, that means the Arabs have been living in the Land before the Almighty created Adam and Eve. 

 How did Israel become Palestine and who are the Palestinians? The second Jewish war with the Romans took place in 132-135 CE. Led by Rabbi Akiva and Simon bar Kochba, the Jewish uprising was crushed by the Roman Emperor Hadrian who sought to de-Judaize Jerusalem and make it a pagan city. Hadrian renamed Jerusalem "Aelia Capitolina" in honor of Jupiter. He changed the name of Judea and gave it the name of the Jews ancient enemy, the Philistines. He called it -- Palestine.

 Over time, Palestine was ruled by the Roman Byzantines (312-637) [Persian interrupt 614-629], Omayyad Arabs (638-750), Islamic Abbassid's (750-1099), Crusaders (1099-1291) [Saladin the Kurd interrupt 1187-93], Mamluks (1291-1516), Ottoman Turks (1517-1917), and the British Mandate (1917-1948). None of these rulers established a sovereign state in the Land and Jerusalem was never the capital of any empire since the time of King David. Palestine was a forgotten desolate, wasteland, but historical records show there was always a Jewish presence in the Land. 

 The revival of modern Jewish life in the Land began in the 1880's with the arrival of Russian refugees from the Russian pogroms. A second wave of immigration, also from Russia, was in 1905. This was followed by later immigrations resulting in a growing Jewish population in the Land. When the Jews came to the Land, they found a malaria infested swamp in the north and an uninhabitable desert in the south. It was as if the God of the Bible had kept the Land hidden away in obscurity until the rightful owners -- the Jews returned to claim it. 

 The Jewish pioneers did not steal the Land from the Arabs. They purchased the Land at highly inflated prices from absentee landlords living outside the Land. As the Jews worked the Land, it began to prosper. While there were Jews and Arabs living in the Land, there were many poor migrant Arab farm workers in the surrounding Arab countries who needed work. When they heard that the Land was prospering under the hand of the Jews, they migrated to Palestine to get work from the Jews. Furthermore, the British allowed many thousands of Arabs into Palestine illegally while barring the Jews from entering the Land. For the most part, the Arab Palestinians are these peasant farm workers and illegal aliens.

  "Palestinians" have never been a distinct people, they have never had a sovereign land called Palestine, Jerusalem has never been their capital, there is no Palestinian language or culture, and there is no Palestinian people. It is a myth created after the Jews liberated Jerusalem in 1967. 

 Before the birth of the State of Israel, Arab leaders themselves denied the existence of an Arab country called Palestine. In 1937, Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi said, "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. 'Palestine" is alien to us; it is the Zionists who introduced it." In 1946, a distinguished Princeton professor and Arab historian said, "There is no such thing as Palestine in Arab history, absolutely not."

 All who lived in the Land, Jews, Arabs, and Christians, were called Palestinians. In fact, the Jerusalem Post was called the Palestinian Post. Under the British Mandate, the Palestinian Jews were given a state. But before this state came into existence, Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, in 1922, took away seventy-seven percent of the geographic area promised to the Jews and created Transjordan as a state for the Palestinian Arabs. Israel would be for the Palestinian Jews and Transjordan (now Jordan) for the Palestinian Arabs. 

 Israel became a state in the War of Independence in 1948. At that time, approximately 600,000 Arabs fled to become refugee pawns in the hands of neighboring Arab states. Some number of Arabs stayed to become Israeli citizens. While we certainly sympathize with the plight of the Arab refugees, their problems could easily be solved if their Arab brothers cared enough to assimilate them as the Jews did their own 800,000 immigrants from the Arab countries.

Point is anjaan that if US administration is going to portray Arafat as a butcher than they should have the balls to stand up and admit that Sharon is a killer, hate monger racist piece of crap. Untill there is at least a hint of fairness in the foriegn policy regarding Palestine-Israel conflict there will be no solution.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
An interview from 1982 to prove....?

I mean, hardly anyone here suggests that Sharon is a "Man of Peace". Whats your point?
[/QUOTE]

Faisal are u sure about that...How about our esteemed colleagues such as UTD, OG, Semi and MV. I am sure they can prove that above article is a farce and sharon is a peace nick who will not even harm a fly.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kaleem: *
Faisal are u sure about that...How about our esteemed colleagues such as UTD, OG, Semi and MV. I am sure they can prove that above article is a farce and sharon is a peace nick who will not even harm a fly.
[/QUOTE]

Is this another example of Kaleemistic revisionary history? I doubt you will find a single post in GS since UTD, OG, Semi and MV became Guppies after 911 where any of us have expressed our love and admiration for Sharon as a man of peace.

You sure have praised his actions ala building of the illegal wall, killing of inncoent people by american made apache helicopters...Did you do that or not? You sure did, I am not going to waste my time searching for your posts....most people over here know that all of you have not said anything remotely negative against Sharon. You are always quick to point out the faults of intifada but fail to see the horrednous actions of a butcher who by the way was elected by the jews. What does that say about that public? hmmmmm they are blood thirsty, they approve his behavior of killing Arabs and taking their land. I say they deserve everything and the kitchen sink.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kaleem: *
You sure have praised his actions ala building of the illegal wall, killing of inncoent people by american made apache helicopters...Did you do that or not? You sure did, I am not going to waste my time searching for your posts....most people over here know that all of you have not said anything remotely negative against Sharon. You are always quick to point out the faults of intifada but fail to see the horrednous actions of a butcher who by the way was elected by the jews. What does that say about that public? hmmmmm they are blood thirsty, they approve his behavior of killing Arabs and taking their land. I say they deserve everything and the kitchen sink.
[/QUOTE]

You never cease to amaze. Of course you won't research my posts to prove your point because you won't find any that support what you are saying. This is becoming a recurring theme.

OG and I, in particular, have expressed our solidarity for the cause of a Palestinian homeland many, many times and have offered what we feel have been real constructive ideas on actions the Palestinians could take that would rally US and world opinion to them and against Israel. Further, neither of us have ever praised the killing of innocent Palestinians by the IDF. Further, each of us have expressed disdain for Sharon and haven't viewed him as an Israeli leader likely to bring a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

What you don't like is that we have assessed blame/fault for the present situation on all sides rather than merely on Israel. What you don't like is that we have carefully documented historical facts that refute the biased and one-sided fanatical statements of people who choose to believe only one-side is at fault.

[QUOTE]
What you don't like is that we have carefully documented historical facts that refute the biased and one-sided fanatical statements of people who choose to believe only one-side is at fault.
[/QUOTE]

MV, please stop being funny. I cannot take it any more. What facts and documentation are you talking about? Will those be the same sources that supplied the famous satellite pictures for Powell's speech to the UN...You know the one that showed the mobile WMD factories...remember those? Dont you? Are you trying to pass lies from those sources as facts? You better stop while you are ahead and learn something new other than the propoganda of the neocons.

^ It's called history Kaleem. A course you obviously missed somewhere along the way.

History is merely the opinion of the victor on a situation to which there are always more than two sides.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
History is merely the opinion of the victor on a situation to which there are always more than two sides.
[/QUOTE]

A nice saying CM, but not necessarily true. Particularly where original source materials are available for review. For instance, if someone were to write a history of the use of the veto by UN Security Council Resolutions, the UN maintains original source materials of every Resolution put to a vote of the UN Security Council and the vote of the Security Council Members on each Resolution. Thus, "opinion" plays no role in the record of historical fact.

I quite agree, however, that most "histories" go well beyond the simple reporting of immutable facts to include analysis and opinion. And these histories are more often than not the product of someone whose affinity lies with the prevailing side. Then, the author selectively chooses the immutable facts he wishes to include or exclude to create a history that is only partly accurate. Thus, people who wish to form their own opinions need to get as close to the original source materials as they can rather than let those source materials be filtered by "historians."

Humans are biased. The original sources of "fact" are written by humans. Written words or typed for that fact can be doctored and changed. If someone does then fact becomes fiction.

Irrespective, the stories of conflicts are always biased and have no basis in fact with the exclusions of dates and data. Everything else is conjecture and opinion.

^ Unfortunately there are far too many people in GS and all around the world who apparently do believe that there is no such thing as fact, only opinion. Such a feeling allows people to make the most egregious and outrageous statements and other people to believe that they represent "truth."

While you and I have expressed widely divergent opinions on a lot of matters, I believe that we share a common desire to discover what we believe to be immutable facts and then formulate our opinions based upon them. We do not merely adopt other people's opinions as if they represent fact. Pity that others don't try to do the same.

Your source of “immutable facts” remains suspect. Problem is your refusal to look at the other side. MV, trust me I do not believe that all problems in the Muslim world are caused by US or Isarel. I fully understand that Muslims alone are responsible for their pitiful condition, however, I am not going to ignore the fact that there are several factors that have a profound impact on these conditions. I am merely trying to make a point to you and in general that we should acknowledge that our policies do effect many lives and some time the results are not what we expected. (See Osama).

Peace:flower1: :flower2:

i have been reading the replies from MV, Kaleem Bhai , Stu and others in this thread and in a previous thread too which i posted i think it was abt John Kerry and his Israeli roots .. well but i think i must agree wid Kaleem Bhai

the non muslim world especially the USA , UK and Israel have been very unfair towards muslims ..

The Balfore Declaration
The creation of Israel
The slaughters in Kashmir , Bosnia . Palestine etc.
The Kabul Destruction
Baghdad destruction

and others
are all examples of injustice against muslims by the non muslim axis

but stiil i believe that its only muslims who r the responsibles for their miserable conditions
i will give just one example
today the muslims r stuck to what they call a Jihad
but they dont understand infact they r not willing to unedrstand the demand of time
as Iqbal said
*ye misra likh diya kiss showkh nain mehraab-e-masjid per * *ye nadaan gir gaye sajdoon main jab waqt-e-qayaam aaya *

today a jihad against illeteracy & poverty is the dmand
a jihad to boost ur economy , to stabilize ur governments , to make living conditions better and to and to ensure justice and peace to all is required

I hold to the opinion that everything stated in any history book is distorted. As it is distorted it is not fact with the exception of dates and the data such as who got killed. We all look for facts but everyone is biased, and see things in different lights.

An example is when i was watching Farenhiet 9 11, which was a pathetic movie. We were discussing whether the Bin Laden's should have been moved out of the US. I naturally sided with their point of view saying it was best for them while my friends 2 americans stated the govt should have made them stay.

The points were both valid, but our own biases affected what we saw as more relevant or which side we took. That is just the same with history.