Talk:Ariel Sharon/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Ariel Sharon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The Belgium Law

(Belgium courts have the power, under both Belgian and international law, to try war crimes committed anywhere in the world.) Ariel Sharon cancelled an official visit to Belgium in early 2001, which many said was because he feared being arrested, although the official reason given was the bombing of a disco in Israel.

Ariel Sharon, as an acting representative of a foreign government, is protected by international law. Therefore he could not be arrested in Belgium, or any other country that upholds the Vienna Convention of 1815. His visit was canceled as a sign of diplomatic protest, which is certainly in place. Also, Belgium is no "courthouse for the world", since most legal conventions disallow persecution by a country over crimes that happened in a foreign nation (and that did not involve any citizens of that country). Also, is not having a disco bombed with 21 murdered children a bad cause? I delete this. --Uriyan

Spain has been prosecuting offenses against Spanish nationals committed in a second country and this has been recognized me than once by a third country (the one that extradites). It is becoming much more accepted. The International Criminal Court is obviously another move in that direction. The universal jurisdiction rule is also claimed by many states, including Israel itself when it kidnapped Eichmann. Your argument is simply not valid.

The Vienna Convention of 1815 is superceded by the Nuremberg Protocols which hold that being a head of state or head of government does not give one immunity from being charged and convicted with war crimes. 130.15.183.129 00:24, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Ariel Sharon, as an acting representative of a foreign government, is protected by international law." That is a question of some dispute -- Belgium argues that while government representatives can't be arrested for ordinary crimes, they can be arrested for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, etc. The Vienna Convention of 1815? Don't you mean the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which dates from some time in the 60s I think. War crimes are crimes of universal jurisdiction under international law, thus any state in the world has the right to try war crimes cases, not just cases involving its own citizens or territory. (Also, legal jurisdiction is determined by customary international law, not by conventional international law.) Most states don't take advantage of this right they have, but Belgium does. Israel also does, that is how they tried Eichmann (the Holocaust did not occur on Israeli territory, and none of its victims here Israeli citizens at the time it occured, since Israel did not then exist.) And the last sentence is completely true: he cancelled the visit, many people said it was because he feared being arrested, but the official Israeli government reason was the bombing of a disco. Everything in that sentence is true, and I don't see what your problem is with it. -- SJK

Well, Belgium can claim whatever it wants, but it is Belgian law, not international. Also, again, while I am not thoroughly familiar with the current legalities, all the cases of war crimes that I know of were ever put on trial, were put on trial in an international court, not a Belgian court. The only contrary case happened in Belgium several years ago, but again, that's Belgium and its view on the problem.

As to the Eichmann trial, please note the following difference: Sharon's action took place Israel, which is a souverign country recognized by Belgium, and which exists now. Eichmann was an official of Nazi Germany, which was dissolved, and therefore unable to try him (he could be tried in Western Germany, but it was only the heir of Nazi Germany). Sharon could, theoretically, be taken to an Israeli court. I'm sure that much more significant differences exist, but unfortunately I'm not yet familiar enough with the international law to put up a better answer. I meant the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, which was based on practice that originated in the Vienna Congress of 1815 (I apologize for my ignorance).

In addition to the above: although I hate to go ad hominem, I must say that you eagerness to mention Sabra and Shatila without doing any further research on the problem (like reading Kahan's report, which is freely available on the Internet) is regrettable and indicates that your bias is stronger than your desire to be objective. It is you and your decisions; however wouldn't you feel better if you didn't omit details another side in this conflict might consider important? --Uriyan

I don't think international law protects anybody. Each state, being sovereign, does whatever it wants. It is customary to grant diplomatic immunity to individuals or classes of individuals.

The question Uriyan and SJK are discussing, needs clarification as to how Belgium would regard Sharon during a visit:

It would grant him diplomatic immunity.
It would refuse to grant him diplomatic immunity and seek to arrest him.

Ed Poor

Its more than Belgian law, its what Belgian claims the international law on the matter is (whether or not Belgian is right ultimately depends on future state practice, court decisions, etc.).

As to jurisdiction: there are about five different basises for jurisdiction recognized under international law: territorial jurisdiction (crimes committed on territory of the state), nationality jurisdiction (crime committed by a national of the state), jurisdiction based on the vital interests of the state (forget what this one is called), jurisdiction based on the nationality of the victim (once widely rejected, but increasingly accepted for terrorist offences), and universal jurisdiction (any state in the world can try the crime, no matter where it was committed and by who). Universal jurisdiction however only applies to certain offenses (e.g. piracy, genocide), so the question would be whether or not universal jurisdiction applies to whatever they would might indict Sharon for. And the primary jurisdiction under international criminal law rests with national courts, not international courts; international courts can only exercise criminal jurisdiction over individuals when a state has delegated its own jurisdiction to that court, and an international court can have no more criminal jurisdiction than the states that made the delegation did.

This is all well established customary international law, and is accepted by just about everybody. Just because the law on this matter may only be rarely applied doesn't mean it does not exist. (If you want a nice summary of all this, get a textbook on international law.)

Secondly, the distinction you make between the Eichmann case and what Belgium claims the right to do is irrelevant. The exercise of universal jursidiction under international law is not dependent on whether or not it is possible for the territorial state or the state of nationality to try it. Of course, if the territorial or nationality state (i.e. either Lebanon or Israel) is willing and able to try Sharon, then it has the right to do so instead of Belgium. But if either is unwilling or unable to do so for whatever reason, then (presuming universal jurisdiction applies to what Belgium indicts Sharon for), Belgium has the right to try him. The only possible difference is the question of whether or not what they seek to charge Sharon with is subject to universal jurisdiction. (Genocide, with which Israel charged Eichmann,

I was not aware that Kahan's report was available on the Internet (I knew there was an Israeli government inquiry, but I didn't know Kahan chaired it). Most of the information was what I remembered from news reports. I hope I was not overly biased. I will openly admit I really don't like Sharon, but I'm trying to be as neutral and unbiased as I can. (Look, I even went to the trouble of including a summary of his political career from gleaned the Israeli government; if all I wanted to do was attack him, why should have I bothered?) -- SJK

I thank you for this basic introduction, I will definitely look up international law references. Your original version was quite biased (to my Israeli taste). I tried to NPOV-ise it a bit (include both our opinions on fatality count, terrorism etc). You also did a similar thing to Menachem Begin (writing he was a terrorist without ever mentioning the Nobel Peace Prize - certainly, you'd mention it the latter if you wrote about Arafat!). However, I understand that total lack of bias is a hard goal (and it's diffcult for me to approach it two - and I'm sorry if I was in a flaming mood for a while). --Uriyan

Okay, I admit I was trying to stir people a little bit with the article on Begin, by calling him a terrorist. If I was biased with my original account of Sabra and Shetila, thats probably because a lot of the sources I use for news are probably biased from your point of view. And why didn't I mention the Nobel prize? because I'd forgotten it, thats why. -- SJK

Ed: "Each state, being sovereign, does whatever it wants" is not correct. State soverignity is subject to international law, most importantly the principle of pacta sunt servanda (i.e. states must abide by treaties they freely enter into) to, and the jus cogens/erga omnes rules of customary international law (i.e. rules like the prohibition of genocide, which no state is permitted to violate.) Since most states have signed lots of treaties, and they are bound by customary international law anyway, their soverignity is limited in quite a few ways. Also, be careful about your use of the word "custom" -- you seem to be using it to imply that its not legally required that they grant diplomatic immunity, its merely a custom -- but customs are legally binding under international law, provided they meet certain conditions (states in following the custom must feel a sense of legal obligation; newly established customs may not apply to persistent objectors to them). -- SJK

Simon,

the article on international law says, "International legal norms can be customary or conventional."
I don't really care if he's a war criminal or not. Just say what he did (and who says he did it). Then say why that's a crime (and who says it's a crime). Ed Poor

Yes, the article on international law says that (I think I may even be the person who wrote that sentence). I'm just trying to make sure you understand what customary international law is, because the way you said it made me suspect you didn't. -- SJK

Article said:

Some claim that this suit is illegal, because trial of non-citizens for crimes supposedly comitted to non-citizens is not widely accepted in international law. However others disagree, and claim that states have the right under international law to try war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, even when the crime did not involve their nationals and did not occur on their territory, since these crimes are recognized as being subject to universal jurisdiction. (Israel made use of the same right as Belgium when it tried and convicted Adolf Eichmann for his involvement in the Holocaust, even though neither he nor any of his victims were Israeli nationals at the time, and the crime was not committed on Israeli territory.)

Some may claim that, but no international lawyer would claim that. They might claim it was illegal, but if they did it would be because what Sharon did was not an offense subject to universal jurisdiction, or because of head of government immunity during office, or something like that. Universal jurisdiction for at least some offences is accepted by everybody. I've got no problem with admitting this is a subject of legal dispute, I'm just asking that the dispute be framed correctly. -- SJK

SJK, do you think you could include some of what you have written on this page in the page on international law? I'd do it myself if i weren't certain to bungle it :-) --Anders Törlind

Opposing Views on Ariel Sharon

removed Palestinian propaganda

Ariel Sharon has always been an evil, evil man...

The man with two women's names...

He has been known (variously) as "the butcher" in Gaza, Lebanon, and other locals...

(well so is Sam Butcher, creator of Precious Moments...)

To Joseph (who has obviously written this). Wikipedia is not for saying 'evil, evil man'. We don't even say it here about Adolph Hitler. His nicknames among his haters are also irrelevant. You also don't make statements without any grounds or evidence. If you want this material to ever get to Ariel Sharon, you'd better rewrite it starting with "Palestinians think that" ... Append the heading about "Opposing Views" to the end of the article. Uriyan

Joseph, I appreciate the moderation that you've done, but this is still not NPOV! As the Wikipedia editor, you don't have a narrator. Unless you talk about very, very obvious facts, the statements that you make must be explicitly associated with the side that makes them. I'll post below the way I think the statements should be made:

Ariel Sharon has followed a military solutions based policy of no negotiations under fire. He refuses to engage in political negotiations until there is a seven day period of absolute peace and quiet in all of Israel and the occupied territories. Many people and some governments (mainly the European Union members) feel that this is an unrealistic demand, that could never be fulfilled.

URI: with all due respect, please, lets try and not mince words here, it is Ariel Sharon's policy. He is the one that will not negotiate under fire, he said so... Furthermore, he has forbidden specific members of the Government from pursuing dialogue with Palestinians (personally a method I feel will result in lowering the violence). He is the Prime Minister now, whether we (Palestinians) like it or not. Feel free to reword this how you see fit as long as the main point remains it is this that:

1) Mr Sharon's policy is one of extreme military responses to any attack, by any Palestinian group. That essentialy means that any extreme person can derail any peace talk. Imagine if that was how it was with extreme Jewsih settler groups doing the same, and the Palestinians refusing to negotiate. At least try to see my point here.

2) The European Union wants to change this policy, and it asks that Mr Sharon and his government stop this policy, as it is unrealistic.

(Sharon is not Israeli government - Sharon himself is a private individual while the government is an official body. Also note that both the government and the majority of the Israeli public support these policies, as recent polls indicate)

Palestinians claim that all of the current policies followed by the Sharon government so far have failed to bring about this prerequisite for peace. They claim that the policies carried out by his government - assassinations of leaders of Palestinian groups (some of whom being terrorists is disputed), blockades of whole areas (including towns and villages), the destruction of Palestinian Authority infrastructure as well as civillian infrastructure (including police and security buildings), continued house demolitions, Israeli Army incursions into Palestinian territory, the confinement of the nominal head of the Palestinian people in his headquarters that essentially amounts to a house arrest - have only created further difficuly in calming the situation down .

Uri, again, I feel that this point above is important, as these policies, started by Barak, continued to an even greater extent by Mr Sharon and his government, only lead to more violence and destruction. I hate it when there is a Palestinian attack on civillians or innocents, I feel that if these extremist groups want to go at it with the Israeli Army, then go one for one against the military only. It pains me, and I am truly sorry for the agony, grief, and loss of life of innocent civillians. Truly, the situation is such that more and more ordinary Palestinians are getting drawn into an ever more destructive spiral of violence.

Palestinians consider Sharon's advocacy of settlement building in the occupied territories as a further step away from peace.

No change here, settlements like it or not are the main reasons for this problem, every expansion and building of new settlements create more 'Facts on the ground' to quote an already overused term.

The latest round of violence the, so-called 'second Intifada' started in the Fall of 2000. Palestinians claim that it was started because of Ariel Sharon, and over a thousand bodyguards marching in sacred Arab East Jerusalem. (A number of protesting Palestinians were killed in the immediate aftermath of this visit. never heard of that) Some commentators have accused him of purposely starting this event, to prevent the further continuation of peace talks.

(Actually, one of Arafat's advisors claim otherwise, see here)

I know that the link you provided is hardly unbiased, I have never heard of this man, most news stories from that time, indicate otherwise, here is a link:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/12/08/mideast.03/index.html

here is a quote from that article: ..."The Jerusalem clash was one of the most intense since fighting began on September 28, when Palestinians leaving al-Aqsa after prayers began throwing stones at Israeli security forces. Four Palestinians were killed in the ensuing fighting." ...

Furthermore, Palestinians claim that Sharon really lacks a political agenda. He is a general and war operations are at the limit of his expertise. An Israeli political analyst claimed: "Sharon sees the many trees, but can never see the forest".

( That's a personal opinion, I'd leave it out as well)

The absence of a peace camp in Israel has played into Sharon's favour but lately the Israeli public is wondering why they elected a closed-minded general with no political vision as their prime minister? Sharon is an obstacle to peace for he is the new variable in the Middle East peace equation. Occupation is the cancer and until it is done away with there will be no peace.

If you really insist, altough I liked the paragraph the way it was...

Palestinians claim that Sharon works agressively against the Palestinians in their own land, and that while his predecessors at least genuinely tried for peace and as such helped defuse tensions to a large extent, Sharon has pursued dirty politics and extreme aggression against the Palestinians.

That's a gross generalization, the letter has been signed by 50 soldiers and officers, out of the several hundred thousand reservists.

Sorry Uri, I mean to say that the way it is, my accounts showed over 100 and something have refused ,but perhaps you know better being there in Israel.

Here are my links: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-020202army.story

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/mideast020208_reservists.html

Here is one of the quotes: ... "The petition started with 50 reserve officers and soldiers. Since it appeared in Israeli newspapers two weeks ago, about another 150 have signed it." ...

so much so, that reservists from his own Army are calling it quits.

Please leave this here, or expand on it: This represents a small number compared to the Thousands serving ... (or something like that).

Repeat of your previous points, I'd leave this out

It has been a year since this man came to power, and most people can see where he has brought the Middle East conflict, and to some extent, the entire world, close than ever to a regional war. Undoubtedly his authoritarian military background overshadows all peace efforts. His brutal policies against the Palestinians make the chances of peace very slim, even non-existent.

It seems to most Palestinians, peace groups (specifically Peace Now), and foreign peoples and governments, that Mr Sharon has no intention of peaceful relations with the Palestinians.

Please address/update these points in the main article (or tell me if I can update it myself). --Uriyan

Uri, I am not sure what you want to change here, however, my sources indicate this feeling.

Here is the link:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,201552,00.html

Here is the quote: "Sharon's impressive diplomatic achievements haven't erased the basic fact haunting Israelis: His first year in office has failed to produce the security promised in his election campaign. A poll published by the newspaper Maariv a week ago showed that Sharon's domestic approval rating had fallen below 50 percent for the first time since his landslide victory. Clearly, Israel's grinding economic recession and the absence of any signs of progress towards resolving its conflict with the Palestinians are taking its toll on domestic politics."

Uri, I am willing to have you change my comments to an NPOV, I am not sure how to do it, however, please do not change my meaning or content. I have provided comments above, I hope that this clarifies my points... I only want to point out that the awy Mr Sharon wants Peace to be, it will never happen. He may have Mr Bush on side, he may even win over the Israelis in an another election, however, Peace has to be made with us the Palestinians, not Mr Bush, or the Israelis themselves...

Hoping I have not offended, or made unreasonable requests.

Joseph

Hi,

I edited your comments on the main page a bit, most of the changes being confined to adding "Palestinians think that...". The comments that I made in italics are not editorial, but my personal comments as an Israeli. Anyway, if you don't like something (if you think that I left out something important etc.) - feel free to restore it (either from this page or from history).

I deleted the line about four Palestinians being killed, because it happened after Sharon's visit, and during very heavy riots that these Palestinians were taking part in. So if we wanted to present the full picture we'd then have to discuss whether the violence that the protesters applied was extreme (e.g. they burnt a police station about the same time) and branch into a whole new discussion which is not directly related to Ariel Sharon.

Finally, I'd been thinking to write an opposing Israeli opinion about this (and perhaps even add one to Yasser Arafat). Of course, you (or any other Wikipedian) would be able to edit my comments in a similar way. --Uriyan

Sorry I guess we were editing at the same time, here were my roiginal comments:

No problem Uri,

After your edits I added a title because Commentary did not seem to cover what I was after, mainly to make it relevant to current events. This is the title I chose:

Commentary on recent events and the evolution of the peace process

a bit long perhaps, feel free to edit, however the main point should be recent events and the Peace process (what is left of it, the fault of Yasser and his cronies as well as Sharons).

I looked it over, seems better, more balanced, I hope you do as well. I also added some new info. about the newest news that over one thousand have now joined in this protest. I am sure you have heard the news, that they incresed their support for this protest, and pullout of the territories... If not I will provide a link to my news story. I thought the important point was that this will force the Palestinian leadership to re-establish law and order, something that is sorely lacking, or something that they are not able to do.

I hope that the edits are ok.

Joseph

In recent days this protest has increased in number to over 1000 top-level reserve generals, colonels and officials from the internal and external security agencies, Shin Bet and Mossad. They feel that by withdrawing from the disputed territories it will force the Palestinian leadership to resume its security responsibilities towards the Israeli population

I wonder where you've heard that, since I didn't. Of course several officials claimed that leaving the territories would be optimal, but none that I know of called to do it now, and none called to do it on a personal basis - they were rather calling for a general political solution like Shimon Peres (or unilateral separation). Anyway, they do not belong to the same category as the 50 reservists, since they didn't call for military disobedience, but rather point at a political course that they like more. And also, their number is not bigger than 10 (although they include one retired Head of Shin Bet).

Here is the link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1827000/1827328.stm

Also I made a small mistake, this is following on the heels of the protests, Saturday night. It is now 250 reservists that have signed the petition.

Sorry I will correct it.

Joseph

Well, I looked at the BBC article. It isn't really precise, to say the least. The whole Israeli army has less than 1000 senior officers. I don't think there is any more than 20 of them at the Council, the rest being "regular" officers and soldiers. From what has been reported on the local media, they're talking mostly about a unilateral withdrawal, since they don't give too much weight to PA's commitments. They emphasize the enhancement of Israeli security caused by the introduction of a border fence.

I updated the article to reflect these points. Feel free to change it, if you feel I'd left something important out. --Uriyan

"The absence of a peace camp in Israel" plays in Sharon's favor. Get real! 400,000 Israelis demonstrated on behalf of a Commission of Inquiry following Sabra and Shatilla. In a country that then had 5 million people, that is close to ten percent of the population that attended the demonstration. Peace Now has been a major player in Israeli politics, while today, Sharon is contending with a large group of army reservists who refuse to serve in the West Bank or Gaza. True, the events of the past year have whittled away at the peace camp, but there is a vibrant peace camp nonetheless, perhaps one of the most vibrant in the entire Middle East. Danny

Once again I removed the following:

The absence of a peace camp in Israel has played into Sharon's favour but lately the Israeli public is wondering why they elected a closed-minded general with no political vision as their prime minister?

See my note above as to why. Actually, it contradicts the article itself, which says that 1,000 reserve officers refuse to serve in the West Bank.

Secondly, I removed:

Secondly, Ariel Sharon claims, and many Israelis agree, that terrorism is an absolute evil.

Of course they do. What is the point of that statement.

Finally, I don't really think that the two sections: "The Israeli Point of View" and "The Palestinian Point of View" have a place in this article. Unless someone can justify them, I will remove them to talk.

Hi, I removed (and modified) several statements on the Israeli and Arab positions. Regarding the former, they were simply not true (no Israeli Jews consider suicide bombings justified). As to the latter, many of them did not bother to remind that this is the Arab opinion (and not concrete fact), while others were simply repeating the points already mentioned (in particular the fact that Arabs dislike Sharon), or not saying anything at all (the opinion of individual, anonymous Israeli analysts is quite meaningless) --Uriyan

"the opinion of individual, anonymous Israeli analysts is quite meaningless", unless what they say is true, accurate or offers a particular insight. Being individual and anonymous has no effect on the value of their opinions.

Let's see. An analyst provides, by definition, opinions. In Wikipedia, opinions are not seen as either true or accurate; they're merely represented. Now to the "insight" part. The analyst used a Hebrew idiom meaning Sharon paid too much attention for detail. This is an extremely general statement (without mentioning of the context, it's difficult to tell what the quote is about). So it isn't particularly insightful either. --Uriyan

Nevertheless, as minister of housing in the 90s, Sharon increased the speed of settlment considerably and he is also against dismantling any settlements at all out of principle. This is widely seen by his opponents as hampering peace efforts.

While it is true that there was a certain increase in settlement building in Sharon's period, I'm not sure whether that was Sharon's call or a decision made by the government as whole, in which Sharon's voice wasn't decisive. Also, Sharon has seldom declared any special sympathy to settlement-building, and he was the person to evacuate Sinai. Both seem to go against my notion of being a principal man. I think that the quote above needs to be researched more fully before it can be reincorporatd into the article. --Uri

Reasons for NPOV: The Israeli position is much larger and detailed than the Palestinian position. Furthermore, whilst the Palestinian position includes lots of criticisms and counter-arguments, along the lines of Israelis-would-say-this, the Israeli argument includes no such thing, and reads just as a propaganda diatribe. This is not acceptable in a neutral encyclopedia, which should give equal weight to each argument. Jonesy 19:55, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is silly. Sharon is an Israeli, not a Palestenian. His opinions and those of his nations should indeed be contrasted by those of other nations (such as Palestenians) and the world, but it's only natural if Sharon's own opinions, those of his government (he's currently the prime minister of Israel) and the opinions that actually got him voted into office and his actions in his military carreer (yes, he had a military carreer, not a carreer of peace-talks), get a prominent position. When stating the beliefs of a political figure, or the platform of a political party, we can't contrast every one of its points with 3 other thought schools - it's only important that the beliefs or platform as a whole be contrasted by those held by other groups. Can you give example sections where you see the problem you describe? Are these sections impossible to fix?

The NPOV discussion appears dead, with only one person claiming that this article should be marked NPOV. I don't see any "dispute" here... Shall we remove the NPOV link?

I am removing the claim "an official Israeli judiciary enquiry found him partly responsible and banned him from ever again acting as Defence Minister." The Kahan Commission did not have the authority to ban him for life, nor did they try to. They didn't even have the authority to sack him from his present position, but only to make recommendations about it. The recommendation they made was that Sharon should "draw the appropriate personal conclusions; i.e., resign, and if necessary, the Prime Minister should consider whether he should exercise his authority ... to remove a minister from office. He refused to resign as Defense Minister but Begin forced him to, while allowing him to stay in the cabinet. After the next election he was appointed Minister of Industry and Trade. --Zero 10:02, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Vienna Convention of 1815 is superceded by the Nuremberg Protocols which hold that being a head of state or head of government does not give one immunity from being charged and convicted with war crimes. 130.15.183.129 00:25, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--Belgium--

Re Belgium's claims of jurisdiction: Belgium can claim the moon turns blue too, but they have no power to enforce it. Berrik

(and yes, I realize this is probably the wrong place to stand on a soapbox, but it's not like I'm the only person around here who does it

Quotes from [1]

Please do not remove quotes...it's his quotes, no need to remove them.

Do you have any other source for these quotes, preferably a source which is more neutral, and not dated April 1? --gadfium 02:50, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

???????? what do you mean neutral? Is http://www.freeman.org/m_online/dec00/sharon.htm a neutral site?

If you remove the quotes from islamonline, then you should remove that one.

Little ol' spelling error?

I just saw something that is either wrong English or I don't really understand it, namely - the Israeli precursor to the Israeli Defense Force I know we have an article on the IDF, but were there other precursors to it? Someone mind explaining? Thx - Muhamedmesic 21:36, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Critics view Sharon as a Terrorist

Laughable that anyone would think this is unsubstantiated.. [2]

Well, that's just one article writer, and I'm sure I could find someone who called him a poopy pants too, but as always I'm willing to compromise to keep the peace. Jayjg 04:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see you live up to your false claim. "I'm sure I could find someone who called him a poopy pants too." Find one such article. Here are several more that describe the terrorist butcher Ariel Sharon as such: [3], [4], [5], [6]--Alberuni 04:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This may shock you, but I suspect that not everything that has been said about Sharon is captured on the Internet. But he has been called a bunch of things even on the Internet, maybe that should be expanded. Jayjg 05:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So your statement, "I'm sure I could find someone who called him a poopy pants too" was another fabrication. --Alberuni 05:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Um, I stated my opinion, and I didn't state that I would restrict my search to the Internet. In fact, I've called him a poopy pants myself. And look: "Ariel Sharon is a poopy pants". Now you can even find it on the Internet. Jayjg 05:26, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ariel Sharon well known as the Butcher of Beirut

Jayjg's tactic for diluting criticism of Ariel Sharon was to insert a long list of silly names that were subsequently deleted by another editor, deleting all critics' perceptions of Sharon. That's not how the NPOV process is supposed to work. Ariel Sharon is considered a terrorist by many Palestinians and Israelis and others around the world because of his numerous massacres of civilians over the years. He was elected by the facts Israelis so that he would employ an iron-fist against the Intifada that he himself was central in inciting. He was a member of a terrorist organization prior to the formation of Israel. He was Minister of Defense during the invasion of Lebanon and Sabra and Shatila massacres, he was commanding units in Sinai that executed Egyptian POWs, he has authorized the assassinations of numerous Palestinian leaders and militants while blithely slaughtering hundreds of innocent Palestinian men, women and children since becoming PM. That he is known as a mass murdering terrorist thug is an important and widespread POV that should be included in his bio despite the bad faith edits and duplicitous efforts at censorship engaged in by his extremist fans.--Alberuni 19:56, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I found Sharon described in all those different ways; I'm not sure why one name is any more "valid" than any other. George W. Bush is described as a "butcher" and a "terrorist" and a "war-criminal" as well; Google gets tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of hits on these designations. Yet, astonishingly, I see no mention of this in the Wikipedia article about him. Should these "important and widespread POV"s be included in Bush's bio as well? Or are "bad faith edits and duplicitous efforts at censorship engaged in by his extremist fans" keeping them out of the article? Perhaps it's another Zionist conspiracy. Jayjg 20:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You have a hasbara excuse for everything, don't you? When you want to insert Ambassador Dore Gold's critiques of Palestinian human rights groups, you justify NGO Monitor's propaganda as relevant. When you want to dilute Israeli responsibility for the murder of Palestinian children like Muhammad al-Durrah, you justify insertion of atrocity-denying IDF propaganda. But if referenced sources describe Ariel Sharon as a terrorist, you first delete it, then dilute it with bad faith edits, then justify its deletion by others (proving your bad faith). What are the most civil words I can use to describe you? Jew? --Alberuni 21:26, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NGO Monitor critiqued the organizations in question for their activities, it didn't call them names, so the analogy fails. I'm not sure the other statements are even intended as analogies; in any event, please restrict Talk: pages for discussion of article content, not your beliefs about other editors. Thanks. Jayjg 21:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do you think Ariel Sharon is widely known as the Butcher of Beirut and as a terrorist for something other than his activities? [7] --Alberuni 21:43, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Names and descriptions of contentious activities are different things. And the article deals rather fully with the contentious activities in question, and the controversy surrounding Sharon. Jayjg 21:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Instead of providing a balanced description of Sharon and how he is viewed by left and right Israelis, Palestinians, the Arab people and the rest of the world, you are censoring descriptions of Sharon that you personally find offensive. You are not censoring out the positive descriptions that reflect your extremist Zionist POV. You are promoting your own biased Zionist agenda and damaging the Wikipedia NPOV project once again. --Alberuni 21:52, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I haven't censored anything, Alberuni. On the contrary, I added information, it was me who was censored more than anyone. And please restrict Talk: pages for discussion of article content, not your beliefs about other editors. Thanks. Jayjg 22:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, I trust you will edit the articles of The Butcher of Kurdistan and The Butcher of Lyons at once, to avoid the perception of double standards. - pir 22:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What "double standard"? I didn't edit out any Butcher references. Jayjg 22:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To avoid the perception of double standards, you would have to dig out all the non-notable accusations levelled against the other butcher type nationalists, such as "a punk", "a traitor", "dangerous", "a screaming disaster for [Iraq/Germany]", "a bum", "a fool", "a lout", "a sissy", "a tired old man", and "a spoiled parvenu". - pir 22:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To begin with, it was Alberuni who put in the non-notable description of Sharon as a "terrorist", yesterday. Indeed that was what our dispute was about. I then put in many other "non-notable" descriptions of Sharon. It was only a few hours ago that Alberuni came up with the "Butcher of" designation, which you have decided is "notable". Jayjg 00:47, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, I'm sorry if the "double standards" thing was a bit of a personal attack - please ignore it. As for the "terrorist" and "butcher" accusations, they are indeed notable because they are so widely held. - pir 01:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By contrast, this desciption of Sharon as "the butcher" is notable. A google news search reveals that it's been used at least three times in the last ten days in international media deemed respectable enough for inclusion into google news. The man has even had dates named after him. [8] [9] [10] - pir 22:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, if we're going for "Butcher of" designations then we should add all of them to Wikipedia. We would have to describe King Léopold II as the "The Butcher of Congo" [11] and Sani Abacha as "The Butcher of Lagos" [12] and Hosni Mubarak as "The Butcher of Cairo" [13][14] and Hafez al-Assad as "The Butcher of Damascus" [15] and Idi Amin as "The Butcher of Uganda" [16] and Shamil Basayev as "The Butcher of Beslan" [17] etc. And then there's Tommy Franks as "The Butcher of Basra" [18] [19] - oops, there's a conflict there, Norman Schwarzkopf is also "The Butcher of Basra" [20]. Can two people be the Butcher of one place? Of course, we'd have a bit of a problem with Sharon too, as "The Butcher of Beirut" is also "The Butcher of Sabra and Chatila" [21] - can you be a double "The Butcher of"? And what a mess we have with Slobodan Milosevic - is he "The Butcher of the Balkans" [22] or is it "The Butcher of Belgrade" [23]? But not only is Milosevic a double "The Butcher of", but apparently Wesley Clark is the real "The Butcher of Belgrade" [24], and Ante Pavelic is the real "The Butcher of the Balkans" [25]- or is it Bill Clinton [26]? So many dilemmas! Jayjg 23:07, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to put the name-calling nonsense in anyway, then at least attribute it correctly: the man Arabs call "the butcher of Beirut" [27] Mr Sharon is prime minister, and is routinely called in the Arab world "the butcher of Beirut" [28]. Also, Bush is called a terrorist at least as often as Sharon, if not moreso; when I see the Bush article mentioning this in its intro, I'll take it as a sign that it is a Wikipedia standard to wildly throw around pejorative labels in biographies. Jayjg 23:22, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with any of your butchers list, although the "butcher" accusation has less merit for some than for others. (The number one butcher among all of these is probably King Léopold II - we Europeans will be record-holders for some time I think when it comes to butchering other peoples.) You are wrong if you think that this is an issue of name-calling, at least for me it isn't.

I think there are several criteria for deciding whether this kind of accusation is encyclopaedic or not : (1) how widespread the particular view is ; (2) the merits of the accusation -(a) if there is any factual basis to the accusation ; (b) how direct the link is between the atrocities and the person in question, (c) how much responsibility the person in question has. If a person scores high for all these criteria, then the accusation should be included and attributed.

So, concerning this article, Sharon clearly scores high on all these criteria. He is perceived as a terrorist in much of the Muslim/Arab world and in left-wing circles in the Western world. He is directly linked to the Qibya massacre and the Sabra and Shatila massacre, even personally involved in the former, and he carried the majority of responsibility for both ; these massacres are well-documented i.e. there can be little doubt as to the factual basis. In these events, violence was used against civilians to achieve political goals, so the "terrorist" label is in fact a neutral description, however since it is disputed, we can only describe it as view.

As for Bush, the "terrorist" label sticks but is more questionable. "Shock and awe" tactics practially carry the word "terrorist" in their name ; and the attack on Fallujah this spring (as well as the one which is about to be launched) targetted civilians (again, this is well-documented), and senior US military commanders are on record as describing the event as a revenge attack for the lynching of four US contractors. However, Bush is quite removed from these events, and Bush being a terrorist is not a view that is held by very many people.

I am quite uncomfortable with the phrasing However, some Arabs have called him "the butcher of Beirut" because this implies a racial analysis of the conflict (especially when it is meant as a contrast to Many Israelis, a significant number of Jews worldwide). It is true that there is considerable anti-Semitism in the Arab world as well as considerable anti-Arab racism in Israel, and therefore both sides of the conflict tend to frame it in racist terms. However, a racist/racialist analysis of human conflict has been widely discredited since WW2, and I believe it adds nothing to our understanding. All racist analyses should be excluded from the Wikipedia narrative. I suggest we use a formulation containing "the Arab press" or something like that, as "Arab" becomes then an adjective relating to the culture in question. Also, it is not just a view held in the Arab world, it is quite common in left-wing Western circles. - pir 00:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excellent points Pir! I felt the same way. To go further, Eric Margolis claims that the Israeli Left refers to Arik as the "Butcher (note the capital "B") of Beirut"; "To Israel's left, however, Sharon is a dangerous extremist, even a war criminal, and widely known as 'the Butcher of Beirut.'" Juan Cole also refers to Sharon as the Butcher, "Perhaps it was Abrams who told W. that Ariel Sharon, the Butcher of Beirut, is "a man of peace."" I don't think Juan Cole is Arab either. I think Ariel Sharon is widely known among critics inside and outside of Israel as the Butcher of Beirut (and for good reason). --Alberuni 01:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, pir, since you've returned from your Wikibreak and re-inserted the "Butcher of" description into the introduction, I trust you will edit the articles listed above that also require "notable" "Butcher of" designations, to avoid the perception of double standards. Jayjg 00:47, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to take a brief break from my Wikibreak to watch the spectacle of a little edit war, but infortunately I couldn't resist getting involved myself. Old habits die hard. But when I'm back for good I'll do my best to reduce any perception of double standards. Please remind me should I forget. - pir 00:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, you are the editor who noted that those articles could benefit from more description and I, for once, agree with you. The onus is on all of us to improve those articles. If these are commonly used appellations, more description is better than less. You did a creditable job of looking up all the references. As long as the source is mentioned and the description is accurate, I agree with you that a title like that is a relevant description and should be included. --Alberuni 01:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I still don't agree with the "terrorist" name-calling in the opening section. Again, Googling "Bush is a terrorist" and "terrorist Bush" yields over 3,500 hits. Googling "Sharon is a terrorist" and "terrorist Sharon" yields around 1,100 hits. +Bush +terrorist yields 2.1 million hits whereas +Sharon +terrorist yields 350K hits. Now, I know this second set of searches is not particularly good; yet if you look at the links provided, at least on the first few pages, they are highly relevant. While a name like "The Butcher of Beirut" is at least reasonably unique, "terrorist" is just a term thrown around to indicate a political leader you disagree with who has been involved in wars. As for "the left", I'm not aware of the left in Israel calling him "the Butcher of Beirut", which is an English phrase in any event; Israelis speak Hebrew. For it to be a "left" phrase, it must be commonly used by the left, and not just some writer on the left mentioning that Arabs refer to him that way in English. The links I brought made no mention of the left referring to him that way either. Jayjg 02:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's no measure of anything. Of course Bush gets millions more hits than Sharon. He is the president of 280 million people while Sharon lords over 7 million or so. Sharon and Bush both claim to be at war with terrorists so your second search is totally flawed. They both fail to indicate anything. What might be more representative would be the percentage of "Ariel Sharon" pages (705,000) that say "Ariel Sharon is a terrorist" (97) (or 0.014%) versus the ratio for George Bush (232/3,400,000) (or 0.007%). The admittedly crude result indicates that Sharon is twice as likely as Bush to be labelled a terrorist.--Alberuni 05:21, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The main point is that they are both frequently called a "terrorist" by their opponents; when I see this name-calling enshrined in the opening section describing George Bush, I'll consider it appropriate for Ariel Sharon's article as well. It might be interesting to see someone try to enter this description in the Bush article; I doubt it would last more than 2 minutes. Jayjg 19:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ariel Sharon is not comparable to silver-spoon GW Bush. Ariel Sharon has been a killer since his youth in the Palestinian Jewish terrorist gangs. GW Bush only started killing people as Texas governor. They are apples and oranges. Compare Sharon with his peer, Yasser Arafat, and note how many times the word terrorist is used in that article. --Alberuni 19:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Don't you think Bush making up for lost time, though? ;-) Anyway, thanks for sharing your POV; when I see "terrorist" enshrined in the opening section describing George Bush, I'll consider it appropriate for Ariel Sharon's article as well. Jayjg 20:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, the opening paragraph of the Yasser Arafat article doesn't describe him as a "terrorist"; in fact, I don't think he's described that way anywhere in the article. Just another example of Wikipedia's blatant pro-terror and anti-Israel bias. ;-) Jayjg 20:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I count 5 uses of the words terrorist linked to Arafat and his page is linked to Category:Palestinian terrorists so should I add Sharon to the Category:Jewish terrorist organizations or create the category "Jewish terrorists"? Let me know what you think. By the way, pro-Israel is pro-terror, state terror, as you should know by now. --Alberuni 01:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arafat is not described as a terrorist in the introduction; nor is Sharon. Which Jewish terrorist organization do you imagine Sharon belongs to? Jayjg 01:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not my imagination. He was a member of Lehi. What terrorist organization does Arafat belong to? Why do you automatically revert edits without explanation? Eric Margolis writes "To Israel's left, however, Sharon is a dangerous extremist, even a war criminal, and widely known as 'the Butcher of Beirut.'" So that is evidence it is not just Arabs who call him that. Plenty of Americans, Europeans and even Israelis (the decent ones) do to. Why do you insist on promoting regressive racialist categories despite Pir's and my objection? --Alberuni 02:31, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is your imagination, as he was not a member of Lehi. Arafat was the head of the PLO for decades, I'm surprised you were unaware of that. Why do you enter text without discussing it in Talk: first? And my links indicated it was in the Arab world, not Israel's left. And I'm not sure what you mean about "regressive racialist categories"; are you saying there is no such thing as an Arab or Arab world, or are you saying that these designations are "regressive racialist categories"? Jayjg 03:07, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I admit my mistake. Sharon was a Haganah terrorist. Shamir was the Lehi terrorist and begin was the Irgun terrorist. It is easy to get all the Jewish terrorists confused. Who labelled the PLO a terrorist group? Your links? What Eric Margolis writes "To Israel's left, however, Sharon is a dangerous extremist, even a war criminal, and widely known as 'the Butcher of Beirut.' " THIRD TIME QUOTED HERE. You claimed that can't be true because Israelis don't speak English, they speak Hebrew. What a bad argument! Israelis do speak English, you should know that. And does that imply that Arabs use English to call the butcher the Butcher? I'm sure it translates into Hebrew as well. The regressive racialsit categories are saying, "Arabs believe this, Jews believe that" as if they are mutually exclusive. Pir made the argument well, but as usual, you don't listen if the source is not Hasbara Central.--Alberuni 04:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I pointed out a couple of days ago, the man Arabs call "the butcher of Beirut" [29] Mr Sharon is prime minister, and is routinely called in the Arab world "the butcher of Beirut" [30]; I don't think the Telegraph and the BBC are Israeli hasbara organizations, though they could well qualify as Arab hasbara organizations. Margolis is a reporter based in Toronto; what is the Hebrew phrase that Israelis use to described Sharon as "the butcher of Beirut"? Jayjg 15:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your Hebrew is probably better than mine but I am surprised that you, of all people, would dismiss a Toronto Jew. What's wrong with citing Margolis' published article as evidence that Israelis, not just Arabs, call Sharon the Butcher of Beirut? Seems like you are selectively biased against information you do not like. --Alberuni 17:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The current wording clearly captures that viewpoint, as well as the fact that it is most common in the Arab world. Jayjg 17:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here's another non-Arab (a Canadian!) who refers to the Butcher as a terrorist. [31] "Call him (Sharon) a fighter, but he's still a terrorist, no different in the days he was a member of Haganah, than Osama Bahar and Nabil Halabiyeh were last Saturday as members of Hamas; no different today, as a state terrorist, than he was at the age of 14 as an anti-state terrorist."--Alberuni 04:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What's your point? I already demonstrated yesterday that there are thousands of websites in which Sharon is called a "terrorist". And there are even more in which Bush is called a "terrorist". Let's first see how long the "NPOV" sentence "Critics describe Bush as a terrorist" lasts in the intro of the Bush article, then we'll deal with the Sharon article. Jayjg 15:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Compare Sharon and Arafat articles

Let's go section by section and NPOV every claim with references and attributions. --Alberuni 02:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can do whatever you like. Jayjg 15:40, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You always revert anyway so it doesn't matter what anyone else does. Is that it? --Alberuni 05:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense. I've never reverted a change which has reached consensus first in Talk: And I've left in dozens of your edits as well, even when you fail to bring them to Talk: (which is almost all the time). Jayjg 05:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, you are full of it. You are constantly editing out and reverting changes. You are impossible, arrogant, biased, and a poor speller. You are not an asset to Wikipedia. I hope you have better luck elsewhere in life. --Alberuni 06:26, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please note the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Jayjg 10:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, your edits are getting sloppy

You are now claiming that 35,000 Palestinians were killed in Sabra and Shatila by Pahalangists. You need a vacation. --Alberuni 05:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Jayjg 05:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now that Jayjg has finished smearing Arafat

It's time to polish Sharon's biography. What a repulsive POV pushing Zionist hack. --Alberuni 06:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please note the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Jayjg 10:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg , Surely its time to give it a rest ?

Anon, surely it's time to focus on article content? Jayjg 16:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr, let's open the dialogue here

Which parts of the article do you want to change, and why? Jayjg 22:53, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why don't the Arabs just accept the fact that everybody knows: that the so-called "palestinian", the Egyptian terrorist and racist massmurderer, Arafat, died of AIDS? The "mysterious" symptoms are rather obvious - and it was a public secret, that he liked little boys...

Death toll in Lebanon

It is pretty safe to say that the Sabra and Shatila death toll was between 460 to 800, as those numbers were reported by the Lebanese police and Shin Bet, respectively.

Other sources claim 3,000 or more. It's best just to list the sources and their numbers. Jayjg 17:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bibliography

Please add:

Anybody remember the "Cola War". The wit was that if Coca Cola didn't have Pepsi as an enemy and as a scapegoat, they'd had to invent it.

The same goes for Israel and the arabs. The Arabs - in a bizarre way - love Israel. They need that country as a scapegoat and to remove focus from their own failed societies.

Let's take one eksample:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hama_Massacre

So? Syrian Arabs kill 30.000 Arabs - who cares?

Lets take another: Syrian secret polices place a bomb in Beirut, killing Gemayel - democratically elected leader of liberated Libanon and scores of other Christians. Figthing naturally erupts and some Christians and terrorists (socalled "palestinians") supporting Syria's illegal occupation get killed when the terrorist retreate to there heavely protected military camps at shatila. Suddenly THAT'S big news!!!

I should add, that I don't like revenge, but I DO understand the Christians - afterall the so-called "palestinians" had a legacy of massacres of scores of thousands of innocent Lebanese civillians. They should have killed all those "palestinian" pigs!!!

And that's the only reason why I blame the statsman Ariel Sharon: he should't have intervened to protect the palestinians. He should just have let the Lebanese kill them all.

Extract from Sharon's Famous Interview published in the Israeli daily Davar Dec. 17, 1982)

Daily Dvar and authour Amos Oz have given unlimited rights for the interview to be published as long as its attributed correctly

After a rant against liberal non Israli Jews Shorn has this to say...

"Leibowitz is right, we are Judeo-Nazis, and why not? Listen, a people that gave itself up to be slaughtered, a people that let soap to be made of its children and lamp shades from the skin of its women is a worse criminal than its murderers. Worse than the Nazis...If your nice civilised parents had come here in time instead of writing books about the love for humanity and singing Hear O Israel on the way to the gas chambers, now don't be shocked, if they instead had killed six million Arabs here or even one million, what would have happened? Sure, two or three nasty pages would have been written in the history books, we would have been called all sorts of names, but we could be here today as a people of 25 million!

"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"

Hi anonymous. You may not be aware that this is actually a famous hoax:

Amos Oz never met nor interviewed Sharon. In fact, the so-called “interview” was a literary device taken from Oz's book “In the Land of Israel.” In the English version, the interviewee's identity is not revealed, and is referred to as Z (Flamingo/Fontana 1983).
Apparently, Palestinian propagandists substituted Sharon's name for Z in the Davar interview. The description of Z does not fit Sharon, and at one point Z refers to Sharon, Begin and General Eitan.
In a telephone conversation with journalist Holger Jensen, who had misattributed these quotes to Sharon, Amos Oz confirmed that he had never met nor interviewed Sharon.[32]

Jayjg 20:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wives maiden name

I have done a bit of googling around for his wives maiden names and boy, that is hard. Nothing turn up. I think it is a disservice to refer to them with a single name. What if someone wanted to trace back their family tree. Yeah, they say something to do with Romanian girls, but is there anybody who have more substance. Three names would be unique enough.

How close are we to removing the NPOV tag?

I've made some changes and some gramatical fixes just recently. I did Google searches for many checking that there are sources for what is being said, and I don't entirely understand the recent edit war - argueing over whether to have the word "a" before "car bomb" seemed a tad silly. Anyway, from what I can tell, it's looking fairly NPOV at the moment. Are we aiming to have this tag removed soon? Please raise your hand (type a comment) if you think any part of the article is still not NPOV please! --Rebroad 21:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you think it should be removed, then remove it. --Viriditas 22:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag. The discussion and consensus-building on this article, and virtually every article related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, is exhaustive. And yet, almost every one of them has one of these tags. If someone wants to keep them, I say they have to bring it up in Talk so an NPOV consensus can be reached, if the tag is found to be indeed justified.--A. S. A. 12:17, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Source request

During this period, Sharon supported the Gush Emunim settlements movement and was viewed as the patron of the messianic settlers movement. He used his position to encourage the establishment of a network of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories to prevent the possibility of the return of these territories to Palestinian Arabs. Sharon doubled the number of Jewish settlements on the West Bank and Gaza Strip during his tenure.

Please post your sources. Thanks. --Viriditas 22:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disputed

This sentence was changed from:

"According to the Palestinians, Ariel Sharon has followed an aggressive policy of non-negotiation. Palestinians allege that the al-Aqsa Intifada started because of a visit by Sharon and an escort of several hundred policemen to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount complex, site of the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque. Sharon's visit came after archeologists claimed that extensive building operations at the site were destroying priceless antiquities. While visiting the site, Sharon declared that the complex would remain under perpetual Israeli control. Palestinian commentators accused Sharon of purposely inflaming emotions with the event to provoke a violent response and obstruct success of delicate ongoing peace talks. "

to

"Ariel Sharon has followed an aggressive policy of non-negotiation with Palestinians and use of violence to force Palestinians into submission. Most observers agree that the second Palestinian uprising started because of the provocative visit by Sharon with an escort of several hundred policemen to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount complex, site of the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque. During the visit, Sharon declared that the complex would remain under Israel's control "forever". Many observers blamed Sharon for purposely inflaming emotions to provoke a violent response and obstruct success of delicate ongoing peace talks."

OK, both versions need qualifying IMO. The first version (that is current at the time of writing) needs to state which Palestinians of note say that "Ariel Sharon has followed an aggressive policy of non-negotiation" and that "allege that the al-Aqsa Intifada started because of a visit by Sharon and an escort of several hundred policemen to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount complex".

The second version needs to state who the observers are that are in agreement that the "second Palestinian uprising started because of the provocative visit by Sharon with an escort of several hundred policemen to the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount complex"! Not only this, but "Many observers blamed Sharon for purposely inflaming emotions to provoke a violent response and obstruct success of delicate ongoing peace talks." needs to be qualified similarly. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:54, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An American investigatory commission was set up to look into the violence, charied by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell. It stated "The Sharon visit did not cause the “Al-Aqsa Intifada.” But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen; indeed, it was foreseen by those who urged that the visit be prohibited." [33]. Jayjg 01:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, any thoughts about this? Jayjg 17:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Indirect" or "Personal" Responsibility?

The following sentence was changed from:

"After being dismissed from the Defense Minister post for indirect responsibility in the Sabra and Shatila massacre"

to

"After being dismissed from the Defense Minister post for his personal responsibility in the Sabra and Shatila massacre"

OK, the quotation that we have in the article is as follows:

for "indirect responsibility" in the massacre, stating that the "The Kahan Commission investigating these massacres recommended in early 1983 the removal of Sharon from his post as Defense Minister of Defense [Sharon] bears personal responsibility".

This was changed to:

The Israeli Kahan Commission investigating these massacres recommended in early 1983 the removal of Sharon from his post as Defense Minister, stating that Sharon bears "personal responsibility" for the masacres.

Which is more correct? If the second is more correct, then the sentence should be "After being dismissed from the Defense Minister post for his personal responsibility in the Sabra and Shatila massacre", however if it not then the sentence should be "After being dismissed from the Defense Minister post for indirect responsibility in the Sabra and Shatila massacre"

Perhaps the source of the original quotations would shed some light on this?

Ta bu shi da yu 02:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the "Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut (The Kahan Commission) (February 8, 1983)" available at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/kahan.html:

Recommendations and Closing Remarks

...

The Minister of Defense, Mr. Ariel Sharon

We have found, as has been detailed in this report, that the Minister of Defense bears personal responsibility. In our opinion, it is fitting that the Minister of Defense draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office - and if necessary, that the Prime Minister consider whether he should exercise his authority under Section 21-A(a) of the Basic Law: the Government, according to which "the Prime Minister may, after informing the Cabinet of his intention to do so, remove a minister from office."

Maybe we should quote that in the article in that form instead of having it in the content of the article.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:35, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I guess this link is more authoritative [34].—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:44, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It also says "As a politician responsible for Israel's security affairs, and as a Minister who took an active part in directing the political and military moves in the war in Lebanon, it was the duty of the Defense Minister to take into account all the reasonable considerations for and against having the Phalangists enter the camps, and not to disregard entirely the serious consideraton mitigating against such an action, namely that the Phalangists were liable to commit atrocities and that it was necessary to forestall this possibility as a humanitarian obligation and also to prevent the political damage it would entail. From the Defense Minister himself we know that this consideration did not concern him in the least, and that this matter, with all its ramifications, was neither discussed nor examined in the meetings and discussion held by the Defense Minister. In our view, the Minister of Defense made a grave mistake when he ignored the danger of acts of revenge and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population in the refugee camps.". Should we add this, or should it go into the Kahan Commission article? Should it go into either article? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I guess so. Sorry if you read an older version of this comment. I thought you were quoting some of the more mollifying parts of the report—which it might be good to quote, too; for balance or otherwise.

And in reply to your "also says": yes, it does. Parliamentary commissions do not use words like "personal responsibility" lightly.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:28, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Do you think it would better to take it out? there are some more mollifying parts, I agree. It could be the other article should have this though. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:01, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it does seem a little too detailed (and boring) for the main Sharon article—the kind of stuff folks can read the whole report to get. Might belong in the other article, though, since it focuses on the report. And that report should also cover what the report says about the whole country itself not being responsible and why and so on.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:10, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

OK, will remove it. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Kahan commission stated that Israel and Israelis in general had indirect responsibility. Regarding that indirect responsibility, Sharon himself bore personal responsibility. Jayjg 01:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is true. However the report, as I read it, never said that Sharon had was indirectly responsible. It only referred to the indirect responsibility of Israel(is). I could be wrong. I'm happy to correct any factual errors if this is incorrect, however I would ask that relevant sections of the report be quoted. I think that would only be fair. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, the report is clear that the Israeli responsibility in general was indirect. It then went on to explain the specific nature of the indirect responsibility of various individuals, like Sharon. Thus Sharon was personally responsible for indirect responsibility for the massacre (quite a mouthful, I know). Jayjg 17:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"possibly to testify against Sharon"

"possibly to testify against Sharon" - doesn't the phrase seem speculative and POV? I actually wrote it myself, as an attempt to compromise with HistoryBuffEr, but it still doesn't seem to belong. See this article: [35] Jayjg 02:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the dispute here. What was the point of contention? However, who has stated that he might have gone to testify against Sharon before he was killed by a car bomb? We need to source this statement, otherwise it is our POV, which we can't have because then it is opinion and thus original research. However, we should definitely include the information:

Writing in The Daily Star (Jan. 25), columnist Michael Young opined that Sharon certainly had a stake in killing Hobeika, but there were doubts that Hobeika actually intended to testify in the first place. “Others had the same reason as the Israelis for fretting about Hobeika,” he surmised, adding that his testimony in Belgium might have exposed others for their misdeeds. “Hobeika’s indictment in Belgium would have reflected badly on those who collected him in 1986, after his ouster from East Beirut,” he added in apparent reference to Syria.

Sound fair? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would have just removed the phrase altogether. It's a lot of speculation whatever way you look at it; maybe he was going to testify against Sharon, maybe against Syria, maybe some-one else. I'm not sure all this speculation is required, but your paragraph is fine if you want to include that kind of information. Jayjg 17:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why did Israel send the Phalange in?

Shouldn't the article mention the Phalange were sent in to clear out PLO fighters? Jayjg 02:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it probably should. We should reference the report to make the article accurate, or mention that was the reason given in the report. However, was there any PLO fighters found or killed? If there weren't I think that should probably also be mentioned. IMO. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that is a point of contention, one side claiming that PLO fighters were killed, the other (naturally) claiming only civilians. Regardless, as it stands the article gives the impression that the express Israeli reason for sending in the Phalange was to murder civilians, which is hardly accurate or NPOV. Jayjg 17:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)