The story of the day in a nutshell.
nicked at 1848 by U3943 U3512 U3980 U3018 MD332 MD490 MD763
The world is watching.
Poles apart.
Support came from all kinds of people
Many reminders of unlawfully arrested and imprisoned people.
There were at least two arrests of demonstrators by police during the protest. The real injustice of course is that Sharon himself was not arrested upon entering the country (like former Chilean dictator Pinochet was several years ago) as he has been linked directly to many very serious human rights abuses including the murder of 69 Palestinians at Qibya in 1953 and for encouraging the slaughter of several thousand Palestinians in the refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982 when he was defence minister. These accusations are just as serious as those under which the former Serb leader Milosevic has been arrested and tried at The Hague. Sharon has already been accused of these crimes in a Belgian court so presumably will not be visiting that country in the near future.
Since becoming prime minister, Sharon has massively inflamed the tension between Israelis and Palestinians with his scorched earth policy of Palestinian housing and land destruction, illegal land grabs, the building of the apartheid wall far from the agreed boundary and numerous brutal incursions into Palestine by Israeli troops that leave many civilians dead including children and foreign peace workers.
Comments
Hide the following 12 comments
The People of London Spoke With ONE Voice
15.07.2003 08:45
Omneo
This whole text is bollocks!
15.07.2003 09:02
... this is total shit and you know it. These are the crimes that Milosevic was accused at at the Hague..
mb
How Many Must Die Before It Becomes Serious?
15.07.2003 09:26
But how many Palestinians must die by soldiers acting under Sharon's command before you consider it serious? A few thousand men, women and children in Shabra don't count, is that what you're saying? Tanks penning them in as soldiers walked the streets shooting them where they stood or huddled in doorways, thats not serious? Wake up and smell the coffee...The man is as brutal and evil as Milosovic, whats more he has the arrogance to assume, with helps from people like you, that he is right!
Omneo
slurp slurp lovely coffee
15.07.2003 09:45
To suggets that there is a comparrison between Sharon and Milosevic is really offensive crap and the person who wrote this knows this. Why would anyone do this? Look at the link and see the crimes that Milosevic was accused of again.
mb
Can youactually make sense?
15.07.2003 10:16
I DO think it right to protest against Sharon, because as General he was in command of the soldiers who committed the Shabra massacre, this is a proven fact, not a lie! Stating that fact does not make me a jew hater, sorry to disappoint you! I think the Jewish friends I have would take exception to your narrow minded view.
Making a comparison of murderer against murderer does not make one more or less worthy depending on how many he/she kills, maybe you view things in numbers, I certainly do not. Someone responsible for the death of 1,000 people is equally as evil as someone responsible for the deaths of 100,000.
The truth is MB, people with an open mind to the truth are more ready to accept the facts in black and white, or red than narrow minded individuals who prefer to argue over nothing in particular. it doesn't matter how much you shout or how loud, its what you have to say that makes people listen, and so far you ain't saying anything!
So go back to your coffee and blinkered view of life.
Might I suggest you read Ang Swee's book from Beirut to Jerusalem if you want to have some facts, written by another non-Jew hater
Omneo
to Omneo
15.07.2003 11:32
In my opinion and that of many other left-wing people it is wrong to suggest that Sharon is responsible of genocide and other crimes that Milosevic is accused of and only discredits your protest and encourages anti-Jewish sentiments and racism. This is what is stated in the article and this is wrong. Whether you like it or not it is not fair to compare all killings without taking into account political context, historical situation and degree. By not claiming to do that you are still doing this but not admitting why. Would you compare the Warsaw ghetto fighters with Hitler just because they both killed people. NO of course not.
As to the opinions of what i may be thought of by your "Jewish friends" who you are so quick to trot out in defence- I dont give a shit. This is the internet and i have no way of knowing about any charachteristic of you or your friends or if they even exist. I will judge you only on what you say that i can judge i.e. political opinion. For this reason i find it strange that this demo were willing to accept the position of extreme orthodox groups who are anti-abortion, anti-feminism and think that the Jews are chosen by God to suffer! They represent a tiny % of the Jewish community and are not very left-wing at all.
Cheers.
mb
To MB
15.07.2003 11:59
I would still argue that, left to his own devices, Sharon 'could' and I emphasises the word could, very easily go on to commit acts of genocide. I'm probably guilty of comparing the him and Milosovic together, mainly because he was the name mentioned. i do however feel strongly that the lives of Palestinians who have died in the last 18 months have, in a great deal of instances, been unwarranted and unlawful.
Mention was made of my Jewish friends, not as a defence, but merely to point out that, going back to the earlier reference, I am not a Jew hater and they would not describe me as such.
I cannot comment for the Betty at PSC who was organising the protest but I gathered from thecrowd that were there that everyone was welcome to participate in protesting for a free Palestine, even those with extreme orthodox views. i can personally attest to witnessing them being on the pointed end of a lot of protesters verbal attacks, which was in a way sad as, returning to what we have agreed on, that just because they are Jewish we should somehow hate them for that and that alone. Having grown up in Glasgow I can tell you umpteen stories of living in a place where your religion was more important than your name, and whilst it was rarely to the extent of what we are discussing, it does highlight the intolerance of a large minority of the population.
Omneo
HUH?
15.07.2003 12:16
You say THAT and are surprised when others tell you that you don't have a clue as to what Sharon is ACTUALLY acused of -- except by people like yourself who play fast and loose with reality.
NO -- NOBODY with any sense acuses him of being the general in command of the soldiers who committed the Shabra massacre. The acusation is that as commander of the Israeli forces in the area he did not order them to intervene and prevent by force of arms the massacre of Palestinians in the Shabra camp by Lebanese Christian rebel forces ("allies" of Israel, or at least not enemies of Israel).
Blameworthy perhaps. But this appears to be a rather common sort of event and by no means a particularly Israeli failing. I seem to recall a Dutch commander being censured for something rather similar and going even farther back a British commander of UN forces allowing "artillery" attacks from within a camp he was supposedly controlling. Notice in these latter examples the commanders were under orders to provide protection/control as opposed to Sharon simply having the power to do so.
It's NOT an easy thing to ask -- to prevent A from attacking/killing B when the only means at your disposal to do that is to kill A yourself. POLICE are in the position of having to do that but usually the military fares poorly in the role -- that's because the former are expected to enforce "law" impartially while the latter are presumed to be acting in the political interests of their state.
In the Lebanese situation, the Israelis were already "at war" with the Palestinian refugees and non-Christian Lebanese. Sharon was supposed to also declare war on the Christian Lebanese to save the Palestinians? It was certainly not in Israel's political interests to make another enemy in Lebanon.
Mike
e-mail:
stepbystepfarm mtdata.com
to omneo
15.07.2003 12:39
respect.
mb
Pro-Israeli state-agents peddling disinformation and dividing opinion
15.07.2003 12:54
The acusation is that as commander of the Israeli forces in the area he did not order them to intervene and prevent by force of arms the massacre of Palestinians in the Shabra camp by Lebanese Christian rebel forces ("allies" of Israel, or at least not enemies of Israel). Blameworthy perhaps. But this appears to be a rather common sort of event and by no means a particularly Israeli failing.
>>> IT IS STILL A FAILING, HOWEVER YOU WRIGGLE OUT OF IT! There is non-intervention, and there is turning a blind-eye. The fact is that SHARON IS A WAR CRIMINAL WHO THE BELGIUM COURTS HAVE RULED IS FREE TO BE PROSECUTED AS SUCH AS SOON AS HE LEAVES OFFICE.
Re: mb, in his/her last post he/she said: "It does not mean I am saying that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic it just means that criticism of Israel, however well intended, must not fall into this trap".
yet, b4 he/she actually said:
"It does the palestinian cause no help at all when you lie and give people like me, more proof that you are just protesting because you hate Jews, rather than that you are genuinely protesting against Sharon and his policies!"
You have clearly been using unsubstantiated drivel to spark emotional hysteria which goes some way to detract attention and move the argument back to this issue of whether the movement is being anti-jew or not. This is a smokescreen which agents such as yourselves employ to put the brakes on the momentum of any resistance or groundswell of opinion whenever it starts to form. You're word-play is frankly tiresome, you establishment plant. Milosevic is a war criminal, and whetehr he is more or less so than sharon is irrelevent, you idiot.
WE ARE AGAINST ZIONISM, NOT THE JEWS. ZIONISM IS ANTI-SEMITIC ITSELF.
markibrown
shabra
15.07.2003 13:40
hk
America Must Be Slapped Down
04.06.2005 12:57
Why are we allowing America get away with murder?
Did you know that America, which makes up about 9 per cent (9%) of the world's population, consumes over 25 per cent (25%) of the world's resources...? I'm sure you did know this, but the question that I really would like an answer to is this...what would happen to America if access to these resources was denied? This game of politics that the Amercans play, this 'game' that costs lifes, could be swung away from the American favour, IF WE CAME TOGETHER AS A SINGLE UNIT.
This may sound impractical, but it's not impossible.
Whilst the Amercians are permitted to play their mind-games in the Middle-East, they keep everyone at each other's throats and therefore reduce the chances of us 'ganging up on them.
Think about it...with China and India working together, along with the Koreans...these three nations alone heavily outweigh anything the Amercians could deploy.
This is the crunch...America, by over-emphasising the supposed nuclear threat posed by nations like Korea, is seeking justification to maintain her grip on things. Why would America want to be the biggest gang on the block? Could it be that America seeks only to safeguard the world's interests? Or is it something more sinister...when no other nation is able to stand up to America...well, she can do what the hell she likes.
Lee
e-mail:
sorted_you@yahoo.co.uk