Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

eklipse · Mar 28, 2004, 04:56 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3576873.stm

Israel's attorney general has received a recommendation in the case of alleged corruption involving Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, officials say.

Justice ministry sources have told the BBC that chief prosecutor Edna Arbel's recommendation is to charge Mr Sharon.

The unspecified charges relate to a case in which a businessman is accused of paying Mr Sharon's family to help promote a tourism project in Greece.

Both the businessman and Mr Sharon have denied any wrongdoing.

The case has sparked fresh calls for the prime minister to go.

"Under such circumstances, the prime minister should resign," Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky said earlier.

Members of the opposition Labour and Yahad parties have made similar calls.

I suppose this could be a bloodless way of getting rid of the asshole.

Thoughts?

lil'babykitten · Mar 28, 2004, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by eklipse:
Thoughts?

w00t!

Wiskedjak · Mar 28, 2004, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by eklipse:
I suppose this could be a bloodless way of getting rid of the asshole.

Thoughts?

It would be nice, but I doubt anything will come of it. In his defense, Sharon will probably claim that the charges against him are anti-semitic and should be dropped.

lil'babykitten · Mar 28, 2004, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
In his defense, Sharon will probably claim that the charges against him are anti-semitic and should be dropped.

LOL!

I got an Israeli friend, she says Sharon keeps receiving these accusations, the Israeli media make a big fuss and then nothing happens. So I guess you shouldn't expect much. But....we'll see.

Zimphire · Mar 28, 2004, 05:36 PM

"The unspecified charges relate to a case in which a businessman is accused of paying Mr Sharon's family to help promote a tourism project in Greece."

You guys are right! He is just as bad as the terrorists that pay retards to blow themselves up unwillingly!

lil'babykitten · Mar 28, 2004, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
"The unspecified charges relate to a case in which a businessman is accused of paying Mr Sharon's family to help promote a tourism project in Greece."

You guys are right! He is just as bad as the terrorists that pay retards to blow themselves up unwillingly!

Relevance?

Zimphire · Mar 28, 2004, 05:42 PM

Meaning if he is going to be "gone" just for doing this, he must have not done much worse.

Not that I think he is going anywhere soon.

You guys should be hoping for an Arafat removal. He's much more dangerous.

Zimphire · Mar 28, 2004, 10:06 PM

BTW if Sharon gets ousted, a Right winger will probably take his place. You should be GLAD Sharon is in there now.

Things wont look good for the terrorist if Sharon goes.

Millennium · Mar 29, 2004, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
BTW if Sharon gets ousted, a Right winger will probably take his place.

And this would be different from the current situation... how? Sharon has always been a major figurehead of the Israeli right wing.

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
And this would be different from the current situation... how? Sharon has always been a major figurehead of the Israeli right wing.

Remember us right wingers are more hawkish.

lil'babykitten · Mar 29, 2004, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
And this would be different from the current situation... how? Sharon has always been a major figurehead of the Israeli right wing.

Correct. But there are a few potentially dangerous people that could take his place. If Uzi Landau or Netanyahu were to replace Sharon there would be trouble. They oppose a Palestinian state.

Personally I think they're all as bad as each other, Sharon's publicly stated opinion is in favour of a Palestinian state, but his actions speak otherwise.

The Likud Party is supposedly a 'moderate' right-wing party. If that's moderate then what the hell are the other right-wing partys like?!

But who knows! This is all just speculation.

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Sharon's publicly stated opinion is in favour of a Palestinian state, but the actions of the terrorists keep that from happening.

Fixed.

Palestinians will never get their own state, as long as it is being run by terrorists. Nor should it.

lil'babykitten · Mar 29, 2004, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Fixed.

Wrong. Distortion is what you did.

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 07:15 AM

Nope. It's the terrorists that are keeping Palestine from having it's own state.

They were given chances and the terrorists sabotaged it.

They don't want their own part. They want Israel gone, and they want it all.

If you insist, I can start posting quotes and articles to proves my point.

Sharon is for a Palestinian state. He just doesn't want to hand it over to terrorists.

For good reason.

Zimphire · 07:26 AM

TEL AVIV, Dec. 4 � Prime Minister Ariel Sharon offered tentative backing tonight for a United States "road map" to an Israeli-Palestinian peace, including creating a Palestinian state that would cover part of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

But the Israeli leader couched that support in a series of strict conditions, including the removal of the Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat, and strict limits on Palestinian security forces, which could prove impossible to implement soon.

Mr. Sharon reiterated his insistence that all attacks on Israelis have to end before any concessions would be made.

The proposal, which has been supported by the United Nations, Europe and Russia, calls for a three-step process that would start with a mutual cooling of Israeli and Palestinian clashes and move toward forming a Palestinian government.

The plan would end further Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and, at its peak in 2005, lay out clear borders for a Palestinian homeland and define the status of Jerusalem, a holy city for three major religions.

Mr. Sharon called the American proposal "a reasonable, realistic and, I believe, attainable plan which will create a real chance to reach an agreement." He promised to put the plan before any government that he would lead after national elections on Jan. 28. Mr. Sharon's Likud Party is widely expected to be victorious.

Mr. Sharon's remarks were his most direct statement on the conditions that he would accept as part of a permanent settlement of the Palestinian conflict. He endorsed creating a homeland for the estimated three million Palestinians on territory that would cover 40 percent of the West Bank and three-quarters of the Gaza Strip.

http://middleeastinfo.org/article1665.html

It's not ME that has the distorted view of things here.

lil'babykitten · Mar 29, 2004, 07:26 AM

More on this topic today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3577971.stm

The Israeli prime minister's younger son has been told to give up documents linked to two corruption cases which also allegedly involve his father.

Gilad Sharon had previously refused to hand over the material, but his lawyer said he would now comply.

The news came after Israel's chief prosecutor recommended that Ariel Sharon be charged in one of the cases, involving a Greek tourism project.

Mr Sharon and his sons deny any wrongdoing in either affair.

But there has been increasing pressure on Mr Sharon to resign over the scandals.

Members of the opposition Labour and Yahad parties were joined over the weekend by Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky in calling for Mr Sharon to go.

It appears as though the pressure on Sharon to resign is mounting. But he seems adamant that he will continue to stay in office.

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
It appears as though the pressure on Sharon to resign is mounting. But he seems adamant that he will continue to stay in office.

And he probably will.

Lerkfish · Mar 29, 2004, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
It appears as though the pressure on Sharon to resign is mounting. But he seems adamant that he will continue to stay in office.

I don't find that surprising, actually.

What I DO find surprising is that to make him resign for this is similar to getting Al Capone on income tax evasion instead of racketeering.

eklipse · Mar 29, 2004, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
What I DO find surprising is that to make him resign for this is similar to getting Al Capone on income tax evasion instead of racketeering.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

lil'babykitten · Mar 29, 2004, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I don't find that surprising, actually.

What I DO find surprising is that to make him resign for this is similar to getting Al Capone on income tax evasion instead of racketeering.

Indeed.

But the world is messed up like that right now.

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
What I DO find surprising is that to make him resign for this is similar to getting Al Capone on income tax evasion instead of racketeering.

Well you are right to your opinion.

I'd be more concerned with getting Arafat out before Sharon.

You guys are all hell bent on getting Sharon ousted, but keep quiet about Arafat.

That tells me a lot.

So do you guys want Arafat ousted too?

LBK?

eklipse · Mar 29, 2004, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
So do you guys want Arafat ousted too?

Yes.

Lerkfish · Mar 29, 2004, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by eklipse:
Yes.

agreed. Anyone who is not contributing to a peaceful solution is part of the problem.

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by eklipse:
Yes.

Good, where are all the articles posting the angst against him from you guys?

I have seen tons about Sharon. But none angry over Arafat.

Why is that?

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
agreed. Anyone who is not contributing to a peaceful solution is part of the problem.

http://middleeastinfo.org/article1665.html
Lerk I suggest you read the article above. On who is trying to make out a peaceful solution and who wont let it happen.

All Sharon has asked for is the terrorism to stop. Then the Palestinians can have their own state.

The terrorists obviously don't just want their own state. What else would they happen to want Lerk? Any ideas? And clues?

SubGeniux · Mar 29, 2004, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Meaning if he is going to be "gone" just for doing this, he must have not done much worse.

Not that I think he is going anywhere soon.

You guys should be hoping for an Arafat removal. He's much more dangerous.

He's an awful Prime Minister and I'll eb glad if this can remove him form office as quickly as possible. It's not the first time he has had such charges leveled against him, but he seesm to squirm his way roudn them. His predecessor, Netanyahu, was equally bad in terms of corruption, and illegal activities. What is it with the Israeli right, and scandal?

lil'babykitten · Mar 29, 2004, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
LBK?

Sup?!

SubGeniux · Mar 29, 2004, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://middleeastinfo.org/article1665.html
Lerk I suggest you read the article above. On who is trying to make out a peaceful solution and who wont let it happen.

All Sharon has asked for is the terrorism to stop. Then the Palestinians can have their own state.

The terrorists obviously don't just want their own state. What else would they happen to want Lerk? Any ideas? And clues?

This isn't about terrorism, but about a Prime Misnister who might be conducting illegal, and nefarious activities. If he's guilty, and it looks like he is, the he should be ashamed ,and removed from office, preferably shoved into a jail cell. it just shows you the type of character we are dealing with when it comes to peace negotiations. How can we trust he is advocating a solution that is best for all parties concerned, or even for Israelis, when he is doing things like this for his own benefit.

Lerkfish · Mar 29, 2004, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://middleeastinfo.org/article1665.html
Lerk I suggest you read the article above. On who is trying to make out a peaceful solution and who wont let it happen.

All Sharon has asked for is the terrorism to stop. Then the Palestinians can have their own state.

The terrorists obviously don't just want their own state. What else would they happen to want Lerk? Any ideas? And clues?

*shrugs* I'm not a terrorist.

Perhaps you should:
1. ask a terrorist
2. stop implying all palestinians are terrorists.

maybe then you'd get the answers you want.

All I'm saying is ANY group or organization that deals in retribution is not interested in peace. That include Sharon and Arafat and Hamas and anyone else that can be defined as dealing in retribution. I consider them all part of the problem. I do not see how they can be part of the solution, sincerely or otherwise as long as they deal in retribution

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Sup?!

Do you support Arafat being ousted?

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
*shrugs* I'm not a terrorist.

Perhaps you should:
1. ask a terrorist
2. stop implying all palestinians are terrorists.

I wasn't implying any such thing.

All I'm saying is ANY group or organization that deals in retribution is not interested in peace.

So in your own words, do you think Clinton was concerned with peace?
Was he a war monger?

That include Sharon and Arafat and Hamas and anyone else that can be defined as dealing in retribution. I consider them all part of the problem. I do not see how they can be part of the solution, sincerely or otherwise as long as they deal in retribution

Retribution and defending owns country is two different things. But we all know how you like to word things to make them seem worse Lerk.

SubGeniux · Mar 29, 2004, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Do you support Arafat being ousted?

I've got an idea, let's not derail yet another thread on who is, and is not a terrorist, and the Palestinians. Can we keep this one about Sharon, his business dealings, and the political implications, etc? Please?

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
I've got an idea, let's not derail yet another thread on who is, and is not a terrorist, and the Palestinians. Can we keep this one about Sharon, his business dealings, the political implications, etc? Please?

Just making a point to the apologists.

SubGeniux · Mar 29, 2004, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Just making a point to the apologists.

Ok, but I hope you wouldn't apologise for Sharon if he is guilty of this, it's bad for Israel if yet another Prime Minsister is being associated with corruption.

eklipse · Mar 29, 2004, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Good, where are all the articles posting the angst against him from you guys?

I have seen tons about Sharon. But none angry over Arafat.

Why is that?

Last time I checked, Sharon was the one with a well-armed, well-trained, nuclear backed, military at his disposal.

Last time I checked, Arafat was imprisoned in a bombed out, partially demolished building in Ramallah.

lil'babykitten · Mar 29, 2004, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Do you support Arafat being ousted?

Yes.

SubGeniux · Mar 29, 2004, 09:14 AM

In other news today, Sharon's son has been told to hand over all his files.

lil'babykitten · Mar 29, 2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
In other news today, Sharon's son has been told to hand over all his files.

Yes, I posted about this a little further up

SubGeniux · Mar 29, 2004, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Yes, I posted about this a little further up

lol, i must have missed that while I fast-forwarded past the Arafat diversion.

Millennium · Mar 29, 2004, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Well you are right to your opinion.

I'd be more concerned with getting Arafat out before Sharon.

Most of us here also want Arafat out. On ideology alone, certainly they should be ousted at the same time, or perhaps Arafat first. From a practical standpoint, however, Sharon is far more critical to get out.

So do you guys want Arafat ousted too?

Yes. However, Arafat, at least, has demonstrated his willingness to talk with reasonable men in the past, as Rabin (and Barak, and even Netanyahu) showed us. Unfortunately, as Sharon showed us, he is easily goaded back to his old ways.

If Sharon goes, then the worst that can possibly happen is that nothing changes. One of his cronies gets installed and pursues the same policies, and we're not really all that different from where we were before Sharon left. A tragedy, but no greater than the one currently playing out.

No one can unify the Palestinians in the way that Arafat has, and Sharon knows this. As long as Arafat is in power, the Palestinians will at least be unified enough to put up a resistance to the genocide Sharon has pursued in the past. If Arafat goes before Sharon does, then Sharon will capitalize on this, and the only peace in the Middle East will be the peace of the grave.

Arafat, on the other hand, has no means by which he could genocide the Israelis, even if he tried to. We have seen many changes in power on Israel's side while Arafat stayed in power, and he has never tried an all-out war, because he knows that he cannot win. That keeps him from being as dangerous as Sharon; he's both a) too weak to win and b) smart enough to not try anyway.

Wiskedjak · Mar 29, 2004, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You guys are all hell bent on getting Sharon ousted, but keep quiet about Arafat.

We don't need to be all hell bent on getting Arafat ousted; you've go that angle covered. Most of us have stated that we are just as opposed to the Palestinian leadership as we are to the Israeli leadership. We're simply trying to point out that blame is not only men like Arafat, but also with men like Sharon.

SubGeniux · Mar 29, 2004, 12:20 PM

Arafat kind of has it hardest though, at times, since he's had to deal with the ever-changing Israeli Government over the last 10 years or so since peace talks started. It's probably hard for someone like him to convince the Palestinians that what the current Israeli Gov. offers, is beneficial to them, it's even harder when one factors in the way in which the peace offer from Israel just magically swings from one extreme to the other, depending on who is in power.

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by eklipse:
Last time I checked, Sharon was the one with a well-armed, well-trained, nuclear backed, military at his disposal.

Last time I checked, Arafat was imprisoned in a bombed out, partially demolished building in Ramallah.

I had some banana bread today.

It was good.

voodoo · Mar 29, 2004, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I had some banana bread today.

It was good.

Oh oh I love it when it is toasted.. or very fresh.

I think Sharon is a teflon politician btw.

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Yes. However, Arafat, at least, has demonstrated his willingness to talk with reasonable men in the past, as Rabin (and Barak, and even Netanyahu) showed us. Unfortunately, as Sharon showed us, he is easily goaded back to his old ways.

As I posted earlier, he supports Palistine getting their own state. He just wants to terrorism to stop first. For good reason. So basically the terrorists are shooting themselves in the foot. If they want their own state, why would they continue doing this?
Or are they after something else?

If Sharon goes, then the worst that can possibly happen is that nothing changes. One of his cronies gets installed and pursues the same policies, and we're not really all that different from where we were before Sharon left. A tragedy, but no greater than the one currently playing out.

That is why it really doesn't matter to me. As long as the Palestinian terrorist keep attacking, things will stay the same no matter WHO is in charge.

No one can unify the Palestinians in the way that Arafat has, and Sharon knows this. As long as Arafat is in power, the Palestinians will at least be unified enough to put up a resistance to the genocide Sharon has pursued in the past. If Arafat goes before Sharon does, then Sharon will capitalize on this, and the only peace in the Middle East will be the peace of the grave.

I honestly don't that Sharon wants a genocide. Sorry.

Arafat, on the other hand, has no means by which he could genocide the Israelis,

And it's a GOOD thing. Because Israel would be gone by now.

even if he tried to. We have seen many changes in power on Israel's side while Arafat stayed in power, and he has never tried an all-out war, because he knows that he cannot win. That keeps him from being as dangerous as Sharon; he's both a) too weak to win and b) smart enough to not try anyway.

I consider a person who has no ability but has the will to be more dangerous than the person that has the ability, but not the will.

IMHO of course.

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
We don't need to be all hell bent on getting Arafat ousted; you've go that angle covered. Most of us have stated that we are just as opposed to the Palestinian leadership as we are to the Israeli leadership. We're simply trying to point out that blame is not only men like Arafat, but also with men like Sharon.

Hey, I've always sad Sharon wasn't innocent. I just stated that they aren't equals morally.

Also that the only way there will be peace, is if the terrorists stop.

SubGeniux · Mar 29, 2004, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Hey, I've always sad Sharon wasn't innocent. I just stated that they aren't equals morally.

Also that the only way there will be peace, is if the terrorists stop.

Or if one day the US pulls its military support to Israel and all the Arab nayions get stringer (like they have done in the past), and just destroy Israel, utterly. Won't happen? Don't be so sure, nothing worse than an over-confident nation. I'm sure there's time for both sides to recognise each other, and live peacefully, but if not realised soon, then Arabia will indeed push Israel back into the history pages.

Zimphire · Mar 29, 2004, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
Or if one day the US pulls its military support to Israel and all the Arab nayions get stringer (like they have done in the past), and just destroy Israel, utterly. Won't happen? Don't be so sure, nothing worse than an over-confident nation. I'm sure there's time for both sides to recognise each other, and live peacefully, but if not realised soon, then Arabia will indeed push Israel back into the history pages.

No, even if the US pulled support, Israel still has the means to whoop ass.

But the US isn't pulling anytime soon.

SubGeniux · Mar 29, 2004, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, even if the US pulled support, Israel still has the means to whoop ass.

But the US isn't pulling anytime soon.

That is too short-sighted. Never under-estimate a people who have the will of a group like the Muslims. Even with the US' support, all it takes is for one, just one very enigmatic Muslim leader, to unite the Muslim world from Morrocco, to China, and Israel will be obliterated, the US left to wonder if they ever had a history. It's happened before, and will again, and no amount of technology will prevent it.

Look at any super-power of the past, or over-confident one, they all met a fate in which they are nothing but notes in a book. It's the way of things sadly, will happen again, i wish it wouldn't, but it will.

I'm not really talking abouttoday, or even in the next 5 years, but give it 30, then we'll see.

swrate · Mar 29, 2004, 05:53 PM

Sharon out? I doubt it, he has been accused again and again, nothing happened, he is still there. It may need another few years and sadly more "legal" and illegal tragedies.
The next Muslim leader may be trained by US right now....
5 years? I think we will see a lot happen until then. 30 years, that seems far...