Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Sharon's True Face Exposed

http://antiwar.com/hacohen/
October 18, 2004
Sharon's True Face Exposed (and Ignored)
(Dovrebbe essere considerato un oltraggio al pubblico pudore....)
Ad israhell non importa un cazzo della pace, anzi...
by Ran HaCohen
While Israel's military, purportedly on its way to get out of the Gaza
Strip, is getting deeper and deeper into it, exercising its long
terrorist tradition of forcing the civilian population to collaborate
in massive killing and the destruction of homes and infrastructure,
Sharon's top advisor Dov Weisglass made it to Ha'aretz's front page
(Oct. 6, 2004):
"The significance of [Sharon's] disengagement plan is the freezing of
the peace process. . The disengagement is actually formaldehyde, it
supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will
not be a political process with the Palestinians. . What I effectively
agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements would
not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until
the Palestinians turn into Finns. That is the significance of what we
did."
In the full interview (Oct. 8, 2004) Weisglass elaborated:
"When you freeze the political process, you prevent the establishment
of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion on the subject of
refugees, borders and Jerusalem. This whole package called 'the
Palestinian state' has been removed from the daily agenda for an
unlimited period of time."
A short diplomatic embarrassment followed, but it took just a few
hours for the Bush administration to pretend Sharon's spit in its face
was just rain. After all, if Israel wants to have war forever, why
should the White House care? It's good for the weapon industry, and
Bush has an election to win.
The anti-peace plan, Weisglass explained, was a reaction to
"international erosion, internal erosion. . The Geneva Initiative had
gained broad support. And then we were hit with the letters of
officers and letters of pilots and letters of commandos [refusing to
serve in the territories]." In other words, Sharon's rejectionism
found itself under pressure from a broad coalition of peace-seeking
forces, both inside and outside Israel, and his plan was aimed at
stopping the pressure on Israel to make peace along the lines
supported by international law, by UN resolutions and, according to
opinion polls, by a majority of the Israelis.
We can now safely assess that Sharon's malicious plan has been quite
successful. His anti-peace plan is hailed worldwide as if it were a
peace plan, marginalizing true peace plans like the Geneva accords,
Ayalon-Nusseiba's plan or the Arab peace initiative. Sharon became the
hero of the Peace Camp.
Much Ado about Nothing
One wonders, however, what the fuss was all about. There was nothing
really new in Weisglass' words. Sharon himself had said similar things
several times before, as quoted even in my own previous column. But
the media, especially Israeli and the American, turn a blind eye and a
deaf ear on everything that might shake the prejudice about "Israel's
longing for peace." Paying lip-service to critical journalism by
gently criticizing Israel's atrocities in the occupied territories is
one thing; saying the full truth about Israel's War against Peace is a
taboo. This is why, as Akiva Eldar of Ha'aretz says (Oct. 15, 2004,
Hebrew only), "perhaps the reporters and the political analysts, and
the editors too, mostly support the disengagement, and conceal news
items that might jeopardize the limping support for the plan."
Eldar attributes the scandal that Weisglass' words made to the
agenda-free interview by Ari Shavit. I myself do not trust Shavit, who
has been everything but agenda-free in promoting former PM Barak's
perfidious version of the collapse of the Oslo Process; even this
interview might have to do with Barak's threat to return to politics,
the nightmare of every supporter of peace. Weisglass' words may have
struck a chord simply because of the emphasis they were given on
Ha'aretz's front page. And who knows, this emphasis may have to do
with the person of Ha'aretz's newly appointed news editor, Meron
Rapoport, who had been fired from the Yediot Achronot for daring to
quote Israel's state comptroller saying "Sharon Did Not Say the Truth"
on the daily's front page.
We Want to Be Deceived
So, just like in the Oslo years, the media again betrayed their duty
and deceived their audience by portraying a Plan against Peace as if
it were a Peace Plan. If you think Weisglass' "scoop" changes
something, think again. The world wants to be cheated, and one can
hardly blame Sharon for delivering the deceitful goods. Even the sane
column of senior mainstream analyst Ze'ev Schiff, who draws the
reasonable conclusion that
"The clarifications provided by Weisglass in his interview reinforce
the claim that 'third parties,' including observers, must take an
active role in the Gaza Strip. At first it seemed as though we could
manage there without them, but the present disengagement formula is
liable to lead the Gaza Strip to chaos, heavy shooting and an indirect
occupation"
has been (editorially?) titled "Hijacking the Disengagement From
Sharon" (Ha'aretz, Oct. 15, 2004), to make sure that no matter what,
the "disengagement" itself is worthy of support. But why engage in
such hair-splitting interpretations? Let's see what lesson Ha'aretz's
editorial learned from its own "scoop" about Sharon's perfidious plan
(Oct. 8, 2004):
"Weisglass's statements should not divert attention from the main
issue: the significance of implementing the disengagement plan and the
evacuation of the settlers from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank.
. With all due respect to the prime minister's adviser, he has no
control on the future, and his analysis of the disengagement is no
better than that of other politicians and pundits. . Sharon's 'real'
intentions, and his problematic record, are a lot less important than
his actions: the implementation of a unilateral disengagement is
better than a fruitless diplomatic process leading to a dead end.
Therefore, Sharon must be supported with his actions being the test of
his intent."
No introspection, no second thoughts. According to Ha'aretz, we should
support Sharon in spite of his words, in spite of his true intentions
as exposed by his most senior adviser, and we should judge him
exclusively by his actions. What were Sharon's actions when these
satanic lines were being written? Killing dozens of Palestinians in
Gaza, bulldozing scores of Palestinian homes to make room for the Gaza
settlements ("security zones to facilitate their future evacuation" is
the official excuse). But the hand or hands that wrote these lines for
Ha'aretz did not tremble: we should support Sharon, if not for his
words then for his deeds, if not for his deeds then for his words, we
should support Sharon and that's it. In the words of Yoel Marcus,
considered Israel's most influential political analyst, "Don't let him
fall." Our leader may be a liar, he may have a "problematic record,"
we may not like what he is saying and we may not like what he is
doing, but don't let him fall because he is our leader. When our
leader says peace, he means peace, and when he says war, he also means
peace, so we should support him whatever he says. When he makes war,
we should definitely support him even more, because he wouldn't be
making war if it weren't in the interest of peace. That's what liberal
democracy, political activism, and independent media are all about.
Meanwhile, on the Syrian Front
President Assad Junior keeps courting Israel. Having announced his
"interest in overt negotiations in a just and comprehensive peace," he
now changed an old Syrian law banning negotiations with Israel. The
corrected law (as quoted in Yediot Achronot, Oct. 15, 2004) states,
"Syria will act to achieve a peace treaty with Israel, based on
international UN decisions." Sharon in a dismissing note in the
Knesset: "We do not negotiate with the Syrians because we have no
indications that this is serious." Sure: if the danger of peace were
serious, we would send our jets to bomb it away.
The Israeli Peace Camp keeps quiet about Sharon's repeated rejections
of Syria's peace proposals. As even right-wing novelist Eyal Meged
(YNET, Oct. 3, 2004, Hebrew only) correctly observes, the Peace Camp
is so busy supporting Sharon's "peace" with the Palestinians, that it
doesn't want to bother the Leader with trifles like peace with Syria.
After all, making peace on two fronts is really too much (especially
when you don't want to make it even on one).
K
Bagarozzo ha la stessa faccia di culo di sharon, infatti:
-- 
"Attacco ai campi profughi" è come "bombardamento città". In sé non
ha niente di illegale.
Tonibaruch (Bagarozzo) su IPI

 In the full interview (Oct. 8, 2004) Weisglass elaborated:
Peccato che
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/485680.html
---
Following the publication of parts of the Weisglass interview in
Haaretz, Sharon's bureau released a statement saying he supports the
road map and sees it as the only plan for allowing a final-status
agreement. 
---
Cioe' Weisglass, ammesso che fosse lui, sia stato smentito dallo stesso
ufficio di Sharon :)
-Stefano

 
http://antiwar.com/hacohen/
Copiato e incollato.
Posso permettermi una critica costruttiva?
Posta _anche_ qualcosa sul terrorismo islamico; se no dài
l'impressione -anche ad uno che ti legge- di essere antisemita.
Darò il buon esempio:
Radici storiche del terrorismo islamico
http://www.cronologia.it/mondo49.htm
"Bounding the Global War on Terrorism",by Jeffrey Record
http://fas.org/htarchive.htm
Terrorism - Background and Treat Assessment
http://fas.org/irp/threat/terror.htm

 l'impressione -anche ad uno che ti legge- di essere antisemita.
No no no, mica funziona così. Manco per niente.
Uno può tranquillamente essere antiislamico E antisemita (ce ne sono -
anzi - a bizzeffe)
Il kiwipirla posta tutta la merda antisemita che trova in rete, dalle
calunnie contro il Talmud alle denuncie di tratta delle bianche in Isreale,
all'olocausto perpetrato dagli aschenaziti a danno dei sefarditi via
radiazioni anti-scabbia.  Mica penserai davvero che sia qui per sincero
impegno verso la causa palestinese, neh?
rosalucsemburg
-- 
su it.news.gruppi si sta svolgendo la discussione del manifesto di
it.politica.sinistra [moderato]

 l'impressione -anche ad uno che ti legge- di essere antisemita.
"Da l'impressione"? Ottimista.
Palmiro Pangloss
-- 
Happy ever after in the marketplace...
(Lennon & McCartney)
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 l'impressione -anche ad uno che ti legge- di essere antisemita.
Le critiche costruttive sono sempre ben accette...
K
-- 
Tonibaruch detto il bagarozzo, dopo aver fatto cilecca per l'ennesima volta
si sfogo' su IPI dicendo:
"Ma a voi funziona bene ..."

 "Da l'impressione"? Ottimista.
Non fare il bischero' santuzzo...
A proposito...sei riuscito a venderlo quel catorcio?


 Il kiwipirla posta tutta la merda antisemita che trova in rete, dalle
<cut the crap>
Merda antisemita, perche' ti brucia il sedere sapere che i tuoi amichetti 
nazi si stanno sputtanando a destra e a manca?
Ti brucia il sedere che le fonti riportate sono famose fonti antisemite 
(sarcasmo) come Hareetz, BBC, Guardian, etc...?
Solo un avecchia megera come te puo' essere indifferente alle merdate che i 
tuoi idoli stanno facendo...
Certo che siete proprio degli esseri rivoltanti...voi nazisionisti...
K
-- 
"Attacco ai campi profughi" è come "bombardamento città". In sé non
ha niente di illegale.
Tonibaruch (Bagarozzo) su IPII