Shouting Disrupts Israeli Cabinet Meeting

Shouting Disrupts Israeli Cabinet Meeting

JERUSALEM - A weekly Israeli Cabinet meeting turned into a shouting match Sunday between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) and hard-line ministers who oppose his plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip (news - web sites) and parts of the West Bank, government officials said.

Sharon has said his "disengagement plan" is intended to separate Israelis from Palestinians after more than three years of fighting and reduce friction between the two peoples in the absence of any progress in peace efforts.

The plan has been gaining domestic support and Sharon plans to travel to Washington next week to secure the endorsement of President Bush (news - web sites). But some among Sharon's hard-line coalition strongly oppose any withdrawal and have threatened to pull out of the government.

During the weekly Cabinet meeting Sunday, the hard-liners, led by Tourism Minister Benny Elon, demanded Sharon immediately bring his plan to a Cabinet vote so they could decide whether to pull out of the coalition, according to officials in the meeting.

more...

Shouting Disrupts Israeli Cabinet Meeting

The old and true line about the China "opening" in '71 is that Nixon was the only American who could get away with going to China--primarily because he didn't have a Nixon to raise hell about him doing it. In Nixon's case, of course, he made all the preparations in total secretly, and sprung the outcome on the American people in a surprise Sunday evening broadcast. Sharon doesn't have the luxury of secrecy.

Sharon, perhaps as his final departing legacy, is about to take Israel and the world into a new approach to I/P relations. He is a shrewd and wily s.o.b., and I have no doubt he will succeed-- opposition from his own rightists notwithstanding.

This will mark an historic move of monumental significance. As rightists correctly perceive, it will amount to a tacit notice to Zionist fanatics that Israel will no longer follow their path to an imagined, biblical claim over all of both ancient Judeah and ancient Israel, but will instead acknowledge the right of Palestinians to co-exist in their own separate state. While Israel has been saying this for years, her policies have suggested that the real agenda has been to permanently deny Palestinian rights to an autonomous national homeland.

For once, I salute Sharon. Given the baggage of the intensely fanatical zealots who dominate Israeli politics and his own coalition, he may well succeed after all--despite constantly trecking to the right--in leading Israel to the promised land of a reasonable outcome.

Since this article doesn't deal directly with US policy in regards to Israeli/Palestinian issures, I'm going to move it to the I/P forum.

Thanks! :hi:

I thought shouting interrupted many cabinet meetings. So what?

It means he doesn't have their approval and if he goes ahead they might resign, and then he'll have to spend time finding new ministers, and that means he will have less time to concentrate on dropping bombs on prospective victims.

Israel targets terrorists. The more of those they kill, the better.

one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? It's in the eye of the beholder. Think Israel's Menachem Begin, South Africa's Nelson Mandela, Indonesia's Sukarno, East Timor's Xanana Gusmao etc.

And what do you call threatening to kill (in this case we all know he means drop a bomb on) a person, if not terrorism?

Threatening to drop a bomb on your enemies is what states do. Especially when those enemies like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, Hezbollah, etc. spend all their time plotting to kill innocent civilians.

"people."

Don't you think threatening to kill somebody is also terrorism? It's terrorizing that person. Whether you think that person deserves it or not is a separate issue.

Threatening to kill terrorists is not terrorism, it is a rational response to such terror.

down, like Yassin, and you have a case you can prove on court.

And Israel was forced to let him go in a prisoner exchange.

As for the BS about his disability, it didn't stop him from founding or running Hamas.

It chose too. I doubt he was put on trial that time either. It doesn't take any thing physical to found an organization and it still would have been easy for a law abiding country to arrest the dude. It chose not to act like a law abiding country. It chose to act in vigilanti revenge against Yassin, thus making Yassin a martyr.

Yes, it could have let its people be murdered instead.

Not exactly a choice.

What cracks me up is all the people who complain about the attack on Yassin, yet complain when Israel sends troops in to go after terrorists.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Killing Yassin was less dangerous than sending in the hundreds of troops needed to ensure his capture.

So stringing up criminals without trial is less dangerous than apprehending them and bringing them to justice. Israel is either a country that accepts the rule of law or a lawless country that operates on vigilanti principles. Furthermore no-ones life has been spared because they chose to do this instead of operating in a civilized manner by arresting and trying Yassin for murder. In fact havving made Yassin a martyr many more will likely die from all of the newly inspired recruits.




.

But no state is prevented from self defense and that is what killing Yassin falls under.

him, nor did they save anyone. Furthermore as you have pointed out elsewhere, Yassin is not a state. He is a criminal under Israeli authority, and in a country that respects the rule of law he should be apprehended first. They just lowered themselves to revenge, and hurt their legitimacy in the eyes of law abiding people. Sorry but you could make the same argument for any criminal in this country. Your assertions don't follow, and aren't logical. How is he any different from any other murderer?

Not fucking likely.

What do you base this sudden assessment of military capabilities?

Just as easily implies no Israeli deaths, no Israeli troops on the ground and no battle zone for Palestinian propagandists to then turn to their advantage and claim it is like Jenin (not that Jenin was really like Jenin, but that's another story.)

He was an imminent threat. That threat was removed.

Answer the question!

I did.

.

"Threatening to drop a bomb on your enemies is what states do."

wear it in good health

That's how states survive.

that's how they survive? By threatening to bomb each other - sure, perpetual war for perpetual peace...

ah, the ideology of violence.

Great men like King knew the truth.


B

But bombing terrorists is NOT bombing another state.

Terrorists are lowlife scumbags who don't deserve the decency you give an ant when you step on it.

you stated threatening to bomb states as some form of normalcy among nations.

The only thing twisting here is you chubby checker

B

Threatening them is both normal and sane.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

which should be apparent to you if you read the exchange rather than just jumped to the attack.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

However, killing terrorists is always a good thing. Yassin was a terrorist and he is no longer able to terrorize anyone.

Sorry I had to explain that fact to you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It is indeed about the terrorists. Killing one does not make it murder much like a police officer killing a gang lord in a gun battle is not murder.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Labor bootlickers are all ready to give Sharon a National Unity government anytime he wants (assuming he doesn't get indicted).

Not a new story: the Israeli press has been reporting that for months (since at least Dec 2003).

As Sharon says - he could form a new government "within a day" if he had to. He's probably right, since Peres is such a shill.

he is persisting on this path.

That this path, if followed, will be an historic one is beyond dispute. The more he argues for it, the more he is committed to it.

I would wager that some of the arguments in support of Sharon's proposed approach have to be the same as the arguments those of us who have vehemently opposed his record until now have been making all along, e.g. Israel can never enjoy security so long as she continues to deny nationhood and its implicit guarantee of a homeland to the Palestinians.