My final comments:
Irregular:
On point 1: What about the US soldiers, lost in Beirut, in the Kobbar towers, on the USS Cole? I respectfully disagree with you.
On point 2: I agree but I fail to see why know we must go specifically after Saddam. We never went after Syria; in fact we are now allies. We never got ride of Gadafi either. Again I question the consistency of our foreign policies. [If we go after Iraq, then why not going after the rest of the dictators in the ME? Oil may be?]
On point 3: Claims??? No, Facts: I served in Beirut in 1982, 1983 and 1984.
In September 1982, one of the observation posts under my command was located on the rooftop of a building, avenue Camille Chamoune, another was at the Cite Sportive. I personally witnessed and reported to my command, the Israeli tanks and M113 sealing all exits of the camps. Israeli snipers were deployed and shot repeatedly at anyone trying to leave the camps. All night in order for the massacre to go on, Israeli planes and soldiers surrounding the camps, released flares, keeping the camps lit-up like a Xmas tree. I was ordered to stand-down, this was not part of our mission. Less than 48 hours later, I was personally in charge of the unit protecting the UN delegation, investigating the massacre. I went inside the camps and saw first hand Sharons work.
Sharon directly issued the order to authorize the Phalanges in the camp while remaining in control of the whole operation. It is public records (as stated in his own biography "Warrior", taped interviews shown on the BBC etc: ["Only one element, and that is the Israeli Defense Force, shall command the forces in the area. For the operation in the camps the Phalangist should be sent in"]. Later in 1985 he declared: ["Not one of us, no one of our soldiers, no one of our commanders, not myself, no one of our political leaders in Israel was involved in that tragic event."] So much for honesty! General Yamos Yuron, IDF commanding officer present on site, got direct report on what was happening, not only from UN peacekeepers but from his own soldiers. How do I know that? I was one of the UN peacekeepers that briefed him. On September 19, 1982, the UN issued a resolution (UN 521), voted unanimously condemning the massacre that just took place.
Strangely enough, Sharon was sacked as a result of the Kahan commission for his failure to protect innocent civilians(
http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/06/isr0622.htm#position.In all fairness; I will also state that he was awarded a cabinet position.So much for Justice! The Kahane Commission inquiry lso stated that intelligence chief Elie Hobeika had direct responsibility, because he ordered the killings. Outside Israel, human rights groups have long argued that Mr Sharon and the Lebanese Christian perpetrators should be tried for war crimes. Mr Hobeika denied involvement in the killings right up to his death in a car bomb attack on 24 January 2002 ( A fortunate coincidence?). Hobeika had said he would testify against the Israeli Prime Minister and had "important revelations" to make.
I am not familiar with the Time libel case but Sharon's recent comments say a lot about the man that he is [Ariel Sharon said recently he regretted the tragedy of Sabra and Shatila, but asked if he would apologize he replied "To apologize for what?" -- F. Keane, in "The Accused", BBC-Panorama, 17/6/2001 --]
Now about "Peace in Galilea", I agree that Israel had very right to invade Lebanon to secure its border and get ride of terrorist groups. Sharon's mandate was to go after what was left of the PLO in Lebanon and the Syrian units supporting them (which he did), not to go after innocent civilians (which he did anyway), forfeiting the guaranties he had personally given to Morris Draper, the American envoy.
I don't expect you to challenge that all of the things that I witnessed first-hand more than qualify me to have an opinion about the man. For all the reasons I stated above, I stand on my comments on Sharon. He is a coward and a butcher. He and Arafat should be standing side by side at the International Tribunal in La Hayes.
I had the pleasure to meet another soldier for which I have nothing but tremendous respect: Ehud Barrak. He has always led his men from the front, going in first, leaving last and while rutheless in crushing the plague of terrorism, has always protected innocent populations. That in my book is what a real soldier is! May be,it is because he has spent a lifetime witnessing the horrors of wars, that he made peace offers that were perceived by most ultra-conservatives as treason and thats Arafat was too stupid to take advantage off.
My position on Sharon does not in any way affect my belief in Israel's right to exist. I'll go one step furhter, I dont believe for a seconde that if the Palestinians ever have a country, this will be the end of the conflict. The current mutual hatred that exist for each other makes North and South Korea situation look like a lover's spat. For that very reason , I do not believe that the West Bank should ever go back to the Palestinians. There is enough room in other countries (Saudi Arabia come to mind) to carve out a chunck for the Palestinians. On the other hand, one move that could certainly help in the resolution of the conflict, would be to return Jerusalem under the authority of the UN and to make it the international zone it was initially designed to be in 1948. Jerusalem is no more Jewish, than it is Christian or Muslim and as long as the issue is not resolved, nothing will be accomplished.
Matt H & Sky: Point well taken, with one minor correction: I did not blame Jews as the cause of the current trouble of the ME; I questioned our reason to be there. Since we are in a democracy, I respect the rule of the majority and that my isolationistic views are not those of most.
As for the numerous references to France and WWII, not only yours but others, I am an American. I spoke as an American and the fact that my heritage is French has little to do with this discussion. I dont feel necessary to bring in Lafayette and the support of the French during the Revolutionary War, every time someone is trying to get a rise out of me by mentioning how much the French make a point to differ with the US on every issue. I do not govern France and have little powers over decisions that more than once have embarrassed me, just by the mere fact that I am automatically associated with everything France does.
For the record, while being born in France, I am not anymore genetically gifted than any one else when it comes to wine, food,fashion or women. And I do take showers everyday! Sorry if I do not fit the cliché but Uncle Bill will be the first one to acknowledge, based on several conversations we have had, that I have very little love left for the French and I do not hesitate to shoot them down any time they deserve it.[I guess now I am going to get hate mail from France too}
Federico & Mangdhu: You both have defined (better than I ever did) the roots of the problem and I will defer any further comments about my position to your postings.
For the record, initially this started as a reaction to a list that was racist and narrow-minded (I stated earlier that this has nothing to do with Bill Marsh since it was not his work). Uncle Bill was one of the
very few to express fairness and corrected some of the statements made. My point in answering that post was to bring back balance in a forum that since 9/11 has been used to essentially promote the (often extreme)views of one select group.
As I already explained, I initially thought the forum was about knives. Both Uncle Bill and Bill Marsh corrected me by explaining courteously that this was not the case. OK, I will use the forum in that spirit too then. Well no, not really, since the provocative views I expressed did not pleased some (who remained strangely silent about the content of the first posting), then name calling and personal attacks were in order. It is that kind of double standards that I have a problem with, especially when displayed by the very person supposed to super-moderate the forum. [What ever THAT means and no, I am not refering to Uncle Bill!]
Finally, I do not profess to hold universal truth and I have no problem to re-evaluate what I believe, in the light of others courteously-stated opinions.
If I can leave this place and I have learned something new, then, to me, it is well worth it!
I am done!
