Only the good die young
Published on January 6, 2006 By O G San In International
I happened to be in east Berlin in 1994 when the DDR’s long-time dictator Erich Honecker passed away in his South American exile. On hearing the news, my host reflected on his passing succinctly: "That’s one more for tea tonight, Satan."

His words come to mind today as Ariel Sharon lies close to death in Jerusalem. It would be comforting to think that the Bulldozer will soon be sitting down to dinner with the Devil. But one of the disadvantages of being an atheist is that we do not believe in an afterlife. For us after death there is nothing; no paradise for those who were good and no eternal damnation for those who were wicked.

I don’t have the comfort of believing that Sharon’s many sins will come back to haunt him once he has shuffled off this mortal coil. A man who spent decades inflicting suffering will die a free man at the end of a long life. Most of his innocent victims never lived long enough, as he did, to comb grey hair.

Let there be no doubt, Sharon was a man whose hands dripped, nay cascaded, with the blood of the innocent. His supporters will wish to remember him as the brilliant military leader of 1967 and 1973. But Sharon was never a man to limit the use of force to other armies. From the Qibya massacre of 1953, to the Gaza suppression of the early1970s, to the Sabra and Chatila massacres of 1982, innocent civilians often felt the force of this maniac. Sharon was a murderer of the vilest nature. It is as such that he should be remembered.

And also as a liar. The young Sharon was a protege of David Ben-Gurion when in the 1950s he led the murderous Unit 101. But even the old man was never foolish enough to trust him. Later Sharon would dupe his country into a full-scale invasion of Lebanon from which Israel took two decades to extricate itself. The blood cost of this deception was high and, as ever, most of it was paid by Arabs. In his later days, even as he bestrode the Israeli political scene, allegations of corruption swirled around him and his family.

It is this man, this liar and murderer, who is now lauded in western capitals. "We are praying for his recovery. Prime Minister Sharon is a man of courage and peace," according to the US president. British foreign secretary Jack Straw praised the old man’s "courage and statesmanship". Ignoring a lifetime of murder, they point forlornly to last year’s Gaza pullout as evidence that Sharon had changed that, at the end of his life, he tried to make peace.

Much is made of the Gaza evacuation, as if Israel deserves a big pat on the back for belatedly and partially complying with international law. Did the Syrians receive any warm words from the west when they finally ended their occupation of Lebanon?

The fools who welcomed the Gaza pull-out as the first step towards peace in the Middle East are deluding themselves. Sharon, ever the pragmatist, evacuated Gaza in order to strengthen his hold on the West Bank. In return for removing a few thousand crackpots from Gaza, Arik got explicit American endorsement of "existing Israeli population centres" in the West Bank for the first time. Give a little, gain a lot, this is "generosity" Sharon-style.

But this is not the story you will hear from Sharon’s supporters who beat their breast at the passing of this "giant of the peace process". It s no surprise that Bush, Blair and all the other war criminals should mourn the passing of one of their own, a man who, like them, has unleashed mayhem on Arabs. A man who, like them, deceived his own compatriots into supporting his insane wars. A man who, like them, deserves to be breaking bread with Beelzebub.

But for Bush, Blair and their neo-con cabal there is bad news. Sharon, moral cripple that he was, actually stands above the leaders in Washington and London. Arik was a killer and a liar, but he was no coward. When he sent young men off to kill, he wasn’t asking them to do anything that he himself hadn’t done. Bush and Blair, who have sent so many soldiers to their deaths, have never heard a shot fired in anger in their lives. Next to them, Sharon starts to look a little better. Rather a hawk than a chicken-hawk.

Even this vilest of men can look down his nose at Messrs. Bush and Blair.

Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jan 06, 2006
gee lets look at ancient history


This goes all the way back to Genesis, my friends... Isaac and Ishmael fighting over that crazy mess o' potage and all that it entailed.
on Jan 06, 2006
Reply By: DeferencePosted: Friday, January 06, 2006Why is it when A JEW kills he is a murderer and when A Palestinian kills he is a hero and freedom fighter?Palestine was already present before Israel was created after World War II as a place for displaced Jews, I think that is why some are more sympathetic to Palestinians.


gee lets look at ancient history, yep there it is Israel, long before WW2. The was no country as palistine when Israel was "created" but this is just more anti-semitic thinking along the lines of "the holocaust never happened"


Sorry MM but in this case "deference" is correct! Israel was created as a seperate country in 1948.


The land variously called Israel and Palestine at different times in history, is a small, (10,000 square miles at present) land at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea. During its long history, its area, population and ownership varied greatly. The present state of Israel formally occupies all the land from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean ocean, bounded by Egypt in the south, Lebanon in the north, and Jordan in the East. The recognized borders of Israel constitute about 78% of the land. The remainder is divided between land occupied by Israel since the 1967 6-day war and the autonomous regions under the control of the Palestinian autonomy. The Gaza strip occupies an additional 141 square miles south of Israel along the sea coast, and is mostly under the control of the Palestinian authority with small areas occupied by Israeli settlements.

Prior to 1917, the territory that is now called Palestine and Israel was ruled by the Ottoman Turkish Empire, and included three sanjaks (districts). The name "Palestine," that was used by Roman and briefly by Arab rulers, was revived by the British, who received a mandate from the League of Nations to administer Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people.

Israel was created in 1948, after UN Resolution 181 partitioned the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine into two states for Jews and Palestinian Arabs. The Arabs objected to the creation of the Jewish state and fought a war against it. The Arab side lost the war, and the Palestinian state never really came into being. The territory allotted to the Palestinian state by the UN partition resolution was taken over by Israel and Jordan. About 780,000 Palestinians became refugees.
on Jan 06, 2006
Thanks for not disappointing.
on Jan 06, 2006

Hundreds of Palestinian civilians were massacred at the
Sabra and Shatila refugee camps by Christian Lebanese
militia allied to Israel in 1982. An Israeli inquiry
found Sharon indirectly liable for the deaths as he did
nothing to stop the militias and he resigned as defense
minister in 1983.


This just goes to show how Israel works. The man didn't even commit the deed, he merely allowed it to happen. Thus he becomes a mass murderer.

But when France gives weapons to Saddam Hussein and he uses these weapons to slaughter Iranians, Kurds, and Arabs, the French leaders responsible do not become mass murderers.

There is no evil as great as that committed by a Jew who didn't commit it.
on Jan 06, 2006
There is no evil as great as that committed by a Jew who didn't commit the evil.


His crimes are documented Andrew... history can be rewritten, but not forgotten.
He will be remembered as the destroyer of the Peace Process, one of his greatest crimes.
on Jan 06, 2006
I don't know about his other crimes. But I know the left will never forgive him what the Maronites did to the Palestinian Arabs in the camp.

The crime mentioned here was not his but the Phalangists'. There is no need to choose the one crime Sharon did not actually commit himself if it is true that he committed so many.

I always find that the examples given as arguments are a good pointer to the bias of the participant. If the best argument against X happens to be a case which X had little to do with (compared to the other possible examples), then it is clear that the idea behind the argument was not to find the truth but to do the most possible damage.

His crimes might be documented, and I am sure a few more will be mentioned when more people try to find out who can make the biggest monster out of a dying man. But will the crimes be his or somebody else's?

Do people hate Sharon for what he allowed the Christians to do or do they hate him for not giving them the pleasure of having done the deed himself? Judging from the focus on what the Christians did, the latter seems very likely.

Sharon defended a country that was constantly under attack by those who wanted to completely eliminate its population. Cultural evolution makes sure that in such an environment only the worst can become heroes. If the Arabs had not wanted a monster, the Arabs should have treated Israel differently.

At the end the lives saved by Sharon vastly outnumber the lives ended by him. And for that I am thankful.
on Jan 06, 2006
And the destroyer of the peace process was the guy who started the Intifada, which I am sure was not part of the treaty.

Even if the Palestinian Arabs were serious about peace (and judging from their starting the Intifada AFTER they signed the peace treaty I doubt that), how would they stop Jew-hating terrorists from killing Jews?
on Jan 06, 2006

Yasser was certainly as despicable a man as Sharon


I think it is more true to say that IF Yasser Arafat had unilaterally given something to the Israelis AND not taken all the money given to Palestine, keeping it for himself and his wife, he would be as despicable a man as Sharon.
on Jan 06, 2006
O G San, before I forget it. I am glad that you are happy that Sharon is dying.

I hope you won't be as happy when the peaceful "Palestinians" attack a few Israeli towns in celebration of the great event.
on Jan 06, 2006
BTW, Erich Honecker wasn't that bad. I agree he was on roughly the same level as Sharon.

But the fact that you used Honecker as an example of an evil man just goes to show that you have no idea of what evil really is.

Many people simply block out the greatest evils and focus on the smaller, pocket-size, evils.

Honecker was a pocket dictator.
on Jan 06, 2006
I always find that the examples given as arguments are a good pointer to the bias of the participant.


It is not a secret that I am biased against Sharon. He is my Prime Minister. I watched him crush any hope that we might one day have a situation where Palestinians and Israelis can live together in Peace. Arafat was a bastard, A jew hater and a terrorist... I am not a supporter of his, neither was I ever.
I am a supporter of Peace. Sharon was not. He united the Arab world in their hatred of Israel, instead of giving them reason to accept the fact that we are here to stay as a nation.
You can argue that some of his actions saved lives, but the fact that he ended or helped to end other lives are the crimes that he will be asked to answer for when he stands before the Judge.
on Jan 06, 2006
O G San, before I forget it. I am glad that you are happy that Sharon is dying.


Andrew, O G is a friend of both Israel and Palestine. He has been here on many visits and has written threads about them. He will not rejoice if Israelis are attacked by Palestinians. Neither will I.
on Jan 06, 2006
I have to leave this blog alone now.. due to my rancor at another JEW that is so guilt riden he has lost any respect I HAD for him.
on Jan 06, 2006
Sorry MM but in this case "deference" is correct! Israel was created as a seperate country in 1948.

Holy Dogshit! I got a boost from drmiler? !!

Thanks. I guess I really should have been more specific, I can understand how MM could have taken my statement inocorrectly..

I wasn't quite sure of the date, I had initially thought '43, but knew that couldn't be right - thanks for helping set the record straight.
on Jan 06, 2006
Sorry MM but in this case "deference" is correct! Israel was created as a seperate country in 1948.

Holy Dogshit! I got a boost from drmiler? !!

Thanks. I guess I really should have been more specific, I can understand how MM could have taken my statement inocorrectly..

I wasn't quite sure of the date, I had initially thought '43, but knew that couldn't be right - thanks for helping set the record straight.


You are welcome. I have said this before but it bears repeating. When you are factually correct, I do not care which side you are on. I'll back you. But if you're wrong and I can find evidence to that end? Look out!
3 Pages1 2 3