[ Tuesday, April 15, 2003 ]
SHARONS DREAM COME TRUE
A declaration of war on the Syrians was written by Ariel Sharon Long Before the War on Iraq.This article was written back in the late nineties when the world was busy defining what "sexual relations with that woman" meant while Madeline Allbright in the State Department and William Cohen in the Defense Department and Evelyn Liebermann in the White House and General Jacob Granger in the US Army stacked every single undersecretary deputysecretary assistant secretary secretarys secretary position with all the Zionist Jewish Americans they could produce.
Below are The plans of Ariel Sharon laid bare for all to see.Do we have to look further to see who REALLY benefits in this war on Syria AND Lebanon AND the Hizballah Freedomfighters who are desperately just trying to get Sharon OUT of Lebanon? Do we have to look any further to see who is steeering the Bush Administration to an injust war on the Arabs?
Do we have to look further to see who is really terrorizing whom? Do we have to lose one
more of our sons and daughters for Ariel Sharon? Do we have to kill one more Afghani or
Iraqi or Syrian or Lebanese child before we realize that for ALL this madness to end ALL
Sharon and his FORCES have to do is END the Illiegal Brutal OCCUPATION and the ethnic
cleansing of Jerusalem the West Bank Gaza South Lebanon and the Golan?
Do we have to look further to see that all WE have to do to win this War on Terror is to
stop supporting Ariel Sharon and the Zionists and stop supporting their unjust war of
occupation by sending them Billions of our hard earned dollars and support the Arab Land
for Peace Plan that is free and that is being offered to us on a silver platter?
Do we have to look further to see that we have yet to see normalcy returned to Afghanistan and that the war on Iraq is far from over and that all this war is NOT in our best interests as we are breeding millions of more people who hate us daily?Do we have to look further to see that Iraq had no weapons of Mass Destruction and we are being fed the same line now by Rummsfeld about the syrians Chemical weapons when it is CLEARLY a move to for control of the oil water and power in the Middle East according to Ariel Sharons and Paul Wolfowitzes and the Zionists plan?
Are we going to let them get away with it?
Are we going to let the Zionists rule the world?
Is that what we really want? If that is what we want then we are a sorry lot indeed.
You be the judge.
The article you are about to read was written by alleged man of 'peace' in 1999:
WHY SHOULD ISRAEL REWARD SYRIA?
By Ariel Sharon
JERUSALEM -- As the Israeli and the Syrian teams hurry back to Washington to resume
negotiations, we are told this is the last and only chance for peace and that Israel must
take it or face war. I believe this hasty approach is wrong, misleading and, above all,
Israel must adopt an approach that will allow it to assess Syrian intentions over time
before making any commitment to give up the commanding high grounds of the Golan Heights.
And since in Israel, the only real democracy in the Middle East, we like to do things the
American way, I suggest we should also adopt the American model when negotiating the vital
issue of control of the heights. The United States ended the cold war and brought stability
to Western Europe because it understood that peace must be based on dealing effectively
with the military capabilities of former adversaries and not on changes in intentions
It kept the defensive shield of NATO intact, and any alterations in Western strength were
based on reciprocity by the Soviet Union. If this kind of concern for security was
essential in Europe, it is of critical importance in the shifting sands of the Middle East,
and particularly when dealing with Syria.
What would United States negotiators have demanded if the Golan Heights were an American
asset? I believe they would have stressed several points.
First, there must be no rewards for the aggressor. In most conflicts negotiated in this
century, the aggressor paid by losing territory, as Japan and Germany did after World War
II. Syria attacked Israel three times: in 1948, 1967 and the Yom Kippur War of 1973. From
1948 to 1967, it carried on a war of attrition against Israeli civilians by attempting to
divert vital water resources from Israel.
Now Israel is asked to reward the aggressor by allowing return of the heights that rise
over its territory in the valley below.
Knowledgeable statesmen and strategic experts have warned that, given the nondemocratic,
authoritarian character of the Syrian regime and the unpredictability of what might take
place in Syria after Hafez al-Assad is no longer in power, an Israeli agreement to return
to the 1967 borders could cause it to end up with neither peace nor the Golan Heights.
Second, national defense requires territory. Most foreign defense experts and senior United
States Army officers who have visited the Golan Heights or studied it repeat the
categorical opinion that even in the missile age it is impossible to defend Israel
effectively against a ground attack without military control of the Golan Heights. Syria
has more than 4,000 tanks and 1,000 missiles, and the last and only line where an assault
by them could be stopped runs through the center of the heights.
The missile threat and the vulnerability of Israel's home front do not allow Israeli
military planners to rely any longer on a 24-hour rapid reserve mobilization system. The
depth and space of the Golan can buy the time for regular forces to contain a surprise
Furthermore, no country, including the United States, has ever given up territory and
strategic depth just because it had advanced weapons systems or sophisticated early warning
Third, Syrian armed forces must be reduced. Though Israel so far has not done so, it must
insist that if it is to give up the defensive asset of the Golan Heights, a there must be
not only a demilitarized zone on the Golan, but also a reduction of Syria's armed forces
and the number of its missiles, and a dismantling of its arsenal of chemical warfare.
Israel must also demand, though it has not yet done so, the withdrawal of Syrian forces
from Lebanon, where a continued Syrian military presence would reduce Israel's ability to
defend its northern borders.
Israel has not made explicit demands, either, that the United States will not rearm Syria
with advanced Western weapons after an agreement is reached. Such rearming would erode the
Israeli ability to deter attack and cancel the Israeli qualitative edge in weaponry that
the United States has pledged to maintain.
Fourth, Israel must have control of its water resources, which are of great long-term
importance in an arid region where there are already shortages. A third of Israel's water
flows from the Golan Heights and could be diverted there, and it must continue to have a
presence near these water sources.
Finally, comprehensive peace must also include measures to contain threats from Iraq and
Iran, which have weapons of mass destruction and could also be sources of terrorist
activity. This is another important issue about which Israel has made no specific demands
in the current negotiations.
Since 1975, successive United States administrations have been committed to the principles
in President Gerald Ford's 1975 letter to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin backing Israel's
stance that any peace agreement be predicated on Israel remaining on the Golan Heights.
"Even in times of peace, we must hold the Golan Heights, Ehud Barak, then the Israeli
military chief of staff, said in 1994. And he was not alone. Mr. Rabin took the same
position clearly in 1992, when he was prime minister.
Today Israel is asked to make so-called painful compromises: giving up the Golan and
transferring to foreign troops a major building block of its overall capability to defend
itself, deter attacks and assure itself of early warning if an attack should occur. It is
also being asked to bear the painful cost of transferring 18,000 of its own citizens and
uprooting 33 communities, deepening already dangerous divisions in Israeli society. All
this for what is at best an uncertain nonbelligerency agreement? Thanks, but no thanks.
I believe Israel must keep the Golan Heights. Peace is important for Israel, and we all
seek it. But not less is it important for the Syrians. Isn't it about time that they were
asked to make some painful compromises as well?
Ariel Sharon is chairman of Israel's Likud Party and the victorious general who saved
Israel during the Yom Kippur War (1973)
art [8:35 PM]