What is the difference between Ariel Sharon and Slobodan Milosevic?

What is the difference between Ariel Sharon and Slobodan Milosevic, now on trial for war crimes? Apart from the fact that one killed Bosnians and Albanians while the other kills Palestinians, the answer is none whatsoever. At least, that is the answer heard across the Arab and Muslim world. Now, across the West too, the same judgment is heard. Public opinion has started to regard Sharon as a war criminal.

Over the past couple of weeks, the scales have fallen from millions of eyes. No longer is it seen in the way it has long tired to present itself, as the underdog, the plucky little David battling against an Arab Goliath that seeks to destroy it. Rather, it is the Israelis who are seen as the jackbooted thugs, the Palestinians as the defenseless victims.

If any one thing has changed Western views — and they have changed even in the US — it is Jenin. Taking the lead from the media, which has never been so uniformly hostile and critical of Israel, Western public has been visibly shocked and sickened by reports of innocent Palestinians civilians being slaughtered or being left to bleed to death and their newborn infants to perish because they were prevented from getting medical attention. There is still repugnance for the suicide bombers and little affection for the Palestinian leadership. But there is unprecedented sympathy for the Palestinians, mirrored by anger at Israel and disgust with Sharon.

This is new, and its significance should not be underestimated. For example, for one of Britain’s leading Jewish politicians, former Labor government minister Gerald Kaufman, hitherto a strong supporter of everything Israel does, to describe the Israeli prime minister as a "war criminal" as he did in Parliament last week, is an unheard-of development. The shift is seen in other ways. When, again in the UK, the French ambassador was recently reported to have described Israel as that "shitty little state", there was little condemnation or outrage, other than from overtly pro-Israeli sources. Indeed, it now seems as if many concur, if not in words then in sentiment.

Israel’s onslaught tops the news throughout the Western world, even in France which, with its presidential election just days away, might have been thought to be otherwise preoccupied. In London, Paris, Amsterdam people can be heard starting conversations with questions such as "What do you think about the Israelis?" (the inference being "Who would have believed it, or more bluntly: "Are the Israelis insane?"

From an Arab perspective, coming at a time when the news is otherwise depressing and cause for the deepest anger, this development is immensely encouraging. Already, the EU has floated the idea of sanctions against Israel. It may not happen; but Israel is fast assuming pariah status. The possibility that Sharon will one day be brought to international justice for his crimes certainly becomes daily more credible.

For years, Arabs and Muslims have told an unreceptive world that Israel is a racist, militaristic state. Finally people are listening, thanks to Sharon. Just as Milosevic’s bigoted warmongering all but destroyed Serbia, he has ironically done more to undermine and destroy the credibility of Israel than any Palestinian. It is encouraging.

I like the amount of propaganda used in your post, you must be a greek or a prosfiga!

Awesome! Now try to dispute my claims in a civilized manner and I might take you seriously.

Your sense of history is false, you have no idea of what really goes on in the Balkans other than information supplied to you from Greek/Bulgairan/Serbian/Albanian sources.

And yours is supposed to be the only true version of Balkan history? I am Serbian and I have a good knowledge of the history of my own country.

Here you'll find all the answers you need to solve youre confused mind.

Thanks for showing such great respect towards your opponents. [/sarcasm].

Oral reports from Americans who were there, from an American publisher and a Pulitzer prize winning book.
Leftist crackpots are given awards at Columbia all the time.

What it does prove is that they used a political opportunity to carry out scientific experiments (like the Germans and the Japanese). We had ships there to look at the damage, survey the effects, and treat the victims. and measure the effects.

Did the US have scientific and medical ships at Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the war? Yes! Does this prove some conspracy to conduct experiments? Only in the minds of those who presume this conspiracy. It is circular reasoning.

No it doesn't. We could have nuked Rabaul in New Britain or any other Japanese occupied island for more accurate medical results, since there would be fewer victims leaving the area and foreign contamination.
We hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki to break Japan's will to fight.

The fact is that the US scientists exposed themselves to radiation because know-one understood what was going on.

They knew sufficient that radiation wasn't good for you in a big way
Oh, so we had generals and scientists within a high radiation area during the Trinity test was a fluke?
The fact is that we did not understand the raduis of the blast untill we used the weapons.

We had ships and units surveying the damage to find this out. This isn't nefarious. Instead, it laid the groundwork for these cities to be rebuilt

Now you are in the realms of 'We had to destroy the village to save it.' Radiation problems are still with those two cities.

Now you are showing your lack of reading comprehension. The general theory is that we bombed the two cities to save the rest.
Afterwards, we helped rebuild all of Japan, but poured scientific and medical resources into Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And for a more recent example, what about the 'Massacre at Maz e Sharif'. What an opportunity for revenge for 9/11.Although the prisoners of war had nothing to do with it they were immediately attacked by overwhelming force after the prison revolt. Fish in a barrel and body parts all over the place!

Fish don't have guns or murder hostages!
Your assertion is just plane false.
1.We used force to put down a prison revolt by members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
2. We could have dropped bombs indiscriminately or used Daisy-cutters. Instead, we used precision guided munitions to minimise the bloodshed, even while American troops were under fire.

You should read more Orwell.

I have.

{Pacifism}...objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort on one side you automatically help that of the other....In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted.

George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism," in Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus eds. The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell (London: Penguin, 1970), II, 261.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Falling scales