≡ Menu

Sharon: Bush could have prevented Holocaust

Ariel Sharon said that had there been a world leader like Bush in the 30s, the Holocaust could have been prevented:

“It’s impossible to free one’s self from the feeling that if in Europe, in the 1930s, there had similarly been such a leader, it’s possible that Europe would not have been ravaged by World War II and that we, the Jewish nation, would not have paid the terrible price of losing 6 million people,” Sharon told members of Likud’s Knesset faction on Monday.

Well, now, I don’t know about that necessarily. The situation is always different each and every time, and playing “what if” is sort of futile. But Sharon’s point is that more lives are often lost through appeasement than through action.

Sharon was also very careful to make it clear that Israel is not involved in this war.

“We are neither pressing to move it forward, nor do we seek to postpone it. We know that this is a necessary attempt to bring an end to the capability of tyrannical regimes, such as the one in Iraq, to tangibly endanger the entire world.”

Yeah, tell that to the conspiro-freak antisemites who keep trying to claim otherwise, including Pat Buchanan.

{ 6 comments… add one }
  • Me 03.13.03, 3:18 PM

    “more lives are often lost through appeasement than through action”

    True indeed. Just look at the loss of life that US & international appeasement of Sharon has produced.

    Bush & Sharon: partners in crime.

  • David 03.13.03, 3:27 PM

    To Me.
    You don’t know what yopu are talking about.

  • segacs 03.13.03, 4:36 PM

    David – “Me” has been around a while, and we all know already that he/she doesn’t know what they’re talking about. That’s not exactly news.

  • Peter 03.14.03, 12:37 AM

    Well, I would not exactly commend the US or Sharon’s human rights record.

  • parallel 03.14.03, 5:37 AM

    Actually, there were leaders of the requisite type around in the 1930’s – Churchill and Roosevelt. The first was out of power and disregarded, the second recognised the danger but was not able to move his country in the right direction until after Pearl Harbour.

    Bush has already had his Pearl Harbour.

    To Me: I suggest the current mess in Israel is more to do with the appeasement of Arafat than the appeasement of Sharon. Remember that terrorism and the Intifada started long before Sharon became PM.

    To Peter: I feel that Sharon’s recent record on human rights is fairly good, considering the circumstances. After all, is it not possible to compromise with someone who is trying to kill you. Do you have a analogous situation anywhere else in history with better respect for human rights? I can’t think of one…

  • Peter 03.15.03, 12:22 AM

    I don’t think the Palestinian civilians killed are really trying to kill anyone. The Human Rights Tribunal in Belgium and Amnesty International would disagree about Sharon’s record. One cannot indiscriminantly kill civilians with hope of killing a few terrorists, regardless of the circumstances. I never though I would say this, but the US’ record in the past years is probably better than Sharon’s.
    Finally, the 1930s European situation is not analogous to anything going on right now. But then again, people use historical examples for whatever they want, however poor the analogy.

Leave a Comment

Next post:

Previous post: