Saturday, January 07, 2006

The truth about Ariel Sharon

All right. Let me say from the outset that I deplore what Pat Robertson said about Sharon's stroke - that God smote him for giving away Israeli territory. First of all, I don't believe in that kind of God and secondly, withdrawing from the Gaza strip was probably the one good thing that Sharon did. But that doesn't make up for the great evil he has perpetrated on the Palestinian people. I'm bringing you an article today called The Whitewashing of Ariel Sharon which takes issue with those who are now calling Sharon "a man of courage and peace". Here's an excerpt:

From the beginning to the end of his career, Sharon was a man of ruthless and often gratuitous violence. The waypoints of his career are all drenched in blood, from the massacre he directed at the village of Qibya in 1953, in which his men destroyed whole houses with their occupants — men, women and children — still inside, to the ruinous invasion of Lebanon in 1982, in which his army laid siege to Beirut, cut off water, electricity and food supplies and subjected the city's hapless residents to weeks of indiscriminate bombardment by land, sea and air.

As a purely gratuitous bonus, Sharon and his army later facilitated the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians at the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, and in all about 20,000 people — almost all innocent civilians — were killed during his Lebanon adventure.

Sharon's approach to peacemaking in recent years wasn't very different from his approach to war. Extrajudicial assassinations, mass home demolitions, the construction of hideous barriers and walls, population transfers and illegal annexations — these were his stock in trade as "a man of courage and peace."

Some may take comfort in the myth that Sharon was transformed into a peacemaker, but in fact he never deviated from his own 1998 call to "run and grab as many hilltops" in the occupied territories as possible. His plan for peace with the Palestinians involved grabbing large portions of the West Bank, ultimately annexing them to Israel, and turning over the shattered, encircled, isolated, disconnected and barren fragments of territory left behind to what only a fool would call a Palestinian state.

Sharon's "painful sacrifices" for peace may have involved Israel keeping less, rather than more, of the territory that it captured violently and has clung to illegally for four decades, but few seem to have noticed that it's not really a sacrifice to return something that wasn't yours to begin with.


It remains to be seen what will happen to the peace process (such as it is) due to the incapacitation of Sharon, but I believe with the author here that lauding him as a peacemaker is quite inappropriate.

2 comments:

  1. Anonymous9:43 PM

    I agree that Pat Robertson has deplorable in his remarks both to the people of Dover, Pennsylvania and about Sharon.
    I have found many of Sharon's tactics deplorable and have been horrified by the hatred and murder that he fostered against the Palestinians. The "security fence" is yet another example.
    I do respect his withdrawal from Gaza, because it runs so counter to the philosophy that has prevailed in his career.
    I also respect his break with Likud.
    I can't call him a "peacemaker", but he has represented the only hope for progress in returning their land to the Palestinians. I don't know if there is another leader with the stature to continue, although there are pledges of support for the new policies Sharon has been pursuing. Marilyn

    ReplyDelete
  2. Everything you say here makes a lot of sense, Marilyn. And I agree it's very worrying to consider what is to happen next. There does seem to be a vacuum there.

    ReplyDelete

New policy: Anonymous posts must be signed or they will be deleted. Pick a name, any name (it could be Paperclip or Doorknob), but identify yourself in some way. Thank you.