Understanding the Bulldozer

With Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon lying in a coma, much has been made about his legacy. Will he be foremost remembered as the man who did a political U-turn and pulled out of Gaza, laying the groundwork for Israeli security, a Palestinian state, and possible peace? Or will history view Sharon as a war criminal, the man who oversaw the brutal massacre of between 800 and 2,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon?

After the stroke that left Sharon incapacitated, I tried to avoid reading the inevitable stories I knew would only serve to raise my blood pressure. I'm not oblivious to Sharon's dark side, but like watching the "O'Reilly Factor," there is simply little point in seeking out something that would've given me a stroke of my own.

But that's when an article in The Beast caught my eye. It's title? "Buh-buh-buh-bye, Sharon-a: What you won't be hearing about Ariel Sharon this week." Funny headline, serious content. The writer, Paul Jones, likens Sharon to Slobodan Milosevic while largely quoting author Robert Fisk, who is out to "debunk the sordid myth of Sharon as conciliator." By the end of the article, Jones leaves little doubt that Sharon should be remembered as a terrorist, the "King Kong of massacres," a purely evil figure behind the "savagery of Israel's illegal occupation."

While there is no denying that Sharon was responsible the 1982 Sabra and Shatila refugee massacre, the article in The Beast gave me pause for two reasons. For one, writers like Jones (and there are plenty of them) do a great disservice to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by speaking in absolutes. Yes, Sharon voted against peace with Egypt in 1979, and yes, he spearheaded the settlers movement, and yes, he has been a conservative war hawk at almost every turn of Israel's history, but this is not a black and white issue, nor is Sharon either only a monster or only a saint.

To deny that Ariel Sharon was a complex character does nobody any good. What Jones had to say about Sharon bothered me, but it was how he said it that made me irate.

If I sound like a relativist in opposing such stubborn absolutism, I do not mean to. Villains do exist. When examining World War II, some people ask, was it possible to be a Nazi and still be a good person? The answer is largely no.

Reconsidering Sharon's history does, however, present me with a dilemma. There are many people who say the real tragedy of Sharon's stroke is that he will die in a hospital bed, and not in a prison for war crimes. I do not hold that belief. But I do think other contemporary leaders some say should be tried for war crimes, like President Bush for atrocities in Iraq, are absolutely liable, just as any leader is responsible for his or her actions. So where do I draw the line? Where does anyone draw the line? Could a different leader in Sharon's position do any better in 1948 and 1967, with Israel's very existence in the balance? Is Sharon truly a monster? And if he is, am I okay with that because he is my monster, on my side?

Nationalism can be a blinding light. At various points in history we have seen its power to destroy and corrupt overtake its ability to build and unite. Some of Sharon's more despicable actions, I would argue, although I cannot speak for the prime minister, were done because of Israeli nationalism. Sharon always saw Israeli security from a hard-line perspective: give an inch, and they'll take a mile; in the Middle East, violence must be met with violence. And at certain times, what Sharon said made sense. Withdrawing from Lebanon, for example, could have been a terrible move if it empowered the terrorist army Hezbollah.

Ultimately, however, Israel did pull out of Lebanon because it was the right thing to do. And despite Sharon's vote, there was peace with Egypt. Why? Because Israeli nationalism is not absolute. Likudniks like Sharon are only a part of it. The Palestinian deaths for which he is responsible will always be inexcusable, but whenever I read about how The Bulldozer avoided the subject during interviews, I know there are Israelis addressing the issue head-on. For every Palestinian death at the hands of the Israeli Defense Force, there are human rights groups, led by Israelis working to prevent the next massacre from happening.

Where are the Palestinian-led human rights groups? Where are the refugees speaking out against terrorism? Where was Paul Jones's article like this demonizing Yasser Arafat when he died? Arafat was directly responsible for murdering Israelis right up until the moment of his own death. Why is there a double standard?

As for my feelings on Sharon, I stand behind him, and I think the Milosevic comparison is way off the mark. Just this week, Condoleezza Rice said the surprising rise of Hamas shows the U.S. greatly misread the situation in Israel. And as writers and scholars like Paul Jones continue to demonstrate, Rice isn't the only one who doesn't understand.