I have been to Israel several times and I am not sure when it was exactly that I encountered Ariel Sharon, although it was roughly in the mid-eighties. I do remember I despised the man in those days. Now, ironically, I think of all world figures I admire him most. Some of this has to do with my change, but not all. The image of the warrior morphed into the peace maker is something deeply moving to most people.
Anyway, I was walking through the Old City of Jerusalem, I don’t remember who was with me, when I came to a house deep in the Arab Quarter surrounded by Israeli soldiers. This, I was told, was Sharon’s house. (As I recall, maybe I had even asked my guide to show me the place.) How awful General Sharon had pushed his way among the Arabs, I remember thinking – or something like that, when the soldiers started walking towards me and I realized the man himself was emerging from the building, flanked by more troops. They came walking briskly past me in the informal IDF manner (Sharon was in a short sleeve shirt – already a rather husky fellow) and then they were gone in a crowd of Arabs. I thought about that moment over the years, meaningless as it was, as my image of Sharon changed.
And speaking of irony, even the European image of Arik has undergone a sea change. From the AP, dateline Paris:
European leaders on Thursday fretted over the fate of Ariel Sharon, a man once seen in Europe as a danger for the Middle East but now viewed as a more complex, even crucial figure.
The concerns reflect a subtle shift in Europe – where there has been surprised admiration for Sharon’s dismantling of settlements, satisfaction with the role now played by Europeans on the Gaza-Egypt border, and a growing wariness with the Islamic world.
Latest medical reports here.
More from Soxblog.
Roger, I couldn’t agree with you more. I think a lot of Jews of our generation (I’m guessing you’re a “boomer,” as I am) had mixed feelings about Zionism through the ’70′s and ’80′s, and perhaps beyond. Even if our politics were right of center, which mine always have been, there were times when Israel’s motives may have seemed ambiguous to us. But that all ended with the (first) Intifada and subsequent developments. So we’ve changed, as the situation has changed, and it’s no surprise that Sharon changed, too. He is and always has been a true patriot and exactly what Israel has needed these last years. May G-d spare him and his family a long duration of suffering.
I got to see Sharon speak in New York last spring. He had a deadpan sense of humor and even relished the protestors who tried to disrupt the speech. I found myself wishing he was my uncle. (Does that sound creepy? Like Uncle Joe Stalin?)
Also here’s a cute photo.
Well, I was always a strong Zionist, but of the “let’s give Oslo a chance” variety. After Rosh Hashanah 2000, forget it. Also the renewed anti-semitism on the Left was already swelling before then. Then there was the Durban conference. which ended barely a week before 9-11.
I was just barely for the disengagement. I could see good reasons both pro and con. Unfortunately I have already seen some ugly stuff about Sharon’s illness from rightwing Israelis in some blog comments.
He caught my attention via his willingness to see Arafatism for what it was (is). Durban WAS a huge pivot point–an attempted coup against righteousness by a UN which had gone bad but had not yet been exposed.
” I do remember I despised the man in those days.”
Yes, despised for the Sabra and Chatilla massacre for which he was not directly responsible but for lack of forethought that the Lebanese Christians would be capable of such a deed;
but nobody despised Arafat for his murderous stay in Lebanon, especially his massacre of several hundred Christian inhabitants of the town of Damour in 1976.
That should have been on all the front pages, the bestiality his PLO and al Saika displayed towards the Christian Lebanese, but nary a word, not even from the Christian Clergy like Hillarion Cappucci and the Vatican that supported Cappucci when the Israelis caught him smuggling arms for the PLO in the West bank.
ìThe image of the warrior morphed into the peace maker is something deeply moving to most people.î
Both Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres wanted to be known as peace makers instead of warriors—and unwittingly did tremendous damage. Ariel Sharon seemed to have his head on straight. He never had any use for the sentimental silliness of the Labor party.
God bless Ariel Sharon. Unfortunately, his public career is probably over. Who will replace him?
I gave the wrong URL for the NYC speech, it’s here.
I’m pretty sympathetic to the moderate Palestinian position. I’d like to see Israel eventually get out of most of East Jerusalem.
I think the future Palestinian state ought to get a 1:1 land swap in exchange for whatever West Bank settlements Israel insists on annexing. I think 1948 refugees with legitimate property deeds who are willing to live as Arab citizens in a Jewish majority state should be able to do so. And I have serious doubts that many Israelis outside of the leftist parties would be open to the idea of having two states west of the Jordan – one Jewish and one Arab – had there not been at least the first Intifada.
That said, I too have grown to admire Sharon. He fought hard for his country and his people. He dealt with the second intifada and its barbaric targeting of civilians forcefully and with rage, but he didn’t become a madman doing so. And he showed he was capable of change, of recognizing past mistakes (most importantly, vis-a-vis the settlers), facing demographic, geographic and other realities, and most importantly, trying to make his supporters and his entire country face these same realities. He put his life on the line with that Gaza pullout. In short he showed he was not only a courageous soldier, but a courageous thinker and leader as well. In short, he became what Arafat could have and should have been for his people, but was not.
I should have added he was also willing to stop waiting for the mythical Palestinian peace partner to arrive. He got out of Gaza, and was building the wall around the West Bank that Israel should have built in 1949.
“…should have built in 1949.”
please…the thing is more than politics…Israel had to try, try, try for several generations, to make a region that needed no walls. Only when it became an existential requirement could it be done, and not make Israel into what her enemies want her to be.
I have often wondered if the Palestinians wish they had taken the deal they were offered decades ago [back before they were called Palestinians] and avoided all of this.
As for Sharon, he gave his country all he had to give.
Re: the Europeans’ growing wariness with the Islamic world — after the attacks on the trains in France on New Year’s Day, I should say so.
A number of us neocons/ex-lefties have come to respect and admire people whom we despised in the 80′s (and earlier). Reagan comes to mind for me, and Sharon is certainly another.
Terrye–you can chalk THAT up to the UN.
Sharon is the last of a vanishing breed of Israeli leaders who stood by her and saw her through her darkest days and battles. He is Israel’s Churchill…unfortunately for Israel it has needed (and still needs) one more (in terms of length of time) than Britain. My prayers go out to him, his family and for the future of the Middle East.
As for Olmert, I had the pleasure of hearing him speak while he was Mayor of Jerusalem. From what I recall, he was well spoken, tough but with a decent sense of humor. I wish him the best in the time ahead and, as Roger noted, I hope he is given a bit of space and an opportunity to be the leader that’s needed.
– satisfaction with the role now played by Europeans on the Gaza-Egypt border,–
Running away?
The Palis need to keep their hands off Jerusalem – that should be an international city.
Didn’t Hamas(?) just say that they’ll institute the dhimmi tax once they take control?
It is often only those who have credibility with the warrior class who can pursue peace without being considered weak. Nixon, whose credibility as an anticommunist was strong, could go to China.
“markus” wrote:
“I’m pretty sympathetic to the moderate Palestinian position”.
Well, you would be, “markus”, since you believe Israelis to be Nazis. The only problem is, the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are either not moderate or afraid to say so because their leaders are all either corrupt thugs or fanatic antisemites.
One small correction to my last post. I said,
” … [the Palestinians] leaders are all either corrupt thugs or fanatic antisemites.”
Actually, nearly all of them are both.
In response to Dulce, let me say that although I am a “boomer” and a secular Jew who always voted Democratic until the 2004 election, I *never* had any “mixed feelings” about Zionism. At times I questioned what the Israeli government was doing – but I always figured that the people of Israel knew what they had to deal with a lot better than I did sitting in my cushy American chair over 6000 miles away.
Gary — I regret adding that snarky stupid “perhaps they could be removed on boxcars” dig, which you take so much pleasure in recounting and in baiting me with.
So…having wrote what I wrote then, and having just now just repeated it, why wouldn’t I also JUST ADMIT RIGHT NOW what you accuse me of believing in IS TRUE, if in fact your accusation is correct? Has there been any other time you noticed I’m afriad to say what I believe in? And is there anything else that I have written about Israelis that would give a fairminded person, or even a jerk like you, any cause to think that I really believe that?
No, I regret writing it because I truly do not believe Israelis to be Nazis. It’s just not true. I do believe, however, that you, “Gary Rosen”, are a stinking, miserable piece of excrement, and a pathetic excuse for a human being.
Why is he that, Markus? Because he doesn’t ‘get’ the humor in Holocaust jokes? Or because he doesn’t trust apologies from people who make those jokes? Or is he all that simply because he hurt your feelings?
Really, 7000 year-old existential conflicts in the cradle of civilization, sorting out the meaning of being human and the value of life, just do not lend themselves readily to glib solutions and drive-by bluster.
Why not dispense with the mile-wide inch-deep solutions, and instead ask yourself–as a Democratic party activist–why you’re creating so many Gary Rosen first-time oppo voters?
Buddy — Rosen expressed anger at my “nasty, little comment” right after I made it. I made clear in response that I didn’t consider Israelis to be Nazis, and later in the thread I expressed regret at what I said. Rosen is entitled to remain angry at someone who once slipped an unnecessary Holocaust reference into an otherwise unimpeachable comment about a hypothetical case of Israeli ethnic cleansing. He is not entitled spread inflammatory lies about that person on numerous occasions in future threads. Rosen insists that he has such right to slander –that’s why he’s a jackhole.
Also, I’m not a Democratic Party activist, and I’m not the face of the Democratic Party.
After the last 5 years, Markus, liberals ring a little hollow complaining about slander. As far as Gary Rosen carrying a grudge, wouldn’t you? You don’t even need to’ve had an aunt in a boxcar, it’s enough that you could’ve, and are merely lucky you didn’t.
And here’s something else: the left wing of your party SAYS that “Israelis are Nazis”. Do you or don’t you identify yourself with those people? If you disagree with them, you of all people–obviously capable of sharp words as you are–should be objecting as strongly as possible. Long, loud, and often. And maybe you do, elsewhere–but who knows that?
Buddy –
Stop lying about the Democratic Party.
I don’t begrudge people who have a chip on their shoulder about the Holocaust, as long as they don’t overdo it. The only members of the Democratic Party that say that “Israelis are Nazis” are a few wide-eyed, frothing eccentrics on the margins. In the summer of 2005, a few of them leafleted outside the hearing that Rep. Conyers held on the Downing Street memoes, and a retired foreign service officer, Ray McGovern, made some over the top comments at the hearing which were inmmediately repudiated by HOWARD fucking DEAN, DNC Chair:
Washington Post 6/17/2005
WASHINGTON – A handful of people at Democratic National Headquarters distributed material critical of Israel during a public forum questioning the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, drawing an angry response and charges of anti-Semitism from party chairman Howard Dean on Friday.
“We disavow the anti-Semitic literature, and the Democratic National Committee stands in absolute disagreement with and condemns the allegations,” Dean said in a statement posted on the DNC Web site.
Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, organized the forum on Thursday at the Capitol to publicize and discuss the so-called Downing Street memo. That document suggests that the Bush administration believed that war with Iraq was inevitable and that the administration was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
The Sunday Times of London has reported that the prewar document, which recounts a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s national security team, was leaked from inside the British government. The White House has rejected the memo’s assertions.
Conyers’ event occurred in a small Capitol meeting room, and an overflow crowd watched witnesses on television in a conference room at DNC headquarters. According to Dean, some material distributed within the DNC conference room implied that Israel was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
One witness, former intelligence analyst Ray McGovern, told Conyers and other House Democrats that the war was part of an effort to allow the United States and Israel to “dominate that part of the world,” a statement Dean also condemned.
“As for any inferences that the United States went to war so Israel could ‘dominate’ the Middle East or that Israel was in any way behind the horrific September 11th attacks on America, let me say unequivocally that such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric,” Dean said.
“The inferences are destructive and counterproductive, and have taken away from the true purpose of the Judiciary Committee members’ meeting,” he said. “The entire Democratic Party remains committed to fighting against such bigotry.”
I said “the left wing of the party”, Markus–the ones with the swastikas painted over the Star of David.
“Chip on the shoulder”–that’s precisely what I’m trying to tell you, that’s ‘language lite’, and another demonstration that the leftist mind minimizes a lot of things–like GWoT most urgently–that are exceedingly dangerous to minimize.
I think even you already know that Americans who carry “swastikas painted over the Star of David” aren’t Democrats, amd don’t vote Democratic.
Anyway, the only people I know of who might do that are those belonging to Neturei Karta.
If I “already knew” it, I would not have said it. I guess someone who automatically ‘takes positions’ can’t believe that anyone would just say what they think. What I think is, I think that those tens of thousands who paint those signs and graffiti (and do the same in pixels on the net), are not republicans.
“He is not entitled spread inflammatory lies about that person on numerous occasions in future threads.”
So sue me.
After you made your “boxcar” comment, you boasted that you did it intentionally to anger “people like [me]“. Well, you succeeded. I will continue to call you on this *every single time* I see you writing about Israel in any thread, in any blog, because of your ineradicable anti-Zionism and antisemitism. It is so deep-rooted within you that you can’t suppress it, even when you are trying (like in this thread):
“Israeli ethnic cleansing”
“I don’t begrudge people who have a chip on their shoulder about the Holocaust, as long as they don’t overdo it.”
etc. etc. etc.
Markus–imagine that history is real, and not just a pamphlet. Now imagine that someone murdered a large number of your family–tried very hard to murder all of it–just because of who you are–just because you exist. Now suppose Gary Rosen comes along and treats the whole affair as a joke, and furthermore gets angry when you tell him that you don’t see the humor?
If you want to understand, you’ll have to dig deep into your creative powers and imagine all this–because, there really are no other genocides–not even Genghis Khan’s–with which to strike normalizing analogies.
Try to imagine that this thing happened in living memory, in a modern western state–it’s like your family was murdered in your house yesterday, and you’re a bit upset over it, and some yahoo drops by, makes jokes about it, and then when you object, tells you not to “overdo it”.
And the thing is, if the West hadn’t already been mimimizing state-genocide warm-ups–see Turkey on Armenians and Stalin on Ukrainians–if ordinary people like you and me in the west hadn’t been buying Walter Duranty/NYTimes (and that of other usual suspects’) propaganda, and had, rather, insisted on the truth, then the nazi genie–and its sequenced WWII, Korea, Cold War, and Terror War–may’ve never got out of the bottle. That’s another reason–if mere virtue, manners, and the ten commandments ain’t enough–for people to think about what they’re saying before they say it.
Rosen — so it’s not that I think that “Israelis are Nazis”, after all. Rather, I am an intractable antisemite (or perhaps a self-hating Jew?) because I used impolite language to describe what in Isreal is politely known as the option of “transfer”, and because I maintain that people with a chip on their shoulder about the Holocaust can “overdo it” — for instance, by falsely accusing others of antisemitism.
Buddy — I think that Rosen can explain and justify his vendetta quite clearly on his own without your help.
I agree. GR needs no help. You do, tho.
“I will continue to call you on this *every single time* I see you writing about Israel…”
Fine, “Gary”. I finally understand what my big unforgivable sin is: I tried to make you mad, which is apparently your definition of antisemitism.
Those familiar with the details of this stupid little exchange will know what you’re talking about. Most others I am confident will find your accusations to be inexplicable and groundless, based on whatever it is I have written about Israel in that particular thread. I just wonder if you will also “call me on this” on the occasions when I critize the Palestinians?