FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

The Sharon Formula

He had been in a coma for eight years after suffering a massive stroke. Now, world leaders have paid their respects to Ariel Sharon’s passing at an official ceremony at the Knesset, prior to the body’s burial on the site of Sycamore Farm in the Negev. At the funeral’s end, two missiles were fired into southern Israel.  Retaliatory air strikes followed on two militant camps in Gaza.  Such was Sharon’s busy, brutal and often opportunistic life, a fate he has shared with his country.

Gushing tributes have piled up on the funeral pyre.  From the comments of unnamed people lining up outside the Knesset to pay their respects, to the usual suspects in power, they have crested on the media waves.  “He was one of a kind, a real leader,” claimed a woman paying her respects on the BBC.  Veterans spoke of their memories of the wars of 1967 and 1973.  Tamir Ezra from Bat Yam, a reserve soldier in 1973, “felt this was someone we could trust and who could do the right thing” (BBC, Jan 13).

For Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “I believe that his memory as one of the most outstanding leaders and daring commanders will remain in the hearts of the Israeli people for eternity.”  UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon came up with his own sugary tribute.  “Prime Minister Sharon will be remembered for his political courage and determination to carry through with the painful and historic decision to withdraw Israeli settlers and troops from the Gaza Trip.”

An anonymous insider within the UN, with links to the Department of Political Affairs in New York, was taken aback by Ban’s statement.  The statement on Sharon “brings the UN’s obsequiousness towards Israel to a new high and the UN’s standing in the Middle East to a new low” (Electronic Intifada, Jan 13).

Others chomp at the pragmatic line – Sharon was, in the words of Yoaz Hendel, head of the Institute for Zionist Studies, “the most pragmatic Israeli and the most Zionistic Israeli.  He believed in the Zionistic idea and he believed that if you want to survive and to maintain and strengthen Israel, you need to be pragmatic in the neighbourhood.”

Sharon’s mark, much like his bulky frame, impressed itself on Israeli – and Palestinian – history.  It was not merely the engagements in battle. He was housing minister during the 1990s, a period which saw a fanatically expansive drive of construction in the settlements.  The military man had turned social engineer and manipulating colonist.  Settler leader Danny Dayan remembers “the Ariel Sharon that established thousands of communities al around Israel, changing forever the landscape of the country.”

Sharon was a political hybrid, an unbalanced mix of spontaneous insubordination and calculation – in the words of historian Tom Segev, a political soldier and a military politician.  Such a legacy proved “more harmful than useful.”  Such a mix could also prove bumbling – Sharon’s visit to the al-Aqsa Mosque in 2000 prompted the second intifada, though this did not deter his election as prime minister the following the year.

He could also prove opportunistically exciting – some might remember his efforts after the 1973 war, when he attempted to start a party of his own.  The gist of his action was simple: form a party with a peace platform, and make peace with a crushed enemy who would never have any illusions about compassion or understanding about their cause.  The experiment was short lived.

Sharon’s career was also punctuated by brutal exercises of power, some of which are documented by the late Christopher Hitchens in Slate (Jan 5, 2006) – as an enforcer of the occupation of Gaza in 1967, as an important figure in the attack of Egypt in 1956 in collusion with Britain and France, as a leader of Unit 101, responsible for the massacre of the inhabitants of Qibya, a village located in the then Jordanian West Bank (1953).  Certainly, when it came to Sharon, Hitch was no cruise missile leftist.

During the 1980s, when the Israeli war machine started to stutter, Sharon would make his presence felt again.  His finger prints were all over the 1982 massacre of Palestinians and Lebanese in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut, an outgrowth of Israel’s disastrous invasion of Lebanon.  The massacre, which comprised anywhere between 700 to 3,500 civilians, were the enthusiastic labour of the Lebanese Christian militia, which had wrongly assumed that Palestinians were behind the killing of Lebanese president Bachir Gemayel.

The catastrophe, and here Sharon has much to answer for as then Defence Minister, was furthered by Israeli complicity – the IDF, at the request of the blood enthused militants, sealed off the exits to the camps as the massacres took place.

The Lion of God had turned bloodied slayer, transforming into the Butcher of Beirut.  Much of the gruesomeness of the event was documented in the Kahane Commission Report of 1983, which investigated the events surrounding Sabra and Shatila.  The Commission’s ultimate recommendation was the removal of Sharon from office.  That said, the finding of “indirect responsibility” on his part raised more than a few eyebrows, including those of Noam Chomsky, who penned an aggressive critique of the findings in his Fateful Triangle.

The final play of the Sharon dice came during his years as Prime Minister (2001-6).  He announced that an Israel complete in the grand scheme of things would have to be abandoned.  The Palestinian territories were, in fact, being subjected to occupation. Land had to be bartered, or at the every least, exited. To that end, he evacuated 8,000 settlers, and withdrew troops from Gaza in August 2005.  The Likud Party was incensed and split, leading to the formation of the centrist Kadima grouping.

Sharon’s political gymnastics at the time, as it always was, proved expeditious, a case of tactical re-ordering.  This was, after all, the man behind the building of the 400-mile barrier in West Bank, purportedly designed to limit the effects of suicide bombers in Israel.  In any negotiations, it was imperative that Israel retain the upper hand, the Palestinians, a significantly withered lower one.

Ghassan Khatib of Bir Zeit University sums this byzantine legacy rather well, charting the moral, or rather moral free territory Sharon traversed.  “The difference between him and other right wing leaders is that he wouldn’t hesitate in pursuing massacres or war crimes in order to achieve political objectives; he might be a soldier but that doesn’t tell a lot because there are good soldiers and there are bad soldiers and I think Sharon was a bad soldier in the moral sense.”

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was as Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

 

More articles by:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

August 10, 2020
Gerald Sussman
Biden’s Ukrainegate Problem
Vijay Prashad – Érika Ortega Sanoja
How the U.S. Failed at Its Foreign Policy Toward Venezuela
Daniel Warner
Geneva: The Home of Lost Causes
Mike Hastie
The Police Force Stampede in Portland on August 8, 2020 
Jack Rasmus
Trump’s Executive Orders: EOs as PR and FUs
Rev. William Alberts
Cognitive Without Conscience
David Altheide
Politicizing Fear Through the News Media
F. Douglas Stephenson
Is Big Pharma More Interested in Profiteering Than Protecting Us From Coronavirus?
Evaggelos Vallianatos
The Money Plague
Howard Lisnoff
Revolutionaries Living in a System of Growing Fascism
Ralph Nader
Donald Trump is Defeating Himself
Lynnette Grey Bull
The Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women Human Rights Emergency is Not a Photo-Op for Ivanka Trump
Victor Grossman
Some Come, Others Go
Binoy Kampmark
Death From the Sky: Hiroshima and Normalised Atrocities
The Stop Golden Rice Network
Why We Oppose Golden Rice
Michael D. Knox
After Nagasaki, the U.S. Did Not Choose Peace
Elliot Sperber
A Tomos 
Weekend Edition
August 07, 2020
Friday - Sunday
John Davis
The COVID Interregnum
Louis Yako
20 Postcard Notes From Iraq: With Love in the Age of COVID-19
Patrick Cockburn
War and Pandemic Journalism: the Truth Can Disappear Fast
Eve Ottenberg
Fixing the COVID Numbers
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Every Which Way to Lose
Paul Street
Trump is Not Conceding: This is Happening Here
Robert Hunziker
The World on Fire
Rob Urie
Neoliberal Centrists and the American Left
John Laforge
USAF Vet Could Face ‘20 Days for 20 Bombs’ for Protest Against US H-Bombs Stationed in Germany
Andrew Levine
Clyburn’s Complaint
Kavaljit Singh
Revisiting the Idea of Pigou Wealth Tax in the Time of Covid-19
Paul Ryder
Here Come the 1968 Mistakes Again
T.J. Coles
Fighting Over Kashmir Could Blow Up the Planet
David Macaray
Haven’t We All Known Guys Who Were Exactly like Donald Trump?
Conn Hallinan
What’s Driving the Simmering Conflict Between India and China
Joseph Natoli
American Failures: August, 2020
Ramzy Baroud
Apartheid or One State: Has Jordan Broken a Political Taboo?
Bruce Hobson
The US Left Needs Humility to Understand Mexican Politics
David Rosen
Easy Targets: Trump’s Attacks on Transgendered People
Ben Debney
The Neoliberal Virus
Evelyn Leopold
Is Netanyahu Serious About Annexing Jordan Valley?
Nicky Reid
When the Chickens Came Home to Roost In Portlandistan
Irma A. Velásquez Nimatuj
The Power of the White Man and His Symbols is Being De-Mystified
Kathy Kelly
Reversal: Boeing’s Flow of Blood
Brian Kelly
Ireland and Slavery: Framing Irish Complicity in the Slave Trade
Ariela Ruiz Caro
South American Nations Adopt Different COVID-19 Stategies, With Different Results
Ron Jacobs
Exorcism at Boston’s Old West Church, All Hallows Eve 1971
J.P. Linstroth
Bolsonaro’s Continuous Follies
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail