Ariel Sharon, the 'Butcher of Beirut', dies

[tiramisu]

The most blood lover dies finally

[Ben]

Noam Chomsky on Legacy of Ariel Sharon: Not Speaking Ill of the Dead:

Chomsky at the 2:40 mark:


Noam Chomsky on Legacy of Ariel Sharon: Not Speaking Ill of the Dead "Imposes a Vow of Silence" 2/2 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00X_YwQ49YM)

[greyman]

He was a homocidal racist psychopath. The world is a slightly better place without him.

[DirtyDon]

A patriot and war hero. Rest in peace.

[broncofan]

A patriot and war hero. Rest in peace.
That's pretty far off the mark. But I imagine you did Greyman a favor since he only likes addressing ready-made strawman arguments. If English is your first language, then you have an advantage over the last man he was willing to argue with.

Personally I think Ariel Sharon had an awful record. Of course, he had a massive stroke in 2005 and has had a flat eeg since then, so I don't see it as that momentous that he went from no brain activity to no brain or heart activity.

[notdrunk]

That's pretty far off the mark. But I imagine you did Greyman a favor since he only likes addressing ready-made strawman arguments. If English is your first language, then you have an advantage over the last man he was willing to argue with.

Personally I think Ariel Sharon had an awful record. Of course, he had a massive stroke in 2005 and has had a flat eeg since then, so I don't see it as that momentous that he went from no brain activity to no brain or heart activity.

Actually, it isn't off the mark to some people. Ariel Sharon has a lengthy military record spanning decades.

Maybe he has a difference of opinion?

[broncofan]

Actually, it isn't off the mark to some people. Ariel Sharon has a lengthy military record spanning decades.

Maybe he has a difference of opinion?
Obviously he does. I suppose Sharon is a patriot but only if one defines patriot as trying to advance a narrow set of national interests no matter the effect on either non-citizens or the long-term welfare of his own citizens. This would mean many rogues throughout history are technically patriots.

I am also talking about his complicity in and active encouragement of war crimes (this is undisputed), as well as his failure to make any progress in achieving peace with the Palestinians (the withdrawal from Gaza notwithstanding).

One of the reasons I thought the first couple of posts were unnecessary is because I assumed Sharon's legacy was fairly obvious and he's been brain-dead for almost a decade. To me the posts had all the relevance of people dancing in the streets after Hussein was executed (not much). By all means argue about his legacy. I didn't know there were two sides to the argument.

Why don't you guys talk about the findings of the Kahan Commission's investigation at Sabra and Shatila?

[notdrunk]

Obviously he does. I suppose Sharon is a patriot but only if one defines patriot as trying to advance a narrow set of national interests no matter the effect on either non-citizens or the long-term welfare of his own citizens. This would mean many rogues throughout history are technically patriots.

I am also talking about his complicity in and active encouragement of war crimes (this is undisputed), as well as his failure to make any progress in achieving peace with the Palestinians (the withdrawal from Gaza notwithstanding).

One of the reasons I thought the first couple of posts were unnecessary is because I assumed Sharon's legacy was fairly obvious and he's been brain-dead for almost a decade. To me the posts had all the relevance of people dancing in the streets after Hussein was executed (not much). By all means argue about his legacy. I didn't know there were two sides to the argument.

Why don't you guys talk about the findings of the Kahan Commission's investigation at Sabra and Shatila?

Uh? I wasn't defending Sharon's legacy but explaining that DirtyDon didn't say anything wrong.

[broncofan]

Uh? I wasn't defending Sharon's legacy but explaining that DirtyDon didn't say anything wrong.
It was an error by omission. That's a complete whitewash if all someone can say about a man who facilitated an atrocity in Lebanon is that he's a war hero and a patriot. He was also a father, and 5'7, and liked vodka...what does that have to do with the price of tea?

And I have no answer for your first question there:).

[Dino Velvet]

How would you guys compare Ariel Sharon with Benjamin Netanyahu?

Who is/was better for Israel?

Who is/was more volatile to the region?

Who is/was more likely to involve America in their entanglements?

Who is/was more likely to be considered a man of peace?

Which man had/has more respect for International Law?

Sorry for the amount of questions. I'd like some opinions from you. Especially the ones with dirt in the tread of their boots from a place that I have never been to.

[broncofan]

I don't have anything like a comprehensive sense of either man's record. I hope it doesn't sound like I'm weaseling out when I say I think neither of them is good for human rights or Israel particularly. Personally, I think the best approach Israel can take to achieving peace with its neighbors is to find a way to give back the west bank and as quickly as possible.

After all of this time that they've been occupying it, they don't want to look like they are giving it back without getting anything in return, but on the other hand it is a huge albatross around its neck. It is not only denying to the Palestinians the right to make a state within that territory but also creates a tremendous stigma for individual Israelis travelling abroad, and Israeli politicians trying to claim moral authority on any issue.

I have had the opportunity to hear Netanyahu speak on a few occasions. What he offers up is the typical fare for a class of politicians I don't really trust. He engages in reckless fear-mongering about Iran (I do think there is some justification for concern), and holds the diplomatic philosophy that engaging historic enemies legitimizes them or emboldens them. This is quite literally the stance that several Middle Eastern states take against Israel; namely that they don't want to normalize relations with Israel until it cleans up its act. But if there are always preconditions for establishing a diplomatic relationship, nothing within that realm can be accomplished. So, I think with Netanyahu's approach to peace-making, one can't expect much.

[Dino Velvet]

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm weaseling out

I wouldn't say that. You've always been fair, brave, and bold on the topic. I respect that for sure. I appreciate your post and your input.

I asked the questions because I don't know the answers.

[Stavros]

How would you guys compare Ariel Sharon with Benjamin Netanyahu?

Who is/was better for Israel?

Who is/was more volatile to the region?

Who is/was more likely to involve America in their entanglements?

Who is/was more likely to be considered a man of peace?

Which man had/has more respect for International Law?

Sorry for the amount of questions. I'd like some opinions from you. Especially the ones with dirt in the tread of their boots from a place that I have never been to.

It is hard to know which of the two is better for Israel, because that depends on what Israelis want. As both Sharon and Netanyahu have, or had an 'Israeli first' type position with the Palestinians, in spite of both of them appearing to endorse a 'two-state solution', they are good for Israel if the position is that the long term security of Israel is based on isolation from the rest of the Middle East behind the 'Iron wall'. If you take the view that Israel cannot continue in its present state and that it must become a more open society and either withdraw from the occupied territories or reach an accommodation with the Palestinians, Netanyahu is not your guy.

On this basis neither man contributed to a long term peace. There were signs that Sharon was at the end of his life more sceptical of the 'Iron wall' than he had been before, but he had plenty of opportunities to change his mind in the previous 50 years so one wonders what it was that suddenly occurred to him at the end of his life that had not when Yitzhak Rabin signed a peace deal with the Palestinians, to which he was, like Netanyahu, opposed. Netanyahu simply cannot bring himself to the table with an honest proposal other than one which relegates Palestinians interests to a perpetual back-burner because any compromise on territory would undermine the character of the 'Jewish state' as he sees it.

Ariel Sharon for most of his life took a hard-line military view of Israel's security, one that believed pre-emptive strikes against potential enemies was an effective deterrent. There is an argument that the long-term consequences of the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 in which he played a leading role, actually undermined Israel's security -it did achieve the objective of throwing the PLO out of Beirut, but created a new front with the largely Shi'a population of southern Lebanon which at one time had co-operated with the Israelis in their own conflict with Palestinians in southern Lebanon. This was the area in which forward planning enabled Hezbollah to claim a 'victory' in 2006 -there was no victory for them but there wasn't one for Israel either, which was unusual. The various incursions into and out of Gaza to cope with HAMAS, an organisation that Israeli had initially supported in the first Intifada as a counter to Arafat's Fateh, may also be said to have caused more problems than they solved, which raises all sorts of questions about Israel's military strategy these days. Netanyahu -who served in various military campaigns as a young man- by contrast has tended to make bombastic statements rarely backed by military action -indeed, because of the mistakes made under Sharon, the Israeli military is more cautious than it used to be, which is just as well given Netanyahu's chronic threats to Iran.

Netanyahi was always more pro-American than Sharon. The latter tended to see the USA as a bank, whereas Netanyahu lived in Pennsylvania as a boy and graduated from Cheltenham High School in Philadelphia before going to Israel to fight in the 1967 War, and then returned to get a degree in Architecture from MIT and after that an MA in Political Science from Harvard. Although Netanyahu enrages many American Jews, I think he sees the relationship with the USA as irreplaceable in terms of Israel's long term security, even though he himself, by refusing to stop settlement activity in the Occupied Territories, and in demanding the release of Jonathan Pollard must constantly irritate the Americans. It is widely know, I believe, that he loathes Obama and vice versa.

I can't think of any significant politician in the world we live in who has respect for international law, not in practice anyway.

The summary, as I have said in other posts, is that to me Netanyahu reflects a decline in the quality of Israeli politicians; regarded by many Israelis as vain, corrupt and useless, he does stand out among a crowd of dismal characters such as the tepid Tzipi Livni and the blatantly offensive Avigdor Lieberman. This cannot be good for Israel, or anyone else in the Middle East.

[Dino Velvet]

Thanks again, Stavros.