The darling of the far-right, notorious for his cut-throat attitude on the battlefield and wanton disregard for Palestinian lives, leaves behind a hapless Israel-Palestine peace process.
Instilled with zeal to fortify the Zionist state, he blatantly endorsed the murder of Palestinians and the annihilation of the Palestinian state.
Illustrating his hatred for Palestinians was the secretive retribution squad, Unit 101, intended to eliminate Palestinian fighters but instead killing as many innocent civilians as fighters.
By any international standard, Sharon’s massacre of civilians in Qibya, Sabra and Shatila and the occupation of Lebanon in 1982 are war crimes that even the United Nations and Israeli courts could not ignore.
Beginning with a career in the military to the time he presided as Israel’s prime minister, his attitude toward the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state was perpetually guided by a flagrant disregard for Israeli and international law. Sharon ruthlessly crossed borders, stormed into Palestinian homes and presided over wars and Israeli settlements.
As prime minister, his orders to demolish the homes of Palestinians involved in attacks against Israelis were criticized by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International as a collective violation of international law.
Even while in opposition his provocative visit to the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount) in Jerusalem, when the peace process was going on, explains his intent to shatter the notion of a Palestine state.
Let’s not forget that Sharon’s claims on Haram al-Sharif poured fuel on the burning embers of occupation and discrimination and triggered the second Palestinian intifada.
In fact, Sharon’s vision continues to guide the trajectory of Israeli-Palestinian relations.
While many believe that the hawkish Sharon pruned his features with the 2005 decision of unilateral withdrawal of Israeli settlers and troops from the Gaza strip. It was actually a smokescreen to derail the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, disclosed one of his close aides, Dov Weisglass, to the New York Times.
“Mr. Weisglass’s published remarks were unusually blunt,” the New York Times noted. “He described the planned withdrawal of Israeli settlers from Gaza and a part of the West Bank as a substitute for the road map, not a means of reviving the moribund peace process, as the Bush administration has stated.”
Undoubtedly toward the end his life, Sharon realized the limits of military power and brutality through the Kadima Party but failed to instill those changed visions in the hearts of Israelis.
With US Secretary of State John Kerry recently making a flurry of attempts to re-energize the peace talks, I wonder if Sharon’s spirit would allow a negotiated settlement of all contiguous issues.
Would Israel be ready to make concessions for Jews and Muslims coexisting together in the Middle East?
In short, Sharon’s legacy shapes today’s Israel and Palestine. His life is an unapologetic message to Palestinians that Israel has never been an enthusiastic participant in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process—a one-sided deal that prompts more concessions for Israel.
For the world and, Israelis in particular, Sharon leaves behind a mixed legacy. How one paints the portrait of Ariel Sharon largely depends on one’s nationality and political leanings.
While there is much truth to all sides of the story, I would judge the ‘King of Israel’ through the lens of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. This architect of Israeli settlements stands a ruthless war criminal for which he should have been tried long ago.
*Sources linked to within text.
Photo Credit: Carmen Rodriguez