Ariel Sharon (Bulldozer) - That We Knew Him Better.

Media Photo

Pre - deceased by many public figures and activists in the world of Zionism, including Itzak Rabin who portrayed for much of the world public the paradoxes of the Middle East, Ariel Sharon saw in his vision for Israel and for the Hebrew people a clear future in which the bothersome issues of the day, primarily in the region those of race, politics, and ethnic heritage, whence all Israelis could call their country and overall territories free and safe.  His idea in general for such goals and any interim accomplishments in that very difficult challenge as indirectly stated over time, itself fraught with internecine strife, was reachable as much with force of arms as with flag - waving and peace overtures and initiatives.  This is perhaps an oversimplified statement and offered in terms that are too strong for those who remember Sharon as a jovial, strong willed, personable, and good - to - know type of public figure who would never really raise a hand at anyone without reason, and only in self - defense.  Even though in the Middle East, especially with the conflicts of late involving Iraq and Afghanistan, at this time there are students of history who have read and know of the role of many Hebrew leaders vis - a - vis the British in colonial times and the wear and tear of that period in the story of Israel; and how vitally important it has been until recently with respect to its leadership.  Sharon is portrayed in life and in his passing as a great warrior and one who would never rush to judgment about the issues of the day on the Palestinians and Arabs in Israel itself.

People who read of his life, given their ability to stomach the visceral and pitched battles, literally and ideologically over the years, first between Israel and its territorial neighbors and then more recently between Israel and a terrorism with a 'virtual' territory that is characterized by an anytime / anywhere / any - who - type violence, might cite that the sabre - rattling that Sharon infrequently engaged in over the years is and was irksome.  That there was someone in the Knesset as Mr. Sharon was is a great tribute to the system in that country whereas politics and society might have given in long ago to the vagaries and demands of fanatics without him and his colleagues.  Public and political figures like Sharon switched political affiliations and took a difficult line against Palestinian ideological influences whereas many editorials have stated this worked to damage politics in Israel and its value before stakeholders in the region and the world.  This on his broad shoulders and that of the Likud party and conservatives as currently led by Benyamin Netanyahu have undoubtedly assured the clear sovereignty of Israelis in their continued settlement of their homeland.  As followers of the news in the Middle East and of its different countries, and as listeners to policies as pronounced in the past, and acted upon by Sharon and his associates, all of us need to learn to listen and listen carefully to the reasons and rationale for the continuation of Israel as everyone's friend in that region and as one, a people advocating for resolving dilemmas for the Palestinians as well as its own.  The withdrawal of Hebrews from some areas (in 2003?) by Sharon when he was last in power is an indicator of this.  One could go on and on about this and related topics, and how this leads starting from the public bars, cafes, restaurants and hotels; where people gather in Beirut, Lebanon in their daily lives and given the occasion, to Jerusalem where everyone of us either brings to mind what they have seen in books and articles or remember from their visit(s) there and how this all sums up to the ideas and vision that the place, and all of Israel as it needs, settle into a territory finally of 'peace and light', not of the destructive kind or as the result of violence, but of one dissolution with the conflicts and primitiveness of the past including any violence between Arabs and Israelis themselves.

People know the place does not have to become a party if past and present conflicts and adversities are ever resolved, and this hopefully given the legacy, (again for some in the passing) of Sharon and his friends and associates, though the Middle East needs at this point to take some stock of any continuation of bloodletting and destruction, however specific and specialized it might be today against the Hebrews as in the days of the height of Al fatah and Abu Nidal.  The passing of Ariel Sharon and the related dialogue in every forum paying any attention gives the world a cue to begin seriously considering a fulfillment of the need(s) for peace, and this is especially palpable in the reaction of Israel's territorial near and far neighbors with respect to Sharon's public funeral.  In addition, that there are now again and again new momentarily lengthy phases of this 'peace and light' gives one reason to pause and reflect on the possibilities for an end to the violence, and the potentialities as well for a release of all from the hatred and vicious oppositions that drive the conflict(s) in the region.  Public and popular acceptance of these and related considerations would be great for business, culture, and the business of government in the region for everyone, and then everyone would start forgetting what the fighting is for right now.  This is what might have said Sharon in one way or another, even incidentally or as an aside to what he and his colleagues dealt with each and every day.

NYT Coverage (article.)

"The Ecnomist." - editorial