In these few pages, we have not, of course, explored the full depth and breadth of Ariel Sharon’s life and career. We have looked at many of the highlights of Sharon’s history, and tried to see if the image of a “man of peace”, as George W. Bush so conspicuously called him emerges. It seems clear that it does not.

Sharon’s record is that of a man with single-minded purpose, and that was to expand the power and what he saw as the security of the State of Israel by any means necessary. He was supremely confident in his own judgment and if others disagreed, even if they held authority above him, he would simply find a way to do what he thought was right anyway.

His alleged “transformation” in the office of Prime Minister is not really any different than what had happened to many of his predecessors. The realities of the diplomatic world he lived in set in and he had to adjust his rhetoric and tactics accordingly. When he was not the person in charge, he consistently harangued Israeli Prime Ministers, from Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak to Benjamin Netanyahu and even Yitzhak Shamir. And many of those figures also changed their tactics and rhetoric when in office. It was ironic to watch Netanyahu attack Sharon from the right just as Sharon had done to him for years while Netanyahu had to deal with Clinton Administration pressure.

What separated Sharon, perhaps, at least from some of those figures is that his change was only tactical and rhetorical. His basic plan and goals remained consistent; he just found new ways to pursue them. Over the years, Sharon made it clear that he was a “big picture” thinker. He was able to detach his plans from the loss of life they caused. This meant a bloody record in dealing with the Palestinians and other Arab peoples, and also that he was more cavalier than many in risking the lives of Israelis, both soldiers and civilians. We can well expect that such a man would be remembered as a heroic warrior by those who admire him and as a war criminal and butcher by those who do not. But a man of peace he was not. Sharon’s actions demonstrate that he never believed peace was possible, at least not a peace he could ever accept. History often takes some time to be written with a relative lack of passion. We might expect that when some time passes, the “man of peace” appellation will blow away like the flimsy shroud it is.

Reference material used for this paper:

Smith, Charles D., Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, fifth edition, 2004 St. Martin’s Press

Kimmerling, Baruch, Politicide, 2003, Verso Press

Shlaim, Avi, The Iron Wall, 2000 W.W. Norton and Company

Ben-Ami, Shlomo, Scars of War, Wounds of Peace, 2006, Oxford University Press

Morris, Benny, Righteous Victims, 1999, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Swisher, Clayton E., The Truth About Camp David, 2004, Nation Books

Friedman, Robert I., Zealots for Zion, 1992, Rutgers University Press

Khalidi, Rashid, Resurrecting Empire, 2004, Beacon Press

Ross, Dennis, The Missing Peace, 2004, Farrar, Straus, Giroux

Newspapers/sites

Ha’aretz

Yediot Aharonot

Ma’ariv

CNN.com

The Independent, UK

Al-Ahram Weekly

Other web services

Jewish Peace News

CAMERA

Information Clearing House

Gush Shalom