- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
> Sharon has never been accused of anything save for violent excess in the protection of a young country surrounded by those who would've loved nothing better than to see her destruction.
Jeffrey seems to be minimizing things. The way he frames it, its all fun and games, high spirits, end justifies the means and all that.
Executing POW's, killing civilians, massacring 69 people in the town of Qibya, being personally responsbile for mass murders of thousands at Sabra and Shatillah?
I note that Jeffrey refuses to acknowledge that Sharon's actions were often considered shocking and extreme to his own countrymen at the time he committed them. In my view, this substantially undercuts his 'youthful high spirits' argument.
>Hitler used hatred and ideology as a tool to rise to power. Did he round up Jews, steal their property, enslave them and ultimately kill them to protect Germany? In the service of fighting for Germany? For any other reason than scapegoating, stealing, enslavement and disposal? I don't think so.
And yet, if we were to ask Hitler's apologists, they would say that his sin was merely an excess of violence in defense of his country, which he saw as besieged by enemies within and without. Russia and Poland on one side, France and England on the other, Jews within. They would argue that he sincerely believed this and that many others did so too. Enemies everywhere and no option but to strike back. Idi Amin, Pinochet, every butcher justified their excesses in the same way. Well, I'm not swallowing it for Hitler or Amin or Pinochet. Nor am I prepared to endorse any excuse that lets them off the hook. The problem is that the excuses being offered by Jeffrey for Sharon are essentially the same ones Hitler's apologists are fond of using. What am I to do?
>Sharon was a killer - no doubt - a hardened soldier fighting a dangerous and unrelenting enemy
Including women and children? Civilians? Noncombatants? Refugee camps in Lebanon? Villages in Jordan? Prisoners of war?
>who actually sided with Hitler during the war -
Rather a cheap shot, don't you think? Sharon himself sided with Lebanese Christian Phalangists who themselves were inspired and patterned themselves on Hitler's legions. I say this only to demonstrate that this sort of crap is easy to fling, and hardly worthy of either side.
>but his was a worthy cause from any perspective - self determination - never the cheap advancement of power based on hatred, murder or enslavement
And the expropriation and expulsion of the current inhabitants of the lands in question? But I won't get into that. I've no intention of discussing the global issues. My comments are confined to Sharon.
Jeffrey's argument here shades into "The ends justify the means." For Jeffrey, it becomes irrelevant that 69 civilians, women and children, were murdered in Jordan in the town of Qibya in 1953. It does not matter to Jeffrey that arguably none of these 69 civilians, definitely none of the women and children, were terrorists or insurgents themselves, had never struck a blow at Israel. They were innocent, as much as innocence can be a meaningful term. Jeffrey is endorsing their murder because these women and children were murdered for a greater cause. The same logic would apply to the Massacres at Sabra and Shatillah. The mass slaughter of women, children and noncombatants who were unquestionably innocent is justified as part of the greater glory of Sharon's cause. It's all okay because Sharon wrapped his atrocities in higher moral principles, a worthy cause.
Jeffrey was happy to call me an anti-semite on no other grounds than that I was calling Sharon a monster for a series of atrocities which Jeffrey did not dispute. It appears that according to Jeffrey, all thats necessary to be an anti-semite is to point out a truth that he dislikes, or to point it out in an uncomfortable way. I regret to say that based on Jeffrey's own clear and straightforward words and arguments, I must damn him as a moral leper.
>Sharon was truly fighting to save his skin, and if his methods were illegal, that they were, but
Explain to me how Sharon's execution of prisoners of war in 1956 was an act of personal self defense? Or for that matter, the massacre of Qibya? The invasion of Lebanon? Or the massacres of Sabra and Shattilah? Or, Jeffrey, are you now engaging in the sort of hyperbole that you criticize me for? A bit hypocritical, don't you think? The difference between us is that my core charges remain valid beyond the hyperbole, but you don't have anything to offer for a defense except rhetorical flourishes.
But hey, I'll be fair. Explain to me how executing prisoners of war, blowing up the town of Qibya in Jordan, or enabling the massacre of helpless women and children in Lebanon were acts of self defense for Israel. Explain how they were necessary, particularly when Israelis themselves found this conduct shocking, offensive and unacceptable? Explain how its all right? I'm sitting here waiting to be convinced.
