Read other letters about this article

• Monday, January 9, 2006 03:30 PM

  Overstated

  Den moves far too easily from Sharon to Bundy to Hitler. 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. Hitler used hatred and ideology as a tool to rise to power. Did he see a devastated Germany after WWI? Of course he did. 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. Sharon was a killer - no doubt - a hardened soldier fighting a dangerous and unrelenting enemy who actually sided with Hitler during the war - but his was a worthy cause from any perspective - self determination - never the cheap advancement of power based on hatred, murder or enslavement (come on, Den, don't you believe that Sharon wanted nothing more than for the Arabs - save for a few menial laborers, to simply disappear?). Vietnam, South America, Iraq - pick your choice, are wars of choice - bad choices if you ask me, but unilateral movements against a nebulous enemy that never really threatened America. Sharon was truly fighting to save his skin, and if his methods were illegal, that they were, but to put him on the same page as Hitler - or even Nixon, is a historical push that holds no water: evil and murder are a far more complex issue than you present. Was Sharon an excessive killer of his enemies? Perhaps. Was he evil? I don't think so.

  —jeffrey
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel