assessment: Taking stock of people and ideas in the news.

Ariel SharonThe Bulldozer rolls on.

By David Plotz
Posted Friday, Oct. 6, 2000, at 8:30 PM ET

The most revealing thing that Ariel Sharon has ever said may be this: "I remember well more than 50 years in this country," he once told the New York Times. "I do not remember one normal day."

Anyone who has visited Israel recently knows that it has had countless normal days. Almost every day, in fact, is a normal day. Normality is Israel's greatest achievement. But the Israeli opposition leader cannot accept it. Israel has grown rich, powerful, and secure. Sharon fixates on the idea of Israeli weakness. Israel and the Palestinian Authority have lurched slowly toward a final peace, Israel has made peace with Jordan and Egypt. Sharon still imagines his nation as an island in a sea of hostile Arabs. Sharon's commitment to abnormality helps explain why the old soldier still has the power—grotesquely on display last week, when his visit to the Temple Mount sparked deadly violence throughout Israel and the occupied territories—to throw his country into chaos.

Sharon—part Douglas MacArthur, part Richard Nixon, part hand grenade—is the ultimate sabra: aggressive, smart, charming, and brutal. Born in Palestine in 1928, "Arik," as he is known, was raised on a remote desert farm by hardheaded Russian immigrants. Fear of Arab harassment haunted his childhood and set his worldview. Other early Zionist leaders were animated by complicated intellectual and democratic principles. The farm-boy Sharon was blunter: He believed in Jewish strength. Jews have the right—God-given—to do anything to defend their homeland.

The tough-Jews philosophy was coupled with scorn for Arabs. In his autobiography, Warrior, Sharon depicts Arabs as infantile, timorous, and untrustworthy. As one former U.S. official who knows him puts it, Sharon has the same condescending disregard for Arabs that Southern plantation-owners had for blacks.

For most of Sharon's life, Israel tolerated and largely shared his ultramacho mindset. The Israelis fetishize Getting Things Done, and no gets more done than Sharon. He was a born soldier. He enlisted in the Zionist resistance at 14 and was wounded during the 1948 battle for Jerusalem. In the early '50s, Moshe Dayan selected Sharon to command an elite Israeli unit that retaliated against Arab terrorism. Sharon's unit raided Jordanian villages, murdered Arab civilians, and stopped the terrorist attacks. During the Six-Day War, his troops smashed bunkered-in Egyptian divisions in the Sinai, winning a critical battle. Sharon masterminded the counterattack across the Suez Canal that broke the Egyptian army and effectively ended the 1973 Yom Kippur War. (Military historians consider this one of the most brilliant battles of the century.) As security chief in southern Israel during the early '70s, he suppressed Palestinian resistance in Gaza with amazing brutality and effectiveness. Sharon bulldozed Palestinian houses, summarily murdered dozens of purported terrorists (without the pretense of judicial process), and stopped youth demonstrations by exiling parents of demonstrators.

Sharon displayed the same relentlessness when he turned to politics. While others talked, he created facts on the ground—to use the favorite Israelism. As Menachem Begin's agriculture minister, Sharon built the West Bank settlements that have been so controversial, thus ensuring that Israel would keep sovereignty over much of the occupied territories. Minister of Defense Sharon performed the dirty job of evicting settlers from the Sinai after the Camp David Accords. Sharon supervised the airlift of Ethiopian Jews to Israel in the '80s. When Russian immigrants arrived in the early '90s, Housing Minister Sharon shanghaied billions of dollars to build 80,000 apartments for them. All his military and political labor advanced his two overarching goals: ensuring Israel's security and increasing his own power.

Many Israelis adored this. He was the "Bulldozer" and "Arik, King of the Jews." But his reputation for excess repeatedly dismayed Israelis, especially lefties. During the 1956 Suez-Sinai War, he exceeded orders and sent his troops into an ambush that cost dozens of lives. In 1953, his commandos killed 69 civilians in the Jordanian town of Qibya. Sharon claimed that he thought the Jordanians' houses were unoccupied when his soldiers dynamited them.

Israel's leaders tolerated Sharon's intemperance—can't make an omelet, etc.—until the 1982 Lebanon war. That invasion—known as Sharon's War—was supposed to drive the PLO out of southern Lebanon and establish a compliant Lebanese state. Sharon did vanquish the PLO, but he reportedly attacked further than the Cabinet had authorized and misled Prime Minister Begin about it. Most damningly, Sharon was found "indirectly responsible" for the massacre of hundreds of Palestinian civilians in Beirut refugee camps. His troops had permitted Lebanese Christian militiamen to invade the camps for the slaughter. Sharon was forced to resign as defense minister.

The Sabra and Shatilla massacres, which confirmed the Israeli left's view that Sharon was demonic, would have ended anyone else's career. But Sharon has Nixonian resilience. Almost immediately after the massacre, he was back in the Cabinet. He shunted responsibility for Lebanon onto Begin, the United States, fellow generals—anyone but himself. He remained essential to Likud's coalition, because he represented an indispensable group. The ultra-right wing and the settlers treasure Sharon, and while they aren't numerous enough to control Israel, they're too numerous to be ignored. Sharon never gained majority support but could always claim the loyalty of 10 percent-30 percent of Israelis.

Sharon was redeemed for other reasons too. Like Nixon, Sharon came to be valued for pragmatism. Unlike most of his supporters, Sharon has no religious or ideological conviction that Israel must rule the West Bank. He cares only about national security, and that makes him willing to at least pretend to compromise. He bowed to the Camp David settlement and even negotiated with the Palestinians in 1998 as Benjamin Netanyahu's foreign minister.

And even Sharon's critics concede his straightforward integrity. "You may love him. You may hate him. But you have to respect who he is. No one can accuse him of not being clear about what he is fighting for," says Thomas Smerling, who directs the Israel Policy Forum's Washington office. As other old-timers—Dayan, Begin, Yitzak Rabin—died, Sharon's mythological stature grew. He remains a last link to Israel's fabulous martial past.

The passage of time has not mellowed Sharon. He inherited a fractured, weakened Likud when Netanyahu lost the 1999 election. The party seemed overwhelmed by Barak's peace train. But Sharon, endlessly ambitious and endlessly paranoid about Israeli security, has been doing his mightiest to revive Likud by smashing the negotiations. He has scored the most success by railing Barak for his proposed concessions on Jerusalem.

Last week's Temple Mount visit capped off Sharon's scheming: It overshadowed Netanyahu's return to Likud, it embarrassed Barak, and most importantly, it provoked the Palestinian violence that Sharon has been waiting for. Sharon believes (not unreasonably) that the Palestinians were preparing for war, so he seems to view the riots as vindication of his pessimism. To his critics, the riots simply prove that Sharon is malevolent enough to cause mayhem for his own political gain.

As this week's events have again demonstrated, Sharon has a perverse alliance with the Palestinians: His provocations justify their worst fears about Israeli oppression. Their violence—in reaction to his provocations—justifies Sharon's pessimism about Palestinian untrustworthiness. In this case, Yasser Arafat is exploiting the Palestinian riots to duck a peace compromise, while Sharon and Likud are profiting politically from the fighting. He has again created new facts on the ground. Rather than berating his visit, Israel is rallying around the flag. Thanks to the agony that Sharon helped incite, more Israelis now share his suspicions about the Palestinians. The conflict has almost certainly halted the peace negotiations and will probably topple the coalition of Ehud Barak.

There are two likely outcomes. One is that the Knesset will toss Barak, and Netanyahu will unseat Sharon for Likud Party leader, then challenge and probably defeat Barak in a general election. The other is that a desperate Barak will form a new national unity coalition government with Sharon's Likud. In exchange for Likud's support, Sharon is likely to demand authority over internal security.

In either case, Sharon is likely to have some responsibility for keeping the peace. The Bulldozer will get another chance to "supervise" the West Bank and Gaza—and no doubt he will show all the benevolence he has always shown toward Palestinians. Some old soldiers want to fade away: Sharon would rather spend his dotage stifling the intifada that he helped create. He believes there has never been a normal day in Israel. And if he has his way, there will never be one.

DISCUSS

E-MAIL

Related in Slate

Israeli troops are shooting rubber bullets at Palestinian protesters. Emily Yoffe explains what rubber bullets are. Last year David Plotz argued that Jerusalem would stymie Ehud Barak's effort to sign a peace deal in "Barak's Hard Place." In July, Anne Applebaum advised Barak and Arafat "How To Succeed at Camp David." Evidently they didn't listen.

Related on the Web

This site archives recent articles by Sharon. The Likud Party home page opens with a photo of Sharon. It's in Hebrew, but you can listen to the party jingle. This brief Sharon bio includes some decent historical links. The leftish Israeli paper Ha'aretz publishes a daily English edition online.

David Plotz is Slate's deputy editor. He is the author of The Genius Factory: The Curious History of the Nobel Prize Sperm Bank. You can e-mail him at .

If you liked this Assessment column, check out Backstabbers, Crazed Geniuses, and Animals We Hate, a collection of our all-time funniest, meanest, sweetest, and weirdest profiles.

Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum

What did you think of this article?

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments from The Fray:

Kudos to David Plotz for a nicely crafted profile of Ariel Sharon. Two quibbles: first, the comparison with Nixon doesn't quite wash. Nixon, as unpleasant as he was, had psychological depth and complexity. Second, readers might have benefited from an explanation of how closely identified Sharon is with the "Judaization of Jerusalem," to use his own phrase.

--Josh Pollack

(To reply, click here.)

Whoever and whatever Sharon is, as an individual Sharon is no more responsible for the Arab riots in Jerusalem and on the West Bank, then the presence of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo was for causing the First World War. Then too the radical Serbs saw his visit to the Balkans a provocation and shot him dead. It suits our lazy desire for reassurance to blame complex events on a single man or incident. It especially suits American liberal Jews to see in Sharon a bogey man: this way they don't have to deal with the unpleasant realities of Arab antisemtism, of Muslim theological resentments toward Jews, and most importantly their desire to dismember the Jewish state.

--Guavi

(To reply, click here.)

The article is typical of much of the Israeli "leftie" reporting. Hand-wringing over admitted atrocities but goshdangdit the man got the work done. So what if some Palestinians were murdered by the terrorist Sharon; the author informs us we must respect this "terrorist". Insert Milosevic in place of Sharon, Albanians in place of Palestinians and onecan only wonder how the author would react to his very own piece. The Sabra and Shatilla massacres were horrible crimes but the illegal invasion of Lebanon which killed 30000 Lebanese are what the Palestinians and the Lebanese government are truly angered about. An honest leftie would condemn Sharon as a war criminal and the Israeli occupation forces as "ethnic cleansers". However, to Plotz and other Israeli lefties it's enough to question whether these well-meaning folks(the Israeli terrorists) have perhaps gone a smidgen too far.

--Greg

(To reply, click here.)

Americans, notwithstanding our glorious military history, lost the stomach for pointless, racist, ideology-driven violence in the Vietnam era. Even today, we'd at least rather make money (if not love) than war. On the other hand, a small but effective minority of Israelis apparently would rather fight than f***. Israel desperately needs a leftist, non-violent movement to shore up Barak's support and burn Sharon in effigy the way we did Nixon. Of course, any such movement would look like fools at this moment, since I suspect you are entirely right that the Palestinians have been itching to get back to rock-throwing and dying just as bad as Sharon wanted to mete out some ass-kicking. Arafat snubbed Barak's sweetheart deal offered at the last Camp David talks, he pointedly omitted to speak out against the violence and he stormed out of the talks in Paris like a spoilt child who has to eat broccoli instead of a Happy Meal. The fact is, the Palestinians need a leftist peace enema even more than the Israelis. Arafat has absolutely no serious political challengers other than Hamas, who are constantly prodding him in the ass with a bayonet. Where are the Palestinians who are sick of dead 12-year old boys? Isn't there at least some contingent of Palestinian soccer moms who believe getting some of your own territory and equal access to Jerusalem--a major step forward, from a historical perspective--is more attractive than the prospect of taking a rubber bullet in the eye?

The Middle East needs an Abbie Hoffman.

--Chuck C

(To reply, click here.)

Let's not pretend for one second that the Israelis fear being in a "sea of hostile Arabs." That's simply preposterous. The Israelis had until recently nothing but contempt for the Arab ability to make war. Even now, post Hezbollah and Lebanon, they still see Arab victories as anomalies, more Israeli mistakes than Arab triumphs. That's the way it's always been. They entered into war with the Arabs in 1948 with full confidence that they would crush the Arabs, as of course they did, and have continued to do so. Israel pursues the policies it does, not out of any fear of the terrible surrounding Arab, but to aggrandize itself at the expense of the Arabs--to "rebuild" Eretz Israel on the land of others who, most inconveniently, are using the land at the present time. This is not some terrible extremist Likud policy, but a policy put in place initially by Labor itself, and which Labor has never taken any real steps to change that course (despite posturing meant to demonize Likud).

--Larry

(To reply, click here .)

(10/9)