Trending Topics:

Ariel Sharon, whose political career was unhindered by civilian massacres, dies at 85

on 245 Comments
Ariel Sharon

Ariel Sharon

Ariel Sharon, who became prime minister of Israel despite a finding that he bore responsibility for the massacre of hundreds of Palestinian civilians two decades before, has died at 85 after being in a coma for eight years.

Sharon made a name for himself in 1953 by leading a massacre of Palestinian civilians in Jordan and in 1982, he was Israel’s Defense Minister and led the invasion of Lebanon, during which Israeli soldiers allowed Christian militias to enter two Palestinian refugee camps, Sabra and Shatilla, and massacre hundreds of civilians, including many women and children. Some reports put the death toll at 2,000-3,000.

The Times timeline for Ariel Sharon doesn’t include the words Sabra and Shatilla. The Times obit for Sharon by Ethan Bronner mentions the massacre in the 17th paragraph, but doesn’t detail Sabra and Shatilla till paragraph 63. Fox doesn’t mention the massacre.

Former Israeli prime minister and storied general Ariel Sharon, who was at the height of his power when he suffered a stroke in 2006 and fell into an irreversible coma…

Harriet Sherwood in the Guardian is also respectful. Paragraph 7:

Among Palestinians and leftwing Israelis, he will be remembered as a powerful and reviled champion of Israel’s colonial settlement project, and the political force behind the construction of the vast concrete and steel separation barrier that snakes through the West Bank. Many will not forgive his role in the killing of hundreds of Palestinians in refugee camps in Beirut in the 1980s.

Reuters makes no mention of the Beirut massacre in its short obit of “the trailblazing former Israeli general and prime minister.”

Carlos Latuff’s headline is that the “war criminal dies, unpunished,” with a cartoon at the link of a judge at the Hague expressing disappointment at the empty seat for the defendant. And he offers this visual summary of Sharon’s record:

"The Butcher of Sabra & Shatila dies"

“The Butcher of Sabra & Shatila dies”

Dimi Reider at +972 has a good lead:

A general, politician, statesman, and to many a notorious war criminal, Ariel Sharon was known to combine dogged personal ambition with strategic acumen and ruthlessness, which together shaped one of the most controversial and remarkable careers in Israeli political history.

His second paragraph deals with Sharon’s service in a unit Israeli PM David Ben Gurion launched to deal with Palestinian refugee militias in the 1950s. Including the Qibya massacre in Jordan:

As often as not, the attacks were against civilian targets, including refugee camps and villages in the Egyptian-occupied Gaza Strip and Jordanian-occupied West Bank. One such raid, on the village of Qibya in 1953, culminated in a massacre of 69 civilians who were gunned down as they tried to escape their homes or were buried under the rubble of detonated buildings. The public outcry was so severe that Ben-Gurion initially lied to the Israeli public…

When Reider gets to Sabra and Shatilla, he uses the figure 3000 for the dead and points out that the massacres had no real effect on Sharon’s political career:

Sharon was found by the Kahan Commission to be responsible for the Sabra and Shatila Massacre of over 3,000 Palestinian refugees by Israel’s Lebanese allies, the Phalanges, and was made to resign – although he remained in the cabinet as minister without portfolio. Attempts to bring him to trial in international courts over the massacre went to no avail. Two years later, in 1984, Sharon came close to winning the leadership of the Likud, and returned to his ministerial career, first as minister for trade and industry and then as housing and construction minister. In the latter role, Sharon oversaw the construction of more than 144,000 housing units for Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza.

NPR had a good obit this morning describing Sabra and Shatilla and Sharon’s responsibility for sparking the second intifada with his provocative visit to the Temple Mount in 2000. CNN is also upfront about the massacre.

Many in the Arab world called Sharon “the Butcher of Beirut” after he oversaw Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon while serving as defense minister…

During the Lebanon war in 1982, Sharon, a former army general then serving as Israeli defense minister, was held indirectly responsible by an Israeli inquiry in 1983 for the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. He was forced to resign.

Al Jazeera gets to the butchery in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the “divisive” and “controversial” leader’s obit:

The Arab world reviled Sharon for masterminding the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, during which Israel’s Lebanese Christian allies massacred Palestinians in two refugee camps.

Sharon was forced to resign as defence minister after an Israeli inquiry found him indirectly responsible for failing to prevent the killings.

His provocative visit to Islam’s third holiest site, al-Haram al-Sharif (The Noble Sanctuary), while opposition leader, was said to have sparked the second Palestinian intifada (uprising) in September 2000.

Abdeen Jabara, former head of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, offers this remembrance of the massacres:

Just after it occurred I went to Beirut to find injured survivors of the massacre of whom there were very few. I went with a nurse to a section of Beirut at night that had no electricity and with flashlights went thru some medical records which I took and copied to send to ADC headquarters so that we could get emergency medical visas for the victims. Ultimately some 15 young Palestinians and a few Lebanese in need of prosthetic devices, etc. came to the U.S for treatment.

While in Beirut I found a pamphlet written by an Israeli, Amnon Kapeliouk, that was published in French that put responsibility for the massacre squarely on the shoulders of the Israelis. The commander of Israeli forces in West Beirut at the time was a person who was removed with Sharon after the Inquiry and later made Military Attache to Washington. I was head of ADC when that happened. We led a big campaign to have him
declared persona non grata and also had a lawsuit filed against him by survivors. The lawsuit was dismissed on the grounds that he had diplomatic immunity. The Military Attache was quietly withdrawn and ultimately appointed to be the head of the Army.

I recall our going to a hotel in D.C. when Sharon came to visit. I got within a couple of feet of him in the hotel lobby and almost wanted to vomit. We had a protest but he was welcomed by official Washington with open arms.

That military attache was Amos Yaron. This report says that Sabra and Shatilla had 2000 deaths.

Larry Derfner praises Sharon’s 2005 Gaza withdrawal as the single greatest act of leadership he’s ever witnessed (!) but Emily Hauser says the Gaza withdrawal was underhanded.

The withdrawal from Gaza was a unilateral act intended to freeze out the Palestinian leadership and put the peace process itself on ice, so that Israel could deepen its hold on the West Bank.

And guess what? It worked.

The Times, on the Qibya raid in the West Bank, occupied by Jordan, in 1953:

in October, when Mr. Sharon led a reprisal raid into a Jordanian town said to be harboring militants after an Israeli woman and her two children were killed in the town of Yehud. Sixty-nine people, more than half of them women and children, were killed in the raid.

Deep in his story, Bronner offers a thorough account of Sabra and Shatilla:

The Israelis decided to secure several West Beirut neighborhoods, including Sabra and Shatila, Palestinian refugee camps where the Palestine Liberation Organization had residual bases and arms and thousands of fighters. But rather than move in themselves, the Israelis sent in the Phalangists, who killed hundreds of civilians. The massacre provoked international outrage, and many Israelis, already despondent that the “48-hour” Lebanon incursion had turned into a lengthy military and geopolitical adventure, were outraged. There were furious calls for Mr. Sharon’s resignation.

Mr. Sharon and Mr. Begin said this was intolerable slander. As Mr. Begin said, using the Hebrew word for non-Jews, “Goyim kill goyim, and they blame the Jews.” Nonetheless, even Mr. Begin started to distance himself from Mr. Sharon, whose political demise began to seem inevitable.

The government established an official investigation of the massacre, led by Israel’s chief justice, Yitzhak Kahan. The investigating committee absolved Mr. Sharon of direct responsibility, but said he should have anticipated that sending enraged militiamen of the Phalange into Palestinian neighborhoods right after the assassination of the group’s leader amounted to an invitation to carnage. The committee recommended his resignation.

Time magazine reported that Mr. Sharon had actually urged the Gemayel family to have its troops take revenge on the Palestinians for the death of Mr. Gemayel. The magazine said Mr. Sharon made this point during his condolence visit to the family. It claimed further that a secret appendix to the Kahan Commission report made this clear.

Mr. Sharon sued Time for libel and won a partial victory in Federal District Court in New York City. The court found that the secret appendix, which contained names of Israeli intelligence officers, included no assertion by Mr. Sharon of the need for Phalangist revenge. But it ruled that Mr. Sharon had not been libeled because he could not prove “malice” on the part of the magazine.

Thanks to Annie Robbins and Ira Glunts for help putting this together. This story initially put Qibya in Jordan. Thanks to a reader for correcting me.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

245 Responses

  1. Justpassingby on January 11, 2014, 9:54 am


    Lets see how MSM will hail this warcriminal.

    • just on January 11, 2014, 10:06 am

      They are “hailing” him alright…….it’s more than a bit nauseating. Somehow they’ve morphed him into a genius and a man of peace instead of the Butcher that he was.

      (Condolences to his family that loved him. That’s all I can say that is ‘nice’.)

      Latuff “nailed” it….. again.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius on January 11, 2014, 10:10 am

        CNN International delivers a long eulogy on Sharon, with words like ‘controversial’, ‘fearless’ and ‘hardline’ in abundance. CNN’s reporter tells us how much Arik loved his wife (seriously!) and it’s all about what Israelis think – Arabs don’t matter. They managed to find time for Michael Oren to tell us how tall, blonde and handsome the young Sharon was, but other than Hanan Ashrawi, they can’t manage to find any Arab to give their opinion on the butcher of Beirut. Speaking of which, no mention of the estimated 20,000 victims – the vast majority civilians – who died in Sharon’s cowardly bombing of that city.

      • seafoid on January 12, 2014, 11:12 am

        Hardline is just a euphemism for deluded violent rightwinger. Franco was hardline.

      • Kathleen on January 11, 2014, 5:58 pm

        What Just said

    • Sumud on January 11, 2014, 10:27 am

      In Australia Fairfax press have an OK obit that doesn’t shy away from mentioning Sharon’s role in 1953 and 1982 massacres and even illustrates Sabra and Shatilla with a grim photo of piled up corpses – though I think they could have placed the blame for 1982 more firmly with Sharon as per findings of the Kahane Commission.

      • amigo on January 11, 2014, 2:09 pm

        Sumud, Al Jazeera here in Europe is reporting views by ,Cameron/Merkel /Ban Ki Moon and a few others.Nothing overly complimentary but mosty obtuse.IE “He was one of the most significant figures in Israeli history”, or “He was brave and made difficult decisions for peace” .

        Nothing near the eulogies given to Mandela.

        Compared to Mandela, he is an insignificant blot on history.

      • just on January 11, 2014, 2:51 pm

        “Compared to Mandela, he is an insignificant blot on history.”

        A human stain and blight on history, imho.

    • on January 11, 2014, 6:46 pm

      hooray! let’s have a celebration party-the monster is dead.

  2. Woody Tanaka on January 11, 2014, 9:57 am

    The Earth is a far better place than it was just one day ago.

  3. Maximus Decimus Meridius on January 11, 2014, 9:57 am

    Only a few hours since Sharon’s death was announced and I’m already choking on the whitewash fumes emanating from my TV and computer. At least this article is providing an antidote – I can breathe again! Phew!

  4. Ron Edwards on January 11, 2014, 10:06 am

    Cue tearful eulogies from despicable people who are paid by my tax dollars.

    I imagine that his ravenous corpse, finally (fully) released from the constraints of cosmic sanity, will lumber into the most high-profile gathering of such people and devour them. Serve’em right.

    Whereas I hope that the symbolism of the mindless, obese hulk of Zionist policy, kept on life-support for so long, finally expiring, will be taken seriously by everyone else.

  5. seafoid on January 11, 2014, 10:06 am

    “And guess what? It worked.”

    Too early to say definitively . It’s like saying the Fortis takeover of part of ABN Amro in 2007 was a strategic triumph. It looked so at the time but it lead to the collapse of the company later.

    Zionism was about having a place where everyone was Jewish. Jewish policemen, Jewish farmers, Jewish bus drivers. Herzl didn’t realize it but above all it turned out they needed cruel Jewish bastards. And Sharon was the daddy of them.

    Sharon is going to be judged on whether or not Israel makes it long term. Was the path of extreme violence the right path? Or should they have followed Buber? They chose violence. Sharon became the king of the Jews.

    I think it was a tragedy for Judaism.

  6. pabelmont on January 11, 2014, 10:12 am

    MSM — Sharon , what a lovely man! Genius soldier! Handsome, kind to children and dogs. A good Israeli loved by most Israelis because he did well what Israelis do.

    • Walid on January 11, 2014, 10:18 am

      And Bush called him “a man of peace” for his Gaza pullout stunt.

      • Sammar on January 11, 2014, 11:24 am

        Walid –

        Bush even called him a “man of peace” during the Jenin massacre.

        “Denunciations of Israeli brutality in Jenin have been voiced throughout the world, with just one notable exception. The Bush administration has not only maintained its steadfast support for the government of Ariel Sharon, but has all but abandoned the pretence that it is seeking an Israeli military withdrawal from the West Bank.

        Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office as he met with Secretary of State Colin Powell on his return from Israel, Bush praised Sharon as a “MAN OF PEACE”, while criticising Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat for not bringing an end to “terrorism.”

        Most significant of all, when asked if he was troubled that there was still a major Israeli military presence on the West Bank two weeks after he had called for an immediate withdrawal, Bush declared, “History will show that they responded”. Sharon, he added, “gave me a timetable and he’s met the timetable.”

        Sorry, still don’t know how to put bold or underline when posting…

        I know you shouldn’t speak ill of the dead, so I have nothing to say. Just that I am glad he is gone and that I hope there is a hereafter where he will be hold accountable for his actions.

      • Taxi on January 11, 2014, 11:02 pm

        Taxi: Hey Sharon died today.
        Lebanese villager: kiss immuh ba3du ayesh? (mother effer was still alive?)

        * In south Lebanon, his death seems utterly meaningless – no one danced and no one shed a tear. Absolute indifference.

      • MahaneYehude1 on January 12, 2014, 12:25 pm

        Kiss Immuh??


    • Maximus Decimus Meridius on January 11, 2014, 10:34 am

      The reaction of Israelis to this will be quite revealing as to just how large and influential the ”moderate Israeli public” really is. We’re always being told how ‘controversial’ and ‘divisive’ Sharon was. Let’s see if there’s anything approaching the reaction to Thatcher’s death last year, when it was very obvious that a good proportion of the British public hated her. I doubt we’ll see the same for Sharon. He was considered a military hero.

      • OlegR on January 11, 2014, 10:41 am

        What would be much more revealing are the comments to this article.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius on January 11, 2014, 1:05 pm

        Like yours?

        But nobody should be surprised that the majority of Israelis will hero worship a war criminal. ”Controversial” my….

      • Daniel Rich on January 11, 2014, 2:51 pm

        @ OlegR,

        Q: What would be much more revealing are the comments to this article.

        R: Yours have been noted.

      • just on January 11, 2014, 3:14 pm

        He’s in extreme mourning… so sad for the fans/supporters of Arik and his bloodthirstiness.

        Who will lead them now? Oh, yeah. They have the Netanyahu, the Lieberman, the Livni, the Lapid, the IOF, the Police, the Regev, the Dershowitz………..etc. ad nauseam. The Gohmert, the Menendez, the Schumer, the PNAC, the neocons………and almost all of the US Congress.

        They’ll find someone(s) to fill the enormous void.

      • Taxi on January 11, 2014, 11:58 pm

        Thank you, Sharon, for giving us Hizbollah – your greatest achievement!

    • Justpassingby on January 11, 2014, 10:34 am

      So sick to see this whitewash right now..

  7. Helena Cobban on January 11, 2014, 10:21 am

    Someone could do a real service by writing a roundup of WORLD media coverage of Sharon’s death– including, of course, reactions from some of the survivors of his many massacres. Of course it is interesting and instructive to see (once again) the cravenly pro-Zionist hypocrisy of much of the US MSM. But this is not new. I think that what discerning US citizens need to see more than anything is the huge *contrast *between the pro-Zionist pap that their (our) own dominant media feeds us with and the way the other 95% of humanity thinks about these issues…

    • just on January 11, 2014, 10:28 am

      I’m in hearty agreement, Helena.

      I hope that it comes to pass– and soon.

  8. Maximus Decimus Meridius on January 11, 2014, 10:28 am

    A lot of news reports are referring to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon as a ‘disaster’. However, it’s clear that they consider it a ‘disaster’ not because it caused the deaths of 20,000 Arabs, but because it was a strategic and PR failure for Israel and damaged its ‘soul’.

    Priorities, priorities.

  9. OlegR on January 11, 2014, 10:33 am

    I am glad that finally he is at rest.
    8 years on life support , what a terrible fate.

    • Walid on January 11, 2014, 10:47 am

      “… what a terrible fate.”

      Given what he did in his lifetime, not terrible enough. There was no torture involved; he simply slept through the last 8 years. He got off real easy; hopefully he’ll get what’s due to him in his next life, with interest.

      • OlegR on January 11, 2014, 11:03 am

        This can open an interesting discussion about what does a person in a coma experience if at all but i don’t think this is the time or the place.
        But i do hope you are right and he did sleep through the whole time
        because even partial consciousness trapped in it’s own body for 8 years
        is a terrible fate to imagine.

        I doubt there is a next life certainly not in the sense that human religions predicate it.

      • Walid on January 11, 2014, 1:14 pm

        “But i do hope you are right and he did sleep through the whole time
        because even partial consciousness trapped in it’s own body for 8 years
        is a terrible fate to imagine.”

        It’s my turn to hope that you’re right that he may have been partially conscious to realize that he was trapped in his carcass for 8 years. The Palestinians in the camps are celebrating today and for good reason. Probably feeling the same joy or relief that you guys felt at Eichmann’s end..

      • OlegR on January 11, 2014, 1:50 pm

        בנפול אויבך אל תשמח.

      • eljay on January 11, 2014, 1:28 pm

        >> I doubt there is a next life certainly not in the sense that human religions predicate it.

        As far as we know, there is no “next life”, which means Mr. Sharon evaded accountability and justice for the acts of immorality and injustice he committed in this life. This is a shame and an outrage.

        Mr. Sharon will be remembered and celebrated by many as a hero. This is disgusting.

        The word “hero” will be further tarnished. This is a pity.

      • Taxi on January 11, 2014, 11:07 pm

        “בנפול אויבך אל תשמח”.

        Buzz off and take your box of keenex widya!

      • amigo on January 11, 2014, 2:24 pm

        “This can open an interesting discussion about what does a person in a coma experience if at all”oleg

        You tell us.

        “But i do hope you are right and he did sleep through the whole time
        because even partial consciousness trapped in it’s own body for 8 years
        is a terrible fate to imagine.”oleg.

        Oh I do hope you are wrong. A fitting end for a criminal of his stature.

      • oldgeezer on January 11, 2014, 6:15 pm

        My wife spent two periods of her life in a coma. The second she didn’t recover from so no idea but the first time she was able to recall things that had been said to her. Her recall was verbatim and it astonished.

        Luckily for her she had no recollection of being in a coma. She just had these little snippets and had no idea of the time that had passed or where she was. Sadly that means Sharon likely didn’t suffer. I don’t feel good about wishing that on someone but if anyone deserved it then he did.

      • just on January 11, 2014, 6:40 pm

        My heartfelt condolences. It’s amazing to me how very little we know of the brain.

        I’ve witnessed people ‘wake’ from a comatose state with excellent recall…

    • marc b. on January 11, 2014, 11:14 am

      What an inane comment. You have absolutely no idea if he had a split second of conscious suffering in those 8 eight years.

      • ToivoS on January 11, 2014, 5:07 pm

        Not so inane. There is a real possibility that the conscious part of the brain remained alive. The damaged part of the brain involved that region that signals between the cognitive and the senses (hearing, sight, voluntary motor control, nerve impulses). We really do not know if he was or was not aware but we do know that he was not brain dead which means there was still measurable activity going in that part of the brain that controls consciousness. I think Oleg has raised an interesting possibility.

      • Walid on January 11, 2014, 5:20 pm

        “There is a real possibility that the conscious part of the brain remained alive.”

        Thanks for the comforting news. If so, he must have felt like the man in the iron mask. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving tyrant.

      • marc b. on January 11, 2014, 6:43 pm

        Toivo, with all due respect, at present it’s an unanswerable question, and in this context completely rhetorical. Olerg was trying to elicit sympathy for a mass murderer, not delve into an existential inquiry.

      • ToivoS on January 11, 2014, 8:07 pm

        marc b I am in complete agreement with your comment. Somehow I thought it would be in poor taste to bring up this subject in this time of mourning, but once Oleg opened the door I couldn’t resist pointing out the possibility that poor Sharon spent the last 10% of his life trapped inside this totally black room with no way to either receive information from the outside or to communicate back.

        Shron’s situation over the past half dozen years kept on reminding me of the most depressing movies I ever saw: “Johnny get your gun”.

      • amigo on January 12, 2014, 9:23 am

        “What an inane comment. You have absolutely no idea if he had a split second of conscious suffering in those 8 eight years.” marc b

        No , but we can hope .

    • seafoid on January 11, 2014, 11:31 am

      Israel has been on Congress life support for far longer, Oleg

    • Woody Tanaka on January 11, 2014, 11:45 am

      Terrible only if he he was unconscious the whole time. If he spent that time fully conscious and able to feel but unable to move, and in extreme, endless pain, then it’s terrible only that it ended.

      Good riddence to evil trash.

    • puppies on January 11, 2014, 12:30 pm

      See, outside the Zionist pen people are very, very sorry that he died in his bed.

    • ranoosh on January 12, 2014, 12:13 pm

      He will never be at rest. He lived an undignified life, he died an undignified death, a carcass. He will rot in hell.

  10. flyod on January 11, 2014, 10:37 am

    roll out the red carpet,,
    in hell

  11. Walid on January 11, 2014, 10:39 am

    The “Butcher of Beirut” tag attached to the criminal was not only because of the 2000 or so helpless mostly women and children massacred in Sabra and Shatila but for what he did in the same year to the city of Beirut and the 20,000 civilians killed and 30,000 injured in it by Israel.

    A small part of the story about what this vicious animal did:

    “… Tom Segev of Ha’aretz “toured Lebanon after the conquest” in mid-June. He saw “refugees wandering amidst swarms of flies, dressed in rags, their faces expressing terror and their eyes bewilderment … the women wailing and the children sobbing”. Here and there people were walking “as in a nightmare”. “A terrible smell filled the air” – of decomposing bodies, he learned … “This is what the cities of Germany looked like at the end of the Second World War.” He saw “mounds of ruins”, tens of thousands of people at the shore where they remained for days, women driven away by soldiers when they attempted to flee.

    The Lebanese government casualty figures are based on police records, which in turn are based on actual counts in hospitals, clinics and civil defence centres. These figures do “not include people buried in mass graves in areas where Lebanese authorities were not informed.” [7] The figures, including the figure 19,000 dead and over 30,000 wounded, hence underestimate the real degree of bloodletting.

    In the first bombing of Beirut in June, a children’s hospital in the Sabra refugee camp was hit and the Gaza Hospital near the camps was reported hit. [8] “There is nothing unusual” in the story told by an operating room assistant who lost both hands in the attack. “That the target of the air strike was a hospital, whether by design or accident, is not unique either,” reported William Branigan in the Washington Post. [9] The Acre Hospital was again hit on 24 June, along with the Gaza Hospital and the Islamic Home for Invalids where “the corridors were streaked with blood”.

    By mid-August, the Islamic Home had been repeatedly shelled, only 15 of 200 staff members remained and “several retarded children died of starvation for lack of someone to feed them properly.” [10] Most of this was before the bombing escalated in August. By 4 August eight out of nine Homes of Orphans had been destroyed, attacked by cluster and phosphorous bombs. When Beirut mental hospital was hit, “800 patients varying in condition from senile dementia to violent schizophrenia were released into the streets of Beirut.” [11]

    Chris Giannou was a Canadian surgeon working in Lebanon at the time of the Israeli invasion. His testimony later to the United States Congress makes grim reading.

    He reported that “he was witness to four prisoners who were beaten to death.” That he witnessed “the total devastation of residential areas and the blind, savage, indiscriminate destruction of refugee camps by simultaneous shelling and carpet bombing from aircraft, gunboats, tanks and artillery,” leaving only “large blackened craters filled with rubble and debris, broken concrete slabs and twisted iron bars and corpses”; “hospitals being shelled”, one shell killing 40-50 people … He saw “the entire male staff” of the hospital being taken into custody, leaving patients unattended, and “savage and indiscriminate beatings” of prisoners with fists, sticks, ropes with nuts and bolts tied to them. He saw a Palestinian doctor hung by his hands from a tree and beaten and an Iraqi surgeon “beaten by several guards viciously, and left to lie in the sun with his face buried in the sand” – all in the presence of an Israeli Colonel who did nothing about it. He watched prisoners “being rehearsed by an Israeli officer to shout ‘Long Live Begin’.” [12]

    A Norwegian doctor and social worker confirmed this story, saying that they had seen at least ten people beaten to death, including an old man who was crazed by lack of water and intense heat as the prisoners were forced to sit for hours in the sun; he was beaten by four or five soldiers who then tied him with his wrists to his ankles and let him lie in the sun until he died. [13]

    The sustained eleven-hour bombing of Beirut on 12 August finally evoked world-wide condemnation, even from the US, and the direct attack was halted:

    To many people, in fact, the siege of Beirut seemed gratuitous brutality … The arsenal of weapons, unleashed in a way that has not been seen since the Vietnam War, clearly horrified those who saw the results first hand and through film and news reports from a distance. The use of cluster bombs and white phosphorus shells, a vicious weapon, was widespread.”

    In the end … Israel created in West Beirut a whole set of facts that no amount of packaging could disguise. In the last hours of the last air attack on Beirut, Israeli planes carpet-bombed Borj el Brajne (a Palestinian refugee camp). There were no fighting men left, only the damaged homes of Palestinian families, who once again would have to leave and find another place to live. All of West Beirut, finally, was living in wreckage and garbage and loss.”

    The rest of the gory Sharon story:

    • just on January 11, 2014, 10:50 am

      And this is how he should be remembered by all.

      Thanks Walid.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius on January 11, 2014, 10:53 am

      I agree. Horrific though Sabra and Shatila was, it was but one atrocity among many in a war which claimed up to 20,000 lives, the vast majority of them civilians. In his wonderful book, ‘Beware of Small States’, David Hirst tells of how Sharon, in a fit of pique, would call up air strikes killing tens or even hundreds of people, for no purpose other than to vent his rage.

      The hagiographies are quite sickening.

    • marc b. on January 11, 2014, 12:41 pm

      The focus on Sharon’s involvement in these various atrocities misses the greater point of his ‘genius’, which is the transformation of Israeli military tactics and the creation of the new soldier myth, which includes the settler as paramilitary force. Sharon and others were able to win a strategic debate, the IDF abandoning the static defensive posture (the so-called ‘Israeli Maginot line’) in favor of projecting the military into the frontier, establishing hill top military posts into the occupied territories, and inverting enclosures. So a military post would not establish an immediate defensive line on its perimeter, but seek instead to bottle up the Palestinians. This is the real genesis of the settler-IDF hydra, clearly establishing the Israeli as ‘native’ and Palestinian as a foreign body. It’s also the genesis of the ‘new Jew’, the rabid paramilitary personality, a departure from the ‘agricultural pioneering spirit’ of Labor Zionism.

      From Eyal Weizman’s ‘Hollow Land’:

      Throughout his military career, Sharon has become the personification of the Israeli ‘myth of the frontier’, which celebrated the transgression of lines and borders of all kinds. Like its American predecessor, the Israeli frontier was understood as a mythical space that shaped the character and institutions of the nation. It was also a laboratory for the emergence of and experimentation with new spatial strategies and territorial forms. . . . [B]etween 1948 and 1967 the Israeli state created a series of ‘rhetorical and institutional mechanisms’ that presented the frontier region as the symbolic center of the nation, ‘a laboratory for the creation of a “new Jew”‘.

      In other words Sharon is largely responsible for the ascendency of the settler as a military force and its ideological influence in politics.

      • Citizen on January 11, 2014, 5:24 pm

        @ MARC B
        yea, Sharon is responsible for the romantic view of Israeli settlers. He should be celebrated as the ultimate racist prick, and a fellow travelers with Hitler until his dying day.

      • marc b. on January 11, 2014, 9:48 pm

        I think that’s how they described him in the Times of Israel obit, citizen.

      • Taxi on January 11, 2014, 11:16 pm

        “… creation of the new [israeli] soldier myth…”

        Which was summarily smashed by Hizbollah.

        Yes, let’s not forget here that it was Sharon’s invasion of Lebanon that created Hizbollah, who ironically, created the new un-smashable Arab resistor.

    • Donald on January 11, 2014, 12:47 pm

      Thanks. Much of the time Sharon gets off the hook for the civilians killed by Israeli bombing and shelling before the Sabra and Shatila massacres occurred. A larger number died from that cause than in the massacre. And then apologists say that Israel is being criticized for something Lebanese Christians did.

      • Donald on January 11, 2014, 1:11 pm

        Adding to what I just said, the exclusive focus on Sabra/Shatila is actually a way of letting Israel off the hook. At the time even Western reporters (surprisingly enough including Tom Friedman) were harshly critical of Israel’s bombing and shelling of Lebanese cities, but after the Sabra/Shatila massacre that goes virtually unmentioned. Bronner to his credit/blame, gives it one sentence–

        “But the Reagan administration and others grew wary and then angry as the Israeli invasion seemed not to end but rather to take on an increasingly punishing nature, including the saturation bombing of Beirut neighborhoods and delaying agreed-upon cease-fires”

        I think this is a Western thing. When a Western country uses advanced technology to bomb civilians, it may be criticized, but it’s also seen as somehow “normal”, not worth making a huge fuss over after the fact. Massacres are seen as barbaric. Though of course when the Syrian government bombs or shells civilian areas that’s seen as barbaric, so it’s also partly who does it that determines how barbaric it is.

      • HarryLaw on January 11, 2014, 4:08 pm

        Donald @ “I think this is a Western thing. When a Western country uses advanced technology to bomb civilians, it may be criticized, but it’s also seen as somehow “normal” George Orwell said something similar in ‘Notes on Nationalism’…. “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them”.

    • bintbiba on January 13, 2014, 1:18 pm

      I was there…in West Beirut. The whole time. Words fail.

    • Shmuel on January 13, 2014, 1:26 pm

      Thanks, Walid. The whitewash is astounding.

  12. just on January 11, 2014, 10:41 am

    It’s kind of hilarious that Christie has ‘eclipsed’ Sharon on MSNBC and CNN right now……

    Just sayin’.

  13. Maximus Decimus Meridius on January 11, 2014, 10:49 am

    I take it no South African official will attend Sharon’s funeral, given Israel’s snub of the Mandela memorial service?

  14. Tuyzentfloot on January 11, 2014, 11:11 am

    About the mention of his ‘responsibility’ for Sabra/Shatila: responsibility can mean different things from being fully complicit to minimal political responsibility, meaning having the bad luck of being in function while something happened which you had nothing to do with.
    My interpretation tends towards the dark side. The way it’s reported suggests it should be interpreted on the light side, because that is the most straightforward interpretation of such a word in that context.

  15. Maximus Decimus Meridius on January 11, 2014, 11:15 am

    Robert Fisk on Al J English saying he believes Israel will continue to exist ‘for centuries’.

    As’ad Abu Khalil is right. Fisk needs to retire. Soon. His grip on reality is slipping.

    • rpickar on January 11, 2014, 5:23 pm


      I think that Fisk might well be right. I’m NOT coming from a Zionist perspective here. Israel has the full range of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, and they aren’t meant for Arab states specifically, because that’s what the conventional military is for. The thermonuclear weapons can be used anywhere. I used to think that Israel was going to go the route of South Africa, but now I’m not so sure. Israel and Zionism is hooked in with central banking and international finance. South African apartheid ended when world elites decided that it was time to go. It was not central to their interests. Israel and Zionism, on the other hand, have unique religious and financial power. Zionism is about more than the state of Israel itself. It’s a world religious/cultic movement which is attached to central banks and the monetary supply of major nations. Only this explains the lasting power of Zionism. It may seem that the Israel/Palestine situation is due for collapse, but if the world central banking wants otherwise, what are the forces that could bring it to collapse?

      • seafoid on January 12, 2014, 7:08 am

        Israel is fine as long the climate is stable. If Americans suddenly need real politics rather than the cartoon version they have now Israel won’t make it. It’s just too ambitious to think Sparta can work long term in a world of increased volatility. Israel is too dependent on Congress.

        The bots can kill as many Arabs as they want but they’ll never get the Arabs to accept them as regular neighbours. They need a different strategy if they want that.

  16. seafoid on January 11, 2014, 11:33 am

    The FT obit includes one of the key bot memes

    “Sharon later recalled the comments of David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding prime minister, after the raid: “I was summoned to see Ben-Gurion. It was the first time I met him, and right from the start Ben-Gurion said to me: ‘It doesn’t matter what the world says about Israel. The only thing that matters is that we can exist here on the land of our forefathers. And unless we show the Arabs that there is a high price to pay for murdering Jews, we won’t survive.’””

    BG was wrong. It does matter what the world says. He must have been weak on economics.

    • Citizen on January 11, 2014, 5:39 pm

      @ seafoid
      How so? Two-thirds of US democratic party funds are from Israel First jews. And, as to GOP, I need only to mention Sheldon Adelson.

      How is this “weak on economics”?

      • seafoid on January 12, 2014, 11:44 am

        The money buys DC but it isn’t any good in the wider world amongst the consumers that buy Israel’s exports. The bots can’t influence that moment when the consumer has to choose between the Israeli and the other product. It is not enough to live in Shangri La with the iron wall. Modern day Israelis love the standard of living. They dumped socialism and kibbutz living years ago. It’s the economy, stupid. Israel’s achilles heel. The goys matter because they have the purchasing power.

  17. Sibiriak on January 11, 2014, 11:52 am

    Ariel Sharon, terrorist, he dead.

    • Justpassingby on January 11, 2014, 1:24 pm

      Reading western politicians and MSM hes seems to be bigger than God.

  18. Sumud on January 11, 2014, 11:53 am

    Latuff is a genius.

  19. Sycamores on January 11, 2014, 12:12 pm

    “Sharon was found by the Kahan Commission to be responsible for the Sabra and Shatila Massacre of over 3,000 Palestinian refugees by Israel’s Lebanese allies, the Phalanges, and was made to resign”

    not quite true the murder of the peace activist Emil Grunzweig force sharon to stepdown as defense minister

    Sharon “personal responsibility”

    The Kahan commission found that Ariel Sharon “bears personal responsibility”

    At first, Sharon refused to resign, and Begin refused to fire him. It was only after the death of Emil Grunzweig after a grenade was tossed into the dispersing crowd of a Peace Now protest march, which also injured ten others, that a compromise was reached: Sharon would resign as Defense Minister, but remain in the Cabinet as a minister without portfolio. Notwithstanding the dissuading conclusions of the Kahan report, Sharon would later become Prime Minister of Israel.


    “In February 1983, Israel’s Kahan Commission found Sharon “indirectly responsible” for the massacre, urging his dismissal as defense minister. With the Israeli body count was piling up in Lebanon, city squares in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were thronged with outraged mothers and a growing movement of service refuseniks. The antiwar demonstrations shook the confidence of the army’s high command. At the prime minister’s office, Sharon berated Begin and his ministers, warning them, “If we adopt this [Kahan] report, all our ill-wishers and naysayers will that what happened in the camp was genocide.” Calling the findings “a mark of Cain on all of us for generations,” Sharon adamantly refused to step down.

    During the meeting, a right-wing Jewish terrorist lobbed a live grenade into a crowd of antiwar protesters right outside the prime minister’s office, killing the teacher and antiwar activist Emil Grunzweig. The incident was Sharon’s coup de grace, prompting his resignation. Though he remained in government as a minister without portfolio, his dreams of serving as prime minister appeared to be dashed.”

    • Walid on January 11, 2014, 1:36 pm

      It should be noted that 400,000 Israelis demonstrated in TA against the war in Lebanon and what the IDF had done and it was that demonstration that was instrumental in the Kahane Commission being created.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius on January 11, 2014, 1:45 pm

        Well yes (though I wonder how many were Palestinian Israelis?). But we should also jnot forget that the vast majority of Jewish Israelis fully supported the invasion of Lebanon, just as they have supported every single Israeli war ever. Much of the outrage after Sabra and Shatila wasn’t because of the Palestinian deaths per se, but because of the damage it caused to the image and – more importantly – the ‘soul’ of Israel.

        And in later years, when opposition to the occupation of Lebanon became widespread among Israelis, this wasn’t because of the fact that the IDF were killing Lebanese civilians on a constant basis, but because too many of their own precious soldiers were getting killed, albeit in far smaller numbers than the Lebanese victims.

      • Sycamores on January 11, 2014, 2:48 pm

        interesting point the number of dead isreali soldiers cause over 400,000 israelis to demonstrate for peace during the Lebanon war.
        can you imagine what would happen if israel went to war with Iran?

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius on January 11, 2014, 3:54 pm

        They won’t go to war with Iran. That’s the thing. For all their macho swagger, the Israelis are VERY sensitive to casualties (their own obviously, not those of mere Arabs or Iranians). These are the people who whinge about kids throwing stones at them in the OPT, for gods sake. There is no way they are going to take on Iran. No way. It’s all bluster.

  20. puppies on January 11, 2014, 12:27 pm

    Major mistake in the title.
    Let’s edit it:
    “Ariel Sharon, who made a particularly successful political career thanks to huge massacres…”

    You have to understand that you are dealing with a Zionist public.

  21. Hostage on January 11, 2014, 12:40 pm

    This story initially put Qibya in Jordan. Thanks to a reader for correcting me. . . . The Times, on the Qibya raid in the West Bank, occupied by Jordan, in 1953:

    ??? After the armistice agreements were signed and the parliamentary elections were held, the UN stopped calling Israel and Jordan “occupied territories”.

    The portion of the Times article you quoted called it a “Jordanian town”. The UN never referred to Qibya as “occupied territory” during the Security Council discussions of the Qibya. See the verbatim minutes in S/PV.630
    27 October 1953

    It called all of the casualties “Jordanian killed” or “Jordanian wounded”. Similarly all the casualties on the Israeli side were called “Israeli killed” or “Israeli wounded”. Everything on Jordan’s side of the demarcation line was referred to as “Jordanian territory” and everything on the other side was called “Israel territory”

    I’d like to hear someone make the case that the Hague rules applied to the West Bank after the Jericho Congress of December 1949, the April 11, 1950 elections for the new Jordanian parliament, and the Act of Union between the Two Banks that was ratified by the new lawmakers from the West Bank. At the time of the Qibya raid in 1953, Hussein Al-Khalidi (from Jerusalem, Palestine) was the Jordanian Cabinet Minister for Foreign Affairs who was responsible for selecting the delegation that represented Jordan during the Security Council discussion. His only “occupation” was Foreign Minister.

  22. xanadou on January 11, 2014, 12:46 pm

    Ding dong the evil piece of waste is dead, and scratching a new Circle in Hell all for himself and the rest of his degenerate and genocidal zios. Yeeeeehaw!

    • MHughes976 on January 11, 2014, 1:12 pm

      Virgil pictures some militaristic ghosts becoming fearful and squeaky voiced.

    • jon s on January 11, 2014, 2:18 pm

      Proverbs, 24:17:”When your enemy falls, do not rejoice, and when he stumbles, let your heart not exult,”

      • amigo on January 11, 2014, 3:47 pm

        When your enemy is drowning, throw him an anvil.

        Good advice.

      • jon s on January 11, 2014, 4:56 pm

        Amigo, you’re a real humanist.

      • amigo on January 12, 2014, 9:27 am

        “Amigo, you’re a real humanist.” jon s

        Coming from you, that,s a real compliment.

      • seafoid on January 11, 2014, 5:37 pm

        Proverbs, 24:17 (Zionist Version) :” Indoctrinate your people against the humanity of your enemies. When your enemy falls, keep the body parts for future exchange purposes . Remember, everyone hates us anyway”

  23. Donald on January 11, 2014, 12:49 pm

    The Bronner article refers to the Qibya massacre as a “battle”. According to the wikipedia account, there was some resistance, which resulted in one wounded Israeli soldier.

    So if a Palestinian group entered Israel, met with slight resistance that resulted in 1 wounded Palestinian, and then proceeded to blow up 45 Israeli homes and kill dozens of women and children, would the NYT refer to this as a “battle”?

  24. seafoid on January 11, 2014, 1:20 pm

    I wonder what the New York Review will have to say about the old butcher.

  25. Obsidian on January 11, 2014, 1:26 pm

    Sharon was a professional warrior. His was the blood trade.

    The only time Phil Weiss got his hands dirty, it was with typewriter ink.

    • seafoid on January 11, 2014, 3:31 pm

      The guardian obit includes this nugget

      “Sharon suffered a first stroke on 18 December 2005 at the age of 77. The prime minister had long indulged his gargantuan appetite for rich food and cigars, despite doctors’ repeated warnings that he needed to lose weight and take exercise. The prime minister was kept in hospital for 48 hours.

      Seventeen days later Sharon had another, much bigger, stroke at his Negev ranch. Despite paramedics urging his immediate transfer to the nearest major hospital, one of Sharon’s personal doctors insisted the prime minister should be kept at home until the physician could personally examine him.

      However, following a further collapse while waiting for the doctor’s arrival, an ambulance was called. Instead of being taken to the nearest hospital, the doctor directed the ambulance staff to drive to the Hadassah hospital on the outskirts of Jerusalem, a journey of around an hour

      “We can achieve any mission” but they couldn’t even get their PM to a f*cking hospital on time. The Carmel fire and that wedding hall that collapsed in West Jerusalem a few years ago are part of the same series- Israel is so shoddy when it really counts.

      • just on January 11, 2014, 3:56 pm

        I read that. I have yet to read whether he had a hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke.

        If he had an ischemic stroke, he could have received tPA and had a chance of recovery.

        Or not. Either way, it was a cluster%%%% by the “most moral and technologically savvy folks” in the world. That is, unless they had a CT @ his ranch.

      • ToivoS on January 11, 2014, 5:15 pm

        I recall that it was hemorrhagic. At the time some unnamed neurologist was quoted as saying that the surgery performed in Israel was a huge mistake bordering on malpractice. The damage caused by the blood clot should have been considered irreversible and the humane response should have to let him die.

      • biorabbi on January 11, 2014, 10:16 pm

        IMHO, it was malpractice. I’m a neurologist and I recall thinking why the hell was he placed on Coumadin, an oral blood thinner, after his first ‘stroke’ or TIA event. The only indication from the TIA, or transient ischemic attack, standpoint for Coumadin is atrial fibrillation and I do not believe Sharon had this. This is what is referred to as ‘the doctor treating himself’ and not the patient. There is no scientific evidence supporting Coumadin for stroke prophylaxis outside of atrial fibrillation(and very little evidence for atrial fibrillation as well).

    • Walid on January 11, 2014, 3:40 pm

      Your professional warrior dropped phosphorus on civilians; nothing to be proud about.

      May he never rest in peace.

    • libra on January 11, 2014, 5:23 pm

      Oh dear Obsidian, you simply haven’t a clue what the term ‘warrior’ means to the rest of the world.

    • seafoid on January 11, 2014, 5:38 pm

      “Sharon was a professional warrior”

      Warriors don’t send death squads into refugee camps full of defenceless women and children. War criminals do.

      • puppies on January 11, 2014, 6:15 pm

        Both are the same thing

      • Obsidian on January 12, 2014, 12:10 am

        Warriors don’t hide behind defenseless women and children either.

      • seafoid on January 12, 2014, 9:08 am

        Warriors don’t hide behind antisemitism slurs. They are accountable.

      • American on January 12, 2014, 9:56 am


        I think you have confused warrior with barbarian and savage.

        noun: a person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person
        noun: a member of a people regarded as primitive and uncivilized

      • Taxi on January 12, 2014, 10:32 am

        Obsi actually believes that a wanton, macho thug is a noble warrior.

    • just on January 11, 2014, 6:20 pm

      For that I am grateful. Phil Weiss is a giant among men– a human who cares about his and others’ humanity. Sharon was a butcher and thief. I find it horrific that you celebrate a thug whose life was devoted to “the blood trade”. It says more about you than you seem cognizant of. btw– ever hear that “the pen is mightier than the sword”? And I do believe that Mr. Weiss uses a computer, not a typewriter.

      Got it? Thanks.

      • Obsidian on January 12, 2014, 12:14 am


        I haven’t celebrated anyone. You are ‘projecting’ for a change.
        I do marvel how people like Phil, who aren’t military, much less combat commanders, rush to judge.

      • Obsidian on January 12, 2014, 5:23 am

        ” Phil Weiss is a giant among men..”

        Phil Weiss makes a mistake when he offends somebody at a cocktail party.
        Sharon makes a mistake a lots of people die.

        Sharon laid his life on the line ten times over for his country. Has Phil?

        Big difference, as I see it.

      • Walid on January 12, 2014, 6:17 am

        “Sharon laid his life on the line ten times over for his country…”

        The guy was a soldier, he was paid to be a soldier. Phil is a journalist.

        You’re getting absurd. Obsidian.

      • Obsidian on January 12, 2014, 2:06 pm

        Journalists are the best judges of journalists and soldiers are the best judges of soldiers. Where is the absurdity?

    • eljay on January 12, 2014, 10:04 am

      >> Sharon was a professional warrior. His was the blood trade.
      >> The only time Phil Weiss got his hands dirty, it was with typewriter ink.

      Another wonderful snapshot of Zio-supremacism:
      – Defend the man who got his hands dirty with blood for the purposes of terrorism, ethnic cleansing, oppression, colonialism and supremacism.
      – Sneer at the man who got his hands dirty with ink for the purposes of peace, justice, equality and morality.

      • Obsidian on January 12, 2014, 2:09 pm


        Who would you rather have next to you in a foxhole? Sharon or Weiss?
        Be honest.

      • Donald on January 12, 2014, 2:18 pm

        And who would you rather have beside you on horseback–Genghis Khan or Maimonides? What a stupid question.

        Not that I’m saying anything about Phil’s qualities as a warrior. Perhaps he could take on Genghis Khan, Maimonides, and Sharon all at once. Certainly in their current condition and maybe when they were all at their peak.

      • Shmuel on January 12, 2014, 2:55 pm

        And who would you rather have beside you on horseback–Genghis Khan or Maimonides? What a stupid question.

        Definitely a stupid and irrelevant question, but even by Obsidian’s own, warped logic, Weiss would win hands down.

        The last person you would want to be in a foxhole with is a vain, foolhardy, lying sneak (ask Ben Gurion and Begin), responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands of his own men. Sharon did not only butcher Palestinians and Lebanese. He butchered Israelis. Not my idea of an ideal foxhole buddy.

      • American on January 12, 2014, 2:18 pm

        I’ll take Weiss, he’d be quicker and more agile….and theres not room in a foxhole for Sharon and another person anyway….he’d throw the other person out to cover his own [email protected]@.

      • aiman on January 13, 2014, 8:21 am

        “…and theres not room in a foxhole for Sharon and another person anyway”

        Nicely put, American.

      • eljay on January 12, 2014, 2:19 pm

        >> Who would you rather have next to you in a foxhole? Sharon or Weiss?
        >> Be honest.

        Weiss. He’d be much less likely to frag me if we got into a disagreement.

      • just on January 12, 2014, 2:45 pm

        A truly dumb question.

        You seem totally fixated on Mr. Weiss for some silly reason. Is your regard for men based solely on whether they are good killers/involved in the “blood trade”? You seem preoccupied with defending the indefensible while attempting to lash out at the host of this site.

        You’re being even stranger than usual. Congratulations. btw, what do you do for a living?

      • Ellen on January 12, 2014, 3:29 pm

        Just, his fixation on Weiss or other persons, and praise of violence to assert power reveals how weak and pathetic the standing. And btw, never been in a foxhole, but have been in conflict zones. And no way would I trust being with a vain power hungry psychopath, Sharon, in a critical situation. Give me Phil.

      • Obsidian on January 12, 2014, 4:31 pm


        To the extent that Phil has made the I/P conflict the center of his life, who is fixated? Not me. My wife and kids are the center of my life. That’s why I have no blog. I merely comment when I have the time.
        I haven’t defended Arik Sharon. His actions at Qibya were criminal by even the standards of the day.

        To answer your question, I was a trial attorney in New York. I made aliyah and now I’m a retired trial attorney.

      • Woody Tanaka on January 12, 2014, 2:49 pm

        “Who would you rather have next to you in a foxhole? Sharon or Weiss?
        Be honest.”

        Weiss. Sharon is nothing but is a rotting corpse.

      • Taxi on January 12, 2014, 3:26 pm


        I choose Phil. He’s more trustworthy, and by far wilier than that beefhead Arik. Arik was no frigging Einstein and Hercules combined (like you besottedly keep telling us); he was a regressive brute waving a big shiny gun at goys so as to compensate for the size of his, ehm… intellect. No different than a big-boned knucklehead caveman fresh down from the trees.

        Cavemen with brains beat out the cavemen with clubs at the end of the day. Yes, a few still remain roaming the planet, but for the most part, most of humanity are now peaceful despite their personal weird fuckedupness.

        Phil would simply not make choices that would ‘put’ him in a foxhole in the first place. Whereas the warmongering murder-addict Sharon would do everything possible to make endless wars and foxholes filled to capacity with assholes like you.

      • just on January 12, 2014, 5:07 pm

        Well put, Taxi.

        As for this:

        “To answer your question, I was a trial attorney in New York. I made aliyah and now I’m a retired trial attorney.”

        Makes excellent sense that you retired. Your “arguments” stink to high heaven. Please do enjoy your retirement & your center of wife and kids.

        Are you a settler, then? Where is your new home? Thanks for sharing.

      • Ecru on January 13, 2014, 4:05 am

        @ Obsidian

        Who would you rather have next to you in a foxhole? Sharon or Weiss?

        Weiss in a heartbeat. Considering I’m not Jewish, I know I’d never be safe with a gun toting Sharon sitting next to me.

      • Obsidian on January 12, 2014, 4:36 pm

        “Defend the man who got his hands dirty with blood for the purposes of terrorism, ethnic cleansing, oppression, colonialism and supremacism.”

        Sharon was never a member of a Zionist terror organization. He was a soldier. I don’t believe he played a hand in ethnic cleansing either.
        Colonialism? Sharon was a Sabra, born and raised in Palestine.

        I knew you wouldn’t answer my question.

      • eljay on January 13, 2014, 11:03 am

        “Defend the man who got his hands dirty with blood for the purposes of terrorism, ethnic cleansing, oppression, colonialism and supremacism.”

        Sharon was never a member of a Zionist terror organization. He was a soldier. I don’t believe he played a hand in ethnic cleansing either. Colonialism? Sharon was a Sabra, born and raised in Palestine.

        “for the purposes of” – he was a Zio-supremacist who fought for, on behalf of and for the benefit of the oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” of (Greater) Israel.

        I knew you wouldn’t answer my question.

        Then you don’t know a damned thing. My reply to your question was held up in moderation.

      • Woody Tanaka on January 13, 2014, 4:42 pm

        “Sharon was never a member of a Zionist terror organization. ”

        LMAO. he was in the idf and the israeli government. Both are zionist terror organizations, among the biggest terrorist organizations in the world.

    • Ellen on January 12, 2014, 3:26 pm

      obsidian, you say strange things and seem to attack people instead of the subject at hand. But this inanity only praises Phil and others like him.

      The only time Phil Weiss got his hands dirty, it was with typewriter ink.

      The “Pen or spoken word is mightier than the sword “and always wins in the end. And the truth prevails.

      “The tongue is mightier than the blade.” …Euripides

      “many wearing rapiers are afraid of goosequills….” Hamlet, Act II.

      “There are only two powers in the world, saber and mind; at the end, saber is always defeated by mind .” Napoleon

      • Obsidian on January 13, 2014, 1:04 am


        ‘In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
        As modest stillness and humility:
        But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
        Then imitate the action of the tiger;
        Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
        Disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage;
        Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;’

        –Shakespeare-Henry V

        BTW. Napoleon was a war criminal who’d ordered his men to slaughter thousands of POWs who’d surrendered in Jaffa.

      • Ellen on January 13, 2014, 3:18 am

        right Obsidian. Napoleon was a war criminal, even by the standards of his time. He was banished to an Island, died an unpleasant death by infection and France never recovered from the ruinous path of his Napoleonic vision.

      • talknic on January 13, 2014, 4:21 am

        @Obsidian “Napoleon was a war criminal..”

        Care to cite the the existing laws of the time? Thx

        Meanwhile Israel is obliged to today’s International Law codified circa 1933 which was formulated because of the behaviour of megalomaniacs like Napoleon …. oh … and the Nazis.

      • LeaNder on January 13, 2014, 6:24 am

        today’s International Law codified circa 1933

        That’s a bit early for the Nazis, I would say. Usually events triggering legislation does not work quite as fast. ;)

        WWI though, may have had an impact.

      • talknic on January 14, 2014, 12:36 am

        @LeaNder “That’s a bit early for the Nazis”

        It was incorporated into the UN Charter 1945

  26. seafoid on January 11, 2014, 1:33 pm

    Lots of Israelis saying Sharon could have delivered peace with the Palestinians only for all the cheeseburgers. Wishful thinking. Do any of them understand the nature of the system they are part of?

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius on January 11, 2014, 1:46 pm

      There is no creature on earth more willfully delusional than a ‘liberal’ Zionist. One of our faves, Jonathan Freedland, was writing a eulogy of Sharon as a ‘man of peace’ in last week’s Guardian – before Sharon had even died.

      • seafoid on January 11, 2014, 3:28 pm

        Freedland is despicable. His regular articles on why Israel is now ready for peace are a joke. He’s as bad as Agha and Malley in the NYR.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius on January 11, 2014, 3:58 pm

        ‘Despicable’. I like it! Thing is, he would swear, hand on heart, that he ‘wants peace’ and cares about the Palestinians. And maybe in his own bizarre way he does. The problem is, if peace and justice for the Palestinians means that Israeli Jews have to suffer even a little tiny bit, then that’s ‘picking on Israel’ and the hints of anti-semitism he doesn’t even have the moral courage to say straight out.

        He is essentially irrelevant, as are all liberal Zionists. Anyone who STILL thinks there is a kinder, gentler Israel just waiting to get out needs their head examined.

  27. Daniel Rich on January 11, 2014, 2:44 pm

    Sharon’s widow has pledged to start a fundraiser to collect funds for the erection, next to the Apartheid Wall, of the ‘Center Of Moral Ariel’ [COMA] so he’ll live on for ever after in the minds of the innocent and ill informed.

  28. Keith on January 11, 2014, 2:44 pm

    Bonner says: “The Israelis decided to secure several West Beirut neighborhoods, including Sabra and Shatila, Palestinian refugee camps where the Palestine Liberation Organization had residual bases and arms and thousands of fighters.”

    Bonner is lying. There were no thousands of fighters and the Israeli encirclement of the camps was in violation of the terms of the withdrawal of the Palestinian fighters which had been brokered and guaranteed by the US. The massacre was intended to cause the flight of the remaining Palestinians from Lebanon in similar fashion to what had occurred in Israel in 1947 and 1948.

    The Israeli’s under Sharon orchestrated the Sabra and Shatilla massacres, but when some attempt to hold him and them to account, what is the reaction? “As Mr. Begin said, using the Hebrew word for non-Jews, “Goyim kill goyim, and they blame the Jews.” Imagine that, Sabra and Shatilla yet two more examples of JEWISH victim-hood.

  29. llama lady on January 11, 2014, 3:00 pm

    Avi Schlaim’s The Iron Wall puts Qibya in Jordan (pg 90) and says it was the crossing of an international border to carry out the massacre that got the Security Council so upset. Just happened to be reading this last night..

  30. DICKERSON3870 on January 11, 2014, 3:48 pm

    RE: “Former Israeli prime minister and storied general Ariel Sharon, who was at the height of his power when he suffered a stroke in 2006 and fell into an irreversible coma… ~ Fox “News”

    MY COMMENT: My distinct recollection is that at the time of Sharon’s stroke, the mainstream media here in the U.S. reported that his Israeli doctors had put him into a “medically induced coma” in an effort to prevent further damage, and that when they later administered the medication that was supposed to bring him out of the coma, he did not respond and remained in the coma.
    Not long afterwards, I could not find any mention of Sharon having been put into a “medically induced coma”.

    P.S. SEE: “What Is a Medically Induced Coma and Why Is It Used?”
    Medically induced comas are only used when other options are lacking –

  31. oldgeezer on January 11, 2014, 4:04 pm

    “Not long afterwards, I could not find any mention of Sharon having been put into a “medically induced coma”.”

    The web has a way of cleaning itself up despite sites that archive pages. I am reminded of the Israeli general who wrote a book detail his use of torture and it’s effectiveness. I recall his trip to the UK being cancelled out of fear of prosecution. Attempts to find said general’s name are pretty unsuccessful. No doubt it can be found if one knows his name but otherwise the book and events have disappeared from, at least, easy access.

    That leaves the question as to why these things disappear and at whose direction.

  32. DICKERSON3870 on January 11, 2014, 4:07 pm

    RE: “Two years later, in 1984, Sharon…returned to his ministerial career, first as minister for trade and industry and then as housing and construction minister. In the latter role, Sharon oversaw the construction of more than 144,000 housing units for Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza.” ~ Dimi Reider

    ALSO SEE: “Fighting Settlers’ Impunity and Immunity”, by Pierre Klochendler, Inter Press Service, 12/16/11

    [EXCERPT] . . . The Israeli occupation, particularly the future of wildcat settlements built by settlers without formal government approval has been a simmering issue ever since their creation during the 1990s.
    In 2005, former head of the State Prosecution Criminal Department Talia Sasson published a landmark report on the question [of wildcat settlements]. Commissioned by then prime minister Ariel Sharon, the report found the Israeli government guilty of “institutional lawbreaking”* and of the theft of private Palestinian land to covertly establish over a hundred “illegal outposts”.
    The damning irony is that the “outposts” were a 1997 initiative by none but Sharon himself, then foreign Minister under Netanyahu, who’d urged settlers to seize hilltops in order to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
    The report recommended criminal investigation against those allegedly involved in the scheme, but it was shelved. Repeated injunctions have since pressed successive governments to address the issue. . .


    * RE: The Israeli government’s “institutional lawbreaking”
    BRANDEIS: Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis elaborated in Olmstead v. United States (1928): “In a government of law, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”

  33. oldgeezer on January 11, 2014, 4:09 pm

    Sharon was one of the bloodiest war criminals of the latter half of the 20th century. The world is a better place without him. While atheist I can understand how others could find comfort in the thought of him suffering for eternity in hell (along with Arafat quite frankly).

    I’m largely disappointed in the comments of various world leaders. I can understand condolences to his family but beyond that the world is a better place with his passing. I am equally, or even moreso, disappointed in the MSM commentary on his passing. While some have made reference to his connection to the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla it has not been dealt with in a factual fashion.

    This man may be a hero to Israeli’s but that reflects on them and their values.

  34. DICKERSON3870 on January 11, 2014, 4:26 pm

    RE: “Many in the Arab world called Sharon ‘the Butcher of Beirut’ after he oversaw Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon while serving as defense minister…” ~ NPR

    SEE: “The War of Lies” , by Uri Avnery, gush-shalom.org09/06/12

    [EXCERPTS] Thirty Years ago this week, the Israeli army crossed into Lebanon and started the most stupid war in Israel’s history. It lasted for 18 years. About 1500 Israeli soldiers and untold numbers of Lebanese and Palestinians were killed.
    Almost all wars are based on lies. Lies are considered legitimate instruments of war. Lebanon War I (as it was later called) was a glorious example.
    From beginning to end (if it has ended yet) it was a war of deceit and deception, falsehoods and fabrications.
    THE LIES started with the official name: “Operation Peace in Galilee”.

    If one asks Israelis now, 99.99% of them will say with all sincerity: “We had no choice. They launched katyushas at the Galilee from Lebanon every day. We had to stop them.” TV anchormen and anchorwomen, as well as former cabinet ministers have been repeating this throughout the week. Quite sincerely. Even people who were already adults at the time.
    The simple fact is that for 11 months before the war, not a single shot was fired across the Israeli-Lebanese border. A cease-fire was in force and the Palestinians on the other side of the border kept it scrupulously. To everybody’s surprise, Yasser Arafat succeeded in imposing it on all the radical Palestinian factions, too.
    At the end of May, Defense Minister Ariel Sharon met with Secretary of State Alexander Haig in Washington DC. He asked for American agreement to invade Lebanon. Haig said that the US could not allow it, unless there were a clear and internationally recognized provocation.
    And lo and behold, the provocation was provided at once. Abu Nidal, the anti-Arafat and anti-PLO master terrorist, sent his own cousin to assassinate the Israeli ambassador in London, who was grievously wounded.

    In retaliation, Israel bombed Beirut and the Palestinians fired back, as expected. The Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, allowed Sharon to invade Lebanese territory up to 40 km, “to put the Galilee settlements out of reach of the katyushas.”
    When one of the intelligence chiefs told Begin at the cabinet meeting that Abu Nidal’s organization was not a member of the PLO, Begin famously answered: “They are all PLO”.
    General Matti Peled, my political associate at the time, firmly believed that Abu Nidal had acted as an agent of Sharon. So do all the Palestinians I know.
    The lie “they shot at us every day” has taken such a hold on the public mind that it is nowadays useless to dispute it. It is an illuminating example of how a myth can take possession of the public mind, including even of people who had seen with their own eyes that the opposite was true.
    NINE MONTHS before the war, Sharon told me about his plan for a New Middle East. . .
    . . . His design for the region, as told me then (and which I published nine months before the war), was:
    • To attack Lebanon and install a Christian dictator who would serve Israel,
    • Drive the Syrians out of Lebanon,
    • Drive the Palestinians out of Lebanon into Syria, from where they would then be pushed by the Syrians into Jordan.
    • Get the Palestinians to carry out a revolution in Jordan, kick out King Hussein and turn Jordan into a Palestinian state,
    • Set up a functional arrangement under which the Palestinian state (in Jordan) would share power in the West Bank with Israel.

    Being a single-minded operator, Sharon convinced Begin to start the war, telling him that the sole aim was to push the PLO 40 km back. . .


    • DICKERSON3870 on January 11, 2014, 4:35 pm

      P.S. ALSO SEE: “Selective Application – The Obama Doctrine: AWOL in Bahrain”, By Franklin Lamb,, 04/15/11:

      [EXCERPTS] . . . I reminded Rashid in our brief encounter that we had not crossed paths since that fateful summer of 1982 in West Beirut where we and our mutual friend, American journalist Janet Stevens, who had introduced us, all shared a similar experience of trying to do research amidst the Israeli bombing and intermittent electricity and water cuts and for that period when Israeli forces, on orders of Ariel Sharon, cut all the power and water to the trapped civilians in West Beirut. . .
      . . . On the issue of Ariel Sharon’s cutting off of water and electricity during the hot summer to West Beirut in order to punish the trapped civilian population for their presumed support for the PLO in defending an Arab capitol, the US government was furious. President Reagan and his secretary of State George Shultz, and Middle East envoy Morris Draper claimed they yelled at and threatened Israeli PM Menachem Begin to immediately restore water and power to West Beirut. Begin kept promising Reagan that the utilities would be quickly restored and Draper told Begin that Beirut was becoming like the Warsaw Ghetto. Begin replied that Draper’s comparison was a “blood libel against every Jew everywhere.” Begin used that turn of phrase more than once during 1982, once to Reagan’s face. Philip Habib later reported that he called Begin every day and Begin always claimed there were ‘technical problems’ but that Sharon promised that the utilities would be restored by the next day at the latest.
      It did not happen.
      Not until Janet Stevens, working with Palestinian colleagues discovered the truth behind what Begin told Reagan were “technical problems” and she informed journalists in the bar of the Commodore Hotel, where many journalists spent their time (thinking the Israelis would not bomb the western journalists “shelter”—they actually did shell in twice during the summer). . .
      . . . What Janet explained to the rapt reporters was that Israeli commanders and their right wing Phalangist collaborators, with Sharon’s, if not Begin’s approval, were making plenty of fast cash selling truckloads of water to trapped West Beirutis and the business soon expanded to Bekaa hashish. By late July some of the Israeli checkpoints along the green line between East and West Beirut were manned by stoned Israelis such that the PLO was able to bring in truckloads of needed relief supplies including ammunition and weapons even after the power and water were eventually restored. . .


    • DICKERSON3870 on January 11, 2014, 4:59 pm

      P.P.S. AND SEE: “How Many Violations of US Arms Laws are Too Many?” ~ by Franklin Lamb, Counterpunch, 3/16/12

      [EXCERPTS] . . . Alarm centered on whether or not Israel had used U.S.-supplied antipersonnel cluster bombs against civilian targets during its carpet bombing West Beirut during the nearly three month siege.
      The House Foreign Affairs Committee held hearings on this issue in July and August 1982. On July 19, 1982, the Reagan Administration announced that it would prohibit new exports of cluster bombs to Israel. . .
      . . . During a late June 1982 meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Begin, Reagan was handed a note from George Shultz. Based on the information he had in hand, Reagan directly told Begin that the US had reliable information than Israel was using American weapons against civilians in Lebanon. At this point according to Reagan, Begin became very agitated. He lowered his glasses and while glaring at Reagan and shaking his index finger said, “Mr. President, Israel has never and would never use American weapons against civilians and to claim otherwise is a blood libel against every Jew, everywhere.” Following their meeting Reagan told Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger, as reported by Weinberger and by various biographers of Reagan that “I did not know what the term “blood libel” meant, but I know that the man looked me straight in the eyes and lied to me.” . . .


  35. DICKERSON3870 on January 11, 2014, 5:10 pm

    RE: “Ariel Sharon, whose political career was unhindered by civilian massacres, dies at 85”

    MY COMMENT: It is also quite possible that Ariel Sharon, while prime minister of Israel, ordered the murder/assassination (by poisoning) of Yasser Arafat.

    ARTICLE: “If Arafat were still alive”, by Uri Avnery,, 1/30/07

    [EXCERPT] . . . Just before he died last month, Uri Dan, Ariel Sharon’s loyal mouthpiece for almost 50 years, published a book in France. It includes a report of a conversation Sharon told him about, with President Bush. Sharon asked for permission to kill Arafat and Bush gave it to him, with the proviso that it must be done undetectably. When Dan asked Sharon whether it had been carried out, Sharon answered: “It’s better not to talk about that.” Dan took this as confirmation.
    The secret services of many countries have poisons that are all but undetectable. Ten years ago, Mossad tried to kill Khaled Mashal, the Hamas leader, in broad daylight on a thoroughfare in Amman. He was saved only when the Israeli government was compelled to provide the antidote to the poison it had used. Viktor Yushchenko, the president of Ukraine, was poisoned and saved only when the symptoms were identified by experts in time.
    Is there proof Arafat was murdered by Israeli or other agents? No, there is none. This week I again ran into Zahalka, and both of us concluded that the suspicion is growing stronger . . .


    ALSO SEE: “Sharon won’t rule out attack on Arafat”, by The Associated Press, 4/23/04

    [EXCERPT] JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday he is no longer bound by a promise to President Bush not to harm Yasser Arafat — the strongest sign yet that Israel could target the jittery Palestinian leader.
    In an interview with Israel TV’s Channel Two, Sharon said he told Bush about his change of position in a meeting in Washington last week.
    Sharon did not elaborate or say how Bush responded. . .


    • Walid on January 11, 2014, 5:47 pm

      Dickerson, Israel sharing America’s bed goes way back before the chatter about getting or not getting permission to eliminate Arafat. Other than the USS Liberty incident that was swept under the rug by Johnson, there was the pre-planned and American-authorized 1982 assault where Sharon earned his inglorious nickname of “Butcher of Beirut”. From a Counterpunch article a few years back:

      “… In early 1982 Israel was preparing to attack Lebanon. The Reagan Administration helped out by increasing the amount of military goods sent to Israel by 50% over 1981 levels. Ariel Sharon who was Israeli Defense Minister at the time visited Washington where he told Reagan’s Defense Secretary that Israel “must act in Lebanon”. According to Jimmy Carter, Israel got the “green light”. Sharon’s army invaded Lebanon in June ’82 and in three months killed, according to the Lebanese government, some 20,000 Palestinians and Lebanese. By August its army was poised around Beirut where the Palestinians were fighting on without any support. Supposedly to spare the city U.S. special envoy Philip Habib negotiated an agreement whereby the PLO would evacuate its fighters from Beirut. Palestinian civilians would be guaranteed protection by the US. It was agreed that U.S. soldiers would stay in Beirut and watch out for their safety for thirty days.

      Part of the agreement read, “The governments of Lebanon and the United States will provide appropriate guarantees of safety of law-abiding Palestinian non-combatants left in Beirut, including families of those who have departed. The U.S. will provide its guarantee on the basis of assurances received from the Government of Israel and the leaders of certain Lebanese groups with which it has been in contact.” (As related by Alexander Cockburn and quoted in Chomsky’s “The Fateful Triangle”.)

      The PLO left Beirut on August 30 and then the U.S. suddenly pulled its troops. They boarded their ships two weeks early! The French and Italians quit, too. Reagan left the Palestinian women and children to the mercies of the Ariel Sharon and the so-called Lebanese government, which was controlled by a “Christian” Palestinian-hating militia called the Phalange”.

      Dickerson, a couple of weeks after the PLO were put on the boats to Tunis and the Americans, the French and Italians suddenly (and mysteriously) left the country in advance of their planned exit date, Israel and the Phalanges went into the unarmed Sabra and Chatilla camps.

      The Counterpunch article goes on:

      “… After the massacres Ronald Reagan sent back U.S. soldiers into Lebanon to “keep the peace”, to be the linchpin of a new multi-lateral force. They were soon up to their ears in the Lebanese fighting, backing the Lebanese Phalange government. This aid wasn’t just money and guns. Navy battleships bombarded Gemayel’s rivals. I recall the accounts. The shells were said to be the “size of Volkswagens”. It was in this context that a Lebanese drove a truck full of bombs into a U.S. marine barracks and killed 241 servicemen. A few months later all US troops were pulled out, their mission a total failure.”

  36. Abuadam on January 11, 2014, 5:15 pm

    Meanwhile, Hitler and his neo-Nazi Lebanese disciple Bashir Gemayel receive their first guest in Hell.

    • Walid on January 12, 2014, 2:39 am

      “Meanwhile, Hitler and his neo-Nazi Lebanese disciple Bashir Gemayel receive their first guest in Hell.”

      Abuadam, very doubtful that Gemayel would be receiving Sharon in hell; there’s a good chance Sharon was behind his assassination that happened after Gemayel having received all kinds of military aid from the Israel and practically making him president of the country, Gemayel started pissing all over the Israelis. Of course, the actual assassination was pinned on some Syrian nobody, but the ones that most wanted Gemayel out of the way because of his ingratitude were Sharon and the other terrorist, Begin. Sharon that was about to be exposed in Belgium’s court also took care of blowing up in 2002 his former Sabra-Shatila partner Hobeika that was set to tell everything about Sharon’s involvement in Beirut, which along with American threats to yank the NATO HQ out of Brussels put an end to Sharon being put on trial there for his crimes against humanity.

      Analysis of Gemayel’s involvement with Sharon:

  37. Shuki on January 11, 2014, 5:53 pm

    His body isn’t even in the ground yet and vitriol is already spewing. The bigots cloaked as “anti-zionists” just can’t help themselves.

    Sharon was a great man and a great leader who dedicated his life to his country. May his family be comforted among the Mourners of Zion.

    • Sumud on January 12, 2014, 9:50 am

      You call him a great man if that pleases you Shuki but he’ll be forever the Butcher of Beirut to those of us in the civilised world.

  38. xanadou on January 11, 2014, 6:40 pm

    From a comment by Miko Peled:
    “Ariel Sharon was an ambitious man. He was brutal, greedy, uncompromising and dishonest. He possessed an insatiable appetite for power, glory and fortune.”

    A classic definition of a psychopath. It also applies to the musical chairs of the mutual admiration society, a/k/a the Israeli “government”, a carbon copy of the fascist regimes of the past: built on military brutality, racism, genocide and, eventually, condemned by Truth to the darkest and most evil corner of History for all Eternity.

    Decrepitude and death are now at work on the old guard of Haganah, Stern Gang, etc. Each corpse will point, over and over again, towards the unvarnished horror of the Israeli mass murdering and apartheid regimes.

  39. pineywoodslim on January 11, 2014, 6:49 pm

    Don’t know if it’s been posted previously, but for a little political humor on his death and his possible burial site, from the Arab Enquirer:

    “TEL AVIV: Following the death of former Israel prime minister Ariel Sharon – who has been in a coma since 2006 – plans for the 85-year-old’s state funeral have now been released.

    According to arrangements made by the Israeli government, Sharon’s burial plot is set to displace over 15,000 Palestinians living in the West Bank.”

    More at:

  40. just on January 11, 2014, 7:36 pm


    “U.S. President Barack Obama issued a statement expressing the American people’s deepest condolences to the Sharon family, following the death of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon Saturday.

    “On behalf of the American people, Michelle and I send our deepest condolences to the family of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and to the people of Israel on the loss of a leader who dedicated his life to the State of Israel. We reaffirm our unshakable commitment to Israel’s security and our appreciation for the enduring friendship between our two countries and our two peoples. We continue to strive for lasting peace and security for the people of Israel, including through our commitment to the goal of two states living side-by-side in peace and security. As Israel says goodbye to Prime Minister Sharon, we join with the Israeli people in honoring his commitment to his country.” ”


    “In a statement on Sharon, Secretary of State John Kerry said that “Ariel Sharon’s journey was Israel’s journey. The dream of Israel was the cause of his life, and he risked it all to live that dream.”

    “I remember reading about Arik in the papers when I was a young lawyer in Boston and marveling at his commitment to cause and country. I will never forget meeting with this big bear of a man when he became prime minister as he sought to bend the course of history toward peace, even as it meant testing the patience of his own longtime supporters and the limits of his own, lifelong convictions in the process. He was prepared to make tough decisions because he knew that his responsibility to his people was both to ensure their security and to give every chance to the hope that they could live in peace.

    During his years in politics, it is no secret that there were times the United States had differences with him. But whether you agreed or disagreed with his positions – and Arik was always crystal clear about where he stood – you admired the man who was determined to ensure the security and survival of the Jewish State. In his final years as Prime Minister, he surprised many in his pursuit of peace, and today, we all recognize, as he did, that Israel must be strong to make peace, and that peace will also make Israel stronger. We honor Arik’s legacy and those of Israel’s founding generation by working to achieve that goal.”

    Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also expressed her condolences. “Ariel Sharon was a loyal and a fierce defender of peace and prosperity for the Jewish democratic state of Israel. I admired and respected him for his passion and courage. He was a good friend of the United States and a partner in seeking a more peaceful Middle East. I wish to express my condolences to the Sharon family and to the people of Israel. He will be missed but never forgotten.”

    House Majority leader Eric Cantor wrote on Twitter: “Sharon was a giant as a leader of Israel, a skilled warrior in battle and a valued friend of our nation.”

    British Prime Minister David Cameron: “Ariel Sharon is one of the most significant figures in Israeli history and as Prime Minister he took brave and controversial decisions in pursuit of peace, before he was so tragically incapacitated. Israel has today lost an important leader.” ”

    and in Harry Potterish language:

    “The Knesset Ministerial Committee for Symbols and Ceremonies, chaired by Sports and Culture Minister Limor Livnat, met on Saturday to coordinate the funeral arrangements for the deceased former prime minister Ariel Sharon.”

    Wizardry indeed. Voldemort would be proud of the fact that the “Sports and Culture Minister” is in charge.

    Biden will go, Lavrov will go, GW will not go.


    • just on January 11, 2014, 7:46 pm

      Wonder if Limor has jurisdiction over Israeli Quidditch or just the ongoing Nakba…

    • Sumud on January 11, 2014, 8:08 pm

      Obama’s statement about Sharon is very interesting. It’s been carefully crafted to say a little as possible about Sharon and honours only his commitment to his country. With the added bonus of the boilerplate phrasing about the US’ unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security blah blah blah – this part is so out of place in a statement of condolence. I can only guess it’s been included to pre-emptively address the criticism that will inevitably come from the lobby as Obama failed to declare Sharon the messiah.

      Compare and contrast with the flowery crap from Kerry.

      • just on January 11, 2014, 8:27 pm

        You may have a point.

        It’s all very tiresome to me, though. Couldn’t they both have expressed condolences to the family and left it at that?

        It’s just more prostration @ the feet of Zionists run amok, imho.

      • Sumud on January 12, 2014, 10:06 am

        Sure it’s tiresome just!

        I take pleasure in the small victories along the way though – there’ll be some very pissed off zionists that Obama hasn’t fellated the donkey to their satisfaction.

        I’d be much happier if O came out and said “we’re fucking glad the vile monster is dead” but that is not going to happen. Obama’s bland statement will be interpreted, correctly, as a snub.

    • kalithea on January 12, 2014, 12:58 am

      On that ship of fools; Obama’s the dreg.

    • Ellen on January 12, 2014, 4:07 am

      Interesting that GW will not go. Am not surprised. I think he loathed Sharon, but probably not for the right reasons, but only the same reason he could not stand Cheney near the end of his Presidency: His own ego was hurt when he finally realized that he was nothing more to them than their tool.

      I’ll never forget an image of Bush walking three steps ahead of Sharon, his head focused forward, with Sharon panting behind desperately trying to keep up and walk along side Bush. Then when Sharon spoke, he immediately blathered about our great friendship (code for give us more money) and Bush was not even looking at the cameras. There was some serious tension. We’ll never know what was really going on.

  41. crypticvalentin on January 11, 2014, 8:27 pm

    ‘unhindered by massacres?’..nothing enhanced an Israeli politician’s resume like atrocities committed against Palestinians..#Sharon..#Begin..#Barak..#Peres..

    • Ecru on January 13, 2014, 4:12 am

      Too true. The Israeli voters have loved nothing more than a politician drenched in the blood of Palestinians since the very beginning.

  42. thankgodimatheist on January 11, 2014, 8:28 pm

    Tony Karon on Sharon’s Gaza initiative (that the Zionists never fail to bring up as a gesture of good will) as a demonic plan to kill the possibility of a Palestinian state and freeze the prospects of peace: Karon quotes Sharon’s words:

    “Sharon described his plan as “a harsh blow to Palestinian dreams” and aspirations, rather than any movement towards fulfilling them. And his top political aide Dov Weisglass fleshed out the strategic rationale in an an interview with Haaretz, in which he explained that the “disengagement” was designed to “freeze,” rather than activate, the roadmap. The plan, said Weissglass, “supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.” By pulling out of Gaza and unilaterally redrawing the boundaries, Weisglass said, “you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem.”

  43. dimadok on January 11, 2014, 9:55 pm

    A warrior, defender of a state, statesman and a larger than life person. May his name keeps enemies of Israel forever scared. Keep on gloating here- thanks to him and others, Israel is here to stay.

    • thankgodimatheist on January 11, 2014, 10:34 pm

      Dimadok..only for a far right Zionist like yourself is Sharon a hero. For the rest of decent humanity he’s just a war criminal whose name is inscribed with innocent blood..I’m not a believer and have never been but it’s suited still that I wish his murky soul, if he had one, to burn forever in hell.

      • yrn on January 12, 2014, 9:12 am


        Only Self Hating Jews don’t think Sharon was not a hero.
        Your attempt to narrow the issue that Sharon was a hero only to right Zionist, is your wishful thinking.

        As mentioned only self Hating Jews think different then dimadok, get it into your head.

      • annie on January 13, 2014, 10:17 am

        Only Self Hating Jews don’t think Sharon was not a hero.

        lol, you crack me up!

      • Shmuel on January 13, 2014, 10:53 am

        Only Self Hating Jews don’t think Sharon was not a hero.

        The members of the Kahan commission didn’t seem to think Sharon behaved like a hero, nor did the 400,000 Israelis who went to demonstrate at Kikar Malchei Yisrael after Sabra and Shatila. Experts in military strategy, like Lt. Col. Dr. Shimon Golan (who published a book on Sharon’s disastrous conduct as the architect of the Lebanon War) don’t seem to think that Sharon conducted “his” war like a hero. The many Israelis who believe that the Lebanon War was a “war of choice” that caused Israel immeasurable damage don’t seem to think that Sharon acted like a hero. Presumably, many of the family members of the more than 1,000 Israeli soldiers sacrificed to Sharon’s megalomania and deceit don’t think he was a hero (or the family of Emil Grunzweig). Come to think of it, I’ll bet that Benny Begin doesn’t consider him a hero either.

        All self-hating Jews? yrn is unanimous.

      • eljay on January 13, 2014, 10:22 am

        >> Only Self Hating Jews don’t think Sharon was not a hero.

        Which means all other Jews do think Sharon was not a hero. That’s good to know.

      • irishmoses on January 13, 2014, 1:03 pm


        A great response to more of Yrn’s drivel.

      • yrn on January 13, 2014, 3:42 pm


        “nor did the 400,000 Israelis who went to demonstrate at Kikar Malchei Yisrael after Sabra and Shatila.”

        Again your attempt to show positive spots regarding Israel, are just breaking my heart.

      • Shmuel on January 13, 2014, 4:05 pm

        Again your attempt to show positive spots regarding Israel, are just breaking my heart.

        Interesting that you see mention of the demonstration in TA following Sabra and Shatila as an “attempt to show positive spots regarding Israel”. That’s your mindset, not mine.

      • puppies on January 13, 2014, 4:12 pm

        “Again your attempt to show positive spots regarding Israel, are just breaking my heart.”

        Well, he is something of a starry-eyed optimist about that hellhole. 400,000 demonstrating, mainly because of casualties among the aggressor Meisterrasse troops at that time, wouldn’t mean more than 4,000 decent people were there.

      • Talkback on January 14, 2014, 11:26 am

        yrn: As mentioned only self Hating Jews think different then dimadok, …

        What yrn wants to tell us is that it is an act of hatred against Jews as such, if a Jew thinks that a Jew who massacres Gentiles is not a hero.

        yrn spreads antisemitism.

    • Xpat on January 11, 2014, 10:36 pm

      Actually, as criminal as he was in life, he didn’t deserve this prolonged death. Anybody else would have been taken off the machines long ago. The manipulation of his comatose body for political benefit by his own family was cruel and self-serving. Now it’s time to give him a decent burial.
      It’s a sign of how terrible Sharon was, that even postponing the inevitable for eight years has done nothing to clear his name. Actually, had he been allowed to die in peace eight years ago, he would have gotten better tributes for getting out of Gaza. Now, it’s obvious that there’s nothing to choose from between him and Netanyahu. Let the false pieties flow.

    • Cliff on January 11, 2014, 10:53 pm

      @Jewish supremacist

      May his name keeps enemies of Israel forever scared.

      The women and children of Sabra and Shatilla are long dead but no one will ever forget the Jewish terrorist(s)’s hand in the matter.

      His name evokes disgust, not fear.

      No one is afraid of you.

      • Citizen on January 12, 2014, 5:32 pm

        When he was a young warrior leading Unit 101 Sharon’s orders were to send a clear deterrence message, which he did–by massacring children. SS warriors did the same thing, for the same reason. Look where that eventually got them. I guess Hezbollah never got Sharon’s message. Obviously, when the time came ripe they were not afraid of the IDF, by then a much more powerful force than Sharon was in as the leader of Unit 101.

        For the Zionist zealots here, those who admire The Bulldozer Sharon, and say they’d rather be in a foxhole with him than with Phil Weiss, the latter being merely armed with a pen. Please note
        Uri Avnery, founder and editor of the magazine HaOlam HaZeh, had both his hands broken when he was ambushed for criticizing Sharon’s massacre at Qibya in his newspaper.

    • thankgodimatheist on January 11, 2014, 11:16 pm

      “A warrior, defender of a state, statesman and a larger than life person”
      And yet you didn’t find to include any qualities that could make him a decent, let alone a remarkable, human. What about some traits of compassion and humanity? No “good character” or “good husband”, “loving father”, “great neighbour” etc…Maybe because he wasn’t have any of that..
      “Warrior”… Yes, but mostly a war criminal
      “Defender of state”.. Mostly a defender of spoils of war and other thefts by committing unspeakable massacres.
      stateman= Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet..They were statemen too.
      “Larger than life” : Very..he was a glutton, I heard.

    • kalithea on January 12, 2014, 1:01 am

      A murderer by any other name is still a cold-blooded murderer. There’s only one forever for him and that’s in HELL.

    • Sammar on January 12, 2014, 1:23 am

      A warrior – a war criminal
      defender of a state – a state that is racist, stole its land from the rightful inhabitants and brutally oppresses them for decades
      larger than life – and remembered forever as the “butcher of Beirut” and for all the other atrocities carried out on his command
      keep enemies forever scared? It should scare the Israelis. The last 8 years of his life should tell you that nobody no matter how powerful you seem at the moment, it can all be taken away in an instant
      Israel is here to stay – maybe, but certainly not in its current size and as a racist apartheid state.

    • seafoid on January 12, 2014, 2:38 am

      “May his name keeps enemies of Israel forever scared.”

      They couldn’t even get him to the hospital on time, Dim. I’m sure the IDF is similarly riddled with incompetence.

      • Ellen on January 12, 2014, 4:35 am

        May his name forever keep the enemies of Israel forever scared.

        Pathetically too many Israelis agree with this kind of psychotic vomit.

        As if brutalities, horrific murder rampages on civilians are the mark of a great military leader, let alone any power. As if instilling fear in others is power. It is the ultimate weakness, because like the dog abused by his Master, there will be a moment when the dog has “no fear.” And the master has nothing.

        An especially pathetic statement as Israel is 100% dependent upon the EU and the USA for it’s survival. Israel’s only enemies are itself.

      • seafoid on January 12, 2014, 7:23 am

        Erdogan in Turkey wants to build a third bridge over the Bosphorus in Istanbul and name it after Selim the Grim, the Ottoman emperor who ran a campaign of butchery of the quasi Shia Alevis in the 1600s. The Alevis of today are fighting the plan. People don’t forget their Selims or Sharons.

    • Citizen on January 12, 2014, 5:36 pm

      @ dimadok
      Thanks to him and his ilk the IDF is world renown as the army that murders and beats up on little kids in their beds.

  44. Hostage on January 11, 2014, 11:07 pm

    Ariel Sharon, whose political career was unhindered by civilian massacres, dies at 85

    File this under the heading “We know it when we see it.”

    The definition of the crime of genocide contained in the “Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” was drafted, approved, and opened for signatures by the United Nations General Assembly via Resolution 260 (III) of 9 December 1948 “Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”

    The General Assembly also condemned the Sabra and Shatila camp massacres and declared them to be an example of the crime of genocide in the text of Resolution 37/123 Part D “The Situation in the Middle East”

  45. wondering jew on January 11, 2014, 11:27 pm

    Ariel Sharon’s political career was definitely hindered by the Kahan Commission findings. He endured a long time out of power and it was only after Netanyahu had won and lost the prime minister’s office that Sharon was able to rise in Likud and defeat Barak for that office.

    I appreciate that those who objected to the Sabra and Shatila massacres, and such objection is well placed, are offended that his career was not totally halted in its tracks by that indirect responsibility. But from 1983 (his resignation) until 2001, his career was sidetracked and put in the slow lane and this fits the definition of hindrance. (So the headline is false.)

    During the Yom Kippur War his crossing the canal is credited with turning the tide of that war (or at least with putting the Egyptians on the defensive and thus forcing the Soviet Union to threaten military involvement, thus forcing the involvement of a US alert in response.) I am not sufficiently versed to testify whether military historians credit his crossing of the canal as a turning point, but I do know that I had never heard of Sharon before the war and afterwards he was regarded as a hero.

    The withdrawal from Gaza was a bold move, no matter how it is interpreted. When it was announced many Israelis were skeptical. “The deeper the investigation, the deeper the withdrawal” was what people commented at the time. (He was in deep trouble for corruption until the withdrawal was announced and only after it was announced did those investigations abate.) I was not surprised by the withdrawal- whereas Shamir stated (I paraphrase) that he saw his role to hand things over exactly as he found them, Sharon was not someone who was going to sit in the prime minister’s seat merely to warm it and be satisfied with handing it off to the next person in charge with the status quo unchanged. And this “bulldozer” move of his, making a U turn on his commitment to keep the settlements in Gaza, was his way of ensuring that the status quo was changed.

    I do not think that Israel should be alone in receiving the blame for ensuring that the Gaza withdrawal was a lonely step rather than a step towards peace. I am not sure what the world could have done and I am not blaming Hamas and PLO for not being perfect in adjusting to the new reality that Gaza faced the morning after the withdrawal, but certainly there was an opportunity created by Sharon’s move and the response allowed Israeli citizens to feel: “We gave up the Gaza and all we got was the bombardment of Sderot.” (This is not the complete truth, but the fecklessness of the Palestinian divided leadership, allowed this to be the take away from the withdrawal.)

    • seafoid on January 12, 2014, 2:40 am

      “I do not think that Israel should be alone in receiving the blame for ensuring that the Gaza withdrawal was a lonely step rather than a step towards peace”

      I think it was the calorie plan that followed, Yonah, frankly.
      The system is nuts. Peace is just a word for the goys.

      • wondering jew on January 13, 2014, 1:52 am

        seafoid- I don’t like the word goys. The Hebrew plural for “goy” is “goyim” and I prefer that word to the mixture of languages involved in the word “goys”.

        But more to the point: I am not contending that Sharon’s move on Gaza was a complete move, but neither do I think it can be dismissed. I would think that if the international will was there that the semi withdrawal from Gaza could be turned into a complete withdrawal. But it would take a will that is not there. (Not on the part of the Palestinians, nor on the part of Israel, nor on the part of Egypt, neither Mubarak’s Egypt or Morsi’s Egypt, nor Sisi’s Egypt, nor on the part of the US, nor on the part of Europe, nor on the part of the world.) The world is “interested” in solving the entire issue, but not in a piecemeal solution to Gaza. There is some sense in this, but nonetheless in the meantime, there is no solution to Gaza and such a solution is only possible because of the withdrawal that Sharon implemented.

      • irishmoses on January 13, 2014, 2:34 am

        Do you not like the term “Goys” because of the misuse of the plural or because the term is derogatory to gentiles?

      • puppies on January 13, 2014, 3:39 am

        Yeah, we were just dying to know what you like and dislike and to have you force on us, too, that colonizer language. Oh yes.
        As for the “will”, there never was any will to “disengage” on Israel’s part but to create an easy-to-attack blockaded concentration camp, as openly admitted, before the so-called withdrawal, by the very official personal adviser to Sharon, Dov Weisglass, and Sharon himself. What do you think we are, retarded and without access to even Israeli and American papers?

      • Citizen on January 13, 2014, 11:54 am

        @ yonah fredman
        OK, you prefer the word “goyim” because it’s a purer word in the original language. And because the word goyim clearly, purely distinguishes the others from you and your kind, right?

        goy |goi|
        noun ( pl. goyim |ˈgoi-im| or goys ) informal, derogatory
        a Jewish name for a non-Jew.

        Understandable, if not particularly laudable for obvious reasons, at least to Americans. Here’s another word used in America a lot, but not much since in public
        for decades:

        Kike /ˈkaɪk/ is a derogatory slur used to refer to Jews.

        The source of the term is uncertain, but the Encyclopedia of Swearing stated the most reasonable and most likely origin of the term is the one proposed by Leo Rosten. According to Rosten,
        The word kike was born on Ellis Island when there were Jewish immigrants who were also illiterate (or could not use Latin alphabet letters), when asked to sign the entry-forms with the customary ‘X,’* refused, because they associated an X with the cross of Christianity, and made a circle in its place. The Yiddish word for ‘circle’ is kikel (pronounced ky-kul), and for ‘little circle,’ kikeleh (pronounced ky-kul-uh). Before long the immigration inspectors were calling anyone who signed with an ‘O’ in place of an ‘X’ a kikel or kikeleh or kikee or, finally and succinctly, kike.[3]
        According to Rosten, Jewish U.S. merchants continued to sign with an ‘O’ in place of an ‘X’ for several decades, spreading the nickname kike wherever they went as a result.
        According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it may be an alteration of the endings –ki or –ky common in the personal names of Jews in eastern Europe who immigrated to the United States in the early 20th century.The first recorded use of the term is in 1904.A variation or expansion of this theory published in Our Crowd, by Stephen Birmingham, postulates that the term “kike” was coined as a put-down by the assimilated U.S. Jews from Germany to identify eastern European and Russian Jews: “Because many Russian [Jewish] names ended in ‘ki’, they were called ‘kikes’—a German Jewish contribution to the American vernacular. The name then proceeded to be co-opted by non-Jews as it gained prominence in its usage in society, and was later used as a general derogatory slur..”
        One more theory traces the origin of the term much earlier in time, to the 16th century Pope Clement VIII, noted for his anti-Jewish stance. Among other things, he issued a prohibition on the reading of the Talmud,in which he made reference to the “blind (Latin: caeca) obstinacy” of the Jews. According to this theory, “caeca” developed eventually into “kike”.
        In addition to the mysterious origin of this term, is that in 1864 in the UK, the word ike or ikey was used as a derogatory term for Jews, which derived from the name “Isaac”, a common Jewish name.

    • eljay on January 12, 2014, 9:24 am

      >> I am not sure what the world could have done and I am not blaming Hamas and PLO for not being perfect in adjusting to the new reality that Gaza faced the morning after the withdrawal, but certainly there was an opportunity created by Sharon’s move and the response allowed Israeli citizens to feel: “We gave up the Gaza and all we got was the bombardment of Sderot.”

      I suppose the victim could not be blamed for instinctively slapping her captor in the face the moment he most graciously removed the handcuffs from one of her wrists. Perhaps she should have taken advantage of the opportunity to make the rapist feel good about his move, rather than making him feel: “I freed one of her hands and all I got was a slap in the face.”

      It’s a shame the rapist can’t – or won’t – understand that the real problem is the fact that:
      – he kidnapped the victim and chained her in his basement;
      – he routinely rapes and beats her; and
      – he won’t free her because he doesn’t want to be held to account for what he has done – and what he continues to do – to his victim.

      Then again, it’s probably hard for him to understand the problem, given that:
      – he knows she’s his because his god told him so;
      – his diary mentions her name dozens of times;
      – for years, he regularly recited prayers about her (“Next year in Geri Salem!”);
      – he believes he is entitled to self-determine himself in her;
      – his point of view on this matter is affirmed and strengthened by like-minded kidnappers – even “liberal” kidnappers – who argue that depriving him of his right to his victim is anti-rapist and, anyway, he was abused as a child.

    • Sumud on January 12, 2014, 10:35 am

      Sharon withdrew ground troops & settlers from Gaza but the military occupation did not end. Anyone who says or thinks “we gave up Gaza” is being wilfully ignorant, or is stupid.

      Hamas demonstrated throughout 2008 that they could control rockets from Gaza and how did Israel respond? 1400 Gazans dead, mostly civilians – war crimes and possible crimes against humanity – and let’s tighten the siege for good measure.

      Again, wilful ignorance or stupidity to not see Israeli responsibility here. Israel alone.

      Wait 10 or 20 years and Sharon will get the blame for Israel being unable to extricate itself from the occupied West Bank. One state across mandate Palestine with equal rights for all, with a Palestinian majority about to enact right of return for the refugees – and it’s ALL Arik’s fault.

      • ritzl on January 12, 2014, 12:42 pm

        Agree Sumud. Sharon set the political, double-speak stage in Israel for its path to its own self-imolation as a Jewish State (in the Zionist view), or better known as one state of equal rights in everyone else’s view.

        All these glowing obits are just contemporaneous BS by people that don’t seem to be able to understand Sharon’s effect, even within their own narrow construct.

        As you say, “wait 10 or 20 years” and they will come to understand. But by then it’s too late (for their narrow, self-serving view). Heck it may not be even that long. It’s happening now.

  46. dbroncos on January 12, 2014, 12:07 am

    A thoroughly misleading account…

    “The Israelis decided to secure several West Beirut neighborhoods, including Sabra and Shatila, Palestinian refugee camps where the Palestine Liberation Organization had residual bases and arms and thousands of fighters.”

    Bronner is suggesting here that Sharon’s soldiers and the Phalange malitias entered the Sabra and Shatila in persuit of “residual bases and arms and thousands of fighters.” That’s a lie. Arafat and the PLO militias agreed to leave Beruit only on condition that American negotiator Philip Habib guarantee the safety of defenseless Palestinian women, children and elderly who remained in Sabra and Shatila. Reagan himself put his stamp on the deal. It was after the PLO militias left Lebannon that Sharon did his dirty work, knowing that he’d be killing defenseless civilians. There were no “residual” arms or fighters left in the camps and Bronner knows this. But his well known investment is with the IDF, right Ethan?

    Sharon embarrassed Reagan and made him look complicit in the massacre. In response Reagan sent in Marines who died in their bunks 13 months later in Oct. ’83

  47. kalithea on January 12, 2014, 12:49 am

    After being justifiably imprisoned in his mind and body for 8 years, make no mistake about it; he’s finally where he belongs IN H E L L with other well-known war criminals of the past century.

    There’s only one punishment fitting for someone who mass murders men, women and children in deliberately orchestrated COLD BLOOD -ETERNAL HELL.

    May he get as much peace as he dished out!

    Anyone who lavishes praise on a war criminal is depraved; I don’t care who it is.

    • ritzl on January 12, 2014, 12:25 pm

      Yeah, a coma with bouts of brain activity (awareness?) is exactly the kind of internal conflict he inflicted on the Palestinians. Yearning coupled with [Occupation-induced] hopelessness. At least Palestinians yet live to find a way/prevail.

      The manner of his end is fitting. In a just sense, maybe he “gets it” … now.

  48. Taxi on January 12, 2014, 12:57 am

    Eff what aipacers in USA think, if we’re going to go by the American grassroot, and I would call yahoonews commentators ‘grassroot’, then it would seem to be the case that the American people are categorically anti Sharon (and israel btw). A safe 90% of comments are cussing and slapping thigh at Sharon’s death, or I should say: his life:

    • seafoid on January 12, 2014, 2:41 am


      I’d love to know what Walid Junbalat has to say. He was there in 82. He saw the Sharon machine up real close.

      • Walid on January 12, 2014, 4:52 am

        Seafoid, the man doesn’t hold any grudges and very prone to flip-flopping from being an ally to an opponent and back to being an ally all in a very short span of time, as the political landscape dictates. It’s this type of opportunism that is prevalent in the Druze psyche that has kept them from being destroyed by their opponents for a 1000 years. It’s said that he’s is one of the sharpest politicians on the scene. He was let down by the Americans in 2008 when they had promised him and his allies that if they’d start a conflict with Hizbullah, the Marines would land in Beirut and mop up Hizbullah. His group did, and within 6 hours Hizbullah had taken total control of the city and surrounded Jumblat in his house. The next day, Hizbullah handed over control of the city and the prisoners taken to the army and retreated back into the shadows. The US Marines never showed up and Jumblat kissed and made up with Hizbullah. Since then, he has flip-flopped on Hizbullah about 4 times and I think that currently he is favourable to it. Maybe tomorrow it will change. He’s a fun and very colourful politician to watch.

      • seafoid on January 12, 2014, 9:04 am

        What about Amin Gemayel? I met an Irish nun once in Cairo. She was with a French order who had a convent in Beirut and had been in 82 for the siege. She said it was dreadful. Had no time for Zionism.

      • Walid on January 12, 2014, 10:53 am

        Other than not going all out in his rapprochement with Israel, he went with the flow until his term was up, and lived in Paris for 11 years before going back. Although he was not as chummy with Israel as his brother had been, he was pressured by the US into signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1983 that in reality was a total surrender by Lebanon, but under subsequent pressure from Syria that was occupying the country (along with Israel) and by Jordan and Saudia, luckily for Lebanon, Gemayel abrogated it a few months later. His eldest son that had become a minister was assassinated in 2006 and his second son that became an MP, announced a couple of years back that he was proud that the Christians had been smart enough to have ensured their survival by accepting Israel’s arms and help during the civil war. The whole family had always been vehemently opposed to the Syria’s 20-year occupation of Lebanon. As to the expected reaction from him about Sharon, it’s doubtful he’d say anything since he is currently back in the running for the presidency that’s coming up in a few months and he’s a got a good chance of getting it.

      • Taxi on January 12, 2014, 11:27 am


        General Aoun (even Franjieh) has by far a better chance of becoming president than Gemayel. Aoun and Franjieh are certainly more popular with Lebanese Christians than that dispicable Gemayel – General Aoun being the most popular Christian political leader in Lebanon presently. In fact I reckon that it’s virtually impossible for Gemayel to become president of Lebanon.

      • Walid on January 12, 2014, 12:23 pm

        Taxi, both Aoun and Franjieh are in America’s doghouse because of their political alliance with Hizbullah, therefore, a 100% chance that neither of them would become president, since that decision is with the US. America has decided who becomes president in Lebanon for the past 50 or 60 years. Not much difference between the honest Aoun and Gemayel in that the first is dictatorial because of his military background and the second is a fascist by ideology. So it’s not really about who the Lebanese want but who the US wants.

      • Taxi on January 12, 2014, 1:20 pm


        You’re describing the old picture of Lebanese elections. No more is it the case, dear Walid. I mean, look around: who the hell in the mideast is listening to the Americans and following orders with no questions asked these days? American hegemony on the decline and the old status quo is quietly dying.

        You’re mistaken in your analysis of American domination of Lebanese presidential elections for two reasons:
        1. There is currently an awakening, a tangible aspiration for ‘independence’ in Lebanese political, voting society – same as there in the regional Arab world – a consequence of the so-called Arab Spring. An aspiration for independence that will no longer allow for foreigners to TOTALLY control their destiny.
        2. America will have some influence, yes, but it will not have final say. A declining America has to now ‘share’ the final say – and in the case of Lebanon, it looks like it will be sharing it with Bashar: especially if his winning streak keeps going till May 2014, election month in Lebanon.


  49. Nevada Ned on January 12, 2014, 1:02 am

    For an account of Sharon’s bloody career, I recommend Chomsky’s book, The Fateful Triangle. The heart of the book is an unflinching history of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and Israel’s massacre of Lebanese and Palestinians. Chomsky’s book is not for the squeamish.

    The historian James Weinstein* condemned Israel’s invasion and massacre in very strong terms, saying that Israel’s violent aggression “was at times reminiscent of Nazi Germany”. Greek Prime Minister Andreas Popandreau spoke for much of European opinion when said “Israel is doing to the heroic Palestinian and Lebanese people what Hitler did to the Jews!”
    The organized US Jewish community covered themselves with shame, cheering on the massacres and atrocities. Over 1000 US and Israeli rabbis signed gigantic newspaper advertisement in Israel and New York City, in which they hailed Begin and Sharon for their “defense of Israel” and condemned the Israeli peace movement for its “poisonous propaganda”.
    Michael Walzer wrote that he supported the Israeli invasion, and thought it could be justified as a “just war”. Walzer is widely hailed as a profound thinker on the topic of “just war”.
    When Israel’s massacres at Sabra and Shatila became known, the Israeli government took out big newspaper advertisments, with a big headline


    Israel denied anything, saying
    “Any implication that Israel was involved in the massacre, directly or indirectly, is blood libel, and is rejected with the contempt that it deserves”.

    But this time the accusation of anti-Semitism (which is what the blood libel is all about) didn’t work. So Begin appointed a committee to blunt the accusations.

    The National Lampoon later put out a spoof edition of the New York Review of Books, featuring an article by Irving Howe (founder and editor of Dissent magazine). The Lampoon’s note on the author reads, “Irving Howe is a ardent opponent of all wars, except those against Arabs”.

    *Mondoweiss readers may not be aware of a left-leaning magazine, In These Times, published in Chicago, and then edited by historian James Weinstein.

    • puppies on January 13, 2014, 4:29 pm

      @Taxi (no Reply button) – All well said but based on functioning elections. Remind me, when was the last time we the US accepted free and fair elections? The more so as another all-out armed intervention to break Hizbullah is building up.

  50. RoHa on January 12, 2014, 1:40 am

    “…any man’s death diminishes me,” said dear old John Donne.

    But I have to say that in this case I do not feel particularly diminished.

  51. irishmoses on January 12, 2014, 3:31 am

    I see Sharon as a modern disciple of Jabotinsky whose goal was to take all of pre-mandate Palestine, including Trans-Jordan while removing as many Palestinians as possible. It was (and remains) a creed in which any means (including extreme violence against civilians, not to mention mass ethnic cleansing) is justified in order to achieve the end, Greater Israel. Everything Sharon did, from atrocities to settlements, was consistent with the dictates of The Iron Wall creed, the creed of its founders.

    Like Orde Wingate, Sharon was a brave, brilliant, and very brutal warrior who was willing to make civilians suffer to discourage their cooperation with insurgents. In a very real sense, Sharon was the archetype of an Israeli who was willing to do “…the filthy, dirty work necessary if Zionism and its Jewish State was to survive.” [This is a close paraphrase of Ari Shavit’s analysis of the massacres and mass expulsion of some 50,000 Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army from the Palestinian city of Lydda, in the 1948 war].

    I think liberal Zionists like Shavit view Sharon with no little awe, as they do the founders of Israeli who had no compunction against committing massive war crimes to gain their Arab-frei, Arab-rein Eretz Israel. They did things that the liberal Zionists knew they hadn’t the stomach for. The liberal Zionists are the tsk tskers who agonize over the brutal results of the Jabotinsky creed, but deep down they are gratified at the outcome and grateful for those who did the dirty work. Ari Shavit is the epitome of that crowd. He has a lot of company.

    I also think Sharon did a brilliant job of isolating the Palestinians, including Arafat, brutally defeating the Second Intifada insurgency, building a wall and separation scheme that insured continued Palestinian powerlessness, and making a tactical retreat from Gaza that took the heat off Israel while isolating over a million Palestinians and setting the stage for their eventual permanent political separation from the West Bank.

    While I condemn Sharon for his atrocities, as well as the morality of the Greater Israel protect in general, I think without question he was a brave and brilliant tactical commander, and, within the context of the Jabotinsky creed, a bold, strategic, and effective political leader.

    The real question is whether Sharon and the Jabotinsky approach will ultimately succeed or whether Zionism and its Jewish State will collapse because of its internal moral contradictions.

    I waffle on this but I currently believe the Jabotinsky wing will win out, Israel will overcome all the political obstacles and become the Greater Israel its founders envisioned. If and when this happens, Sharon and his brutal methods will be vindicated. It won’t be the first time might makes right.

    I hope for the latter but fear for the former. On that dismal note, I’ll head to bed.

    • Taxi on January 12, 2014, 10:16 am


      I don’t share your pessimism. Zionism will not survive in the mideast in the long run – the next regional war, which will be a missile war, will demonstrate, yet again, the paper tiger that israel is. And if they use nukes, for instance on norther Egypt, then you can be damn sure that ‘some’ mideast/islamic country will eventually do the same to israel.

      Vindicating Sharon in the future is as ridiculous as George W Bush saying that history will vindicate his war on Iraq.

      This is the 21st century. A completely different environment than the 20th century where Human Rights and Universalism were a mere footnote, especially in the first two-thirds of it.

      • Sumud on January 12, 2014, 10:58 am

        +1 Taxi.

        Sorry to quote myself (it’s relevant and I don’t want to re-write it) but upstream just commented to yonah and finished with:

        Wait 10 or 20 years and Sharon will get the blame for Israel being unable to extricate itself from the occupied West Bank. One state across mandate Palestine with equal rights for all, with a Palestinian majority about to enact right of return for the refugees – and it’s ALL Arik’s fault.

        I don’t think he’ll be a hero for long in Israel, not when the shit really hits the fan.

      • Taxi on January 12, 2014, 11:30 am

        Yes, Sumud, I read your comment earlier and I agree with it.

        Irishmoses can get a bit morose when he’s tired.

      • Taxi on January 12, 2014, 12:01 pm

        To add further to your comment, Sumud, perhaps Sharon will get the Oliver Cromwell treatment: dug up from his cold grave and his corpse hung in chains then beheaded.

      • irishmoses on January 13, 2014, 2:31 am

        I hope you are right Taxi. From my perspective I see a group with immense influence and power that always seems to recover from setbacks. I think it will take a monumental blunder by Israel that causes immediate harm to the US that is clearly seen as resulting from Israeli action to turn the tide of public opinion. I don’t see much chance of that happening.

      • Taxi on January 13, 2014, 9:44 am


        The “immense influence” your refer to is waning. Look at how many political hits aipac has suffered on Iran and Syria, for instance. In the meantime, the resistor Arabs that surround israel are getting stronger militarily.

        Israel’s influence has had its peak – the 29 standing ovations in congress for Netanyahu marked it. It’s been downhill ever since – more and more eclectic grass-root Americans are dissing on israel (just read the comments on any yahoonews article regarding israel to measure the grass-root pulse. Also, Israel at the moment is in such geopolitical desperation that it’s had to shack up with the House of Saud.

        I’m not hearing anyone in the mideast talking about ‘surrender’ to the zionists – in fact I hear the contrary. There will always be resistance to israel, regionally, so long as israel exists. Because it is clear they’re into territorial expansion into other people’s land.

        The zio fortress is made of hay. All it takes is one struck match. And plenty of matches and hands to strike them in the mideast.

    • Donald on January 14, 2014, 12:00 pm

      “I think liberal Zionists like Shavit view Sharon with no little awe, as they do the founders of Israeli who had no compunction against committing massive war crimes to gain their Arab-frei, Arab-rein Eretz Israel. They did things that the liberal Zionists knew they hadn’t the stomach for. The liberal Zionists are the tsk tskers who agonize over the brutal results of the Jabotinsky creed, but deep down they are gratified at the outcome and grateful for those who did the dirty work. Ari Shavit is the epitome of that crowd. He has a lot of company.’

      That’s a really interesting way to put it, and for people like Shavit it’s probably accurate.

  52. seafoid on January 12, 2014, 6:12 am

    Swiss NZZ far better than Yank fawning. No less than Golda” we have to.kill their children” Meir warned Sharon was a danger to Israeli democracy who could surround the knesset with tanks. She wanted to keep army and politics separate sez the NZZ. Fail

    Sarah Leah Whitson of HRW quoted. “Years of slaughter did nothing to bring Israel peace. They say “for the thousands of victims of his strategies his death without any criminal proceedings just shows the tragedy of the destruction he unleashed”.

    One of the great trinity of Likud rightwing blowhards along with Bibi and Begin who made Israel into the hopeless peaceless case it is today.

  53. iResistDe4iAm on January 12, 2014, 7:15 am

    Ariel Sharon, a terrorist and war criminal, is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians, and other Arabs.

    May Ariel Sharon never rest until the Nakba is over and Palestinians are free.

  54. Nevada Ned on January 12, 2014, 7:31 am

    Meanwhile, over at The Nation, Max Blumenthal tells the full awful truth about Ariel Sharon’s long and bloody career.

    • amigo on January 12, 2014, 10:19 am

      Thanks for the link Ned.

      It is however, hard to revisit this history , especially in such sordid detail.

  55. Citizen on January 12, 2014, 7:59 am

    Here’s what an Arab writer says about Sharon’s corrosive legacy in the pages of The New Yorker:

    irishmoses, yonahfredman, please read as the article particularly touches on what you say above in this thread.

    • MHughes976 on January 12, 2014, 8:08 am

      Well, it is encouraging to see a mainstream publication like the New Yorker publishing a comment by a Palestinian on an Israeli hero. Maybe there is some opening of minds.

    • irishmoses on January 12, 2014, 12:46 pm

      I read the New Yorker article. It is consistent with what I said above. He describes Sharon’s Gaza withdrawal as brilliant and confirms my view that it was not an act of peace but instead intended to deflect the growing criticism of Israel and pressure for a permanent settlement. I think without question Sharon was a major and important figure in Israel (and Middle East) history. Every act of brutality, every atrocity, every political act of his was aimed at securing an Arab-frei, Arab-rein Greater Israel. Jabotinsky would be very proud of his accomplishments. To focus on Sharon’s atrocities as the key point of who he was is to miss the point of what he was about and how successful he was at it. He was a soldier of the Jabotinsky crusade, a firm believer in the Jabotinsky creed. and maybe the most effective and successful of Jabotinsky’s disciples.

      Sharon is what he is, was what he was. The man’s been dead for six years. I wish the focus was instead on Ari Shavit whose moral failings and apology for the Jabotinsky creed in his latest book provides a nefarious and convenient rationalization for Jews to say to themselves, “Yes we did it and it was really very horrible, but we had to do it or Zionism and our Jewish State wouldn’t have survived. And, by the way, come to Israel. It’s a brilliant, beautiful place where you can hook up, fuck in the restrooms then go back to the dance floor without having to engage in the complexity of deeper human emotions and interaction.”

      To me, Shavit’s My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel, is the new Exodus, the modern, carefully crafted, apologia for the Greater Israel project. It may be the most effective project ever to come out of Hasbara Central.

      • Citizen on January 12, 2014, 5:20 pm

        @ irishmoses
        I couldn’t agree more.

  56. MRW on January 12, 2014, 8:22 am

    Phil, it’s spelled “lede”. ;-)

  57. seafoid on January 12, 2014, 12:46 pm

    Many obits say that to Israelis he was a hero and to his enemies a war criminal. The point that is never mentioned is that no Israeli will ever be tried for war crimes. This fact helped the growth of YESHA. It is not “good for the Jews” because it results in massive misallocations of resources both financial and diplomatic.

  58. Cina on January 12, 2014, 2:27 pm

    Phil, the Times timeline does include the words Sabra and Shatila (September 15, 1982). It also provides a link to Tom Friedman’s detailed coverage of the massacre back then.

  59. OlegR on January 12, 2014, 5:44 pm

    הַצְּבִי, יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַל-בָּמוֹתֶיךָ, חָלָל: אֵיךְ, נָפְלוּ גִבּוֹרִים
    אַל-תַּגִּידוּ בְגַת, אַל-תְּבַשְּׂרוּ בְּחוּצֹת אַשְׁקְלוֹן: פֶּן-תִּשְׂמַחְנָה בְּנוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים, פֶּן-תַּעֲלֹזְנָה בְּנוֹת הָעֲרֵלִים

    • Shmuel on January 13, 2014, 11:31 am

      Interesting. So do you really think that Sharon was “the Lord’s annointed”, “slain on His altars” (or secular-nationalist equivalent thereof), or are you just worried about airing the dirty linen in Gath?

      • OlegR on January 13, 2014, 6:15 pm

        No Shmuel :)
        I am implying to those familiar with קינת דוד
        that the comments to this post are exactly what David warned about
        and i find it amusing how little human nature has changed even among the enlightened lefties.

      • irishmoses on January 14, 2014, 1:21 am

        As a courtesy to those of us who are unable to follow the gist of your comments, I suggest you provide a translation and explanation instead of disguising your meaning, apparently with the intent of hiding something from the rest of us.

        That you might have been “…worried about airing the dirty linen in Gath” and feel “…the comments to this post are exactly what David warned about…” implies that those of us “others” in this thread are somehow guilty of some trait (anti-Semitism?) and/or are not to be trusted.

        Speaking in riddles disguised in a foreign tongue is uncivil at best. If you have something to say about the rest of us, have the courage and decency to say it, and give examples, in English. Don’t hide behind cute phrasing and another script so you can snicker about the perfidy of those not a part of whatever group it is you communicating with.

      • Shmuel on January 14, 2014, 1:49 am

        I am implying to those familiar with קינת דוד
        that the comments to this post are exactly what David warned about

        Got it. Dirty linen. I wonder if you have anything of substance to say about Sharon when you are out of earshot of those nasty daughters of the Philistines.

        and i find it amusing how little human nature has changed even among the enlightened lefties.

        How wonderfully astute of you. Were you expecting respectful silence?

      • OlegR on January 14, 2014, 4:01 am

        No you misunderstood me.
        Sharon’s biography/ies are well known.This was not a comment about him so much as about the crowds here.

        Substance about Sharon, i doubt i would be original so besides יהי זיכרו ברוך
        no i don’t.

        /How wonderfully astute of you. Were you expecting respectful silence?/

        I expected a little more restraint and self-respect.Alas.

      • irishmoses on January 14, 2014, 11:25 am

        I can see from your comment below that you still can’t find your cojones (your balls; look between your legs). Still speaking in tongues with snide, indirect references to “the crowds here” who I suspect you see as lesser philistines, anti-Semites, Jew-haters. Then there’s your “I expected a little more restraint and self respect. Alas.” This directs our attention to the self hating Jews among us who are of a higher inherent quality and standing but have backslid a bit from the ideal Jew who shows restraint when among his philistine lessers.

        What utter bullshit OlegR. Please, you’re better than that.


    • Taxi on January 13, 2014, 11:49 am

      Awwwh oleg is bereaved beyond consolation (sniffle sniffs).

      This is what google translate turned up on his hebrew message:
      “Deer, Israel, the – Bmotich, Space: How the mighty fallen!
      Do not – tell the winepress, to – were informed cross Ashkelon: Penn – lest daughters of the Philistines,
      Penn – having a good time uncircumcised girls”

      Interesting, hmmmm – NOT!

      Screw your Apartheid gibberish!

      • MahaneYehude1 on January 13, 2014, 1:42 pm

        It is not gibberish if you won’t use Google translate only:

        Thy beauty, O Israel, upon thy high places is slain! How are the mighty fallen! Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.

        2 Shmuel (Samuel), Chapter 1, phrases 19-20

      • Taxi on January 13, 2014, 2:31 pm


        In other words, oleg is asking all mondoweiss jews to keep a stiff upper-lip. Rrrrrrright! Got it!

        The weird thing is, how it doesn’t jar you that non jews are contemptuously referred to as “uncircumcised” – reduced to the status of their genitals – the lower regions of the human experience – the baser animalistic loin. Can we call this discrimination ‘genitalialism’? Discrimination based on genitalia ritual; or lack of it? Are israelis really more wary of “uncircumcised” men than circumcised ones? Is a circumcised antisemite less dangerous than an uncircumcised antisemite?

        So weird and twisted how even the “daughters of the uncircumcised” get kicked in the crouch too, just because their dad was not circumcised. (Doesn’t seem fair at all).

        I’ll give you this though, Mehane, I do understand the call to solidarity in the passage.

        But there’s some really bizarre and archaic paranoias sewn into the language.

      • MahaneYehude1 on January 13, 2014, 3:53 pm


        I only sent the correct translation of Oleg’s Biblical phrase. If you want to complain about the use of the word “uncircumcised”, I think I am not the correct address. You should complain to the Bible editor.

      • Citizen on January 13, 2014, 9:56 pm

        Interesting, “the uncircumcised” refers to most men in the EU, and, increasingly, in America, where new mothers and fathers are very belatedly waking up to the fact routine circumcision of baby boys is very painful to such babies, and there’s no health or medical benefit to the custom, which originated in America as a cure for masterbation. Western civilization was created by the uncircumcised, by and large.

      • wondering jew on January 14, 2014, 12:36 am

        “Uncircumcised” in reference to the Philistines is one difference between the origin of the name Palestine and those that are called Palestinians today. Most Palestinians are Muslims and their men are circumcised.

        To reference the quote from Samuel and refer to it as apartheid gibberish by referring to google translate rather than taking the time to go to the king james bible just goes to show that the level of thought expressed by Taxi is shall we say rather low.

      • Taxi on January 14, 2014, 12:46 am


        I don’t care to read the bible or the shmible – I have zero interest in your religion. But I do have an interest in confronting the Apartheid state of mind that you religiously rejoice in.

        Nothing “low” around here except your immoral support for Apartheid israel.

      • Djinn on January 14, 2014, 4:00 am

        Still gibberish, sky god gibberish but gibberish nonetheless.

      • wondering jew on January 14, 2014, 4:50 pm

        Taxi- My name is Yonah, not Yohan.

  60. LibertyRising on January 13, 2014, 8:20 pm

    Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Leave a Reply