Protest art in Nabulus, Palestine decrying the separation wall between Israeli settlements and the West Bank.
Ariel Sharon passed away this month at 85, after suffering a stroke in 2006 and falling into a coma for eight years.
While the Israelis mourn their hero, Palestinians are glad the former prime minister died. This sparks a volatile controversy as onlookers ask themselves, “Whose side are we on as Americans, Christians and individuals?”
(SEE: Former Israeli PM Sharon’s controversial legacy)
Israelis saw Sharon as a war hero because he helped defeat Egypt in 1973, while Palestinian Arabs see him as an enemy because of the 1982 Lebanon invasion when hundreds of men, women and children died in refugee camps.
Sharon was also accused of killing 800 Palestinians in the supposed oversight of security troops stationed outside a Palestinian refugee camp. Due to this ethically fragmented decision, Sharon was forced to resign as defense minister.
If one were to ask an Israeli directly involved in Sharon’s history – or one who shares similar views of Israeli right to the Holy Land – to describe the ex-prime minister’s legacy, their response may very well support the exoneration of a hero. The argument would be that he was loyal to the Israeli nation and the people within it. But that doesn’t change the fact that he is responsible for the countless deaths of hundreds of innocent Palestinians, Lebanese and Egyptians.
Refugee camps by definition are established to provide solace from an increasingly brutal circumstance. Very few people in the APU community can even fathom the conditions and overwhelming fear that come with being displaced due to violence. It is essentially the most vulnerable place a human being can be in this life. When a massacre is allowed to pass through where human beings need to feel safe, there is very little room to see the bureaucratic oversight as forgivable.
Initially my thoughts were neutral, until I waded through numerous articles and documentaries. Sharon did some good for his people, but I soon realized that does not excuse the fact he also destroyed many families. Killing only provokes further bloodshed in the form of retaliation. Howard Zinn, in his book “A People’s History of the United States,” wrote, “There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”
There is something deeply complex and worrisome about Sharon’s heroic legacy, especially when considering the violent uprising between 2000 and 2005, which resulted in the deaths of 3,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis.
But unlike the Palestinians, I will not celebrate Sharon’s death because, as Christians, we are not called to celebrate the death of another child of God.
Ariel Sharon was an incredibly powerful leader: he had his values, his own beliefs, and he stood by them. He was known to not follow anyone’s rules but his own, which led the victory of the war in 1973. The Israelis valued him because of his role as a leader, how he led their country and what he brought to the Israelis in terms of political power and extensive land gains.
From an American point of view, his death is an extremely sensitive issue because of the deep-seated ties our government has financially and militarily with Israel. While there is certified evidence of senseless killings and even war crimes within Sharon’s career as a leader, Obama would never make a negative statement against Sharon and possibly jeopardize the relationship between our nations.
Sharon did not shy away from his hardline values. His unwavering dedication to Israel and his people resulted in a legacy of victories, but at an astronomical cost of human life and freedom.