It feels incongruous that reports say that Ariel Sharon died at peace. He would have hated that concept.
Peace and Ariel Sharon were strangers, and he lived an uncompromisingly unpeaceful life.
In death, as in life, he demonstrates the problem in the Middle East. For Israel, Sharon is a hero: dauntless, fearless, victorious, a great champion. To the rest of the world he is rather different: a ruthless and implacable warrior without humanity.
Jewish History and World History (capitals all round) diverge like this, with Israeli leaders keeping a firm eye on their place in the former however ugly their place in the latter.
Jewish History likes its heroes to be belligerent, pugnacious, bloody-minded as well as bloody-handed. The thunderous behaviour of biblical 'heroes' ensures that unstoppable militarism is still revered today.
It always seems to me that 'an eye for an eye', so far from being an imprimatur of illimitable vengeance, is instead a sort of statute of limitations, a curb on the extent to which revenge may be considered legitimate. There seems to be a suggestion that for an eye, no more than an eye may be sought. Ariel Sharon would not have agreed.
Forget emotional intelligence. Bring out the bombs.
No wonder that Israel seems unable to work and play well with others.
No comments:
Post a Comment