- Ariel Sharon was a terrorist prior to 1948, when he was a member of Jewish anti-British forces attacking both British and Palestinian targets, including civilians.  It should be noted that there were many Jews like him, including many who renounced or ceased their activities and became prominent politicians.  Perhaps a terrorist in some cases can reform, having won their cause, they win legitmacy and respect.  I have no problem with that, though it smacks of a 'might makes right' morality.   However, I don't think we should ignore this history.   

- After the establishment of Israel in 1948 until 1953, Sharon headed up a military group called "Unit 101."  Unit 101 carried out actions in neighboring countries which it was nominally at peace with, including the murder of civilians.

- In particular, Sharon and Unit 101, in 1953 attacked the town of Qibya, then in Jordanian territory outside the nominal borders of Israel.  As revenge for a terrorist action which killed an Israeli mother and child, Unit 101 blew up dozens of buildings and killed 69 people inside, including women and children, none of whom were known to be connected with the terrorist incident.  Sharon had massacred a village.  The incident provoked outrage in the Arab world and in Israel itself.  A UN investigation produced evidence which suggested that the killings were deliberate, and there is other evidence to suggest deliberate murder.   Sharon, of course, denied liability, claiming that they did not realize the buildings were occupied.   The revulsion within Israel at the massacre of a village of innocent people was so great that Unit 101 was dissolved and it members assigned back to other IDF units.

- In 1956, during the Suez crisis, Sharon or troops under his command, murdered captured Egyptian prisoners of war.   This incident came to light in 1995 when some of those who had ordered or participated in the murders began to talk about it in Israel.   Murdering Prisoners of War, is of course, a war crime.  There are other reports of executions of Prisoners of War in the 1967 and 1973 wars in theatres where Sharon was active, although I have seen no evidence that he took part in these subsequent atrocities.

- As a politician, Sharon was active in promoting and initiating the settlements of Gaza and the West Bank.  I would suggest the ethics and probity of this policy is open to debate.

- What is not open to debate is that Sharon, as Defense Minister, was responsible for the invasion and subsequent 18 year occupation of  Lebanon.  A country which Israel was not then at war with, and in fact a country engaged in civil war.  Israel's occupation of Lebanon was in violation of international law and killed approximately 20,000 Lebanese civilians.  To be fair to Sharon, there were arguable provocations in the form of attacks from Palestinian forces in Lebanon.   Nevertheless, it appears to be very much a war crime, and is at best, highly questionable and highly controversial.

- In respect of the invasion of Lebanon, the Israeli Siege of Beirut seems particularly objectionable.  It was the subject of several UN resolutions.  The attack and shelling of a civilian population again appears to be a war crime.

- Sharon's nadir also came during the invasion of Lebanon with the massacres of Sabra and Shattillah refugee camps.  Some background is necessary to appreciate Sharon's role.   Philip Habib, an American diplomat, negotiated an peace agreement between the warring forces, including Israel.  Portions of the agreement required that the Palestinian fedayeen (the military arm of the refugee palestinians in Lebanon) leave Lebanon.  The Palestinian Fedayeen did agree and leave.  This left the Palestinian refugee camps unguarded, and Israel and Sharon agreed to guarantee their security.  Israel also agreed not to occupy west Beirut.  During this period of time, the leader of the Christian Phalangists was assassinated, on November 18, 1982, Sharon publicly blamed the Palestinians for the assassination.  Sharon then deliberately withdrew Israeli forces from Sabra and Shattilla and handed it over to the Phalangists.  Sharon and the Israeli's were well aware that the Phalangists were bloodthirsty for revenge and had a history of atrocities even when not seeking revenge.   As Israeli forces looked on, the Phalangists began a two day orgy of killing women and children, executing large numbers of civilians.  The Israeli command was in a four story building overlooking one of the camps, they had an excellent view of the massacre, and they did nothing.   The event shocked the world.   More than that, it shocked Israel, and 400,000 Israeli's demonstrated in Tel Aviv.   An Israeli commission of inquiry from that time determined that Ariel Sharon was "personally responsible" for the Massacre.

- Since his return to politics, Sharon triggered the second intifada with a very specific provocation.   He visited a critical religious site to both Jews and Muslims, with an armed escort of several hundred police and military.  In the ensuing demonstrations, Israeli soldiers shot into crowds of Palestinians, killing or wounding 64.  The intifada was on.   Some argue that Arafat or others planned the intifada well in advance - I'm willing to entertain this argument, but it strikes me that the circumstances show very little control over the Intifada by any Palestinian leader, it appears very much a spontaneous and uncontrolled popular uprising.  Some argue that Sharon had every right to visit his religious center, an argument which contains a certain amount of merit.  On the other hand, perhaps deliberately throwing gasoline onto a fire is not the best policy.  Sharon's actions in this respect must be seen as intentional, deliberate and provocative.  Sharon clearly (by bringing a small army with him) expected that his actions would produce a violent response, and he appears to have intended to trigger that response.  He was well aware of the potential consequences of his action, and he welcomed them.

- Sharon during the intifada appeared to take steps to ensure that it would continue.  During quiet periods, or periods when things were quieting down, he would authorize new assassinations or raids, which had the effect of keeping the pot boiling.  One could argue that Sharon was merely defending Israel.  But I would argue that Sharon's conduct was not merely defense or reaction, but a deliberate policy of incitement and escalation.   Sharon himself was the principal beneficiary of the resulting national fear and paranoia.  A deteriorating society in a war with an ineffectual but ever-present enemy allowed Sharon to present himself as the only effective leader.

- It is clear of course, that Sharon did many positive and worthwhile things.  He acquitted himself honourably, so far as I know, in the 1967 war.  He was definitely the hero of the hour in the 1973 war.   Sharon's virtues are well and often sung.  I acknowledge them without needing to repeat them.

- Some of Sharon's virtues are questionable.   His building of a wall in the west bank, and his efforts to expropriate west bank lands and resources by hook or by crook are not laudable in any way.  Again, I would note that these actions were presented as self defense.   His evacuation of Gaza is also presented as a humanitarian gesture, but I would argue that there are quite different constructions.  Gaza is a sliver of territory a few miles long and a few miles wide, without seaport or resources, with its borders essentially under Israeli control, without an economy, without economic opportunities, without infrastructure, and home to 1.3 million desperately poor and destitute people.  Gaza might be better understood as being the 21st century version of American Indian Reserves circa 1890, or the Warsaw Ghetto, circa 1944.

William Shakespeare had Mark Antony in Julius Caesar announce that the good that men did died with them, but that their evil lived on.   In discussing Ariel Sharon, it behooves us to acknowledge his evils as much as his good.  He was a man who committed war crimes and atrocities, who walked in footsteps drenched with blood.  His actions and atrocities shocked and offended his own people.  As much as anyone else, he contributed to or helped to create the dire problems facing both Israel and the Palestinians.   What sort of good works wipes away the stain of massacring a village or a refugee camp?  How are such atrocities redeemed?  I am uncertain of any moral calculus which would allow us to acknowledge both the truth of Sharon's war crimes and atrocities and yet allow us to praise him as a good man.  Although it may displease some, I must call Ariel Sharon a monster and say that the world is better off without his kind.

In uttering these thoughts, please note that I make no comments against Israel.  In its condemnation of Sharon's excesses and war crimes in the execution of prisoners, in the matters of Qibya and Sabra and Shattilla, the Israeli people have demonstrated their moral strength.   I am not an enemy of Israel, nor do I oppose Israel's right to exist.  By the same token, I do not endorse terrorism of any form anywhere.  This applies to Palestinian terrorism.  I do not wish to get into the subject of Israel's creation, of the expulsion of Palestinians, of the debts and grievances between Israeli's and Palestinians, of the plight of Palestinians, nor  the various equities and arguments relating to the West Bank and its people.

It is not a defence of Sharon to say that he was a soldier or a warrior.  Most soldiers and warriors get through their careers without massacring villages, murdering POW's, killing women and children.  To equate Sharon with honourable warriors, and the honourable warriors of Israel is to diminish and demean honour.  There is war and then there are war crimes.  There are warriors and then there are war criminals.  These are distinct things and to pretend that they are not is to embrace the abyss from which Holocausts arise.

I restrict myself entirely to the review and comments of Ariel Sharon's life, and conduct which was uniformly murderous and obscene throughout, by the standards and values of his own people and of the world.   The man was, whatever else he may have been, a monster.  It is unseemly to praise monsters.

I'm afraid yours is the kind of lead-in, we are more used to seeing on Fox News.  A similar Fox one I recall from before the 2004 Election was "Will John Kerry be a disaster for the Market?"

But arguably that was less egregious since at least they tacitly acknowledged that there was some debate to the matter.

"the 77-year-old Israeli Prime Minister is winning hearts here in Europe."

Yet you didn't think it might be useful to elaborate with perhaps some evidence of Sharon having "won Europe's heart"?  Seems that might have been the logical starting point for this piece.  Any opinion polls perhaps?

Contrary to a common perception of Europe, we are not all so intrinsically anti-Israel that the news of a 77 year old man in a coma is going to send us into paroxysms of joy.  Of course there is concern for the man. 

No doubt history would acknowledge him as a storied warrior and a skilled politician. But could he be a statesman?

But concern doesn't vitiate the fact that for many he will be remembered not so much a "storied warrior" as a war criminal with an unsavory history stretching from Qibia, through Sabra and Lebanon to the present.

It didn't make me happy when Reagan died.  But it didn't make me forget El Salvador either.

Rep. Harman made a number of curious statements  

Europeans - particularly the British - are becoming more hard-nosed about security.

Europeans always seemed pretty hard-nosed about security to me.  Britain even managed to survive three decades of Irish terrorism which killed more than 3,500 people.

Rep. Harman continues:

Another fact that has sobered Europe is the prospect of a nuclear Iran with missiles that can hit any EU country.

Rep. Harman appears unaware that Europeans have always been extremely sober about the prospect of nuclear annihilation - London, after all, is a mere four hours on a commercial flight from Moscow.

Some more commentary from Representative Harman:

The morning brought Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the evening brought congressional leaders, and at a luncheon "debate" in between, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and informal administration foreign policy adviser Richard N. Perle tried to one-up each other in pro-Israel views.

Perle drew cheers for denouncing Palestinian anti-Semitism and the French. Harman mentioned that an aide once worked for AIPAC, called her audience "very sophisticated" and celebrated Yasser Arafat's death as "a blessing." Debating a hard-liner in front of a pro-administration crowd, Harman heaped praise on President Bush, calling the Iraqi elections "sensationally impressive" and moving to "applaud" or "commend" Perle and the administration a dozen times. "Richard is right, and so is President Bush," she said at one point.

In fairness, the columnist does point out that Represenative Harman shut up when the subject of invading Iran came up, a temptation Perle wasn't up to resisiting; however, one wonders if that was only because Harman knows her constituency isn't quite so war-happy as AIPAC, and such words might come back to haunt her, as words so often do.  

At any rate, her history of shameless pandering on this issue vitiates her opinions on the topic for me.  Although I do wish I was a fly on the wall during the conversation about Arafat's legacy she mentioned.  She called his death "a blessing," while Sharon  actively sought that death for decades.  That must have been one interesting discussion.  

Ha'aretz reports,

If elections were held now, Kadima would win 44 Knesset seats - four more than in the first survey taken after Sharon was hospitalized. Labor dropped two seats (to 16), while Likud lost one (to 13) in comparison with that poll.

[...]

Most of Kadima's strength is coming from Labor, Likud and Shinui - 35, 51 and 60 percent, respectively - of the people who voted for those three parties in 2003, who now say that they will be putting a Kadima ballot into the box come March 28.

Sharon's popularity rose with the confidence that the Israeli electorate has come to place upon him to confont the unrealistic pretensions of the occupation.  History reveals a pattern whereby the more confident the Israeli electorate is with its security situation, the more willing it is to see its government take risks for peace and reconciliation.

The Arab establishment has noticed this too.  A secure Israel, and a reintegrated Jewish people in the Middle East is the worst scenario for the despotic regimes of Iran and the Arab establishment.  Without the Zionist boogeyman, their regimes are internally exposed for the retrograde kleptocracies they always were.

Which is why I grimly anticipate something along the lines of Hizballah attacks from across the Lebanese border, either on Israel proper, or the Shebaa Farms area; or intensified terror attacks from Gaza and/or the West Bank with less primitive means than the inaccurate Qassam rockets; all with varying degrees of covert support from Iran and hardline Arab League member statess like Syria.  And all with the overt blessings of the West's phony avatars of human rights as blows against "Israeli aggression," and "Zionist imperialism."

Much to muse on in your post.

'In a world of secret information, there's almost nothing we don't share with our "cousins," and vice versa. They know how to keep secrets'

This seems to be a problem at the mo. Various bit of 'secret information' has become, well, public, emabrassing both sides.

'A radicalised, marginalized Islamic youth engulfed neighboring France this past fall in a blaze of riots, and nobody missed the fact that the London murderers hailed from a "quiet" Muslim enclave a short train ride-ride from here.'

This reminds me of 'the settlers' in Israel and the OT's. Both sets are immigrants, or decended from recent (20th century) immigrants.

'And the second, he knew, was the "demographic bomb," as it's often called in Israel . Annexing Gaza and the West Bank, home to some 3 million Palestinians, would be the end of Herzl's vision of a Jewish State - the Palestinian birth rates soon to swamp the population of Israeli Jews.'

Again, the similarity with importing certain sections if immigrants. Eurasia has become worrysome for some, Jewish immigrants to Israel is a worry for others in that area of the world.

'We now know that in seizing the post-Arafat moment, Sharon embraced the role of statesman.'

Some would say pseudo-dictator, on both sides of the fence.

'In quitting Gaza, Sharon was also challenging the Palestinians. Fail to govern there, and no one will trust them to govern on the strategically important high ground of the West Bank. Tragically, Abbas's leadership is falling short.'

Reminds me of Iraq. A couple of decades of Saddam rule seems hard to overcome, even with the world hyper-power on the ground there helping out. Cross over to Gaza, and there are several more decades of similar rule to overcome, with not many boots on the ground helping the PA out.

'Earlier this month, hundreds of Palestinians overran Gaza's southern border and streamed into Egypt while the PA just watched. A weakened Abbas has all but abandoned his hope of stopping Hamas and now must consider delaying the Palestinian elections to avert an embarrassing setback.'

Again, similar to Iraq, see above.

'At this writing, there is medical evidence that The Bulldozer, written off as dead last week, may survive.'

Perhaps as a drooling 'hero', which would be no good for improving relations between two sides who like to call each other names.

'Sharon has surely proven his physical bravery once again, but he's also shown that there is no room for the timid at the peace table.'

Eh? How can having a stroke prove ones physical bravery. How can wanting to live, a human instinct, prove bravery?

'That sentiment is now winning him Europe's belated affection.'

That will be the caring socialist Europe that is some much critisized for thinking of others in distress, usually scorned by many as 'Nanny'.

I hope he survives, and regains some elements of a decent living. Politically, he's already dead and buried - I view this as a good thing since his dictatorial stance is undemocratic. Let the democratic process begin now in Israel, and lets see where Israel stands post-dictatorial Sharon. Will they lean to the right, as I expect, or keep to the middle ground/ left as we are informed many Israeli's would like?

Interesting times ahead now the two protagonists, Sharon and Arafat, are out of the way. These things are said to come in three's, perhaps Bibi is next (fingers crossed) in some none physical but politically fatal way - he scares the pants of me, and is x10 worse than Sharon ever was.

Not to pile on the ill, but Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza was as much cynical opportunism as was his 'stroll' at the dome of the rock, that propelled him to power five years ago. 
The withdrawal from Gaza would relieve him of any responsibility to withdraw from the West Bank, and solidify Israeli control of Jerusalem. Sure, he would evacuate some of the 'illegal outposts' without having to aknowledge that all settlement in the West Bank is illegal. 
The Palestinians, as Sharon knew, are currently incapable of governing Gaza, therefore the West Bank would remain in Israeli hands in perpetuity. The Palestinians -- and the Arab world -- will never accept this as a solution. And we will all have to deal with the consequences.
As for the Europeans, they were pretty enamored of Arafat too, at least until he was gone. Sharon was the last leader standing, and I expect his devotees will drift off once he's left the stage.