R.I.P. Ariel Sharon (a tribute thread)
- Thread starter bhsup
- Start date
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
To a being which definitely existed.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Once I read that Ariel Sharon was a Patton-like military leader, and I think that description fits. Daring, sometimes overly bold and arrogant, but usually delivering good results. As the Egyptians had found in the 1973 Yom-Kippur war...
Senethro
Overlord
Is it an appropriate use of Red Diamond to suppress debate on a controversial figure?
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
I checked the RD rules and there's nothing there about De mortuis nihil nisi bonum. There were phrases like "free exchange of ideas" and "open mind" though.
You know what, fine. Frak it. I have never understood why people cannot be decent and civil in RIP threads. Jesus, at least for the first few pages/days. But clearly it is impossible. So have the hell at it, Moderator Action: <snip>
Moderator Action: Offending language removed. It's a bit counterproductive complaining about lack of civility and decency by using such language...-Grisu
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: Offending language removed. It's a bit counterproductive complaining about lack of civility and decency by using such language...-Grisu
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
It's certainly in keeping with his legacy.
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
He could well have pulled out of most of the West Bank.
As SS-18 pointed out the penultimate sentence of your OP is highly problematic and arguably a contradiction in terms.
There certainly is such a thing a decency relevant to recently deceased public figures.
But i am not sure this includes immunity from criticism.
All too often people try to invoke such immunity for the dead under the cover of decency for ulterior motives (i.e. causes they shared or believe to have shared with that person).
Of course the same charge can be made against many of the critics in such instances as well.
Anywho, i suppose in part the dispute here may be about whom or what we are supposed to honor. The man or the symbol?
As a symbol Sharon would be hard to criticise in a thread like this one. Any accusation against him can easily be inferred to be one against Israel.
But if we are to honor the man, we can very well recognise service to his nation as well as other qualities and note faults and failures at the same time.
I struggled with this when i first saw these two threads, cause it reminded me of the recent debate on the legitimacy of criticism fielded (particularly in certain media in the US) against Nelson Mandela.
At first i thought that perhabs Mandela was a better man than Sharon. I suppose a case to that end could be made.
But in retrospect i can't shake the feeling that when it came to Mandela people were insisting upon honoring the symbol rather than the man, but people are more reluctant to do so in the case of Sharon.
I have the suspicion that people feel - correctly or not - that Sharon isn't Israel, that Israel is a whole lot bigger than Sharon and that South Africa in its magnificent dysfunction has a very hard time measurig up to Mandela and is much more in the need of symbols such as national heroes.
Thus the double standard i have asumed to exist here may be one of pity rather than respect or prejudice.
This can apply somewhat to often tiresome debates on matters regarding Israel and Palestine - a possibilty often overlooked by proponents of decidedly pro-israeli positions:
Their adversaries in such debates may very well hold no particular ill will against Israel, but merely regard Israel strong and centered enough as a nation or a society or whatever to be held to the standards of civilised nations while not holding Israels opposition to the same standard - out of pity rather than prejudice.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Well, Sharon is perceived - perhaps rightly so - as just another world leader with some highly controversial aspects, comparable to Thatcher or Andreotti. Indeed, Israel is a lot bigger than Sharon, but you can't say the same about South Africa to Mandela. Mandela was a genuinely big figure who stood up against a universally loathed regime and upon becoming president ruled his country with temperance.
Now, Sharon led his country against the against the Palestinian movements. While not everything was gay (in the archaic sense of the word) amongst those political currents and definitely had their fair share of human rights issues, they are not comparable to apartheid South Africa. The Palestinians likewise definitely have some legimate grievances against Israel, but neither Israel is comparable to apartheid South Africa and like Sharon's Israel, did not pursued to end their grievances through the ways most expedient to peace and the end result is a conflict between two gray sides. I do have to admit that I'm slightly partial towards Israel for having solid proof of being able to care for its citizens, unlike pretty much any Arab state, though I might be unfair here since the Palestinian movements do not possess the means of achieving such.
Sharon was involved in certain events in Lebanon in a very grossly negligient way and he may have gotten more out of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process than he did. Yet, on the other hand, getting Israeli-Palestinians is simply not as simple as turning over a switch as many people rabidly in favour of one side in the Isra-Pal conflict like to portray it. But neither was apartheid. Mandela ultimately deserves credit for basically ending apartheid as af it was and frankly, Sharon did not manage to achieve that, in all due respect.
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but doesn't this look a bit like a sort of well-meaning racism, with the Palestinians and black South Africans seen as incapable of being held to the same standards as their Israeli and white South African counterparts?
Zack
99% hot gas
I don't understand why you always have such profane freakouts whenever people even think of criticizing a deceased controversial figure?
Moderator Action: Please don't quote offensive language
I don't think that's fair. Mandela is not being held to an easier standard than a white person would by those who think he's a 'good' figure. He is held to a harsher standard than a white person would be by those who think that he is a 'bad' figure.
I have to say that I just don't remember Sharon well enough to make an informed comment on his legacy. But, again, he would be held to a looser standard by those who considered him a good guy, and a worse one by those who consider him a bad guy.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Just a reminder, Ariel Sharon was found to be personally responsible for the Sabra and Shatila Massacre(s).
I don't think it's maligning or offensive to bring this up, Bhsup, just to give you my honest opinion.
I think VRWCAgent's successor and heir, Mr. bhsup (sounds Arabic, this name does indeed) us simply applying the archaic meaning of the word:
malign (third-person singular simple present maligns, present participle maligning, simple past and past participle maligned)
But there's a difference between treating with malice, or abusing, and criticising. If you want to make it a 'don't criticise Sharon' thread, then be explicit.- (transitive) To make defamatory statements about; to slander or traduce.
- (transitive, archaic) To treat with malice; to show hatred toward; to abuse; to wrong.
Similar threads
