Legacy of Ariel Sharon

For all his obstinacy, tendency to insubordination, and frequent brusque rudeness, Sharon also possessed a certain personal charm and had friends across the political spectrum. He loved to spend time with them at his ranch in the northern Negev. Politics and strategy, however, were the governing passions of his life.

Sharon’s private life was marred by tragedy. His first wife died in a car crash in 1962, and their young son was killed in a shotgun accident in 1967. His second wife, the sister of the first, predeceased him in 2000. He sometimes found it hard to keep his public and private lives distinct: in his later years he was dogged by accusations of financial improprieties, and his elder surviving son, Omri, served a prison term in 2008 for fraud in connection with fund-raising for his father’s 1999 election campaign.

Sharon believed passionately in “the birthright of the Jewish people to have an independent Jewish state in the homeland of the Jewish people.” Although he led three different Israeli parties, ranging from right-wing to centrist in ideology, his fundamental outlook changed little in the course of his life, and he remained committed to many of the basic values of pioneering Zionism that he had acquired in his youth. Sharon was the last of the founding generation of Israel’s leaders, and even his opponents recognized his stature. Israeli journalist Tom Segev called Sharon “a mythological figure, larger than life.” On the other hand, one Israeli chief of staff, Mordechai Gur, described him as “unbalanced, adventurous, dangerous, undisciplined.” Golda Meir, one of his predecessors as prime minister, called him a “danger to democracy.” Sharon’s readiness, in the final phase of his career, to accept some form of a Palestinian state and to order Israeli withdrawal from Gaza against the opposition of many of his former supporters was undoubtedly a dramatic shift—although some critics portrayed it as tactical opportunism rather than reflective of a fundamental change in outlook.

Sharon’s greatest achievements were undoubtedly on the battlefield, where he won historic victories, most notably in 1973. His failures, particularly in Lebanon, arose in large measure from the mixture of scorn and deceptive guile with which he habitually overrode colleagues, from his stubborn inflexibility, and from an inability to harmonize military power with political realities. For Sharon, however, it was the good of the state as he perceived it that was his primary priority:

When I receive an order I treat it according to three values: the first, and most important, is the good of the state.…The second value is my obligation to my subordinates, and the third value is my obligation to my superiors. I wouldn’t change the priority of these three values in any way.