Ethan Bronner Eulogizes Ariel Sharon (beware--it is suppsoed to make you cry)

First he tells you that Sharon's reputation began to soften: but among whom? He does not say.  As if his reputation has changed among Arabs: Bronner, if he knew Arabic, would have navigated Arab social media today to judge for himself if Sharon's reputation has softened among Arabs.  "Mr. Sharon gained infamy for his harsh tactics against the Palestinians over whom Israel ruled. That reputation began to soften after his election as prime minister in 2001".  Here, on the racist separation barrier:  " It not only reduced infiltration by militants into Israel but also provided the outline of a border with a future Palestinian state..." He does not mention that the outline of the border does NOT coincide with the West Bank borders.  He then tells you that his peaceful endeavors were spoiled by the rise of Hamas:  "But even if he had stayed healthy, his plans might have been interrupted by the rise of the militant Palestinian group Hamas".  Typical Zionism: always blame the Palestinians for the crimes, fanaticism, racism and occupation of the Israelis.  So Bronner tells readers that Sharon was actually a pragmatic man:  " Those close to him said he had always been more pragmatic than most people realized."  Were his massacres of Arabs pragmatic too?  Here, Bronner tries his hand at love poetry for Sharon:  "Thick-limbed and heavyset, with blue eyes, a ready smile and a shock of blond hair that whitened as he aged, Mr. Sharon was the archetypal Zionist farmer-soldier. He was not religiously observant, but he was deeply attached to Jewish history and culture and to the land where much of that history had occurred."  Can you imagine an Arab or a Muslim leader ever described in those glowing romantic terms in the New York Times?  Here he tells you that he was funny and that his massacres were actually hilarious:  "But he was also courtly to his political rivals and had a surprising sense of humor."   Here, Bronner describes the massacre of civilians in Qibya as a battle, although the village had NO fighters whatsoever, so he must have meant "battle against civilians":  "The battle of Qibya, in which 69 people were killed, more than half of them women and children, and 45 houses were demolished, brought Israel its first condemnation by the United Nations Security Council and became a Palestinian rallying cry for a generation."   At least he mentions the defeat and humiliation of a Sharon elite force at the hands of Egyptian troops in 1956 (rarely mentioned episode in portraits of Sharon in the Western press):  "In the 1956 Sinai campaign, Mr. Sharon commanded a paratroop brigade and violated orders by driving his men deep into Sinai to the Mitla Pass, where they were ambushed by Egyptian forces and sustained dozens of deaths, with scores of soldiers wounded. "  Notice when Israeli invades in 1948 and in 1956 and in 1967 and in 1978 and in 1982 and in all other invasions it is not "shocking" but the one war that the Arab side actually initiated it is portrayed as "shocking". Why only this one?  "a shocking invasion by Egypt and Syria".  As for Sharon's alliance with the right-wing fascist death squads of Lebanon, Bronner says:  "to form a strategic alliance with Lebanon’s Christian elite".  This is like describing the Nazis as "the German elite".   And an invasion that killed some 20,000 mostly civilian Lebanese and Palestinians is described thus by Bronner:  "Things went well at first."   And this blatant lie about Sabra and Shatila:  "These included Sabra and Shatila, Palestinian refugee camps where, the Israelis asserted, the Palestine Liberation Organization had residual bases and arms and thousands of fighters." Blatant lie because there were only boys in the camps.  No men were left.