You are right about Bull Conner. He would have killed them all in a heartbeat. Without knowing for sure I would say he was much worse that Sharon. I was an active supporter of civil rights in Alabama so I know about Bull Conner and I know the mind of the typical southerner in that period. Killing peaceful demonstrators was never an option to 90% of the population.

Sharon is not Caesar any more than Conner was. In Alabama Conner was condemned by the majority and civil disobedience prevailed because of the moral imperative it represented and of course the support of the press and federal government helped. If the AA had chosen terror as their way, they would have been brutalized and oppressed throughout the nation. There would have been no support from the press or the Feds. Racial discrimination was universal at that time and it would have boiled over in the face of violence.

I disagree that Sharon has the power in Israel to put down an organized campaign of passive resistance any more that Conner could in B'ham. Look at the press Sharon is getting now when he can at least argue that they are meeting armed resistance and cleaning out terrorists.