The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. (Henry Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience)



There can be fewer more accurate descriptions of power perverted than the current Sharon disengagement/expulsion plan. The Sharon government came to power on a clearly defined three-prong platform based on a commitment to work for security and peace, while not negotiating under fire.



What has happened since that election is difficult to comprehend. The right-wing Sharon has become the darling of the left, forsaking not only his own commitments to several key strategic areas of Israel, but demeaning, betraying, and finally abandoning the very power base of supporters who brought him to office.



Unlike some of my friends, I have come to the conclusion that Sharon?s manipulations in firing ministers, betraying his own commitment to honor party referendums that he called, and in the end refusing to hold a national referendum are all legal and within his right as the democratically elected prime minister of Israel.



I cannot accept protests that he is a dictator and that he is damaging Israel?s democracy because ultimately what he is doing is legal and democratic. By the same token, however, I cannot ignore the fact that legally elected governments are not necessarily moral and their actions can be anything but ethical.



And yet, Sharon?s policies do not fulfill the spirit of the democracy he pretends to uphold. He came to power on one platform. A majority of Israel supported this platform and gave him our vote, our voice. But that was a different Sharon, a different Israel. The Israel in which we live now, the one that Sharon has created finds it acceptable to stop teenagers or children from going to pray at the Western Wall because they wear an orange shirt or bracelet.



Sharon does not have the moral right to use the power and votes of his constituents to implement policies that directly contradict the platform for which they voted. He does not ethically have the right to continue in office without returning to the people, either by national referendum or by election.



All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. (Henry Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience)



To be legal but immoral, democratic but unethical, twists the foundations of the society we have built and undermines the fibers that bind us as a people and a nation. All arguments have been made, all pleas delivered. What will happen in the next few weeks is a result of Sharon?s unwillingness to heed the needs of a wise minority who simply said that their votes would not be used to dismantle the lives and communities of devoted citizens who have suffered long and hard for this country.



Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? (Henry Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience)



The wise minority of Israel, if it is indeed even a minority, says that we are not headed to peace and security and that those who told us never to negotiate with terrorists while under fire were correct. Sharon took our vote, but he cannot take our voice. He cannot force us to accept a plan that we feel is dangerous to our future and a betrayal of all that we have created. The fact that he helped create what he now rushes to destroy is just one of many ironies.



But, for the record, Sharon?s much touted and perhaps wished for civil war will not happen, but civil disobedience will. Those who oppose Sharon?s expulsion plan will take to the streets and with their bodies, protest a course and an action that we believe to be immoral.



A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight?This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible. (Henry Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience)



For some, this is about taking our votes back, before Sharon puts our names on the bulldozers he will use to destroy the synagogues in Gaza, the shovels and tractors he will use to unbury the dead in Gush Katif. Had there been a national referendum, that would have enabled us to accomplish this, regardless of the outcome. What we are left with is to engage in a legal battle to fight a legal action. But unlike Sharon, our actions carry the morality of our convictions, the ethics of our fathers.



Having been denied that right, all we are left with is the need to make it known that this path that Israel will take is not the path we would choose. Where Sharon will take this nation, we fear. For all of us, what we will do, we do out of love for our families, our people, and our nation. Out of this love, will be born a civil disobedience that would make Henry Thoreau proud. But more importantly, what we do is announce to a government void of justice, that we will seek the just way to defend our homes, our nation, and our people.



Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. (Henry Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience)