It is a danger to democracy for the winner of the election to adopt the policy of the loser of the election on the main issue that was discussed in the election, without going back to the people who voted against that very policy. That is the very situation that is happening in Israel today in that Prime Minister Sharon, whose Likud party won 38 seats in the last election, has adopted the Disengagement plan of his main Opponent in the last election, Amram Mitzna of the Labor party, which had their worst showing ever winning only 19 seats in the last election.

Accordingly, it is not surprising that the Labor party is desperate to put off elections until after Disengagement because they believe the voters will again reject Disengagement at the polls and the only way for their policies to be enacted would be for Sharon to do their policies before going to new elections or why else would a party not push for new elections when they had their worst showing in the last election.

The problem is a moral one, in which it is immoral for the government of Israel to initiate Disengagement without going back to the people that overwhelmingly rejected it in the last election. It is not only immoral but dangerous to the very fabric of any democratic system in where the voice of the people is supposed to matter most.

In a feeble attempt to defend their position the supporters of Disengagement that oppose new elections or a referendum argue that the polls show a majority supporting Disengagement so they are doing what the people want. However, the polls before the Likud Referendum that was held at Sharon?s urging in which Sharon agreed to abide by the results had originally showed a 30% lead for Sharon and Disengagement which led one Sharon adviser to state that there was a better chance that Osama Bin Laden would convert to Judaism then us lose this Referendum and yet in one month?s time the Likud members voted by a 60-40 margin against Disengagement (and Osama Bin Laden has not converted to Judaism).

What this vote tells you is that what counts in Democracies are votes and not polls and that polls change significantly when people start to look at an issue closely because they are going to vote on the issue. The polls are very likely to soon show a majority of Israelis oppose Disengagement and then Disengagement supporters will be asked whether is it still proper to carry out Disengagement when even the polls show that a majority of Israelis oppose Disengagement. What will there answer be then?

Recently, I personally had the opportunity to question Disengagement supporters, Labor MK and former Minister Efraim Sneh and Likud MK and Deputy Finance Minister Meir Sheetrit on this very issue and their answers were most troubling for Israel?s Democracy. Efraim Sneh responded that once someone wins an election they can do whatever they want and it does not matter what the person said in the campaign.

Such a view would lead to great civil strife and democratic instability even if the election was for a person but in Israel one is electing a party and a party platform in which case this view is even more dangerous for the stability of Israel as the people in any democracy need to be able to rely to a great extent that their candidate will closely follow his campaign promises.

Meir Sheetrit tried to argue that Sharon said he would make painful concessions and therefore he did not lie to the people. In response to my question to Sheetrit about Sharon promising to abide by the results of a referendum his answer was that he should not have made such a promise. Whether he should have made the promise or not is irrelevant because he did make such a promise and did not keep his word, which is again dangerous for a Prime Minister when he does not keep his word to the people of Israel.

Close to 9,000 Jews are to be evacuated from their homes that up to 3 generations of Jews have lived under the current Disengagement plan. No one argues that this plan will bring peace and Israel?s former Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon, who had his tenure cut short by Defense Minister Mofaz, has recently stated that after Disengagement there ?will be an eruption? of terror. Natan Sharansky stated that Prime Minister Sharon told him he expects no pressure for ten years after Disengagement and Sharansky says there is no proof that the pressure will be off even ten days.

Even Sheetrit and Sneh agree that the terrorists will take over the land Israel gives up in Disengagement, but Sneh assured us that the terrorists won?t have the energy to dance that long on the rooftops of the homes of their terrorist victims.

The main achievement that Sharon could attempt to argue about Disengagement was the Bush letter allegedly supporting Israel retaining their largest settlement blocs.

However, President Bush?s opposition to Israel?s building in between Jerusalem and Israel?s largest settlement and the one closest to Jerusalem of Maaleh Adumim would undoubtedly mean that President Bush does not really support Israel?s retention of settlement blocs.

Finally, President Bush?s comments to the media standing aside Palestinian Authority President Abbas that the parties must agree to any final status agreement means that even if Bush supported Israel keeping the Settlement blocs that the U.S. would not recognize such an agreement without the consent of the Palestinian Arabs which makes the support, if there was any, worthless.

Disengagement was a policy that was rejected in the last election and again in the Likud Referendum and Prime Minster Sharon agreed to abide by the results of that Referendum. To continue to pursue Disengagement is dangerous for Israel?s Democracy.

Furthermore, it is apparent that even the so-called achievements of Disengagement no longer exist. In a war against terrorists it is better to give the terrorists less not more territory in order to end terrorism and instead Disengagement does the opposite. Israel should stop the insanity and end the division, and if Prime Minister Sharon wants to pursue Disengagement he should call new elections and go back to the people.