The Minister of Defence, the Commander in Chief of the army and various writers have all criticized, in the name of democracy, those rabbis who have called on soldiers not to take part in the uprooting of Jewish families, even if given an order to do so.
This instruction of the rabbis has to be understood as a counsel of despair in the face of a central government that has itself broken the rules of the game and acts undemocratically.
Two opposite tactics have been adopted by the central government to justify the uprooting.
1. Sharon Has A Mandate Because Of The Last Election
This tactic has been adopted by the Minister Meir Sheetrit, designated by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to carry out the uprooting. He said on the popular Channel 2 of the Voice of Israel (state-run) radio station, on the morning of 17 October 2004, "Sharon got a complete mandate in the last election to carry out the hitnatkut [uprooting]." Sheetrit was not challenged by the interviewer, Karmit Gai.
The next day, 18 October 2004, the same station again gave him the platform during the 5:00pm program, and he said, "Sharon said before the election that he is going to carry out the hitnatkut [uprooting] and he still got forty MKs." Again he was not challenged by the interviewer.
These statements are clearly untrue. Before the election, Sharon used to say from time to time that "for peace he is prepared to make serious concessions." In fact, the proposed uprooting was the policy of Sharon's opposite number, Amram Mizna, who was defeated in a landslide. In any case, in that election it was not an individual who was elected, but a party, according to its manifesto. The Likud's manifesto is the antithesis of the proposed uprooting.
2. There Have Been Radical Changes Between The Election And The Initiation Of The Uprooting
This tactic has been adopted by Dov Weisglass, Sharon's personal lawyer and head of his office, the 'strong man' of the Sharon administration.
To analyze this approach, we should contemplate why is it that in normal transactions, one has transgressed the law if one does not keep to the details of a signed agreement, but the Israeli legislator has left it legally possible for an elected government to behave in opposition to its declared policy, on the basis of which it was elected, i.e., in opposition to the manifesto of the elected party in the last election?
The answer cannot lie in the legislator allowing for the possibility that once in power, the prime minister can argue that he has secret information that he cannot share with his electorate. If this were the reason, then it would mean that there is no point to an election or to a manifesto at all. There would have been no democratic transparency and no accountability.
What remains is the possibility that between the election date and the date in which a policy opposite to the elected party's manifesto is initiated or adopted, a radical change of conditions on the ground has occurred. It is solely to allow for this eventuality that the legislator has left it within the law to adopt a policy not in conforming with the ruling party's manifesto.
In an interview with Haaretz, Weisglass said that on a certain date after the election, they suddenly realized why the uprooting is a good thing. And he enumerates certain things implying that there were new important things that have happened after the election. But one need not be a great expert in Middle Eastern affairs to know that there were no radical changes in the local or international scenes between the election date and the date of the initiation of the uprooting; nothing that can justify the adoption of a policy diametrically opposed to the one in the Likud's manifesto, on the basis of which Sharon's government came to power. No wonder that many feel that their votes have been stolen. To this undemocratic conduct, the Minister of Defence, the Commander in Chief of the army and the various sanctimonious writers admonishing the rabbis do not even refer.
There has been, on the part of the Sharon government, an undemocratic abuse of the possibility left open by the legislator to act in opposition to the party manifesto, and even to adopt the policy of the main opposition.
One could go one by one through the various "new events" that Weisglass invokes in his interview with Haaretz, implying that there were new, radical changes on the ground after the election, justifying the reneging on the Likud's manifesto. But this is really unnecessary, as it is so obvious that there were no such radical changes in that period. Weisglass' "new realization" communicated to Haaretz includes an alarm at the "refusenik" soldiers, who refuse to serve in the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Not only is their proportion in the Israeli army insignificant, but it would have been even more insignificant had a plea I made in conversation with Weisglass in 2001 - asking him to influence Sharon so that Israeli diplomats would be allowed to publicly state that the settlements are legal under international law - been heeded.
The absurdity of Weisglass' insistence on taking the initiative, on determining the agenda ourselves - i.e., on initiating ourselves a partial uprooting as a means to face up to the world that wants a total uprooting - is tragicomic. It reminds one of a man attacked by a crocodile who, instead of swimming away from the crocodile, refuses to let the crocodile set the agenda - which is devouring the man in one bite. Instead, the man swims towards the crocodile, suggesting to it only a part of himself, for the sake of taking the initiative, completely oblivious to the intoxicating effect the scent of blood has on the crocodile.
The absurd sudden realization, after the election, that domestically and internationally everything was collapsing - and so, such an Israeli initiative was required - is so ripe with humorous and journalistic possibilities that even a columnist for Haaretz cannot resist the temptation to write an article entitled, "Put the Blame on Yossi". In the article, in Haaretz on October 16, 2004, the writer pointed out that if anything had changed, it was in a direction opposite to the one pointed out by Weisglass. The Haaretz columnist wrote:
"But now the cat is out of the bag. Dov Weisglass, the prime minister's former bureau chief, in his interview with Ari Shavit (Haaretz Magazine, October 8), has revealed the secret - put the blame on Yossi Beilin. 'Because in the fall of 2003 we understood that everything is stuck. And even though according to the American reading of the situation, the blame fell on the Palestinians and not on us, Arik grasped that this state of affairs would not last. That they wouldn't leave us alone, they wouldn't get off our case. Time was not on our side. There was international erosion, internal erosion. Domestically, in the meantime, everything was collapsing. The economy was stagnant, and the Geneva Initiative garnered broad support,' Weisglass explains.
"Few in Israel will recall the fall of 2003, exactly one year ago, in such dark colors. Almost the contrary. The economy showed the first signs of picking up. The battle against Palestinian terror was beginning to show results. Relations with Washington were good. However, as has been frequently remarked, things look different when viewed from the prime minister's office. But Yossi Beilin's Geneva initiative? Any astute observer knew that this ludicrous 'agreement' was stillborn and would go nowhere. By now, it has been long forgotten, and not because of the 'disengagement' plan. Was this a reason to announce that Israel was going to uproot the settlers of Gush Katif?"
In conclusion, such a radical uprooting proposition - which goes against all the ethos of what Israel is about, initiated after the election with no hint of it in the pre-election campaign of the Likud, without a radical change on the ground - only the nation itself can democratically decide upon. In a real democracy it should not have been raised at all, as the nation has already decided in the last election and rejected it in a landslide. Any referendum on the matter or election should be conducted according to the principles expounded in my article entitled "Who Can Give Up Jewish Rights?"
In contrast, a parliamentary vote alone is open to various pressures and manipulations, as indeed occurred when the Oslo Accords were confirmed in the Knesset. Even with the Arab vote, there was no majority for Oslo. Only with a personal bribe of two Knesset members, who crossed the aisle, was a majority of one obtained.
This instruction of the rabbis has to be understood as a counsel of despair in the face of a central government that has itself broken the rules of the game and acts undemocratically.
Two opposite tactics have been adopted by the central government to justify the uprooting.
1. Sharon Has A Mandate Because Of The Last Election
This tactic has been adopted by the Minister Meir Sheetrit, designated by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to carry out the uprooting. He said on the popular Channel 2 of the Voice of Israel (state-run) radio station, on the morning of 17 October 2004, "Sharon got a complete mandate in the last election to carry out the hitnatkut [uprooting]." Sheetrit was not challenged by the interviewer, Karmit Gai.
The next day, 18 October 2004, the same station again gave him the platform during the 5:00pm program, and he said, "Sharon said before the election that he is going to carry out the hitnatkut [uprooting] and he still got forty MKs." Again he was not challenged by the interviewer.
These statements are clearly untrue. Before the election, Sharon used to say from time to time that "for peace he is prepared to make serious concessions." In fact, the proposed uprooting was the policy of Sharon's opposite number, Amram Mizna, who was defeated in a landslide. In any case, in that election it was not an individual who was elected, but a party, according to its manifesto. The Likud's manifesto is the antithesis of the proposed uprooting.
2. There Have Been Radical Changes Between The Election And The Initiation Of The Uprooting
This tactic has been adopted by Dov Weisglass, Sharon's personal lawyer and head of his office, the 'strong man' of the Sharon administration.
To analyze this approach, we should contemplate why is it that in normal transactions, one has transgressed the law if one does not keep to the details of a signed agreement, but the Israeli legislator has left it legally possible for an elected government to behave in opposition to its declared policy, on the basis of which it was elected, i.e., in opposition to the manifesto of the elected party in the last election?
The answer cannot lie in the legislator allowing for the possibility that once in power, the prime minister can argue that he has secret information that he cannot share with his electorate. If this were the reason, then it would mean that there is no point to an election or to a manifesto at all. There would have been no democratic transparency and no accountability.
What remains is the possibility that between the election date and the date in which a policy opposite to the elected party's manifesto is initiated or adopted, a radical change of conditions on the ground has occurred. It is solely to allow for this eventuality that the legislator has left it within the law to adopt a policy not in conforming with the ruling party's manifesto.
In an interview with Haaretz, Weisglass said that on a certain date after the election, they suddenly realized why the uprooting is a good thing. And he enumerates certain things implying that there were new important things that have happened after the election. But one need not be a great expert in Middle Eastern affairs to know that there were no radical changes in the local or international scenes between the election date and the date of the initiation of the uprooting; nothing that can justify the adoption of a policy diametrically opposed to the one in the Likud's manifesto, on the basis of which Sharon's government came to power. No wonder that many feel that their votes have been stolen. To this undemocratic conduct, the Minister of Defence, the Commander in Chief of the army and the various sanctimonious writers admonishing the rabbis do not even refer.
There has been, on the part of the Sharon government, an undemocratic abuse of the possibility left open by the legislator to act in opposition to the party manifesto, and even to adopt the policy of the main opposition.
One could go one by one through the various "new events" that Weisglass invokes in his interview with Haaretz, implying that there were new, radical changes on the ground after the election, justifying the reneging on the Likud's manifesto. But this is really unnecessary, as it is so obvious that there were no such radical changes in that period. Weisglass' "new realization" communicated to Haaretz includes an alarm at the "refusenik" soldiers, who refuse to serve in the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Not only is their proportion in the Israeli army insignificant, but it would have been even more insignificant had a plea I made in conversation with Weisglass in 2001 - asking him to influence Sharon so that Israeli diplomats would be allowed to publicly state that the settlements are legal under international law - been heeded.
The absurdity of Weisglass' insistence on taking the initiative, on determining the agenda ourselves - i.e., on initiating ourselves a partial uprooting as a means to face up to the world that wants a total uprooting - is tragicomic. It reminds one of a man attacked by a crocodile who, instead of swimming away from the crocodile, refuses to let the crocodile set the agenda - which is devouring the man in one bite. Instead, the man swims towards the crocodile, suggesting to it only a part of himself, for the sake of taking the initiative, completely oblivious to the intoxicating effect the scent of blood has on the crocodile.
The absurd sudden realization, after the election, that domestically and internationally everything was collapsing - and so, such an Israeli initiative was required - is so ripe with humorous and journalistic possibilities that even a columnist for Haaretz cannot resist the temptation to write an article entitled, "Put the Blame on Yossi". In the article, in Haaretz on October 16, 2004, the writer pointed out that if anything had changed, it was in a direction opposite to the one pointed out by Weisglass. The Haaretz columnist wrote:
"But now the cat is out of the bag. Dov Weisglass, the prime minister's former bureau chief, in his interview with Ari Shavit (Haaretz Magazine, October 8), has revealed the secret - put the blame on Yossi Beilin. 'Because in the fall of 2003 we understood that everything is stuck. And even though according to the American reading of the situation, the blame fell on the Palestinians and not on us, Arik grasped that this state of affairs would not last. That they wouldn't leave us alone, they wouldn't get off our case. Time was not on our side. There was international erosion, internal erosion. Domestically, in the meantime, everything was collapsing. The economy was stagnant, and the Geneva Initiative garnered broad support,' Weisglass explains.
"Few in Israel will recall the fall of 2003, exactly one year ago, in such dark colors. Almost the contrary. The economy showed the first signs of picking up. The battle against Palestinian terror was beginning to show results. Relations with Washington were good. However, as has been frequently remarked, things look different when viewed from the prime minister's office. But Yossi Beilin's Geneva initiative? Any astute observer knew that this ludicrous 'agreement' was stillborn and would go nowhere. By now, it has been long forgotten, and not because of the 'disengagement' plan. Was this a reason to announce that Israel was going to uproot the settlers of Gush Katif?"
In conclusion, such a radical uprooting proposition - which goes against all the ethos of what Israel is about, initiated after the election with no hint of it in the pre-election campaign of the Likud, without a radical change on the ground - only the nation itself can democratically decide upon. In a real democracy it should not have been raised at all, as the nation has already decided in the last election and rejected it in a landslide. Any referendum on the matter or election should be conducted according to the principles expounded in my article entitled "Who Can Give Up Jewish Rights?"
In contrast, a parliamentary vote alone is open to various pressures and manipulations, as indeed occurred when the Oslo Accords were confirmed in the Knesset. Even with the Arab vote, there was no majority for Oslo. Only with a personal bribe of two Knesset members, who crossed the aisle, was a majority of one obtained.