Why is the Disengagement Plan immoral?
The residents of Gush-Katif and northern Samaria went to live there about 30-35 years ago, with a government decision to settle those places. All the infrastructures, including improved loans and mortgages that helped people go and live there, were provided by the Israeli governments since 1967. Never, since 1967, has any Israeli government declared a possible removal of these people (with the exception of Yitzchak Rabin in 1993, who suggested the "Netzarim First" Plan, but later abandoned it).
Is it normal for a country to send people to live in a certain area of historic national importance and, in 35 years time, remove them from it? Can anyone give valid examples of this elsewhere in the world from the past 50-60 years?
Ariel Sharon was elected based on who Mr. Sharon was for the past 50 years in Israeli public life: a hard hearted hawk, a right-wing ideologue, a man who single handedly planted himself most of the 250,000 Jews who reside today in Judea and Samaria. It is true that Sharon talked about a "Palestinian State" before the recent elections, but he said there would be uncompromising conditions in order to advance in this direction. None of these conditions were met, nor ever accepted by the Palestinians. People like myself, and there are many, many hundreds of thousands like me, who voted for the Likud party in the past, can not vote for the Likud party if elections were held today.
Voting for Sharon today means voting for a brutal uprooting of people from their homes. It is voting for giving a state (!) to Palestinian terrorism. Is this why we voted Sharon in the past two elections? Absolutely not.
And that is another reason why Sharon's actions and his disengagement plans are immoral - because it is a theft of my vote and a betrayal of my trust. His contract with me and with hundreds of thousands of others was not for any of what he is doing now. It violates the Likud party platform and its a deception of the voters.
To respond to complaints such as the foregoing, Sharon decided to hold an internal party referendum of Likud members last May. He lost (60% said "no" to the Disengagement Plan), but decided to ignore the results. Can anyone imagine such conduct in the United States or in England or Japan ?
Why is the Disengagement Plan anti-Zionist?
Zionism is the practical execution of Jewish rights on the land of Israel. Settling and building communities, schools, homes and industries has always been regarded the most noble and civilized way of making the point of regaining control over our land. If the Jews believe the land of Israel is theirs, by way of a Biblical, historical and moral mandate, then the differences between the Gush Katif region and the Galilee are non-existent.
Don't believe this ? In 2002, already prime minister (!), Sharon said, "Tel Aviv and Netzarim are equivalent." Meaning, there's no difference between Tel Aviv and Netzarim, the most controversial and isolated "settlement" in the Gaza Strip. This also indicates how Sharon stole the voter's voice, and turned completely astray of what people thought they were voting for.
The Zionist cause as a whole, the right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, is the core of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and not some argument about this settlement or that valley. This is what people must understand in order to be able to talk about this conflict.
I truly believe that the core of the conflict is that the Arab world, and the Palestinians included, has not reached the needed acceptance of Israel's birthright to its land, and has very low respect for Jewish culture and history.
The fact that Abu Mazen, the present Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, did his Ph.D. at a Moscow university trying to prove that the Holocaust was all made up (a.k.a., a Holocaust denier) is a small example of that point. Not a territorial dispute, but a clash of cultures.
If, G-d forbid, the plan will go through, will Sharon then reap the expected diplomatic or military gains?
Absolutely not; and this is the amazing part. Sharon has not once said what Israel will get out of this. The US has rejected Israeli requests to help finance the direct costs of this plan. Indirect costs, such as relocating about 3,000 or so families, have not even been raised by Israel. The USA has not agreed to make any future improvements towards Israel nor to do anything tangible, such as moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, releasing Jonathan Pollard, signing a military pact of some sort, or committing to refuse certain future Palestinian demands. None of this has been brought before the public.
But it's worse. By conducting the brutal and barbaric transfer of 5,000 children from their homes, in which they were born and raised, Sharon is sending the world the worst message: "We are fixing an old misconduct. We are giving the Palestinians what is theirs and we are taking out our own people who settled on Arab territory."
This horrible signal will boomerang on Israel very soon. The world will not waste time praising Sharon's self-imposed policy of destroying Jewish homes. The world will simply say, "Well, nice step in the right direction. But what about the rest of the 250,000 Jews who live illegally on Arab land taken in 1967? When will you start moving them out?"
And so, completely contrary to what he thinks, Sharon will find the walls narrowing on him ever more, if he will carry out his plans. He will further harm the Jewish claim of historic rights to the land, and he will cement even further the international claim that only Jews moving in one direction, over the rubble of their own homes, can be the foundation for peace.
Is Sharon truly interested in this to minimize the risk to the residents themselves?
Common mistake. In the past four years, the Palestinians waged a vicious battle on Israeli civilian centers. More than half of the 1,200 civilians killed, were killed in Israel's cities and not in the "territories". Also, Sharon is not only offering to evacuate Gush Katif in the south of Gaza, but also about six other villages in northern Samaria, which are not in heavily Palestinian-populated areas.
The town of Sderot, in the western Negev, has been shelled heavily in the past year. They have taken over 1,000 rockets, on their homes and schools and cafes. If the safety of the people is the issue, why has Sharon not proposed to evacuate the town of Sderot ?
Another point. The famous Philadelphi Route, which slithers along the fence of the Israel-Egypt border, is under complete Israeli control. Yet, through underground tunnels (primarily), the Palestinians have been able to develop an artillery industry that has delivered over 6,000 rockets onto Israeli communities in the past two years. Under the "Disengagement Plan", Israel will give up that very elaborate route. It is easy to imagine how much more the terrorists' abilities will improve once Israel will leave this area. Under our control, with the Jewish Gush Katif region along more than a third of it, the Philadelphi route was like a bucket full of holes, soon, if Sharon will take out Gush Katif's residents and the IDF patrolling Philadelphi, you can count on the terrorists getting a hold of longer range rockets and more sophisticated armaments. And please don't tell me that the Egyptians will now be responsible for sealing this border.
What do people like me hope for these days?
Since I believe the "Disengagement Plan" is very dangerous for Israel, and I believe that the way in which Ariel Sharon has decided to pursue his plans is immoral and anti-Democratic, the only reasonable thing for me to wish for is the immediate removal of Sharon from office. There is enough potential to succeed in this. Our political system is crazy and has done Israel a lot of harm over the decades; however, there's one good thing about it: when our leaders go crazy (a frequent phenomenon since June, 1992), there are democratic political safeguards that make it possible to remove them. It takes tremendous faith and persistence, but it has worked several times.
Who will come next - a common question - should not paralyze our thinking. If people see that Sharon's present actions are as dangerous as I see them to be, them it is obvious that the important thing is to remove him through the democratic means available. The key tool these days is widespread public demonstrations, which will inspire more of the Likud Knesset members to stand up to Sharon. There are already about 12-15 of them willing to do so; we need five more and it is done.
What is going to happen?
This is the million-dollar question. But I believe that Sharon will not get to the November 2006 elections as scheduled. I believe he will lose power over his present government in the next three to six months.
What if Sharon survives politically and his plans go through?
We will have an uglier Israel. An Israel where the army fights fellow reserve soldiers, rather than the enemy. An Israel that takes a village built over 35 years ago and destroys it so that Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists can celebrate on its remains. An Israel that destroys its own claims to have a right to its homeland by adopting the Arab rhetoric - that we took their land and that the only condition for peace is our return to the June 1967 lines. An Israel in which a leader can get elected on a ticket of crushing terror and then, in turn, he crushes his own party and its constitution. An Israel in which Cabinet Ministers are fired prior to a vote in order to ensure a majority.
Irony at its best. In 1999, an important Israeli figure said the following words to Golan Heights residents when then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak was planning to give the Golan to Syria:
"In the next few weeks, government officials will come to your homes and offer you money in order to leave your farms and your homes. They will tempt you, and they will double those amounts if you shall refuse. Do not talk to them. Send them back home!"
That important Israeli figure was Ariel Sharon.
The residents of Gush-Katif and northern Samaria went to live there about 30-35 years ago, with a government decision to settle those places. All the infrastructures, including improved loans and mortgages that helped people go and live there, were provided by the Israeli governments since 1967. Never, since 1967, has any Israeli government declared a possible removal of these people (with the exception of Yitzchak Rabin in 1993, who suggested the "Netzarim First" Plan, but later abandoned it).
Is it normal for a country to send people to live in a certain area of historic national importance and, in 35 years time, remove them from it? Can anyone give valid examples of this elsewhere in the world from the past 50-60 years?
Ariel Sharon was elected based on who Mr. Sharon was for the past 50 years in Israeli public life: a hard hearted hawk, a right-wing ideologue, a man who single handedly planted himself most of the 250,000 Jews who reside today in Judea and Samaria. It is true that Sharon talked about a "Palestinian State" before the recent elections, but he said there would be uncompromising conditions in order to advance in this direction. None of these conditions were met, nor ever accepted by the Palestinians. People like myself, and there are many, many hundreds of thousands like me, who voted for the Likud party in the past, can not vote for the Likud party if elections were held today.
Voting for Sharon today means voting for a brutal uprooting of people from their homes. It is voting for giving a state (!) to Palestinian terrorism. Is this why we voted Sharon in the past two elections? Absolutely not.
And that is another reason why Sharon's actions and his disengagement plans are immoral - because it is a theft of my vote and a betrayal of my trust. His contract with me and with hundreds of thousands of others was not for any of what he is doing now. It violates the Likud party platform and its a deception of the voters.
To respond to complaints such as the foregoing, Sharon decided to hold an internal party referendum of Likud members last May. He lost (60% said "no" to the Disengagement Plan), but decided to ignore the results. Can anyone imagine such conduct in the United States or in England or Japan ?
Why is the Disengagement Plan anti-Zionist?
Zionism is the practical execution of Jewish rights on the land of Israel. Settling and building communities, schools, homes and industries has always been regarded the most noble and civilized way of making the point of regaining control over our land. If the Jews believe the land of Israel is theirs, by way of a Biblical, historical and moral mandate, then the differences between the Gush Katif region and the Galilee are non-existent.
Don't believe this ? In 2002, already prime minister (!), Sharon said, "Tel Aviv and Netzarim are equivalent." Meaning, there's no difference between Tel Aviv and Netzarim, the most controversial and isolated "settlement" in the Gaza Strip. This also indicates how Sharon stole the voter's voice, and turned completely astray of what people thought they were voting for.
The Zionist cause as a whole, the right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, is the core of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and not some argument about this settlement or that valley. This is what people must understand in order to be able to talk about this conflict.
I truly believe that the core of the conflict is that the Arab world, and the Palestinians included, has not reached the needed acceptance of Israel's birthright to its land, and has very low respect for Jewish culture and history.
The fact that Abu Mazen, the present Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, did his Ph.D. at a Moscow university trying to prove that the Holocaust was all made up (a.k.a., a Holocaust denier) is a small example of that point. Not a territorial dispute, but a clash of cultures.
If, G-d forbid, the plan will go through, will Sharon then reap the expected diplomatic or military gains?
Absolutely not; and this is the amazing part. Sharon has not once said what Israel will get out of this. The US has rejected Israeli requests to help finance the direct costs of this plan. Indirect costs, such as relocating about 3,000 or so families, have not even been raised by Israel. The USA has not agreed to make any future improvements towards Israel nor to do anything tangible, such as moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, releasing Jonathan Pollard, signing a military pact of some sort, or committing to refuse certain future Palestinian demands. None of this has been brought before the public.
But it's worse. By conducting the brutal and barbaric transfer of 5,000 children from their homes, in which they were born and raised, Sharon is sending the world the worst message: "We are fixing an old misconduct. We are giving the Palestinians what is theirs and we are taking out our own people who settled on Arab territory."
This horrible signal will boomerang on Israel very soon. The world will not waste time praising Sharon's self-imposed policy of destroying Jewish homes. The world will simply say, "Well, nice step in the right direction. But what about the rest of the 250,000 Jews who live illegally on Arab land taken in 1967? When will you start moving them out?"
And so, completely contrary to what he thinks, Sharon will find the walls narrowing on him ever more, if he will carry out his plans. He will further harm the Jewish claim of historic rights to the land, and he will cement even further the international claim that only Jews moving in one direction, over the rubble of their own homes, can be the foundation for peace.
Is Sharon truly interested in this to minimize the risk to the residents themselves?
Common mistake. In the past four years, the Palestinians waged a vicious battle on Israeli civilian centers. More than half of the 1,200 civilians killed, were killed in Israel's cities and not in the "territories". Also, Sharon is not only offering to evacuate Gush Katif in the south of Gaza, but also about six other villages in northern Samaria, which are not in heavily Palestinian-populated areas.
The town of Sderot, in the western Negev, has been shelled heavily in the past year. They have taken over 1,000 rockets, on their homes and schools and cafes. If the safety of the people is the issue, why has Sharon not proposed to evacuate the town of Sderot ?
Another point. The famous Philadelphi Route, which slithers along the fence of the Israel-Egypt border, is under complete Israeli control. Yet, through underground tunnels (primarily), the Palestinians have been able to develop an artillery industry that has delivered over 6,000 rockets onto Israeli communities in the past two years. Under the "Disengagement Plan", Israel will give up that very elaborate route. It is easy to imagine how much more the terrorists' abilities will improve once Israel will leave this area. Under our control, with the Jewish Gush Katif region along more than a third of it, the Philadelphi route was like a bucket full of holes, soon, if Sharon will take out Gush Katif's residents and the IDF patrolling Philadelphi, you can count on the terrorists getting a hold of longer range rockets and more sophisticated armaments. And please don't tell me that the Egyptians will now be responsible for sealing this border.
What do people like me hope for these days?
Since I believe the "Disengagement Plan" is very dangerous for Israel, and I believe that the way in which Ariel Sharon has decided to pursue his plans is immoral and anti-Democratic, the only reasonable thing for me to wish for is the immediate removal of Sharon from office. There is enough potential to succeed in this. Our political system is crazy and has done Israel a lot of harm over the decades; however, there's one good thing about it: when our leaders go crazy (a frequent phenomenon since June, 1992), there are democratic political safeguards that make it possible to remove them. It takes tremendous faith and persistence, but it has worked several times.
Who will come next - a common question - should not paralyze our thinking. If people see that Sharon's present actions are as dangerous as I see them to be, them it is obvious that the important thing is to remove him through the democratic means available. The key tool these days is widespread public demonstrations, which will inspire more of the Likud Knesset members to stand up to Sharon. There are already about 12-15 of them willing to do so; we need five more and it is done.
What is going to happen?
This is the million-dollar question. But I believe that Sharon will not get to the November 2006 elections as scheduled. I believe he will lose power over his present government in the next three to six months.
What if Sharon survives politically and his plans go through?
We will have an uglier Israel. An Israel where the army fights fellow reserve soldiers, rather than the enemy. An Israel that takes a village built over 35 years ago and destroys it so that Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists can celebrate on its remains. An Israel that destroys its own claims to have a right to its homeland by adopting the Arab rhetoric - that we took their land and that the only condition for peace is our return to the June 1967 lines. An Israel in which a leader can get elected on a ticket of crushing terror and then, in turn, he crushes his own party and its constitution. An Israel in which Cabinet Ministers are fired prior to a vote in order to ensure a majority.
Irony at its best. In 1999, an important Israeli figure said the following words to Golan Heights residents when then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak was planning to give the Golan to Syria:
"In the next few weeks, government officials will come to your homes and offer you money in order to leave your farms and your homes. They will tempt you, and they will double those amounts if you shall refuse. Do not talk to them. Send them back home!"
That important Israeli figure was Ariel Sharon.