Some feel that they were thus placed in an impossible situation, while others derived that the plan is even more dangerous than generally perceived.
Housing Minister Effie Eitam said that he asked the military figures at the Cabinet meeting how "this withdrawal and retreat under fire will improve our security situation." A heavy silence took over the room, Eitam said, "and Sharon himself had to answer. He said that this was not a security plan, but a diplomatic plan, and that the defense services had merely been asked to provide the security arrangements under which it could be carried out. This means, in other words, that this plan will not help us militarily, but rather make it more difficult. In the Middle East, all that will be remembered will be that the State of Israel, for perhaps the first time in the history of nations, got up and left a piece of territory and uprooted towns and expelled their residents - and all this without an agreement."
Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror, who headed the National Defense Academies and the research and assessment division of IDF Military Intelligence, addressed the issue today on Arutz-7. "Do you think that the cautious assessments they gave yesterday were very different than what they said several months ago?" he was asked. It will be recalled that some of their anti-withdrawal statements were roundly circulated in the weeks before the Likud referendum.
"What they said yesterday was not the direct opposite of what they said before," Amidror said, "but they were placed in an impossible situation. In a democratic country, before a political decision is made, army and security commanders should be freely allowed to express their opinions on the topic in an unambiguous manner - and in this case, this did not happen. After they began to express their opinions, they were informed that Prime Minister Sharon had already made his decision to carry out the plan, and that they should therefore not express their opinions on it. In my opinion, they are not bound by the Prime Minister's decisions, but rather by those of the Cabinet or the security Cabinet. In any event, after the decision was made, they can no longer take part in the political game, but rather have to find the best ways to carry it out. It was therefore not fair to ask them now to express their opinions."
Housing Minister Effie Eitam said that he asked the military figures at the Cabinet meeting how "this withdrawal and retreat under fire will improve our security situation." A heavy silence took over the room, Eitam said, "and Sharon himself had to answer. He said that this was not a security plan, but a diplomatic plan, and that the defense services had merely been asked to provide the security arrangements under which it could be carried out. This means, in other words, that this plan will not help us militarily, but rather make it more difficult. In the Middle East, all that will be remembered will be that the State of Israel, for perhaps the first time in the history of nations, got up and left a piece of territory and uprooted towns and expelled their residents - and all this without an agreement."
Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror, who headed the National Defense Academies and the research and assessment division of IDF Military Intelligence, addressed the issue today on Arutz-7. "Do you think that the cautious assessments they gave yesterday were very different than what they said several months ago?" he was asked. It will be recalled that some of their anti-withdrawal statements were roundly circulated in the weeks before the Likud referendum.
"What they said yesterday was not the direct opposite of what they said before," Amidror said, "but they were placed in an impossible situation. In a democratic country, before a political decision is made, army and security commanders should be freely allowed to express their opinions on the topic in an unambiguous manner - and in this case, this did not happen. After they began to express their opinions, they were informed that Prime Minister Sharon had already made his decision to carry out the plan, and that they should therefore not express their opinions on it. In my opinion, they are not bound by the Prime Minister's decisions, but rather by those of the Cabinet or the security Cabinet. In any event, after the decision was made, they can no longer take part in the political game, but rather have to find the best ways to carry it out. It was therefore not fair to ask them now to express their opinions."