Roger A. Gerber

The controversial "disengagement" plan proposed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has precipitated, in the words of Yossi Klein Halevi, "one of the most severe domestic crises in Israeli history." In fact, writes Halevi in the current Azure, "the result could be a schism so profound that the Jews of Israel will no longer feel bound by a common destiny." In January, 2005 Caroline Glick, the respected columnist for The Jerusalem Post, wrote:" Major cultural icons like Yair Lapid have demonized the settlers, extolling the virtues of a civil war. Lapid argues that such a war would not be a war between brothers because, as far as he's concerned, anyone who wants to stay in Gaza, Judea and Samaria and opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state is no longer to be considered a "real" Israeli and hence is no longer part of the family. Prime Minister Sharon, in a recent interview on NBC television, made the astonishing assertion that "One should not underestimate the tension here, the atmosphere here. It looks like on the eve of a civil war."

In attempting to comprehend the apocalyptic atmosphere, analysts typically focus on the security, geo-strategic, economic, and political ramifications of Sharon’s plan but omit the attendant burning moral issues. Yet, it is the moral dimension that accounts for the depth and intensity of the passions that have been aroused by the plan that Sharon conceived, as he recounted to William Safire, "in consultation with myself."

Under what moral or legal principle does a democratic government expel by force from their homes and businesses 25 communities populated by its own citizens for the sole reason that they are Jewish? Pursuant to what principle does the government tell the citizens of Kfar Darom who reside on former swamp land purchased almost a century ago, that they are to be forcibly evicted? Even if the government were to decide for political reasons to withdraw the IDF from Gaza and the northern Shomron (and I wish to make clear that I agree with Daniel Pipes' appraisal of the "disengagement" plan as "an act of monumental political folly"), the awesome power of the state to deprive its own citizens of their freedom to remain in their homes and communities should be circumscribed. Under what moral principle must disputed land be made "Judenrein"? Prime Minister Sharon declared last year that there will be "no Jews in Gaza by the end of 2005", a rather curious desideratum to be enunciated by a Jewish prime minister of a democratic Jewish State, as if it would be inconceivable for Jews to live in an area relinquished to Palestinian Arab control. (Sharansky and others have pointed out that if it is impossible to conceive of Jews living in an area under Palestinian control then that area should not be relinquished to Palestinian control in the first place).

In a speech on the floor of the United Nations some years ago, then Ambassador Chaim Herzog asked why he should be "forbidden to settle on land of a village in the Hebron Hills, Masuot Yitzhak, which bears my late father's name and which is Jewish owned, for one reason and one reason only: because I happen to be a member of the Jewish People." In their failure to grapple with these moral issues, the various commentators can neither comprehend nor convey to their readers the nature and depth of the opposition to the euphemistically named "disengagement" plan. (As David Bedein has pointed out, Sharon's plan, while expelling Jewish communities and withdrawing Israel's army from Gaza and northern Samaria, envisions intertwining Israel and Palestinian lives in numerous ways including industrial zones, supplying utilities, and various other economic arrangements) For this plan, unlike other controversial legislation that periodically roils the Israeli political scene, strikes at the heart of basic moral codes, both Jewish religious and secular Zionist imperatives, and raises fundamental questions of democracy and the legitimacy of Israel itself.

Perhaps most telling is the lack of a single historical precedent for the planned expulsions of the 25 Jewish towns by a democratic government. (Some have attempted to draw a specious analogy to the concept of eminent domain in American law, which entails a public taking by "due process" for a "public purpose" with "just compensation," and typically involves a lengthy and time- consuming process of judicial review. A major eminent domain case currently before the Supreme Court, Kelo v. New London, has been wending its way through the judicial system for almost five years.) Therefore, it would seem that the Government of Israel has a heavy burden of establishing the reasons for the implementation of such a draconian plan, particularly when it is aware that it has opened a dangerous chasm in the nation.

Notwithstanding this burden to forge a consensus, the prime minister has elected to refrain from giving even one single nationwide address to explain the reasoning behind his proposal; he has ducked out of a planned debate with MK Uzi Landau on the specious grounds that the parties were unable to agree on
modalities for the debate; in his interviews on the subject he has merely recited a series of conclusory statements, such as the "disengagement" will help the economy and security, but without any supporting reasoning or factual data. The prime minister has also failed to articulate a vision for a post-withdrawal and post-expulsion Israel riven by the shock of the Sharon plan.

A concomitant serious adverse consequence has been the stifling of dissent and the acceleration of the decline of democratic norms in Israel that began with the ill fated Oslo process, dubbed by Sharon "the deepest mistake that any government has done, bringing over here thousands of armed terrorists." Writing in Commentary, Hillel Halkin asserts that "if the opposition to disengagement has been stifled, I for one have failed to notice". Apparently Mr. Halkin does not view as "stifling" dissent Prime Minister Sharon's public statement that "those opposed to the disengagement are involved in incitement," or the unprecedented dismissal by Sharon, prior to the cabinet vote on "disengagement," of two cabinet ministers whom he knew to be opposed. Minister Natan Sharansky, at a cabinet meeting, remarked that "it is frightening to see how an entire public of law-abiding citizens who oppose the disengagement are being delegitimized." What Sharansky regards as "frightening" Halkin views with complete equanimity.

Halkin also asserts that he "knows of no one in Israel who has been threatened or intimidated for adding his voice" to the opposition to Sharon's plan -- this despite numerous reported cases of police harassment and arrest of demonstrators against the "disengagement," while permitting similar demonstrations in favor. In one recent incident, the police forced a group of eighth graders who were attempting to distribute anti-disengagement stickers and flyers to return to their bus and ordered the bus driver to return to his point of origin. When Sarah Baumol and her son's eighth grade class attempted to pray at the Western Wall at the conclusion of a class trip, police required the children to remove orange tee shirts and orange bracelets worn in support of the Jewish residents of Gaza. In an especially ludicrous incident, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom was forced to issue an official apology to the Indian Embassy after Knesset security personnel required visiting Indian legislators to remove their orange scarves in order to enter the Knesset; orange is the official color of the party to which the visiting Indians belong. "I found it to be ridiculous not to allow a piece of cloth," one of the Indian delegation members told Army Radio. "Those are messages of intolerance. Today it's cloth, and soon it could be ideas that are barred."

The election of 2003 in Israel did not entail a direct election of prime minister; Ariel Sharon took office as the leader of the Likud party and his obligation of fidelity to the Likud platform is vastly greater than in the American political system where the president is elected directly. The platform in 2003 assumed an even greater significance since the leader of the Labor Party, Amram Mitzna, proposed a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza which was forcefully rejected by Sharon. In fact, following the election, which resulted in a Likud landslide victory, Sharon and Mitzna met to see whether a unity government was possible. As reported by Haaretz, Mitzna stated that he was "shocked" by Sharon's refusal to consider evacuating the Gaza settlements; Mitzna stated that at the meeting with Sharon he "heard a lecture on the strategic importance of Netzarim and the historic importance of Kfar Darom … and I came out even more worried than when I went into the meeting."

Subsequently, when Sharon made a sudden and inexplicable U-turn and essentially adopted Mitzna's proposal, many commentators including Sharon's long-time supporter and confidant, Uri Dan, advocated a referendum on the Gaza plan. Uri Dan wrote that "only a referendum will restore to Sharon the moral-political legitimacy needed to execute his plan;" failure to do so, Dan wrote in The Jerusalem Post, would risk "failure at the national-strategic level" and having the plan "becoming a tragicomedy."

Even Yoel Marcus, the prominent Haaretz columnist and a stalwart supporter of "disengagement", wrote that the Sharon government's procedures have engendered "this gnawing feeling of disgust inside me." He went on to say that "one must admit that the process itself was not entirely democratic." Marcus points out that Sharon has never explained why the unilateral Gaza plan is now a good thing for Israel when he strongly rejected the plan when introduced by Mitzna. Nor, it might be added, has Sharon explained why he labels Uzi Landau and other opponents of his plan "extremists" for stating essentially the same arguments that Sharon himself made just two years ago in
the election campaign against Mitzna. [It may be difficult for an American, who is accustomed to presidential speeches to the nation, press conferences and in depth congressional hearings on matters of major public policy, to comprehend that none of these things occurred during the formulation, or adoption, of Sharon's unprecedented plan.]

The question has been posed by those who do not understand the prevailing norms of Israel's media establishment as to why have the numerous instances of police excess and government overreaching not been reported by the press. Former prime minister, and a likely candidate for leadership of the Labor Party, Ehud Barak, a supporter of withdrawal from Gaza and most of the other disputed territories, recently stated that, when it comes to the Sharon plan, "the media are remaining mute, people are not talking about the situation as it really is. There is no true reporting and there is no true debate and there is no true discourse. Everything is being kept under wraps. Everything is being kept in a state of fogginess."

One can only surmise the reasons for the obfuscation, but Barak believes that "Sharon's fogginess is intended to avoid speaking the truth and to avoid having to cope with the truth." The truth to which Barak refers is that Sharon is misleading Israel into believing that he obtained a U.S. commitment to retain major settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria despite the fact that President Bush has made it clear that U.S. policy requires Palestinian Arab consent to any changes in the 1949 armistice lines. Is not this avoidance of the truth the inevitable result of Sharon's failure to address the moral dimension of his plan?

The prime minister and his confidant, Ehud Olmert, have said that the withdrawal and expulsion plan is not limited to Gaza and the four specified northern Samarian communities. On his recently concluded visit to the U.S., Sharon stated that, although "the major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria will remain" in Israel, the status of other areas of the disputed territories are subject to the "final phase of the permanent agreement negotiations and talks." In the context of Olmert's earlier remarks that the four northern Samarian settlements "will not be the last, but only the beginning of withdrawals from Judea and Samaria," Sharon's elliptical statements presage further divisive moral battles.

Sharon seems to have the attitude toward the Jewish citizens of Judea and Samaria publicly enunciated by Ami Ayalon, sponsor of the dovish "People's Voice Initiative" and an enthusiastic supporter of Sharon's plan, who stated when asked whether he would favor evacuation of an Arab village as Sharon's plan envisions for 25 Jewish towns, "There's a difference. You [the settlers] are public servants and we sent you. The mission of some of you has ended." This high handed approach may reflect Ayalon's background as a distinguished Israeli naval commander accustomed to giving orders, but it surely ignores both the facts (the settlers are not "public servants" nor were they "sent", as on a military mission; in some cases, such as at Kfar Darom, the inhabitants purchased their land prior to the creation of the State of Israel.) and the moral considerations attendant on expelling entire communities for reasons of ethnic identity. Ayalon's remarks are illustrative of the moral obtuseness of much of Israeli officialdom.

Observers of Israel have frequently been struck by the prevailing attitude that neither ideas nor words are of great consequence. Thus, it was not surprising that when American leaders of Israel Bonds pointed out to Sharon in May of this year that the Palestinian Arabs are describing the withdrawal and expulsions as a victory, Sharon replied: "So what if they say so? What is important are the facts and not what they will say. On our side also there are people who say things they should not. So what? Does it make the Jews any weaker?" Of course, the Palestinian Arab perception of victory will not only boost their morale and encourage further violence on their part but will aid in recruiting additional terrorists.

In summary, Sharon's firing of ministers who indicated that they would vote against his "disengagement" plan in the cabinet, his insistence upon a Likud party plebiscite which he pledged to honor when it appeared he would win and then promptly ignored when he lost overwhelmingly, his refusal to conduct a referendum, his failure to explain to the nation the reasons and goals of his traumatic plan, his incitement to violence by describing Israel as on the verge of a civil war, his delegitimization of the respected Likud leader and Knesset member Uzi Landau and other opponents as "extremists" for basically taking the same position he took in the national election less than two years previously, and his callous disregard of the trampling on the rights of citizens of Israel who disagree with his withdrawal and expulsion plan, have seriously diminished the ethos of democracy in the State of Israel. It is this diminution of democracy in Israel, together with the avoidance of coping with the truth described by Ehud Barak and the "gnawing feeling of disgust" reported by Yoel Marcus, that has, sadly, weakened the cohesion of Israeli society, divided Israel "in ways that may poison the body politic for decades" in the words of Daniel Pipes, and undermined the moral fabric of the nation.

Roger A. Gerber’s most recent article for Outpost was "The Chimerical Moderation of Mahmoud Abbas.”