A Bride on the Seashore of Gush Katif

 

Gleanings on Global News at the Time of the End

 

 “The Expulsion of the Jews from Gaza by the Government of Israel”

 

Psalms 46:2 - Hashem is our refuge and strength, a help in time of trouble. He is most accessible.

 

 

 

Topics

The Globalist Israel and the Road to Peace – the Unilateral Expulsion of the Jews from Gaza

Supporters of the Gaza Settler’s Right to Remain in their own Homes

The Orange Revolution

Provocation by Anti-Expulsion Activist and the Blame to the Orthodox “Right”

Anti-Semitism of the Jews

“Peace, Peace and Sudden Destruction Shall Come Among You”

Terror Against the Jewish People

The Palestinians and the Gaza Disengagement

 

The Globalist Israel and the Road to Peace – the Unilateral Expulsion of the Jews from Gaza

 

Probe sought on Gaza evacuation – Sharon accused of hatching plan to thwart criminal investigation – June 19, 2005

WorldNetDaily - A Knesset member today requested Israel's attorney general probe claims made in a newly released book that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon introduced his plan to evacuate Jewish communities from Gaza and parts of the West Bank to divert public attention from criminal investigations that threatened his premiership last year, WND has learned. "I have sent a formal request letter to Israel's attorney general [Meni Mazuz] asking him to investigate the prime minister because of the revelations in the book that prove Sharon is corrupt. We know exactly who are the people involved in the scandal, what they did, so there needs to be an immediate investigation," National Union leader Uri Ariel told WND.

 

Ariel was referring to a book released last week by two veteran Israeli journalists charging the Gaza withdrawal plan was created to avoid Sharon's indictment in the Greek Island scandal, an investigation into the transfer to Sharon's family of $580,000 by developer David Appel, who was accused of soliciting Sharon's help with business deals. If Sharon had been charged in the affair, he would have been forced to resign his post as prime minister. The book's authors, Raviv Drucker of Israel's Channel Ten TV and Ofer Shelach of the Yediot Acharonot daily, claim Sharon was convinced then-State Prosecutor Edna Arbel would indict him in the scandal, and had to create a situation that would make an indictment politically difficult. They also say the specifics of the disengagement plan were hatched without the input of defense officials, Knesset members or Sharon's own Cabinet, and further charge Sharon asked a top general in the Israeli Defense Forces to be a "plant" and report to him on the goings-on in the general staff.

 

Drucker and Shelach say they based their findings on first-person accounts from individuals "very close to the prime minister." In an interview with Israel's Channel Two last week, the two journalists said Sharon's fear of indictment drove him to introduce the withdrawal plan. "The people who are closest to Sharon told us absolutely that if it wasn't for those police interrogations, this decision [to quit Gaza] would not have been made. This can be seen by the timetable of events," said Shelach in response to a question.

 

He outlined the charges of the Arbel investigation, a summons to Sharon for police interrogation regarding Appel's money transfer, the reports Arbel was about to indict Sharon, the appointment of Mazuz as attorney general, and a meeting of what they called the Farm Forum – Sharon, his sons and one or two others very close to the Prime Minister – at which they claim the Gaza withdrawal was originally hatched.

The Farm Forum "did not state it outright," Drucker said, "but it was in the air that something had to be done, that there had to be some major diplomatic process that would swallow up everything and would change the public agenda [away from the corruption headlines against Sharon] – and they came up with this plan."

 

Drucker, outlining the book, said top Sharon-aide Dov Weisglass laid the foundations for the disengagement plan in a private meeting with then-White House National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice in December 2003. "In December '03, after Sharon's Herzliya speech introducing the disengagement concept but when this plan was still very vague – in fact, Sharon was still asking the defense minister and the chief of staff what they thought about taking down just one or two communities – Weisglass goes to Washington all by himself – without his Military Secretary Moshe Kaplinsky or National Security Advisor Giora Eiland, who usually accompany him – and speaks to then-U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice privately. "Very senior army officials told us that this was the trip in which Weisglass made the following offer: in the first stage, we would quit Gaza, in the second stage there would be a deep withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, and in the third stage we'd even be willing to talk about the '67 lines."

 

Drucker and Shelach charged those in the army and government who could have helped formulate the plan were left out of the decision-making process. "[National Security Advisor] Giora Eiland was in the midst of preparing a plan as to how Israel could get some benefit from its withdrawal," they said, "when suddenly he was presented with this new [unilateral] plan – and even now he objects to the plan [as it now stands]." Continued Drucker: "Sharon wanted only to survive politically. Weisglass led the whole plan. In October 2003, before the plan had started, Weisglass asked staffers in the Prime Minister's Bureau for data on Gaza because he said he felt we had to withdraw from Gaza. Sharon did not yet agree then – but he would come around later. At that time, Weisglass also started spreading hints to other people that if Sharon didn't agree to this plan, he would end up leaving the political arena as an 'insignificant old man.' Weisglass also started pressuring [Defense Minister Shaul] Mofaz at this time. But more than anything – Weisglass felt that he had the right key to persuade Sharon. ... "The important thing to note is that from that moment, there is no contact with those elements who were supposed to help Sharon decide about the plan, figure out what Israel would get in return, and help Israel get the best deal it could. And from that moment, the plan essentially rolls along on its own."

 

The two journalists go on to claim Sharon asked a top IDF general to be a mole in the army's General Staff Office, but refused to name the official. "The general himself told us that Sharon asked him to agree to report back to him on the goings-on in the General Staff. ... All along, Sharon was unhappy with the army, and always tried to form direct channels of communication [in this way]," they said. They said many top defense officials, including Mofaz, Intelligence Chief Ze'evi-Farkash, and others, originally opposed the evacuation plan. "Several months before Sharon's adoption of the Disengagement Plan, there was a deliberation amidst the top brass of the IDF in the presence of the chief of staff. Many options were presented. One of the options was unilateral disengagement from Gaza. There was unanimous agreement regarding the idea: absolutely no. Mofaz said at the beginning, 'Whoever supports a unilateral retreat, apparently wasn't here for the last two and a half years,' and Farkash said it would be a catastrophe, and the head of IDF Research said it would be the worst thing ... but after several months, when they saw that Sharon was so strongly in favor, they amazingly all fell in line and backed it."

 

In June 2004, after the withdrawal plan had gained considerable momentum, Attorney General Mazuz announced there was "insufficient evidence" to prosecute Sharon. Both Sharon's and Mazuz's offices could not be reached for comment before press time. It is not immediately clear whether Mazuz will open an investigation into the charges outlined in the book. Ariel told WND, "[If Mazuz does not open an investigation] I will bring the case to the high court."

Sharon's Gaza evacuation plan has drawn criticism from many in his government, with several ministers of his own Likud Party, including Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, opposing the plan. Critics worry the withdrawal will be seen as a reward for Palestinian terrorism and argue territories evacuated by Israel will be used by Hamas to stage attacks against the Jewish state. Netanyahu, in a WND interview earlier this month, said, "Palestinian terrorists don't view our departure [from Gaza] as a reasonable move but as a flight from terror and a sign that terrorism works. If you flee from terror, then terror continues to chase you. This plan simply emboldens the terrorists to continue their tactics until the completion of their ultimate goal: the destruction of Israel."

 

Update June 20: Reached this morning for comment, Raanan Gissin, senior adviser to Sharon, told WND: "This book is all a big lie. You'll look at the dates involved and the events and you'll see it's all a big lie. We're not worried."

 

Sharon Demands “Iron Fist” against Protestors – July 29, 2005

Israel National News - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon today ordered police and defense forces to adopt an "iron fist" policy against anti-evacuation protestors who resort to violence. The Prime Minister also ordered the police to take all necessary steps against anti-evacuation protestors if they try to carry out their planned 4 p.m. blocking of traffic throughout the country. That's in less than two hours from now.

 

It is also presently being reported that Palestinians and Jews have become embroiled in a stone throwing battle in Tel Yam in the Gaza Strip. IDF soldiers are shooting warning shots in the air but according to a direct report on Israeli radio, soldiers are not able to control the situation. Fears of civil war are increasing - may Hashem help us!

We will not allow a "bunch of gangs" to bring down the country, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said during a political-security cabinet meeting called ahead of the mass anti-pullout road blocking protest planned for this afternoon. Sharon told ministers that sanctions should be imposed against rabbis who send children to block intersections and junctions. "Police must deter the criminals and not the citizens, and instead of calling on people to stay home adopt a heavy hand against the law-breakers," he said. Parents were warned by a police spokesman on radio this morning that if they allow their young people to participate in the protest and their children are arrested, that a criminal file will be opened against them that will follow them througout life.

The "iron fist" approach is deeply troubling many Israelis and there is great concern over what will happen in this country over the next few hours. We desperately need your prayers.

 

Likud Leader: Sharon Wants to Take Over Jewish Nation's Assets  - June 20, 2005

Sam Schachter, former Deputy Chairman of the World Likud Organization, says that if Boomerang's allegations are true, "Ariel Sharon should be tried for misleading and endangering the nation."

Israel National News - Speaking with Arutz-7's Elkanah Perl, Schachter emphasized both the corruption and high-handed methods of Sharon and his close cronies, and the dearth of accurate information available to Israel-supporters in the U.S.  "The voice of those who oppose the disengagement plan is not heard the way it should be amongst U.S. Jewry," Schachter said. "There is a feeling here as if Sharon is the great savior of Israel, because he's a great general who knows exactly what he's doing... I myself received the information about Boomerang just from friends in Israel, but nothing was mentioned in any newspaper. Only those who follow Arutz-7 know [this], but aside from that, there's nothing - and that's the problem. It's important that this news is publicized in the U.S. in order to strengthen those who are fighting for the Land of Israel and to have people get to know the facts."

To this end, it should be noted that Aviv Mizrachi, a strong expulsion opponent currently living in Los Angeles, reported that 50,000 copies of an anti-disengagement CD were recently handed out in New York and Los Angeles. He, too, agreed that the next step was to turn these many individual voices of opposition to the retreat into a concerted public voice that will be heard in the U.S. media and in Washington, D.C.

Schachter said that he raised concerns of Sharon's corruption several months ago in a letter to the members of the Likud Central Committee. He said that he himself was deposed from his leading World Likud organization position "when [Sharon's son MK] Omri came to power and amassed power... Omri led the Central Committee members astray, and in the meanwhile has succeeded in appointing those close to him..." "You have to look at the whole picture, and then you can understand what's going on," Schachter said. "Just like we see Sharon is objecting to Sharansky [as the Likud's candidate for Jewish Agency Chairman. Sharansky in fact received the nomination - ed.], and he is also trying to take over the Lands Authority - trying to take over all of the Jewish People's assets. People don't understand what's going on. Sharon and his son are against Sharansky because they know he is an honest man who won't allow them to continue running things corruptly..."

 

Schachter demands that a public commission of inquiry be established "to check whether the authors of Boomerang were accurate - and if so, Sharon should be put on trial for misleading and endangering the nation, and the country should shake him off. Every normal nation would do this, if the corruption allegations are correct. We saw in Ukraine how the nation protested massively and silently until the government resigned...  "It's inconceivable that the nation should be endangered merely in order to purify his corruption. The media are sabotaging the transmission of the message to the world, and therefore the people must bring this message. It's important that the disquiet in Israel be announced to the world."

Schachter also decried the relative lack of freedom to express one's anti-disengagement opinions in Israel. "In the U.S. you can certainly express your opinion as long as you don't hurt someone else, but in Israel if you express your opinion, you could be fired, and there's a chance you'll be put under administrative detention." Schachter said that American Jews underestimate Israel's need for strategic depth: "They think that Israel is strong and can defend itself, and therefore they don't realize that Israel needs land in order to protect itself. You need a buffer zone, and not war inside the citizens' homes."

In August of 2004, Schachter told Arutz-7,
"The Likud members must wake up, otherwise the Likud will be liquidated by Sharon and his group of supporters, who are not even members of the Nationalist Movement. Mr. Olmert, for instance, who might very well be a Shinui Party leader in the next election. He [as Mayor of Jerusalem] abandoned Jerusalem; he did nothing about our hundreds of complaints of illegal Arab construction in the city...  "Why is the Prime Minister turning the Likud into the [left-wing] Mapai? The Likud people must wake up before the Prime Minister breaks the nation's spirit. Statements by Sharon and by [Shabak head Avi] Dichter that the right-wing is extremist and dangerous break the nation's spirit - it reminds me very much of the Saison period [in the 1940's] when I [as a member of the Etzel] was persecuted by the Mapai leadership... "Sharon sent the settlers to the hilltops; why is he now persecuting them?... It is not due to American pressure... "I think that everyone who is concerned for the Jewish Nation's existence in the Land of Israel who does not wake up now, is abandoning his children and future generations."

 

 Likud "Rebels" Begin Move to Oust Sharon  - June 28, 2005

Lekerev Report - The Likud "rebels", party members who oppose Prime Minister Sharon's disengagment plan, began a new effort to oust him from the leadership of the Likud party with a rally at Tel Aviv's Ramat Aviv Hotel last night. Participants called upon Likud central committee members to sign a petition to convene the group to approve moving up the next Likud leadership election.

 

They will also work on pressuring Likud ministers to leave the government and bring thousands of hawks, who left the Likud party, back into the party by its July 10 membership drive deadline. Landau has told Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu that he will run against him and Sharon for the Likud leadership unless Netanyahu leaves the government and starts taking an active role in the fight against disengagement. It has been widely reported that Netanyahu is seriously considering doing so.

 

Likud Petition Demands Vote on Replacing Sharon  - July 6, 2005

Likud Party Central Committee members have gained enough signatures on a petition demanding that the party convene its legislative body to elect a new chairman.

Israel National News - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is the current leader of the Likud party. The Likud Central Committee can convene to elect a new chairman if at least 20 percent the 3,000 Central Committee members sign a petition to this effect. More than 1,000 members, one-third of the committee, have, in fact, signed such a petition. Organizers have not yet handed it to Central Committee chairman Tzachi HaNegbi, because they are waiting for Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, the leading contender to wrest party leadership from Sharon, to return from abroad.

At a rally organized by the Darkecha Darkeinu (Your Way is Our Way) forum of the committee scheduled for tonight in Tel Aviv, some 500 Central Committee members are expected to urge MK Uzi Landau to run for the party leadership. Dr. Landau, who heads the faction of Knesset Members loyal to the Likud's founding principles, is not expected to declare his candidacy, but may hint that such an announcement is imminent. Hundreds of central committee members already have signed a petition calling on Landau to run. Darkecha Darkeinu head Eli Kornfeld says, "We see Uzi as the man who should lead us now and the most fitting to challenge Sharon. We have no other leader. Uzi was fired from the cabinet and gave everything up to lead the battle against the disengagement. I didn't see any other minister do that. I still hope that Bibi leaves the government and starts doing with actions what he has thus far only said in words."

 

Sharon Called Before Knesset Committee – July 5, 2005

Lekerev Report - Two prominent Knesset committees - Law, and Foreign Affairs and Defense - are conducting a joint session, questioning Prime Minister Sharon on the government's measures to prepare for the expulsion. The MKs have prepared some 100 questions to ask Mr. Sharon regarding the housing solutions, the police presence in Gush Katif and elsewhere around the country during the disengagement, the future of the buildings in Gush Katif, and more. Sharon was presented with the questions in advance. The session is expected to last some four hours.

Statistics released yesterday show that no fewer than 17 battalions of IDF reserve soldiers will be called up to implement the expulsion. The soldiers are supposed to replace the hundreds of standing-army soldiers who will take part in the mission of removing of Jews from their homes.

On the other hand, Gen. Giora Eiland - responsible for drawing up the logistical disengagement plans - told the Knesset yesterday that many reserve soldiers will be involved in the disengagement. This must be taken together with the words of the new IDF Reserves Chief Officer, Brig.-Gen. Danny Van-Birn, who assumed his position just yesterday. Van-Birn told Arutz-7 that no reserve soldiers would take part in the innermost circle during the uprooting. Some 43,000 soldiers and policemen will take part in various aspects of the disengagement. The mission of the actual uprooting of the residents will be placed upon some 12,000 soldiers, policemen and Border Guard policemen.

The session began with introductory words by Committee Chairmen Eitan and Shteinitz, and then Knesset Speaker Ruby Rivlin. Prime Minister Sharon then spoke and said, "For every resident who wants, there is a housing solution for temporary and permanent. The money is waiting for them at the Sela Administration. I have heard that some want to live in a tent city. This is a political move; it's their right to live in tents if they want, but I call upon them to show responsibility to their children... I repeat for the 1,000th time: the disengagement will take place according to the dates we have determined. I have given unequivocal instructions to the police to make sure there is no disturbance on the roads or violent protests and the like."

Novel Twist to the Disengagement; Israeli Arabs Should Worry! – July 5, 2005

Researcher and journalist David Bedein came up with an original argument to convince Arab-Israeli Knesset members to object to the disengagement plan. He sent a letter to Israeli Arab parliamentarians warning that the pullout could serve as the legal basis for the future expulsion of Arabs from Israel.

In an Arabic-language letter, he wrote that "the government of Israel has laid in recent months the legal basis for the implementation of the transfer (of Arabs,) including the banishment of residents from their land, their exile, the demolition of their homes, and the nationalization of their private property." Bedein also warned that "the compensation to be offered for the expulsion is meager and inadequate."

Later in the letter, he noted that "currently, these transfer laws deal with the hundreds of Israeli residents in the Gaza Strip. Despite this, the transfer law precedent and its implementation for political- security objectives may be applied in the future to Arab residents in the territories and in the State of Israel too."

 

A Forgotten Cabinet Proviso Could Throw Israel’s Gaza Evacuation off Course – July 11, 2005

Debkefiles - The Israeli cabinet meets Tuesday, July 12, to dive into some troublesome outstanding issues in the operation to evacuate 10,000 people from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank 35 days away from its implementation. Funding is only one problem. A delegation is in Washington with a request for $2.2bn in special aid to be spread over several years toward the cost of relocating military bases from the Gaza Strip and developing Israel’s under-populated northern Galilee and southern Negev regions.

An important issue that has suddenly popped up is a forgotten rider to the cabinet’s February 2005 approval of the pull-out. Prime minister Ariel Sharon won the votes of half a dozen Likud ministers by a pledge to execute the withdrawals in four stages with a cabinet assessment of current circumstances between each.

This week, attorney general attorney-general Many Mazuz confronted the defense and police ministers as well as the chief of staff with a warning: their master plan for an uninterrupted one-stage evacuation is incompatible with that rider. The dilemma was referred to the prime minister Ariel Sharon.

Already the troops and police designated for the evacuations are training at the Tselim base near Beersheba for operating together as a single entity. The high command says 41,000 servicemen are directly involved. But on the ground, no more than 14,000 will handle evictions.

Military and police planners attach the highest importance to the operation’s unbroken continuity as a means of cutting down on risks – especially in view of intelligence incoming this week on the new strategy the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas has designed for the evacuation.

Hamas intransigence intensifies as the evacuation date approaches. In an interview with the Italian Corriere della Sera, Hamas’ Gaza leader Mahmoud a-Zahar stood firm on the refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Asked whether the Jewish state’s withdrawal to pre-1967 borders would be acceptable, he replied in the negative because in the long term Palestine would be Muslim and Israel disappear off the face of the earth.  Hamas military leaders have fine-tuned their tactics for the coming pull-back from the Gaza Strip.

 

Rather than shooting at random on the concentrations of Israeli troops and civilians engaged in the pull-out – in full view of the world media - Hamas military commanders propose waiting for the civilians to be removed and then pound the troops and police remaining on the spot with mortars and missiles for maximum carnage. They will thus vindicate their propaganda line that Israel is not disengaging voluntarily but retreating under Palestinian guns. However Israeli military planners are preparing to respond to this eventuality with a large-scale counter-offensive. The troops will storm the sources of the fire - which the Palestinians habitually embed in their own population centers – in Khan Younes and the outlying camps and districts of the southern Gaza Strip. But this turn of events would clearly also abort the evacuation process and end any coordination that may yet be achieved with the Palestinian Authority.

 

A stop-go operation would make it easier for Palestinian terrorists to target the operation, whereas smooth, swift progress with no pause to get it over in the shortest possible time is built into the military master plan. Supplies of fuel, water and food are also programmed for an unbroken process. For instance, after clearing Netzarim, the military and police would move on immediately to Gadid or Netzer Hazani. Forcing them to hang about and wait for the next stage to be approved in Jerusalem would magnify the vulnerability of an operation which has been pretty chancy for the start. Hamas could more easily target stationary troops with their mortars and missiles than units in rapid motion.

 

According to DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources, the Islamic group has come to an agreement with fellow terrorist organizations, including Jihad Islami, the Fatah-al Aqsa Brigades and the Popular Committees, for them to open fire on the pull-back - even at low intensity – in the intervals between the Hamas volleys. These attacks will target Israeli soldiers and civilians alike. Our military sources report that the military and police command are skeptical of the claims emanating from the offices of the prime minister and defense minister that the Palestinians have concurred on steps to coordinate the withdrawal. They do not believe that the Palestinian interior minister Gen. Nasser Yousef can make good on any intention to deploy a troop buffer between the Palestinian areas of the Gaza Strip and the towns to be evacuated.

 

Mahmoud Abbas may really be preparing to sink tens of millions of dollars put up by the Americans and Israelis to create thousands of jobs and keep young Palestinians out of terrorism by gainfully employing them. Israeli military and intelligence offers are convinced that a part of the money will reach terrorist groups while the rest will fill the pockets of idlers. Sharon’s most urgent task now is to clear away the obstacle the attorney general has dropped in his lap: the four-stage rider to the evacuation plan. Failure to get round this hurdle would present the anti-evacuation ministers led by finance minister Binyamin Netanyahu and agriculture minister Yisrael Katz with a chance to manufacture delays week after week weeks in between stages – or else claim a steep political price for a seamless evacuation.

In the meantime, the entire country is on edge lest some extremist fringe group or desperate evacuee switches from passive to active resistance to the pull-out and turns to violence, such as shooting at Israeli troops, taking hostages or collective suicide.

 

Accusations Against Israeli Media Multiply – June 20, 2005

"The Israeli press is lying and is acting like a pack of elephants," says Channel Ten News reporter Yinon Magal, while MK Yitzchak Levy adds, "The Israeli media are betraying their basic mission."

Israel National News - Magal, speaking at a gathering of the Second Broadcasting Authority in Jerusalem last night, said, "The press is a champion of manipulating everything that has to do with the Jews of Judea, Samaria and Gaza." The topic of the session was the media's coverage of the disengagement plan. Most of the speakers agreed that Israel's journalists, by and large, have given a slanted picture of the disengagement news, and have deep hostility towards the Yesha residents.

Magal said that sometimes, the narration that accompanies televised pictures on various stations gives the opposite picture of what is seen on the screen. For instance, when guards were seen forcibly shoving nationalist demonstrators at the memorial ceremony for Yair Shtern, the narrator said that the protestors were those who had attacked the guards. Magal warned that the hostile coverage, together with the protestors' suspicion that they will never receive true justice in the legal system, is liable to bring about "grave reactions." MK Levy (Religious Zionist Renewal Party) told Arutz-7 yesterday, "The Israeli press is currently at one of its lowest points ever, is betraying its basic mission, and often appears to be 'clay in the hands of the potter,' weak and able to be manipulated." "The almost-absolute silence regarding the astonishing revelations by Raviv Drucker and Ofer Shelach leave no room to be surprised. Everything that does not fall into line with the Prime Minister's policy is apparently not worthy of being covered. It's as if it's nothing. Every squeak by some beginning singer is covered more widely than these scandalous revelations of the book Boomerang."

Levy was referring to the book Boomerang, by Drucker and Shelach, which purports to show that Prime Minister Sharon promoted his withdrawal/expulsion plan simply because he felt it would prevent him from being indicted on Greek Island scandal charges. The two authors were interviewed on Channel Two, but their revelations were given little or no coverage in Yediot Acharonot, Maariv, Haaretz, Voice of Israel or Army Radio. Today, Maariv departed from custom by covering the story - but with the purpose of de-legitimizing Boomerang's claims. "This is not only enlisted media," MK Levy said, "but dangerous media. Just as they evade the question of Sharon's motivation in promoting the plan to divide the land, they also avoid the difficult questions regarding what will happen the day after the retreat, and the ramifications of the expulsion on our society and country."

Respected Israeli journalist Nachum Barnea, in the March edition of the monthly media publication "The Seventh Eye," admitted that most of the Israeli media have acted more like the "guard dog" of the disengagement plan than that of democracy. He wrote that this mistake should be "acknowledged now, before it gets worse." Last month, Army Radio's political affairs correspondent Kaveh Shafran similarly confessed that the media had turned a blind eye in allowing/encouraging the disengagement at the price of democracy. "I have failed. We have failed," he wrote in an article for the Israeli Institute for Democracy. "As a diplomatic correspondent, I was among those who in the past year were supposed to tell the public exactly what is the disengagement plan, why it was created, how it will be implemented, and to discuss its various aspects, as well as how the Prime Minister functions."  But instead, Shafran wrote, the media kept silent when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon "lied" by saying he would accept the results of a Likud referendum on disengagement. Shafran added, "The media's conspiracy of silence protected Sharon when he fired cabinet ministers who did not support disengagement... We denounced [former Minister] Benny Elon (National Union) for not immediately making himself available to receive the letter of dismissal, but we ignored the criticism of the High Court [on the firings]... We stayed silent when Sharon formed government [policies] with an Arab majority and when he distributed bribes to the hareidim and Shinui. We said nothing when he pressured, threatened and bribed MKs with jobs so that they would support him... Where were we when the allegations of Sharon-family corruption came to light?" "Are the media who support disengagement allowed to turn a blind eye to inappropriate [procedures] just to execute the program? Does this mean that it is possible for Sharon to fire any cabinet minister, the Chief of Staff and General Security Services chief who do not agree with his position?"

Shafran wrote that the following questions should have been asked by the media, but were not: "What happens the day after the disengagement from Gaza? Who will rule there? What's the next stage in Judea and Samaria? What will be the status of the territories that will be evacuated? Does evacuation mean the 'end of conquest'? What will happen if the GSS Chief's warnings about Kassams to be fired at Ashkelon come true? Why are there no housing solutions for the evacuees? What does Sharon want and what is he planning?" Speaking at a conference held at the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem, Amnon Abramovich, a leading political commentator, explained the role of Israel’s media as the proposed Gaza withdrawal comes closer: “I think that we need to protect Sharon like an etrog [the fruit held by religious Jews on the Sukkot festival, which requires special care and protection]."

 

Lt.-Col. Indor Against Media-Pandering in the IDF – July 6, 2005

Likud Party Central Committee members have gained enough signatures on a petition demanding that the party convene its legislative body to elect a new chairman.

Israel National News - The remand of the first suspect in the case, Shimshon Cytryn (see below), was extended today until Sunday, following the rejection of his appeal to the Be'er Sheva District Court. The second suspect, Avinoam Crispin, 19, of Kiryat Arba, was arrested last night. Kiryat Arab residents reported that nine policemen entered a synagogue with their guns drawn to make the arrest.

Parts of the incident were widely filmed, but confusion over what exactly occurred is rampant. It is not clear if an individual Jew started the rock-throwing, or whether a gang of 30 Arabs began attacking a group of singing and dancing Jews. Nor is it clear who wrote the "Muhammed Pig" message on the side of the building that the Jews took over; no soldiers, policemen or Jewish protestors can be found to say he saw it being written. There are also reports that the soldiers did not actively defend the attacked Jews as aggressively as they defended Arabs. Lt.-Col. (res.) Meir Indor, head of the Terror Victims Association, told Arutz-7 yesterday that there is a "worrisome phenomenon among senior officers in the army and police department, in which they distort reality and do not tell the truth when they speak to the television cameras. Instead, they often adjust their words to correspond with what the reporters want to hear." "When top officers adopt norms of lying while giving reports," Indor said, "this will trickle down to the bottom, the lowest soldiers, as well."

Indor said that the latest incidents began when O.C. Southern Command Gen. Dan Harel used the word "lynch" when reporting on the above incident. "'Lynch' is a media concept. There was no lynch. It was a grave incident of throwing rocks, and the fact that the top general would begin using media lingo is very worrisome... What happened there can in no way be compared to what the Arab mob in Ramallah did to those two IDF soldiers a few years ago." "If I, who once took a medics course, was able to tell from the pictures that the wounded Arab was far from 'mortally wounded,' then how is it possible that Gen. Harel was not able to know? In fact, he did know that he was only lightly hurt, but it was convenient for him to present it differently to the media...

The evacuation of the hotel in Gush Katif last Thursday is another example. Indor says that one senior police commander said afterwards that the 'hilltop youth have been shown to be nothing more than weaklings.' "But there were no hilltop youth there at all," Indor said, "just families and some youths from Gush Katif." "In addition, Gen. Harel was quoted as saying that 'delinquent youth had taken over the hotel.' But everyone knows, including Gen. Harel, that there was a legal contract drawn up with the hotel owners, such that they are not delinquent youth or lawbreakers. The officers simply want to satisfy the reporters. This is a culture of lying, and we must fight it tooth and nail." Though widely-disseminated pictures and videos show two Israeli youths throwing rocks from close range at the Arab, most reports do not mention that the Arab had been throwing rocks at Israelis for 15 minutes beforehand. One person there said that the Arab in question, who was claimed to be 'mortally wounded,' had crept up on him from behind and tried to throw a large concrete block on his head.

The 18-year-old Cytryn has still not eaten since his arrest. He demands only special-kosher food, under Badatz supervision, but has not yet received it. His father, Shmuel, said he does not look good. "The public-defender lawyer that I have is not good enough; he barely even mentioned to the judge about the food. It's obvious that we are going to have get a top-grade lawyer for this case."

 

Arutz-7 stands by its stories indicating that incident was not a "lynching," and that it did not occur the way in which it was portrayed on the mainstream media. Please see:
Lt.-Col. Indor Against Media-Pandering in the IDF
and
Eyewitness: Wounded Arab in Muwasi Fight Was Primary Assailant
and
Eyewitness: Media-Reported "Lynch" Was Totally Exaggerated

 

Gingrich: US Should Abandon 'Roadmap' – June 17, 2005

 Lekerev Report - Former House speaker Newt Gingrich argued in the recently published summer edition of the Middle East Quarterly that the U.S. should abandon the roadmap in its quest for Middle East peace. In a paper entitled, "Defeat Terror, Not Roadmap Diplomacy," the high-profile Republican leader insisted that civil negotiations and Oslo-like diplomacy should not continue until the Palestinian Authority dismantles all terrorist infrastructures. "Diplomacy is important and has a vital role to play, but its function must be different than the Oslo process and the roadmap suggest," he wrote. "The focus on Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy cannot work when one side has a leadership that does not deliver on its word."

 

Gingrich argued that diplomacy in face of violence is the wrong answer because it puts the wrong people in charge of finding a solution. Diplomats, by their nature, believe in talk and in paper, he wrote. They value meetings and agreements. But in order for diplomacy to work, negotiators must be honest brokers willing to keep commitments. Diplomacy should not be used as political checkmate while one side keeps its word, and the other side willfully disregards its promises to gain political advantage. The roadmap, developed by the Bush administration during early 2003 in cooperation with Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations, makes clear that all sides must make tangible steps towards a two-state vision. But, Gingrich declares, it was a product of a period of failure now past. It is time to move on. Nice to know that somebody is thinking through this thing!

 

A Jewish Mother Looks at the Oslo Years  - July 1, 2005

The Oslo Years: A Mother's Journal tells the story of the last 11 years of upheaval in Israel and the world as seen through the eyes of a Jewish mother from the Golan Heights.

Israel National News - A regularly featured columnist on Israel National News.com, artist and author Ellen Horowitz has brought together her opinion pieces, letters to the editor and publicity material to produce a highly personal and moving account of the years since the signing of the Oslo Accords. Alongside her writings, Ellen has collected powerful news photos, along with her original artwork, to create a full-color, hardcover, coffee-table book. In addition, The Oslo Years has a special memorial section listing deadly terror attacks and the names of the victims from 1993 through 2004. Ellen writes that she was compelled to put her thoughts to paper because, "a Jew is required to bear witness, remember and record history, even when events are unfolding at a furious pace.... One would be bereft of a most crucial chapter in Jewish history if they declined to expose their soul and honestly investigate this age of upheaval."

Mrs. Horowitz grew up in a Reform Jewish household ("but very Zionist," she says) before returning to traditional Judaism and to the land of Israel. Inspired by her past, Ellen told Israel National News.com, she also sees The Oslo Years as part of an effort to bridge the gap between secular and religious Jewish Zionists. In addition, shortly before the release of her book, Mrs. Horowitz was featured in a documentary called End of Days, by Canadian filmmaker Martin Himel, which examines the complex and potentially combustible relationship between Christian and Jewish Zionists.

Rabbi Dr. Sholom Gold of Jerusalem wrote the foreword for The Oslo Years: "Reading this book is guaranteed to lead to blessed clarity of vision, the desperate need of our time..." In a recent column, author Jack Engelhard called Mrs. Horowitz' book a "masterpiece" and a "treasure", writing, "What can I say but 'WOW!' Horowitz... has produced a powerful account, in prose and photos, of Israel as viewed inside and outside."

Author Naomi Ragen commented, "Ellen W. Horowitz has been a comrade-in-arms in the internet war we have been waging against the Orwellian disinformation campaign launched hand-in-hand with the Oslo War. Now, Ms. Horowitz has collected her columns in a beautifully designed and illustrated book that will pierce your heart. I highly recommend The Oslo Years: a Mother's Journal."
For additional information, contact: author@osloyears.com and visit http://www.osloyears.com.

 

The Case Against Nadia Matar, Legitimate Dissent Is Not A Crime  - By Jonathan Pollard FCI  - July 10, 2005

World Watch Daily - Nadia Matar, leader of Women for Israel's Tomorrow, is being persecuted by the Government of Israel for being a good Jew.

Nadia did not foment a rebellion. She did not incite the People of Israel to revolt. Neither did she call for insurrection or political subversion. She did not commit any crime. All that Nadia Matar did was to call upon a fellow Jew to do tshuva, to give up his involvement in an immoral enterprise and return to the appropriate path for a G-d fearing Jew. Nadia did so in the finest tradition of our holy Prophets. Our Prophets' powerful messages exhorting errant Kings to desist from "doing evil in the eyes of G-d" and to return to the correct path is an important part of our history, and an integral part of our national consciousness. Calling upon a public figure to do tshuva was not a crime then and it is not a crime now.

 

Nadia and I wrote separate but like-minded open letters to Yonatan Bassi, head of the Disengagement Authority. We both called upon Bassi to give up his immoral position as head of the Authority and implored him not to become the chief liquidator of Jewish homes and communities in Israel. It is ironic: Nadia is now being interrogated, threatened with indictment, and intimidated by the possibility of unlimited administrative detention for writing her letter to Bassi. I, on the other hand, sitting here in an American prison, have suffered no repercussions. My right to freedom of speech is guaranteed. Nadia's is not.

 

My wife and I make many sacrifices in order to make my voice heard outside of prison walls. We endure the hardship because Esther and I are determined never to give up the one freedom I do have. Even as a prisoner in America, I have the right to freedom of speech. As long as I refrain from discussing classified information, I am free to express my thoughts, opinions and ideas. Nadia and our fellow countrymen on the right side of the political spectrum, are not.

 

Why Do They Want To Silence Nadia Matar?

What is it that the government and security establishment see in Nadia Matar which makes them fear her so? Why are the authorities so determined to silence her? It is not because of anything she has done. It is because of what she represents. Nadia is the head of one of the most effective citizens' advocacy groups in Israel. She is among a handful of natural leaders today, who have the will, the talent, and the strength of character to galvanize popular protest against undemocratic actions by the current Government of Israel. Nadia represents everything a repressive regime fears in its citizenry. Her idealism and her enthusiasm are infectious and her determination is unyielding. She is a G-d fearing woman and a fierce nationalist, not easily threatened or intimidated. She is a thinker and resists following blindly. What is more, she is a powerful model and source of inspiration for others. In short, she is everything a dictatorial regime cannot tolerate if it is to retain complete and unquestioning control over its citizens.

 

Desperate to curtail Nadia's activities as a leader of one the most effective protest movements in the country, the Government seized upon her letter to Bassi as an excuse to take action against her. She was quickly hauled in for police interrogation and grilled for hours on end. Eager to charge her with a crime - any crime - the authorities zeroed in on one part of her letter to Bassi. Nadia referenced a letter that Bassi had sent to citizens of Gaza urging them to cooperate with their own expulsion, and she compared it to a similar letter by the Judenrat during W.W. II urging Jews to cooperate and go quietly to the trains (which would take them to the death camps). Nadia wrote that Bassi's letter was worse than the Judenrat's since the Judenrat had no choice, whereas Bassi had accepted the immoral task of expelling Jews from their homes of his own free will.

 

The Israeli authorities decided that there must be a way to criminalize the insult of comparing Bassi's letter to the Judenrat's. Searching the law books, they came up with a law - totally unrelated and absolutely irrelevant - under which to prosecute Nadia. The law they invoked - insulting a public official in the course of his official duties - was designed to protect policemen, firemen and other public servants from being abused in the course of their work. For example, this law protects a traffic policeman from being verbally abused by a person who has just received a traffic ticket. In their zeal to incriminate Nadia, the Government reinterpreted the law, stretching its application far beyond its intended purpose. Why? Because even if they cannot make a case against Nadia, the public furor that they have created over this incident will make it easy to take other actions to silence her. For example, administrative detention is a far greater threat hanging over Nadia's head than any judicial proceeding that the Government may take against her.

 

The Threat Of Administrative Detention

It is more than possible that the Government plans to use its twisted interpretation of the "insult to public officials law" in a way reminiscent of America's infamous Internal Security Act of 1950. That law not only limited citizens' freedom of speech and freedom of association, but also permitted the President to lock up potential subversives indefinitely in concentration camps during times of perceived national emergency. Fortunately, there was a public outcry and this law was never implemented in the US.

 

However, the immoral use of administrative detention, without formal indictment and with no possibility of judicial review, still exists in Israel and it is routinely utilized. If the Government does indict Nadia, it can still lock her up in administrative detention before she is brought to trial. In other words, she can be placed in administrative detention indefinitely pending a trial - a trial which may be deliberately delayed for months, weeks, or even years. Even worse, if the Government refrains from indicting Nadia, it can still lock her up in administrative detention indefinitely, without judicial review. Any attempt by the Government to place Nadia in administrative detention must be met with unlimited and overwhelming public protest. If the Government of Israel is permitted to lock up Nadia Matar before, during or after trial, on trumped up charges of insulting a public official, the country is headed for the kind of judicial authoritarianism that Senator McCarthy attempted to unleash in the US. This poses an immeasurable threat to all of Israel, including the cancellation of freedom of speech and the abrogation of Israeli civil rights.

 

When Freedom Of Speech Is A Crime

According to the law, freedom of speech ends where its exercise threatens the public good. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is a crime. But this is only true if there is no fire! If there is a fire, it is unforgivable not to cry out. For those of us, like Nadia, who cherish Israel and seek to protect and defend the Land, it is glaringly obvious that the House of Israel is on fire. The flames are threatening to engulf us all! Now, more than ever, Jewish lives are at risk, and Jewish homes and communities are in mortal danger. Every day the enemy grows bolder and bolder in its attacks upon a beleaguered civilian population. The Government not only allows the flames to rage out of control but is also feeding the fire by offering up chunks of our homeland to our sworn enemies.

 

By orchestrating a very public campaign of intimidation against Nadia Matar - who dared to cry "Fire!" - the Government is attempting to silence all dissention. It is using a pinpoint precision attack on Nadia to intimidate the entire nationalist camp. As it demonstrates its willingness and its ability to crush this popular leader, the Government is sending a strong message to all. It apparently believes that in this way it will succeed in breaking the back of the citizens' protest movements which bitterly oppose the Government's plan to uproot Jewish homes and communities in Gaza and Samaria and turn the land over to our enemies.

 

Destroying The Foundations Of Democracy

The Government is mistaken in its aims and in its calculations. All that it has accomplished is to destroy its own legitimacy and its right to govern. In democratic states, a government derives its power from the consent of the people. A government cannot replace consent with coercion and still be considered a democracy.

Nadia Matar represents the voice of legitimate dissent in Israel. If she is silenced through intimidation and harassment, any pretense that the State of Israel is a democracy is unequivocally dispelled. Every distinction between Israel and her non-democratic neighbors in the region is effectively blurred. Moreover by relentlessly persecuting those who exercise free speech to express legitimate dissent, the Government is deliberately creating an atmosphere of fear and repression - the kind of atmosphere that invites rebellion. Thus, by taking Draconian action against selected individuals, such as Nadia, the Government is actually fomenting the very insurrection it claims it is trying to prevent; and which it will use to justify the use of even more repressive and dictatorial measures.

 

The imprisonment of a nation begins with the unjust incarceration of one citizen. As Israeli citizens, our right to live freely in the Land and our freedom of speech depend on how we as a nation respond to the Government's unwarranted persecution of any one citizen. By going after Nadia Matar publicly, interrogating and harassing her; threatening her with indictment and arrest; holding the specter of administrative detention over her head, the Government is effectively threatening all of us. It is striking out at the heart of all that Jews hold dear: our right to live and act in harmony with G-d and Torah; our right to be a free People in our own Land; and our fundamental right to freedom of speech. All of The House of Israel must unite to vigorously protect and defend Nadia Matar; to prevent the Government from singling her out for malicious persecution. We must fight this injustice as if our very existence were at stake. As G-d fearing Jews who love the Land, it is.

_____________________________________________

J4JP Notes: 1) The above essay was originally published in October of 2004*. It can be read on the web at http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2004/102404.htm

2) Jonathan Pollard was the first to address the threat of administrative detention that hangs over Nadia Matar's head. This threat looms even larger today as the date for implementation of the disengagement plan approaches. Sharon and his ilk grow ever more anxious to remove Nadia - the most effective anti-disengagement leader - from public life. The recent indictment of Matar is just an artifice to enable them do so. Public outcry against any attempt to place Matar in administrative detention must be swift and sufficiently powerfu to disrupt such action.

3) The Hebrew version of the above essay can be found at: http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2004/102404a.htm

 

News Analysis: Bush Policy Pushes Israel Back to 1949 Armistice – May 29, 2005

When challenged about his disengagement plan, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon consistently retorts that his concessions earned historic achievements in the form of the Bush letter of April, 2004.

Sharon argues that the disengagement plan cemented US support for retaining large blocks of Israeli towns in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria.  For example, on April 18th, 2004 Sharon declared in the Knesset:

"…whoever wants to maintain large settlement blocs under our control forever; whoever wants to guarantee that for as long as the Palestinians don't act against terrorism, diplomatic pressures will not be exerted upon us... must support the disengagement plan."

Sharon further said: "The diplomatic support we received during my visit to the U.S. is an unprecedented achievement. Never since the establishment of the State have we received such support with such strength and comprehension. The Palestinians see the Bush letter as the strongest blow they have received since [our] War of Independence."

 

In light of the May 26th Bush-Abbas summit and the subsequent statements, Arutz Sheva presents the following analysis of what is left of Sharon's unprecedented gains: U.S. President George W. Bush’s statement welcoming PA leader Mahmoud Abbas into the White House Rose Garden on May 26, provided a highly transparent view of the administration’s policy toward Israel and an unsettling perspective on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s claims that Bush has agreed to allow Israel to retain large settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria.

The most unsettling, if not shocking remark by the president was a direct reference to the 1949 “Armistice lines” agreed to by Israel and Jordan at the end of the War of Independence. Those lines, the famous “Auschwitz borders” as they were called by the late Israeli Labor-party statesman Abba Eban, leaves Israel’s heavily populated coastal plain, just 9-11 miles from the border of what would be Palestine. Not only are none of the major settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria, such as Ma’ale Adumim included in those borders, but neither are the Western Wall, the Old City of Jerusalem, the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Ramot, Gilo, Neve Yaakov, East Talpiot, Pisgat Ze’ev (to name a few), nor the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway (Route 1) as it crosses into the Latrun area.

Yet President Bush, standing next to the man whom he would like to become the first president of Palestine, told Abbas and the rest of the world, that the reference point for negotiating the future boundary between the two states was the 1949 lines, and that any change to that border “must be mutually agreed to” between Israel and the Arabs. In other words, as far as Bush is concerned, Abbas must approve Israel's annexing the Western Wall or even part of the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem highway to the Jewish State. Conversely, without his agreement, those areas are slated to be part of an independent State of Palestine.

Where then, is the great quid-pro-quo for the Gaza withdrawal, the highly-touted and heavily-marketed Bush promises to Sharon that the U.S. recognizes the facts on the ground in Judea and Samaria, the settlement blocs that preclude a withdrawal to the 1949 Armistice lines? According to Yoram Ettinger, a consultant on U.S. Israel relations and former liaison for Congressional affairs in the Israel Washington embassy, Bush’s April, 2004 letter supposedly guaranteeing U.S. support for retaining major settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria “was grossly misrepresented by the Prime Minister and his spokesman. Bush has not committed the United States to recognizing anything beyond the 1949 cease-fire lines. Bush doesn’t recognize any single settlement or blocs of settlements.”

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak concurs with this analysis of Bush’s view of the future border between Israel and a Palestinian state. In a recent interview for Haaretz, Barak said: “A campaign is under way here whose gist is to mislead the nation about substantive issues in order to prevent it from asking what the quid pro quo for the disengagement is. Sharon’s claim that he made painful decisions in Gaza and in return obtained an unprecedented achievement in Judea and Samaria is not correct… “After all, it is obvious that the U.S. administration is against the Ariel-Kedumim bloc and against Ma’ale Adumim and is even against Efrat [locataed in the Gush Etzion bloc]…Sharon is not telling the people the truth. He is treating us all as though we are infantile and incapable of debating our own fate.”  It is not surprising therefore, that Bush, instead of emphasizing the importance of Abbas fighting terror and keeping his obligations under the road map, focused mostly on Israel’s roadmap obligations, primarily to halt all settlement construction in Judea and Samaria and remove what he called, “unauthorized outposts.”

George W. Bush is a president who means what he says. After mentioning the 1949 lines, Bush said the following: “A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.”

Territorial contiguity in Judea and Samaria for a viable Palestinian State is not a prescription for accepting settlement blocs anywhere. It’s about time the Israeli public recognizes that the “Bush vision” as expressed repeatedly by the President and his Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, does not include any territory east of the 1949 lines. Rather, it holds the disengagement plan as the first phase of an ongoing process of Israeli withdrawals back to what the Labor party leader termed "the Auschwitz borders."

 

Disengagement is opposed to George Bush's values, writes Yoram Ettinger – July 5, 2005

Ynet News - In a recent speech, U.S. President George W. Bush presented his country with a worldview in the tradition of late President Ronald Reagan: no retreat in the face of terrorism, yes to pre-emptive strikes – including assassinations – against terrorist breeding grounds. In word and deed, Bush has put forth an expanded version of Reagan's 1986 attack on Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi's political, economic and military infrastructure.

 

In contrast to his father, the president's worldview is influenced by lessons learned from previous U.S. disengagement plans in 1979 (Iranian hostage crisis), 1983 (a terror campaign that killed 300 American diplomats and Marines in Lebanon), and in 1993 (following the lynching of Marines in Somalia). These disengagements poured gasoline on the flames of anti-American Islamic terrorism, resulting in major terror attacks on American targets in 1993,1995,1998,2000, culminating on September 11, 2001.

 

Bush is determined to prevent Clinton's mistakes. The latter chose to disengage from terror centers, made due with targeted, limited attacks on terrorist bases, and tried to enage in dialogue with terrorist-sponsoring regimes. Clinton pressed for cease-fires and tried not to destroy infrastructure; his disengagements eased the infiltration of terror cells into U.S. population centers.

 

Texas and religion

 In contrast, Bush's worldview is influenced by both his religious connection and his Texas upbringing. As opposed to his father, the Connecticut aristocrat, Bush is loyal to the old Texas saying, "You don't jump off the horse, especially when the horse is bucking."  Bush admires Moses, Joshua and Caleb, and is critical of the weakness displayed by the biblical spies who were intimidated by the nations of Canaan and who proposed disengaging from the Promised Land. To Bush – and to Vice President Dick Cheney, the cowboy and historian from Wyoming – to disengage from terror would be a kick in the face to that religious, Texas tradition.

 

Good-vs.-evil

 Disengaging from terrorism is opposed to Bush's struggle of good against evil, freedom against slavery, truth against falsehood. In his speeches, Bush puts forward a worldview fundamentally opposed to the disengagement plan. "The correct answer to terrorism is not to run away, but courage and bravery… the terrorists think they can force us to withdraw. They are wrong. The choice is between war on their territory and war on ours." This is the reason the United States will not be funding the Gaza disengagement plan, a program that will cost the Israeli tax payer at least NIS 10 billion (USD 2.2 billion).

 

Bush has also not committed to any tangible guarantee. Bush did not propose the program himself, but rather accepted it after four months of pressure from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (with support from the State Department, in order to prevent a political battle with Israel supporters in the months leading up to the 2004 presidential election.) And the vice president, secretary of defense, and many congressmen have doubts about the disengagement plan.

 Possible reprecussions

 

Therefore, the president and Congress will not go to the wall should Israel call off the disengagement. They will make do with short-term pressure, which will be nothing compared to the brutal pressure that failed to move Israeli prime ministers from 1948 to 1992. In 1981, Reagan imposed a four-month arms embargo on Israel, following the attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak. But following the short crisis, Israel benefited from strategic cooperation that continues to this day. President Bush has learned from Reagan (who disengaged from Lebanon), and has stood fast and strong in Afghanistan and Iraq. He admires Israeli democracy - which, like the American version, allows for checks and balances in order to slow down the army. Does Sharon have the same character?

 

More Withdrawals Coming? – July 10, 2005

Lekerev Report - A senior IDF officer hinted in an interview with London-based Arabic-language newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat that Israel is planning additional unilateral moves, to be carried out by 2008, to complement the upcoming Gaza Strip and northern West Bank withdrawal. "The disengagement plan talks about unilateral steps that would end in 2008, resulting in a situation where the Palestinians would be responsible for managing their own affairs within the boundaries of the area we can give them, and not more than that," the official said. The officer hinted about future West Bank withdrawals, but refused to provide additional details. "I won't get into the matter of borders at this time," he said. "However, it will not be an independent state as the Palestinians expect."

Although Israel and the Palestinian Authority have started to coordinate the upcoming pullout, Israeli officials are unsure the coordination would lead to a peaceful withdrawal, the officer said.

 

The senior officer also had harsh words about the conduct of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas over his recent trip to Syria and meeting with terror leaders there. Abbas' actions indicate that the culture of terror still reigns supreme in the Palestinian Authority, making peace talks with the Palestinians at this time an unrealistic prospect, he said. Abbas has failed to use the power given to him by the people in the last elections in order to advance his political plans through peaceful means, and instead of restraining terror groups he continues his dialogue with them and allows them to boost their power, the official said. The U.S. Administration and several European governments are convinced Abbas is going in the wrong direction, he said, and added the Palestinian leader would have to contend with harsher international demands.

 

Stormy Sharon/Abbas Summit Deemed a Failure – June 22, 2005

Lekerev Report - An angry Ariel Sharon confronted a stony-faced Abbas Tuesday, June 21, with evidence of Palestinian preparations for a massive terrorist offensive against Israel's evacuation operation from the Gaza Strip in mid-August. The summit was described as "difficult and unsuccessful".

According to Palestinian sources, the Abbas team told Sharon Tuesday, June 21, that the removal of four Israeli communities from the northern West Bank this August was not enough; Israeli troops must also leave their bases in the area, although they face Israel's population and industrial center, and hand it over to full Palestinian sovereignty. By this device the Palestinians would acquire extra territory twice the area of the Gaza Strip without any negotiations or peace talks.

The grim results were reflected on the face of Abbas as he returned from Jerusalem to Ramallah, where he chose to remain in his office instead of addressing reporters outside. Later, Abbas sent top Palestinian figures Ahmed Qureia, Mohammed Dahlan, and Saeb Erekat to provide details of the session. The sides failed to agree on any of the issues raised during the session. The Palestinians requested the release of longtime and senior prisoners as yet another "goodwill" gesture. (How many more do they need????) Abbas also raised the question of continued construction in the settlements and the West Bank security fence and flatly denied that he promised to disarm terrorists.

 

Israel Considers Building Railroad to Link West Bank and Gaza – July 6, 2005

Lekerev Report - If you thought the Oslo Accords were dead, think again! One of the many provisions in the Oslo accords that were never implemented was an idea known as "safe passage". Safe Passage meant that Israel would provide the Arabs of the Palestinian Authority with an overland route through Israel's pre- 1967 boundaries, allowing them to travel freely, with a minimum of restrictions, between the two territories.

The idea had major logistical problems, and the upsurge in suicide bombings that began shortly after the Oslo accords were signed and the subsequent Oslo war that took over 1000 Israeli lives seemed to put the idea of safe passage permanently on hold. That is, until now.

The PA reportedly has conditioned its cooperation on implementing the withdrawal and expulsion of Jews from Gaza and northern Samaria on implementing the safe passage provisions of the Oslo accords. Yesterday Israel and representatives of the Palestinian Authority announced an agreement to create a land link between Gaza and Judea and Samaria, in order to implement the safe passage concept. Initially Israeli security forces would escort Palestinian vehicle convoys and Israeli proposed a railway link at a later stage.

Apparently Israeli officials have already approached the World Bank with a request to finance the railroad at a cost $175 million. The World Bank, however, has suggested building a four-lane highway instead, sunken into a five-meter wide trench. Israelis would be able to cross the highway via overpasses that would be built at various intervals over the trench. The estimated cost of this project, which effectively dissects Israel into two parts, is only $130 million. The World Bank also believes it would be easier to operate than a rail line.

Keep an eye on this developing story.

 

Sharon spurns Egypt’s demands, tells Washington: Israel will not entrust its national security to Egypt – June 24, 2005

 

Debkafile - After months of interminable demands from Cairo that would have breached the 1979 peace treaty, Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon finally put his foot down.

 

 

 

Will the Dutch Buy Gush Katif Greenhouses? – June 15, 2005

The National Security Council and Vice Premier Shimon Peres's office have been working on a deal whereby Holland would purchase the greenhouses of Gush Katif residents slated for evacuation. The Dutch would afterward give the greenhouses to the Palestinians, according to the plan. The money paid to the settlers is supposed to give them an incentive to leave their greenhouses behind and assist them in beginning a new life in the post-pullout era.

The additional compensation funds received from the Dutch would give the settlers the privilege of not having to transfer the greenhouses during the relocation, leaving them behind for the Palestinians' benefit. It is feared that, should the deal fall through and the settlers would not receive added monetary compensation, they would opt to transfer the greenhouses in their entirety or disassemble them and transfer only the portable parts during relocation.

The greenhouses, according to the plan that is taking shape, will be handed to the Palestinians as a gift. But what is holding back the plan currently on the table is the Dutch concern that the Palestinians will refuse it if it includes giving money to Jewish residents for businesses established on what the Palestinians consider "conquered" territory. Government officials explained that there's no possibility of a similar transfer of settler homes to the Palestinians. "Regarding the homes, the state will be compensating the settlers in full. It's only the businesses that will not get full compensation," an official said.

The value of the greenhouses and one dairy barn included in the initiative are valued by professionals at 15 million U.S. dollars.

 

Attorney General Asks Rabbis for Help  - July 11, 2005

Lekerev Report - Attorney General Menachem Mazuz asked leading rabbis Sunday for help in dealing with opponents to the Gaza withdrawal. Mazuz and State Prosecutor Eran Shendar met Sunday with rabbis from the Zionist nationalist camp in an attempt to reach an understanding regarding the behavior of anti- disengagement activists toward the legal authorities.

Mazuz said during the meeting that law enforcement bodies act out of professional considerations only, with the aim of maintaining the rule of law on one hand and the limits of legitimate protest on the other "so that we will be able to continue to live together the day after the disengagement as well." The rabbis present at the meeting were Rabbis Shlomo Aviner, Mordechai Elon, Elyakim Levanon, Eli Sadan, Yuval Sherlo and Daniel Shilo.

The rabbis affirmed that they oppose all forms violent action, including "verbal violence." The sides agreed that under no circumstances is it permissible to harm security forces implementing the plan. However, the rabbis also expressed their fears regarding the growing "rift" within the nation caused by the disengagement implementation.

 

PM and Chabad Rabbis in a "Very Charged Meeting" – June 29, 2005

A delegation of Chabad rabbis met with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in his Jerusalem office yesterday - the first meeting of its kind since he announced his expulsion/withdrawal plan.

Israel National News - The meeting began in a friendly atmosphere, but tensions gradually rose, and at certain points it was "almost on the verge of an explosion." So said today one of the participants, Chabad Spokesman Rabbi Menachem Brod, to Arutz-7's Yosef Meiri. Participating in the meeting were Rabbi Yehuda Leib Groner, who was the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s secretary, Chabad Israel Rabbinical Court Director Rabbi Yitzchak Yehuda Yaruslavski, his deputy Rabbi Menachem Glocobosky, Binyamin Regional Council Rabbi Shimon Elituv, and other senior rabbis. The 90-minute meeting began with the recounting of stories about Prime Minister Sharon’s meetings with the Lubavitcher Rebbe and the warm ties between them. Left unmentioned was the fact that the Rebbe once advised Sharon not to enter politics altogether.

The Chabad representatives told the Prime Minister how strongly the Lubavitcher Rebbe always opposed any concession over any part of the Land of Israel. “While we do not have your experience and knowledge," Rabbi Brod told him, "we do have the Rebbe and we are certain that he is right." Prime Minister Sharon explained what he felt were the advantages of his plan, the circumstances that led him to initiate it, and the importance he ascribes to the settlement movement. He spoke against violence - with the full agreement of his guests - and against refusal to fulfill disengagement-related orders. Some leading Chabad rabbis have called for such refusal. "True, it is difficult and painful," Sharon said, "but the State of Israel has decided - we are leaving Gaza. Even if it is difficult, the Plan will be implemented. The Plan will be implemented because it is the right thing for the State of Israel.”

Rabbi Brod told Arutz-7 that the rabbis decided to meet with Sharon after he said that if he could speak with the Lubavitcher Rebbe, he would persuade him of the correctness of his plan. "We showed him that the Rebbe's opinion, which is the opposite of Sharon's, corresponds perfectly to the situation and dangers as we see it now," Rabbi Brod said. Sharon asked to see the Rebbe's words in writing, and the rabbis said they would send him the relevant passages. Sharon himself admitted that the Rebbe had been more precise and accurate in his analysis of the shortcomings of the infamous Bar-Lev Line [a chain of fortifications built by Israel along the Suez Canal after the Six Day War, which was easily overrun by attacking Egyptian forces on the first day of the Yom Kippur War - ed.] than IDF experts.

Rabbi Groner told Sharon, "You feel that the plan will be beneficial to Israel, but you yourself cannot be certain that things will develop the way you want them to. We tell you with absolute certainty, in light of the Rebbe's clear words, that this plan will cause the exact opposite." "It will lead to a most grave security deterioration, will bring terror to inestimably high levels, and will increase international pressure on Israel," Rabbi Groner continued. "If you think that giving up Gush Katif and northern Shomron will save the settlement blocs, the exact opposite will occur; it will serve as a precedent and proof that it is possible to dismantle even the large settlement blocs."

Asked if there were any arguments that seemed to make Sharon more uncomfortable than others, Rabbi Brod said, "When we talked about the danger to Jews that the plan was likely to bring, we could see that this was not pleasant for him to hear." The Prime Minister said, "The country cannot accept violence against policemen and soldiers, and Chabad people who do this cause damage to Chabad." The rabbis responded that the disengagement plan causes such great pain and unrest in the public that they can barely exert their authority over them in these areas.

 

Supporters of the Gaza Settler’s Right to Remain in their own Homes

 

Bostoner Rebbe Leads Solidarity Mission to Gush Katif  - July 5, 2005

The Bostoner Rebbe, Grand Rabbi Levi Yitzhak Horowitz [pictured] arrived in the Gush Katif town N'vei Dekalim on Monday afternoon accompanied by three busloads of congregants and supporters.

Israel National News - As the Rebbe's bulletproof van arrived in front of the town's central synagogue, dozens of local residents began making their way to greet the Rebbe, a member of the Council of Torah Sages of Israel and the United States. The visit, at this time, by a prominent member of the hareidi Torah community sends a unique message to Gush Katif leaders, residents and the government, that support for a continued Jewish presence in Gush Katif and Gaza communities is far-reaching, extending outside the National Religious community to other sectors of Torah Jewry as well.

The Rebbe addressed the crowd inside the synagogue, speaking of the Jewish People's acquisition of the Land of Israel. The Rebbe expressed a prayer that together, the Jewish People will remain in Gush Katif area communities in the future, continuing to build and grow for many years.  Following the Rebbe's remarks, Rabbi Label Groner spoke. Rabbi Groner served for decades as the secretary of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Following the teachings of Rabbi Schneerson, Rabbi Groner spoke of the need to continue efforts to reverse the decree of the disengagement, citing numerous examples from modern history when the Jewish People witnessed G-d's intervention, saving the residents of Israel from tragedy.  Rabbi Groner called for increased diligence in the observance of Torah and mitzvoth, explaining that with our actions and mesirut nefesh -- self sacrifice, the Jewish People can reverse the decree of the government's expulsion plan. The Bostoner Rebbe and his followers proceeded to the Maoz Yam Hotel which was evacuated last week by the army and currently serves as an army base. From there, the group visited Kfar Darom, meeting with leaders and residents before returning to Jerusalem.

 

American Born IDF Soldier Takes A Stand – June 27, 2005

Lekerev Report - A group of 12 soldiers who belong to the unit tasked with razing abandoned Gaza Strip structures yesterday were tried by their commander after threatening to refuse to take part in future settlement evacuation. The 12 soldiers followed the lead of Corporal Avi Beiber, who was born in America and immigrated to Israel with his family when he was nine years old. He was detained after refusing to take part in the demolition operation and yelled out (see photo) "A Jew doesn't evacuate a Jew." His courage inspired the others to follow suit.

During a difficult conversation with their commander, soldiers in the company expressed their anger over what they said was army deceit. The troops said they were not prepared for the mission and charged the IDF hid the true mission from them.

The soldiers said the received an order to arrive at Neve Dekalim to take part in an "unspecified mission. The troops said they were told to take their weapons and a protective vest. "We arrived at the site and saw a bulldozer razing structures," one soldier told Ynet. "We were told to deploy in the area and secure it so the settlers won't enter. They were stunned to hear about the mission they were tasked with and said they would have done everything in their power to stay behind had they known the mission's true nature. Some soldiers even turned to their commanders and said they were unable to perform the mission. Those troops were told to assume new positions so they do not have to clash with settlers.

Corporal Beiber defended his action as that of a conscientious objector, saying that his family "didn't come to the country to expel Jews from their homes." "I didn't enlist in the IDF in order to destroy communities or prepare the ground for the destruction of communities. I enlisted in the IDF to defend the state, and this action is not the role of the IDF," the young soldier said.

His father, Rafael Bieber, said today that his telephone was constantly ringing with callers praising his son's actions. "Many people from all over the country have telephoned me to say that what he did was a good thing, that he had spoken from his heart, and that many people felt the same way. I received a call from someone in Brooklyn, New York, who told me that everyone there is with us," Bieber said, adding that the caller told him that footage of his son had appeared on television channels Two, Four and Seven in New York City.

According to Bieber, politics was not behind his son's actions, but rather concern for the demonstrators. "He's a human being. He saw that his commanders were beating Jews, and he'd never seen anything like that in his life. He did not do this because of politics. He did it because he is sensitive, and because he cares, just like you would care if you saw someone beating someone else."

Speaking to Haaretz after the incident, Avi Bieber said he and some of his fellow soldiers were initially unaware of why they had been taken to the site, adding that he had not planned to refuse to participate in the operation. "It wasn't something I planned because I had no idea what I was going into, but when I saw what was happening, when I saw how they were beating dedicated Jews, my heart broke, and my conscience said to me, 'Avi, this isn't Jewish justice. You are not going to participate in such a thing.'

Bieber's parents, Michelle and Rafael, said they were proud of their son. "Our boy showed the entire country just how much he loves the State of Israel," Michelle Bieber said. "We raised him to love the country and we hope that others will follow in his footsteps."

 

Prestigious Golani Brigade Says "NO" to Disengagement – June 17, 2005

 Lekerev Report - The IDF has decided to relieve the prestigious Golani Brigade of the task of removing Jewish residents from their homes, fearing mass refusal and lack of motivation among soldiers and officers.

It was decided that the soldiers of the brigade, many of them either religious or children of immigrants, will be charged with defending the region from Arab terror attacks during this summer's withdrawal instead of removing Jews from their homes, which was their original assignment.

Hagit Rothenberg of the B'Sheva weekly reports that Golani Brigade commander, Col. Erez Zuckerman, informed the commander of the 36th division, Brig.- Gen. Gershon HaCohen - who is supposed to command the uprooting of the residents of Gush Katif - that the soldiers of the brigade and their commanders are unable to fulfill the expulsion mission. The Golani Brigade Commander came to this conclusion in light of recent conversations with senior officers in the brigade.

 

Golani Brigade Says No to Expelling Jews – June 17, 2005

The IDF has decided to relieve the prestigious Golani Brigade of the task of removing Jews from their homes this summer, fearing mass refusal and lack of motivation among soldiers and officers.

Israel National News - It was decided that the soldiers of the brigade will be charged with defending the region from Arab terror attacks during this summer’s withdrawal, instead of removing Jews from their homes. Many of the brigade soldiers are either religious or children of immigrants.vBrig.-Gen. Gershon HaCohen is the disengagement commander who received word of this decision. He is charged with overseeing the uprooting of the residents of Gush Katif.

Hagit Rotenberg of the B’Sheva weekly reports that Golani Brigade commander Col. Erez Zuckerman informed HaCohen that the soldiers of the brigade and their commanders would be unable to fulfill the expulsion mission. The Golani Brigade Commander came to this conclusion in light of recent conversations with senior officers in the brigade. The situation became apparent following a conference of Golani officers, when lectures on the importance of fulfilling the disengagement mission and maintaini