An Introductory Comment
When Rabin and Arafat shook hands on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993, thereby granting the Oslo Accords a final seal of approval, Nativ published an expanded issue in mournful colors. The issue was devoted to an analysis of Rabin’s course of action and its anticipated ramifications for the Jewish state. In retrospect, the prognostications, from that period, tragically, were almost entirely realized. The projected end result of the present ethnic cleansing program from the Sharon school is easier to predict than that of its predecessor. That is because we are familiar with all of the components of the national tragedy, which befell Israel (referred to as “The Rabin Legacy”), and Sharon is deepening the rift in each and every area. At the same time, this article will most likely be greeted with disbelief and claims that it contains significant exaggerations etc. However it is appropriate to mention that had someone stood 15 years ago and claimed that Rabin would grant legitimacy to Arafat and the terrorist organizations or asserted just three years ago that Sharon would carry out a campaign of ethnic cleansing against his own people, he would have been considered out of his mind, or more mildly as one making a mountain out of a molehill and promoting unwarranted panic. To our credit, we can determine unequivocally: We said all that and we were right.
First we must assert, firmly and unambiguously, that in employing the term “disengagement” Sharon and his government are following in the footsteps of the tyrannical regimes, which conceal their intentions in an Orwellian “Newspeak”. “Disengagement” is nothing other that “ethnic cleansing”, and it should not be called anything else. The definition of “ethnic cleansing” a term coined by Drazen Pewtrovic, an expert in international law at the University of Sarajevo after the civil war in Yugoslavia, states: “Ethnic cleansing means the eviction by force of citizens belonging to one ethnic group from their land and homes and the transfer of the cleansed territory to another ethnic group.” Pewtrovic’s definition was the criterion employed by the International Court in The Hague when they placed Slobodan Milosevic on trial and characterized his actions as “a crime against humanity whose perpetrators are criminals”1
Thus the definition of ethnic cleansing, in its entirety, applies to the action, which Sharon and his government are plotting. The fact that the deportees will be granted remuneration is secondary in this respect and will be dealt with below.
There is one substantive difference between Sharon’s intentions and the actions of Milosevic and others like him: Milosevic evicted a hostile population with which he had a hundreds-of-years long blood feud and he transferred the cleansed territory to his countrymen; Sharon is evicting his own countrymen and transferring the territory to murderers of his people, erstwhile allies of Hitler and his present-day successors, who openly and publicly declare that their objective is the destruction of the Jewish state. This phenomenon, anchored in Jewish pathology, unparalleled in the history of nations, is the essence of the Chosen People School of fascism. Mussolini, Stalin and Milosevic and the like massacred the enemies of their country and worked to enlarge, strengthen and extend it. The Jewish fascist and it makes no difference whether he emerged from the Hashomer Hazair school or from the Sycamore Farm mafia, acts as if possessed to liquidate his country by means of glorification of the enemy.
Towards the Destruction of Settlement in Judea, Samaria, the Jordan Valley and the Golan
It goes without saying that the destruction of the settlement in Gush Katif and northern Samaria is a preliminary stage leading towards the destruction of the settlement in Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights and the transfer of Jerusalem to the Arab enemy. This course of action, which will leave the State of Israel a bleeding stump, will necessarily lead to a withdrawal from the 1949 armistice lines to the partition borders. This process, in the midst of which we find ourselves today, was determined in the Camp David Agreements, in the most severe historical failure in the brief history of the State of Israel. In the Six-Day War, Israel routed its enemies in a defensive war more moral than any other in the modern age. Not only was it Israel’s right to keep the entire Sinai Desert, it was its obligation, based on the principle of natural justice anchored in international law: “Ex injuria jus non oritur”, according to which the aggressor must be punished! Every proper country conducts itself in that manner. Based on that principle, at the end of the two World Wars Germany lost many territories, among them those which it ruled for hundreds of years, like East
Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia. The Jewish state acted accordingly in the War of Independence after defeating the enemy, which deigned to conquer it and annexed many territories, which doubled its size relative to the partition borders.
Fifteen million Germans were evicted from their land and their homes and dispatched to the German interior. However, in contrast to the actions taken by Germany’s enemies, victorious Israel did not deport the Israeli Arabs the spearhead of the Arab enemy’s attempt to destroy the nascent state. This was a historic blunder whose steep price is being paid by
the Jewish state today, with an Arab fifth column coalescing within it.
Thus, relinquishing Sinai to Egypt was a blatant violation of the principle of justice at the foundation of international law, and an act of rewarding the aggressor. Destruction of the settlement in Sinai, unprecedented in the history of Zionism, by none other than Ariel Sharon, along with the recognition of the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people”,2 were the first nail in the coffin of Zionism, hammered in by Menahem Begin with much fanfare and revelry.
Thus, one ought not to be misled by pipe-dreams of the type spread by Sharon’s emissary of iniquity, Dov Weisglass, see the interview with him.3 There is no more contemptible lie than the claim that by means of evacuating parts of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, Israel will strengthen the settlement in Judea and Samaria. The polar opposite is true: Implementation
of the “Road Map” and the establishment of a “Palestinian state” are designed to bring an end to the Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria. This is the first stage in the Arab plot to bring about the destruction of Israel, and these actions of the Israeli Prime Minister support their plot.
If the reader were to claim that what is written here is exaggerated and outrageous, here is a direct quote, definitive evidence straight from the horse’s mouth. This is what Sharon said during his sane period: “Any relinquishing of territory, even partial, is a surefire formula for national suicide”.4
The Fourth Geneva Conference and the Settlement in Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights, the Jordan Valley and Jerusalem Ethnic cleansing of Jews from Judea, Samaria, the Jordan Valley and the Golan Heights, 270,000 people, 80,000 households, a comprehensive industrial and agricultural configuration, will engender an economic crisis, which the state will be unable to bear. The cost of the present transfer is estimated at 1.3 billion dollars. Destruction of the settlement in the remaining sections of Judea and Samaria, the Jordan Valley and the Golan Heights (on the basis of the precedent of the reparations per family in Gaza) will approach a sum equivalent to half of the gross national product of Israel and beyond and that is only the civilian component. Replacing the loss of deterrent military capability will double the total.5 As this country, indeed no country could survive economically when losing its gross national product; the remaining alternative is to evict the settlers from their homes without compensation. As it is difficult to imagine that the IDF or the police will dirty their hands by participating in that crime,6 the task will be assigned to the
“Quartet Army” units. That is the essence of the Arab demand to deploy a European army in the “territories”, in order to ensure the orderly establishment of the “Palestinian state”. The assignment of this army, in coordination with comprehensive Arab terrorism and Israeli indifference7 (until then the Israeli Government will malign the settlement, like the provocation, at Sharon’s command, of the eviction of the residents of Shalhevet...), will be to evict the settlers from their homes at gunpoint. The action will receive the blessing of the international community through characterization of the settlers as “war criminals” based on the Fourth Geneva Convention,8 which states: “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”.
To date, Israel claimed that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to it as:
• The territories are not “occupied” in the sense referred to in the Convention, as Israel fought a defensive war and its right to those territories stems from the right of the attacked, which defeated the aggressor;
• Israel did not occupy the land of a sovereign country, but rather regions overtaken by Jordan in the ‘48 war;
• The Land of Israel in its entirety including both sides of the Jordan River was promised to Israel a commitment ratified by the League of Nations in the British Mandate.
All three of those assertions will henceforth be refuted by the Sharon Government, as deportation by force of a civilian population is tantamount to an admission that the settlement of those territories was undertaken in violation of the Convention, and in far-reaching speculation on the part of the undersigned should reread the statement by Javier Solana, representative of the European Union for foreign policy and security, who explicitly declared that “Although the European Union congratulates the Israeli Government decision to evict the settlers from Gaza and Northern Samaria, it must be clear that the Community sees this as merely a first step towards the evacuation of all of the settlements from the occupied territories”.9
Application of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which establishes that the settlers are war criminals who were settled by an aggressor/occupier in an occupied country, to the settlement in Judea and Samaria, the Jordan Valley, the Golan Heights and Jerusalem, has been on the European Parliament’s agenda for years. To date no resolution has been adopted on the matter, due to the resolute opposition voiced by Israel and its few European Union friends. Although the first stage labeling products manufactured in Judea, Samaria and the Golan, so that they may be expunged from the list of exports to the European Union, was adopted with the blessing of Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the Europeans require
a more dramatic and firm precedent, and that is the entire essence of the present deportation. By deporting them, Sharon is inscribing the mark of Cain on their foreheads and granting legitimacy to those seeking to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention to Israel.
The Military Failure
One of the more severe phenomena taking place in our country since Sharon’s transformation is in the area of Egypt. Egypt, “the most dangerous of Israel’s enemies” in the words of the then Deputy Chief of General Staff Matan Vilnai, is openly preparing for war with Israel, in three areas:
• The Egyptian arms race and its military expenditures far beyond any security needs;
• De-legitimatization of the Jewish state in every possible international forum, from the UN and its institutions to the European Union;
• Dehumanization of the Jew by means of anti-Semitic tools inherited by the Egyptians from the Nazis.
Thus, for example, the anti-Israel pogrom at the conference in Durban. South Africa was prepared two weeks in advance by the Arab League in Cairo. That which Israel refers to as “Palestinian terrorism” is actually a low-intensity war, which Egypt is conducting against Israel. This explains the steady supply of arms and ammunition delivered, for convenience
sake, through subterranean tunnels and referred to by Israel as “smuggling”. The regular meetings between the heads of Egyptian intelligence and Arafat and the heads of the terrorist organizations are for no other purpose than to coordinate the military actions against Israel. It is worth remembering that the act of recalling the Egyptian ambassador is the first stage prior to the severing of diplomatic relations and declaring war.
Beginning with his first day in office, Sharon has been knowingly and systematically been concealing the truth about Egypt from the public. His declarations on the matter to the foreign press are designed to grant legitimacy to every Egyptian act of destruction. This reached its peak in the directive to congratulate Mubarak personally and the Egyptian
Government for their role in the wake of the bombing of the hotel in Taba and the murder of Israeli citizens. The present course of action of withdrawal from Gaza and relinquishing the territory to Egyptian military administration, i.e.: deployment of an Egyptian military force on Israel’s border, is a strategic failure, which can be accurately described as nothing less than “apparent treason”. From now on, even before the establishment of an independent Arab country in the Land of Israel and all the more so after the establishment of the “Palestinian state” any Israeli attempt to stage a retaliatory action in response to an act of terrorism will be deemed an act of war on the part of Israel and will therefore lead to the deployment of the Egyptian Army in Sinai. Already today, the withdrawal from the
Gaza Strip and Northern Samaria will place the power plants in Hadera (14 km) and Ashqelon (8 km), which provide most of the state’s electricity needs, into the range of Qasam and Katyusha rockets.
The Road Map
It is important to remember that the program known as the “road map”, which was designed to establish a “Palestinian state” and restore Israel to the June 4, 1967 borders, was never an American attempt to impose upon Israel a course of action which is, for all intents and purposes, the beginning of the end of the Jewish state and the destruction of the third Temple. More than the (American) calf wanted to nurse, the (Israeli) cow wanted to feed. It was Sharon who undermined the American president and not the opposite. It was Sharon who provided the plan with the seal of approval of the Prime Minister of Israel and swore to implement it. This forum is insufficient to convey the astonishment evoked by the document among friends of Israel in both houses of Congress in Washington. However, in a proper country it is reasonable to assume that the Prime Minister is acting in the best interests of his people, not contrary to those interests. Thus the large, vigorous pro-Israel lobby, ranging from AIPAC and a majority of the members of Congress in both houses to the tens of millions strong Christian community, was completely paralyzed by the government of the Jewish state.
A rank and file member of Congress is willing to confront his president but he certainly will not be more Zionist than an Israeli Prime Minister. It was Yizhak Shamir who absorbed the SCUD missiles during the Gulf War with no response and was hauled as a criminal before the Madrid Conference; it was Rabin in 1995 and Netanyahu in 1997 who torpedoed the transfer of the American embassy to Jerusalem; now it is the turn of the greatest liquidator of all.
The International Aspect
Israel’s status, difficult and problematic since its inception, has dipped to unprecedented depths since the insanity known as the “Oslo Accords”. In their wake, Israel became a doormat trampled by every pariah. The French ambassador to England allowed himself to publicly characterize it as “that shitty little country”; a discussion takes place in the
press raising doubts regarding Israel’s very right to exist and the American struggle against “fundamentalist Islam” is being paid for (as usual) in Israeli currency. Now, the Israeli Prime Minister, who until recently was maligned with every derogatory epithet possible in the western press, against whom in the most literal sense a blood libel was
conducted and whom the International Court in The Hague was implored to place him on trial for wars against humanity he is the man who himself granting legitimacy to the disparagement of his own country and he is cooperating with the most despicable of Israel’s enemies. Suddenly he is informing us that Israel is an occupying country, that terrorism is
rewarded with an Arab country in the heart of western Israel and that an ethnic cleansing should be carried out against his people.
This frantic abandonment of all of Israel’s most fundamental principles, this admission of the failure of Zionism and of national bankruptcy, will cause the flame of anti-Semitism to burn as it never has before. Return to the June 4, 1967 borders will immediately lead to international pressure to implement UN Resolution 194 regarding the return of refugees to their homes, as Sharon has undermined the moral basis for Israel’s opposition. Concomitantly, Arab pressure accompanied at first by the European Union and later by the State Department in Washington in order to “ameliorate the historic injustice caused the Palestinian people by the Israeli occupation during the 1948 naqba (tragedy)”, as Arafat
noted before the UN Secretary-General in their September 1999 meeting.
Why?
To the question “why”, it is apparently only possible to respond using pathological tools inherent to the Jewish soul, and that too is uncertain as Jewish pathology is also an unusual phenomenon in the entirety of the Chosen People’s mental afflictions. It is customary to posit that in times of distress the public chooses the one among them who is head and shoulders above the rest see the cases of Churchill, De-Gaulle and Roosevelt. Why the Jewish people choose specifically its destroyers and demolishers to lead them towards a national holocaust that is a riddle with no solution as is unprecedented in the history of nations. However, Sharon’s case is unusual even relative to the frauds and opportunists, which the Jewish people have chosen to rule over them. The reference is to the aspect of corruption from the “Sycamore Farm mafia” school.
Shimon Peres, to his credit, documented his spiritual transformation from a sane Zionist to the Baron Munchausen of the “New Middle East” in a book bearing that title. Peres’ philosophy, moonstruck and pathetic though it may be, is nevertheless a systematic code in which he communicates his spiritual world to the public. The Israeli Left, which gains
its spiritual strength from self-hatred, historical blindness and adherence to every hater of Israel, also has a systematic code that it presents to the public; see the Beilin syndrome and the Geneva Program. Compared to Sharon, though, Beilin and Peres can expect a place among the 36 righteous men. Sharon changed his stripes overnight with no explanation. The few statements of blather, which he released to a few journalists (interviews on the eve of the Jewish New Year or his speech at the Herzliya Conference), are not even an insult to the intelligence as Sharon never responds to the questions asked anyway. Thus, by means of elimination, there is only one plausible explanation, which MK Zvi Hendel pithily characterized: “The depth of the evacuation equals the depth of the investigation”. Below is the account, which Hendel, who was then Deputy Education Minister, claims to have received from one of the participants.
“The Depth of the Evacuation Equals the Depth of the Investigation”
In late 2003, distressing information reached Dov Weisglas, esq., Sharon’s attorney and chief of staff: The contents of the revised indictment against Dudi Appel in the Greek Island matter. The revised indictment stated that Gilad Sharon had received an astronomical salary for relatively marginal consultancy services in the mega-deal in which the contractor sought to purchase the Greek Island of Petrocolus for the purpose of building one of the largest vacation sites in the world there. In paying that salary to Gilad Sharon, Appel apparently sought to obtain assistance from the Prime Minister himself in consummating the deal.
Weisglas was distraught. He understood perfectly the connotation of “bribery” the legal term for the deal described above. He shared his concerns with the “farm forum”, the Prime Minister’s support group, which would regularly meet on the farm: His sons, Omri and Gilad, Weisglas, public relations consultant Eyal Arad and others.
Weisglas was determined: “If the indictment includes the section about bribery, we are in a lot of trouble. We must take a drastic step to stop this course of action”. The question was what is that “significant step”, which would be able to stop the indictment snowball. “Look, Arik”, Weisglas said, “You have no choice. There are many precedents in the world when a leader of a nation undertakes a significant national enterprise, investigations against him are closed. That is your chance”.
For a moment, a proposal was raised to go to war, however that was immediately rejected. It was clear that the Left would not forgive Sharon, with his problematic past in that area, for going to war. “We need a political initiative”, Weisglas said.
Then Eyal Arad said: “Arik, go for a total evacuation of the Gaza Strip. The Right will support you on that issue because they have already become accustomed to the idea. Everyone hates Gaza and no one will oppose an action of that sort. It will extract you from the legal muddle. It is the easiest step to market to the public. Come on, go for it”.
Sharon disagreed. “Have you gone mad?” he asked those present, “The settlement there is a strategic asset. I truly believe that. It was but a few months ago that I explained that to Mizna”.
The discussion ended with no decision. Time passed, the apparent bribery story gained momentum in the media. The “farm forum” sought a different step, which would be dramatic enough to dissuade the Attorney General from pursuing his plan to indict, but found none. Three weeks later, the “farm forum” reconvened. This time it was the turn of Gilad, Sharon’s
“right-wing” son who was considered to be the smart one in the family, to be the primary speaker. “Father”, he said to him, “We have no choice. Nothing else can save us. We must go for an evacuation of the Gaza Strip”.
This time, the father agreed with his son. Shortly thereafter, on February 2, 2004, Sharon announced his “disengagement plan”. It goes without saying that his action was successful. From that date on, the Greek Island matter disappeared from the public agenda and Sharon became a media darling and a cultural hero of the extreme Left.
*
As there is no other plausible explanation for the phenomenon of a man who in one fell swoop tramples everything in which he believed, which is, not coincidentally, the essence of Zionism there is no avoiding the conclusion that Sharon sold out the Land of Israel for personal gain. Quisling and Petain would be blushing in shame.
Endnotes
1 Drazen Pewtrovic, European Journal of International Law, Sarajevo University Law School, 1994.
2 This is the English version (Legitimate Rights of the Palestinian People) signed by Menahem Begin at Camp David. The Hebrew version “Israeli Arabs”, which is not legally binding, was conceived to mislead the Israeli public. As this is the first case in which Israel signed a document recognizing the “Palestinian People”, Begin’s portrait should
hand next to Arafat’s as the father of the Palestinian state.
3 Ari Shavit, Haaretz, October 6, 2004.
4 Ariel Sharon, The Jerusalem Post, April 4, 1991.
5 Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto, “At What Price the Golan Heights?”, ACPR Policy Paper No. 5.
6 Difficult but not impossible. It is worth remembering that 9 of the 11 gulag commanders under Stalin were Jews and that moral corruption and self-hatred are intrinsic to the soul of the Jewish radical. Thus, “Peace Now” quickly issued a statement that Sharon need not be concerned about refusal to serve when the day arrives and to that purpose
introduced a campaign entitled: “For Every Soldier Who Refuses, I Volunteer”. See the Peace Now website.
7 The cooperation of the Israeli Government with Arab terrorism can be diagnosed these days. In light of the daily mortar bombardment of the Gush Katif settlements the IDF response ranges from total inaction to sporadic retaliation with tank shells. The clear message was internalized by the other side. The shelling of Sderot ceased and it is now totally focused on the Gush Katif settlements.
8 Geneva Convention, Article 49.
9 Javier Solana in an interview with Der Spiegel, October 19, 2004.
Arieh Stav is the editor of Nativ. The reader can find a more comprehensive analysis of the Jewish pathology in his book The Israeli Death Wish, Modan Publishers, 1998 (Hebrew).
