Column: Sharansky Quits (from May 6)

Back in December, following the creation of the “unity government” which in Natan Sharansky’s letter of resignation he describes as one “whose
central policy (“disengagement”) - indeed, sole raison d'etre - has become one to which I am so adamantly opposed” – and following the accusations against Pinchas Wallerstein that he was fomenting rebellion for opposing the “disengagement” plan, I wrote an article here in which I effectively pleaded for Natan Sharansky to step up and use his stature in Washington to oppose and stop the plan.

I followed that column up with two other articles on the same subject. I sent my articles to Minister Sharansky and was thanked for my encouragement and belief in him.

The writing of the articles not only coincided with the forming of the “unity government” and the accusations against Pinchas Wallerstein but they also coincided with much excitement about the release of Sharansky’s book, “The Case for Democracy” -- achieving for Sharansky important status as President Bush embraced the book as a blueprint for the WOT.

At the time, while opposing Sharon’s unilateral plan, Sharansky remained in the government and was relatively quiet. Increasingly, with every passing day, Sharansky became in my view the only hope of those that opposed Sharon’s disastarous and cruel plan.

This is what I wrote back then:

“Now Pinchas Wallerstein is being accused of fomenting rebellion. For now the accusations are in the media only but the calls for the attorney general to investigate have been made and the British Mandate Laws are handy and ready to be used. Wallerstein was brave to take a stand and call for civil disobedience but unfortunately the media and the judicial system -- leftist tools -- immediately accuse him of calling for civil war. Interesting how quickly they use the word "war" when speaking about civil disobedience by Jews when they are so reluctant to call the murdering of Jews by Arabs a war -- preferring to call it a "peace process."


I have to stop with this for now. I have to say something positive and I actually do have something positive to say.


History is waiting for Natan Sharansky, an opponent of "disengagement", to step into the fray and vie for leadership of the Jewish State. Pinchas Wallerstein's civil disobedience, once it is labeled by the Israeli and world press as rebellion and made to look like a call to "civil war" may put him in jail, and many others with him, with the ease of the word of a few men in Jerusalem, but it will not pose any serious challenge to Sharon's plan. Their voices will be silenced -- except for the small right wing Jewish media and with some luck, an occasional word of support from American conservative media. What follows the silence will be a demonization of the "settlers" that will so isolate them that all the dangers and madness of the plan itself will become of secondary issue to securing the "rule of law" and the "unity government" and "democracy."


But they can't jail Sharansky. They just can't! And they certainly couldn't silence him if they did. Sharansky is not only respected in the White House he is an important asset for Bush in pushing forward his Wilsonian project of democratizing the Arab world. Sharansky in jail and opposing Sharon would be heard all over the world and Sharon could do nothing about it. Sharansky involved in civil disobedience could not be silenced. He is the leader that needs to step forward now and tell the world the truth about the dangers and antidemocratic injustice of "disengagement." Nobody else can do this and nobody can stop Sharansky from doing it. It is his hour. It's time for him to step up and use his political capital.”



Thank heaven that Natan Sharansky has stepped up. He has brought the case against “disengagement” before the whole world within a day – something that no one else here has been able to achieve since the plan was hatched – and next month he is going to Washington and will likely meet with President Bush, V.P. Cheney, or Secretary of State Rice. There he will make his case against disengagement like no one else possibly can.

Until then there is much for Natan Sharansky to do as he returns to his role as dissident – the role that his mentor, Andrei Sakharov, taught him so well and the role that brought him to Reagan’s White House where he became a hero and source of inspiration.

One of the themes of Natan Sharansky that he stresses in his book is the need that dissedents have for encouragement. Now that he has returned to that role I imagine that your encouragement would be greatly appreciated.

If you email me at barrymfreedman@yahoo.com I will gladly forward your letters to Mr. Sharansky’s offices.

Also, solidarity trips to Gush Katif with Americans for a Safe Israel and Dov Hikind are leaving at the end of May and early June. All the information is available at AFSI. The phone number is 212 828 2424 or contact them at afsi@rcn.com.

Column: Equal Protection???

I was asked the other day if I had seen a statement by Chief Justice of the High Court of Israel, Aharon Barak, to the effect that the “disengagement plan” (expulsion plan) of PM Ariel Sharon was a violation of human rights.

I went looking on the internet to find the statement, my mind racing with the question as to how this could be. I decided as I went along that Barak was simply providing cover for Sharon – giving lip service to the rights of the settlers (that would somehow “balance” the expulsion plan.) That must have been the idea. It couldn’t be that Barak had actually come out in defense of the residents of Jewish Gaza and Northern Samaria.

I found nothing in my search that confirmed the story but I did find something else of great interest which I will get back to in a minute. Frustrated, I inquired of the person that had told me of Barak’s purported statement if he could forward it along to me.

What I received confirmed my disbelief.

The attachment bore a quote from the Chief Justice from a case of some time back. The case is Ahmed Ajuri v. IDF Commander in West Bank. Here is the quote:


"The fundamental premise is that the displacement of a person from his place of residence and his forcible assignment to another place seriously harms his dignity, his liberty and his property. A person's home is not merely a roof over his head, but it is also a means for the physical and social location of a person, his private life and his social relationships... Several basic human rights are harmed as a result of an involuntary displacement of a person from his home and his residence being assigned to another place, even if this assigned residence does not involve him crossing an international border...

In a country where legal precedent holds more weight than political leanings, it would seem that we have here a ruling that should throw a huge obstacle in front of Sharon’s plan and would compel the Court (which never shirks from its activist duty in promoting the “highest values”) to defend the human rights of the settlers -- if only that were the case.


All that being said, let us return to what Aharon Barak actually did say last week – words that Americans might consider of extreme relevance during the heat of battle taking place in the Senate Judicial Hearings.

Among other things that he said – none of them having to do with the human rights of settlers -- Barak predicted that:

"… as in other Western countries, many public issues would find their way to the courtroom. “More and more political issues will take on judicial appearances and look to the court to decide them.” Saying this, he then looked at his new colleagues and said they were well prepared to accept the challenge. “It is our job and our responsibility,” he said, “whether or not we want it.”

More properly, he might have said, “whether or not the people want it.”


Before I finish I should add one more thing; a quote from Justice Robert Bork on the state of Judicial Activism (he calls Israel’s version “Judicial Imperialism”) in the High Court of Chief Justice, Aharon Barak.

"Israel is the supreme example of judicial imperialism securely entrenched. Bork writes: "Imagine, if you can, a supreme court that has gained the power to choose its own members, wrested control of the attorney general from the executive branch, set aside legislation and executive action when there were disagreements about policy, altered the meaning of enacted law, forbidden government action at certain times, ordered government action at other times, and claimed and exercised the authority to override national defense measures. Imagine as well a supreme court that has created a body of constitutional law despite the absence of an actual constitution. . . . Israel’s Supreme Court has done them all."

Of course, what all this means for the Jews of Gush Katif and the Northern Shomron and all those that defend them is that there is no reason to think that there is the slightest chance that any help will come from a High Court which has found them and their supporters guilty of the worst of all things -- being on the wrong side of a “public issue.”

Column: A Closer Look at Administrative Detention

There is news regarding the arrest and incarceration of Neriah Ofan, the 33 year old father of four who is being held in an Ashkelon prison under Administrative Detention without charges or the right to trial.

In a hearing before Justice Pilpel in the District Court in Be’er Sheva, Ofan’s attorney, Naftali Wurtzberger, sought to persuade the court to let him see the secret documents that were the basis of his incarceration.
According to Arutz 7, J.Pilpel originally agreed that Wurtzberger could look at the documents but after General Security Service agents asked for and received a consultation with the judge, he changed his mind. Wurtzberger said that the judge was apparently strongly pressured by the GSS to revoke his decision.

Related to this story, I thought it might be interesting to take a brief look at the text of the British Mandate Law of Administrative Detention and to compare its application in Israel today against citizens engaged in political dissent to the recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush where enemy combatants, both citizens (Hamdi) and even aliens (Rasul) have been given the right to a Habeas Corpus hearing to challenge their imprisonment in a United States Federal Court.

It would appear that today, actual enemy combatants who have actively participated in a war against the United States and have been caught on the battlefield with arms, have more rights in America, a land they have waged war against, than citizens of Israel have in their own country – if they dare participate in civil disobedience and political protest against Sharon’s expulsion plan.

Could this really be the case? I am afraid that it appears so. I think that two factors have made it possible.

The first is the mistaken decisions of the US Supreme Court in Hamdi and Rasul. What the court effectively did was wipe out the right of the Executive to imprison enemy combatants until the cessation of hostilities. In giving enemy combatants, whether alien or civilian (held on foreign soil in Cuba), the right to Habeas Corpus they have as former federal prosecutor,Andrew C. McCarthy said, “ruled in favor of the enemy.” War can simply not be conducted and won when the courts are flooded with Habeas Corpus suits from every captured enemy combatant, the prestige of commanders are seriously compromised, and when enemies enjoy the knowledge that they can fight and if captured possiblly be released only to return and fight again.

The second factor is that the British Mandate Law, I presume, was never designed to be a law to be used against citizens to silence political dissent but was very much a law designed to deal with a situation the occupying forces of England found themselves in that at times resembled very closely an actual war. From the British point of view it made perfect sense to have a law on hand that states that:
“If a Military Commander deems the detention of a person necessary for security reasons he may do so for a period not in excess of 6 months, after which he has the right to extend the detention period for a further six months according to the original order. The detention order can be passed without the presence of the detainee...”

One can understand why the British had such a law given the circumstances and one can understand why Israel does and should use this same law against true enemy combatants – Arab terrorists. What is so difficult to understand is the logic of Hamdi and Rasul and the use of administrative detention in Israel to make political – not military -- arrests. The result, as we see, is the bizarre situation where the likes of Rasul and Hamdi can get a hearing in America to challenge their imprisonement while Neriah Ofan has absolutely no recourse at all.

There is a lot of concern that Ofan’s arrest is only the first of many political arrests that we may see in the months to come. What the government of Israel really seeks to do is to silence legitimate free speech and political protest by calling it a threat to state security. In doing this Israel has turned its own citizens into the equivalent of “enemy combatants” – treating them in the same way with regard to legal review of incarceration as enemy combatants have been traditionally treated in times of war – and actually worse that the US Supreme Court has now decided to handle actual and dangerous enemy combatants who are today bent on the destruction of America.

Both of these situations boggle the mind and both are horribly mistaken -- and both hand the terrorist enemies of Israel and America another unearned victory.

VDH's Private Papers::Suicidal Tendencies in the West

VDH's Private Papers::Suicidal Tendencies in the West:

"Increasingly we Westerners resemble the Eloi of H.G. Wells' The Time Machine, beautiful, gentle, highly civilized hedonists whose fate is to be devoured raw by the brutal Morlocks. We are the beneficiaries of a culture created by those before us who forged European civilization in the fires of resistance to Islamic jihad: in Spain, in Sicily, in Eastern Europe, in Greece � the plunder, rape, slaughter, massacres, sacks, kidnapping, and enslavement perpetrated by the armies of Allah were for centuries fought by those whose names now most Westerners have forgotten or would be embarrassed to claim as their own. Don John, Charles Martel, Leo the Isaurian, Prince Eugene, Montecuccoli, Andrea Doria, El Cid, Sobieski, Charlemagne, Suvorov, Boucicaut,, Hunyadi, Fernando II of Castile, Alfonso I of Aragon, Guiscard, Harold Hardrada-who among us knows anything about the men who fought and killed so that Europe, and Europe's offspring America, today looks like Europe and America instead of looking like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Syria?
Because of the brutal violence of those warriors against jihad, we in the West today enjoy the luxury of cynicism, cheap irony, effete tolerance, and hedonism. We moral dwarves stand on the shoulders of those giants and spit on their heads, thinking our ingratitude is really an intellectual sophistication superior to the primitive superstitions and na�ve ideals that have made our lives of freedom and prosperity possible. Meanwhile jihad by other means � demography, immigration, terrorism, the oil weapon � continues apace, at least until the time when a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon falls into the hands of a modern jihadist and we are returned to the sort of slaughter our ancestors suffered for centuries. May"

Andrew McCarthy on Newsweek and Islam

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/mccarthy/mccarthy200505171307.asp

"Minor indignities? How can you say something so callous about a desecration of the Holy Koran?" I say it as a member of the real world, not the world of prissy affectation. I don't know about you, but I inhabit a place where crucifixes immersed in urine and Madonna replicas composed of feces are occasions for government funding, not murderous uprisings. If someone was moved to kill on their account, we'd be targeting the killer, not the exhibiting museum, not the "artists," and surely not Newsweek.

I inhabit a world in which my government seeks accommodation with Saudi Arabia and China and Egypt, places where the practice of Christianity results in imprisonment...or worse; in which Jews have been driven from almost every country in the Middle East, and in which the goal of destroying their country, Israel, is viewed by much of the globe as legitimate foreign policy; and in which being a Christian, an animist, or the wrong kind of Muslim in Sudan is grounds for genocide — something the vaunted United Nations seems to regard as more of a spectator sport than a cause of action.

A Blind Eye

Arutz Sheva - Israel National News:

"The media kept silent, he added, when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon 'lied' by saying he would accept the results of a Likud referendum on disengagement. 'The media's conspiracy of silence protected Sharon when he fired cabinet ministers who did not support disengagement,' he wrote, noting that the media also ignored the High Court's criticism of the dismissals.

'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, Shafran wrote.

'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?'"

Column: Any Good News?

Looking this week for some good news on the front against the expulsion plan I came up pretty dry. The Jerusalem Post actually said that Natan Sharanksy has now denied that he would lobby against the expulsion – that after a week ago reporting the exact opposite. I haven’t seen that anyone but the Post has carried this latest twist and it looks suspect considering the import of the story.

Also in the news was the story of the first administrative arrest to be used against an anti-expulsion activist. The order to jail Neria Ofan was signed by Defense Minister Sha’ul Mofaz. Ofan will sit for six months in the Ashkelon prison without ever being charged or tried.

According to Arutz 7: “Security services sources have spread numerous leaks to the press, alleging that Ofan was suspected of illegal activity and violence, but both human rights groups and anti-expulsion activists are demanding the government either file charges or admit they are stepping over the boundaries of a democratic society”

Bottom line: Ofan sits in jail without a trial based on a British Mandate Law while citizens of England have been protected from such brutality since -- if my memory serves me correctly -- the early 17th century. More than that, there is no reason to think that there won’t be many more of the same political arrests.

Unfortunately, the world will turn a blind eye; Ofan has been labeled a dangerous extremist by the security forces and the press and once so labeled he has no civil rights. I hope that Natan Sharansky speaks up quickly on this because Israel could quickly sink into what he calls a “fear society” – one where people are afraid to speak their minds – and the hallmark, according to him, of a tyrannical regime, one where citizens dare not say what they think in the town square.

So, where is the good news?

Avner Shimon, Mayor of the Gaza Regional Council made these encouraging comments to Arutz 7:

“The government is showing that it is confused by our strength, bewildered by the growing rate of opposition to the disengagement plan as shown by public polls, and it simply is not sure what to do.”

Avner Shimon’s optimism confirms something Moshe Feiglin said earlier this week:

“I had a very good feeling during this Pesach (Passover),” Feiglin said. “When you are in the Likud and closer to the decision-making circles, you see what’s going on. I am telling you that there are very serious cracks forming in these circles… It is much harder for Sharon and his gang than we think.”

Shimon also made these remarks that might make one hopeful in a saner world:

“By the way, the city of Ashkelon now has a ‘Red Dawn’ missile alert system just like they do in Sderot, and in addition, the government is beginning to implement a plan to reinforce houses in communities that border on Gaza. Apparently the government is expecting something that it doesn’t want to talk about publicly.”

The implication here is that there is recognition by the government that missiles would start landing in Ashkelon soon after the expulsion. One would think that that would translate into a serious rethinking of its plans.

Now I thought I’d tell you about some interesting video I found on the internet to help make the Independence Day celebrations more interesting and educational.

If you search for “Book TV Natan Sharansky” you can watch a one hour interview where Sharansky discusses his book “The Case for Democracy.” I highly recommend it.

Next, if you search for “Ariel Center for Policy Research” and go to their homepage you will find documentary films on the top of the page that bring you into the communities of Gaza and the Northern Shomron, giving the viewer an opportunity to really see and hear what these communities look like, what the people are like, what the issues are and what is at stake.

I learned a lot about the Northern Shomron communities and what the expulsion there would mean. For example one sees that it would created a huge block of terrorist controlled area within 10 miles of the coastal town of Hadera where that the Electric company has it’s largest plant and produces somewhere around 50 percent of Israel’s electricity.

Scrolling down on ACPR’s homepage, there is a great “Flash Presentation (in English) on The Importance of the Judea and Samaria Mountain Ridges.” This is really an excellent presentation and an easy way to learn why Israel must keep the high ground in order to guarantee its security and viability.

Enjoy the celebrations and let’s hope for a lot more good news.

Jackie Mason

Arutz Sheva - Israel National News:

"World-renowned comedian Jackie Mason knows funny when he sees it, and he says there is nothing funny about giving in to Arab terrorism.


Listen to the interview on Israel National Radio"

FrontPage magazine.com :: What Makes Natan Sharansky Tick by Allen Roth

FrontPage magazine.com :: What Makes Natan Sharansky Tick by Allen Roth:

"While no one knows if Sharansky will be successful one more time, we can be certain that he will give Sharon and the government a mighty good fight. After all, Sharansky has developed a relationship with the President of the United States. After a 90 minute meeting with President Bush, the president began promoting Sharansky�s book The Case for Democracy as the intellectual underpinning for the war in Iraq and the campaign to promote democracy around the world. (Just recently, Time magazine, taking his impact on President Bush into consideration, declared Sharansky one of the world�s top 100 most influential people.) "

Will Natan Sharansky Lobby Against the Expulsion?

The Jerusalem Post has changed it's story ...

Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World:

"Since his departure from the government, the press has speculated about Sharansky's future. Sharansky denied a report in The Jerusalem Post that he would lobby against disengagement in Washington ... "

lgf: Suicide Blimp

click here for picture ...
lgf: Suicide Blimp: "Flags and pictures of Palestinian candidates from the extreme Islamic group Hamas fly in the sky during a rally two days before the Palestinian local election at Rafah camp in Gaza Strip."

Column: Sharansky Quits!

Back in December, following the creation of the “unity government” which in Natan Sharansky’s letter of resignation he describes as one “whose
central policy (“disengagement”) - indeed, sole raison d'etre - has become one to which I am so adamantly opposed” – and following the accusations against Pinchas Wallerstein that he was fomenting rebellion for opposing the “disengagement” plan, I wrote an article here in which I effectively pleaded for Natan Sharansky to step up and use his stature in Washington to oppose and stop the plan.

I followed that column up with two other articles on the same subject. I sent my articles to Minister Sharansky and was thanked for my encouragement and belief in him.

The writing of the articles not only coincided with the forming of the “unity government” and the accusations against Pinchas Wallerstein but they also coincided with much excitement about the release of Sharansky’s book, “The Case for Democracy” -- achieving for Sharansky important status as President Bush embraced the book as a blueprint for the WOT.

At the time, while opposing Sharon’s unilateral plan, Sharansky remained in the government and was relatively quiet. Increasingly, with every passing day, Sharansky became in my view the only hope of those that opposed Sharon’s disastarous and cruel plan.

This is what I wrote back then:

“Now Pinchas Wallerstein is being accused of fomenting rebellion. For now the accusations are in the media only but the calls for the attorney general to investigate have been made and the British Mandate Laws are handy and ready to be used. Wallerstein was brave to take a stand and call for civil disobedience but unfortunately the media and the judicial system -- leftist tools -- immediately accuse him of calling for civil war. Interesting how quickly they use the word "war" when speaking about civil disobedience by Jews when they are so reluctant to call the murdering of Jews by Arabs a war -- preferring to call it a "peace process."

I have to stop with this for now. I have to say something positive and I actually do have something positive to say.

History is waiting for Natan Sharansky, an opponent of "disengagement", to step into the fray and vie for leadership of the Jewish State. Pinchas Wallerstein's civil disobedience, once it is labeled by the Israeli and world press as rebellion and made to look like a call to "civil war" may put him in jail, and many others with him, with the ease of the word of a few men in Jerusalem, but it will not pose any serious challenge to Sharon's plan. Their voices will be silenced -- except for the small right wing Jewish media and with some luck, an occasional word of support from American conservative media. What follows the silence will be a demonization of the "settlers" that will so isolate them that all the dangers and madness of the plan itself will become of secondary issue to securing the "rule of law" and the "unity government" and "democracy."

But they can't jail Sharansky. They just can't! And they certainly couldn't silence him if they did. Sharansky is not only respected in the White House he is an important asset for Bush in pushing forward his Wilsonian project of democratizing the Arab world. Sharansky in jail and opposing Sharon would be heard all over the world and Sharon could do nothing about it. Sharansky involved in civil disobedience could not be silenced. He is the leader that needs to step forward now and tell the world the truth about the dangers and antidemocratic injustice of "disengagement." Nobody else can do this and nobody can stop Sharansky from doing it. It is his hour. It's time for him to step up and use his political capital.”

Thank heaven that Natan Sharansky has stepped up. He has brought the case against “disengagement” before the whole world within a day – something that no one else here has been able to achieve since the plan was hatched – and next month he is going to Washington and will likely meet with President Bush, V.P. Cheney, or Secretary of State Rice. There he will make his case against disengagement like no one else possibly can.

Until then there is much for Natan Sharansky to do as he returns to his role as dissident – the role that his mentor, Andrei Sakharov, taught him so well and the role that brought him to Reagan’s White House where he became a hero and source of inspiration.

One of the themes of Natan Sharansky that he stresses in his book is the need that dissedents have for encouragement. Now that he has returned to that role I imagine that your encouragement would be greatly appreciated.

If you email me at barrymfreedman@yahoo.com I will gladly forward your letters to Mr. Sharansky’s offices.

Also, solidarity trips to Gush Katif with Americans for a Safe Israel and Dov Hikind are leaving at the end of May and early June. All the information is available at AFSI. The phone number is 212 828 2424 or contact them at afsi@rcn.com.

Feiglin: Cracks Forming in Sharon's Plan

Arutz Sheva - Israel National News: "The Manhigut leader commended former Minister of Diaspora Affairs Natan Sharansky for quitting the government earlier this week, and praised MK Aryeh Eldad for calling for civil disobedience. Feiglin also explained why he is confident that the "faithful" sector of the public will not only win the battle for Gush Katif, but is poised to lead the nation."

Power Line: Sharansky leaves the Israeli cabinet

Power Line: Sharansky leaves the Israeli cabinet: "But one need not consider the source to recognize the strength of Sharansky's argument with respect to Gaza. It makes intuitive sense that any withdrawal by Israel not undertaken in exchange for something of major value is a win for the Palestinians and a defeat for Israel and, as such, can't help but encourage additional violence by the Palestinians. "

WorldNetDaily: Jewish homes, graves going to Hamas?

WorldNetDaily: Jewish homes, graves going to Hamas?: "We aren't going anywhere,' Anita Tucker, one of the pioneer Jewish farmers in Gaza told WND. 'It says a lot that residents were offered money and we turned it down. Money isn't going to compensate for asking us to leave behind our homes, the produce and vegetation we grow ... our whole lives.' "

MK Prof. Arieh Eldad on CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

Jean Jacques Rousseau, one of the leading philosophers of the 18th century, was among those who laid the foundations for modern democracy. In his book, “The Social Contract,” he warned of the danger in a majority decision on behalf of particularistic interests opposed to the common good. He determined that the decision of the majority in such circumstances is liable to be wrong as well as unjust.



Rousseau referred here to a situation in which the majority decision was reached in a proper way – while realizing that a forceful leader would be capable of imposing his will on the majority, to the point where it will submit to that will. In these circumstances, too, the minority is entitled to oppose the decision. All the more so, then, when we are dealing with a corrupt ruler and with a decision that was adopted by open bribery: for example, through the wholesale appointment of Government Ministers and Deputy Ministers, and through a campaign of dismissals and threats directed at those who refuse to toe the line. In circumstances like these, and when the nation’s ruler does a total turnabout, carries out a policy diametrically opposed to his pre-election commitments and then refuses to put his policy to the test of a public referendum – the minority remains with no choice except civil disobedience.



Remember Gandhi and King?



When, last week, I called for non-violent civil disobedience, my words were greeted with a hysterical chorus of reactions. Some – such as those that charged I was calling for armed rebellion, or was liable to lead to bloodshed – were simply demagoguery. Others testified to a lack of comprehension, or to an astonishing ignorance of the basic rules of democracy. In any event, I would like to clarify my words.



Non-violent civil disobedience means exactly what it says. This is precisely the kind of passive protest practiced by Mahatma Gandhi in India and Martin Luther King in the USA. They deliberately violated duly legislated laws of the land that were immoral or racist. And they earned undying respect for their civil disobedience.



The laws of “disengagement” are racist laws directed against 8,000 Jews. Moreover, they are flagrantly immoral, in that they violate the fundamental rights of those to be expelled from their homes. Hence there is a supreme moral imperative to break these laws in a non-violent fashion, and in readiness to pay a personal price – like going to jail, for example.



Non-violent civil disobedience can take many different forms: refusal to take part in the execution of the decrees and orders connected with the expulsion; blocking roads and highways; shutting down seaports and airports through massive sit-down strikes; organized time-offs from work by all opponents of the disengagement plan, in order to disrupt the operations of the government agencies dealing with its implementation; drawing police and military forces to places all over the country to deal with demonstrations and other protest actions, thus preventing them from taking part in the expulsion of the villagers in Gush Katif and Samaria – and this is just a partial list. To which I might add: If it’s okay for our labor federation, the Histadrut, to “shut down the country” because of the dismissal of a few hundred workers, it surely is a moral obligation to do so because of the expulsion of thousands from their homes and the destruction of everything they had built up over the years and decades.



A Badge of Honor



How would the authorities respond to such violations of the law? Well, they can arrest the lawbreakers and imprison them, possibly for extended periods of time. It stands to reason that, if the number of people arrested and jailed comes to a few dozen, these people will suffer the stigma of a criminal record, and being deprived of their freedom will constitute a significant punishment. If, however, thousands – perhaps tens of thousands – will have to be detained, the sting will in effect be removed, and their incarceration for the sake of the Land of Israel and the People of Israel will actually be a badge of honor.



What will the State do with thousands of students imprisoned with their teachers, and continuing with an intensive program of studies? Will the State fully cover the cost of their education and of the accommodation and upkeep of these students? And what will the State do with the thousands of soldiers who are going to do what Ariel Sharon has counseled them to do, and will go and tell their commanding officers that they are incapable of driving their brothers and sisters from their homes? How many prison camps will the State be prepared to set up in order to impose the ”tyranny of the majority” – which actually is nothing more than the tyranny of a handful of politicians who stole the votes of those who had elected them?



Non-violent civil disobedience is a moral and democratic tool of the highest order. Blind and indiscriminate obedience to every law, even when it has passed all the tests of legal legitimacy, has at times in the past thrown peoples and regimes into the darkest periods known in history. In the absence of a public referendum, the refusal to carry out racist and immoral laws, and the disruption of the implementation of these laws in non-violent ways, remains today our country’s last refuge in saving itself – from itself.





May 2, 2005 (Translation from the Hebrew by Moshe Aumann)

Hundreds of American Jews Coming to Jewish Gaza Next Month

Arutz Sheva - Israel National News: "The organizer of the trip, Brooklyn assemblyman Dov Hikind, says he decided to put together the visit when he returned from his last visit to the threatened Jewish towns of Gaza, in which dozens of professionals and two New York State judges participated. "My office was inundated with calls from Americans who want to be there for 8,500 people who have done nothing wrong and are being threatened with expulsion," Hikind said."

FrontPage magazine.com :: Palestinians Send Birthday Wishes to Saddam by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

FrontPage magazine.com :: Palestinians Send Birthday Wishes to Saddam by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook: "As PMW has reported numerous times, Saddam Hussein is seen as a hero by the PA leadership and population"

Joel C. Rosenberg on Natan Sharansky on National Review Online

Joel C. Rosenberg on Natan Sharansky on National Review Online: "Israeli cabinet minister Natan Sharansky � the New York Times best-selling author of The Case for Democracy and a member of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's inner circle � told close associates last week that he could no longer serve a government that would unilaterally turn over Gaza and large portions of the West Bank to Israel's sworn enemies without getting anything tangible much less valuable in return, and without insisting upon democratic reform within Palestinian society. Sharansky is also deeply disappointed by Sharon's refusal to allow a national referendum on the withdrawal plan before its implementation, now intended for sometime in July or August. "

My December Plea for Sharansky to Step Up

galileeblog: Column: Checkmate?: "But they can't jail Sharansky. They just can't! And they certainly couldn't silence him if they did. Sharansky is not only respected in the White House he is an important asset for Bush in pushing forward his Wilsonian project of democratizing the Arab world. Sharansky in jail and opposing Sharon would be heard all over the world and Sharon could do nothing about it. Sharansky involved in civil disobedience could not be silenced. He is the leader that needs to step forward now and tell the world the truth about the dangers and antidemocratic injustice of 'disengagement.' Nobody else can do this and nobody can stop Sharansky from doing it. It is his hour. It's time for him to step up and use his political capital. "

Sharansky Quits and I am Happy -- Repost of My January Column

galileeblog: Column: Inaugural, Bush Doctrine, and Sharansky