The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement.
Perversely, the disaster of the 2005 Disengagement from Gaza was precipitated by the very man who predicted its failure with stunning precision.
“I am firmly convinced and genuinely believe that this disengagement… will be appreciated by those near and far, reduce animosity, break through boycotts and sieges and advance us along the path of peace with the Palestinians and our other neighbors…—Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, October 25, 2004.
On 12.6.1992, Ariel Sharon, then an opposition Knesset member, penned an article in the Israeli daily, Ma’ariv, headlined “Imperative Not to Flee from Terror”. In it, he elaborated on how Israel had managed to overcome previous waves of terror, and warned of the deadly dangers of retreating in the face of terror attacks:
How to eradicate terror
He wrote: “These experiences prove not only that terror can be eradicated, but also the principle by which this is to be accomplished. It is imperative not to run from terrorism, and it will be smitten only if we control its bases and engage its gangs on their own territory.”
Sharon continued: “And Gaza is the prime example. The populated sections of Gaza had, in 1970, become an area controlled by the terrorist organizations because the then-Defense Minister [Yitzhak Rabin] decided to evacuate the towns, villages, and refugee camps. Fortunately, we returned to the correct policy before the Gaza Strip exploded like a festering abscess, which could have poisoned the entire surroundings.”
He lamented: “But because of mistaken policy – of fleeing from the population centers and refraining from eliminating the danger in its early formative stages – we had to conduct a much more difficult and lengthy campaign”
Presciently he predicted: “If now we once more fall into the same mistake, the price will be much heavier than before – because now the terrorists and the means they have at their disposal are different and more dangerous than before. If we abandon Gaza, it will be taken over by the terror organizations. ”
And of course, it was!
Precise prediction
Ominously, Sharon warned of the consequences and prescribed how they ought to be prevented: “Palestine Square [in Gaza] will become a launching site for rockets aimed at Mohammad V Square in Ashkelon and what will the IDF do then? Will it once again recapture Gaza? Shell and bomb the towns and refugee camps in the Gaza Strip? We all aspire to a political settlement, but we will not reach it by way of surrender but only after crushing terrorism and we can only eliminate terrorism if we control its bases, and fight its gangs there and destroy them.”
Of course, just over a decade later, Sharon completely reversed his attitude toward the abandonment of Gaza, imposing its implementation despite vehement opposition from within his own Likud party and against the [initial] unanimous opposition from the IDF’s general staff.
How then are we to account for the breathtaking U-turn in Sharon’s position on unilateral withdrawal from Gaza—a plan he excoriated, barely two years earlier, when his rival in the 2003 elections, Maj-Gen (res) Amram Mitzna who briefly headed the Labor Party, leading it to, what was then, one of its worst defeats?
No investigation, no evacuation??
A possible and deeply disconcerting explanation emerges from a popular prime-time TV program on then then-Channel 2—today Channel 12—on June 15, 2005 (see also here) Strangely (or is that “suspiciously”?), current Google searches cannot find a trace of any recording of the show.
The program focused on an investigative book, entitled “Boomerang” by two prominent left-leaning journalists, Raviv Drucker and Ofer Shelah (later a Knesset Member for Yair Lapid’s “Yesh Atid” faction), which comprised an appraisal of the Israeli leadership’s decision-making processes leading up to the Disengagement.
The host—a well-known media personality, Nissim Mishal—began enumerating several headlines from the discussion that was to follow. One of the most striking was this: “The [unilateral] evacuation plan was born because Sharon was sure that then-State Prosecutor Edna Arbel would indict him.”
Mishal takes up this point later in the interview, asking Shelach: “To what extent, … did the police investigations, the fear of the investigations, with Edna Arbel in the background, and his fear of being indicted, influence this historic decision regarding the disengagement? ”
Drucker then picks up the story: “The “Ranch Forum” [Sharon’s inner circle] convenes…there is a sense… that there has to be a dramatic diplomatic move that will overshadow everything else, that will change the national agenda.
So they decide to come out with a major diplomatic step – and this [the Disengagement] is the major diplomatic step.”
A “major diplomatic step”: The outcome
The “major diplomatic step” has since precipitated—and traumatized–the coercive displacement of ten thousand loyal and productive Israeli citizens, over a decade-and-half of ongoing bombardment of Israeli civilians within the pre-1967 frontier, the incineration of swathes of agricultural land, and nature reserves, and four major military campaigns…
The grim realities that emerged in the wake of the Disengagement of course do not bear even the remotest resemblance to Sharon’s rosy 2004 prognosis (see introductory excerpt) that promised “to reduce animosity, break through boycotts. and sieges and advance us along the path of peace with the Palestinians…”
