treppenwitz: An open (and sincere) letter to the Israeli Left

« The outing of my inner monologue | Main | No one to blame but myself »

Sunday, April 29, 2007

An open (and sincere) letter to the Israeli Left

It was widely reported last week that PM Olmert's spin doctors were busily preparing various ways to deal with the political fallout from the impending release of the preliminary Winograd report. While it was universally assumed that the report would be extremely critical of Olmert and both his Minister of Defense and Chief of Military Staff, it was not clear what level of damage control would be required.

The only question that remained was how a vulnerable Prime Minister could defend himself and his top brass from such bad news?

The answer came this morning, seemingly perfectly timed to head off the release of the accusatory report, with the Defense Ministry issuing orders to evacuate the house in Hevron that has been at the center of an ongoing controversy since being legally purchased from its previous Palestinian owners.

Olmert & Co. have taken a page from the Ariel Sharon play-book and decided to invite the media and Israel's political left to run cover for them by making a frontal attack on their mutual enemies, the settlers. No matter what your personal views on the legitimacy/legality of the house puchase in Hevron, I personally can't believe that they (the media and the left) would be so stupid as to fall for this sort of political trick a second time.

Ariel Sharon's political career was headed straight for the courtroom, and possibly even a jail cell, before he came up with the admittedly brilliant strategy of using a frontal attack on the settlers as a smoke screen.

Once he began his campaign of vilifying the settlers and distancing himself from his ideological children, the media completely abandoned its coverage of his legal woes and the left-leaning judiciary suddenly decided that it was 'not in the national interest' to pursue charges against Sharon.

Now with their own political lives in the cross-hairs of the Winograd Commission, and dozens of criminal investigations threatening to embroil the PM, it seems that Olmert and Co. have decided that it is once again time to go on the offensive select a high-profile target in the settlement camp.

So why aren't Olmert and Peretz going after the illegal outposts that they promised long ago to dismantle instead of the Hevron house. The reason is simple: The settler leaders have stated publicly several times in the past few months that they are willing to work with the government to remove most of the outposts and absorb those that are populated into the larger settlement blocks.

Without active opposition form the settlers, Olmert and Co. have no political cover and would therefore still be dead in the water. They needed a high profile confrontation where the settlers would dig in their heels and provide a reason to send in the troops. The house in Hevron was the perfect choice.

I have made no secret of my dismay at the tactics and the (seeming) willful amnesia of Israel's political left. But one thing I have never accused them of is stupidity. In fact, I have to grudgingly admit that the left contains some of the best and brightest people that Israel has ever produced. They claim among their members the lion's share of academics and the business leaders. They are the elite of the political establishment, and one can't ignore that they are also the best minds of the Tel Aviv coffee house scene... Israel's vaunted 'street'.

This is what makes the settler position so difficult to defend... even on the occasions when they are completely [no pun intended] in the right.

My only hope is that the left, which prides itself on being on the side of intellectual honesty, political correctness and law & order, is big enough to admit to itself that the current leadership has taken their loyalty too much for granted this time.

Will the left condone criminally negligent action (or inaction) which led to the senseless deaths of so many Israelis in the 2nd Lebanon war and forced a substantial portion of the country to live in bomb shelters without a shred of governmental assistance or protection, just for the sake of an empty jab at some settlers living in a legally purchased house in Hevron?

Will the left look the other way at a Prime Minister's alleged criminal activities for the sake of furthering a meaningless gesture that will not move the country one millimeter closer to their goal of complete withdrawal from the territories?

Will the left vote with their silence in order to preserve the integrity of the Kadima Party instead of rising up to secure the immediate and future safety of the nation through new elections for better leadership (presumably from either Labor or Likud)?

This post is meant as a serious letter and it begs some serious answers. I have emailed a link to this post to some bloggers whose opinions I value and respect (even when I don't share them). Several of them would be fair in stating that my past rants have not exactly left the door open for dialog.

I can only say that I am now leaving the door wide open and ask that they walk through it. You have my solemn word that ANYONE who attempts to impede the fair exchange of views here will be banned from the discussion and their comments deleted. 216

Posted by David Bogner on April 29, 2007 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c581e53ef00e5503ed2388833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference An open (and sincere) letter to the Israeli Left:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"an ongoing controversy since being legally purchased from its previous Palestinian owners."

a) the owner denies selling the house. b) as reported in haaretz, the israeli firm which sold the settlers the house was already under investigation, prior to this sale, for forging titles and selling houses and land they don't own.

while it's feasible that this is being used as political cover, the expulsion of the settlers from the house in hebron has been brewing for over a month, and a huge amount of pressure has come down on the government, not only from the israeli left, but from zionist organizations in the u.s., south africa, the uk, and australia, which together organized a joint petition calling for immediate action on the part of the israeli government to remove the settlers from the house.

i don't know a single leftist in this country who considers himself or herself a supporter of olmert or kadima. rather, they support an end to the occupation and will welcome any and all policies that work towards that end.

tell that to omri.

i think it's fallacious to assume that the disengagement was a mere political distraction to deflect attention from sharon's misconduct. the disengagement was on the table and in progress way before the allegations against sharon came to light. rather, i believe that the withdrawl was calculated to give israel free reign in its unilateralism (by creating the illusion of giving land for peace, and in turn, manufacturing further evidence of palestinian rejectionism).

the handling of the 2nd lebanon war by the current administration is inexcusable on many levels. obviously, the failure of the government to adequately prepare for the invasion, as well as its failure to adequately provide for israel's soldiers in the field, should be the first concern of israel's citizens. furthermore, the defense establishment ought to be held accountable for failing in their strategy to yield the desired results. 120 dead israeli soldiers and 42 dead and 4,200 wounded israeli civilians later, our boys are still captive and hizballah is more powerful than ever. there are absolutely no excuses for this conduct and i agree entirely that the evacuation of the "peace house" in hebron ought not to hinder our attention to this fact.

i don't care whether or not evacuating that house brings us closer to the goal of complete territorial withdrawl. those people have no business occupying that house. it is stolen property and their actions further exacerbate already overwhelming tensions.

i don't think the left is the monolith you potray it as, nor do i think the left necessarily embraces the notion of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." the left is just as diverse a community as any other, and the individuals within that community hold a wide array of views, some which believe it may be better in the long-run to keep bibi out of power, and some of which would be happy to see olmert rot in prison.

Posted by: mobius | Apr 29, 2007 2:08:15 PM

Hi Trep,

I think you ascribe a level of complexity to the thoughts and actions of Olmert and Peretz which they don't actually possess.

I don't think that Olmert thinks he needs to evacuate the Hevron house to stay in power. I believe he thinks that all he has to do is jump up and down like a 4-year old boy in the midst of a temper-tantrum and shout "I'll stay in charge...I'll stay in charge...You can't take this job from me."

I don't think he ever cared about the Winograd Report, and never had any intention of stepping down, no matter how bad its conclusions.

Posted by: dfb1968 | Apr 29, 2007 3:09:19 PM

mobius... I have to admit that while I expected a comment from you, I was hoping it wouldn't be among the first. That being said, I am both pleasantly surprised at some of the valid points you made and frustrated that you spoiled most of them by falling back on flawed logic and bad information:

1. Of course they denied selling the house. The fact that selling property to a Jew is a hanging offense in both the PA controlled areas and in Jordan presents a pretty compelling reason for them to lie about the sale.

2. The fact that the firm that acted as a go-between is/was under investigation is a far cry from the firm having been found to have done anything wrong. I would hope that even you would appreciate that the appearance of wrongdoing is not the same as wrongdoing (at least in a democracy).

3. Yes, the pressure has been ramping up for the past month or so to expel the settlers from the house in Hebron... just about the same amount of time that the pressure has been ramping up on Olmert and Peretz over Winograd. Is there even the possibility of these two time-lines being connected? Also, last time I checked, non-Israelis have no legal or political standing in decisions made here. It's all very nice that you mention all these 'Zionists' abroad who have been clamoring for the ousting of the settlers, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

4. "they [Israeli leftists] support an end to the occupation and will welcome any and all policies that work towards that end". This is very sad to hear from you because it confirms what I have long suspected; that it isn't only the right that subscribes to Machiavelli's 'The end justifies the means' approach to trampling democratic processes.

5. Re: Omri. I think Ariel would have sold out anyone, including his son, to save his own skin. The fact that the direst predictions about Gaza have come true and imperiled us all indicates that Sharon was willing to sell us all out.

6. "i believe that the withdrawal was calculated to give Israel free reign in its unilateralism (by creating the illusion of giving land for peace, and in turn, manufacturing further evidence of Palestinian rejectionism). I don't doubt that this is your position, but despite the fact that it has been proved to be a fatally flawed doctrine (thrice failed), it does not disprove an ulterior motive on Sharon's part.

7. "i agree entirely that the evacuation of the "peace house" in hebron ought not to hinder our attention to this fact." Now we're getting somewhere. SO you agree that IF this planned evacuation were meant to distract from the Winograd report results that it should not be allowed to do so. If so, then can you explain my central question: 'Why this and why now?' The outposts are by all opinions a much more pressing obstacle to diplomatic progress (if one places hopes in that direction). Why not work WITH the settler leadership to clear out most or all of the outposts instead of trying to evacuate a house that will not advance the agenda of the left?

8. "i don't care whether or not evacuating that house brings us closer to the goal of complete territorial withdrawal. those people have no business occupying that house. it is stolen property and their actions further exacerbate already overwhelming tensions." Mobius, this is why I rarely engage you in any discussion. You can't simply cherry pick the issues that resonate with you. There are issues involved here that are intertwined. Withdrawal is important to a large part of the left (although the circumstances and timing are a matter of much disagreement). It's all very well that you don't care, but it is central to my questions. Also, not one person has been able to bring anything close to proof that the sale was not carried out by both parties in good faith. Yes, without Peretz' signature it is not a done deal, but that is a far cry from "Stolen Property". That is a very serious charge and I would caution you not to make such an inflammatory claim if you wish to enjoy my promised protection here from equally unhelpful remarks from others.

9. I agree with you that one of my frequent stumbling blocks is treating the left as a group when there are, in fact, a huge range of opinions over on that side of the political spectrum. However, whenever I try to discuss territorial concession with people who are on the left (including you), they too frequently throw the 'national consensus' in my face as if to imply that the left does speak with one voice on that issue. It can't work both ways.

Narrow your focus and feel free to have another whack at the discussion.

dfp1968... I don't know too many people in or out of power who would agree with your assessment. The people at the top have every reason to fear the Winograd report. They also cannot simply hold on to their jobs by throwing a tantrum as you suggest. While many aspects of Israeli political life are overly simplistic... retaining a grip on power is not one of them.

Posted by: treppenwitz | Apr 29, 2007 3:11:46 PM

regarding points 1 & 2, there is a long-standing history of proven forgery in such cases and while certainly one could be given the benefit of the doubt in such a situation, the settler community of hebron in their continued acts of aggression against their neighbors have invalidated whatever entitlement they may have had to such doubt in their favor.

Yes, the pressure has been ramping up for the past month or so to expel the settlers from the house in Hebron... just about the same amount of time that the pressure has been ramping up on Olmert and Peretz over Winograd. Is there even the possibility of these two time-lines being connected?

certainly, there's a possibility, but following the outrage over "the sharmuta video," it seems more likely that this is a result of greater public dissatisfaction with the actions of the settler community in hebron than the result of a desire to placate the left.

This is very sad to hear from you because it confirms what I have long suspected; that it isn't only the right that subscribes to Machiavelli's 'The end justifies the means' approach to trampling democratic processes.

sorry, but kadima was democratically elected by a majority of the israeli public, which knew full well of kadima's intent to press forward with the disengagement. like it or not, that is a public mandate, yielded by the democratic process.

The fact that the direst predictions about Gaza have come true and imperiled us all indicates that Sharon was willing to sell us all out.

david, do you truly believe that ariel sharon was that sinister and self-interested?

i mean, i believe that ariel sharon supported downright foolish and destructive policies in his day, which have harmed israel in the long run.

but i have never doubted for even a moment that sharon was motivated by anything other than a sincere commitment to the state of israel, even if he misassessed what would be in israel's best interest.

the corruption is an aside, really. everyone in power, generally, dips into the pot one way or another. but i have a very hard time believing that sharon consciously and willingly enacted policies that he knew would be harmful to israel for the sake of covering his own ass. i have too much faith in the innate decency of every jew.

I don't doubt that this is your position, but despite the fact that it has been proved to be a fatally flawed doctrine (thrice failed), it does not disprove an ulterior motive on Sharon's part.

i agree that unilateralism is a flawed and failed approach. any withdrawl from the territories must be accompanies by a negotiated peace settlement that has meaningful repercussions for noncompliance. however, i do not believe that sharon took this approach in order to save his own neck. he took this approach because the situation in the territories is unsustainable. if we're going to hold onto ariel, maale adumim, etc., something needed to happen to justify israel's position on the issue. in that respect, sharon got what it is that i believe he truly wanted: the overwhelming majority of israelis now oppose further concessions.

SO you agree that IF this planned evacuation were meant to distract from the Winograd report results that it should not be allowed to do so.

that it should not be allowed to distract us, not that it shouldn't transpire.

'Why this and why now?'

because the world's eyes are presently transfixed on hebron. just last week, meretz usa launched an initiative called hebron watch just to monitor and report on the activities of the radical settlers in hebron. jewish supporters of israel throughout the world are miffed about their actions. you may think that their opinions don't count, but when they're writing the checks, sitting on the world zionist executive, and leading pro-israel lobbying efforts, you don't want to get them on your bad side.

Why not work WITH the settler leadership to clear out most or all of the outposts instead of trying to evacuate a house that will not advance the agenda of the left?

uh, homesh anyone? the settlers are not interested in evacuating ANY outposts. they're interested in conquering the entire west bank and driving the arabs out, in defiance of both the government and the wider israeli public. there's nothing to negotiate with them. they incite against the government, they're conducting their own "foreign policy agenda" in the territories irrespective of israel's international agreements, and they exploit weaknesses in the defense establishment in order to advance their goals. there's nothing to cooperate on.

There are issues involved here that are intertwined.

no, i'm sorry, but you've merely conjectured that these matters are intertwined. you point to what you view as a pattern of behavior that is now being repeated under these circumstances and have formulated a conspiracy theory to explain this phenomenon. you have accused the israeli government of foul play without any factual evidence to support your contentions.

regardless of the winograd commission report, israel has signed international agreements asserting that it will not only freeze settlement expansion, but that it will dismantle all but the major settlement blocks in the west bank. by allowing the settlers in hebron to act out of turn and to expand their grip over hebron, the state sets a dangerous precedent and creates the impression that it is not in control of its own affairs. again, winograd or no, this cannot be tolerated.

the confirmation as to whether or not the property was stolen is, in that respect, a moot point.

Also, not one person has been able to bring anything close to proof that the sale was not carried out by both parties in good faith.

and not one person has been able to bring anything close to proof that the sale was carried out by both parties in good faith. rather, you have a denial by one party, and a history of forgery by the other. you've accused me of logical missteps, yet here it seems that you are defying logic in defense of those for whom you hold sympathy.

However, whenever I try to discuss territorial concession with people who are on the left (including you), they too frequently throw the 'national consensus' in my face as if to imply that the left does speak with one voice on that issue.

like it or not, the election of kadima was a national referendum in favor of disengagement. there is certainly far less consensus today, but even at the time when the majority supported the disengagement, we each individually supported it for different reasons. saying that the majority supports disengagement doesn't mean that we all have the same reasons for doing so.

Posted by: Mobius | Apr 29, 2007 4:05:39 PM

oh, and as per your remark that "the appearance of wrongdoing is not the same as wrongdoing (at least in a democracy)."

this is, indeed, the case in a democracy. however, in the case of jewish law, the appearance of wrongdoing is equivalent with wrongdoing. and any religious individual or community that claims otherwise is being disingenuous.

Posted by: mobius | Apr 29, 2007 4:10:24 PM

I hate to sidetrack a conversation, but I cannot allow mobius's remark to pass without responding:

in the case of jewish law, the appearance of wrongdoing is equivalent with wrongdoing. and any religious individual or community that claims otherwise is being disingenuous.

point 1: as far as I know, Israeli law is not Jewish law, therefore this is not relevant to the political discussion at hand.

point 2: Call me disingenuous, then, because I do not know of a single place in Jewish law where this statement is true. Jewish law often deals with preventing the appearance of wrongdoing, but that is not at all the same. Now, if you meant that Jewish societies (like many) often leap to conclusions based on appearance of wrongdoing, you have a much stronger point. Considering the sensitivities of the issues under discussion, please let's try to be accurate with our blanket statements.

Now, on to one of Trep's comments (as an intellectually honest centrist, I can't be happy unless I've ticked off both sides of an issue :)):

"they [Israeli leftists] support an end to the occupation and will welcome any and all policies that work towards that end". This is very sad to hear from you because it confirms what I have long suspected; that it isn't only the right that subscribes to Machiavelli's 'The end justifies the means' approach to trampling democratic processes.

Um, no, sorry: what you've described is the democratic process in its messy glory: people choosing policies that most closely match their priorities, even though they don't form exact matches. Leftists might have voted for Kadimah because they felt that withdrawal from Gaza was an overwhelming necessity, even if they otherwise completely disagreed with Sharon.

This doesn't justify illegalities in achieving means, but it's not at all "Machiavellian."

I realize that I've nit-picked side issues in the conversation, but I think that if we're to have substantive discussion (which is to say people making points that can possibly sway others), we need to make sure that we speak accurately.

Thus endeth the finger-wagging: okay, back to your respective corners, no hitting below the belt, etc., etc.

Posted by: efrex | Apr 29, 2007 5:03:49 PM

Hey Trep, Sorry to spoil your party, but see this:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122271

Posted by: yitz | Apr 29, 2007 7:00:42 PM

One might wonder if the reason the Jewish home buyers and Jewish mediators are “under investigation” is initially due to suspected improprieties, or alternatively the charges were created because it is first and foremost politically incorrect for Jews to buy property wherever anyone else is allowed.

Certainly the Arabs involved that were arrested in Jordan and by the PA were arrested because of financial improprieties – the impropriety being that it is forbidden to sell land and homes to Jews.

Posted by: JoeSettler | Apr 29, 2007 7:16:56 PM

Certainly the Arabs involved that were arrested in Jordan and by the PA were arrested because of financial improprieties – the impropriety being that it is forbidden to sell land and homes to Jews.

aw, come on -- you know how it works in the p.a.: execute the accused first, prove the allegation later (if ever).

Posted by: mobius | Apr 29, 2007 7:55:12 PM

Re Olmert & his spin doctors: Anyone remember the movie "Wag the Dog"? Or how Bill Clinton tended to bomb Saddam based on how his (Clinton's) impeachment trial was going? Ecclesiastes: "There is nothing new under the sun."

Posted by: psachya | Apr 29, 2007 8:16:25 PM

aw, come on -- you know how it works in the p.a.: execute the accused first, prove the allegation later (if ever).

Funny you should mention that: "Palestinian laws call for a death sentence for anyone found guilty of selling land to Jews."

Posted by: JoeSettler | Apr 29, 2007 8:47:10 PM

yeah--when i saw that article after it first ran i had some questions about it.

first of all, it doesn't cite a single source for these allegations. there is no mention of p.a. or jordanian authorities issuing statements, there is no arabic language media cited (no newspaper article, no radio report), and this hasn't been reported anywhere else.

all you have there is a quote from an MK who supports the house's occupation.

so--how do we verify these claims? as far as i'm concerned, this could easily be disinformation.

Posted by: mobius | Apr 29, 2007 9:41:35 PM

i just emailed the author asking for sources confirming her allegations. i'll let you know if she writes back.

Posted by: mobius | Apr 29, 2007 9:49:59 PM

er, his/he

Posted by: mobius | Apr 29, 2007 9:50:41 PM

Interesting that just before Olmert's mk Schneller announced that we should give the Arabs some of the triangle, he had insisted that Peace House and Jewish Hebron were fully supported by Kadima.
Olmert's playing games to distract everyone. It's sort of like how Moetzet YESHA lost the battle against Disengagement by campaigning for a referendum, rather than dealing with the actual issue of Eretz Yisrael and Jewish rights.

Posted by: muse | Apr 29, 2007 10:09:14 PM

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar98/mde21.htm

Torture of those accused of “collaboration” with Israel or selling land to Israelis appeared to be systematic. Muhammad Bakr, accused of “collaboration” with Israel and land-dealing, was arrested in June and beaten while hung by the wrists in detention centres in Qalqilya and Nablus. Torture or ill-treatment of criminal detainees appeared to be widespread in Gaza.

Unlawful killings, including possible extrajudicial executions, continued to occur. Three land-dealers were found dead during May after the Minister of Justice, Freih Abu Middein, announced that the Palestinian Authority would begin applying a Jordanian law which provided for the death penalty for those convicted of selling land to Jews. There were fears that statements by the Minister of Justice and the failure to condemn the killings appeared to constitute permission to security services to carry out extrajudicial executions with impunity. In June the Palestinian Authority made a public statement supporting the death sentence for land-dealers but rejecting any killing without trial and conviction. The Palestinian Authority announced that it was setting up a commission to investigate the deaths, but no results had been made public by the end of the year.

Posted by: JoeSettler | Apr 29, 2007 11:52:55 PM

I have been following the Hebron house drama from far away so maybe I have a perspective from “the outside looking in”.

1. It was stated somewhere that there is a video of the $700,000 being counted for the purchase of the house. If this is true, then all else is moot. You pay for something, you own it, period! I don’t see the need to debate if there were forged documents or if the real estate agent is being investigated for other deals. If this is a fair price and if a video exists of money changing hands, all allegations that the settlers are illegally there is meaningless.

2. I read through the last two weeks of “Hebron Watch”. I see a lot of political opinion but no news. The way Mobius describes settlers sounds like drunken bikers with an army to support them. Why is there no actual news items in Hebron Watch? No throwing stones at neighbors, no fist fights, no breaking up loud parties. This is only news because political opinions make it news. To be real news, you need cops to show up to break up some kind of disorderly conduct. I don’t see anything like that in a “watch”., boring watch!

Marty

Posted by: Marty | Apr 30, 2007 12:04:48 AM

Mobius: a) the owner denies selling the house. b) as reported in haaretz, the israeli firm which sold the settlers the house was already under investigation, prior to this sale, for forging titles and selling houses and land they don't own.
...
those people have no business occupying that house. it is stolen property...

JoeSettler: Funny you should mention that: "Palestinian laws call for a death sentence for anyone found guilty of selling land to Jews."

Mobius: so--how do we verify these claims? as far as i'm concerned, this could easily be disinformation.

A few questions for Mobius:

When the media reported the claims of the original owner, along with allegations regarding the real estate firm, you had no qualms about immediately concluding that the contract of sale is a forgery, and that the house "is stolen property". This, in spite of the fact that Haaretz itself drew no such conclusion.

But when Haaretz reported on the arrest by Jordan and the PA of two Palestinians for that same sale, you were suddenly converted into a skeptic. This time, you demand proof before believing what you read.

Perhaps you can explain this surprising change in attitude?

Mobius: "there is no mention of p.a. or jordanian authorities issuing statements"

Indeed, the PA has not issued any statements about it. As Amnesty International has poited out more than once, the PA, as a rule, does not issue any statements regarding the arrests and executions they carry out. (I will leave the reason for this as an exercise for the reader.) So does this mean that you do not believe that any of these arrests or executions have actually occurred?

Mobius: "this hasn't been reported anywhere else."

Oh, really? A search on Google turned up this example in less than 5 seconds:

"A Palestinian man is in custody of Palestinian police in Jericho, and stands accused of selling the property to the settlers. Any such sale has been deemed a capital offense punishable by death by the Palestinian legislative council." This is from the notoriously anti-Israel Christian Science Monitor, in a typical anti-settler article ("Dismay as Israeli settlers take over Hebron home").

Mobius: "i think it's fallacious to assume that the disengagement was a mere political distraction to deflect attention from sharon's misconduct."

The massive, overwhelming evidence that Sharon concocted the Disengagement plan as a means of avoiding corruption indictments was laid out in excruciating detail by Raviv Drucker of Channel 10 and Ofer Shelah of Yediot Aharonot -- both well-respected left-leaning journalists -- in their best-selling book Boomerang: The Failure of Leadership in the Second Intifada (Keter Books, 2005). Have you read it?

Mobius: "the disengagement was on the table and in progress way before the allegations against sharon came to light."

This might be a convincing argument if it happened to be true. As it happens, it is completely false. As anyone who watched the news or read the papers knows, the allegations against Sharon were revealed prior to any talk of the Disengagement plan: The information regarding the criminal investigation of Sharon's illegal $1.5 loan from South African businessman Cyril Kern was leaked by Liora Glatt-Berkovich of the Tel Aviv District Prosecutor's Office to Baruch Kra of Haaretz several weeks prior to the January 2003 elections. After being nabbed as the source of the leak, Glatt-Berkovich freely admitted that she had exposed the investigation in an attempt to influence the outcome of the upcoming elections. For those with short memories, Sharon was running against Labor's Amram Mitzna, whose platform called for a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Sharon, for his part, attacked Mitzna's position viciously, calling it "capitulation to terrorism without receiving anything in return".

Sharon never mentioned a single word about his own Disengagement plan to anybody until more than a year later, when he first spoke of it in a February 2004 interview with Yoel Marcus of Haaretz.

Furthermore, if any reasonable person had doubts that Sharon's Disengagement plan served as a tool to protect him from corruption, they were dispelled by leading Israeli journalist Amnon Abramovich, in his famous keynote speech to a major gathering of Israeli journalists at the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem: Attacking his fellow journalists for running stories on Sharon's corruption, he stated:

"I think that we need to protect Sharon like an etrog -- we need to place him in a cushioned box, and surround him with cotton wool... The person who established the settlement enterprise is Sharon, and if a good spirit has come over him toward the end of his life and he is ready to tear it down, then in my opinion we need to protect him not only from political obstacles, but from legal obstacles too."

Not a single journalist present raised any objections to this.

For Mobius -- or anyone else -- to continue to deny the blatantly obvious is a classic and distressing illustration of cognitive dissonance.

I applaud David's invitation to those on the left to engage in a "fair exchange of views". But that exchange can only be fair if the factual claims made are accurate and truthful.

Posted by: Lurker | Apr 30, 2007 3:22:32 AM

It appears (according to Haaretz, at least) that Olmert is going to be asked to resign by Kadimah, as a consequence of the Winograd report.

I wonder how likely that is, and if that's the case, it doesn't look like his idea with the evacuating the house, however an effective trick in other situations, would actually work.

Posted by: Irina | Apr 30, 2007 7:28:48 AM

I have to seriously reconsider a position I have taken until now.

After Mobius's challenge I took it upon myself to look up the Death Penalty issue in PA controlled areas, but using only Arab and Leftwing sources.

Until now, I knew (and observed) that under Israeli control life was better for the average “Palestinian”.

Once the PA took over, I knew things got worse, but I figured it is their problem – it was their choice.

Now going over Arab and Leftwing source material I find my position to have been too callous.

It is terrifying as to how bad life has gotten for the average Palestinian under PA rule. Summary executions, spurious trials, rape, murder, mayhem, corruption (well, we have corruption too).

What I found most disturbing were the long lists and lists of names of Arabs that were murdered and tortured by their fellow Arabs – whether in the courts or on the streets (or in their own homes) (- including for selling land to Jews).

And not that this started suddenly once Hamas took over, but this started immediately after Oslo began and authority was turned over to the Palestinians - and it was no secret to those in charge and behind the Oslo surrender.

It is beyond sick what they do to us with their suicide bombers and such, but how they destroyed their own society and the fear for own their lives these people live in from their own neighbors and government must be overwhelming.

I knew the Israeli Left hurt the Palestinians when they began the Oslo process by giving them self-rule, but I never realized the extent of evil that occurs to them on a daily level in their lives because we, Israel, are no longer there to protect them from themselves.

Darfur is far away. One can merely look on the other side of the wall and see a situation that demands our immediate intervention and return.

Posted by: JoeSettler | Apr 30, 2007 8:48:40 AM

David-

Thanks for asking me to comment on this post.

I can hardly claim to know or understand the inner workings of any political establishment. So, off the bat, I want to say that you COULD be correct that what's happening now in Hevron etc is designed as a distraction.

But two points I want to bring up are:

1) I'm still amazed at how stubbornly you continue to believe that the disengagement from Gaza was DESIGNED as a political distraction. The disengagement was much MORE likely the culmination of many factors, most especially a)a general zeitgeist in which Israelis were realizing that the small benefits of maintaining the occupation in Gaza were not outweighing the many disadvantages and b) international pressure, especially from the US.

2) Here's another way of interpreting current events: They BENEFIT settlers. If Israel creates a display in which the settlers are shown to be recalcitrant, the government can turn to Europe, the US, etc and say "it's sooooo hard for us to deal with the settlers . . . moving them could start a civil war . . . poor us . . . we know we should stop the settler movement but what can we do? They are so rascally! Better to leave them where they are or we'll have bigger problems."

If Israel always cooperates with the settler movement, and the settlers are shown to be reasonable, then the very legitimate question becomes: Why can't Israel and the settlers work together to slow or stop the movement, to contain settlements within easily defensible locations, or to amicably relocate everyone within the Green Line?

Bottom line: Politics is a dirty business and I don't think we can every really KNOW what is going on behind the scenes. Your specualation is as good as mine.

Posted by: Sarah | Apr 30, 2007 8:51:33 AM

"sorry, but kadima was democratically ellected by a majority of the israeli public"

remind me again what percentage of israelis voted for kadimah

Posted by: ari kinsberg | Apr 30, 2007 10:02:02 AM

When the media reported the claims of the original owner, along with allegations regarding the real estate firm, you had no qualms about immediately concluding that the contract of sale is a forgery, and that the house "is stolen property". This, in spite of the fact that Haaretz itself drew no such conclusion.

I did not take my position based on media reports. I took my position based on the reports of my friends in Shvorim Shtika -- primarily current IDF reservists who formerly served in Hebron -- who currently monitor the activities of settlers in Hebron.

It's not that I don't believe they occurred. It's that I have seen nothing proving that they have occurred. Rather, all I have seen is a report in Haaretz.

"A Palestinian man is in custody of Palestinian police in Jericho, and stands accused of selling the property to the settlers. Any such sale has been deemed a capital offense punishable by death by the Palestinian legislative council." This is from the notoriously anti-Israel Christian Science Monitor, in a typical anti-settler article ("Dismay as Israeli settlers take over Hebron home").

The author of that article is a very close friend of mine (we spent a year on a fellowship program together) and I've just emailed her asking her what her source for that claim was. If it turns out that she got the information from Haaretz, then what?

The massive, overwhelming evidence that Sharon concocted the Disengagement plan as a means of avoiding corruption indictments was laid out in excruciating detail by Raviv Drucker of Channel 10 and Ofer Shelah of Yediot Aharonot -- both well-respected left-leaning journalists -- in their best-selling book Boomerang: The Failure of Leadership in the Second Intifada (Keter Books, 2005). Have you read it?

No, I haven't read it, but I will try to find a copy. Do you know if it has been published in English?

As per your remarks on Sharon, you present a very good case and perhaps you are correct, that Sharon's corruption played a significant role in his decision to proceed with the Disengagement.

I will have to explore the matter further.

You ought not to make sweeping generalizations about Leftists however. I am always the first to concede when I am wrong.

Frankly, it's easier for me to go on despising Sharon than it is for me to defend him.

So fine--he was a corrupt pig who exploited the Israeli public out of his own self-interest.

That doesn't make the occupation any less destructive to Israel. True -- unilateral withdrawl does give the impression of capitulating to terrorism. But ending the occupation doesn't have to be a unilateral move.

Posted by: mobius | Apr 30, 2007 10:32:06 AM

FWIW, once upon a time the PLC (Palestinian Legislative Council) had a website. One of the laws passed - in 1997 or so - and publicized on the website was that selling land to a non-Palestinian was high treason.

I can no longer find that item. I've done digging on the topic and learned that though the law was passed by the PLC it was never ratified by Arafat.

Still it does seem that whether or not the law was fully legislated that it was part of the Palestinian political landscape (let's say de facto not de jure) that selling land to non-Palestinians was punishable by death.

As Joe Settler points out above, there were a series of killings of land dealer in 1998, all of whom were suspected of breaking the Nuremberg type law. As I recall the murders were justified by then PA "Justice" Minister Freih Abu Medein and it was suspected tha Tawfiq Tirawi was behind them.

Posted by: soccerdad | Apr 30, 2007 6:49:39 PM

Lurker: When the media reported the claims of the original owner, along with allegations regarding the real estate firm, you had no qualms about immediately concluding that the contract of sale is a forgery, and that the house "is stolen property". This, in spite of the fact that Haaretz itself drew no such conclusion.

Mobius: I did not take my position based on media reports. I took my position based on the reports of my friends in Shvorim Shtika -- primarily current IDF reservists who formerly served in Hebron -- who currently monitor the activities of settlers in Hebron.

OK. So please tell us what your friends in Shvorim Shtika reported that proved the contract of sale to be a forgery.

Lurker: Indeed, the PA has not issued any statements about it. As Amnesty International has poited out more than once, the PA, as a rule, does not issue any statements regarding the arrests and executions they carry out. (I will leave the reason for this as an exercise for the reader.) So does this mean that you do not believe that any of these arrests or executions have actually occurred?

Mobius: It's not that I don't believe they occurred. It's that I have seen nothing proving that they have occurred. Rather, all I have seen is a report in Haaretz.

And does that make it suspect? We're talking about Haaretz here, not Arutz-7. It's not exactly known for being a right-wing propaganda organ or for supporting the settlers in Hebron.

I'm assuming that you're only questioning Haaretz's report that the land dealers in this specific case were arrested, but not the fact that the PA does, in fact, impose the death penalty upon people who sell land to Jews. After all, the Amnesty International report quoted by JoeSettler mentions an announcement by the former Palestinian Justice Minister that this law would be fully enforced. It also mentions specific cases of land dealers who were executed. Or perhaps you also question the veracity of the AI report? After all, like the Haaretz article, it also "doesn't cite a single source for these allegations". Likewise, "there is no arabic language media cited (no newspaper article, no radio report)".

Lurker: "A Palestinian man is in custody of Palestinian police in Jericho, and stands accused of selling the property to the settlers. Any such sale has been deemed a capital offense punishable by death by the Palestinian legislative council." This is from the notoriously anti-Israel Christian Science Monitor, in a typical anti-settler article ("Dismay as Israeli settlers take over Hebron home").

Mobius: The author of that article is a very close friend of mine (we spent a year on a fellowship program together) and I've just emailed her asking her what her source for that claim was. If it turns out that she got the information from Haaretz, then what?

I don't know, then what? You tell me -- you're the one who's casting doubt on the veracity of the report in Haaretz (and the one in CSM). My question, however, is this: What if the report is verified to your satisfaction (although I'm not sure what that would entail)? Will you then retract your assertion that the house "is stolen property"?

Lurker: The massive, overwhelming evidence that Sharon concocted the Disengagement plan as a means of avoiding corruption indictments was laid out in excruciating detail by Raviv Drucker of Channel 10 and Ofer Shelah of Yediot Aharonot -- both well-respected left-leaning journalists -- in their best-selling book Boomerang: The Failure of Leadership in the Second Intifada (Keter Books, 2005). Have you read it?

Mobius: No, I haven't read it, but I will try to find a copy. Do you know if it has been published in English?

I don't think it has, unfortunately. I have only seen it in Hebrew.

Mobius: As per your remarks on Sharon, you present a very good case and perhaps you are correct, that Sharon's corruption played a significant role in his decision to proceed with the Disengagement.
I will have to explore the matter further.

Then perhaps something worthwhile came out of this discussion after all...

Mobius: You ought not to make sweeping generalizations about Leftists however. I am always the first to concede when I am wrong.

I don't know what I wrote that gave you the impression of "sweeping generalizations about Leftists". My comments were directed at you, and specifically at your comments on this post. And if you concede when you are wrong, then kol hakavod.

Mobius: Frankly, it's easier for me to go on despising Sharon than it is for me to defend him.
So fine--he was a corrupt pig who exploited the Israeli public out of his own self-interest.

How do you like that; we've found something to agree on...

Mobius: That doesn't make the occupation any less destructive to Israel. True -- unilateral withdrawl does give the impression of capitulating to terrorism. But ending the occupation doesn't have to be a unilateral move.

That is true. But to paraphrase you, a decision to empower terrorists by surrendering land to them bilaterally rather than unilaterally, does not make the consequenses of that surrender any less destructive to Israel.

Posted by: Lurker | Apr 30, 2007 8:51:54 PM

OK. So please tell us what your friends in Shvorim Shtika reported that proved the contract of sale to be a forgery.

I was told from the very beginning that the legitimacy of the sale was in doubt. I did not request proof, because as people on the ground almost daily in Hebron, I believe my friends know what they're talking about. Additionally, as someone familiar with the commonality of settlers forging deeds to land they did not legally acquire, I had precedent to accept their claims at face value.

If they were incorrect, I will certainly concede that point and be more careful than to accept their claims at face value in the future.

However, I have to wonder, if it's illegal for a Palestinian to sell an Israeli a house in Palestinian territory, wouldn't that nullify the sale anyway?

Furthermore, the house constitutes an illegal outpost and the sale has to be approved by the Defense Ministry.

Thus, if it turns out that the sale wasn't fraudulent, it would nonetheless be illegal and illegitimate by both Israeli and Palestinian law.

Stolen property or not, it is still an act of defiance against the State of Israel.

And does that make it suspect? We're talking about Haaretz here, not Arutz-7. It's not exactly known for being a right-wing propaganda organ or for supporting the settlers in Hebron.

I don't believe anything I read in the newspaper, whether it's one with a Left-wing bias or a Right-wing one. Furthermore, Haaretz's English-edition is notoriously to the Right of its Hebrew counterpart.

I'm assuming that you're only questioning Haaretz's report that the land dealers in this specific case were arrested, but not the fact that the PA does, in fact, impose the death penalty upon people who sell land to Jews.

You are correct.

What if the report is verified to your satisfaction (although I'm not sure what that would entail)? Will you then retract your assertion that the house "is stolen property"?

Yes, of course. You know, for someone with whom I've never engaged in discussion before, you seem to presume a lot about me. It feels as if you believe that I am disingenuous and would refuse to accept facts simply because denial better suits what you presume to be my agenda. It's rather insulting and frankly degrading.

I don't know what I wrote that gave you the impression of "sweeping generalizations about Leftists".

"For Mobius -- or anyone else -- to continue to deny the blatantly obvious is a classic and distressing illustration of cognitive dissonance."

See the previous response. "It feels as if you believe that I am disingenuous and would refuse to accept facts simply because denial better suits what you presume to be my agenda."

It seemed to me as if this was a statement made against, not only me, but all those with whom a share a political orientation.

I do not view the PA as a terrorist organization, even if the parties comprising that organization each have military wings. Were I to do so, I would also have to view the Israeli government, which came to power through the terrorist acts of the Irgun and Haganah, as a terrorist organization.

And once again, "a negotiated peace settlement that has meaningful repercussions for noncompliance" is hardly a surrender.

Posted by: mobius | Apr 30, 2007 9:46:16 PM

David, I am coming to this debate from the right side of the political map. I absolutely share your disdain at the current government. I do have to agree with mobius, though, re the disengagement. For the record, I (very reluctantly) supported it at the time, but seeing how (understatement alert) poorly it was planned and executed, my reluctance seems more than justified. Still, connecting the disengagement and Sharon's legal problems does not make any sense to me. The real problem I have with Sharon is that it seems that he has been one of the major political figures on whose watch the situation in the North, vis a vis Hizbullah, has been neglected, that being the major reason for the way this last war has turned out, not to mention the actual fact that it had to be fought in the first place. I have long been an admirer of Sharon, which makes my disappointment at such neglect from this ultimate "bithonist" so much stronger. I strongly dislike the current "leadership", especially Peretz, obviously. But I think he was correct when in one of his speeches he alluded to the situation in the North that he "inherited" from his predecessors. (Of course, this does not mean that I will be sorry to see him go, and the same goes for Olmert, although not to the same degree. I dislike him, but that is not reason enogh).

Posted by: Alisa | Apr 30, 2007 10:20:31 PM

Additionally, as someone familiar with the commonality of settlers forging deeds to land they did not legally acquire, I had precedent to accept their claims at face value.

This is a baseless libel. I challenge you to back up this outrageous assertion, and document the alleged cases of precedent.

However, I have to wonder, if it's illegal for a Palestinian to sell an Israeli a house in Palestinian territory, wouldn't that nullify the sale anyway?

Not necessarily. It would only be nullified under the following two conditions:
(1) In addition to prohibiting the sale, Palestinian law would have to declare the it null and void.
(2) The PA would have to be the sovereign power in the area in question.
I don't know about (1), but as regards (2), the PA is most definitely not sovereign. The "Beit HaShalom" is located within H2, which the Hebron Accords designate as being under Israeli authority. (In fact, even if it were H1, the PA would still not be sovereign, since the PA is not recognized as a sovereign power -- not under the Oslo and Hebron Accords, nor under international law.)

Furthermore, the house constitutes an illegal outpost and the sale has to be approved by the Defense Ministry.

This is untrue. An "illegal outpost" is a building or other permanent structure(s) constructed without authorization from the IDF, which is legally the sovereign power in Judea and Samaria. This house, however, was built many years ago, with approval. That means that the building is perfectly legal. No governmental permit is required for a person to purchase a legally zoned property and move into it. What is actually bothering you (and Amir Peretz) is the fact that Jews purchased the property, and are living in it now. What you are saying is that it ought to be illegal for Jews to purchase homes and live in certain places. Such a policy is racist and reprehensible. A similar restriction was a central component of the Nuremburg Laws. If any other country in the world adopted such a policy, you yourself would surely condemn it.

Thus, if it turns out that the sale wasn't fraudulent, it would nonetheless be illegal and illegitimate by both Israeli and Palestinian law.

By Palestinian law, yes. By Israeli law, no -- unless the Knesset were to adopt the racist policy that you are suggesting.

Stolen property or not, it is still an act of defiance against the State of Israel.

Yes, this is true: It is certainly an act of definace against the State of Israel. But it is not illegal.

Surely the "Orthodox Anarchist" should have no problem with that.

I do not view the PA as a terrorist organization, even if the parties comprising that organization each have military wings.

I think your statement speaks for itself. I also find it interesting that you would use the term "military" for an organization whose members do things like blow off the heads of little girls at point-blank range.

But in the final analysis, your preferred terminology is not really significant. What is significant is the fact that you are eager to turn over land, money, and weapons to a group of people who are sworn to our complete and utter annihilation under any and all circumstances, and at any price. That, and the fact that you refuse to recognize that this is what you are doing.

Posted by: Lurker | Apr 30, 2007 11:52:16 PM

I have a couple of questions that I hope somebody on this blog can answer so that I can understand this thing better.

Who do the residents of this house pay taxes to, Israel, Palestine or both?

This Palestinian law, does it specifically say a Palestinian can not sell land to a Jew or does it say a Palestinian can not sell land to any non-Palestinian? Can a third party who is neither Jewish nor Palestinian buy land from a Palestinian and then sell it to a Jew? If this is “technically” legal, would the Palestinian still get his throat cut?

Marty

Posted by: Marty | May 1, 2007 5:15:05 AM

Who do the residents of this house pay taxes to, Israel, Palestine or both?

Israel.

This Palestinian law, does it specifically say a Palestinian can not sell land to a Jew or does it say a Palestinian can not sell land to any non-Palestinian?

It specifically prohibits selling land to a Jew (not any non-Palestinian), but it also prohibits selling to an intermediary who intends to sell it to a Jew.

Can a third party who is neither Jewish nor Palestinian buy land from a Palestinian and then sell it to a Jew? If this is "technically" legal, would the Palestinian still get his throat cut?

In practice, all land purchases by Jews from Palestinians are done with such three-way arrangements. Not surprisingly, in all cases, the Palestinian sellers deny having had any prior knowledge of the intermediary's plans. In general, they either "get their throat cut", as you put it (e.g., the ones mentioned in the AI report), or they flee the country.

Posted by: Lurker | May 1, 2007 10:41:22 AM

Lurker: I don't know if "flee" is always the right word. Some see it as moving to a better location and having the resources to lay a good foundation.

The Jewish buyers in certain cases also assist the seller in acquiring visas to the country of his choice as well as relocating the seller's family too, so their fellow Arabs don't take revenge on them instead.

Posted by: JoeSettler | May 1, 2007 10:13:01 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.