Some are making a distinction between Israeli settlements built with and without government permission. Others see no difference, writes Emad Gad The Israeli political arena is sharply divided over Ariel Sharon's plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and dismantle four settlements in the northern West Bank. In addition, the Israeli withdrawal from major West Bank cities as part of the Sharm El- Sheikh agreement has sparked another debate on the dismantling of what the Israeli government calls illegal settlement outposts -- settlements established without a permit from the Israeli government. The debate over the elimination of settlements in the Gaza Strip and isolated settlements in the West Bank has been prominent in the Israeli media, particularly after some settlers declared their opposition to the evacuation and said they were preparing to resist it after receiving the support of certain rabbis. As the debate raged, some writers attempted to clarify the situation and allocate responsibility for the development and growth of Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories. One of these was David Navon, who wrote "A vague lack of distinction" in Yediot Aharonot on 21 March. "The veterans of Peace Now haven't had this much fun in ages," he wrote. "The official report considered hundreds of [construction] works in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to be illegal, including those established by groups of settlers with the blessing of the Settlers' Council, and those set up with the implicit approval of Israeli prime ministers. The author of the report discussed events since only 1999, but she showed little reservation towards the many who, following her recommendations, hastily declared illegitimate the works of hundreds of senior officials and every prime minister since Golda Meir. There were even some who added several attorney-generals to the list of those who turned a blind eye to illegal construction, including the current head of the High Court of Justice. At first glance, the glad tidings brought by Talia Sasson's report seem to show that the chief justice also lent a hand to circumventing absolute, unconditional law." Navon added, "those who are neither overjoyed nor enraged can notice a vague lack of distinction between those outposts established without the familiar legal procedures but with the consent of all the authorities at the time and between those outposts established in spite of those same authorities. The first group looks like an executive act undertaken with the knowledge of the upper echelons of the political leadership, which was forced to conceal its link to consequences it considered completely legitimate, particularly since in the majority of cases the appearance of illegitimacy was not the result of a clear violation of ethical standards or international law, but a deliberate political decision to not officially condone the act. "In principle, is it illegal for an elected prime minister to give the green light to a certain project while withholding his official approval? Those who believe it is think that every leader should execute all written laws with complete precision. These people believe all these laws and regulations should tie the hands of the leader even when they go against state interests as he sees it. "Clearly, they are worried about the possibility that we may face things seen in certain evil nations. I doubt we can dispel these fears, but other parties believe these fears to be exaggerated. They say it is not a matter of strictly applying the law, but a failure to understand the relationship between the state and the law. A realistic lawyer realises that the politician occasionally approaches dark areas, even in a democratic nation of law. In fact, there are such areas: Israeli governments starting with Ben- Gurion have initiated many actions that were not officially sanctioned and are no less problematic than the establishment of a settlement on a hilltop in the West Bank. "Every Israeli prime minister can be criticised -- from Golda Meir to Sharon -- for a lack of political vision in everything related to the Palestinian territories, but this is a political criticism. If they truly believed they were serving state interests using the 'let's-do-it-and-see-what-happens' method, they did what they should have done as executive leaders. They had only to stop if an ethical infraction or criminal act ensued. When the people -- those who possess the real sovereignty -- grant the authority to govern, they assume the government will attempt to govern according to the interest of the people, even when it is unable to publicly declare responsibility for certain acts or consequences. If there is a dilemma about whether to apply the intent of the sovereign authority or maintain one particular regulation, the first choice should be made -- and there is nothing illegal in this. "Clearly, this is what [Meir] Shamgar and [Aharon] Barak believed when they were the attorney-general. The truth is reflected in the fact that they did not stop the settlement process. But Sasson's report is bellowing, so who is unafraid?" Discussing the polarisation of Israeli society, Ofer Shelah wrote an article in Yediot Aharonot on 20 March entitled "The field is empty". "What can we conclude about the meagre showing in the demonstration organised in Tel Aviv yesterday evening in support of the disengagement plan?" he asked. "Can we conclude that the power of Israeli leftist organisations has waned? That they can no longer drown the streets with exciting numbers of people as they did in the past? Or is it because, as MK Yuli Tamir says, it has become easier for the public to participate in anti-demonstrations rather than pro-ones? Is it because the majority of the public still finds it difficult to believe that there is a real threat to Israeli democracy and the implementation of the disengagement plan, despite the frightening, cautionary statements made by high-level security officials? Is this why the public does not believe that actively expressing their support for the plan will change nothing? "Perhaps these are the reasons. Or perhaps the real reason is this: Despite all the statements proclaiming the plan a historical step, disengagement does not constitute a vision. Ariel Sharon sold his plan as a necessity, but his plans for the day after disengagement are still a mystery. The plan will be implemented because Sharon has recruited the strongest government body in Israel. The majority of the Israeli public supports the plan given the lack of an alternative, particularly after it has been set in motion and after it has garnered the support of the entire world. But the lack of an alternative and the preparation of only a few agencies led only a few people to leave their homes on Saturday night. Most preferred to stay at home and watch domestic games." Discussing relations with the United States, Shelah opines, "In Israel, people deal with the United Nations from the perspective of David Ben-Gurion's pronouncement that the UN is irrelevant. Israel views the world as a survivor state, seeing things through the lens of with us or against us. The answer is clear: The US is with us, and the US is strong. As for the UN, it is, at worst, hostile, and at best unimportant. We treat this international organisation as if it is a debate club lacking any substance; we just need to send representatives who speak English to give rousing speeches. On the other hand, we see the US as the master of our destiny, a savior and messiah. We need to think seriously about these assumptions, particularly at a time when US power seems to have peaked. In the coming years, new power centres will appear to challenge American hegemony, such as China, Russia, India, and Europe. Each will have its own economic and political dictates, and the US will no longer be able to act only according to its own desires. International alliances will no longer be luxuries, but a necessity. Unlimited US support for Israel's actions in recent years should not blind us to the danger of putting all our political eggs in one basket and treating the US as a servant treats his master." To read more about Israeli political debates, please visit the website of Arabs Against Discrimination www.aad-online.org.
