Against Disengagement E

Slide1 : THE CASE AGAINST DISENGAGEMENT Table of Contents The Test of Disengagement. Lessons of Recent Disengagements – Impact on Israeli and US Interests. Abu Mazen – A New Regime? Disengagement – Undermining or Promoting Peace? Disengagement – Tailwind or Headwind to Terrorism? Disengagement – Bolstering US-Israel Relations? Disengagement – Sparing Israel a Demographic Calamity? Disengagement – Economic Burden or Asset? Gaza – Land of Israel or Occupied Territory? What Would Israel Get in Return for Disengagement?


Slide2 : 1. The Test of Disengagement Architects of the Disengagement from Gaza and Northern Samaria claim positive impact on: Israel’s Security and War on Terrorism; Israel’s Pursuit of Peace; Israel’s Relations with the US and the Rest of the Western World; Israel’s Economy; Israel’s Demography. Would it? The Late President Reagan: “History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.”  


Slide3 : 2. Lessons of Recent Disengagements – Impact on Israeli and US Interests. FACT: Palestinian Terrorism Has Primarily Targeted Pre-1967 Israel. IDF presence in/around Gaza primarily protects areas inside the Green Line. FACT: IDF Re-Engagement in Major Towns in Judea & Samaria (J&S) – During 2004 – Significantly Curtailed Terrorism. Just like a war on crime, controlling the bases of terrorism is the prerequisite to minimizing terrorism. IDF operations inside Gaza, J&S account for 70% of terrorism reduction. Disengagement from hostile population increases smuggling (via Gaza seaport and airport.) and manufacturing of terror hardware, and expands terror maneuverability, incitement, recruitment and training. Disengagement is a setback to intelligence, deterrence, pre-emption and prevention. FACT: Disengagements Have Bred Violence. Each square inch ceded to the Palestinian Authority (PA) since 1994 (85% of the land and 100% of the Gaza Palestinian population; 40% of Judea and Samaria and 95% of the Palestinian population) has become a safe haven for Islamic terrorists, a platform of anti-US and anti-Jewish PA hate-education and produced cadres of homicide bombers. 1,700 Israelis were murdered since the 1993 Oslo Accord, equivalent to 85,000 Americans, or, 28 Twin Towers).


Slide4 : FACT: The 1994 Disengagement Created the Largest Terrorist Base in the World, led/harbored by PLO/PA graduates of terrorist camps in Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Libya and Tunisia. Disengagement has been viewed by terrorists as a retreat, cave-in, surrender, appeasement, cut & run by Israel, the global role model of countering-terrorism, and as a reward for the PLO, the role model of global terrorism. The creation of the PA inspired anti-US terrorism in the Mideast and beyond, and has threatened pro-US Arab regimes, such as Jordan and Kuwait. FACT: Disengagement Ignited Terrorist Takeover of Bethlehem. The 1995 disengagement from Bethlehem and Beit Jallah facilitated a takeover by the Ta`amrah (Bedouin) Fatah terrorists and accelerated the flight of Christians, and turned Jerusalem’s Gilo into a terrorist firing range. Israel was forced to retake these towns. FACT: Disengagement Has Fueled Anti-US Islamic Terrorism. Anti-US Islamic terrorism has been exacerbated since the 1993/4 establishment of the Palestinian Authority of terror, which supported the Saddam and the Taliban regimes, condemned the US, and eventually inspired Palestinian terrorists fighting the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel's retreat from Gaza and Northern Samaria is compared by Islamic terrorists to the US retreat in the face of Beirut (1983) and Somali (1993) terrorism.


Slide5 : FACT: Disengagement Threatens the Fragile Israel-Egypt Peace at US Expense. It would re-engage Israeli and Egyptian security forces, which were disengaged by the 1979 peace treaty. Egypt has nurtured terror and hate-education in Gaza, tolerating/encouraging the smuggling of terror hardware. Its renewed presence in Gaza would be a breeding ground for confrontations with Israel, which could result in bloodshed, undermining US success in its Israel-Egypt policies. FACT: The July 2000 Disengagement from Southern Lebanon (following the loss of 21 soldiers in 17 months!) Has Bolstered Regional Terrorism. It severely injured Israel’s posture of deterrence, constrained Israel’s maneuverability by exposing Haifa and Hadera to Hizbullah missiles, inflamed Palestinian terrorism, propelled Hizbullah from local to regional stature, plagued US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, further undermined Mideast stability. FACT: Disengagement Has Brought Terrorism Closer to Major Cities. The US is concerned that cut & run from Iraq and Afghanistan (7,000 miles from the US) would fuel more anti-US terrorism, eventually arriving in the US. So would another cut & run from the remaining 15% of Gaza and from Northern Samaria (a few minutes from Israel’s major towns). FACT: Disengagement – The Core of the Oslo Process – Ignores the lessons of the last 11 years, repeating, rather than fixing, the dramatic Oslo mistakes. It contradicts the 1948-1992 Israeli state of mind


Slide6 : 3. Abu Mazen – A New Regime? FACT: The US Would Not Legitimize a Top Taliban or Ba`th Leader. PA/PLO terrorism, just like the Taliban and Ba`th terrorism, has not been a personalized problem, but rather a regime problem. The PA/PLO has been a role model of terrorism, inter-Arab treachery, corruption and suppression of human rights. FACT: Abu Mazen Has Been Card #2 of the PA/PLO Regime Since 1993. Abu Mazen was Arafat’s right hand man since the late 1950s, sometimes opposing Arafat tactically, but never strategically. He was a chief architect of PA hate-education, the engineer of co-existence with Hamas, welcome in Damascus, Teheran and in Saddam's Baghdad, known as “Mr. 20%” for his kickbacks, the architect of PLO ties with ruthless communist regimes, handled the financial logistics of the 1972 Munich Olympic Massacre, was trained by the KGB and wrote his Ph.D. on Holocaust Denial at Moscow U. (http://www.acpr.org.il/cloakrm/clk171.html).


Slide7 : 4. Disengagement – Undermining or Promoting Peace? FACT: Deterrence-Driven Mideast Peace. Mideast peace (even among Muslims) has been driven by deterrence, while disengagement (retreat and concessions) undermines deterrence and therefore fuels pressure and violence (e.g. Turkey-Syria 1998). FACT: Disengagement Undermines Negotiation. If the PLO/PA gets territory in return for terrorism, why would the PLO/PA, or any other Arab party, conduct terror-free negotiation with Israel?! FACT: Disengagement Feeds Hope-Driven Terrorism. PLO/PA terrorism has been triggered – since 1993 – not by despair, but rather by unprecedented Israeli concessions and by hope for more concessions: Snatching the PLO out of oblivion, giving the PLO global legitimacy, providing the PLO with territory at the heart of Israel, supplying the PLO with weaponry, tolerating PLO/PA hate-education and ignoring the manufacturing and smuggling of explosives, mortars and missiles.


Slide8 : FACT: Disengagement Dooms Moderate Palestinians and Appeases Arab Rogue Regimes. US concessions to the Taliban and Ba`th regimes would have doomed any prospect for a moderate Afghanistan and Iraq, as would a US cut & run strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Similarly, the Oslo-driven disengagements (concessions) have further weakened moderate Palestinians, by rewarding and appeasing Palestinian terrorists. Disengagements deny Palestinians the hope for a peaceful future. FACT: Existential, Rather Than Territorial, Conflict. Disengagement assumes that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is territorial, thus diverting attention away from the root causes of the conflict, and distancing the area from peace. Recent history and PA hate-education proves that it is not the size – but rather than existence – of Israel, which feeds the conflict. Palestinian terrorism precedes the 1948 establishment of Israel, the 1967 War and the establishment of Jewish communities in Gaza, J & S. The PLO was established in 1964 – before the 1967 War! FACT: Disengagement Ignores the Clash of Civilizations, Deflecting attention away from this root cause of the conflict, benefiting belligerence and dealing a blow to peace prospects. Israel and the US are perceived to be the Little and the Big Satan, hated – by Mideast tyrannies – for their values, and not only for their actions. Israel’s enemies consider it a “Crusader State”, the outpost of Western civilization, which they wish to demolish. Judeo-Christian values, western democracy, free elections, minds and markets and freedom of religion, speech and expression constitute a lethal threat to rogue regimes.


Slide9 : 5. Disengagement – Tailwind or Headwind to Terrorism? FACT: The Missile Threat – Escalating or Declining? The deeper the Disengagement the larger the platform for the production, upgrading and smuggling of weaponry, ammunition, explosives, mortars and missiles of enhanced range and precision. Palestinian missile capabilities have been upgraded to not only reach Jewish communities in Gaza but also Negev towns and Kibbutzim. The Disengagement would enable them to hit Ashqelon’s power station, Ashdod’s port and the fuel depots and desalination plant in the area. FACT: Disengagement – Smugglers’ Dream. In 2002 Israel apprehended the missile and weaponry loaded “Karin-A” boat. Disengagement would facilitate many “Karin-A’s”, would erode Israel’s intelligence and pre-emption capabilities and would improve PA’s Hizbullah-style capabilities. FACT: Countrywide Missile Vulnerability. Rewarding terrorism with Disengagement, would expand the upgraded missile arena into J & S, and put Jerusalem, Ben Gurion Airport, Afula, Hadera (and its major power station), Netanya, Kfar Saba and Ra`anana into missile range


Slide10 : FACT: Disengagement – Palestinian Interpretations. Dahlan: “Disengagement constitutes a key achievement of the Intifada” (Feb. 22, 2004). Muhammad Dief (chief terrorist and Dahlan’s intimate): “Disengagement signifies the beginning of the end of Israel.” (March, 2004). Hamas: “Disengagement will lead to the return of the 1948 refugees, ending the occupation of the whole of Palestine [including Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Galilee and the Negev].” (August 15, 2004). FACT: Prime Minister Sharon: “If we shall cut & run, Gaza will be taken over by terror organizations... Gaza’s squares shall be transformed into launching platforms of Katyushas toward Ashqelon’s squares... The only way to defeat terrorism is by controlling its bases... It is wrong to run away from terrorists.” (Ma`ariv, June 12, 1992). FACT: General Earl Wheeler, Former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff: “Israel’s control of the entire Gaza Strip is a security requirement, which would reduce terrorism potential by 80%. Controlling Gaza would reduce incitement, recruitment, training, operational maneuverability, production and smuggling by terror organizations. Gaza has been a military invasion route since the Pharoanic era.” (June 29, 1967)


Slide11 : FACT: Sharon and Wheeler’s Positions are Doubly Relevant in 2005, Since the world is more violent, the Mideast is more threatening, terrorism is more destructive and the PA has been exposed as a role model of hate-education, terrorism, homicide bombing and systematic non-compliance. FACT: Sparsely Populated Northern Samaria Mountain Ridge Towers over the “soft belly” of Israel (from Haifa to Ashdod) and controls the water aquifer which feeds Israel’s northern valleys. Disengagement from Northern Samaria would transform Afula, Hadera, Netanya, etc. into a missile range, would doom agriculture in the northern (Harod and Beit She`an) valleys, could lead to the dismantling of their Kibbutzim and Moshavim and would require a 3-5 BN Shekel investment in the construction of alternative water resources (plus 1 BN Shekel annual maintenance cost), which would deepen Israel’s dependence on imported energy and expand exposure to security risks.


Slide12 : 6. Disengagement – Bolstering US-Israel Relations? FACT: No Dividends, From the US, For the Disengagement. President Bush has not committed the US to support Israel’s sovereignty beyond the 1967 lines or to oppose the Palestinian “claim of return”, as a result of Disengagement. On Feb. 21, 2005, the President called upon Israel to freeze all (!) settlements. The US is deducting from Israel’s loan guarantees any amount invested in E. Jerusalem, and is pressuring Israel to refrain from uniting Jerusalem and Ma`aleh Adumim (5 miles east of Jerusalem), the largest Israeli settlement. On April 14, 2004, President Bush refused to state that he opposed the Palestinian “claim of return”, proclaiming that Palestinian refugees should return to their own state, “rather than to Israel (!)”. He added that “in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” However, he added: “any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually(!) agreed changes that reflect these realities.” FACT: President Bush’s April 14, 2004 Friendly Statements – No Change in Policy, As clarified by Secretaries Rice (as late as Feb. 6, 2005, Israel TV Ch. 2) and Powell (April 14, 2004).


Slide13 : FACT: Disengagement Generates Further Pressure on Israel. Retreat in the face of pressure tends to increase pressure. Uprooting of Jewish communities voluntarily, by a Jewish government, would intensify international pressure to uproot all Jewish communities beyond the Green Line. Disengagement is interpreted by the world as a first step toward the pre-1967 lines, including Jerusalem. The 1994-6 disengagement from 40% of Judea & Samaria and 85% of Gaza encouraged pressure for more concessions, as was the case with the 1957 and 1979/82 withdrawals from Sinai (almost 3 times as large as Israel). FACT: President Bush's Positive/Ambiguous Statements Do Not Constitute a Precedent, Nor Do They Commit Him or Future Presidents. President Johnson said on June 19, 1967, that an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines “is not a prescription for peace, but for a renewal of hostilities”. President Reagan stated on September 1, 1982: “In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point... I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.” He added, “It is clear to me that peace cannot be achieved by the formation of an independent Palestinian state in [the West Bank and Gaza].” These statements did not commit them and succeeding presidents, and do not prevent them from pressuring Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 lines. FACT: President Bush’s April 14, 2004 Supportive Statements Are Non-Binding. They were not ratified, nor legislated, by Congress. They were passed as a Non-Binding Resolution. It does not bind the US, the current or future President.


Slide14 : FACT: Presidents Are Significantly Limited by the US Constitution. A 2/3 Senate majority is required to ratify an agreement with a foreign country (e.g. Clinton’s 1999 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the International Criminal Court Treaty were rejected by the Senate). Congressional approval is required to legislate an agreement. No presidential financial promise is valid unless legislated by Congress, which is constrained by rigid budget caps. Presidents may bypass the Senate by an Executive Order, which can then be rescinded by a simple congressional majority or by another Executive Order. FACT: US International Commitments are Purposely Constrained, Characterized by ambiguity, lack of specificity and the absence of automatic implementation, in order to preserve the interests of the US, rather than that of a foreign country. FACT: The US – and Not Israel – Will Decide Whether Circumstances Warrant Implementation of US Commitments Issued in Return for Tangible Israeli Concessions (e.g. Disengagement).


Slide15 : FACT: Presidential Statements Are Not Carved in Stone: President Carter annulled the Defense Pact with Taiwan by an Executive Order, and Congress can recall the US observers from Sinai by a simple majority. In 2000, Presidential Candidate Bush committed to relocate the US embassy to Jerusalem. In 2000, President Clinton promised Israel $800MN to induce the disengagement from So. Lebanon. Israel withdrew, Palestinian terrorism escalated, but the committed assistance was not realized. In 1996/8, in return to Israeli disengagements (Hebron and Wye agreements) – President Clinton promised to avoid pressuring Israel for more concessions until the PA complies. The PA persisted in violations and terror, but US pressure was renewed. In 1991, President Bush #41 promised to direct 30% of US bombings to West Iraq, to assure Israeli restraint. Only 3% of the bombing was directed at W. Iraq, no missile launcher was destroyed, and Iraqi missiles hit Israel’s “soft belly”.


Slide16 : In 1981, President Reagan committed to Congress that the F-15s sold to Saudi Arabia would never be stationed in Tabuq, close to Israel. They are now stationed there! In 1975, President Ford sent a letter to PM Rabin, stating that the US “will give great weight to Israel’s position that any peace agreement with Syria must be predicated on Israel remaining on the Golan Heights”. In 1979, (Camp David), President Carter clarified to PM Begin that the letter may have binded Ford, but certainly not the US and not succeeding Presidents. In 1970, President Nixon committed the US to roll back any Egyptian missile deployment toward Sinai to induce Israeli withdrawal. Israel withdrew, missiles were deployed, Israeli complaints were rebuffed by the US and the 1973 War erupted, claiming 2,800 Israeli fatalities (140,000 in US terms). In 1957, President Eisenhower issued an Executive Order in return for Israel’s withdrawal from Sinai, committing the US to fend off militarily an Egyptian violation of the ceasefire. The ceasefire was violated, President Johnson dismissed the 1957 commitment and the 1967 War broke out. US commitment – even – to the defense of NATO countries is constrained by the US Constitution (would it serve US interests?!) and by the term “shall consider” employing military power.


Slide17 : FACT: Disengagement – Not a Top US Priority, In 1974, the US extended to Israel a military grant of $983 MN and a loan of $4.15 BN, to induce an Israeli retreat from Sinai. In 1979, the US provided Israel with $3 BN ($800 MN in grant) as a sign that Israel’s disengagement from Sinai was a top US priority. In 2000, President Clinton promised Israel an $800 M grant, since he deemed the disengagement from So. Lebanon a top US priority. President Bush does not intend to finance Israel’s retreat and uprooting Jewish communities in the face of Palestinian terrorism in Gaza and No. Samaria. FACT: Rescission of Disengagement Would Not Undermine US-Israel Relations. Disengagement strengthens Israel’s critics and weakens Israel’s staunch supporters in the US. It reflects the Baker-Scowcroft Foggy Bottom-CIA worldview, rather than the Cheney-Rumsfeld school of thought. President Bush did not initiate the disengagement idea, has not considered it a top priority, and will not finance it. Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld are concerned that it would constitute tailwind to regional anti-US terrorism. Disengagement contradicts the US war on terrorism: No co-existence with terrorism; traumatic and swift offensive on the enemy’s own ground; military and not political solution to terrorism. Since Oslo 1993, Israel has been transformed from the role model of defiance of pressure and terrorism into a role model of succumbing to pressure and terrorism. FACT: Annulling Disengagement – Consistent with US Democracy. Congress rejects about 35% of presidential initiatives. Unlike dictatorships, the US democracy imposes checks and balances on the power of the Executive.


Slide18 : 7. Disengagement – Sparing Israel a Demographic Calamity? FACT: Disengagement – No Impact on Demography. Israel has not controlled Gaza Palestinians since early 1994. Therefore, the Disengagement would not impact Israel's demography. FACT: Prophets of Demographic Doom are Wrong. A recent demographic study (www.pademographics.com) documents a total Palestinian population in Gaza, J & S of 2.4 MN and not 3.8 MN, as suggested by the PA Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) and by Israel’s Prophets of Doom. Jewish majority has been solid 60% since 1967. FACT: Long Term Demographic Trends Solidifying Jewish Majority. A dramatic decline in natural increase has occurred since 1980 throughout the Third World, Moslem and Arab societies, accompanied by a shift from rural to urban society, by an intensified family planning effort and by a rising age of marriage in Gaza, J & S.


Slide19 : FACT: A Million and a Half Person Gap. While the Prophets of Demographic Doom have accepted the PCBS projections as reality, the study has audited the projections against Palestinian recorded births, deaths and Israel immigration data. According to the study there have been fewer births (558,000 since 1990), a migration error (310,000), a double count of Jerusalem Arabs (210,000), a double count of internal migration (150,000), and inclusion of non-residents (292,000). FACT: PCBS Management of Data. According to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, there were 1.5 MN Palestinians in Gaza, J & S in 1990, and according to the PCBS there were 3.2 MN in 2000 – a 109% rise in 10 years!!! The “explosion in numbers” was manufactured in order to offset the 1 MN Jewish Aliya from the former USSR. FACT: Disengagement – Exacerbating the Demographic Threat. An increasing number of Palestinians have migrated into the Green Line for economic reasons. Disengagement from Gaza, J & S would cause a major flow of Palestinians from the neighboring countries into PA-controlled areas, and from there into the Green Line. Israel has to choose between a controllable demographic (security) problem and an uncontrollable demographic (security) problem. Disengagement minimizes Israel’s control of its demographic (security) destiny.


Slide20 : 8. Disengagement – Economic Burden of Asset? FACT: The US Will Not Finance the Disengagement. President Bush, Congressional leaders, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld (whose budget would be the obvious target) oppose US financing of the Disengagement, especially at a time of growing budget deficit and unpredictable national security expenditures. FACT: Non-Publicized Water Supply Cost. According to Israel’s Water Commissioner (Globes, Sept. 27, 2004) the cost of the Disengagement from No. Samaria’s water aquifer would be 3 BN-5 BN Shekels for alternative water resources, 1 BN Shekels annually for maintenance of these resources, devastation of agriculture in the northern valleys, possible decimation of Kibbutzim and Moshavim, growing dependency on foreign supply of energy and increasing exposure to security risks. Palestinian misuse would contaminate and raise the salinity level of the water resources of Israel's northern valleys. FACT: Cost of the Sinai Disengagement. The cost of the Sinai disengagement was wildly inflated (30 BN Shekels in today’s prices), for 5,000 persons with 5 years of residency, compared with today’s 8,000 persons with 20-30 years of residency. The total cost includes housing, two year relocation pay, compensation, employment, communal and educational infrastructure, roads, communications, electricity, water and sewage and relocation of military installations.


Slide21 : FACT: Terror-Related Cost. The expected intensified missile and terror threat would require more defensive means, more security-guards shifted away from productive sectors, more frequent and costlier large-scale military operations in Gaza and Northern Samaria, mounting threats around Ben Gurion Airport (dominated by the mountains of Samaria), which could drive away tourists and airliners and would escalate reparation to victims of terror. FACT: Disengagement Escalates Military Cost. The 1994 Gaza Palestinian population required the tripling of military resources (including personnel). Military presence inside Gaza bolsters deterrence and intelligence, which warrants reduced deployment cost. The main function of the tripled military presence is to prevent terror against Green Line Israelis! FACT: Disengagement-Driven Economic Hardships. Disengagement costs would significantly increase budget deficit, could abort economic recovery, worsen unemployment, increase taxes, impose government bonds, cut human services and infrastructure expenditures, decrease government subsidies for public transportation and gasoline, and drastically lower real-estate value in Israeli towns within missile range along Gaza and Samaria.


Slide22 : 9. Gaza – Land of Israel or Occupied Territory? FACT: The Kfar Darom community was rebuilt in 1967 on the site which was uprooted by the 1948 Egyptian military invasion, razed by the 1936-39 anti-Jewish pogroms, the home of a major 3rd-4th century Talmudic Jewish community, Kfar Darom. The community was renewed in 1946, in order to avert a British plan to disengage the Negev from the Jewish state. FACT: Gaza and Tiberias replaced Jerusalem during 135-600 AD as a pilgrimage site following Jerusalem’s destruction by Rome. FACT: Gaza's Jewish community was uprooted during the 1929 anti-Jewish riots, which annihilated the Hebron Jewish community. FACT: Gaza's synagogue was destroyed in 1831 by Egypt’s Ibrahim Pasha. It was located at Khart Al-Yahood (the Jewish Quarter). The eerie Shabtai Zvi declared himself a Messiah at the Gaza Synagogue.


Slide23 : FACT: Gaza’s Chief Rabbi, Israel Najarah, composed the famous hymn, “Ya Ribon Olam” in the 17th century. FACT: The Ottoman Empire encouraged Jewish resettlement in Gaza following the 1492 expulsion from Spain. FACT: The known travelers Georgio Gucci (1384), Meshulam of Volera (1481) and Ovadia of Bartenura (1488) documented Gaza’s Jewish community. FACT: The Old Testament refers to Gaza as an integral part of the Land of Israel. Abraham was punished for his disengagement from Grar (today’s Dir Al Balakh, Genesis 21, Joshua 15:63), the tribe of Judah inherited Ashdod, Ashqelon and Gaza (Joshua 15:47, Judges 1:18), King Solomon and King Hezekiah controlled Gaza (Kings A 5:4, Kings B 18:7). Jonathan the Maccabee liberated Gaza in 145 BC, Simon the Maccabee settled Gaza and King Alexander Yanai-Janeus renewed Jewish presence there in 96 BC. FACT: Rarely have nations agreed to trade land for peace. Never have nations agreed to disengage themselves from their Cradle of History in return for peace. Certainly never in return for terror or in return for an agreement with a systematic violator of agreements. Can a nation secure its future by disengaging from its roots?


Slide24 : 10. What Would Israel Get in Return? FACT: Disengagement Feeds Disunity and Inefficiency, Causing a severe political/social trauma, threatening Israel's existence. Cabinet's preoccupation with Disengagement has caused a delay in a large number of vital projects which require Cabinet level decision and involvement.   FACT: Disengagement Denies Israel Critical Control Over Its National Security. Historically, regionally, topographically and geographically, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean could not accommodate two Arab and Jewish states. Israel could either attempt to control the inherent threats of terrorism and demography emanating from Gaza and J & S or to relinquish control. Disengagement leads to less controllable threats, which feed terrorism and undermine security and the pursuit of peace.


Slide25 : FACT: Disengagement – A Bottomless Keg Militarily, Diplomatically and Financially. Disengagement from Gaza would re-engage and stimulate Palestinian terrorism to a more lethal degree, would re-engage and encourage expanded US and European pressure on Israel, and would re-engage and confront Israel with economic hardships. Rather than Land-For-Peace, Disengagement would at best be Land-For-Nothing or Land-For-Recycled Violated Commitments.   FACT: Disengagement Provides a Short Term False Sense of Security, Diverting Policy Away From the Effective Solution: Pre-emption, rather than retaliation; comprehensive, swift and traumatic offensive on the enemy’s ground rather than defense, destruction of political and operational infrastructure of terrorism rather than ceasefire, uprooting – rather than coexistence with the PA regime of terror.   PS: 1.3 MN Arabs within 5.5 MN Jews constitute peaceful co-existence, but 230,000 Jews within 2.4 MN Palestinians constitute an obstacle to peace??? Uprooting Jewish towns promotes peace, but uprooting Arab terrorist towns violates human rights???