The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy

04-Feb-2006

A Treasonous Regime

Filed under: Oslo/Peace ProcessDisengagement — eidelberg @ 8:08 am Edit This

1. To gauge the views of the public, opinion polls are transient and treacherous. Far more reliable are the results of national elections, since these follow three months of campaigning by diverse parties discussing national issues.

2. The paramount issue of the January 2003 election was “Disengagement,” i.e., withdrawal from Gaza—the policy of the Labor Party. There was no other issue that so engaged the public and the media—a media dominated by the Left, that is, by pro-disengagement propaganda.

3. The parties that campaigned against disengagement won 69 seats (and here I am excluding the 15 seats won by Shinui, which opposed unilateral disengagement). This means that that a large majority of the people rejected disengagement despite the media. In fact, the Labor won only 19 seats, by far the lowest in its history.

4. Nevertheless, Ariel Sharon, whose Likud Party won 38 seats campaigning against disengagement, adopted that policy. He then proceeded to impose it on his cabinet and manipulated 23 Likud MKs to vote that policy into law. However, to withdraw from Gaza and expel its Jewish residents, Sharon needed and obtained the cooperation of the Supreme Court, in particular, Chief Justice Aharon Barak, to declare Gaza (as well as Judea and Samaria) “occupied territory,” a ruling contrary to previous court decisions. We are now prepared to understand the title of this article.

5. In an interview with Ha’aretz (June 5, 2003), Knesset Speaker Ruby Rivlin had the candor to say that Israel is governed by a “gang of law.” This gang, he indicated, is headed by Aharon Barak and Ariel Sharon. As the leaders of a “gang of law,” Barak and Sharon make the law. But they cannot make the law without violating the rule of law if only because the Knesset is the law-making body.

6. Eminent Israelis across the political spectrum have criticized the Barak court for usurping the powers of the Knesset. As for Sharon, his resorting to political bribes and threats to induce the aforementioned 23 Likud MKs to vote for withdrawal from Gaza (and northern Samaria), and his government’s massive arrest and illegal detention of citizens peacefully and lawfully protesting withdrawal, illustrate his contempt for the rule of law,

7. Now, one of the most important laws of the State of Israel is that governing treason, specifically, sections 97, 99 and 100 of the Penal Law. Four kinds of acts are prohibited by this law:

  • acts which “impair the sovereignty” of the State of Israel—section 97(a);
  • acts which “impair the integrity” of the State of Israel—section 97(b);
  • acts under section 99 which give assistance to an “enemy” in war against Israel, which the Law specifically states includes a terrorist organization;
  • acts in section 100 which evince an intention or resolve to commit one of the acts prohibited by sections 97 and 99.

8. Attorney Howard Grief, an expert in Israel constitutional law, has filed petitions to the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement and its implementation—of course in vain, given the left-wing agenda of that body.

9. Nevertheless, at the risk of offending many people, I dare say that not merely Oslo, but the policy of “territory for peace” that led to Oslo, is a policy of treason. Hence, those who have implemented this policy are prima facie guilty of treason! But this is not all.

10. Every party in the Knesset and any faction thereof is tainted by treason as defined by the Penal Law, Oslo would never had seen the light of day had not the Shas Party joined the Labor-Meretz government in July 1992—the government that consummated the Oslo Agreement, In 1994 every party in the Knesset except Moledet voted for the Israel-Jordan peace treaty, which yielded 330 square kilometers of Jewish land to Jordan.

11. Fast forward to the Sharon government’s coalition agreement of March 2003, which affirmed Oslo. By signing that agreement, the National Religious Party and National Union (consisting of the Israel Beiteinu, Moledet, and Tekuma factions), joined the “gang of law” and succumbed to its perfidious policy. So did United Torah Judaism, which salvaged the Sharon government and disengagement in 2004. Has anyone said that “disengagement” is a euphemism for treason?

12. Strident? Then what shall we say of a “democracy” controlled by a party—Kadima—that never competed in an election, a party committed to withdrawal from Judea and Samaria? Is it patriotism that prevents the other parties in the Knesset from boycotting and thereby toppling that government?

13. The truth is that there is not a single party in the Knesset that is not “resigned” to an Arab state on Jewish land, or that has not previously compromised its position on this issue. I deem this equivalent to treason.

14. It follows from these considerations that only “regime change” can save Israel. This is why I have proposed the formation of a “shadow government” and have even formed an organization called “Israel’s Future Government-USA” to provide logistical support for that shadow government. Of course, it remains to activate these organizations.