As a result, you may not be able to understand what is really going on. You may agree or disagree, but your concepts are directly related to the issues presented on the television. You have lost your ability to think out of the (television) box.

This article represents a view of what happened in Gush Katif in 2005, from the point of view of an individual who was not subjected to any media beyond the Internet. Yes, the Internet is also influential, but in a less powerful way.

It shows that the many things that fell into place simultaneously were controlled by Sharon, but that they were orchestrated by a more powerful and omniscient Force.

Executive summary:

The Prime Minister was very much in control of the nation throughout the episode. He was also in control of the demonstrations!

Prime Minister Sharon knew that the Disengagement did not have the support of the Right. He knew that they would demonstrate their disapproval. He therefore had to give them a way to let off steam in a controlled manner � while giving the un-thinking masses the impression that he disapproved.

The Arabs and American President Bush had been placing intense pressure on Sharon. If the Disengagement went ahead smoothly, then they planned to say that Sharon did not offer enough. For this reason, Sharon needed fighting and demonstrations. He had to show the Arabs and Bush that the nation was making a great sacrifice by leaving Gaza.

Sharon did his part. He made some tough speeches that were supposedly addressed to the Israeli nation. They were really directed at Abu Mazen and Bush.

He then used his power to gain the support of two governmental agencies - the Yesha Council and the Rabbinate.

Sharon asked the Yesha council to organize large, noisy, and powerful protests. He played a cat-and-mouse game by obstructing those protests. He tried to achieve two goals with his interference:

• To show that he was supposedly against the demonstrations
• To arouse the ire of the people, in order to encourage them to demonstrate in a stronger manner

Let�s look into the background of the disengagement:

The disengagement from Gush Katif was a complex event that went all too smoothly. We will look at the technical issues, dealing with the human issues only as they apply to the main thesis.

According to plan, the Yesha council organized the people during the initial stages, while the Rabbis remained quiet. After the impending result was quite inevitable, Sharon asked the Rabbinate to step in. Their job was to ask the demonstrators not to resort to violence.

The Rabbis did as instructed. They showed their support for many of the demonstrations, with the subsequent proviso that Jews refrain from violence.

The demonstrators may or may not have thought of violence before, but Sharon was using reverse psychology. Since the demonstrators were asked to avoid violence, he expected some hot-headed participants to do the opposite. It didn�t work. Sharon was disappointed by the lack of violence, because he had less to show the Americans and the Arabs. For the same reason, Sharon was also disappointed by the fact that most people left the settlements peacefully.

The Rabbis also urged soldiers to disobey orders. Again, this did not have as strong an impact as they would have wanted. In this case, the government�s much-publicized strong-arm policy discouraged some soldiers. This is the only case in which the planning failed.

The Rabbis also showed that they expected the Jews in Gaza to be brave and to stay until the last minute. They wanted the timing of the local protests in Gush Katif to have the right impact.

The local rabbis of each Gush Katif settlement had a personal interest in assuring that the settlers stayed until the last possible moment. That rabbinate was their job. They had to stay until the last minute or they would be unemployed � and their abandonment of the settlement would reduce their chance of getting a respectable job in any other location. Thus, they had a personal interest in convincing everybody to stay until they were removed.

Sharon did not have control over the independent and Charedi (ultra-Orthodox) Rabbinates, since they are not governmental agencies. Those Rabbis postponed their weak statements until after their followers asked for guidance and direction. Some Yeshivot made statements that bochrim � their students � who went to demonstrations would not be allowed to return to the Yeshiva. Those Yeshivot clearly rejected the governmental Rabbinate, and implicitly rejected the weak statements made by the other Rabbis.

The Israeli Rabbinate did not take an independent stand. They became followers of the umbrella organization for activities in Jewish Gaza and the West Bank � the Yesha Council. Although some Rabbis agreed with the activities of the Yesha Council, and others disagreed, they all made decisions and activities relative to the Council. Some Rabbis who supported the Council attended and even headed that body�s protests. Why?

Like Sharon, the Rabbis realized that the frustrated masses had to be offered a way to let off steam. They also realized that they could not prevent people from protesting. Since there was no way to avoid the demonstrations, they chose to become involved in them.

The Rabbis also had a much greater and more pragmatic reason for being involved in the demonstrations.

For many years, the National Religious Rabbis who followed the teachings of Rabbi Kook, from more than a century before, had been preaching the importance of settling all of the Biblical Land of Israel, including Gaza. They correctly pointed out that G-d promised the Land of Israel to the Jews. Devout followers of these Rabbis were willing to give up their lives for this supreme objective.

The Rabbis who had taught and raised their faithful to go to Gush Katif could not reverse their teachings. It would have been impossible to preach the necessity of settling Yesha one day, to be followed by submission to the surrender plan the following day.

The Rabbis feared an immense potential fallout that could have destroyed their influence. With their limited power at stake, the Rabbis wanted to assure that their flock would follow their directives in the future. If their followers would say that the Rabbis cried wolf before the disengagement, they would not know whether to believe them in the future.

The Rabbis had to face reality. How, indeed, were they to deal with the inevitable abandonment of a treasured part of the Land of Israel?

They decided to establish their priorities. Yes, Gush Katif would be given away. Nothing could be done to prevent Sharon�s plan. They then re-ordered their priorities so that they could control and limit the damage.

The Rabbinate�s new goal was to save the Rabbinate itself, as a respected institution.

They did not state or publicize this goal in any written media. However, a study of the events leading up to the expulsion shows that the Rabbinate had a clear and unified goal for survival.

Their modus vivendi was to deflect the frustration and anger of the masses. Their constituents needed to vent their feelings in a way that pointed a finger at others. In order to do this, the Rabbis had to show that they took the necessary action when it was needed.

Therefore, the Rabbis instructed their followers to join those futile demonstrations � under their own leadership. This was important, since the Rabbis wanted to guarantee that the publicity and speeches would be directed at others. They pointed fingers at the Arabs, at Sharon, at the Americans � in short, at anybody except themselves.

And, yes, the Israeli masses did indeed protest. They let out their frustration with their feet, their bracelets, their e-mails, and their throats. They instigated secondary protests around the world. Everything fell into place. For different reasons, Sharon�s goals coincided with those of the Rabbinate and of the Yesha Council.

The masses were watching TV for their information. They were not thinking. They followed their leadership. They believed that Sharon and the other politicians were to blame for the surrender of Gush Katif.

That is precisely what the Rabbis and the other leaders wanted.

Yes, there were also prayers. After all, the Rabbis did not organize most of the demonstrations, but they led many of them. Those prayers were another assurance that the finger would be pointed Elsewhere.

When all was said and done, and Gush Katif was given away over the protest of a significant part of world Jewry, the Rabbis breathed a strong sigh of relief. They had not been blamed for the damage. When interviewed on the mass media, those Rabbis condemned the action. Privately, and among themselves, they realized that it could have been much worse.

The Gaza expulsion has other aspects as well.

Sharon left Gaza because of pressure from Abu Mazen and Bush. Nobody knows the exact details, but nobody will deny that Sharon acted under threats from others. How could outsiders cause Sharon to give up his precious Gush Katif?

People, and even heads of state, can be forced to change their outlook. Let's create an imaginary and hypothetical scenario:

Bush told Sharon, "Look, I discovered a battery of enormous missiles that are pointed at Israel. My soldiers can destroy those missiles, but many of them will die in the process. It will make me less popular back home. However, it will prevent the deaths of a greater number of Israelis. My decision is very difficult, because it could turn world opinion against me. As it is, many Americans are against me in this war.

�I�m willing to destroy those missiles, but you have to do your part, so that I will look like a hero. You have to return the favor."

Sharon asked, "What do you have in mind?"

Bush replied, "Abandon some of your settlements. Make it look like I negotiated the surrender. Make me look like a hero in the world, and especially in the Middle East. I suggest that you get out of Gaza and out of some settlements in northern Samaria."

Sharon asked, "And what if I don't do that?"

Bush replied, "If you don�t abandon those settlements, I'll pull out of Iraq. That will enhance my own image at home and abroad. However, it means that those bombs will be used against a large part of the Israeli population.

�Remember � if you agree to my offer of destroying the Iraqi missiles, then you must remain silent. Nobody is to know about this deal. You must not let the Americans know that American boys died in order to save Israel."

Sharon thought about Bush�s offer briefly. Was it a bluff? There was no way for him to know. After a few moments, he said, "Okay, I have no choice. I�ll keep it a secret. I will get the people out of Northern Samaria and out of the Gaza strip. Consider it a done deal."

Sharon went home and tried to package the new agreement with the Israelis. He correctly presented his famous maxim, �what you see from there you don�t see from here.� There was little more that he could say. After all, he was bound to secrecy.

Bush�s deal about leaving Gaza could not have come at a better time for Sharon. It was sure to solve his personal problems. Sharon could sleep well at night, because he felt that he had prevented Israel from being bombed by the Iraqis. He believed that he made the greatest sacrifice of all. He had sacrificed his political future for a greater goal.

More things were falling into place at the same time. Sharon and his son Omri were about to face legal action for monetary corruption on a Greek island. Sharon wanted to avoid prosecution. He had to do something powerful, so that the people would not think about his own corruption. He would have to pacify the leftist courts by throwing the judges a bone � thus tempting them to approve of Sharon�s actions. He was buying time, since those same judges could wait until after the disengagement and then prosecute him.

Granted, the withdrawal would open neighboring Israeli regions to greater attacks from the Gazan population. However, Sharon reasoned that the Gaza attacks would be relatively light, compared to the threat from Iraq. He rationalized the situation, by noting that many Kassam rockets had landed in Israel, while causing little damage to life and property. The advanced Iraqi missiles, on the other hand, could wipe out entire cities.

Sharon planned the withdrawal from Gaza and northern Samaria. He dragged it out as much as he could. These delaying tactics are a time-honored Jewish practice. Aaron acted in a similar way, by postponing the creation of the golden calf. Perhaps Sharon, too, was expecting a miracle so that he would not have to carry out his deed.

During this delay, Sharon did not make plans for dealing with the withdrawal. He did not create arrangements for those who were removed from their homes. The new refugees appeared on worldwide media, showing the Americans and Arabs how the Israelis were making great sacrifices. It was part of Sharon�s game plan. Now he could show the world that Israel, too, had a refugee problem. We are now on a level equal to that of the Arabs, who mistreat their own people in order to gain world sympathy. Perhaps some people abroad would even shed a tear. It works for the Arabs.

Sharon even had a way of packaging his actions to the academic world. He told them that he solved a significant demographic problem.

Israel in mid-2005 had three million Arabs and six million Jews. The Arab birthrate was greater than that of the Jews. In time, the Arabs would be a majority in the Jewish state. Sharon showed the academic world that he was changing Israeli�s demography by placing 1.3 million Gazan Arabs in a different country, Palestine. He changed Israel�s demography. There were now only 1.7 million Arabs in Israel.

Of course, any thinking person realizes that those Arabs still live just as close to Israel as before. He also realizes that the real demographic problem must consider the numbers of the Arabs in neighboring countries � in which case cold, demographic facts show that Israel�s case is hopeless. It also shows that Israel has only one Source for hope.

Thus, demographics aside, the numbers game is still the same as in the past. However, demographers, statisticians, and other academics usually prefer deal with dry facts, and they leave the thinking to the politicians and the philosophers. Oy.

The inevitable occured

The inevitable did occur. The Jews were about to be forced out of their homes.

Sharon now had to orchestrate all of his resources in order to make the project a success.

He didn�t know much about leading a nation, but he was a military strategist of the first order. He applied this skill to his political plan.

His solution required the involvement of the governmental institutions that were under his control � the Ministry of Communications, the Rabbinate, the Yesha Council, the police, and the army. He wanted all of them to protest his actions, so that the Arabs, Bush, and the rest of the world would see the magnitude of his actions.

Those governmental bodies were happy to oblige.

The Ministry of Communications never favored Jewish settlements over the Green Line. They were happy to portray issues in a manner that was unfavorable to Gush Katif.

The Rabbinate was not the only body that was glad to divert the attention from themselves. They were happy to be told what needs to be done.

Sharon helped the Rabbinate package its own job by urging them to organize prayers. He correctly felt that those prayers would be a reasonable activity for a Rabbinate.

Yesha Council was happy to organize demonstrations. They had been waiting for instructions, and they hadn�t done anything about the expulsion. They were thrilled to have a job. They finally felt that they were doing something worthwhile.

That�s right, the Yesha Council was waiting for the government to tell them to protest.

The nation accepted their actions. After all, protests against the expulsion are a natural thing for the Yesha council to do.

In order to make everything look legitimate, Sharon played a cat and mouse game. He interfered with some demonstrations, stopped some buses from leaving, and closed down certain roads and regions where they were about to demonstrate. He pretended to be angry. His little games added spice to the protests. They were intended to show a foolish world that he was upset about the demonstrations.

Sharon wasn�t upset. He had orchestrated those demonstrations, and he was thrilled that so many people had come.

Sharon also knew how to adjust the valves in every case except for the strong-arm policies against soldiers who refused orders. When his intelligence leaders told him that the demonstrations might get violent, he told the Rabbinate to forbid violence. Although he did want the violence, he also wanted to prevent any action from getting out of hand. He did not want to suffer from a headache such as a coup d��tat.

In other words, Sharon worked out a perfect arrangement, whereby he could have his cake and eat it too.

• He could prevent the attack on Israel
• He could make himself look good to Bush
• He could show the Arabs that he was making major sacrifices
• He could go down in history as a person who has done an important activity
• He could control the Yesha Council and the Rabbinate

That�s right � Sharon was getting his way across the board. The great military strategist had actually orchestrated both sides of the evacuation.

A different scenario

Our discussion has been based on a theoretical situation involving Iraqi missiles pointed at Israel.

It could be argued that this arbitrary and imaginary scenario might have little relevance to the truth. What would happen if the scenario were different?

Fair enough. Let�s develop a different scenario:

Bush told Sharon that the nations of the world are about to start a major war against Israel. Since he�s not Jewish, Bush called it Armageddon. In Jewish parlance this would be The War of Gog and Magog. Some people have pointed out that the dot in the Hebrew letter Gimel of Gog Umagog could be pronounced in a way that sounds somewhat like George and More George. Indeed, many people did say that The Big War would start during Bush�s presidency.

Bush told Sharon that he would stay in Iraq for the remainder of his term of office if Sharon cooperated. In that way, the nations of the world � and especially the Arabs � would be preoccupied with the Iraqi war, and they would not want to open another front. It would mean that the nations of the world would not attack Israel at this time.

Thus, the specific scenario did not matter. Again, Sharon had no choice but to remain silent. He had to package stories, and he had to turn good citizens from Gush Katif into abject refugees. In both cases, the reasons presented to the people of the world had no relevance to reality. The nation protested the wrong person or institution.

Indeed, any possible scenario that is developed leads to the same conclusion.

Bush cooperated with Sharon�s game plan. He assured Sharon that the protests would make world headlines, in order to keep the Arabs happy.

Those who are involved in and privy to international activities know that the real events on the ground often have nothing � nothing � nothing to do with the media reports. This control over the world media is far from new.

Sharon�s military background helped him realize the need to replace his cabinet with yes-men from parties in the opposition. They were happy to agree to his actions. Most important, since they represented the opposition, they accepted Sharon�s bizarre behavior without demanding that he reveal any of his secrets. Those ministers voted for withdrawal without knowing or caring what was really happening. In this way, Sharon was able to maintain his promise of confidentiality to Bush.

But what about the future of his own Likud party? What about future elections? What about his responsibility to the State of Israel?

Those issues were less important. A 78-year-old prime minister doesn�t think about re-election. He�s already made his mark in world history.

What about the Likud? Well, it was necessary to make some sacrifices, and the Likud was less important than the future of Sharon himself.

What about Sharon�s image? He had lost the respect of his constituency, as a strong rightist and a defender of the settlement policy.

Nu, you can't have everything.

Could it have been different?

Oh yes. A wiser leader would have negotiated with the Arabs and with Bush. They may have come to a different conclusion as a result.

However, wisdom was not one of Sharon's outstanding features.

Yes, the current State of Israel might reflect on wise � but not brilliant � sayings by some of its previous leaders. However, in contrast to today's leaders, those leaders of the past seemed like outstanding statesmen.

We didn't think so at the time. However, today, in hindsight, we realize the greatness of those previous leaders.

It�s all relative.

Who are Israel�s leaders?

Israel chooses its top leaders from the military. It does not choose wise leaders who plan actions and consider their consequences to the nation.

A military leader learns to follow orders from his commanders. He does not think independently. He does not create policy. Success in the army depends on a soldier�s ability to take orders. Soldiers are trained not to think.

The leaders of our country and of some of our major companies are high-level soldiers. Many of them completed their army career while they were in their forties. The government and the nation had to offer them a worthwhile job. The top civil service positions were an obvious solution.

These government leaders did give an impression of commanding. They told their troops what to do, based on what they were told to tell the troops. Commanders never had to say what they believed. Their personal beliefs were stifled. The guidelines were simple: Good soldiers followed their own superiors. Good commanders got the soldiers to follow them.

So those in charge of the army did little thinking. They were told what to do. Those non-thinkers then moved up to lead the Israeli government and its major corporate entities.

This was evidenced during the expulsion of the Jews from Gush Katif. The army was asked to expel their own Jewish brothers. They were told what to do, irrelevant of their own beliefs. During those tragic times, a good soldier followed orders and removed Jews from their homes. A good soldier was not a thinking soldier.

However, encouraged by the Rabbinate, some soldiers did begin to think. They were disciplined for their misbehavior, and for not following the army�s code of ethics.

The obedient commanders who move into the government use their army training as their only leadership skill. They do not think independently or creatively when they speak to other world leaders, such as Bush or Abu Mazen.

Indeed, where would they get that training? How would they be able to make that switch or turnabout in skills, after spending their formative occupational career in the army?

Conclusion:

A retrospective view of the disengagement shows that it was driven by a Guiding Force. Each of us can have our own political opinion about whether it will ultimately be good or bad for the Jewish nation. However, there were too many coincidences, and too many things falling into place at the same time. It was almost reminiscent of the �coincidences� that directed the Scroll of Esther.

All of the main functionaries fell into place without conflicts. Their simultaneous and interconnected jobs and needs dovetailed with each other. Sharon was orchestrating the events from below, but his actions were controlled from Above. There can be no other explanation for the way in which things fell into place in this way.

Does this fact absolve Sharon from wrongdoing? Should Sharon have surrounded himself with wiser people if he had risen to his level of incompetence?

Clearly, we have not exhausted the ramifications of this historical event. However, it is also clear that the media has not provided us with the real information that we need in order to understand what is happening.

---

Are you required to read this webpage for a course? Do NOT print out the article. It is copyrighted.
Your exercise for this article is as follows:

Click here for subject and title lists of articles by David Grossman

Copyright © David Grossman. World rights reserved. This article may not be printed, forwarded, reproduced, or copied in any way or in any medium without written permission from David Grossman.

Keyword: Tzafun
/GrossmanIsrael/Articles/Territory/Disengagement

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws