OCCUPIED JERUSALEM, 10 March 2004 — Israel’s military establishment appears increasingly uneasy over Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s plan to disengage from the Palestinians despite pledges by top brass that they have no intention of meddling in politics.
The military’s chief of staff sought yesterday to play down talk of a rift with Sharon after he reportedly infuriated the premier by saying in a recent interview that a recent upsurge in activity by militants could be a result of the announcement of plans to uproot nearly all the Gaza Strip settlements.
Gen. Moshe Yaalon held talks with Sharon late Monday but he denied that he had been summoned for a dressing down. “The prime minister knows that I state my opinions on issues that are political in closed forums and not in the media. That is also what I did in the last number of days on the issue of the disengagement plan. As such, it isn’t clear to me what the uproar is all about,” he told public radio yesterday.
“The military echelon is not an elected echelon. The military echelon in a democratic country is subordinate to the political echelon... Under no circumstances may the military echelon issue public criticism of any decision made by the political echelon,” he added.
But despite his denials, Yaalon’s comments over the weekend left little doubt about his reservations about the pullout.
In an interview with a southern Israel-based local newspaper, Yaalon said that “more than one division will have to be mobilized to solve the problems created by the retreat from a single settlement under enemy fire”.
Yaalon is apparently not a lone voice in the security establishment in expressing reservations.
Avi Dichter, head of the Shin Beth domestic intelligence agency, was quoted by the Haaretz daily yesterday as telling Israeli diplomats on a visit to Washington that “anyone who thinks the disengagement plan will lead to a reduction in Palestinian motivation to conduct attacks is wrong.”
And Gen. Aharon Zeevi, head of Israeli military intelligence, told a parliamentary committee last month the project could “legitimize Palestinian terror”.
Many senior military figures believe the start of the Palestinian intifada, or uprising, in September 2000 was partly prompted by a perception in the Arab world that the Israeli Army’s withdrawal from Lebanon in May was the result of a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Hezbollah resistance group.
Zeev Schiff, veteran defense correspondent for Haaretz, said generals were unhappy that the Gaza withdrawal was being carried out without coordination with the Palestinians and was thus feeding a perception that it was a retreat.
“The dispute appears to stem from a belief among the general staff, including the chief of staff and key generals, that Israel should be striving for an agreement with the Palestinians requiring them to take responsibility in various areas, instead of undertaking a unilateral disengagement,” he said.
“They think a unilateral move practically guarantees the fighting will continue, and the Palestinians will regard a unilateral move as their victory, so they will go on wanting to fight.”
Many politicians leapt to defend Yaalon’s right to express his views on the disengagement plan. Education Minister Limor Livnat said it was “important that the chief of staff is able to express his point of view on this issue, and his opinion must be taken into account.
“There are many questions which this issue poses, in particular whether the plan will deliver a boost to terrorism,” she added. Transport Minister Avigdor Lieberman, head of the extreme right-wing National Union Party, said the “entire military establishment is categorically opposed to this separation plan... The chief of staff must express his opinion on this matter and unfortunately there has been no debate within government until now.”
Opposition Labour Party leader Shimon Peres also said that Yaalon must be allowed to make his views known “even if they are of a political character”.
But Likud MP Yuval Steinitz, chairman of Parliament’s foreign affairs and defense committee, said that “as a matter of principle, the chief of staff must not make his point of view known if it is contrary to that of the government, for in a democratic country, the army is not independent.”
Sharon was expected to lobby for diplomatic support for his controversial initiative in talks this week with visiting US envoys and at a meeting with Jordan’s King Abdallah that Sharon said would likely be held in a few days. An official in Abdallah’s office in Amman said he was unaware any meeting had been scheduled.
Palestinians fear that by pursuing disengagement Israel is seeking to trade Gaza for permanent control over large parts of the West Bank with its larger settlements, effectively depriving them of land they want for their own state. Israeli security sources said senior commanders feared that a Gaza pullout with nothing in return would enable militants to claim victory and encourage them to keep fighting.
The commander of Hamas’ armed wing, Mohammad Deif, said yesterday an evacuation of Jewish settlers from Gaza would signal a victory for Palestinian militancy.
“The criminal Sharon was elected to smash our resistance in 100 days. But now the man who once said Netzarim (isolated settlement in Gaza) was just like Tel Aviv is planning to withdraw from Gaza without something in return,” he said.
“This is a great prophesy of victory,” Deif said in a rare voice interview broadcast by Hamas’ military wing, the Izzedine Al-Qassam Brigades, on its web page.
