The Cabinet decision to withdraw from Gaza has strong support, writes Emad Gad The press focussed on several issues, including the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al- Hariri, the aftermath of the Sharm El-Sheikh summit, the ongoing debate over the evacuation of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip as part of the disengagement plan, and the news that Moshe Yaalon's term as chief of staff would not be renewed. The coverage of Al-Hariri's assassination was relatively straightforward. The Israeli press took no specific stance, but it did highlight reports of Syrian involvement in the assassination, whether as a state- sponsored move or an operation carried out by the Syrian security establishment. The repercussions of the Sharm El-Sheikh summit also continued to garner media attention. The press addressed its impact on the Israeli plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip as well as the new Israeli-Arab rapprochement, seen in Jordan's decision to send an ambassador to Israel and Egypt's decision to name its new Israeli ambassador. But the evacuation of settlements in the Gaza Strip received the lion's share of the media coverage, particularly after the Israeli Cabinet officially approved the disengagement plan on Sunday, and Prime Minister Sharon and Defence Minister Mofaz signed the executive order. "Israel has taken an important step, fateful for its future," Sharon said after signing the order. The order was signed after the evacuation and compensation law was passed and the government resolution issued. The Israeli Cabinet approved the evacuation of settlements with a majority of 17 ministers. Five ministers opposed the plan, including Benyamin Netanyahu, Tzachi Hanegbi, Yisrael Katz, Natan Sharansky, and Danny Naveh. The Cabinet meeting lasted a full seven hours after several ministers asked to be allowed to state their position for the record. The Cabinet also decided that a special session would be convened to approve the evacuation of each individual settlement bloc. After the disengagement plan was approved, Dov Weisglass, adviser to Sharon, announced that the residents of the Gush Katif settlement would evacuate their homes of their free will, with no pressure, because "the state has proposed to compensate them generously." Weisglass added, "any settler who wishes to stay in a settlement will not be able to do so because there will not be an appropriate infrastructure in place." Weisglass also said there would be no further unilateral withdrawal plans in the future since the political process is expected to be bilateral. "I'd like to clarify that at this point we have no secret disengagement plan," he said. "We believe the current plan is a big, dramatic step." Weisglass said the current situation with the Palestinians may change. "We have not yet started to negotiate as part of the roadmap," he said. "I believe that after a certain period of time, the Palestinians will be able to create the conditions necessary to renew negotiations over the roadmap. When that happens, Israel will resume political negotiations as stipulated by the roadmap." Last week Yediot Aharonot published the findings of a poll that surveyed some 100,000 Israelis. The poll found that 64.4 per cent of Israelis support the disengagement plan as approved by the government, while 35.6 per cent oppose the plan. The poll was conducted by Keshet Yisrael and commissioned by Haifa City Council member Shlomo Gilboa, who commented that the poll should lead the government to address other important issues instead of focussing on a public referendum on the disengagement plan. The poll also showed that support for the disengagement plan increased the week the poll was conducted, with support for the plan jumping from 61 per cent to 64 per cent and opposition to it dropping from 38 per cent to 35 per cent. Discussing the disengagement plan, Yael Gavritz wrote an article entitled "The extra step", published in Yediot Aharonot on 21 February. "The disengagement plan has been set on its way, but it must walk on three legs," Gavritz wrote. "There are the authorities that will supervise the evacuation and those who will be evacuated. But the previous evacuation was a serious failure because decision-makers turned and fled. The political leadership was completely absent from the scene, setting the army and the settlers on a collision course. The flight of those with official authority from the charged triangle of evacuation only made the collision more serious. It ceased being a legitimate step taken by the democratic arm and became a fistfight. This not only weakened the other two sides of the triangle, but almost destroyed them when they clashed. They both felt the political leadership had abandoned and humiliated them to the core. "That evacuation lacked a father, and the wound still aches to this day. The lesson must be clear, even for those ministers who voted yesterday against the decision of the government of which they are still members. If the independent representative of the state of Israel is absent from the front, the equation necessary to ensure an evacuation that hurts and humiliates no one will be incomplete. This is an equation that requires the severity of inevitability and a show of the necessary sympathy." Gavritz went on to raise an important question about the response of settlers. "The question that is still on the table is how the settlers who will be evacuated are preparing themselves. What is their objective? Will they use the next five months to organise and prepare to build their new future and new homes, or will they prepare to resist the evacuation and deny the inevitable outcome? "One of the things those who were evacuated in the past caution of is the need for a show of sympathy with those who will be evacuated. But the problem is that sympathy is not created in a vacuum. "Certainly, no sympathy will be found for those settlers who use threats and resist the evacuation with violence. The thing that can create sympathy -- more necessary than a show of support or pity -- is defining an objective that can support the wishes of the settlers to be pioneers. If those who wish to be seen by Israeli society as continuing the tradition of the pioneers would choose the path of Ben-Gurion, and re-establish their towns and settle the desert in those areas that need pioneers, they will not only create sympathy but a sense of national solidarity as well. "A debate on this issue has not yet taken place, neither among the settlers who will be evacuated, nor within the Settlers' Council. But a debate on this issue became vital the moment evacuation became a reality. It is like a divorce: the adults must ask themselves how best to go about it to protect their children and their future given such a painful, complex reality. The answer does not lie in denying reality or in disputes over money and property, but in building a second home that will allow the younger generation to continue to grow up with the desired values in the best, most stable environment." To follow the debate on the disengagement plan in Israel, please visit the website of Arabs Against Discrimination www.aad-online.org.
