The deportation of the Jews from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria over the past week and a half and surrounding events have put paid to two of the foundational myths of the narrative that has been propounded for the past 30 years by the Israeli and international Left.

In attempting to analyze these traumatic events in a manner that will – at least to a degree – mitigate the dangers to Israeli security that the expulsions have engendered, it is important to identify these myths and dispel them now. For if we do not do so, we will find ourselves, again, waging an uphill battle to dispel these lies after the next die has been cast in favor of still more Israeli retreats and expulsions – this time from Judea and Samaria.

And so, even as our souls cry out in pain as we stare wild-eyed at the sight of 8,000 Jewish patriots, transformed in a moment into homeless, wandering Jews in the Land of Israel, our duty is to soldier on and work to preempt further destruction.

The foundational myth of the Left is that Jewish extremism, not Palestinian terrorism, is the cause of Israel's present security woes and the source of the constant wars that have plagued us since the dawn of modern Zionism. What we saw this week was that these people – whom one British reporter standing outside the synagogue in the now-ruined city of Neveh Dekalim ever so eloquently referred to last Thursday as "the hardest of the hard-line settlers" – are anything but extreme.

The expelled residents of Gush Katif – from the farmers of Atzmona, Katif, Netzarim, Netzer Hazani and Kfar Darom, the surfers and fishermen of Shirat Hayam, the Torah scholars of Neveh Dekalim and the mothers of Gadid – are not "hard-line" or "extremists." They are the finest sons and daughters of Israel. They are the bravest soldiers in the IDF and the most patriotic citizens that Israel has produced.

This truth was exposed to all in their darkest hour. As they were physically ejected from their homes and synagogues, they behaved with the most exquisite patriotism, heroism and humility. In combat, heroism is a matter of common sense – of survival. Patriotism on the battlefield of war is everywhere clear and unimpeded. You stand before an enemy bent on your physical destruction and your job is to kill him first while protecting your comrades.

The heroism the Jews of Gaza and northern Samaria displayed in the face of their own destruction is of another order altogether. Standing before their own army, on the surface, they were faced with a terrible choice. Do they fight their countrymen to maintain their communities, or do they accept their cruel and inexplicable fate?

Yet the truth of the matter is that this was never their dilemma. A glance at the murals on the walls of the schools in Atzmona and Neveh Dekalim and a look at the faces of these Jews showed clearly that for the residents of Gush Katif, there is no difference between their faith in the God of Israel and their loyalty to the State of Israel. Their dilemma, as events proved, was of a different and more tortuous nature. Given their complete loyalty to the state, how do they abandon their lives' work and still maintain their honor and the honor of the work of their hands for the past three generations?

In this near-surreal mix, the deported Jews found the golden path. The exodus of the Jews of Netzarim from their synagogue, standing behind their menora; the embracing of the IDF and police forces who came to expel them by the residents of Katif and Atzmona, followed by quiet exoduses from their homes – these decisions, and a million smaller and greater ones, belied the propaganda that these Jews are an obstacle to peace. It exposed as a lie the insistent rantings of the Left and the international community that these peaceful patriots, in or out of their communities, manifest in any way, shape or form an obstacle to peace with a credible Arab partner who is willing to accept coexistence with the Jewish state, whatever its borders may be.

WHEN WE contrast the behavior of the expelled Jews to that of the Palestinians over the same period, we see, too, that for the Palestinians, terrorism is not a weapon of weakness or evidence of desperation, but rather a strategic choice. It is a weapon that defines them as a society as much as moderation and humility characterize the now homeless Jews of Gaza and northern Samaria.

As the IDF and police passed through the gates of Neveh Dekalim, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei entered the gates of Damascus. There he met with the heads of Hamas and Islamic Jihad and negotiated an agreement that their forces in Gaza, Judea and Samaria will not be disarmed or harmed in any way. Exiting the meeting with Qurei, the heads of Hamas and Islamic Jihad told reporters that there is no reason for a Palestinian civil war since they share the PA's strategy.

For the past two weeks, Gaza has been one great parade ground, with armed terrorists from all factions walking the streets and declaring victory. The banners and graffiti tell the entire tale: "Four years of intifada: Victory; Ten years of Oslo: Nothing!" The terror leaders themselves have held press conference after press conference saying that they are moving their battle to Judea and Samaria and will transfer their rockets and mortars to the edges of the urban centers of Israel – Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Hadera, Netanya.

PA chieftain Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly dismissed the Gaza pullout, scoffing that the area comprises "only five percent of Palestine." Like his lieutenants Muhammad Dahlan and Qurei, Abbas has repeatedly threatened that unless Israel immediately follows the withdrawal from Gaza with further withdrawals in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, the terror will continue. And it already has. On Thursday rockets again rained down on Sderot and Wednesday night 21 year old Shmuel Mett was stabbed to death in Jerusalem.

All of this is important to note because neither the Israeli Left nor US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice even bothered to wait until the expulsion of Jews from Gaza and northern Samaria was completed before stating outright that the next step must be further expulsions of Jews in Judea and Samaria and further land transfers to the Palestinians. The notion, as former prime minister Ehud Barak said in a radio interview last week, is apparently that since it is so easy to throw Jews out of their homes, we might as well do more of it. The fact that this logic denies the greater truth that was made clear to one and all this week – that the Jews are not the problem, the Palestinian addiction to terror and destruction is the problem – matters neither to Barak nor to his American and European protean chorus of nincompoops.

BUT BEFORE we find ourselves faced with yet more withdrawals and expulsions, agreed to in backrooms, far from public scrutiny, let us understand that retreats from Judea and Samaria manifest a danger of a magnitude far greater than the ill-conceived retreat from Gaza. And let the facts speak for themselves.

Last Friday, an al-Qaida squad bombed the Eilat airport with Katyusha rockets launched from Jordan. Jordan, as we know, is a country that is actually working to root out terrorist cells. And yet, in spite of the kingdom's best efforts, it has not been successful. In contrast, again, the PA has made its territory one of the safest havens for terrorists in the world. If Kassam and Katyusha rockets in the south from Gaza or Aqaba cause a danger to the life of civilians in the periphery, the danger such weapons will constitute if launched from Judea and Samaria present a strategic threat to the state.

Were Katyusha rockets to start falling on runways at Ben-Gurion Airport or on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway, Israel's economy would simply cease to function. Given the state of Palestinian society, and simple geography, it is both logically incoherent and strategically ridiculous to think that any withdrawal from Judea and Samaria would do anything other than enable and encourage such attacks.

Furthermore, since the US-led invasion of Iraq, the Left in Israel has been arguing that the threat from the east has disappeared and as a result, Israel no longer needs defensible borders.

According to the logic of this second myth, Israel can and ought to hand the sparsely populated Jordan Valley over to the PLO. But the noise coming from Iraq and Washington these days tells a different tale entirely. While it is true that US President George W. Bush has pledged to remain in Iraq until the Iraqi government is able to maintain security, there is no reason to think that such a government will be at peace with Israel.

Since it toppled Saddam's regime, the US has done absolutely nothing to discourage continued Iraqi rejection of Israel's right to exist or the  bellicose statements in favor of Israel's destruction which have been heard from all quarters.

The best-case scenario for Israel from a post-US withdrawal Iraq is that Iraq will act in a manner similar to Saudi Arabia in its dealings with the Jewish state. That is, it will not actively fight us, but it will fund and train terrorists who will fight Israel and will maintain its stridently anti-Israel position both in international forums and in its own society. In any case, there has been no indication whatsoever that Washington cares about fostering peaceful relations between Israel and post-Saddam Iraq and as a result, it is simply irresponsible for Israeli leaders to consider withdrawing from our eastern border on the Jordan River.

The last two weeks have indeed been illuminating. But it is the responsibility of all who are concerned about Israel's security and future viability both in Israel and internationally to relentlessly point out the truths that have been exposed. For against this self-evident reality, the forces are already lined up to deny them and plow on with the same policies that have been refuted by reality for the past 12 years.

The nightmare that Israel has endured with the destruction of Jewish Gaza and northern Samaria must be a starting point for a new period in our history. And this period can only begin with the repudiation of the mythology of the Left.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

Over the past few weeks, we have been witness to a remarkable phenomenon. Suddenly, in the wake of last month's suicide bombings in London, we hear of news broadcasts from Paris to London to New York in which terrorism analysts announce vociferously that their countries must follow Israel's tracks in everything having to do with contending with suicide bombers.

There is a threefold irony in the fact that the West, and particular the Europeans, are now looking to Israel for assistance in defending against their homegrown jihadi networks. First, and perhaps it goes without saying, until suicide terror came to them, they were quick to condemn every single action – from the erection of roadblocks to administrative detentions to military sweeps of terror dens – that the IDF and the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) have taken to preempt and prevent suicide bombers. Now, when they themselves are suffering from the same fate, they are quick to ignore their previous criticism and come to Israel for help.

And to top it all off, none of them – from the Bush administration to the European leadership – has drawn the obvious conclusion that the terrorists who attack Israel in the name of jihad are no different from the ones who attack them in the name of jihad and that therefore one of the best ways for them to defend themselves is to support Israel and end their support for the Palestinian Authority, which is infused from top to bottom with the ideology of terror and jihad.

The second bit of irony in the world's newfound admiration for visionary Israel is that it is, of course, arriving at the same time that the Sharon-Peres government is making Israel's most significant move ever to surrender and appease the same unappeasable terrorists by handing them Gaza with no strings attached. Perhaps if their appreciation had come a bit sooner, Israel wouldn't have adopted a policy that is antithetical to the policies that the Europeans and Americans now so admire.

The final bit of irony is that while in the wake of the London bombings the West is finally beginning to take the threat of suicide terrorism in its cities seriously, this newfound sobriety at home is occurring at the same time that the Bush administration is striking out on a policy of curtailing its war on terror abroad. This policy of curtailing US offensive actions against terrorism internationally is evident both in its handling of Iraq's rapid deterioration into a Shi'ite-ruled Islamist state along the lines of Iran and even more dangerously in the US's feckless handling of the rising Iranian nuclear threat.

The West's belated respect for Israel's counterterror tactics recalls the similarly belated gratitude we received for prime minister Menachem Begin's decision deploy the IAF to destroy the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981. Israel's heroic operation was met at the time with wall-to-wall condemnation from Washington to Europe to the UN Security Council. In the aftermath of the strike, the Reagan administration placed military sanctions on Israel, drastically limiting US military exports to the Jewish state. It was only in the wake of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 that the US finally expressed its gratitude to Israel for having the nerve and vision to act as it did, when it did.

On Monday, armed militiamen from the Iranian-backed Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), took over Baghdad's city hall and announced that Hussein al-Tahaan, a member of its militia, was the new mayor of Baghdad. Baghdad's actual mayor, Alaa al-Tamimi, is currently in hiding in fear of his life. Tamimi was initially installed into office by the US in the wake of the overthrow of Saddam's regime. According to press reports, the US Embassy in Baghdad had no comment on the matter other than to say that it was aware of the situation. It should be noted that SCIRI is a member of the Iraqi governing coalition. Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari himself hails from the Iranian-backed Shi'ite Islamist Dawa party.

Then, on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pointed an angry yet half-hearted finger at Iran after US and Iraqi forces intercepted trucks carrying explosives to terrorists fighting in Iraq. While Rumsfeld accused Iran of not preventing weapons smuggling, he refused to say who in the totalitarian republic of Iran was behind the operations, leaving, as The New York Times notes, some "specialists" to say that it "could be the work of smugglers or splinter insurgent groups, rather than the government of Iran." Sure it could...

The London Telegraph reported that "the new bombs are similar to those used by Hizbullah fighters against the Israelis in southern Lebanon." Not, of course, that Iran's war against the US and Britain has anything to do with its war against Israel.

IF WASHINGTON'S seeming willingness to sit back and allow Iraq to become an Iranian puppet weren't worrisome enough, we have the Bush administration's pathetic response to Iran's nuclear brinkmanship to contend with. With the installation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran's new president, we see the establishment of the most extreme Iranian leadership since the Islamic revolution in 1979. In one of his first acts as president, Ahmadinejad oversaw the removal of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency's seals at its nuclear installation in Isfahan and restarted uranium enrichment activities. At the same time, Alireza Jafarzadeh, an Iranian exile who in 2002 exposed Iran's covert nuclear program, said this week that Iran has 4,000 centrifuges at its nuclear installation in Natanz that are capable of producing weapons-grade uranium.

In spite of all of this, the US continues to back the farcical negotiations between the three European musketeers – Britain, Germany and France – and the Iranian government aimed at appeasing Iran into ceasing its uranium enrichment activities. Their latest offer – which included pledges to regularly supply Iran with nuclear fuel; assist it in nuclear research; cancel limitations on technology transfers to Iran; funnel investments into the Iranian economy; and, last but not least, not to attack Iran – was summarily rejected by the Iranians as a joke. But to placate poor negotiations-obsessed German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer and his British and French counterparts, the Iranians threw in a carrot claiming willingness to continue talking. And US President George W. Bush gave Washington's blessings to continuing these discussions. Not only does the US continue to back these talks, but, The Washington Post reported this week, in what can only be interpreted as a targeted leak from the administration, that the US now assesses that the Iranians won't develop nuclear weapons until 2015.

The strangest aspect of what can only be characterized as the US's appeasement policy towards Iran is that unlike any other Islamic country, the Iranian people actually wish to overthrow their regime and replace it with a non-Islamist secular democracy. Just this week, workers protested outside Iran's parliament demanding their wages and better conditions, and women blocked highway traffic leading to the parliament building demanding their human rights. In the Kurdish areas of northwest Iran, 20 people were reportedly killed by security forces during anti-regime demonstrations. For more than a year, Iran has seen daily demonstrations that have not ceased even as the government has resorted to ever-increasing levels of force – including torture and summary execution of demonstrators – to contend with the domestic unrest.

And yet, aside from a few scattered statements of support for these extremely brave Iranians and for dissidents who gain media attention, the Bush administration has taken no concrete action to support these people in any tangible way. Indeed, last summer, then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice published a directive to all US government employees prohibiting them from having any contacts with Iranian regime opponents.

Complementing its defeatist policies in Iraq and Iran, the US is further signaling its desire to quietly disengage from the war against Islamic terrorism by placing ever-increasing pressure on Israel to appease Palestinian terrorists. Aside from demanding that Israel arm Palestinian militias that are deeply involved in terrorism against Israeli citizens and that Israel relinquish all control over the international boundaries of Gaza, Secretary of State Rice and her underlings are turning up the heat on Israel to follow up on the coming withdrawal and expulsion of Jews in Gaza and northern Samaria with still more withdrawals and expulsions in the rest of Judea and Samaria.

In light of all of this, it would seem that the time is ripe for Israel to again lead the world in fighting the scourge of jihad by attacking Iran's nuclear installations on its own. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that a nuclear-armed Iran, a country that has already overtly threatened Israel with nuclear destruction, is the gravest security threat that Israel faces. Some political analysts have suggested that to increase his support within the Likud party, Sharon might opt to attack Iran in the aftermath of the withdrawal and expulsions from Gaza and northern Samaria.

In light of this rising threat of annihilation, if the only option for destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program were to launch a conventional war against Iran, such a war, even at the cost of the lives of thousands of Israeli soldiers, would be worth it. If Sharon were to justify the withdrawal and expulsion program as a means to enable the IAF or the Mossad to destroy Iran's nuclear installations, it might be possible to find a way to rationalize this program after the fact.

Unfortunately, since Sharon entered office in 2001, he has made it a point to never take any military action whatsoever without US approval. The fact that he recently sent his personal attorney, Dov Weisglass, to Washington to beg the US for $2 billion in supplemental aid in the wake of the withdrawal from Gaza simply shows his continued psychological and policy dependence on the administration. Sadly, with this being the current state of affairs, Iran and its terrorist dependents can rest assured. Israel is not leading anyone right now. Would that I be proven wrong.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

As I interviewed now former finance minister Binyamin Netanyahu last Wednesday, it was clear that he was in the midst of a personal struggle. As he laid out the ways he felt his presence in the government had mitigated some of the enormous damage the Sharon-Peres government's withdrawal and expulsion plan from Gaza and northern Samaria will cause to Israel's security, it was evident to me that for him it was not enough. And he was right.

Netanyahu has led the campaign to refuse the bizarre American demand that Israel rearm the Palestinian Authority's militias which themselves are deeply involved in terrorism. But, as he stated, the government's recent decision to relinquish control over the strategically vital Philadephi Corridor, which connects Gaza to the Sinai, together with its intention to enable the creation of a seaport in Gaza over which Israel will exert no security control, "will create a highway for the transfer of terrorists and terror materiel."

So at the end of the day, what difference will it make if in addition to the Katyusha rockets, the shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, the RPGs and the C-4 plastic explosives that will no doubt be pouring into Gaza the PA gets a million rounds of M-16 and AK-47 ammunition courtesy of the Israeli or American taxpayers?

It is difficult to see what Netanyahu, who wishes to replace Ariel Sharon as prime minister, has to gain politically from his resignation from the government. Sharon, in appointing his lackey Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to replace Netanyahu in the Finance Ministry, has now effectively taken over the only enclave of the government he did not previously control. There can be little doubt that he will use the significant financial reserves Netanyahu was able to build up for the country over the past two and a half years to continue buying off ministers, Knesset members and party hacks and so reinforce his power for the foreseeable future.

As a regular member of Knesset, Netanyahu today doesn't even have the ability to gain a leadership position in the parliament. All the senior committees have chairmen who will not budge.
Even receiving membership in the powerful and prestigious finance or foreign affairs and defense committee will be difficult. Aside from this, he will have a reduced personal staff and thus a limited ability to reach out to party members to whom, anyway, he will no longer have any favors to offer in exchange for their support in the party. The same is the case for the remaining Likud ministers in the government. Danny Naveh, Yisrael Katz, Tzahi Hanegbi, Silvan Shalom and Limor Livnat have nothing personal to gain from supporting Netanyahu. And the same is the case with the deputy ministers.

Sharon, for his part, has the media firmly in his court. In the wake of Netanyahu's surprise announcement, the chief anchors in the television studios wasted no time in sanctimoniously accusing Netanyahu of political opportunism. Whereas former prime minister Ehud Barak has no trouble getting long interviews on television and radio, it is hard to imagine that Netanyahu will receive anything other than a wall of silence from the media that will likely do everything it can to encourage the public to forget about him.

The ideological Right, led today by MK Uzi Landau - the same camp that idiotically brought down Netanyahu's government in 1999 and brought down Yitzhak Shamir's government in 1992 - had difficulty hiding its nastiness upon hearing word of his resignation. Landau, in threatening to challenge Netanyahu in the Likud leadership race, was no doubt a major factor in Netanyahu's decision to resign. If Landau had carried through on his threat he would have handed the Likud leadership to Sharon on a silver platter by splitting the nationalist camp in the Likud between himself and Netanyahu. Always the poor politician, Landau, the ideological purist, could barely muster a dozen icy words of support for Netanyahu's resignation on Sunday evening.

IN SPITE of all of this, Netanyahu's decision to resign one week before the expulsion of Gaza's Jews begins demonstrates three things that are important in and of themselves.

Netanyahu's willingness to risk his political career rather than share ministerial responsibility for a policy that will wreak strategic disaster on Israel shows a strength of character and a moral backbone that are rare in politics generally and in Israeli politics specifically.

While his detractors were quick to claim that the decision was belated, the fact of the matter is that by holding out in the government for the past year, Netanyahu demonstrated extraordinary responsibility. By remaining in the government he was able to enact the most important economic reforms Israel has ever undergone. The banking reforms he pushed through the government and the Knesset will, for the first time, enable Israel to have a competitive banking system. The tax and welfare reforms he orchestrated will have a long-lasting and positive impact both on the economy and on the Israeli psyche.

As a friend quipped recently: "In Germany, when a person drives his car into a tree, people say he's an idiot. In Israel when a person drives his car into a tree, people blame the government for not having cut down the tree."

The economic reforms Netanyahu has enacted as finance minister will empower the people to take control of their financial future in a way that was impossible before he entered office. And this will do much to change the way Israelis think of themselves and the government, to the benefit of both.

Finally, in his reforms, as in his decision to quit the government, Netanyahu demonstrated a deep faith both in the wisdom of the Israeli people and in their right to have representative government. In both cases his actions show an abiding and healthy respect for the democratic process which is frighteningly absent from the present government, whose central policy of withdrawal and expulsion is the exact policy Sharon was elected to oppose.

As Netanyahu himself made clear, there is no way today to prevent the withdrawal and expulsion plan from being implemented. Perhaps now Netanyahu can mitigate some of the damage the plan will cause Israeli society. This he can do by defending the honor of the pioneers of Gush Katif by upholding the ideal of Jewish settlement of the Land of Israel even as the physical realization of this sacred ideal is being trampled.

As well perhaps, Netanyahu's resignation may finally force a debate in the US government and media on the merits of Sharon's plan which to date has been met with irresponsible and unquestioning support from the White House to the Wall Street Journal, from Congress to Commentary magazine.

Netanyahu's resignation points to two acute problems that Israel faces, both as we move into the implementation of the expulsion orders and as we look beyond these terrible events. From the moment Sharon announced the plan in December 2003, Netanyahu was faced with two equally stark choices. He could remain a cabinet minister with no power to change or meaningfully influence the government's disastrous flagship policy, or he could leave the government and continue to have no influence over the policy. The fact that this state of affairs, where a senior government minister has absolutely no influence over national policy, has been allowed to develop is atrocious.

At the same time, the fact that Sharon has managed to engineer a situation where he can trample the wishes of his voters and his party and, through payoffs and odd coalitions supported by the Left, the far Left, the anti-religious secularists and the anti-Zionist Arab parties, maintain and strengthen his grip on power, should long ago have sounded the alarm bells for all who care about the state of Israeli democracy.

More than anything, Netanyahu's resignation shows that while Sharon's government has lost all remaining vestiges of integrity, Netanyahu himself, in risking his career to keep faith with his conscience and his voters, has proved his worthiness to lead. Those who care about the future of this country must bury the hatchets that divide them and find the practical, workable and democratic ways to cooperate in calling for elections, with Netanyahu at the helm of the Likud, as quickly as possible.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

With all the mayhem in Israel today it is difficult to step back and take note of a terrible crime that happens elsewhere. But Tuesday evening a terrible crime was committed elsewhere and it is worthy of our attention because its perpetrators are our enemies and their victim was our friend.

On Tuesday evening freelance American journalist Steven Vincent was kidnapped and murdered in Basra. Vincent, who in pre-September 11 America earned his living as an art critic, set out to fight this war after he watched the Twin Towers explode from his rooftop in the East Village in Manhattan. And Tuesday he gave his life in the fight.

Vincent did not join the army. He took up his pen and he went to Iraq in the wake of the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime by the US-led coalition in the spring of 2003. No one sent him there. He heard the call to battle from his rooftop that terrible morning and he answered it in the only way he knew. He became a chronicler of post-Saddam Iraq.

I never met Vincent, but I developed a deep respect for him by following his dispatches, which would show up in various US newspapers fairly often over the past two years. His writing was a rare mix of descriptive prose, reasoned analysis and passion that made you seek out his latest story and feel a tinge of regret when you finish the last sentence. You always wanted to read more when you read him.

What came through clearly in his writings is that Vincent grasped that the global jihad, as it manifested itself in New York and Washington on September 11 and as it manifests itself on a daily basis in Iraq and indeed throughout the world, is rooted not in terrorism but in culture and religion. And the only way for the US and the rest of the free world to emerge victorious in this war is to expose and destroy the cultural base that spurs millions of Muslims throughout the world to kill and destroy and to support killing and destruction in the name of Islam.

In an article in the National Review published in December 2004, Vincent railed against the media for referring to the terrorists in Iraq, whose handiwork he saw up close, as "guerrillas" and "resistance forces." In his words, "[T]oday we suffer for our lack of clarity in this war. Unwilling to call our enemies fascists, afraid to condemn the brutal aspects of Iraqi and Arab culture, we have allowed the narrative to slip out of our control. Truth is made, not found, in Iraq. Gradually, in the war of ideas, the US became the evil occupier, opposing the legitimate wishes of an indigenous 'resistance'."

In June Vincent returned to Iraq to write a book about Basra. As the British military authorities look on indifferently, Basra, which was once the cosmopolitan center of Iraq, has since the January elections come under the control of radical Shiites who are closely allied with Iran and Hizbullah. In Sunday's New York Times, Vincent published an op-ed where he described this transformation and quoted an officer in the British-trained Basra police force who said that 75 percent of the force is loyal to Muqtada e-Sadr, the Iranian- and Hizbullah-backed terrorist chief who sparked the Shiite terror onslaught in southern Iraq in April 2004. Vincent also reported that the police, in the pay of extremist clerics, use their guns and vehicles at night to execute people accused of ties to the Ba'ath party. Hundreds have been murdered in this fashion.

According to witness reports of his abduction, Vincent was kidnapped by uniformed police officers who carted him away in their vehicle. If these reports are correct it would mean that Vincent was murdered for exposing the fact that the British military has trained and equipped a jihadi death squad which has taken over Basra and which will kill anyone who endangers their position and power.

IN MANY respects, Vincent's murder recalls the murder of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam last November. Like Vincent, van Gogh was murdered by a jihadi for daring to expose the malevolent face of radical Islam in his documentary Submission. In it, he described the brutal oppression of women under radical Islam. While Vincent exposed the murderous machinations and oppressive culture of Islamic fascists in Iraq, van Gogh described their actions in his hometown. But they were both describing the same phenomenon and for their efforts at shining light on the face of the enemy, they were murdered.

The metaphor of shining a light on the enemy is an apt one. For like bats in a cave, the jihadi enemy prefers to operate in darkness - to obfuscate from us, his targets, his aims and his nature. This he accomplishes by hiding behind terms like "occupation" or "resistance" or "civil liberties" or by carrying out his terrorist operations against unarmed, unwarned civilians rather than face their military forces in battle.

And so, as Frank Gaffney, another warrior scribe, pointed out in the National Review on Thursday, "This may be a war unlike any other we have ever fought, but it is a war. Nothing less than our survival as a free, democratic and secular nation is at stake."

In this war, the enemy fights us in two separate ways. He terrorizes us with violence in order to make us capitulate. And, by hiding behind the ever-sympathetic guise of a victimized minority culture and religious group, he accuses us of the terrible crimes of racism and illiberalism when we dare to point out the fact that preaching jihad is not a simple exercise of free speech, but an act of war.

And that's the rub. In our liberal democracies, we are driven by a foundational belief in the sanctity of the freedom of dissent. But our enemy tramples that sanctity. For it is not dissent he preaches, but war. It is not democratic give-and-take that he is after, but our destruction. And if we wish to survive, we have to recognize the fact that when our cities are transformed into battlegrounds, our countries are at war. Those who call for jihad have nothing in common with those who call for a change in our government's policies, for the promulgation of new laws, or for new elections. Indeed they are their antithesis.

Happily, today, the reality that Vincent and van Gogh grasped immediately is now, in the wake of last month's bombings in London, finally beginning to be confronted by European leaders and societies. In the past week alone, Germany announced plans to deport 37 Islamic religious figures who have preached jihad; France has announced its intention to deport 12 such men, some of whom are to be stripped of their French citizenship; and Italy on Tuesday deported eight Islamic preachers. As French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy put it, it is necessary today to conduct "a wide-scale action of early detection" of people who abet and indoctrinate for jihad. He vowed to expel anyone who violates a French law passed last year which outlaws incitement of "discrimination, hatred or violence" against any group.

For their part, the British, who for years have been the warmest hosts of jihadists in the world, are in the process of promulgating laws that will enable the police to prosecute suspects before they commit attacks. As Home Office Secretary Hazel Blears explained last month, "Anyone who gets or provides training in bomb-making or other terror activities here or overseas can be charged." Another law in the works would make indirectly inciting terrorism with inflammatory statements a criminal offense.

Sadly and absurdly, as Europe finally awakens to the dangers of jihad, Israel is doing everything it can to remain firmly and deeply asleep. On Monday, the Haifa District Court obscenely acquitted Jamal Mahajneh from Umm el-Fahm of charges of accessory to murder and first-degree accessory to sabotage. Mahajneh transported a suicide bomber to the Maxim restaurant in Haifa in October 2003, where she murdered 21 people. Mahajneh was found guilty of the lesser offense of negligent manslaughter. The judges justified their ruling by arguing that they believed that Mahajneh did not know that the Palestinian woman, whom he spirited into Israel in spite of the fact that she lacked an entry permit and dropped off at the crowded restaurant, was a terrorist.

But in 2003, Israel had been at war for three years and its cities had long since been transformed into battlegrounds whose chief victims were its civilians. It was up to Mahajneh to realize that given this reality, there was a distinct possibility that the woman he transported to the restaurant was a terrorist. It was not the prosecution's duty to prove what he was thinking. His actions spoke loudly enough.

As with the judges, so with the media, the police, the cabinet ministers and the state prosecutors. The leadership of Israel is intent on ignoring the reality in which we live. In our topsy-turvy world, terrorists whose goal is the destruction of Israel receive mercy from justices and land, money, guns and legitimacy from the government. At the same time, the patriotic opponents of the government, all of whose actions, whether justified or misguided, are based solely on their desire to ensure the strength and viability of Israel, are castigated as violent adversaries who must be subdued and defeated with the full force of the law.

In Israel we actually already have the laws on the books that the Europeans are now busily legislating, that would enable us to make the necessary distinction between an enemy and a dissenter. What we lack is the political, cultural and legal leadership with the strength of character and vision of Steven Vincent and Theo van Gogh.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

ed. note: Netanyahu resigned from Sharon's government the day after this interview was published

Why is Bibi still in the government?

Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is in one of the most unenviable positions in Israeli politics today. He is attacked from the Left by the Prime Minister's Office and Ariel Sharon's supporters in the government, the Knesset and the press for his opposition to the disengagement plan. He is attacked from the Right by the plan's opponents for his refusal to resign from the government in light of his opposition to the plan.

Two weeks before the plan's implementation, and ahead of the government's vote on Sunday to approve its implementation beginning on August 15, Netanyahu spoke at length with The Jerusalem Post on the reasons for his opposition to the pullout, on how he sees its impact on Israeli society and on why he remains in the government despite his opposition to its central policy.

Will the withdrawal from Gaza affect the western Negev? If so, how?

First of all, we allocated NIS 300 million in order to protect communities in the western Negev. The very fact of the allocation in the wake of the withdrawal shows that there is a realistic possibility that there will be a deterioration in the security situation because, after all, we did not need to protect these communities beforehand. This is the basic problem and the reason for my opposition to the withdrawal from Gaza. 
 

This withdrawal is taking place under terrorist pressure. Whether or not terrorism has led to the decision to withdraw, the fact is that the Palestinians believe that terrorism is what made us decide to withdraw. The leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad say clearly that from their perspective this is a rout, not a choice. Because of this they are becoming stronger politically and militarily, and are encouraged to continue using these methods.

So, the question is simple: Will Israel's security situation be improved or harmed by the withdrawal - and perhaps also by the manner in which it is carried out - that is taking place without any gain and while strengthening terrorist forces? In my view, the situation will get worse. This is why I will oppose withdrawal when the government votes on its implementation on Sunday.

Will there be consequences from the opening of Gaza to the Sinai through the IDF's withdrawal from the Philadelphi corridor and from the opening of Gaza to the world through the operation of a seaport and an airport after the withdrawal?

Not only is Hamas getting stronger in front of our very eyes, and not only are they openly announcing that they will move their missiles from Gaza to Judea and Samaria in order to rain them onto the suburbs of Tel Aviv. There exists an additional problem of outside terrorists and deadly weapons far worse than what we have seen so far that are liable to stream in from the Sinai to Gaza the minute we abandon our control of the boundaries of the Strip.

Last week, OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Dan Harel told the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Israel's security control of the Philadelphi corridor is unnecessary if Israel is enabling the construction and operation of a seaport and an airport in Gaza.

I think that there is a lot to that statement. We have to maintain complete control of the external boundaries of Gaza. I am aware that there are real difficulties in maintaining control of the Philadelphi corridor. There is a price for doing so after the withdrawal. But the price of leaving it is inestimably greater. Tuesday we heard al-Qaida's announcement that they are opening an al-Qaida Gaza branch. Today it's on the Internet. Tomorrow they will enact this in the field. And if that isn't enough, opening a seaport, together with the abandonment of the Philadelphi corridor, will create a highway for the transfer of terrorists and terror materiel.
 

Now, apropos the port, the first time the prime minister told me about the disengagement plan, I told him that one of the things he has to do, no matter what, is ensure that we maintain control over the external boundaries over the land, sea and air passages. Everyone remembers the Karine A [the weapons ship the Palestinian Authority purchased from Iran, that Israeli naval commandos intercepted in the Red Sea in January 2002]. If that ship had managed to penetrate, it would have brought in arms that could have easily threatened Ashkelon and Ashdod. Now there will be a Karine A, Karine B, Karine C and Gaza will be transformed into a base for Islamic terrorism
adjacent to the coast of the State of Israel.

Will this have an impact on US efforts in Iraq, and regarding global terrorism in general?

You need to ask why the Americans aren't unilaterally retreating from Iraq.

Why aren't they simply leaving? Because they fear what would fill the vacuum if such a policy were implemented there. They want to ensure that when they leave there will be a stable military and political base that will prevent the return and strengthening of terrorist forces. This is an encapsulation of our problem here. No one can say, with their hand on their heart, that the situation in Gaza will be better after we leave than it is today from a security perspective, from the perspective of terrorism. Because of this it isn't just our problem. It's the West's problem as well, because forces that are controlled by, deployed by and cooperate with Iran -- and today Hizbullah and Hamas are controlled in a significant way by Iran -- will receive an additional base of operations not only in close proximity to Israel's cities, but also on the coast of the Mediterranean not far from Europe.

It's true that people think this withdrawal will help calm the region. If it were to take place as part of an agreement with a responsible party capable of stabilizing the area, it would be possible to argue this case. But that is not the situation we have today. Because of this, the real danger is the transformation of Gaza into a base for global Islamic terror and it doesn't have to happen immediately.

In 1993, in the midst of the euphoria over the Oslo agreement, I warned that terrorism would plague us from all the areas we transferred to the Palestinians and that there would be missiles shot at us from Gaza. It didn t happen immediately. It took time.

In 1995, I warned that Muslim zealots would bomb the World Trade Center in New York. It didn't happen immediately. It took time. But it happened.

Today as well, when I warn about the establishment of a base for Islamic terrorism in Gaza, the realization of the danger doesn't have to happen immediately but, sadly, the possibility that it will happen is very tangible and only increases as time passes.

I would be very happy if this prognosis were proven wrong for a change. I would be very happy if we saw thousands of members of the peace camp in Gaza demonstrating with banners reading, "Thank you Israel for the just peace" and releasing thousands of doves into the sky.

But this isn't what we are seeing. We are seeing thousands of new members of Hamas who are waving their rifles in the air and crying out, "Today Gaza, tomorrow Tel Aviv."

Will the decision to withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines in Gaza have an effect on future Israeli claims to territory in Judea and Samaria?

Unilateral retreat without an agreement or any compensation - indeed, with the negative "compensation" of the strengthening of terrorist forces - is something we shouldn t be doing. But the withdrawal from Elei Sinai, Nisanit and Dugit in the northern Gaza Strip will create a precedent for a return to the 1967 boundaries. This will justify the demand.

The claim that the international community will not accept a lesser retreat - including the Philadelphi corridor, because if it is limited in any way the occupation will continue - has to be divided into two parts. From the perspective of the Arabs, particularly the extremist forces in the Arab world, a retreat from Gaza to the last meter and a retreat from Judea and Samaria to the last meter will not end the occupation. The occupation will end when we re in the sea, under the waves. That is the true liberation of Palestine, because all the territories in Gaza and Judea and Samaria are just the outside perimeters of Palestine. The real Palestine, as they themselves say, is Jaffa and Acre and Haifa and all of Jerusalem. This is a fantasy ideology, but it dictates, prolongs and strengthens the conflict. And when they see they are making progress towards this goal, the fantasy gets stronger and provides more and more fuel for the conflict.

As for the rest of the international community there are bombings in London, Madrid, New York, Bali, indeed everywhere. Of course, it is possible to explain Israel's security needs to these people. Because I do not believe that there is a country in the entire world that would evacuate, en masse, territory in close proximity to its cities and suburbs when faced with the possibility and the danger of terrorist forces entering.

What do you think of the government's acquiescence to the American demand for a freeze on all building activities in Judea and Samaria?

First of all, until now, it was always agreed even in our worst disputes that construction for natural growth was permissible. Because of this it is wrong, even in the framework of diplomatic understandings, to accept a cessation of building for a growing population. After all, people get
married. They have children.

Secondly, there are locations which strategically require our building in them. One such location of vital importance is the area that connects Ma aleh Adumim to Jerusalem, the area called E-1. There we have a duty to build as quickly as possible because the area is filling up with illegal Arab construction and the consequence of not building is that Ma aleh Adumim will be cut off from Jerusalem.

Additional construction that must take place is the central fence around the settlement blocs. These must be fenced not as isolated islands, not as ellipses that are cut off, but inside of the central fence. This is not because we will give up on the communities outside of the fence but because we must fortify on a practical level everything that is included inside of the fence route. There is a government decision to carry this out but it isn't being implemented. And it isn't because of the legal battles that it isn't being implemented; those disputes only relate to specific, relatively small, points on the fence route.

How does PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) compare with Yasser Arafat?

What constitutes a Palestinian partner? We need someone who will stop terrorism - fight it, not support it. We need someone who will cancel the goal of terrorism, which is the destruction of Zionism through the granting of a right of return. Abu Mazen abides by half of the first demand. He doesn't support terrorism, but he doesn't fight it.

As for the second criterion, a cancellation of the demand for a right of return and the idea of the destruction of Israel: Here, not only does he do nothing, he continually repeats the demand for a right of return. He isn't prepared to say, "It's over. No more war, no more bloodshed," like Anwar Sadat and King Hussein said. He isn't as terrible as Arafat because he does not actively support terrorism, but he doesn't fulfill the other criteria.

So it is reasonable to say that we have no partner.

But under these circumstances, if you want to make any unilateral moves because you don't have a partner, they still have to be based on the principle of reciprocity. When I was prime minister, I said, "If they give, they will get. If they don't, they won't."
 

I didn't support unilateral disengagement, but I told the prime minister on the first day that he presented it that in addition to maintaining control over the external boundaries, to take the large settlement blocs and place them inside the central fence. If this had been done, at least it would have been possible to mitigate some of the damage and receive something to compensate for the tragedy of expelling people from their homes.

That is, you redeploy to new lines. You can gain some measure of credibility only if you take territory and fortify settlements rather than just leaving unilaterally. That could perhaps have lent some support to the view that we are leaving out of our free will and that we haven't been routed by terrorism in the eyes of the Palestinians. Since this wasn't done, in their eyes we are fleeing and rewarding them for terrorism.

Why did you want to discuss the protest organized by the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip in Sderot at the cabinet meeting on Sunday?

Because the issue of the boundaries of democracy is a crucial issue. I don't think that the government has to decide what demonstration to permit or to prohibit. I wouldn't want to live in a country where the government decides things like that. There is a legal framework and the government has to enforce it.

The police are also subordinate to the rights of freedom of expression and of protest. I thought that the decision to stop vehicles in distant cities [ahead of the protest two weeks ago in Netivot and Kfar Maimon] was bizarre.

I am not aware of a single instance of a democratic country using forces to prevent people from gathering for a protest located far away from where they were blocked.

Forces have been used at the location of the demonstration. They have prevented the crossing of borders - both physical and behavioral - by demonstrators. That is legitimate and it is the right and the duty of the government and police to act in such a manner. But I never heard of a case where they stopped buses in New Jersey or Milwaukee on the way to a protest in Washington because some of the demonstrators might try to reach the gates of the White House.

Do you feel that Israeli democracy is being adversely impacted by the manner in which the evacuation is being implemented?

Not from a legal perspective. The decisions that were made were made legally. There is no question about that, in spite of my personal opposition to the plan. There is no doubt that there is a parliamentary majority and a majority in the government for the plan. But enabling people to demonstrate lawfully is the foundation of democracy. It's like an argument in the cabinet. The argument is the purpose of the government.

When I was prime minister, there were difficult and harsh disagreements. I respected the fact
that some of the ministers did not support me including someone who was then the minister of infrastructure [Ariel Sharon]. I never saw anything anti-democratic or subversive in these disputes. Deliberation is an organic part of the democratic process. That standard must not be canceled.

Sharon says that it is easy for his opponents to criticize him because they aren't the ones who have to make the decisions. As a former prime minister, do you agree with that?

Everyone has the right to think he is right. But at the end of the day, policies are determined both by majority decision and by deliberation and disagreement. In democracies, there are almost no decisions that are made unanimously. Deliberations are what distinguish between democratic and other forms of government.

Do you think that the involvement of the army in the evacuation will harm the IDF's ability to remain a melting pot for Israeli society after the operation is completed?

I hope this operation will not be a precedent on two counts. First, I hope there are no more unilateral evacuations in the future. And second, I hope we will not need the IDF for such operations again.

One of the main criticisms lodged at anti-evacuation demonstrators is that they are disregarding the democratic decision-making process that led to disengagement - and that therefore, their protests are illegitimate.

The goal of the protesters is irrelevant. Their actions are what are relevant. In a democracy you don't check what a protester feels in his heart. You don t send in a psychologist or an intelligence operative to check what the protester is saying to his wife. There are actions that are unacceptable. If the plan is to enter into the closed military zone in Gush Katif, then you have to prevent that from happening. If the plan is to overturn cars or pour oil on the highway, you have to stop that.

But there are two dangers to a democracy. The first is when someone on a side to some dispute takes the law into his own hands and harms, wounds or murders his adversary while breaking all the boundaries of legitimate dispute. This is one danger.

There is another danger, of attaching to your political opponents the actions of extremists whose actions or possible actions are illegal in order to delegitimize an entire pubic.

The best example I can give you is actually from the US. There are people who support legalized abortions and there are people who oppose them. This is as stormy and emotional a debate and it is a legitimate one. What is not legitimate is that there are some people who have bombed abortion clinics and even killed doctors. These are criminal acts against which the full brunt of the law must be exercised. But to say that because of the actions of these extremists, anyone who opposes abortions is a murderer or supports murderers is just as much of an anti-democratic act. It is not legitimate. Both extremes have to be avoided. The law must be upheld and an entire
political camp must not be delegitimized when someone breaks the law in the name of its cause.

Many people say that in light of your opposition to disengagement, you should leave the government and lead the opposition.

The majority in the Knesset and the government is an automatic one that will not change. I say this with sorrow but this is my assessment. At the same time, our security problems are not about to go away with the withdrawal, they will only begin. And there will be a lot of issues on the agenda before elections are called. As long as I can influence Israel's security, and of course our economy, I will remain in my position. For example, there was a dispute about whether or not to destroy the homes of those set for evacuation. I think that my view [that the homes should be destroyed] was influential. Now we are dealing with the question of whether or not to give the Palestinians guns -- another terrible mistake. I think that I have spoken out strongly against this and I want to believe that my views will carry weight.

Will you pay a political price for remaining in the government?

I don't need to think about that. I didn't consider the political damage I incurred when I came out against the Oslo plan in 1993 when 70 percent of the public favored it. I didn't think about the political damage that would be caused when 70% of the public opposed my economic reforms. Nor am I thinking about political damage when I come out against the withdrawal when the Israeli public supports it. I do what I think is right.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

It is still unknown what will happen today and in the coming days in the newest face-off between the police and the tens of thousands of Israeli citizens who wish to assemble in Sderot to protest the Sharon government's plan to expel 10,000 Israeli citizens from their homes and communities in Gaza and northern Samaria.

On Sunday night, the police were sending their personnel to the Western Negev ahead of the expected order to close the entire area off to civilian traffic to prevent protesters from participating in the demonstration in Sderot called by the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

During the cabinet meeting on Sunday morning, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon prevented Education Minister Limor Livnat from starting a discussion of the government's position on the police's decision, which is backed by Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz, to prevent lawful protesters from arriving at Sderot. In so deciding the police and the attorney-general have made clear that they believe it is more important to prevent a political protest than to uphold the legal right of Israeli citizens to travel freely in the country.

In her request to discuss the issue, Livnat said that the decision to block protesters "is not a technical or operational decision, but a much wider issue. It involves the balance between democracy and the enactment of government and Knesset decisions. Democracy is not simply the holding of elections. It is also the safeguarding of the freedom of expression, of protest, and of demonstration. Here we are talking about a large public that is protesting and angry. And so a decision to prevent buses from traveling to Sderot is a decision the government has to discuss."

When Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu attempted to add his voice to the discussion, Sharon cut him off saying, "The issue is not on the agenda, and it is not open for discussion."

Today there are three girls, aged 13 to 16, who are in jail until the end of proceedings against them. Moria Goldberg, 13, Chaya Belogrodsky, 14, and Pnina Ashkenazi, 16, have been incarcerated since June 29, when they were arrested while participating in an anti-withdrawal and expulsion demonstration aimed at blocking highway traffic.

In a letter I received from Chaya's father, Moshe, he relates that in her decision to uphold the lower court's ruling to remand his daughter in custody until the end of legal proceedings against her, Supreme Court Justice Ayala Procaccia wrote that Chaya must remain in jail for a period that could last months because she constitutes a "danger to the society because of her ideological motivation." The amazing thing is that if Chaya is convicted, according to her father the maximum punishment she is liable to receive is a monetary fine.

THE FACT that a Supreme Court justice could label a young girl a danger to society because of her "ideological motivation" is no surprise to 50-year-old Vitaly Vovnoboy. At 5 a.m. on July 4, six men, in civilian dress, five of them armed with M-16 rifles, forcibly entered the Vovnoboys' home in Karnei Shomron. After a panic-stricken Vovnoboy screamed out "Terrorists!" the men identified themselves as police officers. Armed with a search and arrest warrant, which they refused to show Vovnoboy, who subsequently fainted, or his wife, they proceeded to confiscate two of the family's computers, and membership forms for the Likud Party that were piled on his desk.

Only after they had arrested Vovnoboy and taken him to the Russian Compound in Jerusalem was he informed that he had been arrested for sedition and distributing seditious materials. Vovnoboy was remanded in custody for four days the next morning by a Jerusalem district judge in spite of the fact that his lawyer showed that the arrest and search had been conducted illegally. According to the warrant, two witnesses were supposed to have been present during the execution of the warrant, and none were.

VOVNOBOY'S "crime" was having provided technical support for the Internet site belonging to the anti-withdrawal and anti-expulsion group "Habayit Haleumi" (the National Home), whose members organized the highway blocking protests. Both while under arrest, and since his release, Vovnoboy has not once been interrogated.

Vovnoboy, a senior software engineer for a major international hi-tech firm, is a well-known and highly respected figure in Russian immigrant circles. He is a long-time member of the Likud and serves as a member of the party's Central Committee. After making aliya in 1991 from Moscow, he was a member of the Zionist Forum led by Natan Sharansky, and later served as its acting chairman.

Word of his arrest sparked uproar in the community. Fifteen former Prisoners of Zion sent a letter of protest demanding his immediate release to President Moshe Katsav, Internal Security Minister Gideon Ezra and the prime minister. MKs Yuli Edelstein and Yuri Shtern wrote similar appeals.

In his view, the entire ordeal "was meant to terrorize and silence Sharon's political opposition." The forms confiscated from his home were signatures from Likud Central Committee members demanding a convening of the committee to debate the removal of Sharon from his leadership of the party. In order to convene the committee, 20 percent of its members must sign requests to do so. Vovnoboy had planned to submit the forms the day after he was arrested. The deadline for submission was the day before he was released. The police returned the forms to him two days after the deadline passed.

Last Wednesday, Yekutiel Ben Yaacov was arrested on charges of inciting racism. Ben Yaacov runs a Web site called mishal.org where visitors are asked to decide whether they prefer Sharon's plan to expel Jews from Gaza and northern Samaria or the Web site's plan to expel Palestinians who refuse to commit to not carrying out violent activities against Israel. He was interrogated for several hours in Jerusalem and then released.

The arrests of Ben Yaacov and Vovnoboy and the remand of the girls are appalling and alarming because, at base, the police and court actions taken against them are all directed not at their actions, but at their thoughts and ideas. The "danger" they constitute is not the threat or commission of violent crimes, but rather the fact that they object to the government's policies.

In a rare move, on Sunday, President Katsav criticized the Supreme Court for refusing to rule on the legality of the police decision to block buses transporting protesters to the anti-withdrawal and expulsion demonstration at Netivot two weeks ago. "I would have expected the court to decide on this issue. There has to be a distinction between crimes. In this case there was no intention on the part of the opponents of withdrawal to commit a break-in or a theft, rather they wished to protest against the withdrawal," Katsav said.

Given Justice Procaccia's view that the opponents of the withdrawal and expulsion plan manifest a danger to society because of their "ideological motivation," it is hardly surprising that the she and her colleagues on the court are allowing Sharon, through the police, to trample the laws of the country. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly apparent that for supporters of Sharon's plan, the test of whether someone is or is not a danger to society has nothing to do with his respect for law. The litmus test that defines what is or is not "lawful" or "democratic" is whether a person, through action or thought, is obedient or disobedient to Sharon's withdrawal and expulsion regime.

These are dark days for Israeli democracy. We see in the behavior of the police, the courts and the Prime Minister's Office, that in their hysteria to push through a controversial plan whose benefits to Israel's national interests and security are unclear at best, everyone who objects to this plan – regardless of age, station or action – is suspect. Their homes are raided, their liberties denied and their civil and legal rights discarded.

Is this really a price the Israeli public is willing to pay – for anything? Is this what we have come to?

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.