This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

071404Z Jun 05

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 TEL AVIV 003520 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR NEA, NEA/IPA, NEA/PPD 
 
WHITE HOUSE FOR PRESS OFFICE, SIT ROOM 
NSC FOR NEA STAFF 
 
JERUSALEM ALSO FOR ICD 
LONDON ALSO FOR HKANONA AND POL 
PARIS ALSO FOR POL 
ROME FOR MFO 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: IS KMDR MEDIA REACTION REPORT
SUBJECT: SPECIAL MEDIA REACTION: TURNING OF THE TIDE? 
RECENT MEDIA COMMENTARY ON DISENGAGEMENT 
 
 
¶1. Summary: A series of interviews on the disengagement 
plan conducted by feature writer Ari Shavit has 
captured the attention of leading opinion makers in the 
Israeli media for the past week.  While those on the 
right criticize the initiative as a "national disaster" 
and those on the left as the right action being taken 
in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons, almost all 
of the interviewees were critical of the logic behind 
the plan.  The interviews, and the discussion of them, 
bring fresh public attention to disengagement at a time 
when public support of the plan is at its lowest point 
ever.  End summary. 
 
¶2. The feature story in the Ha'aretz weekend supplement 
published on Friday, June 3 was an interview with 
outgoing Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces 
Moshe Ya'alon by feature writer Ari Shavit, who was 
identified with the left before the outbreak of the 
second intifada and has generally moved closer to the 
center since then.  Shavit, who also authored last 
October's controversial interview with Sharon adviser 
Dov Weisglass, is credited by his peers as being an 
excellent interviewer, who coaxes deeper thoughts out 
of politicians than the day-to-day statements that 
comprise their usual public voices.  The essence of 
this interview is that, according to Ya'alon, Israel 
should not expect an end to the conflict with the 
Palestinians in the next generation, and certainly not 
following disengagement.  It can rather expect a "third 
intifada" in the near term and maintenance of the 
reality of a "struggle society" in the long term. 
 
¶3. The Ha'aretz feature coincided neatly with the 
publication of Shavit's new book, which is scheduled 
for release this week.  Entitled "Dividing the Land," 
this book has attracted extensive commentary in both 
Yedioth Ahronoth and Maariv, the two leading Israeli 
dailies.  Shavit's book summarizes 33 interviews on the 
topic of disengagement, its likely impact, and likely 
scenarios for the day after disengagement, held with 
key Israeli public figures from across the political 
spectrum, including both military officials and 
academic experts.  And as Maariv's June 7 editorial on 
the book points out, "The result... is very surprising. 
While every one of the 33 people interviewed has a 
completely different point of departure, nearly all of 
them come to the very same conclusion: disengagement is 
liable to produce very grave results.  They are leery 
of a surge in violence and terrorism, anticipate the 
collapse of moderates in the Palestinian Authority and 
believe that Qassam rockets will begin to be fired in 
the near future on Netanya and Ashkelon.  One can argue 
with their projections, one may certainly focus on the 
half-full glass, but when similar comments are made by 
both Yossi Beilin and Binyamin Netanyahu - they are at 
least worth listening to." 
 
¶4. Maariv's editorial gives a brief synopsis of the 
book and presents a few quotes from leading public 
figures, quoting nine of the interview subjects and 
some of their "particularly surprising positions." 
 
-Yossi Beilin, Chairman, Yahad-Meretz: 
"If disengagement does not lead to an immediate final 
status arrangement it will be catastrophic for both the 
Israelis and the Palestinians....The disengagement plan 
is liable to bring about a resumption of violence.... 
There is palpable danger that in the wake of 
disengagement, violence in the West Bank will rise 
significantly so as to achieve the same Palestinian 
achievement that was achieved in Gaza." 
 
-Professor Shlomo Ben-Ami, former foreign minister, 
Labor: 
"Unilateral withdrawal perpetuates the image of Israel 
as a country that flees under pressure.... If the 
unilateral measures continue we will find ourselves 
establishing an enemy Palestinian state." 
 
-Ami Ayalon, former GSS director: 
"The withdrawal from Dugit, Nissanit, and Eli Sinai is 
a grave mistake.  It is justified neither 
demographically nor in terms of security, and the price 
it is liable to exact from us is unwarranted.... The 
plan is liable to strengthen the extremist forces in 
Palestinian society." 
 
-Maj. General (res.) Eitan Ben Eliyahu, former IAF 
commander: 
"If there is no quick progress from disengagement to a 
comprehensive withdrawal, people will regroup in 
support of a one-state solution.  With that will come 
the end of the Zionist dream, and the Jewish state will 
be lost." 
 
-Maj. General (res.) Uzi Dayan, former deputy chief of 
staff: 
"The withdrawal from Nissanit, Dugit, and Eli Sinai is 
a double mistake: security-wise, it needlessly brings 
the threat of Qassam rockets closer to Ashkelon. 
Politically, it sets a dangerous precedent of a 
unilateral withdrawal to the 1967 lines, which 
strengthens the Palestinians' demand for a return to 
the June 4 lines." 
 
-Maj. General Shlomo Gazit, former commander of the IDF 
Intelligence Branch: 
"It is likely that within not too long a period of time 
we will face mortar shells and Kassam rocket fire from 
the West Bank as well.  These shells and rockets are 
going to strike in Kfar Saba and might even reach 
Netanya." 
 
-Ephraim Halevy, former Mossad director: 
"After disengagement is implemented, Israel is going to 
be faced with diplomatic distress of a kind we haven't 
known for years.... An imposed solution and 
partitioning along the lines of the Clinton plan by the 
end of 2008 can be expected." 
 
-Shabtai Shavit, former Mossad director: 
"The disengagement plan is self-defeating.  It creates 
a state of instability.  The plan does not create the 
minimal balance necessary to allow for coexistence over 
time.... Immediately after disengagement Israel is 
going to find itself on a collision course with the 
United States." 
 
-Professor Yitzhak Ben-Yisrael, IDF Maj. General (res.) 
and former director general, Weapons Research and 
Development Administration, Ministry of Defense: 
"Rocket fire into Israel is inevitable.... The IDF will 
have to enter Palestinian territory to create a 
security zone some ten kilometers wide." 
 
¶5. As senior columnist Nahum Barnea writes in Yedioth 
Ahronoth on June 6, "The timing of the book's release 
is problematic.  As some of the interviewees say, it is 
too late to stop the disengagement initiative or change 
its nature; and perhaps it is too soon to foresee where 
it is headed; no one knows what will happen during the 
evacuation, whether the internal clash will pass 
peacefully or whether it will deteriorate into 
bloodshed; no one knows how the Israeli withdrawal will 
affect the Palestinian arena and Israel's foreign 
relations; no one knows whether Sharon will survive the 
evacuation from a political standpoint and wield an 
effect on the moves of the day after.  34 prophecies 
are in the book, almost all eloquent and well reasoned, 
and each is different than the last."  What is clear, 
however, is that public support for disengagement is 
eroding.  Maariv's most recent poll, published on June 
3, showed that 50 percent of the Israeli public 
supports disengagement, which represents a 9 percent 
drop from two weeks earlier, and is the lowest level of 
support since Prime Minister Sharon announced the 
disengagement plan. 
 
¶6. Not all commentators share in the pessimism on 
disengagement expressed in the interviews with Shavit. 
In an op-ed piece published in Maariv on June 7, on the 
same page as the editorial cited above, diplomatic 
correspondent Ben Caspit reminds readers that similar 
"doomsday prophecies" preceded Israel's withdrawal from 
Lebanon.  "What became of the warnings?  They went up 
in smoke.  It is easy to warn, pleasant to caution, and 
it costs nothing to induce panic."  Caspit credits 
Sharon for being willing to take a politically 
dangerous decision for the good of Israel in the long 
term, and points out that just as Israel has gained 
from Barak's decision to withdraw from Lebanon, Israel 
has already benefited from disengagement: "Let's remind 
everyone what we had here up until a few months ago. 
Blood was flowing in the streets.  Depression.  A sense 
of hopelessness....  Since then the economy has begun 
to recover, the malls are full, the beaches are 
teeming, the new terminal at Ben-Gurion Airport is 
collapsing under the sheer weight of passengers both 
arriving and departing.  Israel's international 
standing is flourishing at unprecedented levels. 
Terrorism, even in global figures, has decreased.  All 
of that, no matter what anyone says, and with all due 
respect to Netanyahu and Yaalon and even the foreign 
minister, are the products of disengagement." 
 
¶7. Comment: As disengagement approaches, evolving from 
a distant possibility in the hazy future to imminent 
reality whose nuts-and-bolts consequences (where will 
the ex-settlers live?  How will goods, services, and 
people move in and out of Gaza?  What to do with the 
crops planted in the hothouses?  What to do with 
soldiers who refuse to obey orders?) are being debated 
in the media with increasing vehemence, media 
commentary and opinion are accurately reflecting the 
inevitable - Disengagement looks to be a turning point 
in the history of Israel.  Love it or hate it, 
disengagement will change Israel forever, and Israelis 
across the spectrum realize this.  End comment. 
 
 
KURTZER