Vol.
V:7 (No. 55)
July
2005 - .Sivan-Tammuz 5765
THE WAR OF THE SONS OF
DARKNESS
They
neither know nor understand,
They
go about in darkness.
-- Psalm 82:5
One of the ancient Hebrew
documents found among the Dead Sea Scrolls tells of an epochal War of the Sons
of Light and the Sons of Darkness.
The Children of Israel from
ancient times to the present day have endured and survived many a war against
them by other peoples' Sons of Darkness. Now, they are under assault by the
darkest of their own sons, a war proclaimed such bland names as Peace Process,
Roadmap, and Disengagement.
Oh,
my people!
Your
leaders are misleaders.
They
have confused the course of your paths
. Isaiah 3:12
"No Jew has the right to yield the
rights of the Jewish People in Israel. No Jew has the authority to do so. No
Jewish body has the authority to do so. Not even the entire Jewish People alive
today as the right to yield any part of Israel."
-- David Ben-Gurion
The decline in Israel's
strength and standing during the last twelve years is not an achievement of the
enemies bent on its destruction. It is brought about by its own Sons of
Darkness who conceived and managed to impose the doctrine of surrender to those
enemies, beginning with the lethal Oslo Accords and the refusal to rescind them
after they were proven lethal. Now, encouraged by their own successes against
their own people, they push on to the even more lethal Disengagement. [See
further Issues Nos. 37, 39, 40, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51]
* * * * * * * * *
* * *
Sharon and his inner-circle
cronies invented Disengagement without even informing much less consulting
those responsible for the nation's security and well-being. The IDF Chief-of-Staff
first learned of it from a public news report. Israel's best interests were
never a factor or even a consideration in concocting and forcing through this
plan. The make-believe advantages turn out to be empty excuses.
1] There is scarcely a pretense
that Disengagement will lead to peace, or even to a lower level of PLO
hostility and terrorism. Mahmoud Abbas and his fellow Terror Chiefs make it
clear that they regard Disengagement as a victory for terrorism, urge PLO
journalists to "celebrate it", and openly plan to exploit the new
scope given them for terrorist campaigns.
The Sharon regime's
Ambassador to the United States was recently quoted as saying that after
Disengagement is complete, then Israel will demand that the PLO dismantle its
terrorist structure. Such a remark is stupidity beyond the call of duty.
2] Disengagement will not
free Israel of a burden of Gaza. Even while it encourages and empowers the
PLO/Hamas, Israel will still have to supply them with water, utility, and other
services, augmented by ever more extravagent demands on their behalf from
Condoleeza Rice. Sharon cannot even go on touting his plan as
"independent" of the PLO, when Rice demands "coordination"
with her protege.
3] Sharon in past alleged
that Disengagement would bring Israel some relief from outside pressure for
concessions, and even Bush-Rice Administration permission to keep some little
bits of the Land of Israel. Instead, the show of Israeli weakness contributes
to an administration policy that is revealed by its recent proclamations to be
egregiously pro-PLO. [See Issue No. 53]
4] It is reported that
Sharon and his cronies invented Disengagement to cover up the alleged
corruption and criminal frauds of Sharon and his sons Gilad and Omri. If this
is so, the scheme has failed. The Attorney General declined to use the mass of
evidence of improprieties committed by Ariel and Gilad Sharon, but he has
indicted Omri Sharon for crooked fund-raising and campaign misconduct.
News media and Osloid
politicians openly state that they will turn against him once they have gotten
the Disengagement for which they yearn. Shimon Peres and his party have
promised to bring down the government if Disengagement is not quickly followed
by the surrender of the rest of Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem. Former Prime
Minister Ehud Barak demands that, in view of the Sharon family's naughty ways,
Sharon should retire from public life -- as soon as he has carried through the
Disengagement.
*
* * * * * * * * * * *
Sharon and his henchpersons
set in place all the support they expected to need. Members of the cabinet who
were firm against Disengagement were fired to prevent them from voting on it.
The Osloid-Defeatist Labor Party, that the electorate had massively rejected,
was brought into the government. Shimon Peres, Prince of the Sons of Darkness,
became Vice Prime Minister. [See Issue No. 49] Both the IDF Chief-of-Staff and
the national Chief of Intelligence were ousted for insufficient enthusiasm for
the Disengagement and their posts bestowed on more compliant replacements. A
supportive Attorney-General, Minister of Defense, Minister of Internal
Security, Minister of Justice, and Chief of Police were installed.
Most of the news media were
already in place, eager to jettison any journalistic ethics that might get in
the way of a plan that so perfectly matches their own anti-national and
anti-religious agenda. They became instant temporary champions of a man they
hate -- but only for as long as he useful to them.
One of their number exhorts
the media to treat Sharon as tenderly as an etrog" until the Disengagement
has been accomplished. An etrog is a citron used a symbol of the fruitfulness
of the Land during the week-long harvest festival of Sukkot. Those who observe
this festival happily choose their etrogs and carefully preserve them. The
media's modern universalists are not notably respectful of such ancestral
traditions, so there may be an implied smirk in this choice of simile, along
with the implication that after Sukkot/Disengagement is over then so is the
role of the etrog.
Organs of justice and the
judiciary place the Arch-Disengager above the law. The Attorney General closes
the file on Sharon's alleged serial corruptions. A senior police official
explains why Sharon should be exempt from investigation: "It's
unreasonable to topple a government over criminal cases . . . policy is not to
delve into cases that might incriminate the Prime Minister, in order not to
destabilize the regime".
The Supreme Court of Israel,
notorious for assuming the right to impose its own enlightened morality on
society, approves this unique immunity because "the indictment of a Prime
Minister would lead, probably immediately, to changes in the government order
in the country, which would be liable to have a dramatic influence on the
policy."
Not one of the excuses for
Disengagement is valid. Why, then, are Sharon and his henchpersons careening
down a slide toward disaster to Israel, triumph to its enemies, dividing and
endangering society and even compromising the IDF that stands guard over it?
Those who contrived the Oslo
Accords did not themselves believe they would bring peace -- though they
tricked others into believing it. What they did believe is that that throwing
away the Promised Land after it was finally redeemed would break the Jewish
heart and crush the Jewish spirit. After that, their country would be free of
old-fashioned traditions and observances and out-dated standards of personal
morality. Perhaps the world would allow them to keep a bit of rump state in
which to strut their post-Judaic post-Zionist enlightened universalism. They
have not yet achieved this goal, but they are still working at it.
Excerpts from
"Scorched-earth Kulturkampf," by Caroline Glick, Jerusalem
Post, 11 July 2005:
[. . . . ] In Haaretz's
Friday editorial the rationale for the Left's support of Sharon's plan was laid
bare: 'The disengagement of Israeli policy from its religious fuel is the real
disengagement currently on the agenda. On the day after the disengagement,
religious Zionism's status will be different . . . . The real question is not
how many mortar shells will fall, or who will guard the Philadelphi route, or
whether the Palestinians will dance on the roofs of Ganei Tal. The real
question is who sets the national agenda.'
Doron Rosenblum, one of the
paper's chief columnists, spelled the message out even more bluntly on Sunday,
fulminating, 'There is an enemy on the Right . . . . at least let him not
complain about being treated like an enemy .
. . . '
Dan Margalit, the senior
commentator at [the newspaper] Ma'ariv . . . . argued in favor of
placing quotas on the number of religious Jews allowed to serve as officers in
the IDF. Referring to religious Jews serving in the IDF as 'the dear
brothers,' Margalit invoked the Latin expression for quotas for Jews
restricting their right to study in European and American universities in the
early 20th century - the infamous numerus clausus. He warned religious Israelis
that if they refuse to carry out the expulsion of Jews from Gaza and northern
Samaria, 'the reaction to their action is liable to be a numerus clausus, this
time in Hebrew, Jews against Jews. Hair-raising, but there is no choice.'
What we see here unfolding
is a situation where the anti-religious Left, the primary supporters of Ariel
Sharon's policy to forcibly expel 10,000 Jews from their homes and communities,
has given the policy their support -- through its members' legal authority and
public platforms -- not because they see any security benefit arising from the
move. In fact, they support the plan despite its security dangers because they
see it as a culminating battle in their cultural war against religious Zionism.
[. . . .] There are multiple
and weighty arguments against the withdrawal and expulsion plan. Some of them
relate to the moral issue of expelling Jews from their homes and making areas
of the Land of Israel - or any land for that matter - off-limits to all Jews.
[. . . .] Aside from the moral
questions, all Israelis who don't have a death wish are concerned with the
security implications of handing land and strategic positions over to a junta
of terrorists who have repeatedly stated their intention to use that land and
those positions to advance their terror war against the State of Israel.
Yet, to date, due to the
negligence of the media and the courts, no government official -- from the
prime minister on down -- has been called on to answer how Israel will be
militarily better off without Gaza and northern Samaria. Indeed, no government
spokesman from Sharon on down has been able to coherently explain how Israel
will defend itself when Gaza and northern Samaria are under Hamas and Fatah
control.
The security consequences of
the plan have been systematically ignored while the full brunt of media
scrutiny has been placed on its religious opponents. They are reviled as
zealots, criminals and extremists. Rabbis are threatened with firings and the
closing of their yeshivot if they do not toe the government line. Gaza
residents are accused of being money-grubbing and wasteful of government
resources for forcing the IDF to expel them rather than leaving their homes
quietly and meekly. Religious Jews are being intimidated with threats to keep
them out of the army or prevent their promotion in the ranks, simply because it
will be necessary to prevent what Margalit refers to as 'difficulties with
future operations'.
There are ample reasons to
be concerned about and, indeed, oppose a plan that involves no security
opportunities -- only expanding threats -- for Israel. But at the end of the
day what is even more debilitating are the plan's implications for the future
of Israel as a democracy.
When the loudest voices
favoring it are those espousing hatred and exclusion of religious Zionists, . .
. it becomes absolutely clear that for the plan's strongest advocates,
capitulation to terror is a means of carrying out their culture war against
religious Jews.
And just as security can be
readily sacrificed, democracy and the rule of law become mere Pascal lambs on
the altar of cultural supremacy -- ignored, reviled and happily trounced on the
path to victory in the culture war these priests of enlightenment instigated
against their brethren years and years ago."
An example that reveals the
anti-religious factor in the campaign as reported by IsraelNationalNews.com, 20
July 2005:
An Israel Broadcasting
Authority crew traveling towards Kfar Maimon to cover the events surrounding
the March to Gaza was stopped en route by police for a routine inspection.
One crew member, an Orthodox
male wearing a kippa [yarmulke] was instructed to step out of the vehicle. He
was questioned as to the purpose of his presence, responding he is a member of
the film crew. He displayed his Government Press Office press credentials, but
police continued to suspect his motives for traveling to Kfar Maimon.
Only following the
intervention of co-workers, who explained he is a member of their regular crew,
was he permitted to return to the vehicle and continue towards Kfar
Maimon."
Comment: Sharon recently made a
supposedly public address, at which all men wearing kippot (skull-caps of
observant Jews) were denied entry.
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
Among the closest of
Sharon's cronies is Dov Weisglass, his personal attorney, his one-time government
Bureau Chief, and his favored emissary to both the United States and the PLO.
Weisglass is believed to be the counsellor who invented Disengagement as a
jolly good way "to change the public agenda away from the media's focus on
the investigation" of Sharon family corruptions.
Among Weisglass's lucrative
legal clients have been Arafat's personal treasurer, who is also a buddy of
Omri Sharon, and the gambling casino in ancient Jericho owned by the PLO and
its Austrian partners. The profits from the casino ran up to $1,000,000 a day,
as hyper-secular Israelis came to donate their losings to the PLO terror-fund
and other interested parties.
Weissglass reportedly seeks
to expand his casino-clientele via a beach-and- gambling resort to be build at
Elei Sinai in Gaza, as soon as the present obstacles of Jewish homes, farms,
and communities are cleared away.
Other parties to the Elei
Sinai renewal project include:
1] Shmuel Flatto-Sharon in
his native France was convicted of embezzlement of $60,000,000 and sentenced to
five years in prison. He escaped to Israel, sought immunity from extradition to
France by buying himself a seat in the Knesset, and then served a nine-month
prison term for the vote-buying.
The twice-convicted felon comes
to Elai Sinai in his silver Mercedes limousine. He is working for permits from
the PLO to proceed with the gambling casino, and from the government Israel to
let Israelis to lose more money there.
2] Cyril Kern, an old buddy
of Sharon's and now a resident of South Africa, was an investor in the PLO's
Jericho casino. His gift of $1,500,000 to the Sharon family and/or political
campaign, is under investigation.
3] Martin Shlaff is an
Austrian banker and financier, was an investor in the PLO's Jericho casino. He
part in transferring funds to the Sharon family/campaign is under
investigation.
4] Norbert Aleman, a
business tycoon in Las Vegas, Nevada, the center for gambling casinos in the
United States.
5] A Saudi Arabian
multi-billionaire who is also interested in buying the state-of-the-art
agricultural greenhouses after the Jews who built them are expelled.
The head of Sharon's
Disengagement Coordinating Team is Eival Giladi. He is simultaneously the Chief
Executive Office of the financial Portland Trust that does business with the
PLO in Gaza. Giladi raised $500,000,000 to invest in PLO housing in Gaza after
the Jewish housing has been razed.
The largest investor in the
Portland Trust is Sir Ronald Cohen, a close associate of Chancellor of the
Exchequer and Prime-Minister-in-Waiting Gordon Brown. The charter of the
Portland Trust commits it "to advance the interests of both the British
government and the European Union".
Comment: It is reported that Elei Sinai is slated to be the first Jewish community demolished.
So --
What are the benefits of Disengagement?
1] Jews alienated from their
own tradition can vent their spite on the Jews who remain faithful.
2] Entrepreneurs of
problematic ethics can pocket their profits.
3] The PLO/Hamas terrorists can
rejoice at their victory over an Israel that was once uniquely staunch against
terrorism.
* * * * * * * * *
* * *
"When
the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When
the government fears the people, there is liberty."\
-- Thomas Jefferson
The Disengagers did not
bother with securing support from an element of society they regard as
insignificant: The people. When mere common citizens have the temerity to
resist, the response is to deprive them of elementary civil rights.
-- Girls in their early
teens are arrested merely for being present at an anti-Disengagement protest,
and held in prison indefinitely -- sometimes in solitary confinement.
--A woman active in the
protest movement wrote a letter to an official Disengager with uncomplimentary
but not threatening comments, and has therefore been charged with the crime of
"insulting a public official".
--The Attorney-General is
"investigating" a rabbi for praying that Sharon retire to his farm.
Prime Minister Menahem Begin
predicted that if Ariel Sharon came to power "The first time he
doesn't get his way he'll put tanks around the Knesset". That perception
of ruthless egomania was correct, though so far Sharon has not needed the
tanks. He has never
taken any meaningful action against the terrorist entity that slaughters
Israelis, but he is fierce against Jews who defy his whims.
Sharon orders IDF to use
force against Jews, Jerusalem Newswire, 17 July 2005
As disengagement gets
underway Prime Minister Ariel Sharon Sunday ordered the IDF to use "all
force" necessary to prevent Israeli Jews from entering the Gaza Strip with
the intention of thwarting his 'disengagement' plan. Ha'aretz reported that as
IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz was briefing the cabinet on a weekend clash between
security forces and Gaza settlers at the Kissufim Crossing, Sharon interrupted
and demanded the army take all measures to put down the protesters.
"You must act with all
severity. I
instruct to use all force to prevent the entry of protesters [into Gaza] and to
prevent assaults on IDF soldiers,” Sharon was quoted as saying. [Comment:
It is PLO terrorists, not loyal Jews, who plan assault on IDF soldiers.]
Hundreds of Jewish settlers
marched on Kissufim Crossing Saturday evening to protest the permanent closure
of Gaza to all non-resident Israelis. [. . . .] During the melee, nine soldiers
openly refused orders to fight their fellow Jews. The government and army vowed
to deal with the soldiers harshly, and decided to disband their unit.
Sharon blamed the right-wing
activity against his policies for the failure to put a stop to ongoing
terrorist artillery attacks against Jews in and around Gaza. . . . . Analysts,
however, suggested Sharon's diplomatic considerations were preventing massive
defensive action by IDF ground forces already massed on Gaza's northern border
since last Friday."
There are mounting charges
of brutality by agents of the government in the police and the prisons. Among
those reported by IsraelNationalNews:
12 July 2005:
The Knesset Law Committee
today viewed an Arutz-7 film of police beating an anti-evacuation protestor,
and it demanded an investigation. The film showed police severely beating Akiva
Vitkin, who was trying to block traffic on June 29 in Ramat Gan, adjacent to
Tel Aviv.
One policeman motioned to
his colleagues to help beat Vitkin, and they sat on him and stuck fingers in
his nose and mouth, causing excessive bleeding and facial injuries. [. . . .
]"
19 July 2005:
After 54 days in jail, the
court has released Eliyahu Herbst because there is no incriminating evidence
against him. He was released with no limitations at all.
Herbst, father of 6 and
grandfather of 2, was originally arrested in Arad during the first
roadblockings, for 'standing in an illegal assembly and not dispersing'. The
judge offered to release him on condition that he not take part in further
illegal demonstrations, but he refused, saying, 'The evidence against me shows
that I was only standing nearby - so that means that every time I walk in the
street I can be accused of violating the conditions'.
During his stay in jail, the
police consistently abused him, physically and emotionally. Individuals from
the Nahshon unit violently pushed and dragged him while bringing him,
handcuffed, to jail. In the Maaseyahu prison, he was kept in solitary
confinement for 20 days, with no reason given. He was also given other
punishments, such as denial of visits and phone calls, with no
explanation."
On the other side of the
scale, enforcers of Disengagement are not immune from punishment.
Negev District Police
Commander Niso Shacham was in charge of action against the civilian
"protestors" peaceably assembled and forcibly detained within his
jurisdiction.
A TV-news crew filmed and
recorded his instructions to a subordinate on how to deal with the
"protestors". His words are as brutal, vicious, and obscene as might
be expected from a Cossack leading a pogram.
After the public release of
his performance, Chief of Police Moshe Karadi investigated Shacham's
professional demeanor and ruled that:
1. he will not in the future deal with
"protestors"
2. a reprimand will be entered in his record
3. six days' pay will be docked from his
salary.
* * * * * * * * *
* * *
Citizens are denied the right
to travel if the government does not like the itinerary. In cities around the
Land, agents of the government tried to prevent citizens from assembling at
Netivot [inside the "green line"] to protest the official sealing off
entry to the Jewish towns of Gush Katif. Police stopped lawfully chartered
buses, evicted the passengers, and even confiscated the licenses of the
drivers.
One of the evicted
passengers was former Chief Rabbi Avraham Shapira, aged 80, so set off to walk
to his distant destination.
The usually leftist
Association for Civil Rights in Israel professed itself "unable to find
any law providing a legal foundation for the police action against law-abiding
citizens traveling in buses".
Sharon's plans for dealing
with forthcoming defiance are revealed by ace investigative reporter David
Bedein, Israel Resource Review, 17 July, 2005
All this is written as a
backdrop to the reality that the Israeli Army is amassing more than 40,000
troops and police near Gaza to forcibly remove Jews from their homes. The
Israeli police force has purchased 500 horses from Germany to aid them in their
task. Former Israeli intelligence official, Rony Shaked, now a senior
correspondent for the daily newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, has written that the
IDF now has specially trained dogs who can pull people out of their homes and
on to the streets. And the IDF troops near Katif have been handed a document
which explains under what circumstances will they be expected to open fire on
protesters. The document concludes with an estimate that 300 residents and/or
protesters will be killed in the process. Western media never report this
stuff.
Then again, what really is
the likelihood of such failed ideas working when they are forced down Israel's
throat and terrorism is rewarded? . . . . This quest for 'peace' is insane.
* * * * * * * * *
* * *
To push through
Disengagement, Sharon and his henchpersons had to wreck the political compact
between people and government, on which the nation and its society stands.
"Democracy and
Disengagement", by Evelyn Gordon, The Jerusalem Post, 20 July 2005:
A friend asked me last
weekend what disengagement opponents sought to accomplish by blocking roads,
clashing with security personnel and urging soldiers to disobey orders. Don't
they understand, she asked, that such actions merely alienate the public, and
in a democracy, the key to success is winning over public opinion? I still do
not know whether to laugh or cry over that question.
The answer, of course, is
that these protesters have no interest in public opinion, because they do not
believe that democracy works. This is a generation that has been taught to
scorn democracy – not by their rabbis, but by Ariel Sharon. And this may
yet prove to be disengagement's most devastating legacy.
A brief history of the plan
suffices to show why many protesters today are disillusioned with democracy. It
begins with the January 2003 elections, in which the central campaign issue was
Labor's proposal for a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, which Sharon adamantly
opposed.
There was no violence during
this campaign; people on both sides canvassed for votes in approved democratic
fashion. And the results were unequivocal: Sharon's Likud Party, running on an
anti-withdrawal platform, won more than twice as many seats as Labor, giving
Sharon the largest electoral victory in Israel's history.
Then, in December 2003,
Sharon suddenly adopted Labor's unilateral withdrawal platform – the very
policy he was elected to block. He thereby single-handedly nullified the
democratic victory won by pullout opponents 11 months earlier.
Nevertheless, these
activists did not lose faith in democracy. When Sharon announced a referendum
of Likud members on his plan and pledged to abide by the results, thousands of
pullout opponents, in exemplary democratic fashion, volunteered dozens of hours
of their time to go house to house and persuade Likud members to oppose the
plan. Once again, there was no violence. And once again, they won a stunning
victory: Within weeks, polls showing a 60 percent majority in the Likud for
disengagement became a 60% majority against it at the ballot box.
[. . . . ] Thus in the only
two electoral contests ever held on disengagement, pullout opponents won decisive
victories through strictly democratic means. Yet the plan continues to sail
toward implementation. So thousands of anti-disengagement activists have drawn
the only possible conclusion: Democracy does not work – because no matter
how many democratic contests you win, those in power will still do as they
please unless forcibly prevented.
The media and
law-enforcement agencies, meanwhile, have exacerbated this disillusionment. The
media did so by consistently vilifying even peaceful opposition to the pullout.
For instance, it routinely describes Likud MKs who honored the referendum
results by voting against disengagement as "rebels" – the
implication being that it is illegitimate to prefer the voters' will to that of
the prime minister.
But how can one argue that
democracy works if it is illegitimate for MKs to honor their voters' wishes?
Similarly, Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post both declared last August that the
Likud Convention acted illegitimately in vetoing Sharon's proposal to bring
Labor into the government in order to secure a majority for disengagement. But
how can democracy work if it is illegitimate for party organs to respect the
will of party members, who explicitly rejected disengagement?
Or consider Haaretz
columnist Ari Shavit's comment on the referendum. Shavit is a centrist, not a
radical leftist. Yet he wrote that 'the settlers' victory was 'unforgivable,'
destroyed all 'justification for talking with them' and necessitated 'resolute'
action against them. But how can democracy work if winning a democratic vote is
'unforgivable' and justifies treating the victors as pariahs?
And the above,
unfortunately, are only a few of literally hundreds of examples.
The police, for their part,
have periodically suppressed a cornerstone of democracy: peaceful protest. [. .
. . ] [F]or instance, police prevented a bus full of settlers from traveling to
Netanya in March to carry out a democratic campaign par excellence: personal
visits to hundreds of residents to argue against disengagement. That news
spread like wildfire among anti-disengagement activists. And how are such
activists then supposed to believe in democracy?
Equally problematic was the
arrest and indictment of hundreds of young activists who blocked roads in
recent weeks. Since blocking roads is illegal, this would seem unexceptionable.
Yet these activists know full well that the legal establishment tolerates
illegal road-blocking in support of other causes. In summer 2003, for instance,
the Histadrut organized dozens of demonstrations nationwide in which its
members blocked major roads to protest pension reform. Yet nobody arrested or
indicted these demonstrators.
And just this Tuesday, IMI
workers blocked Jerusalem roads and stormed the Prime Minister's Office,
injuring a policeman. Yet instead of being arrested, they were rewarded with a
NIS 270 million government grant – which the Treasury had hitherto
refused. So how are people supposed to respect democracy when laws that should
apply equally to all are enforced with such blatant selectivity?
The accumulation of evidence
over the past two years has been overwhelming: Israel's power centers –
the politicians, the media and the justice system – may pay lip service
to democracy, but they have no qualms about riding roughshod over its most
fundamental principles anytime the democratic process fails to produce the
results they desire. [. . . . ]
Comment: Minister of Justice Madam
Tzipi Livni classifies law-abiding opposition to government policies as "a
threat to democracy".
*
* * * * * * * * * * *
The color orange has become
an emblem of defiance of the Sons of Darkness. This bit of brightness drives
the Sons of Darkness to a kind of hysteria:
1] Girls were banned from
praying at the Kotel [Temple wall] because they were wearing orange shirts.
2] A group of Buddhists
visiting from India were not allowed to enter the Knesset building until they
removed their traditional orange silk scarves.
3] An employee in a Knesset
office was fired for dying his hair orange.
4] The Jerusalem Shopping
Mall turns away customers wearing orange.
5] Automobiles with orange
ribbons have been banned from parking lots.
*
* * * * * * * * * * *
The IDF has always shown
matchless valor in defending and sustaining Israel and the Jewish people. Now
it is being ordered to act against the Jewish people in an operation not in
defense of the nation but in the service of a political plot.
Many soldiers have declared
that they will not be so misused. This often means a prison sentence or
dismissal from service -- thereby depriving Israel of its finest defenders. The
elite Golani Brigade and Givati Brigade have been exempted from Disengagement
duty, for fear of mass refusal to obey.
A ceremonial jump at
completion of parachute training was cut short when men floating downward to
their Land waved orange ribbons.
END