What the outposts teach
Editorial
Haaretz, January 25, 2004
The attempt last Wednesday to dismantle the Kahane College outpost at Tapuah almost succeeded. Hundreds of soldiers and policemen who came to the illegal site detained 25 persons who tried to stop the dismantling of the large structure and ended up destroying it themselves. But a few hours later dozens of settlers turned up at the site, and reestablished a temporary building. When Israel Defense Forces soldiers demanded that it be taken down, the settler lawbreakers took refuge in the law, announcing that the soldiers are not authorized to dismantle the structure unless they have a formal written order to do so.
Hence it turns out that the war for the dismantling of the outposts - such dismantling being a promise made by Israel in the days of the road map, and before them - is a lie. It might have been expected that a short military process featuring the removal of outposts at the behest of orders signed by the prime minister and the defense minister (which are not open to legal appeals) would reflect political resolve, and produce rapid results. This, however, is not the case. The settlers view each hut and water container as a holy object that cannot be removed once it is put on the ground.
To boost their position, they appeal to a murky definition used by the prime minister, which refers to "unauthorized outposts" that are apparently waiting for some sort of permit. A precise explanation of this status can be found in statements made by the IDF Chief of Staff to the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee - "some of the outposts were established with political condonation and not in accord with the law," explained the chief of staff. There is, indeed, no limit to the absurd.
In the days ahead, the IDF plans to evacuate another eight outposts that were declared "non-authorized." Yet past experience in the dismantling of outposts, and especially last week's failure, casts serious doubt on the government's ability, or its desire, to carry out its decisions. This effort might also attest to the non-seriousness of Sharon's separation plan, which is designed (among other things) to remove dozens of isolated settlements, and several thousands settlers, from the sites where they currently reside.
Sharon, for his part, has managed to dilute his own plan by declaring that its principles are to be reviewed by the government, and will need Knesset approval (that is, the plan is contingent upon the backing of the right-wing coalition which controls the government). Nonetheless, this is the sole Israeli plan which appears to be on the agenda.
Illegal outpost removal is not part of the diplomatic give and take which has been frozen for the past many weeks. It is an obligation undertaken by Israel vis-a-vis the American government. It is a natural obligation for a government which seeks to abide by the law. Moreover, outpost removal represents the core of the mandate which the prime minister seeks from the public for his plan. Eye-winking at non-action, agreements with settlers or flamboyant dismantling measures which do not produce any real results can only be described as one thing: government patronage of lawbreaking. In case anyone had lingering doubts about Sharon, the outpost situation provides irrefutable proof of the prime minister's real intentions: viz, to eliminate any chance of negotiation with the Palestinians.
