Probe sought on Gaza evac

Ariel Sharon

A Knesset member today requested Israel's attorney general probe claims made in a newly released book that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon introduced his plan to evacuate Jewish communities from Gaza and parts of the West Bank to divert public attention from criminal investigations that threatened his premiership last year, WND has learned.

"I have sent a formal request letter to Israel's attorney general [Meni Mazuz] asking him to investigate the prime minister because of the revelations in the book that prove Sharon is corrupt. We know exactly who are the people involved in the scandal, what they did, so there needs to be an immediate investigation," National Union leader Uri Ariel told WND.

Ariel was referring to a book released last week by two veteran Israeli journalists charging the Gaza withdrawal plan was created to avoid Sharon's indictment in the Greek Island scandal, an investigation into the transfer to Sharon's family of $580,000 by developer David Appel, who was accused of soliciting Sharon's help with business deals.

TRENDING: Had Obama not played the race card, George Floyd might be alive

If Sharon had been charged in the affair, he would have been forced to resign his post as prime minister.

The book's authors, Raviv Drucker of Israel's Channel Ten TV and Ofer Shelach of the Yediot Acharonot daily, claim Sharon was convinced then-State Prosecutor Edna Arbel would indict him in the scandal, and had to create a situation that would make an indictment politically difficult.

They also say the specifics of the disengagement plan were hatched without the input of defense officials, Knesset members or Sharon's own Cabinet, and further charge Sharon asked a top general in the Israeli Defense Forces to be a "plant" and report to him on the goings-on in the general staff.

Drucker and Shelach say they based their findings on first-person accounts from individuals "very close to the prime minister."

In an interview with Israel's Channel Two last week, the two journalists said Sharon's fear of indictment drove him to introduce the withdrawal plan.

"The people who are closest to Sharon told us absolutely that if it wasn't for those police interrogations, this decision [to quit Gaza] would not have been made. This can be seen by the timetable of events," said Shelach in response to a question.

He outlined the charges of the Arbel investigation, a summons to Sharon for police interrogation regarding Appel's money transfer, the reports Arbel was about to indict Sharon, the appointment of Mazuz as attorney general, and a meeting of what they called the Farm Forum – Sharon, his sons and one or two others very close to the Prime Minister – at which they claim the Gaza withdrawal was originally hatched.

The Farm Forum "did not state it outright," Drucker said, "but it was in the air that something had to be done, that there had to be some major diplomatic process that would swallow up everything and would change the public agenda [away from the corruption headlines against Sharon] – and they came up with this plan."

Drucker, outlining the book, said top Sharon-aide Dov Weisglass laid the foundations for the disengagement plan in a private meeting with then-White House National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in December 2003.

RELATED: U.S. partner might deny Israel's right to exist

"In December '03, after Sharon's Herzliya speech introducing the disengagement concept but when this plan was still very vague – in fact, Sharon was still asking the defense minister and the chief of staff what they thought about taking down just one or two communities – Weisglass goes to Washington all by himself – without his Military Secretary Moshe Kaplinsky or National Security Advisor Giora Eiland, who usually accompany him – and speaks to then-U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice privately.

"Very senior army officials told us that this was the trip in which Weisglass made the following offer: in the first stage, we would quit Gaza, in the second stage there would be a deep withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, and in the third stage we'd even be willing to talk about the '67 lines."

Drucker and Shelach charged those in the army and government who could have helped formulate the plan were left out of the decision-making process.

"[National Security Advisor] Giora Eiland was in the midst of preparing a plan as to how Israel could get some benefit from its withdrawal," they said, "when suddenly he was presented with this new [unilateral] plan – and even now he objects to the plan [as it now stands]."

Continued Drucker: "Sharon wanted only to survive politically. Weisglass led the whole plan. In October 2003, before the plan had started, Weisglass asked staffers in the Prime Minister's Bureau for data on Gaza because he said he felt we had to withdraw from Gaza. Sharon did not yet agree then – but he would come around later. At that time, Weisglass also started spreading hints to other people that if Sharon didn't agree to this plan, he would end up leaving the political arena as an 'insignificant old man.' Weisglass also started pressuring [Defense Minister Shaul] Mofaz at this time. But more than anything – Weisglass felt that he had the right key to persuade Sharon. ...

"The important thing to note is that from that moment, there is no contact with those elements who were supposed to help Sharon decide about the plan, figure out what Israel would get in return, and help Israel get the best deal it could. And from that moment, the plan essentially rolls along on its own."

The two journalists go on to claim Sharon asked a top IDF general to be a mole in the army's General Staff Office, but refused to name the official.

"The general himself told us that Sharon asked him to agree to report back to him on the goings-on in the General Staff. ... All along, Sharon was unhappy with the army, and always tried to form direct channels of communication [in this way]," they said.

They said many top defense officials, including Mofaz, Intelligence Chief Ze'evi-Farkash, and others, originally opposed the evacuation plan.

"Several months before Sharon's adoption of the Disengagement Plan, there was a deliberation amidst the top brass of the IDF in the presence of the chief of staff. Many options were presented. One of the options was unilateral disengagement from Gaza. There was unanimous agreement regarding the idea: absolutely no. Mofaz said at the beginning, 'Whoever supports a unilateral retreat, apparently wasn't here for the last two and a half years,' and Farkash said it would be a catastrophe, and the head of IDF Research said it would be the worst thing ... but after several months, when they saw that Sharon was so strongly in favor, they amazingly all fell in line and backed it."

In June 2004, after the withdrawal plan had gained considerable momentum, Attorney General Mazuz announced there was "insufficient evidence" to prosecute Sharon.

Both Sharon's and Mazuz's offices could not be reached for comment before press time.

It is not immediately clear whether Mazuz will open an investigation into the charges outlined in the book.

Ariel told WND, "[If Mazuz does not open an investigation] I will bring the case to the high court."

Sharon's Gaza evacuation plan has drawn criticism from many in his government, with several ministers of his own Likud Party, including Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, opposing the plan.

Critics worry the withdrawal will be seen as a reward for Palestinian terrorism and argue territories evacuated by Israel will be used by Hamas to stage attacks against the Jewish state.

Netanyahu, in a WND interview earlier this month, said, "Palestinian terrorists don't view our departure [from Gaza] as a reasonable move but as a flight from terror and a sign that terrorism works. If you flee from terror, then terror continues to chase you. This plan simply emboldens the terrorists to continue their tactics until the completion of their ultimate goal: the destruction of Israel."

Update June 20: Reached this morning for comment, Raanan Gissin, senior adviser to Sharon, told WND: "This book is all a big lie. You'll look at the dates involved and the events and you'll see it's all a big lie. We're not worried."