By their expressed conscience, Israeli Jewish demonstrators, have shown their disapproval of the Israeli government’s policy to ‘’disengage’’ (withdrawal) from Gaza and northern Samaria.

The Israeli government’s response to the peaceful expression of these specific citizens, was to develop ‘’special’’ Disengagement guidelines for prosecution. Along with the Disengagement guidelines of the State Prosecutor, the Israeli government increasingly used ‘’administrative orders’’. These administrative orders, can be likened to restraining orders, but are illegal in their use against protestors. Instead of being restrained from a person, they are restrained from whole regions where there is protest activity, even if it keeps them from their home or job. Israel National News describes ,that the ‘’Administrative orders, [are] a hold-over from pre-state British Mandatory Law, [which] allow the IDF to detain or limit the freedom of residents of Judea and Samaria without due process or judicial review. Such orders, issued without any charge, were traditionally used against Arab terrorists suspects for whom conclusive evidence of their terrorist activities were lacking’’ 20.

Under the state prosecution’s Disengagement guidelines, at least 8,000 anti-disengagement protestors were arrested between January and September of 2005 and issued at least 1,500 criminal indictments 21. Israelinsider.com reported, ‘’[The] indictments [were] mostly against minors without any criminal background. Police and prosecutors, acting on a new set of judicial guidelines specifically for anti-disengagement protestors, routinely violated basic civil rights. In some cases, teenager were arrested for offenses that included standing on the sidewalk holding anti-withdrawal signs and spent several weeks in jail but criminal charges were never filed against them’’ 22. 

There are too many unanswered questions. Why were the anti-disengagement protestors treated with separate ‘’guidelines’’ than their fellow Israelis who protest about all kinds of issues, including political issues? Again, why was it that ''in 2007‘’, as israelinsider.com reported, ‘’the Jerusalem-based Israel Policy Center conducted a study which said that over 150 army recruits had been referred to psychologists and then were rejected by the army for expressing anti-Disengagement views’’? 23. The Disengagement from Gaza and northern Samaria, was in August 2005, yet two years later, these recruits are being singled out, by having to meet with psychologists as if they had a mental problem, when in fact, they only have a political opinion.

To get back to the deeper subject of the ‘’special’’ Disengagement guidelines, Israeljustice.com reported that the Israeli prosecutors, police and judges, were selectively enforcing a ‘’1936 (pre-state civil servant) Insult Law’’, from the British Mandate, against Disengagement opponents 24. Israeljustice.com reported: ‘’A state prosecutor acknowledged this policy during an appeal of a Jewish dissident cleared of charges of insulting an official’’ 25. Nadia Matter, chairwoman of Women in Green, insulted a civil servant, Jonathan Bassi, then-director of the Disengagement Authority. Matar called him a ‘’modern version of the Judenraat’’ in a 2004 letter. Matar’s indictment was later dismissed of the 1936 Insult Law. In another case, Elitzur Segal, an opponent of the Disengagement, wrote an article that condemned then-chief military rabbi, Brig, Gen, Yisrael Weiss, for the violation of the Sabbath in the military and the Disengagement, Israeljustice.com reported 26.

Basically, anything within the category of: questioning authoritative figures, giving a critique, providing a counter argument or a disapproving statement, all violate the 1936 Insult Law; a law which conveniently agrees with the Disengagement authorities.

Segal’s attorney, Yoram Sheftel, was correct, when he said: ‘’The prosecutor’s office should not stick its nose into public debate’’ 27. Attorney Sheftel went on to show examples of Disengagement supporters who insulted civil servants without any punishment: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s daughter, Dana, called Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, a ‘’murderer’’. Shefter also showed a letter from left wing newspaper columnist Gideon Spero , in which he wrote of a Jerusalem Magistrates judge, David Mintz: ‘’someone who wears a racist knitted skullcap’’ 28. 

Why would the modern State of Israel, decide to re-use outdated laws from a foreign government? And still, what was in the ‘’special’’ Disengagement guidelines that allowed thousands to be detained, imprisoned without formal charges, and hundreds indicted for expressing their political opposition to a government policy? Honenu legal rights organization reported that, ‘’during the disengagement from Gaza in the summer of 2005. The prisons were filled…the youngest of whom was 9 years old’’. Honenu processed ‘’close to 5,000 detainees…many of whom were denied due process’’.

Furthermore, who specifically drafted and approved these Disengagement guidelines; and why were these guidelines created when the government already had a fully functioning judicial system?

The guidelines were only the second step in the Israeli government’s attempt to seal and contain political opposition. Prior to the guidelines, as IsraelJustice.com reported, ‘’Israeli domestic security agency has been operating a secret unit designed to monitor and infiltrate opposition to the government’s withdrawal policy from the West Bank (Judea-Samaria) and Gaza Strip. This secret unit was established in February 2005’’ 29. 
    This unit was the first step. 
    Now, the existence of this new unit, only became known two years later in mid-January 2007. When Knesset member Michael Eitan, former chairman of the Constitution and Law Committee admitted its existence to Israeljustice.com 30. Israeljustice.com reported that ‘’the secret intelligence unit , was discussed in a closed emergency session of the Knesset Constitution and Law Committee on March 1, 2005.’’ And was able to obtain the sessions transcript as follows: ‘’The government conducted a meeting and has made a decision to establish a special unit in the Justice Ministry,’’ Eitan said 31. From Eitan’s statement, it is evident that this unit was even a secret to the Knesset as a whole, as well as the Constitution and Law Committee. The Committee wasn’t even allowed to decide whether or not to establish the unit as it was already established and already decided on. Eitan was telling the Committee of the unit , not asking the Committee for its approval. 
    Israeljustice.com continued, ‘’During the (March 1, 2005) session, several committee members expressed concern over the new unit. Knesset member Yuli Edelstein, imprisoned in the 1980’s as a Jewish dissident in the Soviet Union, said ‘’The angle that really worries me is the activity of the agents,’’ Edelstein said. ‘’We need to supervise the Justice Ministry …Knesset member Yiitzhak Levy said…’’ Justice Minister Tzipi Livni said the unit will go through newspapers every day and try to spot [negative] remarks’’, Levy said. ‘’It seems that we are speaking about an activism that is above and beyond what is usually discussed’’ 32. 
    This unit monitored and continues to monitor the government’s political opposition, but the unit itself is not being monitored or accounted for when it can easily spiral down a slippery slope. 
    Who does the secret unit answer to? Israeljustice.com reported: ''Officials said that Nitzan {Shai Nitzan is deputy state prosecutor for special operations] has headed the secret ISA unit under the jurisdiction of the Justice Ministry. They said Nitzan reports to Attorney General Menachem Mazuz and the unidentified legal advisor to the ISA''. Speaking of the transcript on the March 1, 2005 session , the officials said ‘’the unit was meant to determine whether or not dissent or civil disobedience constituted incitement or sedition, punishable by five years under Israeli Law.’’ The ISA legal advisor said, ‘’We are very sensitive to crimes called ‘’crimes of expression’’. The treatment is different to that of other crimes because there is a thin line between freedom of expression and criminal acts. These include incitement to violence, incitement to racism, and incitement to draft evasion’’ 33. It’s safe to say, that the ISA unit legal advisor’s ‘’extreme sensitivity’’ to freedom of political opinion is undoubtedly, unnecessary. 
    For starters, as this unit is specifically targeted at monitoring Israeli Jews who oppose a policy by Israeli Jews, there would be no ‘’incitement to racism’’, for the obvious reason that they are of the same race. 
    The legal advisor says there is a ‘’thin line’’ between freedom of expression and ‘’crimes of expression’’. Who decides where this line is drawn? After all, outdated laws from the 1930’s are being used to draw this ’’thin line’’. 
    How many hundreds or even, thousands of times have those with law enforcement power, arrested, detained, imprisoned, or indicted innocent citizens on the basis of their thoughts through their newspaper articles, letters, poster signs, t-shirts, notes, bumper stickers, web blogs or web sites, that were perceived to be ‘’negative remarks’’ displeasing to the Justice Ministry’s political agenda? 
    Along with monitoring newspapers and websites, the ISA is also allowed to use infiltrating agents. ‘’We call them live sources,’’ the ISA unit legal advisor said, ‘’…to collect information in problematic situations’’. What can be deemed a ‘’problematic situation’’, an unwanted street protest? Doesn’t this violate the Israeli Basic Law of Human Dignity and Liberty, section 7(a): ‘’All persons have the right to privacy and intimacy’’ and section 7(b): ‘’There shall be no violation of the confidentiality of conversation , or of the writings or records of a person. It would be legitimate for the Justice Ministry, State Prosecutor and Attorney General, to monitor terrorist suspects or genuine criminals that endanger life, but not violating the rights of peaceful protestors with no history of criminal activity. No, the true purpose of the ISA unit’s establishment was not to monitor ‘’incitement to racism’’, as Shai Nitzan, (deputy state prosecutor), explained to the Constitution and Law Committee’s emergency session, ‘’…the ISA was meant to help authorities block the rise in anti-withdrawal protests’’, Israeljustice.com reported from the March 1,2005 transcript. There it is, the reason why a secret police-state-like unit was established, was to ‘’block the rise’’ of protests, not to block the rise in crime, but protests. Yes, the first step in ‘’blocking the rise of protests’’ or ‘’blocking the rise of freedom of speech‘’, was to spend loads of Israelis’ tax money to create the secret ISA unit.

The second step in ‘’blocking the rise of protests’’ , was to implement the ‘’special’’ Disengagement guidelines. Actually, when the guidelines were implemented, they weren’t ‘’special’’, but secret. The extent of its secrecy can be unraveled by looking into three specific events that took place prior to the Disengagement.

First, In the emergency session of March 1, 2005, when the ISA unit was acknowledged, Shai Nitzan (deputy state prosecutor), barely mentioned to the Committee that ‘’…the state prosecutor drafted guidelines to confront incitement and sedition’’, reported Israeljustice.com, from the session’s transcript. Nitzan then added, ‘’The prosecutor’s office is already overloaded…We’ve also asked for more judges.’’ From Nitzan’s statement, this would also mean that the newly appointed judges would also follow the state prosecutor’s ‘’special’’ guidelines, instead of judging the protestors equally to their fellow Israelis. Secondly, Israeljustice.com reported that ‘’In April 2005, Mazuz (Attorney General)…issued a four-page guideline to police, prosecutors and judges…the document included the use of administrative detentions, or imprisonment without charges, the treatment of minors as adults and the arrest of peaceful protestors.’’ Thirdly, in August 7, 2005, four whole months after Mazuz handed out the guidelines to police, the Knesset Constitution and Law Committee, approved the guidelines in a closed session, reported Israeljustice.com from its obtained transcript of the session.

According to these dates, the guidelines are: only mentioned to the committee in March 1, 2005, distributed to police in April 2005, and only approved by the committee on August 7, 2005. The guidelines were basically a secret to the entire Knesset, including the Constitution and Law Committee, whose sole purpose is to ensure that the rights of Israelis are not faltered. In fact, only one committee member, then chairman of the Constitution and Law Committee, Michael Eitan, was allowed to read the guidelines.

Although, the committee was counted as approving the guidelines in its closed session on August 7, 2005, Israeljustice.com reported that it was not voted on and its full text remained a secret even at the session. MK Michael Eitan openly admitted to the committee: ‘’The police have issued guidelines to the prosecutors and to the police prosecutors in regard to implementation of the Disengagement plan and they said that these guidelines are secret’’, Israeljustice.com quoted. The Justice Ministry spokeswoman Ganit Ben-Moshe, later confirmed the policy of secrecy to Israeljustice.com in November 2006, [noted by Israeljustice.com as being 18 months after the Disengagement]: ‘’The state prosecutor’s office issued specific guidelines for internal use [only], which were not meant to be published. The guidelines were presented in full before the subcommittee of the Knesset Constitution and Law Committee. The guidelines were then presented with some paragraphs erased to the entire committee.’’ But, as Israeljustice.com noted, the transcript, ‘’asserted that only Eitan had access to the redacted document.’’ One person does not constitute a ‘’subcommittee’’. MK Michael Eitan, who led the closed session and who alone read the document in full, read only portions of it to two other members at that session, per the transcript and per the Justice Ministry’s spokeswoman.

How can it be, that the fate of Israelis’ basic rights were only partially viewed by two people, and only viewed by one person in full? How is it possible that these guidelines were selectively secret, even to the people who were supposedly approving them? MK Roni Bar-On, who was present at the Aug 2005 session and who was counted as approving the guidelines, wanted to know the same questions. From the transcript, Israeljustice.com quoted Bar-On: ‘’Guidelines regarding indictments are secret? What could guidelines that concern indictments contain? It’s every person’s basic right to know what are the guidelines of the attorney general or any other decision-making body.’’ Bar-On added, ‘’I have a systematic problem. If they tell us that we Knesset members can’t be privy to material that the state prosecutor and the police have seen, then I’m not willing to play the game. I don’t understand the purpose of our session. Is it to be able to say in due time that the constitution committee dealt with this?

If the only members who were responsible for approving the guidelines were kept from seeing them, then who was guarding the basic civil rights of the Israeli people, especially those who disagree with a govt. policy? Does an Israeli citizen have the right to agree or disagree to a government policy? If Israelis don’t have the right to disagree, then what type of state is this? A state, where police and prosecutors have all virtual power, to take the rights away from it’s citizens based on those citizens’ disagreement?

The guidelines go hand in hand with the ISA unit. Israeljustice.com quoted, Yitzhak Klein, director of the Jerusalem-based Israel Policy Center, who commented on the unit, ‘’these cases are run through Mazuz (Attorney General) himself. It’s possible that we see here one of the outcomes of the special unit.’’ The outcome of the ISA unit and the guidelines, both of which were specifically designed to ‘’block the rise’’ in anti-Disengagement protests, have allowed for a police state to emerge in Israel. A police state, in which the representatives of the civilian population do not have checks and balances to oversee the police and in which, the balance of power is weighed in the control of the police. How did the committee allow this shift in power to happen? MK Michael Eitan answered this question when he told Israeljustice.com in January 2007: ‘’This was an intelligence unit, what’s it our business to oversee this? It is this type of irresponsible thinking that allowed this shift in power that took away the Israeli people’s rights. As the committee chairman, MK Eitan had even more responsibility to make it the committee’s business as the committee’s only business is to safeguard Israelis’ rights. But MK Eitan didn’t make it the committee’s business, even though he recognized that the ISA unit and the guidelines were ‘tailored to repress’ Israelis’ rights. From the Aug 2005 session‘s transcript, MK Eitan said: ‘’I received a complaint that the police have issued draconian guidelines to act in a certain way against [anti-Disengagement] demonstrators, and there is a prosecution policy that was especially tailored to repress the demonstrators and to harm their rights.’’

There is a saying, ‘’No Taxation Without Representation’’. This is not an incitement to avoid taxes, it is the purpose of taxes. There was no representation in 2005, during the Disengagement and there still isn’t. MK Eitan also told Israeljustice.com in January 2007, that ‘’the unit continues to operate, although without parliamentary oversight’’ and Israeljustice.com reported in the same Jan 2007 article, that ‘’Today, several of the committee members said they no longer receive updates regarding the ISA unit.’’ The committee officials acknowledged then, in 2005, that the ISA unit and the guidelines violated civil rights and yet there is still this irresponsible carelessness.

What predicament are Israelis in now, who disagree with the government’s withdrawal policy? They are in a selected freeze of freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of expression.