Nitzan’s destructive disengagement days

[THIS IS WHY THE RIGHT IS NOT HAPPY WITH THE APPOINTMENT OF SHAI NITZAN AS THE NEW STATE PROSECUTOR .]

by Nadav Shragai, ISRAEL HAYOM
November 24, 2013

Six pages of Shai Nitzan’s biography were laid on the cabinet’s table
this morning. The extent that his personal convictions influenced his
decision-making during his tenure as deputy attorney-general continues
to stir controversy. “I was responsible for coordinating the efforts
of the law-enforcement system before and during the disengagement.”
Indeed, it is this particular period and Nitzan’s actions during this
time that are being called into question.

A reminder: while the movement against the disengagement was massive,
it was largely nonviolent. Retired High Court Justice Eliahu Matza
found that “on the edge of the abyss, the residents of Gush Katif
behaved responsibly and with restraint in order to prevent a civil
war.” Despite this, the law enforcement authorities under Nitzan’s
tutelage regarded the protest movement as a threat to democracy — or
even an attempt at revolution. Documents, meeting records and
eye-witness accounts presented to the High Court of Justice reflect
that the law enforcement authorities were pinpointedly ordered to act
swiftly against proponents of the anti-disengagement movement.

It has become clear that representatives of the State Attorney’s
Office struggled to convince the Knesset’s Legislative Committee to
pass the law and maintain discretion while doing so. The
discrimination was so stark that members of the Public Defender’s
Office strongly condemned it. At times, arrested protesters
disappeared from their homes, and buses full of protesters were pulled
off the road. Charges were brought against such trivial matters as
brandishing orange banners or shirts. Many young protesters who were
charged later turned into recruiters for their movement.

Inbal Rosenstein, from the Public Defender’s Office, wrote a document
slamming the policy to arrest minors. She described a reality in which
the law enforcement authorities operated “with a light hand on the
wheel” and created “new laws to support the disengagement … using
those convicted in order to repel others … selectively circumventing
the law according to political leanings.”

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel described a “demonization
of the protest movement and its members … whoever wore a kippah was
immediately considered a threat and whoever opposed the disengagement
was inherently dangerous.”

The disengagement did not discriminate between minors and adults. The
deputy public defender complained that “indictments seem largely the
same and only the name of the suspect changes.” Professor Boaz
Sangero, a leading authority on criminal law, believes the
discrimination was intentional: “Law enforcement authorities erred by
treating the largely non-violent anti-disengagement movement as a
violent revolt.” The High Court, for its part, rejected a motion to
strike down the pardoning of anti-disengagement movement, calling it
“imbalanced.”

Looking back — and also from today’s perspective — the
anti-disengagement protesters salvaged what little was left of the
nation’s honor. They protested against a terrible, immoral policy,
which was both anti-Zionist and dangerous for Israel’s security. They
salvaged what little was left of Israel’s democracy, which was
destroyed during that time by a draconian system, whose strings were
being pulled by Nitzan. It is doubtful that he is the right man to
take charge of the system now.