The headline in the issue of Haaretz published on the eve of Simchat Torah included a sensational quote from Dov Weisglass, senior advisor to the prime minister. Weisglass revealed that “We initiated the disengagement plan in order to freeze the political process for an indefinite period,” so as to “prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and prevent discussion of the refugees and Jerusalem.” According to Weisglass, the reasons for initiating the plan were “the broad support for the Geneva initiative and the increasing phenomenon of refusal [to serve in the IDF].” The main achievement of the plan was that “I agreed with the Americans that we wouldn’t touch many of the settlements.”
Weisglass’s comments aroused considerable furor, although he said nothing new. Commentators and left-wing figures have made the same comments countless times in the op-ed and commentary sections of several newspapers. Ariel Sharon himself expressed the same position, albeit in a more restrained and subtle manner, in the holiday interviews he gave in the media between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. What seems to be new, therefore, is Weisglass’s decision to send a clear and unequivocal message to right-wing Likud members and the settlers. It is ironic that he chose Haaretz for this purpose. The paper’s editors published the comments prominently on the news pages, as was only proper. As a result, what had until then been just one of various theories regarding Sharon’s motives became the official version, and Haaretz correspondent Ari Shavit chalked up another impressive journalistic success.
With this exception, however, there is little room for enthusiasm regarding the way Israel’s mainstream media has addressed the subject of the disengagement plan. A review of the coverage over the past few weeks in the main newspapers Haaretz, Yediot Aharonot, and Maariv; in the newscasts on Channels One, Two, and Ten; and in the current affairs radio programs on Galei Tzahal and Reshet Bet shows that the media has usually been preoccupied with the petty, marginal, and sensationalist aspects of the initiative, systematically failing to examine the important issues it raises or to ask the difficult questions.
Questionable priorities and editing decisions led to a focus on three main issues regarding the disengagement plan in the media during September and October: incitement (or “extremist statements”); the level of financial compensation for evacuated settlers; and apocalyptic forecasts (i.e., dark prophecies of civil war and/or increased Palestinian terror from the Gaza Strip). At a certain stage, these were embellished by the debate over the idea of holding a referendum, on the question of soldiers refusing orders, and preparations in the various parties ahead of the votes in the government and the Knes