Former MK: Sharon’s power was addictive drug
Geula Cohen, mother of MK Tzahi Hanegbi who came out against disengagement Thursday, not surprised by her son’s stance. Now that Sharon’s immense power has subsided, Cohen expects more to come out against plan which ‘blew up in our faces’
Former MK Geula Cohen was not surprised that her son MK Tzahi Hanegbi came out against last year’s disengagement from Gaza Thursday, and said she expected more politicians to join his stance.
One of the most prominent right-wing leaders in Knesset history, Cohen noted that in all Cabinet votes on the disengagement, Hanegbi voted against it. “In the Knesset, he voted in favor because he didn’t want to bring down the government,” she said.
During a radio interview Thursday morning, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Hanegbi said: “The disengagement didn't prove its worthiness in many ways. I mean in terms of what they hoped it would bring, that it would sober up the other side, that it would bring a kind of an emotional prelude whereby the Palestinians would want to speak to us.
"We saw the reverse results," he said. “It was interpreted as weakness and this weakness prompted attacks in Gaza and along the northern border."
Cohen also noted that figures in the upper military and political echelons have been more and more critical of the government and its decisions over the past year, and of the disengagement in particular.
Sharon's persuasive powers
“In my opinion, in the future more and more people will reveal their opinions against the plan, and this is only natural in light of the implications we see today. If those voices were quiet during the disengagement, today – when (former PM ) Arik Sharon and his vast power are no longer influencing the system – now many admit their support was a mistake,” Cohen explained.
Cohen didn’t hesitate to explicitly criticize Sharon for what she called his negative influence on the direction of top politicians’ votes on important diplomatic decisions.
“Many were persuaded by the power of Sharon’s leadership, w hich affected them like a drug. The addictive drug of Sharon’s power left us only with the frustrating results of the disengagement. Back then, because of Arik, those who were divided over the disengagement couldn’t come out against it. Today things are decided differently.
“Without a doubt, the disengagement blew up in our faces. Its victims are wandering, tormented. In my opinion, there were many top general and journalists too that in their hearts were split over the issue, but now it is slowly sinking in. It is frustrating that it happened too late. This whole story shows what a persuasive influence Sharon’s power and force had over people,” she said.
