Fascinating interview by Ari Shavit with a man of great integrity and a quiet wisdom, Moshe Ya'alon. His words may shock some, yet his perspective is measured and deliberate. We in the West want to always fix things, and right away. What if a "solution" is not possible in the near future? Do we act now for the sake of "doing something?" According to Bogie, the urgency to act now is a mirage; the demographic threat is overblown, as is the political necessity. One has to understand the situation through the lens of the Middle East; not Europe or America.
david in Seattle
"We have to free ourselves of the way of thinking that holds that if I give to the enemy and if I please the enemy, the enemy will give me quiet. That is an Ashkenazi way of thinking; it is not connected to the reality of the Middle East.”
excerpts below; long article worth reading in its entirety
Moshe Ya'alon tells Ari Shavit he is preparing for war. He
suggests you do the same.
Exactly seven years ago, I interviewed the chief
of staff. On the eve of his retirement from the Israel Defense Forces, Moshe
“Bogie” Ya’alon spoke with an expressionless face against the Gaza
disengagement, against a Palestinian state and against giving terrorism a
“tailwind.” He predicted that Hamas would seize control of the Gaza Strip and
that rockets would rain down on Israeli cities.
Bogie has surprised the “national camp”
time and again. He spoke out against the exclusion of women from public events
due to religious strictures, opposed racism against migrants and objected to
the silencing of reporters. He supported same-sex marriage and the right of
Supreme Court Justice Salim Joubran not to sing the national anthem.
But despite his partial “otherness,” this son of
the Labor Movement became the hero of the followers of Jabotinsky, the hero of
the settlement project and the hero of hawkishness. It is only in regard to the
Iranian issue that the minister of strategic threats is perceived as a dove. In
closed conversations he reiterates his deep concern about the influence wielded
by Ehud Barak on Benjamin Netanyahu, and about the possibility that the former
will drag the latter into a wanton Iranian adventure.
Moshe
“Bogie” Ya’alon, could a war erupt this year?
“I hope not. I hope that in regard to Iran it
will be possible to say, as the old saw goes, that the work of the just is done
by others. But obviously we are preparing for every possibility. If I am not
for myself, who will be for me?”
If you
had to provide a comprehensive intelligence assessment today, would you say
that the probability of a war in the year ahead is negligible, low, middling or
high?
“The probability of an initiated attack on
Israel is low. I do not see an Arab coalition armed from head to foot deploying
on our borders − not this year, not in the year after and not in the
foreseeable future. Despite the trend toward Islamization in the Middle East,
we enjoy security and relative quiet along the borders. But the No. 1 challenge
is that of Iran. If anyone attacks Iran, it’s clear that Iran will take action
against us. If anyone, no matter who, decides to take military action against
Iran’s nuclear project, there is a high probability that Iran will react
against us, too, and will fire missiles at Israel. There is also a high
probability that Hezbollah and Islamist elements in the Gaza Strip will operate
against us. That possibility exists, and it’s with a view to that possibility
that we have to deploy.”
What the
vice premier is telling me is that we are close to the moment of truth
regarding Iran.
“Definitely. When I was director of Military
Intelligence, in the 1990s, Iran did not possess one kilogram of enriched
uranium. Today it has 6,300 kilograms of uranium enriched to a level of 3.5
percent and about 150 kilograms enriched to a level of 20 percent. When I was
chief of staff, in the first decade of this century, Iran had a few hundred
centrifuges, most of which were substandard.
“At present there are about 10,000 centrifuges
in Natanz and in Kom, which are enriching about eight kilograms of uranium a
day. Since this government took office in 2009, the number of centrifuges in
Iran has almost doubled and the amount of enriched uranium has increased
sixfold. The meaning of these data is that Iran already today has enough
enriched uranium to manufacture five atomic bombs. If Iran is not stopped,
within a year it will have enough uranium for seven or eight atomic bombs.
“In addition, the Iranians apparently possess a
weapons development system which they are hiding from the international
supervisory apparatus. The Iranians also have 400 missiles of different types,
which can reach the whole area of Israel and certain parts of Europe. Those
missiles were built from the outset with the ability to carry nuclear warheads.
So the picture is clear. Five years ago, even three years ago, Iran was not
within the zone of the nuclear threshold. Today it is. Before our eyes Iran is
becoming a nuclear-threshold power.”
Crossing
red lines
But you
yourself are telling me that the Iranians have already crossed most of the red
lines. They have swept past the points of no return. Doesn’t that mean that we
are now facing the cruel dilemma of bomb or bombing?
“We are not there yet. I hope we will not get
there. The international community can still act aggressively and with
determination. Other developments are also feasible. But if the question is
bomb or bombing, the answer is clear: bomb.
But the
Iranians are rational, and the use of nuclear weapons is an irrational act.
Like the Soviets, they will never do that.
“A Western individual observing the fantastic
ambitions of the Iranian leadership scoffs: ‘What do they think, that they will
Islamize us?’ The surprising answer is: Yes, they think they will Islamize us:
The ambition of the present regime in Tehran is for the Western world to become
Muslim at the end of a lengthy process. Accordingly, we have to understand that
their rationality is completely different from our rationality. Their concepts
are different and their considerations are different. They are completely
unlike the former Soviet Union. They are not even like Pakistan or North Korea.
If Iran enjoys a nuclear umbrella and the feeling of strength of a nuclear
power, there is no knowing how it will behave. It will be impossible to
accommodate a nuclear Iran and it will be impossible to attain stability. The
consequences of a nuclear Iran will be catastrophic.”
Bombing
too will have catastrophic consequences: a regional war, a religious war,
thousands of civilians killed.
“Anyone who has experienced war, as I have, does
not want war. War is a dire event. But the question is: What is the alternative?
What is the other option to war? I told you once and will tell you again: If it
is bomb or bombing, from my point of view it is bombing. True, bombing will
have a price. We must not underestimate or overestimate that price. We have to
assume that Israel will be attacked by Iranian missiles, many of which will be
intercepted by the Arrow system. We have to assume that Hezbollah will join the
confrontation and fire thousands of rockets at us. Rockets will also be fired
from the Gaza Strip. The probability of Syria entering the fray is low, but we
have to deploy for that possibility, too. I am not saying it will be easy. But
when you pit all of that against the alternative of a nuclear Iran, there is no
hesitation at all. It is preferable to pay the steep price of war than to allow
Iran to acquire military nuclear capability. That’s as clear as day, as far as
I am concerned.”
Hezbollah
scenario
Hezbollah
can hit every place in Israel today: population centers, army bases, strategic
targets. Doesn’t the scenario of a massive missile attack make you lose sleep?
“My assessment is that Hezbollah will enter the
fray. But what happened in the Second Lebanon War will not be repeated. The way
to stop the rockets is to exact from the other side a price that will oblige it
to ask for a cease-fire. We have the ability to hit Hezbollah with 150 times
the explosives that it can hit us with. We can also do it a lot more
accurately. If we are attacked from inside Lebanon, the government of Lebanon
will bear very great responsibility.”
You
answered my question about the home front. But what about the argument that
bombing will spark a permanent religious war and will unify the Iranian people
around the regime? What about the argument that bombing will in fact cause the
collapse of the sanctions and allow Iran to go confrontational and hurtle
openly toward nuclear capability?
“First things first and last things last. In
regard to a religious war, isn’t the regime in Iran waging a religious war
against us today? In regard to the people unifying behind the regime: I do not
accept that. I think that an operation could even destabilize the regime. In my
estimation, 70 percent of the Iranians will be happy to be rid of the regime of
the ayatollahs.
“Let me reply in greater detail to the argument
that Iran will hurtle toward nuclearization on the day after the bombing. Those
who focus the debate on the narrow technological aspect of the problem can
argue that all that will be achieved is a delay of a year or two, not much more.
If so, they will say, ‘What did we accomplish? What did we gain?’ But the
question is far broader. One of the important elements here is to convince the
Iranian regime that the West is determined to prevent its acquisition of
nuclear capability. And what demonstrates greater determination than the use of
force?
“Therefore, it is wrong for us to view a
military operation and its results only from an engineering point of view. I
want to remind you that in the discussions of the security cabinet before the
Israeli attack on [the nuclear reactor in] Iraq, the experts claimed that
Saddam Hussein would acquire a new reactor with a year. They were right from
the engineering aspect but mistaken historically. If Iran does go
confrontational and tries openly to manufacture nuclear weapons, it will find
itself in a head-on confrontation with the international community. The
president of the United States has undertaken that Iran will not be a nuclear
power. If Iran defies him directly, it will have to deal with him and will
embark upon a collision course with the West.”
But the
Americans are with us. The Americans will rescue us. Why jump in head-first?
“There is agreement between the United States
and us on the goal, and agreement on intelligence and close cooperation. But we
are in disagreement about the red line. For the Americans, the red line is an
order by [Ayatollah] Khamenei to build a nuclear bomb. For us, the red line is
Iranian ability to build a nuclear bomb.
“We do not accept the American approach for three
reasons. First, because it implies that Iran can be a threshold-power which, as
long as it does not manufacture nuclear weapons in practice is allowed to
possess the ability to manufacture them. Second, because in our assessment
there is no certainty that it will be possible to intercept in time the
precious report that Khamenei finally gave the order to build a bomb . Third,
there is a disparity between the sense of threat and urgency in Jerusalem and
the sense of threat and urgency in Washington.”
Yet,
Israel is not believed either internationally or domestically. The feeling is
that Israel is crying wolf and playing a sophisticated game of ‘Hold me back.’
“Let me say one thing to you in English, because
it is very important for English speakers to understand it: ‘We are not
bluffing.’ If the political-economic pressure is played out and the other
alternatives are played out, and Iran continues to hurtle toward a bomb,
decisions will have to be made.”
Is there
a danger that the Iranian crisis will reach its peak already in the year ahead?
“There was a time when we talked about a decade.
Afterward we talked about years. Now we are talking about months. It is
possible that the sanctions will suddenly work. But presently we are in a
situation that necessitates a daily check. I am not exaggerating: daily. From
our point of view, Iranian ability to manufacture nuclear weapons is a sword
held over our throat. The sword is getting closer and closer. Under no
circumstances will Israel agree to let the sword touch its throat.”
‘Cruel
truth’
Bogie,
what happened to you? You are a Mapainik from the Labor-oriented Haifa suburbs,
a kibbutznik and a Rabinist from Oslo. Why did you suddenly move to beyond the
hills of darkness of the right? Isn’t it odd for you to wake up in the morning
and discover that you have become a Likudnik?
“The question is not what happened to me but
what happened to the camp in which I grew up. The Labor Movement had Yitzhak
Tabenkin and Yigal Allon and Yitzhak Rabin. Even Rabin, from the Oslo process,
was never from Peace Now. A month before he was assassinated he spoke in the
Knesset about an eternally unified Jerusalem, and about the Jordan Rift Valley
under Israeli sovereignty and about a Palestinian entity that would be less
than a state. Rabin supported the Allon Plan in the broad sense and was firmly
against a withdrawal to the 1967 lines ... Morally, mortal danger overcomes
land, but in practice giving up land causes mortal danger. That is the reality
we live in. That is the truth, however cruel.”
Let’s
assume there is no “land for peace,” but that there is “land for Zionism” -
land in return for our ability to maintain a Jewish democratic state that does
not commit suicide by occupation and settlements.
“As long as the other side is not ready to
recognize our right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people, I am not
ready to forgo a millimeter. I am not even willing to talk about territory.
After land-for-peace became land-for-terror and land-for-rockets, I am no
longer willing to bury my head in the sand. In the reality of the Middle East
what is needed is stability above all. Stability is achieved not by means of
imaginary agreements on the White House lawn but by means of defense, by means
of a thick stick and a carrot.”
And we
can live like this for another 20 years?
“We can live like this for another 100 years,
too.”
But we
are rotting away, Bogie. Demographically, politically and morally, we are
rotting.
“The demographic argument is a lie. As for the
political legitimacy, I prefer to operate against a threatening entity from
within the present lines. And morally, as long as the Palestinians do not
recognize the right of existence of a Jewish state, they are the aggressor.
After all, they do not recognize my right to live in Tel Aviv, either. From
their point of view, the occupation did not begin in 1967 but in 1948. Anyone
who claims otherwise is throwing sand in your eyes or deceiving himself.”
And what
do you propose for the future? Another 100 settlements? A million Jewish
settlers in Judea and Samaria?
“The establishment of more settlements touches
on political and state sensitivities. But there are now already 350,000
settlers in Judea and Samaria. If the political reality does not change, their
number could rise to a million.”
If so,
what kind of reality will we be living in 10 years from now? A million Jews in
Judea and Samaria, the Palestinians with no state and the two populations
intermingled?
“The Palestinians will have autonomy and have
their own parliament. I can tolerate that state of affairs. Any other state of
affairs will be irresponsible in security terms. Do you want snipers in
Jerusalem? Do you want rockets hitting Ben-Gurion airport? It is the
Palestinians who are placing us in this difficult situation.
“I was ready to divide the land. They are not
ready to divide the land and recognize my right to exist here within some sort
of border. Therefore, because they say ‘either them or us,’ I say ‘us.’ Until I
hear Abu Mazen [Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas] say there is a Jewish
people with a connection to the Land of Israel, and until I see the
three-year-old in Ramallah learning that Israel has a right to exist − that is
the state of affairs.”
If so,
there will be no peace, no withdrawal and no Palestinian state. There will be
no two-state solution.
“In the present situation ‘solution’ is a dirty
word. One of our biggest problems is that we have become solution-oriented and
now-oriented and expect a solution now. We believe that we are omnipotent and
have the ability to find a solution to this problem which torments us. But I
believe a person should be more modest. What’s needed is not to look for a
solution but to look for a path. There are problems in life that have no
solution. And at the moment the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a problem with
no solution. Anyone who suggests a solution-now of one kind or another is not
suggesting a true solution but a false illusion. A golden calf.
Self-deception.”
Syrian
debacle
Bogie, I
understand what you are saying, but it is impossible live with what you are
saying. All you are offering me is a wall, an iron wall, a determined stance.
There is no hope in your words. No latitude. No movement toward some sort of
horizon.
“I am actually very optimistic. I see where my
grandfather and grandmother were and where my parents were and where I am and
where my children are − and I see that time is not working against us. Time
works in favor of everyone who knows how to take advantage of it. That is the
secret of Zionism. And when our ethos is to build and the ethos of the other
side is to destroy, our ethos will triumph. But what we have to free ourselves
of is being solution-oriented and now-oriented and of self-blame. We have to
free ourselves of the way of thinking that holds that if I give to the enemy
and if I please the enemy, the enemy will give me quiet. That is an Ashkenazi
way of thinking; it is not connected to the reality of the Middle East.”
“There is a knight-on-a-white-horse phenomenon
in Israeli politics: the Democratic Movement for Change, Shinui, the Center
Party, Kadima. These knights appear like fireflies and then disappear. Why?
Because they do not possess an ideological backbone, only rhetoric that
generates white hope of a white knight on a white horse. Regrettably, there are
fools who flock to these white knights.
But you
are not the defense minister; you are a kind of upgraded minister without
portfolio. Yair Lapid claims that this is a form of corruption.
“I certainly welcome everyone who is ready to
plunge his hands into the cold water of politics. Truly. But it seems to me a
little pretentious to appear on television and write columns in a newspaper and
think that you can be prime minister. A little humility, a little
responsibility. First work as an MK, then become a minister, prove that you can
manage a system. Occupy yourself with questions of life and death, like the
ones I dealt with for 37 years. I find the notion that you can move from the
media to being the leader of the country a bit childish.”
And the
goal is to win the game: to become prime minister?
“One of the good things in Likud is that when
there is a leader, he gets backing. No attempt is made to subvert him. But in
the remote future, after a lot more water flows in the Jordan and Benjamin
Netanyahu decides that he no longer wants to head the party and the country, we
will be in a different situation. I definitely see myself contesting the
leadership. The premiership, too.”
Posts
