Comments on: Former IDF Chief of Staff: Invade Iran

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Wed, 30 May 2007 01:25:49 +0000

Nasser demanded the immediate withdrawal of UN forces from Sinai, and the UN immediately complied. UNIFIL hasnt didnt stop Hezbollah from attacking Israel

Have you conveniently forgotten the nature of both the Sinai & earlier UNIFIL deployments? They either were unarmed or lightly unarmed. The current UN force in Lebanon is robustly armed & has an active mandate to maintain peace bet. the sides. Let’s see how this new version of a UN force works out before we assume that every potential international force would fail in Israel.

By: Melvin Schnell

Melvin Schnell — Wed, 30 May 2007 01:02:08 +0000

I dont think my scenario is a fevered dream. The Temple Mount would have been given to Palestinian sovereignty had Arafat not aborted talks with Barak. The major reason that Qassams arent coming from the West Bank are twofol. First, border between the West Bank and Jordan is not porous like the Egypt Gaza border, and Qassam supplies are thus not available. Second, the IDF still controls the West Bank, but not Gaza. International forces arent a guarantee either-in 1967, Nasser demanded the immediate withdrawal of UN forces from Sinai, and the UN immediately complied. UNIFIL hasnt didnt stop Hezbollah from attacking Israel

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Tue, 29 May 2007 00:33:07 +0000

Your premise is a preposterous fever dream. First, Israel is prob. not going to give sole control of the Temple Mount to the Palestinians. Second, Qassams are not flying fr. E. Jerusalem now when they could if the Pal. wanted to. Third, even Hamas says they want Israel to withdraw to ‘67 boundaries. If Israel does this, then Qassams will not fly because Hamas will have gotten its declared aim of returning to ‘67 borders. Fourth, there will be some kind of international force separating Israelis & Palestinians along the Green Line for the foreseeable future. Just as Hezbollah & Israel are not attacking ea. other at least partly because of the UN force now patrolling the border, so too neither side would likely attack a similar force separating them along the international border.

By: Melvin Schnell

Melvin Schnell — Mon, 28 May 2007 15:51:07 +0000

What would happen if Israel adopted the Saudi plan, withdrew to the June 1967 borders, gave control of the Temple Mount to Palestinians, and Qassams, Zelzals and Katyushas continued to be launched from East Jerusalem, causing West Jersualem and Tel Aviv to become like Sderot?

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Mon, 28 May 2007 08:29:52 +0000

It is “understandable” to you.

I do not excuse Palestinian violence at all. I am opposed to it. But unlike you, I don’t blame only one side for the conflict.

you would admit that the Jews have even MORE of a right to be “violent”.

This is nonsensical & almost doesn’t deserve an answer. The Holocaust was evil. The Nakba also was evil though the creation of the state of Israel was not. That being said, the creation of Israel caused immense pain & suffering to the Palestinians.

DEFENSIVE SHIELD was a big success.

If you call the murder of 500 Palestinians and 27 Israelis, along with $360 million in physical damage a success–then I guess it was. It did little to help the security situation. Is Israel any safer now than it was then? Of course not. Israelis are still dying as are Palestinians.

By: amir

amir — Mon, 28 May 2007 07:34:10 +0000

That is correct. In the interview he spoke of a regime change.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Mon, 28 May 2007 07:26:07 +0000

Another diff. bet. the two interviews is that he seems to now believe not just in destroying Iran’s nuclear capacity, but in outright regime change (at least if the Eng. lang. version of the article is correct). Those are two far different policy objectives though both imo would prove disastrous.

By: amir

amir — Mon, 28 May 2007 07:20:12 +0000

Here is Yaalon in his own words from March 7, 2006. source: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC07.php?CID=287. I believe he answers your questions here.

But before going to the military option, Iran must be isolated politically and economically; the military option can be used only when these methods have been exhausted.

I believe that Western air forces�including USAF, EUAF, and IAF�can effectively execute such a mission. These Western air forces possess the necessary long distance flight capabilities, the ability to penetrate the Iranian air defense (AD) system, and the capacity for accurately hitting well-protected installations in a well-planned, sustainable operation.

I stand corrected. In this essay Yaalon includes IAF in the force attacking Iran, though in the interview he did not include Israel.

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Mon, 28 May 2007 07:17:29 +0000

Thanks for that clarification, Amir. The English lang. version of the story is poorly edited and leaves out much that is necessary to understand Yaalon’s thinking. But if the latter thinks that Clinton or Obama (who have a far better than even chance of becoming the next president) will invade Iran & topple the regime there he’s lost his senses.

By: amir

amir — Mon, 28 May 2007 06:57:54 +0000

How would the Israeli army manage to invade Iran? Perhaps he’s thinking that Israel should do this in concert with U.S. forces. And even if this was what he was thinking, how likely is it that the U.S. would actually be willing to do so given its abject failure in Iraq?

Since I saw the entire interview I thought I’d asnswer that question. Yaalon specifically said that Israel should not get directly involved with toppling the Iranian region. That Iran is a challenge for the entire Western world, not just Israel, and that the United States wouldn’t allow Iran to threaten it’s interests in the middle east. The Persian gulf presumably. Yaalon said that if this administration doesn’t confront Iran, then the next one will.