You can see the top notch quality of strategic thinking of Israel’s officer corps in this series of policy recommendations offered by former IDF chief of staff Moshe Yaalon:
Attempts to prevent the nuclearization of Iran will fail, according to former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff Moshe Ya’alon, who asserted Saturday that the military option should be examined and the Iranian regime should be brought down.
Speaking on Channel 2’s “Meet the Press,” Ya’alon also proposed going into Gaza with massive ground forces to “clean” the area without taking it over for a long period. He said he feared that within a year terrorists would be firing Katyushas at Kiryat Gat and Ashdod. “No one will solve the problem in Gaza for us,” he said.
“We will have to get at the terrorists and their workshops, which are the infrastructure of terror, and to strike them. We did this in Operation Defensive Shield. Before Defensive Shield we also debated, but in the end we carried it out wisely. You have to be blind not to see the necessity to go into the Strip. There is no choice,” Ya’alon added.
Surely, the man has taken leave of his senses. 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? Yaalon’s view on this matter puts him in agreement with such flaming neocons as Michael Ledeen, Christian Zionist crazies like John Hagee, and the extreme right-wing of AIPAC and the Likud. How can Israel ever be seen as a responsible member of the world community when its military elite advocate such outrageous policy options??
Apparently, Yaalon has forgotten a few unpleasant facts about Defensive Shield:
According to the Guardian, at least 500 Palestinians were killed and 1500 were wounded. According to the Palestinian Red Crescent over 4,258 detained by the Israeli military. The Israeli offensive also left 29 Israeli soldiers dead, and 127 wounded. The World Bank estimated that over $360 million worth of damage was caused to Palestinian infrastructure and institutions. $158 million of which came from the massive aerial bombardment and destruction of houses in Nablus and Jenin. Large sectors of the Palestinian population were left homeless by the Operation.
Human Rights Watch as well as Amnesty International determined that “Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes.” This had to be established after the fact because the IDF would not allow human rights observers, nor journalists, in the camps during the operations. Collective punishment, indiscriminate killings, using human shields and the denial of adequate access to food and medical supplies are cited within the investigations.
What is the evidence that Hamas and Fatah are any different than our own Bloods and Crips? Why should we support either one? Also, how is the Guardian and the BBC any more credible on the Middle East than MEMRI and LGF?
How would you solve the Qassams coming into Gaza, especially since the IDF is not in Gaza currently? What incentive is there for Hamas to stop the firing of Qassams? If Sderot and Ashkelon have to be evacuated, wouldnt that be a victory for terror? Also, what do you thing would happen if El Paso was being hit with home made but lethal Mexican rockets?
“how is the Guardian and the BBC any more credible on the Middle East than MEMRI and LGF?”
There is a very simple answer to that question, but seeing that you felt the need to ask such a question, you just will not understand the answer.
Well, Hamas & Fatah are attempting (not very well) to manage a nation. That’s for starters. Second, neither the Bloods nor the Crips have the entire weight of the U.S. military attempting to exterminate them in their homes. But I do take yr analogy & the situation in Palestine does sometimes resemble a rumble bet. a group of thugs. But who made them thugs? Who shut down their entire society & closed off all avenues of political & economic advancement?
When was the last time Charles Johnson actually reported from Palestine? Does he have a degree in Mideast studies? When was the last time MEMRI had a reporter in the Occupied Territories? These are all things that any reputable media outlet has going for it. The Guardian & BBC have never been guilty of twisting translations of Arabic sources to make them look bad as MEMRI does regularly.
Oh, I see, Richard. The FATAH and HAMAS gangs are “allowed” to be violent and kill each other, in addition to Israelis, since they have been “under occupation”. It is “understandable” to you. Well, since the Jews have suffered FAR more in history than the Palestinians (even you would admit the Palestinians didn’t confront anything like the Holocaust, even with all their talk of the “Naqba”), then you would admit that the Jews have even MORE of a right to be “violent”. So using this logic, what are complaining about regarding Israel’s actions?
Also, DEFENSIVE SHIELD was a big success. It greatly reduced Palestinian suicide bomber terrorism. Or is that not a worthy goal in your eyes?
Begin final status talks bet. Abbas & Olmert. Recognize the Pal. national unity gov’t. Negotiate w. the Arab League toward accepting the 2002 Saudi proposal. For starters.
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.
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.
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.
I stand corrected. In this essay Yaalon includes IAF in the force attacking Iran, though in the interview he did not include Israel.
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.
That is correct. In the interview he spoke of a regime change.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.