Ya'alon discusses gaps with US, says settlements shouldn't be removed.
By HERB KEINON, DAVID HOROVITZ
Some cabinet members are heard from constantly – either because they have significant ministries (Gideon Sa’ar in education), or because they push themselves continuously onto the airwaves (Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer).Others, with no small amount of influence, are rarely in the public eye. Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe “Bogie” Ya’alon fits that bill.Ya’alon’s job, as he describes it, is essentially to prepare policy options for government meetings dealing with vital diplomatic and security issues. Not exactly a post that puts him in front of the television cameras much; there are no ribbon-cutting ceremonies launching a new stack of policy proposals on Iran.And Ya’alon’s voice isn’t heard all that frequently on the radio, either. Indeed, of the three ministers in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s “septet” whose jobs are not well defined – Ya’alon, Intelligence Agencies Minister Dan Meridor and Minister without Portfolio Bennie Begin – Ya’alon is probably the minister you hear from the least.Which doesn’t mean he doesn’t have clout, nor what to say. Ya’alon does have clout, by virtue of his position on the “septet,” Netanyahu’s supreme decision making forum where the country’s weightiest policy issues are decided. Likewise, as this interview bears out, Ya’alon also has what to say.A former kibbutznik, head of Military Intelligence, OC Central Command, and chief of General Staff, Ya’alon speaks about Israel’s current challenges vis-à-vis the Palestinians, Iran and the US Administration from experience.As head of Military Intelligence during the early Oslo days, Ya’alon accompanied the diplomatic process with the Palestinians from the early stages. And then, as OC Central Command and chief of General Staff, he was intimately involved in quelling what he views as Oslo’s outcome: the second intifada.AdvertisementThat journey led to the direct-speaking Ya’alon’s transformation from land-for-peace advocate to Likud hawk. On the eve of Israel’s 62nd anniversary, the man who is sometimes touted as a possible successor to Netanyahu, says Israel is still fighting its War of Independence against a foe for whom the country’s very existence – and not the return to the 1967 lines – is the fundamental issue. If only, he bemoans, the Americans would grasp that.What follows are excerpts from an interview conduced with Ya’alon in his Jerusalem office last week.There is a lack of clarity about what the US is asking of Israel. What are their demands?The US is Israel’s ally. This is a deep, strategic, alliance, based on common values and interests. But between friends there are disagreements that sometimes become public. On the one hand, there are disagreements, on the other there is a continuing dialogue.We have different approaches stemming from a different viewpoint about the challenges before us. Each side sees it a bit differently.We hear there are those in the US Administration who believe the source of the instability in the Middle East is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that it is therefore important to deal with that first, and bring it to a conclusion as quickly as possible. There are those who think that you can solve this in two years, more or less, based on the Clinton parameters.Most of us in the government have accompanied the diplomatic process over the last 17 years. We have a different view of the challenges before us, and what the priorities need to be in the Middle East.We do not think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the heart of the issue. I would even say that if Israel, God forbid, ceased to exist, the US and the West would need to deal with the wave of jihadist Islam. That is the main problem.When we condense this conflict to a territorial one, either in Lebanon or in Gaza, we see that our withdrawals strengthened jihadist Islam. That is an example of differences in view that we share with the US.The second difference, obviously, has to do with Iran. We see the Iranian issue as the most important.If you are looking for a center for instability, it is not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; it is precisely the Iranian government. It fuels the jihadist Islamic wave.Does the US not see in Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s refusal to accept Ehud Olmert’s generous offer in 2008 as a lack of willingness on the Palestinian side to come to an agreement?Apparently not. From the dawn of Zionism there has not been a Palestinian leadership willing to recognize Israel’s right to exist as the national home of the Jewish people. This is the source of the problem, and not what is called the occupied territories since ’67. The opposition to Zionism began before we liberated Judea, Samaria and Gaza; before we established a state.In order for there to a proper prognosis, you need a proper diagnosis. We are arguing, and not only with them, but with the Israeli Left, about what is the root of the problem. Part of the issue, which influences the US and European positions, is our internal confusion.I also used to think the solution was land for peace, until I became the head of military intelligence, saw things from up close and my thinking underwent an evolution.But how do we remain Jewish and democratic? There is a majority who believe we have to separate here.First of all, we disengaged politically in Judea and Samaria, and physically from Gaza. The policy of the Netanyahu government is that we don’t want to rule over them. But not ruling over them does not mean we have to withdraw to the 1967 borders, which are indefensible borders; or that we have to divide Jerusalem in order to bring Hamas snipers into Jerusalem.The prime minister has said he is ready for two states. Are you? What he said is that we don’t want to rule over them … And as he said at Bar-Ilan University, if at the end of the day they will be willing to recognize the right of a national home for the Jews; that refugees will not return into Israel; that their political entity will be demilitarized and we will get international guarantees for that; and that an agreement would mean an end to the conflict, then you can call it what you want – a state, even an empire.We are willing to move forward in Judea and Samaria with the governmentof Abu Mazen [Abbas] and Salam Fayyad. But for this we don’t have toreturn to the ’67 borders or divide Jerusalem; we don’t have to placeourselves in danger again.There is a general denial – including by Fayyad – of the connectionbetween the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. He gave a lecture atan interfaith conference in New York two years ago about the sanctityof Jerusalem, and he talked about how it was holy for Christianity andIslam. How is it possible to deny the connection between the Jewishpeople and Jerusalem? How?Have you seen any improvement in this attitude recently?No, there is no change. There is a change in tactics. They understoodthat terror doesn’t work, especially after 9/11. It is better tocharacterize this as opposition to occupation, that is more convincingin the postcolonial world, because those who don’t know the detailshere think we are colonialists, deny that this was our home dating back3,000 years.Those who want to continue the Oslo process, who want us to continue togive and give and give, without a Palestinian willingness to recognizeour right to a national home, are cooperating with the phased plan forIsrael’s destruction.Before Annapolis, which was not that long ago, Abu Mazen – the head ofa government considered moderate – was asked by Olmert to agree at theend of the conference to a declaration saying ‘two states for twopeoples.’ He was not willing.Saeb Erekat was asked why not on Al Jazeera, and said because there isno Jewish people; that Judaism is a religion, and why should a religionget a state.Israel’s critics say enlarging settlements helps Palestinianextremists and ruins any efforts to get the Palestinians to recognizeour right to be here.The prime minister said before the elections he was willing to acceptthe commitments of the previous government, among them theunderstanding between [George] Bush and [Ariel] Sharon, that no newsettlements would be built in Judea and Samaria, and that constructionin the settlements would be allowed [to enable] normal life, notexactly natural growth. That was the understanding, and constructioncontinued through the Olmert and Sharon governments.More than that, he [Netanyahu] said we accept our commitment regardingdismantling 23 outposts that were defined by the Sharon government asillegal. He accepted that, until it became clear that the USadministration does not accept the commitments of the previousadministration.Secondly, we completely reject the argument that the settlements arethe reason there is no peace. I think Arafat was willing to go to Oslobecause of the settlements. When he saw the [massive Russian] aliya,and the settlements, he thought he was going to lose everything.But if we are talking about coexistence and peace, why the insistencethat the territory they receive be ethnically cleansed of Jews? Why dothose areas have to be Judenrein? Don’t Arabs livehere, in the Negev and Galilee? Why isn’t that part of our publicdiscussion? Why doesn’t that scream to the heavens?Do you really want Jews to live there under Palestinian authority? Is that realistic?First, we are very far from that. I am not talking about that. I amtalking about Jews living in Judea and Samaria under Israelisovereignty and citizenship. Why is it impossible to get to thatsolution if we are really headed toward peace and coexistence?Do you really think Jews will be allowed to live there underIsraeli sovereignty in a future Palestinian entity?In Judea and Samaria, if you are talking about peace, there is enoughplace for Jews and Arabs. If you are talking about war, it is morecomplicated. How much open space do you have in Judea and Samaria?Quite a bit. What percentage of the territory do the Jews control? Fivepercent. That is what everything hinges on?In your mind there will be no need in the future to uproot any settlement?No settlement. I don’t even want to talk about territorial withdrawalsin an age in which the withdrawal from Lebanon strengthened Hizbullah,and the withdrawal from Gaza strengthened Hamas to the point where wehave the second Islamic republic in the Middle East – the first inIran, and the second in Gaza: Hamastan. That is opposed to ourstrategic interest, and to the strategic interests of the west.With that, we are completely isolated today, and thePalestinians can sit and wait until the Americans step in and imposesomething.First, we are not completely isolated. The issue today is whether thereis a partner who is willing to recognize our right to a national homehere. That is the key. That is where the discussion needs to start, notabout construction in the settlements or east Jerusalem.But that is not happening.OK, but we as a government have to do the best we can to make that thediscussion, with the US, and with the Europeans.... For the Americansthis may be just one issue among many all around the world. For us, itis existential. We need to contend with this and be insistent here.We tried to prevent a conflict with the [US] administration. The[settlement housing start] moratorium was an attempt on one hand not togive in – we did not go for a complete not-even-one-brick freeze – andon the other hand to avoid a conflict. But now we see that this did notsucceed.But here there is also an issue of trust between us and them [the US].We heard from the secretary of state after we declared the moratoriumthat it was unprecedented, and that the ball was now in the Palestiniancourt.What have the Palestinians done since then to enter the negotiations?What have they done? For a full year they did nothing to get into theprocess, and all of a sudden the ball is back in our court because ofthe excuse of 1,600 apartments that went through a bureaucratic processin Jerusalem?Does that not reflect deep gaps with the Administration?I am not hiding the conceptual gaps, there are differences.And is the Administration’s direction now not toward imposing something on us?If someone really thinks they can impose peace just like that, thenthey are detached from reality. I hope we will not get to that. This isan existential issue that we have to be insistent about. We need totalk, continue with the dialogue, but there are significant differencesin how we view things.What will happen if Obama stands up in September and says this is our plan? How do you react?There have been so many plans in the past, so many proposals, and none of them were implemented. I hope we don’t get to that.If the Arab world feels that the US has given Israel a cold shoulder,then the likelihood of an outburst of violence will increase.Therefore, we need to do continue to talk [to the Administration],share with them our thoughts, and prevent the types of situations thatwe have been reading about over the last few days in the papers.You talk about the possibility of a renewed outburst ofviolence. Do we have the internal solidarity to withstand it when youhave people saying the government’s polices on settlements are leadingto problems with the US and perhaps to war?The internal challenge is indeed a challenge. When people ask me whatis the greatest internal challenge, I say one word – confusion. We haveseen that when there is internal unity and consensus, there is noexternal pressure. We saw that after the Bar-Ilan speech. On thesettlement issue there is no consensus, so it is no coincidence theAmericans jumped on that issue.In Jerusalem there is a consensus, but still the Americans are applying pressure.You hear different voices from the Labor Party [on Jerusalem inside the government] and that causes us great damage.Many of our internal disagreements end with us blaming ourselves. Manysay that Oslo failed because of us, because we didn’t give enough....This is a Western phenomenon, especially a Jewish one. And it isdangerous.Most people in the country don’t feel Oslo failed because ofus. But there are many who believe that not stopping the settlements iscomplicating our situation.That is the role of leadership, and the job of education. We need toexplain the challenges we are facing, what we are up against, and whatwe are willing to fight and struggle for.This is an existential struggle – the War of Independence has notended. From a historical perspective, all the wars we fought, from 1948and even before the establishment of the state, up until now, are partof a War of Independence for the existence of a national home for theJewish people after 2,000 years of exile.We cannot fold on Jerusalem. What is Jerusalem? It is Zion. Why did mymother come here after the Holocaust, why did my grandparents come herein 1925? They came to Zion. From my wife’s side, her grandparents leftMorocco and came in 1897 after walking here for two years. Anotherpredecessor came here in the 1600s. Why here?But there are those who say Zion is not necessarily Isawiya or Abu Dis.You don’t have to talk to me about territorial compromise, because I was willing until Oslo.I grew up amid the camp prepared for territorial concession.... I wasready for territorial compromise along the lines of Oslo. But then itbecame clear to me that there was no partner, including among thoseconsidered moderates.But how do you create a situation that helps them make theswitch and recognize the right of the Jews to be here? Addingsettlements does not help them make that switch.Why does it need to bother them that there is more building inside GushEtzion, or in Ariel? No new settlements are being built; no additionalland is being grabbed. What is the problem? This didn’t bother them inthe days of Olmert or Sharon. Why all of a sudden?We are not expanding the territory, or building new settlements. Butthey are evading. I know why. Because it is comfortable for Abu Mazento continue forever without coming to a resolution. Because if hewanted to reach a resolution, he could have done it with Olmert. Butwhen he was asked by Jackson Diehl in The WashingtonPost about Olmert’s offer, he said the gaps were too wide.Let’s remember what we are talking about.Maybe because he wants an imposed solution?OK, but that is what we have to struggle against, politically – interms of hasbara [public diplomacy] – bothdomestically and abroad.We are not succeeding.OK, you don’t always succeed, but you don’t need to despair. You don’thave to give in. I think that if we give in on these positions we willbe on a very slippery slope. Jihadist Islam gains strength from ourwithdrawal. That is what happened with Hamas and Hizbullah. And thatdoes not help the US soldiers in Pakistan and Afghanistan.How concerned are you by the argument heard increasingly inthe US that we are endangering the lives of US soldiers?That is first and foremost a manipulation, and a lie. The truth is thecomplete opposite. If we are seen as standing firm against thejihadists, against Hamas and Hizbullah, that serves the US interests.And if we are seen as weak, whether in Lebanon, Gaza, or in Judea andSamaria, that harms US interests.It is clear to us that the central threat today, and the thing thatneeds to be the highest priority for the world, is not theIsraeli-Palestinian issue, but rather the Iranian one. Even before Iranhas nuclear capability, it nourishes terrorism, supports it, and paysfor it. It also does this in the US’s backyard, in South America. Thelink between Chavezism and jihadism is crawling, but has now spread tofive states.When it comes to the Iranian nuclear threat, it is clear that what isneeded is steadfastness from the west. It is not Israel vs Iran, whichunfortunately I see in headlines on CNN. It is America, Westerncivilization vs Iran.We think the Iranian government should long ago have had to face thisdilemma: the bomb or survival. That is the dilemma, and it should becreated before you deploy a military option. But it has to be based onWestern determination, Western unity, diplomatic isolation, economicsanctions and in the background a credible military option.Which leaders today are the most determined regarding Iran?We see France today demonstrating the right policies, and Britain. They understand the enormity of the challenge.Does Obama?Something has happened here that we haven’t seen in the past.Previously the US led the aggressive line. Today, as I said, thepresident of France and prime minister of Britain are leading a moreaggressive line than the president of the US. And then you have Germanyand Italy, who join up with the American position.I don’t think there is an actor in the world who wants to see a nuclear Iran.Then why don’t they do more?There are many complex interests involved. With Russia and China itpartly has to do with national policy toward the US; the superpowergames.Some of this has to do with unwritten understandings, modus vivendi,that I think existed between Russia and Iran: “We will help you in thisarea, and you will not cause us problems in the Islamic republics.”Something they [the Iranians] seem [now] to be doing. [Look at]Kyrgyzstan, and I would not be surprised if the renewal of terrorism inChechnya is not connected.For the Chinese there are energy considerations, they need the oilsupply. And there is some good news here. At the beginning of the year,according to statistics, China’s oil demands from Iran dropped 40percent. Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf countries are providingChina with alternatives.You don’t really think that another UN round of sanctions willget Iran to stop their nuclear program. What will?First of all, I hope this isn’t the last step to place the Iraniangovernment in the dilemma between bomb and survival. I hope the freeworld will continue to lead these types of steps against Iran. And as Isaid, a credible military option always has to be waved in thebackground … Those who want to prevent using that option need to investin diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions.Beyond that, things are happening inside Iran. The Iranian economy isin a problematic condition. The government is already having to dealwith the issue of whether to cancel subsidies, which can by itselfawaken instability.And then there is the opposition … It is an unorganized opposition, butvery authentic and energetic, and does not like the government of theayatollahs.According to our understanding, most Iranians do not want a jihadistIslamic government. Therefore, from a historical perspective, thisgovernment will not survive forever. [But] the link betweenunconventional weapons and an unconventional regime is a poisonous anddangerous connection.Look at the Washington [Nuclear Security] summit … Where will thenuclear material for terrorism come from, if not from these types ofregimes? This is the big concern – that a regime of this type, which ismessianic-apocalyptic, and has as its strategic objective theimposition of Islam all over the globe, can use proxies with dirtybombs against the US, Europe and Israel.So you don’t think they will hit us directly, but that thereis a danger they may give nuclear capability to a non-stateactor?That is certainly their first choice.How concerned are you that the Americans have come to grips with the idea of a nuclear Iran?It needs to concern us.Are there people here who are thinking about how to contain Iran if it does get a bomb?One way or another, the Iranian military nuclear project should be stopped. And we should not discuss any other possibility.It should be stopped, but it might not be, so then what?It should be stopped.And if others don’t do it, will we have to?I always say we should not jump to the lead on the Iranian issue,because it truly is not only an Israeli challenge, but a challenge forthe whole free world. Therefore we need to act like those whose work,preferably, would be done by others. On the other hand, we also need tobe prepared to act according to the dictum, “If am not for myself [whowill be for me].”You describe a situation, both concerning the Palestinians andthe Iranians, in which we feel the Americans think they know betterthan us what our interests are, and where we are trying to educate theAmericans what their interests are.Look, we live in the Middle East. I can testify, as someone familiarwith the relationship with the US over many years … that there weremany times when, yes, we needed to explain to the US what is reallyhappening, and what is really the right way to do things. You see howmany mistakes the Americans have made in the last few years.Because they didn’t listen to us?Yes, because they didn’t listen to us. In Iraq, at the beginning, theydidn’t come here to learn. [Also] on other questions, on the issue ofthe Israeli-Palestinian issue.[Former US envoy Anthony] Zinni came here [in 2002] and said the[terrorism] problem is because of the roadblocks.... We live here [andexperience] the fundamental problems. If you don’t live it, if you cometo the area on a visit, then you say, ‘Oh, the problem is theroadblocks. Take them down and there will be no more terror.” Butbefore 2000, there were no roadblocks from Jenin to Hebron, only on theperimeter … So nobody can come and tell me the terrorism is because ofthe roadblocks. The roadblocks are because of the terrorism. Were thereno terror, there would be no roadblocks.Is the administration willing to listen?Some people are; some I am not able to get to.Do the Americans expect written responses from us to their demands on east Jerusalem and the proximity talks?The tensions have lessened.... In my opinion we need ... to freeourselves from the [Oslo] paradigms that have taken root here for 17years.But people like Olmert and Sharon strengthened the impressionthat we could just set the borders unilaterally. The American reactionnow is partly a result of the policy of previous governments.There is not one person in the septet who thinks it is possible toreach a permanent agreement according to this formula in theforeseeable future. Not one person.The difficulty is that despite the failures, we are still stuck withthat paradigm, which is dominant in the media, in academia, and in theinternational arena. Israel, according to the election results, soberedup. But that paradigm still rules, and is dominant. That explains thepressures on the prime ministers.Do you oppose an extension to the 10-month housing-start moratorium in the settlements?The prime minister is opposed to it. He said that clearly. The decisionwas for 10 months – [it expires on] September 27. [After that] we areimmediately going to return to the construction formula that was agreedbetween Bush and Sharon, on the basis of which Sharon accepted the roadmap. And Jerusalem is outside the discussion.Do you have higher political ambitions?I always focus on the job at hand. When I was the commander of aplatoon, I aimed to be the best platoon commander. When I was thecommander of a company, I wanted to be the best company commander. WhenI went into the army I didn’t think about being the chief of GeneralStaff, or even of being an officer. Life carried me where it has. Icontinue in the same way today. I am not making declarations, and notdealing with those issues. I try to do the job that I was given in thebest way possible.This conversation has been a bit depressing. Where is the ray of light?Naturally, when you discuss challenges and threats you are discussingthe empty half of the glass. But when you look at what we have achievedhere, even as we are still fighting for our independence, it is notinsignificant.Whether in the economic sphere, or in the spheres of science,technology, culture and spirit, the cup is full. There are tremendousachievements, sometimes it seems miraculous how in 62 years this wasall created in a land where there is milk and honey, but no oil, nogold, and even water you have to desalinate or recycle for agriculture.And these achievements are because of two things – the brain and theheart, knowledge and spirit. That is what we have. That is what Jewshave had for thousands of years, and that is what we have here.If there is something we need to strengthen on the 62nd Yom Ha’atzmautit is the spirit. That has been eroded, at a time when the physicaldimensions are so strong.Unfortunately we hear statements – we heard them from the previousgovernment – that time is not on our side. We hear this even today. Myreply is that the fathers of Zionism used to say that time is on theside of those who take advantage of it. Just as we took advantage of itin the past, so too must we take advantage of it in the future: tobuild, to grow, to develop in all spheres. I am convinced we can do it,the fact is that we have done it successfully in the past. We just needto continue.