Jacob, you may find Ya'alon's comments interesting:
"Oslo was a Trojan Horse": Israel's Chief of Staff speaks on war's eve
By Amir Rappaport / MINS March 19, 2003
Major-General Moshe "Boogie" Yaalon, Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), climbs out of an armored personnel carrier and steps into the mud between the orchards near the Jabaliya refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip.
"I spend a lot of time looking at aerial photos, but in order to understand how hard it is to walk in mud -- and how difficult it is to counter Qassam rockets -- you have to go into the field and feel it," Yaalon explains.
How can you deal with the Qassam rockets that have been falling again and again on the town of Sderot, and the fear that an improved version of them will be able to reach the city of Ashkelon?
"The solution, in general, is deterrence. We saw in the past how, in the area of Beit Hanoun and Jabaliya, the residents themselves and the security services of the Palestinian Authority began a process of preventing the firing of Qassam rockets out of fear of the Israeli army's response. I imagine that like then, in the near future they will ask us to allow them to act. They will no doubt make another attempt at preventing the firing of the Qassam rockets themselves, because they say, 'We fire Qassam rockets on Sderot and it only makes a hole in the grass, but look what's happening here, what price we are paying.'"
"Very Very Very"
Although the American attack on Iraq is imminent, the chief of staff is spending very little time on the coming war. "What concerns me is the Palestinian arena, which I always say worries me more than anything else at this time, in the short and medium term. It worries me that everyone is calm before the war."
Too much complacency?
The chief of staff laughs. "I've already heard people asking why we spent so much money on preparations, if the likelihood that we will be attacked is so low."
What is the chance we will be attacked? Senior officers have said that it is very, very low. How many "verys" are there in your answer?
"The likelihood is very very very low."
Can we say for certain that Saddam Hussein has no missiles in western Iraq?
"I don't want to get into details, but there is no doubt that these days the ability of our intelligence services to cover the field, and certainly that of the Americans, is different. Remember that in 1991 we didn't have a satellite in the air, and now we do."
And the satellite hasn't found any missiles?
"The head of military intelligence has said he sees no missiles there."
In accordance with this estimate, what is your advice a moment before the attack? Should the public be instructed to prepare sealed rooms, which would increase the public's anxiety, or not?
"As of now we haven't said to prepare, but it could very well be that at a certain moment, with the attack imminent, we will say to prepare and we won't have to use it in the end."
Is it possible that instructions to prepare sealed rooms will be given only during the course of the war in Iraq?
"It will be around the beginning of the attack, or during the war on the basis of an analysis of the situation. It won't have to affect daily routines -- neither work, nor studies, nor flights to or from Israel."
"Advance Warning of One Year"
If the likelihood we will be attacked is so low, how important is it for you to receive advance warning from the Americans before their attack?
"I don't want to get into things that are between us and the Americans. We will have advance warning."
Of how much time?
"We will have it. I don't want to get into details. We already have advance warning of one year during which we have been preparing, no? In any case, when war breaks out, even if they don't tell us, we will know that it is going to happen."
You certainly are not referring to a Pollard-style spy among the American forces, but to regular intelligence-gathering methods that will allow us to know . . .
"Without getting into details, the start of an attack of that magnitude will not be hidden from us."
It has been said that Saddam wants to concentrate the real fighting in Baghdad, to focus on urban warfare in order to cause the Americans many casualties. Do you also believe this to be the case?
"Not only do I believe so, I know it for certain. I simply see how he is preparing now. He has been moving his forces from the periphery to the center, to Baghdad, with the intention of drawing the Americans into the urban areas. His assumption is that fighting in urban areas will cause many American casualties, and as this continues it might lead them to end the war before they reach him. I think the Americans also see the same picture, and they are apparently planning something to overcome it. As a professional I believe they will succeed."
If that is Saddam's strategy, does that mean he will not want to fire missiles on us?
"His entire approach is survival, certainly in the present conditions with the world divided. Neither in the Security Council nor in Europe is there agreement about joining forces with the United States. If Saddam attacks us it will unite the world against him and solve all the dilemmas the United States is now facing. Even at the time of the attack, since he is trying to bring it to a battle of survival, he will try to preserve the split. We assume that we will begin to interest him when he will be with his back against the wall -- then he might try to take us down with him. We need first of all to identify this moment and hope that by then he will not have the ability to attack us. In my analysis there is a chance that this will be the situation."
What scenario might lead to Israeli involvement? If we are attacked with a non-conventional missile, would you advise us to respond? Is it likely that the Iraqis would know which of the many missiles landing on them is ours?
"As an army, we have to be ready to defend ourselves, and part of defense is also the ability to attack."
"Not everything can be seen"
The price of the United States' focus on Iraq could be that it neglects Iran, which has been working non-stop to develop nuclear bombs and missiles that could reach Israel.
"I don't think that will be the price. I think that everyone who needs to be aware of what is happening in Iran in that area, is aware."
There had been a doctrine that Israel would not allow countries in the region to reach nuclear potential. Is it outdated?
"It has been implemented up to today."
It was implemented once.
"More than once. Not everything can be seen."
Regarding Iran specifically, we will not allow it to arm itself with nuclear weapons?
"I don't want to go into that now, for reasons of sensitivity."
Iran is fighting against us in the territories and on the northern border, and in its support for terrorism. Will Iran's client Hizbullah attack us more during the war in Iraq?
"I actually envision them restrained on the northern front. They are afraid of us, and also don't want to stand out on the United States' axis of evil. I don't think they will have an interest in angering the various players at the time of an attack. But after we see its results, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the situation."
Chief of Staff Yaalon believes that the appointment of Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) as the Palestinian prime minister is one of the most significant events to take place since the beginning of the conflict two and a half years ago.
Abu Mazen has criticized terrorism and the military aspects of the conflict almost since its beginning.
"There was a debate if this was an Intifada according to the Palestinian narrative -- that is, spontaneous popular violence over which the Palestinian Authority lost control -- or a planned campaign of terrorism. I say clearly that it is a planned campaign, the outcome of a strategic decision. I understood that the achievement needed in this battle is to bring the Palestinians to the realization that terrorism doesn't pay, that it will not get them anywhere. Now this process exists on the Palestinian side."
What is the goal -- an end to the conflict? Can you point to the appointment of Abu Mazen as the beginning of the end of the Intifada?
"That's hard to say. It is a significant event. The question where it will lead is at the moment an issue of internal Palestinian struggle between those who already recognize that that use of terrorism was a mistake, and someone who, even if he may be trapped somewhere, still has the ability to undermine ceasefires."
You are referring to Yassir Arafat?
"Yes. He has personally undermined every attempt at a ceasefire since the beginning of the conflict. From the first week in Paris to the talks in Sharm a-Sheikh, the meetings with Israeli ministers, the Zinni initiative, the Tenet initiative, and most recently the talks that were held in Cairo. The one who undermined the ceasefire at the Cairo talks was not the Hamas but him. From his behavior at the recent meetings, the Hamas understood that he didn't intend to have a ceasefire. The Tanzim activists also understand this. They had stopped their attacks for a few days, as a result of inside pressure from the group that has been trying to bring about a ceasefire. But then they resumed their activity and carried out the terrorist attacks in Hermesh, Matzar and the Kfar Sava shopping mall."
"A Medal and a Demotion"
If we assume that as prime minister, Abu Mazen does indeed decide to combat the terrorism of the Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the part of the Tanzim that continues its attacks, will he have the ability to do this, or have we completely destroyed the entire Palestinian security apparatus?
"I have no doubt that he can. From the time the Palestinian Authority was established in May 1994, the question has been asked if they have the ability. At every point in time that they made a decision to act, they acted effectively; and despite everything they have gone through in the past two and a half years, they have an effective security ability. They are waiting for a decision."
Have you checked how many of the Palestinians killed in the territories have been innocent victims?
"Every case of an innocent victim is investigated by the chief of staff. Among the latest events we had a problem in al-Bureij, in the case of a pregnant woman who remained in a house adjacent to a building we destroyed, and was killed. My investigation found that this was an event that took place under fire. The commander of the force in the field made a decision not to go and check the houses next to the one slated to be destroyed, because it would have put his soldiers in jeopardy, and he made do with calling through a loudspeaker for civilians to evacuate. Apparently, the woman remained in one of the adjacent houses."
There was recently also a case in which a tank fired on a taxi with civilian in Nablus.
"In that specific case it turned out that the tank commander acted in violation of instructions. He was tried and imprisoned. One of our difficulties in investigations in that the Palestinian side does not cooperate and makes may false accusations."
What do you think about the casein which an intelligence officer refused to follow an order because he feared innocent Palestinians would be hurt, and did not pass on intelligence information needed for an airplane attack, thereby preventing the attack?
"In that case you have to make a distinction. From the ethical point of view the officer deserves a medal. From the point of view of doing his job he deserves to be demoted. Since I approved that operation, I can state very clearly that there was no intention of hurting innocent civilians. To the contrary: as part of his task, the officer had to make sure that there are no innocent civilians. He understood differently as a result of a conversation with a junior officer from another unit, and instead of raising the black flag immediately, he started discussing it with his colleagues and delayed the information. In this he did not act properly. Therefore, in spite of the fact that from an ethical point of view I am proud we have such officers, who are sensitive to values, from the point of view of doing his job he failed."
Today many military officers share the view that in retrospect, after two and a half years of conflict and some ten years after they were signed, it can be declared that the Oslo agreements were a deception on the part of Yassir Arafat. Yaalon shares this view.
"I was part of the system that gave the Palestinians a chance. I went to meet the Chairman in the redeployment, I worked in cooperation with the Palestinians in many areas. But I never got confused when I saw facts and reached conclusions. I didn't let my wishes influence me. I wish the things that were before September 2000 had ended up differently, but I am certain this was a planned attack."
The significance of what you say is that the Oslo accords were a deception, perhaps part of the ambition of destroying Israel in phases.
"There are a lot of conclusions to be drawn. You don't need my analysis; just read the Palestinian analysis. They describe this conflict as coming out of the belly of the Trojan horse. I confirm that this is the ideology, the strategy. Look at how they avoided recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, or their failure to change the Palestinian Charter, or their avoidance of a permanent agreement."
From today's perspective, can we know what we didn't know then; that is, that is was a deception?
"I placed question marks. In retrospect, I place exclamation points."
If this was a Trojan horse, as you say, it was one of the greatest deceptions in history.
"That is a Palestinian statement, which I believe is correct."
Following the appointment of Abu Mazen, looking ahead, do you think the conflict will still be going on a year from now? Will Arafat still be relevant?
"I think we are in the middle of hours and days that have the potential of being a significant turning point in the conflict. It is not the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but there certainly is a chance of bringing an end to this violent round."
Will we take advantage of the war in Iraq to act in the Palestinian area?
"I don't want to get into that, because it is very concrete."
Will we take advantage of the war?
"Taking advantage can be done in many ways, not only militarily. And I mean every way."
Let's speak concretely about Arafat. Is there thought about the possibility that when the Americans bury Saddam Hussein we will part with Arafat?
"It's worth discussion."
Is this discussion taking place?
"That's already too concrete."
What would you recommend?
"I won't get into that now."
You have not hidden your opinion, that as long as Arafat has influence in the Palestinian Authority, he will undermine any possibility of a future ceasefire.
"That is correct."
web.israelinsider.com; |
