By MARTIN SHERMAN
What are the political ramifications of the security prescription authored by the former Defense Minister and the current Director-General of the Foreign Ministry?
Israel’s security depends on its retaining defensible borders. This means maintaining control over key areas of Judea and Samaria and certainly over an undivided Jerusalem…This is also why it is crucial for Israel to control the strategically vital Jordan Valley. If it does not do so, the situation along the Jordan border may become similar to that of the Gaza-Egyptian border…[S]afeguarding Israel’s vital security requirements is the only path to a viable and durable peace …This includes defensible borders, a demilitarized Palestinian entity, control of a unified airspace with Judea and Samaria, electromagnetic communications frequency security. –Lt.-Gen. (res.) Moshe “Bogy” Yaalon, Former Defense Minister, and IDF Chief-of-Staff, 2014.
This week, Moshe “Bogy” Yaalon took an additional step to further his declared intention to mount a challenge for the national leadership, after being rather abruptly removed from his position as Defense Minister in a highly controversial move by Benyamin Netanyahu. He announced the formation of a new non-profit entity, called “Different Leadership” (presumably to convey the idea that should he be at the helm, things would be very different than they are at present under Netanyahu), which will serve as the organizational platform for his public activities in the near future.
Owes a moral debt
I have been personally acquainted with “Bogy” Yaalon for almost a decade and a half, ever since, soon after his appointment as Chief of Staff, he kindly invited me for a one-on-one meeting at the IDF General Staff Headquarters in Tel Aviv. Although I cannot claim that we became “bosom buddies”, over the years I did develop both a sense of personal esteem and liking for him—and greatly appreciated his willingness to make himself available for events I was involved with, whenever I extended an invitation to him.
Yet, for all my personal bias in his favor, I must confess that I have been disturbed, disappointed and, at times, even dismayed at some of his decisions in the last few months of his term.
However, for the present I do not wish to dwell on the whole gamut of issues of disagreement I have with him but rather focus on one cardinal point, regarding which he owes the Israeli public clarification and the removal of any ambiguity or internal contradictions in his positions concerning it.
This pertains to the question of the future of Judea-Samaria in light of Yaalon’s own very detailed and tightly argued stipulation of Israel’s security imperatives vis-à-vis these areas.
“Israel’s critical security requirements…”
In 2005, a study began at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), headed by Dr. Dore Gold, currently Director-General of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to determine what Israel’s critical security requirements in Judea-Samaria were, in order to ensure it defensible borders—as a crucial foundation for a durable peace. The study continued for a good number of years and—in the words of Gold himself in an October 2014 interview to “Mosaic” magazine—produced “a series of monographs on the subject published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Copiously illustrated with maps and photographs, they featured essays by such prominent authors as Moshe Yaalon, now Israel’s defense minister, Yaakov Amidror, until recently Israel’s national security adviser, and Major General (ret.) Uzi Dayan [former deputy chief of staff and national security adviser]. The latest edition in the series was released this year…”
The endeavor did, indeed, include an impressive array of participants with unimpeachable security and diplomatic credentials. Apart from those mentioned above, the list included Gold himself, as former ambassador to the UN; Maj.-Gen. (res.) Aharon Ze’evi Farkash, former head of Military Intelligence; the late Meir Rosenne, formerly Israel’s ambassador to France and the US; Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser, formerly head of the IDF’s Intelligence Research and Assessment Division; Brig.-Gen. (res.) Udi Dekel, formerly head of the IDF’s Strategic Planning Division, and Dan Diker, former secretary-general of the World Jewish Congress.
“Israel’s security depends on defensible borders”
The underlying theme of the series of studies was that unless Israel’s borders were defensible, the country would be so vulnerable that temptation to launch attacks against it would be irresistibly strong—resulting in inevitable instability, which would preclude any chance of durable peace.
Reflecting this fundamental perspective, in 2014, Gold’s JCPA produced a 160-page ` (an updated version of an earlier 2011 publication), with elaborate maps, photos, and instructive illustrations, entitled “Israel’s Critical Requirements For Defensible Borders:The Foundation For A Secure Peace”. The document (much like its 2011 predecessor), provided detailed explanations of the rationale for these requirements and the imperative for fulfilling them.
Significantly, the authors elaborate on why the decline of the former state-structure and the rise of non-state actors, such as the terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Nusra, as well as the proliferation of high trajectory weapons (particularly the more primitive and readily available variety) do not diminish the importance of the territorial component of these requirements—but in fact enhance them. Indeed, Gold himself underscores the “robust” martial capabilities developed by these organizations, which in both Iraq and Syria, have shown themselves capable of defeating regular army divisions—including those equipped with armored forces.
Like Gold, Yaalon was a prominent contributor to the monograph, authoring the 10 page introduction entitled “Restoring a Security-First Peace Policy”, which set the tone for the ensuing chapters.
Among other topics, these dealt with designating the territory across the 1967 Green Line that Israel must retain in any future political arrangement, the rejection of reliance on foreign troops to ensure security and the need for Israel to maintain control of the airspace above, and the electromagnetic spectrum throughout, Judea Samaria.
Graphic visual illustration
To complement the written papers, Gold’s JCPA also produced a series of incisive videos to illustrate the points made in the study, which were sharply critical of the conventional paradigm of territorial withdrawals as the sine qua non for peace. For example Maj-Gen (res) Uzi Dayan devoted a considerable portion of his analysis to “The Implosion of the Land for Peace Formula and its Consequences” and “Defensible Borders in the Age of Rocket Terror”.
Arguably the most notable of these videos was the five minute long “Israel’s Critical Security Needs for a Viable Peace”, which visually encapsulates the essence of the major arguments made in the more detailed written work and conveys them graphically to the public.
The video enjoyed wide public exposure, totaling over 2 million views in its various postings on YouTube. It vividly demonstrates what Israel’s “critical security needs” are—and the deadly dangers almost certain to materialize if they are not met. It condenses the findings of JCPA studies into four concise points:
To defend itself Israel must retain control over:
– The Jordan Valley
– Key areas of the mountain ridge [in Judea-Samaria]
– The air space over the “West Bank”
– Its main arteries of transportation [dominated by the western slopes of said mountain ridge]
Several participants—including Yaalon (see introductory excerpt)—stressed the importance of retaining control over the electromagnetic spectrum as well. Thus Brig.Gen. (res) Dekel cautions: “Israel must guarantee that the Palestinians do not exploit their topographical advantage to block or neutralize Israel’s communication systems, or to gather intelligence on their own behalf or on behalf of hostile states” and Uzi Dayan warns: “Western analysts…predict that the electromagnetic spectrum will become one of the main targets of future weapons, stripping away the advantages in surveillance”
Summarizing JCPA’s security prescription:
Accordingly, the JCPA security prescription reduces to the following:
To fulfill its critical security imperatives, Israel must continue to control:
– The Western slopes of the mountain ridge in Judea-Samaria to protect the heavily populated urban coastal plain, its only international airport, major infrastructure installations such as power generation and desalination plants; its main transportational arteries—including the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem Highway (Route 1), the Coastal Highway (Route 2) and the adjacent Route 4; as well as the Trans-Israel Highway (Route 6)
– The Eastern slopes of the mountain ridge in Judea-Samaria (including the Jordan Valley) to contend with any aggression from the East, whether future hostile military action, terrorist infiltration, or smuggling of arms and ammunition, as is the case in Gaza. This is becoming particularly acute as the current regime in Jordan appears to be increasingly threatened by ascendant Islamist adversaries.
– The airspace above, and the electromagnetic spectrum throughout, Judea-Samaria to facilitate the ability of the IAF to intercept any hostile aerial intrusion before Israeli population centers are threatened; to forestall disruption of Israeli communication and surveillance systems; and to deny such capabilities from foreign entities, inimical to Israel.
These are the core elements of the security prescription that Yaalon and Gold have subscribed to both implicitly and explicitly. Their commitment to it has—or at least should have—self-evident ramifications.
JCPA’s security prescription: What are the political ramifications?
For anyone with a smidgeon of familiarity with the Arab-Israeli conflict, in general, and the Israel-Palestinian one, in particular, one thing should be undeniably clear: If Israel is to fulfill what the JCPA prescription deems to be its “critical security needs”, the chances of reaching a political resolution through negotiation are—to greatly overstate the case—somewhere between extremely remote to imperceptibly slim.
After all, if Israel is to retain control of both the Western and the Eastern slopes of Judea-Samaria, the sky above it, and the “ether” that surrounds it, then there is precious little room for instituting Palestinian self-rule—much less sovereignty.
Under these conditions, there is equally precious little chance of finding any Palestinian negotiating partner, who would even contemplate acquiescing to such conditions—much less signing an agreement to comply with them.
Accordingly, given the persuasive case the JCPA experts make for their security prescription, Israel is confronted with the predicament of having to decide what the political ramifications that arise from it are.
What kind of political arrangements, if any, does it facilitate? Should Israel forego some, or all, of its critical security requirement to maintain the hope of a negotiated settlement? If it does, how can any future Israeli government justify playing “Russian roulette” with its citizens’ lives for the sake of such a forlorn hope? If not, what will be the fate of the Palestinian-Arabs, resident in Judea-Samaria?
Need for urgent debate
These and other trenchant questions emerge inevitably from the JCPA’s security prescription—precisely because it is so compelling. They are questions that its authors have a duty to address—precisely because they have made their case so compellingly.
The need to debate them is urgent. After all, if the land-for-peace concept has indeed “imploded” permanently, what is to take its place? How is any alternative to be advanced and implemented? What are the ramifications for the future of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews – and for the Zionist ideal?
In recent months I have tried to prod several of the study’s participants into initiating discussion of these questions but sadly found little enthusiasm for broaching them. Indeed, quite the opposite, there seems to be a surprising (or not) reluctance to do so.
I am left to hope that perhaps this essay may pique some interest in projecting the political ramifications of JCPA’s persuasive security prescription into the public discourse; and that Yaalon’s newly formed non-profit “Different Leadership” will take the lead—by picking up the gauntlet…
Dr. Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (www.strategicisrael.org)
Personally I have a very low opinion of Yaalon after observing what I consider to be an unforgivable abuse of his political and military authority both at Duma and with the Hevron soldier. In my opinion he broke the law when he declared the guilt of a soldier prior to the start of an investigation by obstructing and trying to influence the natural and LEGAL course of Justice… he attempted to lynch the soldier by indirectly and publicy instructing his military subordinates( investigators, prosecutors and JUdges) to find the soldier guilty. He made his crime serial by continuing to equate morality and ethics with prejudging an alleged perp… something no democratic leader in the western world could do without indictment or even criticism. By instructing his military subordinates thusly he removed any chance of a fair trial. I feel the same way about Mandebilt who ignored Yaalons serial criminal behaviors. I also condemn Yaalon, BB, Rivlin and Erdan who stood up in public unison and declared Jews guilty of burning babies prior to an indictment, trial or verdict. Jews in Israel AND the diaspora were murdered subsequently as a direct result of their false incitement…. they should all be in administrative detention.
Personally I consider all these behaviors criminal, despicable and disgusting and all should resign… and some should be indicted…especially Yaalon who not only abused his political authority but also his military authority AND intentionally continued to obstruct justice with public declarations.
@ ms:
I note that the titles tend to mention palestine and palestinians but I beleive the Jews should put them last as they do the Jews. Decide what you want then decide how to get it. Its not about convincing them, its about convincing Jews of their rights. Any “solution” which depends on their agreement is doomed from the start, IMO. I have not read of them or their leaders welcoming the “voluntary emigration” concept.
ms Said:
actually I did not write that… I was quoting Bear Klein and subsequently wrote a reply to that quote. Here is mine:
https://www.israpundit.org/archives/63617011/comment-page-1#comment-63356000174645
you will see that my post and opinion begins with the following:
bernard ross Said:
I do not agree with incentives to leave, I do not believe they will be effective. Their leadership will obstruct it successfully. The carrot I believe in makes it smart to leave prior to asset confiscation for anti semites. I believe in legislating zero tolerance anti semitism laws with mandatory deportation and confiscation of assets. Once enacted the state can begin applying the law to the worst offenders and work their way down. There can be no disagreement to harsh anti semitism laws in a Jewish state from outsiders. Imams, politicians, school principals, parents with children in anti semitic teaching schools… all will be subject to deportation and asset confiscation… schools, mosques and other facilities engaged in the crime of anti semitism will be confiscated…….so it will be an incentive to leave and avoid asset confiscation first for anti semites. Western nations confiscate assets used in crimes and muslim nations make “blasphemy” of their prophets a capital crime.
All that is required to drain the swamp over time is the enacting of harsh, stringent anti semitism laws… no one can expect jews to entertain anti semites in their homeland. Those who belong to orgs and subscribe to creeds whereby their schools, parents and mosques teach them that jews are sons of apes and pigs will of course be judged as anti semites. If the jews who received a jewish homeland cannot draw a red line banning anti semites from Israel then its best to make a reverse aliya.
@ bernard ross:
Your write: “If you can NOT make sure a large amount of Arabs will emigrate, not do annex these areas and make these people residents.”
If they do not emigrate increase the incentives for leaving and the disincentives for staying
@ Bear Klein:
For the only non-coercive approach that can ensure the long-term survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people – see:
Synopsis: http://tinyurl.com/qe7ae6y
PALESTINE: WHAT SHERLOCK HOLMES WOULD SAY
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=251509
UNINVENTING PALESTINIANS
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=249674
RETHINKING PALESTINE
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=250612
PREVENTING ‘PALESTINE’ PART I
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=283307
PREVENTING ‘PALESTINE’ PART II
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=284173
PREVENTING ‘PALESTINE’ PART III
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=285044
THE HUMANITARIAN APPROACH: RESPONDING TO READERS – PART I
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=285742
THE HUMANITARIAN APPROACH: RESPONDING TO READERS – PART II
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=286107
RETHINKING PALESTINE: A PARADIGM SHIFT FROM THE POLITICAL TO THE HUMANITARIAN
http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/rethinking_palestine_a_paradigm_shift_from_the_political_to_the_humanitaria/
SHIFTING THE PALESTINE PARADIGM: FROM THE POLITICAL TO THE HUMANITARIAN
http://www.jinsa.org/publications/research-articles/israel/shifting-paradigm-palestine-political-humanitarian
THE PALESTINIAN PROBLEM: A REAL SOLUTION
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/08/03/the-palestinian-problem-a-real-solution-2/
RETHINKING PALESTINE
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3863043,00.html
Bear Klein Said:
that poll was in 2012…. 4 years ago…. since then there is nothing outside the euro designated ghetto boundaries… plenty of announcements but no cigars. You would think that 64% electing a right wing gov would result in something… even just a PM saying these verboten and taboo word:
JEWISH SETTLEMENT IN YS IS LEGAL AND LEGITIMATE
in place of doing it at least saying it might help, but its as if BB doesnt want Jews even thinking about it….. perhaps thats why he always talks about settlement in Jerusalem…. to make us forget the rest.
oh, and about those understandings with the GCC you always hear me ranting about:
there are always quid pro quo’s
(looks like the leftists in the ministry are looking to sabotage the deals until they can take credit)
Yidvocate Said:
????????
bernard ross Said:
you’re right, too much sugar… this should help
bernard ross Said:
next time no more mr. nice guy 🙂
Bear Klein Said:
lets hope that BB does the same.
@ bernard ross:
Why the sugar coating? The very term “Palestinian” exists only to eradicate the Jewish presence in the holy land. These Jordanians had their citizenship illegally revoked by Jordan decades ago and there is no reason why Israel needs to accept this and therefore they have where to go and go they must! They are an implacable enemy population that needs to be defeated and disposed of off OUR land. The Torah in fact enjoins us to do that very thing or else they will be, as they have been, “a needle in your eye and a thorn in your side”. How so very prescient, the Torah and Rabbi Kahane OBM!
Poll: More Israelis Support Settlement Enterprise
64% of Israelis support settlements in Judea and Samaria. Israelis gradually moving to the right. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/156794
Bear Klein Said:
the problem with this voluntary emigration approach is that it submits the rights of jews to live in peace in their homeland to whims of a collective who have consistently, chronically, and serially to murder Jews in their homeland.
The Jews have already made enough repeated attempts at cumbaya to live peacefully with the muslims who teach their toddlers that Jews are sons of apes and pigs. Israeli Jews should accept NO further path of that failed nature. Most important is that the onus for the failure lies with the recalcitrant muslims and therefore it is they who must pay the full price of their failure. Jews are trying to devise all sorts of ways which really are just ways of making their own childrens murderers lives easy. I see no reason for Jews to accept responsibility for their inability to live peacabley without anti semitism.
Its not enough to just be merciless to terrorists.. jews must also be merciless to anti semites.. their imams, their school principals, their anti semitic children. there is no reason for Jews to accept to live with them NOR to take one shred of responsibility for their fate.
the only thing that Israel needs to do is to make anti semitism a crime which mandatory requires deportation and confiscation of all assets…. the rest is up to them. If they wish to remain anti semites then they must leave trying to sell their assets or be deported with their assets confiscated. Anyone who subscribes to the creed of Islam is by definition an anti semite.
How can a Jewish people who accept muslim anti semites living in their midst ever annex YS? Jews should not be able to stomach anti semites living in their homeland… if they can stomach such an absurdity they will never be rid of them. The only thing the Israeli jews have to do is refuse to allow any anti semite to live in the land of Israel… banning and deportation of anti semites. Apparently the gentile Trump is able to say what the Jewish homeland cannot. Tolerance for anti semitism BY JEWS renders the notion of a Jewish homeland ABSURD. There is no logical argument of any merit against Jews banning anti semites from their Jewish homeland… but somehow Jews found a way to the theatre of the absurd. My own view is that the blood of anti semites should drench the land, any land, but especially the Jewsh homeland.
Bear Klein Said:
If you cant convince those inside Israel to support Jewish settlement outsider the euro designated ghetto boundaries then how can you convince those outside? If the majority of Israelis supported Jewish settlement then how can a “right wing” PM oppose it? If a majority of Israelis support Jewish settlement then why aren’t they questioning the obstructive behavior of their “right wing” PM? Is it that their recognition of failure of the tss has nothing to do with supporting Jewish settlement in YS?
I dont see how the guy who cant ever say that Jewish settlement is legal can lead Israel to annex the heartland. I dont see how the guy who has consistently obstructed jewish settlement outside the euro designated ghetto boundaries will suddenly open the gates to Jews hungry for their homeland.
@ Yidvocate: Yes you are correct after 20+ years of the two state model being the “solution to peace” it will not be an easy task to show people outside of Israel that the two state solution is not workable. The majority of Israelis now recognize this.
Oslo was a Trojan Horse to capture all of Israel by Arafat. All issues were to be solved by peaceful negotiation. None of the Palestinian organizations accept a Jewish State as a peaceful co-existing neighbor no matter the size of the borders. Over 1500 Israelis have been killed since Oslo and 1000s more injured. We have fought several wars with Gaza and incurred more than 10,000 rocket strikes from Gaza.
My outline of a solution based in part on Sherman, Feiglin and Bennett’s ideas is as below. I hope at some point a major Israeli party takes a solution like this or similar to be the new paradigm for Israel.
the obvious problem with such intense focus of discussion on the need to keep bits of land for security is that it completely and totally obliterates the Jewish right of ownership of the land of Israel… which oddly includes Judea Samaria.
It would be best to focus ALL discussion on the rights and interests of Jews as opposed to a security need which goes without saying. The basis of the modern state of Israel is not based on security but on the re constituting of the Jewish Homeland, the recognition of the Jews connection to their ancient homeland… its Jewish rights and interests which need to be impressed upon Jews… everyone else is irrlevant and dealing with others can only be based on power… military and economic… as that is the war they are waging on the Jews.
@ Bear Klein:
Just to “flesh in” your prescription. Israel needs to assert it’s far superior, moral, historic and legal claim to the land, all of the land between the river and the sea and expose the Fakestinian fraud once and for all. No easy task as since Oslo, Israel has adopted the Fakestinian “narrative” and it will be an uphill battle to correct this after so much time. At least objective truth is entirely on Israel’s side. For credibility, Israel can assert that it swallowed the Fakestinian Kool-aid in the hopes that peace might result but after some many decades, it’s proven to just not be possible, so it’s left with no alternative than to confront the truth. Without truth there can be no peace.
This should establish just who the “Occupiers” are: -the indigenous Jews (any Canaanites around?) re-establishing their third commonwealth in their ancestral lands in which no other peoples have ever been sovereign or the Arabs who flocked to these lands only after the Jews drained the swamps and made the desert bloom and can’t trace more than a generation or two to these parts.
No easy task but as I see it this is the only way forward to be followed closely with annexation and the good authors emigration strategy.
Israel needs an Israeli plan or new paradigm to secure the future of Israel. We need leadership to provide this. The two state solution is a failure. Oslo experiment has done much harm and must be buried and not allowed to be resurrected.
Israel must assert its territorial sovereign rights and security needs. Muddling along has dangers (managing the conflict).
The new Israeli paradigm must presented to the public and made part of the Israeli consensus. This should then be explained to our friends.