(From interview with Ma'ariv, via Netanyahu.org.il).Gestures, declarations, negotiations - nothing will come of it all in the end. That's the bottom line, in the view of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Strategic Affairs, Moshe Yaalon. The former Mapainik who has become a right wing indicator in the government, observes the attempts to revitalize negotiations with the Palestinians and the gestures made by Prime Minister Netanyahu - from the declaration in favor of "two states for two peoples" to the freeze imposed on the construction of settlements - and recommends that we not become confused. It's all maneuvers. "And I say this from personal knowledge," says Bogey. "Nobody in the seven-member "Forum" thinks that it's possible to reach an agreement with the Palestinians."
So why all the games of make believe negotiation? We can just say that we can't reach an agreement, and that's that.
"Because there are pressures within the political system. Peace Now from within and others from outside. So you have to maneuver. But what I tell you now is what we also have to get across to the American government, and I hope that they'll get it.
"Part of our problem is how to maneuver with respect to the American government and the European system, which are also fed by some Israelis who create the illusion that it's possible to reach an agreement. If the chairman of the Opposition can stand on the podium and say that she is for peace, as opposed to the Prime Minister who is against peace, then, come on..."
If everything concerning the Palestinians is stuck, why not turn to the Syrian channel? Maybe it will be easier there.
"Why do you say that everything is stuck? The country is being built, the economy is flourishing, we are investing in infrastructure and education, settlements, water projects, alternative energy. What's stuck here? The country is blossoming. I know this defeatist attitude because we heard it from the previous government, which said that time was working against us. I maintain that time works in favor of whoever takes advantage of it. The Zionist forefathers knew how to exploit time and we in the government know how to exploit time.
To exploit time, or to drag time out?
"Who wants to drag time out? My hands are clean. According to my world-view, I was even ready to divide the country. But today I'm no longer ready to accept such a compromise, in light of what I've seen. So we have to take advantage of time in order to continue building. "
Are you prepared to leave the Golan Heights in exchange for peace with Syria?
"One of our automatic reflexes in recent times is that as soon as they start talking about negotiation, we immediately start to talk about where we will withdraw from.
"How many years was the Golan Heights under Syrian sovereign rule? Nineteen. We have already been there longer. Why is it self-evident that in order to obtain peace we have to withdraw? As I see it, there is nothing to discuss there. Nothing at all to discuss. Any withdrawal will just tempt the Arabs to strengthen themselves and cause them to raise their heads up."
Yaalon also admits that there is a problem, especially a problem of the Americans. Anti-Israeli positions have successfully wended their way into the government's heart and there are, in his opinion, some things that they simply don't understand.
"Right, there is a crisis at the moment," says Yaalon, "but the relationship between us is deep, strategic, based on common values, goals, and challenges, even with respect to Jihadist Islam. This crisis is just foam on the crest of the waves.
"There are people in America who see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the chief cause of instability in the Near East, a view that has taken hold in the American government, but what can we do? - the instability is not caused by us. We have no connection with what happens in Yemen, Algeria, Lebanon, Iraq. The Near East has been a scene of conflict for hundreds of years, between Sunnis and Shiites, between Persians and Arabs, between pragmatists and fundamentalists. The main conflict today is between Jihadist Islam and the West, and both we and the United States are partners in this conflict."
The feeling is that this is a crisis of confidence.
"Since the present administration set out on its way there have been open, fruitful discussions with the government. We laid everything on the table. The Prime Minister said on several occasions that we have no desire to control the Palestinians, and as of now that Palestinians already have two government: Hamasstan in Gaza and Fatahland in Judea and Samaria.
"You have to look at what has taken place here in the past seventeen years: the concept of Land for Peace has failed. We got "Terror for Land in Judea and Samaria and Rockets for Land in Gaza. What? - the Americans can't see this?
"Even among friends there is disagreement and as friends we have to clarify for them by means of dialog, even if it looks like a crisis. We'll get past this, and we'll continue our deep strategic ties.
Does Obama want to overthrow Netanyahu?
"Ask him, I don't know. I know that they have presented us with unprecedented demands and this is one of the administration's mistakes."
It's not just the administration. The senior commentator, Tom Friedman, in a strongly worded article criticizing Netanyahu and against the government of which you are a member said "There is a drunk driver in Jerusalem. You have lost touch with reality." He doesn't hate Israel and is certainly not anti-Semitic.
"Why go to Friedman's article? We have our own people who live in illusion: those who believed it possible to attain peace here and now. I read the article, I am familiar with this way of doing thins, but it's a naive liberal view. It isn't based on ill intent, but it is a misreading of the Near East. And this is the approach of self-accusation. That's not where we are. We have our own view."
Yaalon claims that the crisis is detrimental to Israel's deterrent strength. "It isn't without good cause that we hear voices form the Palestinian side calling for renewed Intifada. The United States has to take this into account as well. If we given in to these demands our situation will deteriorate severely. We have to conduct negotiations with a cool head, trying to solve the problem quietly, without all kinds of declarations."
It seems as if this government has backed Israel into international isolation.
"I don't belittle the importance of the relations between the Western countries, but we shouldn't exaggerate. In the U.S. there is sweeping support for Israel. I don't know for certain where the American public stands with regard to this crisis or to whom it gives greater support. They understand that we have a common enemy: Jihadist Islam and terrorism. We are together in the same boat.
"So there's no need for panic and no national isolation. What we have is an elimination attack on Israel, which we have to cope with. This deligitimation is a strategic threat."
Likud sources maintain that Netanyahu is trying to win Obama over with flattery
"Since I am well versed in all of the details, I can say with confidence that there is no flattery involved. We have to stick to our guns."
Should we destroy houses in [the West Bank settlement of] Eli?
Yaalon, whose function and activity are unknown to most the Israeli public, is currently considered one of the ministers closest to the Prime Minister. For this reason, he agreed to "swallow two different frogs" being force-fed to him by Netanyahu: the Bar-Ilan speech and the freezing of housing construction in the settlements. To his way of thinking, this is a matter of tactics. As long as we declare [our support for] two separate states but don't forcibly evacuate any of the settlements - it's good enough for him. If we freeze construction in the settlements for ten months and then return to building at full steam - it's good enough for him.
The Minister for Strategic Threats is convinced that in the end Israel will annex some of the territories. "The Prime Minister constantly repeats, and has also presented to the cabinet in the clearest manner, that immediately following the construction freeze we will resume building in Judea and Samaria as before."
Go back to building immediately after the 26th of September?
"That's a decision to be taken by the cabinet. One of my concerns is that this temporary freeze will become permanent, and a second problem is that the matter is up for discussion altogether. The idea that the settlements are an obstacle to peace is a distorted concept."
Then why did you give in and agree to the freeze?
"You can call it giving in, but if every minister in the seven-member inner cabinet supported it, there's something in that. We were forced into a diplomatic maneuver and we went for the least of all possible evils."
A situation can be created in which we cannot build in the territories because of the political process. What then?
"We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I agreed to the freeze with a heavy heart, because it leaves the question of the settlements on the table and the Israeli public is least united on the question of the settlements."
In the end, will we evacuate the settlements?
"I don't accept that. The things that have happened to us in the past few years forces us to halt everything related to withdrawal."
Including isolated settlements?
"If we are headed for coexistence, why should we have to evacuate settlements? The idea of evacuation is an aberration. How did we get to this, where an Arab has the right to live in all part of Israel, while certain areas are closed to Jewish settlement? This really is Judenrat. "
Would you prefer to see Jewish settlements under Palestinian sovereignty?
"It's possible to find creative solutions. If we're going to talk about peace, why can't Jews live in Judea and Samaria? I believe that they can and will in the end be living under Israeli sovereignty.
Why not annex territories and build facts on the ground even now?
"We'll come to that. At least, in the settlement blocs."
Yaalon has angered no small number of his friends on the left, after comparing the settler outposts in the territories with Kibbutz Lehavot Chaviva in Emek Hefer. He doesn't take it back and he contemptuously rejects the Talya Sasson report ("A report born in sin"}.
Your comparison is problematic: There is consensus regarding Lehavot Chaviva. The settlements are shrouded in disagreement.
"Lehavot Chaviva was founded at the beginning of the State of Israel, without a municipal plan - does that make it an illegal settlement? The State of Israel built the outposts in Judea and Samaria - the Ministry of Housing, the [Jewish Agency's] Settlement Division, the Electric Company, the Department of Public Works. And this is precisely where the sin is, when they claim that [the settlements] are illegal.
"To tear down the houses in the settlements of Eli or Haresha - what are we talking about? The same law applies to these as to Lehavot Chaviva, let's not get confused."
The leadership that understands the challenge
Major General Yaalon is a strange bird in politics. Perhaps what's happening to him is what has happened to other generals and admirals who jumped into the political quagmire as soon as they had taken off their uniforms. But he might also surprise us. Are we talking bout a naïve view (as another chief of staff formulated it) or perhaps a clever snake, who is secretly preparing his ground, and whose loyalty to the Prime Minister conceals significant differences of opinion?
It's not just the Bar-Ilan speech or the settlement construction freeze. He strongly objected, for example, to Netanyahu's reform in the Israel Lands Administration. He is also one of the few ministers that opposed the deal for [kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad] Shalit. This hints that the way to rescue him is through military action and not through negotiations with Hamas for the release of prisoners. "The Israeli government is obligated to free Gilad Shalit," he says, he comments gratuitously.
Does freeing him necessarily mean a military action?
"We have to do everything in our power to bring about Gilad Shalit's release, but when it comes to the release of prisoners we say quite rightly 'not at just any price'." We have had bitter experience. This isn't an easy dilemma, it involves conflicting values: on the one hand a soldier for whom we are responsible and on the other hand the lives of Israelis who may be hurt.
"I don't want to go into detail, but we have to understand the nature of the dilemma. Israel had a clear policy and it has stood firm in the face of attempts to negotiate the release of murderers in terrorist actions. The policy was that we don't give in. The actions stopped because the terrorist organizations understood that it simple wasn't worth it to them."
Yaalon already had a foot in the door of the Ministry of Defense just before the installation of Netanyahu's government. Dramatic negotiations conducted in the inner sanctum between Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, Chairman of the Labor Party resulted in continuation of Barak's term in office [as serving Minister of Defense] and the removal of Bogey from the prestigious ministry. The most swollen government in the history of the country forced Netanyahu to be especially creative, and so the position of Minister of Strategic Matters was created for Yaalon.
You almost became the Minister of Defense, but it didn't happen. How do you live with this frustration?
"I assumed that within the framework of a coalition agreement the possibility would arise that I would not be given the Defense Ministry portfolio. Where I am now, I'm not really frustrated, because I exert influence. I am very close to the Prime Minister."
A year after the elections, can you say that Israel has a good government?
"When all is said and done I see a government that is functioning well. That doesn't mean I'm pleased with everything. Not even with the size of the government.
So why all the games of make believe negotiation? We can just say that we can't reach an agreement, and that's that.
"Because there are pressures within the political system. Peace Now from within and others from outside. So you have to maneuver. But what I tell you now is what we also have to get across to the American government, and I hope that they'll get it.
"Part of our problem is how to maneuver with respect to the American government and the European system, which are also fed by some Israelis who create the illusion that it's possible to reach an agreement. If the chairman of the Opposition can stand on the podium and say that she is for peace, as opposed to the Prime Minister who is against peace, then, come on..."
If everything concerning the Palestinians is stuck, why not turn to the Syrian channel? Maybe it will be easier there.
"Why do you say that everything is stuck? The country is being built, the economy is flourishing, we are investing in infrastructure and education, settlements, water projects, alternative energy. What's stuck here? The country is blossoming. I know this defeatist attitude because we heard it from the previous government, which said that time was working against us. I maintain that time works in favor of whoever takes advantage of it. The Zionist forefathers knew how to exploit time and we in the government know how to exploit time.
To exploit time, or to drag time out?
"Who wants to drag time out? My hands are clean. According to my world-view, I was even ready to divide the country. But today I'm no longer ready to accept such a compromise, in light of what I've seen. So we have to take advantage of time in order to continue building. "
Are you prepared to leave the Golan Heights in exchange for peace with Syria?
"One of our automatic reflexes in recent times is that as soon as they start talking about negotiation, we immediately start to talk about where we will withdraw from.
"How many years was the Golan Heights under Syrian sovereign rule? Nineteen. We have already been there longer. Why is it self-evident that in order to obtain peace we have to withdraw? As I see it, there is nothing to discuss there. Nothing at all to discuss. Any withdrawal will just tempt the Arabs to strengthen themselves and cause them to raise their heads up."
Yaalon also admits that there is a problem, especially a problem of the Americans. Anti-Israeli positions have successfully wended their way into the government's heart and there are, in his opinion, some things that they simply don't understand.
"Right, there is a crisis at the moment," says Yaalon, "but the relationship between us is deep, strategic, based on common values, goals, and challenges, even with respect to Jihadist Islam. This crisis is just foam on the crest of the waves.
"There are people in America who see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the chief cause of instability in the Near East, a view that has taken hold in the American government, but what can we do? - the instability is not caused by us. We have no connection with what happens in Yemen, Algeria, Lebanon, Iraq. The Near East has been a scene of conflict for hundreds of years, between Sunnis and Shiites, between Persians and Arabs, between pragmatists and fundamentalists. The main conflict today is between Jihadist Islam and the West, and both we and the United States are partners in this conflict."
The feeling is that this is a crisis of confidence.
"Since the present administration set out on its way there have been open, fruitful discussions with the government. We laid everything on the table. The Prime Minister said on several occasions that we have no desire to control the Palestinians, and as of now that Palestinians already have two government: Hamasstan in Gaza and Fatahland in Judea and Samaria.
"You have to look at what has taken place here in the past seventeen years: the concept of Land for Peace has failed. We got "Terror for Land in Judea and Samaria and Rockets for Land in Gaza. What? - the Americans can't see this?
"Even among friends there is disagreement and as friends we have to clarify for them by means of dialog, even if it looks like a crisis. We'll get past this, and we'll continue our deep strategic ties.
Does Obama want to overthrow Netanyahu?
"Ask him, I don't know. I know that they have presented us with unprecedented demands and this is one of the administration's mistakes."
It's not just the administration. The senior commentator, Tom Friedman, in a strongly worded article criticizing Netanyahu and against the government of which you are a member said "There is a drunk driver in Jerusalem. You have lost touch with reality." He doesn't hate Israel and is certainly not anti-Semitic.
"Why go to Friedman's article? We have our own people who live in illusion: those who believed it possible to attain peace here and now. I read the article, I am familiar with this way of doing thins, but it's a naive liberal view. It isn't based on ill intent, but it is a misreading of the Near East. And this is the approach of self-accusation. That's not where we are. We have our own view."
Yaalon claims that the crisis is detrimental to Israel's deterrent strength. "It isn't without good cause that we hear voices form the Palestinian side calling for renewed Intifada. The United States has to take this into account as well. If we given in to these demands our situation will deteriorate severely. We have to conduct negotiations with a cool head, trying to solve the problem quietly, without all kinds of declarations."
It seems as if this government has backed Israel into international isolation.
"I don't belittle the importance of the relations between the Western countries, but we shouldn't exaggerate. In the U.S. there is sweeping support for Israel. I don't know for certain where the American public stands with regard to this crisis or to whom it gives greater support. They understand that we have a common enemy: Jihadist Islam and terrorism. We are together in the same boat.
"So there's no need for panic and no national isolation. What we have is an elimination attack on Israel, which we have to cope with. This deligitimation is a strategic threat."
Likud sources maintain that Netanyahu is trying to win Obama over with flattery
"Since I am well versed in all of the details, I can say with confidence that there is no flattery involved. We have to stick to our guns."
Should we destroy houses in [the West Bank settlement of] Eli?
Yaalon, whose function and activity are unknown to most the Israeli public, is currently considered one of the ministers closest to the Prime Minister. For this reason, he agreed to "swallow two different frogs" being force-fed to him by Netanyahu: the Bar-Ilan speech and the freezing of housing construction in the settlements. To his way of thinking, this is a matter of tactics. As long as we declare [our support for] two separate states but don't forcibly evacuate any of the settlements - it's good enough for him. If we freeze construction in the settlements for ten months and then return to building at full steam - it's good enough for him.
The Minister for Strategic Threats is convinced that in the end Israel will annex some of the territories. "The Prime Minister constantly repeats, and has also presented to the cabinet in the clearest manner, that immediately following the construction freeze we will resume building in Judea and Samaria as before."
Go back to building immediately after the 26th of September?
"That's a decision to be taken by the cabinet. One of my concerns is that this temporary freeze will become permanent, and a second problem is that the matter is up for discussion altogether. The idea that the settlements are an obstacle to peace is a distorted concept."
Then why did you give in and agree to the freeze?
"You can call it giving in, but if every minister in the seven-member inner cabinet supported it, there's something in that. We were forced into a diplomatic maneuver and we went for the least of all possible evils."
A situation can be created in which we cannot build in the territories because of the political process. What then?
"We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I agreed to the freeze with a heavy heart, because it leaves the question of the settlements on the table and the Israeli public is least united on the question of the settlements."
In the end, will we evacuate the settlements?
"I don't accept that. The things that have happened to us in the past few years forces us to halt everything related to withdrawal."
Including isolated settlements?
"If we are headed for coexistence, why should we have to evacuate settlements? The idea of evacuation is an aberration. How did we get to this, where an Arab has the right to live in all part of Israel, while certain areas are closed to Jewish settlement? This really is Judenrat. "
Would you prefer to see Jewish settlements under Palestinian sovereignty?
"It's possible to find creative solutions. If we're going to talk about peace, why can't Jews live in Judea and Samaria? I believe that they can and will in the end be living under Israeli sovereignty.
Why not annex territories and build facts on the ground even now?
"We'll come to that. At least, in the settlement blocs."
Yaalon has angered no small number of his friends on the left, after comparing the settler outposts in the territories with Kibbutz Lehavot Chaviva in Emek Hefer. He doesn't take it back and he contemptuously rejects the Talya Sasson report ("A report born in sin"}.
Your comparison is problematic: There is consensus regarding Lehavot Chaviva. The settlements are shrouded in disagreement.
"Lehavot Chaviva was founded at the beginning of the State of Israel, without a municipal plan - does that make it an illegal settlement? The State of Israel built the outposts in Judea and Samaria - the Ministry of Housing, the [Jewish Agency's] Settlement Division, the Electric Company, the Department of Public Works. And this is precisely where the sin is, when they claim that [the settlements] are illegal.
"To tear down the houses in the settlements of Eli or Haresha - what are we talking about? The same law applies to these as to Lehavot Chaviva, let's not get confused."
The leadership that understands the challenge
Major General Yaalon is a strange bird in politics. Perhaps what's happening to him is what has happened to other generals and admirals who jumped into the political quagmire as soon as they had taken off their uniforms. But he might also surprise us. Are we talking bout a naïve view (as another chief of staff formulated it) or perhaps a clever snake, who is secretly preparing his ground, and whose loyalty to the Prime Minister conceals significant differences of opinion?
It's not just the Bar-Ilan speech or the settlement construction freeze. He strongly objected, for example, to Netanyahu's reform in the Israel Lands Administration. He is also one of the few ministers that opposed the deal for [kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad] Shalit. This hints that the way to rescue him is through military action and not through negotiations with Hamas for the release of prisoners. "The Israeli government is obligated to free Gilad Shalit," he says, he comments gratuitously.
Does freeing him necessarily mean a military action?
"We have to do everything in our power to bring about Gilad Shalit's release, but when it comes to the release of prisoners we say quite rightly 'not at just any price'." We have had bitter experience. This isn't an easy dilemma, it involves conflicting values: on the one hand a soldier for whom we are responsible and on the other hand the lives of Israelis who may be hurt.
"I don't want to go into detail, but we have to understand the nature of the dilemma. Israel had a clear policy and it has stood firm in the face of attempts to negotiate the release of murderers in terrorist actions. The policy was that we don't give in. The actions stopped because the terrorist organizations understood that it simple wasn't worth it to them."
Yaalon already had a foot in the door of the Ministry of Defense just before the installation of Netanyahu's government. Dramatic negotiations conducted in the inner sanctum between Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, Chairman of the Labor Party resulted in continuation of Barak's term in office [as serving Minister of Defense] and the removal of Bogey from the prestigious ministry. The most swollen government in the history of the country forced Netanyahu to be especially creative, and so the position of Minister of Strategic Matters was created for Yaalon.
You almost became the Minister of Defense, but it didn't happen. How do you live with this frustration?
"I assumed that within the framework of a coalition agreement the possibility would arise that I would not be given the Defense Ministry portfolio. Where I am now, I'm not really frustrated, because I exert influence. I am very close to the Prime Minister."
A year after the elections, can you say that Israel has a good government?
"When all is said and done I see a government that is functioning well. That doesn't mean I'm pleased with everything. Not even with the size of the government.
