The "wisdom" of former chief of staff Bogey Yalon
As reported in Haaretz, former chief of staff Moshe Yaalon had this to say today:
"Hamas' rise to power was directly tied to the disengagent from the Gaza Strip last summer."When we look at the profit and loss from this move," Army Radio quoted Yaalon as saying in a reference to the disengagement, "Israel is certainly the poorer for it." He goes on to say "the Palestinians of Gaza should be disengaged from all dependency on Israel, employment, economics, medicine and infrastructure."
It is correct to say that a withdrawal from Gaza uncoordinated with the PA was likely to be seen as a Hamas success. Indeed to Yaalon's credit he is not making these claims retrospectively but was weary of disengagement prior to the end of his term as chief of staff. It is for these reasons that Ari Shavit in a rather bizarre op-ed a week or so ago in Haaretz suggested that the voices we should be listening to post Hamas are Yaalon, Bibi and Uri Avnery - if ever there was a bizarre mix of people.
What Yaalon fails to mention in his interview is to what extent Yaalon's own actions whilst chief of staff are responsible for the mess Israel finds itself in. It was Yaalon as deputy chief of staff together with Mofaz who added so much unnecessary oil to the flames at the commencement of the intifada with the excessive response of the IDF. It has been well reported by Israeli journalists that in the first few weeks of the intifada when things could have been "cooled down" that the IDF used massive firepower and according to Amos Malka (then head of Military Intelligence) that 1.3 million bullets were fired in the first few days of the intifada. Beyond that, it was Yaalon who myopically suggested that the policy of Israel should be to "burn into their consciousness" [ie the Palestinian] through military victory that violence does not pay. And now Israel has to deal with Hamas. Military action alone without diplomacy has proven disastrous (to Yaalon's credit he was critical of Sharon's approach to Abu Mazen when he was prime-minister).
And now Yaalon seems to endorse Weissglass's description that the Palestinians should not be "starved" but on a "diet". He of all people should know that were Israel to completely to disengage from the territories in terms of employment, economics and medical care things in the territories would be disastrous. I don't see what the point is in punishing Palestinians for electing Hamas. Do they really think this will make Hamas less popular?
The colunist for Yediot, B. Michael wrote back whilst the intifada was in full swing about Yaalon's predictive power that "He did not foresee the future. He created this future". Yaalon can criticize disengagement all he likes; and can see this as the central cause for the rise of Hamas. The truth, however, may lie a little bit closer to home.
"Hamas' rise to power was directly tied to the disengagent from the Gaza Strip last summer."When we look at the profit and loss from this move," Army Radio quoted Yaalon as saying in a reference to the disengagement, "Israel is certainly the poorer for it." He goes on to say "the Palestinians of Gaza should be disengaged from all dependency on Israel, employment, economics, medicine and infrastructure."
It is correct to say that a withdrawal from Gaza uncoordinated with the PA was likely to be seen as a Hamas success. Indeed to Yaalon's credit he is not making these claims retrospectively but was weary of disengagement prior to the end of his term as chief of staff. It is for these reasons that Ari Shavit in a rather bizarre op-ed a week or so ago in Haaretz suggested that the voices we should be listening to post Hamas are Yaalon, Bibi and Uri Avnery - if ever there was a bizarre mix of people.
What Yaalon fails to mention in his interview is to what extent Yaalon's own actions whilst chief of staff are responsible for the mess Israel finds itself in. It was Yaalon as deputy chief of staff together with Mofaz who added so much unnecessary oil to the flames at the commencement of the intifada with the excessive response of the IDF. It has been well reported by Israeli journalists that in the first few weeks of the intifada when things could have been "cooled down" that the IDF used massive firepower and according to Amos Malka (then head of Military Intelligence) that 1.3 million bullets were fired in the first few days of the intifada. Beyond that, it was Yaalon who myopically suggested that the policy of Israel should be to "burn into their consciousness" [ie the Palestinian] through military victory that violence does not pay. And now Israel has to deal with Hamas. Military action alone without diplomacy has proven disastrous (to Yaalon's credit he was critical of Sharon's approach to Abu Mazen when he was prime-minister).
And now Yaalon seems to endorse Weissglass's description that the Palestinians should not be "starved" but on a "diet". He of all people should know that were Israel to completely to disengage from the territories in terms of employment, economics and medical care things in the territories would be disastrous. I don't see what the point is in punishing Palestinians for electing Hamas. Do they really think this will make Hamas less popular?
The colunist for Yediot, B. Michael wrote back whilst the intifada was in full swing about Yaalon's predictive power that "He did not foresee the future. He created this future". Yaalon can criticize disengagement all he likes; and can see this as the central cause for the rise of Hamas. The truth, however, may lie a little bit closer to home.
posted by SJ at 4:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home