0
nerdgirl

“America is the great Satan and Israel is the minor Satan”

Recommended Posts

Earlier this week I had the opportunity to meet with the Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs, Moshe “Bogey” Ya’alon , a position somewhat akin to US National Security Advisor, during his visit to the US. He’s also the Vice Prime Minister in the current coalition government, part of the center right Likud party, and a retired 3-star general from IDF/former Chief of the IDF. He’s a former Para-trooper too.

He has a reputation for being a somewhat controversial figure, e.g., called a war criminal by some in England for his role in the shelling of Qana, Lebanon in response to Hezbollah rockets, and for controversial/incendiary remarks. While the meeting was not off-the-record, there was no media coverage … so I can’t link to some news article. :ph34r: The primary issue of discussion was Iran and the nuclear program. Also talked about Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and Somalia. Both during the more formal meetings and over dinner, the Israel-Palestinian conflict did not come up.

One of my interns took notes and did the first round of typing. I then compared them to my notes and recollections and edited, something which is SOP for me. A few folks via PMs had expressed interests in reading excerpts. Suspects others might as well. Others … well, just click the button to jump back to forum main page. :)
My commentary that I’ve included is in [bracketed italics]. While I may err in my interpretation of his comments, none are lies (intentional misrepresentations). For my own purposes, I’ve tried to capture faithfully Ya’alon's own words and tone. Any errors are mine, however … & that includes grammar & spelling. :P Oh yeah, there are unexpanded acronyms. If you really want to know, please ask or Google ‘em; while some may be unfamiliar with them, they are not obscure.

Overall, the most interesting parts to be were when he tacitly acknowledged Israel’s nuclear capability and how he thought, i.e., what he linked together as part of the argument (the rhetoric and logic that he chose to invoke.) Also his characterization of the ISreali population was surprising from my perspective.

Oh yeah, & at one point I made the same dang mistake that I’ve made before. >:( We were talking about differing missile defense systems, and I said "Czechoslovakia" … quickly corrected myself. Something about that word and the way my neurons are wired. :D

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 October 2009

On Israel: Perspective of Middle East that Affects Israel’s Global Perspective

Begins by notes the importance of academic & military perspective, political and practical

Repeatedly asserts that Israel is located in a “tough neighborhood”, started the discussion by noting that most other states surrounding it still fail to recognize Israel as a state.


Beyond Conventional Warfare

Suggests that there has been a divergent transition in the “tough neighborhood” from conventional warfare, which its neighbors recognize that will not be a means to defeat Israel to (1) “sub-conventional warfare,” i.e., terrorism and “homicide” bombers [more commonly called ‘asymmetric warfare’]; and (2) “super-conventional” warfare, i.e., missiles (Shahab) and WMD. I think it’s interesting, still thinking through the implications of referring to terrorism and WMD/unconventional warfare as small incremental gradients away from conventional warfare as opposed to being completely different categories or generations of warfare, e.g., 4th Generation and 5th Generation warfare, respectively.] Specific challenges to Israel (& implicitly the US/world), Ya’alon cited included, Syria and Iranian chemical weapons (CW), the Saddam Hussayn regimes’ CW & biological weapons, and the “Iranian determination to acquire military nuclear capabilities.”

Asserts that “today they [Israel] don’t see any enemy even thinking about the conventional option [as a means to challenge Israel]. They [Israel’s enemies] recognize that they can’t defeat the IDF.” He cites the military capabilities as a deterrent. [It is, however, a deterrent to *conventional warfare,* which one might argue has been the impetus or pushed others to seek asymmetric or unconventional means to challenge Israel … or as the world witness on 11 September 2001, for al Qa’eda to challenge America … it’s also relevant to combating insurgents/Taliban in Afghanistan and narco-trafficking that funds the Taliban.]


Ideological Shift in the Arab Middle East & 1979

Ya’alon asserts theat there has been a “shift in ideology” from the Nasserism of the 1970s and Baathism of Syria [i.e., primarily nationalist in nature, and usually relatively secular/modernist and pan-Arabism [eliminate state of Israel, make the Middle East entirely Arab] to “radical Islam, jihadism.”

He cites 1979 as the “year of the shift from national Arab ideology to radical Islam and johadism” and the end of pan-Arabism. Cites Egypt making peace with Israel as a key tipping point [because there could no longer be a unilateral Arab effort to eliminate Israel.] Notes that “coincidentally,” 1979 was also the year of the Shi’a revolution in Iran. Asserts that the emergence of a Shi’a theocratic regime in Iran was a significant factor in spurring/inspiring the emergence of al Qa’eda as a Sunni/Wahabist reactionalry challenge and effort to emulate the Shi’a revolution. [I think that’s an interesting hypothesis and agree that it was *a* variable/factor. Imo, it is not the single factor and his timeline is off a little.] Ya’alon essentially blames (or credits) Iran for the rise of al Qa’eda and the rise of Hamas, [which was created in the mid-1980s … so that I might be more willing to buy … plus I don’t know nearly as much about the history/origin/evolution of Hamas as about al Qa’eda].

[Ya’alon is not the only one to have cited the significance of events that occurred in 1979 for today’s problems and successes:1979: The Great Backlash

“If you want to understand the surge of politicized religion, post-communist globalization, and laissez-faire economics that has defined our modern era, forget 1968. Forget even 1989. It's 1979 that's the most important year of all. A remarkable chapter in international affairs—and intellectual history—began that year, and it had the strangest group of authors imaginable.”


On Israel’s Nuclear Capabilities

Ya’along asserts that Israel’s enemies “believe that Israel has a nuclear capability” and sites situations in which that was an effective deterrent: with Egypt in the 6-day war (deterred Egypt from using CW, which they had used against Somalia) and Hussayn during the first Gulf War (all missiles launched toward Israel carried conventional warheads). [Essentially making a subtle argument that Israel and its nuclear weapons have been a force for regional stability. Interesting.]

[NB: For those who don’t follow nuclear weapons proliferation/politics closely, Israel’s official policy is “deliberate ambiguity” or “nuclear opacity” w/r/t its estimated 200 or so nuclear weapons. The official US policy is to support Israel’s deliberate ambiguity.]


Other Technological Advantages

Ya’alon emphasized Israel’s advantages in capabilities were derived from technology in conventional warfare. Suggests that technology has also been an advantage w/r/t fighting “sub-conventional” warfare [i.e., terrorism] through increased capabilities for interdiction and intelligence, e.g., “MASINT, IMIST, SIGINT, OSINT.” [Google ‘em if you want to know the specific acronyms expanded. :P His citing Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) was most interesting one to me. OSINT has only recently been perceived as having real value within the intelligence community. Over the last 5 or so years, there has been a significant push and what one might call a ‘marketing’ campaign to convey the value of OSINT.] Noted value of C4ISR technology, particularly w/r/t for “operational creativity and flexibility” that enabled Israel to maintain troops ready to deploy immediately against enemies such as Hezbollah.


What is More Important Than Firepower

Ya’alon asserts that the “weakest link” is the “ability of Israeli society to withstand,” e.g., to tolerate casualties, to withstand scarcity, and he asserts there is a “lack of willingness to sacrifice life,” which Israel’s enemies exploit. Therefore they [e.g., Hezbollah] target civilians rather than the IDF, “which they know they cannot defeat.” In this context/contest, “firepower” is “not the main element to be considered. The ability of society to stand is more important that firepower.” Ya’alon emphasizes the importance of the “soft parts” of national security such as “solidarity” and “resilience.” [The prevailing American, and perhaps even the general western perspective, is that the Israeli civilian population is damned resilient. Guess everything is relative.]

Ya’alon cited leadership and education as critical factors. He was critical of what he called “solutionism and now-ism,” i.e., that there is a demand to have a solution now. He specifically cited calls for “peace now” among the Israeli population as an example of this. He noted that it will likely take generations to defeat terrorism … “but a politician has to be elected now, and I am now a politician.” [Essentially critical of the attention span of most of the electorate.] “We should be aware that there is no swift victory but it should be a decisive victory in the long run. To change will require education … such they they [terrorists/radical Salafists] see no hope in defeating Israel or US. It is the long run struggle of ideas and values … and physical conflict.” [I was struck by how much he emphasized education and acknowledged the role of soft power, something that was dismissed and ridiculed at times by the GW Bush administration, i.e., that just killing “terrorists” will not make us [America, Israel, western world] safe from terrorism and that why what the world thinks of America matters because it makes executing US foreign policy a lot easier in terms of $$$, deployed uniformed military, and other US interests.]


On the Goldstone Report

Ya’alon asserts that “they [this one was not really clear who “they” meant … could have been Israel’s enemies, the UN, or some combination of both & others] are trying to delegitimize the IDF through lies and propaganda [regarding what he maintains were the IDF’s “actions to defend itself”]. He cites the outcome of the Goldstone report “is to encourage terrorism,” and he suggests that the Goldstone report and related actions/sentiments represent a “moral threat” to Israel … (and to the US by implication.) [The tone of the discussion on the Goldstone report as political (rather than as a search for facts) reminded me in way (some not *all*) of controversies surrounding the attempt to cover-up Pat Tillman’s freindly fire death.]


Ya’alon notes that enemies of Israel, they [Israel] “are the ‘minor Satan’ and America is the ‘great Satan’.” Ya’alon asserts that there is a “clash of civilizations occurring against those wanting to change the world order, [who] claim to impose their version of Islam first in the Middle East, and then all over the world.” [Yes, that pretty much is the stated goal of radical Salafists … the correlation with the Gladstone report is spurious, imo.] He asserts that the “western world must stand and fight back now [against radical Salafists].” [I wanted to ask how he reconciled that directive with his other comments regarding what he called ‘now-ism’.]


Defining Security

In response to a question regarding whether Israel could live with another nuclear state in the Middle East, Ya’alon asserts that “the best was to have security is to enjoy peace with your neighbors. If peace is unable [to be achieved], you should be able to deter your neighbors now and in the future. There are rumors that we [Israel] have nuclear capability. … If they [the rumors] are right, I believe we have demonstrated responsibility [w/r/t being a nuclear weapons state]. Israel will not be the first to use nuclear weapons … anytime.” He notes that Israel’s “declared goal [is a commitment] to not allow military nuclear capability by the [Iranian] regime.” He then asserted that if Iran is likely to go nuclear, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and others [why no mention of Turkey?] will reconsider their policies [currently as of not wanting nuclear weapons]

Ya’alon asserts that “you can find Iran’s fingerprints in all destabilized regions, in Afghanistan … in Iraq supporting Shi’a militants, and challenging the government in Yemen [in Yemen a Sunni regime controls the government while the population is majority Shi’a], in Lebanon …, in Syria, in Somalia ….” We discussed Iranian involvement in smuggling activities.


On the US Policy Toward Iran

Ya’alon characterized US policy toward Iran as “surrender” and giving into “black mail.” He acknowledged the difficult situation that the US would have in finding ground troops for an invasion of Iran due to current deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

He advocates for imposition of political isolation and targeted economic sanctions with a credible military option [which actually sounds a lot like US policy toward Iran … he couldn’t/wouldn’t really elaborate what he wanted the US to do differently specifically, which was frustrating and less than satisfying from my perspective.]

When asked how he would propose dealing with the unlikely willingness of China to agree to sanctioning Iran, Ya’alon asserted that the sanctions should target those areas “dominated by the west,” such as the banking system and gasoline refinement [gasoline refinement and Iran’s lack of modern energy infrastructure has been a topic invoked here previously

Ya’alon cited the 2003 suspension of Iran’s program toward nuclear weaponization as cited in the (US) 2005 NIE as evidence that Iran thought there might be a Phase III by the US, i.e., a ground invasion of Iran led by the US, after Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ya’alon opposes all bargaining with Iran but acknowledges that it may be a tactical choice to enable allies to come on board (i.e., they will satisfy their own domestic political needs). [He didn’t specify to what end, whether sanctions, airstrikes, or a ground invasion, or all three.]


On the Iranian Regime

Ya’alon stated that he believes that the current Iranian regime is “vulnerable” to internal instability” and cites Iran’s domestic economy (inflation, unemployment, and worker strikes), arrest of journalists in Iran, and restrictions of information and communication technologies such as the internet.

He asserted that he thought an external strike on Iran would embolden domestic challenges within Iran rather than strengthen the current regimes. He did not think that the majority of the Iranian population would come together against an external threat. [If the actor making strikes against Iran is Israel, I think Ya’alon is completely wrong – that would, imo, strengthen, and perhaps even indefinitely solidify, the current Iranian regime. If it was a US led-ground invasion, I give it about a 90% probability of strengthening the current regime; if airstrikes, ~70-80% chance. If allied-led, ~50% chance.]

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wow!!

the internet truly does have all answers!!

From ubandictionary.com

1. shit-cunt
Derogatory term for a person, most notably used when referring to females. The joining of the two curse words is designed to further emphasise that the subject being referred to is more than just a mere cunt. It's vulgarity in terms of literal meaning is also to further emphasise that the subject being referred to is a particularly unsavoury or disagreeable character in terms of actions and/or opinion. The adding of a 3rd curse or whole insult to pre-empt the original insult is to add body and weight to the vocal impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Ya’alon asserts that “you can find Iran’s fingerprints in all destabilized regions, in Afghanistan … in Iraq supporting Shi’a militants, and challenging the government in Yemen



He's a little ahead of the political agenda. Right now, we're supposed to be promoting Afghanistan as the aggressor in the middle-east, harboring and cultivating terrorists.

Of course, 10 years ago, it was Iraq, 'building weapons of mass-destruction'. Things there are looking very Western, right now, but there's still work to do.

But before we go into Iran, we have to finish our nation-building in Afghanistan.

Eventually, Israel will get what they want: complete take-over of the middle-east. But, they need to vilify one heathen country at a time.




And yes, all the above is said in complete mockery and utter disdain.




Now, ya'll please excuse me while I go and review my life-insurance policy.
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He is also viewed as a war criminal by some Jewish people in Israel. Gush Shalom wanted to turn bith him and the pilot into the Hauge for trial.

Interesting post thanks.
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Ya’alon asserts theat there has been a “shift in ideology” from the Nasserism of the 1970s and Baathism of Syria [i.e., primarily nationalist in nature, and usually relatively secular/modernist and pan-Arabism [eliminate state of Israel, make the Middle East entirely Arab] to “radical Islam, jihadism.”



He's right, the interesting thing is that the 'new' Jihadists of today have adopted the Marxist philosophy that was such an influence on Nasser, one of a violent vanguard leading the revolution, in this case though a Islamist revolution, they have replaced the secular nationalist ideology of Nasserism with that of the Umma. You can see clearly the family roots of the current modern ideology.
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Ya’alon asserts that “you can find Iran’s fingerprints in all destabilized regions, in Afghanistan … in Iraq supporting Shi’a militants, and challenging the government in Yemen



He's a little ahead of the political agenda. Right now, we're supposed to be promoting Afghanistan as the aggressor in the middle-east, harboring and cultivating terrorists.

Of course, 10 years ago, it was Iraq, 'building weapons of mass-destruction'. Things there are looking very Western, right now, but there's still work to do.

But before we go into Iran, we have to finish our nation-building in Afghanistan.

Eventually, Israel will get what they want: complete take-over of the middle-east. But, they need to vilify one heathen country at a time.




And yes, all the above is said in complete mockery and utter disdain.



Whether in mockery or not, 10 years from now base of radical Salafists: Yemen, Islamic Maghreb (mostly Algeria), Mali, or where?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...the 'new' Jihadists of today have adopted the Marxist philosophy that was such an influence on Nasser, one of a violent vanguard leading the revolution, in this case though a Islamist revolution, they have replaced the secular nationalist ideology of Nasserism with that of the Umma. You can see clearly the family roots of the current modern ideology.



We've discussed the shift from the shift from predominantly separatist-nationalist character of terrorist groups in the (anti-Colonial) era of the 1950s - 1970s to religiously-motivated ones over the last 30 years of so before. Ya'alon, you, and I get that ... suspect (perhaps wrongly?) that a lot of folks don't, as well as the implications of that shift for strategic responses. Recent book that I found interesting on it: Reza Aslan's How to Win a Comsic War.

Would you expand on where/how you see "family roots of the current [Jihadist ?] ideology" in Marx?

I can go back to Ibn-Taymiyyah (1200s CE), Ibn-Ad-al-Wahab (1700s), Rashid Rida (early 1900s), and Abu-al-A'la-Mawdudi (1940s) without even getting to Qutb/Muslim Brotherhood ... but I'm genuinely not seeing the Marx connection. Look forward to learning something new or at least a new way to think about something.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Belief in the necessity of a violent overthrow of capitalismthe Kaffir through communist Islamic revolution, to be followed by a dictatorship of the proletaria believers as the first stage of moving towards communism, the Umma and the need for a vanguard party to lead the proletariat believers in this effort.

Only in the means of violent uprising via a vanguard to lead the 'sleeping' masses into overthrowing the West which controls the 'false' reality of the believers.

Take this and mix it in with the teachings of Wahab (et al) invoke the spirit of Saladin and hey presto. (OK thats a very potted summary but I think you can see what I'm getting at).

Maybe 'methodology' would have been more appropriate than 'ideology.'
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a suggestion since I'm too freaking lazy to write a huge reply.
Go and read http://www.amazon.com/Devil-We-Know-Dealing-Superpower/dp/0307408647
Very good book which will help you understand what has happened in the region since 1985.
Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Just a suggestion since I'm too freaking lazy to write a huge reply.
Go and read http://www.amazon.com/Devil-We-Know-Dealing-Superpower/dp/0307408647
Very good book which will help you understand what has happened in the region since 1985.



OMIGOD!:o
I need to sit down a minute....:S
Is this the same "Shah" that posts in BF?
The two best non-fiction books I've read in the last couple years, (ignoring technical texts), were Robert Baer's "See No Evil" and "Sleeping With the Devil", and now Shah is recommending a new book by Baer I didn't know had been published.

Edited to add: I just ordered the book.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Just a suggestion since I'm too freaking lazy to write a huge reply.
Go and read http://www.amazon.com/Devil-We-Know-Dealing-Superpower/dp/0307408647
Very good book which will help you understand what has happened in the region since 1985.



OMIGOD!:o
I need to sit down a minute....:S
Is this the same "Shah" that posts in BF?
The two best non-fiction books I've read in the last couple years, (ignoring technical texts), were Robert Baer's "See No Evil" and "Sleeping With the Devil", and now Shah is recommending a new book by Baer I didn't know had been published.

Edited to add: I just ordered the book.

You guys have this strange image of me. :)But yes it is a very good book I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote


Go and read http://www.amazon.com/Devil-We-Know-Dealing-Superpower/dp/0307408647
Very good book which will help you understand what has happened in the region since 1985.




You guys have this strange image of me. :)But yes it is a very good book I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.


Naaah... I just got a new copy of "My Uncle Napoleon". Much more fun that Baer dross.

Although, from personal observation I think Uncle Asadollah kind of got San-Francisco & Los-Angeles mixed up a bit... Wouldn't they be more appropriate the other way around?:P

Next on the list is "Reading Lolita in Tehran? Is it any good (before I buy)?.. It's either that or a re-read of "Goodbye to Berlin".

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

He is also viewed as a war criminal by some Jewish people in Israel



Jewish people in Israel can be idiots as well...



Clearly
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0