Giora Eiland explains why Israel can't leave the Golan and must control West
Bank

Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 8 October 2008

The following is IMRA's translation of an excerpt of a summary of a
presentation by Giora Eiland, former head of the National Security Council
at the 4 November 2008 session on military superiority at the Tel Aviv
Workshop for Science Technology and Security.

The summary was prepared by Uri Reychav, former Chief Systems Engineer at
Rafael.

Syria: There is a debate over the continuation of negotiations with Syria.

A more important topic is if there is a regurgitation of past understandings
or if the conditions have changed. Let us consider the military concept and
the security arrangements that evolve from them.

There were negotiations with Syria with maps and numbers and arrangements.
We said then, that if we leave the Golan there must be other arrangements
that will insure our security. Namely, the ability to defend ourselves in
the case of attack.

Can we defend ourselves without the Golan? The answer was - no. Thus the
agreement had to cerate a situation in which in the case of war we would be
able to grab the Golan.

It was thought then that such a situation would be if:
A. The Golan is demilitarized.
B. The Syrian divisions are beyond Damascus
C. Our forces are in the Hulah Valley

Today we see two problems with these conditions:

1) Such an arrangement is based on five assumptions:

A.The arrangement will be honored and not collapse.
B. When they Syrians move we will correctly interpret their intentions.
This is also not certain. They can build cities and villages next to the
new border and riots could break out along with a substantial military
movement.
C. The Government of Israel would quickly call up the army.
D. The timetable is correct and we aren't making a mistake
E. That there is a decision by the Government of Israel that this is war and
it acts.

2) The assumption is that the threat is a Syrian division. But maybe the
threat is irregular forces, as is the case in Lebanon? That something like
Hezbollah sets itself up in cities and villages on the Jordan? And that
deep in their heartland they have advance missiles? And that the equipment
they have is advanced - even more advanced than ours?

Thus, the concept nine years ago was in error.

If we carry out negotiations with Syria now based on the old records - the
question remains: can we defend ourselves without the Golan?

Palestinians: The concept during the Clinton era was that the military
threat from the east - Jordan and its partners, is from armored forces and
the terror threat was seen in terms of terrorist penetrations. The solution
was to retain intelligence warning stations in the field against the tanks
and a security fence against terror.

But today other threats also exist. The Palestinians can arm themselves
with rockets and missiles and it is impossible to verify that they are
demilitarized. In the scenario of general war it would be impossible to use
the main north south toll road - Route 6.

Therefore, because of Hezbollah it is impossible to return to the '67 lines.
It might be enough against a conventional army, maybe there is a solution
for handling an individual suicide bomber, but the overall threat "requires
more control of the territory".

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
Website: http://www.imra.org.il