Gen. (res.) Gershon HaCohen states that the idea of a demilitarized state is a ruse and that the retired officers who underestimate the danger of a Palestinian state are not responding professionally to the danger.
One of the key clauses that supporters of establishing a Palestinian state try to use to calm the concerns of the opposition is the clause that stipulates the demilitarization of the Palestinian state. A demilitarized state that will not have any significant weapons will not pose a threat to the State of Israel, they state. This statement seems logical, but is such demilitarization at all possible? General (res.) Gershon HaCohen is familiar with the matter both in its practical aspect in the field and at the level of research and in an interview with Arutz 7 he responds to the question in the absolute negative.
Below are excerpts from the interview in which Gen. (res.) HaCohen explains the political ruse of demilitarization:
“Demilitarization is an idea that belongs to the military methods of the previous century. We should ask about demilitarization in the wider context: In the Egyptians’ battle in Sinai against ISIS, they have absolute supremacy and the ability to isolate Sinai from bringing in weapons, but despite this, 700 of their soldiers were killed per year, despite the fact that there is an abundance of weapons there. Why did this happen? Why, in Libya and Syria, is there such an abundance of weapons? The answer is in the great change in the weaponry”.
“Just as, in the old world, a computer was the size of a building and they did not think that a computer the size of an iPhone was possible, it is the same with weapons. Weapons of the twentieth century were tanks, cannon, jets and warships. It is possible to monitor these things. It is easy to identify tank divisions approaching from Iraq via Jordan and it is possible to prevent it. In contrast, new weapons are much easier to conceal. A Grad missile can come inside a truck full of potatoes, in a ship’s container, it can be hidden in a civilian truck, which means that there are two points of view – one is to ask how the isolation of Judea and Samaria can be achieved such that weapons will not be brought in? And the answer is that it is not preventable without a practical hold on the area of the Jordan Valley as an isolation area. Anyone who thinks differently is deceived. This is a ruse”.
Gen. (res.) HaCohen continues, suggesting that we ask ourselves why, immediately with the end of the Disengagement, there was an unending stream of standard weapons into the Gaza Strip, “because even the incomplete control of the Philadelphi Route had prevented the transfer of an abundance of standard weapons such as missiles to the Strip. The Egyptians and the international force did not stop this and even today, when the Egyptians attempt to stop it, they built a number of outposts for the length of Pithat Yamit, which proves that Yigal Alon was right when he opposed the destruction of the communities there, because Pitha Yamit was necessary to prevent the Gaza Strip from smuggling in weapons”.
Hacohen goes on to explain: “Also in Gaza, most of the rockets are produced locally. The knowledge exists in the internet and the production is simple. In the past, engraving was complicated and today there are computerized lathes and every youth can operate the lathe, which works with a computer to produce the desired program. This is how they produce Carlo rifles in the Gaza Strip and in Judea and Samaria and this weapon is traded. And here is where the great question arises: Is it possible to imagine a state without a computerized lathe? Why, that is a civilian tool. Is it possible to imagine a country without metal pipes from which to make rockets? Why, this is a civilian tool. Explosives are made from phosphates, which are civilian materials so available that today, with the approval of the Defense Ministry, we approve the transfer of these materials to the Gaza Strip. That is, the new infrastructure of weapons is based on civilian means, including telephones, which, these days, are part of weapons systems. Today I can detonate a bomb from a protected place via telephone. Is it possible to disable telephony in any state? Not at all. In the new era, talk of demilitarization is a ruse”.
Can it be that these data and analyses that he presents are unknown to those who support the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state, among them, the Commanders for Israel’s Security and even the Prime Minister? “They are attempting to allay the people’s fears and are selling it lies. Regarding the Commanders for Israel’s Security, they are a great riddle. When I speak with them, I speak professionally and they do not deal professionally with my arguments. When I stood on the stage at the Begin Center, Ami Ayalon cited Amos Oz and I spoke professionally and to the point, about the conditions of reality. They do not deal with this. They must be told to explain where they stand. A general such as Mitzna speaks about the Six Day War, when the great victory was achieved with the borders of ’67, and therefore we should return to those borders and if needed, we will fight again as we did then and win as in ’67, and I tell him that this is delusional. War has changed since then. It is not possible to achieve this again, just as it is not possible to go back to the Red Sea and expect that it will open a second time. It is delusional”.
“There was a great miracle in the Six Day War, and anyone who observes things professionally can see the magnitude of the miracle that happened in a natural way, in the encounter between Arab armies that made all possible mistakes and the IDF, which managed to take advantage of those mistakes. It was not the same in ’73. That which Hizb’Allah built and was copied by Hamas, is something altogether different. Anyone who thinks that the State of Israel is in a better situation today than before the Six Day War is simply not speaking professionally”.