Why Israel Was Not Ready for War in 1973 - Honor, Timing and Politics

Israel and the US have a long standing understanding about many issues affecting the Middle-East region, but the relationship is a bit complex. Contrary to popular belief and myths in the Arab world, the role of the US in 1973 was not blatantly biased towards Israel, especially in the early phase.

‘You are selling out Vietnam; you will abandon Taiwan. And we will be here when you grow tired of Israel’. Hafiz al Asad to Henry Kissinger 1973.

 

‘We live in a world of facts and we can’t build on hopes and fantasy. The fact is that you have been defeated, so don’t ask for a victor’s spoil’. Dr. Henry Kissinger’s advice to Anwar Sadat, 1973.

 

WarTiming

From: Ted Thornton History of the Middle East Database and http://www.defencejournal.com/2002/nov/4th-round.htm

Henry Kissinger, U.S. Secretary of State, had secretly urged Israel not to launch a preemptive attack because it would have been too embarrassing for the U.S. Besides, Sadat had moved his troops around before and no attack had come. On two of these occasions, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir had mobilized Israel's armed forces at great expense. She did not want to do it again unnecessarily.

The U.S. had been feeding Israel satellite reconnaissance pictures of Egyptian troop movements for some time prior to the attack. So, the Israelis knew something was up. 

On the morning of October 6, Israelis were pretty sure about the imminent attack and General Elazar had recommended a preemptive strike. At 10:00 am US Ambassador Kenneth Keating met with Prime Minister Meir and warned her against a preemptive strike against the Arabs. He pointedly told her that if such a course of action was taken by Israel, it will be very difficult for the US to send military aid. On the basis of this US threat to Israelis not to open fire, Kissinger called Anatolii Dobrynin (Soviet ambassador in Washington) and told him to urgently inform Soviet leadership that war is imminent, and on behalf of Israeli leadership, Kissinger assured Moscow that Israel would not strike first against the Arabs, but that Israel’s response would be fierce if attacked. The urgency of the message is evident from the fact that Dobrynin used the White House telephone system to send it to Moscow. In the early phase of the war US response was very cautious. The US refrained from accusing the Arabs of provoking the war. Kissinger rejected initial Israeli requests for military supplies on October 7.

 

Why did Egyptians Troops Sit Idle?

Back in Egypt, what happened next was something military historians continued to wrangle over for some time afterward. After digging in, the three Egyptian armies just sat there and did nothing for the entire week that followed. They could have advanced and capture much Israeli territory in the Sinai. But they did not make a move. This was fatal since it gave the Israelis time to dig in and plan their own attack. Was it just a stupid move? Or a request issued by Kissinger?

Egypt's allies, the Syrians, were thoroughly bewildered. President Asad sat in a bunker in Damascus, waiting hour after hour for the Egyptians to move, but unaware that Sadat had been in constant secret contact with Henry Kissinger, and had promised Kissinger that Egypt intended to advance no further (Seale, 208). By the time Asad angrily realized he had been set up by Sadat it was too late. (was this coordinated by Kissinger?)

The Israelis had figured out what was happening and knew they were free to redeploy forces to the north to deal with the Syrians.  Therefore, Israel temporarily abandoned efforts on the western front and concentrated on containing and repelling the Syrian attack from the northeast. The Syrian threat was perceived as the greater of the two anyway, with the Golan Heights and the Galilee at stake. The Syrians were soon driven back behind the 1967 armistice line.

The problem with the Egyptians was that they were as surprised as anyone at their success up to that point and had not drawn up a battle plan beyond taking the Bar Lev line. After the war, Army Chief of Staff General Shazli and Sadat traded accusations over this. The important point is that it was not at all certain that Sadat himself never expected to get across the canal, and after he did, it may well have been a "total surprise" for him.  It was also a stunning political victory for him and indeed for all Egypt. Subsequently, the event was remembered with great pride by Egyptians and October 6 became one of the biggest national holidays.

The Middle-Eastern Honor

From: http://www.defencejournal.com/2002/nov/4th-round.htm

Egypt publicly proclaimed its position on October 16. Sadat insisted that ‘the Arabs were seeking not the extermination of Israel but only the restoration of national honor and the recovery of Arab lands lost in the June War’. The problem was that this proclamation was made on October 16, when Egyptians had already failed in their October 14 offensive. Despite the reports of Soviet supplies, US played down this factor in the beginning. A Pentagon spokesperson stated that, ‘The Arabs have gotten some of their honor back, and we don’t want the Israelis to take it away. It’s time to settle’.

 

Why did US Re-Supply Israel?

When Britain stopped arms supplies to the Middle East, it only affected Israel as it had Centurion tanks (British tanks). Arab countries got supplies from the Soviet Union and they had no British military hardware (with the exception of Jordan).

The opinions regarding US re-supply of Israel varied at different branches of US government. The State Department, a small faction at the Pentagon, and some legislatures (Senator Fulbright and Senate Majority leader, Mansfield) were of the view that if a standoff occurs in Sinai with no clear winner, there will be room for diplomatic maneuvering, since no victor was going to relinquish its gains thus making any negotiations very difficult. This approach didn’t mean that the US would allow Israel to be defeated decisively (the chances of which were almost nil) by Arabs supported by Soviet arms. Nixon's decision to supply Israelis on a large scale was based on increased Soviet supplies to Arabs, refusal of Soviets to coordinate with the US to bring a ceasefire, and reconnaissance report of this activity. The first US supplies arrived at Israel's Lod airport on October 14. By October 17, twenty Phantoms had arrived in Israel followed by an air bridge which brought a large amount of military supplies (including laser-guided smart bombs, cluster bombs, A-4E Skyhawk fighters, CH-53 helicopters, tanks, TOW anti tank missiles, and ammunition) to Israel. None of the NATO allies agreed to facilitate this airlift, which caused friction in their relations with the US. Downed Israeli aircrafts were quickly replaced, some even taken from the US active air force units (F-4s from an Air Force Base in North Carolina and the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, and Skyhawk A-4s from the Navy Fighter Weapons School at Miramar, California). Evidently, the US was fully aware of the importance of air operations. US supplies continued to arrive till November 14.

 

Resolution

The signing of peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt can be attributed to this war. The middle-eastern restored honor allowed sworn enemies to sit together and sign peace treaties. The October War convinced Israel that it has to accept a settlement, where security is achieved through emphasis on political stability rather than overwhelming military dominance. Even after signing peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt, the Palestinian problem has not been resolved. At the end of the day, Israelis have to deal directly with Palestinians and strive to achieve a political settlement in a give and take manner. History has proven time and again that viable solutions can only be achieved through political means. Military power, regardless of how overwhelming it might be, can never solve a crisis as effectively.

 

An astute observer had predicted in 1974 that the rich oil producing Arabs ‘have to defend themselves and their riches against far more immediate and real dangers than Israel’. The Iran-Iraq war in 80s, Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and the presence of US forces in Saudi Arabia is a grim testimony to that prophecy.

 


Compiled By: Albert Talker

Submitted to Web: Albert Talker


Sources:

This article uses quoted text in its original format for the purpose of keeping the authenticity of text quoted from the sources:

Ted Thornton History of the Middle East Database:

http://www.defencejournal.com/2002/nov/4th-round.htm