The Prime Ministers: An Intimate Narrative of Israeli Leadership (26 page)

The overture to the Yom Kippur War of October 1973 came in the form of a now all-but-forgotten conflagration called the War of Attrition. It was orchestrated by the thousands of Soviet instructors in Egypt who were rapidly retraining and reequipping that country’s battered army after the debacle of the 1967 Six-Day War.

The Six-Day War ended with the
idf
controlling the east bank of the Suez Canal, and in the autumn of 1968 Egyptian artillery bombardments across the Canal started up again, one of them killing ten Israeli soldiers. In retaliation, Israeli aircraft bombed bridges over the Nile, and the construction of fortifications along the whole of the Canal’s length began. It was dubbed the Bar-Lev line, after the then Chief of Staff, Chaim Bar-Lev. From that day forth bursting shells rained ever more relentlessly and lethally upon the
idf
’s forward Canal positions, and as casualties mounted, Israel hit back with ever-escalating and deeper-penetrating ferocity. Yet the Egyptians pounded on, intent on compelling the
idf
to abandon the Bar-Lev line while pushing forward with their sophisticated Soviet surface-to-air missiles
–
the
SAM
s
–
to neutralize Israel’s overwhelming air superiority. The one hope the Egyptians had of regaining the Sinai Peninsula by force was by first knocking out Israel’s aircraft from the skies over the Canal so as to enable their amphibious forces to cross it. The Soviet-manned
SAM
missile umbrella was designed to do just that. By the mid-1970s not only were some two hundred Soviet pilots flying Egyptian aircraft, but another fifteen thousand Soviet officers and men were manning eighty
SAM
missile sites.

The War of Attrition went on for more than two years until, in August 1970, the Americans, under President Richard Nixon, and through his Secretary of State William Rogers, brokered a ceasefire. The Rogers initiative, as it was called
–
as opposed to the earlier Rogers plan which Golda Meir had categorically rejected
–
was a political-military package in which both sides agreed to stop shooting and start talking under UN auspices. The envisaged talks were to be essentially based on the famous Security Council Resolution 242 which called, inter alia, for Israeli “Withdrawal from territories occupied in the recent [1967] conflict.”

To Menachem Begin, still serving in the national unity government, this language was anathema, but after much wrangling, Prime Minister Golda Meir accepted the initiative, prompting Begin and his Party colleagues to resign. As Begin saw it, Israel was being asked to commit itself to a withdrawal before a concrete peace proposal was even in sight. This, to him, was irresponsible
–
a squandering of precious territorial assets whose loss could be justified only within the framework of a fully fledged peace treaty.

However, worse was to follow when, hours after the ceasefire came into effect in August 1970, Egypt brazenly violated it by rushing its
SAM
missile umbrella into what was designated as the “standstill zone” adjacent to the Canal, thereby achieving by stealth what it had failed to accomplish by attrition. Cairo finally had the means to clear the skies of Israeli aircraft whenever it felt strong enough to strike across the Canal.

Golda fumed. She demanded the missiles be removed forthwith. But President Nixon, embroiled in the war he was losing in Vietnam, and fearful of a direct confrontation with the Soviets, procrastinated. He showered the prime minister with hopeful reassurances until she ultimately succumbed for the sake of Israel’s critical strategic relationship with Washington. This ignited Begin’s fury even more, particularly when Washington refused to even officially acknowledge that a violation had taken place at all. His indignation launched him into a barrage of dire Jeremiah-like prophecy as he told a packed Knesset:

The Egyptians, with the aid of their Russian advisers, have violated the ceasefire in a manner so gross it threatens our security and future. They have already deployed nine batteries of their enhanced
SAM
missiles, and are presently installing a further nine, all penetrating to a depth of ten to fifteen kilometers over our side of the Canal. Hence, the conclusion has to be drawn, and the Knesset and the people have to be aware of the implications of this conclusion, that when President Nasser of Egypt decides to reopen fire
–
and knowing the realities as we do we have to assume such a day shall surely come
–
he will have a decisive advantage over us…. Given his expanded missile umbrella it will be very difficult for our Air Force to hit back without sustaining substantial losses in pilots and aircraft. This is the reality, and the Americans know it to be so.

In other words, the United States had misled Israel and had placed its security in jeopardy.

After ending his speech in a crescendo of righteous indignation, Begin stepped down from the podium into a crowd of admirers who showered him with praise, to which he responded with grace. He then made his way to the Knesset dining room where Prime Minister Golda Meir was conversing with Yitzhak Rabin, then still Israel’s ambassador to Washington.

“That was some fire and brimstone,” hissed Golda derisively as the Opposition leader walked by. She had heard his address over the loudspeaker in her office.

“And I hope you took note of my every word, Madame Prime Minister,” said Begin with an air of impudence and gravitas in delicate balance.

“What you don’t seem to understand,” scolded Golda, “is that there would be no ceasefire unless we accepted all the conditions of the Rogers initiative. We couldn’t choose half the package without the other.”

“But they hardly consulted us, Mrs. Meir,” countered Begin, his voice gentle in order not to make his reproof too offensive. “Rogers gave us a document to sign. We initially rejected it. We had reservations and you rightly sought to insert changes, but in the end, it was all but dictated to us.”

“Nonsense!”

“Is it? Remember the earlier Rogers plan when he wanted to impose upon us a withdrawal from virtually all the territories we legitimately occupied in the Six-Day War, and you instructed Ambassador Rabin”
–
this with an approving glance at him
–
“to launch what was a highly successful public campaign against it? Why not launch such a campaign now?”

“Because the situation is entirely different now, that’s why.”

“In my view there is the stench of an imposed U.S.-Soviet settlement brewing in the air,” huffed Begin. “Nixon is going to sell us out!”

This irked Golda so much she raised her voice: “You know very well I’ve totally rejected any whiff of an attempt to impose a settlement on us. I will not go back to the nineteen sixty-seven lines, and I’ve made this plain both to Rogers and to the president. I told them both that Israel will neither be a victim to American appeasement of the Arabs nor of their big power politics with Russia.”

“True, but you should have never given in to their appeasement over these latest ceasefire violations. We shall pay a heavy price for those violations one day. Moreover, I genuinely believe your acceptance of the language of Resolution 242 on ‘withdrawal’ is the beginning of a major unconditional retreat from all the ceasefire lines.”

“Goodness gracious, Begin, how you get carried away by your own rhetoric!” scorned Golda, her eyebrows arching challengingly. “If only you stammered or hesitated occasionally.”

Unperturbed, Begin countered, “This is an instance when
you
have gotten carried away by your own wishful thinking. Nixon, I fear, is playing chess with the fate of Israel. This could be a Middle East Munich. America seems to be more interested in Arab oil than in Israel’s future.”

“With all due respect, Mr. Begin, President Nixon recently told me the very opposite of what you’ve just said.” It was Ambassador Yitzhak Rabin speaking, his voice respectful but firm.

Begin sat down uninvited. “So how does that square with Rogers’ ceasefire initiative, which is tantamount to appeasing the Arabs?” he asked.

“It squares,” said Rabin in his deep baritone, “because all along Nixon and Kissinger have known that in the War of Attrition the Soviets and the Egyptians were putting us both to a test
–
not only us, but America as well. The Americans know the Soviets are feeding and manipulating the entire Egyptian war effort. That’s why I strongly advocated the use of our Air Force to strike hard deep inside Egyptian territory, to prove to the Americans that we have the mettle to stand up to them. Just about the most encouraging breath of fresh air the Nixon Administration has been enjoying recently has been our military operations against Egypt and the Soviet advisers and weaponry there. Our actions have undermined both Nasser’s and the Russians’ credibility and standing in the whole of the Middle East. I will go further: the American willingness to supply us with arms is dependent upon our giving the Egyptians and the Soviets a bloody nose. Our deep penetration raids into Egyptian airspace during the War of Attrition not only changed the balance of power along the fighting front, but also tipped the scales of the superpower confrontation in America’s favor. But with all that, Nixon still has to strike a balance so as not to lose the Arab world entirely to the Russians because of us.”

Rabin extracted a sheet of paper. “You will recall Eban recently met with Nixon in my presence. He asked us, I quote, ‘In view of the Soviet involvement, is Israel’s position still
–
as I once heard Ambassador Rabin say
–
“Give us the tools and we’ll do the job?”’ Much to Eban’s chagrin, I gave the answer. ‘Yes, it is,’ I said. Listen to how the president replied.” Rabin read:

Good! That was all I wanted to know. If it were just a question of you and the Egyptians and the Syrians, I’d say, “Let ’em have it! Let ’em have it! Hit
’
em as hard as you can.” Every time I hear about you penetrating into their territory and hitting them hard I get a feeling of satisfaction. But it’s not just a problem of Egypt and Syria. The other Arab states are watching also. I don’t have the slightest doubt about that. We don’t have any choice. We have to play it so that we don’t lose everything in the Middle East. We want to help you without harming ourselves.

And then:

Damn the oil! We can get it from other sources. We have to stand by decent nations in the Middle East. We will back you militarily, but the military escalation can’t go on endlessly. We must do something politically.
25

Added Rabin with self-satisfaction, “I, personally, don’t think any American president has ever uttered such a pro-Israel sentiment before.”

“So, again I ask, how does that square with his Rogers ceasefire initiative which is tantamount to appeasing the Arabs?” pressed Begin.

“It squares because he has to play it in such a way that the Russians will not be allowed to better Israel, while at the same time ensuring that America will not lose all of the Middle East to the Russians. So yes, he’s greatly expanded our military aid, which is excellent, while launching the Rogers initiative, not all of which is to our liking but which has placated the Arabs enough to bring about a ceasefire.”

“Add to that,” said the prime minister, brimming with gratification at her ambassador’s first-class analysis, “in return for our accepting the Rogers package Nixon has promised us that we will not be expected to withdraw a single soldier from the ceasefire lines except in the context of a contractual peace agreement which we would regard as satisfactory to our security needs. Moreover, had we not accepted the Rogers initiative we wouldn’t be getting any more American arms, as Rabin has just explained. So how can you argue with that?”

Begin dismissed this clincher with a perfunctory wave of the hand. “What do you mean we wouldn’t be getting American arms? We would demand them.”

“You know, Begin,” said Golda sarcastically, “you sometimes make me think you’re a mystic. You’ve convinced yourself that all we have to do is to go on telling the United States that we won’t give in to pressure and that if we do this long and loud enough, then one day that pressure will vanish.”

“My good lady,” responded Begin in an equally patronizing vein, “you trivialize Israel’s importance to the United States of America.”

“Do I? I think that though the American commitment to Israel’s survival is certainly great, I’m afraid we need Mr. Nixon and Mr. Rogers much more than they need us.”

“I disagree!” said Begin. “The Americans don’t give us arms out of the kindness of their hearts. Israel is doing more for America in keeping the Soviet Union at bay in the Middle East than what America is doing for Israel to defend itself. And I dare say Mr. Nixon is fully aware of that. Besides, you must never underestimate the voice of American Jewry.”

“Oh, I don’t. But I’m afraid our policies can’t be based entirely on the assumption that American Jewry either would or could force Mr. Nixon to adopt a position against his will and better judgment, especially when he doesn’t like liberal-minded Jews.”

“We shall see,” said Begin, rising, and turning to Rabin he said with a smile, “I beg of you, please, do not misconstrue this argument between the prime minister and myself as personal. Mrs. Meir and I differ on many issues, but I want to assure you that I view her with the highest regard as a proud and courageous Jewess.”

“Stop being a shmoozer,” sniffed Golda, with a grin that greatly softened her craggy and aging features.

“No, no, Madame, I say this not in flattery. I look back on my three years in the national unity government, first under Eshkol and then under you, as a very beautiful period in my life. I miss the camaraderie, and the deliberations we had together, sometimes on vital issues of life and death. To me you were always the first among equals. But now that I have returned to the Opposition I shall have to oppose you whenever I believe you are in error, just as I did in the Knesset today. But on a personal level my respect for you shall never waver.”

With that, Mr. Begin shook Rabin’s hand, and said, “I wish you continued success in Washington for all our sakes.” And to Mrs. Meir, with a bow of the head, “Madame Prime Minister, I pray that all my predictions will prove to be unfounded. Yet I fear they will not.” To which Golda returned him a reprimanding stare as he walked off to join a table of fellow oppositionists for a glass of lemon tea.