In 1967 the Israeli society was panicked
by the deadly threat posed by the May 30 Egypt-Syria-Jordan anti-Israel military
pact, by the brutal pressure of the US, France, Britain and the international
community to refrain from a preemptive operation, by the deepening (20%)
unemployment, and by escalating pessimism within the political and military
leadership.
Prime Minister Levy Eshkol exercised leadership. He was not swept by the
weakness of the people, and he did not allow a transient somber reality to erode
long term national strategic goals. Instead, he leveraged the crisis as a
springboard for a strategic upgrade. He defied US and international pressure,
launched the preemptive Six Day War, destroyed the infrastructure of the
threatening enemy, rescuing the Jewish state from pending oblivion. Eshkol,
therefore, enhanced strategic appreciation of Israel, transforming the Jewish
state from a “historical accident” to a factor of regional deterrence and a
unique strategic ally of the USA.
In the aftermath of the 1967 war, Eshkol was besieged by Prophets of Demographic
Doom, who urged him to withdraw from Gaza, Judea and Samaria, “since there would
be an Arab majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean by 1987.”
Eshkol ignored the demographic projections, demonstrating that capable leaders
would not shape boundaries in accordance with temporary demographic problems
(which are impacted by immigration, emigration, modernity, education, war,
etc.). Eshkol was a capable leader, and therefore shaped boundaries in
accordance with historical and geographic reality (which is carved in stone).
Eshkol has been vindicated: Jewish majority in 1987 remained as it was in 1967
and as it is today: some 60%:40% west of the Jordan River and 80%:20% within the
Green Line (1949 boundaries). Thus, Eshkol followed in the footsteps of Theodore
Herzel and David Ben Gurion, who rejected the demographic projections of the
world renowned Jewish historian/demographer Shimon Dubnov (1900) and Israel’s
Chief Statistician Prof. Roberto Bachi (1948), who lobbied against the
establishment of the Jewish state on demographic grounds. 50,000 Jews resided in
the Land of Israel in 1900, 600,000 Jews in 1948, compared with almost 6 million
today.
In 1981, Iraq expanded its nuclear capabilities, targeting Israel and other
countries. The US, West Europe and the UN pressured Israel against a preventive
military operation, “lest it destabilizes the region”. They threatened Israel
with diplomatic, military and economic sanctions.
Israel’s heads of Mossad and military intelligence opposed a military (air
force) operation against Iraq’s nuclear reactor, “lest it unites the Islamic
world against Israel, lest it cause an irreparable crisis with the US and lest
it fail operationally, with the bodies of Israel’s pilots dragged in the streets
of Baghdad.” Moreover, Shimon Peres leaked vital information to the media, in
order to abort the operation.
However, Prime Minister Menachem Begin displayed leadership, accepting short
term risk, pressure and inconvenience, in order to advance the long term
national security of the Jewish State. He ordered the bombing of Iraq’s nuclear
reactor, thus becoming the subject of a US military embargo and of international
sanctions. Nevertheless, a few months later when the international condemnation
was gradually dissipating, a new reality was in place: the nuclear threat to the
region was demolished, Israel’s strategic profile was enhanced dramatically and
therefore the first ever strategic memorandum of understanding was signed (Nov.
1981) between the US and Israel. Begin’s leadership has accorded Israel a
substantial line of strategic credit, which is still in force. Begin’s
leadership, also, provided the US with the conventional option in the 1991 and
2003 wars against Iraq, sparing the US and the globe horrific human losses and
mega-billion dollar expenditures.
In 2004, Israel’s leadership (and not Israel’s public!) displays unprecedented
indecisiveness and vacillation in face of exacerbated terrorism, global pressure
to refrain from crashing the infrastructure of the Palestinian Terror Authority,
intensifying threat of Islamic non-conventional capabilities, domestic economic
difficulties and general weakness and skepticism afflicting many top political
and security officials. The leadership crisis stands in striking contrast to the
unprecedented demographic, military, economic and technological resources at the
disposal of the Jewish state. Standing by Israel is the post-9/11 USA , which
confronts on a daily basis a mutual threat – Islamic terrorism. The US is led by
a friendly President, whose power base supports Israel strategically,
religiously, intellectually and politically, and whose Vice President and
Secretary of Defense are more hawkish than most Israel’s cabinet members. The US
is co-led by a Congress, which is the friendliest to Israel ever since 1948.
Never has Israel enjoyed such a large scale support in the US, and never has it
failed so much in leveraging that support, in order to advance critical national
security goals.
Eshkol and Begin, just like all prime ministers until 1992 – did rarely submit
themselves to the burden of pressure, terrorism and demography.
They did not ignore the pressure, but they did not allow it to divert themselves
away from the national strategic long term goal of the Jewish state. They did
not instill weakness in the mind and hearts of their people and their friends
abroad. They did not erode the conviction of the People in the justness of their
historical cause and in the capabilities of the Jewish military to defeat
terrorism. They were not intimidated by domestic and external odds, they did not
consider restraint as strength, did not subscribe to protracted wars (which are
deadly to democracies and adrenalize the veins of terrorists). They did not
offer concessions as a substitute to the crashing of the infrastructure of Arab
threat.
The drastic departure from the legacy of Eshkol and Begin (as well as the legacy
of Ben Gurion, Golda Meir and Yitzhak Shamir) has transformed Israel - since the
signing of the Oslo Accord - from a role model of confronting terrorism and
pressure to the role model of retreat in face of pressure and violence.