About Us

IMRA
IMRA
IMRA

 

Subscribe

Search


...................................................................................................................................................


Monday, February 23, 2015
Reminder: U.S. facilitated Yom Kippur War invasion by deliberately ignoring Egyptian violation and then refusing to act on it

ARCHIVES: Background: PM Sharon's powerful argument that Yom Kippur War
result of ignoring Egyptian violation of cease-fire

Aaron Lerner Date: 30 September 2001

Speaking today at the main memorial service for those who died in the 1973
Yom Kippur War, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon noted that Israel was surprised
in that war by Egypt because the Egyptians did not honor the 1970 cease-fire
agreement and thus the lesson of the Yom Kippur War is that one must always
pay attention when agreements are not honored.

This is a very powerful argument on several levels but, unfortunately, it
appears that the remarks will not get much coverage. The speech is not
available from the Prime Minister's Office - apparently due to the vacation
period.

Below is the 13 August 1970 statement by Defence Minister Dayan on the
immediate Egyptian violation of the 7 August cease-fire agreement.

Now we know the following:

#1 The Egyptians moved anti-aircraft missiles close to the Suez Canal the
very moment that the cease-fire went into effect.

#2 The US had a spy plane that flew over the area that first day and
photographed the violations. They were aware that first day that the
Egyptians had violated the agreement. It should be noted that at the time
the US asked Israel to provide evidence and for several days said it was
waiting for evidence of violation.

#3 While BEFORE the agreement was signed, the US promised Israel that if the
Egyptians moved up their missiles that the US would press the Egyptians to
pull them back, when they finally had to face up to the violation, the US
explained that they could not pressure Egypt.

#4 The US ultimately compensated Israel with "black boxes" for Israeli
aircraft that were meant to offset the damage to Israel's security caused by
the Egyptian violation.

#5 Those same anti-aircraft missiles ultimately provided invading Egyptian
forces protection from the Israeli Air Force at the opening of the Yom
Kippur War in 1973.

Sharon's remark hits several levels:

First: The popular argument of the Left that the Yom Kippur War disaster can
be attributed to the failure of Israel to withdraw from the Sinai prior to
1973 as part of possible deal with Egyptian President Sadat misses the
point. The war was a disaster because the Egyptians succeeded in inflicting
heavy casualties and they succeeded in doing that because they were able to
operate under a umbrella thanks to their violating the August 1970
cease-fire.

Second: The Labor Government that ruled the country during that period is
responsible for taking a cavalier attitude towards the Egyptian violation of
the cease-fire with the implication that FM Peres, who comes from that same
Labor Party, should recognize the danger of taking a cavalier attitude
towards Palestinian compliance.

Third: The United States contributed to the Yom Kippur War by deliberately
turning its back on the Egyptian violation and then refusing to act on it.

+++

[From the Foreign Ministry of Israel Website]
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0e2y0

Statement to the Knesset by Defence Minister Dayan, 13 August 1970:
On the night when the cease-fire between Israel and Egypt came into effect,
the Egyptians, with Soviet help, began to move SA-2 and SA-3 missiles into
the standstill zone, embarked on the construction of new missile sites, and
moved missile deployments closer to the Canal in flagrant violation of the
cease-fire. On 13 August, the Minister of Defence made a statement to the
Knesset:

The Minister began by citing the full text of the agreement as follows:
A. Israel and the UAR will observe a cease-fire effective at 2200 hours GMT
Friday 7 August.
B. Both sides will stop all incursions and all firing, on the ground and in
the air, across the cease-fire lines.
C. Both sides will refrain from changing the military status quo within
zones extending 50 kilometres to the east and the west of the cease-fire
line. Neither side will introduce or construct any new military
installations in these zones. Activities within the zones will be limited to
the maintenance of existing installations at their present sites and
positions and to the rotation and supply of forces presently within the
zones.
D. For the purposes of verifying observance of the cease-fire, each side
will rely on its own national means, including reconnaissance aircraft,
which will be free to operate without interference up to 10 kilometres from
the cease-fire line on its own side of the line.
E. Each side may avail itself as appropriate of all United Nations machinery
in reporting alleged violations by each other of the cease-fire and of the
military standstill.
F. Both sides will abide by the Geneva Convention of 1949 relative to the
treatment of prisoners of war and will accept the assistance of the
International Committee of the Red Cross in carrying out their
obligations under that Convention.

The Minister then explained how the agreement was drafted and accepted by
the parties:

This agreement was reached on the initiative and through the mediation of
the United States Government. We were first shown a draft. We made our
comments, and we later received this text, which was handed to us by US
representatives and which was agreed to by Egypt. That was the US
representatives' share in drafting this agreement. We did not talk with the
Egyptian representatives directly, but, as I have just said, representatives
of the US Government brought us the proposed agreement, we made our
comments, and we were afterwards told by them -and I have no doubt
accurately so - that the matter had been brought before the Egyptian
Government for final drafting, and that this text that we have here was
agreed upon by both sides.

In this text, the third paragraph covers what is called in the Hebrew
version a "freeze" and in the English original a "standstill". This is a
central provision of the very first importance.

On the first night of the cease-fire, and after that, the agreement was
violated in its standstill provision by the bringing forward of missile
sites - sites for Soviet-Egyptian ground-to-air missiles - on the Egyptian
side of the Canal, a move of very considerable military significance. It is
not something marginal, not an odd burst of firing.

Moreover, we ought not to, and cannot, allow ourselves to ignore the fact
that not only is this moving forward of these sites of considerable military
significance and not only is this standstill provision a central provision
of the agreement, but the entire agreement is a very important part of the
American peace initiative, of the "talking" that comes within the compass of
this initiative.

There are three things that I wish to stress in the name of the Government:
that the violation is of importance; that the provision violated is of
importance; and that the agreement is of importance in the context of the
"talking" under the American peace initiative known by that name.

When we learnt of this infringement, we turned to the United States, and use
was also made of the fifth provision about reporting violations to the UN
apparatus. But first of all we turned to the US Government and faced it with
the facts, with the violation that had taken place, and we asked that the US
representatives have things put back correctly the way they were, have those
launching sites that were brought up after zero hour put back where they
were before. That is how things stand at the moment. The matter is being
discussed between us and the US Government on the basis of our insistence on
the return of the launching sites to their previous positions because their
being brought forward was and is a violation of the agreement.

As for the Government of Israel, the matter is before it. I do not want any
mistaken conclusions to be drawn from this. At this stage the Government
regards the matter as being before it for consideration, but this does not
mean that the matter is being considered without or instead of referring to
the Americans, whom in the context of this agreement - which has come into
being in the framework of the "talking" under the American peace
initiative - we see as more than one-time mediators whose good offices
brought the parties to agree upon a given agreement; we see them as carrying
a heavier responsibility than that in this matter, and we do so mainly on
the basis of what they themselves said when they came and proposed this
agreement to us. They informed us that this agreement, including the
standstill provision - and chiefly the standstill provision, was the
suggestion of the Soviets, who, as is known, have a considerable part in the
deployment of ground-to-air missiles in Egypt.
________________________________________
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on Arab-Israeli relations

Website: www.imra.org.il

Search For An Article

....................................................................................................

Contact Us

POB 982 Kfar Sava
Tel 972-9-7604719
Fax 972-3-7255730
email:imra@netvision.net.il IMRA is now also on Twitter
http://twitter.com/IMRA_UPDATES

image004.jpg (8687 bytes)