GOLAN MYTH & FACTS
By Aaron Lerner
10 December, 1995
MYTH:
THE GULF WAR
DEMONSTRATES THAT AMERICA CAN EFFECTIVELY RESPOND AS ISRAEL'S
"DEFENDER OF LAST RESORT" IF THE TREATIES ARE VIOLATED
When Iraq entered Kuwait America was
not able to stop the action by simply launching some missiles
towards Baghdad. Kuwait was occupied for many months before the
world took effective action. During that time, the women were
raped and the men tortured - some were even killed. But no
matter how bad the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait was, it would look
like a party in comparison to the holocaust which the Jewish
people would endure while the Allies decided what to do.
If anything, the aftermath of the Gulf War serves to
encourage such action in the future. The declared enemy of the
world, Saddam Hussein, still sits in Baghdad. A few years after
being "bombed back to the stone age" it was possible to
completely rebuild the infrastructure despite a boycott. Many in
the world press today to lift all sanctions even though Iraq has
every intention to continue its programs to develop
non-conventional weapons. All this has been duly noted by Assad
and Israel's other neighbors.
It should also be noted that, in many respects, the Gulf War
was a "last hurrah" for American power. A substantial part of
the equipment expended in the war was not replaced. Force levels
since that war have also not been maintained.
MYTH: THE GULF
WAR PROVES THAT STRATEGIC DEPTH AND GROUND FORCES ARE IRRELEVANT
"There are those who say that the Gulf
War proved that territory has no value, that the missiles reach
everywhere. To all of those I say: ask the Kuwaitis if land has
no value. Victory in war is achieved by conquering territory and
ground fighting, and not in the launching of missiles.
Therefore, anyone who wants to prevent losing in war, has to be
able to win in the ground battle. Minister of Health Ephraim
Sneh (Labor) "Haaretz" 4 August 1994
"The Golan Heights has a very important strategic value
and no sophisticated weapon and no electronic system can replace
it if we have to go to war." Chief of Staff Major General
Amnon Lipkin Shahak - Kol Yisrael Radio 10 December, 1995
When asked by Ben Yishai what force will dominate the future
battlefield, (then IDF Chief of Staff and now Foreign Minister)
Ehud Barak did not even mention missiles but rather said "I
am certain, that in the foreseeable future, the heavy armored
units will stand in the center of our land battles with tanks
playing the key role, this without denigrating of course the
critical role of the air force and to a certain degree also the
navy." ("Yediot Ahronot" 23 December, 1994)
Dore Gold (Jerusalem Post 27 May 1994) writes that "much
of the new technology Israel would need after a Syrian accord
might not be as effective as first thought." Gold cites, for
example, a CIA finding that air attacks against several
divisions of the Iraqi Republican Guard succeeded in eliminating
fewer than 20% of their tanks (166 out of 846).
Spy satellites are also limited as there is much evidence
that periodic rather than continuous observation is problematic.
Writing in the Jan/Feb 1994 issue of Foreign Affairs, Elliot A.
Cohen ("The Mystique of U.S. Air Power") writes about "the
sheer difficulty of knowing what damage had been done. From an
overhead photograph, for example, it may prove difficult to
figure out whether a small black hole on top of a hardened
aircraft shelter indicates a hit by a dud bomb, an explosion in
the thick, rubble filled space between the shelter's inner and
outer walls, an explosion within the shelter or an artful paint
job by camouflage experts."
In point of fact, as far as Israel is concerned, American
technology was a dismal failure during the Gulf War: the Patriot
missiles failed to intercept even one Iraqi Scud and American
technology failed to destroy or even keep track of the Scud
missile sites.
MYTH: AS LONG AS
ISRAEL HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS SYRIAN ARMS AREN'T RELEVANT
While nuclear weapons certainly have a deterrent effect, they
are of limited value in addressing a security challenge which
erodes Israel's position on a piecemeal basis. Simply put: When
can Israel justify a nuclear response? After the first Syrian
soldier crosses the border?, Syria occupies the Galilee?, Haifa?
MYTH: AN
AMERICAN-ISRAEL MUTUAL DEFENSE WOULD DETER ARAB ATTACKS
The Arab states would not be deterred by threats of American
retaliation, knowing full well that if Israel falls, America's
primary interest would not be to punish those who destroyed her
but rather to insure the stability of the region and the
uninterrupted supply of Middle Eastern oil. And nothing would
contribute more to the destabilization of the Post Israel Middle
East than to create a power vacuum by punishing the powers who
destroyed the Jewish State.
MYTH: SINCE THE
BREAK UP OF THE USSR THE ARABS HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE TO AMERICA
Russia continues to supply both new arms and spare parts to
Syria. The Russians have already provided the Syrians with tens
of millions of dollars of arms credit. ("Haaretz" March 8, 1995)
Russia's role in the development of an Arab nuclear capability
is even more ominous.
MYTH: A "FULL
PEACE" AGREEMENT WITH SYRIA WILL BRING STABILITY.
"The elite which rules relies on a small minority in
Syrian society, the Alawites (around 13% of the population),
which derives its legitimacy , in part, from the ideology of the
struggle with Zionism and defense of Pan-Arab interests. Regimes
of this type generally find their ultimate legitimacy in
struggle ... Peace with Israel, open borders, free tourism,
embassies and flags, the end of the ideological tension with
Zionism - has only one meaning: the beginning of the end of Bath
rule in Syria. How does, if at all, an agreement with Israel
jibe with the stability of the regime and its survival - this is
the central dilemma of Assad." Shlomo Ben Ami ("Haaretz"
April 28, 1995)
Paradoxically, withdrawal from the Golan, by slashing the
time available to effectively respond to a Syrian threat, may
ultimately leave the IDF with no choice but to carry out a
preemptive strike against Syria even when the Syrian moves are
subject to interpretation.
MYTH: THE SYRIAN
ARMY IS WEAK
"Quantitatively, the Syrian army now matches the IDF; in
certain areas, such as tanks and surface-to-surface missiles,
the Syrians even have a slight advantage over the IDF.
Qualitatively, the IDF still maintains a clear advantage in
terms of equipment and personnel, but this advantage is reduced
by the fact that the IDF is comprised mostly of reservists. On
the other hand, the Syrian military is mostly comprised of a
standing force -- able to move straight from its permanent
bases, whether to halt or launch an attack."
"Syria's growing strength is a fact. Therefore, in any
agreement with Syria, according to which Israel will withdraw
from its current positions on the Golan Heights, Israel must
ensure that Syria's growing power does not endanger it, even if
extremist factors, that oppose the peace agreement, take power
in Syria."
"Therefore, the security arrangement must include
significant arms-and missile-control elements, the
demilitarization of broad areas, and international supervision
of the operation of weapons systems capable of threatening and
surprising Israel."
"It would be desirable if the Prime Minister would change
his declaration a little, and instead of determining that "the
depth of the withdrawal be proportional to the depth of the
normalization and peace," he should now say to the Syrians: "The
depth of the withdrawal will be proportional to the depth of the
security arrangements," Otherwise, any change in Syria and its
regime would require Israel to move to alert status under
conditions that are much more difficult than those which prevail
today." Ron Ben-Yishai ("Yediot Ahronot" 16 September 1994)
"The Syrian army continues to seriously exercise as if
there is no peace process. Syria has a difficult time buying
military equipment from the CIS, because of the need to pay in
cash, but she buys weapons in the East....If the president of
Syria should decide to go to war, he will receive the
recommendation to do so from his military commanders, as their
training program continues and the Syrian Army is still
considered strong and skilled." O.C. Northern Command Maj.
Gen. Amiran Levin ("Haaretz" April 17, 1995)
"What concerns me no less than the Scud C's is that Syria
is involved in - and this also is not new - the manufacture of
chemical weapons. Weapons which, when tied to the Scud C, are,
from the standpoint of the State of Israel, a matter which most
certainly deserves attention." Chief of Staff Amnon Lipkin
Shahak ("Maariv" May 3, 1995)
According to a study of chemical weapons by Dr. Danny Shoham
of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan
University, Syria today is the strongest military power in the
Arab world in the area of chemical weapons. The Syrians have
produced thousands of chemical bombs as well as a well developed
delivery capability including both attack planes and Scud-B
missiles (100 to 200). Recently the Syrians began producing the
longer range Scud-C and possibly the M9 missiles in cooperation
with Iran, North Korea and China. Using these longer range
missiles, the Syrians will be able to strike literally every
point in Israel from any location in Syria.
Critics of the current Israel-Syria negotiations point to the
fact that Israel has apparently dropped its demands for any
reduction in Syria's military strength as part of an overall
peace agreement, thereby allowing the Syrians to not only
maintain but actually enhance their chemical weapons threat on
Israel in the future. They also note that while Prime Minister
Peres frequently speaks of Syria joining in a coalition against
the Islamic fundamentalists, that in practice the Syrians view
Iran as a strategic ally and partner - as evidenced by their
cooperation in missile production. ("Haaretz" May 26, 1995)
If anything, peace with Israel will enable Syria to tilt the
balance of power in its favor. If Syrian-Israeli relations
follow the pattern of the Egyptian-Israeli experience, Syria
will enjoy open access to the most sophisticated of Western arms
supplies after it signs an agreement with Israel.
MYTH: SYRIA'S
GOAL IS PEACE
Speaking in Washington at a press conference on Friday
October 7, 1994, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Shara explained
that the decision to make peace with Israel is a "strategic
choice". Minister Shara studied in America and has a good
command of the English language. His choice, therefore, of the
term "strategic" is not by chance.
"Strategy" is a means to achieve a given goal.
Minister Shara is saying publicly that peace with Israel is not
in and of itself a "goal" but rather a "means".
What then is Syria's goal?
Prime Minister Shimon Peres provides the answer to this
puzzle when he explains that the Arabs decided to negotiate with
Israel when they realized that they could not destroy Israel on
the battlefield. And so, there has been no change in the Syrian
goal. The goal of erasing the Jewish State from the map. There
is only a change in tactics.
Despite the pleasant cover of words of peace, in both the
press conference and the interview later with Israel
Television's Ehud Ya'ari, the Syrian Foreign Minister termed the
very establishment of the State of Israel as an act of
aggression against the Arab people. And, as he warned, as long
as Israel sits on occupied lands the Syrian nation will say "this
is surrender, this is not peace."
MYTH: THE PERES
GOVERNMENT'S PEACE AGREEMENT WITH SYRIA ADDRESSES THE SYRIAN
MISSILE THREAT.
"Rabin has made clear in recent weekss that he will not
insist on reduction in the Syrian army, since there is no
precedent to it in the agreement with Egypt, and since it is
impossible to differentiate between conventional and nuclear
forces." "Haaretz" diplomatic correspondent Aluf Ben
("Haaretz" 1 May, 1995)
This is not a minor issue. "Former Mossad Chief Yitzhak
Hoffi told a symposium on Israel-Syria Relations last night that
demilitarization and foreign forces cannot be relied on as
adequate security arrangements and that the only way that Israel
could justify a withdrawal is if Syria makes a serious reduction
in forces of as much as 80%."
"With that, Hoffi also pointed out that Iraq sits on
Syria's border and has participated in every war against Israel.
Hoffi maintained that Israel should be on the alert for an
attack from Syria or Iraq in the future, taking into account the
fact that Assad won't rule forever." ("Haaretz" & "The
Jerusalem Post" 15 November 1994)
MYTH: ASSAD KEEPS
HIS WORD
"Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Foreign Minister Shimon
Peres commented on Syrian denials of involvement in terror
activities in Southern Lebanon by noting that "those who support
terror don't necessarily support truth." (Globes [business
paper] 14 December 1994)
"Assad's 20-year pattern of behavior establishes that he
regularly breaks his promises. Typical of a despot, he keeps his
word when it's convenient and breaks it when not." Daniel
Pipes, ("The Jerusalem Post 19 August, 1994). Among the examples
cited by Pipes are PKK anti-Turkish activities originating from
Syria in violation of security protocols signed in 1987 and 1992
between Syria and Turkey and the illegal placement of 21
surface-to-air missiles and eight missile launchers in the "thin
out" strip within 25 kilometers of the border with Israel.
MYTH: AMERICA CAN
BE RELIED UPON TO SHARE COMMON INTEREST IN CASE OF SYRIAN
VIOLATIONS
The principle goal of Israel is to survive. But the continued
existence of the Jewish State is not the prime goal of America.
The United State's principle interest is the maintenance of
order in the region.
As Henry Kissinger told President Nixon during the Suez Canal
Egyptian missile crisis (1970), "Israel, with her survival at
stake, cannot afford to take chances...We, on the other hand,
have an incentive to minimize such evidence (of violation of
the cease fire agreement between Egypt and Israel [IMRA]),
since the consequences of finding violations are so unpleasant.
Violations force us to choose between doing something about them
and thus risk the blowup of the initiative; or doing nothing and
thus renege on our promises to Israel, posing the threat of her
taking military action." (Henry Kissinger, White House
Years, page 587).
MYTH: AMERICAN
TROOPS CAN BE AN EFFECTIVE "TRIP-WIRE" FOR PEACE
The way that you "trip" the American "trip-wire"
is by killing American soldiers. This was the entire principle
of NATO. The Europeans feared that the U.S. would never unleash
its nuclear arsenal just to defend them and hoped that a
thousand dead American G.I.'s would get the U.S. angry enough to
launch their missiles.
So that's the rule about trip-wire troops: You can drive by
them, fly over them, do anything you want - just so long as you
don't kill any of them.
The American trip wire does not work in Israel's favor:
- If Syria invades via Lebanon, it won't be "tripped".
- If Syria shoots missiles over the American's heads, it
won't be "tripped".
- If Syrian bulldozers push American jeeps off the road -
but don't kill any Americans -it still won't be "tripped".
The talk of the American trip-wire forces in the Golan
reminds one of the most heroic episode in the ill fated American
presence in Lebanon: the American officer who, standing alone
with a simple handgun, was able to stop a column of Israeli
tanks. He could do that because he knew that an Israeli would
not dare run him over. The Syrians, no doubt, would play a much
better game of "chicken".
MYTH: THE UNITED
STATES IS COMMITTED TO MAINTAINING ISRAEL'S MILITARY
SUPERIORITY.
"It is necessary to consider as uncertain all of the
declarations of President [Clinton] regarding aid to Israel and
his help to limit the risks of peace." Position paper
presented to Foreign Minister Shimon Peres by the Planning
Department of the Foreign Ministry on Thursday, 10 November,
1994 ("Haaretz" 11.11.94)
America's arms policy is based on circular reasoning: The
U.S. will not hurt Israel's military superiority, therefore any
sales which the U.S. makes to the Arabs cannot, by definition,
hurt Israel's position, since otherwise the U.S. would not make
the sale.
The U.S. continually demonstrates that it is not serious
about this commitment. Last year the U.S. approved Saudi
participation in the EYEGLASS satellite project - over the
objection of their own security establishment. The opportunity
to get Saudi money injected into the American project was simply
more important than security concerns. Israeli officials were
stunned by the American move and only after much effort was the
plan halted.
Now the Clinton Administration plans to sell sophisticated
air-to-air missiles to the UAE and anti-tank TOW 2B missiles to
Kuwait. Israel opposes the sales, terming them a "technological
jump" for the Arabs which could find its way into unfriendly
hands in the future. Israeli opposition has been silenced by
promises to offset the sale, further escalating the regional
arms race.
The U.S. also is interested in limiting Israel's independent
ability to produce weapons. The U.S. State Department objects to
the participation of Israel Aircraft in a military tender to
launch satellites on the grounds that it does not want to
encourage the development of missiles in Israel ("Haaretz" 20
November 1995).
In the past the United States has threatened to withhold
vital technology to Israel in order to force the Jewish State to
change her policies. This activity runs completely counter to
the American commitment to maintain Israel's edge.
[Deputy Defense Minister Motta] Gur implied that territorial
concessions were unavoidable due to U.S. pressure and Israel's
need for US military technology. The key to winning a war these
days is technology, not territory, he said.
'We don't want to reach a situation [where we have to
choose] between the U.S. and the Golan, between certain
weapons systems and part of the Golan,' he said. 'We
don't want to reach a state where we are facing an ultimatum.'"
(The Jerusalem Post September 14, 1994)
The late Prime Minister Rabin is no stranger to this darker
side of American diplomacy. He was Prime Minister in 1975 when
President Ford decided to "reassess" U.S. policy in the
Middle East, refusing to sign new arms deals with Israel. At the
time, Rabin asked Secretary of State Henry Kissinger; "I must
know where we stand in our relations. From now on, whenever
there is any disagreement between us because we believe that
your position endangers Israel's security, do you intend to
'reassess'?." (The Rabin Memoirs, page 262).
INTERNET ADDRESS:
imra@netvision.net.il
This material may be reproduced in any form. Please credit IMRA.
|