(Communicated by the President’s Spokesperson)

Earlier this morning (Monday, November 28th), Israeli President Shimon Peres met with Jordanian King Abdullah II  at the Royal Palace in Amman, . The two leaders discussed various bilateral issues as well as ways to overcome obstacles in the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, and exchanged views regarding recent developments in the region. The meeting was held in a warm, friendly and open atmosphere.  President Peres and King Abdullah agreed to continue their talks in the near future.

Prior to leaving for Amman, President Peres met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  The two discussed the importance of strengthening the good strategic ties between Israel and Jordan.

During his meeting with King Abdullah, President Peres emphasized Prime Minister Netanyahu’s proposal to hold a direct Israeli-Palestinian meeting forthwith in order to advance the peace process. The President stressed that reaching a solution of ‘two states for two peoples ‘ will be possible only via direct negotiations and not through appealing to the UN.

 

The following Op-Ed is by Israel’s Consul General to the Southwest Meir Shlomo. It was first published in today’s Houston Chronicle:

Critics of Israel’s Palestinian policies ‘just don’t get it’

By Consul General Meir Shlomo

Some time ago I heard a comparison by a native Texan who told me that Texas and Israel are alike in that we are both surrounded by people who “just don’t get it.”

What is it that they don’t get?

Here are a few simple unvarnished truisms about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and what better place to tell them than Texas?

The conflict between Israel and the Arab world, and part of the Muslim world, is first and foremost about the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to have a Jewish state in the land of Israel. The rest, including the territorial aspect, is secondary at best.

We have no territorial dispute with Iran, and yet every Monday and Friday its leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, calls for the annihilation of the state of Israel from the face of the Earth. Moreover, Iran is pressing ahead with its nuclear program, which is designed to give him the necessary tools for his vision.

We have no territorial dispute with Lebanon. The border is marked by the United Nations itself, to the last inch, and still Hezbollah is seeking nothing short of the destruction of Israel.

Still, many say that all these countries are seeking the destruction of Israel in support of the Palestinians. Wrong again. The proof? Even during the Oslo process, when it looked like we were going to achieve a final peace accord with the Palestinians, these countries kept instigating Israel, and even threatened the Palestinian leadership at the time.

The Palestinians also refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. True, with them there is a territorial dispute. Here we come to another truism: the settlements. Are they the reason for the conflict? If so, surely removing all of them would solve the conflict. That is the flawed logic of Israel bashers who insist on disregarding an uncontested fact of history:

The first settlement was established after 1967; however, the conflict started long before, at least in 1948, and persisted for 19 years with the absence of any settlements whatsoever.

So if it is not the settlements, why not use the 1967 line as the basis for a solution? Let’s put this one to bed right away. To see Israel before 1967 is to understand how unbelievably small and vulnerable it was. Imagine that two-thirds of the entire population of Texas, and all the industry and economy of Texas, were concentrated in Houston. Now imagine that you live in the Galleria area. On your border, which is as close as the Astrodome, your opponents can gather an exceedingly large army. Is that a formula for peace or a war waiting to happen?

The recent Arab Spring shook the whole Middle East. From Afghanistan to North Africa, the Middle East is going through an earthquake and tectonic shifts of change — none of that has anything to do with Israel.

Young and old, people are marching in squares and being killed by the hundreds in the streets of Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Tunisia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. You don’t hear them chanting slogans against Israel or the U.S. They march because they want what they really need – freedom. They are killed not because of Israel, but because their own rulers want to deny them freedom.

This political earthquake, completely unrelated to Israel, proves another truism: The core of instability in the Middle East is the lack of democracy and backwardness caused by the lack of democracy, not the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

I just came back from Washington, D.C., where I heard my prime minister deliver a historic speech. Benjamin Netanyahu went on record at the U.S. Congress and said that Israel recognizes the right of the Palestinians for a state that will be “viable, independent, and prosperous.”

Where is the partner who will finally “get it”?

The following statement was released by the Office of the Prime Minister:

Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace.  Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state.

That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.

Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.

Those commitments also ensure Israel’s well-being as a Jewish state by making clear that Palestinian refugees will settle in a future Palestinian state rather than in Israel.

Without a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem outside the borders of Israel, no territorial concession will bring peace.

Equally, the Palestinians, and not just the United States, must recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, and any peace agreement with them must end all claims against Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu will make clear that the defense of Israel requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.

Prime Minister Netanyahu will also express his disappointment over the Palestinian Authority’s decision to embrace Hamas, a terror organization committed to Israel’s destruction, as well as over Mahmoud Abbas’s recently expressed views which grossly distort history and make clear that Abbas seeks a Palestinian state in order to continue the conflict with Israel rather than end it.

By Ambassador of the State of Israel to the United States Dr. Michael B. Oren.

The Middle East, from North Africa to the Persian Gulf, is in the throes of historic upheaval. The populations that have long suffered under dictatorial and oppressive rulers are rising and demanding freedom. We, in Israel, are watching these events with a sense of awe and anticipation. We ardently hope that our neighbors will someday enjoy the same liberty that we have always cherished.  We have long been proud to say that we are the only democracy in the Middle East; we would be happier, still to say that we are one of many.

Fittingly, Passover is the holiday of freedom. As we celebrate this year, we should be mindful of the yearning of all peoples to live in dignity and enjoy inalienable rights. That is the message of the story of the Exodus, of the Jewish people’s hard-won passage from slavery to freedom. We learn that liberty is not to be taken for granted but, on the contrary, must often be achieved at considerable cost and sacrifice. This is true as much for our ancient ancestors escaping Egypt as it is for modern Egyptians today. Though Passover is a Jewish holiday, its meaning is universal.

Passover also teaches us that there is no true freedom without responsibility. Not insignificantly does the path from bondage in Egypt lead to the revelatory gathering at Mt. Sinai. There, the Jewish people accepted the responsibility of the Law. There they learned that respecting and heeding the Law was the pre-requisite for their survival as an independent, united people. They understood – and that understanding became integral to Jewish identity – that assuming responsibilities is essential to preserving a just and peaceful society.

While we indeed wish our neighbors success in their quest for democracy, so, too, do we expect them to forge societies that are open and tolerant. Unfortunately, we have seen how societies lacking in such qualities can swiftly revert to the worst kind of tyranny. We have seen how democratic movements in Lebanon, Iran, and Gaza were hijacked by extremists and transformed into terrorist strongholds. Therefore, it is crucial that the peoples of the Middle East adhere to the timeless message of the Exodus and that, in achieving freedom, they embrace the responsibility of peace.

This year, as always, Jews will recline at their Seder tables and give thanks for their manifold blessings. In Israel, we will take pride in our prodigious scientific accomplishments, our technological innovation, and the humanitarian assistance we’ve extended to disaster-wrought countries around the world. At the same time, however, we will be aware of the challenges still confronting our country, whether in the form of the thousands of terrorist rockets aimed at our homes or the nuclear ambitions of a radical regime sworn to wipe us off the map. But this Passover, unlike any other of recent memory, will be illuminated by the hope for the emergence of a very different Middle East in which people value not only their own rights but also those of others, a Middle East that respects not only the benefits of freedom but also its obligations. Tonight we will be asking, “Ma nishtana?” – What makes this night different than any other? This year, the night is further distinguished by the possibility that future nights will never be the same.

From the Huffington Post:

“I was surprised by the state of peace and economic prosperity prevailing in Israel and the West Bank. Israelis and Palestinians alike are pleased that not one single attack has been launched from the West Bank into Israel in four years.

Visiting Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Ramallah, Bethlehem, including walking along a ‘refugee’ area, with the infamous concrete security wall towering above me, and shaking hands with a number of youth, I was struck by the relative calm in the area. As someone all too familiar with situations of subjugation and despair, I could sense that this is a very fragile peace. Violence will flare-up if the much promised and much delayed Palestinian State does not become a reality within the next two years. Nevertheless, at this particular point in time, Israel and Palestine (West Bank) form an oasis of tranquility in a region in turmoil.”

To read the full article, click here.

On Sunday, February 20th, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren had an op-ed published in The New York Times‘ Week in Review.

In ”Will Egypt be a Partner in Peace?” Ambassador Oren looked at Israel’s past relationships with Egypt and towards the future  as change in the region is occurring before our very eyes.

“These are indeed historic days, and Israel looks forward to transforming what has long been seen as a cold peace between governments into a deeply rooted warm peace between peoples, a peace between democracies,” Ambassador Oren wrote, “Back in 1952, Ben-Gurion welcomed a new Egyptian leadership, but his dream of a harmonious Middle East was crushed. Our hope is that the current Egyptian revolution realizes Ben-Gurion’s vision, for the benefit of Egyptians and Israelis alike. If the region is indeed on the cusp of a new era, and if that awakening proves peaceful, Israel will be the first to embrace it.”

To read Ambassador Oren’s op-ed, click here.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech at the Conference of Presidents of Major North American Jewish Organizations

Jerusalem, 16 February 2011

Thank you, Alan, and Malcolm, and all of you. I see here some old hands, practiced hands, loyal hands. You’ve always been steadfast, unequivocal and focused on one purpose – and that is to defend the State of Israel and assure the future of the Jewish state and the Jewish people.

Being focused, having clarity of vision, is abundant in this room, and it is much needed today. I’ve spoken in recent weeks about the shifting sands between India and Gibraltar, between Pakistan and Morocco. I’ve been through one or two sandstorms in my life, and I found being in a sandstorm, the two most important things that you need is not to lose sight of where you are and not to lose sight of where you are going. You have to maintain a clear sense of place and a clear sense of direction.

Two weeks ago, in a speech I gave in the Knesset, I said that everyone is watching this sandstorm. I said that leaders and policymakers in Washington, London, Paris and Berlin were voicing strong support for the protesters in Cairo.

But I also pointed out that, at the same time, these same protesters were supported in Tehran. Now, there is one thing I can assure you: the leaders in the West and the leaders in Tehran do not want the same future for Egypt. American and European leaders want an Egypt that is free, democratic, peaceful and prosperous. They want an Egypt that is looking forward and forward-looking into the 21st century. They want an Egypt that is at peace with its neighbors and that promotes stability throughout the region.

On the other hand, the leaders in Tehran: they want to see an Egypt that is ruled by that same iron despotism that has crushed human rights in Iran for the last three decades. They don’t want an Egypt that looks forward to the 21st century. They want an Egypt that looks back to the 9th century. They want an Egypt that will break the peace with Israel – that will join Iran in supporting terrorism and promoting bloodshed throughout the region and in many parts of the world.

So there is a question here. How can these two visions so diametrically opposed to one another both find hope in the protests in the streets and squares of Cairo? The answer to that is very simple:  no one knows what the future in Egypt will bring.  People in Washington don’t know. People in Tehran don’t know. Now this may be hard for some of you to believe – but even columnists for the New York Times don’t know.

Changing the status quo can definitely lead to a better outcome. This happened two decades ago in Berlin, in Prague and in Bucharest. In 1989, the great change in Eastern Europe we can now say for certain was definitely for the better.

But change can also lead to worse outcomes – worse for freedom, worse for human rights, worse for peace. In 1917 there was great change and great hope when three months of the Kerensky government were followed by 70-years of Soviet darkness.

In 1979, there was a genuine hope for democracy and progress in Iran, but a few months of the Bachtiar government gave way to 30 years of militant Islamic darkness. This is also happening in Lebanon today.

You remember that a few years ago, five years ago, hundreds of thousands of Lebanese poured into the squares of Beirut? That was close to, some reports said, about 800,000 people. That’s close to one fifth of that country’s population, equivalent to tens of millions of Egyptians. The calls for freedom that they chanted there, spearheaded by the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, were no less authentic than the calls for freedom that are now heard in Cairo.

Those protesters also had the support of the free world. They seem to herald a new day for Lebanon, a new dawn, a new beginning, new possibilities. This is what everybody in the democratic world, and even beyond the democratic world, dreamed for Lebanon. But this is not what Iran planned for Lebanon, and they worked very hard in these past five years to ensure that Lebanon has a different future.

Five years later, Hizbullah, a terror organization that respects no human rights, that crushes human rights into the dust, that brutalizes its own people, that spreads terror throughout the Middle East, that rockets Israel – five years later, after that great promise of the Cedar Revolution, five years later Lebanon has been taken over -de facto – by Hizbullah: a proxy of Iran. Just today, Hizbullah’s leader announced that he intends to conquer the Galilee. I have news for you: he won’t. The last thing anyone should have is any doubt about Israel’s determination and ability to defend itself and defend its people. I want to make this point clear in Hebrew as well:

[Translation]

Anyone hiding in the bunker should stay in the bunker. Let no one doubt Israel’s strength or our ability to defend ourselves. We have a determined government, a strong army and a united people. We seek peace with all our neighbors; however the IDF is prepared and ready to defend the State of Israel forcefully from all our enemies.

[End translation]

I commend you, Malcolm, for the number of Hebrew speakers in this audience, but I’m sure everyone got the message.

My Friends,

Israel wants Egypt to succeed in its quest for genuine and lasting democracy. If there is a gap between Israel and the rest of the democratic world, it is certainly not in our shared hopes that the calls for reform in Egypt will be met. I’m not just saying that today. I said this in my first speech in the Knesset after the events in Egypt two weeks ago, just a few days after the protests began. I assumed then that important newspapers have good research teams. Well, evidently, that is not always the case. So here’s what I said (politicians love to quote themselves):

“It is obvious that an Egypt that fully embraces the 21st century and that adopts those reforms would be a source of great hope for the entire world, for the region and for us. In Israel, we know the value of democratic institutions and the significance of liberty. We know the value of independent courts that protect the rights of individuals and the rule of law; we appreciate of the value of a free press, and of a parliamentary system with a coalition and opposition.

It is clear that an Egypt that rests on these institutions, an Egypt that is anchored in democratic values, would never be a threat to peace. On the contrary, if we have learned anything from modern history, it is that the stronger the foundations of democracy, the stronger are the foundations of peace. Peace among democracies is strong, and democracy strengthens peace.”

That’s what I said two weeks ago. Here’s what I say today: if there is a difference between Israel and others who share these hopes, it is that as Prime Minister of Israel, I am responsible for the security of over 7 million Israelis who live in the one and only Jewish state.

I cannot simply hope for the best. I must also prepare for the worst.

Part of that preparation is to alert the leaders and policymakers around the world to the possible dangers that may lie ahead – not because I want those dangers to materialize – I don’t – but because I have a responsibility to do whatever I can to increase the chances that they don’t materialize. As Jewish leaders, that is your responsibility as well. I know that you’ve shouldered it time and time again.

All of us know one thing – that ultimately, the people of Egypt are those who will decide their own fate.  But Israel cannot profess a neutrality as to the outcome.  Because above all, we want the Egyptian government to remain committed to the peace with Israel. Every single Egyptian should know that the people of Israel are committed to peace, both with them and with all our other neighbors.

Nearly two-thirds of Egypt’s vast population, over 50 million Egyptians – they do not remember, because they never knew what life was like before Egypt and Israel made peace. But I remember, and many of you in this room do as well.  We remember the wars, the terror, the fallen soldiers, the shattered families, and we remember that day when Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin shook hands here in Jerusalem, and history changed.

Overnight, our principle enemy became our first partner in peace. After much yearning and much suffering, the promise of peace was finally realized. That peace later expanded into a formal peace with Jordan, which was actually preceded by de facto peace from 1970 on.

While we have not yet achieved a final peace with the Palestinians, or with the Syrians or with the Lebanese, we have not lost hope.  And we won’t lose hope. We remain committed to achieving peace with all our neighbors. All our neighbors should look at the value that the peace contributed to Egypt and Israel.

And I have no doubt that maintaining the peace and deepening peace is an interest of Egypt, and I hope that this will accompany the Egyptian effort to achieve a free and democratic society as they pursue their reforms.  So while we wish the Egyptian people full success as they seek to forge a new future, we make no apologies for our fervent hope that they remain committed to peace, whatever course they take.

You know, my friends, a lot of conventional wisdoms have collapsed recently. What Wikileaks showed – well, some of us knew it before – but what it showed us is that the main concerns of regimes in this region is not the Israeli-Palestinian issue but the question of Iran.

What the protests in Tunisia, in Egypt and elsewhere have shown us in the Middle East is that the main concern of peoples in this region is not the Israeli-Palestinian issue but the policies of their regimes.

Yet there are still those for whom the centrality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the region – and in fact to the world – is nothing less than an article of faith. There is no evidence that these true believers will not ignore. But many fair minded and objective observers are beginning to recognize reality.

Yet still there is one truth that has yet to emerge: that it is not Israel that doesn’t wish to advance negotiations to conclude a final peace with the Palestinians. It is the Palestinians. They don’t want to negotiate. I hope that changes. I hope that the Palestinians finally decide to sit down in a room with us and negotiate a peace settlement. They’re only ten minutes away. They could come here or we could go there. We’re ready to do so. They’re not.

As I said, I hope that changes, because peace cannot be imposed unilaterally or from the outside. It can only come through good faith negotiations between the parties. So I repeat my hope that President Abbas will come forward and negotiate. In these negotiations, I think people can understand today better what we’ve been saying: that security in this part of the world is the foundation of peace. Not merely because we have to protect the peace, but also because we have to protect ourselves in case peace unravels. A peace treaty, in itself, does not guarantee the peace.

We had peaceful relations with one country, not a formal peace but peaceful relations with one country – and that country changed overnight. It’s called Iran. We had formal, excellent peace relations with another country: meetings of leaders, robust trade, joint military maneuvers, and 400,000 tourists a year – I’m one of the few Israelis who didn’t visit that country: Turkey. But that too changed one day in Davos when Turkey’s leader confronted our President, Shimon Peres. We hope that we can bring back the relationship with Turkey, because we never chose to have it deterred. But it makes the point that I wish to make: a peace treaty in itself and the presence of peace doesn’t guarantee its continuity. We have to bolster it with prosperity, with legitimacy, but above all, we have to anchor it in security. And this certainly must be one of the main things that we have to negotiate about.

There are other things, but we cannot negotiate, we cannot conclude a negotiation if we do not begin it. We need to begin it; we need to engage in it; and we need to seek a realistic and secure peace. I think there are many fair-minded people around the world today who can understand better what I am saying.

As we seek to anchor the peace with Egypt and to expand the peace with others, we have to also have a clear sight of the main force that threatens peace in our region. There are many such forces. There is much turbulence. But there is one force that will guarantee that we won’t have peace in the region, and that is if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. This is what it seeks to do. It seeks not a nuclear program, not nuclear power, not a replacement for oil, not radioactive isotopes for medicine – it is seeking to build nuclear weapons, atomic bombs. If Iran, that wants a very different future for Egypt, that has overtaken Lebanon, that has overtaken half of Palestinian society, that calls openly for Israel’s destruction, that spreads terror everywhere – if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, this will be a formidable threat to peace. It will be a pivot of history. All those who seek peace, all those who seek stability, must join in the effort to prevent this from happening.

There has been some important work done. The international community, led by President Obama, adopted important sanctions at the UN, and they were followed by sanctions by like-minded states. There is no question these sanctions have hurt Iran’s economy. But they have not yet affected the regime’s deep determination to develop nuclear weapons.

The only way that will be affected is if the international community proves that it is no less determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The challenge that we face in the coming year, and the great events that are taking place between Pakistan and Gibraltar in the swirling sands, and the earthquake underneath – the greatest challenge that we face is not to lose sight of the true threats to peace.

We may hope for the best of all outcomes. But if our people’s history has shown us anything and has taught us anything, it is not to dismiss the threats we face. We must recognize those threats in time.  And we must be always ready to defend ourselves.

One thing that gives our people that confidence is to know that we have learned these lessons of our history, and to know that the Jewish people everywhere stand by and with Israel in its efforts to secure its future.

You stand with us both in thwarting dangers and in seizing the opportunities.

I want to thank you all – Alan, Malcolm and each and every one of you – for standing with Israel, for your rock solid commitment to our common future, to the future of the Jewish people and to the future of the Jewish state.

Thank you, and it’s good to see you again in Jerusalem.

Israel’s Security Cabinet decided today, Wednesday November 19th, to accept, in principle, the proposal of the UN and the UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon) Commander, to completely withdraw IDF personnel from the northern section of the town of Ghajar.

Ghajar, whose community consists mostly of Syrian Alawites with dual Israeli-Syrian citizenships, is a town which happens to fall right on the border between Israel and Lebanon, the so-called “Blue-Line.” The Blue-Line is a border demarcation established to determine Israel’s withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in 2000 as mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 425. Ghajar is united, and does not have a physical barrier or fence marking the Blue Line i.e. where Lebanon ends and Israel begins.

As northern Ghajar is the last area that the IDF has personnel stationed, Israel’s decision to remove troops from that section of the town will be an important step towards supporting a permanent ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon.

According to UN Resolution 1701, passed after the 2006 war against Hezbollah forces operating on the Lebanese border, Lebanon is required to, among other things, respect the Blue Line and prevent the passage of weapons into the hands of Hezbollah terrorists.

The Security Cabinet authorized the Foreign Ministry to complete the details of the temporary arrangement in coordination with the UN and UNIFIL Commander General Alberto Asarta as soon as possible.  Both the security of Israel’s citizens and the normal life of the residents of Ghajar, which remains undivided, will continue to be maintained while the new arrangements are being put in place. The final agreement will be brought to the Security Cabinet for approval before it is implemented.

U.S. State Department Spokesperson P.J. Crowley “welcomes the announcement today by Israel’s Security Cabinet that it accepts in principle the proposal offered by the UNIFIL Force Commander, providing for the complete withdrawal of Israeli military forces from Lebanese territory in and around the village of Ghajar.”

He went on to say in a prepared statement that “the United States encourages Israel and the UN to complete the technical details necessary to implement this proposal rapidly and thereby protect the rights of the affected civilians and further the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006), which aims for a permanent ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon.”

From The Huffington Post:

The Middle East is about to change. No, the dysfunctional political systems are not about to become more free or fair or democratic. National economies are not going to improve and create jobs and perspectives for its people. Women will not see more equality and opportunities. Education will not prepare the youth better for the future. It is about to change because of a dynamic race over primacy in the region. And it is not the usual suspects such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia, who are competing for the leadership role. The region is witnessing an unusual contest. In a curious twist, those rivals are neither Arab nor traditional Sunni Muslim. It is non-Arab Turkey and Shiite Iran who threw their hats in the ring and despite all displays and declarations of friendship they compete to dominate the region.

continue reading…

On October 6th, 1973, on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack against Israel. Famously, only 436 Israelis along the Suez Canal found themselves facing an Egyptian force of 80,000. On the northern border of Israel, 180 Israeli tanks  defended the country from an invading force of 1,400 Syrian tanks.

Six hours earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir assembled  her cabinet as they debated what to do in the face of an impending attack. The minutes of this meeting, classified as top secret for 37 years, were released overnight to honor the anniversary of the war’s outbreak.

It is a historical fact that the 1973 war was started by Syria and Egypt, and to this day both countries celebrate it as a great victory, despite their military defeat. However, the minutes from the October 6th meeting suggest that Israeli defense and intelligence ministers knew they had sufficient time to launch a preemptive strike, but chose not to, fearing the international community would label Israel as the instigator.

Said Israel’s chief of the army at the time, “We can wipe out the entire Syrian air force at noon. We need another 30 hours to destroy the missiles. If they plan to attack at 5 pm, the Air Force will operate freely against the Syrian army. This is what we are capable of.”

Still, uncovering the internal debate, even 37 years later, speaks volumes as to the desire of the young state to avoid being demonized by the international community. The IDF Chief, David Elazar, believed that “calling all the reserves to duty before one shot has been fired – they’ll immediately say we are the aggressors.”

Golda Meir eventually decided against a preemptive strike, saying “this is not 1967. They (international community) won’t believe us.” The Prime Minister did order a gradual call for reserves, which helped Israel repel the initial attack and ready itself for a successful counterattack.

To this day, the Yom Kippur War is considered by Israelis to be, along with the War for Independence, the most important test for the Jewish state’s survival.

To read more from the declassified minutes, see this article over on Ynet.