On the ground the problems created by the French embargo were less serious, yet the transformation that took place was no less far-reaching. In 1966 a couple of the new British Chieftain tanks were brought over for tests. Although Tal, commander of the armored corps, liked them, they were deemed too expensive, and in the end it was decided to develop a native tank.11 In the interim TSAHAL pressed some 200 captured T-54 and T-55 tanks into service; with twenty tons less armor than the Centurion, these tanks were not a satisfactory solution. It also purchased M-60 tanks from the United States, bringing the total order of battle to little short of 2,000. Though the old Shermans retained their dangerously flammable gasoline engines, the rest came with diesel engines or, in the case of the Centurions and M-48s, were converted to diesel. They also carried or were converted to carry the redoubtable 105mm gun.
While the air force and armored corps were being allocated more than 80 percent of all available resources,12 the equipment of the ground forces was less satisfactory. U.S.-built M-109 and M-107 self-propelled cannons (155mm and 175mm respectively) were purchased and took their place alongside the self-manufactured 105mm guns atop Sherman chassis, known as “Priests”; the IDF also had available locally manufactured 160mm mortars. Yet quantitatively, artillery, although no longer towed and thus capable of keeping up with the tanks, was still suffering from neglect (when war came in 1973 the ratio of tanks to self-propelled guns was approximately 5:113 instead of 2-3:1 as it ought to have been if each armored division had been provided with its full artillery complement). The situation of the mechanized infantry was even worse, only about one-seventh being converted from the antiquated M-3 half-tracks to the more modern M-113 APCs. Even in the field of small arms progress was limited. The USSR saw to it that every Egyptian and Syrian infantryman was equipped with the excellent Kalashnikov assault rifle, but its Israeli-made equal, the Galil, began to be issued to some units only in the last months before October 1973. Most still carried their old FN automatic rifles and Uzi submachine guns. Incredible as it sounds, some even had model 98 Mauser rifles, the “98” referring to 1898, the first year they were produced.
With its forces thus undergoing rebuilding and expansion, the IDF also transferred a growing part of its deployment to the Occupied Territories. On the Golan Heights, in the West Bank, and in Gaza and the Sinai some of the former Arab armies’ bases were taken intact; this included the enormous former Egyptian base at Bir Gafgafa, airfield and all. Elsewhere new headquarters, training bases, depots, and of course fortifications were built at great cost. Military intelligence also moved into the Territories, setting up its characteristic electronic listening posts; as a result, from the Sinai through the Jordan Valley all the way to the Golan many of the tallest hills were soon festooned with mysterious antennae, their exact function being clear only to the initiated. Other buildings housed the military government that had been instituted to look after—according to the Israelis—or hold down—according to their enemies—the populations of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Like the rest they had to be linked by means of roads, electric and telephone wires, water pipes, and so on, representing a huge investment that necessarily subtracted from monies for combat arms.
These were the years when IDF prestige was at its zenith. In this situation it had no trouble attracting and retaining high-quality manpower for the professional army. As one survey showed, two out of three officer candidates thought that “being a combat officer will make me rise in the estimation of the past generation”; a similar percentage thought that “being a good soldier is a proof that one is worth something.”14 Youngsters who for one reason or another were disqualified for service felt deeply hurt, sometimes mounting wild escapades to prove their worth to themselves and peers. Conversely the handful15 who refused to accept the common view of the IDF as the glory of creation and did not want to serve were regarded as psychiatric cases. Every time a commander returned from a raid the media automatically characterized him as yeffe toar (handsome); meanwhile announcements coming out of the IDF’s public relations office were believed as if holy writ. Despite these facts the growth in the army’s size, the increase in the number and variety of its missions, and the fourfold extension of the territory over which it was deployed probably led to decreased cohesion—a fact that became obvious during the October War, when there suddenly appeared large numbers of psychiatric casualties.16 No longer could everybody know everybody else, a fact the General Staff recognized when, on top of the old system of Tsiyun Le-shevach (literally honorary mention, referring to Mentioning in Dispatches) it decided to institute a regular system of decorations as in other armies.
In January 1968 Rabin’s term ended. His replacement was Maj. Gen. Chayim Bar Lev (later a lieutenant general), an officer whose calm and deliberate professionalism (he spoke v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y) helped him win the job against his main competitor, “wild” Ezer Weizman.17 Reflecting the war’s supposed lessons, he was the first COS since Laskov to have served as commander of the armored corps, but unlike Laskov (the perfect all-arounder) he was an armored specialist. He was a comparatively gentle character, and the future would show he did not really have whatever it takes to succeed in the rough-and-tumble of Israeli politics. He was an effective commander, however, and when brought back into service as a reservist in 1973 he proved able to create order out of chaos while keeping even the most difficult subordinates in check. During his four-year term the transformation of the IDF—from an army with an almost exclusively offensive orientation to one that, initially at least, expected to defend and hold out—was completed.
There was, in fact, a lot to defend. Up and down the new lines the cease-fire proved tenuous, and one incident followed another. Opposite Lebanon, a troublesome frontier for the first time in many years, the PLO fired mortar rounds and Katyusha rockets into Galilee. On the Golan Heights infiltrators planted mines and blew up installations. More trouble was caused by the Syrian army, which from time to time engaged the IDF in artillery and tank battles (although on the whole its size remained strictly limited). In the Jordan Valley the PLO, rapidly building a state within a state in the refugee camps, also fired rockets and repeatedly tried to infiltrate parties into the West Bank. Their objectives were to sow mines, attack patrols and settlements, and reach into the interior to stir the indigenous population to resistance. Finally, on the Suez Canal the Egyptian army sent raiding parties across and engaged in occasional artillery duels. On the northern and southern fronts the incidents sometimes escalated, causing one or both sides to call in their air forces, usually with sad results for the Arabs as the IAF shot down their planes. Israel also used its navy in its operations against Lebanon and Egypt.
A blow-by-blow account of these hundreds of incidents would be tedious. Tactically many of them displayed a brilliance that was sans pareil; given the feeling of en brera and the IDF’s exalted status in the eyes of the Israeli public, it was not yet constrained by the need to minimize casualties (as it later would be). Perhaps the single most spectacular operation was the December 1969 raid against Beirut International Airport, following several terrorist attacks on El Al aircraft.18 Excellent intelligence provided information on the type and location of each aircraft, making possible meticulous planning and training. Helicopters carrying commandos knifed in undetected, landing at four different spots. They blocked the road leading to the airport with caltrops. In a perfectly coordinated action the commandos blew up thirteen aircraft belonging to various airlines. The operation took exactly twenty-nine minutes, not a single casualty being caused or suffered.
Less successful was the earlier operation mounted against the PLO in Jordan (March 1969). Once again the motivating factor was terrorism, this time a mine planted north of Elat; riding a bus, two Israelis were killed and twenty-seven wounded.19 In response the IDF organized two raids, one south of the Dead Sea at Tsaffi and one north of the sea, across the Jordan at Karameh. Whereas the former went without a hitch, the latter, directed against a PLO base, ran
into stiff opposition. Morning fog delayed the planned heliborne landing, enabling Yasser Arafat and many of his guerrillas to escape.20 Then the two Israeli brigades (one armored, one mechanized) came under accurate fire from the Jordanian army. At the end of the day they withdrew, having lost some thirty killed and almost one hundred wounded21 as well as four tanks (one of which remains on display at the military museum in Amman). Though Jordanian and PLO losses were considerably larger, the operation achieved nothing and was not repeated.
Even so, the IDF’s attempts to seal off the Jordan Valley against infiltrators gradually bore fruit. First under Eytan, then under Col. Moshe Levy (the subsequent chief of staff), elite infantry units patrolled, mounted ambushes, and used helicopters to detect parties that had crossed the river into Israeli-held territory; once they were detected it was a question of tracking, cornering, and destroying the infiltrators. During the early days these troops were reckless. Geared up and seeking to justify their reputation for heroism, they assaulted enemies head-on and suffered unnecessary casualties as a result. Later, after a brigade commander had been killed and Levy himself severely wounded, they learned to be more deliberate, carefully sealing off an area before bringing up—if the terrain permitted—tanks. The tanks finished off the guerrillas within their hiding places at point-blank range.
As the PLO increased the size of the parties it sent across, the IDF’s countermeasures expanded. Along the river itself stretches of vegetation were cut away or burned, thus depriving the guerrillas of much-needed cover. Eventually the entire border was protected by minefields, a dirt road that showed footprints of those who tried to cross it, and a gader maarechet (security fence) that sounded the alarm when touched or cut. In later years the fence was reinforced by adding closed-circuit TV cameras and various kinds of electronic sensors. As a result of the fencing effort an Israeli firm, Magal Ltd., would grow into the world’s largest manufacturer of security fences.
Still, after some three years of skirmishing, the decisive blow that put an end to tkufat ha-mirdafim (the period of pursuits) was delivered not by the IDF but by the Jordanian army. Ever since the Six Day War the PLO had been building its forces in the Kingdom until they numbered thousands of well-armed men. In September 1970 one faction hijacked no fewer than three Western civilian airliners to Jordan’s northern desert; after releasing passengers and crews they blew up the planes. To King Hussein this was the last straw. He had to act or risk losing the country to Arafat. On the morning of September 15 he struck, using artillery and tanks to drive into the refugee camps. His troops mercilessly butchered the Palestinians and sent them fleeing—ironically enough across the River Jordan into the IDF’s arms.
Three days later the Syrians intervened, sending a “small force” (according to the Israelis) or a full division with two armored brigades and one mechanized brigade (according to the Jordanians) to invade northern Jordan, where the Palestinians had “liberated” the town of Irbid. Advancing, they ran into a trap, and after some fighting the Jordanians (with Centurion tanks, their 105mm guns far outranging the Syrian T-55s) prevailed.22 Backed by the U.S. Sixth Fleet, the IDF’s role in this episode was to provide the Jordanians with air cover and, at night, illumination.23 It also concentrated reserves in the Bet Shean sector to deter the Syrians (apparently with success, judging by what Minister of Defense Hafez Assad later told his biographer).24
On the Syrian and Jordanian borders, the numerous military clashes that took place during these years remained rather limited. Not so along the Suez Canal, where the massive forces deployed by both sides threatened to draw in the superpowers. Dayan, reviewing Rabin’s plans for the 1967 campaign, had not wanted the IDF to reach the waterline;25 then and later he argued that an Israeli presence there constituted an intolerable affront to the Egyptians and would only lead to further confrontations. However, when his forces once again exceeded his orders the minister of defense did not have what it took to recall them; nor, after Ms. Meir took over, did he carry his point of view in the Cabinet. Meanwhile, since the Egyptians would not allow Israeli boats to use the canal, the Israelis in turn fired on Egyptian shipping. Thus, by accident rather than design, the two sides glowered across a 150-yard waterway itself blocked by sunken ships.
Lavishly supported by the Soviets, who not only sent in arms but eventually activated 20,000 military advisers in the country, the Egyptian army recovered from its defeat with astonishing speed. Fewer than eighteen months after June 1967 its order of battle had been substantially rebuilt,26 though restoring the self-confidence of commanders and men in the face of the supposedly invincible Israelis took much longer.27 As mentioned above, in October 1967, Egyptian missile boats hit and sunk the old Israeli destroyer Elat, a sitting duck if ever there was one.28 The IDF’s response was to mount a massive artillery bombardment of Egyptian oil refineries along the canal. While Dayan boasted that “nothing is burning” (Hebrew slang for “there is no problem”) except the refineries, 500,000-750,000 Egyptian civilians fled their homes, and the canal towns of Ismailia, Kantara, and Suez were turned into empty shells.
On September 8, 1968, the Egyptians in turn opened fire along the northern part of the canal, catching the IDF by surprise—some of the troops were playing football—and killing ten. Additional bombardments followed and served as cover for parties of Egyptian commandos; repeatedly, the latter crossed the canal and inflicted casualties on the Israelis. In retaliation the IDF sent aircraft to attack two bridges crossing the Nile River. Meanwhile a heliborne force landed at Naj Hamadi, far to the south, and blew up a power transmission station. The raid, which took place on the night of October 31-November 1, seems to have shocked the Egyptians, as it exposed how the entire country, not just the canal front, was wide open to attack.29 In any case, the next few months were a lull.
Within the IDF a debate had been developing concerning the best way to defend the Sinai. One school, headed by Yisrael Tal (now in charge of developing an Israeli tank) and Ariel Sharon (in charge of training and doctrine), argued in favor of relying on counteroffensives of egrofei shiryon (mailed fists) concentrated in the rear, out of Egyptian artillery range; the forward area itself would be lightly held by patrols.30 The other school differed in that it wanted, in addition to the armored reserves, a system of permanent strongholds constructed on the waterline itself. This second school, whose principal advocate was Chief of Staff Chayim Bar Lev, prevailed. His reasoning was mainly political, centering on the need to prevent the Egyptians from establishing a toehold that might be made permanent by UN Security Council resolution. Hence it was essential that a forward defense be adopted, even at the cost of putting Israeli troops under the barrels of Egypt’s superior artillery and abandoning the IDF’s traditional offensive doctrine.
Though Egyptian military strength had been rebuilt, the high command in Cairo well understood it did not have the capability to launch a general war with the objective of forcing the IDF out of the Sinai. It therefore opted for a limited “war of attrition” (Nasser’s term) with the objective of inflicting as many casualties as possible to the enemy’s limited manpower and creating political momentum to force Israel to negotiate an acceptable solution (i.e., withdraw from the Sinai and end the Arab-Israeli conflict).31 The IDF raids, which took place in late 1968, had proved Egypt’s vulnerability and forced a delay; this in turn was utilized by the IDF to build fortifications along the canal. Eventually thirty-one meozim (strongholds) were built at intervals all the way from the northern coast of Sinai to the city of Suez. Each was designed to provide cover for fifteen to sixty troops; positioned nearby were earthen ramps designed to serve as cover for tanks. All were linked to the rear by specially built roads that, in turn, would carry the reserves for a counterattack.
On March 8, 1969, five days after the Egyptians announced they no longer recognized the cease-fire, the War of Attrition opened with a bang. Scarcely a day passed without clashes between the two sides. The number of so-called incidents rose from 84 in March to
475 in April before falling back to 231 in May; during that period the IDF suffered forty-three killed and 103 wounded.32 The clashes ranged from light-arms and mortar fire to artillery bombardments by dozens of guns raining hundreds of shells (mainly the trusted World War II-vintage 122mm and 130mm towed guns but also including heavier models). As the Israelis cowered in their shelters Egyptian commandos repeatedly crossed the canal and attacked the meozim, occasionally penetrating them and raising a flag, though they never succeeded in actually capturing any stronghold. From time to time Egypt’s air force also participated. Flying its MIG-21s and Su-7s it attempted to strike targets in the Sinai but enjoyed limited success since IAF pilots almost always proved superior.
On the Israeli side the IDF’s engineering corps seems to have done a credible job; except among lookouts, casualties in the meozim were limited. However, the troops needed to be relieved and supplied; since the gaps between them were rather large, the roads had to be patrolled. While doing this IDF units were targeted by ambushes and sudden bombardments—the latter often very accurate, directed by Egyptian observation officers who had infiltrated the area. The former IDF quartermaster, Maj. Gen. Matityahu Peled, wrote that men were being sacrificed for the sake of transporting tomatoes,33 that staple of Israeli diets without which no meal seems to be complete (in or out of the military). The best that can be said for Bar Lev’s strategy—Dayan, as usual, found a way to shift responsibility to others—is that it was dictated by political constraints. Militarily, though, the Egyptians had presented the IDF with a challenge to which it had no effective answer.
On July 20, toward the end of a particularly bad period in which IDF casualties seemed to be higher than ever, Dayan, in a measure of desperation, activated the IAF. Day and night the Mirages, Vautours, and Skyhawks screamed over Egyptian artillery positions, knocking out many but failing to inflict as much damage on the remaining enemy troops who now took over the burden of the fighting.34 Two large air-to-air battles also took place, with twelve Egyptian aircraft being shot down; undeterred by such casualties they kept coming. IDF ground, naval, and heliborne commando units mounted operation after operation. On July 19 they raided the welldefended Island of Green in the Gulf of Suez. On September 19 they crossed over to the east bank of the Red Sea and mounted a major raid in which as many as 200 (Weizman says 300) Egyptian troops were killed.35 On December 26 they captured and successfully took home an entire Soviet-built radar installation; on January 22-23, 1970, they temporarily took an island in the Suez Canal itself from its garrison. Tactically each raid was more brilliant than the last,36 which, as one of the officers involved wrote in his memoirs, “led to much rejoicing.”37 But none was nearly sufficient to make the Egyptians desist.38 In fact, from August to December 1969, 180 Israelis were killed. On November 29 the Egyptians mounted their largest raid so far, sending a company-sized force across and attacking a maoz.
The Sword And The Olive Page 29