[ad_1]
“Israel is always threatened, the United States is negligent and the Arabs await opportunities for revenge.” This was a summary of the essence of Israeli security theory, with exaggerated fear and intimidation. In the wake of the Israeli euphoria of what happened in 1967, he reformulated his theory of security with an interesting paradox: Israel is besieged by its neighbors and threatened by its impossible-to-defeat existence.
In the war of attrition, Israeli security theory was shaken before it was broken in October 1973. Before Egyptian forces crossed the bridges by force of arms, the “strategic directive” issued to them implied a remarkable focus on the objectives of military operations that were about to explode. The text of the “strategic directive” was: “Defy the theory of Israeli security, through military action designed to inflict the greatest number of losses on the enemy, and convince him that his continued occupation of our lands imposes a price on him that does not can pay … Consequently, his theory of security – based on psychological intimidation The political and the military: it is not a steel shield to protect you now or in the future. The text seemed brief, its wording is clear and its commitments are specific. It was written by Professor Muhammad Hassanein Heikal, before President Anwar Sadat added in his handwriting: “In accordance with the capabilities of the armed forces.”
The political establishment was not an exaggeration, what was said in the first days of the “October War”, which broke the theory of Israeli security. However, political stewardship led to restoring what was broken and adding unworthy elements of power to Israeli security theory, when politics got what you didn’t get with a gun.
Israel reviewed its war experience, prepared a detailed report on its “failure”, admitted its defeat in the first days, but then tried to sum up the results in what it called “neither victory nor defeat.” This was a further confirmation that their defeat was impossible. Then, over time, a different review of what happened appeared, according to which the Egyptians had been defeated and the Israelis had prevailed. This Israeli novel has spread throughout the world, and it is enough to ignore what is written and published on the Internet, without an Egyptian novel emerging and charring with firm documents, and confirming the facts in the memory of time, for Israel do not win retroactively and the sacrifices of men that were made on the battlefields are hidden. When they expressed courage and fought fiercely, and spent the blood bills, the conviction that they were fighting for the future of their country, before politics failed them.
“Despite the weak position that Israel seemed at the beginning of the war, we turned the balance and achieved victory.” This was not an awkward formulation by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but rather an expression of Israeli military and political literature on the results of the “October War.” His admission of the crushing defeat suffered by the Israeli forces, in the first days of the war, half of the truth that cannot be hidden, but he denied the other half of the truth, which is that the American intervention in the supply of weapons and the failure of politics in Egypt, allowed Israel to claim that it is the victorious party!
The question is not what Netanyahu says, nor what other Israeli leaders say, but what we say, and to what extent we are prepared for the imminent dangers that threaten the marginalization of the Egyptian role, whether the Israeli era will be prolonged through free normalization, the forced division of Arab countries or investment in crisis. Existentialism is blocking the country as a crisis of the “Renaissance dam.”
In the War of Attrition, Israeli security theory was shaken before it broke down in October 1973.
There is a wave of normalization that includes a growing number of Arab countries, who see in the fallacy that their interests, their security and their very existence are in the free recognition of Israel.
It is the psychological, political and military intimidation, which has portrayed for many regimes that the Israeli security theory cannot be broken with war or without war, that defeat is an irreversible amount and that intimidation is a steel shield that it protects the Hebrew state now and in the future, as it protects any other country in the region. Protection and security are necessary in the name of economic cooperation, benefit sharing, and intelligence information. This is a strategic defeat against the Israeli security theory, which contradicts the sacrifices and heroics of “October”.
Therefore, a country like Sudan rushes to a normalization agreement, in the name of a political realism that sees the main American condition to remove its name from the terrorism list, to take that step and that the maximum demand for economic aid be! Saudi Arabia is on the same line, preparing to conclude a standardization agreement soon.
The television statements aired by Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi ambassador to Washington, were not simply a response to what he saw as a denial of the Kingdom’s role in supporting the Palestinian cause, but rather a prelude. of the imminent conclusion of a normalization agreement with Israel.
In history, he is a man with close historical ties to the George W. Bush administration during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and has long-standing ties to the Israelis. By virtue of serving for years as the Saudi intelligence chief, he knows his goals from what he says. This is how policies and transformations flow freely into the mill of Israeli security theory.
Unworthy piety, imposes its will without objections, aspires to lead the region without renouncing its population project and its expansionist character.
We are facing a kind of free oath of allegiance to the “Israeli era”, or a redefinition of the Hebrew state, which since the declaration of its state on May 15, 1948 has never defined its borders, nor has it formulated a theory of security according to legitimate interests, or that can be accepted in accordance with international laws. According to what the president of the United States, Donald Trump, called “the peace of power”, everything is moved by considerations of fear and intimidation, and all politics are based on the tools of military and covert action.
If the normalization scenario comes to an end, one Arab country after another, then the nature of the conflict will not change, and neither does Israel intend to amend its theory of security. The key to the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, and everything is subject to collapse if Israeli power comes to an end and Arab weakness comes to an end. While the Arabs came to the threshold of the Hebrew state out of fear of its power and a request to protect it, what preserves Israel’s future is to proceed with the confirmation of its security theory of raising its level of power and using it as much as possible. and available in military and intelligence actions against sites in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, for political purposes. First of all, and to demonstrate their presence by terrorizing others.
Regardless of the degree of economic cooperation and deceptive peace talks, it is almost completely impossible for Israel to abandon its theory of security and its reasons for possessing power and its means of intimidation. On the eve of the terrifying era, the Egyptian role is almost required to be aborted by marginalization so that it is possible to make room for the Israeli role to be the center of political, strategic and economic interactions. As for lethargy, the entire Arab system is collapsing.
* Egyptian writer and journalist
Subscribe to «News» on YouTube here
