On October 6, 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise offensive intended to recover part of the territories conquered in June 1967 by the Israeli army. This simultaneous attack significantly destabilized the Jewish state, which nevertheless ended up repelling its attackers. 50 years later, Le Figaro looks back on these events which left a lasting mark on the geopolitical landscape in the region.
Frédérique Schillo is a historian and specialist in Israel. She notably published with the journalist Marius Schattner The Yom Kippur War Will Not Take Place – How Israel Was Surprised, published by Archipoche.
LE FIGARO.- Fifty years after the Yom Kippur War, how has the geopolitical landscape evolved in the region?
Frédérique SCHILLO.- The main geopolitical movement lies in the fact that Egypt has been definitively attached to the Western camp. Russia today retains important strongholds in the region but has lost its influence in Egypt. There has been a redistribution since, with a new balance: Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Saudi Arabia are now in the Western camp. The Russian sphere includes Syria and remains close to the Iranians and Lebanon.
Today, Israel’s enemy has changed. This was Egypt and Syria 50 years ago. It is mainly Iran today, and its armed wing in Lebanon, Hezbollah, which is increasing the provocations at the border. Is a new neighborhood war possible?
The Yom Kippur War was Israel’s last major conventional war. If a conflict were to take place, it would rather be a proxy war, via the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, or Hamas in Gaza. Netanyahu often threatens an existential war with Iran. But we’re not there yet. I do not believe that Iran is prepared for such a war. Iran, like Syria or Lebanon, are themselves in situations of great instability: it is unthinkable that they would set something up. But the situation at the borders is extremely flammable.
In my opinion, the real existential threat lies in the possibility of civil war. The Israeli military repeats it over and over again. And we’re almost there. It may have started this year at Dizengoff Square in Tel Aviv, on Yom Kippur, with these clashes between religious and secular people, between supporters of the government and opponents who range from the extreme left to the center right.
How weakened is Israel by this unstable political situation, with the resulting justice reform and strike by reservists? Could his enemies be tempted to take advantage of this chaotic situation?
Today, Israel is in an extremely vulnerable position. And his enemies could very well take advantage of it. Former soldiers were also worried about it.
Some well-known ex-soldiers have warned that Israel is once again on the verge of a “Kippur disaster”, that is to say the chronicle of a predicted confrontation. Some say: “It’s October 6 at 2 p.m. (the start time of the Yom Kippur War, Editor’s note).” This metaphor means that the enemies are ready to attack and Israel sees nothing, like in 1973.
Above all, with the reserve strike movement, we see that few people would be ready to sacrifice themselves for Israel. In 1920, Zionist activist Joseph Trumpeldor said, “It is good to die for one’s country.”
But if a war were to occur today, nearly 10,000 reservists would refuse to serve the state. Demonstrators in recent weeks, including many veterans of 1973, are now chanting that they cannot serve a government that would bring down Israeli democracy.
Have the lessons of the Yom Kippur War nevertheless been learned, so as not to repeat such a disaster?
The Yom Kippur War was truly a textbook case of military disaster, particularly from an intelligence point of view, because Israel had the best in the field but saw nothing coming. Today, there would probably be no surprise: the slightest weak signal is detected and taken seriously.
Today, the Hebrew State would mobilize immediately, whereas it delayed too long in 1973, which cost many human lives. Today, Israel would not hesitate to carry out a preventive attack, as its doctrine requires. Today, Israel would not leave the last word to military intelligence, which was convinced until the last moment in 1973 that the Arabs would not dare attack. There was a terrible hubris, linked to the euphoria of the post-Six Day War, which would not be reproduced today.
The Camp David Accords, following the Yom Kippur War, allowed Israel, for the first time, to sign peace with its Egyptian neighbor. Are the 2020 Abraham Accords, which link Israel to several key players in the Arab-Muslim world, a guarantee of security for the Jewish state?
Yes, and that is why they were carried out. With the Abraham Accords, we are dealing with transactional diplomacy, with military exchanges and military cooperation at stake. Arab states need Israeli military tools and information.
It is an assurance that there will be no conflict and a way of dividing the Arab world. It means winning over the entire axis of the Sunnis, those we call the moderates with the Gulf States, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco. And why not, tomorrow, Saudi Arabia. Because the extension of these Abraham Accords would be the signing of a normalization agreement with the kingdom, which would lead to an upheaval in the Near and Middle East. This would be a guarantee of peace for Israel.
These agreements appear to come from a common front against Iran. But Palestinian demands remain. Can Israel both contain the Palestinian threat and thwart Iranian plans?
The Palestinian question had a merely symbolic value in the Abraham Accords. The quid pro quo offered by Arab heads of state was that Israel renounced the annexation of the West Bank.
Since then, a lot has happened: there have been deep crises in the West Bank but also within the State of Israel itself, with riots in mixed cities. And the Gulf States have remained silent. Since the signing of the accords, the West Bank has changed: Hamas thrives on suffering and economic hardship, manufactures its own rockets and launches them from West Bank territory, notably in Jenin. This is a new security challenge for Israel.