Dispelling
the Myth of Our Military
Interview
of Military Historian Uri Milstein by Shai Gefen
Uri
Milstein is a historian and researcher of the wars in Israel. He
is considered one of the greatest experts in military research and
Israeli wars. Forty years ago, Refael Eitan appointed him as
historian of the paratroopers. Since then, Uri Milstein has
researched Israel’s wars and military history.
He has
written 35 books on military topics. His books and research are
considered reliable because he has had access to classified
military documents. He lectures under the auspices of the
University of Latvia in Israel. He is excommunicated by the
Israeli establishment, who sees him as challenging their position.
As a
historian and researcher of Israel’s wars for many years, how do
you view the fighting going on in Lebanon today?
What’s
going on in Lebanon today is a classic example of rebellion. We
have been waging war there for some time now, and in such
instances, if we are failing and cannot admit to it, the first
ones to realize this are the soldiers, those on the scene. They
begin to feel that they are fighting for nothing because of
decisions being made by people who don’t know what they’re
doing. This has been going on for some time now, since the Yom
Kippur War, and even more strongly since the Peace in Galilee war.
Now, nobody wants to fight anymore.
Why
do you mention the Yom Kippur War?
The
failure on the part of the military establishment began with the
War of Attrition, which took place after the Six Day War. It
actually began with the famous “Letter of the Shministim.” At
that time, in 1970, a group of crack infantry wrote a letter to
Prime Minister Golda Meir, saying that they did not want to sit in
a trench because they did not want to be reported as casualties of
war. The people who wrote the letter back then are the ones who
today head the Israeli media.
For
example, today Shmuel Shemtov is the director of Channel 2.
That’s when this new behavior began, with protest movements
arising after the Yom Kippur War, and continuing with Shalom
Achshav demonstrations following the war in Lebanon. Now we have
the Four Mothers Organization.
But
is it not a fact that there are people who are not prepared to
fight for an ideology they disapprove of?
The
basis for this phenomenon is the knowledge that the military
establishment simply doesn’t work. The problem is even more
acute when nobody is ready to admit to this. The political
establishment continues assigning it various tasks that end up
failing, whether for political reasons or for other ridiculous
motives, such as the claim that one nation cannot rule over
another, and you may not oppress a nation by imposing a foreign
government and the like.
You
cannot deny the achievements of the I.D.F. over the years, can
you?
The
truth is that our army was never an army in the true sense of the
term, and it will never operate normally. If we had successes in
the past, it was at a time when the Arabs were at a low point,
such as during the Six Day War. Although, even then it was an
awesome miracle. However, the Arabs have since beefed up their
military, while ours has declined. One failure follows another,
withdrawal follows withdrawal. We lost our ability to fight a long
time ago.
The
air force executed some impressive exercises over Lebanon
recently. They don’t impress you?
Those
weren’t military exercises at all; they were technical
maneuvers, and you don’t need an army for that. In theory, you
could hire a civilian airline to bomb the enemy.
So
how should the army respond in Lebanon?
Right
now the I.D.F. can do nothing. We have a military establishment
today that doesn’t have an army, which is why it fails at
everything it tries to do. The reason is that our army is more of
an ideological army than a professional army, which is what it
should be.
Today
there is public debate about whether we want all of Eretz Yisroel
or not. In my opinion, the debate is not focusing on the true
issue. Yitzchok Rabin was also raised in the school of thought of Eretz
Yisroel Shleima as part of the Achdus Avoda movement.
So why did Rabin abandon the idea? Because he came to the
conclusion that we don’t have an army that can enforce national
imperatives, which is what led to the situation in which he gave
away land for peace to our enemies.
Rabin
did not agree to the Oslo Accords because of our military might,
as he and his followers like to boast, but because they no longer
believed in the military prowess of the I.D.F. Rabin said a number
of times that he was going to concede, because he had no army.
There are many witnesses to this statement.
It began
with our actions following the Yom Kippur War. All the
“processes,” including the Camp David Accords, resulted from
our military failures. If we really wanted peace with Sadat, we
could have done that before the Yom Kippur War. Why did we have to
sacrifice the lives of 2,500 young men? The Camp David Accords
were signed after our failure in the Yom Kippur War.
A
current example: The situation in Lebanon, which deteriorated
because of Barak’s failure as Chief of Staff. He goes to make
“peace” not because of political attainments or principles but
because of the failure of the military establishment, which is not
capable of waging war.
Our
problem begins from a security standpoint; the rest are just the
results of that. This is true for the general population, as well.
The military failures are what make the people ready to give up
their determination to stand strong. For this reason, they ask for
a withdrawal. They tell the people great things about peace and
hope and a “new Middle East,” but the reality is quite
pathetic.
Aren’t
the intensive military exercises the air force is carrying out
over Lebanon, military enough for you?
I can
promise you that if one time, G-d forbid, the Hizballah succeeds
in shooting down a plane, the air force will stop attacking, just
like the naval commando did four years ago. You’re not immune
forever. The fact that we can shell them from the air means
nothing.
What
do you identify as the army’s breaking point?
The army
is completely political, and not professional. It was founded by
the Hagana for the purpose of protecting the government of Mapai
and Ben Gurion. The I.D.F. was built on the foundations of the
Hagana. That was the army’s first sin – an army built by
people whose mission was political, not military. They were just
never willing to admit their mistakes.
Unfortunately,
they tried to hide and censor every error throughout the wars,
starting with the War of Liberation until today. So they don’t
allow us to find our weak points and learn any lessons. You know
that an infrastructure that doesn’t reveal its weak points has
to fold. The I.D.F. has folded, and you can see this by examining
everything it has done in the past 25 years. We failed in the War
of Attrition, we failed in the Yom Kippur War, and we failed in
Lebanon, too. Whatever we attempted, failed.
According
to this view of things, how is it that we still exist?
First of
all, from a Jewish perspective, Hashem watches over us. However, Chazal
say that you may not rely on a miracle, and indeed, miracles
don’t happen every day. The enemy, although it doesn’t have
tremendous capabilities, is constantly improving its military
might. Since the Yom Kippur War, Egypt has become extremely
strong, and if we lost during the Yom Kippur War, today we can
actually lose the country, chalila.
I repeat
this to everyone, including Lubavitcher Chassidim who feel
strongly about matters concerning Eretz Yisroel. The question is
not whether we will rule over the Kotel or Har HaBayis,
or over Chevron or Sh’chem. If we continue on the path we’ve
been taking, the question is — although it is hard to think
about it or say it — whether or not we will continue to exist.
People
are not asking that question. They are asking whether we should
leave Lebanon or not. What do you think?
In my
opinion the question is not about leaving Lebanon. We are fleeing
Lebanon just like the United States fled from Vietnam. The
difference between the Americans and us is that the Vietnamese
couldn’t annihilate the United States! True, they lost some
international control, but America recovered. If we retreat from
Lebanon, the danger is far greater, for all the Arab nations are
watching to see what will happen. Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and Iran are
waiting to see how things will work out. If we flee because of the
Hizballah, they will be convinced to advance, and then we will
have to contend not with guerilla forces, but with organized
military might in all-out war.
In my
opinion, people don’t appreciate the depth of the dilemma. They
attempt to portray every issue in a superficial and populist
manner, and don’t get to the bottom of the processes and events
that occur. They act like ostriches and say that everything is
okay.
Maybe
if we withdraw and sign peace accords everything will be better?
There is
no question that even if there will be a peace accord, there will
be no peace. As far as the Arabs are concerned, peace does not
mean conciliation on a religious, national, or social level.
The
Arabs hate Israel because Israel is the bone in their throat. Even
if we were to make some deal with them and give them territorial
possessions, we wouldn’t eradicate the hatred they have towards
us. On the contrary, giving away land intensifies the danger. If
they get land, we become weaker and they become stronger, and then
all-out war may break out.
How
do you envision that occurring?
For
example, they will demand that we go back to the borders of the
Green Line and dismantle all the settlements. Of course, we will
refuse, at least that’s the way it looks now. Then they will say
that since we weren’t ready to give back what we took from them
by force in war, they will take it back from us in war. It is
quite likely that in such a war we would not lose as we did in the
Yom Kippur War, but we would simply give up.
Do
you see a real threat for all-out war with the neighboring
countries?
Definitely.
The danger exists as long as there are religious and national
disputes. War will not begin as long as we are strong and they
fear we will beat them. In the case of all-out war, we cannot rely
on the U.S. As the navi describes it, “it’s like
leaning on a broken reed.” It’s possible that the U.S. will
stop taking an interest in us. It is very likely that in another
few years, a U.S. president will be far more interested in the
many millions of Arabs and their oil fields than five million
Israeli citizens. That’s why we cannot fall back on the U.S. and
their guarantees as a reason to give up all of our strategic
holdings.
Why
isn’t the man on the street afraid of what you’re saying?
People
don’t understand it, not even senior military people. For 50
years they have been brainwashing the people about our amazing
military might, to the point that this has become an article of
faith. A person has to believe in something, and so one of the
articles of faith of the secular Israeli is faith in the army.
Another
reason is that our country operates Bolshevik style with
everything under the government’s control. The editorial boards,
which champion secular culture are sustained by the government,
which is why they aren’t critical of it.
In
your opinion, how can we get the army into shape?
The
solution is not more tanks and mortars. As I said, the military
establishment is like an atrophied muscle, and it requires
sweeping reforms. We have to overhaul the system completely. The
moment the army becomes something whose sole purpose is to prepare
for war and to provide security, the whole situation will change.
How
do you explain the fact that Barak, the chief of staff, who was
awarded five medals, is leading the army down the drain?
It’s
all an illusion, a mirage. Barak was one of the worst chiefs of
staff in the history of the I.D.F. He failed at everything he did.
If we look to see who were the leaders of the military throughout
the 18 years of failure in Lebanon, today you will find them in
positions of foreign policy. It was Ehud Barak, prime minister
today; Chief of Staff Lipkin Shachak, who today serves as a
minister in the government; Chief of the Northern Command was
Yitzchok Mordechai, also a minister in the government. These
people failed throughout.
You can
say that every chief of staff handed over a worse army to the next
chief of staff than the one he inherited. The army today is at an
all-time low, to the point that a soldier in a paratrooper unit
serving in Lebanon says that he doesn’t agree to attacking, and
he’s praised for that. This is a system gone haywire.
I think
we have the tools to change this situation, but we have to want to
use them and understand what is going on.
What
would you say to a mother who says she doesn’t want her son to
die in Lebanon?
A
country doesn’t take mothers’ desires into account. A country
needs an army in order to defend itself from enemies both within
and without. Mothers can express their opinion during elections.
Let’s
think for a moment. Why is it that the mother doesn’t want her
son to serve in Lebanon? Because she sees how the army is being
run. If the army were run properly, the mother would be willing to
pay the price. Unfortunately, the hysterical reactions on the part
of mothers is ruining the war against the Hizballah.
Can
you offer any hope?
There is
some hope, but woe to such hope. Our hope depends on the enemy’s
lack of military capability. From a military standpoint, the Arabs
are behind the times and they don’t manage to improve much,
despite the huge amount of arms they buy and warehouse. Egypt, for
example, is indeed fully fortified and armed, but there is famine
there, the economy is faltering and the internal government system
is badly run.
The
situation isn’t at all simple. Woe to the country who has to
rely on the fact that the enemy won’t attack them because it is
weaker.
What
do you say to the fact that Yesha and Yerushalayim are being
discussed?
It’s
all connected. Since the military establishment is weak, we keep
making concessions, and in order to achieve an agreement they
would even relinquish Yerushalayim! Ten years ago, who would have
believed that the government would dare to give up the Golan
Heights?
Our
problem is that we have an enemy who wants to annihilate us, even
were we to live in the most narrow of borders. If we give them
additional land, we weaken ourselves and strengthen their
motivation to press on.
And
the Left doesn’t understand this?
The
problem is people are tired. The Left thinks that if we give back
land and go back to the borders of ‘67, motivation will return
because then the war will be in our very house. They are mistaken
of course, because things won’t end there.
How
far can it go?
The
Arabs’ goal right now is to push us back to the borders of
‘67. They say they want to return Israel to its “natural
size” and then they talk about returning Israel to the borders
of November 1929, the Partition borders of the U.N. In other
words, they want to have Yaffo, Ramla, and the western Galil, and
they want Yerushalayim to be an international city.
Will
Israel agree to this?
I
don’t know. Under the circumstances, you reach a moment when the
crisis is so acute that you look for an alternative.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who are ready to accept
this. Our self-confidence is very low. Maybe things will improve
and people will regain their senses and start taking control of
the situation. That would stop the withdrawals.
It has
happened before. In the middle of the ‘50’s our self
confidence was low until the “Unit 101” came and began beating
the enemy mercilessly, changing everything. What “Unit 101”
accomplished was mainly to boost morale in the I.D.F. Today as
well, we need very serious changes in order to get back on our
feet once again. Halevai it should happen.