DOCSLIB.ORG

Gaza in Strategic Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gaza in Strategic Perspective Gaza in strategic perspective The following is by Thomas Mitchell, Ph. D., an independent scholar who occasionally contributes to this blog: For some 55 out of Israel’s 60 years of existence, Israel and the Arabs have been playing out a long-term strategic game. The Arabs, unable to beat Israel in a conventional war and destroy it or force it to peace on their terms, have preferred a strategy of attrition carried out through Palestinian fedayeen or self-sacrificers. The Palestinian fedayeen usually pursued a terrorist strategy of attacking civilian targets on the grounds that no Israelis were innocent and therefore all were legitimate targets—the argument of terrorists everywhere. Israel attempted to counter them through a series of defensive measures such as roving patrols, minefields, electrified fences, etc. But some of the fedayeen always got through and caused Israeli civilian casualties. Israel therefore developed the strategy of retaliation. It would respond periodically with disproportionate attacks on the infrastructure of the country that the attacks were coming from. Usually it was police stations or even army bases—security infrastructure. This led to a series of escalations resulting in a conventional war followed by a period of quiet. There was a period of Palestinian infiltration from 1949-56, followed by Israeli reprisals from 1953 to 1956, supported by Prime Minister David Ben- Gurion, Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon, and Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Moshe Dayan. This is the period in which Arik Sharon first became a household name in Israel as he was the instrument of Israeli retaliation. This cycle ended with Israeli collaboration with Britain and France in an attack on Egypt that resulted in severe embarrassment for the Europeans and ten years of relative peace and quiet for Israel. Yasir Arafat, George Habash and Ahmed Jibril began the second round in the mid-1960s with Syrian-sponsored terrorist attacks carried out through the territory of Jordan and Lebanon. Israeli retaliation for these strikes and attacks on Syria’s attempt to divert the headwaters of the Jordan River led to the June 1967 war. This war tripled the size of the territory that Jerusalem controlled but led to less than a year of peace before Fatah and the other Palestinian fedayeen organizations were embarking on a new round of terror attacks. The IDF fought a war of attrition with Palestinian infiltrators along the Jordan River that escalated when Egypt joined in along the Suez Canal in March 1969. The Israeli Air Force devastated the Egyptian economy with attacks on Egypt’s economic infrastructure in reprisal for Egyptian shelling of Israeli troops along the canal. This round ended in a cease-fire along the Canal negotiated by the Americans, the death of Egyptian President Gamel Abdul Nasser from a heart attack and the Jordanian civil war. A multiple hijacking of airliners carried out by the PFLP and threats against the hostages held within Jordan forced King Hussein to move against the fedayeen and expel them from Jordan. The fedayeen then moved to southern Lebanon—Fatahland—where they had the sanction of the Arab League and a weak Lebanese government to operate against Israel. After several years of attacks and reprisals Israel began intervening in the Lebanese civil war that broke out in April 1975 on the side of the Christians. Seven years later Sharon and Menahem Begin, with the partial consent of the government, invaded Lebanon and drove the PLO out of Fatahland and Beirut. An Israeli occupation quickly turned the Shia population of southern Lebanon from allies into deadly enemies and Hezbollah was born under Iranian sponsorship. Hezbollah conducted a deadly and skilled war of attrition against the IDF and its Lebanese allies for the next eighteen years until the Israel public finally decided that Israeli interests in Lebanon weren’t worth the casualties. Israel withdrew from Lebanon unilaterally and the Arabs proclaimed their first military victory against Israel (they also proclaimed one in October 1973, but few took that claim seriously). Hamas was born in the first Intifada and came of age during the Oslo period. In October 2000 a fourth series of attacks and reprisals began with the Al- Aksa Intifada. From 2001 to 2004, Israel carried out a series of raids and invasions into the West Bank to deal with the suicide bombings perpetrated by the Islamists of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Arafat was isolated, quarantined in his Ramallah compound, and stripped of Western influence until his death. Finally, Israeli casualties were brought to a more acceptable level. A number of conclusions can be drawn from this sad history. First, Israel has always held the landlords rather than the tenants responsible for bad behavior. Second, the initial result of Israel’s strategy is escalation and a rise to the level of violence and suffering but eventually a catharsis is reached. Third, this strategy has come about because of an Arab refusal to deal with Israel. This was initially a general refusal, then a Palestinian refusal and finally a refusal just by the Islamist radicals. Fourth, this strategy has over time caused various Arab actors to drop out of the Arab consensus. First, Egypt exited in 1974, followed by Jordan in 1994 (although in practice, decades earlier), and the PLO in 1993 and 2004. Today, only Iran and its Syrian ally and its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas remain in the consensus of rejection. Fifth, this strategy has unpredictable results over the medium term. An ineffectual Palestinian threat in southern Lebanon was replaced by a very serious Hezbollah Shia threat. Before the Arabs saw Israel as a second South Africa or Algeria they saw it as a modern Crusader state. The Crusaders lasted for two centuries in the Holy Land from 1099 to 1291. Crusader and Arab/Saracen fortunes varied during that period. Arab rejectionists take the long view and figure that time is on their side. Israel also believes, incorrectly, that time is on its side. The Crusaders survived as long as they did because they were able to negotiate truces with the Saracens, particularly with Salah al-Din. All Israeli actions should be aimed at enhancing negotiations with the relevant authorities that will result in peace on acceptable terms. Hamas is now the landlord in Gaza..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Palestinian Refugee Issue
    MENU Policy Analysis / PolicyWatch 238 Israeli-Lebanese Negotiations: The Palestinian Refugee Issue Dec 28, 1999 Brief Analysis yrian foreign minister Faruq al-Shara's recent announcement that Damascus and Beirut will sign peace S treaties with Israel together is not surprising, considering Syria's hegemony in Lebanon. But while Israel, Syria, and the United States have expressed guarded optimism about the latest resumption of peace talks, Lebanon has been more reserved in its enthusiasm. This is mainly due to its concern over the final disposition of the Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon. Hostile Minority Under Siege According to United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) figures, there are approximately 350,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon (about 9 percent of the country's total resident population). The refugees have long been viewed with suspicion by their Lebanese hosts, who cite the delicate sectarian balance in the country, heavy Palestinian involvement in the Lebanese civil war, and the military attacks that provoked the Israeli invasions of 1978 and 1982, as justification for their spurning of the refugees. Although no national census has been held in decades, available evidence indicates that the country is 70 percent Muslim and 30 percent Christian. The longstanding conflict between and among the various Muslim and Christian sects led to the explosion of the Lebanese civil war of 1975-89. Their differences--papered over in the 1989 Ta'if agreement which is designed to guarantee representation of each group and subgroup in specific positions in the government–remain pronounced. The Lebanese government rejects the integration of the refugees into the country, largely because it would upset whatever balance exists between religious and ethnic communities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins of Hamas: Militant Legacy Or Israeli Tool?
    THE ORIGINS OF HAMAS: MILITANT LEGACY OR ISRAELI TOOL? JEAN-PIERRE FILIU Since its creation in 1987, Hamas has been at the forefront of armed resistance in the occupied Palestinian territories. While the move- ment itself claims an unbroken militancy in Palestine dating back to 1935, others credit post-1967 maneuvers of Israeli Intelligence for its establishment. This article, in assessing these opposing nar- ratives and offering its own interpretation, delves into the historical foundations of Hamas starting with the establishment in 1946 of the Gaza branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (the mother organization) and ending with its emergence as a distinct entity at the outbreak of the !rst intifada. Particular emphasis is given to the Brotherhood’s pre-1987 record of militancy in the Strip, and on the complicated and intertwining relationship between the Brotherhood and Fatah. HAMAS,1 FOUNDED IN the Gaza Strip in December 1987, has been the sub- ject of numerous studies, articles, and analyses,2 particularly since its victory in the Palestinian legislative elections of January 2006 and its takeover of Gaza in June 2007. Yet despite this, little academic atten- tion has been paid to the historical foundations of the movement, which grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Gaza branch established in 1946. Meanwhile, two contradictory interpretations of the movement’s origins are in wide circulation. The !rst portrays Hamas as heir to a militant lineage, rigorously inde- pendent of all Arab regimes, including Egypt, and harking back to ‘Izz al-Din al-Qassam,3 a Syrian cleric killed in 1935 while !ghting the British in Palestine.
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Security Council
    United Nations A/58/837–S/2004/465 General Assembly Distr.: General Security Council 8 June 2004 Original: English General Assembly Security Council Fifty-eighth session Fifty-ninth year Agenda items 37 and 156 The situation in the Middle East Measures to eliminate international terrorism Identical letters dated 8 June 2004 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council I wish to draw your attention to the latest violations of the Blue Line from Lebanese territory. Yesterday morning, 7 June 2004, six 107-mm missiles were fired from Lebanese territory at an Israeli naval vessel patrolling in Israeli territorial waters. Four of the rockets hit Israeli territory, south of the Israeli-Lebanese border, just meters from the Israeli town of Rosh Hanikra. The rockets also gravely endangered the safety and security of UNIFIL personnel stationed in the area. Israeli security forces identified the source of the rocket fire as Ahmed Jibril’s Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Damascus-based Palestinian terrorist organization operating in southern Lebanon. Israeli aircraft responded to these attacks by measured defensive action, in accordance with its right and duty of self-defense, against a PFLP terrorist base located near Beirut, which is used as a platform for terrorist activity in Lebanon. No injuries resulted from this defensive measure. This afternoon, 8 June 2004, Hizbullah terrorists perpetrated a heavy mortar attack from Lebanon across the Blue Line, wounding an Israeli soldier in the Har Dov region.
    [Show full text]
  • Syrian Sponsorship of Global Terrorism: the Need for Accountability by Matthew Levitt
    MENU Policy Analysis / PolicyWatch 660 Syrian Sponsorship of Global Terrorism: The Need for Accountability by Matthew Levitt Sep 19, 2002 ABOUT THE AUTHORS Matthew Levitt Matthew Levitt is the Fromer-Wexler Fellow and director of the Reinhard Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at The Washington Institute. Brief Analysis n September 18, 2002, Matthew Levitt, the Institute's senior fellow in terrorism studies, testified before the O House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, Committee on International Relations. The following is a summary of his remarks. Read the full testimony. With its longstanding support for terrorism, Syria poses an exceptional challenge to U.S. antiterror policy. On September 20, 2001, President George W. Bush declared that "from this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This declaration implicitly offered state sponsors a virtual amnesty for previous actions if they would cease sponsoring terror, an offer that Syria has thus far rejected. In June 2002, the president directly called on Syria to "choose the right side in the war on terror by closing terrorist camps and expelling terrorist organizations." Yet to date, there have been no consequences for Syria's continued and proactive support for terrorist groups of "global reach." If nothing else, the Syria Accountability Bill now under consideration would reestablish the credibility of the president's words by setting up a measure of accountability for
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligence Report FEE5
    DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE Intelligence Report ESAU L: THE FEDAYEEN (Annex to ESAU XLVIII: Fedayeen-- “Men of Sacrifice’y 1 NO 5 FEE5 . WARNING It is to be seen only by perso indoctrinated and authorized to receive// information within the Government to which#hsmitted; its security mwbe maintained in ac- cordance with1 1 \ I I egardless of the advantage d by the Director of Cen .. I A NOTE ON SOURCES This paper relies primarily on clandestine reporting, particularly for the internal structure and operations of the various fedayeen organizations. I The repostlng 1s quite guoa on poiiticdi as-wf the subject such as the maneuverings of the fedayeen groups, their internal disputes, and their ideological and tactical views. However, our information is more scanty on such important matters as the number of i armed men in each group, the sources and mechanics of funding, and details of the sources and methods of delivery of arms shipments to the fedayeen. I H TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FATAH AND THE PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANIZATION (PLO) Fatah -- Background to February 1969, (I 1: 1 PLO -- Background to February 1969 c. 8 Fatah Takeover of PLO -- February 1969, ~ LI ,11 Fatah Attempts to Control the Palestine Liberation Army (PLA) ~ , 15 Fatah Retains Its Identity, .20 Fatah Tactics and Operations, .24 Fatah Funding s 0 0 3 0 0 ' (I c 0 0 G 0 D 0 0 .26 THE A3IAB NATIONALIST MOVEMENT (ANMI AND ITS FEDAYEEN WINGS ANMo 0 f 0 0 c 0 0 0 c. 0 0 0 0 J li 0 9.0 c c .30 Background on the ANM's Fedayeen Wings, .32 Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP 1 0 C U C 3 0 0 0 G u 0 u (I c c 35 Organization c 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 c c 0 3 c 38 Funding, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 c p 0 42 Popular Democratic Front for Liberatlon of Palestine (PDFLP) Strategy ., .44 Organization ,, .45 Funding, .48 PFLP General Command, , .51 1- I 1- (Contents Con t) .
    [Show full text]
  • The Palestinians: Background and U.S
    The Palestinians: Background and U.S. Relations Jim Zanotti Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs January 31, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34074 The Palestinians: Background and U.S. Relations Summary This report covers current issues in U.S.-Palestinian relations. It also contains an overview of Palestinian society and politics and descriptions of key Palestinian individuals and groups— chiefly the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the Palestinian Authority (PA), Fatah, Hamas, and the Palestinian refugee population. The “Palestinian question” is important not only to Palestinians, Israelis, and their Arab state neighbors, but to many countries and non-state actors in the region and around the world—including the United States—for a variety of religious, cultural, and political reasons. U.S. policy toward the Palestinians is marked by efforts to establish a Palestinian state through a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; to counter Palestinian terrorist groups; and to establish norms of democracy, accountability, and good governance in West Bank areas administered by the Fatah-led PA. Congress has appropriated assistance to support Palestinian governance and development while trying to prevent the funds from benefitting Palestinians who advocate violence against Israelis. Since the signing of the Oslo Accord in 1993, Congress has committed more than $5 billion in bilateral assistance to the Palestinians, over half of it since mid-2007. Among the issues in U.S. policy toward the Palestinians is how to deal with the political leadership of Palestinian society, which is divided between the Fatah-led PA in parts of the West Bank and Hamas (a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization) in the Gaza Strip.
    [Show full text]
  • The Return of Palestinian Nationalist Terrorism | the Washington Institute
    MENU Policy Analysis / PolicyWatch 379 The Return of Palestinian Nationalist Terrorism by Matthew Levitt May 3, 2002 ABOUT THE AUTHORS Matthew Levitt Matthew Levitt is the Fromer-Wexler Fellow and director of the Reinhard Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence at The Washington Institute. Brief Analysis he State Department's annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report, which is scheduled for release in late May, T is set to be a much longer and more detailed document than before. Among the many issues the report will have to address is the resurrection of secular Palestinian terrorist groups, some of which have not appeared on U.S. government terrorist lists in the past. The steady escalation of terrorist tactics and operations over the past year and a half is due as much to these groups as it is to Palestinian Islamist groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad that have dominated the Palestinian terrorism scene over the last decade. Palestinian nationalist terrorism currently has two components: 1) dormant secular groups such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)—referred to collectively as "the fronts"—that have been revitalized after several years of inactivity; and 2) newly active nationalist, non-Islamist militias connected to the Palestinian Authority (PA), such as the Fatah Tanzim. Resurrection of the Fronts Prior to the start of the current intifada in September 2000, the PFLP had been largely inactive. After three years of relative silence, the PFLP held reconciliation talks with the PA in August 1999 and was almost dropped from U.S. government terrorist lists.
    [Show full text]
  • The Palestinians Between State Failure and Civil War
    The Palestinians Between State Failure and Civil War Michael Eisenstadt Policy Focus #78 | December 2007 All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any infor- mation storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. © 2007 by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy Published in 2007 in the United States of America by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1050, Washington, DC 20036. Design by Daniel Kohan, Sensical Design and Communication Front cover: Palestinian women cover their faces from the smell of garbage piled in the street in Gaza City, Octo- ber 23, 2006. Copyright AP Wide World Photos/Emilio Morenatti. About the Author Michael Eisenstadt is a senior fellow and director of the Military and Security Studies Program at The Washington Institute. Prior to joining the Institute in 1989, he worked as a civilian military analyst with the U.S. Army. An officer in the Army Reserve, he served on active duty in 2001–2002 at U.S. Central Command and on the Joint Staff during Operation Enduring Freedom and the planning for Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is coeditor (with Patrick Clawson) of the Institute paper Deterring the Ayatollahs: Complications in Applying Cold War Strategy to Iran. n n n The opinions expressed in this Policy Focus are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, its Board of Trustees, or its Board of Advisors.
    [Show full text]
  • Palestinians in Syria and the Syrian Uprising
    CASE ANALYSIS Palestinians in Syria and the Syrian Uprising Salah Hassan | October 2012 Palestinians in Syria and the Syrian Uprising Series: Case Analysis Salah Hassan | October 2012 Copyright © 2012 Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies. All Rights Reserved. ____________________________ The Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies is an independent research institute and think tank for the study of history and social sciences, with particular emphasis on the applied social sciences. The Center's paramount concern is the advancement of Arab societies and states, their cooperation with one another and issues concerning the Arab nation in general. To that end, it seeks to examine and diagnose the situation in the Arab world - states and communities- to analyze social, economic and cultural policies and to provide political analysis, from an Arab perspective. The Center publishes in both Arabic and English in order to make its work accessible to both Arab and non-Arab researchers. Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies PO Box 10277 Street No. 826, Zone 66 Doha, Qatar Tel.: +974 44199777 | Fax: +974 44831651 www.dohainstitute.org Table of Contents Introduction 1 The Palestinian National Movement in Syria 2 The Syrian Uprising: March 2011 5 Palestinians and the Syrian Uprising 6 The Palestinian Public’s Solidarity with the Uprising 16 Conclusion 21 PALESTINIANS IN SYRIA Introduction1 At the beginning of the twentieth century, there were no borders between Palestine and Syria; prior to that time, there was economic and social integration between the Palestinian and Syrian peoples. The Syrians took part in the Palestinian revolution of 1936 and contributed in attempts to repel Israel’s colonizing attack on Palestine’s territories in 1948, resulting in the Nakba.
    [Show full text]
  • The Naksa Day Events
    The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center June 7, 2011 Following the Naksa Day events, there was strong internal Palestinian criticism of Ahmed Jibril's organization (PFLP-GC), affiliated with the Syrian regime, and of other pro-Syrian organizations. They were blamed for cynically sending young Palestinians to their deaths to serve the interests of the Syrian and other regimes (possibly Iran). PFLP-GC and PFLP-Habash operatives were attacked by relatives of the slain Palestinians during funerals held in Al-Yarmukh refugee camp near Damascus. The PFLP-GC headquarters were torched. Palestinians in Al-Yarmukh refugee camp watch as the PFLP-GC headquarters go up in flames (electronic-intifada.net website, June 6, 2011). קל 128-11 2 Overview 1. The Naksa Day events, which ended (according to the Syrian media) with the deaths of 24 demonstrators, caused serious internal criticism among the refugees in Syria. The criticism was directed at the pro-Syrian Palestinian organizations based in Damascus, accusing them of responsibility for sending Palestinian youths to demonstrate in the Golan Heights, even though they knew of the IDF's preparations for preventing attempted invasions of Israeli territory. 2. The criticism focused on Ahmed Jibril's organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, which is affiliated with the Syrian regime and promotes its interests, collaborating with it for decades. Other operatives of pro- Syrian organizations, among them George Habash's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP-Habash), were also targeted and attacked by relatives of the dead youths. Al- Jazeera TV reported that during clashes in Al-Yarmukh refugee camp a number of Palestinians were killed and 20 were injured.
    [Show full text]
  • Lebanon's Legacy of Political Violence
    LEBANON Lebanon’s Legacy of Political Violence A Mapping of Serious Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Lebanon, 1975–2008 September 2013 International Center Lebanon’s Legacy of Political Violence for Transitional Justice Acknowledgments The Lebanon Mapping Team comprised Lynn Maalouf, senior researcher at the Memory Interdisciplinary Research Unit of the Center for the Study of the Modern Arab World (CEMAM); Luc Coté, expert on mapping projects and fact-finding commissions; Théo Boudruche, international human rights and humanitarian law consultant; and researchers Wajih Abi Azar, Hassan Abbas, Samar Abou Zeid, Nassib Khoury, Romy Nasr, and Tarek Zeineddine. The team would like to thank the committee members who reviewed the report on behalf of the university: Christophe Varin, CEMAM director, who led the process of setting up and coordinating the committee’s work; Annie Tabet, professor of sociology; Carla Eddé, head of the history and international relations department; Liliane Kfoury, head of UIR; and Marie-Claude Najm, professor of law and political science. The team extends its special thanks to Dima de Clerck, who generously shared the results of her fieldwork from her PhD thesis, “Mémoires en conflit dans le Liban d’après-guerre: le cas des druzes et des chrétiens du Sud du Mont-Liban.” The team further owes its warm gratitude to the ICTJ Beirut office team, particularly Carmen Abou Hassoun Jaoudé, Head of the Lebanon Program. ICTJ thanks the European Union for their support which made this project possible. International Center for Transitional Justice The International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) works to redress and prevent the most severe violations of human rights by confronting legacies of mass abuse.
    [Show full text]
  • NO VICTOR, NO VANQUISHED the Yom Kippur War Edgar O'ballance
    NO VICTOR, NO VANQUISHED The Yom Kippur War Edgar O'Ballance Contents List of illustrations List of maps Preface Acknowledgements 1 The Middle East Mirage 2 Operation Spark 3 Operation Badr 4 Fortress Israel 5 Storming the Bar Lev Line 6 Israeli Hesitation and Confusion 7 The Syrians Attack 8 The Egyptians Attack 9 General Reaction 10 Stalemate on the Eastern Front 11 On the West Bank 12 The Ruptured Cease-Fire 13 War in the Air 14 War at Sea 15 In Retrospect Illustrations Egyptians landing from rubber assault boats Ladders used to scale sand ramparts Capture of a Bar Lev Line fort Egyptian Rangers Israeli infantrymen in foxholes Knocked-out Syrian tanks near Red Ridge Israelis repair damaged tanks of Golan Plateau Egyptian armour crashing bridge Quay fort after surrender Egyptian infantrymen in the Sinai Israeli armour advancing toward Suez Canal Israeli armour on Golan Heights Israeli long-range artillery Jordanian soldiers on Golan Plateau Jordanian brigade commander and staff Israeli observation post Israeli armour near Deversoir Israeli soldiers at Sweet Water Canal Port Suez after Israeli bombardment Egyptian SAM-2 base Israelis recovering SAM-3 missile Egyptian MiG in flames Blazing oil tanks at Latakia Harbour Traditional broom on mast of Israeli missile boat Maps 1 The Concentrated Strike of over 200 Egyptian Aircraft, 6 October 1973 2 Egyptian Pictorial Presentation of Assault Crossing, 6 October 1973 3 Occupation of the Bar Lev Line Forts 4 Egyptian Penetration of the East Bank 5 Israeli Map Showing Plan for an Assault Crossing
    [Show full text]