Britain: Egyptians Rejected Soviets as ‘Sole Advisor’

British Prime Minister Edward Heath and US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in London on December 12, 1973 (Getty Images)
British Prime Minister Edward Heath and US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in London on December 12, 1973 (Getty Images)
TT

Britain: Egyptians Rejected Soviets as ‘Sole Advisor’

British Prime Minister Edward Heath and US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in London on December 12, 1973 (Getty Images)
British Prime Minister Edward Heath and US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in London on December 12, 1973 (Getty Images)

The recent declassification of historical British government records, dating from the period following the “October War,” has provided insight into the communication between the conservative government of that era and the US administration as they grappled with the consequences of the conflict.

These documents indicate that former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger reached an “informal understanding” with the Soviet Union to “restrain” the supply of weapons being sent to the warring parties.

While Kissinger’s initial focus was on achieving a ceasefire, the British noted that both the Americans and the Soviets had not considered who would oversee the enforcement of the ceasefire, particularly on the Egyptian front, where the situation was “highly complex.”

While secret proceedings primarily addressed the ceasefire and peace conference efforts, which were not favored by Kissinger, a significant portion of them revolved around the Arab oil embargo on Western nations following the October War in 1973 .

This development prompted the British to begin preparations for imposing fuel rationing, as revealed in the documents.

The documents also unveil that the then conservative government expressed concerns about a pro-Israel lobby in the British media.

They perceived that supporters of Israel in the UK were portraying its stance on the Middle East conflict incorrectly by depicting it as succumbing to Arab pressures.

Notably, during Edward Heath’s government in power during the October War, it was observed that unquestioning endorsement of Israel’s perspective without criticism did not serve the interests of either the UK or Britain’s economy.

There was a belief that public support for Israel as a “victim” in the eyes of the Arab world would diminish if British economic interests suffered due to its policies.

On Tuesday, October 23, 1973, Heath’s government held a meeting at 10 Downing Street that addressed aspects of the Arab-Israeli war.

The classified meeting minutes revealed that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, informed his colleagues that he had “met with the US Secretary of State the previous evening when Kissinger had stopped in London on his way back to Washington after visiting Moscow and Tel Aviv.”

It was evident from discussions between the Russians and the Americans that while they were focused on achieving a ceasefire, they had not given much thought to who would oversee it.

In the event of a ceasefire being achieved on the Syrian front, it was deemed that there wouldn't be significant operational difficulties in maintaining it, given the interconnected Israeli control in the Golan Heights.

On the southern front, however, the situation was extremely complex, as Egyptian forces east of the Suez Canal had lost their supply lines from the west.

Therefore, a ceasefire there was considered inherently fragile.

The British Foreign Secretary advised Kissinger to arrange with the then Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kurt Waldheim, to strengthen the UN’s ceasefire monitoring mechanism and deploy it immediately to oversee the ceasefire and assist in dealing with on-ground challenges.

The minutes also report that Foreign Secretary Douglas-Home stated in the meeting that preliminary reports on discussions that took place in Cairo the previous day (on November 7) between President Sadat and Kissinger indicate that they agreed to pursue arrangements whereby the way would be opened for the Egyptian Third Army under the supervision of UN observers, a prisoner exchange would occur, and within 10 to 15 days, a peace conference would commence.

Kissinger’s then advisor relayed these proposals to Israel.

The intention was for the peace conference to involve Waldheim, the conflicting parties, the US, and the Soviet Union.

According to the minutes report, it was learned that the Egyptians prefer a somewhat broader conference, as they do not wish for the Soviet Union to be their sole advisor.

 

 



Palestinians Confront a Landscape of Israeli Destruction in Gaza’s ‘Ghost Towns’ 

Palestinians walk past the rubble of houses and buildings destroyed during the war, following a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, January 21, 2025. (Reuters)
Palestinians walk past the rubble of houses and buildings destroyed during the war, following a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, January 21, 2025. (Reuters)
TT

Palestinians Confront a Landscape of Israeli Destruction in Gaza’s ‘Ghost Towns’ 

Palestinians walk past the rubble of houses and buildings destroyed during the war, following a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, January 21, 2025. (Reuters)
Palestinians walk past the rubble of houses and buildings destroyed during the war, following a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, January 21, 2025. (Reuters)

Palestinians in Gaza are confronting an apocalyptic landscape of devastation after a ceasefire paused more than 15 months of fighting between Israel and Hamas.

Across the tiny coastal enclave, where built-up refugee camps are interspersed between cities, drone footage captured by The Associated Press shows mounds of rubble stretching as far as the eye can see — remnants of the longest and deadliest war between Israel and Hamas in their blood-ridden history.

"As you can see, it became a ghost town," said Hussein Barakat, 38, whose home in the southern city of Rafah was flattened. "There is nothing," he said, as he sat drinking coffee on a brown armchair perched on the rubble of his three-story home, in a surreal scene.

Critics say Israel has waged a campaign of scorched earth to destroy the fabric of life in Gaza, accusations that are being considered in two global courts, including the crime of genocide. Israel denies those charges and says its military has been fighting a complex battle in dense urban areas and that it tries to avoid causing undue harm to civilians and their infrastructure.

Military experts say the reality is complicated.

"For a campaign of this duration, which is a year’s worth of fighting in a heavily urban environment where you have an adversary that is hiding in amongst that environment, then you would expect an extremely high level of damage," said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, a British think-tank.

Savill said that it was difficult to draw a broad conclusion about the nature of Israel's campaign. To do so, he said, would require each strike and operation to be assessed to determine whether they adhered to the laws of armed conflict and whether all were proportional, but he did not think the scorched earth description was accurate.

International rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, view the vast destruction as part of a broader pattern of extermination and genocide directed at Palestinians in Gaza, a charge Israel denies. The groups dispute Israel's stance that the destruction was a result of military activity.

Human Rights Watch, in a November report accusing Israel of crimes against humanity, said "the destruction is so substantial that it indicates the intention to permanently displace many people."

From a fierce air campaign during the first weeks of the war, to a ground invasion that sent thousands of troops in on tanks, the Israeli response to a Hamas-led attack on Oct. 7, 2023, has ground down much of the civilian infrastructure of the Gaza Strip, displacing 90% of its population. The brilliant color of pre-war life has faded into a monotone cement gray that dominates the territory. It could take decades, if not more, to rebuild.

Airstrikes throughout the war toppled buildings and other structures said to be housing fighters. But the destruction intensified with the ground forces, who fought Hamas fighters in close combat in dense areas.

If fighters were seen firing from an apartment building near a troop maneuver, forces might take the entire building down to thwart the threat. Tank tracks chewed up paved roads, leaving dusty stretches of earth in their wake.

The military’s engineering corps was tasked with using bulldozers to clear routes, downing buildings seen as threats, and blowing up Hamas’ underground tunnel network.

Experts say the operations to neutralize tunnels were extremely destructive to surface infrastructure. For example, if a 1.5-kilometer (1-mile) long tunnel was blown up by Israeli forces, it would not spare homes or buildings above, said Michael Milshtein, a former Israeli army intelligence officer.

"If (the tunnel) passes under an urban area, it all gets destroyed," he said. "There’s no other way to destroy a tunnel."

Cemeteries, schools, hospitals and more were targeted and destroyed, he said, because Hamas was using these for military purposes. Secondary blasts from Hamas explosives inside these buildings could worsen the damage.

The way Israel has repeatedly returned to areas it said were under its control, only to have fighters overrun it again, has exacerbated the destruction, Savill said.

That’s evident especially in northern Gaza, where Israel launched a new campaign in early October that almost obliterated Jabaliya, a built up, urban refugee camp. Jabaliya is home to the descendants of Palestinians who fled, or were forced to flee, during the war that led to Israel‘s creation in 1948. Milshtein said Israel's dismantling of the tunnel network is also to blame for the destruction there.

But the destruction was not only caused from strikes on targets. Israel also carved out a buffer zone about a kilometer inside Gaza from its border with Israel, as well as within the Netzarim corridor that bisects north Gaza from the south, and along the Philadelphi Corridor, a stretch of land along Gaza’s border with Egypt. Vast swaths in these areas were leveled.

Amir Avivi, a retired Israeli general, said the buffer zones were an operational necessity meant to carve out secure plots of land for Israeli forces. He denied Israel had cleared civilian areas indiscriminately.

The destruction, like the civilian death toll in Gaza, has raised accusations that Israel committed war crimes, which it denies. The decisions the military made in choosing what to topple, and why, are an important factor in that debate.

"The second fighters move into a building and start using it to fire on you, you start making a calculation about whether or not you can strike," Savill said. Downing the building, he said, "it still needs to be necessary."