Israel Considered ‘Pre-emptive Strike’ against Egypt, Syria Hours before October Attack

The Israeli military censor’s finalization of the news received by the Maariv newspaper (Maariv archive)
The Israeli military censor’s finalization of the news received by the Maariv newspaper (Maariv archive)
TT
20

Israel Considered ‘Pre-emptive Strike’ against Egypt, Syria Hours before October Attack

The Israeli military censor’s finalization of the news received by the Maariv newspaper (Maariv archive)
The Israeli military censor’s finalization of the news received by the Maariv newspaper (Maariv archive)

Fifty years ago, specifically on Oct. 3, 1973, then Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army, David Elazar, met with the editors of Hebrew newspapers and told them: “No war will break out soon... You can sleep peacefully.”

The journalists felt reassured, except for one: The editor-in-chief of the Maariv newspaper, Aryeh Disenchik. His military correspondent, Jacob Ayers, was confident that war was coming. He had a brother serving in the army and was monitoring Egyptian movements on the western end of the Suez Canal. He knew that those were not mere exercises, but preparations for an imminent war.

Disenchik decided to cover the news in a spirit that contradicted the reassurances conveyed by the Chief of Staff.

Ayers prepared a story entitled, “Suspicious Movements of the Egyptian Army,” in which he spoke about build-ups of Egyptian tanks and missile batteries and excessive movement of aircraft in the air, and concluded with a sentence that read: “The Israeli army is alert to these movements and stands in front of them with high preparedness.”

He sent the article to the military censor, who crossed out almost all of the lines except for the last sentence.

Twenty-two years after that incident, in 1995, Ayers served as editor-in-chief of the newspaper. He printed a copy of the paper on which the news was written, along with what had been crossed out by the military censorship, and hung it on the wall behind his office. He wanted to recall his journalistic achievement, which had been suppressed by the censorship, but also insisted, on every occasion, to apologize to the public, because he adhered to the law by submitting the news to censorship.

This incident was one of the forgotten stories in the Israeli political arena, but is making a strong comeback, after researchers Ephraim Lapid (worked as army spokesman from 1984-1989) and Ron Gabayan (served in the army spokesman’s department from 2016-2022) decided to teach it in colleges.

The two researchers prepared a study on the role of the Israeli Army Spokesperson’s Department during that war, within the framework of the official Israeli decision to release a large amount of secret documents about the October War or “Yom Kippur.”

The Israeli government also took a decision three years ago to release most of the documents related to the October War, when it marked its 50th anniversary.

At the beginning of September 2022, the Israeli State Archive published the contents of 1,400 document files, and about 1,000 Photographs, 850 audio recordings and video clips, and more than 250 brief notes.

Israel also revealed the diary of the office of then Prime Minister Golda Meir, which covered the pre and post-war period, until the Separation of Forces Agreement in 1974. The diary revolved around the political and military aspects and international and regional diplomatic communications conducted by the Prime Minister’s office at the time, as documented by Eli Mizrahi, who served as director of the office. The journal contained 3,500 files with hundreds of thousands of pages.

The Israeli Mossad also published a book, for the first time in its history, about the circumstances of the 1973 war, under the title, “Some Day When We’ll Be Allowed to Tell.”

The accounts reflected the contradictory positions expressed by the various bodies that played a role in the October War, regarding what is known in Israel as “the corruption of great negligence.”

Israeli information about the Egyptian and Syrian mobilizations was dealt with “arrogance” in Tel Aviv. The head of military intelligence, Eli Zaira, stated during a consultation session with the Prime Minister - 28 hours before the war - that he had a complete copy of the plan prepared by the Syrian army against Israel, and a summary of the attack plan prepared by the Egyptian army.

According to Israeli documents, Zaira was confident that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and his Syrian counterpart, Hafez al-Assad, did not intend to fight Israel, and that all military movements undertaken by their armies constituted a show-muscle in front of Israel.

The Army Chief of Staff, Elazar, approved this opinion, as did Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. Even when the Mossad issued a war warning at six o’clock on Oct. 6, Dayan objected to the mobilization of reserve forces, arguing such matter will spark an uproar against Israel and will greatly cost the economy.

Hours after Zaira downplayed the Egyptian-Syrian movements, the documents reveal that the Israeli political and military leaders were discussing, in another meeting on the morning of Oct. 6, specifically at eight o’clock, that is, six hours before the outbreak of the war, the possibility of launching a proactive strike against Egypt and Syria.

But Prime Minister Meir said: “My heart supports a war like this, but my mind sees it as harm to Israel before the international community.”

She added: “If it turns out that the Egyptians and Syrians do not actually intend to go to war, this will be an adventure by Israel that will lead to deaths and injuries, for nothing.” Defense Minister Moshe Dayan agreed.

Another official account, this time sourced from the book issued by the Mossad, states that Mossad chief Zvi Zamir informed Prime Minister Golda Meir, two years before the war, that is, in the fall of 1971, of Sadat’s intentions to fight Israel, and even told her about basic aspects of the Egyptian president’s strategy.

Zamir relied in his information on “the chief Mossad spy, Ashraf Marwan,” who was known as “The Angel.” The book indicates that Meir was so impressed by the depth of the information that she told him: “One day, when it can be revealed that you conveyed this information to me, you and your team will receive a medal.”

The Mossad book also indicates that Zamir “was able to obtain minutes of Sadat’s meetings with Soviet officials in Moscow in 1971, in which he told them that he was determined to restore all of Sinai, and not just part of it, either through diplomatic negotiations or through war with Israel.”



Career Diplomat Becomes the Face of Trump’s ‘America First’ Agenda at the UN

US Ambassador to the United Nations, Dorothy Shea (C), addresses a UN Security Council meeting called following a recent missile strike by Russia on a residential area in Ukraine, at the United Nations headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 08 April 2025. (EPA)
US Ambassador to the United Nations, Dorothy Shea (C), addresses a UN Security Council meeting called following a recent missile strike by Russia on a residential area in Ukraine, at the United Nations headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 08 April 2025. (EPA)
TT
20

Career Diplomat Becomes the Face of Trump’s ‘America First’ Agenda at the UN

US Ambassador to the United Nations, Dorothy Shea (C), addresses a UN Security Council meeting called following a recent missile strike by Russia on a residential area in Ukraine, at the United Nations headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 08 April 2025. (EPA)
US Ambassador to the United Nations, Dorothy Shea (C), addresses a UN Security Council meeting called following a recent missile strike by Russia on a residential area in Ukraine, at the United Nations headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 08 April 2025. (EPA)

The highest-ranking US representative now at the United Nations told Congress two years ago that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was "unprovoked" and "unjustified," urging UN members to condemn Moscow’s aggression and demand an end to the war.

In February, it was the same career diplomat, Dorothy Shea, who voiced the Trump administration's extraordinary decision to split with European allies and refuse to back a UN resolution blaming Russia for its invasion on the third anniversary of the war.

While it is typical for diplomats to stay on as US presidents — and their political parties — change, Shea's interim role has unexpectedly made her a face of the stunning US transition on the world stage, with President Donald Trump's "America First" approach increasingly upending the post-World War II international order.

Shea will be in place longer than expected after Trump's unusual decision last month to withdraw his nominee for UN ambassador, Rep. Elise Stefanik, from consideration because of a slim Republican House majority.

"I would say (Shea’s) position is unique. It is probably particularly unique in that because of the extraordinary change, not just from one administration to another, but really an era of US foreign policy, even when there were nuanced differences," said Phillip Reeker, the former acting assistant secretary of state for Europe. "The change in the vote that took place at the UN on the Russia-Ukraine war was really an inflection point in US policy."

A UN vote changes US messaging on Ukraine

On Feb. 24, the US joined Russia in voting against a European-backed Ukrainian resolution demanding an immediate withdrawal of Moscow's forces. A dueling US resolution noted "the tragic loss of life" and called for "a swift end to the conflict," but it didn't mention Moscow’s aggression as the Trump administration opened negotiations with Russia on a ceasefire.

"Continuing to engage in rhetorical rivalries in New York may make diplomats feel vindicated, but it will not save souls on the battlefield," Shea, 59, said at the time. "Let us prove to ourselves and to our citizens that we can come together and agree on the most basic principles. Let us show one another that the bold vision of peace that once pulled us out of hell can prevail."

The message was a shocking retreat for the US in the 193-member UN General Assembly, whose resolutions are not legally binding but are seen as a barometer of world opinion. It also reinforced the fears of some allies about what a second Trump presidency could mean for longstanding transatlantic partnerships — and whether the US could remain a bulwark against aggressors like Russia.

For Shea, it was another day at work. She has spent the last 30-plus years serving as a diplomat under both Republican and Democratic presidents — from Bill Clinton to Trump — carrying out their policies even if they were a departure from longstanding US positions.

"I don’t know what her personal views are on things. But administrations change, policies change. And your job as a diplomat is to advocate for those policies," said a former colleague and deputy US ambassador, Robert Wood, who recently retired.

The US mission to the UN declined to comment. The State Department did not immediately respond to an Associated Press request for comment.

The roots of a diplomat

Shea's work has included stints in South Africa, where she witnessed Nelson Mandela become the first democratically elected president, and Israel, where she worked on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Shea grew up in the suburbs of Washington — her father a World War II veteran and her mother active in the local Japanese American friendship society. The experience of Japanese exchange students staying with her family over several summers and wanting to understand world events propelled her into international relations at the University of Virginia. After graduation, she scored a job offer with the US Foreign Service.

She worked her way up and in 2019 was tapped to be Trump's ambassador to Lebanon, where the soft-spoken diplomat made headlines for her criticism of the Hezbollah group. A Lebanese judge banned local and foreign media outlets from interviewing Shea for a year, saying her criticism of Hezbollah was seditious and a threat to social peace.

In 2023, Biden nominated Shea to become No. 2 at the UN.

The top US role at the UN — for now

It is unclear when Shea will hand off to a Senate-confirmed political appointee. Stefanik went through a confirmation hearing, but her nomination was pulled last month because her vote to advance Trump's agenda remains crucial to Republicans in the House. The GOP congresswoman was the fourth Trump nominee not to make it through the confirmation process.

Trump has made no mention of whom he would nominate to replace Stefanik and fill his last remaining Cabinet seat. Until then, Shea is at the helm at a critical moment for US foreign policy, selling big changes to dealing with both allies and adversaries and defending the administration's slashing of foreign assistance.

The White House recently proposed additional drastic cuts to the State Department, which would include eliminating funding for nearly all international organizations, such as the UN.

The proposal is highly preliminary but reflects the administration's isolationist view, which, along with funding uncertainties, poses a major challenge to the mandate and work of the UN.