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.”



The 911 Presidency: Trump Flexes Emergency Powers in His Second Term

FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
TT
20

The 911 Presidency: Trump Flexes Emergency Powers in His Second Term

FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: US President Donald Trump attends a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., US, June 5, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

Call it the 911 presidency.
Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors.
Whether it’s leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion.
An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump’s 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors.
The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress’ authority and advance his agenda.
“What’s notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,” said Ilya Somin, who is representing five US businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs.
Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it.
Growing concerns over actions
The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump’s strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there’s growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the US is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address.
“The temptation is clear,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. “What’s remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we’re in a different era now.”
Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy.
“It’s the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,” Bacon said of Congress’ power over trade. “And I get the emergency powers, but I think it’s being abused. When you’re trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that’s policy, not emergency action.”
The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority.
“President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions
Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports.
The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces “an unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad “to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.”
In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on US soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the US economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.
The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion.
Congress has ceded its power to the presidency
Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice.
Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The US Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals.
Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II.
Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump’s eventual veto.
“Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,” said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. “Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.”
Trump, Yoo said, “has just elevated it to another level.”
Trump's allies support his moves
Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump’s actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy.
“We believe — and we’re right — that we are in an emergency,” Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax.
“You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,” Vance said. “I’m not talking about toys, plastic toys. I’m talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I’m talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.”
Vance continued, “These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.”
Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president’s emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance.
Similar legislation hasn’t been introduced since Trump’s return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency.
“He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there’s oversight and safeguards,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a “path toward autocracy and suppression.”