The situation across the Separation of Forces lines between Israel and Syria, above all the intensive supply of Soviet arms to Syria, was causing concern in Israel. This was expressed by the Defence Minister who enumerated the recent developments in Syria. Text:
In the context of the Separation-of-Forces negotiations Syria demanded that Kuneitra be returned to Syrian administration. It being her intention to restore the town and repopulate it. Kuneitra, with its ruins, reflects the tragedy of war and Kuneitra restored could have symbolized the alternative to war.
There are at present some 20 to 30 people in Kunuitra. Their shoes are not the footgear of civilian labourers - these are army boots, and the Syrians have decided to preserve Kuneitra in its ruins and humiliation as a stimulant to a further war.
Kuneitra as it is today is nothing but a forecast of the renewed Syrian trend of war and aggression, supported by a logic which means an ultimatum rather than an alternative in other words, a Syrian order to the whole world, to the Arab world and to Israel, which states that the Geneva Conference is to convene in the autumn, as scheduled, and it is to make the decisions which Syria wants it to make. And if this conference is not convened, or if it is not convened at the time desired by Syria and does not bow to her dictates, Syria will expel the U.N. forces and open war on Israel. In other words, Syria does not propose real negotiations, governed by the logic of alternatives and compromise, but puts before Israel one single choice: To surrender to the threat of war, or to be prepared for that threat to be carried out.
This stance is accompanied by a series of measures: A feverish, intensive supply of Soviet arms for the Syrian army. If the Soviet Union, during the almost seven years between June 1967 and October 1973 supplied Syria with 2.5 billion dollars worth of arms, she supplied, during the past ten months, another 2 billion dollars, she increased Syria's air force by 25 percent (as compared to its strength on the eve of the Yom Kippur War), and her surface-to-air missile system by 20 percent. She increased the number of heavy (180 mm) guns, and supplied Syria with Scud missiles. Syria was the first, and so far the only country to be supplied with MIG-23 planes. Syrian extremism and Soviet supplies are complementing each other. Syria has commenced an accelerated training program and started to construct a far-flung system of fortifications. She is trying to draw Jordan into a union of belligerency.
Israel cannot forget how Syria and Egypt turned on her in a surprise attack, and this after Israel had proposed - prior to the war and instead of war - partial agreements providing for a separation of forces such as did, in fact, evolve. Neither can Israel ignore a quarter century of Syrian aggression: It was Syria who prepared and equipped Kaukji's 'Army of Salvation', which invaded Israel in its War of Independence, Syria who refused to sign Armistice Agreements, doing so only at the very last moment. It was Syria who never ceased to strike out at the settlements in the Jordan and Huleh valleys. It was Syria who opened fire on our settlements in the Six-Day War, in an attempt to overrun the Dan region. It was Syria who supported the terrorist organizations, who served and continues to serve them, until this day, as a base. It was Syria who assaulted Israel in the Yom-Kippur War in order to occupy not only the Golan Heights, but also - as shown in captured documents - to conquer entire regions of Israel.
It was not Israel that went to war in order to capture the Golan Heights. The Heights had been the geographical base for Syria's permanent policy of striking out at Israel's security, of hitting at the settlements in the valleys beneath the Golan Heights, and of despatching terrorists to every possible corner in Israel itself.
Syria fought Israel when the Golan Heights were under her rule, and she intends to fight - according to her rulers -not only for the Golan Heights but "for the restitution of the rights of the Palestinians." Syria has always refrained from using the term 'peace', and now she is surrendering readily to belligerent rhetoric.
The stepped-up arms supplies, the accelerated training, the constant threats, the stated deadlines, have led us to express publicly what is apparent in fact - that Syria has indeed harnessed her horses of war, whose neighing signals a race at the gallop towards what is termed the "military option."
This has been stated publicly not only because of the need to tell the people the truth, but also in order to point out to the Arab world the misapprehension under which it is labouring. It is true that Israel is striving for peace. It is true that Israel wants negotiations to continue. It is true that she grieves at the losses and casualties that go with war.
But this same Israel will not surrender to threats of war just as she did not surrender in battle. This same Israel is able to rally and unite, to act to meet renewed danger. Israel, once surprised, will not again be taken by the same surprises, by the same opponents.
The Yom Kippur War was preceded by the Khartoum resolutions about the "three noes." Now there is an attempt in the Arab world to mobilize, in addition to the "confrontation front," the "refusal front" as well. I believe that this negative mobilization is due to the inability of totalitarian leaders to understand correctly the communications media of a democratic country. The emphasis placed on faults by our communications media creates in the hearts of many Arabs, and especially in leadership circles, the mistaken impression, not that Israel is attacking her weaknesses, but that weakness has attacked Israel.
Dr. Lutfi Davidar, rector of the University of Alexandria, spoke together with Sadat on 27 July. And this is how he described Israel: "The entity of the State of Israel and the possibility of its continued existence in the Arab area have begun to be fundamentally undermined. This may be deduced from an analysis of what is now happening inside Israel, the disintegration and self-injury which have started to appear are destined to be a major factor which will result in Israel withering away or gradually coming to an end if the Arabs continue to be strong."
It has been essential, and it is more than ever essential today, to show the Arabs that they are wrong. Israel wants negotiations, but she will not surrender to threats of war.
Israel does not want war, but she can endure it. It is necessary not only to say these things, but to carry them out in practice. In the light of the threats and the plans of the Arabs first and foremost Syria - to renew the fighting, we have adopted a long, but not yet complete, series of measures which were obviously required. The Israel Defence Forces, with the regular army at the centre, have intensified their readiness, alertness and training. The young commanders, and they are very promising commanders, are taking up their posts at the helm of our security. The cease-fire lines have been fortified, fenced and connected up with roads. The IDFs armaments and vehicles have been restored to full readiness. The equipment of the IDF has been variegated in the light of the lessons of the war. And, being as we are, few among many, we are trying to man the new weapons systems and arm the reserves in their new dimensions.
We are not dealing with prophecies. We are dealing with reports. What has already happened, and not only what is about to happen, calls for the mobilization of the nation in view of renewed threats and dangers. I have no doubt of our capacity to confront them. Moreover, there is no doubt that in this way we are preserving not only the option of facing the confrontation, but also the option of seeking an alternative to confrontation on the part of the Arabs as well: The option of negotiations, the option of seeking a way to peace and coexistence.
A democratic regime detests confrontation and does not tend to believe that it is possible. That is one of its advantages. But it would be a mistake to allow positive tendencies to take the place of realistic vision. We must do what has to be done today so that tomorrow may be stronger from the security point of view and also more open from the political point of view.