1970 (21-23 sep) - Israel moviliza su ejército para disuadir a Siria de invadir Jordania
Resumen
Hacia poco se había alcanzado un alto el fuego en la Guerra de Atrición entre Egipto y Siria, y los israelíes habían conseguido detener los sangrientos y mortales ataques terroristas palestinos que, con la pasividad sino connivencia de sauditas (que mantenían unas tropas en la zona) y jordanos, la OLP ejecutaba penetrando en Israel por el Wadi Arava (el cauce seco del Árava), que separa Jordania e Israel desde el Mar Muerto hasta Eilat. Tras el éxito israelí, los jordanos acuerdan con Israel, 'discretamente', evitar en lo sucesivo las incursiones terroristas en la zona y los israelíes se retiran de las posiciones que habían tomado en territorio jordano para acabar con ellas.
Es también la época del conocido como Septiembre Negro, que se prolongó durante 10 días desde el 17 de septiembre, cuando Jordania vive uno de sus momentos más críticos, de hecho una auténtica guerra civil, ante la rebelión de la OLP, encabezada por su brazo armado, el Ejercito de Liberación de Palestina, del que Arafat había sido comandante supremo el 16 de septiembre, que con la ayuda de sirios e iraquíes, y bajo el auspicio de la Unión Soviética, quisieron derrocar al Rey Hussein, asesinándolo, y que acabó con la masacre de varios miles de palestinos por las tropas del ejército del Rey Hussein y la huida de los restantes miembros de la OLP a Líbano.
Para evitar la invasión Siria de Jordania, que, poco después del Septiembre Negro, había introducido tanques en el territorio jordano, el Presidente de EEUU Richard M. Nixon pide el 21 de septiembre a Israel que intervenga movilizando su ejército, para disuadir a los sirios. Se le pide que actúe con discreción, la suficiente para no dar tres cuartos al pregonero pero no tanta que los sirios no tuvieran claro conocimiento de lo que Israel preparaba. Todo ello está abundantemente documentado mediante documentación desclasificada y numerosas declaraciones, memorias, etc. de quienes intervinieron.
Israel atiende la petición americana enviando fuerzas de choque al Valle de Beit Shean, en la ribera occidental del río Jordán, en el flanco de las fuerzas sirias que habían entrado en Jordania.
Inmediatamente, los sirios, tras tres días de combate con los jordanos, y ante los preparativos de guerra iniciados por EEUU y, a petición de éste, por Israel, acaba retirando sus tropas de suelo jordano, saliendo el último tanque sirio el 23 de septiembre.
Dos días después, Kissinger envía una carta de agradecimiento al gobierno israelí:
"Según la última información disponible, las fuerzas que invadieron Jordania se han retirado a Siria. Creemos que los pasos dados por Israel han contribuido en buena medida a la retirada. Apreciamos la pronta y positiva respuesta israelí a nuestra posición."
Ante la Knésset, la entonces Primera Ministra Golda Meir sostuvo:
No hay la "menor duda" de que "cientos de tanques sirios" penetraron en territorio de Jordania" con el conocimiento, sino el ánimo, de la Unión Soviética...
El régimen jordano parecía al borde del colapso...
La invasión siria fue un fracaso vergonzoso. Israel no intervino en el conflicto interno jordano, ni en su guerra con Siria, pero naturalmente seguimos atentamente los acontecimientos militares en el país vecino. Israel no podía ser indiferente al intento de alterar mediante la violencia el status quo militar y político. Tal cambio habría supuesto una amenaza muy peligrosa para nuestra frontera oriental.
No puede haber la menor duda de que el hecho de que Israel pudiera y estuviera dispuesto a hacer todo lo necesario para defenderse no fue ignorado por los sirios, los iraquíes ni por sus asesores políticos y militares. Tengo razones para creer que las autoridades sirias e iraquíes tuvieron en cuenta este factor cuando los iraquíes decidieron no intervenir y los sirios retiraron sus fuerzas acorazadas, que habían entrado en Jordania. La clara posición mantenida por EEUU en esta crisis, y los pasos políticos y tácticos que dio, sirvieron indudablemente como factor que contribuyó a evitar el deterioro de la situación y la restauración de la estabilidad.
Uno de los pocos que se opuso a que Israel asintiera a la petición americana fue Ariel Sharon (con Dayan compartiendo la oposición), que antes de que se acordara, así lo manifiesta durante la consideración de la movilización en el Cuartel General israelí. En 2001 escribe: "Incluso hoy creo que éste ha sido uno de los errores más cruciales de Israel, uno cuyas malignas consecuencias seguimos sufriendo". Así lo relata él mismo en Warrior: An Autobiography (1989):
"Mientras que la mayoría de los altos oficiales favorecían asentir a la petición americana, una minoría, en la que yo me incluía, creía que Israel no debía interferir en los acontecimientos de Jordania.
En mi opinión, Israel se enfrentaba a dos peligros separados, uno inmediato y otro a largo plazo. El inmediato era que si se permitía a los sirios derrotar al ejército de Hussein Jordania se convertiría en un estado palestino. De hecho, Jordania ya era un estado palestino en todo salvo en su nombre... En 1970, entre el 70-80% de la población de Jordania era palestina; sus líderes políticos y culturales eran palestinos; la mayoría de los miembros de su parlamento eran palestinos; los principales miembros de su gobierno eran palestinos; muchos de sus primeros ministros habían sido palestinos. Si la OLP derrocaba a Hussein, Jordania se convertiría formalmente en una entidad política palestina.
Tal evento crearía serios problemas: tendríamos en nuestra larga frontera oriental un estado árabe radical que muy probablemente se convertiría en un peón soviético....
Por otro lado, como manifesté al Estado Mayor, también nos enfrentábamos a un peligro a largo plazo.
Y este peligro es que el tema palestino pendería sobre nuestras cabezas cada vez más ominosamente con los años. Aunque a primera vista pudiera parecer que el primer peligro era más serio, a la larga sería el tema palestino el que sería nuestra auténtica ruina. No debíamos tener la menor duda sobre ello. Por ello, si entonces se había hecho posible la resolución del más crucial de estos problemas palestinos, mediante la creación formal de un estado palestino en Jordania, tal es la dirección que yo creía que deberíamos seguir.
Algunos de mis colegas preguntaron con cierta incredulidad: 'Así que piensas que un gobierno palestino en Amán ¿se conformaría tranquilamente con que permanezcamos en el río Jordán?' Respondí que no creía ni por un momento que fueran a aceptar nuestra presencia allí. Pero que en ese momento la discusión sería sobre dónde debían fijarse las fronteras. Estaríamos discutiendo con ellos sobre asuntos territoriales. Ya no estaríamos tratando sobre el tema de la identidad palestina y su derecho a expresar políticamente su identidad.'
No minusvaloraba en absoluto los argumentos de los otros, que tenían que ver no solo con el tema palestino sino también con la importante cuestión de nuestra relación con los EEUU. Pero las necesidades de la política exterior israelí eran cuestiones de supervivencia, mientras que en este caso las necesidades americanas eran cosa de ventajas geopolíticas. Desde esta perspectiva, no tenía la menor duda sobre cuál debería ser prioritaria.
Como consecuencia, abogué tan intensamente como pude contra la intervención israelí en Jordania. Dayan también estaba en contra. Pero la mayoría pensaba de forma diferente, y los acontecimientos siguieron el camino que siguieron."
Alocución de la Primera Ministra Golda Meir a la Knésset (16 nov 1970)
Fuente: Ministerio de AAEE de Israel
Tras suspender su participación en las conversaciones Jarring, Israel mantuvo diálogo con el gobierno de EEUU para la creación de condiciones que justificaran su vuelta a la mesa de diálogo. La Primera Ministra visitó EEUU y dialogó con el Presidente Nixon sobre el mantenimiento del equilibrio de poderes en el Oriente Medio. A su vuelta, dio un discurso sobre política internacional en la Knésset. Abajo, extractos del mismo:
The Prime Minister outlined the events in Jordan which led up to the bloody strife between the terrorists and the Government of King Hussein. She said that Hussein, "who had allowed the terrorists to organize in his country, decided far too late to ensure his authority in his own country, and soon found himself in a dangerous confrontation with the terrorist organizations, which had had time to entrench and strengthen themselves under the cover of his rule."
She said that there is "no doubt" that "hundreds of Syrian tanks" penetrated into the sovereign territory of Jordan "with the knowledge, if not the encouragement, of the Soviet Union." She added that the Iraqi army stationed in Jordan, while it did not enter into "overt military cooperation" with the terrorists, did supply them with arms and equipment from its stores. "The Iraqis waited to see the outcome and expected to gain part of the loot," she declared.
"The Jordanian regime appeared to be on the verge of collapse. It may very well be that during these brutal battles King Hussein managed to understand that whoever permits these terrorist organizations to take root and establish themselves helps them to take control of his country and undermine the position of the legitimate regime. I hope that this lesson has been learned, not only in Jordan."
Mrs. Meir said: "The Syrian invasion was a shameful failure. Israel did not intervene in the internal struggle in Jordan, or in the war between it and Syria, but we naturally followed military developments in the neighbouring State with close attention. Israel could not remain indifferent to the attempt to alter by violence the political and military status quo. Such a change would have posed a most dangerous threat to our eastern frontier.
"There can be no doubt that the very fact that Israel was ready and able to do everything required for its defence did not escape the knowledge of the Syrians, the Iraqis and their military and political advisers. I have reason to believe that the Syrian and Iraqi authorities took this factor into account when the Iraqis decided not to intervene and the Syrians chose to call home the armoured forces that had penetrated into Jordan. The clear stand of the US in this crisis, and the political and tactical steps it took, undoubtedly served as a contributory factor to prevent a deterioration in the situation and the restoration of stability."
Referring to the "detailed agreement and arrangements between the King and the terrorist organizations" signed in Cairo, and afterwards in Amman, she said that their aim "was a very old one - to turn the activity of the terrorists against Israel. We have warned the Jordanian authorities in no uncertain terms, and have made it clear that we shall never again acquiesce in the resumption of acts of aggression against our settlements along the cease-fire lines.
"Jordan would do well if it stopped making agreements with the terrorist organizations, in the hope that it will achieve quiet and stability by activating the terrorists against Israel and concentrating them on our border. Quiet in the streets of Amman is not to be bought at the price of terrorist military actions against our population. The Government of Jordan ought to keep this in mind."
Turning to Egypt, Mrs. Meir said she bad "no intention" of evaluating Nasser's personality or summing up his actions, but would permit herself to say that Nasser was undoubtedly a powerful leader. "By virtue of Egypt's central position and by the power of his own personality, he could have directed policy in the Middle East towards the goals of prosperity and social progress. Unfortunately, the Egyptian President did not utilize his unique status in order to lead his people and the Arab peoples in a struggle against poverty and illiteracy and towards an era of peace and development. Instead he led them into unjust wars and defeats."
She said that when Nasser and his colleagues overthrew King Farouk's "corrupt regime" there were many in Israel who hoped he would work for "the noble watchwords that the revolution inscribed on its banner." Instead, he established a policy which led Egypt and the region into violent disputes, to five years of killing in the Yemen, "and to two wars of deliberate aggression against Israel which ended in havoc and defeat." She noted that in the last few years the standard of living of the Egyptian masses and the national product declined. "Egypt, recently liberated from colonial servitude, is now subservient to the colonialism of the Soviet Union."
She said that a change of guard in government is always a suitable occasion for "turning over a new leaf, getting out of the rut, and taking a fresh look." Israel has been "glad to hear" the new Egyptian leaders have had much to say recently about the need for development, raising the standard of living, fighting illiteracy, etc., in their country. Israel is "alert and attentive" to all developments in Egypt. "To our regret, however, we find the new regime as well has not stilled the voices of war."
"In the course of the recent turbulence in the Arab States, the Eastern Command has also collapsed." she said. "While the collapse of the Eastern Command is proof of the deterioration in relations between the Arab States, it also points to the instability and dissension in each of them, as we can learn from the internal situation in Jordan, Iraq and, lately, Syria. At this stage it is still too early for an accurate evaluation of the coup in Syria.
"I can only presume that the Syrian debacle in Jordan was one of the reasons for the present instability and strife. There is not only a struggle for power between individuals, but a trenchant debate between opposing political approaches, including policy on terrorist operations and other adventurous plans. We will continue to follow developments alertly and assiduously."
Referring to the cease-fire, Mrs. Meir said: "In the centre of our relations with our neighbours, we have been most concerned lately with the cease-fire. This cease-fire includes a paragraph on a military standstill, as part of the American peace initiative to which Israel replied affirmatively at the end of July this year. But while the undertaking to stop shooting has been observed, the Egyptians violated the standstill condition which, as I have said, was an integral part of the American peace initiative."
Mrs. Meir went on to say that when Israel replied affirmatively to the American peace initiative, "our main goal was twofold: to stop the killing and destruction and end the war, and to advance towards a peace agreement as the outcome of fruitful talks between ourselves and the representatives of the Arab States ... We acted in hope, but with no illusions. In our hearts we still doubted whether Egypt was indeed bent on peace. Indeed, it became clear to us that Egypt had accepted the cease-fire out of military necessity, and not as a stage on the road to peace.
"Before agreeing to the cease-fire, Egypt stepped up its demands upon the Soviet Union and no doubt received substantial additional commitments from the Soviets. There is no doubt that, in consenting to the American initiative, the Egyptians took into account Soviet readiness to cooperate with them in advancing their missile system in the direction of the Canal in order to alter the strategic balance in the Canal zone to Israel's detriment."
From the outset, the Premier said, the Egyptians and Russians intended "to exploit the cessation of shooting in order to violate the standstill clause. They openly disregarded the express obligation which they had undertaken." She said that the "premeditated violations continued, accompanied by repeated denials, even after Israel had exposed the deceit to the whole world."
Since the cease-fire went into effect, Mrs. Meir said, some 30-40 operational missile batteries - a third of them SAM-3s - have been installed within 19 miles of the Canal, where before there was just one battery. In the 31 -mile standstill zone, she said, there are 40-50 operational sites, compared to 16 on 7 August. And there are, she said, 150 missile emplacements - both operational and not operational - inside the ceasefire zone. In addition, the Egyptians and the Soviets have moved forward at least 50 heavy and medium artillery batteries, numbering some 250 guns, and other equipment.
"It is important to reiterate emphatically that all these operations, especially the advancement of the missiles, could not have been performed without the close cooperation of the Soviet Union. This super-Power, which is taking part in the Big-Four talks, the Big-Two talks, and the deliberations of the Security Council, Which announced its agreement to the cease-fire and the standstill arrangement of 7 August, has cooperated actively in the violation of this agreement and is responsible for the violation no less than the Government of Egypt.
"We regarded it as our paramount and urgent duty to present to the world, and first of all the Government of the US, the facts about these violations, including all the findings known to us. Regrettably, some twelve days passed from the time the violations began before the US Government, too, acknowledged the justice of our contentions and the correctness of our findings, and joined our demand for the correction of the violations. Hostile elements, led by the Soviet and Egyptian propaganda machines, tried to twist and distort the information in our possession, so as to cover up their violations of the cease-fire agreement. They began falsely accusing Israel of simply inventing the Egyptian violations in order, as they put it, to get out of the Jarring talks. These twistings and distortions were rebutted, after great effort, thanks to the close observation, the information and the skill of the Israel Defence Forces, as well as the tireless information efforts of our representatives the world over. It would appear that today there is not a single unbiased international factor that doubts the correctness of the facts to which Israel has called attention, or that does not realize the gravity of the betrayal of the agreement by the Egyptians and the Soviets.
"The struggle against the violation of the standstill clause became a paramount necessity the moment the advancement of the missiles in the area was discovered. The Government's decision of 6 September on the suspension of the talks with Ambassador Jarring was a natural and elementary expression of this struggle and the realization that to acquiesce in the violation of the standstill clause would be to aid the Egyptians and the Soviets in carrying on their work of deception and make it easier for international factors to behave as if nothing had happened.
"It would have been a political error of the gravest sort had we heeded 'realistic' advice to enter into talks while ignoring the violation of the agreement and without the forceful demand that what had been done must be corrected and the status quo ante restored, without mobilizing the best of the maximum political effort to do all that was called for in the face of this criminal violation. I was never prepared to undertake that our struggle would lead to the fulfilment of our just demand in its entirety, and in full. But I am still convinced that without this struggle, which is not yet over, we should have been faced with a situation far graver - whether from the point of view of the military balance, or from the political point of view.
"In the course of my conversations with the Heads of State and of Government, I made it clear that the plots now being made by our enemies to bring about a withdrawal by Israel without peace have no basis or substance. And indeed I found understanding for our position that without peace Israel will have to maintain its positions along the cease-fire lines, in all sectors, while striving for a lasting peace with agreed, defensible borders.
"The clarification of our stand in the face of the violation was the main subject of the political talks that I held at the UN, in the US, Canada and Britain. In view of the evidence which we had gathered and submitted, not a single one of the statesmen with whom I have spoken has questioned the facts to which we pointed. In these talks, we drew urgent attention not only to the Egyptian attempt to alter the balance of forces by deceit, but also to the global significance of the violation of a binding agreement by a member-State of the UN, a Great Power, the undermining of whose credibility must be of the most dangerous import for global subjects of grave significance.
"In my talks, I also encountered some statesmen who, for all their understanding of our desire for the establishment of secure and recognized boundaries, tried to persuade us that security boundaries can also be attained with the aid of international guarantees and various arrangements under UN auspices. Our disappointments following the shattering of international arrangements - at Sharm-el-Sheikh, in Gaza, and on the Syrian and Jordanian frontiers -are sufficient to show why we cannot place our confidence in the United Nations or entrust our security to it. The latest resolution of the UN General Assembly is additional evidence in this regard.
"Israel, like most other nations, will see nothing binding in the resolution, apart from additional proof of the regrettable state of the UN. This resolution does not entail any change in our situation. Nor has Ambassador Jarring's mission been changed in any sense. His mission and authority are not derived from a one-sided Assembly resolution, but from a resolution of the Security Council. The resolution has not removed, rather has added, an obstacle in the way of Ambassador Jarring's mission. In due time, when the conditions are created and talks on a genuine peace open, they will be based on agreed foundations and not upon this resolution, which has placed further obstacles and complications in the path to peace.
"I made it clear in the US that we have not changed our decision to reply affirmatively to the American initiative, including participation in talks under Dr. Jarring's auspices. And as evidence of this, I stated that, as Jordan is not a party to the violation of the standstill clause in the cease-fire agreement, we have not objected to the holding of talks with Jordan under the auspices of Ambassador Jarring. The Cabinet has approved this statement, further to its previous decisions."
"We cannot ignore the behaviour of the countries participating in the Two-Power and Four-Power talks. We cannot ignore the conduct of France in the General Assembly, when it applied itself to making the pro-Arab resolution more acceptable and effective. Nor can we ignore the British Foreign Secretary's speech on his Government's policy in the Middle East. Everyone is aware of the Soviet Union's hostility. These factors strengthen our consciousness that we cannot expect objectivity from the Four-Power talks and justify our reservations, from the outset, as to their deliberations and their competence to deal with our affairs.
"Against the background of these latest political developments, the responsible behaviour of the US Government becomes even more apparent. It withdrew from the meetings of the Big Four deputies, worked against the Arab resolution at the UN, and is helping to strengthen Israel's capacity to defend itself. President Nixon, in his address to the Assembly, defined the situation well when he called for 'the creation of confidence, in which peace efforts can go forward.'
"The political struggle against the violation of the cease-fire must continue, especially after the UN Assembly. This struggle is vital for our military position in the Canal zone and for the real value of agreements in the future, for the honouring of agreements in their entirety and not of arbitrarily selected clauses. This grave account has not yet been settled and there is no reason why we should be in any hurry to ignore it."
Mrs. Meir said that Israel was interested in advancing the talks on peace, which, it is hoped, will develop into direct discussions between Israel and the Arab States and will end in the conclusion of peace treaties. "Moreover, we are alive to the desire of many in the world to see the talks renewed in the hope of bringing peace nearer. But I must make it clear that in all the approaches to us no arrangements have been proposed so far which the Government could regard as satisfying our demand for the correction of the violations, and conditions have not yet been created which could justify a change in the Government's decision to suspend the talks under the auspices of Ambassador Jarring. Accordingly, we have to do all we can for the creation of such conditions. On this subject we are continuing our dialogue, mainly with the American Government."
Israel continues to observe the cease-fire, the Premier said, "and we hope that it will continue even after the 90 days and will bring an end to the war. We regard the cease-fire as a continuation of the agreement reached between all the parties on 7 August, a logical and binding outcome of the Security Council's cease-fire resolutions of June 1967.
She said she "would advise the new President of Egypt and the Commander of its army not to repeat the mistakes of the past - mistakes that the Egyptian army and people have dearly paid for."
Discussing her meetings with Jewish community leaders and students during her three-week tour, the Prime Minister said that Israel has made "enormous demands on World Jewry in recent times." calling on them to mobilize their resources "on an unprecedented scale". She said that she found Jewry -deeply concerned, following anxiously and with complete sympathy every phase of our political struggle and our economic development."
She said that she was told how Jews drew "encouragement and inspiration" from Israel, and said that she told them that ---wederive strength from their unreserved identification with us."
Referring to her meetings with "several hundred" Jewish students and professors and intellectuals, Mrs. Meir said that "certain perplexities, doubts and questions arose, which were the subject of penetrating and pertinent debate. But I can now say for a certainty that the notion that large sections of Jewish youth are abandoning us, or that we have suffered a tremendous setback among the intelligentsia, is entirely unfounded."
Concluding, Mrs. Meir recalled that, on 4 August, she said: "We have grounds for believing that Israel would not find itself weaker if the Arabs decided to resume hostilities.
"Today I can confirm with certainty that this evaluation has been confirmed and that our strength in all areas is increasing. Any attempt on the part of our neighbours to resume aggression would encounter the crushing force of the Israel Defence Forces. As in the past, however, we have no wish to put our strength to the test once more, or to score new victories. We welcome the continuation of the cease-fire, and we shall be meticulous in maintaining it on the basis of reciprocity.
"We firmly believe that the solution to the problems of our region lies not on the battlefield but at the negotiating table. What we and the Arabs need is a dialogue for the making of arrangements and the solution of problems, a dialogue which will result in a peace treaty on the basis of respect and mutual security. We hope that the way will be found to lead us from the cease-fire to the complete end of the war, and to the establishment of permanent peace."
Fuentes
Warrior: An Autobiography (Ariel Sharon con David Chanoff, 1989)
US and Israel contributions to countering Syria's 1970 Invasion of Jordan (Richard A. Mobley)
U.S. joint military contributions to countering Syria's 1970 invasion of Jordan