Download a pdf version of today's Daily Briefing.
Geopolitical Journey: Thoughts on Omaha Beach: George Friedman, Stratfor, June 4, 2013—The invasion took place at dawn on June 6, 1944. A North Atlantic storm had hammered the beaches the day before June 6 and would resume a few days later. On the day the forces came ashore, there was a break in the wind and rain. But it was still cold, wet and terrifying.
Feting Jerusalem: Editorial, Jerusalem Post, June 4, 2013—Forty-six years ago today [June 4] Israel embarked on a war against the combined armies of its Arab neighbors – Egypt, Syria and Jordan. In the months leading up to what would be later known as the Six Day War, Israel’s leaders did everything in their power to avoid a military confrontation.
Israelis Have So Many Reasons to Be Happy, Mr. Kerry: Daniel Pipes, Jewish Press, June 6th, 2013—In a typically maladroit statement, U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry recently complained that Israelis are too contented to end their conflict with the Palestinians: “People in Israel aren’t waking up every day and wondering if tomorrow there will be peace because there is a sense of security and a sense of accomplishment and of prosperity.”
The Winning Issues: David M. Weinberg, Jerusalem Post, June 6, 2013
‘I’m sorry I was a Nazi’: Joe Winkler, Jerusalem Post, June 5, 2013
BDS Uncovered: Marc Goldberg, Jerusalem Post Magazine, June 6, 2013
GEOPOLITICAL JOURNEY: THOUGHTS ON OMAHA BEACH
George Friedman
Stratfor, June 4, 2013
I have always dreamed of standing on Omaha Beach on a rainy and cold morning at low tide, standing by the edge of the water and looking inward. Until recently, I never had. No matter how many times I had visited France before, I always needed to be somewhere else, or was too busy to really imagine. I could never devote my mind to the water and the beach and the memories that, for me, were history but for those who took part in the D-Day landing were the pivot of their lives. Imagining a battle long gone is an act of will and imperfect in the best of circumstances, in spite of the fact that I have read voraciously on this battle. It is an act of will to force yourself to believe, to know, that something extraordinary happened here. The morning I visited Omaha Beach, a man was racing a horse drawing a sulky up and down on the sand, as if to challenge my intentions.
The invasion took place at dawn on June 6, 1944. A North Atlantic storm had hammered the beaches the day before June 6 and would resume a few days later. On the day the forces came ashore, there was a break in the wind and rain. But it was still cold, wet and terrifying. The invasion took place at low tide. The Germans had placed obstacles that, at high tide, would be submerged and tear out the bottoms of landing craft. They were revealed at low tide. But that meant that the men who landed would have go across a vast, flat expanse of sand to a sea wall that is no longer there.
I tried to imagine what it was like to force yourself to walk across the beach with heavy packs and machine gun fire raking the beach. I think I would have frozen. Death was random that morning, and no amount of skill or courage would prevent it. A man placed his soul in the hands of his God and moved forward. On a peaceful day when the only movement was a horse, sulky and rider, it still took me about five minutes to go from the water's edge to the place where the sea wall had been in June 1944. I tried to feel what the soldiers must have felt. In some battles, there is a degree of wit and skill that gives you the illusion that you might have control over your fate. There could be no such illusion at Omaha Beach. Some lived, some died, and virtue had little to do with it.
I focus on Omaha Beach not because the British at beaches codenamed Sword and Gold, the Canadians at Juno or the Americans at Utah were less brave than the men at Omaha, but because the defeat of Nazi Germany was sealed that day on Omaha Beach. The plan of the invasion was to land the British and Canadian forces to the east, as far as the town of Ouistreham. The Americans landed at Utah, at the base of the Cotentin Peninsula, and at Omaha. It was a 50-mile front. There was no chance of creating a continuous front that day, but the expectation was that the landing forces on the five beaches, plus the airborne troops behind enemy lines, would link up and create a foothold that could withstand German counterattacks.
An enormous number of things went wrong that day. Landing craft could not make it into the beach, and men drowned when they left the craft under fire and could not swim with their equipment. The landing craft came in at the wrong place. The naval gunfire and air forces could not destroy the German positions. The airborne assault was chaotic as troops were scattered all over the region. The amphibious tanks had trouble being amphibious.
I reflect that had the modern media been there, they would have declared the landing a failure and demanded that Eisenhower be investigated. Even after the landings proved a success, I can imagine op-ed pieces and television commentators, as well as senators and congressmen, asking how Eisenhower could not know that naval gunfire could not clear the defenses. All the planning in the world is of little value when chance, the enemy and miscalculation intervene. Those who have not fought wars demand precision from commanders that they themselves are incapable of in their own, much simpler lives. One hundred and sixty thousand troops landed within 24 hours on a 50-mile front. That it was chaos was inevitable. That it achieved the mission changed history….
If the Omaha Beach invasion had failed, a gap would have been left between the British and Canadians to the east and Utah on the peninsula. Bernard Law Montgomery, commanding the British troops, had said he would take Caen the first day. He failed to do so. That meant that there was no anchor for the British position, and that German armor could have contained and reduced them, attacking them from Omaha Beach and all other directions. The artificial harbors — the Mulberries, as they were codenamed — were supposed to be at the town of Arromanches and at Omaha. Without Omaha, there would have been only one Mulberry for landing the follow-on equipment and supplies.
If Omaha had failed, I think Eisenhower would have had to withdraw. If that had happened — and perhaps he could have drawn some solution from the looming defeat — then the invasion would have failed and no other invasion would have been possible until nearly a year later. A landing could not take place in autumn or winter. That meant the Soviets would have faced the Germans, now secure in the west, for another year. They had already lost perhaps 20 million and no matter how great their rage, they would be facing perhaps years of slaughter. The farther west they went, the shorter the German line, as the European Peninsula narrows. The Soviet Union could have been forced to make a separate peace as Lenin had in March 1918. How much more could the Soviets take, regardless of the blood debt they owed Germany, is a question worth asking — the concentration of still-capable German forces on a shorter and shorter front might have proved unbearable. It is one thing to ask for sacrifice with an end in sight. But how much can you ask from your people when all there is for them is war and death, and there is no end?
It is not unthinkable, then, that the Nazi regime might have survived should the Normandy landings have failed. Germany's domination of the European Peninsula might have continued. These are not far-fetched thoughts. If Germany's domination had continued I certainly would not be here. The Hungarian Jews, including my family, were being rounded up and sent to camps that June. My mother was taken away with four sisters. Two were alive when liberated in April 1945. My mother would not have survived another year.
My own existence is a trivial matter except to my children and me. But multiply it by millions — not only of Jews, but of all those under German domination — and the landing on the Calvados coast of Normandy was as desperate for those who waited as for those who landed. It was on Omaha Beach that the battle turned, and with it, history.
It was not the generals and staff members who turned the tide on Omaha. It was captains and sergeants who made the difference. Part of it was that they had nothing to lose. If they stayed there, they would die. But it takes enormous courage not to be paralyzed anyway. It was training, but you cannot train a man whose soul rebels to do his duty. Yes, they are your buddies, but there are many armies in which all of the buddies decide they've had enough. There was something else — a primordial belief, either pride or a love for their own, if not as complex as patriotism — that caused them to go on. There were other armies in World War II in which the men didn't. At Omaha, the men fought and won. This is a key puzzle that historians will not be able to answer — why they fought as they did. Why they redeemed Europe from itself.
This was considered the good war. The U.S. forces were welcomed as liberators, their sacrifice is honored on French soil in a cemetery on top of the bluffs that reminds us of what we lost. French children tour the cemetery in hushed tones. It is a sacred place and a place that binds us together. There has not been another war as clean and proper since then, and I think there will not be one again. Power, as I have said, leads to ambiguity. This was true in World War II as well. The Soviets believed the United States and Britain deliberately refused to invade before 1944 because they wanted Soviet blood to break the Wehrmacht first. They have never really forgiven us for that. The Americans say that we were simply not ready to go until 1944. It is an interesting argument. It is the beginning of the ambiguity of power. Roosevelt clearly preferred Soviet deaths to American. He was the American president, after all, and the United States wasn't ready. But what constitutes readiness — when we can do it with the least cost, or when it is most needed?
The Americans emerged from the war with enormous power. The use of power is never clear-cut, and it wasn't clear-cut in World War II. During D-Day, news from the battlefield was censored, and censors read and edited letters home. The goal was to keep secret things secret. But of course, it was never clear what needed to be secret and what was convenient as a secret, and the ambiguity started there and haunts us today. The greatest secret of the war had to be protected. The British had penetrated the German code (and the Americans the Japanese code). This was the most valuable thing — that we had the ability to read the enemy's thoughts. Out of these things — censorship, eavesdropping and code breaking — emerged the mature National Security Agency and what is called the national security state. Some overstate its significance. They claim that it is suppressing free speech and creating a totalitarian state. Perhaps, but then those who have made this charge must explain how they are able to make this charge. Surely a totalitarian state would not let them reveal the truth.
All of this is for another day, but it was born in World War II and came to bear in a very wide beach on a cold and wet day in June 1944. It is not about the evil or goodness of men, but a discussion about the nature and logic of power. Who knows what the results of an uncensored war would have been as the massive mistakes became evident? What would have happened if the Germans had discovered that their codes were broken? Where would millions be if the Allies had not been ruthless in enforcing a lie, that Patton would invade at the Pas de Calais?…
I was able to go there and vicariously contemplate what I doubt I would have had the courage to do — cross that beach under fire, and then return to the attack at the sea wall. I marvel at the men who did. I will not say with certainty that they saved Western civilization from moral monsters, but if there were ever men on whom history turned, then it was the men of the 1st and 29th Divisions, and the men of the 2nd and 5th Ranger Battalions who assaulted Point du Hoc.
I stood on Point du Hoc, a cliff at the western end of Omaha Beach, and it captured the complexity of the battle. The men of the Second Rangers climbed ropes and ladders to the top of the cliff to destroy German guns. The guns weren't there. Intelligence had failed. I can only imagine their rage, but I am in awe of what they did next. They moved inland to find other guns to destroy, and spent days surrounded by Germans, fighting them off, until they linked up with the troops from Omaha.
Point du Hoc was an intelligence failure that cost lives, but was redeemed by the will and courage of the Rangers. When we think of the inevitability of geopolitics, the power of American industry against a declining Germany, the superb command and control of the Americans that had planned every bit of Omaha, it is at Point du Hoc where this all becomes ambiguous. The planning was wrong. It was a handful of men who turned defeat into victory. Was it Greek geography or King Leonidas' 300 who made history? I come away from Omaha thinking that life is far more complex than a theory.
(CIJR feels it is also important to note the decisive American victory over the Japanese
Imperial Navy at the Battle of Midway on June 7, 1942 as well as Israel’s decisive defeat of the invading Arab armies in the Six Day War which began June 5, 1967. – Ed)
Editorial
Jerusalem Post, June 4, 2013
Forty-six years ago today [June 4] Israel embarked on a war against the combined armies of its Arab neighbors – Egypt, Syria and Jordan. In the months leading up to what would be later known as the Six Day War, Israel’s leaders did everything in their power to avoid a military confrontation.
However, Nasser’s decision to expel the United Nations Emergency Force and mass Egyptian troops in the Sinai; his closure of the Straits of Tiran; his instigation of Arab war pacts and public commitments by Arab heads of state to eradicate Zionism; and the Soviets’ behind-the scenes warmongering all contributed to a bellicose atmosphere that forced Israel to act preemptively.
By the time the fighting was over, Israel was in possession of huge tracts of land – the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Much of this newly acquired territory – particularly in the West Bank – was resonant with Jewish history. Relief at being saved from destruction at the hands of Arab soldiers, combined with the sudden and unplanned expansion into geographical sites right out of the Bible, sparked a heady exuberance that spread throughout the country.
However, nothing could compare to the excitement generated by the reunification of Jerusalem. For the first time since Jewish sovereignty came to a brutal end nearly two millennia earlier, the Jewish people gained control over their holiest city, and Jerusalem was once again reunited. Images of then-chief-of-staff Yitzhak Rabin, defense minister Moshe Dayan and Uzi Narkis, the commander of the forces that liberated Jerusalem, are iconic in Israel’s short history, as are pictures of the shofar-blowing Rabbi Shlomo Goren at the Western Wall and on the Temple Mount.
In the days and weeks that followed Israel’s miraculous victory, tens of thousands visited the Western Wall. The liberation of Jerusalem contrasted sharply with the 19 years of Jordanian rule, during which Jewish residents were driven out and Jewish places of worship were closed or destroyed. Even the various Christian denominations had operated with limited liberties under the strict control of Muslim authorities. And the excitement surrounding unification, combined with the wariness at sharing control over the city, remains strong today.
That seemed to be the sentiment reflected in a survey commissioned by The Jerusalem Post from pollster Rafi Smith of Smith Consulting. Though a strong majority continues to support a two-state solution, most Israelis reject the idea of transforming Jerusalem into a shared capital for both Israelis and Palestinians. Of 500 respondents, just 15 percent said they were in favor of Jerusalem becoming the capital not only of Israel but of a future Palestinian state. In contrast, 74% of Israelis polled rejected sharing the capital.
The poll is yet another reminder of the yawning gaps separating Israelis and Palestinians. Not only are the sides split on the issue of the “right of return” for millions of Palestinian “refugees”; but also on the question of recognizing settlement blocs and communities such as Ma’aleh Adumim and Ariel; and on security arrangements.
Israelis and Palestinians are also seemingly irrevocably at odds when it comes to Jerusalem. This past weekend, during a meeting with Arab residents of Jerusalem in his office, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said that “without Jerusalem being the capital of the Palestinian state, there will be no political solution.” Abbas added that “east Jerusalem is the essence of the State of Palestine. It is the hearts of all Palestinians and Arabs and Muslims.”
As we mark the 46th anniversary of the outbreak of the Six Day War, it is fitting to be humbled by the tremendous challenges we face and the obstacles to peace that remain to be overcome. But we should also be proud of our tremendous achievements. Today, 46 years after reunification, Jerusalem is Israel’s largest city with a population of over 800,000. Once referred to by writer Cynthia Ozick as a “phoenix city” with a “history of histories” where “no one is a stranger” – Jerusalem has never before in its long life flourished so astoundingly.
Never have so many Jews lived in Jerusalem in relative harmony and security alongside a diverse non-Jewish population. And never before have the religious rights of all been so carefully protected. Israelis are rightly wary of endangering all this.
ISRAELIS HAVE SO MANY REASONS TO BE HAPPY, MR. KERRY
Daniel Pipes
Jewish Press, June 6th, 2013
In a typically maladroit statement, U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry recently complained that Israelis are too contented to end their conflict with the Palestinians: “People in Israel aren’t waking up every day and wondering if tomorrow there will be peace because there is a sense of security and a sense of accomplishment and of prosperity.”
While Mr. Kerry misunderstands Israelis (Palestinian rejectionism, not prosperity, caused them to give up on diplomacy), he is right that Israelis have a “sense of security and … of prosperity.” They are generally a happy lot. A recent poll found 93 percent of Jewish Israelis proud of be Israeli. Yes, Iranian nuclear weapons loom and confrontation with Moscow is possible, but things have never been so good. With thanks to Efraim Inbar of Bar-Ilan University for some of the following information, Let us count the ways.
– Women need to give birth to 2.1 children to sustain a country’s population; Israel has a birthrate of 2.65, making it the only advanced country to exceed replacement. (The next highest is France at 2.08; the lowest is Singapore at 0.79.) While Haredis and Arabs account for some of this robust rate, secular Jews are the key.
– Israel enjoyed a 14.5 percent growth of gross domestic product during the 2008-12 recession, giving it the highest economic growth rate of any OECD country. (In contrast, the advanced economies as a whole had a 2.3 percent growth rate, with the United States weighing in at 2.9 percent and the Euro zone at minus 0.4 percent.) Israel invests 4.5 percent of GDP in research & development, the highest percentage of any country.
– Due to major gas and oil finds, Walter Russell Mead observes, “the Promised Land, from a natural resource point of view, could be … inch for inch the most valuable and energy rich country anywhere in the world.” These resources enhance Israel’s position in the world.
– With Syria and Egypt consumed by internal problems, the existential threat they once posed to Israel has, for the moment, nearly disappeared. Thanks to innovative tactics, terror attacks have been nearly eliminated. The IDF has outstanding human resources and stands at the forefront of military technologies; and Israeli society has proven its readiness to fight a protracted conflict. Mr. Inbar, a strategist, concludes that “the power differential between Israel and its Arab neighbors is continuously growing.”
– The Palestinian diplomatic focus that dominated the country’s politics for decades after 1967 has receded, with only 10 percent of Jewish Israelis considering negotiations the top priority. Mr. Kerry may obsess over this issue but, in the acerbic words of one politico, “Debating the peace process to most Israelis is the equivalent of debating the color of the shirt you will wear when landing on Mars.”
– Even the Iranian nuclear issue may be less dire than it appears. Between the vastly greater destructive power of Israel’s nuclear arsenal and its growing missile defense system, military analyst Anthony Cordesman predicts that an exchange of nuclear weapons would leave Israel damaged badly but Iranian civilization destroyed. “Iranian recovery is not possible in the normal sense of the term.” Maniacal as the Iranian leadership is, will it really risk all?
– Successes of the “boycott, divestment, and sanctions” movement are pretty meager (Stephen Hawking snubbed the president’s invitation! A United Nations body passed another absurd condemnation). Israel has diplomatic relations with 156 out of the United Nations’ 193 members. Looking at multiple indices, Mr. Inbar finds that, globally, “Israel is rather well integrated.”
– In public opinion surveys in the United States, the world’s most important country and Israel’s main ally, Israel regularly beats the Palestinians by a 4-to-1 ratio. And while universities are indeed hostile, I ask handwringers this question: Where would you rather be strong, the U.S. Congress or the campuses? To ask that question is to answer it.
– Ashkenazi-Sephardi tensions have diminished over time due to a combination of intermarriage and cultural cross-pollination. The issue of Haredi nonparticipation is finally being addressed.
– Israelis have made impressive cultural contributions, especially to classical music, leading one critic, David Goldman, to call Israel a “pocket superpower in the arts.”
Listen up, anti-Zionists and anti-Semites, Palestinians and Islamists, extreme right- and left-wingers: You are fighting a losing battle; the Jewish state is prevailing. As Mr. Inbar rightly concludes, “Time seems to be on Israel’s side.” Give up and find some other country to torment.
The Winning Issues: David M. Weinberg, Jerusalem Post, June 6, 2013—The dramatic mountains and expansive fjords of Norway do not jump to mind as the place to learn about Israel’s diplomatic strengths and weaknesses. Yet the week I just spent with Norwegian friends of Israel taught me how the justice of Israel’s cause can be most effectively presented.
‘I’m Sorry I Was a Nazi’ : Joe Winkler, Jerusalem Post, June 5, 2013—In our memoir-suffused culture, we can read about any experience under the sun. But you’d be hard-pressed to find a memoir about a Nazi trying to explain her choices in life — until now. Fifty years after its initial publication, Account Rendered, written by Melita Maschmann, is being re-published.
BDS Uncovered: Marc Goldberg, Jerusalem Post Magazine, June 6, 2013—Palestinians played a very active role in the way Israel was formed, in the breakdown of relations between Jews and Arabs and in the eventual war for Israel’s independence. The picture of a powerful European invader armed with modern technology against which Palestinians had not the slightest chance does not stand up to serious examination.
Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.
CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at https://isranet.org/.
The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.
CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.
Ber Lazarus, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research/ L'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org
Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.wpsitie.com
