Israel's 1956 Sinai Campaign: A Preemptive Strike's Legacy
Translated & summarized from Makor Rishon by baba
Israel is commemorating the 70th anniversary of the 1956 Sinai Campaign, a preemptive strike that captured Gaza and Sinai. President Yitzhak Ben-Zvi defended the operation in a letter, stating it was necessary for Israel's survival against Egyptian aggression and terror attacks. He believed the strike prevented a larger war and saved Israel from destruction. Ben-Zvi also advocated for retaining Gaza to neutralize the Fedayeen threat, highlighting the enduring relevance of these strategic debates.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Israel marks 70 years since the 1956 Sinai Campaign, a preemptive strike capturing Gaza and Sinai.
- President Yitzhak Ben-Zvi defended the war as essential for Israel's survival against Egyptian threats.
- The operation aimed to counter years of terror attacks and Nasser's threats to destroy Israel.
- Ben-Zvi believed the preemptive strike prevented a larger conflict and saved Israel from ruin.
- He argued for retaining Gaza to eliminate the Fedayeen threat, despite the cost.
As the 70th anniversary of Operation Kadesh approaches on October 29th, the 1956 war, also known as the Sinai Campaign, is being re-examined. The operation saw the IDF capture the Gaza Strip and much of the Sinai Peninsula. Historically viewed as a war of choice, influenced by French and British interests, recent events have prompted a re-evaluation of preemptive strikes versus containment strategies. The article argues that the primary threat at the time originated from Jordan, not Egypt, a point often used by critics, but President Yitzhak Ben-Zvi defended the operation in a letter to his sister-in-law, Tamar Shoi.
Ben-Zvi's letter, written in Kislev 5717 (1956), explained that the war was not for the benefit of Britain or France, but for Israel's own security. He detailed years of terror attacks, raids, and murders organized by Gamal Abdel Nasser's Egypt, which resulted in hundreds of casualties, including women and children. Despite appeals to the United Nations, no aid was forthcoming. Nasser's open threats to annihilate Israel and his stockpiling of weapons in Sinai, coupled with Jordanian military pronouncements against Israel, necessitated a proactive response.
Ben-Zvi asserted that Israel's swift action, choosing the time and place to strike first, prevented a far greater catastrophe, potentially costing thousands or tens of thousands of lives. He believed that without relying on the UN, Israel had no choice but to take its fate into its own hands, striking Egyptian forces and clearing Gaza and Sinai of Fedayeen. He was convinced that this preemptive strike saved Israel from destruction and even prevented a potential World War III, a sentiment acknowledged by many observers.
Furthermore, Ben-Zvi believed in Jewish historical claims to Sinai. In another letter to Ambassador Abba Eban, he expressed a desire to retain control of Gaza, despite the challenges of refugees, because it served as a radical solution to the Fedayeen threat at the country's heart, even at the high cost of Israeli lives. The article contrasts this historical perspective with modern debates on military strategy, suggesting that the core issues surrounding Gaza and preemptive action remain relevant.