Moshe Dayan ... an impressive man

I this wrote report after I left the Department when Eddie Dunn 

asked me to attend a public meeting addressed by Moshe Dayan and External Affairs Minister Eric Louw forbade the officials to attend the meeting or any reception for Dayan. Eddie wanted the report below which I wrote.

Deon Fourie   

MR DUNN,

MAJOR-GENERAL MOSHE DAYAN

Following our discussion earlier today, 3rd September, 1957, I attended the public gathering addressed by the Israeli Chief of Staff.

General Dayan’s talk was preceded by a number of eulogous, off the point and often self-satisfied speeches by leaders of various local organisations. An exception was the speech by the Israeli Minister, although it tended to ramble round the topic of Israeli communalism.

The effect of Genl Dayan's speech was therefore, exceptionally strong. The General makes an impression even before opens his mouth.

He is bronzed, slightly built and stands very straight. He has a strong, determined face which is given an air of distinction as well as air of rakishness by his black eye-patch.

His bearing is indicative of great modesty and he and he and his wife were obviously pained by the lack of taste displayed speakers. This characteristic was obviously borne out later on by his refusal to sign autograph books and pictures of himself. He remarked that it was silly and quite wrong and his subsequent escape to a back room enabled me to speak to him in relative seclusion for a few minutes before he was again forced to retreat - this time to the Minister's car. Unfortunately the interruptions prevented me from asking him the questions we had discussed earlier, i.e. regarding French influence and aid.

The talk itself was not a technical speech as it would obviously have been lost on its hearers. It was, as we surmised a political speech. But it was strikingly different from the other speeches during the evening because Dayan spoke not only with conviction, but with a conviction borne of a genuine love and knowledge of the country from which he comes. I regret to say that there as in this clear evidence of a distinction between the General and his audience.

Because of the language difficulty it as not always plain what the speaker was driving at. Nevertheless, there was a clear logical development in the talk.

General Dayan reviewed the situation as at present regarding Syria and Egypt and said he believed that those states would not be the last to establish closer relations with Russia.

He explained the effect on the West once Russia could be in a positon to interfere with the supply of Middle Eastern oil.  He said that for the West present developments meant that Syria and Egypt were serving Russia. But for Israel it meant that she would be more and more isolated from the allies against the Arabs.

It was to be expected that the United States would interfere where the USSR does in order to dislodge the latter's grip on the Arabs.

In the same way, when the British Army left in 1948 it was estimated that the Arabs would gain control in eight to ten days. Britain left Palestine - spite of that, NOT because it was what she wanted, but because in her own interests to act in a certain way in the Middle East.

Israel’s Ambassador in the United States had tried time and again to obtain aircraft from the United States but in vain. The aircraft, he said, were needed for the purpose of discouraging Arab attacks, not for violation of Arab territory. But for France there would still be no aircraft in Israel. It is interesting that the brief mention of France as couched in such terms, and with such force, that it was plain that General Dayan feels a great deal of gratitude to that country. Perhaps with good reason – apropos of your question this evening.

Dayan said he was not sure that the United States would not join Russia in arming the Arabs. How could she not arm them while she was forced to compete with Russia for their support? While Syria and Egypt might be armed by Russia, and Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Lebanon by the United States, ultimately he believed all would use those arms for the destruction of Israel.

Will the Arabs fight?  No-one can answer. But they are arming heavily. And they have a political situation which can produce demagogues - and does. Dictators in the Arab states cannot think in terms of long range successes. Aswan Dam would probably begin to produce benefits in twelve years. The demagogues must produce results now - such as victory in battle. That is why political trends in Arab states should give all cause for concern.

But withal, Israel is optimistic. Because she has a strong army. Not in men, nor arms. But because everyone is ready to fight, unconditionally. Because everyone is ready to mobilise at short notice. The people in the settlements are ready to defend their settlements and not become refugees, obstacles to the troops. The spirit of resistance on the borders is high. It is clear that it is harder for the Egyptians to get through than for Israel to cross Sinai.  Civilian transport didn't look very military in Sinai, but they looked very nice on the banks of Suez. Even the women are ready to fight for: the country. Israel feels she is strong because she is ready to fight without Allies if she must.  She is a state with an ideal; with a mission in which she believes.

The General then went on to speak of Zionism and Zionist tendencies behind the Iron Curtain. He spoke more forcefully but in much better taste than any of the other speakers, for very plain reasons. He was obviously well qualified to speak as he did of Israeli unity, tenacity and belief in the future.

Finally the object of his address emerged. Genl Dayan warned that Jews must watch events in the Middle East. The struggle between the USSR and the United States is concentrated there. Israel may have to be the coin in which the price is paid. But she is not prepared to pay that price. Preparation for a Russian-aided Arab conflict with Israel is called for. Not only Spiritual aid will be necessary for Israel then. Physical aid will be necessary too if Israel is to be able to survive. His final remarks were but a thinly veiled reminder that the Jews everywhere should be prepared to fight for Israel.

There were no questions asked and it was necessary for me to follow Genl Dayan

round to the back of the stage. He was surrounded by autograph hunters and it was some time before I could break my way through and introduce myself.  I told him of my interest in asking him a few questions and he took me into a back room.  But as tea was served there a number of people managed to break up our talk within a few minutes.

I attempted to break the ice by asking purely military questions first. Unfortunately the really important questions were never arrived at.

I asked how deep Russian penetration had been in Egypt. General Dayan said that the Egyptians and Arabs were travelling to Russia constantly to receive ordinary academic as well as military training.

            Asked about Russians with the Egyptian forces, he said that they found none fighting in Sinai. But there were many instructors and technicians. In a war of that nature one does not expect them to fight. He added “But they will come. They will come”.  He confirmed that their influence was political as well as technical.

            He said that the Russians had over-equipped the Arabs. They had more than they could absorb. But they are not interested in arming the Egyptians or the Syrians. They are stockpiling bases for themselves, he added.

General Dayan told me that the Egyptians were fairly well trained but that they were not very adept at making use of their training. He said that they could manage planes and tanks - and when there are a lot of those that is enough. Their fighting ability depends largely on their material and numerical advantages.

He gave me to understand that the Egyptians are not well led and morale is not what it should be. . I wanted to ask him to enlarge on his remark concerning French aid, but while I was speaking to him we were separated by the crowd who were bent on obtaining his autograph. I may add that although I spoke to him long enough for us to have a cup of tea, the conversation was continually interrupted and I was only able to put three or four questions to him in that time. During all the hullabaloo he was most obliging and was quite ready to answer questions as fully as he could. I am sure that if the opportunity had been more conducive to discussion much of value would have been elicited. I regret that circumstances have forced me to tell you what you already know.

DFF

3/9/57