Shay Levi Recalls “Grenade 20” in Threatening the Russians

Levi begins his article by referring to the tension and contradiction in Russian-“Israeli” relations, against the backdrop of the Syrian issue, especially after: “reports of attacks attributed to the Syrian Air Force, [where] the Russians as it seems are beginning to mark red lines, in an attempt to embarrass Israel”.

After that, Levi devotes a lot of space to recollect Operation Grenade 20, a Zionist security intelligence operation that was carried out against the Russian forces in Egypt on July 30, 1970, that is, at the end of the war of attrition, which led to the killing of three Russian pilots and the destruction of 5 MiG aircraft over Sinai.

Among what Levi mentions in his article, we quote: “In January 1970, Egyptian President Jamal Abd al-Nasser left for a visit to Moscow and returned satisfied after the Russians promised him that they would send their people to Egypt. Shortly thereafter, thousands of Russian-speaking military personnel appeared in Egypt: pilots, intelligence personnel and operators of advanced anti-aircraft missile batteries”.

He continues: “Egypt was unable to cope with the military might of Israel, which in those years strengthened its ties with the United States”, and the latter sent to it the best combat systems, most notably the Phantom and Skyhawk fighter jets.

The author then dives into a detailed explanation of the process, starting with the planning that was supervised by then Prime Minister of the entity, Golda Meir, and ending with the implementation on July 30, 1970.

Levy finishes his article by saying the following: “Some say that Operation Grenade 20 contributed to the decision to end the war of attrition, after three years of bitter fighting. Russia of then, it should be noted, was much stronger and more powerful than it is today. On the other hand, it is important to note and emphasize that the Israeli courage was at the time American-backed”. (emphasis added)

Whether through the introduction or conclusion of the article, the process of recalling history carried out by Levi is a clear-cut process, and before making a few conclusions about it, it must be noted that this article is not the only one along these lines during the past months. There have been many other articles as well as studies that set strategic questions related to Syria itself, but beyond that, set questions related to the future of the entity itself in light of the stormy international changes, specifically in terms of the relationship with both Russia and the US.

A Second Example

As an example of that, we mention the statements made by Israel Ziv, a former general in the occupation army, which he made during an interview with Radio 103FM and was republished by Maariv newspaper on July 26.

In his statements, while discussing the subject of “Russian-Israeli tension” relating to Syria, Ziv says: “I think they [the Russians] go with the same policy over time and explain it to us. It should be understood, there is an equation with quite a few variables that we need to recognize. We must be alert to equatorial development there, to US relations ‘to Russia, and a few other parameters and not just go for the kind of hammer-and-nails thinking because it will not work, it will hurt us in the end’.”

A Third Example

In a report published on July 25 on “Israeli” website Makorrishon, journalist Noam Amir says:

“Russia has the ability to provide quality air defense systems against the Israeli air force, if indeed the publications are correct [in reference to Russian statements about bringing down all the missiles of an Israeli raid on July 24]. However, the story is not a battle for the missiles but the battle for freedom of action. Israel will not be able to afford the abolition of its freedom of movement... Despite the dubious level of credibility, the headlines that garner Russian statements indicating that there is an intention to close the airspace in Syria, should certainly concern Israel”.

Preliminary Conclusions

Here are a few preliminary conclusions from this and other articles and studies we are following on Hebrew websites:

First: The Russian-Israeli “tension”, which has been denied at times and confirmed at times during the past two months, is not a passing issue, is not limited to the so-called “rules of engagement”, and certainly goes beyond the issue of Zionist raids on Syria.

Second: One of the sources of this “tension” that is not talked about much, is the American strategic move towards withdrawing from the entire region within the framework of concentrating its resources on the strategic competition and conflict with China, which will greatly affect the “Israeli courage… [that is] US-supported”, about which Levi brags.

Third: The second source of the same tension is the Russian positions, which have become clearer with regard to the Zionist entity and to everyone, and which do not stop at the limits of verbal confirmation of the implementation of UNSC Resolution 2254, but rather on the actual implementation thereof, which carries with it great dangers for the Zionist. The mere stability of Syria is a threat for the Israelis, so how will it be if the condition for this stability is the reunification of the country under a regime in which Syrians’ voices go off, voices that are free and radically hostile to the “Israeli”, hostility that is unparalleled by any previous positions of the regimes in the entire region?

Fourth: The equation of stability in the region, as it passes through the implementation of 2254, the Zionist knows more than anyone else that one of the pillars of this stability equation is the return of the occupied Syrian Golan to its owners. This equation with the decline of the alleged “Israeli courage” that Levi talks about, due to the decline of “American support”, will become more likely to be realized.

Fifth and finally: Far from the partial details, “Israel”, from the outset, is part of the Western project and an extension of that project in our region, and the retreat and decline of this project necessarily means the retreat of the “Israeli project” itself. Therefore, the “tension” that is being talked about is much greater and far more than just “drawing red lines” for the margin of Zionist movement, a matter that is subject to “comparative developments” in international relations, as Israel Ziv admits.

(Arabic version)