by Uzi Eilam
The agreement signed by the defense ministers was declarative in nature, and it was still necessary to draw up a detailed document to be signed by the director of the French Direction générale de l’armement (DGA) and the director-general of the Israeli Defense Ministry. We prepared the material for the meeting of the directors, which usually took place during the Paris Air Show, and a detailed agreement institutionalizing cooperation and charging the directors with supervision of implementation was signed as well.
The French–Israeli agreement for defense industry cooperation was tested sooner than expected, in the context of an unmanned aerial vehicle project. MATRA, a French company that had earned an international reputation in the field of missile development, including its well-known air-to-air missiles, had a good relationship with IAI. Toward the late 1990s Israel was considering a joint project for developing an advanced UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) system capable of covering large geographical areas. The system was meant to be a poor man’s satellite system of sorts, but the more the project crystallized the clearer it became that the poor man in question would actually need to be quite rich. To the French–Israeli defense industry partnership, IAI contributed its considerable knowledge in developing complete UAV systems that had already gone operational. From its part, the French defense industry could boast an ability to deploy a satellite network to command UAV movement within large geographical areas. In the midst of this ambitious and expensive project, a golden opportunity arose in the form of a serious matter discovered by a small wealthy state in the Persian Gulf. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the First Gulf war led this country’s leadership to resolve to develop a strong military. In 1999, MATRA and IAI concluded a proposal to develop the Eagle heavy UAV. The fusion of the French industry’s political and industrial power and Israel’s operational experience and technological expertise in the field of UAVs proved to be a winning combination, and by the end of 1999 the joint venture received the authorization of the French and Israeli governments to market Eagle UAVs to the third country.
In the late 1990s Germany and France established EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company), a large aerospace and defense corporation which also incorporated the Spanish aerospace corporation CASA (Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA). As a result of its long-time work with MATRA (Mécanique Aviation TRAction), IAI suddenly found itself in partnership with a new massive company. Somewhat belatedly, the Israeli and French partners resolved to try to convince the French Air Force to purchase first models of the heavy UAV and to use a UAV command and information transmission system. However, the French Air Force, which recognized the future importance of such systems, had already done its homework and had decided to purchase the American Predator UAV, a system that had been developed by General Atomics of San Diego, California. In order to make their company relevant, EADS personnel concluded that the first thing they needed to do was to change the decision of the French Air Force.
To this end, EADS and IAI requested a coordinating meeting with the Israeli Defense Ministry delegation in Paris — an unprecedented move at the time. The French personnel of EADS were aware of the French–Israeli agreement for defense industry cooperation and thought we would be able to influence the defense minister to help bring about the change in direction they sought. It was also clear that our maneuvers vis-à-vis the French Air Force would need to be sophisticated and could only be carried out by the Israeli Air Force. Within a few days I assembled IAI personnel and the EADS’s vice-president of commercial development and his team in my office for a focused strategy meeting. For the Israelis, the hands-on meeting with EADS personnel was a golden opportunity to get a first-hand look at the way the enormous corporation operated. The meeting lasted three hours and produced a clear and realistic situation assessment as well as a division of tasks and responsibilities for all those involved and an integrated plan of action with clearly defined time-tables. According to the plan, French Air Force officials would be invited to Israel to learn about how the Israeli Air Force was using UAV systems at the time. We took it upon ourselves to induce the director-general of the Israeli Defense Ministry to write a letter to the director of the DGA asking him to assist in the process. We also agreed to persuade Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak to write a letter to Defense Minister Richard at the appropriate moment, asking him to authorize the introduction of the French–Israeli UAVs to the French Air Force for study and assessment. It was clear to all of us that we could not let the American UAV establish itself within the French Air Force, even as an experimental model.
A few months later I paid another visit to the office of the French defense minister to meet with my friend Jacques Audibert who told me that the minister had made a decision and that the French Air Force would fall into line, reverse its previous decision, and purchase the Israeli UAV.
Victory in such an important and complex battle was important. It was encouraging to see that the French–Israeli agreement, which had been expanded upon and institutionalized by the directors on both sides, was now firmly in place. The agreement also afforded us a key strategic accomplishment within Europe as a whole, as the process of European unification made pan-European defense establishment partnerships much more common and easier to achieve. In practical terms this meant that every Israeli partnership with a French defense company opened the doors to a broad spectrum of partnerships with other European countries as well. This was clearly demonstrated by the heavy UAV project and the resulting partnership with EADS. Moreover, as an agreement between two sovereign countries, the French–Israeli partnership cannot be annulled due simply to minor problems that may arise in the relations between the two countries. It was clear to all of us that taking full advantage of the agreement’s potential was largely up to us.
I was mesmerized by the new Europe that was slowly but surely emerging within the framework of the European Union. In the political arena, Britain, under the leadership of Tony Blair, had also started to move closer to the continent. I listened closely to Blair’s speech before the National Assembly, and I was particularly impressed by his decision to deliver it in French. Blair’s summit meeting with Chirac at Saint Malo, and the two leaders’ declaration of the European Union’s obligation to remain autonomous and to support this autonomy with European military might, paved the way for the two countries’ leadership role in the effort to establish a European military force. Later, it was the British–French–German triangle that facilitated EU intervention in the conflicts in the Balkans.
Europe’s handling of the Kosovo crisis highlighted the continent’s fundamental weakness and military and political helplessness. In the end, the EU was forced to ask the US to assume leadership of military operations in the region. Charging NATO with contending with the crisis was an elegant solution that provided the only means of incorporating the American military into the operations.
The growing movement of countries joining the European Union at an ever increasing rate made it abundantly clear that Israel was now facing a very different Europe. Competition with the American defense industry, which was growing stronger and gaining increasing economic influence within Europe, pushed the Europeans to unify their industries, as exemplified by EADS. This dynamic also motivated the Europeans to enact new laws and install new regulations to enable their industries to compete in the international arena.
With all of this in mind, I thought it only made sense for the representatives of the Israeli defense establishment stationed throughout Europe to have a stronger network. It was not enough for the military attachés, the individual defense ministry envoys to European countries, and the members of the defense ministry delegation to meet once a year in Paris for the Air Show and Ground Systems Show at Le Bourget Airport. To improve coordination, I discussed the matter with the director-general of the defense ministry, the director of foreign relations, and the director of SIBAT (the Defense Export and Defense Corporation of the Israeli Defense Min
istry) to get their authorization to set up a “European Forum”. We resolved to meet once a year in Paris for a special conference in which defense ministry representatives would share reports with their colleagues, including reports on developments within the continent as a whole. All the representatives were enthusiastic about the establishment of a new open communication network that would carry a regular flow of information which they themselves would generate. Most information, we realized, could be sent via the open internet, and we found an alternative arrangement for conveying classified information based on the communication system of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. The Paris delegation assumed responsibility for setting up a European information center to collect, process, and disseminate the information provided by the representatives.
After I returned to Israel and joined the Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, I decided to explore defense issues as they related to Europe. This new direction was based on the fact that so few people in Israel truly understood what was happening on the European continent, despite is size and close proximity to Israel. In this capacity I was invited by NATO to make a trip to Kosovo, which included meetings at NATO headquarters in Brussels followed by a few days in the Kosovo region itself. The trip provided an extremely valuable addition to the information I had already gathered on the war in Kosovo, and proved what I already knew about the military power of the US. However, it also provided me with a first-hand look at the political–military lessons of the EU’s involvement in a war it was simply incapable of fighting on its own. My extensive report on the subject, published by the Jaffe Center under the title L’Europe de la Defense, contains an assessment of the manner in which the European Union dealt with the lessons of the war. It calls for joining forces with Europe in a number of ways: from ongoing cooperation in research and development, through expansion of the agreement for cooperation between the Israeli and European defense industries, to seeking as much of a formal relationship as possible with NATO. The article also highlights the need to fight terrorism around the world and in Europe in particular, and emphasizes the unique contribution that Israel can make as a result of its longstanding confrontation with phenomenon. To be sure, Israel’s assets for future warfare are becoming increasingly based on advanced technologies, whose development relies on experience and insight on the battlefield of the future as opposed to the battlefield to which we have grown so accustomed in recent decades. Nonetheless, Israel’s ongoing experience with anti-terrorism operations, low-intensity warfare, the war of information, and the threat of short and medium-range rockets, and long-range missiles, provides a common denominator and a broad foundation for Israeli cooperation with many other countries.
15
The Israel Security Prize
During my time as director of the R&D Unit, I was asked by the Israel Security Prize Selection Committee on many occasions to offer my assessment of various issues. Although each year the defense minister would appoint a new three-member committee, the principles and procedures followed by the committee were part of broader standing defense ministry procedures and were passed down from generation to generation by the committee secretaries.
The deep soul-searching we all experienced after the Yom Kippur War also left its mark on the Israel Security Prize Committee and the process it employed. In the wake of the war, I assembled all the material documenting committee discussions and defense ministry procedures to assess the ultimate outcome of each of the weapons systems that won the prize. My findings were disappointing. The main criterion for awarding the prize was the originality of the technological concept underlying the weapons system in question, and not its likelihood of being integrated into the IDF order of battle. One case in point was the roller-bridge, which was awarded the Israel Security Prize just a few months before the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War and which was still in the midst of development when it was rushed to the Suez Canal after the outbreak of the war. Ultimately, the bridge turned out to be a major disappointment and was only used after the fighting came to an end.
Based on my findings, I prepared a paper on the discrepancy between the projects to which past prizes were awarded and their actual contribution to the IDF. I therefore recommended changing the selection criteria by only awarding the Israel Security Prize to systems that had either proven themselves in battle or been integrated into the fighting forces of the IDF. This recommendation was adopted and is still in effect today.
In addition to outstanding weapons systems, the prize bylaws enabled the committee to recommend long-time contributors to Israeli defense to be awarded a lifetime achievement award in recognition of numerous contributions made over many years. In this area, prize committees have always been strict and cautious and have awarded very few lifetime achievement awards. The prize, traditionally awarded at the President’s Residence in Jerusalem, was named after Eliyahu Golomb, a pioneer of the concept of a Jewish defensive force; he was a major figure in the establishment of the Haganah, and a member of the Haganah national command between 1931 and 1945.
A few months after my return from Paris and my retirement from public service, Yehuda Engel, the long-time secretary of the prize committee called and with a voice trembling with excitement, told me that the prize committee had approved a recommendation that I be awarded the 2002 Israel Security Prize for Lifetime Achievement. Although I was overjoyed, I still had a hard time believing it. I knew that some of my acquaintances had begun gathering material to recommend me for the prize, but, based on what I knew of the history of the committee, I never thought it would actually approve the recommendation. It was only a few days later, when I received a letter making it official and requesting the names of family and close friends to invite to the ceremony, that I realized it was going to take place. Although I gradually grew accustomed to the idea, the news filled me with an undying sense of excitement and gratification that remains with me today.
At the ceremony in June 2002, I was asked to speak on behalf of all the Israel Security Prize recipients for 2002. Here is what I said:
Mister President, Minister of Defense, Chief of the General Staff, Director-General of the Defense Ministry, Chairman of the Israel Security Prize Committee, honored guests, family members, and, of course, fellow recipients of this year’s Prize. I was asked to say a few words on behalf of the recipients of the Israel Security Prize for the year 5762 (2001–2002), a task which I see as a great honor.
Once a year, for one brief moment, a tiny window into the defense establishment opens, shining a light on a small portion of the accomplishments achieved by the immense ongoing effort underway within. Those familiar with the diverse work of defense research, industrial development, and the assimilation of new systems during the process of armament, know that this is just the tip of the iceberg (although considering the amount of energy generated within it, it might be better referred to as a volcano).
Three weeks ago, after the Ofek 5 satellite was successfully launched into orbit, I asked the director of the defense ministry satellite program to convey my congratulations to all those who played a role in the undertaking. I reminded them that when we breathe in the fresh, crisp air on the high peak of success we tend to forget the thick, stifling air of the dark depths of failure (where we usually find ourselves alone... ), as well as the misgivings, the struggle for righteousness, and yes — the struggle for funding as well.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the name of the game for every defense establishment development project. It is not only a test of creativity, talent, and valor, but also of determination, the courage in civilian life, persuasiveness, and the ability to lead and direct a project along the stormy and difficult road to its successful completion.
Behind each of us — each and every recipient of this prize — are countless others who provided their assistance, and without whom we could have never achieved success. Each one of us has a family –parents, husbands and wives, children (and even
grandchildren, at least in my case) — whose support over the long and demanding years has enabled us to dedicate all our energy to the sacred work of defending Israel. Without this sturdy foundation, we would not be standing here today at this impressive ceremony.
We still have a long road to travel before we reach the peace for which we yearn. We still face different types of threats — the remote threats of weapons of mass destruction and more immediate threats such as various monstrous forms of terrorism. Contending with the challenges we face demands a high level of creativity, innovation, resourcefulness, and uncompromising focus on the goal at hand. Success also requires a great deal of belief in oneself, unqualified optimism, and, most importantly...ision!
Decades ago, the research and development community picked up the gauntlet, and these are the results. The Israel Security Prize encourages us all to be better — to persevere and work hard, to persevere and succeed!
On a more personal note, I see many people in the audience with whom I travelled long roads and who stood beside me at critical moments. Thank you for being here, and thank you for your partnership.
I would like to thank my dear family: Naomi, Osnat and Ron, Nimrod, Noah and Ofir, and my grandchildren Amitai and Toam, to whom I owe so much.
I would also like to thank the defense establishment and the Prize committee for selecting us as worthy recipients of the 2002 Israel Security Prize.
Finally, I would like to thank all of you for being here at the President’s Residence to encourage and give honor to all those engaged in the security of Israel. Thank you very much.
After the prize details were made public I was flooded with congratulations. The close friends who stood by me at different points during my career in public service showered me with warm, heartfelt words. Of all the letters I received, I have chosen the letter from Shimon Peres to include here. It would have meant a great deal to me had Yitzhak Rabin also been able to congratulate me, in his deep, baritone voice.
