Sharon's plan is to drive Palestinians across the Jordan

THE leading Israeli historian Martin van Creveld predicts that a US attack on Iraq or a terrorist strike at home could trigger a massive mobilisation to clear the occupied territories of their two million Arabs

Two years ago, less than eight per cent of those who took part in a Gallup poll among Jewish Israelis said they were in favour of what is euphemistically called "transfer" - that is, the expulsion of perhaps two million Palestinians across the River Jordan. This month that figure reached 44 per cent.

Earlier this year, when a journalist asked Ariel Sharon whether he favoured such a move, the Israeli prime minister said he did not think in such terms. A glance at his memoirs, however, shows that he has not always been so fastidious.

In September 1970 King Hussein of Jordan fell on the Palestinians in his kingdom, killing perhaps 5,000 to 10,000. The then Gen Sharon, serving as Commanding Officer, Southern Front, argued that Israel's policy of helping the king was a mistake; instead it should have tried to topple the Hashemite regime.

He has often said since that Jordan, which, according to him, has a Palestinian majority even now, is the Palestinian state. The inference - that the Palestinians should go there - is clear.

During its 1948 War of Independence, Israel drove 650,000 Palestinians from their homes into neighbouring countries. If it were to try something similar today, the outcome could well be a regional war. More and more people in Jerusalem believe that such is Mr Sharon's objective.

It might explain why Mr Sharon, famous for his ability to plan ahead, appears not to have a plan. In fact, he has always harboured a very clear plan - nothing less than to rid Israel of the Palestinians.

Few people, least of all me, want the following events to happen. But such a scenario could easily come about. Mr Sharon would have to wait for a suitable opportunity - such as an American offensive against Iraq, which some Israelis think is going to take place in early summer.

Mr Sharon himself told Colin Powell, the secretary of state, that America should not allow the situation in Israel to delay the operation.

An uprising in Jordan, followed by the collapse of King Abdullah's regime, would also present such an opportunity - as would a spectacular act of terrorism inside Israel that killed hundreds.

First, the country's three ultra-modern submarines would take up firing positions out at sea. Borders would be closed, a news blackout imposed, and all foreign journalists rounded up and confined to a hotel as guests of the Government.

A force of 12 divisions, 11 of them armoured, plus various territorial units suitable for occupation duties, would be deployed: five against Egypt, three against Syria, and one opposite Lebanon. This would leave three to face east as well as enough forces to put a tank inside every Arab-Israeli village just in case their populations get any funny ideas.

The expulsion of the Palestinians would require only a few brigades. They would not drag people out of their houses but use heavy artillery to drive them out; the damage caused to Jenin would look like a pinprick in comparison.

Any outside intervention would be held off by the Israeli air force. In 1982, the last time it engaged in large-scale operations, it destroyed 19 Syrian anti-aircraft batteries and shot down 100 Syrian aircraft against the loss of one.

Its advantage is much greater now than it was then and would present an awesome threat to any Syrian armoured attack on the Golan Heights.

As for the Egyptians, they are separated from Israel by 150 miles or so of open desert. Judging by what happened in 1967, should they try to cross it they would be destroyed.

The Jordanian and Lebanese armed forces are too small to count and Iraq is in no position to intervene, given that it has not recovered its pre-1991 strength and is being held down by the Americans. Saddam Hussein may launch some of the 30 to 40 missiles he probably has.

The damage they can do, however, is limited. Should Saddam be mad enough to resort to weapons of mass destruction, then Israel's response would be so "awesome and terrible" (as Yitzhak Shamir, the former prime minister, once said) as to defy the imagination.

Some believe that the international community will not permit such an ethnic cleansing. I would not count on it. If Mr Sharon decides to go ahead, the only country that can stop him is the United States.

The US, however, regards itself as being at war with parts of the Muslim world that have supported Osama bin Laden. America will not necessarily object to that world being taught a lesson - particularly if it could be as swift and brutal as the 1967 campaign; and also particularly if it does not disrupt the flow of oil for too long.

Israeli military experts estimate that such a war could be over in just eight days. If the Arab states do not intervene, it will end with the Palestinians expelled and Jordan in ruins.

If they do intervene, the result will be the same, with the main Arab armies destroyed. Israel would, of course, take some casualties, especially in the north, where its population would come under fire from Hizbollah.

However, their number would be limited and Israel would stand triumphant, as it did in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. Are you listening Mr Arafat?

Link to it. I've had it running around the internet trying to verify your claims. Besides, even if what you say is true, it proves absolutely nothing.

Here are three stories, indexed on newstrove.com (go to newstrove, type "Netanuahu and Cheney" in the search engine. The following stories appear in the first four hits).

International Herald Tribune: April 15, 2002, Israel to U.S.: Don't wait for calm here before hitting Iraq. (this is a re-print of the Ha'aretz story)

BBC News: Apr 15, 2002. The former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has tried to convince the White House that its ties with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat should be broken and an attack on Iraq should be mounted as soon as possible.

CNN: Apr 15, 2002. Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met at the White House with Vice President Dick Cheney Thursday afternoon to discuss the situation in the Middle East.

For additional hits, go to Google and type in "Netanyahu Cheney Iraq". Here's another story (quoting the Ha'aretz piece) from crosswalk.com

"Don't Mind Us, Go Strike Iraq"

By Julie Stahl

Jerusalem Bureau Chief

www.CNSNews.com - Israel has told the United States not to wait for the situation to become calm here before it acts against Iraq, a respected Israeli newspaper reported on Friday.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security advisor Condoleeza Rice on Thursday in Washington ahead of Secretary of State Colin Powell's visit to the troubled region.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon enlisted Netanyahu as an unofficial emissary to speak on behalf of the country at this time. Regardless of what Israelis think about Netanyahu's rightwing political stand, he is recognized as the country's greatest spokesman to the West.

Netanyahu told the U.S. administration not to wait until there is calm in the territories before it proceeds with any planned attack on Iraq, according to the Hebrew daily Ha'aretz.

The paper said that Netanyahu had spoken to Sharon prior to his White House meeting and had briefed the prime minister after it ended.

Well, at the time The BBC was down and I looked on CNN and only came up with the article I cited you. Just post a link, no big deal.

Just go to the link I gave you, no big deal. Here it is again. http://www.newstrove.com/cgi-bin/search.pl?search=Netanyahu

You will find three stories there about Netanyahu's request to Cheney and Rice. One from the International Herald Tribune (a Ha'aretz story), one from the BBC and one from CNN.

In case you still are unable to find it, or any of the others, I have included the first half of the Ha'aretz story below:

Israel to U.S.: Don't wait for calm here before hitting Iraq

Yossi Verter and Aluf Benn Ha'aretz Daily April 12, 2002

Powell arrives amid low expectations

Former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu last night told the U.S. administration not to wait until there is calm in the territories before going ahead with its planned attack on Iraq.

. Netanyahu apparently spoke to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon before going to the White House to meet with U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. He also briefed the prime minister at the meeting's end.

. Cheney and Rice had requested the meeting.

. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell arrived in Israel last night. Just before his arrival, the U.S. proposed to Israel that a third party - apparently the British - take custody of the wanted men in the Church of the Nativity and in Ramallah's besieged Palestinian Authority compound and hold them in the Palestinian areas.

. Sharon agreed - as long as they are put on trial in Israel.

. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has agreed to send the appropriate men for the job and to oversee the arrest and imprisonment of the suspects.

. In the Prime Minister's Office and the Defense Ministry, officials had low expectations yesterday from Powell's visit, which will consist of a shuttle between Sharon and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. Powell is to meet with the "expanded kitchenette" this morning, then with Sharon, followed by meetings with Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer. The meeting with the ministerial plenum, where the right holds sway, is meant to present the American foreign policy chief with Israel's hard-line views.

I am very well aware of Esauv/Amalek, yesterday and today; both Scripturally and Religiously from a Jewish Point Of View.

Can you point to explorations outside that point of view?
It seems to me there are also perspectives for Christians, physicists, and political scientists. And, in particular, for those who are Anti-God.

Do you understand from

What and
Whom...

Okay, it seems to me, and maybe only me:

From What: From the darkness mentioned in Gen 1:2 was formed with the creation of the heavens and the earth in Gen 1:1.
All (forever) creation processes include parasitics. -- Basic thermodynamics.
From Whom:
--(Macro) Working backwards we could form a line of succession that leads to God's good actions. It's the way He works. We must take the good with the bad. To be good we must limit the scope of the bad and not give into the relentless appearance of the bad.
--(Micro) Working forward from Isaac who favored his material son over his God fearing son. And there may have been some resentment remaining in Isaac's heart when the ram to take his place was caught up by its horns.
Esau's self-confidence and pride (his "horns") became arrogance. He was alternately repentent and rebellious w.r.t. God as displayed in his attitude to his brother: soley dependent upon what Jacob could supply him. He didn't mind receiving God's blessings but thought little of his responsibilities.
This perculated down to his illegitimate grandson Amalek (the bastard of his son Eliphaz and his concubine Timna) who had an overriding hatred of anything which wasn't his -- a destroyer for the sake of destruction.
Thus even from the "perfect" sacrifice of Isaac, the forces of darkness, if allowed to go unchecked, may still distill out. And Jews have always have had to deal from within with dissensions. The hatred of some shirkers (who want the blessings without the sacrifices) for those who accept the responsibility to live up to the deal struck by Abraham with God. Those shirkers are as twins with their righteous brethren -- and begat bastards who are akin to Amalek.
In every generation Amalek will pose a challenge. From Numbers 24:20 "Amalek was first among the nations." Indeed, this tells us to expect to find him in the leadership. It may be why God warned Samuel against the futility of and dangers in naming a king (forming a central government).
And the failure of that King proved the point. All creation (the good) is attendent with the forces to undo creation (the bad). With the good in man is also the bad -- the good must temper the bad or the good in any man is dimished.
The bad will always be with us. Learn to live with it, not under it.

In order for this to come to pass, it is my conjecture that Clinton's dismantling of the neutron bomb was a charade, and only a very few know it.

Very interesting thesis. What makes you think this?

Please consider my response to Simcha7 at #269. It relates to the nature of evil and its manifestations. If that is too far-out for you, you probably aren't ready to hear what follows.

In the post to which you responed, I referred to long stories. There is no pretense of presenting evidence.

A still shortened story.
It is a fact that you can find some who are so nihilist they would destroy the planet if they felt they'd succeed. The question becomes, "but are they in any position to implement?" It seems to me that it doesn't matter. The fear of failure keeps them from beginning. If they are consumed too, that's okay -- but they don't want to do so while they have doubt they'd succeed. I think because the jealous are cowardly they would never try. They will not risk leaving God with the last laugh.

Ah, but that leaves the allure of enslavement. It logically becomes the next best thing. Well then also logically one might ask "Are our "devils" in a position to implement this?"
To which you obviously respond: "Are you kidding?" Their influence is entrenched. That inclination to enslave is a continuous undercurrent throughout human history.

You may say I assert, but I maintain, given all that has gone before, that my conclusion is a certitude.
A benign appearing enslavement is firmly on the agenda.
Thus it seems clear to me that Progressives are not at all forward looking to freedom as they usually imply, but retrograde to serfdom. They tell us they see a gain in controlling where and how humanity heads in the future, a seemingly benign function. But it further seems to me that there are sure to be hard-liners near the top, if for no other reason than what always seems to recur in "practical" considerations even in the most advanced of minds: "We must give the devil his due." Such influences would herd humanity into the Progressives' program, most preferably on a voluntary basis -- and often with not much difficulty -- but by force when need be.

Now if you peruse some of my other posts, you will find I've concluded that the Progressives are haunted by Malthusianism. In short that is "the mathematical certainty of human overpopulation of our planet." My open-ended investigation has piles of evidence that human overpopulation has become THE bogeyman. It is the drive behind planetary social programs that entreat us to limit human growth. Many of us willing submit to the premise. Others of us grudgingly go along. And those few who resist the harbinger are ever more being made increasingly uncomfortable.

But the "program" also has its hard-edged malignancy. The world powers NO LONGER DISCOURAGE (as if the majority ever did anyway) the depopulation of the planet wherever that appears an easy prospect and one which will not blow up in our Progressives' faces. And the people, being weaned away from God based morality, something that many were never fully comfortable with anyway, are more easily schooled in secular humanity. Without a central creator, we no longer have a central father who cares for ALL his children. We now have humanity adjudged by humanity. And it adjudges that QUALITY of life clearly trumps QUANTITY of life. C.S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man, called those who do the adjudging "the conditioners." He demonstrates how they must stand outside of humanity in order to judge it. In so doing they deny their subjects the necessary dignity which permits them to look upon themselves as men. And in the process, the conditioners also lose the designation.

I perceive that in their currently benign appearance is but a convenient disguise for our old devils. An old destructiveness may have already become essential in world policy. Rather than the American citizens' ideal of justice wherein one may retain ones innocence until proven guilty, the NWO has negated that and then some. One is adjudged guilty simply by existing.

This appears to me to be the foundation of our new morality. A new "original sin." If you are not essential you have no right to live. Utilitarianism has taken on a new hue: bloody.

Under an influence such as this, at some point the neutron bomb becomes an excellent tool -- but one that is best kept hidden until push comes to shove. If your target suspects it might be used on them -- they're dead, but their works remain -- they might destroy their works or poison their possessions a priori. This would be as a last ditch effort to save their society's life by removing the incentive, or in anticipation of an attack, for delivering revenge after the fact.

Just as there are many layers to an onion, skepticism can lead each of us to cut through one after another layer of "fog" to inspect what really lies underneath, and then thoroughly inspecting the surroundings before going on to the next. Then, to be right with your purpose, you must force yourself to go back and review your old conclusions. Some can't face that, because that means owning up to past mistakes. Momentum from and commitment to and investment in our positions tend to be quite blinding. Evil thrives often because of our earthy ties, both material and spiritual. But failure to reconsider these errors foists on our posterity the burden of carrying-on misperceptions that will stymie them.

And skepticism gets tedious. It's a never-ending task. It's not helped by the toll the honest skeptic must pay. Such digging and cutting through to the next layer of fog involves considerable personal sacrifice.

One of those sacrifices is learning to deal with dreading that at any level one may be overwhelmed. Each level reveals the shear complexities and what was once seemingly unimaginable decay. Like a doctor who, after cutting in to the patient, decides he can't operate, one may feel compelled to toss it all in.

I comprehend from what, over time, my friend LCS has said that his explorations of human nature and history have left him so frustrated that he feels like doomsday may be just around the next corner. A crisis of faith in his own endurance and his fellow men. He seems to say his faith is not lessened with God, but he's too tired to ask God to grant him an increase in endurance. That seems to me to be a crisis with which all the good must contend, time and again, until they have no more to give. I believe it was Cicero who stoically observed that "virtue is its own reward." But he didn't have our loving God, who recognizes our efforts, to add into the equation.

To a great extent all this involves considering levels of evil few bother to think about. Layers upon layers, each exploiting another weakness, all trying to gain from the increases in parasitics, both naturally occurring and those imposed by government, as its generated by those who perform creative tasks. The slave-holders gain from the slaves, and now, as I perceive it is planned, it is ultimately leading to the slaves having no say over their own posterity. Death camps.

At this point I find it difficult to know whether or not I'm conveying anything of meaning to you or others who happen to read this.
I've no way to know who has pondered the eternal questions very deeply, or even at all. Until I'm informed to what level in the onion of life you readers presently reside, further discussion may be counterproductive. I may have already gone to far for most. Ah well, so be it.
Some may be beyond me, certainly I perceive many more others are behind. In general, I feel isolated from other men. Because of that, not unlike LCS, I'm often on the edge of despair.

I've been running a number of risks discussing my views, considerations, conclusions and open questions. I'm hoping my thoughts are consoling to many. Now I need to know more about my readers and what they can contribute to my consolation.

Thank you,

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.