A BETTER ISRAELI STRATEGY

Even in the midst of Israel's war with the Arabs, Israel continues with its own ongoing civil war between the secular leftists and the traditional Jews. In this war, the leftists have so far been the hands-down winners. This was shown when Barak was fully able to get elected and agree to give away Israel's heartland and to surrender Jerusalem to the Arabs -- all this against a background of a powerless traditional/security block.

It was the leftists that had their own staged plan for Israel's incremental surrenders to Arafat. The leftists colluded with these Arab enemies for the purpose of destroying Jewish Israel and discrediting any semblance of leadership that professed Jewish roots. In order to foster their anti-Jewish policies, it was the leftists that had embraced the lie of a "Palestinian people" with historic national rights that Israel must gratify, doing so in order to facilitate the relinquishing of the Jewish heartland and Jerusalem on the way to a secular, socialist Israeli version of Cuba.

The leftist side of the civil war for the moment seems stymied, but they have not been stopped. It was only because Arafat rejected Barak's surrender as not abject enough in allowing millions of Arabs to invade and overrun "green line" Israel. Arafat then began his terrorist war against the Jewish population. This finally exposed for many of the more moderate leftists what the right had argued all along, that Arab peaceful intentions was fictional. The immediate result was the fall of Barak and bringing in Prime Minister to bring the peace and security to Israel that leftists had bungled and betrayed. That the shift was not total among Israelis was proved by the fact that the leftist leadership has persisted in its folly, refusing to say die on policy that had strengthened the Arab enemy and led to the murder and maiming of thousands of Israelis. What was especially shocking, in a rerun of betrayals by right wing leaders, Sharon was backing the leftists and giving them leadership positions in his government. What was the worst, instead of destroying the military capacity of the Arab enemy, Sharon was saving Arafat and the fruits of the Arab gains through their duplicities in Oslo. The Arabs got land but they certainly did not give peace for it, a reason for Israel to reclaim all its ill considered concessions to a dangerous enemy.

The endurance of the leftist policies that are driven by a leftist ideology proves how tenacious these beliefs are in those who hold them. The reason is that leftist ideology is not based on reason or experience but is a religion in itself with roots in a pathological character structure that is prevalent among leftists. Interestingly, the Bible's Ecclesiastes warned against this very warped human character when he urged, "Be not over righteous or wise over much, for why woulds't thou destroy thyself?" The persons addressed are those who crave to exalt themselves as mentally and morally superior to those around them and to see as proof of this their secular doctrines of the universalistic nature of good in the hearts of all, including the Arabs that embrace terrorism and would destroy Israel without a pang of guilt. From this mental pathology springs the fanatic leftist program of coddling savage enemies to draw out "their good."

In this coddling is enacted the parable of "the mercy of fools." This is the mercy of "the decent" shepherd boy who nursed a sick, baby jackal back to health with the milk of the lambs only to have the grown jackal repay the kindness by devastating the flock of lambs. Like the leftists, this is a well-meaning, righteous lad who rejects all advice from "vicious, hard-hearted elders" and sows the seeds of destruction for his community. The point of this parable is this: as long as such persons exist in leadership positions in Israel and are further manipulated by unscrupulous mad-dog leaders who seek gain power by pandering to this mentality, Israel cannot do what it must to preserve itself and its future. It cannot even begin to understand its plight facing an implacable Arab enemy that is determined to pay a very high price to destroy the Jewish nation.

WHY BRING UP THIS SUBJECT? It can be argued that Sharon is to be involved in destroying Arafat's facilities and killing terrorist leaders. Unfortunately, despite the hoopla and bombast, Sharon does not fundamentally change Arafat's capabilities nor does he rethink Israel's policies to cede land to a Palestinian state. Sharon continues to communicate with Arafat's PA so that he can bomb empty buildings. But Arafat's military and terrorist infrastructures are remain intact. Does Sharon really believe that this will lead to the reform of Arafat and the Arabs he represents so that they will be capable of living in peace with Israel? Has Sharon not been moved by the spectacle of the Arab hordes in Ramalah that enthusiastically supported the lynching of two hapless Israelis or has he not heard that 80% of the threatening Arabs support suicide bombers directed against Israeli civilians?

Yet Sharon openly declares that he supports the kind of self-defeating peace that Barak envisioned, though at a slower pace. This entails, at best, the eventual surrender to the Arab enemy of the Israeli heartland and Jerusalem. Sharon apparently believes like the leftists that deep inside the vicious Arab jackal is an Arab lamb that will eventually make peace. Like the foolish shepherd boy, Sharon wants to nourish the sick jackals back to health and he refrains from eliminating the threat that the Arabs will surely again become as they stand on their feet with his help. Thus, Sharon's policies are saving Arafat and the PA, rewarding them for their deceptions in Oslo by the lands and recognition they achieved under false pretenses. Above all, it will enable the continuing of the Arab war against Israel. What Israel's people desperately need is a stronger Israeli response that breaks out of the leftist straitjacket that binds Israel.

THE MYTH OF A PALESTINIAN PEOPLE and its right to national expression must be rejected. These are falsehoods embraced by the leftist traitors to Israel who would destroy the Jewish roots of the nation on the basis of the conviction that a tiny, secular Israel will be accepted by the Arabs. Once such aberrant thinking and policies are rejected by the nation, Israel must move to decisively destroy the incipient rival national challenge of the Arabs by drastically changing its strategic situation on the ground.

What this means is that the threatening Arab enemy population must be physically driven back, consolidated, and compressed into even more compact areas that will give such discomfort that it will encourage their emigration. What is more, Israel's government must openly call on Arab and world nations to support the transfer of this Arab population in the interest of peace in the region.

If this would seem an inhuman policy that egregiously violates international law, guess again. This was a policy that was instituted many times by respectable nations in the more recent past. A most relevant instance was the transfer policy supported by the Western Allies -- the US, Britain, France, Russia, etc -- after World War II to relocate back to Germany 12 million ethnic Germans residing in the nations surrounding Germany -- undertaken IN THE INTEREST OF PEACE. What had happened was that Adolph Hitler had used ethnic turmoil in Czechoslovakia to plunge Europe into war in the same way that the Arab nations are now using such turmoil. The allied policy was to insure future peace by preventing such a thing ever happening again in Europe. This goal of peace is the very same is now the rationale for removing Arabs from the Israeli region.

TRANSFER MUST BE ISRAEL'S RESPONSE to the proposal that the only solution to the current Arab-Israeli struggle is the establishment of a new Arab state on Israel's lands, the so-called failed "territories for peace policy." But such a solution would only be temporary at best and would create an irredentist Arab nation that would be a mortal danger to Israel, a condition already evident under PA control. The alternative solution, transferring the Arabs from the Israeli region, gives far greater promise for peace. It will also save lives on both sides, Arab and Israeli, and, by preventing the inevitable clash between Israel and terrorist agents from such an Arab state, it will prevent the occurrence of an eventual, grand, devastating, regional war that must be ruinous to all.

IT IS DOUBTFUL that the Arab nations that have supported al-Qaeda and world terrorism will find the interests of peace in the Middle East and the saving of even Arab lives a compelling reason to support a policy of Arab transfer. They will prefer their current policy to rob and destroy Israel, a policy supported by Osama bin Laden. Therefore, it must be a policy that Israel must consider imposing UNILATERALLY as the means to save the Jewish State. Whether an Israeli government does so, it is vital that Israel's people know that Arab transfer is a moral and respectable approach to solving their plight, a policy deserving the support of an Israeli government. The Arabs know that a new Arab state will be the means to destroy Israel and hence back it. Israel's counter proposal must be transfer, the very policy the Western Allies used to prevent future wars in Europe. If Sharon cannot be weaned from Barak's leftist policies that serve the Arab war on Israel, the Israeli people must promptly remove him and bring in a true pro-Israel leader that will support this change in Israel's current ruinous, self-defeating policy.

The possibility should not be overlooked that the US would end up acquiescing in, if not supporting, such an Israeli policy were the US to understand its benign results to the region. The US has vowed to destroy terrorism of world scope, the very kind of terrorism currently promoted by Arafat and the PA and one of the Arab cause celebres that promises to promote future world terrorism, as the recent words of Osama bin Laden showed.

There are many scenarios for accomplishing this policy in total or in part. One of these is US discontinuance of support for Arab refugees of the Middle East, a mercy of the foolish, that resulted in creating a pool of unmanageable refugees that make peace in the region ever more intractable. Another is to designate Jordan, with or without its agreement, as the way station for Arabs from Israel on their relocation to other parts of the Arab world, perhaps even into Iraq, which we learn could use a larger Sunni Arab population for stability after Saddam Hussein is ousted -- another good suggestion to cool down the region.

Transfer will yield a greatly strengthened Israel and thereby deter Arab adventurism. This is likely since the devastation to Arab lands that could result from Arab attempts to attack such a strengthened Israel will be frightening and will discourage war. Moreover, such sure destruction of the Arabs themselves gives religious sanction from desisting from jihad, an escape hatch provided by Islam itself. Were the Arabs confronted with such a PAX ISRAELUS, they would perhaps be driven to turn to peaceful pursuits and begin a long delayed modernization of their realm.

"TRANSFER" is one of those terrible policies that recommends itself since it is better than all other alternatives. If the nations of the world fail to remember Allied wisdom after World War II and it proves too subtle a policy for Israeli leftist fanatics who wish to see themselves as more moral than the Western allies after World War II, it remains for a pro-Israeli government to come to power that recognize Israel's plight and moral right to preserve the nation from its enemies and to bring such a policy to fruition, unilaterally if it must.

Exchange of Populations

                  For every refugee - adult or child - in Syria, Lebanon, or elsewhere in the Arab
                  world who compels our sympathy, there is a Jewish refugee who fled from the
                  Arab country of his birth. For every Arab who moved to neighboring lands, a Jew
                  was forced to flee from a community where he and his ancestors may have lived
                  for two thousand years. The Jews escaped to their original homeland, where
                  their roots are even older; the Arabs also arrived where they were in the majority,
                  where they shared the same language and culture with fellow Arabs, and often
                  only a few dozen miles from their places of origin.

                  An exchange of populations has in actuality taken place and been
                  consummated; by coincidence, even the total number of Arabs who reportedly
                  left Israel is almost exactly equaled by the number of Jews exchanged. There
                  has been a completed exchange of minorities between the Arabs and the Jews,
                  and a more-than-even tradeoff of property for the Arabs. The Jews who fled
                  Arab countries left assets behind in the Arab world greater than those the Arabs
                  left in Israel.1 Jewish property that the Arabs confiscated in Iraq, Syria, Libya,
                  and Egypt apparently has more than offset Arab claims of compensation from
                  Israel. In fact, the concept of an "exchange of Arab and Jewish populations" was
                  introduced by an Arab leader as a solution to the "disturbances" in the Middle
                  East long before Israel or the actual exchange came about. In 1939, Mojli Amin,
                  a member of the Arab Defense Committee for Palestine, drew up a proposal,
                  published in Damascus and distributed among Arab leaders, entitled
                  "Exchange of Populations." Amin proposed that

                       all the Arabs of Palestine shall leave and be divided up among the
                       neighboring Arab countries. In exchange for this, all the Jews living in
                       Arab countries will go to Palestine....

                       The exchange of populations should be carried out in the same way
                       thar Turkey and Greece exchanged their populations. Special
                       committees must be set up to deal with the liquidation of Jewish and
                       Arab property....

I fear, in truth, that the Arabs will not agree.... But in spite of this, I
take upon myself the task of convincing them ....2

                  At least a decade before the 1947 resolution to partition Palestine into a Jewish
                  and an Arab state, the British had proposed the exchange,of "Arab population in
                  Palestine" for Jews elsewhere."3 In 1945 Herbert Hoover stated that "The Arab
                  population of Palestine would be the gainer from better lands in exchange for
                  their present holdings. Iraq would be the gainer, for it badly needs agricultural
                  population. Today millions of people are being moved from one land to another."
                  Therefore, Hoover suggested "financing" Iraq to "complete" the population
                  transfer with greater facility.4

                  From the time Israel attained modem statehood, independent humanitarian
                  pleas attempted to reveal the actualities of all the "Middle East refugees" and to
                  spotlight the potential permanent relief. One example was clergyman Carl
                  Hermann Voss, who hoped through his books to change the world's faulty
                  perception. He wrote,

                       Some appeals for aid have implied that there is only an Arab
                       refugee problem, enabling Arab propagandists to blame the Arab
                       refugee plight on Israel. If proper attention is called to both Jewish
                       and Arab refugee problems, much ill-will may be avoided and
                       genuine human need, regardless of race or creed, will be served.5

                  1.Maurice Roumani, The Case ofthe Jewsfrom Arab Countries. A NeglectedIssue, with Deborah
                  Goldman and Helene Korn, vol. 1, World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries (WOJAC),
                  Jerusalem, 1975, p. 82.

                  2.Transmission from Damascus, political agent, Political Department of the Jewish Agency, to
                  Elialm Sasson, Political Department, Palestine, May 16, 1939 (from the English translation),
                  CZA-525/5630 (Central Zionist Archives).

                  3. For example, see Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes of the 32nd Session, pp.
                  111-118; particularly August 13, 1937: Lord William Ormsby Gore advocated the transfer of the
                  Arab population of Palestine, who "had not hitherto regarded themselves as 'Palestinians' but
                  as part of Syria as a whole, as part of the Arab world. ... They would be going only a
                  comparatively few miles away to a people with the same language, the same civilisation, the
                  same religion . . . " cited by Martin Gilbert, Exile and Return: The Strugglefor a Jewish
                  Homeland (Philadelphia and New York: J.B. Lippincott, 1978), p. 185. Also see reactions to
                  Ormsby Gore, PRO FO, 371/E71 34/976/31, minute, E.W. Rendel, December 8, 1937:
                  According to British Foreign Office official Rendel, the transfer of "the Arab population from the
                  Jewish state ... seems clearly to have been regarded as a matter of enforcement by his
                  Majesty's Government," judging from Lord Ormsby Gore's statements in the cabinet and his
                  interview in the Jewish Chronicle of August 13, 1937. Rendel feared it would "be very difficult to
                  answer the Saudi Minister's inquiry." In 1944, the British Labor Party officially endorsed the
                  proposed transfer of Palestinian Arabs to Arab countries, and a year later the British
                  Commonwealth passed a similar resolution. Schectman, European Population Transfers
                  1939-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), p. 457.

4. Interview, New York World Telegram, November 19, 1945.

5.Carl Hermann Voss, The Palestine Problem Today: Israel and Its Neighbors (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1953), p. 36.

                  This page was produced by Joseph E. Katz
                  Middle Eastern Political and Religious History Analyst
                  Brooklyn, New York

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/exchange.html

Why wouldn't this sentence apply to those advocating transfer? It seems that if Israel were to unilaterally embark on a forcible transfer of the Palestinians, they would cut themselves off from most of the world. Perhaps even the USA. It is a high stakes game of chicken that could cause her own demise.

The time for transfer in a peaceful sense has passed by. Noted in the above exerpt I posted was legitimate discussion from all parties, including Arab, that transfer was the most feasible solution. The Yishuv and then the state of Israel did not have the military means to a enact transfer process in the war of independence.

Clearly, transfer was not something the Pan Arabists and guys like the Grand Mufti supported. The only transfer these supported was the transfer of Jews out of the Mandate or their dhimmization and a moratorium on further Jewish immigration. The Arab world, contrary to the processes which shaped the Islamic-Hindu transfers in Asia, purposed to continue using the Arabs in the Mandate to further their Pan Arabism and extinguishing the Jewish state.

It would take nothing less now, then a full-scale war declared by the Arab states against Israel to cause a major shift in population by the Arabs from Judea and Samaria to Arab countries. The Pan Arabists will never allow a peaceful transfer and Israel would never forcefully transfer in "peacetime" (if we can refer to the Intifada as "peacetime").

The other process, is that if the Arab States and Arab people will not conclude peace with Israel then Israel should try to win the demographic process and continue to build settlements slicing up Judea and Samaria further and further.

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.