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?

Maybe you think that Israel can survive an economic and military boycott by the Western world (which the US would join under these facts).

If Israel did the inconceivable, and built gas chambers and crematoria to murder all the Palestinians, the US would never join a boycott against her. The government of Israel is well aware of this fact, and can safely make policy on that assumption. It would be far more likely that we would boycott the EU, which we have done before, effectively, with the Smoot Hawley tariff.

With that I profoundly disagree. I think you seriously misjudge what animates this nation. We have our friends and allies sure, but we also value our self perception as a moral nation. Allowing your plan to be executed is antithetical to that.

Anyway I am consistent. I oppose with ever fiber of my being genocide or mass ethnic cleansing anywhere on this planet. I don't think I am ideosyncratic in my sentiments.

DentsRun: What are you going to do about the millions of Americans who say, "hey, we don't attack other Americans on account of their religion or ethnicity?"
What is your point? No one in this category is an Islamic Arab-American.

I don't care if they are Islamic or not, as long as their loyalty is to America, just as I don't care if someone is Jewish or not, as long as his loyalty is to America. If someone has cast his lot with America, I'll be happy to defend him, no matter what his enthnicity/religion may be. And I don't like it (it sounds too much like bigotry and racism) to hear people say, "Hey, once Israel kicks out all the Palestinians, whadda say we kick out out the Arabs from America too." If Israel wants to kick out the Palestinians that's her business. But here in America we don't kick out other Americans just because a few hotheads don't agree with their religion/ethnicity.

Maybe; what does that have to do with Israel? And are you advocating genocide?

The AlQuaeda are Islamists, the Palis are Islamists, the Iraquis are Islamists. The Islamists are a school of Moslems who believe that all Americans must die. The followers of this approach, like the Nazis must either change their attitude, be physically restrained until they do change, or be killed if they resist violently.

America has no fundamental quarrel with the Arabs

Either you don't remember 9/11, or you don't consider it signifigant, or you consider it to be our fault.

This makes you either an idiot, a fool, or my blood enemy until one of us kills the other.

Anyway I am consistent. I oppose with ever fiber of my being genocide or mass ethnic cleansing anywhere on this planet. I don't think I am ideosyncratic in my sentiments.

Do you think the Germans who were driven out of Poland and Koenigsberg at the end of WWII (and properly so based on their support of Hitler) should have a claim to the land that they were driven out of?

Their loyalties are suspect, eh? Why? Others advocate the same position. Others have wanted the war with Iraq even moreso than any of the pundits you mentioned. Why are their loyalties suspect?

Because they can't separate loyalty to their tribe from loyalty to their country. Here in America we come from different tribes and different religions and different races. We're supposed to put that aside and say those things don't matter. We're all committed to the common good. What matters is our committment to Jeffersonian democracy, the Constitution, rule of law, the bill of rights. Unfortunately a few people put their loyalties to their tribe ahead of their loyalies to their country. And yes, that burns me. If they would just come out and say, "We've got to bomb Iraq to save Israel," I could respect that. Then we could discuss the case for bombing Iraq on its merits. Instead they say, "Saddam is a terrible threat to America." Well, exuse me, but he's not. China's a lot worse threat--ICBMS, MIRVS, and so on down the line. But none of these guys is urging us to bomb China. Why? Because China is not a threat to Israel.

And suspected by whom? You?

By me.

I don't care if they are Islamic or not, as long as their loyalty is to America

I'm with you on this one. You are an American if you love America, if you are prepared to stand by us when the chips are down, whatever your ethnicity. Most immigrants are in that category, and it was moving to hear the honest expressions of love and support that came, spontaneously, out of most of the immigrant communities. And most of them answer any question of loyalty with their bodies and their lives; just look at the makeup of our armed forces.

It could be bad or shallow press coverage, but I got a distinctly queasy feeling from Arab reactions to all of this. The bullets are flying. We are looking around to see who is with us. Are Arab Americans prepared to stand by us when the shooting starts? Are they lining up at the recruiting stations? Anyone know the answer to this?

I mean this as a sincere question. Perhaps an Arab-American in reading this website could respond.

You should note that sobieski was the same person who was saying a couple of weeks ago that there was no evidence that the Palestinians were holding hostages at the Church of the Nativity

Yes the fans of the Pali Fourth Reich are out in force on this thread.

we also value our self perception as a moral nation.

Very funny!! Any pretense that we are a moral nation vanished with the acceptance of abortion. Since we are a repulsive sink of moral corruption let us at least massacre our enemies.

Resettlement, expulsion, whatever you want to call it, is a thoroughly modern idea, just like strictly observed national borders and picture id passports to cross them. (Oh I know, I know, they happened in 1492 and before but were never executed as efficiently and as humanely as the past century's expulsions.) Why we are so delicate now after the mass resettlements after WWII, which were justified and signed on by statesmen still regarded as heroes here and elsewhere, is a mystery to this cat. If we are to accept the legitimacy of Israel, a colonial state composed of people who had been born elsewhere and decided that is their ancestral homeland that they'll now claim after many centuries is in the Middle East (and, mind you, I do accept it, so no stupid flames!) then we must accept the next logical step and that is a mass expulsion of the current residents of those lands.

No claim, but I think the expulsion was wrong. Things happen in the aftermath of war I admit. But launching a war for the purpose of expulsion just isn't my cup of tea, unless the situation is in extremis, and that was not the fact pattern presented here. The fact pattern was that Israel should consider exploiting the US war on Iraq while attention was diverted. No one bothered to address just how Israel taking advantage of that might impact the war against Iraq. I can see much fiercer resistance, more Arab support against us, and maybe even Turkey shutting the whole thing down.

Putting aside the morality of it all, the balancing of the risk reward ratio on this is totally lacking on this thread. But it should remind Bush to get a pledge from Israel that it will stand down prior to the war being initiated. Not that I think Israel has the slightest intention of indulging the walter mitty fantasies here, but as they say, trust but verify.

Anyway I am consistent. I oppose with ever fiber of my being genocide or mass ethnic cleansing anywhere on this planet. I don't think I am ideosyncratic in my sentiments.

Since you are a big supporter of genocide and mass ethnic cleansing everywhere it occurs on this planet, so long as the victims were conceived less than 9 months previously I consider your hypocrisy when it comes to dealing with the murderers of the people in the World Trade Center, and the supporters of those murderers to be morally repulsive.

I don't care if they are Islamic or not, as long as their loyalty is to America,

All the evidence that exists leads to the conclusion that among Arab-Americans the category you define is a null category (i.e. there are no Islamic Arab Americans whose loyalty is to America.)

loyalty to their tribe

You're almost there, come on, you can say it. They're Jewish. And it's Jewish people whose loyalty is suspect. I'd just better hope nothing flairs up in Switzerland or all of my opinions might be viewed through the lens of defending my ancestral homeland.

First off, Israel would love to deal with Iraq themselves. They did it once before. It's the US that keeps tying their hands on that issue.

It is you who puts ulterior motives in other people's words and that says far more about you than it does about them. Is it possible, just possible, that a person who is Jewish who has written millions of published words and had hundreds of hours of airtime on broadcast media might, just might, be expressing an opinion that they believe in, independent of "tribal loyalties". In fact, it's not an unusual position. Most people hold it. It's only the hard-core Islamics, Saddam Hussein himself, and, of course, the hate-Israel-first crowd who disagrees.

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.