Sharon's plan is to drive Palestinians across the Jordan

The Sunday Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 04/28/2002

[Pokey78]

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.

Should such circumstances arise, then Israel would mobilise with lightning speed - even now, much of its male population is on standby.

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?

• Prof van Creveld is author of The Sword and the Olive; a Critical History of the Israel Defence Force (New York, 1998). He lives in Jerusalem

[Torie]

Just the third trimester actually. You should try to get your facts straight before you lash out. It will assist you in making sure that your dagger effects mortal, as opposed to merely flesh, wounds. In any event, I give you an "A" in creativity for bootstrapping off the abortion issue as a spring gun for unleashing Israel per you fantasmic vision from hell.

[vbmoneyspender]

It was absolutely correct what was done to the Germans. They had fully supported Hitler in his maniacal dreams and they had to be forced to learn the hard way that there is a price to be paid for following genocidal leaders like Hitler.

With regard to the Palestinians, you must be forgetting that they cheered on Saddam when we fought the Gulf War. And they cheered and laughed and handed out candy, when 9/11 happened. As far as I am concerned, they already have 2 strikes against them. And when the third strike occurs, which it will given their overwhelming support for the terrorists in their midst, they are going to have to learn (just like the Japanese and the Germans learned before them) that there is a terrible price to be paid in these times for following genocidal leaders like Arafat and genocidal groups like Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah and all of the other groups that make up Islamic Terrorists, Inc.

[TheDon]

That does address the WB Arabs, but not the Palis in other Arab countries. They are all stateless as well. I hardly think having an internet address .il qualifies one as an Israeli. We take our being citizens for granted in the US, never thinking of the difficulties of being stateless. Probably because most US citizens never travel outside the US.

[TheDon]

I stand corrected. Sometimes I use diplomatic language to excess.

[Torie]

I have no illusions about the Palestinians, none whatsover. Sharon should go about effecting their reservation status by building a wall around them, which totally circumscribes them. Things can be relaxed for good behavior. But just because the Palestinians are having a bad patch, and have degenerated into vicious bigoted murderous savages, doesn't mean Israel and the US should try to join them in finding the lowest common denominator. And of course I am confident neither will. I have too much respect for both to have much concern that that will happen. Regards.

[Edmund Burke]

From Sharon's viewpoint the 9-11 attack turned out to be pretty convenient.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Just the third trimester actually.

Fairly unusual to find someone who is pro-death for the third trimester and pro-life for the first and second trimester, it is usually the other way around. As one of the few who was born well into the FOURTH trimester (9 months and 3 weeks), I expect that your reasoning for this position should be interesting.

[DentsRun]

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 frankly wish I'd seen more support for American from Arab-Americans too. The wife of a friend of mine is a doctor. In the hospital where she did her residency she says there were Palestinian doctors who did nothing but bad mouth America. For such people I have no sympathy. Apparently they only came to this country to get rich, but their real loyalities have always been to their own tribes. Well, screw that. If you can't put your loyalty to America ahead of your loyalty to your tribe, then you obviously haven't assimilated yet. Maybe such people should rethink their committment (if any) to America. And if they can't make such a committment, they ought to return to their precious tribes.

[Torie]

Well actually it is the reverse. Things were moving a bit fast here. Abortion legal for the first trimester, I'm unsure about the second, and it should be banned in most circumstances in the third. I think you knew I meant that, didn't you?

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

In any event, I give you an "A" in creativity for bootstrapping off the abortion issue as a spring gun for unleashing Israel per you fantasmic vision from hell.

Since you are the one who brought up the issue of the US being such a moral nation that we would restrict one of our allies doing the same thing to one of our enemies as we will simultaneously be doing to another of our enemies, I would think that the credit goes to you. In any case, Israel will not be doing anything to the Palestinians that is even a fraction as violent as what we will be doing to Iraq at the same time. I suppose you are also looking to defend Saddam from this 'fantasmic vision from hell'.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I think you knew I meant that, didn't you?

If folks around here are supposed to be replying to what they THINK someone meant, as opposed to what they actually wrote, things will really get confusing around here.

[Torie]

Iraq isn't about ethnic cleansing. It is about removing weapons of mass destruction, or their inchoate form, from a sociopath. It is a highly just and moral war. And it must be done. And it will done with a view to minimizing civilian casualties. Conflating your plan with this plan is simply apples and oranges, for yet a second time.

[Torie]

Ok, well you know now. And obviously you read other posts of mine on the topic, which you misunderstood, or chose to misconstrue, or maybe you had a temporary lapse of memory.

[rdb3]

the Pals are talked about by many as wild animals on these pages when they are in fact God's children just as the Jewish and you and I are.

I don't know what faith you belong to, but it sure as hell ain't mine.

[Southern Federalist]

But here in America we don't kick out other Americans just because a few hotheads don't agree with their religion/ethnicity.

No apparently we just question the loyalty of other Americans if we disagree with them about Mideast policy.

If they happen to be Jews.

Hypocrite.

[DentsRun]

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.

Nobody ties Sharon's hands. He doesn't listen to the president of the United States. If he wants to go attack the Iraqi nuclear reactor again, there's no one who can or will stop him. As for the UN, the UN is already 100 to 1 against Sharon. How much worse can it be if he attacks Iraq again?

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".

If people are even-handed and if they are honest and if they have written millions or words and expressed opinions over hundreds of hours of airtime, wouldn't you expect that at least some of those opinions would be critical of Israel? I mean, no nation is every 100% right all the time. Instead, whenever there's the slightest discord between American interests and Israeli interests, they take the Israeli side. If they only took the Israeli side half the time or 75% of the time, I wouldn't have a problem. I might not agree but I'd say, "Okay, fair enough, that's the way they see it." But when you've got a bunch of people who take the Israeli side all the time I would say they've got their own agenda.

Look, if it so important to Israel that Iraq be attacked, why don't they just do it, and leave the US out of it? Why does it have to be the US that attacks Iraq?

[Anticommie]

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

That's the ONLY way to achieve peace, should have been done a long time ago.

[wattsmag2]

But remember the 700,000 Pals were driven from their homes when Israel was created ....out of violance of course

Absolute BS. They left because they were told they'd get to come back when the Jews were exterminated. They left voluntarily. The violence was started by the countries of Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, not the Israelis.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I frankly wish I'd seen more support for American from Arab-Americans too.

I wish that I had seen ANY support WHATSOEVER from ANY Islamic Arab-American. The most I have seen was some sympathy for the victims of 9/11, which is not the same thing as support for America in this war.

[rdb3]

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

I with you, Lucius. I most certainly have not forgotten 9/11, and I never will.

And this happened because America is supposed to be "The Great Satan." Some even believe that it happened because we are friends with Israel. No matter. American blood was spilled by these dark-aged Islamists, and if aiding Israel helps to bring about the Islamists' demise, I say, "LET'S ROLL!"

I've been to the M.E. during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. If I had to, I'd gladly go back to finish what we should have finished then. Eighty-Deuce, baby!