Hmmmmmm, sure looks like Israel is trying to stay within it's alloted territory, even if they annex the "occupied territories".
Posted on 04/27/2002 5:25:11 PM PDT by 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?
If that's true then there's no reason for some people here to huff and puff about the need to ethnically cleanse America of Arab Americans.
Palestine isn't about ethnic cleansing. It is about removing weapons of mass destruction, known as homicide bombers, from a sociopath, Arafat. It is a highly just and moral war. And it must be done. And it has been done with a view to minimizing civilian casualties. As is evident from the use of soldiers, rather than cluster bombs in Jenin. Conflating your plan with this plan is simply equating gentiles and Jews.
In a worst case scenario, China moves on Taiwan, N. Korea advances on S. Korea......we are bogged down fighting on several fronts with a somewhat depleted military (thanks to BC). What better odds do the above mentioned countries have than to coincide their moves while we are wrapped up in the ME?....IMHO
I think Sharon is a little busy right now to concern himself with Saddam. But you keep saying that is the ulterior motive of these pundits. You are the one with the elaborate Rube Goldberg-like scenario of what will happen in the ME that causes these people to advocate re-attacking a country we are (by virtue of the treaty Iraq signed) still at war with.
And, frankly, in the context of having been constantly attacked by her neighbors since her inception, I cannot, in context, think of too many instances where I can forcibly oppose Israel's actions. I would have gone much further.
If there is another large attack on the US by the terrorists, Islamic Arab Americans are likely to be justly treated in the same way as the Japanese Americans were unjustly treated during WWII.
They did no such thing. The Arabs states told the Palestinian Arabs to leave, and that they could return, gettting the property of the Jews as well as their own, after the Arab armies crushes the Jews. It didn't quite work out that way, and those Palistinian Arabs and their decendents live in refugee camps or dispered all over the Arab world as second class citizens, to this day. Only those that stayed in Israel are citizens of a free and democratic (small "d") country, with voting and other civil rights.
Oh, yes they were sent at us! Iraq and SA share a border. Scuds were the reason why we donned MOPP-4 so darned much over there. Our Patriot missiles knocked most of them out of the sky, though.
No doubt. Your post, however, is fiction.
The fact is, according to those who were there, Arafat walked out without so much as a counter proposal. He went home and lit up the terror campaign on his own, without need of any help from Sharon.
This I did not know. If so, shame on the Arab countries that keep them. It is cruel to use them as pawns to focus their native population on Israel rather then their repressive rule.
The internet address example I gave was just that -- an example. There is nothing at all resembling a state in the WB. They depend on Israel for jobs, electricity, heat, everything. There is no attempt to build a life there. None at all. Recall that prior to '67 it was Jordan. Jordan had a little fracas with the WB Palestinians as well as I recall.
Hmmmmmm, sure looks like Israel is trying to stay within it's alloted territory, even if they annex the "occupied territories".
If they try it, Marseilles will be a glass plate. If the Egyptians try it, the Aswan Dam will disappear, along with the entire population of the Nile Valley. That last scenario will probably involve a plague along the lines of the Black Death taking out most of the Mediterranean basin.
It need not entail as much as you might think. They can walk to Jordon in a day or two, or drive their vehicles or take buses or trucks in a very few hours. The West Bank is just not that big a place.
Deport them too?
Blame it on my Jewish blood (you seem to be allying yourself with that sort of crowd lately anyhow).
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.