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?
What are the Muslems going to say, that this is unfair?
Be carefull....the PC swat team will be on you quick! The Pro Pali's came out of the woodwork after me. :o)
Furthermore, I agree with you that a regime change in Iraq must be effected. Either that or a lasting isolation of Hussein and the Ba'athists that can only be achieved by a credible threat of invasion. Bush and the administration seem to be doing an incredible job on that front, imo.
My concern is that the Indians, North Koreans, or Chinese might be tempted to do something really stupid and dastardly while we are preoccupied with Iraq. In that case, Sharon would be tempted to gut the Palestinians because we would not be in any position to stop him.
I may be naive, but I am not too worried about an oil embargo--a serious one at any rate. That is the trigger for pushing the US to total adventurism in the M.E., a fundamental redrawing of maps, elimination of ruling families, etc. We can only regard an embargo as a weapon of mass destruction at this point.
I believe that demands only one course of action. France will be surrendering to . . . France.
Thank you. Good night. I'll be here all the week.
No one cares about honest disagreements about policy. The problem is when some people present their arguments as disinterested when in fact they have another agenda which requires American interests to be subordinated to those of another country.
When has Safire ever written: "Colin Powell, is right. In the best interests of America, Israel has to show restraint." When has Krauthammer ever said: "Israel has 100 to 200 nuclear weapons including neutron bombs. It has the best fighter pilots in the world. It has spy satellites, cruise missiles, submarines, the world's fourth most powerful army. Iraq is a danger to Israel. Therefore Sharon ought to make immediate plans to launch an attack and take her out."
That's what an honest commentator would do. Instead what we get is a bunch of columns about Bush losing his moral clarity. I have net to see an article by these guys suggesting that Sharon has lost his moral clarity. Doesn't it strike you as strange that these writers never criticize Israel. If for no other reason than the law of averages you'd think once in a while they'd write a column saying, "Hey, much as I hate to admit it, this time Sharon is wrong and Bush is right."
I have a lot of confidence in this administration, though. Despite all of the flak he's taken around here, Colin Powell has done an impressive job of managing our diplomacy in this period. We won't do Iraq until we can be sure these destablizing events are off the table.
Today, the President said that the US will prevent the destruction of Israel. The US has more nukes than France, and we WILL deal with the cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
Of course, the great irony is that we are here dealing with the fruits of Bonapartism and national revolution, as invented by...the French!
You're playing word games. You can't jump from the fact that Zeevi wanted to expel the Arabs to saying Sharon wanted the same thing. Your phrase "cabinet-level approval" is just a phony way of trying to turn Zeevi into Sharon. If you can prove Sharon has such a plan, do so. Otherwise, stop lying.
On the other hand, I have little doubt that the Arab "peace" plan is for Holocaust II.
The question boils down to this.....
If the China/NK/Iraq scenario actually does develop, do we use small tactical nukes to freeze everybody in their tracks....or would that escalate the madness?
LOL!!!
I have never said Israel didn't have the right to defend herself. As far as I'm concerned she can do whatever she feels is necessay--as long as she leaves the U.S. out of it. Right now, the U.S. is more of a Sharonista than Sharon is himself, which unfortunately means America's honor, reputation and ultimately its safety too is in Sharon's hands--a truly sobering thought.
I don't think McCain supporters are loyal to the USA or the Republican party. Podhoretz, Kristol, Safire and Goldberg jumped on the McCain express to nowhere because they are, like McCain, are no good. Worse in a way because their motivation for supporting McCain was one issue: Evangelical Christians were going to be marginalized out of the Republican party. No longer would they, at their upper west side cocktail parties, be ashamed to be politically associated with those people.
Now those people are the biggest supporters of Israel around and Podhoretz, Kristol, Safire and Goldberg are crowing about what wonderful people they are. The four of them are bigoted phonies and you know it.
In my opinion--no. The risk is too high. Remember Mao's comment about China (...you can nuke 500MM of us, and we'll still have 500MM more...). And now, of course, they have their own nukes, multiple re-entry warheads, ICBMs capable of reaching (I think) every American city. No--nukes will be used in China's neighborhood.
In fact, if China were to invade Taiwan, the sad truth is that we would probably have signed off on it beforehand. It would be regarded as part of the price of our operation in Iraq, the price of keeping China out of the Arab's corner as their patron superpower.
Russia is also a key to this, I think. Will they become a European power or be drawn under the Chinese shadow in this century? That's the prime time game, imo. Frighteningly enough, I think China has more to offer them. At the very least, they can probably ensure Russia's armed neutrality.
It's a dismal situation. Thank God we have this administration in place to deal with it. We need a Metternich...or even better, a Bismarck.
True. Iraq attempted to draw Israel into the war.
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.