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?

I don't really see the Pals as cowards who must attack civilians - rather hopelessly out guned thanks to my hard earned tax dollars given to the I's each year. They are doing the only thing they can....not that I agree with it...but I understand the dynamic that causes the hateful acts.

Horse puckey. The colonials in South Carolina were hopelessly outgunned by the Redcoats. They resorted to guerilla warfare, but they did not attack civilian targets, they attacked military convoys and patrols, then ran back into the swamps to fight another day. They did not go into towns and kill the mayor, if he happened to be a Loyalist. There were some incidents, but it was not the general rule.

The Palistinian, and other supposedly Muslim terrorists attack civilian targets almost exclusively. Targets selcted not for the harm it would do to the "occupying" forces, but rather for the amount of "print" they could get, for the terror they could cause, or just because they were easy targets.

Why should he, he has far better things to do with his time.

Well that's a bit too grim for me, though the 20th century was certainly one for the Deists.

I really like your screen name, btw. Always meant to tell you that.

"..Russia is the key to Central Asia.."

Yep...they will be extensively "courted" by the US and China. They stand to be the biggest recepient by playing both sides to gain everthing they can to manuever themselves back into a real superpower type of role.

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 the Palestinians.

When has Dent'sRun ever written: "Benjamin Netanyahu is right; if we don't help Israel fight suicide bombing over there, we will someday have to fight it here at home."

That's what an honest poster would do. Instead what we get is a bunch of posts about Jewish columnists having suspect loyalties. I have yet to see an article by this guy suggesting that Sharon has any moral clarity. Doesn't it strike you as strange that DentsRun always criticizes Israel, never sees any instance in which helping Israel is in our best interests? If for no other reason than the law of averages you'd think once in a while he'd write a post saying, "Hey, much as I hate to admit it, this time Sharon is right."

Clearly, his loyalty is suspect.

How would you feel ....being run out of your home?

Not so hot, but if I left because my buddies said I could come back latter and have not only my property but my neighbor's too. If they also said that I should get out of the way while the killed my neighbors or pushed them into the sea, well that would be a horse of different color.

all Israel would accomplish would be to go from having a small terrorist statelet on its borders to having a much larger terrorist state there.

The early city-state Roman Republic had a similar problem. They were yeoman farmers and simple villagers surrounded by larger, older, and more powerful enemies. Their solution was to become a military power and to impose puppet rulers, and direct rule over all of their enemies, eventually the known world. As the Middle Eastern outpost of the West, in the current world war between the islamists and the west, Israel may have to do the same thing with all of their Arab neighbors.

[Russia] will be extensively "courted" by the US and China."

Well the courtship they're likely to get from the Chinese may be a bit rough, but fundamentally I agree with you.

Short term, Europe and the US can offer Russia pipelines and billions of dollars to develop natural gas and oil mining facilities. We can also, for now, guarantee her security.

Longer term, China can offer Russia her survival.

I don't quite follow the last sentence. As it is, China poses a huge demographic threat to the Russian East. I have read articles that the Chinese are moving across the Amur River, and Russia is so dysfunctional that it is below the radar screen. And of course the Chinese are eating the Russians alive economically in the areas to which they move, for a variety of reasons I won't get into. I suspect this someday will become a flashpoint. And I doubt Russia will win. Buchanan is wrong about almost everything except one thing: Russia is a dying country in rigor mortis. And the piper will be paid in the East potentially. With both having nukes, that will be another issue for our children to deal with.

Didn't China and Russia tentatively bury the hatchet?

Who knows? Whatever goes on in public is likely to be just so much Kabuke theater.

Wouldn't surprise me though. If they did, it was probably a general agreement not to get in each others' faces for now. Better to let both countries profit from the ambiguity for awhile. China gets uninterrupted economic growth and Russia gets pipelines, a secure border with China, and natural gas/oil development money.

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

One has responded to me on this thread. I believe some of them would stand up for America,without hesitation. In fact,I made a blanket statement earlier on this thread about all Arab-Americans in the US and their removal.I apologize for saying it,thats foolish and makes me no better than the ones we are angry with.However,as I explained to the poster,there hasnt been meaningful condemnation of 9/11 or a collective sympathetic response. Do they owe us one? Well,no,not really.But it sure would go a long way toward alleviating suspicion and hostility toward Arab-American citizens.

Well that's a bit too grim for me, though the 20th century was certainly one for the Deists.

Based on it's history up to this point, I am beginning to think that later historians, if there are any, will picture the 20th century as a golden age of peace, prosperity and freedom, compared to the 21st century. With any luck at all, Hitler, Stalin, Mao-Tse Tung and Pol Pot will be remembered as relative pikers, compared to the future leaders of our time.

Thanks for the compliment, Dictator Sulla would have been right at home in our future history.

I've got a news flash for you: there are no disinterested arguments in politics. So, singling out Jews as having an agenda is silly and pernicious. You have your agenda, other people have theirs. But there are still better and worse arguments. I suggest you attend to the merits of the arguments, instead of trying to short-circuit debate, by casting suspicion on Jews.

Yes we all have agendas but none of mine involve putting the interests of a foreign country ahead of those of the United States.

Sorry--it wasn't very clear. What I meant was that China has the ability to be the proximate cause of Russia's death as a nation. Using uncontrolled immigration in the East, as you point out, or even militarily over some trumped up conflict in Central Asia.

I was thinking of Bismarck's line about what he offered the Habsburgs in exchange for primacy in Germany after the 1870 war with France--"What have I offered Austria? In short, her life!"

I made a blanket statement earlier on this thread about all Arab-Americans in the US and their removal.I apologize for saying it,thats foolish and makes me no better than the ones we are angry with.

Your response does you credit.

And of course the Chinese are eating the Russians alive economically in the areas to which they move, for a variety of reasons I won't get into.

I wish you would get into it. I would love to learn more about this.

It was an article I think in the Wall Street Journal. The towns on the Amur River were comatose. The Chinese moved in, built greenhouses, started businesses, and now most of the Russians who have a job that is not with the government work for Chinese businesses, and bitch all day long about it. But with the money flowing, and Moscow so far away, things just take their natural course. In due time, it will blow up I suspect.

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.