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?
Pop Quiz, who was President when the "Arafat solution" was imposed?
You're talking about Arab-Americans, people who are American citizens? You want to make America Arabrein like the Nazis made Germany Judenrein? 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?"
The Italians are the greatest of artists and make beautiful stone-works.
No....we just have to get rid of people who believe themselves to be the super-race and who are dragging us to WWIII.
I completely agree with you..... ALL people on the face of this earth are God's children.....this being said.....why do the FReepers here label the Pali's as wild animals?
Could it be that they actually encourage their children to slaughter innocents by suicide bombings? A person's actions tend to draw the picture.....you are free to color it in however you wish.
Your calling this photo of kids being run down by a tank "trivial" and "humorous" pretty much supports my suspicion that you'd like to see them all done in. Why else would you be giggling at such a terrifying photo?
Ill buy that.
Of course Sharon has always had a plan. He's waiting for the U.S. to attack Iraq. Saddam in turn will fire missiles at Israel. The Palestinians will go wild with ecstasy and launch massive sympathy attacks all over Gaza and the West Bank. Sharon will say, "I have no choice," and send in the IDF, ostensibly to quell the violence but in fact to drive the Palestinians out of the west bank and Gaza while the rest of the world is focused on the U.S. War with Iraq. When the dust settles, Gaza and the West Bank will be entirely free of Palestinians. Israel will be Arabrein. But the important thing is to get the U.S. to attack Iraq. Hence the year long drumbeat for war from Safire, Krauthammer, Podhoretz and Kristol.
My point exactly. Whatever one thinks about Sharon, or Clinton or Barak either for that matter, the fact remains that Clinton was twisting arms to get that legacy. That was the moment to strike the deal, and they let the moment pass by. I doubt they will get another one, as when Sharon passes from the scene, Netanyahu is standing in the wings, and I doubt they will get a better deal from him. And as the article suggests, that is the basis for this string, if general war breaks out, the West Bank Palestinians may not survive it intact.
But, to take a step back toward first principles, a principled State Dept would never have proposed or allowed the Arafat solution in the first place. Peace on the West Bank was doomed from the moment Arafat was allowed to cross the border, as was all hope for a West-Bank-Palestine.
There will never be peace, and there will never be a "Palestine" on the West Bank, as long as Arafat is in the picture.
I don't disagree but I feel the same way about Sharon. Let's be honest - there are more and more illegal settlements all the time. How can peace follow that?
I'm an American too. That's why I don't like it when people try to get some groups of Americans to attack other Americans.
The Palestinians have had a large reservoir of sympathy going for them; they have largely frittered that away over the last 5 decades by obsessively targeting civilians; old folks home, child care centers, city buses, school buses, restaurants, and on and on.
Nasty things happen in war, and civilians always pay the price when the shooting starts. But the Pals have always avoided armed IDF and have always, and I do mean always, targeted civilians.
This has cost them the sympathy they might normally expect from average Americans, and from the people who might post to this website.
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.