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?
And who knows? You might even save a few lives in the bargain. You make it sound like it's too late; but you're much softer than your namesake, and know a great deal more now than he did then. Too bad these sadsacks are so far gone. I happen to know you've reached some.
Let's be truthful: there is nothing "illegal" about the settlements - and there are absolutely no terms in the Oslo agreements banning natural growth of the settlements.
It does behoove a nation to defend her allies--when her allies are in the right. But when an ally isn't in the right, it doesn't help the United States or the ally to give it blind support.
A complicated man, indeed, in a complicated time which our days come increasingly to resemble. The novels are excellent, and take history through the days of Caesar, including the time of your namesake father. They were recommended by Newt Gingrich, in the heady days of 1995.
Alliances are about mutual interests; if they can be tossed aside at a whim, they are meaningless.
Ahhh, yezz... behind it all, ve see ze JEWS, eh? (/sarcasm, with fake Nazi accent)
If you want to make the case for attacking Iraq, I'd be pleased to hear it. I'm not necessarily against attacking Iraq. I've often wondered in fact, why Bush doesn't go before congress, make his case and ask for a joint declaration of war.
One can hope. If one is to go into the abyss, it is better to do it in full knowledge of what is happenning, rather than having to have the horror of those who stepped out of the World Trade Center, without any real idea of what was killing them.
But not I think as great a disaster as defending them when they are wrong. When a country is right, we ought to defend it whether it is an ally or not. And when it is wrong, we shouldn't blindly defend it and make the matter worse for ourselves and the ally too.
Alliances are about mutual interests; if they can be tossed aside at a whim, they are meaningless.
Alliances are about mutual interests. And when alliences move in different directions they ought to be rethought.
Then they haven't gone far enough. If they are going to do what they should, they should take Mecca, destroy the black rock and shrine, and build a nice Jewish house of worship. Then they should take the House of Saud hostage, and shoot them in order of precedence, until they get one to convert to Judaism, whom they should put on the throne. Then they should round up the population, inform them that they are now Jewish, and that if they revert to Islam they will get the same punishment as now would be given a Moslem who converted to Judaism.
After that, they should get mean.
That's pretty funny, even though I think you probably mean it.
But in the end, we are her ally. This is not a time to abandon her. To do so would bring us shame and infamy for decades, and as a result it would do far more to harm our national interest than the policy we are pursuing today.
I should add that alliance does not mean unconditional support. Sometimes it means public defense but private dressing down. And if Israel were to do something truly outrageous--an attempt at a transfer, for instance--we would obviously not support it. Nor would we draw arms against her. Surely you see the reason in this?
A complicated man, indeed, in a complicated time which our days come increasingly to resemble. [emphasis added]Oh, we have endured civil war after civil war?
Now you've gone overboard. That's not pessimism, it's excessive melodrama.
I don't think even semper has gone quite that far in describing our current plight. (Well, the dictatorial rule, maybe.)
My profile page is a bit more explicit than yours as to what we have to worry about on the homefront.
The world situation is grave but not lost.
And we've got a loving God that Sulla didn't know he had. Despair is a major sin is it not?
If this is the case, then LCS is correct. Billions will die. One can only hope that the settlement on the other side of the conflict does not repeat the mistakes of Versailles...
Well, I do. And nobody's talking about drawing arms against Israel. I only wish I were as confident as you that Israel won't attempt a transfer and that, if she did, we wouldn't support it.
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.