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?
It is funny, except that this is exactly what the Palestinians have in mind for Israel, as they have stated, and is what the Islamists have in mind for us. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
God is no more the protector of the US and the West than he was of Christian Rome and Byzantium. There would be less justification for it. Despair in God's power to accomplish our individual salvation is a sin. Despair over a nation or a civilization's survival has nothing to do with the sin of despair.
I think that the Professor Knows Exactly Of...
What He Speaks/Writes!
Have You Ever Bothered To Read:
The Book Of EXODUS In The Holy Hebrew Scriptures?
May I Suggest That You Read It First...
Then Make Your Comment!
If this is the case, then LCS is correct. Billions will die.LOL. It's not your fault that this is funny.
Actually my number is that only half a billion will remain on the planet -- if we're lucky.
And (without giving you the long story) the people who survive will think they're moral men. They won't find out until it's too late that they're not. (Therein lies the challenge; another long story.)
In order for this to come to pass, it is my conjecture that Clinton's dismantling of the neutron bomb was a charade, and only a very few know it.
Let the Islamists and other antiJewish Amalekian swine put that thought in their pipe and smoke it.
As L. C. Sulla approached his maturity, there had never been a civil war in Rome, the last major social upheaval, the withdrawal of the Plebs, part of the long-past conflict between Patricians and Plebians was futher in the past than the American Revolution is now. There had never been a Roman army participating in civil unrest, and the most recent Roman Dictator (not very recent), had served his 6 month term, and returned to his previous position.
Despite this, Roman society was rotten to the core. The underlying Roman virtues were given only lip service by much of the ruling class. The Roman constitution was falling into disrepair: A class of citizens dependent on the powerful (their patrons) and giving them their political support was growing ever larger and more dangerous. The Pro-Consular rulers of the provinces of Rome were using these positions as a way to gain power and political influence. Demagogic political leaders leading mobs of dependents had encouraged violence including assassinations. While the specifics of our crisis are different in detail from that time, I think that we are at a parallel point in our decline.
The former Consul and military leader Marius had used his popularity to gain power and to make further attacks on the position and institutions of the aristocratic Roman leadership. Sulla was the first to use an army to seize power. He was the first to use a Dictatorship to reorganize the laws, and to extend that dictatorship. He was the first to use mass murder as a way to eliminate political opposition. He tried to restore Roman institutions, but the paths he blazed were followed, step by step, by one violent leader after another, from all parts of society.
Within a single generation the Latin allies tried to withdraw from and destroy Rome (the Social War). The slaves tried to revolt and destroy Rome (Spartacus and the Servile War). Decayed aristocrats tried to overthrow the Republic for their personal benefit (The Catilinarian Conspiracy). Finally a military leader (Pompey), a wealthy leader of the aristocracy (Crassus), and a brilliant leader of the popular forces of Marius (Julius Caesar), formed a conspiracy to seize power (The First Triumvirate), which lead to the final crisis: the Civil War between Caesar and Pompey (and the Senate); the Dictatorship of Caesar; his assassination; the Civil War between the the heirs of Caesar (Octavian and Mark Anthony) and the Senate and the assasins; the Second Triumvirate lead by Octavian and Anthony; and finally Octavian (Augustus) ended the conflict, and established the position of Emperor.
Our Marius is yet to arise, our Sulla to destroy, but the candidates line up in the wings of history. What took a generation and more to complete with the slow communication of Roman days, could be accomplished in all of its horror and evil very easily before our children become adults.
The history that led up to your namesake, the circumstances which brought him to power, and any good intentions he may have had being lost in the shuffle need to be presented to our friends here. It might be worth something -- and is certainly worth the try.
Did you write that yourself, or did you extract it from elsewhere?
I'm more interested in your knowledge of Amalek who made his reintroduction upon the stage of history at the Red Sea crossing.
Can you see what his legacy ("arising to challenge each generation") means to both the knowing and the ignorant in our world today?
Actually I composed it myself, off the top of my head (he strutted proudly). Looks like we scared off the non-history buffs though (maybe it has something to do with it being after midnight [way after, here in the east], when even the murdering Islamists have better things to do than posting on websites).
I am very well aware of Esauv/Amalek, yesterday and today; both Scripturally and Religiously from a Jewish Point Of View.
Read: 1 Samuel 15:1-35 Original/Old Testament.
Here's my question to you...
Do you understand from What and Whom...
the Seed of Amalek Represent; not only in the Past, but also in the Present as well as in the Future?
Read: Hadassah 9:13 Original/Old Testament.
That is wrong. But keep on repeating it.
It is quite likely, VERY important that our enemies fully believe we cannot attack at the same time a conflict continues in Israel... or in its proximity.
Feel sorry for the normal nuke nations, who brought conventional nuclear warheads, to a neutron warhead fight... as well as those who neglected to build up a REAL satellite weaponry armada.. as we have.
You criticized others for not being sufficiently critical of Israel. What are they supposed to be critical of, food quality at the Tel Aviv airport?
Right now, the U.S. is more of a Sharonista than Sharon is himself,
You haven't been paying the least bit of attention. IMHO, it ought to be. Her defense is a moral imperative that the US should support wholeheartedly.
America's honor, reputation and ultimately its safety too is in Sharon's hands
America is hardly that impotent. To suggest otherwise is simply projection.
Ahem. My brother, Airman First Class MennoniteDude, supported McCain early on and longer than all you mentioned except Kristol. I'm not sure if I have anything further to say on this matter. Unless you think his loyalty is in question, too. There is another that I should deal with instead.
Podhoretz, [et al.] jumped on the McCain express . . . . because their motivation for supporting McCain was one issue: Evangelical Christians were going to be marginalized out of the Republican party.
REALLY? You know this? They stated this? Do you care to link to it? Do you have any quotes? Or is this yet another example of your extra-sensory perception which enables you to discern the thoughts of others.
It must be a truly amazing gift.
No longer would they, at their upper west side cocktail parties, [Jonah Goldberg at cocktail parties? Bwahahahaha] be ashamed to be politically associated with those people. . . . The four of them are bigoted phonies and you know it.
Or perhaps this is yet another example of projection.
Pity Arafat didn't accept Barak's peace offer.
It's pretty straightforward, actually. Saddam has all the motive necessary to ignite a regional, if not world, conflict, and to employ weapons of mass destruction. He has already demonstrated his unity with the cause of terror and his hatred of Jews and Americans.
The only thing he lacks is the weaponry, which he is actively persuing. Fight him now, when he doesn't have them, or wait to get hit, and fight him later. It comes down to this: let's fight the Axis in 1938, not 1941.
Very interesting thesis. What makes you think this?
(ps--My intent was not to judge you more or less pessimistic than LCS. believe it or not, I am still something of an optimist, in that i believe it is still possible to avert the crisis.)
It's the same reason why the Saudis choose not to expel all of the radical imams. They need the radicals in order to successfuly promote a program of incrementalism.
You criticized others for not being sufficiently critical of Israel. What are they supposed to be critical of, food quality at the Tel Aviv airport?
That would at least be a start. Right now, the overwhelming majority of this country's commentators, as Eric Alterman pointed out in a recent MSNBC piece, support Israel "reflexively and without qualification." In contrast, the number who fundamentally support "Israeli security over Palestinian rights" but who still criticize Israel on occasion is vanishingly small (Alternman names only five people including himself, David Remmick, Thomas Friedman, and Richard Cohen). I can't see that this one-sided tilt serves American interests in any way. (And it doesn't reflect much credit on the commentators either.)
You haven't been paying the least bit of attention. IMHO, it ought to be. Her defense is a moral imperative that the US should support wholeheartedly.
IMHO, it is a moral imperative that all Americans support the defense of American wholeheartedly. And those Americans who can't do that ought to seriously consider moving to whatever country they love better.
I have noticed that to an arabist or to a pro-palestinian, any action or reaction by the Israelis or sometimes by the US that is a little more aggressive than cringing submission is equated to The Final Solution. On the Left, and arabists are, these days, mostly on the Left, one who disagrees with an Official Position in however the slightest degree is worthy of the most awful calumnies. There is no proportion at all.
One is either totally pro-palestinian or one is the source and focus of all evil in the universe and worthy of only the most horrile destruction. There seems to be no other possibility. I find it difficult to engage the arguments from arabists and the left because of the tremendous static of vituperation.
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.