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?
I suspect the last few weeks have seen a reversal of that.
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.
Your argument isn't without merit. The question is, which country is really in danger--the U.S. or Israel? I frankly doesn't see that Saddam poses much of a threat to the United States. At least it has always seemed to me that China poses a much bigger one. Yet none of the commentators I was complaining about are ever demanding that we bomb China. Well, why not, if nuclear weapons in the hands of a hostile power are such a threat?
Some would argue, "Well, Israel is an ally and therefore the U.S. has a duty to go to war on its behalf." That's an argument I can respect and one which should be openly debated. Right now though, the case for bombing Iraq is nearly always presented as a necessity for our own defense, and only incidentally for that of Israel. That's what bothers me--the notion that some of these commentators aren't telling the whole story.
Absolutely. And Iraq is a Chinese proxy. So is North Korea. So is Iran. Until the Afghanistan campaign, so was Pakistan. The real object of the Afghanistan campaign, imo, was not the regime change in that country but a fundamental policy shift in Pakistan. That's where the big success of Operation Enduring Freedom can be found.
In the Cold War, our policy of containment dictated that we fight Soviet proxy states without actually going to war with the Soviets. The same applies toward China. This, I think, is the logic: if Hussein can survive US hostility as a client of China, that sends a powerful message to the rest of the Arabs: there's another game in town. If, on the other hand, we remove the Chinese option from the table, the Arabs will have no choice but to play according to our rules.
Thus, removing Hussein is a means of checking the possibility of a Chinese-Islamic axis that would be disastrous for our interests. Think of what that would mean for India and Russia, for instance, both of whom we need in armed neutrality against China.
I'm sure you do and I hope you get your wish.
Pity Arafat didn't accept Barak's peace offer.
Most people think that Araft summarily rejected Barak's offer at Camp David and that killed the peace process. As several commentators have pointed out in recent months, the negotiations went on long after Camp David at Taba and that in fact both sides, in the words of a writer in today's LA Times, were "very close." Talks were discontinued for the Israeli election (public pressure was strongly against them). After the election, the talks never resumed.
Ah, Eric Alterman. Let's go over his record a bit:
near the bottom of the list of reflexively pro-Israeli commentators, he lists Reason Magazine's Cathy Young.[snip]. . . I can't remember a single column she ever devoted to Israel. [snip]. . . The less insidious explanation is that he listed Cathy Young but actually meant reporter Michael Young who has written extensively about Israel (though is hardly reflexively pro-Israeli), [snip] . . . A more insidious possibility is that Cathy Young was listed because she happens to be a prominent conservative Jewish pundit.
(Alternman [sic]names only five people including himself,
Criminy! Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about him right there?
I can't see that this one-sided tilt serves American interests in any way.
Indeed, in any debate, American's intelligencia must be 45-55% pro-Satan.
IMHO, it is a moral imperative that all Americans support the defense of American[sic] wholeheartedly.
It is only in your mind that these are mutually exclusive. In case you haven't noticed, there are a couple of buildings in New York city that aren't there anymore. And they were pretty big buildings.
If they weren't mutually exclusive at times, Bush wouldn't be having to tell Sharon to get out of the West Bank "and I mean now!" A person can't be loyal to two countries. There has to be one that comes first. For any American, that county should be America.
I don't see what's wrong with naming the names of people who gladly sign their own names to the columns they write day in and day out in hundreds of outlets across the country. Nor is criticizing them in any way inappropriate.
This is because he wants to go into Iraq, which you said is in Israel's interest. Which is it?
This is because he wants to go into Iraq, which you said is in Israel's interest. Which is it?
Both Bush and Sharon want Saddam gone. But since it is America that while be doing the fighting in Iraq, Bush naturally wants to minimize American casulties by not starting a second war while the Palestinian-Israeli war is still going on. Sharon on the other hand wants Bush to bomb Iraq now, seeing perhaps in the inevitable chaos of an all-out mid-east war an opportunity to solve the Palestinian problem once and for all.
Frankly, if Sharon thinks its so important to bomb Baghdad today, I don't see why he doesn't send in his own cruise missiles and F-16s at a time when Israel has a 200-to-0 nuclear weapon advantage over Iraq.
Oh, I don't know. France and Italy routinely had Trotskyites and "ex-"communists in the cabinet, as many Eastern European do today. These are people who were allied with regicides, the murderers of some 100MM people in the 20th century.
The fact is, we are allied with Israel. To withdraw our support from Israel now would signal to the world that we can be intimidated by force and terrorism. Just think about how much use China or other rivals could make of that. Withdrawal is not an option. It just isn't, no matter how much you may want it to be.
Sorry. Iraq is very low on the Israeli priority list. Where is all this ESP coming from?
You have no idea what you're talking about. A democratic, Western nation only allows those views into the Cabinet that it finds acceptable. You're wrong about democratic, Western nations, and you're wrong about Israel. In Israel, even in a single-party government, cabinet members routinely voice beliefs at odds with those of the prime minister. And Sharon has a coalition goverment, which means that such disagreements are as dramatic as can be.
Sorry. Iraq is very low on the Israeli priority list. Where is all this ESP coming from?
Not so low after all. Ha'aretz, CNN, BBC, the International Herald Tribune and numerous other outlets reported that when former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to Washinton April 11, he met with Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney to tell them the U.S. should not wait for peace in the Middle-east before moving on Iraq but should rather attack now. The papers mentioned that Netanyahu spoke to Sharon by telephone both before and after the meeting.
You're right. I wish more people would realize that relations between nations can't be compared to those between best friends on a schoolyard.
Thanks for your input. I had never heard that Iraq was a client state of China. But I'm more than willing to consider the possibility, think on it and do some research.
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.