Checkmate - Part III by Ross C. Leiber Aug 31, '04 / 14 Elul 5764
[The first and second parts of this article can be read at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=4115 and http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=4121.]
[This article is dedicated to all Jews killed, maimed, harmed, harassed and persecuted over the last 2,000 years. The reader may consider playing Antonin Dvorak's Symphony #9, "From the New World", while going through the document.]]
Third Movement: Scherzo (Molto vivace)
A Scenario for the Destruction of Israel
No potential Holocaust has ever been stopped. Massacres always occur before any halting is possible. World wars, Rwanda, Cambodia, Armenians in Turkey, the list goes on and on. The Arabs and the Iranians know that. They know that if they can neutralize Israel's response, they will get away with genocide. Even Hitler, brutal at home before the war, didn't kill Jews outside his Reich before starting the war. The Arabs, however, do it all the time to their own different peoples, in a variety of ways, with the world watching. Hitler wanted the number of European Jews left over in Europe to fit in a car, in order to parade them. The Arabs can certainly do without that.
During the Cold War, Western Europeans worried that the US would not risk Chicago's destruction in order to save Hamburg. Why do Israelis think the US will risk it all for Tel-Aviv?
What if the Saudis or other "peace-loving" Arab countries work in total secrecy with Muslim terrorists to plant a few very powerful non-conventional weapons across the US, say, ten bombs in ten large cities? Suppose that these terrorists quietly approach the US government and reveal the whereabouts of three of these weapons to prove their lethal intentions. They could then proceed to blackmail the country with the threat of millions of deaths in case the US retaliates against an Iranian, Syrian, Egyptian or Pakistani attack on Israel, using conventional weapons or not.
Let us explore this scenario even further. The terrorists could simply demand, before or after attacking one of their US targets, that the US invade Israel and start the process of removing Jews and transferring assets and land to Arab forces. It doesn't have to be done overnight. In theory, nobody needs to die. Unless, of course, the US calls their bluff, resulting in millions of Americans dead. What does anyone think the State Department's recommendation is going to be? The scenario can become even more realistic considering the ongoing pressure on Israel to abandon its non-conventional weapons. Such pressure can only accelerate, as the "peace" negotiations continue.
And if the US were to come to the military rescue of Israel regardless, risking Chicago for Tel-Aviv, the price afterwards might be so high that it is probably not worth it for America.
The Perils of De-Nazification
Many people have commented on the need for the de-Nazification of the Palestinians, meaning the reform of their institutions, propaganda vehicles and education system, in order to eliminate the hate and paranoia they have been inculcated with over the years, including the refugees in the neighboring countries. There are many difficulties with this approach.
After World War II, Germany and her allies in Europe were soundly beaten. These countries were by no means backward entities with distorted religious views. Leaving aside for a moment the interest of the West in stopping as many nations as possible in the area from falling under Communism, it was well understood that the Axis countries and some of their allies in Eastern Europe during the war were there to stay. A process of economic reconstruction, a degree of punishment against some of the perpetrators of war crimes, combined with the previous quasi-democratic past, made de-Nazification fairly successful. The intent of stopping Germany from ever causing World War III was also a strong motivator. Religion may have played a contributing role, as well. Guilt over the Holocaust may have helped; it didn't, however, stop a few million Germans from being transferred from the Czech Sudetenland to Germany, or Poland acquiring some German land. But the world survived.
What is overlooked, however, is that few Jews were left in the most affected countries, such as Germany, Austria, Poland, the Baltic states and Hungary. Let us suppose, for example, that instead of the creation of Israel, the Allies had decided to form an independent Jewish State in Central Europe, against the wishes of the affected nations. They would certainly have a point claiming that there was never a Jewish state in the area. Why not move the Jews to Palestine, they would have said. Furthermore, anti-Semitism didn't die just because Germany lost the war.
Under this fictitious scenario, what would have happened if a small Jewish homeland had been forcefully established in land annexed from Austria and Germany, Austria and Hungary, Poland and the Baltic states, the Ukraine, or any other permutations, in countries requiring a certain degree of de-Nazification? The only commodity of which there was no shortage after the war was anti-Semitism. Can anyone imagine a peaceful Jewish state surviving in the area, with or without the Cold War? How long until the affected countries decided they wanted their land back and the Jews out? Wouldn't it be an even more precarious situation for the Jews than the one the Kurds face today, their ancestral land straddling four hostile nations? In other words, would de-Nazification have worked well in that case? That's food for thought.
Let us extrapolate this scenario to the Middle East, with the understanding that Israel is the natural land of the Jews. The first problem is that all the Arab countries in the area are unpleasant places. Extremely cruel, both to Jews and to their own populations, and bent on destroying Israel. For them, Israel has no right to be on the land, period.
The second problem is that these countries, although European or Ottoman colonies for many years, did not suffer the debacle of losing two world wars, as Germany did. Israeli victories have been mild by comparison. The world has made sure of that. So much so that Egypt even celebrates finishing second to Israel in 1973.
The third problem is that Arab kings and presidential dictators - in the Persian Gulf, in Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and many other places - give power to their children once they leave the scene. The hundreds of little princes in Saudi Arabia are well tutored by their royal elders on the need to destroy Israel and the Jews. So they are all up to the job, no matter who turns out to be king. The same thing happens in other monarchies in the area. In Egypt, Syria and Iraq, for example, Mubarak, Assad and Hussein taught their would-be successors well. Their children take power full of hate. This is not a function of the education system. This is taught at home, at palaces and mansions. How easy is it to de-Nazify?
Because the Palestinians do not live in a vacuum, one can not simply propose to de-Nazify them without doing the same elsewhere in the region. It makes more sense to de-Nazify the neighboring states first, since they are sovereign countries engaged in terrorism. How does one do it? The Bush plan for democracy? Good luck. Unfortunately, analogies with Germany and Japan after World War II don't work very well. One can not disregard little things like nationalism, Islam, terrorism, the power of the existing Arab system to distort anything, xenophobia, ethnic hatreds, lack of local democratic experience, and a dozen other issues.
It doesn't have to be Israel's problem, though.
Furthermore, who will de-Nazify most of the world nations, as illustrated by the UN's posture towards Israel? Remember, Britain was not a country in need of de-Nazification after World War II, but look at what they did to the Holocaust survivors trying to get to Palestine. The same behavior was shown before and during the war. The difference is that they set up their concentration camps in Cyprus.
Transfer is Part of the Solution, But Not as Proposed
We've seen that de-Nazification, as a way for peace, is not likely to work very well. Besides, Israel would still be giving up part of the Holy Land permanently, having already lost the "Jordanian" side.
The Elon Plan, an alternative offered by Benny Elon, suggests:
"the establishment of a cease-fire and negotiations under international auspices to relocate refugees in Arab countries and the dismantling of refugee camps, along with the establishment of a Jordan-Palestinian state with Amman as its capital.
and:
"Arabs who remain in Judea and Samaria would be offered citizenship in the Jordanian-Palestinian state. Arab citizens of Israel also would be offered such status. If the Arabs of Judea and Samaria breach the terms of the agreement, they would be forcibly deported to the other side of the Jordan River."
The obvious problems with the plan are that: the demographic threat is still there; the Palestinians won't agree to live on Israeli land while being citizens of another country; the Arabs won't accept it; the world won't accept it; therefore, no negotiations under international auspices are going to occur. Another nasty war is a more likely outcome. Its result? The same status quo.
That leaves the transfer of the Palestinians from Gaza, Judea and Samaria to Jordan, Egypt or elsewhere as an option. Let us imagine a peaceful transfer, supported by huge amounts of money, to ensure a far superior quality of life than they have at the moment. This could also involve resettling the refugees among several countries. By comparison with other similar examples, the distances involved are very small. And the population swap forcefully initiated by the Arab states in 1948 - when Jews who had lived in Arab countries before the Arabs came were expelled - would now be completed.
Several works regarding "Transfer" have been produced. Some of the ideas introduced seemed very fair, such as doing it in stages, town by town, village by village, using economic incentives and disincentives, carrot and stick approaches, jobs and residences awaiting the Palestinians, to be completed over a year or two. Many Palestinians are not likely to be thrilled, however, the other party, the Jews, has nowhere to go. Unfortunately, the ideas as proposed are non-starters.
The problem is not the timing of the proposal's implementation, but time itself. Not even Israeli technology has been able to stop the passage of time. In other words, nobody will sit idle while this is happening. The probability of world cooperation or at least compliance is statistically insignificant. What is significant is that no peace treaty can be signed under this proposed outcome. The probability of Israel being hit by a WMD from a sovereign country or terrorist group while this process is taking place is very high. Does anyone expect the Muslim world to extend red carpets for the Palestinians to walk on during transfer, in order to make Israel's task easier? Does anyone expect the new Iraqi government to offer flying carpets from Baghdad's market for the Palestinians to fly on during transfer, in order to make Israel's task faster?
In order to offer a valid comparison with the following segment, let us briefly identify some of the likely responses to a forced transfer as proposed by so many people, notwithstanding the fact that predicting the future accurately in any context, let alone the Middle East's, is a very difficult proposition.
The Arab leaders could not sit idly, since by doing so, as a result of their own propaganda, they would probably be overthrown and killed. All neighboring countries to Israel would be forced to launch a war, even if they were likely to lose it. Peace treaties would be abrogated. Iran might join the war directly. Hizbullah certainly will. The war could come at any time during this lengthy transfer process, therefore, Israel would lose the surprise factor. The use of WMDs, chemical or biological, could not be dismissed, even before a war, forcing retaliation. The Arab leaders would unite in order to save their own skins, a bloodbath would take place in Gaza and the West Bank between Israel and Palestinian forces, and an Arab oil embargo would likely occur.
The world community would come together to punish Israel severely, besides perhaps officially calling for her termination. Among many resolutions to be passed, the UN would reinstate "Zionism is racism", and vote for expelling Israel. The US would, at the very least, approve most of the anti-Israel resolutions, and place a military and economic embargo against her. Terror attacks against US targets and citizens at home, and against US interests and troops abroad, would increase. Europeans and other nations would be targets, as well. The intensity of attacks against Jews in Europe would increase manyfold, causing panic and death. Many might leave, under frightening conditions, to live in a weakened and alienated Israel. The country's WMDs might have to be let go as the result of an American ultimatum. The transfer of Palestinians might or might not be completed, but the number of casualties would definitely be very high. The internal political and economic situation of Israel would likely be disastrous. International troops might come to Gaza and the West Bank, or at least to the international borders, with orders not to let any Palestinians out.
So much for "Transfer" as generally proposed. "Checkmate" will attempt to show that the likely outcomes of its actions by all parties are better for Israel than the above. It is all a matter of control.
