posted by Lewis Lipkin.
2nd part of 2
The Alternative Of Peace
"Not only have
Not only is the Israeli policy of failure to annex territories necessary for her defence unusual, but the reaction of the world to her continued "occupation" verges on the preposterous.
"The principle that Israel, in May the anticipated victim of successful attack, having in June turned the tables on her would-be destroyers, should now restore to them the bases of their aggression, was accepted almost without question not only by the Arabs Soviet allies, their French friends, and their original British mentors, but also by the United States.........even the United States Goverment .....gradually evolved the formula that
A Glance At The Future
Given the difficulties involved in population transfer, does a
"If peace is the object and the only basis for it is a Palestinian state, it must be realized that: The one certain outcome of an Israeli withdrawal and surrender of teritory is that the Arabs of Judea and
Some Israeli generals take the dubious position that 1967 borders (with some adjustments) are defensible. We might ask whether these judgements were reassessed after Sept 11. Until now
Since it should be obvious that the internal Arab enemy is intended to play a significant role in future Arab-Israeli conflicts, we are forced to consider the neutralization of the internal foe, no matter what the treaty boundaries may be in the future.
Few are aware of the real facts. Joseph Farah ("Shattering the Myths of the
"Arabs already control 99.9 percent of the Middle East Lands whereas
Often, the idea of population transfer is summarily rejected as a racist and reactionary solution to a problem that could be solved by goodwill. However, opinion on the possibility of transfer seems to be changing. This editorial is from the New Statesman (http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/199905100001.htm), which is usually left of center:
"............. The West must therefore do one of two things: police the region indefinitely, or preside over a series of partitions and population exchanges. And if humanitarian intervention is to become the norm, as Tony Blair suggests, the West is likely to face similar choices in parts of Africa, the Middle East, the Caucasus, and south
The only alternative to population exchange as seen by this article:
"........ If policing is to be effective in areas of ethnic division, it must be armed and it must be ruthless. Otherwise, the population will continue to fear the local police and the ethnically based gangs more than they fear the outside authorities, so that hatreds continue to build. The security must also be offered without any fixed time limit; local police officers will not act against their own ethnic group if they think they would be left unprotected from revenge a year later. These lessons, in different ways, can be learnt from both
Why apply this just to
The New Statesman continues:
"The second alternative -- partition and population exchange -- was most famously adopted by the British in
This omission of the possibility of a Arab-Israeli population exchange is only a further indication that
Farah in his Whistleblower article says:
"Keep in mind that most Palestinian refugees today were born well after 1948. They never lived in the land called
An Israeli-Arab Population Exchange
Public discussion of an Israeli-Arab population exchange has only recently resurfaced but the proposition as a solution for the Middle East conflict has a long history, as shown in Transfer of Arabs from Palestine: A Historical Survey of Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine 1895-1947 by Dr. Chaim Simon. This remarkable web-browsable book (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7854/index.html) contains a wealth of detailed accounts of the views and activities of Chaim Weizmann, Herzl, Zangwill, Jabotinsky and more than a score of other prominent Jews. Non-Jews, such as Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt, Senator Claude Pepper, and several British Foreign Office officials such as Col. Meinartzhagen, are noted. There were also some pro-Arab non-Jews such as Harry St.John Philby who were in favor of population exchange. Philby felt it would be favorable for the Arabs to be outside of a Jewish State. Dr Simon's book is a work in progress, of which 59 "fascicles" are available. It also treats in extensive detail the Norman Plan(s) of the mid 1930's and the Peel Report, which advocated a population exchange in 1939.
WWII put a temporary hold on considerations of a population exchange. The British mandate was renewed by the United Nations. However, it soon became clear that conflict between the British pro-Arab policy and the Jewish resistance to the British curtailment of Jewish immigration and land holding would, sooner or later, force the end of the Mandate. But even before its end, many of the Arab states instituted Nazi-like anti-Semitic laws and began the process of forcible ejection of their Jewish population.
Details of the history of the Jewish phase of the transfer are available on the internet. The material on The Wings of Eagles Exodus from
Following a likely 2nd US-Iraqi war, especially if the
It hardly needs to be said that settling Arabs in decent homes in Arab lands is to their benefit.
We consider here the benefit to
- Having the Arabs as foreign nationals allows
to fight, if necessary, future wars in the way she does well. Guerrilla warfare is much more difficult to fight. Israel
- Hostile Arabs would reside in nations other than
and thus are easily identifiable. Israel
- The numerous UN refugee camps on the West Bank and
that are little more than military bases for PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah forces would be eliminated. This would allow the IDF to concentrate on Gaza 's borders. Israel
- The Settlement issue would evaporate. The Left would have to find some other justification for its anti-orthodox bias.
- Jewish holy sites such as
would be accessible. And the destruction of Jewish Holy sites by the Arabs would be at an end. Hebron Israelcould again resume its role as the leading industrial nation of the Middle East.
An enforced population transfer was fairly standard policy of the Babylonians and Assyrians -- they would enslave the conquered, transfer most of them to a distant point in the empire and replace the population with another group, usually those with a longer history of loyalty. The classic example is the so-called Babylonian exile of the Jews.
In ancient times conquest of a city during war between states usually resulted in either mass enslavement or, after sieges of long duration, in wholesale slaughter. A multitude of cases are well documented (c.f. A.E. Zimmern, The Greek Commonwealth,
In the Middle Ages and early Rennaisance, the treatment of warring populations in defeat was so varied and conditioned by so many religious and economic factors that it is impossible to see very many clear patterns. Certainly the early Crusades were savagely destructive of the vanquished with enslavement of survivors as a particularly Moslem favored option (cf Steven Runciman A History of the Crusades, 3 vols, Harper Torchbook edition, 1964), but perhaps most significantly for Modern Europe was the state in which the Renaissance found it -- Germany and Italy jigsaw puzzles of fragmented church and secular states, the eastern frontier fluid and the southern frontiers Ottoman occupied. The century and a half of warfare from 1680 to 1815 saw the games of political chess played by the Great Powers (
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.