Ariel Sharon

[Laocoön]

As most of you know, Ariel Sharon has warned the US not to appease the Arabs at Israel's expense, in a comment damaging to the US's effort to establish a coalition to act against bin Laden. Part of Sharon's remark is undoubtably in response to Bush's announcement, without having first conferred with Sharon, that he supports the idea of a Palestinian state.

But Ariel Sharon is a very cunning and dangerous person, and it would be foolish to assume that he merely made a remark damaging to his nation's sponsor solely out of emotion. So what else might he be up to?

Sharon has in many respects been a one-trick pony. Sure, he also has a few lines on his resume due to wholesale slaughter and due to attacking during ceasefire, but anyone can do that. The trick that Sharon has built his career on is that of doing something completely agressive and contrary to any agreed-upon plans, and in so doing force his compatriots to follow his path even if only to bail him out. He did this in 1956 when Israel invaded the Sinai peninsula, and he did it in 1973 when he took his troops across the Suez Canal and into Egypt, very nearly losing them in the process.

So with his latest comments, Sharon has forced remarks from the White House that Israel has no stronger friend than the US or than George Bush. It is now out in the open that we are only using the Arab states because we need them, while our true allegiance lies with Israel. This immediately creates the danger that we might suddenly lose the support of the Arab states when we have troops in the field that depend upon supplies coming through those states, but there doesn't seem to be any real gain for Israel, or for Sharon's vision for Israel, in that.

My fear is that Sharon might try to ignite a general war in the Middle East when the US has a whole lot of its military in the area. If this can be done in a way such that it is clear that the Arabs (either the states or the population) are against us -- a coordinated attack by Arabs on our military there in several different places would probably do that, if it could be provoked -- the US could end up fighting directly in the war on Israel's side. I think that in Sharon's vision for Israel, that would be the hugest step forward imaginable.

The way that Sharon might ignite a general war would be to begin wholesale slaughter of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, to a degree beyond any reason. He did the same thing a long time ago in the Gaza Strip, with quite a bit of success in controlling terrorism. He could quite easily do this in a manner that we would not notice very much in the West if we have the War on Terrorism dominating our headlines. The Arabs would be well aware of it, and individuals if not governments would be likely to respond.

I think it would be prudent for the US to plan on completely abandonning Israel if this scenario arises, if only so that we have an alternative to playing Sharon's game.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-10-06 08:48 ]</font>

I must admit, this is not something I had considered, but you make a compelling argument. In a word, scary. In such a scenario, if we were to abandon Israel completely, I presume we would have to withdraw our forces from the region in order to disengage? Effectively ending our War on Terrorism? Obviously, we would continue to be diligent here at home, but going after the terrorists where they are would be out of the question. What do you see as the short and long term consequences were this scenario to play out?

Genius. Sharon can bulldoze the Dome of the Rock and launch a massive offensive into Palestine and kill all the terrorists.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jewy Jewison on 2001-10-06 12:51 ]</font>

[Hierophant]

So, we abandon Israel, Israel falls, what next?

After Israel, the so-called "moderate" Arab states become the next target of the extremists.

The whole thing sounds too risky for either side to engage in.

The Palestinians will never accept a Palestinian state, except for the whole of Israel. Even if they do accept one, it will only be as a stepping stone; they will not make peace. Certainly, Israel and Palestine will never be good neighbors. Maybe a UN mediated DMZ between the two would work.

[Laocoön]

Mainiac:

The scenario I've outlined is pretty far-fetched because it depends upon being able to provoke particular responses from people: the Arabs must react in a way that targets Americans with Israel; and the US must respond to this by joining a general war in the Middle East rather than by just backing out. Still, it is not entirely unlikely, and Israel has the ability to manipulate both situations as events unfold.

Pursuing the scenario is not, however, particularly risky to Sharon's vision for Israel. It is very likely a no-lose situation. He massacres Palestinians, which he would do if he could get away with it in any case. If the Arab states attack Israel in response, without targetting the US, Israel is in a general war that it can still rely upon the US to make sure it wins: Arab armies crushed; Israel's position more secure; deeper wedge driven between US and Arabs. The worst thing that could happen is that the US finally gets serious about reining Israel in, and insists that the attacks on Palestinians stop. In this case, Sharon is politically sacrificed -- the Israelis present the story that a rogue PM caused all this trouble, but now they're ready for make-up sex with the US. Sharon's political career ends (again), but the guy is 72, so there was not going to be much more of a career for him anyway.

So I don't see any reason that Sharon should not pursue this course.

Also, Sharon is not necessarily the sharpest knife in the drawer -- his ambition could very easily get the better of his intellect, and he could pursue the strategy even if it has little hope of working. He's done similar things before.

Anyway, suppose general war breaks out in the Middle East. If the US joins on Israel's side, all of the Arab armies are destroyed, along with a big chunk of their populations, the US occupies the oil fields, and Israel is free to do whatever it wishes in a greatly expanded territory.

If the US does not join the war (I don't think it is plausible that the US would abandon Israel in a general war; if we threaten to abandon them, it would be while they are trying to provoke the war, and under threat of abandonment they would shape up), then Israel destroys most of the Arab armies along with a fair chunk of their populations, expands its territory, and completes the ethnic cleansing and annexation of the Occupied Territories. Israel becomes a true power in its own right, and has very little reliance on the US. The Arabs are kept impoverished, demilitarized, and disunified, and Israel eventually has pretty thorough control of the region.

I don't think Israel is going to go there. I don't even think they're going to be around in 50 years. Bottom line is there are a billion people out to get them and they're not going to stop until they win.

Israel started off with an advantage, their people were educated and modern. Arabs were backwards 50 years ago but are rapidly modernizing to meet Israel's challenge. Eventually they'll be as modern as Israel. You can also see they're learning from their mistakes. What makes you think they'll ever give up? It took them 200 years to reclaim Jeruselam after the Crusades. I estimate 100 years this time.

For example, if there were another war it would be Israel's toughest one yet. They might have to use nuclear weapons to win. The Arabs are much better equipped and trained now. They used to get all their weapons and training from the Soviets. Soviet equipment and training are pitifully inferior. I know you're going to respond with Vietnam's success, but remember 1.5 million Vietnamese died vs. 50,000 Americans in that war so it wasn't much of a success. Now Arabs have smartened up and opt for sophisticted American weapons and training just like Israel has. F-15s, modern air bases, Abrams tanks. Israel's going to have a hard time facing virtually an American army. Another example, they used to have an uneducated army and population, now I bet a lot of their people have been through college and can be a little more creative in battle than just "run and shoot."

I would hate to be an Israeli, generations of war with an enemy so large and so determined they're basically undefeatable.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-07 11:34 ]</font>

[Hierophant]

As for Lao's scenario with the U.S. helping Israel to destroy the Arab nations, the end result I would foresee there is that we become overtly Imperialistic for the first time in our history.

In short, we take the oil fields.

Then, we disarm the Israeli's and everyone else in the region.

Strategically, it would be foolish to have the upper hand in such an outcome and not eliminate the key strategic threat in the region - the control of the oil. Without this issue, we would never go to such bother in such an unstable region, nor allow such destabilizing influences (e.g. arming Saddam to fight the Iranians, only to have to beat down Saddam after he invades Kuwait.)

[Laocoön]

VoR, you seem to contradict yourself: Israel is not going to "go there," but the Arab threat to Israel is insurmountable and getting worse. If Israel has any hope for survival (by your estimation), it would seem that it should force the issue as soon as possible, before any hope it has is completely extinguished.

In any case, the question is not whether it would be advantageous for Israel to take the opportunity of a "War on Terrorism" to begin a general war in the Middle East; the question is whether Ariel Sharon thinks it would be advantageous. And it is very clear from his history that Sharon believes that security is only acquired through the destruction of enemies.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-10-07 11:24, Voice of Reason wrote:
Now Arabs have smartened up and opt for sophisticted American weapons and training just like Israel has. F-15s, modern air bases, Abrams tanks. Israel's going to have a hard time facing virtually an American army. Another example, they used to have an uneducated army and population, now I bet a lot of their people have been through college and can be a little more creative in battle than just "run and shoot."

I disagree. Arab armies have never shown any capacity to wage a coordinated, large-scale military operation. They can point to only one meaningful victory in 50 years, namely the surprise attack across the Suez in 1973, a success which was quickly reversed. I'm not even sure Arab culture can be adapted to the conduct of military operations, which rely on precise timing and individual initiative of key subordinates. The Israelis have been masters at defeating simultaneous but poorly-executed attacks from all sides in the past.

Don't place too much importance on sophisticated weaponry, either. It's like saying a novice runner with great shoes will win the race, or an idiot grad student with a great computer will produce a brilliant thesis. Without the leadership and military expertise to take advantage of good equipment, it either ends up in the wrong place at the wrong time or becomes expensive smoking wreckage.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aaron Brachowitz on 2001-10-08 10:32 ]</font>

Also note the arrogance of people like AB. This is another reason why the Arabs have a better chance. AB, I understand the sense of security you need to give yourself, but you're suffering from insane dellusions if you don't understand the superiority of American weapons. In every war since WW2, the side with American weapons has dominated. Wars are all about technology.

If Sharon tries anything against Egypt or Saudi Arabia, he can expect top notch F-15Es flown by American trained pilots to take out his military infrastructure. Just the Patriot missile alone (which Saudi Arabia's military installations are blanketed with) could provide a decisive advantage.

AB, I worry for your children and grandchildren.