Into The Fray: Not economic cost, but lack of political will in Israel and perceived legitimacy abroad prevent implementing the humanitarian solution.
-
Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] set off another bomb. In a television interview, he requested that the Arab states grant citizenship certificates to the Palestinians living within their borders. – Haaretz, August 21, 2005
-
MK Yossi Beilin called on European countries to declare how many Palestinian refugees and their descendants they would be willing to absorb as part of any future peace agreement. – The Jerusalem Post, July 17, 2008
Over the past few weeks, I have presented the reasoning for, and the operational elements of, an alternative humanitarian paradigm to replace the two-state solution (TSS), and to forestall what has been erroneously presented as its default option, the one-state-of-all-its-citizens solution (OSS).
The discussion hitherto
The humanitarian alternative is rooted in the recognition that Palestinians are not a cohesive national entity, but merely a contrivance meant to undermine the Jewish national entity. This realization suggests that rather than relating to the Palestinians as a national collective, they should be addressed as an amalgam of unfortunate, exploited individuals, cynically misled into their current predicament by cruel, corrupt ruling cliques.
Addressing the Palestinians on an individual, rather than a collective, level calls for a solutionoriented policy that depoliticizes the context of the problem and atomizes (individualizes) the measures to dissipate it.
This approach translates into a comprehensive proposal, consisting of the following three interactive and interdependent components:
• Dismantling – or dramatically restructuring – the anomalous organization UNRWA, which deals (exclusively) with the Palestinian “refugees,” to bring their treatment into line with all other refugees on the face of the globe, who fall under the auspices of another organization, the UNHCR.
As explained in previous columns, this would reduce the “refugee” problem to almost negligible dimensions (from around 5 million to under 50,000). It would also go a long way toward debunking the duplicitous and deceptive Palestinian narrative, which draws, in large measure, on the image of millions of dispossessed refugees.
• Applying assertive diplomatic pressure on Arab governments to end the ethnic discrimination against Palestinians (“refugees”), resident in their countries for decades, and to allow them to acquire citizenship of those countries – which, according to available evidence, most of them desire. It should be remembered that the envisaged changes to UNRWA would means millions of Palestinians would no longer receive the anomalous handouts/services from the disbanded/ reconstituted organization.
To ease the execution of this measure, the funds that currently go to UNRWA to perpetuate the culture of dependency of the “refugees” could be channeled to the governments of the countries, in which they are resident, to finance their absorption as contributing citizens.
• Providing generous funding for the relocation and rehabilitation of the Palestinian Arabs resident in Judea/Samaria (and eventually Gaza) in third-party countries of their choice. This should not be done through any Palestinian organization, which may have a vested interest in this measure’s failure. Instead, it should be made available directly to individual familyheads/ breadwinners, to afford them a chance to extricate themselves from the regressive and repressive regimes in these territories, and an opportunity to build a better future for themselves and their families elsewhere.
Taking the bull by the horns
In last week’s column I discussed the first two components, which relate mainly to the Palestinian Arabs living outside Judea/Samaria (and Gaza). The third element – and arguably the most provocative – relates to those living within these territories, and I will elaborate on it in the ensuing sections.
Since first raised in this column, the proposal has generated a deluge of responses – in hundreds of talkbacks to The Jerusalem Post’s website, and also to my Facebook page and email address. Some were effusively complimentary, others caustically critical; some were cynically skeptical, others genuinely inquisitive.
Most these comments/critiques/queries related to one (or more) of the following topics: Control of the decision variables; recriminations of racism; Fear of fratricide; allegations of ethnic cleansing; diplomatic and economic feasibility; identity of prospective host countries; and evidence of acceptability in Israeli and Palestinian societies.
Not unexpectedly, most reactions focused on the third component – funding the relocation and rehabilitation of Palestinian Arabs in Judea/Samaria and Gaza.
I will now address these issues as comprehensively as space permits.
Decision variables
This policy prescription is designed to be a unilateral initiative, whose implementation does not require agreement with any Arab collective, but rather the accumulated acceptance of individuals of an offer to greatly enhance their wellbeing – far beyond anything they could reasonably expect otherwise.
This is something that Israel – given the political resolve – could advance, proactively, on its own, under an adequately assertive diplomatic umbrella.
True, Israel by itself cannot effect the first two components of the proposal: dismantling/transforming UNRWA or the granting of citizenship by Arab states to their resident Palestinian Arabs. For this the cooperation of other parties is required. Although it would be hugely beneficial to all involved – particularly the Palestinians – if they were implemented, this is largely incidental to their real purpose.
For these measures are not intended primarily as actionable policy items. Rather they are meant to comprise important elements in the arsenal of a diplomatic offensive, aimed at putting Israel’s adversaries on the defensive, exposing the flawed and fraudulent foundations of their positions, and generating new conceptual space for TSS-alternatives in the discourse.
Their purpose is to inform interested publics of existing realities in order to change the conversation, restructure (mis)perceptions regarding the conflict, and dispel the ignorance on which they rest.
Clearly then, the decision variables involved in launching both the diplomatic and the actionable elements of the proposed initiative are in Israel’s hands.
Calculating costs
Many readers were concerned that the cost of the envisaged emigration incentives might be prohibitive. These concerns are unfounded.
The first and crucial point to grasp is that the absolute cost of the proposed measures is not really the issue, but rather the comparative cost, relative to other proposals – including the TSS – whose implementation is also likely to be vastly expensive. Indeed, given the dire state of the Palestinian economy, it would appear that the billions already poured into it have been wildly insufficient to sustain it.
To the total cost needed to create and maintain a Palestinian state, one also needs to add the cost of resettling hundreds of thousands of Jews living east of the pre-1967 Green Line, and the huge increases that will be required in Israel’s defense budget to enhance capabilities to adequately patrol and secure the indefensible frontiers implicit in any TSS configuration.
Moreover, most variants of the TSS do not exclude the return of millions in the Palestinian diaspora, who considerably outnumber the population currently resident within the borders of the prospective Palestinian state. Perversely, the cost of moving millions into the Palestinian state, which, in all probability, would be higher than moving smaller numbers out of it, has never been considered a prohibitive obstacle.
If the claim is that only a few would return, with most preferring to stay in their current places of abode, this would constitute resounding endorsement of the first two elements of the proposal, greatly bolstering the feasibility (and desirability) of the notion of Palestinians building better lives elsewhere.
The total cost would be a function of the size of the Palestinian Arab population in Judea/Samaria and Gaza – a matter that is hotly disputed. But to side-step arguments on figures, let us focus on principle. I will therefore adopt a figure that tends toward the higher estimates and assume that there are roughly 1 million family units involved, 600,000 in the “West Bank” and 400,000 in Gaza.
Accordingly, providing an average funding for each family unit with an amount of 1.5 to 2 decades of the IMF/World Bank global average GDP per capita (roughly $10,000) would amount to between $150 billion and $200b., over an envisaged time period for implementation (15-20 years – the time elapsed since the conclusion of the Oslo Accords, which brought nothing but trauma and tragedy).
Focusing on the “West Bank” alone would reduce this figure by 40 percent (to $90b.- $120b.).
Calculating costs (continued)
While this may seem a daunting sum, it should be recalled that it is a small fraction of what the US spent, in less than a decade, on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (around one trillion dollars). Significantly, over 90% of this was spent after Saddam Hussein was apprehended and the Taliban dislodged – in a futile, some would say delusional, attempt to institute liberal democracy on the slopes of the Hindu Kush and the banks of the Euphrates.
Israel, with its current GDP close to a quarter trillion dollars, could probably shoulder the bulk of the burden itself, if spread over the specified time period. Indeed, if the yearly outlay (around 3%-5% of Israeli GDP – depending on whether Gaza is included) were added to the defense budget, it would bring this budget (in terms of share of GDP) to the levels of the late 1980s/early 1990s – perhaps even lower. Moreover, if GDP were raised significantly, by improving domestic productivity and/or inducing greater participation in the labor force in the haredi and Israel Arab sectors, the burden would be commensurately less onerous.
If the OECD countries, which contributed to the Oslo process, were persuaded to participate, the entire enterprise could be funded with sums amounting to a fraction of 1% of their respective GDPs – hardly an unbearable sacrifice for dispersing one of the world’s most intractable problems. Indeed, one might be excused for being baffled as to why Western governments would be prepared to contribute billions to facilitate the establishment of what in all likelihood would be doomed to become a failed mini-micro-state, harboring some of the most extremist terror organizations on the planet, but would resist contributing to a program that would prevent its establishment.
Accordingly, it should be clear that the economic cost is not the major obstacle to implementation, but rather the need to muster the political will in Israel and international legitimacy abroad. The first step to engender such political will and generate such legitimacy is to foster vigorous public discourse on it as a viable alternative – which is why, as I have argued in the previous installments, the drastic enhancement of Israeli diplomacy is so crucial.
Identifying host countries
One of the more common queries was “Which countries would accept the Palestinian Arabs as immigrants?” This question seems to miss the point on a number of levels.
First, the proposal neither envisages nor suggests an en masse movement of Palestinian Arabs – certainly not a coercive deportation to defined destinations by Israel. Rather, it would entail a gradual, “osmotic”-like (for want of a better word) process, in which recipient families would identify their preferred destination – with or without Israeli-facilitated consultation.
(Indeed, one might envision the establishment of a national authority – a Zionist-oriented version of the Sela Disengagement Authority set up to accompany the coercive evacuation of Jews from Gaza in 2005 – to advise Palestinians on their options in implementing the voluntary “evacuation-compensation” (pinuipitzui) principle).
It should be noted that the prospective relocation grants would be sufficient to qualify recipients for immigrant status in numerous countries – not only Arab or Muslim ones. There are, for example, reportedly over half a million Palestinians in South America.
This would allow them to arrive at the gates of potential host countries as relatively wealthy (in terms of local GDP per capita) émigrés – not destitute refugees.
The question would become: Which country would not accept them? Or is the assumption that Palestinians seeking a better life would be denied their wish, simply because of their ethnic identity? That would be racist, wouldn’t it?
If the insinuation is that Palestinians – even with adequate capital – cannot be useful citizens, capable of making a positive contribution to a prospective host country, how can they be expected to build their own state – without the benefit of that funding?
Of course, it should be remembered that absorption of externally funded Palestinians could entail considerable capital inflow into the host country – up to a billion dollars for every 5,000 families – hardly something that would make them undesirable newcomers. The greater the absorption, the greater the capital inflow.
Furthermore, if accepted by the international community (again a function of the efficacy of Israeli diplomacy), host countries could be given further benefits for absorbing Palestinians – something raised by prominent “peace process” advocates, who have urged the US to launch “an international initiative that would provide economic support for refugees in neighboring states, including host governments, and provide incentive packages for patriation to non-neighboring states, including in the West.”
The tyranny of space
I have once again exhausted the space at my disposal with many questions still unanswered.
For example, what about the threat of fratricide to dissuade Palestinians from accepting relocation funding? Or the repugnant recriminations of racism? And the egregious efforts to portray an offer of economic enhancement as ethnic cleansing? The answers to these and other questions will have to wait until next week.
Gmar Hatima Tova!
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. Send Large Small Print Share
Difficult to discuss reasonably anything with people who have two different and sometimes opposite systems of reference! At some point one of the two party will impose his/her point of vue by force if necessary. The defeat of Nazi or Japan are two recent examples. Islamists will have their turn coming if reason does not get into their brain.
steven l Said:
Friedmann understands all full well. An opportunist in the pockets of the Sauds with no principles whatsoever. An integral part of the operation to swindle Jews and put them at the mercy of the modern Jew killers. Lets recognize our enemies for who they are and stop pretending this is just normal debate.
Today the lovely Thomas Freedman is again showing his total culpable ignorance of the Arab position as far as the green line is concerned. For the Arabs, the GREEN LINE is the sea shore. The five wars are the 5 repudiation of the GREEN LINE. And very likely there will be more wars for that Arab green line. The West has shown no concern for the Christians of the Muslim world and shows little concern about Israel. The failure of the international sanctions against Iran speak for themselves,
What part of this green line does Thomas Freedman not understand!
With antisemite like this u need no more enemies.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Obfuscation in a disingenuous attempt to fleece the Jews. I am obviously talking about the arab-muslim collective’s responsibiity for the events ensuing and their resposibiity to PAY. You know, the same ones who attacked Israel, the same ones who keep their brothers in camps for political purposes, the same ones who continue to PAY for terror against Jews. Somehow, as usual, you arrive, at the conclusion that the Jews shoudl pay. I am sure that after talking to you about any subject that involves Jews the Jews must not only check their wallets but make sure his clothes are still on his back and that he has a home to which to return. The amount of money currently spent by the UN, EU,Arab Nations, US,UNRWA, etc,etc etc could easily pay this bill which you, and Sherman are invoicing, to the Jews. The enormous resources of the arabs alone should be paying for it, and yet you want to hoodwink the jews into paying the bill. The extra benefit of the arabs paying is that it might reduce their funding of global terror, their favorite pastime.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Apparently only with irrelevant facts and obfuscating red herrings of outrage.
CuriousAmerican Said:
blah, blah, blah! The foregoing represents the bulk of your FACTS. I notice in this, and prior forums, that you are able to conjure up a great deal of outrage, empathy and sympathy for the muslim arabs yet I have never seen these expressed on behalf of the Jews who have suffered these same events which are yet to even happen to the arabs. The Jews did not even get a mode of transportation or payment thereof from the arabs and yet you feel for the arabs. What is different about the transfer of Jews from Gaza and the transfer of arabs from Israel(misery, despair; writhing in pain, hunger, fear, fury, and anger) Were you writing of these things then? Why can Jews be transferred and not arabs? It does not have to be painful; your arab friends can foot the bill and make it a new economic boom for the involved trnasfers. Why dont you and Sherman write to them to offer to simply transfer their funding of terror towards funding to resettle their brothers? There is no case in the arab muslimn world that does not wish to see the eradication of the Jews from Israel. CuriousAmerican Said:
Are you absurd? This is exactly what happens now and what has been happening.
CuriousAmerican Said:
The conversation climbs the ladder of the ridiculous. Isn’t this what should be said to the muslims? In fact, isn’t this the correct question of the usual jew killers of the past 2000 years who, BTW, are still hard at work with their usual goals?
CuriousAmerican Said:
I don’t think , like you, it iw worth more than a Jew’s life. I don’t think that it is ok to do things to Jews but not Arabs. In conclusion, I see nothing wrong with the arabs being financed to resettlement and given a new start, however, I see this responsibility as belonging to those who are really responsible rather than dumping more scams on the perpetually hoodwinked Jews. From your past posts,I think we agree on transfer and resettlement as a benefit to all parties involved, however I think that it will not be voluntarily taken on by the arab collective to pay and they will discourage arabs from accepting any incentive to move. Therefore, I think Sherman and you are chasing a dead end. Israel cannot itself to keep waiting for agreements but can act unilaterally. The same benefits of resettlement can be accomplished by the world AFTER Israel unilaterally transfers them to the other side of the borders. This will do more to accomplish their ultimate resettlement than hoping on agreements. The facs on the ground will force all the current parties to refocus, even the media and foreign protesters will have to travel to new venues for their propaganda. There is no reason why the arab re-settlement cannot proceed much better than the gaza Jews re-settlement as they and the global institutions have gobs full of money already being poorly spent on the same people.
A lot of them are NOT responsible for their predicament. Many had to flee in 1948 involuntarily. Even the Jewish Virtual Library admits there was some amount of ethnic cleansing.
But Bernard Ross, we would not want to bother you with facts, or anything that might upset your sanctimonious worldview. which gives you such assurance and comfort.
You might have to admit all men are equal, when you know you are superior.
You have my permission kill all the men, drive the rest out without pity, murder their older women, pummel the kids into jello, leave the remnant on the other side of the border in misery and despair; writhing in pain, hunger, fear, fury, and anger.
Only 20 years later when these grow up and some do come back to kill Jewish kids – in revenge – in an Arabic form of ‘Din‘ Units – please don’t ask me, “Why do they hate us, so?”
You know why?
Israel may have a right to the land, but a lot of these people have been treated unjustly.
But forget that. We do not want to disturb you. You going on thinking you are superior.
You have my permission – NOT THAT YOU NEED IT! We would not want to cause you any mental anguish that might arise from realizing that your side, even though it overall right, is not always innocent. Better to kill them all, rather than examine your theology. What is an Arab’s life worth? Didn’t one famous Jew call the Arabs grasshoppers? </sarcasm>
PS: you have to use an </sarcasm> tag, because those like Bernard Ross would take the comments literally.
@ SarahSue:
Welcome back SaraSue. We all miss you.
I join you in G-d bless America, G-d bless Israel.
Some time ago, Paul Weston of the British Freedom Party put out a document that attempted to defined and refine his party’s platform. He put in on line and asked for reader’s comments. Many readers were able to offer valuable critiques and helped him immensely in narrowing down the document’s length to basic principles that illustrated what the Freedom Party stood for.
That is how we should approach Martin Sherman’s series. It opens up a whole new discussion on how to deal with a persistent and long unsolved thorn in Israel’s side. It rejects a goodly amount of the correct and popular political thinking that has long been proven a failure. It discards any solution that tries to force Israel the live with her enemies.
A new dialogue is welcome. The one state and two state solutions have been so thoroughly debunked that it is a waste of our time to discuss them anymore. It would behoove us take this new idea and discuss it’s pros and cons. How to frame and define the new message is what we should concentrate on. So let us give Martin some good ideas and let him know why we reject some of his solutions.
It seems to me that the money America has spent on recent wars is irrelevant to this discussion. The projected costs of moving Israelis from the disputed territories is also irrelevant. The people that suggested this implausible proposal were unconcerned with both the costs and how it would damage the Israeli economy because, after all, the money was not coming out of their pockets. Saying that the Israelis shouldering the costs of moving the muslims out of Israel is much cheaper than the other failed ideas, does not make it a better argument. Even if the Israeli economy could sustain the costs does not make it any more morally agreeable. As Bernard Ross rather emphatically pointed out, the Jews financed their own removal from islamic countries and it is only fair that the muslims finance theirs. There is plenty of tax money, aid money and UNRWA money that could be rerouted, the Israelis should not have to pay a penny. If the world wants to help the poor, deprived, trampled, maligned, victims of the mean old Israelis, then here is their chance.
While I like the idea of treating the muslims as individuals rather then a political entity, the idea of sending them to new homes as wealthy future entrepreneurs is assuming that the muslims could or would do this. Does Martin think that the long held refugee and victim-hood mentality carefully nurtured from birth is going to be sloughed off like an old set of clothes? That the exorbitant amount of $10,000 is going to be spent on anything as sensible as setting new businesses? A fool and his money is soon parted and the muslims have long proven that they are fools. A much better idea is to provide them with a one-way airline ticket and the equivalent of $1,000 to their new muslim home of their choice. Even if we are spending their money, $1,000 would get rid of a lot more people in a short period of time and that is the point of this exercise. Let them feel the pressure of finding a job as soon as possible. Let them feel the stress of fending for themselves much like the Jews must have felt when forced into new homes. Or is that reverse moral equivalence assuming that the muslims could rise to any challenge? I say, give the muslims a chance and if they fail, they fail. Rather than setting low expectations, let us set high ones. After all millions of refugees have shown them the way. If they are adults and heads of households, then let us treat them that way.
Martin says that assertive diplomacy is needed. You bet! And who should be in charge? I nominate Avigdor Lieberman and people like him. Aggressive and assertive are his middle names. He has stared down Mubarak, Assad, Erdo?an, Abu Mazen, the hezbollah, the hamas, and the fatah and lived to tell the tale. What is not to like? The only people he angers are the liberals, the muslims and their supporters, people that will criticize and condemn Israel no matter what she does. His message would not be going to them, but rather to people like me. People that want Israel to be able to get with the business of living without hindrance. And who knows? After we have supported Israel and her success, we can use her example here in America!!
Anybody else have any good ideals? I thought so. Let’s hear them!
God bless America, God bless Israel.
SarahSue
what an example of jewish groveling. As a matter of principle not one penny should be spent. this gives the impression that Israel is responsible for them and the arabs who caused the problem get off free. Just bringing it into discussion is broadcasting that it is the jews responsibility or they would not be paying for it. It perpetuates double standards for the jews. What a great negotiator,reinforcing the negative stereotyping of Jews: Jews are about money not principle or ethics. If the arabs are transferred across the 3 hostile borders the roles, responsibility, the burden and who must pay will automatically fall on the arabs who are the source of their own predicament. The arabs solved their jewish problem by transferring the Jews, here is another ghetto mentality jew who is unable to see the double standard. Oh no we cant do that its wrong, 2 wrongs dont make a right, lets just turn the other cheek. Jews are always brainwashed into that false morality. In the case of arab refugees it becomes immoral but not for the jewish refugees, who was outraged then?. The end is the same: transferred arabs, so let us not pretend to morality or compassion for those who wish to eradicate jews. What was the mode of transferring the Jews? The Jews had to pay for their own ethnic cleansing. Jews are willing to transfer jews by force from gaza, and the west bank, but not the arabs: what incredible cuckoo clocks who keep contributing idiotically to their own demise. Idiots like this invite their own demise. Only the jews are capable of such warped suicidal logic. 2000 years spent in the ghetto of europe has created a cultural stockholm syndrome whereby the jews embrace their masters hopes for their own extinction. Their masters must be laughing with glee at the comical caricature of the jew who has no regard for himself but is always thinking about the his murderers interest. This is not morality it is psychopathy. All that remains is for the jews to go out and buy their own bar of soap!
Jews are always worried about being perceived as racist and therefore would rather destroy themselves.