By MARTIN SHERMAN
Dispelling doubts as to the feasibility (and morality) of largescale, financially incentivized emigration as the only non-kinetic approach to resolve the Israel-Palestinian impasse.
Consideration should be given even to the heroic remedy of transfer of populations…the hardship of moving is great, but it is less than the constant suffering of minorities and the constant recurrence of war
President Herbert Hoover, The “Great Humanitarian”, in “The Problems of Lasting Peace”.
With all the money that has been invested in the problem of the Palestinians, it would have been possible long ago to resettle them and provide them with good lives in Arab countries. Andrei Sakharov, cited in “The New Republic”, June 22, 2009.
The rise in the number of international migrants reflects the increasing importance of international migration, which has become an integral part of our economies and societies. Well-managed migration brings important benefits to countries of origin and destination, as well as to migrants and their families-. Wu Hongbo, UN Under-Secretary-General, 2016.
Followers of this column will recall that for well over a decade I have promoted what I have designated: “The Humanitarian Paradigm” (HP). This paradigm prescribes, among other things, large-scale financially incentivized emigration of the Palestinian-Arab population, resident across the pre-1967 lines, as the only comprehensive, non-kinetic policy blueprint that can enable Israel to adequately address both the Geographic and the Demographic Imperatives, which it needs to contend with in order to endure as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
Unfounded skepticism
Several reservations have been raised regarding my proposed prescription on various grounds, including skepticism as to its economic affordability, political feasibility and moral acceptability. Some have claimed that an alleged sense of “intense nationalism”, social pressures, and fear of retributory fratricide will preclude any chance of large-scale emigration of Palestinian-Arabs.
Such skepticism flies in the face of logical reasoning, historical precedents, empirical findings and the revealed preferences of significant segments of the Palestinians-Arabs themselves.
Accordingly, in the ensuing paragraphs I will attempt to address these reservations, show them to be largely unfounded, and demonstrate that the HP is not only eminently feasible but unequivocally imperative if the Jews are to preserve their national independence and political sovereignty.
But before addressing the FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) regarding such feasibility, allow me to convey—in brutal brevity—what sets the HP apart from ALL other proposals for resolution.
This differentiation resolves chiefly around two elements: (a) the atomization of implementation; (b) the de-politicization of context.
With regard to the former, since the envisaged compensation will be offered directly to individual family heads/breadwinners, no agreement with any Arab collective (whether state or sub-state organization) is required—merely the accumulated consent of fate-stricken individuals, striving to improve their lot.
With regard to the later, this reflects a sober recognition that, after decades of effort, involving the expenditure of huge political capital and economic resources, there is no political formula for resolution of the conflict and efforts should be channeled into dissipating the humanitarian predicament of the Palestinian-Arabs.
FAQ 1: How much will it cost?
One of the most common queries raised as to the practicality of the HP is the question of cost.
In addressing this issue, it is important to keep three things in mind:
(a) The absolute cost of implementation is irrelevant; (b) There is inherent difficulty in reaching precise estimates of the required outlay; however (c) There is no need for fine-tuned precision estimates, since political resolve is the real constraint on implementation– not economic resources.
As to the first of these points, it is crucial to grasp that the absolute cost of the proposed measures is not really the issue, but rather the comparative cost, relative to other proposals – including the two-state formula – whose implementation is also certain to entail an ongoing multi-billion dollar price tag. Indeed, one of the few (arguably, the only) comprehensive study of the overall cost of the Oslo Process suggests that by 2014 it inflicted expenditures—excluding the cost of the 50-day long Operation Protective Edge—of almost a trillion shekels (a quarter trillion dollars) on Israel’s economy—producing nothing but trauma and tragedy for Jew and Arab alike.
As to the second point: The overall cost for large-scale relocation and rehabilitation of the Palestinian population across the pre-1967 lines clearly depends not only on the scope of emigration grants offered, but on the actual size of the Palestinian-Arab population in Judea-Samaria and Gaza. In this regard there is fierce ongoing debate regarding the true population figures for Judea, Samaria and Gaza – with a discrepancy of well over a million between competing estimates.
Calculating Costs (cont.)
Fortunately, precise appraisals of the required costs are not essential for assessing the affordability of the HP. Rough order-of-magnitude estimates are sufficient for this purpose. Indeed, as we shall see, the amounts required are dwarfed by the expenditures on other international ventures—which, predictably, produced results which, charitably, can be dubbed “disappointing”.
As I do not wish to become embroiled in an argument as to the real size of the Palestinian-Arab population, and as the envisaged financial grants would be distributed per family unit, I shall sidestep the issue and take as my point-of-departure a figure of 850,000 families (just over 60% in Judea-Samaria). This is far closer to the official Palestinian figures than to the alternative, more optimistic (and plausible) demographic estimates, which are almost 300,000 families lower! Assuming an average emigration grant of US$250-300,000 per family (which is roughly 100 years of GDP per capita in Palestinian terms) this would amount to a total budget of US$200-250 billion for the full implementation of the HP project.
While these figures might appear somewhat daunting, two points should be borne in mind: Today Israel’s annual GDP is approaching US$300 billion. Accordingly the total outlay would be 8-10 months of GDP.
Assessing affordability (cont.)
Spreading this over, say, a decade-and-a-half (considerably less time than has been invested in the fatally flawed two-state endeavor) this would amount to 4.5-5.5% of total GDP. Accordingly, even if Israel was to bear this economic burden on its own, adding it to the current levels of defense spending (5-6%), the economic burden would not reach the defense expenditure, as a percentage of GDP, through much of the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s (11-15%).
Moreover, if the wider international community could be induced to help shoulder the task, the entire enterprise could be completed far more rapidly, at a cost which would be virtually imperceptible, amounting to a mere fraction of a percentage point of the GDP of the OECD nations.
It must be firmly emphasized that the sums referred to here are inconsequential in global terms. Indeed, they pale into insignificance when compared to the multi-trillion dollar cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, of which over 90% was spent after (!) Saddam Hussein was apprehended and the Taliban dislodged, and which, even by most benign assessments, produced, at best, meagre results.
Accordingly it would appear that financial resources for a program that would cost considerably less than 10% of the cost of those engagements is not a real impediment to its implementation.
FAQ 2: Is large-scale financially-induced Palestinian emigration feasible?
Of course, no-one knows precisely how many Palestinian-Arabs can be induced to emigrate without putting the matter to test. However, available evidence strongly suggests that extensive emigration is indeed eminently feasible. And there is certainly far more empirical support for it than there is for a stable two-state outcome.
A survey I commissioned as far back as December 2004 for the Jerusalem Summit, and conducted by a leading Israeli polling institute, in collaboration with a well-known Palestinian center, showed that over 40% of the Arab residents of Judea-Samaria had actively considered emigration, while up to 50% did not discount such a possibility – even without being offered any material inducement. When the question of material compensation was introduced to encourage such emigration, the figure rose to over 70%!
It appears that this sentiment has only grown stronger over time.
Since then, a veritable slew of opinion surveys has emerged from Palestinian institutes showing a keen wish among the Palestinian-Arab population to emigrate. Thus, in 2007 the New York Times cited polls for Birzeit University, showing “35 percent of Palestinians over the age of 18 want to emigrate. Nearly 50 percent of those between 18 and 30 would leave if they could”.
Feasibility of financially-induced emigration (cont.)
Indeed the desire to emigrate grew so wide-spread that the Palestinian Authority’s mufti felt compelled to issue a fatwa forbidding Muslims to leave, and berating the fact that “Many are continuing to rush to the gates of the embassies and consulates of the Western nations with requests for visas in order to reside permanently in those countries.”
Current polls conducted by the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research show, regularly and repeatedly, that between 25-35% of the Arab residents of Judea-Samaria and 45-55% in Gaza wish to emigrate permanently.
But perhaps more compelling than the findings of any poll are the revealed behavioral preferences of the residents of Gaza, who are paying massive bribes to extricate themselves from the grim realities of life there, risking drowning at sea in rickety boats, desperate to seek a better life elsewhere. These headlines in Al Jazeera and Al Monitor bear poignant testimony to their predicament and despair: Palestinians paying thousands in bribes to leave Gaza; Escaping Gaza, hundreds of Palestinians drown; Gaza’s intellectuals are fleeing abroad.
Surely then, establishing an orderly system of ample financial aid to enable them to extricate themselves from the dire situation which the misguided attempt to foist statehood on them has precipitated, would be eminently more humane, moral and pragmatic.
FAQ 3: But who would accept them?
One of the most frequently asked questions regarding the feasibility of the HP is “Which countries will accept them?”
I find this question particularly puzzling – especially given today’s realities of massive global population flows. Indeed, the UN recently published a report on global migration, revealing that in 2015 there were almost a quarter-billion migrants globally (up 40% since 2000), the majority of which were motivated by economic considerations. Thus it is difficult to understand why an envisaged yearly increase of a fraction of 1% in this number over the next decade would be such an inconceivable event.
Moreover, it should be recalled that, in contrast to many other migrants, the Palestinian-Arab recipients of generous relocation grants would not be arriving as a stream of destitute refugees. Rather they would be arriving in an orderly fashion as individual immigrants of relative affluence by global standards, who traditionally have brought great benefit to the host countries that have accepted them.
In addition, the funds the Palestinian-Arab newcomers would bring with them would constitute a very significant influx into the host countries’ economies. Indeed, for every hundred Palestinian families admitted, the host country could count on the influx of around US$25-30 million into its economy. Absorbing 2,500 new Palestinian-Arab family units could mean the injection of up to three-quarter billion dollars into the host nation’s economy.
Who would accept them? (cont.)
Consider the following example, which if not entirely realistic, is instructive in conveying the principle involved.
Suppose Indonesia – the world’s most populous Muslim country – were to open its gates to the Palestinian-Arabs across the pre-1967 lines, who, in turn, decided to emigrate to that country. This would entail an increase of a little over 1% of the Indonesian population (around 270 million) but an influx of over US $ 250-300 billion into the Indonesian economy, where total GDP is around US $ 900 billion. Moreover, each of the Palestinian breadwinners would arrive with a sum worth around 80 years of Indonesian GDP per capita (around US$ 3,500) – the equivalent of over US$ 4 million in the US. Accordingly, they would in no way be impoverished refugees, or a burden on the local society/economy. Quite the opposite. They would be rather well-to-do individuals, capable of making a positive contribution to their new homeland.
It is of course unrealistic to believe that all the Palestinians would head for a single destination. However if Palestinian-Arab emigration was distributed over several countries, they could be absorbed, resettled and rehabilitated with very little difficulty by a number of host nations with compatible domestic socio-cultural and religious environments – with the financial benefits accruing to these host nations being proportional to number of Palestinian-Arab immigrants they accept.
Next week…
Given the crucial importance of this issue, I intend to continue this response to FAQs regarding the HP and to address further economic aspects, the question of threatened fratricide and the moral superiority of the HP over all other proposed policy prescriptions. Until then Shabbat Shalom.
Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
About FAQ 3 : the answer is obviously Europe, The PalestiRiens prefer europe , for evident reasons , it’s close, it’s a better place to live as newcomers ( 2 millions syrians can prove that in Germany ) , it offers good social protection in the northern countries , the populations of those northern countries are gullible enough to lend an ear to the pally horrors movies . And above all the social-democrats left-leaning governments always needs newcomers to expand their budget, raise new taxes , employs new workers to assit the newcomers. After 10 years those newcomers will receive the right to vote and will reward the left-leaning social democrat s. Of course the burden in new taxes, crimes, etc.. will be bear by the middle class which pays the largest share of taxes .
Edgar G. Said:
ed g your living in the past giving your age away. that nice country road, shade trees either side you drove is now a 6-8 lane highway. malls, factories either side.
@ EDWARD DE FONZO:
He doesn’t say what percentage are Muslims but I’ll bet it’s most of them. So, what difference does it make as long as they are out of Israel and not murdering Jews? If Western countries are going to allow themselves to be inundated with Muslim migrants, let them take these off our hands first. Europe appears to be finished anyway. Jews should get out while they can. Canada and Australia are next. Jews need to come to Israel or the U.S; That’s pretty much it. I no longer have relatives outside Israel and the U.S. except for a couple of Christian or secular cousins with Jewish fathers or grandfathers who wouldn’t be mistaken for Jews and therefore targeted.
No anti-semitism in Bhutan but then they don’t even allow in many visitors much less non-Buddhist immigrants, and very few Buddhist immigrants, either. My Jubu mother visited Bhutan a few years ago. She had to stay in Burma for a time because Bhutan only allows in visitors for 2 weeks. No terror there, either. hmmm.
@ Ted Belman:
Obviously, I am not mainly addressing this to you as I would not presume to “teach my grandmother to suck eggs” as these young whipper snappers say today — but the author of the letter you just quoted seems to still believe in the possibility of some kind of negotiated or arranged peace. Like, if we only put the furniture in this corner instead of that corner, they won’t want to kill us.
It is hard for most of us to grasp that they are not motivated by material self-interest or concern for others, even their own people, even their own families, though they don’t mind helping themselves to what they can get along the way. We need to stop talking about practical ways we can live together and listen to what they are saying: “Jews Out,” “Death to the Jews.” And match it up with their actions. There is no substantive difference between them and the Nazis. We need to be persuading our people to think of practical ways of getting rid of them first.
“If somebody says he wants to kill you, believe him.” – Elie Wiesel
“Do unto them before they do unto us.” – anonymous
The most important site for understanding where they are really coming from. Read/listen to them in their own words – with English Subtitles. It changed my point of view from pro-pal to anti in 2000. Confirmed by the Oslo Terror War. -. Not just mine. Congress.
They are not interested in “self-determination.” Just our destruction. It’s a trick. Palestinian Media Watch.
http://www.palwatch.org/
A good article I just discovered on the topic. Eidelberg covers this territory from a different angle – more relevant to the Saudi 2002 plan in his Sadat book as well.*
Excerpt:
“The Place of Journalism in Palestinian Cognitive Warfare”
“…Definition
‘Cognitive warfare is the art of getting the more powerful enemy to unilaterally disarm. “In essence,” writes Stuart Green, author of a seminal work on the subject, Cognitive Warfare (p. 85), “cognitive warriors seek to shatter their enemies’ wills rather than their abilities to fight.” Ron Schliefer described its goal as “convincing your enemies to be pacifists and your own side to be patriots.”
On a strategic level, CW in the modern era operates from the following principles:
‘Democracies, while capable of fielding the most powerful armies, have profound vulnerabilities which CW exploits to dissuade democratic societies from using their military.
Goad the enemy into wasting blood and treasure — intensify the natural distaste for war of civil societies and remove the will to fight a “senseless” war, thus negating their military advantage.
Infiltrate the enemy narrative: exploit guilt, and exhaust them with cultural divisions among themselves.
Tactics employed by cognitive warriors include
‘Framing your narrative in cultural terms/memes familiar to the enemy, more specifically, attaching to the most self-critical elements of the target culture.
Exploiting cultural weaknesses in target culture: commitments to fairness and reluctance to “demonize” the other, sharpening politically correct inhibitions, etc.
Feeding lethal narratives into the information stream, demonizing a democratic enemy and pleading legitimate resistance on the basis of those accusations.
Disguising aggressive hostility as “legitimate aspirations,” manipulating the “moderate” memes of the target culture (fear of accusations of racism and xenophobia) to delegitimize criticism of your side even as you scapegoat the enemy.
Intimidating anyone who persists in criticizing you, if necessary, with violence…”
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2013/05/28/the-place-of-journalism-in-palestinian-cognitive-warfare-talk-at-ais-haifa-june-2012/
* http://www.afsi.org/pamphlets/SadatsStrategy_Eidelberg%5B1%5D.pdf
@ ms:
Kuwait.
I believe they should be financed to the same amount arab/muzzy countries paid the JEWS to leave their ancient homelands 1948-9. lets be honest JEWS left homes, businesses investments etc. what are the terrorists going to leave of any value?? but make sure all the deadies are taken with, cannot have the likes of arrafart contaminating JEWISH land + all those buried on the TEMPLE MOUNT, lets make it pure again.
@ Ted Belman
:
Here we see, again, that by the time when the Government recognizes a problem, that the problem has already been working itself out.
Ultimately, when the Government imposes a “solution”, the momentum of the (albeit imperfect) fix is stopped cold and things quickly spiral into a disaster.
As I have pointed out on earlier occasions, there is no possibility that this proposal will be implemented because the entire “international community” has been brainwashed against such a solution. Its was labeled “ethnic cleansing” when the Serbs supposedly tried to practice it in the 1990s Balkan Wars, and Serb leaders were tried as criminals by an international UN-created court for allegedly practicing this supposed war crime. Brainwashing against Israel practicing any such “solution” began much earlier with the claims that Israel already practiced f “ethnic cleansing” in its 1948 War of Independence,” when it allegedly expelled the Palestinian Arabs from pre-1967 Israel and stole their land in order to give it to Jews. In reality, Israel never did any such thing. Neither, in fact, did the Serbs. But the brainwashing against the idea of population transfers to end ethnic conflict and enable different ethnic groups to exercise self-determination has been complete. While the “international community” may look the other way at this practice when it is done by members in good standing of the “international community,” Israel has been denied this status by decades of Arab and blood-libel propaganda, supported by the UN, EU, and Israel’s own leftist intellectuals. The Israeli government is in any case controlled by leftists who are just as opposed to this idea as the “international community.” Why does Dr. Sherman keep banging his head against a stone wall with this utterly impractical proposal? What a waste of a brilliant man’s talents.
Email rec’d from a friend.
I wonder if Hamas-Abbas would let them (regular Pals) go.
@ Stefan:
xx
First they’ll try to get the money and then do nothing, so they have to be very carefully vetted mini-step at a time. The amount of $250,000 is obscene, and completely unneccessary, since many will go directly ove the border to Jordan, a matter of a few miles, The way Arabs set up homes is nothing like the way today’s civilised people do it, it costs a pittance, and their brothers cousins uncles and etc all pitch in. I recall when I lived in Israel and was getting a house built, it was normal for all that building to take up to 3 years and cost a fortune. There were few Jewish small contractors, mostly Arab, Even if the boss was a Jew the workers were Arabs. When they were building for themselves, a nice house-some of them architectural marvels, were finished in a few months and for a minimal amount. I used to see, on my way from Karmiel to Haifa, about 10 miles just off the road, the most beautiful house I ever saw, that I stopped to photograph it, and asked the owner for permission to look inside. It was simple and open inside, but outside it was tall and slender, built around a centre support, about 4 storeys, with beautifully delicate flying buttresses, faced with polished stone and etc. Most beautiful. The owner was a local Arab village shopkeeper, not poor but nor wealthy. His relatives helped in building it, taking 7 months (?)
Others on this site must also have seen this house and know the one I mean.
:
Strawmen.
The ‘less government’ criticism of this guy’s “thinking” is NOT technical. It’s *philosophical*.
Even if, miraculously, the Government could:
• rectify all the bugs in the approach
• induce every Arab to leave
• accomplish this scheme for a finite price tag,
it would still make government even BIGGER and reinforce the bizarre notion that Big Government is a necessity.
Which means that ‘more government’ would be the go-to approach for the next BIG problem, actuated when the Government’s luck would have been long depleted.
The Pal leadership, the ultimate fanatics! It is only about eliminating IL, after 3500 years!!! And until today the West remains the ally of the Islamists as the UN votes demonstrated in Dec 2016. The Sunnis use the Pal as their shield when they do not use women and children or other infidels!!!
:
Awful.
@ dreuveni:
Huh?????
@ Stefan:
Increase the disincentives for staying and/or the incentives for leaving@ Stefan:
The whole article misses the point. As soon as this offer hits the streets, all of the “Palestinian refugee camps” in the surrounding countries would jump on the bandwagon.
Then we would see family reunification of those who had already left with those that remained behind in the hopes of getting another handout. Sure, the arguments that this wouldn’t even make a small dent in Israeli expenditure even if it had to shoulder the cost alone. It would not outlive the pressure from the rest of the world to pay off every new “Palestinian”, and guess who would be pressured to pay?? Come on guys. Wake up! none of them really likes us.
@ EDWARD DE FONZO:
If they go to Indonesia, or Kenya, or Malaysia etc – why is that a problem?
Very good article complementing proposals dating back to at least two leaders from the past.
Now. A question that requires a solid answer… What would be the cost of not buying the Arab Muslims out?
I doubt it would be less than the cost of sending them packing.
Those that do not accept, well, we will have to find ways to help them along on their way out.
I do not understand what the difference is between this and Rehavam Zeevi’s Moledet? Am I missing something?
And if the Arabs refuse compensation? What then? Or only a small amount
WITH RESPECT, HOW MANY OF THOSE ACCEPTING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO IMMIGRATE ALSO BRING ISLAM WITH THEM?
Good article. Over 30 years ago, Kahane made the exact same arguments — see his book, “They Must Go” — was branded as a racist and barred from the Knesset.