-
We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men – George Orwell
Let me begin with an apology.
My broken promise
I know that last week I promised to elucidate the mechanisms of the humanitarian alternative to the two-state solution (TSS) and to respond to an array of reservations from readers regarding the proposal.
However, I find I cannot convey all that was promised adequately in a single column. I request your patience and forgiveness for once again delaying some of the discussion till next week.
True, in the past few days, many events, perhaps far more newsworthy, have burst into the headlines – Iran, Egypt, Libya, US Mideast policy – on all of which I have much to say. However, the Palestinian issue lies at the core of the national debate, permeating almost every walk of life in the country. It impinges, directly and indirectly, on a myriad of other crucial matters. Indeed, the lack of a sustainable TSS alternative has resulted in billions being spent on temporary stop-gap measures – some hitherto reasonably successful, some disastrous failures – such as the construction of the separation barrier, the development of the Iron Dome system (intended principally to intercept short-range Palestinian projectiles launched from TSS-earmarked territories), and the devastating disengagement from Gaza.
(An aside: Given the huge cost-differential between the incoming and intercepting missiles, in the final analysis, the Iron Dome system only has long-term strategic logic if it is used to provide short-term protection to the civilian population while the IDF takes the territory from which the incoming projectiles are fired. It would be helpful if one has a plan of what to do with the territory once it is taken, other than eventually returning it to the folks doing the firing, i.e. if one has a TSS-alternative.) So until a coherent, comprehensive TSS-alternative is formulated, it will be impossible to achieve a strategy for the rational long-term use of national resources.
The effective promotion of such an alternative demands meticulous, tightly argued presentation. As I mentioned last week – this cannot be achieved with catchy sound bites, but only by exhaustive, clearly articulated intellectual endeavor. So despite the fact that its topicality may be eclipsed by other issues, I feel it is imperative to engage in a systematic and detailed discussion, not only of the logic and the internal mechanism of the proposal, but of the commonly raised reservations to it, even if that takes a little more time than originally envisioned.
So my apologies.
The chain of logic
In previous columns in this series I traced the links in the chain of logic that lead inexorably to the conclusion that the TSS is incompatible with the long-term survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people; and set out the elements of an alternative humanitarian – rather than political – policy paradigm for the noncoercive resolution of the conflict.
The major stages in the sequence of reasoning can be summarized as follows:
-
1. If Israel is to continue to exist as the permanent democratic nation-state of the Jewish people,
(a) It cannot make the territorial concessions in Judea/Samaria necessary for a viable Palestinian state without critically compromising its minimum security requirements and rendering itself geographically untenable; and
(b) It cannot incorporate the Palestinian Arabs resident in these areas into its society as enfranchised citizens, without rendering itself demographically untenable.
2. Israel must therefore maintain control over the territory while inducing the relocation and rehabilitation of the Palestinian Arab population elsewhere. The only noncoercive way to achieve this is with positive inducements – chiefly generous economic incentives.
3. However, there is strong international support for the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea/Samaria. What fuels this support is the perceived legitimacy of the Palestinian narrative, according to which the Palestinian Arabs are a distinct people, comprising a cohesive national entity that strives to exercise national sovereignty in a defined homeland. As long as the perceived validity of this narrative persists, the international pressure for Palestinian statehood will persist.
4. Clearly then, if the intellectual fuel that drives international pressure for a Palestinian state is the perceived validity of the Palestine narrative, forestalling this pressure requires the deconstruction of this narrative. Such deconstruction should – and can – be based principally on the deeds, declarations and documents of the Palestinians.
5. This narrative-deconstruction must be attained by an assertive public diplomacy offensive, adequately funded and appropriately energized. Without achievement of this objective, there will be no conceptual space in the discourse to advance Zionist-compliant alternatives to the TSS.
6. Deconstruction of the Palestinian narrative will obviate the need to deal with the Palestinian Arabs as a cohesive national entity, and instead facilitate addressing them as an amalgam of fate-stricken individuals who, for decades, have been disastrously misled into their current unenviable position by cruel, cunning and corrupt cliques.
7. Approaching the Palestinians Arabs on the individual, rather than on the collective, level makes way for policy paradigms that call for (a) The depoliticization of context of the predicament, and the nature of its resolution; and (b) The “atomization” (individualization) of the implementation of that resolution.
8. This enables the formulation of crucial elements of actionable policy that do not require reaching agreement with any Arab collective or political entity –something increasingly implausible in the post-“Arab Spring” climate – but rather the accumulated acquiescence of individuals seeking to enhance their well-being.
Humanitarian instead of political
Depoliticizing the context of the Palestinian Arabs’ predicament will not, in itself, dissipate that predicament, or render the need to do so any less pressing. But what it will do is provide a totally new dimension along which to pursue policies to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, and new methodologies by which to do so.
Thus, rather than strive for an unattainable political solution, energies should be channeled along humanitarian lines, which as I pointed out last week, leads inexorably to a policy prescription based on the eminently liberal (as opposed to “illiberal” rather than “conservative”) principles of: 1. Eliminating ethnic discrimination toward the Palestinian Arabs as (a) refugees and as (b) residents in the Arab world 2. Providing individual Palestinian Arabs the freedom of choice to determine their future and that of their families.
These principles translate into a comprehensive tripartite proposal, whose constituent components should be seen as a mutually interactive, integrative whole: 1. Dissolution or radical restructuring of UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency) to bring the treatment of Palestinian refugees into line with universal international norms.
2. Resolute insistence on the cessation of ethnic discrimination against Palestinian Arabs in the Arab world and of the prohibition on their acquiring citizenship of countries in which they have resided for decades.
3. Generous relocation loans provided directly to individual Palestinian Arab breadwinners/family heads, resident in Judea/Samaria (and subsequently, in Gaza) to allow them to build better futures for themselves, and their dependents, in third-party countries of their choice.
Crucial stumbling block
In pursuing a genuine resolution of the “Palestinian problem,” the issue of abolishing/restructuring UNRWA is crucial. To achieve any sustainable arrangement it is imperative to avoid tunnel vision by focusing attention almost exclusively on the Palestinian Arab population in Judea/Samaria, while ignoring the huge “overhang” of the Palestinian “diaspora,” who greatly outnumber their kinfolk living in these territories.
Without a conceptual blueprint for the fate of this “diaspora,” any agreement with the “domestic” Palestinians will be futile. On the one hand, if it disregards their fate, such an agreement will be politically untenable; on the other, if it provides for their large-scale resettlement within a putative micro-mini Palestinian state, it will render that state physically untenable.
Although a detailed account of the grossly obstructive role UNRWA plays in thwarting any possible progress toward a constructive end of the conflict is beyond the scope of this piece, it is being increasingly recognized by many, across a wide spectrum of political affiliations, both in Israel and abroad. Much has been written regarding this highly anomalous organization and how it perpetuates a culture of Palestinian dependency and the unrealistic narrative of “return.”
Although the topic warrants an entire column on its own, I will limit myself to a brutally condensed tour d’horizon of why the removal/restructuring of UNRWA is essential in any prospective resolution of the Palestinian problem.
All the refugees on the face of the globe are under the auspices of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) – except for the Palestinians. For them a unique, separate institution exists – UNRWA. These two organizations have different definitions of who is a refugee and different mandates for how to deal with them. Unlike the UNHCR, UNRWA’s definition of refugees includes not only permanent inhabitants who fled the country during the 1948 War of Independence but also temporary migrant workers who were resident in Mandatory Palestine for less than two years – as well as all descendants.
While UNHCR’s mandate allows it to find permanent solutions for refugees in countries other than their country of origin, the UNRWA mandate allows only for providing their humanitarian needs.
The operational significance of UNRWA’s definition-cum-mandate is that the organization can only attend to the humanitarian needs of an ever-growing population, dependent on that assistance, making it an entity that perpetuates the very problem it was established to solve.
5,000,000 or 50,000?
The far-reaching significance of this can be condensed into the remarkable fact that if the universally accepted UNHCR criteria for refugees were applied to the Palestinian case, the number of “refugees” would shrink from about 5,000,000 to under 50,000 – even less by some estimates. These figures starkly illustrate that both the scale and the durability of the Palestinian refugee problem is fueled by the wildly anomalous nature of its definition and treatment.
It should not come as a surprise then that there is growing consensus that without abolishing UNRWA and folding its operations into UNHCR, no way out of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse is possible.
This was aptly expressed by Scott Lasensky of the US Institute of Peace and recipient of Tel Aviv University’s Yitzhak Rabin-Shimon Peres Peace Award, who stated: “The delivery of international assistance through UNRWA is untenable and does nothing to contribute to an eventual settlement…”
This view was endorsed by Prof. Nitza Nachmias of the Jewish-Arab Center, University of Haifa, who declared, “UNRWA has to be phased out, and only bold actions will yield the necessary results,” urging that although “this is a complex process [it] should not be delayed or avoided.”
Impact on the narrative
Bringing the Palestine refugee problem into line with accepted international practice by folding UNRWA into the UNHCR (or restructuring it to operate along similar principles) will also reduce the problem to its true dimensions.
This on its own will go a long way to undermining the foundations of the Palestinian narrative, much of which draws on images of destitute millions, still brandishing keys of houses that no longer exist.
However, contending with the detrimental UNRWA anomaly cannot be seen in isolation from the other measures.
Folding UNRWA into the framework of the UNHCR – or an UNHCR-like framework – would of course have significant ramifications for large Palestinian populations resident in the Arab countries, who would no longer receive the anomalous handouts paid to them by it.
This leads to the second element of the proposal: the grave ethnic discrimination against the Palestinian Arabs resident in the Arab world, where they suffer severe restrictions on their freedom of movement, employment opportunities, and property ownership. But most significantly, they are denied citizenship of the countries in which they have lived for decades.
The acquisition of citizenship of the countries of their long-standing residency is something overwhelming desired by the Palestinians – as numerous opinion surveys indicate. Accordingly, with the abolition of UNRWA and the accompanying reduction in the population eligible for refugee aid, a diplomatic drive must be mounted to pressure Arab governments to end their ethnic discrimination against the Palestinians, to desist from perpetuating their stateless status and allow them to acquire the citizenship of countries in which they have long resided.
To make this more palatable, the funds currently provided to UNRWA could be temporarily directed to the coffers of the governments of the countries in which the “refugees” live, to help finance their absorption as citizens – provided, of course, that the barriers to such citizenship are removed.
‘Hot potato’ delayed
Once the principle of Palestinian Arabs receiving permanent citizenship in third-party countries has been established as acceptable – even notionally, rather than in practice – we can turn to the third–most controversial element in the proposal: directly funding Palestinian Arab breadwinners, in the Palestinian-administered territories, to allow them to build better futures for themselves and their dependents, in third-party countries of their choice.
But elaboration of that – and the answers I so rashly promised last week to provide this week – will have to wait until next week.
www.martinsherman.net
Comment blocked by SPAM filter and it is relevant and should interest all who participated in this discussion especially You Ted.
Said the Spider to the Fly: What naivete, but then what were their choices?
Proposals Presented to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919
Statement of the Zionist Organization regarding Palestine.
Third day of February Nineteen hundred and nineteen
Third day of Adar Five thousand six hundred and seventy nine.
Proposals to be presented to the Peace Conference.
The Zionist Organization respectfully submits the following draft resolutions for the consideration of the Peace Conference:
@ Canadian Otter:
I agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
just had another put in moderation????
@ dweller:
You do not know what it feels like.
Your forte is the projection of your values, insights (Christian) into your constant polemics especially when dealing with subjects relating to Jews,Judaism and Israel. One thing is for sure you are on safer ground expounding on Jesus than on any thing Jewish.
A- If a Jew needs convincing and justification to stand with other Jews. They should be discounted from any consideration
and ignored, certainly by we Israelis and certainly by all real Jews who place being Jewish and Judaism above any other consideration.
B- Once you begin having to justify yourself to your own family you have entered the slippery slope where every move and decision the GOI makes must be stamped with the approval of Jews with no direct or even paltry knowledge of Israel, Jewish history and Judaism, many show even disdain and side with the enemies of Israel and Judaism.
C-There should be no boundaries that separate the Jew and Jew and the pain of one should be the pain of all. There is an obligation to rush to save oppressed and suffering Jews, wherever they may be and in whatever way is necessary. The weak Jew who is threatened must be rescued by the Jew of strength. Jewish power, in such a case, is an obligation, a Jewish Obligation.
D-while Jews remain in the Exile and are endangered by Jew-haters, it is the role of the State of Israel to do all in its power to defend them and to put an end to attacks on Jews. Israel was established as the Jewish State, as the trustee and guardian of Jews all over the world. It must live up to that obligation.
E-For the Jew, there are no permanent allies except the Jew himself and the Al-mighty. For the Jew, Jewish interest comes first, for who will care about him, if not himself?
@ Bernard Ross:
The mere fact that the 3 are each in a formal or direct state of hostilities with Israel does not — of itself — give GOI carte blanche to do anything she wishes by way of simply laying the Palis on them.
If those entities were each in a quiescent condition (as to themselves, internally), you might be able to make the case that the transfers were not appreciably aggravating those countries’ conditions — and at least be able, perhaps, to get a hearing for the RIGHTNESS of the policy, given the history.
With each of the 3 in its present state of turmoil, however, such a hearing seems unlikely (even informally).
But I’m not suggesting that I care what the WORLD thinks. I do care, however, about what the world’s JEWS think.
And Jews won’t sit for anybody’s expulsion, Bernard.
Jews KNOW what it feels like.
Jews have got stories — in every language — in every culture & on damned-near every continent. . . .
Aint gonna happen, Bernard.
Trust me.
@ CuriousAmerican:
We’ve been over this before, Curio — at some length, as I recall.
What I’ll add at this time is that it’s clear to me that at some point Israel is going to have to “take back” southern Lebanon — at least from the E-W bend in the Litani River southward (maybe even from further north than the Litani) — and not merely as a “buffer zone” either.
Regarding the Israel’s northern frontier, Balfour had stated, in an 11 Aug 1919 memo to PM David Lloyd-George, it was “eminently desirable” that the new country to be created of the Palestine region
“…should obtain the command of the water-power which naturally belongs to it, whether by extending its borders to the north, or by treaty with the mandatory of Syria, to whom the southward flowing waters [Hermon] could not in any event be of much value.” [cited in Ephraim Karsh & Inari Karsh, Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1923 (Harvard U. Press, Cambridge, 1999), p. 255]
Thus it was that Balfour, who led Britain’s delegation to the 1919 Paris (Versailles) Peace Conference, confirmed what he had carefully & lucidly stated when he articulated suitable borders of Palestine some 6 weeks earlier [26 June] in a another memo to the PM:
“In determining the Palestinian frontiers, the main thing to keep in mind is to make a Zionist policy possible by giving the fullest scope to economic development in Palestine.
“Thus, the Northern frontier should give to Palestine a full command of the water-power which geographically belongs to Palestine and not to Syria…” [cited in Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial, p. 518, n. 2]
Obviously it was intended that what is now “southern Lebanon” constitute “northern Israel” — but the horse-trading that ensued the following year (between Britain & France) changed that.
Britain wanted the oil of Mosul & Kirkuk — which were until then, designated for France’s Syria Mandate; so, in return for attaching those provinces to their (Mesopotamia) Mandate, UK gave up the Golan & Hermon to the French Mandate. The 23 Dec 1920 Franco-British Boundary Convention set the thing in stone — and the rest is, as they say, “history” (translation: blood).
CuriousAmerican Said:
hezbullah has Christian allies. However, this is not relevant: if the GOL cannot exert control over its territory then it cannot be considered sovereign. In any case any strategy is valid if it prevents dead jews. your approach will allow for the continued use of lebanon as a base to kill jew. Yes the transfer would destabilize the current lebanes state. That state has been dead for decades. The original compact has been taken over by muslim terrorists.
dweller Said:
I think you have not read my prior posts on this issue, please refer to post #1. Create a buffer zone across any or all of the 3 currently hostile borders, transfer the hostiles(using logistics similar to gaza), withdraw.
dweller Said:
Exactly, as the 3 entities have no relations and are in hostilities with Israel no agreement, responsibility or obligation is necessary. Just as in the Israeli invasions of lebanon, gaza and bombing of Syria and in the terror activity emanating from their nations; only the will to execute the action.
dweller Said:
This is EXACTLY the reason I gave for Israel to unilaterally act to restore justice denied through swindles, breached treaties and negiligence in addressing the Jewish refugees. Please read my post #1 for justifications. As the Geneva Convention, ICC, UN etc have not addressed the issues the shoe would be put on the other foot regarding inaction. The rotten fruit of negligence would fall upon the enemy. All the questions and issues of importance to the arab nations, the UN, the ICC can be addressed as were those of the Jews: after the fact, after the fait accompli, after decades, etc. or otherwise put “sue me”. There would be no reason to consider issues that were not considered in the expelling of Jews and in the continuing fact that the issue has been ignored by all relevant international organizations during the reign of the much touted Geneva Conventions. It takes “resolute” leadership that will refuse double standards. World hypocrisy has set precedent, it is just to seize it.
This is particularly true of Lebanon.
Lebanon barely participated in ’48 War. The Christian run government did not even want to. The Muslim street – which was about 49% of the population at that time – demanded something be done or else they would ask for Syria to come in and take over.
Lebanon, unlike Syria, Jordan, and Egyptian Gaza, had a quiet border.
Lebanon did NOT participate in the ’56, ’67, or ’73 wars.
Lebanon did NOT expel Jews from Lebanon. In fact, many Arab Jews expelled from Iraq and other countries went to Lebanon.
Though Lebanon did not participate in the ’67 war it got stuck with refugees from ’67 as well as ’48.
These refugees eventually would overthrow the Christian run gov’t; and since then Lebanon has been under PLO, Syrian, and now Hezbollah/Iranian occupation.
Israel is mad that Lebanon does not clean up Hezbollah, but if Israel could not clean up Hezbollah either in the 90s or in 2006, how could the weak Lebanese gov’t?
Hezbollah is only in Lebanon as a result of the 1982 war between Israel and the PLO, which would not have occurred at all, if Lebanon had not been saddled with refugees it did not want.
The least guilty party in this arrangement is the most hammered.
Yet, I have seen Israeli commentators blame Lebanon for so much, very little of which is Lebanon’s fault at all.
1) Lebanon allowed the PLO to operate out of Lebanon.
Ans: Lebanon could not even stop them. When the Christians tried in 1975, they were almost exterminated
2) Lebanon allows Hezbollah
Ans: After losing to the PLO, the Christians were in no condition to fight Syria and Hezbollah
After Israel failed to hold Southern Lebanon in 2000, and again in 2006, how could Israel expect Lebanon to do what Israel could not.
Yet, Israel has bombed Christian East Beirut and Jounieh for crimes they did not commit.
@ Bernard Ross:
Where could you forcibly transfer them TO?
— without giving that state the argument that you are imposing these people on them,
notwithstanding that their [that state’s] responsibility (whether real or not) for the problem which the forced transfer addresses is not yet formally established or even generally acknowledged?
@ yamit82:
Said it before & I’ll say it again: The problem with Ovadya Shoher is that he carefully blends the finest chocolate with the foulest shit.
— And a reader knows not what to expect from Samson Blinded till he ingests a dollop of the stuff.
As for the specific argument this time (and to which you are perennially attached, Yamit) — we’ve been down this road plenty of times already. From a PREVIOUS POST (#8) of mine [last March]:
I note that Shoher doesn’t bother to offer an actual cite for the (purported) attribution. I’d like to have a look at the specific treatise he claims to be referring to. Do you know which treatise it is?
— or are we expected to just accept the bald, unsupported assertion . . . . uh. . . . Blindly?
If you think ethnic cleansing is allowable, even genocidal ethnic cleansing …
then why are you mad at the Europeans who wanted to cleanse their lands of Jews.
The question is rhetorical.
Ethnic cleansing is wrong!
The laws of Joshua Ben Nun do not apply today UNLESS you want to permit the sexual slavery of conquered virgin women.
Numbers 31: 17 Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
Stop with your idiocy.
Since you asked me what if Jesus was killed on a gallows … I now ask you …. What if Jesus really was the Son of God, the Moshiach … and the Jewish people rejected him? Do you think that might explain the last 2,000 years of Jewish suffering?
Hsa 5:15 I will go [and] return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early.
It may be more complicated than your “Kill all the Goyim” attitude would care to consider.
Why were the Jews – who I agree are Chosen – allowed to be defeated on the ninth of Av by the Romans, and their temple destroyed? Must have been a great sin.
Enough of your vitriol.
I am not going down a road of theology. Ted does not like that. I am trying to get you to stop your idiocy.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Some did, some didn’t.
Jesus is one Jew who certainly didn’t yield to torture.
But why the comment here, Curio?
What’s its relevance to the context of Yamit’s (admittedly contemptuous) remark?
No.
Again, though, what’s that got to do with the price of bananas?
@ CuriousAmerican:
And you see no contradiction there?
— what if they are threatened with death if they accept a passport?
Hear: An Amazing Shofar
Shana Tova
@ Bernard Ross:
The Real-Politik of Our Sages
by Dr. Israel Eldad
Duty of genocide
Joshua bin Nun allegedly sent three letters to the Canaanite nations before the invasion: Whoever wants to leave, leave; whoever wants to make a treaty of tribute and servitude, make the treaty; whoever wants to fight, fight.
“Rabbis, when they were real rabbis, maintained that Jews must kill all the inhabitants of the Promised Land during the invasion.”
“Some Palestinians claim descent from the Canaanites.” 🙂
Jews must take the towns in the Promised Land from whatever nations happen to have settled them at the time. And when we take the towns, the exterminatory commandment of Deut20:16 kicks in.
Ted, why is my response #31 still in moderation and my post #33 is not. post 31 is needed to understand post 33
I want to add to my last reply to curio(which is stil in moderation) that after transfer questions regarding compensation to refugees can be negotiated in tandem, after the fact, with compensation to jewish refugees. The costs of transfer should also be negotiated in tandem as the Jews were not given costs of transportation when they were expelled but Israel will have to advance the transportation costs of those being transferred. One of the threats of the PA is to stop cooperation and the GOI does not want the costs, or bother,of administration. Who will they threaten in gaza, lebanon or syria with such threats. There are many logistical problems be thought upon but it can be done if it is thoght out in detail. Furthermore, the money that the arabs and UN will be forced to pay to resettle the transfers will create an economic boom for the transfers In this scenario the agreement of the arabs to contribute will only help or hurt their own brethren, if ahndled intelligently. It will have no affect on Israel. If the arabs chose to continue to finance hostility and terror they will be diverting funds from the refugees. Israel will be able to direct more energy to war without a fifth column.
Such transfers might in fact end up creating a positive solution of addressing jewish settlement rights, solving the arab refugee problem as all others have been solved prior, and correcting the injustice of expelling jews from arab lands by treating it as a population exchange without double standards, the arabs will be able to avoid agreeing to a jewish state (prohibited in Islam). A win win situation, a fait accompli will automatically force and create new behaviors, of necessity, without prior agreement.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Many Jews have died under torture without giving up what they were being tortured to reveal, most other Jews did give in to torture, even forced conversions to Christianity but others died on the rack, by hanging strangulation and burning. All in the name of my Mexican Gardener Jesus.
Cowardly Arabs give up what we want just by threatening them with certain tortures, I wouldn’t want to describe what tortures they are most giving up from.
I’m curious curious, if Jesus was hung on the gallows would Christians where gallows around their necks instead of crosses?
CuriousAmerican Said:
It is important that unilateral solutions are discussed without censor. The concept of transfer(population exchange) has been unfairly discredited and needs to be seen as a viable and PRACTICAL solution rather than as a pre judged anathema. This anathema results from the double standard perpetrated by a Geneva Convention world that accepts and maintains expelling Jews, apartheid muslim communites and nations, breaking agreements with Jews, etc. Financial incentives and agreements by all are positive but must not be seen as the only necessary way of accomplishing transfer because that keeps leaving the solution as requiring the enemies agreement rather than unilateral implementation of Jewish rights. This is a red herring: that agreement is required in order to solve the problem. If one starts to think in detail about my proposal of trasferring to buffer zones across the 3 hostile borders, then withdrawing, one will see that solutions start to automatically appear. There will be lots of noise, like the noise made whenever jews defend hemselves(osirak). but they will all have to get down to dealing with the actual problem of refugees in the 3 entities. The difference is that these refugees will no longer be in Israel. With Israel out of the picture the arabs and UN will continue to finance the refugees. Israel will still remain in hostility as it does now with the 3 entities. One difference is that the arabs will finance the refugees to war but Israel can retaliate as in war. Furthermore the refugees will present severe problems to the destabilization of the existing govts to Israels advantage(chaos in the lands of the enemies is good). Suddenly there will be a whole lot more sunnis in lebanon, suddenly Hamas will have to deal with a fatah presence if fatah shipped there. The pals are already fighting assad so they can continue. It is important to begin discussing details as that will bring the reality closer. The choices wil be up to the arabs and UN whether they want to continue fighting or whether they take the money and put it into real resettlement. If they choose resettlement then your scenario of money solving the arab’s problems will emerge separate from solving the Israeli arab problem. The solving of Israels interests does not need to depend on enemy performance. This is part of the ghetto mentality that keeps Jews in chains. In fact Israel should be getting about making those west bank lands available to the descendants of the expelled jews from arab nations: a fitting symbol of restorative Justice.
CuriousAmerican Said:
You appear to have lost the conversation you were engaged in. The torture was referred to in the context of transfer as evidence that the arabs will succumb if the Israelis are resolute to use force. You have now moved to a different subject. Yamit said
yamit82 Said:
I would like to advise you to reread conversation threads to which you reply as I think you sometime lose the trend of thought in which you yourself are engaged.
CuriousAmerican Said:
On the contrary my dear Watson, you confuse acceptance with agreement. Agreements are unnecessary in the population exchange scenario. Are you implying that it is physically impossible for Israel to transfer the hostiles, after all the have already done this in gaza, or are you in a state of denial that it is a viable, doable and practical alternative which has precedent and has already been executed against the Jews by the arabs.?
yamit82 Said:
Hilarious, a great clip, even better watching now, so much later. Did I detect a relevant message also?
Jews break under torture … and admitted to the blood libel.
Everyone breaks under torture.
The Sheik Raduan camp is not a good analogy.
You have to offer them money to leave the community altogether. Hence the need for a passport.
No one will accept under threat of death. They will accept if given passports.
@ yamit82:
Well, after they kicked me out of prison in late 1970 (the place is still recovering), I spent several months traipsing about the countryside, visiting friends who were still in stir — the other federal joints holding them were mostly in the Southwest [AZ, TX, etc] — then a dog of mine had a litter of pups, and when they grew old enough to give away, I decided instead to keep them, and spent about a year or so living in a canyon while studying their behavior in groups.
That would probably have included 1972, and well into 1973.
Mais pourquoi? — Why the question?
@ yamit82:
I’m speechless…………………………………………………………….
I would have never guessed! No wonder you don’t need any sleep. Isn’t this the middle of the night in Israel?
@ Canadian Otter:
However, Yamit, your question itself raises questions. Do you have a secret identity?
I have many!!
To all my friends at Isapundit
Yamit, Ted, Laura, keelie ,Randy Texas Shy Guy, SHmuel HaLevi, Bill Levinson, Vinnie and many other including( Ayn Reagan and Ed D – where ever they may be).
Blessing to all on this Holy time of the year.
May G-d continue to protect His people and all of Israel from all her enemies.
Happy Rosh Hashanah
@ yamit82:
I was referring to Mr Filter’s secret identity. (I know I’m onto something.)
However, Yamit, your question itself raises questions. Do you have a secret identity?
@ Canadian Otter:
Otter were you referring to the Spam filter’s secret identity or mine?
My commment for YAMIT blocked by Spam Filter. My comment was about Spam Filter and his secret identity.
@ yamit82:
Me too! I just posted a comment on the false flag column at the top, and it was held for “moderation”. Twenty lines, plain text. Lady-like language. No fancy punctuation.
Here’s what may be behind Spam Filter’s behavior:
– Spam Filter is illiterate and selects comments for moderation at random.
– Spam Filter has a serious personality disorder and is not taking his meds
– Spam Filter is a Muslim and hates all of us.
– Spam Filter is a sadist and enjoys frustrating talkbackers.
– Spam Filter is actually Obama’s brother.
– Spam Filter is always drunk and has no idea what the heck it’s doing.
– Spam Filter is going through adolescence angst and wants to express his individuality by being a jerk.
– Spam Filter is a Jew with self-identity issues and doesn’t like the tone of this website.
– Spam Filter works for Soros.
– Spam Filter works for the CIA. 🙂
If this is held for moderation, Mr. Filter is ALL OF THE ABOVE.
@ Max Zwgstkstwig:
Thanks for noticing Max. I was on vacation.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Most Arabs don’t want to die, so they will show reasonableness if we show ruthless resoluteness of purpose. Even your friendly beloved Arabs became whimpering Mush when faced with a bullet to the head or groin especially the groin.
We never had an Arab who didn’t break under torture.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Employing Israeli tanks and the use of Napalm will surely make them less resolute. Power Trumps weakness if used to proper effect. Israel needs some of that Arab resoluteness.
@ CuriousAmerican:
Now why does that not make me feel a lot better?
CuriousAmerican Said:
I find it interesting that the concept of transfering the arabs from Israel is considered immoral and that there must be agreement. Yet all those who have this view have been willing to accept the expelling of the Jews from Arab nations,willing to accept JEW FREE status of every inch of the former palestine mandate currently under muslim control and are willing for these outrages to continue un-addressed. Furthermore all this took place and continues at this moment after and during the reign of the much touted Genveva Conventions and ICC. The Jews are to be blamed if this is allowed to continue. Massive change is necessary. Israel, and the Jews, must not accept arguments which result in a double standard. The Jews must counter that what has been done to the Gander must be done to the Goose. In this way the world will finally come to accept that jew killing and jew swindling will not be accepted as it is now; full payment and full punishment must be exacted from all parties to these crimes. Until that day there will not be peace.
You and I both have been selected to be spam filtered on this thread.
At least, it is unbiased.
Comment blocked by spam filter again 🙁
@ dweller:
Actually both you and curious are partially correct. For a month ( Reserve duty) I provided security for the construction workers in Sheikh Raduan, (1972) and It was a groos expensive failure and to be repeated. By the way where where you in 1972? 🙂
You are both correct in that some of the younger teens facing dead end prospects might want to leave with proper incentives not so with the over 30-35 age groups. Arabs depend on their many children for financial support and would not object if some left and they were assured that much of the earnings of their kids would be transferred home to them. That said Arab pride and their neo-nationalism will not permit them to be bought with indoor toilets and indoor running water.
We used to say the only thing the Arabs ever produced was the desert. They rejoined “That it was their desert”.
So you can get some few to leave but not most and they won’t be bought by the largess of any Zionist/Jewish government. 30-40 years ago it might have been possible to buy out a majority but they have become radicalized and indoctrinated since 67 and especially since the return of Yasser and his 40,000 theives. Pali Youth today is not the Palis Youth of 30 years ago.
@ CuriousAmerican:
You think that’s all it would take?
Consider:
Near Gaza City, Israel built a model neighborhood — Sheikh Raduan, in 1972 — for camp dwellers to move into: to relieve a measure of their misery until an overall Arab-Israel peace settlement might be achieved. But the program’s success was, at best, limited, because of Arab opposition. Thus, although 8000 families accepted the offer between 1976 & 1978, MOST of the area’s ‘refugees’ remained stuck in their dangerously overcrowded camps.
Furthermore, when the General Assembly demanded — stridently & repeatedly [as if the G.A. had the authority to ‘demand’ anything] — that the Jewish state abandon that project, the PLO, true to form, took this as a go-ahead to follow-up by threatening to kill any refugee who would move out of the camps. Whereupon the endeavor presently collapsed altogether.
Think about it.
CuriousAmerican Said:
I have already mentioned a number of times: trucks to the any or all of the 3 hostile borders, no agreements necessary, leave the same way the jews left gaza(Israel now has experience at this). This is more than the jews expelled from arab countries got. The jews need to be as “resolute” as the arabs.
The Arabs will refuse to be reasonable. On that they are resolute.
How will that get the Arabs in Judea and Samaria to leave?
@ CuriousAmerican:How about the arabs paying the jews money, new idea. Their welfare money from the UN and EU should be taxed.
Just pay the Arabs the money and give them passports.
Expect no reason. The Arabs are beyond reason.
My previous post could not be editted as it was marked as spam.
I have no idea why.
WHERE IS YAMIT? ON VACATION?
Sherman is committing past mistakes, there are no new paradigms here.
This is incomplete: what also fuels this support is the concept that the specific arabs were living there prior to 1967 and that removing people from their homes(if arabs) is considered anathema.
Deconstruction is not enough because it leaves the focus of attention on the needs of the Palestinians. What is needed is a new paradigm of REPLACEMENT and DECONSTRUCTION. A focus of attention, first by Israelis and Jews, on the issues of importance to the Jews. Israel must be willing to declare that the enemy may suffer in order for the Jews to achieve justice. By subordinating all discussion to the following issues the paradigm can shift:
1- the expelled jewish refugees under the auspices of the Geneva conventions has set a precedent;
2-the reclamation of the jewish right of settlement west of the jordan river as guaranteed by international law,
3-the utter failure of all past paradigms for peace including land for peace, and peaceful coexistence with the muslims.(within this context is that no area of former mandate territory under arab control permits Jews)
4- that that Jordan was created from 77% of palestine mandate, there. Palestine mandate Jews were excluded by the british from settling there and it continues as, JEW FREE,
Shermans “solutions” reuqire the agreement of the arab collective and the international institutions including the UNRWA. The only solution that would require NO agreement with any of the parties is the following unilateral solution:
1-Israel declares that responsible international guarantors of San Remo, UN charter, Geneva Conventions have failed to execute their responsibilities under the various treaties and conventions and that Israel will now proceed to implement those treaties and conventions unilaterally.
2-Israel declares that San Remo, L of N mandate and UN charter will be executed unilaterally to declare that Jews may settle at will in any area west of the Jordan river and that Israel expects all guarantors of san remo and signatories of LON and UN to observe their obligations under those treaties to facilitate the settlement of Jews west of the JOrdan river.
3-Israel declares that the breaches of Oslo of and the continuing incitement of muslims against Jews renders Oslo null and void. It also declares that it cannot be suicidal by allowing citizenship of hostile belligerents. This would precipitate the declaration of annexation and the immediate expulsion of all political and military structures of the PLO and PA. They were allowed in under Oslo and with Oslo void there is no reason for them to remain.
4-The inaction of the UN and Hague in not prosecuting the expulsion of Jews from arab countries has created a precedent and that the only restorative Justice is to seek quid pro quo on the basis of completing a population exchange between the Jews and arabs, the jews having completed their side of the exchange.
5-Israel seizes land over the borders of any or all of the 3 hostile entities(gaza, lebanon,syria), creates buffer zones and transfers the designated population to those buffer zones and then withdraws.
6-The 3 entities will now have the control as to what to do with their new populations. The can invite in the UN agencies which have administered the camps in Israel because those clients will have moved.
Yhis is not politically correct but it is doable without any agreements and it would create facts that cannot be reversed. There are legal arguments and precedents which can be invoked as precedents. The arabs and international organizations can then decide what they want to do without Israels involvement. Israel is already at war with many and this would not change the situation. The non arab internationals would probably shift their focus to the humanitarian efforts of aiding relocation and they would now be dealing with gaza, Lebanon and syria.