John R. Houk
© June 13, 2017
It has always been my opinion that a Two-State Solution
would NEVER be a harbinger for peace between Israel and the Arabs that call
themselves Palestinians. A Palestinian State would merely be a launching ground
for Islamic terrorist attacks against Israel. The result would be Israeli
military incursions to punish an independent Palestine for allowing the
terrorist launching pads. Or an independent Palestine might have the hutzpah
claim the terrorism is military incursions for whatever fake/false reason
given.
The only raison d'être for a Palestinian State
existence would be to end Israel’s existence and to kill Jews. Because of
Muslim animus against Israel, a One-State Solution is the best solution.
The best One-State Solution is to find a way to move
Jew-hating Muslims out of any area that is a part of ancient Jewish heritage.
Dr. Martin Sherman has written
a two-part essay touching on the logistics and feasibility of an ethical
fashion to aid Jew-hating Muslims to emigrate to another Arab-Muslim nation. I
found out about Dr. Sherman’s from the Facebook Group “No Palestinian State!” (If you are a Pro-Israel
kind of person you should go there and request to be a member and add to the
discussion.)
The title is “INTO THE FRAY: The Humanitarian Paradigm -
Answering FAQs”. You can read the 6/2/17 Part One HERE. Part Two is
cross posted below.
JRH 6/13/17
*****************
INTO THE FRAY: The Humanitarian Paradigm - Answering FAQs
(Part 2)
Sequel to the dispelling of doubts regarding the
feasibility - and morality - of largescale, financially incentivized emigration
as the only non-kinetic approach for resolution of the Israel-Palestinian
impasse.
By Dr. Martin Sherman
June 9, 2017 06:48
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. -attributed to Winston Churchill
Readers will recall that last week I began a two part
response to FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) relating to the practical
feasibility/moral acceptability of my proposed Humanitarian Paradigm (HP),
which prescribes, among other measures, large-scale financially incentivized
emigration of the Palestinian-Arabs, living across the pre-1967 lines as the
only route to attain long-term survivability for Israel as the nation-state of
the Jewish people.
To recap briefly
In last week’s column, I addressed the question of the
overall cost of the funded emigration project, and showed that, given the
political will to implement it, it would be eminently affordable – even if
Israel had to shoulder the burden alone. If other industrial nations could be
induced to participate, the total cost would be an imperceptible percentage of their
GDP.
I then went on to demonstrate that there is ample evidence
indicating a wide-spread desire in large sections of the Palestinian-Arab
population to emigrate permanently in search of more secure and prosperous live
elsewhere. This point was underscored by a recent Haaretz article, describing
how thousands of Gazans had fled their home to Greece, undertaking perilous
risk to extricate themselves from the harrowing hardships imposed on them by
the ill-conceived endeavor to foist statehood on the Palestinian-Arabs.
Significantly, according to the Haaretz report, none of them blamed
Israel for their plight—but rather the ruling Hamas-regime, which, it will be
recalled, was elected by popular vote to replace the rival Fatah faction,
ousted because of its corruption and poor governance.
Finally, I dealt with the question of the prospective host
nations, pointing out that the funded Palestinian-Arab émigrés would not arrive
as an uncontrolled deluge of destitute humanity, but as an orderly regulated stream
of relatively affluent immigrants spread over about a decade-and-a-half, whose
absorption would entail significant capital inflows for the host nation’s
economy. Moreover, given the fact that, globally, migrants total almost a
quarter billion, Palestinian-Arab migration of several hundred thousand a year
would comprise a small fraction of one percent of the overall number—hardly an
inconceivable prospect.
Following this short summary of previously addressed FAQs,
we can now move on to tackle several additional ones.
FAQ 4: Won’t fear of fratricide deter recipients?
FAQ 4: Won’t fear of fratricide deter recipients?
One of the most commonly raised reservations as to the
practical applicability of the HP is that potential recipients of the
relocation/rehabilitation grants would be deterred from accepting them because
of threats of retribution from their kin-folk who allegedly would view
such action as perfidious betrayal of the Palestinian-Arabs’ national
aspirations.
In contending with this question, it is necessary to
distinguish between two possible scenarios, in which such internecine
intimidation will be either a phenomenon whose scope is (a) limited; or (b)
wide-spread and pervasive.
Clearly, if the former is true, it is unlikely to have any
significant inhibiting impact on the conduct of prospective recipients of the
relocation/rehabilitation grants.
If, however, the assumption is that the latter is the case,
several points need to be made:
- If this objection to the HP is to have any credence, its proponents must present evidence (as opposed to unproven supposition) that potential violent opponents of the HP program have the ability not only to inflict harm on prospective recipients (as opposed to issuing empty threats), but that they can sustain such ability over time.
- In this regard, it should be kept
in mind that implementation of the HP entails the disarming, dismantling and
disbanding —if need be, coercively—of the ruling Palestinian regime, and
reinstating Israeli governance over all territory under Palestinian-Arab
control.
Inhibiting internecine intimidation
The HP is hardly unique with regard to this latter point.
All other proffered policy alternatives for the failed, foolhardy two-state
formula entail such measures—either by explicit stipulation, or implicit
inference—since preserving the current Palestinian regime intact would clearly
preclude their implementation. Indeed, they are even endorsed by some
pundits who do not discount the eventual emergence of a Palestinian state, such
as Middle East Forum president, Daniel Pipes.
Clearly, the dispersal of the central Palestinian governing
body, together with the defanging of its armed organs and the deployment of
Israeli forces in their stead, will greatly curtail (although not entirely
eliminate) the scope for internecine intimidation and the capacity to dissuade
potential recipients of the relocation/rehabilitation grants from availing
themselves of the funds.
In addition, Israel should task its own formidable military
and intelligence services to protect prospective recipients of these grants by
identifying, intervening and thwarting attempts to intimidate those seeking to
enhance their lives by extricating themselves from the control of the
disastrously dysfunctional regime under which they live.
Moreover, the international community should be called upon
to cooperate with and participate in this principled endeavor to prevent
fratricidal elements within Palestinian society from depriving their brethren
of the opportunity of better, safer lives. After all, violence against
Palestinian-Arabs, who choose to reside within any given host nation, would
comprise an intolerable violation of that country’s national sovereignty.
Appalling indictment of “Palestinian” society?
Of course invoking the specter of large-scale fratricide as
an impediment to the acceptance of the HP is an appalling indictment of
Palestinian-Arab society.
After all, the inescapable implication of such an objection
to the HP’s practical applicability is that its acceptance by otherwise willing
recipients, wishing to avail themselves of opportunity to seek security and
prosperity elsewhere, can only be impeded by violent extortion of their
kin-folk.
Accordingly, if the concern over large-scale fratricide is
serious, it is in fact, at once, both the strongest argument in favor of the HP
and against the establishment of a Palestinian state. After all, two
unavoidable conclusions necessarily flow from it: (a) any predicted reluctance
to accept the relocation/rehabilitating grants would not be a reflection of the
free will of Palestinian-Arabs, but rather a coerced outcome that came about
despite the fact that it is not; (b) Similarly, the endeavor for a Palestinian
state is not one that manifests any authentic desire of the “Palestinian
people” but rather one imposed on them, despite the fact that it does not.
As a result, any Palestinian-Arab state established under
the pervasive threat of lethal retribution against any dissenter will not be an
expression of genuine national aspirations but of extortion and coercion of
large segments of Palestinian-Arab society, who would otherwise opt for an
alternative outcome.
In summation then, if the fear of fratricide can be shown to
be a tangible threat, it should not be considered a reason to abandon the HP
formula. Quite the opposite! It should be considered an unacceptable phenomenon
to be resolutely suppressed –by both Israel and the international community—in
order to permit the Palestinian-Arab public the freedom of choice to determine
their future.
FAQ 5: Would funded emigration not be considered
unethical “ethnic cleansing”?
I have addressed the question of the moral merits of the HP extensively elsewhere (see “Palestine”: Who Has Moral High Ground?), where I demonstrate that the HP blueprint will be the most humane of all options if it succeeds, and the least inhumane if it does not.
I have addressed the question of the moral merits of the HP extensively elsewhere (see “Palestine”: Who Has Moral High Ground?), where I demonstrate that the HP blueprint will be the most humane of all options if it succeeds, and the least inhumane if it does not.
I shall therefore refrain from repeating much of the
arguments presented previously and focus on one crucial issue: The comparative
moral merits of the widely endorsed two-state paradigm (TSS) and those of my
proposed Humanitarian Paradigm (HP).
Since there is very little doubt (or dispute) as to the
domestic nature of any prospective Palestinian state, anyone seeking to
disqualify the HP because of its alleged moral shortcomings must be forced to
contend with the following question: Who has the moral high-ground?
(a) The TSS-proponents, who advocate establishing (yet
another) homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny, whose hallmarks
would be: gender discrimination, gay persecution, religious intolerance, and
political oppression of dissidents? ; or
(b) The HP-proponents who advocate providing non-belligerent
Palestinian individuals with the opportunity of building a better life for
themselves elsewhere, out of harm’s way, free from the recurring cycles of
death, destruction and destitution, brought down on them by the cruel, corrupt
cliques that have led them astray for decades.
Furthermore, TSS advocates should be compelled to clarify
why they consider it morally acceptable to offer financial inducements to Jews
in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes to facilitate the establishment of
said homophobic, misogynistic tyranny, which, almost certainly, will become a
bastion for Islamist terror; yet they consider it morally reprehensible to
offer financial inducements to Arabs in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes
to prevent the establishment of such an entity?
FAQ 6: What about those who remain?
This is, of course, a serious question and a detailed response
would depend on, among other things, the size of the residual Palestinian-Arab
population who refuse any material compensation as an inducement to emigrate.
The acuteness of the problem would undoubtedly be a function
of its scale. Clearly, the smaller this residual population, the less pressing
the need will be to deal with it. For example it seems plausible that if, say,
only a hundred thousand Palestinians remain, consideration may well be given to
the possibility of offering them Israeli citizenship – subject to stringent
security vetting and sworn acceptance of Jewish sovereignty as the sole
legitimate source of authority in the land – without endangering the Jewish
character of the country.
However, it should be remembered that, unlike the two-state
approach which advocates perilous concessions, and the one-state prescription
which calls for incorporating the Palestinian-Arabs resident across the
pre-1967 lines into Israel’s permanent population, the HP does not involve
any cataclysmic irreversible measures.
At the heart of the HP program is a comprehensive system of
material inducements to foster Palestinian emigration, which includes generous
incentives for leaving and harsh disincentives for staying. As detailed
elsewhere, such incentives would entail substantial monetary grants, up to 100
years GDP per capita per family in Palestinian terms; while the latter entail
phased withdrawal of services (including provision of water, electricity, fuel,
port facilities and so on) that Israel currently provides to the
Palestinian-Arabs across the pre-1967 lines.
Accordingly, should it be found that the initial
proposed inducements are ineffective, the former can be made more enticing,
and/or the latter more daunting, until the proffered package is acceptable.
Seen in this context, it is difficult to envisage that many
non-belligerent Palestinian-Arabs would prefer to endure the rigors of
discontinued provision of services rather than avail themselves of the generous
relocation/rehabilitation funds—especially given the dispersal of the
Palestinian regime as an alternative source of such services.
FAQ 7 What if the same kind of offer were made to
induce Jewish emigration?
In addressing this question several points should be borne
in mind:
The offer would clearly not be made by an Israeli government.
After all, the HP is intended as a measure to: (a) Ensure – not undermine – the
survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews, and (b) Relieve the genuine
humanitarian predicament of the Palestinian-Arabs—precipitated by the
dysfunctional administration they have been subjected to since the 1993 Oslo
process—not Jewish disgruntlement with the imperfect functioning of the Israeli
government.
Of course, it would be impossible to prevent Arab elements from
offering Jews financial inducement to emigrate from Israel, but in this regard
it should be recalled that: (a) As a sovereign nation Israel can control the
financial flows into the country and impede money from hostile sources reaching
Israeli citizens, considerably complicating the transfer and receipt of funds.
(b) Arab governments have been singularly reticent in providing large sums
to advance the “Palestinian cause” and there is little chance (or
evidence) that they would advance the hundreds of billions required to finance
large scale Jewish emigration; (c) The overwhelming majority of Israelis
enjoy living standards of an advanced post-industrial nation with a GDP per
capita around 20 times higher than that in the Palestinian-administered territories;
(d) Accordingly, it would be commensurately more difficult to tempt them to
leave. Indeed, sums offered would have to be considerably higher to create a
comparable incentive, running into millions rather than hundreds of thousands
per family. (e) Moreover, a slew of recent polls show the large majority of
Israelis are satisfied with their lives – thus the prospect of material
incentives to induce large-scale emigration seems remote.
Urgent Zionist imperative.
Urgent Zionist imperative.
The HP is the only Zionist-compliant policy prescription
that can save Israel from the perilous dangers of the two-state formula and the
specter of Lebanonization/Balkanization inherent in other proffered
alternatives. Embarking on its implementation is a Zionist imperative that is
both urgent and feasible.
_________________
Martin Sherman is the
founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic
Studies.
The writer served for seven
years in operational capacities in the Israeli Defense establishment, was
ministerial adviser to Yitzhak Shamir's government and lectured for 20 years at
Tel Aviv University in Political Science, International Relations and Strategic
Studies. He has a B.Sc. (Physics and Geology), MBA (Finance), and PhD in
political science and international relations, was the first academic director
of the Herzliya Conference and is the author of two books and numerous articles
and policy papers on a wide range of political, diplomatic and security issues.
He is founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (www.strategicisrael.org).
No comments:
Post a Comment