An Alternative to "Convergence"

Dennis, after reading your comment, I am not sure whether you are in support or against the idea. Even if we are going to be waiting for the Palestinians to come to the realisation that they will not be able to destroy Israel, isn't this something good in the interim?

#1.1 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:47 AM EDT

Dennis M Wright

It does have merit.

It's good for the Palestinians that take up the better life somewhere new. Maybe they'll write back to their Hamas-supporting relatives and tell them they should quit their obsession with "Death to Israel" and come join them. Some might even do that.

Difficult to know what the international community would make of it. Some might see it with very cynical eyes. Who knows? Maybe miracles will happen and the world might see it as positive for Israel - which carries the danger that Hamas might try to wreck it, threaten would-be emigrants etc.

It might also, arguably, take us further down that road I was talking about, the one where Hamas finally get to understand they're not going to get their way.

So it may be helpful and worth trying. It's just that even if it works very well there will still be a big problem left behind that could yet be around for a long time so this is a long way short of "magic wand" solution.

1 vote

#1.2 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:57 AM EDT

In addition to the comment I made below, this exchange made me think of another fact. You two seem to discount the importance of the idea of Palestine for the Palestinian people. Jews in the diaspora talked about Israel for 5,000 years! If you think that the Palestinians in diaspora will be any different you are out of your minds. Everyone has a homeland, you see. I was born and raised in the US but I know where my parents are from, where my roots are, and my children will know, and their children will know. That is the nature of life. No Palestinian in diaspora will give up the dream of telling his or her children "that is where we come from."

4 votes

#1.3 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:02 AM EDT

Jews in the diaspora talked about Israel for 5,000 years! If you think that the Palestinians in diaspora will be any different you are out of your minds.

How can you be so sure about that? The "Palestinian People" did not exist as a "people" until the 1960s, a couple of years before the forming of the PLO. Before that, they were just the Arabs who lived in Palestine. Yes, they have a brand new national identity, thanks to four decades of public relations. But is it that strong?

How about a different example: in the mid 1800s, tens of thousands of starving people migrated from Ireland to the US. They did so starving and without any prospects. They were Irish, for sure, and they stuck to their own for a couple of generations. But how many are still telling their children today about their homeland, yearning to eventually return?

1 vote

#1.4 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:49 AM EDT

insert_name_here

Not to mention, in this particular instance, the Palestinians leaving would be doing so of their own free will, not under threat of harm.

#1.5 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:37 PM EDT

The "Palestinian People" did not exist as a "people" until the 1960s,

This is not a very intelligent statement Yaakov. Where did they come from then. Did they just magically appear like gnomes at the bottom of the garden. Not a realistic statement as Israel Magically appeared in 1948.

3 votes

#1.6 - Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:22 AM EDT

Where did they come from then.

I am not saying that the individual villages and their inhabitants were not there.

What I am saying is that they did not have a national identification as the "Palestinian People" until the 1960s. Never had an organized government. Never were recognized as one unit. Sure, they were there physically. But scattered, as individuals and small groups. Not as a "nation" or "people". Those labels were only added on after the fact.

#1.7 - Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:35 AM EDT

Thanks for clearing that up .It could have sounded like what I said.

1 vote

#1.8 - Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:16 AM EDT

What I am saying is that they did not have a national identification as the "Palestinian People" until the 1960s.

I get into this argument a lot. The thing is, not many places in the world had a national identity until then, because nationalism is a European phenomenon that didn't really exist until the 1800s and then didn't reach the developing world until the 1900s. It's not the Palestinians' fault that Israel was established on that land at the same time that their national identity was awakened, and it is demeaning to say that there is no such thing as "a Palestinian" based on that. Look, in the year 1946 there were only 74 countries. Today there are 192. Are you telling me that 100+ countries don't have a national identity? That they are just an invention? This is ridiculous. All of the African, Latin American, and many Asian countries had national awakenings at this time as well.

Which brings me back up to my first response to this article. Just because there was no Palestinian identity prior to the establishment of a country called Israel doesn't mean that the Palestinian yearning for a national home and feeling of national pride will be any less strong. This notion that people will leave if given sufficient economic incentive is, of course, true. If you gave me a nice enough incentive I'd leave the US. But it doesn't mean that the problem will go away. The problem will never go away, until the day when two states called Israel and Palestine live side by side in peace and friendship and justice.

3 votes

#1.9 - Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:14 AM EDT

Are you telling me that 100+ countries don't have a national identity? That they are just an invention? This is ridiculous. All of the African, Latin American, and many Asian countries had national awakenings at this time as well.

In some cases, a national identity is a product of a long-term historic process (most of the European countries, as well, as many of the countries in Asia East of India)

However, sometimes it seems that national identities are more contrived and exist just for convenience or political reasons. For example, many of the countries in Africa did not have any type of national unity until after they were colonized by European powers. I am not a big expert on the African continent, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that most of the nationalistic feelings in these areas came about as a result of (and not as a precursor to) the inauguration of their "national identity".

If the national identity came about in the second way, it is not something that will have as much long-term meaning for the people involved.

So, in the middle east, what type of national identities are there among the different Arab countries? Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi, Iraq. 100 years ago most of these these countries didn't exist. Since then, the countries along with "national identities" were created. "Palestinians" were created in much the same way.

What I am trying to say is that when a national identity is so new, I don't know that you can say with any surety that after one or two generations removed from the geographic and cultural center of the "nation", that any remnants will remain. Us Jews have managed to do this for 2000 years, but I am not convinced that the same thing would happen to every other culture.

So why would the Palestinians be the same? Granted, they now have a national identity, however new. But why are you so sure that the grandchildren of a Palestinian who moves to France this year will still be yearning for the beaches of Gaza in 50 years. Why would they be different from most of the European immigrants into the US in the 19th century, most of whom came from very strong historic national identities, and most of whom no longer connect with these identities today??

1 vote

#1.10 - Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:36 AM EDT

iarnuocon

Yaakov:
However, sometimes it seems that national identities are more contrived and exist just for convenience or political reasons... If the national identity came about in the second way, it is not something that will have as much long-term meaning for the people involved... What I am trying to say is that when a national identity is so new, I don't know that you can say with any surety that after one or two generations removed from the geographic and cultural center of the "nation", that any remnants will remain. Us Jews have managed to do this for 2000 years, but I am not convinced that the same thing would happen to every other culture.

I don't think you can say that "the Jews" maintained a national identity for 2000 years. They maintained a cultural identity, and a religious identity, but certainly not a national one. This is shown by the simple fact that prior to 1900 there were only about 35,000 Jews living in the area now known as Israel-- 25,000 of those living in Jerusalem. If they had a strong national identity that had existed for 2000 years, surely Israel would have reformed much earlier, and without the help and intervention of larger world powers.

Therefore, you have to wonder whether your formula as applied to arab nationalism doesn't also apply to Israelis, as well. If you conclude that it doesn't, my guess is that it won't apply very well to the arabs, either.

And I believe that the egyptian and Dennis Wright both have good points in this regard. Just because we offer a financial incentive to someone to move does not mean that they won't still identify the place they moved from as their "home". Sure, a government can manipulate the economy of a location in its control such as to entice any person to move, given the right financial incentive, but this doesn't mean that the person would see such an act as fair or equitable, nor give up his identification with the place he moved from. And given that the folks who remain would now be largely composed of those who oppose Israel's existence, rather than those who merely oppose its policies, how will those folks be dealt with? With tanks and missiles? Forcible expulsion? The removal of moderate voices may make Israel's argument that these people have no right to resist occupation more persuasive to the world at large, but simply killing them or forcing them off there land would still be wrong. Additionally, if Israel does annex territory still containing Palestinians, it must guarantee their rights under a constitution, and those rights must be equivalent to those extended to non-arab Israelis. Anything less will be seen as second-class citizenship, and rightfully so.

I think you underestimate the connection that descendants of European immigrants feel for their ancestral homes-- Irish-American support for the IRA is illustrative of that connection, if nothing else is. Therefore the plan, while perhaps tempting, doesn't seem as promising as it might to those with a vested interest, at first glance.

3 votes

#1.11 - Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:59 AM EDT

I have two responses to this proposal.

First, I think you grossly overestimate the willingness of the Israeli people to annex the West Bank and Gaza and give citizenship to the Palestinians who live there. If this option were seriously on the table, the Palestinians would take it in a heartbeat (and I would encourage them to do so). As you point out there is a higher standard of living and generally more rights and freedoms living in Israel than anywhere else in the region. You contemplate 100,000 Palestinians leaving and the rest becoming citizens... Yaakov, even if 1 million Palestinians left, even if you could somehow guarantee that Jews would always be the majority, it would be the end of the Jewish state. This is not something that most Jews, let alone most Israelis want. And it is the reason why the "one state solution" has historically been advanced by individuals who would like to see the end of Israel (like Qaddafi in Libya).

Second, who is going to take these people who leave voluntarily? Seriously, the likelihood of any country on Earth throwing open the doors to these people is practically nil. I mean, at the height of the Holocaust the "land of the free" was turning away boatloads of Jews. Why would you expect anyone to accept Palestinian immigrants in this worldwide climate of fear and distrust of Arabs and Muslims generally? (And don't tell me they should go to other Arab countries because we both know that isn't an option).

3 votes

#2 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:58 AM EDT

egyptian -

1) If Israel were demographically secure in the fact that it would remain overwhelmingly Jewish, why would it matter that a number of Arabs in the West Bank became citizens? Right now, demographers are relatively secure that the Jewish majority will remain for the forseeable future. Subtract 100,000+ Arabs (many of child-bearing age) and add new Jewish immigration, there is no reason for Israel to be scared that the Jewish population would turn into a minority. And with that the case, why would it be the end of the Jewish state?

2) I am not proposing that every single Arab from the West Bank head to one country. Of course this would not happen. But look in Europe right now. How do you think it is that so many countries over there have growing Muslim populations? Immigration! If the West Bank Arabs spread out, and go as individuals (as oppossed to 20,000 people seeking one big entrance into France), bringing with them seed money for a fresh start, why couldn't they find places to go? And I know that it is unlikely that Arab countries would accept their own brethren, but if it is no longer in the context of making sure that the refugee problem stays in the forefront, would they still eb as resolute in trying to prevent Arabs from immigrating?

#2.1 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:54 AM EDT

And every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by everyone else, but that the Jews will lead the process since, in the fundamentalist view, this will lead to blessing for the entire world as nations recognise and respond to what God is seen to be doing in and through Israel.

2 votes

#2.2 - Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:21 AM EDT

I SPY - (I don't know how this is connected, but...) what you wrote is close to, but not exactly one of the core Jewish messianic beliefs (as recorded in the Bible).

While in some way, every act taken by Israel (and by everyone else) is "orchestrated" by God, that does not mean that people do not have free will. And having free will, people mess up (that is the reason why we had our Temple destroyed and were exiled 2000 years ago). Therefore (according to Jewish tradition) not every action taken by the Jewish people need be automatically condoned by the rest of the world. Only those actions that adhere to the moral and traditional requirements as dictated by God's law are fitting to be condoned, supported, etc. And when the time comes, they will be. (According to what you might call the Fundamentalist view).

#2.3 - Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:42 AM EDT

Vespasian was the connection I hoped you would make Yaakov. But close enough.

2 votes

#2.4 - Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:00 AM EDT

After Israel tangled with him they ended up in Eygpt ,, Hi The Egyptian.

There is an interesting parallel happening here Yaakov.

3 votes

#2.5 - Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:03 AM EDT

ignoblus

the egyptian, I have a few questions about your comment.

I do think the Israelis would annex the West Bank provided that it didn't significantly alter demographics. I don't think they want to incorporate so many Palestinians into their nation, and I don't think they want to commit genocide. But pretty much every Jewish holy site is in the West Bank. Why do you think they wouldn't annex the territory if it were made so that there were no drawbacks?

How many do you estimate would be willing to leave? Let alone, for the moment, what countries would take them.

How positively do you see this? I can't help shake the feeling that, while there would be positives perhaps even enough to make the plan worthy of consideration, this would be blatant economic exploitation. I doubt there is any academic ethicist who would argue in favor of allowing the poor to sell their rights away. That principle pops up all the time in medicine, where, for example, it is not acceptable to allow people to donate organs in exchange for money. Do you see this as better than that, or just the least of evils?

#2.6 - Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:35 AM EDT

Hello Yaakov and ignoblus. Yaakov, to answer your questions: if demography was secure, it wouldn't matter. But you of all people I would expect to know that a) your demographic calculations can never be 100% certain, and b) it is nonetheless unpalatable for the vast majority of Israelis (at least the ones I know) to absorb a few million Palestinians into their state. It would no longer be a "Jewish state" but a multiethnic and multireligious state. Not that I have a problem with that-- but do you?

Ignoblus, I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying. But if I get you correctly you are asking me how many Palestinians would leave if offered a sweet enough deal. And I expect that if the deal were really amazing most Palestinians would take it, except for a hardcore minority. But this isn't really a solution to any of the problems, seems rather unethical (as you point out) and it will leave Israel to absorb the most hardcore Palestinian nationalists. Is this something the Israelis will do? I sincerely doubt it. Anyway, to be clear, I'm very much against this proposal... not a proponent. So maybe your questions were directed at Yaakov rather than me?

#2.7 - Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:05 AM EDT

Ugly Bastard

First you need to get some bulldozers and bulldoze all those holy sights, The Wailing Wall, the Holy Sepulcher, and all the various temples churches and mosques.

Secondly, hire some old women to patrol these holy sights, give them large sticks, and when anyone shows up to pray at these sights, the old women will drive them off. They are old and female so they can't do much damage.

Thirdly, pave over these holy sights and turn them into something that people can use, like parking lots.

God forbid idolatry and I'm afraid these holy sights have become idols.

Next, forgive each other. You all come from Abraham. You are both Semites. To my ear your languages are the same with that hard 'H' that sounds like you're hacking up flem. You eat the same things and so on. You DNA is probably identical, taking into consideration the influence of the Diaspora. This really is a family dispute.

It's stupid that Israel has to hire foreign workers from the Phillipeans when there are so many out of work Palestinians around.

Just stop the crap. Think of the kids.

You all need to find Jesus.

4 votes

#3 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:10 AM EDT

JalJones

here, here ugly bastard. couldn't have said it better myself!!

2 votes

#3.1 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:39 AM EDT

KyleN

I think it's an interesting idea. I would fear that the effect would be to send packing all the reasonable Palestinians and leave the extremists, making the potential for a negotiated settlement even more outlandish. On the other hand the Palestinians as a whole seem fairly against settling the problem anyway so not much to lose.

This might sound very naive to my fellow Americans but I think the best destination for Palestinians who take up this kind of offer would be the United States. We have the capacity for millions of immigrants (obviously since we get them either way) and inside a few generations the descendants who want to return 'home' would likely be relatively educated, rational people and not the poverty stricken radicals of today. I would prefer immigrants that come with bank accounts to no immigrants at all :)

I might be wrong on this score as well but I think if Israel's security issues were all resolved somehow then more Jews living around the world might want to move there increasing the Jewish percentage in the country. I understand why they want a Jewish majority, however I don't really think it would be important in the long term. It could turn into a country founded on Jewish principles that respects all religions like the USA was founded on Christian principles and respects all religions. But there is a long ways to go for that and a change of heart I think as well.

1 vote

#4 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:10 AM EDT

JalJones

Can you support your statement that the USA was founded on Christian principles, please? Which one of the founding fathers was Christian?

1 vote

#4.1 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:41 AM EDT

KyleN

No, I don't think taking out that one sentence and trying to start a flame war will add value to Yaakov's article and thread. Thanks but no thanks.

1 vote

#4.2 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:43 PM EDT

http://adamkemp.newsvine.com/_news/2006/06/26/268140-america-was-not-founded-on-the-ten-commandments

Thanks Kyle

#4.3 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:17 PM EDT

Writer X

KyleN - There is a reason why the US and many Arab countries are not interested in taking up the Palestinians. The number one reason is the fact that a huge majority of Palestinians live in poverty and are therefore poorly educated. An influx of poorly educated immigrants is bad policy.

1 vote

#4.4 - Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:13 AM EDT

JalJones

#4.5 - Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:17 AM EDT

I could not vote on this Yaakov because I thought it was "I think it is a great idea" "Though not ideal, it is worth exploring further" and "Just one more racist Zionist land-grabbing scheme"

I think this is by far the best article I have seen from you yet Yaakov. I hope it can take the debate outside the realm of the usual Ping-Pong on this subject.

It is defiantly a path worth exploring further. Some more Imaginative idea's need to be added. In all I see a legal solution without any international interference as being the best possible way to end the cycle of violence.

Great Post.

4 votes

#5 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:44 PM EDT

Thanks for the comment I SPY (I wasn't expecting to hear this...)

It is defiantly a path worth exploring further. Some more Imaginative idea's need to be added. In all I see a legal solution without any international interference as being the best possible way to end the cycle of violence.

I agree. And to tell you the truth, I am not completely sure that what I wrote above is the best way to go. I like the general concept of financial incentives for voluntary migration. It is something that is gaining more popularity in Israel. However, when most people talk about it (like the article linked above) they just talk about getting the Arabs to leave, but don't talk about what will happen after that. As if this will totally end all conflict, all by itself? That is what my last paragraph (regarding Israel annexing the territory and making the remaining residents into citizens) was for. Something to address final status is also necessary. I am not sure if my suggestion is the best, and I agree that more discussion is warranted.

3 votes

#5.1 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:02 PM EDT

chill

Yaakov,

Remember me: I am the guy that - tongue in cheek - suggested the other day in response to one of your posts

How to solve Israel / Palestinian war:

1. Accept that holy land is nothing but sand and dirt.

2. Negotiate with either Canada or USA, to receive a land grant and move the entire country of Israel to Wyoming or Saskatchewan. Country will be far larger, secure, more fertile, etc.

3. Give 6 million israelis $100,000 start up money each.

4. $600,000,000,000 ...... less than a trillion dollars ...... a bargain

Problem solved.

I didn't expect to see the opposite proposal. While I understand your reasoning, there is still one larger problem. It would still leave a small Jewish state in the Middle East surrounded by Arabs that hate them.

At least my solution puts a little distance between people.

Separately, if I was a Palestinian or Israel with the means (or faced with an offer like yours), I would leave the region in a second.

Religion is more about ideas than a particular piece of dirt ... IMHO.

#6 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:18 PM EDT

Separately, if I was a Palestinian or Israel with the means (or faced with an offer like yours), I would leave the region in a second.

Would it surprise you to find out that there is positive Jewish population to Israel (I moved here with my family last Winter from the US).

Religion is more about ideas than a particular piece of dirt ... IMHO.

Ideas are very important to religion, but what if those ideas place an extremely extremely high emphasis on a specific piece of dirt?

1 vote

#6.1 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:50 PM EDT

Jonathan Weinraub

Separately, if I was a Palestinian or Israel with the means (or faced with an offer like yours), I would leave the region in a second.

Religion is more about ideas than a particular piece of dirt ... IMHO.

I have to disagree with this. I am Jewish and my nationality is American, yet whenever I go to Israel, I feel home. I feel safe and I feel proud. The religious history is one thing, but not why I love it. I love Israel and hope one day to immigrate - but the point is, my feeling is Israelis too love the country and wouldn't want to leave. I know most of the surrounding areas hate Israel, but Israel is different. It's unique. It's home.

4 votes

#6.2 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:00 PM EDT

chill

Well I did say IMHO (in my opinion)

Religion is more about ideas than a particular piece of dirt ... IMHO.

jweinraub: I understand your response but respectfully is the feeling more associated with the community of a Jewish State?

1 vote

#7 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:11 PM EDT

Jonathan Weinraub

chill888: I am unsure what you mean, do you mean is my opinion/feelings are such a way because of the Jewish majority? I don't know if you are Jewish are not, but from the moment I first got off the airplane from the very first time I stood on Israeli soil I felt something different. I don't know what it is, nor can I explain it. A lot of my relatives and friends that all been to Israel all say the same thing.

If the entire country packed up and moved to Wyoming it wouldn't be Israel and many Israeli's wouldn't want that. For once thing, the weather in Israel is a lot better. Israel is a special place for many people. Regardless of the bombings and constant state of alert, I still love the place and keep wanting to go back. Many people ask me why--it's just too hard to explain until one experiences Israel for themselves.

And it is that sand and dirt that Israeli's want. As for religious reasons it is very special sand and dirt. Not just for Jews, but for Christians too.

1 vote

#8 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:30 PM EDT

chill

fair enough ....

Personally, I don't understand and would rather live (with my family) in a peaceful, prosperous, secure place.

But I respect your view / faith.

4 votes

#8.1 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:03 PM EDT

Not just for Jews, but for Christians too.

Ahem... and for Muslims.

1 vote

#8.2 - Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:16 AM EDT

jnearen

Yaakov. The problem with your suggestion is that it assumes rational behavior by people who have acted irrationally throughtout their entire history of conflict with Israel. It's kind of like Bill Clinton insisting that if we all just loved one another, things would be better. Sounds good, but flies in the face of human nature. Buying off Palestinians is a good way to pay for arms with which to fight against Israel. Golda Meier (did I spell that correctly?) once said something to the effect that until the Palestinians love their children enough not to send them forth to commit suicide, no peace can ever be forged.

Am I saying that individual Palestinians don't love their children? Not at all. What I am saying is that if you were a Palestinian who took an Israeli payoff to move, your life wouldn't be worth two cents because you would have to answer to the thugs and criminals who enslave their own people. It would be like ratting out the Mafia. You would die and so would your kids. Honest "Mohammed fearing" Palestinians have neither have the fortitude nor the power to stand up to the likes of Hamas. Do Cubans love Castro? No. They live in fear for their lives--and with good reason.

Besides, who would want the Palestinians? Generally speaking they are unskilled labor with a bent to radicalism. Not Jordon (albeit all Palestinians, to my understanding, have claim to Jordanian citizenship--at least that is what Netanyahu said in his book), not Syria, not Egypt, not Wyoming. Maybe Argentina. Argentina welcomed Nazis, so maybe Argentina would welcome them, but I doubt it. Nazis, at least, brought money and talent.

Palestinians are not a race. They are not a people. They are public relations trick created, as you correctly point out, in the 1960s by the PLO. Just as Cubans welcomed Castro only to then be enslaved, so to did the Palestinians welcome Arafat and his ilk. They are Arabs who chose to leave and fight against Israel during the six-day war hoping that they would return as conquering heros. Did the Jews actually push them out as Shlomo Ben Ami suggested in his discussion? Maybe, but I've read other versions. Fact is, they are slaves to their own people--Hamas, who has no interest in their welfare, but only their money. Giving them money to migrate would be tantamount to putting a gun to their head and pulling the trigger.

1 vote

#9 - Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:56 PM EDT

Your comment is fantastically ignorant and completely wrong on so many levels that I don't want to even begin to debunk it. I do think you might want to take the time to read a book or perhaps talk to an actual Palestinian. Or even an actual, real-life Arab for that matter.

Argentina welcomed Nazis, so maybe Argentina would welcome them, but I doubt it. Nazis, at least, brought money and talent.

I want to be calm and rational about this, but really this sentence demonstrates that you are just a dick. I cannot believe that you would actually write a sentence comparing Palestinians to Nazis, and then preferring Nazis. By the way, here is a list from Wikipedia of some famous Palestinians. You will see that some of them have actually contributed to worldwide society, and not all of them are "unskilled labor": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_Palestinians.

2 votes

#9.1 - Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:20 AM EDT