For your perusal, my latest INTO THE FRAY column:
The Humanitarian Paradigm – Answering FAQs (Part 2)
(Kindly consider “liking”, sharing, tweeting – please use hash-tag #IntoFray)
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.
It appears this week on the following sites (in alphabetical order):
ALGEMEINER: https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/06/09/the-humanitarian-paradigm-faqs-part-2/
ISRAELI FRONTLINE: http://www.israelifrontline.com/2017/06/into-the-fray-the-humanitarian-paradigm-answering-faqs-part-2.html
ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/20610
ISRAEL NEWS ONLINE: https://israelnewsonline.org/into-the-fray-the-humanitarian-paradigm-answering-faqs-part-2/#.WTqWZWiGM2w
ISRAEL RISING: https://www.israelrising.com/humanitarian-paradigm-answering-faqs-part-2/
ISRAEL’S VOICE: https://www.israelsvoice.org/2017/06/09/fray-humanitarian-paradigm%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aanswering-faqs-part-2/
ISRAPUNDIT: http://www.israpundit.org/archives/63624432
JEWS DOWN UNDER: https://jewsdownunder.com/2017/06/09/into-the-fray-the-humanitarian-paradigm-answering-faqs-part-2/
MEDIUM: https://medium.com/@martinsherman/into-the-fray-the-humanitarian-paradigm-answering-faqs-part-2-31c426903a86
JEWISH PRESS: (To be posted)
Several short excerpts:
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty – Widely 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…
…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?
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.
Inhibiting internecine intimidation
…. 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.
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.
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 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).
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.
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.
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.
