''The Best Settlement Argument'': Really ?

The Israel Project, with an advisory board that includes 20 members of Congress from both parties, issued the confidential document to its supporters at about the time Obama came to power in January.

The report, marked as "not for distribution or publication" but since widely disseminated outside of the organisation, says that those who back the removal of the settlements should be told they are supporting ethnic cleansing and antisemitism. The guide offers what it describes as "the best settlement argument".

"The idea that anywhere that you have Palestinians there can't be Jews, that some areas have to be Jew-free, is a racist idea. We don't say that we have to cleanse out Arabs from Israel. They are citizens of Israel. They enjoy equal rights. We cannot see why it is that peace requires that any Palestinian area would require a kind of ethnic cleansing to remove all Jews," the guide says.

I am all for it. But when proponents of a one state solution advance the idea of one state for Jews and Palestinians, the defenders of Zionism, the same ones who label settlement freezing activity as ethnic cleansing, suggest that Palestinians may outnumber Jews and threaten the idea of Israel as a Jewish state.

I want a clear answer from zionists who often visit this blog as to what to do with population growth for Israeli Arabs; what to do with Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank, and what to do with Palestinian refugees ? They really have no viable solution, neither a viable answer. Zionism is short on arguments because it does not want to choose between the Jewish identity of Israel and its expansionnist policies. It is a great cognitive dissonance that will lead to greater catastrophes as all cognitive dissonances, which are per essence irrational, do


Anonymous said...

a zionist replies:

A one-state solution - as you suggest it - is not a practical solution because it requires the replacement of Israel. Israel is not expansionist, it withdrew from Gaza completely and offered to withdraw from most of Judea/Samaria.

Most of the world advocates a two-state solution: (1) a Palestinian state free of Jewish "settlements" and (2) Israel, which would continue to have a large Israeli Arab population, but not be expected to take in further Palestinians. But the Palestinians cannot agree to the above formula as a final resolution. Instead, Palestinians want access/control of the entire Israeli territory as well.

A Jew who left Syria or Egpyt or Iran 65 years ago cannot go back to those countries today and ask "how can we grow our families here?" There was a population shift and people are expected to move, not stay in refugee camps for 60 years.

Anonymous said...

regarding refugees - can they be treated like refugees from any other conflict in the world? That is, would they accept resettlement like refugees from Viet Nam, Poland, China and many other countries?

if not, then what is unique about these refugees?

Anonymous said...

why doesn't every country open their borders to allow Palestinians to live as residents or citizens, instead of forcing them to stay in dangerous camps

Elizabeth said...

"the Palestinians cannot agree to the above formula as a final resolution. Instead, Palestinians want access/control of the entire Israeli territory as well."

This is not true.

Anonymous said...

Elizabeth - this is true. In addition to the Palestinian state, the Palestinians also demand a right of return within Israel proper.

If you know something different please advise.

Since March 29th 2006