We often hear that the transfer of Arabs out of Jewish Land is a fair and humane thing to do, but unfortunately it ?is not a viable solution in a foreseeable future for several reasons?:
1. The Arab states categorically oppose the idea of absorbing the refugees despite the wide spaces of their domain;
2. A considerable number of refugees insist on returning to their ancestral homes, be it in Jaffa, Haifa, Safed or Tiberias;
3. The term "transfer" has acquired a negative connotation and the international community will not support it;
4. It has absolutely no chance of UN support, unlike the Greek-Turkish project, which was endorsed by the League of Nations; and
5. A vast majority of Israelis reject the idea.
(From the Jerusalem Post article: ?Transfer: Not a Solution?, November 29,2002)
These arguments only demonstrate how easily the Jews (like all people) fool themselves when they are scared and want to look nice.
Taken together, arguments 1 and 5 say that Arabs and Jews oppose the idea of transfer. More precisely, these two arguments say: while the Arabs are determined to transfer the Jews, the vast majority of the Jews in Israel reject the idea of transferring the Arabs. If we really accept these two arguments, we would actually agree that the only viable solution is a realization of the Arab dream - transfer of the Jews. And this is not an exaggeration, because those who object to transferring Arabs readily accept the transfer of the Jews from Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
Argument 2 (that Arabs insist on returning to their ancestral homes) doesn't stand on its own, but is rather a detail of argument 1 - general Arab opposition. It might help to teach the public some history lessons - that the Middle East was a barren wasteland under the Ottoman Empire. Mark Twain described it after a visit during the 1880's: "Jerusalem... a pauper village... Palestine is desolate... We never saw a human being on the whole route..."
In 1920, Britain obtained Israel from the defeated Turks, acting as trustees under the League of Nations Mandate to create a Palestinian state for the Jews. Arab riots, however, compelled Britain to reward them with Jordan - 76% of the land. The British settled many more Arabs from surrounding areas. More than 80% of the Arabs living in Palestine are immigrants or descendants of immigrants settled by the Turks or the British to support their political agendas. At the same time, approximately 850,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries while Arabs left over in Israel endlessly riot and make demands on the remaining land. Was the consequence of appeasement in World War II so soon forgotten?
Argument 3, about the negative connotation of the term "transfer", is amusing. If the international community will not support the idea because they don't like the term, let's call it something different - "resettlement," for example, or "territorial exchange." The term "transfer" sounds so bad for the international community precisely because the Arabs, after having successfully performed Jewish transfer, keep on screaming (for 50 years) about the imminent Palestinian transfer, and the Jews, in turn, do their best to convince the international community that transfer is a nasty thing and they are not going to do anything of the sort. Hence, putting the choice of terminology aside, the argument of opposition of the international community is a result of opposition of Jews and Arabs, which was addressed above.
According to argument 4, transfer has no chance of United Nations support. But is has no chance only because of the rest of the reasons - that Arabs and Jews object to it, and also because of the corrupt and fundamentally anti-Semitic nature of the UN. Thus, this argument of UN opposition is actually stating tautologically that, since anti-Semites would never agree to leave the Jews alone, they (i.e., the anti-Semites) would never willingly agree to any measure that will leave the Jews alone. Is this a viable argument for a Jew? And why, after all, should the UN?s opinion be more important to the Jews than their own self-interest? Isn't it much more important (especially in the current world situation) to make not the UN, but rather America used to the idea of transfer? And isn't it even more important to make the Jews themselves used to the idea?
Since Joe Lieberman entered the US presidential race, the Republican administration might want to help with the transfer or at least will look the other way. In any event, the opposition of the international community to transfer may only last one or two months, after which everyone will get back to their lives, especially if such transfer will bring peace to the Middle East, saves lives and improve the quality of life. All the money spent on the military conflict and refugee camps would be better spent on establishing decent living conditions within vast Arab lands. And in our television era, everyone would be able to see that Palestinians are better off after transfer.
Israel would not have been established if Zionists relied on the common opinion on what's viable and what is not. They didn't play G-d, they fought and won. Even when Jews came from Mount Sinai, they had to fight for the Land, so it might be the only way to do it, and it's possible that Intifada is just another lesson that Jews shouldn't mix with the nations.
The key is not to drag. There is some danger in Arab pragmatism. When they see that Jews mean business, they may halt violence and make some nice gestures. At that point, it will be important not to waver. After transfer is over we should see an increase of the Birthright trips, and Western media would think of something else to cover.
[The author wishes to acknowledge the help of Dr. Leon Chernyak in discussing the issues presented in this article.]
--------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Tatarinov-Levin writes from Framingham, Massachusetts.
1. The Arab states categorically oppose the idea of absorbing the refugees despite the wide spaces of their domain;
2. A considerable number of refugees insist on returning to their ancestral homes, be it in Jaffa, Haifa, Safed or Tiberias;
3. The term "transfer" has acquired a negative connotation and the international community will not support it;
4. It has absolutely no chance of UN support, unlike the Greek-Turkish project, which was endorsed by the League of Nations; and
5. A vast majority of Israelis reject the idea.
(From the Jerusalem Post article: ?Transfer: Not a Solution?, November 29,2002)
These arguments only demonstrate how easily the Jews (like all people) fool themselves when they are scared and want to look nice.
Taken together, arguments 1 and 5 say that Arabs and Jews oppose the idea of transfer. More precisely, these two arguments say: while the Arabs are determined to transfer the Jews, the vast majority of the Jews in Israel reject the idea of transferring the Arabs. If we really accept these two arguments, we would actually agree that the only viable solution is a realization of the Arab dream - transfer of the Jews. And this is not an exaggeration, because those who object to transferring Arabs readily accept the transfer of the Jews from Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
Argument 2 (that Arabs insist on returning to their ancestral homes) doesn't stand on its own, but is rather a detail of argument 1 - general Arab opposition. It might help to teach the public some history lessons - that the Middle East was a barren wasteland under the Ottoman Empire. Mark Twain described it after a visit during the 1880's: "Jerusalem... a pauper village... Palestine is desolate... We never saw a human being on the whole route..."
In 1920, Britain obtained Israel from the defeated Turks, acting as trustees under the League of Nations Mandate to create a Palestinian state for the Jews. Arab riots, however, compelled Britain to reward them with Jordan - 76% of the land. The British settled many more Arabs from surrounding areas. More than 80% of the Arabs living in Palestine are immigrants or descendants of immigrants settled by the Turks or the British to support their political agendas. At the same time, approximately 850,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries while Arabs left over in Israel endlessly riot and make demands on the remaining land. Was the consequence of appeasement in World War II so soon forgotten?
Argument 3, about the negative connotation of the term "transfer", is amusing. If the international community will not support the idea because they don't like the term, let's call it something different - "resettlement," for example, or "territorial exchange." The term "transfer" sounds so bad for the international community precisely because the Arabs, after having successfully performed Jewish transfer, keep on screaming (for 50 years) about the imminent Palestinian transfer, and the Jews, in turn, do their best to convince the international community that transfer is a nasty thing and they are not going to do anything of the sort. Hence, putting the choice of terminology aside, the argument of opposition of the international community is a result of opposition of Jews and Arabs, which was addressed above.
According to argument 4, transfer has no chance of United Nations support. But is has no chance only because of the rest of the reasons - that Arabs and Jews object to it, and also because of the corrupt and fundamentally anti-Semitic nature of the UN. Thus, this argument of UN opposition is actually stating tautologically that, since anti-Semites would never agree to leave the Jews alone, they (i.e., the anti-Semites) would never willingly agree to any measure that will leave the Jews alone. Is this a viable argument for a Jew? And why, after all, should the UN?s opinion be more important to the Jews than their own self-interest? Isn't it much more important (especially in the current world situation) to make not the UN, but rather America used to the idea of transfer? And isn't it even more important to make the Jews themselves used to the idea?
Since Joe Lieberman entered the US presidential race, the Republican administration might want to help with the transfer or at least will look the other way. In any event, the opposition of the international community to transfer may only last one or two months, after which everyone will get back to their lives, especially if such transfer will bring peace to the Middle East, saves lives and improve the quality of life. All the money spent on the military conflict and refugee camps would be better spent on establishing decent living conditions within vast Arab lands. And in our television era, everyone would be able to see that Palestinians are better off after transfer.
Israel would not have been established if Zionists relied on the common opinion on what's viable and what is not. They didn't play G-d, they fought and won. Even when Jews came from Mount Sinai, they had to fight for the Land, so it might be the only way to do it, and it's possible that Intifada is just another lesson that Jews shouldn't mix with the nations.
The key is not to drag. There is some danger in Arab pragmatism. When they see that Jews mean business, they may halt violence and make some nice gestures. At that point, it will be important not to waver. After transfer is over we should see an increase of the Birthright trips, and Western media would think of something else to cover.
[The author wishes to acknowledge the help of Dr. Leon Chernyak in discussing the issues presented in this article.]
--------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Tatarinov-Levin writes from Framingham, Massachusetts.