Reasoning about Israel and the Palestinians

I try to present facts and logic and solutions rather than just opinions.

Contact me If your facts and logic are convincing, I'll change my mind !

Here's my "solution":

[Now that Hamas has been firing rockets 45 miles or so, the DMZ part of this idea seems less effective. But maybe "Iron Dome" makes up for that.]

Turns out this is similar to an old idea, called "transfer", although that may mean deporting Palestinians to other Arab countries. Another idea, "partition", seems to not involve moving people, but I'm not sure.

Some people (for example, Robert Jensen) say "transfer" is racist, because it treats Palestinians like animals with no feelings. I don't agree; it is a political action imposed by the winner of a war against the losing state, similar to redrawing national boundaries in the way desired by the winner. And of course it will be painful and wrenching, but that is what losers of wars go through.

There seems to be a campaign to label any action against Palestinians as "racism". Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia said in an article in the March 24 2003 New Yorker magazine "continued Israeli actions, horrible actions, as if Jewish blood is not equal to Palestinian ... [would] the American people have accepted the President ordering all the McVeigh family houses to be destroyed and their farms burned" ? I think it's war, not racism. Yes, of course our soldier's blood is more valuable to us than the enemy's blood ! I'm sure the Palestinians feel the same way. And if we had domestic terrorists blowing up large buildings in the USA every week or so, yes, the American public would accept harsh retaliation to put a stop to it.

I think "Palestinian" is a nationality, not a race. Am I wrong ? Isn't there a Palestinian state, a passport, a government ? There's no physical or genetic definition of "Palestinian".

Some people say "transfer" is "ethnic cleansing". But I thought "ethnic cleansing" implied exterminating the unwanted people. And I don't think "ethnicity" is the issue here; the nations of Israel and Palestine both want the same land, and only one of them can have it.

This solution is "bad" in some ways:

This solution is "good" in some ways:

This solution could be implemented today (unilaterally by Israel) if Israel had the will to do it. No need for negotiations, UN approval, etc.

By the way, the Zionists did commit terrorist acts years ago (for example, in 1938 Irgun bombed Arab civilian centers), but Israel's activities today are not terrorism (deliberate targeting of civilians). If Israel wanted to kill lots of Palestinian civilians, I'm sure the body count would be far higher than it is. The Palestinian activities are a mixture of warfare (targeting soldiers and officials) and terrorism (targeting civilians).

And why is it that other Arab countries will give money to Palestinians to make "martyrs" of their children, but don't give them enough money for good schools and housing ?

I think both the Palestinians and Israelis are religious nuts. Why do they each feel they have to live on some specific pieces of land ? Move to some other piece of land and get on with your life.

Playboy interview of Helen Thomas
Sam Harris's "Why Don't I Criticize Israel?"
Paul R. Pillar's "John Kerry Nails It: Realities of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"

Search my site