For your perusal, my latest INTO THE FRAY column:
“PALESTINE”: WHO HAS MORAL HIGH GROUND?
(Kindly consider “liking”, sharing, tweeting – please use hash-tag #IntoFray)
The “Humanitarian Paradigm”, advocating funded emigration for the resolution of the “Palestinian problem”, will be the most humane of all options if it succeeds, and the least inhumane if it does not.
It appears this week on the following sites (in alphabetical order):
ALGEMEINER: https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/02/24/palestine-who-has-moral-high-ground/
ISRAELI FRONTLINE: http://www.israelifrontline.com/2017/02/fray-palestine-moral-high-ground.html
ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/20208
ISRAEL NEWS ONLINE: https://israelnewsonline.org/into-the-fray-palestine-who-has-moral-high-ground/
ISRAEL’S VOICE: http://www.israelsvoice.org/2017/02/23/fray-palestine-moral-high-ground/
ISRAPUNDIT: http://www.israpundit.org/archives/63621577
MEDIUM: https://medium.com/@martinsherman/into-the-fray-palestine-who-has-moral-high-ground-180074071c9d#.kqgvc53kv
JEWSDOWNUNDER: http://jewsdownunder.com/2017/02/24/fray-palestine-moral-high-ground/
JEWISH PRESS: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/into-the-fray-martin-sherman/into-the-fray-palestine-who-has-moral-high-ground/2017/02/27/
An excerpt:
Even if the Palestinians agree that their state have no army or weapons, who can guarantee that a Palestinian army would not be mustered later to encamp at the gates of Jerusalem and the approaches to the lowlands? And if the Palestinian state would be unarmed, how would it block terrorist acts perpetrated by extremists, fundamentalists or irredentists?
–Shimon Peres, The New Middle East (1993), on the perils of the two-state prescription.
Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist.
–John Stuart Mill, On Representative Government, (1861) on the perils of the one-state prescription.
With all the money that has been invested in the problem of Palestinians, it would have been possible long ago to resettle them and provide them with good lives in Arab countries.
– Andrei Sakharov, Nobel Peace Laureate, quoted in Jerusalem Post, May 24, 2009., on the merits of funded emigration prescription…
…Who has the moral high-ground? The proponents of two-states, who advocate establishing (yet another) homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny, whose hallmarks would be: gender discrimination, gay persecution, religious intolerance, and political oppression of dissidents?…Or those who endorse the Humanitarian Paradigm and advocate providing non-belligerent Palestinian individuals with the opportunity of building a better life for themselves elsewhere, out of harm’s way, free from the recurring cycles of death, destruction and destitution that have been brought down on them by the cruel corrupt cliques that have led them astray for decades… Moreover, it should be asked, why is it morally acceptable to offer financial inducements to Jews in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes to facilitate the establishment of said homophobic, misogynistic tyranny, which, almost certainly, will become a bastion for Islamist terror; while it is considered morally reprehensible to offer financial inducements to Arabs in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes to prevent the establishment of such an entity?
