Coldly considering the unthinkable

[Violet_Crumble]

Transferring populated areas to another state is legitimate if most of the affected population agrees, but revoking citizenship clearly contradicts democratic norms.
By Yehezkel Dror

The statecraft challenges facing Israel require much creativity, because, on critical issues, such as the peace process and Iran, all the options on the table are clearly unsatisfactory. But being creative depends on extricating oneself from the procrustean bed of frozen opinions and dogmatic views, on the right and the left alike, that reject ideas regarded a priori as taboo without serious consideration. Such have been the reactions to the proposal for swapping populated areas as part of an agreement with the Palestinians.

Transfer of populated areas has served throughout history as a part of peace agreements. Therefore the idea of transferring the Triangle and Wadi Ara regions of northern Israel, with their high concentrations of Arab residents, to a Palestinian state should not be rejected in advance. Instead, it should be considered from two perspectives: 1 ) normative legitimacy; and 2 ) realpolitik consequences.

In terms of democratic values, transferring populated areas to another state is legitimate if most of the affected population agrees. Revoking citizenship in areas selected on the basis of religious or ethnic criteria, however, and swapping territories against the will of the population living there, are things that clearly contradict democratic norms.

As is clearly reflected in numerous pronouncements, it is very likely that in the foreseeable future the vast majority of Israeli Arabs will not wish to belong to a Palestinian state, even given optimistic assumptions about its development. This sentiment can only be expected to deepen as they increasingly integrate into the Israeli economy and society. Therefore the idea does not meet normative requirements.

There are exceptions to the applicability of democratic criteria to territorial swaps, such as situations of emergency, in which the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state is seriously endangered, or the aftermath of a war. But these are unlikely possibilities, though their exploration within professional contingency planning is in principle desirable.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/coldly-considering-the-unthinkable-1.317816

[ConsAreLiars]

1. The approach the writer criticizes amounts to more land siezures and another mass expulsion

of Palestinians from their homes. The article underlines the complexity and the goals of those engaged in this unequal bartering game-playing.

One side, "Give up more land, and get the rest of your relatives and tribe and co-religionists and all of your kind out of that we have taken." The other side, faintly, "no justice is bad karma and we'll, well, we'll get back art you for your atrocities somehow, eventually."

(edit tiny typo)

[txaslftist]

2. I think the Israeli right considers the unthinkable to be

completely thinkable.

They have recognized for decades that the only solution to the "Palestinian Problem" is a "final solution" of one kind or another. A "purification" in the words of one IDF soldier, an ethnic cleansing, if you will.