Best-selling author Douglas Murray argues that the West must confront the evil of Hamas to fully defeat it. While Hamas and its allies glorify death, the West, at its best, cherishes life
In my view, it is the West, and Europe above all, that is ultimately responsible for creating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the first place. As for what they (i.e., we) might do to help bring this otherwise impossible situation to an end, I make the case (see link below) for an ongoing program to resettle Palestinians in the West in large numbers (with generous financial incentives to make it happen on a voluntary basis) as a way to reduce the demographic pressure that otherwise stands in the way of any final settlement that both sides can accept.
Yes, it will be very expensive, but can anyone think of a more plausible alternative?
The people involved in this conflict have agency. No doubt there are complex geopolitical factors that contributed to the conflict, but the responsibility lies with the Palestinians and the Israelis and the decisions they’ve made through the years. We should stop blaming the “West” for everything.
Regarding your proposed solution: which places in the West are willing to resettle “large numbers” of Palestinian refugees?
Believe me, I am not blaming the West for everything. I am blaming the West, Europe primarily, for creating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For two reasons:
First, because it was violent European antisemitism, culminating in but by no means confined to the Holocaust, that drove European Jewry out of Europe.
And second, because it was European statesmen (primarily British, French, and Russian) during World War I who decided to solve their "Jewish problem" by giving someone else's land away. I base this on Isaiah Friedman's "The Question of Palestine 1914-1918, which itself is based on access to the since declassified diplomatic correspondence in the British Foreign Office.
The allies actually reveal several motives for issuing the Balfour Declaration, only one of which was a wish to redirect the flood of Jewish emigres coming out Eastern Europe away from their borders. Another motive was to secure the support of world Jewry to the allied side in the war, including most especially American Jewry, which at that time did not support America's entry into WWI (on account of its hatred of Russia). The discussants were quite frank concerning the ethnic conflict that such a large-scale transfer of population was bound to produce.
Finally, Britain, which was pushing the idea hardest, had a special interest in wanting to establish a military presence in Palestine as a way to protect access to the Suez canal, its link to India. President Wilson gave his ascent to the Balfour Declaration near the end of the war, and of course it was incorporated into the Versailles treaty itself, which was approved by almost all of the countries in Europe (except Germany and Austria) as well as the United States, Canada, Australia, and I believe New Zealand also.
As for who would or should take all of those refugees in, I think the answer is the United States primarily because we have the space, while Europe should be responsible for financing the package of benefits (free medical, retirement, and educational benefits plus, say, a $10,000 per person monthly cash stipend). My back of the envelop calculation is that this would cost the EU roughly one percent of its GDP over a period of three generations.
Now you may say this is completely realistic. Others may disagree. In the final analysis it will be only what Western statesmen think about the idea, whether in their judgment the price would be worth bringing peace to that strategic corner of the world?
Blood money is something the Arab world understands, in the absence of which this conflict will never come to an end.
“silence around the role Western aid played in funding Hamas’s terror infrastructure”
“Western”, you mean Qatari aid and kickbacks facilitated by the Netanyahu government?
In my view, it is the West, and Europe above all, that is ultimately responsible for creating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the first place. As for what they (i.e., we) might do to help bring this otherwise impossible situation to an end, I make the case (see link below) for an ongoing program to resettle Palestinians in the West in large numbers (with generous financial incentives to make it happen on a voluntary basis) as a way to reduce the demographic pressure that otherwise stands in the way of any final settlement that both sides can accept.
Yes, it will be very expensive, but can anyone think of a more plausible alternative?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CqFXu8tbmAOkZHexFes8OqzGIfzw69vU2ejpPj3lQzE/edit?usp=sharing
The people involved in this conflict have agency. No doubt there are complex geopolitical factors that contributed to the conflict, but the responsibility lies with the Palestinians and the Israelis and the decisions they’ve made through the years. We should stop blaming the “West” for everything.
Regarding your proposed solution: which places in the West are willing to resettle “large numbers” of Palestinian refugees?
Believe me, I am not blaming the West for everything. I am blaming the West, Europe primarily, for creating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For two reasons:
First, because it was violent European antisemitism, culminating in but by no means confined to the Holocaust, that drove European Jewry out of Europe.
And second, because it was European statesmen (primarily British, French, and Russian) during World War I who decided to solve their "Jewish problem" by giving someone else's land away. I base this on Isaiah Friedman's "The Question of Palestine 1914-1918, which itself is based on access to the since declassified diplomatic correspondence in the British Foreign Office.
The allies actually reveal several motives for issuing the Balfour Declaration, only one of which was a wish to redirect the flood of Jewish emigres coming out Eastern Europe away from their borders. Another motive was to secure the support of world Jewry to the allied side in the war, including most especially American Jewry, which at that time did not support America's entry into WWI (on account of its hatred of Russia). The discussants were quite frank concerning the ethnic conflict that such a large-scale transfer of population was bound to produce.
Finally, Britain, which was pushing the idea hardest, had a special interest in wanting to establish a military presence in Palestine as a way to protect access to the Suez canal, its link to India. President Wilson gave his ascent to the Balfour Declaration near the end of the war, and of course it was incorporated into the Versailles treaty itself, which was approved by almost all of the countries in Europe (except Germany and Austria) as well as the United States, Canada, Australia, and I believe New Zealand also.
As for who would or should take all of those refugees in, I think the answer is the United States primarily because we have the space, while Europe should be responsible for financing the package of benefits (free medical, retirement, and educational benefits plus, say, a $10,000 per person monthly cash stipend). My back of the envelop calculation is that this would cost the EU roughly one percent of its GDP over a period of three generations.
Now you may say this is completely realistic. Others may disagree. In the final analysis it will be only what Western statesmen think about the idea, whether in their judgment the price would be worth bringing peace to that strategic corner of the world?
Blood money is something the Arab world understands, in the absence of which this conflict will never come to an end.