TEL AVIV — The time has come to redefine the conceptual context
in which the plight of Palestinians is perceived. The Palestinians’
violent rejection of the far-reaching Barak initiative underscores
that the chances of reaching a political resolution of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict are highly remote if not totally
negligible. On the one hand, it is difficult to envisage any
Israeli leader offering a proposal substantially more generous than
Ehud Barak’s; on the other hand, its unequivocally vicious
repudiation by the Palestinians indicates that even this offer, for
all its unprecedented generosity, fell substantially short of their
minimum demands. However, if the Palestinian problem seems
insoluble in the political context, it may well be eminently
soluble in other contexts — namely the humanitarian one.
Dispassionate analysis of Palestinian behavior for well over the
last half-century strongly supports the “heretical” assertion that
the Palestinians are neither genuinely desirous nor deserving of
statehood. In spite of unstinting international support for their
cause (including strong backing from most influential media
organizations, and the sponsorship of one of the two superpowers
during the decades of the Cold War), the Palestinians have failed
miserably in establishing any semblance of a stable, productive
self-governing society or producing any capable, credible, and
competent leadership likely to advance them along the path towards
that goal. Quite the contrary. Well over a decade after having the
generous Oslo Accords virtually thrust upon them by an
unprecedented accommodationist Israeli administration that not only
acknowledged their claims for independence, but actually identified
with them, the Palestinians have done nothing but produce a
repressive and regressive interim regime run by cruel, corrupt
thugs who have pillaged their people.
Indeed the Palestinian state has perhaps the unique distinction
of achieving “failed state” status before it was actually
established. Thus by their manifest inability to achieve statehood
despite the highly conducive conditions that prevailed in their
favor, the Palestinians appear to have failed the “test of
history”— thereby casting severe doubt as to whether they are
worthy of such statehood.
BUT EVEN IF ONE is convinced that the Palestinians are undeserving
of a state, the question still remains as to whether they are
genuinely desirous of one. In this regard, there are two competing
— indeed antithetical — hypotheses by which to explain the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the motivations behind it.
According to the first of these hypotheses, the fuel of the
conflict is the lack of Palestinian self-determination, and all
that the Palestinians aspire to is the establishment of their own
state. There is however an alternative explanation, whereby the
fuel of the conflict is not the lack of Palestinian
self-determination but the existence of Jewish self-determination,
and that as long as Jewish self-determination persists, so will the
conflict. Moreover, according to this alternative explanation, the
goal of the Palestinians is not to establish a state for themselves
but to dismantle a state for others — the Jews. Any fair-minded
analysis of Palestinian deeds and declarations show them to be far
more consistent with the latter hypothesis, casting serious doubt
as to the genuine nature of their intentions and the authenticity
of their desire for statehood.
The generally accepted Palestinian narrative has been the major
force not only for the propagation of the Palestinian claims for
statehood but also for much of the international acrimony directed
against Israel. Accordingly, the de-legitimization of this
narrative is essential to the serious exploration of other avenues
of solution. But even if the Palestinian narrative is
de-legitimized, Palestinian political aspirations are discredited,
and the issue of Palestinian state removed from the international
agenda, the problem of the Palestinian humanitarian predicament
still must be addressed.
This is a problem that can conceivably be dealt with by means of
money — specifically generous sums paid to the Palestinians to
relocate and resettle elsewhere in the Arab/Moslem world. Such
compensation should be the equivalent of lifetime earnings in any
appropriate host country in Asia or Africa — i.e., the GDP per
capita of such a country multiplied by at least 50-100 years. This
would entail a grant of US$ 100,000 -150,000 to each family
unit.
In fact the cost of such a proposal compares favorably with
other more conventional alternatives involving Israeli withdrawal
and attempts at Palestinian self rule — most of which have proved
to be unproductive if not indeed counterproductive. The sums
required for the humanitarian resettlement of the entire
Palestinian population in countries with a similar/familiar
socio-religious environment would be significantly less than those
already spent by the U.S. on the Iraq War. It would thus be easily
affordable to the international community — especially if it were
spread out over a number of years. Indeed, given Israel’s current
level of GDP, it would not be a ruinous burden even if the country
were to bear it alone.
ANY PROPOSAL CALLING for the relocation and resettlement of the
Palestinians outside the confines of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza will
inevitably raise the question of its feasibility. To be sure, it is
likely to be rejected vehemently by formal Palestinian
organizations, which must therefore be by-passed. The problem
should be “atomized” by making the offer of compensation on an
individual basis directly to Palestinian bread-winners each of whom
would then be faced with three alternatives: (i) reject the offer
and remain under continued Israeli control; (ii) reject the offer
and live under a dysfunctional Palestinian regime — which has
proved more onerously repressive than the Israelis’; (iii) accept
the offer of a relocation grant equivalent to a life-time of
earnings in an alternative country of residence, facilitating the
chance of a new life for himself and his/her family.
If reason prevails at the individual level, there is little
doubt which choice would be the most attractive. Note that the
implementation of the scheme is not contingent on a negotiated
agreement with an official Palestinian organ, but on the rational
choice of individual families.
The proposed solution would also involve considerable benefits
to the host countries accepting the resettled Palestinians, as it
would bring with it a considerable — and sorely needed — influx
of capital to their ailing economies. This would make the proposed
endeavor a “win-win” measure for all concerned — the individual
Palestinians, the State of Israel, and the host nations — except
of course for the cruel and corrupt Palestinian leadership.
