Netanyahu 'ethnic cleansing' comment against Palestinians draws U.S. rebuke

[shira]

24. Thoughts on Bibi's last video (re ethnic cleansing):

https://www.facebook.com/philassieI/posts/10157536952415171

1 - To defend one assertion does not make one a Bibi supporter. My fierce criticisms of and opposition to Bibi, his performance and his behavior are a matter of public record.

2 - Before deciding that things make us uncomfortable, we need to evaluate whether they are accurate.

3 - The precondition that Jews - i.e., on ethnicity and one ethnicity only -- be removed (to the point of removing even their graves) from land taken by Palestinians before peace can be established is by definition a request to cleanse acquired land of one ethnicity. We are not talking of separating ethnicities as neatly as possible for stability but of removing every last person who is Jewish, dead or alive.

4 - The obvious: had Israel demanded that all 2 million Israeli Arabs to the last one be removed from Israel as a precondition to peace, the world would have, as a matter of common sense, called it ethnic cleansing. Moreover, half of Jewry at least, with me among the loudest, would have criticized Israel for such a racist request. When the Palestinians -- who it should be noted, are of the aggressing and defeated side re 67 -- make that demand, everyone pretends it is decent. Why is it decent to refuse categorically to have Jewish/Israeli citizens?

5 - The issue of the security of Jews who remain in what would become a Palestinian state is secondary to the principle of their right to remain, should they choose to. That said, the fact that they would not be secure further highlights the problem: intolerance. If Palestinians cannot stomach any Jewish citizens of their new state (as Abbas has declared), how likely is that state to actually be peaceful vis a vis Israel, or even stable internally (hatred and smooth civics do not coincide)? In any case, the Jews who live in settlements to be handed over should choose on their own whether to leave or stay. It should not be dictated by racial law. It is also far cheaper than systematic uprooting.

6 - The predictable choir of public and loud criticism by Jewish organizations cannot be defended. What is the point or morality of arguing that Jews should not even be given the choice to become Palestinian citizens? Of defending a request born entirely of intolerance and that creates a land problem where there would otherwise be none? ****If Palestinians were able to tolerate some Jews or Jewish villages in their midst, the border problems presented by settlements would go away.****

7 - It should be noted that those same critics who screech now that saying "ethnic cleansing" is incendiary and an obstacle to reconciliation are the exact same who "welcome" endless "conversation" about the equally if not more incendiary "occupation", "apartheid", and yes, "ethnic cleansing" (but in reverse).

8 - To say this is not in any way a defense of the one state solution at all. As stated above, accepting that land given to Palestinians must be free of jews is what creates a border problem where there was none. The lines would be far easier to set if settlements did not have to be dismantled to set them.

9 - Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon set the precedent for this by accepting Sadat's request that all Jews be removed from Sinai as a condition of peace with Egypt. They should arguably have pushed back on that point. The benefit was very big -- peace with Egypt is a blessing -- and there is a huge difference between Yamit in the Sinai and Shiloh in Samaria in terms of national history and attachments. Still, perhaps they could have obtained a concession that Jews should be allowed to stay if they choose. In any case, Israel has no legal claim to Sinai while it has a defensible claim to the WB.