If I understand the argument correctly, you're saying there is no universe (on any time horizon?) that "the world" could tolerate the relocation of ~2-3M Arabs.
Putting aside for a moment whether that would be a right or good outcome, what's the basis for that claim? People are "displaced" all the time. 3.7M arabs were displaced from Syri…
If I understand the argument correctly, you're saying there is no universe (on any time horizon?) that "the world" could tolerate the relocation of ~2-3M Arabs.
Putting aside for a moment whether that would be a right or good outcome, what's the basis for that claim? People are "displaced" all the time. 3.7M arabs were displaced from Syria, and no one cares. 4M people were displaced across the US border, and no one particularly cares about that either (except for people in the US). The "world" has gotten comfortable with the displacement of '48 (and the various expulsions of Jews and other religious minorities by Muslim and/or African countries). No one regrets the partition of the British Raj. It's a big world, and people move. It's not without costs (and those costs can vary considerably in severity), but "people moving" is not that remarkable in the big scheme of things (and it's surely less remarkable than "people killing and maiming each other in perpetuity").
My guess is that the actual impact on the world at-large of even ~3-4M arabs moving east and/or south is basically negligible. It could happen and, if there were no front page headlines, no one would even notice or care. That would include the overwhelming majority of the Arab world itself, whose actual day-to-day life would change not-a-whit.
The point is that perception is not everything, but in this case, it's nearly everything. It's very easy to maintain false beliefs when the actual consequences of those beliefs are attenuated, but it's also easy to change beliefs, when the actual consequences of those beliefs are attenuated.
That being the case, it's not hard to imagine a set of circumstances where "people" get comfortable with the idea of relocation. "10K and a bus-ticket--and peace and prosperity for everyone. Isn't it grand?" Egypt, Jordan and Saudi are "vassals" too, in their way, and while everyone says "they'd never accept it," somehow that's considered a more insurmountable obstacle to, y'know, convincing arabs to simply accept the mantle of jewish sovereignty and experience it, day in and day out. The consensus view that "I know there's a tried and true way of resolving these conflicts, but since 'the world' says 'they won't accept at this time' we're going to go with a 'solution' that we know will only perpetuate conflict based on all our experience" does not strike me as an enduring position. It's certainly not a terribly ethical or moral one, and yet it's the current consensus, which is hope in and of itself that a better consensus can emerge.
In general, you seem wildly over-indexed to a fairly recent (and relatively short-lived) consensus about the rights and wrongs of solving this conflict (and conflict more generally). The "two-state solution" was memed into existence, despite having little or no actual purchase or relevance to the conflict. The "palestinian cause" was too, and so was Israel (although the Israel meme mattered a lot to the people involved, which is presumably why it stuck). The consensus of people without skin-in-the-game is a relatively fleeting thing, I would think, and nothing like the forever-blocker you seem to suggest.
I support relocation of Arabs under peaceful and civilized conditions, as one component of a comprehensive settlement of the Palestine Question.
However, I disupte your characterisation that ‘non-one cares’ about displaced Syrians. Syria is a pariah state, under numerous sanctions, that has been attacked by America, and is left a puppet of Russia and Iran. If you are suggesting that as a model for Israel, I don’t think Iran is interested.
Please don’t take this as an insult, but I keep seeing Zionists saying ‘no-one cares’ about cases that evidently lots of people do care about. It seems by ‘no-one’ you mean vocal western leftists.
I gave other examples, but I actually meant the Arab world doesn't care. There's a particular status harm that comes with being displaced by Jews specifically, but displacement isn't something that seems to bother them much (or at least they are very willing to forgive and forget). In any event, Syria's pariah status is so complex as to be sui generis, and Assad still has many high friends in high places.
As for shrill westerm leftists, sure they care, but the lesson is that they can be safely and profitably ignored bc their concerns have no actual purchase with any relevant facts on the ground. They peddle tawdry rites and rituals (e.g. "unification of Jerusalem is a red line"), and when the juju is gone, they move on to something else. The action is the juice. It's theater. Their strength turns solely on how much attention and outrage we give them (which is why they excel at signal amplification), bc the reality is that they are a small number of high status, but ineffectual people with no actual skin in the game.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think "but what will the neighbors think?!" is a poor north star to navigate with. Do the right thing. Worry about the neighbors later. If you will it...
"I gave other examples, but I actually meant the Arab world doesn't care."
Where do you get your news? Syria was expelled from the Arab League for 12 years, and tens of thousands of foreign fighters were flooding in funded by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other Muslim countries. But, again, if you think Israel could 'get away with it' in the sense Syria 'got away with it', what does that mean? Which rogue state would be our patron like Iran is to Syria?
And let's say you were right, and it's only 'being displaced by Jews specifically' that makes Arabs kick off ... how does that change anything? What is your plan to make them not kick off? Bitch about how it's racist on substack?
'Do the right thing. Worry about the neighbors later.'
But if you do the right thing, your neighbours will declare war on you, and no-one will come to your aid. What this will cause is a economic doom loop in which the most productive citizens make for the exists, further crashing the economy etc.
But even if you think that it's possible to take on the world hypothetically, what is actually been done to make this feasible? We have had a 'fully right wing government' for 2 years. Which industries have been repatriated? What efforts have been made to make us self-sufficient in food or fuel? This is all a joke.
"you're saying there is no universe (on any time horizon?) that "the world" could tolerate the relocation of ~2-3M Arabs.....Putting aside for a moment whether that would be a right or good outcome, what's the basis for that claim?"
First of all, the author wrote this:
"Arab population of Gaza (2.1 million people) and Judea and Samaria (2.2 million people), the Shi’ite population of southern Lebanon (maybe 1 million people), and probably Arabs in Israel too (2.1 million people). "
That adds up to 7.4 million people.
One, you're asking whether the world would put up with the killing/explusion of 7.1 million people?
If I understand the argument correctly, you're saying there is no universe (on any time horizon?) that "the world" could tolerate the relocation of ~2-3M Arabs.
Putting aside for a moment whether that would be a right or good outcome, what's the basis for that claim? People are "displaced" all the time. 3.7M arabs were displaced from Syria, and no one cares. 4M people were displaced across the US border, and no one particularly cares about that either (except for people in the US). The "world" has gotten comfortable with the displacement of '48 (and the various expulsions of Jews and other religious minorities by Muslim and/or African countries). No one regrets the partition of the British Raj. It's a big world, and people move. It's not without costs (and those costs can vary considerably in severity), but "people moving" is not that remarkable in the big scheme of things (and it's surely less remarkable than "people killing and maiming each other in perpetuity").
My guess is that the actual impact on the world at-large of even ~3-4M arabs moving east and/or south is basically negligible. It could happen and, if there were no front page headlines, no one would even notice or care. That would include the overwhelming majority of the Arab world itself, whose actual day-to-day life would change not-a-whit.
The point is that perception is not everything, but in this case, it's nearly everything. It's very easy to maintain false beliefs when the actual consequences of those beliefs are attenuated, but it's also easy to change beliefs, when the actual consequences of those beliefs are attenuated.
That being the case, it's not hard to imagine a set of circumstances where "people" get comfortable with the idea of relocation. "10K and a bus-ticket--and peace and prosperity for everyone. Isn't it grand?" Egypt, Jordan and Saudi are "vassals" too, in their way, and while everyone says "they'd never accept it," somehow that's considered a more insurmountable obstacle to, y'know, convincing arabs to simply accept the mantle of jewish sovereignty and experience it, day in and day out. The consensus view that "I know there's a tried and true way of resolving these conflicts, but since 'the world' says 'they won't accept at this time' we're going to go with a 'solution' that we know will only perpetuate conflict based on all our experience" does not strike me as an enduring position. It's certainly not a terribly ethical or moral one, and yet it's the current consensus, which is hope in and of itself that a better consensus can emerge.
In general, you seem wildly over-indexed to a fairly recent (and relatively short-lived) consensus about the rights and wrongs of solving this conflict (and conflict more generally). The "two-state solution" was memed into existence, despite having little or no actual purchase or relevance to the conflict. The "palestinian cause" was too, and so was Israel (although the Israel meme mattered a lot to the people involved, which is presumably why it stuck). The consensus of people without skin-in-the-game is a relatively fleeting thing, I would think, and nothing like the forever-blocker you seem to suggest.
I support relocation of Arabs under peaceful and civilized conditions, as one component of a comprehensive settlement of the Palestine Question.
However, I disupte your characterisation that ‘non-one cares’ about displaced Syrians. Syria is a pariah state, under numerous sanctions, that has been attacked by America, and is left a puppet of Russia and Iran. If you are suggesting that as a model for Israel, I don’t think Iran is interested.
Please don’t take this as an insult, but I keep seeing Zionists saying ‘no-one cares’ about cases that evidently lots of people do care about. It seems by ‘no-one’ you mean vocal western leftists.
I gave other examples, but I actually meant the Arab world doesn't care. There's a particular status harm that comes with being displaced by Jews specifically, but displacement isn't something that seems to bother them much (or at least they are very willing to forgive and forget). In any event, Syria's pariah status is so complex as to be sui generis, and Assad still has many high friends in high places.
As for shrill westerm leftists, sure they care, but the lesson is that they can be safely and profitably ignored bc their concerns have no actual purchase with any relevant facts on the ground. They peddle tawdry rites and rituals (e.g. "unification of Jerusalem is a red line"), and when the juju is gone, they move on to something else. The action is the juice. It's theater. Their strength turns solely on how much attention and outrage we give them (which is why they excel at signal amplification), bc the reality is that they are a small number of high status, but ineffectual people with no actual skin in the game.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think "but what will the neighbors think?!" is a poor north star to navigate with. Do the right thing. Worry about the neighbors later. If you will it...
"I gave other examples, but I actually meant the Arab world doesn't care."
Where do you get your news? Syria was expelled from the Arab League for 12 years, and tens of thousands of foreign fighters were flooding in funded by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other Muslim countries. But, again, if you think Israel could 'get away with it' in the sense Syria 'got away with it', what does that mean? Which rogue state would be our patron like Iran is to Syria?
And let's say you were right, and it's only 'being displaced by Jews specifically' that makes Arabs kick off ... how does that change anything? What is your plan to make them not kick off? Bitch about how it's racist on substack?
'Do the right thing. Worry about the neighbors later.'
But if you do the right thing, your neighbours will declare war on you, and no-one will come to your aid. What this will cause is a economic doom loop in which the most productive citizens make for the exists, further crashing the economy etc.
But even if you think that it's possible to take on the world hypothetically, what is actually been done to make this feasible? We have had a 'fully right wing government' for 2 years. Which industries have been repatriated? What efforts have been made to make us self-sufficient in food or fuel? This is all a joke.
"you're saying there is no universe (on any time horizon?) that "the world" could tolerate the relocation of ~2-3M Arabs.....Putting aside for a moment whether that would be a right or good outcome, what's the basis for that claim?"
First of all, the author wrote this:
"Arab population of Gaza (2.1 million people) and Judea and Samaria (2.2 million people), the Shi’ite population of southern Lebanon (maybe 1 million people), and probably Arabs in Israel too (2.1 million people). "
That adds up to 7.4 million people.
One, you're asking whether the world would put up with the killing/explusion of 7.1 million people?
Second, are you on or off psych meds?