Transfer

Matthew Duss notes that Giuliani foreign policy advisor Daniel Pipes is on the "presidium" of an outfit called the Jerusalem Summit that opposes the creation of a Palestinian state under any circumstances and instead proposes the transfer of Palestinians to elsewhere in the Arab world.

It seems to me that just as Giuliani ought to be asked whether or not he endorses Norman Podhoretz's view that we need to bomb Iran ASAP he also ought to be asked whether he joins Daniel Pipes in endorsing this view. And if he doesn't, then why does he have so many advisors he disagrees with on key issues?

Comments

If Giuliani endorsed this view, I wonder if it would help him or hurt him? Either way, I doubt it would make much difference.

Posted by Jim W | October 18, 2007 2:43 PM

Would ethnic cleansing by any other name sound as sweet?

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | October 18, 2007 2:49 PM

Not that I agree with the proposal, but it's fairly disengenuous to leave out the word "voluntarily" before "transfer" as in they would only leave it they wanted to. You can't ethnically clense someone if they choose to leave even if it is with compensation.

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1739

Posted by Dave | October 18, 2007 3:20 PM

I meant voluntary not volunarily.

Posted by Dave | October 18, 2007 3:21 PM

Read the proposal -- not really voluntary. It's like I say i will pay people named Dave to leave the US. They can choose to stay, but they would lose their citizenship, and be deported at any time if they protest their disenfranchisement.

Obvious crazies like Gary bauer, Alan Keyes, Dennis Prager, Ben Stein,a nd David Pyce-Jones favour this fake "voluntary" deportation. But does a solid member of the Washington foreign policy establishment like Meyrav Wurmser gety a pass on belonging to this pre-ethnic cleansing organization?

(And why is KPS Gill involved!? Beacues ethnic cleansing wrked so well in Punjab in 1947?)

Posted by Ikram | October 18, 2007 3:33 PM

Maybe Giuliani is proposing synergies in his policies: bomb Iran to make room for the Palestinians...

Posted by McKingford | October 18, 2007 3:35 PM

Is the idea that we're supposed to deport the Palestinians to Iran and bomb them there?

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | October 18, 2007 3:35 PM

I certainly can't disagree with Matt about this issue, but here's a sharper (and sadder) test.

What are the odds that anyone could today get the *Hillary Clinton Campaign* to denounce Daniel Pipes and his positions? And remember that she's (presumably) still mostly in "left-wing" primary-campaign mode...

Posted by RKU | October 18, 2007 3:44 PM

"It's like I say i will pay people named Dave to leave the US. They can choose to stay, but they would lose their citizenship, and be deported at any time if they protest their disenfranchisement."

I don't see anything in the document about anyone losing their citizenship or being deported. You just pulled that out of thin air.

It says they can choose to resettle in another country with compensation if they want to.

I think it's a rediculous idea, but the document contemplates no one being forced to do anything.

Posted by Dave | October 18, 2007 3:56 PM

Dave -- Read the freakin website. Look for the discussion on what happens if more than 100 thousand Palestinians decline to self-deport. There's a lot of ways a country can engourage "voluntary" ethnic cleansing without actuall physically driving people over the border. Even Idi Amin gave Ugandan Indians a choice to stay, and then created an environment where no rational person would want to stay.

Anyway, read the whole "Presidium" website. It's quite frank. the plan is to annex the West Bank and Gaza, deny Palestians any citizenship, and then deport anyone "uppity" at Israeli discretion.

Posted by Ikram | October 18, 2007 4:02 PM

I think it's a rediculous idea, but the document contemplates no one being forced to do anything.

Well, if giving them their own state is out (and the site is very explicit about that), and they decline the offer of voluntary resettlement, then what options are left? The people proposing this stuff are just trying to couch their off-the-charts radicalism with soothing rhetoric.

Posted by Haggai | October 18, 2007 4:08 PM

All right, since this is the internets, and no-one is likely to actually read the underlying document, here is the salient bit:

If by contrast well over million remain, granting such citizenship is liable to jeopardize the Jewish character of the state. ... In such a circumstance, the remaining Palestinians would be deemed (accurately) resident aliens with wide ranging economic, religious and cultural liberties but with yet to be determined political affiliation.

Continued right of residency would contingent upon acceptance of Jewish sovereignty. [Any manifestation of insurrection would result in the offender being declared a "persona non grata" - as would be the case in any self-respecting democracy if an alien resident were to rebel against the prevailing source of sovereignty - and in his being deported from the country along with those dependant on him for their livelihood.] One option may be to confer upon them special UN status together with UN documents to facilitate travel. Another would be to canvass third party states to offer them non-resident citizenship in return for financial benefits to theses states.

Read it and weep, baby.

Posted by Ikram | October 18, 2007 4:14 PM

If Giuliani endorsed this view, I wonder if it would help him or hurt him?

It would probably hurt him among Jews, most of whom find talk of mass deportations and ethnic cleansing pretty damn disturbing.

Right-wing Christians, on the other hand, will lap it up and ask for seconds.

Posted by Matt Stevens | October 18, 2007 4:19 PM

[Godwin's law about to be violated]

I seem to remember that the Nazis also started with getting the Jews to leave *voluntarily* coupled with a lot of harrassment, then turned up the level of harassment, and finally started trying to deport them, and then... well you know the rest.

The point is, once you start making it official government policy that a certain ethnic group who have been somewhere for a long time should not be there anymore, you've started down a very unpleasant route. The aim is clear, the rest becomes quibbling about method.

Posted by JohnTh | October 18, 2007 4:27 PM

"Read it and weep, baby"

Ok, so if a non citizen tries to overthrow the government they lose their residency. Still not even close to ethnic clensing. I am pretty sure the US would deport non citizens who try to overthrow the US government as well.

Posted by Dave | October 18, 2007 4:30 PM

The Godwin thing is there for a reason. This has nothing to do with Nazis and Jews, even their Madagascar plan. Its an annexation and ethnic cleansing proposal, not a genocide propposal. Don't muddy the waters.

It's consistent with Uganda, or the Morrocan policy in Saharawi, but much much more extreme. It resembles, to some extent, old British Imperial policy: troublemakers deported to faraway countries, until imperial authority is unquestioned.

I'd love to agree with Matt Stevens, but Ben Stein, Dennis Prager, and a bunch of other Republicans prove him wrong. Ethnic cleansing has supporters among all faiths.

Posted by Ikram | October 18, 2007 4:33 PM

In such a circumstance, the remaining Palestinians would be deemed (accurately) resident aliens with wide ranging economic, religious and cultural liberties but with yet to be determined political affiliation.

Ah, yes, the good old Reich Citizenship Law approach... Well, we all know that half-measures don't work, sooner of later some kind of definite solution will have to be devised and carried out.

Posted by abb1 | October 18, 2007 4:38 PM

Dave -- are you being deliberatly obtuse? The West bank and Gaza are not part of Israel -- they're disputed. That's the whole point.

If the US invaded Quebec, then deported all Quebecois that tried to deny US soveriengty over Quebec, it would be invasion, annexation, and ethnic cleansing. (Something similar happened to Acadians 300 years ago).

Posted by Ikram | October 18, 2007 4:39 PM

JohnTh-

Actually, the first step was to deprive Jews of their citizenship. Hannah Arendt makes a rather big deal of this, FWIW.

As a matter of fact, I can't imagine an actual genocide of Palestinians, simply because Israel, unlike Nazi Germany, has the capacity to compel third countries to accept its unwanted population by force. But it is certainly true that

once you start making it official government policy that a certain ethnic group who have been somewhere for a long time should not be there anymore, you've started down a very unpleasant route.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | October 18, 2007 4:42 PM

It would probably hurt him among Jews, most of whom find talk of mass deportations and ethnic cleansing pretty damn disturbing. - Matt Stevens

I hate to say this, but most Jews (especially those that would consider in any way, shape or form voting anything other than big-D ... but even some who would vote big-D no matter what) would be of mixed minds about this ... on the one hand, it is disturbing. OTOH, how many other nations live in relative peace, at least within well-defined borders, thanks to mass deportations?

Remember, there were a lot of forced population transfers (or population transfers that may not have been mandated centrally, but mobs forced people out of their homes) right after WWII, and the only one people really complain about (although the Indian/Pakistan partition still has, to make an understatement, ripple effects) is the Palestinian crisis.

Many Jews think this is quite unfair and want the same ability for the Jewish state to act like a complete jerk of a nation and expel those pesky Palestinian minorities that other nations have been allowed to have. It might not be a moral position, but it's a feeling many Jews have: why pick on us for being jerks when you allow so many other nations to be jerky?

A large part of Giuliani's appeal is "it's ok to be a rude asshole" ... this appeal carries right through to his presumed point of view regarding Israel's policies toward the Palestinians.

It'll play frighteningly well within the Jewish community. And, frankly, given how the world has treated us and now complains about whatever Israel does ... it's hard to blame those of us Jews who have this point of view.

Posted by DAS | October 18, 2007 4:42 PM

This sounds like what was done to Native Americans. As I have previously stated, non Native American US citizens are not in a good position to point fingers at this proposal.

Posted by SLC | October 18, 2007 4:46 PM

And, frankly, given how the world has treated us and now complains about whatever Israel does ... it's hard to blame those of us Jews who have this point of view.

I can see where this thread is going. One hundred and sixteen ad hominems with extra vitriol, comin' right up!

Posted by James Gary | October 18, 2007 4:52 PM

non Native American US citizens are not in a good postion to point fingers at this proposal.

well, that was quite a while ago, no? by your logic, nobody could ever point a finger at anything.

Posted by novakant | October 18, 2007 5:20 PM

Remember, there were a lot of forced population transfers ... right after WWII, and the only one people really complain about ... is the Palestinian crisis.

For crying out loud ... Most of those "population transfers" were carried out by Stalin, and most of his victims were Germans who weren't getting a lot of sympathy after WWII. Nevertheless Stalin's policies shouldn't be held up as a model.

Non Native American US citizens are not in a good position to point fingers at this proposal.

All this comparison proves is that Israelis would be no more evil than 19th-century Americans. So what? No one here is arguing that Israeli Jews are uniquely wicked. Ethnic cleansing is still ethnic cleansing, even if other countries did it too.

Posted by Matt Stevens | October 18, 2007 5:21 PM

As a matter of fact, I can't imagine an actual genocide of Palestinians, simply because Israel, unlike Nazi Germany, has the capacity to compel third countries to accept its unwanted population by force.

But the problem is that these wicked Palestinians will still be alive and kicking out there, not too far away. For this to work, in addition to transfer they will have to build a bullet-proof sphere all around whatever area they think is enough for them. That might turn out to be much less practical than a genocide.

Posted by abb1 | October 18, 2007 5:32 PM

Guiliani should be asked whether he agrees with Daniel Pipes about thevirtues of an Iraqi civil war:

"Iraq’s plight is neither a coalition responsibility nor a particular danger to the West. Fixing Iraq is neither the coalition’s responsibility, nor its burden... When Sunni terrorists target Shi’ites and vice versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt. Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy, but not a strategic one. "

That being said, while I'm certainly not one to defend Daniel Pipes's views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I believe that he has specifally rejected transfer of Palestinians as too politically costly.

Posted by Peter H | October 18, 2007 5:36 PM

Thanks, Matt Stevens for the sanity. History doesn't repeat, it echos. Israel would never do the full genocide. You can absolutely rule out gas chambers, mass graves, and cattle cars.

What they will do--indeed, are doing--is applying a slow form of suffocation. First, use roadblocks to drive the Palestinians into subsistence living. Then offer them a choice: leave "voluntarily" or watch their children grow up with stunted bodies and no future. And if they leave "voluntarily," then it's not ethnic cleansing. Or so the argument goes....

Posted by Matthew | October 18, 2007 6:23 PM

"I believe that he has specifally rejected transfer of Palestinians as too politically costly."

Meaning Peter H hasn't read anything in the previous posts...

If it isn't obvious to anyone that Pipes:

1) Approves of ethnic cleansing.
2) Dislikes that it's "politically costly"
3) Has come up with THIS plan to make it LESS "politically costly"

I don't know what to tell you.

Pipes and the rest of the Muslim-haters simply want Muslims to "go away". How they do that is the only question in their minds. If the Palestinians "go away" to other Muslim countries, fine. That's why they're making living in Palestine a hell for the Palestinians and justifying it based on "security reasons."

Otherwise, they're simply waiting for the conditions to develop where they can simply exterminate them. It's that simple.

And the Zionists don't care how genocide looks to more moderate Jews. The Zionists would shoot peacenik Jews if they could. They just don't care.

It's no different from a Muslim killing another Muslim or a Christian killing another Christian despite prohibitions in all religions against doing so.

Political and personal desires almost always trump religious prohibitions. And you can interpret religious scriptures any way you want to justify your actions.

This is why nobody trusts Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa against Iran having nuclear weapons. But those same people are willing to trust Zionists when they say they wouldn't commit genocide against the Palestinians.

Well, they would.

I'd trust Khamenei over a Zionist any day - because I've SEEN Zionists lie like rugs - but I'd prefer not to trust either of them.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 18, 2007 6:27 PM

Can anyone explain to me why we shouldn't treat the Jews in the US the same way they treat the Palestinians in Israel?

Posted by Eye Foraneye | October 18, 2007 7:45 PM

Eyeforaneye: Because it's wrong. That's a pretty good reason.

Posted by Matthew | October 18, 2007 8:22 PM

Can anyone explain to me why we shouldn't treat the Jews in the US the same way they treat the Palestinians in Israel?

Because it's a contemptable way to treat other human beings. What a question.

Actually, after the creation of Israel, lots of Arab states thought they would mistreat or deport a lot of their jews as a sign of political protest. So these jews eventually went to Israel, started voting right-wing and causing more misery for palestinians.

Is that "Eye Foraneye" enough for you?

Posted by sweaty guy | October 18, 2007 8:43 PM

Can anyone explain to me why we shouldn't treat the Jews in the US the same way they treat the Palestinians in Israel?

Because the quality of television and film writing will decrease to insufferably bad levels (ever watched Canadian tv? Talk about cruel and unusual punishment), not to mention the inevitable decline in the quality of political blogging...

Posted by SoCalJustice | October 18, 2007 8:49 PM

How did we get from "Giuliani has yet another advisor with crazy ideas" to "Jooooos!" (I'm paraphrasing eye foraneye here, but I think I captured his general drift. Maybe a few more "o"s?)

Pipes is one of those people who can make frankly inhumane ideas sound almost reasonable. He still speaks the language of reasoned discourse, as befits a serious scholar of the early history of Islam, but his focus has strayed from the academic to the political. He sees the whole of Western/Islamic relations as illustrated by Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie. Islam is thus always the aggressor, and anything we, or Israel, or India might do can be justified as self defense. He is always remorseful about such harsh realities, but that doesn't stop him from carrying on.

I find this more frightening than a platoon of David Dukes, because I worry that I may find Pipes persuasive. I -know- that a lot of other people already do. If he has Rudy's ear, that's a reason not to vote for the man, and I like Rudy.

Posted by heedless | October 18, 2007 10:32 PM

Apart from morality, ideology etc. Pipes seems to be seriously stupid. The style of the presentation reminds me real estate plug of some building lots in Florida. Financing? No problem! For a small fraction of your current income you will get a perfect nest for your declining years! Why, an unsuccesful cancer treatment can cost 2-3 times more than even the most expensive lot in our development!

Where fascist odiousness yields to major stupidity is the idea that an energetic diplomatic effort will garner the necessary support of Arab regimess (and Europeans? someone is supposed to be convinced?) while the project is predicated on subjecting Palestinians to much worse treatment than the current one which is obliquely described as humanitarian tragedy.

And what about concepts like: "5. Thus, the de-legitimization of the Palestinian narrative becomes a vital prerequisite to any comprehensive resolution of the Palestinian issue." What is more appaling: the content or the style?

Posted by piotr | October 18, 2007 10:51 PM

"Because the quality of television and film writing will decrease to insufferably bad levels (ever watched Canadian tv? Talk about cruel and unusual punishment), not to mention the inevitable decline in the quality of political blogging..."

Now that was funny. I give you credit for that one.

Unless, of course, you were serious...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 19, 2007 2:55 AM

What is more appaling: the content or the style?

The content.

Posted by abb1 | October 19, 2007 3:11 AM

"But the problem is that these wicked Palestinians will still be alive and kicking out there, not too far away. For this to work, in addition to transfer they will have to build a bullet-proof sphere all around whatever area they think is enough for them. That might turn out to be much less practical than a genocide.

Posted by abb1 | October 18, 2007 5:32 PM"

Exactly. The population transfers caused by the Partition riots in India and Pakistan helped lead to ISI-backed terrorists acting in India and Kashmir. The Serbs were the victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing and once Yugoslavia broke up, they elected Milosevic. Tutsis whom were forced out of Rwanda decades ago organized and invaded Rwanda, helping to set of the civil war that led to the genocide and the government's expulsion from the country. Cambodian communists whom were purged from the Vietnamese Communist Party and forced out of Vietnam made up much of the Khmer Rouge leadership, which upon taking power in Cambodia killed off the entire Vietnamese minority in Cambodia.

"

This sounds like what was done to Native Americans. As I have previously stated, non Native American US citizens are not in a good position to point fingers at this proposal.

Posted by SLC | October 18, 2007 4:46 PM"

"I know you are, but what am I?" is not an argument nor a political position.

Posted by Reality Man | October 19, 2007 5:29 AM

SLC,
you know, the problem with your refrain is that most of us here live in the year 2007AD. People and societies evolve, you know. See, you often sound like it might be 2007BC under the rock where you're sitting.

Posted by abb1 | October 19, 2007 5:39 AM

If I suggested solving America's problems by paying the Jews or the African-Americans to leave the country, I'd be denounced as a racist. And it would be totally accurate. Only a racist would propose any such thing.

Posted by Egypt Steve | October 19, 2007 6:20 PM