Transfering Israelis is just as morally reprehensible

Submitted by Jeremy (Israel), Mar 5, 2009 at 12:23

When people talk of a "two-state" solution, this is usually what they mean:

• The Palestinians get a state, which we'll call "Palestine"
• The Jews are Transfered to "Israel" - but this is a given, nobody considers it morally reprehensible
• Israel remains a pluralistic, democratic state, replete with all of its Palestinian Arab citizens
• Palestine is Judenrein, containing ONLY Palestinians

So, my question is this: If it is okay to Transfer Jews, why does everyone get so outraged when we talk of transfering Palestinians?

Some more points to ponder:

• Jews lived in Hebron, Safed, Jerusalem, Shechem (Nablus) etc. for generations, before they were murdered or driven out in the riots of 1929/1936 (British census data of the day shows this)
• Any Arab who arrived in the Mandate of Palestine before 1945 was declared a refugee in 1949, even if he'd lived in Syria his entire life until that point
• over 1 million Jews from Arab lands were forced to flee during the late 40's and early 50's, and many came to Israel
• Millions of families are displaced every year in conflicts the world over. But somehow, the Palestinians are the worlds' favorite refugees.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Daniel Pipes replies:

"If it is okay to Transfer Jews, why does everyone get so outraged when we talk of transfering Palestinians?"

Well, I don't say it's okay to transfer Jews; see my condemnation of this at "The Forcible Removal of Israelis from Gaza."