In Israel a discussion is being held about … well, one must be careful with words. Let’s try to state this with utmost caution: There is a discussion about ways to somehow reduce the number of Palestinians in Gaza without using violence. And again, we must tread carefully. A year ago, Minister Avi Dichter said, “We are rolling out the Nakba of Gaza,” and was reprimanded for this loose talk. Earlier this week, Former Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon said that Israel is engaged in “ethnic cleansing” and was almost unanimously condemned. Of course you can’t use terms such as “transfer” or “expulsion.” Perhaps — and this is the term Minister Bezalel Smotrich uses — Israel would “encourage voluntary migration” from Gaza. Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said earlier this week that PM Benjamin Netanyahu is showing new “openness” to the idea.
Such talk raises three questions. The first: Should we even discuss it? The second: Is it moral to entertain such idea as a practical plan? The third: Is this talk serious, or is it a kooky fantasy?
Such talk raises three questions. The first: Should we even discuss it? The second: Is it moral to entertain such idea as a practical plan? The third: Is this talk serious, or is it a kooky fantasy?
Let’s start with the first question. Is it at all proper to discuss voluntary migration with a kind of businesslike seriousness? Should we weigh the pros and cons, think about the social and diplomatic consequences, ponder the moral reasons that may or may not apply to such a policy? Maybe one should just shout: I refuse to talk about such monstrous ideas!
My inclination is to think that we must engage because the idea is already out there. But once we agree to hold a discussion, we then must ask whether “encouraging voluntary migration” could be moraly acceptable – which immediately generates many sub-questions. Such as: moraly acceptable to whom? Morality is not a set of values universally accepted. Such as: morally acceptable under what circumstances? Morality in the real world relates to contexts. Is encouraging migration morally acceptable? No doubt it is, if the only alternative is mass murder. No doubt it is not, if the alternative is a life of good neighborliness and peace. But these are the easy options. There will be many disputes over many other alternatives.
Which necessitates a discussion on the meaning of “voluntary” in this case. Consider an example: A robber enters a bar, points a gun at the crowd, and says that the first volunteer who opens the cash register will be free to leave. It’s safe to assume that he will find a volunteer. It’s also safe to argue that in this case the word “voluntary” does not apply. Again, this is an easy case, but in fact, voluntary actions always occur under circumstances that include constraints, impediments, pressures: Does your neigbor go to work “voluntarily”? On one hand, she wants to go — on the other, she would be happy for a day off. On one hand, she loves her job. On the other, sometimes she doesn’t feel like it. On the one hand, she needs to make a living. On the other… there is no other hand: she needs to make a living. The worker’s voluntary decision is real, and it is also inseparable from life circumstances.
In other words, “voluntary” is not context-free. And it wouldn’t be outlandish to suspect that those who want to encourage “voluntary migration” are prepared to take steps that would increase the likelihood of having many volunteers. If Arabs in Gaza were happy, they wouldn’t want to migrate. If they were miserable, there’s a greater chance they would want to migrate. Hence, if Israel sought to encourage the migration of Arabs, it would have a clear interest in increasing the level of misery in Gaza. And that could lead to actions that at least part of the public would consider immoral.
Now to the third question: How serious is this? The discussion in recent months is primarily one of normalizing a radical idea. Normalization is a first and necessary step on the way to testing feasibility. An idea is planted, spread, discussed; over time, people get used to it, it becomes a bit less shocking. And let’s be honest: the events of Oct. 7 have made the idea a bit less shocking. Because, as we said, voluntary migration is moraly acceptable when the only alternative is a mass slaughter.
The advantages of “voluntary migration” are easily listed: it would eliminate a focal point of tension that ignites wars; it would allow Gazans who live in misery (even if Israel isn’t trying to make them miserable) to have a better life; it would allow Israelis to have more security. Its disadvantages are also easily listed: The international community would deem such idea unacceptable; there aren’t many countries in the world ready to absorb hundreds of thousands or millions of Gazans.
So how serious is it? It’s as serious as all other discussions, whose purpose is to enable Israel to have what it most wants, and can’t have in the foreseeable future: To live without hostile and murderous neighbors who wish it ill. That is – it is as serious as a dream.
Something I wrote in Hebrew
When Israelis debated whether the ceasefire agreement is good or bad for Israel, I wrote the following comment:
There is no point in asking if the agreement lives up to the expectations we had. There is no point in asking whether the agreement is a win or a loss. There is no point in asking if the public likes or dislikes the agreement. It makes sense to ask only one question: Did Israel have a better option than the agreement. A realistic option that is better than the agreement. If the answer is negative — it’s good that we have the agreement. If the answer is positive — that is, if there was a better option — one must present it. Statements along the lines of “the war should have been continued,” without a detailed explanation of objectives and the way to achieve them, are not serious statements.
A week’s numbers
Even most Harris Jewish voters understand that under Trump the US-Israel relations is expected to be as good or better than the relations under Biden.
A reader’s response
Julie Ashman: “Shmuel, your columns became much more critical of Israel than before. What changed?” My response: 1. Not of “Israel” – of “Israel’s leaders.” 2. We have the worst government in Israel’s history.
Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.
