Who has the moral high ground in Zion

Food for thought... who has the moral high ground in Zion by Martin Sherman ( Guest)

Who has the moral high ground in Zion by Martin Sherman

As many of you know I have long been promoting an alternative Humanitarian Paradigm, to replace the failed Two-States-for-Two-People (TSS), that has dominated the discourse for decades. This alternative paradigm involves the funded relocation and rehabilitation of the Palestinian-Arabs living beyond the 1967-Green Line, in third party countries.

Putting aside the question of FEASIBILITY for the moment I should like to focus on the relative MORALITY of the two paradigms. (After almost a quarter-century of failed endeavors to implement it, the TSS has proved itself a fatally unfeasible fiasco. It certainly can claim little advantage in terms of feasibility over an alternative that is based on the eminently plausible proposal that economically hard-pressed individuals will accept a generous financial grant to enhance their economic well-being).

So in answer to the numerous critics, who have excoriated the Humanitarian Alternative, allegedly on “moral” grounds, I suggest reflection on the following question:

WHO HAS THE MORAL HIGH GROUND?

Those who promote the establishment of (yet another) homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny, which will comprise the diametric opposite and utter negation of the very values its advocates invoke for its establishment – and whose hallmark would be: gender discrimination, gay persecution, religious intolerance and oppression of political dissidents?

Or

Those who advocate providing non-belligerent Palestinian individuals with the opportunity of building a better life for themselves elsewhere, out of harm’s way, free from the recurring cycles of death, destruction and destitution that have been brought down on them by the cruel corrupt cliques, who have controlled their lives and led them astray for decades?

Why does promoting the FORMER make one “MODERATE AND LIBERAL”; while advocating the LATTER, makes one a ..."RIGHT WING EXTREMIST"?

Moreover, why is it considered MORALLY ACCEPTABLE to offer financial inducements to Jews in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes in order to FACILITATE the establishment of said homophobic, misogynistic tyranny, which, almost certainly, will become a bastion for Islamist terror; while it considered MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE to offer financial inducements to Arabs in Judea-Samaria to evacuate their homes in order to PREVENT the establishment of such an entity?