I'll turn that around. Isrseli policy is to murder, or remove every last Palestinian from Gaza and ultimately the West Bank. Where will they go? Are we going to give them all homes in Brirain. Not just people in Palestine. Their policy of regulalrly bombing and invading Lebanon prevents that country ever becoming stable. After their bombing of Iran, more people will leave. Where do a lot of them go? The current government would ultimately like to expand Israel to cover significant parts of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan. Given what happens to non Jewish inhabitants of other places they illegally occupy, what happens to the majority of their existing population? Where will they go? Isrsel is not a normal, western style country. It is now deeply racist, exculsionary and expansionist. It is a danger to it's neighbours militarily and to ours, economically. We sell weapons and components to Israel. Great, that brings jobs and money for Britain. Israel uses some of those to bomb Iran. Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, leading to economic devastation for Britain and the rest of the world. Even purely on a cash basis, this is not a good trade off. Oh yes, they have the bomb too. We are told to get exercised about Iran, or previousy Iraq and Libya getting nuclear weapons, but a dangerous country in the Middle East already has them. Given how trigger happy they have been with conventional weapons and their use, how low a bar do they have for pushing the button? Ultimately, yes, I'd like to see the state of Israel disbanded as an exlusively Jewish racist state. We have been here before. Rhodesia and South Africa were previous settler colonies where the indigenous population had no rights. Eventually they were forced to open their societies to full participation by all the inhabitants by the effect of economic sanctions. The countries became untenable as they were. America and Britain use sanctions on countries with regimes they disapprove of, all the time. See Cuba for a current example. The Rhodesian and S African regimes had to talk to the leaders of the disenfranchised and second class populations and ultimately share power. The results were variable. Modern S Africa is more a success story than modern Zimbabwe. For S Africa, they were fortunate in having a black leadership they could negotiate with that they had imprisoned, or exiled, sometimes decades before. Israel imprisons, or kills anyone it could negotiate with. The biggest problem with outsiders trying to host negotiations with Israel and it's enemies is Israel trying to kill negotiators. Israeli policy means that the only Palestinian leaders left are either those willing to be collaborators and police, like the Palestinian Authority, or increasingly extreme, like Hamas. Their is unlikely to be a Palestinian Mandela, because they are probably already dead. Incidentally, Dedmond Tutu saw Israel for what it was. He considered it to be worse Apartheid than South Africa. I think the possibility of peaceful transition to full civil rights for all citizens in Palestine is unlikely, but I thought the same of S Africa, forty years ago. Ultimately, the Jewish population there need to consider their own position. Do they want constant war and genocide? Do they want the downsides if they lose that war to an embittered enemy? Is their ultimate safety better served by a little humanity? The South African example shows it is at least possible, though nothing is certain in life and politics.
