As for the rest, I agree almost entirely. One thing I challenged was the idea that this idea of his was voluntary. He said Israel should "take a piece of land" and educate Palestinians to run it. The idea that this would be on a voluntary basis came after comparisons to China's policy with the Uyghurs and residential schooling (my own comment).

My main issue was his insinuation that Israel is the "civilized" nation here and the people of Gaza are the "barbarians." This is very akin to residential schooling in the Americas ("civilizing the savages") and his comparisons involving barbarians and ancient empires certainly seemed to bear that out. But this could be a case of a hammer seeing a nail.

In any case, I agree that it's fundamentally flawed. Seeing as how few people would be willing to collaborate, and they would likely be alienated from the people they ruled, I would anticipate that this would make this social experiment a total failure - like all attempts to rule through collaborators.

Alas, I don't see how criticizing ideas is akin to "silencing" people. This too is a problem we see today, where certain individuals think they are entitled to say whatever they think (no matter how asinine or bigoted) and not be criticized for it. That is classic entitlement and the clear result of a bigot mentality.

But I get your point and agree that we need more civil discourse on the internet since so little exists. As I would tell students who were yelling because the room was noisy, "you can't light up a stogie in a room full of smokers and then complain about the air quality!"

I certainly wouldn't mind your commitment to civil discourse over on my page. I've written a great deal about history and politics, as well as science and astronomy (my day job). Please feel free to drop by if you want to get a discussion going :)