Allow me to paint a picture of a hypothetical situation and ask you how the US would react.

Let us suppose, at some future date, the US decided to get serious about immigration reform, and expelled 10 million or more illegal aliens from Mexico. Let us also suppose that Mexico refused to take them back. As a result, the border patrol ends up with dozens of camps near the Mexican border, holding these millions of Mexicans. The conditions are not particularly squalid, but obviously the residents are less than happy to be there, and there are endless small incidents between the detainees and the guards.

After a while these detainees become a major political issue in the US. Several Mexican-American groups become more and more militant in their calls for the release of the detainees, eventually pushing for the formation of an autonomous Aztlan formed out of the southwestern states won during the Mexican-American War. They are joined in these claims by detainees and supporters in Mexico. There are even rumors that the Mexican government is supporting some of the groups.

More time passes and the conflict becomes more violent. The Aztlan Organization, the most prominent of the groups agitating for independence, begins to engage in outright terrorism, killing thousands each year, almost entirely civilians. The government of Mexico bands together with other Central and South American nations to form a coalition supporting calls for Aztlan independence. Along the border the US government frequently crosses the Mexican border chasing terrorist groups, and sometimes this results in small clashes with Mexican army troops.

After years of terrorism, tens of thousands dead, and ever increasing tension between the US and Mexican governments, the UN decides to intervene. The General Assembly passes several resolutions blaming the US for its inhumane treatment of the Mexican immigrants it detained. In addition, the UN calls for the US to either grant those detainees citizenship, or to settle them in an autonomous Aztlan state.

When the US ignore the UN demands, the EU and China begin to intervene, threatening to stop all diplomatic relations unless the US begins negotiating directly with the Aztlan Organization. They demand the US create an autonomous Aztlan to be inhabited solely by Hispanics, and also that the US grant citizenship to the 10 million illegal immigrants in detention camps, as well as their descendants and other family members.

So, were this situation to occur, what would you want the US to do? Should we surrender the southwest to militants and then grant citizenship to 10 million aliens as well? Wouldn't that just create a new terrorist core inside our remaining territory leading to additional demands for concessions?

Actually, aren't most readers already irate and asking themselves why we should give up any land at all? Or asking why illegal aliens can demand citizenship?

Well, if you feel that way about this hypothetical situation, how can anyone demand that Israel stop "the cycle of violence"? If my hypothetical seems unfair, just ask what has happened to Israel.

The original Israelis were not given land, nor did they take it. Settlers bought land the Ottoman Empire, and later the United Kingdom, said it was legal for them to buy. When the UN created a state of Israel, it did not give any additional land to the Jews, Israelis still held only the land they had bought.

In the original treaty, the Arabs we now call "Palestinians" had about half, more for less, of the modern state of Israel allocated to them. However, the neighboring states decided to attack, and many of those Arabs fled, hoping to come back and get even more after the Jews were killed. As the Israelis won, they were not kindly disposed to the Arabs who fled. The other Arabs were treated as citizens, even having an Arab party in the Knesset. So, the Israelis did not "dispossess the Palestinians", they just denied reentry to those who sided with their enemies. That hardly seems unreasonable.

But, to return to my example, if we were forced to cede land, admit aliens, and to say we were wrong to have taken land from Mexico, would we do it? If not, then why do we expect Israel to do the same and worse? They are a small nation, surrounded by enemies. To give up land is to place enemies within a dozen miles of every major city, enemies who are already overly fond of rocket attacks. Would we make a similar concession to terrorists? Allow them to set up shop in Bethesda or on Long Island?

But I could go on forever. The double standard between how we behave and what we demand of Israel is blatant, and absurd. If I were to dwell on it, this page could go on forever. So it is time to cut this short.

My point is simple: If we were being pressured by other nations to do these things, we would view it as an impermissible assault on our sovereignty, yet many see no problem doing the same to Israel. It makes very little sense.

UPDATED 03/23/2008

There is actually a very good explanation of Israeli history reprinted on another blog. It goes into much more detail than I did. It makes a very good companion piece to this one.