Posted by
Andrews on Saturday, July 04, 2009 1:35:23 AM
In a response to one of my columns, a reader accused Israel of ethnic cleansing. This is hardly the first time I have heard this charge, but it does bring to mind a simple question of logic. If Israel were executing Palestinians, and given to ethnic cleansing, then why do we have a "Palestinian crisis" at all? After all, a vast majority of Palestinians reside within the territory controlled by Israel (well, non-Jordanian Palestinians), Israel has controlled all of the UN mandate since 1967, and most of it since 1948, that is a minimum of 42 years they have had control of most Palestinians. If they were committing genocide, why are there any Palestinians left? Arafat and his cronies and successors have certainly managed to remove a goodly number of Jews in a much shorter time, so why has Israel been unable to eliminate the Palestinians?
Actually, an even better question is why did Israel grant citizenship to those Palestinians who did not flee in 1948? Why are there Palestinian Israeli citizens and members of the Knesset? If Israel were committing genocide wouldn't they look like the PA, which drives out or kills Jews (and sometimes Christians)? Kills those who sell land to Jews or "collaborate"?
In short, if Israel is so genocidal, why do they behave as they do?
One other point, as it has been mentioned elsewhere as well, Israel never got "the majority of the land". Before the UN mandate was created, British Transjordan was divided once already, with about 80% forming the Palestinian Kingdom of Jordan. The remaining 20% was divided by the UN, with the Jewish parts of Israel forming just a bit more than 50%. That means just a bit more than 10% of British Transjordan, which hardly constitutes "most" of the territory.
In any event, the division was largely based on British partition plans which were hardly intended to be friendly to the Jews. Britain was not notoriously pro-Jewish in Palestine, and their original plans for division were certainly not drawn up with a bias in favor of Jews. The divisions, by and large, simply recognized where Jews had bought land and settled under the Ottoman and British reigns. They were drawn up to make partition as easy as possible, not to favor either side.
If those arguing this mean that the Jews ended up with a majority of the land in 1948, that is to be blames on those who attacked them, not the Jews. Israel had no plans to attack their neighbors, that was the Arab League and some Palestinians. Yes, Israel did revoke the citizenship of those who attacked them, and drive off aggressors, but I can't see how anyone could call this illegitimate just because it "violates the mandate". Didn't that attack "violate the mandate"? Should they have welcomed back aggressors with open arms again and again until they finally succeeded?
Again, as I said
in my last post, I will never understand why Israel, and Israel alone, is held to such bizarre standards. In this case even being accused of violating the UN mandate by defending themselves, while those who attacked in the first place are to be returned to their land with no repercussions.
Would the critics of Israel impose this standard on any other nation?
POSTSCRIPT
Actually, I can answer my last question in the affirmative, as the comment in question pointed out the other popular charge of "genocide". The Indian tribes in the US get the same pass. They could attack each other and the Europeans, but when they lost, it was "genocide", and the settlers are guilty, even if acting in self defense. Somehow the Iroquois, for example, have better claim to land they took from other tribes, than Europeans have on land they took from the Iroquois. Apparently only Indian tribes may conquer one another, Europeans may not.
Some will argue what the US did was "different" than what the tribes did to one another, but if so, it was that the US was less brutal. The various tribes actually did commit genocide, in a meaningful sense, while the US, in most cases, forced relocation and assimilation, and did not engage in wholesale massacres for the most part. (Yes, there were massacres, but the Indians themselves engaged in massacre more regularly and as a matter of course, making it odd to hold the US guilty while exonerating the natives. Are those making this argument saying the Indians are somehow inferior and can't be held to the ethical standard they ask of Europeans? That seems rather racist and Eurocentric of them.)
So I suppose I do have a comparable double standard. But it doesn't help, as I never understood that one either.