The Wages of Conquest

[Matt]

I haven't been over to Martin Peretz's blog in some time, but if I'm reading this post correctly, the New Republic editor in chief's position is that the so-called "occupied territories," including both the Golan Heights and the West Bank, must be kept perpetually in Israeli hands in order to punish Syria and Jordan for past acts of aggression. He writes:

After World War II, the allies allocated to themselves (and their allies) territories from which Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had aggressed against the rest of Europe. These are the costs paid by the bellicose and the belligerent. Japan paid a similar price, too.

This of course raises the question of what to do with those pesky Arabs who happen to live in this territory. They could be given full Israeli citizenship, of course, though that would entail a fairly radical departure from the Zionist concept of a Jewish state. Alternatively, they could be perpetually held captive as stateless subjects of a Jewish herrenvolk democracy. Or, of course, they could be forcibly removed from the territories -- told they had to depart under thread of death. I take it by Peretz's approving citation of the handling of the situation in postwar Europe that this is what he wants -- something similar to the mass expulsions of Germans from Eastern Europe following the war.

But if this is his preferred resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, surely he should say so more plainly than this. He's the editor-in-chief of a well-regarded biweekly magazine, after all, so it's not as if he couldn't find a venue in which to publish the (counterintuitive!) case for ethnic cleansing in a straightforward manner and let people debate this vision of the Jewish future in a more head-on manner.

Comments

Oh, Matt. Please don't feed the trolls.

Posted by ick | May 29, 2008 10:08 AM

Ah, excellent! Revenge for the Babylonian Exile is ours!!

Posted by Marshall | May 29, 2008 10:09 AM

I hate to say this, but you are strawmanning Peretz a little here. He's basically talking about the Golan, not the West Bank. The Israelis have not ethnically cleansed Arabs from the Golan after the hostilities ended, and in fact do offer citizenship to everyone in the Golan. For a variety of reasons, the majority of Druze have not accepted Israeli citizenship, choosing to cling to a abbreviated quasi-Syrian citizenship that entitles them to free education in Syria. (The Muslims in Ghajar did accept Israeli citizenship.)

So the system is not in fact comparable to Eastern Europe, at least in the Golan. Israel isn't operating as a herrenvolk democracy there. It is in fact because Israel effectively annexed (though they didn't officially use the word) the Golan that the situation is much better there.

As for the West Bank, you're obviously on much stronger ground there. I agree with your main point that Peretz should be much clearer about what he really means.

I don't notice you campaigning against the Benes decrees or the post-war borders of Poland on this blog, by the way. At which point is ethnic cleansing ok for you?

Posted by Hektor Bim | May 29, 2008 10:17 AM

There is another solution as well: that we Jews change our attitude toward conversion (as it is right now, the Jewish state does not even recognize many of us Jews as Jews ... which is horrible, but another topic) and convert enough non-Jewish Arabs so that way the Arab population can be absorbed and assimilated into Israeli society.

This is historically what happened -- how come is it that all those Palestinians are Muslims in the first place? Why not loosen up conversion requirements vis-a-vis the right of return into the state of Israel and just have refugees, etc., who want to be citizens become Jewish. When enough have converted, Israel can then become "secular" and welcome all it can fit without fear of ceasing to be a Jewish state.

Of course, about 2000+ years ago the Jewish state tried this with the Idumeans and it didn't work out so well, so maybe the whole carrot to convert thing ain't the best idea after all ...

Posted by DAS | May 29, 2008 10:18 AM

if I'm reading this post correctly, the New Republic editor in chief's position is that the so-called "occupied territories," including both the Golan Heights and the West Bank, must be kept perpetually in Israeli hands in order to punish Syria and Jordan for past acts of aggression.

I think you're reading it correctly with respect to Syria, but not Jordan.

The West Bank wouldn't be "given back" to Jordan anyway, Jordan doesn't want the West Bank and Israel and Jordan are at peace.

Posted by SoCalJustice | May 29, 2008 10:20 AM

I hate to say this, but you are strawmanning Peretz a little here. He's basically talking about the Golan, not the West Bank. The Israelis have not ethnically cleansed Arabs from the Golan after the hostilities ended, and in fact do offer citizenship to everyone in the Golan. For a variety of reasons, the majority of Druze have not accepted Israeli citizenship, choosing to cling to a abbreviated quasi-Syrian citizenship that entitles them to free education in Syria. (The Muslims in Ghajar did accept Israeli citizenship.)

So the system is not in fact comparable to Eastern Europe, at least in the Golan. Israel isn't operating as a herrenvolk democracy there. It is in fact because Israel effectively annexed (though they didn't officially use the word) the Golan that the situation is much better there.

As for the West Bank, you're obviously on much stronger ground there. I agree with your main point that Peretz should be much clearer about what he really means.

I don't notice you campaigning against the Benes decrees or the post-war borders of Poland on this blog, by the way. At which point is ethnic cleansing ok for you?

Posted by Hektor Bim | May 29, 2008 10:20 AM

Ethnically cleansing the Palestinians has hovered just outside of the mainstream of conservative Israeli thought for some time.

I'm an advocate of a two-state solution, but that advocacy is predicated on the notion that Israel would never accept citizenship for so many Palestinians. I would actually be supportive of incorporating the entirety of Palestine into Israel, if we could ensure absolutely equal rights for Arabs and Jews (and whoever else.) I think that would be difficult, and would begin imperfectly, but I certainly think it's possible. (It would have the advantage of giving the government of this new Israel-Palestine the ability to confront terrorism as a criminal threat, generally the more effective way of defeating terrorism.)

But, as Matt says, that scenario would be unthinkable to many Zionists. This again is where I sort of run agrounds in trying to find a mutually palatable solution for the conflict, because I'm just generally opposed, on democratic, liberal grounds, to ethnic or religious characters for nation-states. Those things are simply antithetical to egalitarian democracy. (That's also why I sometimes have a problem with the old "we've got to support the only democracy in the region" argument.) But what if Israel could put aside that ethnic and religious character and become truly egalitarian? There's no reason it would have to stop being a homeland and defender for millions of Jews. And it really could become a beacon for the region, if the people there could solve the difficult problems of integration. Imagine the press, Jews and Arabs working together to form a government....

Posted by Freddie | May 29, 2008 10:20 AM

The Peretz post is called "The Golan isn't Going." So naturally Matt conjurs his little fantasy world where Peretz, who has repeatedly said Israel has to give up the West Bank for peace, wants to to keep the West Bank forever. I assume this hunges on the one mention of the west bank in one parenthetical in a five paragraph post.

We get it Matt, you hate Peretz, but you don't have to make yourself look like a hysterical idiot; just say you hate him.

Posted by Dave | May 29, 2008 10:21 AM

The big irony is that a 1945-46 Czech or Polish type solution is the most stable option for everyone. Call it injustice for peace.

Posted by Northern Observer | May 29, 2008 10:26 AM

When enough have converted, Israel can then become "secular" and welcome all it can fit without fear of ceasing to be a Jewish state.

Oh, wonderful! Israel can legitimize its territorial conquest by means of widespread conversion.

Posted by Marshall | May 29, 2008 10:26 AM

publish the (counterintuitive!) case for ethnic cleansing in a straightforward manner and let people debate this vision of the Jewish future in a more head-on manner.

It's not as if Peretz is the only one. The "oh noes, Israel is the only country that violates upteen billion international laws" crowd also conveniently ignores that the population transfers (which included the transfer of Jews from Arab lands to Israel as well as the other way around) were normative in the 1940s.

And while standards do change, it's rather hypocritical to live in a country (which is just about all of them) benefiting from having stable borders due to population transfers and then not allow Jews to do the same thing to achieve stability in Israel (and people wonder why some Jews find UN double standards anti-semitic?).

Indeed, in other cases, liberals are very much and justly eager to ensure that those benefiting from past injustices allow the victims of said injustice a seat at the table (e.g. affirmative action). The argument is that even if Joe White was not even descended from slave-owners, he still benefits from white privilage and thus should be willing to receive diminished consideration relative to Jane Black in hiring, etc.

Europeans, Americans, etc., have benefitted from population transfers. Yet they deny Israel the same benefits? And they have no other plan to keep Israel safe and secure? Something is a bit off here ...

It ain't just Peretz who should be making the case for population transfers (he can always let Jamie Kirchick make the case for him if he's uncomfortable making it), but the anti-Zionist left actually needs to make the case as to why these transfers, done throughout history, suddenly become wrong when it's Israel's turn to do them.

Posted by DAS | May 29, 2008 10:27 AM

told they had to depart under thread of death

Have they released the the results of the pool draw in the 2008 Blogging World Cup already?

Posted by Pesto | May 29, 2008 10:29 AM

Oh, wonderful! Israel can legitimize its territorial conquest by means of widespread conversion. - Marshall

Why not? Either the Palestinian Muslims are themselves foreigners with no claim to the land either or they have been converted ... and Arab armies legitimized territorial conquest by means of widespread conversion. So if it's sauce for the goose ...

Posted by DAS | May 29, 2008 10:31 AM

the anti-Zionist left actually needs to make the case as to why these transfers, done throughout history, suddenly become wrong when it's Israel's turn to do them.

It's not that transfers are right or wrong. I have no opinion on that. I just think that as former transferees, we Jews and the state that claims to represent us ought to consider whether it's really a good idea.

Peretz and his friends like to accuse their opponents of not being sufficiently alive to the actual conduct of politics in a world where Israel is a state like any other and merits the same prerogatives. But since Jews have most often been the victims of state-sponsored abuses, if even we cannot alter the behavior of states when we finally get one, we really need to re-think the whole Chosen People thing.

Transfer is exactly the same policy as the Babylonian Exile, as the state policy of the Flavians and Antonines. Peretz is entirely comfortable joining them in the roll call of world leaders. I'm not.

Posted by Marshall | May 29, 2008 10:39 AM

I know, DAS, Israel can set up a commission of religious leaders whose job it is to inquire as to the religious loyalties of suspect Israelis, including Palestinians. Let's see, they can call it...the Inquisition!! And they can torture those who won't convert willingly, and burn absolute refuseniks at the stake to deter other dissenters!

Finally, they can organize the Expulsion of all non-Jews from Israel! And then they can keep a watchful eye out for maranos. Fabulous. After all, what's sauce for the goose...

Posted by Pesto | May 29, 2008 10:42 AM

I don't notice you campaigning against the Benes decrees or the post-war borders of Poland on this blog, by the way.

Aha! Well spotted, Hektor! Indeed, I think you'll find that Matt's entire blog archive from the 1940s has been hidden away! What has he got to hide? It can't be just his continuing inability to spell "Gandhi" the same way twice...

Posted by ajay | May 29, 2008 10:46 AM

I sure am glad the U.S. held on to its conquered territories Germany, when it occupied those areas in retribution for WWII.

Posted by El Cid | May 29, 2008 10:46 AM

ajay,

Both the Czechs and Slovaks in 1993 left the Benes decrees in legal force. The Slovaks voted to uphold the Benes decrees in September 2007. Liechtenstein refuses to recognize the Czech Republic and Slovakia because of the continuing legal force of the decrees. It's still a live issue in relations between states in Central Europe.

Good point about Gandhi. :) Why do people spell it Ghandi, anyway?

Posted by Hektor Bim | May 29, 2008 10:55 AM

The trick to this ethnic cleansing thing is you gotta hit the right moment to do it. After Napolean conquered Egypt, the area that is now Palestine/Israel became a political football between the Ottomans and the French. If the European Zionists had only stepped up to claim it then, I'm sure Napoleon would have been delighted to let some white people take it over.

But they didn't, Napolean went back to conquer Europe and crown himself a Roman emperor, and the territory fell under the sway of a local Eqyptian king (Muhammad Ali) who knew how to sign the place over to the British.

The 18th and early 19th centuries were great for slave-trading, ethnic cleansing, and European-style conquest -- look at how many native American tribes we got rid of during that time, and how many countries now speak English which aren't England. If there had been Zionism then, the area would be wholly Jewish now.

Posted by Diana | May 29, 2008 10:59 AM

Oh, wonderful! Israel can legitimize its territorial conquest by means of widespread conversion. - Marshall

Why not? Either the Palestinian Muslims are themselves foreigners with no claim to the land either or they have been converted ... and Arab armies legitimized territorial conquest by means of widespread conversion. So if it's sauce for the goose ...
Posted by DAS | May 29, 2008 10:31 AM

Yep. The more I look at it, the better it sounds. I wonder if the orthodox Rabbinate has looked into it.

Posted by Northern Observer | May 29, 2008 11:08 AM

I agree with most posters above that Matt treats Peretz's piece unfairly because Marty is only talking about the Golan.

Nevertheless I don't quite understand this sentence:

After World War II, the allies allocated to themselves (and their allies) territories from which Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had aggressed against the rest of Europe. These are the costs paid by the bellicose and the belligerent. Japan paid a similar price, too.

Well, as for Germany, the former Ostgebiete were given to Poland not because Germany had attacked Poland from them, but as a compensation for the annexation of Eastern Poland by the Soviet Union, which was a result of Stalin's temporary pact with Hitler.

As for Italy, I don't know which territories Peretz means. Albania, the Greek islands under Italian control and Italy's colonies in Africa? They never were "Italian" in the ethnic sense to begin with.

And as for Japan the only parallel I can see maybe are the Northern Mariana Islands, which Japan itself had received as loot after World War I and which were a valuable naval base for Japan's conquest of East Asia. Taiwan and Korea on the other hand were Japanese colonies inhabited by other ethnic groups. The Kuril Islands were ethnically Japanese, but were annexed by the USSR not because Japan had attacked the Russians from them, but because Stalin wanted them for strategic reasons.

Basically, nearly all territories lost by the Axis Powers where either simply loot or colonies, not bases which had to be taken from them to prevent another war.

So I don't understand why Peretz wants to draw parallels here. Why does he not confine himself to the security argument, which in the case of Golan is quite valid?

Posted by Patrick | May 29, 2008 11:12 AM

First of all, DAS, ethnic cleansing is either wrong or it isn't. There is no such thing as relative morality. "The Turks did it too!" or whatever other example of relative morality is morally bankrupt. "Johnnie did it too" doesn't work on the playground, and it doesn't work in international relations.

It is also, of course, particularly saddening that a state which was created in response to the horrors of the Holocaust is now being counseled to take part in activities similar to those taken in the begin of Nazi rule of Germany.

Finally I have no idea what this means: "Either the Palestinian Muslims are themselves foreigners with no claim to the land either or they have been converted" Not even rabidly anti-Palestinian Israeli historians continue to insist that there were no Palestinians prior to 1947. It's just a historical non-starter.

Posted by Freddie | May 29, 2008 11:15 AM

I second Hektor Bim. Peretz was talking about trusting Syria with the Golan and the water supply at the Galil. Peretz, as do many Israelis, do not. As Peretz notes, the Syrians used the Golan to rain artillery down on kibbutzim. It would be insanity to just "give it back", given that there are no obvious human rights issues as there are in the West Bank, without some major concession from Syria, besides being liked.

Posted by rlgordonma | May 29, 2008 11:16 AM

"Either the Palestinian Muslims are themselves foreigners with no claim to the land either or they have been converted"

I think DAS is getting at the fact that lots of people were converted by force to Islam in 600 AD, so when it comes to converting them by force to Judaism in 2008, they asked for it.

Posted by Marshall | May 29, 2008 11:20 AM

Freddie,

I'm not a moral relativist. But I am a "situationalist". It is wrong to kill someone in general. But it is right to kill someone in self-defense. The situation matters. And looking to what others have done in similar situations is appropriate. And it is hypocritical to say X can do Y in situation Z but W cannot do Y in situation Z.

It is also, of course, particularly saddening that a state which was created in response to the horrors of the Holocaust is now being counseled to take part in activities similar to those taken in the begin of Nazi rule of Germany.

No. Israel is not being counseled to take part in activities similar to those taken by Nazi Germany, but to take part in activities which many other states took in response to the horrors of the Holocaust. How come other countries were allowed to take appropriate responses to prevent another Holocaust, but Israel, itself created in part created in response to the Holocaust, is not allowed to take those same actions?

Not even rabidly anti-Palestinian Israeli historians continue to insist that there were no Palestinians prior to 1947. It's just a historical non-starter.

That isn't my claim. My claim is that either Palestinians are non-native to Israel, that happened to arrive sometime long before 1947 but after Israel's first few go-arounds as a Jewish state or, if they are natives (e.g. Canaanites as some claim), they have been converted to Islam. That general line argument was, of course, somewhat snarky, but I just hate it when people say they've exhausted all posibilities when there is one around, however, ridiculous, that they have not considered ;)

Anyway, you'd think that, if Jewish Israelis have it so good, there would be a movement amongst Palestinians to convert. In the past you'd see Jews converting to Christianity, Blacks trying to pass as whites, etc. How come no movement amongst Palestinians to try and get on the J-train? I have no idea what the significance of this is (other than a Pal. trying to convert to Judaism to claim a right of return would make a great movie plot -- and if someone uses it -- I want a cut of the gross ;) ), but it is interesting, eh?

Posted by DAS | May 29, 2008 11:28 AM

Matt's on vacation at the beach, and he takes advantage of this opportunity to check up on Marty Peretz's blog.

All I can say is "Oy!"

Posted by peep | May 29, 2008 11:31 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Muslims in the Golan Heights already enjoy Israeli citizenship as well as about a quarter of the Israeli Druze. The Druze that don't are the ones that have refused Israeli citizenship in favor of Syrian citizenship, but have permanant resident status and are permitted liberal trading rights with Syria by the Israeli government. It's speculated that some of the Druze ambivalence about Israeli citizenship is due to how such a move would play out should the Golan Heights eventually change hands but I have no idea how much. There's also rival factions of Pro-Israeli and Pro-Syrian druze but I have no idea what the relative sizes are of each faction.

And regardless of what Martin Peretz has to say on the subject, the Israeli government has entered several negotiations with Syria on transferring of the Golan Heights but negotiations hinge on territory aquired by Israel before 1967.

Posted by CJ | May 29, 2008 11:31 AM

How come other countries were allowed to take appropriate responses to prevent another Holocaust, but Israel, itself created in part created in response to the Holocaust, is not allowed to take those same actions?

Aah, I see. So if we don't let Israel do as it pleases with the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs, then they will all be exterminated. We will have no choice.

Thank you for clarifying your negotiating position.

Posted by Marshall | May 29, 2008 11:33 AM

Why start with the assumption that the Palestinians would convert? You could also convert the Jews and turn the whole area into a fundamentalist crazy's dream.

This talk of conversion as a solution to problems is religious colonialism - far worse than the political kind (and as unacceptable to its proposed practitioners as it would be to its proposed subjects).

Thanks for defining deviancy down. The region's "only democracy" would not be well served by adopting policies that come out of Ferdinand and Isabella's (and Torquemada's) playbook.

Posted by Not DAS | May 29, 2008 11:36 AM

DAS crapped:
"My claim is that either Palestinians are non-native to Israel, that happened to arrive sometime long before 1947 but after Israel's first few go-arounds as a Jewish state or, if they are natives (e.g. Canaanites as some claim), they have been converted to Islam. That general line argument was, of course, somewhat snarky, but I just hate it when people say they've exhausted all posibilities when there is one around, however, ridiculous, that they have not considered ;)"

Or, these Palestinians lived there between 600 ad and 1948.

Posted by rickm | May 29, 2008 11:40 AM

I don't think ethnic cleansing is ever appropriate, by state X or state Y or whoever. I am condemning the idea that Israel do it now because a)we're talking about it, b)you can change the future and not the past, c)the United States and Israel have a uniquely symbiotic relationship, making the United States (and its citizens) unusually involved in Israeli affairs and d)Israel is a robust democratic state, where democratic reforms and the free exchange of ideas can have actual consequences for policy-- unlike in, say, Darfur.

Posted by Freddie | May 29, 2008 11:42 AM

I second Hektor Bim. Peretz was talking about trusting Syria with the Golan and the water supply at the Galil. Peretz, as do many Israelis, do not. As Peretz notes, the Syrians used the Golan to rain artillery down on kibbutzim. It would be insanity to just "give it back", given that there are no obvious human rights issues as there are in the West Bank, without some major concession from Syria, besides being liked.

Yeah but, if that happened again, or of the Syrians used their newly aquired territory to abuse or terrorize their neighbor, wouldn't such a thing be documented by the international community? Israel is a nation with a bad PR problem right now. Giving the territory back, especially on unfavorable terms would go a long way in raising their esteem in international eyes IMO. And if they suffer abuse from Syria in any way because of it, that will lend a little more legitimacy to their insistence that they are the actual victims in all this.

Posted by CJ | May 29, 2008 11:47 AM

DAS -- What the Hell are you saying?

Ethnic cleansing is bad for those people "cleansed". There was a time when statesman advocagted it, and called it the historic "unmixing of peoples". But the people driven out of their homes never advocated being driven out of their homes.

Yes, western morality is different now. Gay marriage, gaining favour. Abortion -- pretty accepted. Ethnic cleansing -- awful. Child soldiers -- no good. And anti-semitism - stinky.

I'm sure that some Liberian warlord could try to argue that he is beng unfairly denied the a benefit that Charlemagne, or Henry the VII was allowed. Or a man who rapes his wife arguing that it's unfair that modern morality dictates marital rape is wrong. It's a 'situational" argument, and its crap.

How come other countries were allowed to take appropriate responses to prevent another Holocaust, but Israel, itself created in part created in response to the Holocaust, is not allowed to take those same actions?

DAS -- What are talking about? How does the eastward shift of Poland's borders, the expansion of Belarus, or the Sudeten border shift help prevent the future murder of Jews?

And how does ethnic cleansing in Jericho of a civilian population by a nuclear-armed state help prevent another Holocaust?

Posted by Ikram | May 29, 2008 11:52 AM

Peretz's argument has been made a million times before. 'Why should Israel have to give back land conquered in defensive wars?' Not as much fun as, 'Why should Israel have to give back land taken from the Palestinians if America doesn't have to give back land taken from the American Indians?'; but the answer to both questions is the same. After WW2, the world agreed 'Never again'. We established international law and a UN treaty that says there will be no more conquests of land. These are the same treaties that established Israel's right to exist. Israel loves these treaties except when Israel deliberately violates their terms. Sorry Israel, but the days of barbarian conquests are over. We have laws now.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 29, 2008 11:56 AM

CJ,

Nu? So what happens then -- Israel gives the territory back. Inevitably, it'd be used as a staging area for rocket attacks. Israel would reconquer the area and likely the Israeli response would be deemed "disproportional". Even if not, Israel would hold on to the Golan for a decade or two and then everyone would be calling for Israel to give it back ...

*

Freddie,

If ethnic cleansing is so wrong, where's the UN resolutions against the Benes decrease (vide supra)? Well, you might argue, the past is past and central Europe is relatively peaceful (in part because of said decrees). But why is that? Because maybe Germany (because the US occupiers of Bavaria forced them to do so) took in the refugees, like Israel took in refugees, India did, Pakistan did, but the Arab world did not? How can Israel be blamed for that?

Yet, other people are benefitting from doing the same things Israel is condemned for doing. If you don't see how that is wildly unfair ...

Posted by DAS | May 29, 2008 11:56 AM

If ethnic cleansing is so wrong,

Sure, this person is worth talking to.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 29, 2008 12:00 PM

"How can Israel be blamed for that?"

Um, because they are the ones who created the refugee problem by kicking people out of their homes by force.

Posted by rickm | May 29, 2008 12:02 PM

but the anti-Zionist left actually needs to make the case as to why these transfers, done throughout history, suddenly become wrong when it's Israel's turn to do them.

First of all, I do get the sense that it is not only the "anti-Zionist left" that would be against Israel repelling all Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza. I'm pretty sure that even in Israel that would be a fringe position.

Second of all, it's not as if all Western powers thought ethnic cleansing was fine and dandy until Israel came along. The U.S., France and the UK did not ethnically cleanse and annex any part of Germany or Japan. They accepted what happened in Poland and in Czechoslovakia, but only grudgingly, and mainly because it was the prize Stalin had demanded. And nowadays, it is basically consensus in the West and maybe even in the countries themselves that what happened was at least morally wrong, if (in the case of Czechoslovakia) understandable in the immediate aftermath of World War II.

I agree that Israel is oftentimes treated unfairly. But as for ethnic cleansing: If Israel wants material as well as moral support from the West (as part of which it sees itself), than it has to accept that it is held to higher moral standard then the butcher Stalin. And I think the vast majority of Israelis, in fact, does accept that, because these values are theirs, too.

Posted by Patrick | May 29, 2008 12:13 PM

Yet, other people are benefitting from doing the same things Israel is condemned for doing. If you don't see how that is wildly unfair ...

Here's my question. There were other pogroms and mass exterminations prior to the Holocaust, right? So why was it okay for the Allied powers to take such a heavy stance against the Holocaust? Wasn't that wildly unfair, according to your own logic?

Posted by Freddie | May 29, 2008 1:35 PM

Patrick - Italy lost Fiume, Istria, and the hinterland of Trieste after World War II. These were given to Yugoslavia, and now form part of Slovenia and (mostly) Croatia.

As to Peretz, he seems to be describing the origins of the 1967 war in a somewhat misleading fashion. The war was not an unprovoked Arab aggression against Israel. It began as a provoked Israeli aggression against Egypt. The Israelis, I think, had decent reasons for launching a pre-emptive attack on the Egyptians, whom they thought were going to attack them if they did not do so first, but the question of who was the aggressor in that war is more complicated than a simple story of Arab aggression.

That being said, Peretz does seem to be specifically referring to the Golan, rather than the West Bank (he's unclear about what his position is regarding the latter), and I don't think that position is inherently unreasonable. Annexation of land by one state from another after a successful war has been occurring for all of recorded history. It hasn't happened as much recently (the UN Charter tends to forbid it), but both the Pakistanis and the Chinese have de facto annexed land from India without anyone except them caring very much.

It seems to me that the Golan Heights are basically an issue between Israel and Syria, for them to solve (or not solve) however they see fit. It would be ideal for them to come to some kind of arrangement that would allow them to have peace and normal relations, but I don't see any especial reason to prefer, a priori that that arrangement involve Israel giving back the Golan Heights.

The only issue is that it's hard to see what other carrots the Israelis have to offer the Syrians in exchange for peace. What else do the Syrians want that Israel can give them? Could any Syrian government even survive a peace with Israel if it didn't involve recovering the Golan?

There are obviously some problems with the idea of Israel giving back the Golan. Most notably, it would mean that Israel is paying its price (giving back the Golan) all at once, and would no longer have any bargaining power, while the Syrians could at any moment renege on their side of the bargain (whatever that is. Not supporting Hamas would probably be a big part of it.) I do think that Syria would have to be incredibly stupid to start shooting missiles at northern Israel if they got back the Golan. Does Syria really want to go through all the trouble of negotiating a peace with Israel and getting back the Golan solely in order to immediately provoke a new war with Israel and get it taken away from them again? I can't even begin to imagine why they would do such a thing.

Posted by John | May 29, 2008 1:41 PM

"Annexation of land by one state from another after a successful war has been occurring for all of recorded history" and the annexation of the people always came with it. In the pre-modern world, it's pretty easy to see why: when all labor is by hand, you're going to need all the hands you can get (this is why the New World supported such a florishing slave trade).

Only in the 20th century, with its machines and better nutrition, did it become an attractive idea to get rid of the conquered land's laboring classes.

Posted by Diana | May 29, 2008 2:27 PM

Good lord Matt, don't they teach reading comprehension at Harvard? Peretz has made plenty of awful statements; there's really no need to invent them.

Posted by Gator90 | May 29, 2008 2:42 PM

nearly all territories lost by the Axis Powers where either simply loot or colonies, not bases which had to be taken from them to prevent another war.

Kaliningrad (ex-Königsberg) is an obvious exception, and possibly the weirdest bit of Europe today -- a Russian enclave now entirely surrounded by EU members. But the de-Germanisation of cities like Danzig / Gdansk and the loss of a long-established German mercantile class in cities like Prague, Budapest and Vilnius was a kind of ethnic collective punishment.

As for Peretz, he's too stupid to consider that post-war territorial reapportionment to punish belligerents was considered a neat-o idea in 1918.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 29, 2008 4:33 PM

"We established international law and a UN treaty that says there will be no more conquests of land. These are the same treaties that established Israel's right to exist."

Actually, none of those treaties establish Israel's "right to exist". Israel has no "right to exist". The UN's own commission set up to study the point declared that the UN had no legal right to partition Palestine as it did. The UN had only the legal right to execute the Palestine Mandate and set up a home of the Jews as long as it did not interfere in any way with the rights of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine.

That was not done. The UN set aside the legal opinion of its own commission because it was concerned over the violence between the parties and because Britain declared it would wash its hands of the matter. There was also the PR issue of the Holocaust which influenced matters.

The best approach today to dealing with the matter in a legal way would be to review and repudiate the UN decisions of 1947, revoke Israel's "right to exist" as a Jewish state, and re-establish and execute the original Palestine Mandate.

This would require abolishing the STATE of Israel, establishing a state of Palestine, with a constitution guaranteeing equal civil and religious rights for both Palestinians and Jews and all other minorities, establishing the borders of Palestine vis-a-vis the surrounding nations, and guaranteeing the new state's territorial integrity via the UN as long as it engaged in no aggressive actions against its neighbors.

All Palestinian and Jewish citizens would have equal voting rights and all formed political parties could stand for election in the Palestinian government.

The settlements would no longer be relevant since all of that territory would now be as much Palestinian as Jewish. Claims against previous Israeli seizure of Palestinian property could be handled in the courts as a civil matter.

Naturally there would be a complete right of return for all displaced Palestinians. However, again, compensation or return of properties would be handled in the courts. It would probably be another generation before that was settled out.

Anybody who thinks this setup wouldn't work is basically saying either the Palestinians or the Jews have to go. There is no third alternative. The "two-state" solution is no solution, since the Palestinians get by far the short end of the stick, even if many Palestinians and Israelis would like to accept that just to end the occupation.

As the ground stands today, there is no way a Palestinian "state" can be made to function effectively. The only thing establishing such a "fake state" would achieve is to allow the Zionists to consider any friction with the Palestinians a legitimate "act of war" since the Palestinians would have a "state" to blame. Thus the two "states" would be in a constant state of war, with Israel thus able to justify essentially exterminating the Palestinians militarily - something they cannot do as "occupiers".

There is no possible way a "two-state" solution can work, given that Zionist freaks are running the Israeli state. Only the abolishment of the Israeli state and the establishment of a bi-national state can even theoretically possibly work - and I agree, the odds aren't good even then.

This is what happens when you make a "fundamental" mistake - such as allowing Israel to exist in the first place. Some mistakes cannot be corrected - only endured - or cut out by "major surgery." So either you believe a bi-national state can work or you believe one party or the other has to go - one way or the other.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 29, 2008 9:42 PM

Italy lost Fiume, Istria, and the hinterland of Trieste after World War II. These were given to Yugoslavia, and now form part of Slovenia and (mostly) Croatia.

For the most part, these territories were not ethnically Italian, and were themselves loot from World War I. And, again, what is 100% certain is that these territories were not taken from Italy to prevent her from invading Yugoslavia.

I simply do not get Peretz's point here. He is mixing up two rationales for annexation: security (for which Golan would be a good example) and restribution against an agressor (for which the German territories given to Poland would be an example except for the fact that they were compensation for the annexation of eastern Poland by Stalin and thus an example of looting by proxy).

Posted by Patrick | May 30, 2008 7:57 AM