IN HIS Nov. 30 op-ed column "The UN's obsession with demonizing Israel," Jeff Jacoby correctly exposes the double standard applied to Israel at the United Nations. However, when he complains about the lack of moral outrage today, he omits an important fact.
Israeli settlements in the West Bank have greatly increased since 1977 when the Likud Party came to power; the expansion continues today, even in the midst of peace negotiations. Many around the world, including a number of Israelis, believe these settlements are illegal under international law because they involve a population transfer without affording full citizenship to the original occupants. The settlement policy in no way justifies Israel's treatment at the UN, but it weakens the moral authority of Israel's supporters and opens the door to claims of apartheid. Voicing moral outrage was easy prior to 1977; the settlement policy has made it far more complicated.
Well, I quickly upped this comment there:-
Ellen should know that the claim of illegality undermines the moral authority of anyone who claims what she does. Should some Israelis begin terming Arab towns and villages and cities as "settlements" and then suggest that if all Jews have to move out of their homes in Judea and Samaria, why not then all Arabs move out of Israel and into the "Palestinian" state that is to arise? That, of course, would not be moral even if some presume it to be equal to what is being asked of Israel but it does highlight a problem: Judea and Samaria are undoubtedly areas of the original Jewish homeland but politics decreed otherwise. If we depend on politics and the misfortunes of history, maybe the scenarios I sketched out above could come about, illegal, legal, or elsewhile. Would that be moral?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment