In a case of timing so bad that it would seem close to unbelievable (not that any time would be good for this), the Netanyahu government has announced its intent to convert 1,000 acres of land on the West Bank into 'state land' (here).
The linked Wash. Post story has generated a torrent of comments, which at a glance appear to be mostly negative, not surprisingly. One somewhat history-challenged commenter insists the 19th-cent. U.S. doctrine of 'manifest destiny' is to blame for the current situation in the Mideast. Why? Well, according to this commenter the Zionist movement at the turn of the twentieth century must have taken its cue from the U.S.'s westward expansion and the concomitant displacement, resettling, brutalization, killing etc. of Native Americans. I asked this person if there is any evidence that Herzl or the other early Zionists were even aware of the phrase 'manifest destiny' or anything in detail about the U.S.'s westward expansion. (I'd be surprised if there were such evidence, though I'm not sure.) Anyway, drawing a straight line from the Trail of Tears to the displacement of Palestinians in the 1948 war and subsequently strikes me as -- how shall I put it? -- tenuous. (As if Israeli soldiers in 1948, when asked for their heroes, would have answered: "why, Andrew Jackson, of course.")
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
I don't know about the inspiration for the 48-56 round of Israeli "ethnic cleansing" (resumed after 67), but I think it reasonable to assume it was informed by the general attitudes of the time, which provided a range of justifications for settler colonialism (racial, religious, darwinian...). The Nazi program in the east quite explicitly drew on manifest destiny for its aspirations and methods, with copies of westerns distributed to the wehrmacht.
@Peter T
This is not a period I know a huge amount about, but I'm not sure many Israelis in '48 and after saw themselves as "settler colonialists." The ]48 war, after all, though it did result in the displacement of a large # of Palestinians, was seen as a war of survival by the Israelis, inasmuch as the new country was invaded by neighboring states that refused to accept the UN vote bringing it into existence. A war of nat'l survival does not sit easily w a "war of ethnic cleansing," even though ethnic displacement was one of its results.
It just seemed to me that the analogy I criticize in the OP is a bit strained: not bec. the 2 situations were *completely* dissimilar but b.c
I don't think most Israelis were thinking orig. about expanding beyond the 1948 borders. If in some alternative universe the neighboring Arab states had imm. accepted Israel's existence w-in the '48 borders, presumably those wd still be the borders of the state today. However, as I said, this is not a subject on which I can claim any particular expertise.
p.s. I have just read something on C. Robin's blog that pertains to this issue. I thus may have more to say about it later.
I can't claim a detailed knowledge, but first, few think of themselves as "settler colonialists". It's more 'we are entitled to this patch of land because (insert justification here) and the present inhabitants are not. And the official line for most recent wars is that they are wars of survival. I have seen some good documented history that the Israeli leadership in 48 had no intention of accepting the UN boundaries (which were in any case drawn to favour the Jewish side - eg in awarding them the Negev). And the campaign of ethnic cleansing started well before the Arab states invaded - there were some hundreds of thousands of Palestinians forced into flight in the six months between the declaration of Israel and the invasion. And the campaign to rid Israel of Palestinians continued for some years after 48.
Anyway, point is that the Israeli actions fit within the general mentality of the time as far as attitudes to indigenous populations go.
"there were some hundreds of thousands of Palestinians forced into flight in the six months between the declaration of Israel and the invasion"
On what grounds? Presumably the Israelis, if they deliberately forced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians out at a time when the country was not yet under actual attack, had to produce some justification, beyond the "UN has now said this is our country." B/c the UN resolution establishing the state presumably did not say that the Israelis were now free to expel all existing inhabitants. I say "presumably" b/c I don't have time to research this right now.
You might have a look at this account:
http://www.juancole.com/2014/09/palestine-outnumbered-palestinian.html
Thks for the J. Cole link. (I've been looking just now at an old bk I happen to have on the shelf, Nadav Safran's 'From War to War' (1969), which is interesting, but I shd look at something more recent.)
P.s. I think you meant "the six months betw the partition vote and the invasion."
UN partition vote was Nov. '47.
Proclamation of the est. of the state was May 15, '48. Invasion followed immediately thereafter.
Post a Comment