In 1947, just days before the UN vote to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, an Egyptian leader named Mohammed Hussein Heykal Pasha spoke out against the idea at a UN committe meeting at Lake Success.
His argument against a Jewish state was simple.
There are a million Jews spread throughout the Middle East. it is not our humanitarian duty and your duty on behalf of the Jewish people to place in serious danger a million Jews just to save a few thousand in Europe or to satisfy a Zionist dream.
You are unconsciously on the verge of lighting the flame of anti-semitism in the Middle East, which would be more difficult to extinguish than it was in Germany. At present we regard the million Jews in our countries as brothers – your decision would prompt some of our people to regard them as enemies. I warn you of this while there is still time.”
This little speech is interesting because it uses an argument that has been used by Israel’s enemies for years. The argument is twofold: if Jews get what they want, there will be murderous consequences–and the West will be responsible for those consequences because the Arabs will not be able to stop them from happening.
Notice how Heykal couched his threat against a million Jews. He used human rights terminology! He argued, on humanitarian grounds, that a Jewish state would cause Jews to die. The small fact that it would be Arabs killing the Jews is of little moral consequence, as the corollary to the argument is that Arabs cannot control themselves from acting violently.
There have been variations, but this has been the argument that has been used against Israel for over six decades. Arabs cannot control themselves from killing Jews, therefore Jews must vacate areas that Arabs don’t want them to go.
Today’s version of the argument is that Jews cannot live in the West Bank or much of Jerusalem because the Arab world cannot tolerate them there. It is regarded–by the Arabs themselves when they formulate this line of reasoning–as an inherent part of the Arab psyche. The only way to peace, they say, is by barring Jews from places like Hebron, Shiloh, Bet El, Shechem, Bethlehem, and much of Jerusalem.
In this topsy-turvy worldview, peace is dependent on ethnic cleansing of Jews.
In any other context, ethnic cleansing is considered a war crime. Only in the territories is it considered a prerequisite for peace.
In any other place in the world, a divided city is considered a tragedy. Only in Jerusalem is it considered a necessity for peace.
And why do these inherently immoral things lead to peace? Because if the Jews are not banned from the cities of their heritage, the Arabs–will start a war!
Over the decades, what was easily seen as a crazy perversion of morality has gained universal acceptance among people who otherwise are proud to support human rights. The Jewish rights of self-determination and to live in the land of their forefathers morphed from an admirable ideal into a virtual crime.
There are a number of reasons for this. For one, the idea of war has changed. Not too long ago, while war was considered something to be avoided as much as possible, it was nevertheless seen as a necessary evil to forestall something worse. Now, war is considered something to be avoided at virtually all costs. The mere threat of war is enough to get people to be willing to support immoral actions, considering them better than the alternative.
Another reason is the same logic that the Arab world has used since the 1920s. They promote the idea that Arabs are inherently unpredictable and illogical, prone to doing crazy things if they do not get their way. Jews, on the other hand, have a reputation that is quite the opposite–they are logical and coolheaded, who can be reasoned with. Logical people can compromise; crazy people cannot. It is much easier to pressure the logical people.
A third reason is closely related to the second. In the 1970s, the Arabs made it clear that their disregard for human life was not only toward their Middle Eastern enemies, but against anyone in the world that they disagreed with. Modern terrorism was born. Western nations, given the choice of siding with a large, unpredictable and dangerous enemy or a small nation that poses no threat, naturally go for self-preservation–and then justify that choice with a litany of excuses paradoxically invoking human rights, inverting the people who truly want peace into the warmongers and the people who threaten the entire free world into the victims who deserve what they demand.
An organized crime mentality has taken hold. The world is paying protection money to Palestinian Arabs to try to stop them from going back to their days of terrorizing the world.
Of course, latent anti-Semitism has contributed in no small part to to this weird Bizarro world we now live in.
This, in a nutshell, is how we came to the situation today where the people who yearn most for peace and security in their tiny corner of the planet are the most universally reviled people in the world, and their mortal enemies are the moral underdogs. The sad fact is that most people cannot even recognize that they have been brainwashed so thoroughly into supporting the ethnic cleansers – and use the comforting words of “human rights” to justify it.