The morality of ethnic cleansing

Do you think that it is morally acceptable for one group of people to
physically replace another in a given territory? Think about it carefully
before answering, because you can't have it both ways, either it is or it is
not morally acceptable for one group to supplant another, either as a result
of war, genocide or any other means. Those who oppose Israel's "occupation"
of "Arab Lands" often do so from a moralistic position.
If you said no, that it is NOT morally acceptable, then you have a problem,
because most of the countries in the world came about by one group defeating
and supplanting another. For example, the British defeated the Indians (or
indigenous Americans) and the French during the 17-18th centuries, and took
over North America, eventually constituting two countries, the USA and
Canada. Whatever differences there might have been between the USA and
Britain then, have been smoothed over since, and there is no doubt that the
Anglo-American alliance practically rules the world, to the chagrin of the
French (the Indians, many of whom were massacred, ceased to be a factor long
ago). If this take-over was immoral then the self-righteous English or
their successors should renounce their conquests and give back the lands to
the original inhabitants. Legal claims for the restoration of stolen lands
are still proceeding in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Another example, the Muslim Arabs conquered the Byzantine Empire in the
Middle East around the seventh-eighth centuries and essentially forcibly
converted its inhabitants to Islam. Those Jews and Christians who were not
converted and survived became second class citizens, first of the Arab
Empires and then of the succeeding Turkish Empire. If you think it was
immoral for them to do this, then you must believe that they should return
these lands to their original Jewish and Christian inhabitants. History
shows us that the large Jewish population in the Holy Land was decimated
both by the Byzantines and later and more effectively by the Arabs, and that
this was a deliberate policy to de-populate the area of Jews so that the
Arab claim would be uncontested.
We recently visited the area around Modi'in where the Macabees (Hasmoneans),
the leaders of the Jewish Revolt that is celebrated as Hanukkah, lived.
Around this region there are many Jewish sites, about 20 were discovered
during the construction of Route 6 that dissects the region. But, at the
time of the Macabees the enemy was the Syrian Greeks, no Muslims came on the
scene until nearly a thousand years later. Yet they claim this land.
We could go on with such examples for ever, including the many wars that led
to the drawing of borders between European countries in the 18-20th
centuries, which often divided ethnic groups. For example,
Schleswig-Holstein, was part of Denmark, it was occupied by the far stronger
German Army in the mid-1800's, and after many years of fighting over it, a
plebiscite was held there, but the Germans had already re-settled a majority
of their people in SH, and so they got the result they wanted, the
inhabitants voted to remain part of Germany. In fact, the Geneva
Conventions, that are supposed to control relations between states were
promulgated initially to precisely prevent these kinds of manipulations. Yet
SH is still part of Germany.
The Israel Government is about to carry out an unprecedented moral act, to
withdraw voluntarily from a (partially) occupied area (20% of Gaza, agreed
to in the Oslo Accords), over which it has a legitimate claim, since in the
time of the Macabees the Land of Israel included Gaza (as well as the Golan
and part of Jordan). Also, some of the settlements in Gaza were owned by
Jews in the 1930s, well before the concept of a Palestinian people took
hold. Why is it that Israel is prepared to do this? Because we shrink from
the obvious solution, that which all the other countries of the world have
used, of what is now known as "ethnic cleansing," and we have the belief
(illusion?) that this withdrawal should lead to peace.
Now we come to the opposite possibility, namely that it IS morally
acceptable for one group to supplant another as shown above, at least that
is the reality by which the world has been governed. But, note that we are
not talking about pragmatics, but morality, which presumably is not relative
and should not change with time or circumstances. Now suppose you think
that it is moral for this kind of process to occur, then you have a problem.
For example, Yugoslavia, where each of the three ethnic groups Orthodox
Serbs, Catholic Croatians and Muslim Bosnians massacred each other with
abandon, until NATO stepped in, ended the fighting and forced them to accept
a division of Yugoslavia.
So the situation is that the world to a large extent, having evolved through
precisely these kind of immoral take-overs of other's lands, now wants to
impose a higher order of morality, that tries to prevent any further such
supplantings. This is considered to be progress. The instrument for
accomplishing this is mainly the UN, which enshrines the principle of no
territorial gains by force, even though every one of the countries
represented got that way by precisely this means.
Not only that, the UN is hardly a moral force in world affairs. Its
interference in recent conflicts, in Rwanda, Somalia and Yugoslavia, have
been abject failures, its personnel have been involved in permitting
massacres (e.g. Srebrenice) and in carrying out sexual and other abuses
against local populations (e.g. Congo) and the UN is currently embroiled in
a massive b$20 financial scandal of the Iraqi "oil for food" program. In
fact, there are now calls from the US Congress for Secty. Gen. Kofi Annan to
resign. A few weeks ago two UN committees met in adjacent rooms, one
committee could not come to a vote on whether or not to denounce Sudan for
the murder of in excess of 50,000 Blacks in Darfur, while the other
Committee passed six resolutions censuring Israel for among other things
"occupying Arab Land." Is this a fit organization to legislate the morality
of the world?
I leave you with this thought, if Israel does withdraw/disengage from Gaza,
and the daily rocket attacks on Israel continue (6 Israelis were injured
yesterday) and the terrorism continues, what then? To those who say that you
can't reverse history I say that you can't stop it either.