I would have to agree. Has anyone noticed the deafening silence in the “liberal blogesphere”, regarding Ariel Sharon basically telling Bush to f**k off, at their press conference in Texas, Monday?

Geez, even the AP ran with headlines like, “Sharon Dismisses Bush on Settlement Expansion”.

Tibet Autonomous Region and other ethnic Tibetan areas

A series of releases of high-profile Tibetan prisoners of conscience during 2002 was not maintained in 2003, and freedom of religion, association and expression continued to be severely restricted. Contacts between the Chinese authorities and representatives of the Tibetan government in exile apparently failed to result in any significant policy changes. Over 100 Tibetans, mainly Buddhist monks and nuns, continued to be imprisoned in violation of their fundamental human rights, and arbitrary arrests and unfair trials continued.

• Choedar Dargye, Gedun Thogphel and Jampa Choephel, three monks from Khangmar monastery, Ngaba prefecture, Sichuan province, were tried in August. They had been arrested for distributing material calling for independence for Tibet, painting a Tibetan flag and possessing photographs of the Dalai Lama. They were sentenced to 12 years in prison. Three others were arrested in connection with the same case. Some sources indicated that they had been sentenced to between one and eight years in prison. One of the three, Jamyang Oezer, was reported to be seriously ill in hospital.
  

I don’t see anything even close to the occupied territories. No shooting of civilians and children, no checkpoints, no walls, no random settler violence, no destroying houses and orchards, no assassinations. Tibetans who live in Tibet are citizens of China. Yes, separatist movement is suppressed.—————————————I don’t think this is hypocrisy. The government of Israel is controlled by Westerners, Ashkenazi Jews. They are a product of the Western civilization, European culture. When some Hutus massacre some Tutsis in Africa, we can only guess what cultural/socioeconomic clashes are at work there, but when Westerners with tanks, missiles and fighter jets start wrapping local villages into barbed-wire – we know exactly what’s going on there and react accordingly.

I guess we just fundamentally disagree. Tibet effectively is under military occupation if you are ethnic Tibetan, and it is worse in East Turkestan (Xinjiang). I don’t think you actually know what is going on in China, frankly.

It is nice to see you admitting hypocrisy. “Enlightened Europeans” indeed. Israel isn’t in Europe, so I don’t see how Israelis can be Europeans, especially when the majority of them don’t even have European roots.

The issue of state legitimacy of Israel is linked to the facts of 1948.

The ethnic cleansing in 1948 is just as historical an injustice as the annexation of East-Jerusalem and the building of Ma’aleh Adumim.

The obvious observations are that the states that recognize Israel do that regardless of what happened in 1948, and that in the states that don’t recognize Israel the events surrounding 1948 do play a role.

As for the legitimacy of the border of Israel, the only relevant states are those that recognize Israel. And those countries, almost exclusively, don’t recognize the expansion after 1967.

Now people arguing about these issues can pick and choose, and if they base their opinion of the legitimacy of Israel on the border issue, that may be disingenious, but your argument that it is disingenious because the ethnic cleansing is historic injustice and, for example, the annexation of Jerusalem is not, is, well, strange.

Another obvious observation is that the state of Israel exists, is recognized by the UN and all relevant bodies, and therefore an opinion of an individual about it’s legitimacy is mostly irrelevant, except as to have an opinion about those states that don’t recognize Israel.

Undoubtedly you can get a clearer picture of these issues by following one of those IR courses that once were the subject of this discussion, whether they have a ‘zionist bent’ or not.

Well, not immediately and not entirely, but I agree that this would solve the problem for all practical purposes. It’s pretty clear at this point that any final-status agreement would have to involve exactly what you suggest: fair compensation for the refugees, and a withdrawal to either the 1967 borders or a modified border based on a dunam-for-dunam land swap. Thus far, I agree with you completely.

The thing is that none of this should affect the current legitimacy of Israel’s existence within the 1967 borders – that would be a bit like arguing that the occupation of Tibet undermines the legitimacy of China. The occupation of the WB and Gaza is an existing and continuing injustice that must be remedied in the present. The ethnic cleansing of 1948 was a historic injustice, but the resulting existence of Israel requires no continuing injustice to maintain, any more than the current existence of the United States derives from its foundational injustice. Therefore, Israel within the Green Line is as legitimate a state as the United States.

Keep in mind that I’m talking only about the issue of state legitimacy. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to (1) argue that the ethnic cleansing of 1948 was morally wrong, (2) criticize anyone who would deny or defend such cleansing, and (3) argue that Israel should make amends. But arguing that the events of 1948 somehow render Israel an illegitimate state from its inception – which is an argument you’re not necessarily making, but many people do – is disingenuous in light of the processes that usually attend the formation of states.

There have not really been compensations in Cyprus, and the issue is essentially unresolved. Turkey also suffers almost nothing, at least so far.

I don’t support a statute of limitations, but that is in fact what we have now. In most cases, if you expel a bunch of people, plunder their property, and hold on to it for a while, then in fact you do get away with it. Most recently, the Czech government got away with it while entering the EU.

I am against ethnic cleansing period. When restoration of property rights is for some reason impossible, then I support reparations or at least some mechanism to support people’s lives.

What I don’t support is the ridiculous idea that only some refugees are worthy of support. Why are Germans automatically bad and Palestinians automatically good, for example?

You still don’t get it. Israel is a state, formed like other states, and is thus just as legitimate a state as they are. I see no reason to single it out as uniquely delinquent or uniquely praiseworthy. If you do see some reason to do so, why don’t you make that clear?

So, what do you suggest – some kind of a statute of limitations? Like, if you, say, expel a bunch of people, plunder their property and managed to hold on to it fora few yeas – then it should be all forgotten?

Well, talking about hypocrisy: what about Germany and other European countries paying compensation to the holocaust survivors – are you opposed to that too? And, by the way, was the holocaust a terrible crime against humanity or just a regrettable episode of ‘state formation’?

For example, China continues to occupy Tibet, East Turkestan, and Outer Mongolia and has extremely harsh practices there, including ethnic cleansing. Are you willing to boycott all interactions with Chinese academics?

How about Burma, where slave labor is commonplace and government policy is to destroy troublesome ethnic minorities where possible?

Turkey occupies parts of Cyprus and has expelled the previous owners from their homes – are you going to force Turkey to pay restitution to the people expelled from Northern Cyprus?

How about compensation for the Germans expelled from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and what is now Kaliningrad?

Some amount of hypocrisy in international relations is unavoidable, but I think people should be clear about why they are engaging in it.

Sort of like a robber baron disapproving of theft, no? The reason why the core Western countries don’t do ethnic cleansing any more is because their process of state formation is already complete. Countries on the margins of the West – e.g., Armenia and Turkey – still do it.

So what? What exactly are you trying to say?

Again, I’m not Hektor, but his argument seems pretty clear: given the frequency with which ethnic cleansing accompanies modern state formation, it is disingenuous to single out one state as illegitimate becaust its formation process involved ethnic cleansing. It’s perfectly fine to criticize that state for its crimes and to demand that it make amends, but not to question its legitimacy on that ground unless you’re prepared to make the same argument with respect to other similarly situated countries.

Both of the choices you present as stories or versions are incomplete. Since I don’t agree with either one, I don’t see myself as admitting the “Palestinian” version or “modern political Zionism” version as correct. So stop commending me for things I don’t say.

For example: there was obviously ethnic cleansing in 1948 by Israeli actors, but it wasn’t total or necessarily undertaken by all parts of the government.

In addition, many of the Jewish Israelis were from Europe, but many just happened to already live there, and many of them settled by buying land, not forcing people out. Of course, many people were driven out also – there were many people expelled from Haifa for example.

So these simplistic views of the historical process might make you feel good, but they are not accurate.

More importantly, once one knows the historical record, one has to decide what to do about it. That’s why jroth’s comments were interesting.

For example, did you know that the UK still refuses to apologize for the ethnic cleansing of the Acadians from Canada? Ditto for the Potato Famine.

Finally, ethnic cleansing is not at all unusual for the post World War II environment.

Let’s see, I’ll just list some examples, which by no means are complete:

Central America – widespread violence against Mayan villagers and destruction of their homes
Turkey – widespread destruction of Kurdish villages and their expulsion to other parts of Turkey and surrounding countries (Syria, Iran, etc.)
Iraq – ethnic cleansing of Kurds, Turkmen, and Marsh Arabs
Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo – widespread ethnic cleansing
Germans – expelled from most parts of Central and Eastern Europe, notable examples include Czechosovakia (Benes decrees), East Prussia (in almost complete totality), and what is now western parts of Poland
Poles – expelled from prewar eastern Poland and resettled in former German residences
Estonians – a tenth of the population shipped to Siberia (smaller amounts for the other Baltic states)
Finland – ethnic Finns expelled to Finland from the parts conquered by the Soviet Union
Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Volga Germans – all shipped to Central Asia and not allowed to return for years
Japanese – expelled from the Kuriles following WWII and also from Korea
Koreans – expelled from Japan and the Soviet Far East
Burma – Karens and other ethnic groups expelled
Tibetans – expelled from China to India
Uighers – expelled from China to Central Asia
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh – massive ethnic cleansing that continues at a low level today: Hindus in Kashmir and Bangladesh, Muslims in Gujarat
Armenia and Azerbaijan – massive ethnic cleansing
Sudan, Congo, Rwanda and Burundi – massive ethnic cleansing

etcetera, etcetera.

Ethnic cleansing is not at all uncommon. In fact it is fairly typical for emerging states. In fact, a good rule of thumb is if the British had a colony somewhere, its independence will produce ethnic cleansing: see Israel, India, Burma, Nigeria, South Africa, Zimbabwe, etc.

Bhutan too – the transformation into a modern nation-state was accompanied by mass expulsion of ethnic Nepalis.