Trending
To the editor:
Ms. Joan Loewen's letter of May 19 calls for these letters to the editors to be based on facts, rather than opinions, even though a purpose of opinion is to argue the truth of a fact, e.g., the size of Trump's crowds, or the attributes of a fact, e.g., the morality of bombing Hiroshima. Reporting the fact itself, telling us that Hiroshima was bombed, is not interesting.
She, in fact, proposes opinion on several questions, when she says, "People of good conscience may argue about Israel's moral position in denying Palestinians a homeland. Opinion may also differ about who the terrorists are," in the current conflict.
These statements are code words for what Ms. Loewen believes, that the Israelis are terrorists whose occupation of Israel is immoral. I consider myself a person of good conscience, so let me argue.
Whose homeland is Palestine, anyway? The Bible says that Canaan was occupied by Jewish tribes, although it must have been a Canaanite homeland before that. The Muslims overtook it by force in the 7th Century, from people who had taken it from the Jews before that. Was that immoral? The territory has been fought over for millenia, but let's consider recent history.
Before the First World War, Palestine was Turkish territory, not Palestinian territory. Turkey was an ally of Germany in the war, and when those countries lost the war, Palestine came under British control. The British eventually established homeland territory for the Jews in Palestine, after years of deliberation based on the geopolitical interest in the territory.
Chaim Weizmann, the leader of the Zionist movement, was crucial to that decision: he was a chemist, and during the war, he had given the British his method of acetone production to vastly improve the cordite explosive propellants used in British artillery. When asked what he wanted in exchange for his contribution to the war effort, he replied, "I want a homeland for my people." The British ultimately gave it to him. So, perhaps if you wish to be technically correct, the Jews did not take over Israeli from the Palestinians; the British did, and gave it to the Jews. Was that a moral transaction?
Let me recall another transaction, between the U.S. and France. Napoleon needed money and he didn't need what was known as Louisiana, his half of North America, so he entered into a sales contract with the U.S. for the territory for $15 million, transferring control of the homeland of the Native Americans to the U.S., who subsequently barred the use of most of that territory to its traditional occupants. Was that a moral transaction?
On Ms. Loewen's second question, "Are the Israelis the terrorists?" I invite her to provide facts that will support that opinion, in her next letter. (She likes facts.)
One factor that sometimes rankles people is that the Jews are the ones who benefit from their position in Palestine. I suspect that if the British, in a gesture of goodwill following their victory in the First World War, had simply returned Palestine to the Turks, the status of Palestine would have been of little interest to many people.
John Brittain
Lewistown