|
 olin
Powell, in a sudden leap onto the PLO "refugee suffering"
bandwagon, has come out for some kind of solution for the Palestinian
refugees. The only problem? He thinks this is somehow the responsibility
of Israel.
He might be
better off looking at the U.S. model of solving refugee problems.
Consider the
following: When the War of Independence began, it quickly assumed
the nature of a civil war. Those opposing the declaration of statehood
fought alongside the organized armies of their kinsmen, which invaded
the territory of the infant state from all directions. The fighting
was bloody, and the opponents of independence used terrorism against
the population defending statehood. The country was partitioned
between the areas of the new state and those territories still under
the rule of the foreign invaders. As the fighting dragged on, the
opponents of independence began a mass exodus. In most cases, they
left because they feared the consequences of staying on as a political
minority — or because they simply opposed the new political
entity on principle. In some cases, they refused to live as a religious
minority under the rule of those practicing an alien religion. And,
in some cases, they were expelled forcibly. They fled across the
frontiers, moving their families to live in the areas controlled
by the armies of their political kin. From there, some joined the
invading forces and launched cross-border raids and terrorist atrocities.
When the fighting ceased, most of the refugees who had fled from
the new state were refused permission to return.
The previous
paragraph is not about the Palestinians. The events described
did not transpire in 1947-49, but rather in 1775-1781; and the refugees
in question were not Arabs, but Tory "loyalists" who supported
the British against the American revolutionists seeking independence.
During the American War of Independence, large numbers of loyalist
refugees fled the new country. Estimates of the numbers vary, but
perhaps 100,000 refugees left or were expelled — a very significant
number given the sparse population of the 13 colonies.
While there
are many differences, there are also many similarities between the
plight of the Palestinians and that of the Tory refugees during
the first years of American independence. The advocates of Palestinian
refugee rights, now led by Colin Powell, are in fact clearly in
the same political bed as were King George's allies, who fought
against America democracy and independence.
Like all wars
of independence, both Israel's and America's were in fact civil
wars. In both cases, religious sectarianism played an important
role in defining the opposing forces, although for the Americans,
taxation was even more important. (Israelis suffered under abominable
taxation only after independence.) One cause of the American
revolution was the attempt to establish the Anglican Church, or
Church of England, as the official bishopric of the colonies. Anglicans
were the largest ethnic group opposing independence — as were
Palestinian Muslims — although in both cases, other religious
and ethnic groups were also represented in the anti-independence
movement.
Those fearing
the possibility of being forced to live as minorities under the
tyrannical religious supremacy of the Anglicans and Muslims, respectively,
formed the forces fighting for independence. The Anglicans and Palestinian
Muslims hoped to establish themselves with the armed support of
their coreligionists across the borders. New England was the center
of patriotism largely because of the mistrust felt toward the Anglican
Church by the Puritan and Congregationalist majorities there. And
the later incorporation into the Constitution of the separation
of church and state was largely motivated by the memory of Anglican
would-be establishmentarianism. Among the leaders of the Tory cause
were many Anglican parsons, perhaps the most prominent being one
Samuel Seabury, the loyalists' Arafat.
In both wars,
the anti-independence forces were a divided and heterogeneous population,
and for this reason lost the war. In the American colonies, the
Tories included not only Anglicans, but other groups who feared
for their future living under the rule of the local political majority
— among them Indians, Scots, Dutch, and Negroes. Tory sympathy
was based on ethnic, commercial, and religious considerations. Where
loyalist sentiment was strong enough-namely, in Canada — the
war produced partition, as in Mandatory Palestine, with territories
remaining cut off from the newly independent state.
When independence
was declared, the populations of the opposing forces were about
even in both wars. In Palestine, there were about 750,000 people
on each side. The exact distribution of pro- and anti-independence
forces in the American colonies is not known, but the estimate by
John Adams is probably as good a guess as any — namely, one-third
patriot, one-third loyalist, and one-third neutral. The number of
colonists fighting actively alongside regular British forces is
estimated at about half the number fighting under Washington.
When fighting
broke out, civilians were often the first victims in both wars.
The Tories formed terrorist units and plundered and raided the territories
under patriot control. The southwestern frontier areas of the colonies,
like the southwestern border of Palestine, were scenes of particularly
bloody terrorism. In South Carolina, the Tory leader Major William
Cunningham (known as "Bloody Bill") became the Sheikh
Yassin of the struggle, conducting massacres of patriot civilians.
Tory and anti-Tory mob violence became common. General Sir Henry
Clinton organized many guerrilla raids upon patriot territory. Loyalists
also launched assassination plots, including an attempt to murder
George Washington in New York in 1776. (Among the terrorists participating
in that plot was the mayor of New York City.)
There were
loyalist insurrections against the patriots in every colony. Tory
military activity was particularly severe in the Chesapeake, on
Long Island, in Delaware and Maryland, and along the Virginia coast.
As violence escalated and spread, the forces of the revolution took
countermeasures. Tories were tarred and feathered. Indiscriminate
expulsions sometimes took place. Tory areas could be placed under
martial rule, with all civil rights, habeas corpus, and due process
suspended. Queens County, New York — a loyalist stronghold
— was put under military administration by Continental troops,
and the entire population was prohibited from traveling without
special documents. General Wooster engaged in wholesale incarceration
and expulsion of New York Tories. The Continental Congress called
for disarming all loyalists, and for locking up the "dangerous
ones" without trial. New York loyalists were exiled to Connecticut
and other places; some were used in forced labor.
Loyalists were
kidnapped and held hostage. In some colonies, expressing opposition
to the Revolution was grounds for imprisonment. Loyalists could
be excluded from certain professions, such as law; frequently, they
were stripped of all property rights and had their lands confiscated.
In colony after colony, Acts of Banishment forced masses of loyalists
to leave their homes and emigrate. The most common destiny was the
Canadian Maritimes, with others going to the British West Indies,
to England, and to Australia.
In both the
Israeli and American wars of independence, anti-independence refugees
often fled to areas under the control of their political allies.
However, some who opposed independence nevertheless stayed put.
After the war ended, these generally found the devil was not as
bad as they'd feared, and were permitted to live as tolerated political
minorities, with their civil rights restored and protected. (This
was in spite of the fact that many refused to recognize the legitimacy
of the new state, sometimes for decades.)
The American
colony-states that had banished loyalists refused to allow their
return, even after a peace treaty was signed. There was a fear that
returning Tories could act as a sort of fifth column, particularly
if the British took it into their heads to attempt another invasion.
(Such an invasion eventually took place, in 1812.) Like Israel,
the newly independent country initially resolved many of its strategic
problems through an alliance with France.
The Tory refugees
were regarded by all as Britain's problem. The American patriots
allowed small numbers to return; others attempted to return illegally,
and were killed. But most languished across the partition lines
in eastern British Canada, mainly in what would become Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick. The refugees would never be granted the "right
to return," and in most cases, they would never even be granted
compensation for property. (Benjamin Franklin was among the leading
opponents of any such compensation.)
At this point,
of course, the similarity between the Palestinian refugees and the
Tory loyalists breaks down. The British, unlike the Arabs, did a
great deal to settle their refugees, rather than force them into
festering camps, and allotted $20 million for their resettlement.
The Tory refugees quickly became a non-problem, and played no subsequent
role in British-American relations.
Nevertheless,
an interesting thought experiment might be to imagine what would
have occurred had the British done things the Arab way. Tory refugees
would have been converted into terrorist cadres and trained by British
commandos. They would begin a ceaseless wave of incursions and invasions
of the independent states, mainly from bases along the Canadian
frontier. The British, Hessians, and their allies would begin a
global diplomatic campaign for self-determination for the loyalist
Americans. They would set up an American Liberation Organization
(ALO) that would hijack whalers and merchant marines, crashing them
into harbor facilities, and assassinate diplomats of the United
States. Perhaps Benedict Arnold would be chosen the chairman and
president-in-exile, and would write the Tory National Charter, incorporating
parts of the Stamp Act, under the nom de guerre of ibn Albion. The
British would organize underground terrorist cells among the loyalist
population that had not fled.
The Tories
would then declare an Anglican jihad. Britain and her empire would
boycott the new country commercially, pressuring others to do the
same. She would assert that the national rights of the loyalist
people were inalienable and eternal, no matter how many years had
passed since the refugees fled. Britain would accumulate arms in
astronomical quantities, awaiting the day of reckoning. International
pressure would be exerted on the United States to give up much of
its territory, and to internationalize Philadelphia.
Colin Powell
now insists that the Palestinian refugees should be granted the
"right to return" in some form, and that Israel is liable
for the suffering of the refugees and should be responsible for
their resettlement. His state department is exhibiting loyalist
Tory sympathies. Perhaps a large portrait of Benedict Arnold should
grace the offices of Powell and of every "Arabist" in
Foggy Bottom.
|
