As a Jew and a democrat I want Israel held to higher standards than other nations. But to then label Israel as being demonic while failing to level that criticism at other states whose crimes are far worse is absurd. And yes, usually anti-Semitic. (No, I don’t at all mean that you are, and I know that you are talking specifically about Israel as you were invited to- I’m just trying to illustrate what the dynamics of this argument often add up to)

As for the editorial, it is so weakly argued that your argument only looks stronger by comparison. Much like David Frum in your recent podcast debate, they seem to think that a defence of Israel amounts to pointing out wrongdoings by its Arab neighbours. But this confuses the issue.

Consider a parallel to World War II, when the allies engaged in controversial practices such as fire-bombing Dreseden, or dropping nuclear bombs on Japan. To defend these practices, it won’t do to say, “the people on the other side were worse.” That would be tantamount to saying democratic states should be held to standards of behaviour set by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan–surely a mistake. Although many criticisms should be directed at Israel’s neighbours–for their lack of democracy, anti-Semitism etc.–it would equally be a mistake to judge Israel according to standards determined by its undemocratic opponents. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

As for the equivalence they draw between Jewish and Palestinian refugees, the problem with this parallel was pointed out in an Globe and Mail editorial several years ago (14 July, 2003). The editorial made the plausible claim that Jewish and Palestinian refugees of 1948 both deserve compensation, and to that degree, the two situations are comparable. But there are also important difference. From the editorial:

“There are critical differences between the Palestinian experience in 1948 and that of these Jewish refugees. Many Jews did want to emigrate to Israel, and those who were forced to leave were welcomed by the fledgling Jewish state. None remain in refugee camps today. In contrast, millions of Palestinians remain unwanted guests in neighbouring Arab countries, with few rights and little control over their future.

“Some Israeli politicians and Jewish leaders abroad have suggested a kind of equivalence between the two refugee experiences: in effect, an exchange of populations. This is specious. The Jewish refugee problem was solved. The Palestinian refugee problem remains a gaping wound separating Israel and the Arab world, and still needs solving.”

The Palestinian refugee crisis continues to exist 60 years after it began and now involves millions of people. If it is not worth singling out for sustained examination then nothing is.

As for a definition of “ethnic cleansing” — I think Wikipedia provides a useful definition but see also Ilan Pappe’s book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, where the matter is discussed.

“Editor’s Note: The article that follows will appear in the May 7 print edition of the National Post, alongside an editorial refuting Mr. Heer’s conclusions.”

Not “disputing” Heer’s conclusions, but “refuting them”. But then, as noted in the previous comment, the editorial doesn’t actually try to refute them at all. But it gets curiouser. Garrick Morrison says:

“Essentially, the Post is arguing not that the ethnic cleansing at Israel’s creation didn’t happen”

Well, its true that they’re not ARGUING that. But they do place the words “cleansing” and “cleansed” in scare quotes - thus implying that they do not accept the description, but without challenging it substatively.

The rebutal (or “refutation” attempts to contextualize claims about ethnic cleansing; but neither Heer’s article nor the rebutal (”refutation” provide very clear definitions in the first place, which must proceed the attempt at providing context.