Morality and Jewish Sovereignty Part Three: Kant Today Would Live in Immanuel

By DOVID BEN-MEIR
The resolutions of the League of Nations and the treaties signed after WW I expressed the international recognition of the moral obligation to facilitate the return of Jews to the Land of Israel and return the land to Jewish sovereignty. These resolutions didn't ignore the fact that other people, besides Jews, resided in the land. They recognized that those others were entitled to individual civil and religious rights, but the nations of the world also realized and accepted the historical fact and present reality that no other ethnic or national group existed that could claim a legal, moral or historical right to national self-determination in this particular land. Only the Jewish people had lived here as an independent, national unit, and had always retained a national and religious connection to their homeland.
No other grouping, whether Arabs or otherwise, had ever lived here as a unique, distinct and independent nationality. This was clear to the conscience of the world after the Great War and its attending moral crisis. This was clear also to the Arabs living here, whose basic loyalty is local: extended family, tribe or area. To the extent that there was any national association or claimed identity it was as Southern Syrians, as Professor Philip Hitti, an Arab-American historian testified in 1946 at the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine that: "there was actually no such entity as Palestine, never had been; it was historically part of Syria." Modern so-called "Palestinian" nationality is nothing more than Soviet-Russian inspired propaganda, designed to recast the Arab-Israeli conflict – in which obviously tiny Israel is the courageous democratic David and the oil-rich 22 state Arab world the Goliath – into a so-called Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which magically turns tiny Israel into a Goliath. That is a false portrayal, and one who wishes to act morally must avoid being false, which is morally repugnant.
In simple terms: the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (b. 1724) postulated that for something to be morally good it must be good for all. If it's good for me to steal from you, but I don't want you to steal from me – then stealing isn't universally good. Therefore it's immoral. Returning stolen goods is a moral obligation. Accordingly, returning the land  that was stolen from the Jews – whether by the ancient Romans or the modern Jordanians – to Jewish sovereignty, is a moral imperative and a universal good.
There's another point of morality and universal good to be considered. Kant resided almost all his life in the East Prussian city of Konigsberg, 'King's Mountain', established by the Teutonic knights in 1255. Yet if he would search for Konigsberg on today's maps – he wouldn't find it. Since 1945 that area of East Prussia has been part of Russia and the city renamed Kaliningrad.
Why?
Because the Germans invaded Russia in WW2, causing terrible suffering and losses to the Russian peoples. Consequently when the German war-machine was rolled back – millions of Germans, whose families had been living in East Prussia for centuries, were expelled and the area annexed to Russia.
Why?
Because it is the moral thing to do! If the aggressor who initiates war won't suffer consequences in defeat – there's nothing to deter the aggressor from  trying again. After all: why not try, if there's nothing to lose? It's a moral imperative, as a deterrent to war and an encouragement to maintain peace, that land used as a springboard for aggressive war – but taken by the intended victim of aggression – should be left in the hands of those who fought defensively. That's why even if Judea and Samaria had never been part of Israel, still universal moral ethics would dictate awarding the land to the Jews, the intended victims of Arab aggression.
Ah, but we've left the situation such that if Kant suddenly reappeared today he'd be left without a home! I have a suggestion: In Samaria today there's a Jewish town called Immanuel. Perhaps Kant would find a comfortable home in Immanuel? After all – many of the inhabitants there happen to speak Yiddish, which is somewhat akin to German, even if it sounds closer to Bavarian rather than Prussian German.