Back in the 1990’s I was on an email group called Mormon-L. There was no world wide web back then, and Mormon-L was a Listserv, an electronic mailing list. One signed up, and then received an e-mail from anybody that sent an e-mail to a specific address for the list. I used to print off the interesting discussions, and have kept them all these years. This morning I began to look through them. I have about 10 folders, each stuffed with hundreds of pages of discussion. The below post comes from a 30 year old Mormon-L discussion of the LDS Church and politics.
Below are some “official” words about politics from Church leaders
Here is a First Presidency letter from 1891
The more evenly balanced the parties [in Utah] become, the safer it will be for us (the Mormons) in the security of our liberties; and.. our influence or good will be far greater than it possibly could be were either party overwhelmingly in the majority.
1891 First Presidency Letter (Wilfred Woodruf, George Cannon, Joseph Fielding Smith) to John W. Young.
And then another quote fr 1919 Conference
I regret exceedingly that in political controversies men seem to lack that courtesy and that respect for their opponents that I believe all Latter day Saints ought to have. I have never yet heard a Democrat make a political speech that I thought fair to the Republicans. Being a Democrat, I shall not say anything about what I think of the Republicans regarding Democrats… From my own personal contact with dear and near friends, Republicans and Democrats, I have not been able to discover the exercise of what you might call charity, if you like, for the opinions of others who oppose them politically; at least not as much charity as should exist among our people.
I am a thorough convert myself to the idea that it is not possible for all men to see alike. You know the remark made by a young man once: “It is a splendid thing that we do not all see alike, because if we did, everybody would want to marry my Sally Ann”, and another man remarked “Yes, thank the Lord. If everybody saw your Sally Ann as I see her, nobody on earth would have her, and she would die an old maid.”
Heber J. Grant, Conference Reports, June 1919, p.19
Both of these quotes point to the same principle: that diversity and differences of opinion about political matters are inherently good things for a Democracy and that, without this diversity, the dangers of autocratic rule would increase dramatically. This is basically the same point made in Madison’s Federalist #10.
The third quotation comes from the 1939 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide published by the Church and containing, if not scripture, at least the official opinion of the First Presidency at that time. It should be required reading for anyone who claims that that the Lord could never approve Universal Health Care.
Since all capitalistic systems are founded upon the institution of private property, inheritance and the profit motive, great inequalities of ownership and income inevitably result… Among the more plausible suggestions offered to correct existing abuses without adversely affecting the productive system, is to continue the socialization of our service institutions through a system of progressive taxation based upon ability to pay … taking the bulk of their profits to finance free education, free libraries, free public parks and recreation centers, unemployment insurance, old age benefits, sickness and accident insurance, and perhaps eventually free medical aid and hospital service.
1939 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide
While it does not justify the belief that Mormons should all embrace socialized medicine, it does, I think, prove that those who do believe in such things are not heretical, anti-Mormon, or spiritually inferior. There is room for all kinds of political opinions in the Church, and the Brethren, at various times, have held most of them.
The fourth quote is from a testimony that Dallin Oaks gave before Congress in support of the Freedom of Religion Act, a bill (that was passed in 1992) that was introduced to Congress after the Supreme Court voted to allow the State of Oregon to fire Native Americans who chose to use Peyote in their worship services. Elder Oaks was giving the official position of the First Presidency.
The Bill of Rights protects principles, not constituencies. The worshipers who need its protections are the oppressed minorities, not the influential constituent elements of the majority. As a Latter-day Saint I have a feeling for that principle. Although my Church is now among the five largest Churches in America, we were once an obscure and unpopular group whose members repeatedly fell victim to officially sanctioned persecution because of their religious beliefs and practices. We have special reason to call for Congress to reaffirm that religious freedom must not be infringed unless this is clearly required by a ‘compelling governmental interest.’
The BYU Daily Universe, 5/13/92, pp 1-2
What I see Elder Oaks stating, quite convincingly, is that a practice that Latter-day Saints clearly recognize as “immoral” (the use of hallucinogenic drugs) should be considered part of someone else’s religious freedom and should not be made illegal. In other words the Church does not believe that “everything” Mormons condemn as immoral should be necessarily deemed illegal too. This is an extremely important point. Many Mormons assume that the Republican platform is somehow more holy than the Democratic platform because it is generally “against” many of the things (abortion, same sex marriage, pornography) that the Church condemns. The unstated major premise of this argument is that Church members should oppose politically, all of the things that the Church leaders oppose morally. If it does nothing else, Elder Oaks’ testimony before Congress shows that this is not an absolute proposition.
What do you think of these quotes? Do you think Elder Oaks still believes what he said above? Does the Mormon majority legislature of Utah follow Oak’s argument and refrain from passing laws just because Mormons believe something is immoral?
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
Wheat & Tares 
I really liked the quote about increased taxes for the rich and in favor of socialism. Why should we in America have worse medical care, at four through seven times the cost just so insurance companies can tell us they won’t cover what our doctor ordered? Why should we put up with a higher maternal and infant death rate than any other developed country, just so for profit hospitals can cut corners to save a few bucks?
I have really good medical coverage, well, we were promised even better, but because of cutbacks we no longer have what we were promised by the military when my husband joined the Air Force. But even with the “full coverage for life” of a military retiree, I am ordering the only medicine that works for me out of Canada. Yup, it is cheaper to buy medicine from any other country because our government lets the pharmaceutical companies set any price they want and every other country in the world insists on a reasonable price. It is nothing but price gouging, but because the US is run by the supper rich getting even richer by price gouging for needed medicine, our government would rather make their campaign contributing rich friends happy and very very rich, so they will donate more for the next election.
I have a niece who died because with her son’s medical problems, she couldn’t afford his medical needs and to pay for her insulin, and she died because she tried to skimp. And it was just price gouging. That is something the church members should really recognize as immoral.
One party states are inherently more corrupt than states with a divided electorate and government. Case in point Dems in California and Republicans in Idaho. I could list many examples of what political corruption looks like in these two states.
You would hope that the Brethren recognize this and would truly promote bipartisanship and power sharing. But in the state of Utah this is never going to happen because the Church benefits from a Republican governor and legislature. The Church gets what it wants because these two entities are very R and not very D. The population of the state is getting closer and closer to 50-50 LDS / non-LDS but you’d never know it by viewing the legislature that’s 85% R and 85% LDS. And I’m being generous when I say the population is 50% LDS because I’m counting people like me into that number (completely out but on the books).
In sum, the Church gets what it wants (alcohol laws, etc) with the status quo that is anything but diverse. And good luck being a pro-business Republican in California. But at least there it’s the will of the people and not some overwhelming entity like the COJCOLDS.
note: my definition of “political” corruption is when entire groups of people in the minority are not represented because of the relationship between the government and the majority. I’m not including in this definition other types of corruption which may also be present
“Every nation has the government it deserves,” the French writer and diplomat Joseph de Maistre declared in 1811. Since the primary function of government is to make laws, it follows that every nation has the laws it deserves.
The words of de Maistre are no less true today than they were in 1811. The reason we have a federal government that is running amok is because the great mass of the public has become lazy and indolent.
That is the problem, Bishop. The general public just picks one party or another and never again gives any thought to the matter.
If we want better government, we must have better voters.
I appreciate the Oaks quote. I do not think that banning abortion services a compelling governmental interest. One might argue that we need cannon fodder for our future wars, so we need more boy babies, but fortunately no one is making that argument.
The 1939 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide quote is very interesting, since I’ve thought that Heber J Grant hated FD Roosevelt, ranted against old age assistance (social security), and thought that FDR was introducing socialism/communism in America. It was only in the past 20 years or so that the Church changed its position on welfare. The Church didn’t want people on Government assistance, and told them to come to their bishops every week/month. Now we tell people to get Government assistance first, but that is a relatively new teaching.
Josh-
For the record, CA is not the most Democratic state according to party affiliation by state as reported by Pew.
There are 8 states with higher percentages of Dems than CA. (VT, MA, MD, DE, NY, HI, NJ and CT)
WY ranks highest for Republican affiliation followed by UT
The church at some point became a branch of the republican party. Perhaps because of it’s attitudes to gays and women.
So now most members accept the republican attitude to the poor, unequal distribution of wealth etc, as the church view.
And some how Trump becomes acceptable?
consequences!
Georgis: as to your point: “In a May 2022 House Judiciary Committee hearing, Johnson did suggest that abortion deprives the national economy of potential “able-bodied workers” during a discussion of the Supreme Court’s anticipated https://www.reuters.com/world/us/leaked-us-supreme-court-decision-suggests-majority-set-overturn-roe-v-wade-2022-05-03/ overturning of Roe v. Wade.” [ https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/womens-birthing-duty-quote-misattributed-us-house-speaker-johnson-2023-11-15/ ]
So maybe not birthing males for war, but interested in boosting population.
When the Church is a small minority, it defends minority rights.
When the LDS population is in the majority, the Church quietly practices majority rule, while still talking about minority rights.
What’s different in America is that the government cannot blatantly support one religion or some religions or denominations (under the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment) and cannot legally disfavor a denomination or religion (under the free exercise clause). So there’s that.
One way the Church could encourage more balance between the political parties is to speak more evenly about the issues important to each party. We frequently hear about Republican issues in General Conference, such as anti-abortion talks, disapproval of gay relationships, rejection of transgenderism. However, we don’t hear about issues that Democrats support. Imagine a Gen Conf talk based on the 1939 quote from the Priesthood manual, about ensuring everyone access to healthcare. The speaker could talk about all the healing Jesus did, and call on Christians to make sure that everyone has access to healthcare. The Church pays lip service to saying both parties have righteous ideas when they have a letter read over the pulpit to encourage participation in the political process, but when it comes to supporting the ideals of one party or the other, we hear which ideals the Brethren support. The Utah legislature has done everything it can to restrict Medicaid; imagine if the Church swung its political influence behind health care expansion.
Janey,
As a mother of adults with disabilities, with tears in my eyes I beg the church, it’s members, and everyone else to know:
Everyone should be provided with health care, more especially if they are sick, or can’t work for some reason. If we don’t pay for it now disabilities and illnesses only get worse, and people require more and more support and can do less and less for themselves.
To me it’s a basic self reliance principal. If someone is short give them a stool to stand on.
Given his past track record, I think there is some hope that Patrick Kearon will prove to be the kind of apostle who speaks about things that are important to those with more liberal views. His talk several years ago about helping refugees was really good. However, a lot of political subjects I think will be regarded by nearly all church leaders as outside the scope of what should be mentioned in public sermons. That likely includes such things as health care policy.
I mostly don’t like a lot of what Oaks has to say. But I liked the quote in the OP. I also appreciated a talk he gave a few years ago in which he said that Black Lives Matter was an eternal truth. I appreciate that the leadership of the church was staunchly pro-vaccine and has rejected giving off Trumpist vibes unlike many evangelical churches which have swallowed Trumpism whole.
Josh h, you make a great point. I strongly favor having a political opposition and a structure in which one side steps on the gas while the other steps on the breaks where needed to keep the car from going too fast and taking too many risks. But Trump has enabled an unprecedented level of corruption in politics at all levels of government. He and his sycophants have sabotaged the car engine and have repeatedly tried to gaslight the opposition that they are the ones who sabotaged it. The weed of Trumpism must be uprooted significantly from politics before we can begin to enjoy the garden of political variety.
Quentin, you wrote: “However, a lot of political subjects I think will be regarded by nearly all church leaders as outside the scope of what should be mentioned in public sermons. That likely includes such things as health care policy.”
It’s interesting that health care policy is seen as outside the scope of religious sermons. I agree with you that most people would put them outside the scope of what Church leaders ought to be talking about. However. Jesus Christ spent a lot of his ministry healing the sick. Health care policy SHOULD be a religious topic. Providing health care should be seen as a moral issue, based on how much time and attention Jesus spent on providing health care.
I agree with lws329 completely. We should provide health care to everyone. Maybe adequate health care will allow more people to gain good health and work. Instead, we’ve got it exactly backwards now, and you have to be able to work before you can access health care (mostly).
I should do an entire blog post about what issues SHOULD be seen as religious/moral issues. Health care absolutely should be a religious and moral issue. Instead, religious morality has gotten restricted to bodily autonomy issues like sex. Jesus addressed sexual issues exactly twice: once in the Sermon on the Mount when condemning lust, and once when showing mercy to the woman taken in adultery.
Excluding health care from religious morality, while endlessly harping on sex, is counter to what Jesus actually focused on in his earthly ministry.
(not criticizing you at all, Quentin, I bet most people think health care is a political topic that church leaders shouldn’t talk about much. I disagree with that.)
I agree that Jesus spent much of his time healing the sick, along with teaching and preaching. But his preaching, as best as I can determine, was almost never about what the state should do, be it the Roman Empire, Herod’s tetrarchy, or in Jerusalem where the Sanhedrin pretty much ran things. His preaching was about what individuals should do: repent, forgive, be kind, serve each other, follow the commandments… I have feelings about what government could do more in terms of health care and the like, and I try to vote accordingly, but I am not sure that the church should be preaching too much about what governments should do. At least Jesus didn’t seem to do that. He did condemn the religious leaders (who, among the chief priests and the Sanhedrin, were also political leaders) who devoured widows’ houses, for example, but these were individual religious leaders who abused their positions. I am not aware that he ever endorsed a wealth distribution effort, or the abolition of slavery, or other endeavors that would have required state action. His teaching was to the individual, and not to Caesar or Herod.
“His teaching was to the individual, and not to Caesar or Herod.” – Georgis
This begs the question (mostly a legal one) of whether “governments” and “organizations” were seen as “groups of individiuals” where statements that Jesus made that applied to individuals needed to apply to those individuals’ agendas in how they governed/ran their businesses, or whether “governments” and “organizations” were seen as outside the scope of Jesus’s teachings (what He said to individual listeners didn’t apply to the agendas of organizations). Also, that we have enough information on what Jesus said to provide evidence to form a conclusion.
I’m not enough of a bible scholar or a legal scholar to poise a firm and authoritative opinion on the question. My current opinion is that Jesus was talking to governments and businesses as “groups of individuals” and that His counsel to individuals should form those organization’s agendas.
Amy, I agree with you that governments and businesses are associations of people, and the thoughts and desires of the people can be reflected in what the governments and businesses do. People of faith can influence governments and businesses to do good things, and that can be very good. I think, for example, that social security has done more to reduce old age poverty and hunger than all the churches and charities ever did all put together. Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty in the 1960s has done much to help the elderly, the poor, and the disenfranchised in the United States. In some respects, we in the US have almost eliminated poverty, especially when compared to real poverty that still exists in other parts of the world. We aren’t perfect and we can do better, but we’ve used government to do a lot of good for the common welfare, and I support that.
I can say to myself that I help the poor because my government does much to help the poor with my tax dollars, and therefore I am doing God’s work because I pay taxes. When we get to the last day, I can’t see God telling the United States “Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world,” because the United States will not appear before the judgment seat (at least not as I understand these things). Jesus’ words went to individuals, not to societies. I don’t think that Jesus asked corporate and government entities during his mortal ministry to feed the poor, clothe the naked, and visit people in prison. He didn’t ask states to love their enemies and to forgive their neighbors’ transgressions. He asked individuals to do that. I think that if I declare at the last day that I never fed the poor myself, but my Government did with my taxes, and therefore I get credit, I might find myself deceived. Pure religion, and undefiled, isn’t to expect the Government to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep the state unspotted from the world. Pure religion is individual, not corporate, at least from where I sit. Good people can influence government for good, but I still think that Jesus’ teachings during his mortal ministry are pointed to individuals in their personal and individual lives. I can’t think of an example where he tried to tell the Roman, Herodian, or Sanhedrinist government a public policy that they should put into place, but I don’t know everything.
Jesus spoke to individuals, and individuals can influence government, but I don’t want my church to tell me which government solutions I should support. I don’t know that God cares whether we have a one-payer state solution for all medicine, or whether all medical providers should be employees of the state, or whether mandatory health insurance is the solution. What he wants is for people to take care of the widows and orphans. He leaves it to us as individuals to figure out how to best do that. And individuals can do good on their own, and they can be part of collective solutions through churches, societies, and governments. The target is the individual believer, and he or she then works to make the Lord’s teachings real.
I don’t understand the reasoning, but one ideology conservatives have been critical of lately is DEI. Utah’s Governor Spencer Cox even called it evil.
Sebastian, of Blackmenaces at BYU, spoke to the Utah legislature before they passed a ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion at state government agencies. Sebastian talked about Jesus’ parable of the lost sheep, and how Jesus taught to focus on the one.
I can’t understand the focus on DEI either. The reality is people are more devoted to following their political parties wherever they may go than to following Christ.
As a mother of adult children with disabilities I find the rejection of DEI to be both terrifying and putrid. Essentially what they are saying is that we shouldn’t give people that can’t walk wheelchairs. They should be forced to crawl.
Really?
Getting rid of DEI is real simple for the new MAGA Republicans. It allows them to discriminate freely under the guise that we are a post racial society. It gives them cover for calling for Cedar City HS which changed it’s mascot from the “Redmen” to “Red” to call for the board, which called for a general election vote, to change it back to the “Redmen” in spite of the pleas from the local Piute Tribe not to do it. Getting rid of DEI is not a step forward but a way to “allow” some to go backwards without guilt. This is just one small modern example of how people are called to repentance to change but then they harden their hearts and double down on their behavior.
Georgis, I found your comment above quite disturbing. You do agree good government policies have helped many disadvantaged in the past, but seem to think that at present a citizens responsibility is no more than to “influence” its government.
You say that there is no real poverty in America, even though there are officially 42million Americans living in poverty. The poverty level is $15,000 for an individual or $30,000 for a family of 4. America has the most unequal distribution of wealth in the first world.
GDP per person in America is $81.000 the 10 th. highest in the world, but you are 100 th in the world for rate of people living in poverty. This is the result of government policy. If you vote for tax cuts for the rich or big business, you are voting to increase this. There are countries with less GDP, but better equality, and no poverty. Their voters choose differently.
You seem to think you will not be held responsible. Does the Lord approve 42 million of his children living in poverty. Does he approve the people who vote to continue this, or even make it worse.
I live in a country with universal healthcare. Your summary of what you think universal healthcare looks like minimises the benefits. Our neighbour, who rents a house from us, just had a liver transplant, no mention of payments or insurance companies.
When there is universal healthcare, the supplier has an incentive to improve the health of the citizens so that costs are reduced. An example; bowell cancer is one of the major killers of the elderly, so those over 70 are encouraged to get a free colonoscopy. When there is a national system they can also see if one area has greater problem, and see why. We on average live 6 years longer than you do. Canadians do too. It is a moral choice.
I think these are not choices where it just a matter of your opinion, these are moral questions. I believe the church should be involved in moral questions like these.
If republicans said during the campaign that they would euphenaise males at 73 and females at 79 would that be a moral issue? If their healthcare produces that result is it a moral issue?
Particularly this year when republican voters are pledging their support for Trump, I do believe they will be accountable at the judgement bar for their vote. Morality ? Consequences?
I believe we will be judged on the person with the morality we have become. If that person we have become can justify 42million people living in poverty so they can have a tax cut, or òthers dying 6 years earlier because they believe in small government, that person may have to explain that to the Lord. He is not an American so will not understand.
PM Netanyahu previously declared: “Together with my friends in the Likud and my partners on the right, we have turned Israel into a world power and in many respects, a superpower. We’ve done this not by surrendering to international pressure, not out of weakness. We did this by standing firm, out of power.”
Hence this current Oct7th Abomination War centers NOT on Ham-ass terrorists. But rather Israel increasing its Sphere of Influence in the Middle East at the expense of the Great European Colonial Powers, specifically Britain, France, Russia, the UN-Nations, and even the US.
This conflict defines Israel’s strategic policy of flexing its regional and global ambitions, even at the cost of increased tensions and isolation from its traditional Western allies. Following the June 1967 Israeli military victory over Egypt, Jordan, Syria and even Iraq, Britain and France wrote UN 242 in an attempt to return the escaped Genie back to its bottle! Post the 1967 War the UN has repeatedly condemned Israel for its failure to agree to divide itself like the post WWII Allies divided Germany and Berlin and forced a 15 million German mass population transfer from “Polish” Prussia and the Czech Republic.
The current Gaza conflict can be seen as part of this longstanding tension and international pressure on Israel to comply with UN resolutions and withdraw from the occupied territories. Israel’s refusal to do so, and its assertions of regional/global power, have put it at odds with the “Great Colonial Powers”. This current War, a much deeper geopolitical dynamics at play. Far beyond, as the lame stream media Pravda propaganda press continuously vomits! The current Gaza war Israel asserts its post-1967 position against international calls for a negotiated settlement Two-State Solution.
The current Gaza conflict cannot be adequately understood simply through the lens of the immediate Israeli-Palestinian dynamics, as the Lamestream Pravda-Press media often portrays it. There are indeed much deeper geopolitical forces and historical tensions at play. Israel’s assertiveness in this conflict rooted in its Netanyahu position of Israeli military and territorial dominance since the 1967 war. Hence Israel’s steadfast refusal to comply with international calls for a negotiated “Two-State Solution” and withdrawal from “occupied territories”, a clear statement of Israel flexing its regional power and influence; that Israel does not “occupy” any territories within the borders of its own country. That war outcomes and treaties, made with both Egypt and Jordan determine the borders of the Jewish state. That “international law” which unilaterally declares “Occupied territories” only hype propaganda on par with the Allies of WWI referring to the Germans as “the Huns”.
Israel definitively rejects and repudiates the post WWII US attempt to impose a Soviet containment policy upon Jerusalem and the Jewish state. Israel absolutely, without any question or doubt, holds the “international” (contempt implied) efforts to force Israel to accept a negotiated settlement that establishes a Balestinian State. No Arab Balestine state has ever existed before in human history, and Israel rejects the “international” attempt to “Create” (as if the UN-Nations exists as a God) the State of Balestine. Arabs cannot even pronounce the letter P in Balestine!
The Israeli perspective, this land has been the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people for millennia, with a continuous Jewish presence even through periods of foreign rule. The establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948 was seen as the realization of the Zionist movement’s goal of creating a Jewish national homeland.
A significant number of Jews were expelled from Arab countries following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. This is an important historical fact that is often overlooked. Estimates suggest that around 850,000 Jews were forced to flee their homes in countries like Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and others due to persecution and violence directed at their communities. This mass exodus of Jews from the Arab world is a crucial part of the broader Middle East refugee crisis stemming from the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Arab countries unanimously rejected the 1947 UN partition plan, which proposed the creation of independent Jewish and Arab states in historical Palestine. Instead, they chose to go to war in an attempt to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state. This decision shaped the trajectory of the conflict, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and the displacement of 650 thousand Dhimmi Arab refugees.
The utter total & complete hypocrisy of the Arab countries in refusing to repatriate the relatively smaller number of Arab refugees following their defeat in the 1948 war. While the dhimmi Arabs who fled or were expelled from their homes became truly despised refugees. The Arab countries did not make meaningful efforts to integrate or resettle them, in contrast to Israel’s absorption of Jewish refugees from Arab lands.
The openly declared intention of “throwing the Jews into the Sea” by the Arab armies is a crucial historical detail that frames the existential threat perceived by the nascent state of Israel at the time. This rhetoric of total destruction and denial of Jewish self-determination was a significant factor in shaping Israel’s security concerns and decision-making.
The concept of “dhimmitude” generally refers to the status of non-Muslim religious minorities living under Muslim rule, who were granted limited rights and protections but also faced various forms of discrimination and oppression. Applying this term to the Palestinian Arab refugees displaced by the 1948 war extends this critical view equally upon the displaced Arab refugees of both 1948 & 1967. A subjugated population within the broader Arab world, as well as Israel. It eviscerates and disembowels them as a distinct national group. This perspective provides important context around the perceived lack of concern and support they received from other Arab states. Contrasted by the immense “international support” given by the old colonial great powers.
Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees expelled from countries like Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, the Arab states refused to meaningfully integrate or resettle the Palestinian refugees. This hypocrisy and double standard is a crucial aspect of the broader refugee dynamics stemming from the conflict. Dhimmi Arab refugees: as “truly despised”, highlights the apparent lack of compassion and support they received from the wider Arab world. Rather than welcoming them and working to alleviate their plight, the Arab states seem to have viewed the Palestinian refugees with contempt and indifference. This dynamic further exacerbated the suffering of the displaced population and shaped the trajectory of the conflict.
The application of the term “Dhimmi” suggests they were perceived not as equals, but as a subjugated minority within both the Arab/Muslim sphere of influence & the Israeli sphere of influence. This context of institutionalized discrimination and marginalization likely contributed to the Arab states’ unwillingness to fully support and integrate them.
The stark contrast between the “immense ‘international support'” provided to the Palestinian refugees by the colonial powers, versus the “lack of concern and support” from the broader Arab world. This disparity speaks volumes about the regional geopolitics at play and the perceived value (or lack thereof) placed on the Palestinian plight by their Arab brethren. Analyzing the motivations, calculations, and power dynamics underlying these divergent responses would shed further light on this dynamic.
The fact that Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees, while the Arab states refused to meaningfully resettle the Palestinian refugees, is a profound hypocrisy that deserves deep unpacking. What were the political, ideological, and practical factors that drove this double standard? How did it exacerbate the suffering of the Palestinian displaced population and fuel the broader conflict? Specifically among the Great Power imperialist bureaucracies like for example the State Department in Washington?
The Israeli government framed the Jewish refugee influx as the ingathering of the exiles and a vindication of Zionism. Conversely, the Arab states cowardly portrayed Dhimmi Arab displacement as a national tragedy and injustice that must be rectified through their repatriation. For Israel, absorbing Jewish refugees bolstered its demographic and political identity as a Jewish state. The Arab states, conversely, sought to maintain the Palestinian refugees’ distinct ethno-national identity as a means of delegitimizing Israel’s creation.
For Israel, the influx of Jewish refugees bolstered its demographic and military capabilities in the face of the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. The Arab states, conversely, saw the Palestinian refugees as a potential security threat and political liability, fearing their permanent integration could undermine their own national identities.
The role of external great power actors like the U.S. State Department, they often viewed the refugee crisis through the lens of Cold War geopolitics. The U.S. and other Western powers were generally more sympathetic to Israel’s position, providing significant financial and diplomatic support for the absorption of Jewish refugees. Conversely, they exerted less pressure on the Arab states to meaningfully integrate the Palestinian refugees, seeing it as a way to maintain Arab-Israeli tensions and advance their own strategic interests in the region.
This great power imperialism reinforced the sense of injustice and abandonment felt by the Balestinians, while solidifying the demographic and political advantages enjoyed by Israel. This dynamic has had enduring and far-reaching consequences that continue to shape the Middle East conflict to this day.
The interplay of regional power dynamics and global great power interests converged to exacerbate the Palestinian predicament, fueling their deep-seated feelings of marginalization and injustice. This complex web of political, ideological, and geopolitical factors laid the groundwork for the entrenched conflict that persists in the region. Addressing the legacy of this profound hypocrisy and unequal treatment remains central to any prospects for a just and durable resolution.
The complex dynamics surrounding the divergent treatment of Jewish and Palestinian refugees during the Arab-Israeli conflict are crucial to understanding the roots and persistence of the broader conflict. The role of international law and institutions in shaping the refugee crises. The 1948 UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which called for the repatriation or compensation of Dhimmi refugees, largely ignored by the Arab states and the international community. Meanwhile, the 1951 Refugee Convention provided a legal framework that enabled Israel to more effectively integrate Jewish refugees.
The failure to resettle Dhimmi Arab refugees, coupled with their marginalization in host countries, radicalized many and contributed to the rise of armed resistance groups like the PLO & Hamas. This, in turn, hardened Israeli security concerns and perceptions of these Dhimmi Arab populations as an existential threat. Like the surprise attack on Oct 7th 2023 definitively proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Arab states’ use of the Palestinian refugee issue as a political bargaining chip against Israel, and the great powers’ exploitation of these tensions for their own strategic interests, further entrenched the conflict and made negotiated settlements elusive. The legacies of this profound hypocrisy by the imperialist European, US, and UN-Nations,in refugee treatment remain a central obstacle to peace that must be squarely addressed.
Israel and Palestinians in 1948 and prior to the June 1967 War the imperialist powers of Britain France Russia the US, the EU and the UN-Nations viewed these “players” only as political pawns. No discussion of the current Middle East War can ignore the criminal imperialism of Great Power Politics and their struggle to dominate and increase the percentage of their respective Spheres of Influence. The actions and interests of the major global powers have exerted a dominant and central, often pernicious, factor in the dynamics of this longstanding regional conflict.
Any comprehensive analysis needs to grapple with the history of colonial rule, great power rivalries, and the exploitation of local populations as political pawns in the pursuit of global strategic objectives. The legacies of British, French, Russian, American, and broader Western imperialist machinations have undoubtedly cast a long shadow over the conflict. The ways in which these external powers have manipulated, supported, or abandoned various factions to serve their own geopolitical agendas is a crucial piece of the puzzle. This has undermined the agency and sovereignty of both the Israeli national movements and the Dhimmi Arabs terrorism. Contributing to an asymmetric power dynamic which has turned all great powers into police states which closely monitor all movements at Airports, trains, and even buses.
The legacies of colonial rule, proxy wars, and geopolitical machinations have indeed created profound power imbalances and constraints that have shaped the trajectory of the conflict in complex ways, both within the Middle East — but more importantly across the domestic territories of the Great Powers themselves.Terrorism, like the Munich Olympic massacre or the DFLP capture of Ma’alot where they held 21 schoolchildren hostage, or the Coastal Highway attacks of 1978 which killed 35 people and wounded 85, or the Achille Lauro Cruise ship hijacking etc culminated in the Oct 7th terrorist abomination. This terrorism has caused all great power governments to view their citizens more as subjects and less as citizens! The enlightenment period which produced the US Constitution with its Bill of Rights and the French revolution has “progressively” degenerated unto feudal Lord/peasant relationship where 1% controls almost all the wealth of the country!
The knee-jerk reactions of cracking down on civil liberties and viewing the populace more as subjects than citizens is indeed a troubling trend that has emerged in many countries. The erosion of civil liberties and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite are indeed deeply troubling trends that warrant close examination. These dynamics are often intertwined with the legacies of imperialism and the prioritization of state security over individual freedoms.
This dynamic of external powers exploiting local populations as “political pawns” has created profound power imbalances and undermined the ability of these communities to freely determine their own futures. The legacies of this imperial interference continue to reverberate, fuelling resentment and contributing to the intractability of the conflict.
The ways in which Britain, France, the US, and other powers have manipulated local populations, supported various factions, and pursued their own geopolitical agendas have significantly constrained the agency and sovereignty of both Israelis and Dhimmi Arab refugee populations across the Middle East and Israel.
The understandable desire of governments to enhance security measures in the face of such threats has all too often led to the erosion of civil liberties and the expansion of state power over individual freedoms. Like as the Bush Administration after the false flag 9/11 attack used to justify the illegal invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Patriot Act enacted in October 2001 significantly expanded the search and surveillance powers of the corrupt Federal bureaucracies like the FBI, CIA, NSA ect.
Its provisions allowed for increased monitoring of communications, access to business records, and the sharing of information among various non elected corrupt bureaucratic agencies which President Trump referred to as “The Swamp”. The Bush Administration’s “global war on terror” extended chaos and anarchy across the Middle East. The arrest without trial of Guantanamo Bay, together with its torture turned America into a medieval ‘Spanish Inquisition’!
The interventionist policies and imperialist tendencies of powers like the US, UK, and others in the Middle East have had profoundly destabilizing effects not only limited to the Middle East, but these criminal policies have brought the United States to the brink of Civil War. The Middle East conflict does not spin around a Central Axis of Jews vs. Palestinians as the propaganda MSM Pravda Press continuously screams and repeats like the Democrap Press refers to the Trump VP as “weird”!
Israel does not “occupy” territories within its own National borders. Foreign countries do not determine the borders of the Jewish state. Therefore the “occupied territories” directly compares to the Allied propaganda which referred to the Germans during WWI as “the Huns”. Labelling Samaria as “occupied” is itself a charged propaganda term that ignores Israel’s perspective on its own territorial integrity and security.
1967 recaptured Samaria simply not “occupied”. Samaria exists as an integral part of the Jewish homeland with deep historical, cultural, and security significance. The Israeli government views the control and settlement of these areas as essential to safeguarding its national sovereignty and the security of its citizens. The recapture of Samaria in 1967 was not an occupation, but rather the reintegration of ancestral Jewish lands that are integral to the Israeli state and its citizens. The Israeli government’s position is that maintaining control and settlement of these areas is essential for preserving national sovereignty and providing for the security of its people.