search
Aryeh Schonbrun

El Derecho de Retorno: In Support of the Mexican Reconquista

Creative Commons
Creative Commons

On the 14th of May 1948, David Ben-Gurion delivered Israel’s Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel. He did so in the midst of a bloody war that began months earlier and would not conclude until the summer of 1949. The events made during the war resulted in the founding of the State of Israel and the consolidation of the Jewish militias under Ben-Gurion’s IDF. Additionally, as a result of their loss, many non-Jewish former citizens of British Palestine found themselves stateless, abandoned by both their former colonial administrators and their unsympathetic Arab neighbors who to refused to offer them the full rights of citizens in their respective host countries. The expulsion of Palestine’s non-Jewish population erased generations of local cultural development and robbed the nascent Israeli state of much of its former Middle-Eastern character and identity.

On the 2nd of February 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico, concluding the Mexican-American War that began in April 1846. As per the terms of the treaty, Mexico ceded its vast territories (~1.37 million km²) that were in contention. This territory, combined with that of Tejas (which was officially annexed by the U.S. in 1845 after having declared its independence in 1836), accounted for well over half of Mexico’s original territorial claims and allowed America to fulfill her now-unencumbered, hegemonic dream of Manifest Destiny.

Though celebrated by the majority of Americans, many others, including President John Quincy Adams, Congressman Abraham Lincoln, and Senator John C. Calhoun, decried the baseless justification for the war, which, in their opinion, had been intentionally provoked by President James K. Polk when he ordered General Zachary Taylor to seize disputed territory along the Mexican border with Texas. In the words of Ulysses S. Grant, who served under Taylor:

“We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico should commence it. It was very doubtful whether Congress would declare war; but if Mexico should attack our troops, the Executive could announce, “Whereas, war exists by the acts of, etc.”, and prosecute the contest with vigor. Once initiated there were, but few public men who would have the courage to oppose it.”

In today’s world, such an act would hardly be considered legal under international law, akin to Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, or Gaza’s invasion of southern Israel! However, in the absence of a powerful international order, America was allowed to pursue its territorial goals without hindrance or consequence. Even so, the territorial claims of Mexico have not disappeared from history and many nationalists in both Mexico and the U.S. (e.g. Chicanos) continue to promote a narrative that views the war as fundamentally illegal and as an unjust act of imperialism.

In contrast to the claims of the stateless Native American tribes decimated by centuries of European colonialism which arose in the absence of a sovereign entity and must rely on informal treaties brokered by, at times, unrecognized tribal leaders, America’s illegal act of invasion of a fellow sovereign country was committed in direct contravention of the very legal framework upon which it bases its own sovereignty and national rights. In other words, whereas you could argue that claims concerning the atrocities committed against the indigenous population may lack official standing on account of sovereign immunity (making it an internal, American affair), you couldn’t say the same about crimes committed against a fellow state with contemporary, internationally recognized standing, such as Mexico, whose case must be adjudicated in a neutral, international setting. Therefore, Mexicans may still maintain territorial claims over what was once their land.

While Mr. Trump and his government may be able to defend the deportation of illegal immigrants in general, the deportation of Mexicans (even those with criminal records) from territory once held by their country and forcibly ceded to the U.S. in an unjust war presents not just moral but clear legal obstacles on an international level. Mexican citizens currently residing in former Mexican territory do not only have immigrant rights on the basis of international protections and humanitarian law as potential refugees, but should also be protected under international law by virtue of their national ties to the territory itself, and thus naturally immune to prosecution by American immigration authorities. At least in theory.

While the probability of the ICJ intervening on behalf of Mexican nationals residing ‘illegally’ in former Mexican territory remains quite low, the idea behind such an analysis can help shed some light on other conflicts around the world, especially as it relates to Israel-Palestine. Unlike the Mexicans, whose victimhood has mostly been lost to history, Palestinian suffering garners increasing media attention, earning it considerable sympathy in the West. However, unlike the Mexicans, the Palestinians lack full membership in the United Nations (on account of the U.S. veto), and must then relegate most of their human rights claims to either internal Israeli auditors (e.g. the Israeli Supreme Court), or to various multinational NGOs, many of which have been blacklisted in the West and/or lack any real clout. Even if it wanted to, the international order would find it incredibly difficult to interfere in the absence of clear national representation and regulated, functioning state institutions with which to interact.

This inherent clash between modern ethics and the frustrating inertia of international political mechanics highlights the need for reform of the current world order. While a purely moral society may seem compelling to some, it naively discards the virtues of the existing infrastructure, however corrupt it may be, and attempts to do too much moralizing with too little grounding in reality. Nevertheless, a life without ethics or morality, a life dominated by Machiavellian realpolitik, is not worth living and such a society threatens our species with repeated Holocausts. We must strive to achieve a healthy balance between abstract morality and practical jurisprudence in order to achieve the progress we long for, but not through the sacrifice of our shared global security.

In order to resolve the conflict between these two apparently oppositional forces, we must reinvent ourselves in recognition of our changing cultural and economic reality. Israeli leadership lacked the clarity and flexibility to adequately compensate for America’s diminished role in international affairs (including as protector of the Jews) amidst China’s gradual ascension as global actor in the years preceding the Oct. 7th attacks. In the U.S., the volatility linked to the increasingly polarized internal political situation, alongside an acute wealth-distribution crisis, has made life more difficult for most Americans, steadily eroding their trust in government and society. In parallel, a gradual deconstruction of both ideologies that form the basis of the countries’ respective dominant national identities, Zionism in Israel and liberalism in America, has also begun. Israel looks to become more Israeli (instead of purely ‘Jewish’), as America tends closer to Latin-America while distancing itself from Europe. These social processes that started decades ago are unstoppable, overwhelming and irreversible.

Still, the elites try to postpone the inevitable by invoking fear (and war) and promising better futures (MAGA and woke alike), but neither America will remain Western, nor Israel ‘Jewish.’ Their pathetic efforts to stymie the course of history will only define their personal legacies as narcissistic, small-minded leaders who wrestled with Providence and lost. Though I cannot predict how and when the dam will eventually crumble, I do believe that we are fast approaching the end of history and that the inflection point for a partial reset may be closer than one might expect. Even as the situation grows more dire by the day, we must take solace in the realization that the righteous undercurrents of history have begun to surface.

* * *

“What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army…This people must cease to…make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.” — Civil Disobedience (1849) by Henry David Thoreau

About the Author
Originally from Westchester, NY, Aryeh made Aliyah 7 years ago.
Related Topics
Related Posts