Whom are you talking about? British and Turkish gov’ts?
Can I remind you that Jews have been living on those lands since after they have displaced other nations who have displaced other nations, etc. Some Jewish families can trace their lineage directly to specific families who lived in Roman Empire-occupied Israel (the land, not the state). After Romans destroyed the Second Temple, it’s a history of one thief stealing from another, etc., etc.
So, the question we need to ask is: does anybody have a better claim for land X than the current occupier? I think for most lands the answer is ‘no’.
As I said, does the land you live on belong to you, wherever you are (N. America, Europe, etc.)? Chances are: somebody else owned it, someone displaced him, and sold it to your ancestor or an ancestor of someone who sold it to you.
For twenty years (from 1914 to 1934) the Huleh Concession—
some 57,000 dunams of partly swamp-infested but potentially highly
fertile land in north-eastern Palestine—was in Arab hands. The
Arab concessionaires were to drain and develop the land so as to
make additional tracts available for cultivation, under very attractive terms offered by the Government (first Turkish, then British).
However, this was never done, and in 1934 the concession was sold
to a Jewish concern, the Palestine Land Development Company,
at a huge profit. The Government added several onerous conditions
concerning the amount of land (from the drained and newly
developed tracts) that had to be handed over—without reimbursement for drainage and irrigation costs—to Arab tenant-farmers in
the area.
All told, hundreds of millions of dollars were paid by Jewish
buyers to Arab landowners. Official records show that in 1933
£854,796 was paid by Jewish individuals and organizations for
Arab land, mostly large estates; in 1934 the figure was £1,647,836
and in 1935, £1,699,488. Thus, in the course of only three years
£4,202,180 (more than 20 million dollars at the prevailing rate of
exchange) was paid out to Arab landowners (Palestine Royal
Commission Report, 1937).
To understand the magnitude of the prices paid for these lands,
we need only look at some comparative figures. In 1944, Jews paid
between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid
or semi-arid land; in the same year rich black soil in the state of
Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre (U.S. Department of
Agriculture).
Effects on Arab Population
In those instances where as a result of such transactions Arab
tenant-farmers were displaced (on one year’s notice), compensation
in cash or other land was paid, as required by the 1922 Protection
of Cultivators Ordinance; the Jewish land-buying associations often
paid more than the law required (Pollack and Boehm, The Keren
Kayemeth Le-Israel). Of 688 such tenants between 1920 and
1930, 526 remained in agricultural occupations, some 400 of them
finding other land (Palestine Royal Commission Report, 1937,
Chapter 9, para. 61).
The claim is often made that in 1948 a Jewish minority owning
only 5 per cent of the land of Palestine made itself master of the
Arab majority, which owned 95 per cent of the land.
In May 1948 the State of Israel was established in only part of the
area allotted by the original League of Nations Mandate. 8.6 per
cent of the land was owned by Jews and 3.3 per cent by Israeli
Arabs, while 16.9 per cent had been abandoned by Arab owners who
imprudently heeded the call from neighbouring countries to “get
out of the way” while the invading Arab armies made short shrift of
Israel [oops!..]. The rest of the land—over 70 per cent—had been vested in
the Mandatory Power, and accordingly reverted to the State of
Israel as its legal heir. (Government of Palestine, Survey of Palestine, 1946, British Government Printer, p. 257.)
The greater part of this 70 per cent consisted of the Negev, some
3,144,250 acres all told, or close to 50 per cent of the 6,580,000
acres in all of Mandatory Palestine. Known as Crown or State
Lands, this was mostly uninhabited arid or semi-arid territory,
inherited originally by the Mandatory Government from Turkey.
In 1948 it passed to the Government of Israel.
These lands had not been owned by Arab farmers—neither under
the British Mandate nor under the preceding regime. Thus it is
obvious that the contention that 95 per cent of the land—whether
of Mandatory Palestine or of the State of Israel—had belonged to
Arabs has absolutely no foundation in fact.
As to house demolitions, it’s also not simple at all. Israeli settlers’ houses are also bulldozed if they are built without a permit. My wife’s cousin’s third house has been bulldozed recently (he tried to build it on ownerless land, himself).
So, of course it is an immoral and criminal action, but if an American or a Canadian decides to build a house in a forest in USA without a permit (or against some statist law), it will bulldozed.
Sometimes IDF bulldozes houses. It does so as a part of ongoing military actions aimed at fighting the terrorists. What would a private defense agency do to the following houses:
a) a privately owned house whose owners shoot rockets at the agency’s clients,
b) a house whose owners allow others to shoot rockets from it,
c) a house belonging to people who help (conspire with) the people who shoot rockets?
Arguably, second or third ‘excuses’ for demolition may be against the libertarian law, but, again, most governments of the world would do the same. It doesn’t excuse the Israeli gov’t, but it doesn’t make it in any way special. Focusing on it for doing what’s expected of a government is like yelling at every corner that there is theft and slavery going on in Israel because Israeli gov’t taxes people and issues drivers’ licenses.
If a house was bulldozed just because the house’s owners’ relatives were terrorists (and there is no evidence of collaboration), then I would agree that this is immoral.
The land that was “bought” and “owned” by Jews represents a tiny percentage (8%) of the landmass of Palestine. Besides the Jews in many cases did not actually buy land, they bought legal title to land from former feudal lords who had never been the legitimate owners of the land as per the liberal and libertarian theory of homesteading, but mere usurpers. Therefore the titles to land held by Jews were in many cases illegitimate as they were buying up land from under their Arab owners without the latter’s consent.
Even so the Arabs still held legal title to much greater areas of the land than did the Jews, in addition to the Arab peasants being in the liberal/libertarian understanding the moral owners of nearly all tilled land in Palestine. (Since they were doing nearly all of the tilling.)
Your making yourself appear ignorant of the liberal theory of homesteading and falling back instead on talking about legal titles enforced by the state, which are meaningless to libertarians is transparent.
One such map so that it may be clear what you are talking about:
If no Arabs have been displaced, but for a few isolated villages, then it is the case these Israeli Arabs till over 80% of all arable land in former Acre district?
You are again making yourself appear ignorant of a very basic tenant of libertarianism. In fact it follows logically from what we adhere to that there exists such a thing as a self-determination of property owners. If a property owner wishes to seceede along with his property from state A and attach his property to state B no one has the right to stand in his way.
And what if you blow up someone who is living specifically on the land of an unknown fellow Arab, under the assumption that this Arab were he to be found would agree with your action and consider you his agent?
In fact the Arabs evacuated their land, but they had not abandoned it. As your own source states they had every intention of returning once they thought it would be safe to do so, but were not permitted to return by Israeli Jews and were kept off their land forcefully by them who then took it over. It is as straightforward example of brazen land theft as you are ever going to encounter.
(Also for further clarity, it should probably be pointed out the 16.9% of the land spoken above actually represents the majority of arable land in Palestine.)
Historically, it’s originally Jewish land, pre-Roman era. So, how would Arabs have legitimate legal title to the other 92%?
According to Rothbard, if the heirs can be found, it’s their land legitimately. Seems we have heirs. No one has a better claim to the land than the Jews.
Of course from a libertarian point of view what is troubling is the sweeping nature of the recapture of the land for the assumed heirs. How can a Jewish settler in Israel in 1947 who is occupying the homestead of a Palestinian Arab who is not being permitted to return to his home be certain that this Arab is a (relative) newcomer to the region, instead of being the descendant of a Jewish forefather?
I’m sure you’ve heard of the thesis put up by some historians that the Roman-era exile notwithstanding many Jews actually remained in Judea and assimilated into Arabs and Moslems over time. I do not know the merits of this theory overall, but it strikes me possible it may be true for at least a tiny number of Jews. Therefore it is impossible to say with certainty for any Palestinian Arab landowner if their land had not been passed down to them in continuity for two millenia all the way up to Jewish forefathers.
What is the libertarian position on apparent righting of injustice which is certain to inflict a measure of injustice itself?
The answer is that the criterion holds as we have explained above: The right of every individual to own his person and the property that he has found and transformed, and therefore “created,” and the property which he has acquired either as gifts from or in voluntary exchange with other such transformers or “producers.”
It is true that existing property titles must be scrutinized, but the resolution of the problem is much simpler than the question assumes. For remember always the basic principle: that all resources, all goods, in a state of no-ownership belong properly to the first person who finds and transforms them into a useful good (the “homestead” principle). We have seen this above in the case of unused land and natural resources: the first to find and mix his labor with them, to possess and use them, “produces” them and becomes their legitimate property owner. Now suppose that Mr. Jones has a watch; if we cannot clearly show that Jones or his ancestors to the property title in the watch were criminals, then we must say that since Mr. Jones has been possessing and using it, that he is truly the legitimate and just property owner.
Murray N. Rothbard (1998-08-16 00:00:00-07:00). The Ethics of Liberty (Kindle Locations 2077-2085). New York University Press. Kindle Edition.
It’s a bit foggy, since a racial / religious group cannot really inherit an area. It should be done on an individual basis. But if your choice is state takeover of the region by arabs or jews, probably jews have the better claim :\
We can worry about true libertarian-style restitution after we’ve convinced the world of our principles’ superiority and begun converting nations.
Perhaps peace will not come to the middle-east until libertarianism spreads throughout the globe.
Nowhere am I talking about ownership by religious groups and takeover by rival states. I am talking strictly about individual property along with all the consequences that stem from it.
My not taking issue with your suggestion that the Jews are the apparent heirs to the original Jewish owners in ancient times is based on the assumption, which I believe should not prove controversial, that these ancient Jews if they were in fact expelled in the Roman era would have wished for their land to pass down to their descendents (direct or indirect) who kept alive their faith and custom and would therefore pass on to them their rightful claim. It is based on the (pressumed) will of the original individual owners, not on any idea of collective ownership by a racial/religious group.
Naturally the question is were the original ancient Jewish owners in fact driven into exile and their lands usurped, or did they in fact manage to pass them down to their direct descendants who in time eventually became Arabs? Probably to some extent both took place.
Yes I can see why you would pose the question now, but not why you would go on from there and decide he was a chauvinist. He said things that were collectivist, but not racist. But I do believe now you were stating your sincerely held opinion and it wasn’t any sort of an act to undermine his position.
My not taking issue with your suggestion that the Jews are the apparent heirs to the original Jewish owners in ancient times is based on the assumption, which I believe should not prove controversial, that these ancient Jews if they were in fact expelled in the Roman era would have wished for their land to pass down to their descendents (direct or indirect) who kept alive their faith and custom and would therefore pass on to them their rightful claim. It is based on the (pressumed) will of the original individual owners, not on any idea of collective ownership by a racial/religious group.
That’s a good point. And if there were a free court having to decide the issue, I think that would be a good rationale to base a decision on.
I just typed up a long reply to Aristophanes’s anti-Israeli dogma, and when I clicked the link he provided and went back the entire goddamn post was gone. The entire thing. I’ve never seen a forum do that before. What the hell?
You don’t need to expect me to type up another one. The whole thing just seems to be about comparing casualities to each other, anyway, and he’s already proven that he doesn’t know much on the subject.
Why didn’t you just type something like that? It’s almost as if you wanted this thread to go downhill and be as unproductive as possible.
Arabs who held the land also bought it illegitimately from feudal authorities who were illegitimate land owners.
So, today, the reverse is true. Israelis hold most of the land (have legal titles), and most of the major land development that happened in the last 60 years (literally turning swamps and desert into arable land and gardens) was done by the Jews.
You just did the same thing. The point is that nobody came and settled Israel in a political vacuum. All settlements, either by Arabs or Jews, were in fact purchases of land from existing feudal mafia.
The problem is that he is forcing his neighbors to be subjects of the state B as well, against their wishes.
Then he is a criminal.
If my neighbor leaves his house empty, so that my enemy from another state can come in and use his house to launch rockets at my house, I will consider my neighbor a collaborator. He has done an indirect aggressive act against me, and he has shown that he does not care about the concepts or property. Hence, when I kill the direct aggressor and take over the house, I will never give it back to my former neighbor, because:
his indirect aggression deligitimized his ownership of the house;
if I let him have the house, he will invite the jerk from another state again, and the story will repeat itself; so I need to protect myself from future acts of aggression (direct and indirect) by my ‘friendly neighbors’.
The two paragraphs above sum up the Israeli position on the ‘occupied’ territories. Note that the Arab villages that were not abandoned were not touched; those Arabs were allowed to remain in Israel, and today they are Israeli citizens (for what it’s worth for libertarians – point being, no aggression was done agains them).
I read in some article on Mises.org the following line: “If Jews claim that the land belongs to them because they lived on it 2000 years ago, how much more for the Arabs who lived on it 30 [sic] years ago!” Well, how much more for the Jews who are living on it now! The point is that the situation has moved on; no living Arabs can lay claim to their lands; meanwhile, the Israelis have transformed the land, increasing its value dramatically.
I agree that nationalism and statism remain to be at the root of Israeli-Arab conflict. But I don’t agree that kicking out all the Israelis living in Israel today is the (fair) solution.
How do we determine who owns different lands of the world today? For example, who owns the land of western Georgia, USA? This land was owned by Native American tribes, who were kicked off the land by the US Federal gov’t. The gov’t (state or federal) is the current ‘official’ owner of the land. Most of the ‘private’ owners bought it from the government through non-allodial titles.
What should we do?
Recognize that the governemnt (state or federal) is the legitimate owner of the land? (In which case we have to obey its laws.)
Give the land back to Native Americans, displacing the current ‘squatters’?
Recognize the private people who currently reside on the land as the rightful owners?
The last solution (status quo) supports the claim of modern-day Israelis that they own the land they are currently living on (even assuming that the aggressive displacement has happened, which I am not sure is the case). A modern-day Israeli living on his land has a better claim to it than anybody else currently alive.
right now all the land is owned by the agressive state, people lease the land, but the state owns it
isrial military started agressive wars with the intention of taking over land or defeating preemptivly with a military strategy.
they go through and bulldoze and kick people out of homes at gunpoint.
there are racist goals against arabs by the state with laws enforced by a agressive military where military service is compulsory
land and taxes are taken from arabs and given to some melting pot of people claiming jewishness, mostly converted jews with no genetic ties to the land
By ‘started aggressive wars with intention of taking over land’ you mean ‘was attacked by Arabs of surrounding states and dared to defend itself’?
And by ‘defeating pre-emtively’ you mean ‘bombed Egyptian planes sitting on the ground, ready to take off, not waiting while they were in the skies over Tel Aviv, dropping bombs’? (Israel had absolutely accurate military intelligence about the intentions and plans to invade and about the state of full mobilization.)
I suppose if somebody is running towards you with a knife, you wait until he plunges it into your body before you do anything aggressive.
You can bet your ass that if any land is in the hands of a private protection company, if the company finds out about the plans to invade its clients’ homes and discovers the future aggressors in a state of readiness, it will strike pre-emptively. Let’s put it this way: free markets will be in favor of those protection agencies that can prevent an aggressive strike, rather then defend against it after it has happened.
I am no friend of Israeli government, but let’s not be delusional here…
the military commanders said that there was not a threat, that the military would not even be ready for a year or more, and that they knew that a attack would be successful. there was no attack by arab nations, the military commanders of isrieal knew they could start a war , win, and claim more land.
you don’t claim more land with a preemtive defensive strike. it’s no longer defence if more land is claimed, defence is about keeping what you have, not expanding.
I heard on a radio wave my neighbor talking to his cousin about his plans to assassinate my niece with a sniper rifle. When I looked with binoculars at my neighbor’s house, I saw him sitting on a roof, training a rifle at my niece. I quickly rushed over and kicked the guy in the head. Then I took his rifle away.
The neighbor complained to a private judge that I “took his property in a pre-emptive strike”. I mean, he hadn’t pulled the trigger yet! Also, what is this about taking the attacker’s property away in a retaliation for the (planned) attack?
After the judge finished laughing, he explained that I was justified in taking the rifle away as a pre-caution against future shenanigans.
The lands that Israel occupied are a buffer zone against future attacks by the friendly neighbors. If I ran a private protection agency, I would also take the attackers’ lands bordering my clients’ property. After I broke their legs.
(And for those who will say that the lands belonged to private Arabs, who were oppressed by the governments who took the lands away and then used them as a launching pad for attacking Israel… well, my neighbor’s rifle belonged to my neighbor’s little nephew, who was too weak to protest when the neighbor took the rifle away to shoot my niece. I suppose I should give the rifle back to the nephew… since there is no chance that the aggressive uncle will do the same trick twice. Hmm…)
The point I am trying to make is: you can criticize Israeli government for being socialist bastards who hurt their own citizens. I am all for that. But internationally, Israel acts just as any intelligent protection agency would act.