??? Thousands of people do it every year.
This is only raises the question, “what right does the government of Israel have to protect the people of Israel?”
This is false. There are Israeli Arabs, of which some are Christian and some are Muslim. There are Mulsims in the Israeli parliament. Undoubtedly non-Jews (especially Israeli Muslims and non-Israeli Muslims) are second class citizens, but there are plenty of non-Jewish Israelis that live in Israel and coexist peacefully with the Jewish Israelis. However, all Jewish Israelis must be enslaved into the Israeli military, whereas Israeli Christians and Muslims are exempt from this. Being enslaved into the military is quite unfortunate, because it forces many Israeli Jews into a position of aggression should they be called to action - not just war but checkpoints or raids or whatever.
they are figthing war how is this nap?
It seems to me the Palestinians are continually the ones initiating attacks on Israel. That is relevant to the NAP.
Even if they were right about occupation or w/e, it’s not ethical to respond to non-lethal force of being refused right of return with lethal force. That makes you an aggressor in your own right just as surely as a store-owner shooting someone stealing a stick of bubblegum.
People have said that if the Palestinians laid down their arms, there’d be peace in the Middle-east, and if the Israelis laid down their arms, they’d all be killed.
I think that’s accurate. Thus, via the NAP test, the Palestinians are aggressors and bear the most blame for the situation.
Since I expect Clayton to throw a fit, I’ll say that I am willing to hear you out, but will be surprised if I hear anything new that sways me :\ The conflict is not really about their homes and right of return. This conflict has been going on for at least hundreds of years. And the Israelis really do have an ancient claim to the territory, and thus the best property claim, and a historical claim to much more land surrounding them than to which they presently occupy.
Yes there are various problems surrounding Israeli and Palestinian oppression and statism and a hundred other factors. But in terms of who is aggressing, I think it’s primarily the Palestinians.
Palestine is under Israel occupation, so it’s not initiation.
And the Israelis really do have an ancient claim to the territory, and thus the best property claim, and a historical claim to much more land surrounding them than to which they presently occupy.
And the same way the American Indians have a claim to their land as well.
And the Israelis really do have an ancient claim to the territory
Do you mean as a nation, or individually? How a someone with three generations of ancestors living in Europe has more claim to land in Levant than someone with three generations of ancestors living in Levant?
one difference between the american indians is they were the first to settle the area, israelis were not the first to settle the area, they conquered the area by force.
That assumes the Palestinians generally have the best claim to that territory, which I don’t accept.
And again, mere occupation is not life-threatening. Murder is not an acceptable response to a non life-threatening aggression, even if I agreed it were an aggression.
Yes, just like that. And if Libertarians ever take over, they’ll get their land back. And it would mean, perhaps, 5% or more of the US territory changing into their hands. People typically assume it means the US would be completely changed over into American Indian hands. This is not the case.
controlling of supplies and movement is life threatening,
if you agreed it was agression, then it would not be murder to defend against such agression.
I mean individually, but if they choose to handle that ownership corporately, it’s not really up to us to say they can’t do that, except to counsel against it for obvious reasons.
For instance, it’s said many Jewish families can still trace their line back to the Levites. Such a person undoubtedly has a claim to the ancient territory of Israel, which predates the more modern claim of Palestinians.
I’m basing this idea on Rothbard’s enumeration of how such property problems should be handled, from For a New Liberty. He states that if a property has been taken from someone and their ancestors can be found, the current owner must give it up without compensation and it should be given back to the rightful owner who has a better claim on it.
I think this fits the Israeli situation.
Long ago, the Israelis were driven from Israel by the Romans largely, had the land taken from them. It doesn’t seem unreasonable under Rothbard’s rubric to recognize that claim.
Where that reasoning begins to fall apart is that only particular property claims should be returned to their rightful owner, and how on earth could we possibly prove which family owned which plot thousands of years ago. Impossible. But I think at the least it makes sense to recognize Israeli sovereignty on that basis and let them figure it out on their own. Expecially given the Arab action of abandoning their property in order to enable an aggression on the Israelis.
Similarly, for an American Indian tribe, the thing to do would be to return their traditional hunting grounds in toto, not try to discover something like a western concept of delineated plots, and let them corporately manage that property, as the tribes had done in pre-western times.
How so? Please elaborate. What supplies / movement are being controlled in a life-threatening way?
It would have to be life-threatening aggression, not merely aggression. Defensive coercion must be commensurate to the aggression, or else becomes aggression itself.
This is true, the Israelis in ancient times conquered the territory, but let’s apply Rothbard’s rubric yet again.
If the property was taken by one’s ancestors and the original owners or their descendants can be found, then the property should go to the found heirs.
But if the property was taken by one’s ancestors and the original owners or their heirs cannot be found, then the property is to be considered to be in an unowned state at that point.
If the current owner is a descendant of the original thief and the heirs of the original owner cannot be found, then he cannot be held responsible for the actions of his ancestor. He is considered to be the first user of unowned property, and thus to have homesteaded its use and to thereby have the best claim and can be considered its rightful owner.
Unfortunately the people they conquered the land from in ancient times are all gone. Thus, the Israelis today have the best claim on the land, and it is a rightful claim.
then they should do some ethnic cleansing if to make sure each person is there by blood rather than conversion or other reason. some genocide could do the region good.
plenty of palistineasn legitamitly own the land from that perspective as well, so i don’t see how it would just be one ethnic group.
that’s not even the property theory isrial uses, the state owns a great majority in the present model.
http://www.buypropertyinisrael.com/article/types-of-land-in-israel
Thus, the Israelis today have the best claim on the land, and it is a rightful claim.
The moral of the story: make sure you killed all the heirs of the property you’ve stolen?
Well, Rothbard handles this by saying if the thief is the current owner of the property and the original owner or his heirs cannot be found, his property should be taken away and auctioned off or something, as the thief cannot be allowed to profit from his theft.
But if the thief is dead and his heirs currently own the house, and the original owners cannot be found, nor their heirs, the property is now in an ownerless condition. Thus it becomes home-steaded by its first-user in that condition, which would be the thief’s heir.
Seems harsh but also seems internally consistent :\ In cosmic terms, it’s a massive injustice for the original owners, but they’re gone now so how do we move forward.
See I find this one misleading, because it presents Israel as the aggressor in the first panel. Which it simply isn’t. And the amount of force either can bring to bear means absolutely nothing to the moral judgment of the actions.
I do, but such a dispute should be handled through a dispute resolution / tort, not by armed conflict on anyone’s part. A settlement dispute is at its heart a property dispute and should be handled as one. If the mediator hands it over to the Israelis, fine, if the Palestinians, fine.
But if the Palestinian territories are then used to lob missiles at the Israelis, they should defend themselves as humanely as possible.