Forum and Israel Discussion

Aristippus:

Some from Arabs and some, presumably, from the British and Turkish gov'ts. (The sales of land went all the way back to at least 18th century or so.)

Oh, from absentee/fiat landlords who had taken control of the property through force? Ok I get it, now.

See this thread: http://mises.org/community/forums/t/31805.aspx

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.

Read this: http://wordfromjerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the-case-for-israel-appendix2.pdf

 

E.g.:

 

 

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).

Also:

 

 

Land Ownership in 1948 

 

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.

 

Whoa, whoa, Flyingaxe, let's not go spouting facts of all things.

These are extremely inconvenient for the PLO, supporters thereof, and those claiming Israel is naught but occupiers.

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.

Most of the lands were privately bought by Jews before 1948 or were ownerless ('publicly owned' as pro-Arab web-sites call them).

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.

Also, as my wife points out, if you look at some of these pre-1948 maps, you will see that certain areas were X% owned by the Arabs. Well, all those Arabs still live there! They still live in their villages and cities and most of them had not been displaced.

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?

In other words, all the international outcry, etc., involving these maps is that Israel (a 'Jewish state') controls the lands that used to belong to Arabs. Instead, an Arabic state must control them, the argument goes.

But why would a libertarian fall for this argument? Likewise, why would a libertarian care whether N. Ireland is under the Queen's rule, or (S.) Ireland's gov't's rule? What matters is whether a private person X lives on his own territory (whatever that means -- in any country -- considering that most 'private' territories were bought from the gov't; including, e.g., USA in the former Louisiana Purchase territory) or on somebody else's territory who has a better demonstrable claim.

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.

If you blow up the person who is living on specifically your land who was sold this land by the government (which is what most Americans are doing vis-a-vis Native American land), that's another thing.

If you you blow up indiscriminately someone who is supposedly 'represented' by the gov't that supposedly displaced you, that's a totally another thing.

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?

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

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.

That's a much better argument.

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?

From Ethics of Liberty:

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.

So, Marko, perhaps you can see why I would want Aristophanes to clarify? So "the people in the US and Israel are to a level responsible for what their states have done"? Interesting. So, does that mean that the Israeli civilians ought to be counted among those that get what they deserve?

Perhaps you are beginning to see why my question was not so silly?

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.

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.

I thought I said somewhere in this thread that his point was to get others on his side since he didn't want to retype his post...

Marko:

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.

Arabs who held the land also bought it illegitimately from feudal authorities who were illegitimate land owners.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

 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.

 

The problem is that he is forcing his neighbors to be subjects of the state B as well, against their wishes.

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?

Then he is a criminal.

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.

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:

1) his indirect aggression deligitimized his ownership of the house;
2) 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.

I asked this question before:

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?

1. Recognize that the governemnt (state or federal) is the legitimate owner of the land? (In which case we have to obey its laws.)

2. Give the land back to Native Americans, displacing the current 'squatters'?

3. 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.

agressive displacement is certainly the case.

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.

cab21:

the military commanders said that there was not a threat, that the military would not even be ready for a year or more

So, in a year, attacking the Arabs would be fine?

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.

any private defense agency would bomb children?

they took land that did not even belong to people they declared war on.

ever since the beginning they have been bulldozing land and kicking people out at gunpoint, not doing declared wars, but as occupations .

they are putting in the same kinds of racist laws the nazis did against jews in germany, but against arabs.

wars aside, there is still the bulldozing and kicking people out at gunpoint. is that what the private defence agencys will do? be huge militarys to kick people of land at gunpoint without any previus initiation of agression?

Children get bombed as collateral damage. Not in the sense of "we will bomb Dresden just for the heck of it", but "we will try to strike the guys who are killing us. We will give a warning in advance for the people living in the vicinity that we will bomb the house X. If the terrorist's four wives and 16 children end up making a living barrier around him, we will still kill him."

 

I already answered about the bulldozing above. I don't agree with some of it, but most of it is done in response to aggression to the houses of those who helped the aggressor (including by allowing to use their houses to send the rockets from).

Some of it is done because of illegal building without permits. It's also done to Israelis. As a libertarian, I don't agree with it, but you can't expect any government of the world to ignore illegal building on what it considers its own land. US government will also bulldoze your house if you build it without a permit on a 'public' land.

Some of it is done in retaliation to terrorists' relatives in hopes to discourage future attacks. I condemn those kinds of bulldozings.

I don't know what racist laws Israeli Arabs incur from Israel. Most of them get welfare paychecks, including business owners. That's why they stay in Israel, even though they could emigrate. Non-Israeli Arabs are potential combatants and are screened as such upon entry to Israel. If I had a family of neighbors who from time to time shot rockets at my house, I would also screen them for bombs and weapons every time they entered my land to work on it (if I were stupid enough to allow them to work on my territory at all).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama  the people saw panflits, went into a school, and were bombed there

its a smaller percent of people that have rockets to the percent of people that got land stolen from them by the state.

its not new buildings being taken down that im talking about, but old villiages there before isrial even came into the land

part of it was kicking people off land, then leasing the houses to people as the original land owner had been kicked out.

the staying rather than leaving ishue, why should people have to leave if they don't like a state coming in and taking over and impossing occupations and agressive laws?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/9010302/Israel-citizenship-ruling-slammed-as-racist.html here is one example of a marraige law.

Well I have to say anything involving the country Israel sure seems to devolve into accusations of racism and bigotry mighty quickly! Just like global warming emotionalism. Sheesh! Calm down fellas.

But the thought of someone's ancestry granting them any ownership rights to something neither they nor their parents ever owned or possessed is absurd.

Yes, America screwed the Indians (teepee, not turban). But once the perpetrators, victims, and their immediate decendents are all dead, and indeed the crime took place long before any of the current parties were born, it seems impossible for ancestry to be a reasonable basis for ownership claims. 

I mean, if somebody could prove they had neanderthal genes, would that give them a claim to part of Europe?

the historical jews only got the land in the first place through conquest, it's not like they were original homesteaders. same for the arabs, but peaceful jews and arabs and anyone else ought to be able to live in the area without some claim from a book that the area exclusivly belongs to some people over others.

cab21:

the historical jews only got the land in the first place through conquest, it's not like they were original homesteaders. same for the arabs, but peaceful jews and arabs and anyone else ought to be able to live in the area without some claim from a book that the area exclusivly belongs to some people over others.

This may be true. But the question then is who has the best claim on the land then?

If the land was taken illegitimately from someone long ago, then the question is, is the current holder of the land the original thief? Certainly not, as no one can live for 3000 years. The current owners are their descendants generally.

Can the descendants of the original owners be found? In this case, not really. Most or all of those people groups have been lost to history. Though the Phillistines eventually became the Palestines (Palestinians).

If the thief is not the current occupier, and the descendants cannot be found, then the land must be considered unowned or abandoned, and the current holder of the land must be considered its first homesteader and thus legitimate owner.

After all, regardless of what your descendants have done, that does not make you a thief or illegitimate holder of land. And if the legit descendants cannot be found to give the land back to, then you've homesteaded it rightly by being the first user of unowned land.

cab21:

the historical jews only got the land in the first place through conquest, it's not like they were original homesteaders. same for the arabs, but peaceful jews and arabs and anyone else ought to be able to live in the area without some claim from a book that the area exclusivly belongs to some people over others.

 

Imagine if Uncle Bob dies and leaves his parcel of land to his 20 nephews and their families and descendants. Then the nephews are driven from the land. Then their grandchildren come back and drive those who settled in the land. They say: this land is ours, and it never stopped being ours, because Uncle Bob gave it to us.

Now, the problems is: some people don't believe that Uncle Bob ever existed. They believe that Uncle Bob's will is a mythical document made up by his supposed nephews.

But if a given nephew believes for whatever reason that this document is true, then his actions at removing the squatters don't contradict his libertarian views.

 

I believe that God gave Jews the land of Israel. Just because others don't believe that, it's their problem. The land was God's to give to whomever He wanted.

Also, we have a document, for example, that King David bought the land of Jerusalem and bequethed it to Jews and their descendants. Again, if someone thinks the story was made up, that's his problem. If the community of Jews living in Israel honestly believes that this story happened, and that Jerusalem was never sold, they are not contradicting their libertarian convictions.

 anyone is justified in doing anything in that case.

Religious issues aside, here is the problem with the Right of Return:

60 years ago, there was a war, and a bunch of refugees left. There were a couple incidents when they were forcefully kicked out, but those were isolated. For the most part, people left either fleeing from the war or in a way of helping the invading armies.

After the war, I have heard two version of the story: 1) they refused to return, because they don't believe that the State of Israel can exist. They practically abandoned their homes. 2) They were not allowed to return, because they wouldn't pledge citizenship to the State of Israel, and it was feared that they would ally themselves with Arabs if those invaded again.

 

Meanwhile, their homes were resettled by the influx of Jewish refugees from Arabic countries.

60 years passed. Now, in order to bring back the Arabs, we have to displace thousands of Jews who have lived on the land they settled and improved for a few generations.

The world has moved on. The refugees need to be paid the value of the land that they abandoned (not the current value, but the value that it would have without all the improvements) -- which Israel is happy to do -- and allowed to settle wherever they wish.

 

At the same time, there is another nuance.

Imagine a libertarian society of Texas. It has a bunch of Mexicans living next to Whites. Then a war with Mexico starts. Mexicans leave to Mexico, and Whites defeat the Mexicans. Then the original Mexican Texans want to return to their homes. But the White Texans say: "We don't want you living next to us, because if ever a war with Mexicans starts again, you will pose a security risk. If we can demonstrate that this is the case, we have a right to defend ourselves against the risk that your presence poses."

It's true that this situation is against libertarian principles, but it does seem absurd that the White Texans must agree to the danger of living next to the allies of their enemies.

cab21:

 anyone is justified in doing anything in that case.

No. Because Jews have evidence, while 'anyone' does not.

Imagine I leave a tie downstairs in a hotel lobby. I come back and take it. Someone sees me and says: 'thief!'. But I know that the tie is mine. Could be I am confabulating, but the best I can tell, it's mine, and I didn't steal it.

with libertarian principles, do you still think they would be perceived as threats? core of the problem is in non libertarian principles.

the state of isrial is not being libertarian to it's own citizens.

 

muslims have just as much evidence, they wrote books as well.

you said if someone beileives they are right, they are following libertarian principles.

Muslim 'evidence' is based on a story told by one person. Jewish evidence is based on mass evidence of a large number of people, who passed this story to their descendants.

But forget about that for a second.

Imagine that you have two libertarian societies. In one of them, the 'common law' recognizes property is something on which one has settled and altered the land in some way. In another, property is something on which someone grazes his cattle from time to time and loudly proclaims the territory to be his. As long as he grazes the cattle at least once a year, the society's custom declares the land to be his property.

People from the first society settle on what they think is empty territory. People from the second society come over and claim the territory to be theirs and bring witnesses that they grazed cattle on this territory once a year or more often. The first people say: 'so what?'

Private judges and arbitrators are called. The problem is: the arbitrators follow different codes of law from different society. Each declares his compatriots' actions as valid.

the muslim story is told by a large number of people who pass the story to their decendants just as much as the jewish story is.  the christian story as well, as well i'm sure was tolled by people conqured by jews when they first optained the land from the people that had it before them. what about christians that say god no longer says the land belongs only to some people of certain genetics and certain religion? the ownership thing was a convenant and that was broken by rejecting jesus. jesus opened up a covenant to all that would accept jesus, no promises for a specific spot in the material world.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/god-s-promise-of-land-to-jews-has-deep-pull-on-secular-israelis-1.3294

 this article says the majority of citizens are secular.

mayby the term libertarian needs to find a set universial definition for what property would be. at  worst each is justified in a defensive fight and the arms war wins

It is told by a large people, but its origins are one person's witness. One person can be deluded.

On the other hand, Jewish story's origin is an even that was claimed to have been witnessed by a large number of people. Large number of people is unlikely to have been liars, halucinating, or deluded.

In Judaism 'secular' means 'doesn't keep 613 commandments'. It doesn't mean that they don't believe in God or Torah. They just don't feel like keeping them. That's their problem.

 

But I was just describing one way that one can look at the issue: from religious point of view forming the basis for a libertarian argument.

 where does god talk to many people and tell each of them about their eternal ownership of the land?

god told joshua, one person

god told moses, one person

all sorts of stories in the bible told by one person of god talking to one person.

secular here means people that don't beleive in god.

if the large number of people argument worked, jews would be cristians.