From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Tue Apr 09 2002 - 12:50:18 MDT
In a message dated 4/9/02 10:20:52, extropy@unreasonable.com writes:
>What is your factual basis for asserting that a majority of Jewish West
>Bank settlements are built on stolen land?
Technically I shouldn't claim a "majority" since I haven't done the studies.
But I've seem many,many reports of evicted Palestinians. I suspect rather
few have sold their land voluntarily.
>What makes land stolen -- under
>current laws, or in Anarchotopia or Libertopia?
If somebody's using the land and nobody else has a claim to have been using
it in the last, oh, 400, years, I'd say it's theirs. If they are then
deprived
of the land or it's use, it's stolen.
>The Arab residents of the West Bank were citizens of Jordan in
>1967. Jordan fought a war against Israel and lost the West Bank.
>
>If A initiates violence against B, B is justified in defending themself
>against A. If in the course of defense, A obtains the property of B, is
>A justified in keeping that property?
Convention in wars of conquest is that the law used is now that of
the conquering nation but ownership remains with individuals. Of course,
if the new nation's laws are unjust they're unjust.
>If Arab residents were voluntarily compensated for the land, it is not
>stealing. But if the land was unclaimed, is it stealing? If the Arab
>residents were involuntarily compensated, is it stealing?
Yes. If an independent, unbiased judge determines the compensation
is fair, I'm willing to let it go. But the Israelis haven't done that.
I would think much more highly of their policies if they went to something
like the Hague court and said "We've taken this land but for security
reasons we simply cannot give it back. What's a fair compensation
for this?" But they haven't.
>How imminent and incontrovertible must a threat of violence be before you
>are justified in taking preemptive action? Israel launched preemptive
>attacks against Jordan and other Arab nations in 1967 based on their claims
>of proof that those nations were days away from initiating attacks against
>Israel.
A sticky issue. Under the circumstances, I'm willing to give Israel the
benefit
of the doubt on security issues. Plopping settlements all over the West Bank
and Gaza Strip (of all the stupid places for a settlement!) is not enhancing
their security.
>Is there a time limit on assertions of property rights?
Yes, it makes no sense to try to compensate for thousand-year-old wrongs.
But the benefit of the doubt goes to the current survivors with the oldest
claim or their immediate family. And the *assertions* have been going on
continuously. I'd say it goes beyond that, although
the exact demarcation isn't clear. The US is going back centuries with
Indian claims and I think they're pretty reasonable.
>What if Mike robbed Spike, and then Perry robbed Mike? Is it a crime to
>rob a robber? Then Spike took a vow of poverty, turned himself into an
>M-brain, and disappeared without a trace. What should happen to Mike,
>Perry, and to the book?
Mike and Perry: petty theft punishments. Book - dispose of as Spike's
abandoned property. Kinda moot though: how many dispossed Palestinians
have joined M-brains along with all of their descendants and heirs?
(discussion of complex history of which countries have ruled the West
Bank)
We're not discussing Israeli taking the Bank from Jordan. We're discussing
settlers taking land from residents and farmers. The history of which
gangs of crooks have been robbing the residents is moot.
>So how far do we go back? When do we decide the historical record is too
>uncertain, and stop? What rights do the descendents of the original
>landowners have?
Any Israeli who can demonstrate descent from a Palestinian resident of
2000 years ago could make a claim for his/her portion of that resident's
land. Otherwise, let it be. Such claims might be too much (due to their
age) - but they are certainly not too little. More is inappropriate.
>A side issue: Jordan is a fairly strong monarchy. I'm guessing that, as
>such, all the land technically belonged to King Hussein, not to the
>inhabitants of the West Bank.
Quite possibly; there have been some discussions here on Hernando
de Soto's ideas that denial of proper title to residents underlies much
of the limitations to growth. In that case, Hussein stole it from the
residents and now Israel stole it from him. Ethically Israel should
give it to the proper owners. IMO if Israel had gone into the West Bank
in 1967 and straightened out ownership, giving it to the families who've
been there for years in a modern legal way, they would be *vastly*
more secure than they are now.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:21 MST