From: Andrew Clough (aclough@mit.edu)
Date: Tue Apr 09 2002 - 19:09:37 MDT
At 01:16 PM 4/9/2002 -0700, David Lubkin wrote:
>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?
I happen to agree with the notion that all crimes require at least two
people, so if there is no person or group claiming the land, there is only
the taker involved, and no crime is possible. Of course, if there were
people there, they have the right not to sell, and any sort of compensation
would get bogged down in the subjectivity of the values of things. This
doesn't mean that there are never extenuating circumstances, just that it
is stealing.
>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?
Sure, especially in this case, where A was trying to seize *all* of B's
property. Of course, it isn't true in all cases; if I give you a paper
cut, you can't seize everything I own. I'm not sure where the boundary
should be.
>If A and B are states, and B obtains the property of citizens of A in the
>course of a lawful defense against aggression initiated by A, what should
>happen? Should B have to give back private property? Should B get to
>keep it but A has to compensate its citizens for their loses? Does it
>matter whether A is a dictatorship, a democracy, a voluntary association,
>or private contracted protective services?
If all of A's citizen were responsible for the invasion (maybe A was
created specifically so invade B or something) then I think it would be OK
for B to seize their property (though they might be partially compensated
by the rest of A to spread the pain evenly, maybe if they agreed to that
earlier). If they were under a dictatorship, however, they should be given
at least as much protection of their property as A gave them. If you had
taken a lease from B with only six years remaining, it would be unnecessary
for B to make it yours until you decided to sell it. I suppose B isn't
under any obligation to give you more property rights than its own citizens
either, though it should let you sell your land to it, if you wish.
>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.
It had sufficient proof for me.
>Is there a time limit on assertions of property rights?
Yes, only people who have been wronged can claim compensation (not their
descendants). There is really no other reasonable line you could
have. Consider all claims valid and incomplete records will ensure that
everything is always in a state of flux, as would letting claims extend
back to what we have "good records" of. Any mechanic in which claims can
last for more than one generation also is open to the possibility that
there will be people descended from both sides. There are other
complications too. Should descendants of emigrants have to pay
compensation? Abolitionists (to use the US struggle with slavery as an
example)? Non-slave owners? Union soldiers? Non-slave owners who fought
for the confederates? People who didn't inherit anything form their evil
ancestors? Actually I think that a case can be made for people who have
done wrong to pay back the descendants of those they hurt, but not the
other way around.
>If Mike robs Spike and gives the signed, first edition of _Engines of
>Creation_ to Gina, who sells it to Russell, we might hold Gina and Russell
>harmless and even compensate them, but Spike gets his book back.
Agreed.
>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?
If Spike left instructions for the disposition of his property, the book
should be given away in accordance with those. Otherwise, I'd be inclined
to let Perry keep it, not that I have any real justification.
>There is not a clear personal provenance for any of the West Bank (or
>really, for nearly all of the planet). We know that it was part of Jordan,
>which was given it by the British, who took it in the course of
>prosecuting WW I. We can trace back through the Ottoman Empire ultimately
>to the eviction of Jews from the provinces of Judea and Samaria. If we
>continue the story through the Bible, the Jews obtained the land from the
>original inhabitants through divinely-sanctioned warfare. However, recent
>archaeological research casts doubt on certain of the stories.
>
>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? Is there such a thing as tribal rights? If you assume
>that the Jews *were* forcibly evicted from Israel, and that they had a
>bona fide claim to the land there, do people who assert an ethnic, racial,
>or religious identity with them have any rights? (Similar to the question
>of slavery reparations: who has a valid claim against whom?)
I would say that the Jews definitely don't have a valid claim to that land
(though they can buy it, if they want and can find sellers). I'm not
familiar enough with how they got their land under the British to have an
opinion of whether it was valid, but if any criminals are dead, their
descendants don't owe the land back. As to the state of Israel, I suppose
its as justified in existing as most other governments.
>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.
Unless all land in Israel belongs to the Prime Minister, it should revert
to the people who have been effectively owning it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:21 MST