From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Thu Apr 18 2002 - 15:36:06 MDT
I think Jeff's post points out how extremely complex
the Mid-East situation is. Should not the Palestinians
or Arabs be taking their frustration out on the Turks
rather than the Jews? [from:]
> I am not well versed in the specifics of the
> legalities of land ownership and transfer in Palestine
> in the period 1859-1920 under the Ottoman Turks, and
> then 1920-1947, under the British Mandate. I have
> read however, that the Ottomans, at the end, were
> deeply in debt to the Europeans, and changed their
> laws in 1859 to permit the sale of land.
Now:
> The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's
> conference with Jewish representatives, that the
> Zionists looked forward to a practically complete
> dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of
> Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
Ok, here we have a case of religious extremism that
should be clearly identified as such. I expect this
extends to the "settlements" issue of our time.
One wonders how the Zionists would treat communities
of Zoroastrians, Sufis or Zen Buddhists living in
their midst(!).
In fact an *interesting* peace proposal could revolve
around community transplantation -- complete exchange
of Palestinian communities with alternate ethno-religious
communities with appropriate financial compensation
to make it *very* attractive. Exchange several million
Palestinians with several million Indian Hindus. What
would the Israelis do then?
> In his address of July 4, 1918, President Wilson laid
> down the following principle as one of the four great
> "ends for which the associated peoples of the world
> were fighting": "The settlement of every question,
> whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic
> arrangement or of political relationship upon the
> basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the
> people immediately concerned, and not upon the basis
> of the material interest or advantage of any other
> nation or people which may desire a different
> settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence
> or mastery."
The key point from my perspective seems to be rejecting
the "material interest or advantage of any other nation
or people". If you can *really* buy a person off then
it seems resonable to do it! I mean *really* are the
Palestinians or Israelis *so* attached to scraps of
what is mostly desert that they cannot be bought out
and be moderately happy that they are getting a fair deal?
In tnis case, what seems appropriate is for the wealthier
Western countries to propose a land for $ sale -- they
will buy up land (whether they be in Isreal or "Palestine"),
bank it for a generation to let tensions diminish, then
sell them back to the highest bidder. I.e. each individual
is allowed to make a choice between their "beliefs" and their
"conditions".
The key problem may be related to the "property rights" and
"system of law" arguments of Hernanodo de Soto. Because the property
rights for the land of Israel/Palestine are so messed up both parties
have legitimate claims. It should be up to courts to resolve
those claims. I'd tend to agree with Jeff -- that it will be
problematic for "claims" rely on words from heaven (really bad)
or history ("my family lived here 2000 years ago") rather than
concrete evidence that "this was *my* family land". The older
claims it would be *very* difficult to verify even if the they
were really legitimate(!) -- e.g. the "claims" were taken by
force of arms when property rights documentation was unavailable.
Then the best way to resolve the problem is by buying people out
at a "fair" price. At least in the news articles I have read
suggests that seems to be an allowed component of the 1940's UN
policy (the trick is to make it "fair").
Perhaps the way to deal with the refugee situation is simply
compensation. Pay people off to forego the right of return
(for the Palestinians) or their right of "claim" to Israel
(for the Jews).
Can you convert the rule of emotions to a rule of law?
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:35 MST