Copying America Doesn’t Make it Right
Posted on February 19, 2011 at 2.29 pm
Q. I dont see how Israel was established through unjust force. Jews had always lived there even if they were a minority until the 40s. But with the principle of homesteading, the jews transformed the mainly unused land and made a desert blossom. No land was taken. This puts the Israeli effort for independence (including the “terrorist” attacks by the Stern gang against the british) on similar grounds as the American Revolution. Two seperate states were drawn up by the UN (“international fiat”); however, the arab world rejected this plan, wanting complete domination and so Israel was attacked by five nations which it repelled. Where is the unjust force? — datny, from tumblr.
A. Most of this is already addressed in previous answers I’ve made on the subject, but given then new (and remarkable) assertion that Israel never took anyone’s land, I’ll address this again in full.
Jews had always lived there even if they were a minority until the 40s. But with the principle of homesteading, the jews transformed the mainly unused land and made a desert blossom. No land was taken.
No land was taken, huh?
(Click the image for a larger version.)
Let’s see what Wikipedia, which I like for its status as a neutral arbiter of last resort on the internet, has to say on the subject (emphasis mine):
An Israeli settlement is an Israeli civilian community on land that was captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War and is considered by the international community (excluding Israel) to be occupied territory. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.
The International Court of Justice and the international community say these settlements are illegal,. Israel disputes this. The United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel’s construction of settlements constitutes violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention….
In November 2006 Peace Now acquired a report (which it claims was leaked from the Israeli Government’s Civil Administration) indicating that as much as 40 percent of the settlement land that Israel plans to retain in the West Bank is privately owned by Palestinians. Peace Now further claims that this is a violation of Israeli law. The Washington Post reported that “The 38-page report offers what appears to be a comprehensive argument against the Israeli government’s contention that it avoids building on private land, drawing on the state’s own data to make the case.” ….
In February 2008, The [Israeli] Civil Administration admitted that more than a third of West Bank settlements were built on private Palestinian land, originally seized by the IDF for ‘security purposes’. The unauthorized seizure of private Palestinian land has been defined by the Civil Administration itself in a recent case as ‘theft’.
The Spiegel report, commissioned by the Israeli Defense Ministry, also details a large amount of land theft by Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The report reveals that some settlements deemed legal by Israel are in part, and sometimes in large part, effectively illegal outposts, and that large portions of veteran Israeli settlements, including Ofra, Elon Moreh and Beit El were built on private Palestinian land….
The recent use of the Absentee Property Law to “transfer, sell or lease any real estate property” in East Jerusalem owned by Palestinians who live elsewhere (usually in the West Bank) without compensation has been criticized both inside and outside of Israel.
Opponents of the settlements claim that “vacant” land had either belonged to Arabs who had fled or belonged collectively to an entire village, a practise that had developed under Ottoman rule. B’Tselem claims that the Israeli government used the absence of modern legal documents for the communal land as a legal basis for expropriating it….
Human Rights Watch has determined that Israeli settlement policies has had the effect of “forcing residents to leave their communities”.
As you can see, the Israeli government itself doesn’t agree that “no land was taken.” And that’s just the settlements — it doesn’t even address the larger conflict between the two groups.
But let’s continue:
This puts the Israeli effort for independence (including the “terrorist” attacks by the Stern gang against the british) on similar grounds as the American Revolution.
I’ve said before in very clear terms that I’m not condoning terrorism from either side in this situation. As far as Israel’s founding being similar to the American Revolution, I’ve already made this comparison — and it’s no more ok that the original American settlers took the land of the native Americans than it is ok that the Israeli settlers took the land of the native Palestinians. I’m not denying the comparison; in fact, I made it first. But just because something is similar to the way we did it in America doesn’t at all make it right. You can read my thoughts on that point here.
Two seperate states were drawn up by the UN (“international fiat”); however, the arab world rejected this plan, wanting complete domination and so Israel was attacked by five nations which it repelled. Where is the unjust force?
The unjust force wasn’t so much Israel’s defense of itself once it was attacked (though we could get into the details of Israel ended up with far more land at the end of the war than it was supposed to be defending at the beginning). The unjust force which I’ve referenced was instead Israel’s original creation by fiat — entirely ignoring principles of self-determination — which made the attack possible. This is also something I’ve explained before at great length.
As I noted the first time, this is a country created by the UN’s vote. But the land in question wasn’t simply empty before then. There were people living there. The majority of them weren’t Jewish. What gave the UN the right to decide that their land would become a Jewish state? On what grounds did the Jews deserve this land more than the people who already lived there? Is it really any surprise that the Arab leaders rejected the UN’s proposal? Look at the map. They wouldn’t exactly gain from the situation.
Had large numbers of Jews emigrated to Palestine following WW2 and then joined with the previous residents in self-determination I’d have no objections — and I suspect the Middle East would have a lot less violence. But that’s not what happened. What happened was a state was established by international fiat, and so it’s really no surprise that some of the people already living there weren’t too happy about it.
Does that make terrorism ok? No, of course not. But it also means that the state of Israel is not simply an innocent victim in this situation. Hamas and Hizbollah have killed civilians, and there is no excuse for that. But, just as we must look at concepts like blowback when examining American foreign policy, so too we must consider why Palestinians would find such murderous groups attractive. And with maps like the one above, it isn’t hard to guess the reason.
Youre still ignoring the homestead principle. Much of these lands lay unused, unclaimed as property. The Jews did not step on a place previously owned by Arabs and claim it as their own. These were lands that had lay dormant for A LONG TIME. On a national level, neither Jew or Arab had national claim, as no state had existed in the “Palestine” territory for 2000 years. And you missed my point entirely. I was only referring to unjust force/taking of land in the creation of Israel. In fact, “in 1948, the invading Arab armies instructed the Palestinians to vacate their holdings in Israel until the Jews were exterminated, after which they would return to inherit the land. Palestinians duly scuttled, abandoning the land with nomadic ease.” (IlanaMercer.com)
I first saw the comment your tumblr. I am no expert on the history of Israel, nor on the recent terrorism. However, I do know something about Israel’s increase in land area.
Yes, Israel was established by a UN charter. I am a pretty hardcore libertarian and would normally be against such a charter, but let’s be honest, Europe was not a safe or desirable place for the jews after WWII. Were there lots of Jews living in Palestine before then? Of course not. They were not anticipating on being slaughtered in Europe. After WWII, they were decimated and, understandably, fearful of the area. Under such circumstances, it makes sense that a large number of Jews would band together, building on their commonalities in an attempt to suffer with the loss. Hence, Zionism took hold and Hebrew became a common spoken language again. Following this line of thought, it makes sense that the area near Jerusalem would be a good place to establish a new community friendly for Jews.
So, back to the point, I normally disagree with the UN on just about everything, but establishing a country for the Jews seems like the right move given the circumstances.
Predictably, Israel was soon attacked by neighboring countries who were not fans of their new neighbor. What really defines this argument for me is that Israel shocked the world and won, defended it’s boarders, and even drove back their attackers well into their own country. However, they told Egypt, “Here, take a lot of this land back, but let us be in peace.” Did America win the revolutionary war and then give back New York as a peace offering? I think not.
I think, at least at the beginning, Israel just wanted to be accepted. When it was attacked and defended itself, it should have served as a warning to just let it be. Nobody needed to get hurt or suffer. Yes, those living in Palestine before the establishment of Israel were all of a sudden outnumbered, but how is that different from the mass immigration the US has experienced over the years?
The point is, Israel expanded because its neighbors refused to accept Israel’s existence. After a few punches, your restraint to just sit back and dodge the hits goes away.
Sorry about the confusion, Mike — I obviously didn’t intend to misunderstand your query; it evidently wasn’t clear to me what you meant.
That said, even if no land was stolen in the original settlement — if it all was, as you suggest, homesteading — I still don’t see why that gives the new Jewish settlers the right to impose their preference for government on their Palestinian neighbors. Homesteading is one thing; deciding that homesteading lets you call the shots for everyone is another.
Indeed, as you put it, “On a national level, neither Jew or Arab had national claim, as no state had existed in the “Palestine” territory for 2000 years.” That’s exactly my point: As I’ve said repeatedly that the issue is not whether a Jewish state was created in that location, but rather how it was created.
Nathanial — I totally understand why it’s easy to be sympathetic to Israel as the hero of this story. But again, though the tragedy of the Holocaust should never be minimized or discounted, I fail to see how it gives representatives from other countries the right to vote on the political fate of the Palestinians. Indeed, I’d say it’s none of those representatives’ business at all. As is often said about this situation, being victimized does not give you the right to victimize others — even if you don’t victimize to the same degree.
You said that:
I completely agree. Where I can’t follow is to the point that this new community need be unfriendly for non-Jews.
I’d say the justification for the ‘Jewish’ state in the British mandate of Palestine lays in a historical (dont confuse this with biblical) claim, as the Jews had autonomy as a kingdom before Roman domination. Arabs never had a historical political presence. A reestablishment and return to Israel has forever been part of mainstream Jewish identity, just as Kurds and Koreans hope for a return to a unified nationality of their own.
So just to clarify, I’m justifying the establishment of a Jewish state; problems with treatment of non-Jews is a different issue. But I just wanted to cement that the founding of Israel itself is sound from a libertarian perspective. What the state chose to do after that, is questionable and up for discussion; indeed I would say Israel is unfairly singled out for its behavior, and then opponents extend this out to say that Israel is an illegitimate state, a view I find malicious, or at best, mis/uninformed.
That strikes me as a slightly more compelling argument than the idea that the UN could just make its announcement, but still not compelling enough to accept.
After all, 2,000 years is a long time to continue to claim land which you don’t currently control. Also, doesn’t that require you to ignore that kind of giant thing called the Ottoman Empire (based in Turkey, which is considered Arab), which was for hundreds of years an Arabic political presence in the region?
(Just saw your second comment.)
As far as Israel being singled out, I agree with you there and have written as much in this post and others. The events there are more recent than the founding of other states, and thus seem more shocking.
That said, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the subject of whether the founding was just, as we seem to be at an impasse, though neither of us are uninformed.
Actually, the average Turk would be highly offended if you called them Arab. The two are truly distinct and the Turkish take pride in their own unique ethnicity, even considering themselves more European than middle-eastern. The Ottomans/Turks merely held control over a great portion of Arabic lands and shared Islam as their predominant religion.
I don’t think very many Jews homestead land in Palestine. Most early settlements were actually purchased by wealthy Jews, who then invited other Jews to settle the land. That land was mostly inhabited by Arab tenets, who were kicked out by the new Jewish owners (I’m not saying this is illegal — a new owner is a new owner).