One of the reasons why I have great hope in our age (apart from the depravity of man) is precisely because stories like this one can get a wide audience.
Now, whether these things remain in people's minds is another story.
I'm not sure what Pipes thinks he's proven. One does not give up title to land simply by fleeing in a time of war.
While many Jews did peacefully migrate to the Levant prior to the 1947 UN partition, the land claims of Palestinians who were expelled or fled during the 1947-48 war should be honored.
Continued Israeli settlement activities in the West Bank also refute Pipes's claims. At the very least, the Palestinians should have a right to the private property they own in their own territories. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Land_ownership)
Pipes is responding to the Palestinian Authority's allegation that Israel doesn't have a right to exist since its existence is in part predicated on land which was supposedly "stolen." Among other things, Pipes notes the Israelis purchased land.
One does not give up title to land simply by fleeing in a time of war. While many Jews did peacefully migrate to the Levant prior to the 1947 UN partition, the land claims of Palestinians who were expelled or fled during the 1947-48 war should be honored.
If it's the case that "One does not give up title to land simply by fleeing in a time of war," then several Arab nations owe Jewish refugees a fair bit of land (e.g. here, here). But I don't see you arguing in favor of Jewish refugees who were forced to flee from Arabic nations due to war and the like. Perhaps we can expect you to do this from now on?
Continued Israeli settlement activities in the West Bank also refute Pipes's claims. At the very least, the Palestinians should have a right to the private property they own in their own territories.
This assumes Palestinians own the West Bank. But as the Wiki section you cite notes: "According to the Israeli government, the majority of the land currently occupied by the new settlements was vacant or belonged to the state (from which it was leased) or bought fairly from the Palestinians."
Pipes is responding to the Palestinian Authority's allegation that Israel doesn't have a right to exist since its existence is in part predicated on land which was supposedly "stolen." Among other things, Pipes notes the Israelis purchased land.
Some Jews purchased land during the formative years of Zionism. Some were even native to the Levant. I don't think that the PA or even the most virulent anti-Zionists dispute this.
The issue here (which Pipes conveniently ignores) is private property that was indisputably confiscated from Palestinians in the 1947/48 war and its aftermath. Whether this consists of 50%, 10%, or 1% of the land that Israel claims, it should be returned to its rightful owners.
But I don't see you arguing in favor of Jewish refugees who were forced to flee from Arabic nations due to war and the like. Perhaps we can expect you to do this from now on?
I support private property as a general principle and would like to see all governments around the world honor the legitimate property claims of displaced persons. I am opposed to the Palestinian land laws for the same reason.
Considering that Israel is supposedly a shining beacon of liberal democracy in a region characterized by autocracy and Islamism, you'd think they would have a more enlightened perspective on private property rights than their neighbors.
This assumes Palestinians own the West Bank. But as the Wiki section you cite notes: "According to the Israeli government, the majority of the land currently occupied by the new settlements was vacant or belonged to the state (from which it was leased) or bought fairly from the Palestinians."
So at least 50% of the settlements in the West Bank were built on land properly obtained by Israel (or its citizens). That's hardly comforting for anyone who believes in the sanctity of private property.
The Israeli government has admitted that at least 1/3 of the West Bank settlements are built on confiscated land. Can you imagine the outcry if a foreign nation confiscated privately-owned land in the United States in order to build private settlements? Can a Palestinian refugee buy land in Israel and build his own settlement? (Answer: No)
A lot more information here. Needless to say, the issue is much more complicated that Pipes (or Palestinian demagogues) would care to admit.
The issue here (which Pipes conveniently ignores) is private property that was indisputably confiscated from Palestinians in the 1947/48 war and its aftermath.
Hm, not that I necessarily agree with everything Pipes writes, but I hardly read Pipes as "conveniently ignor[ing]" the issue in his article. See his comments on "conquest." You might not agree with his stance, but he doesn't ignore the issue.
I support private property as a general principle and would like to see all governments around the world honor the legitimate property claims of displaced persons. I am opposed to the Palestinian land laws for the same reason.
Good to know. So, on a practical note, perhaps Israel should cut a deal with the Palestinians as well as Arabic nations. If the Palestinians and Arabic nations return land taken from Jewish refugees, then Israel can consider doing the same. That's just for starters.
Considering that Israel is supposedly a shining beacon of liberal democracy in a region characterized by autocracy and Islamism, you'd think they would have a more enlightened perspective on private property rights than their neighbors.
Since I don't specifically know what your views on "private property rights" are and hence what they entail, I don't know if I'd agree or disagree with your assessment that Israel is somehow deficient in its private property rights.
Plus, even if Israel is deficient on your views, are your views on property germane to the Israel-Palestine land issues?
Likewise what are the Palestinian views on "private property rights"?
Judging by the various democracies around the world, not to mention in history, it would seem many democracies can legitimately be called democracies yet incorporate different notions of property. Some, shall we say, are more "private" in their "property rights," while others less so. Some have other ideals which are relevant to the topic of property. Take the kibbutz.
I could agree Israel does, by and large, have "a more enlightened perspective on private property rights than their neighbors." Similarly I take it you'd say we Americans have "a more enlightened perspective on private property rights" than Cuba. But it doesn't mean we do everything perfectly when it comes to "private property rights," while Cuba never does anything right with regard to their "property rights."
Besides, private property rights may be one issue. But to suggest (if that's what you're suggesting) it's solely about private property rights is a simplistic and naive way to frame the topic.
The Israeli government has admitted that at least 1/3 of the West Bank settlements are built on confiscated land. Can you imagine the outcry if a foreign nation confiscated privately-owned land in the United States in order to build private settlements?
Say Mexico "confiscated" California "in order to build private settlements" in California. Sure, on the face of it, it'd obviously cause an "outcry," to put it mildly. However, let's say Californians were using California as a base from which to mount terrorist attacks against Mexico and kill Mexicans. That'd put a different spin on the story, wouldn't it? I'm not implying that's exactly what's happening in the West Bank. Rather my immediate point is simply to say there's more than meets the eye to what you're saying. Like you say, it's far more "complicated" than how you're describing it.
Should be required reading.
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons why I have great hope in our age (apart from the depravity of man) is precisely because stories like this one can get a wide audience.
ReplyDeleteNow, whether these things remain in people's minds is another story.
I'm not sure what Pipes thinks he's proven. One does not give up title to land simply by fleeing in a time of war.
ReplyDeleteWhile many Jews did peacefully migrate to the Levant prior to the 1947 UN partition, the land claims of Palestinians who were expelled or fled during the 1947-48 war should be honored.
Continued Israeli settlement activities in the West Bank also refute Pipes's claims. At the very least, the Palestinians should have a right to the private property they own in their own territories. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement#Land_ownership)
Uncle Dick said:
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what Pipes thinks he's proven.
Pipes is responding to the Palestinian Authority's allegation that Israel doesn't have a right to exist since its existence is in part predicated on land which was supposedly "stolen." Among other things, Pipes notes the Israelis purchased land.
One does not give up title to land simply by fleeing in a time of war. While many Jews did peacefully migrate to the Levant prior to the 1947 UN partition, the land claims of Palestinians who were expelled or fled during the 1947-48 war should be honored.
If it's the case that "One does not give up title to land simply by fleeing in a time of war," then several Arab nations owe Jewish refugees a fair bit of land (e.g. here, here). But I don't see you arguing in favor of Jewish refugees who were forced to flee from Arabic nations due to war and the like. Perhaps we can expect you to do this from now on?
Continued Israeli settlement activities in the West Bank also refute Pipes's claims. At the very least, the Palestinians should have a right to the private property they own in their own territories.
This assumes Palestinians own the West Bank. But as the Wiki section you cite notes: "According to the Israeli government, the majority of the land currently occupied by the new settlements was vacant or belonged to the state (from which it was leased) or bought fairly from the Palestinians."
Pipes is responding to the Palestinian Authority's allegation that Israel doesn't have a right to exist since its existence is in part predicated on land which was supposedly "stolen." Among other things, Pipes notes the Israelis purchased land.
ReplyDeleteSome Jews purchased land during the formative years of Zionism. Some were even native to the Levant. I don't think that the PA or even the most virulent anti-Zionists dispute this.
The issue here (which Pipes conveniently ignores) is private property that was indisputably confiscated from Palestinians in the 1947/48 war and its aftermath. Whether this consists of 50%, 10%, or 1% of the land that Israel claims, it should be returned to its rightful owners.
But I don't see you arguing in favor of Jewish refugees who were forced to flee from Arabic nations due to war and the like. Perhaps we can expect you to do this from now on?
I support private property as a general principle and would like to see all governments around the world honor the legitimate property claims of displaced persons. I am opposed to the Palestinian land laws for the same reason.
Considering that Israel is supposedly a shining beacon of liberal democracy in a region characterized by autocracy and Islamism, you'd think they would have a more enlightened perspective on private property rights than their neighbors.
This assumes Palestinians own the West Bank. But as the Wiki section you cite notes: "According to the Israeli government, the majority of the land currently occupied by the new settlements was vacant or belonged to the state (from which it was leased) or bought fairly from the Palestinians."
So at least 50% of the settlements in the West Bank were built on land properly obtained by Israel (or its citizens). That's hardly comforting for anyone who believes in the sanctity of private property.
The Israeli government has admitted that at least 1/3 of the West Bank settlements are built on confiscated land. Can you imagine the outcry if a foreign nation confiscated privately-owned land in the United States in order to build private settlements? Can a Palestinian refugee buy land in Israel and build his own settlement? (Answer: No)
A lot more information here. Needless to say, the issue is much more complicated that Pipes (or Palestinian demagogues) would care to admit.
Uncle Dick said:
ReplyDeleteThe issue here (which Pipes conveniently ignores) is private property that was indisputably confiscated from Palestinians in the 1947/48 war and its aftermath.
Hm, not that I necessarily agree with everything Pipes writes, but I hardly read Pipes as "conveniently ignor[ing]" the issue in his article. See his comments on "conquest." You might not agree with his stance, but he doesn't ignore the issue.
I support private property as a general principle and would like to see all governments around the world honor the legitimate property claims of displaced persons. I am opposed to the Palestinian land laws for the same reason.
Good to know. So, on a practical note, perhaps Israel should cut a deal with the Palestinians as well as Arabic nations. If the Palestinians and Arabic nations return land taken from Jewish refugees, then Israel can consider doing the same. That's just for starters.
Considering that Israel is supposedly a shining beacon of liberal democracy in a region characterized by autocracy and Islamism, you'd think they would have a more enlightened perspective on private property rights than their neighbors.
Since I don't specifically know what your views on "private property rights" are and hence what they entail, I don't know if I'd agree or disagree with your assessment that Israel is somehow deficient in its private property rights.
Plus, even if Israel is deficient on your views, are your views on property germane to the Israel-Palestine land issues?
Likewise what are the Palestinian views on "private property rights"?
Judging by the various democracies around the world, not to mention in history, it would seem many democracies can legitimately be called democracies yet incorporate different notions of property. Some, shall we say, are more "private" in their "property rights," while others less so. Some have other ideals which are relevant to the topic of property. Take the kibbutz.
I could agree Israel does, by and large, have "a more enlightened perspective on private property rights than their neighbors." Similarly I take it you'd say we Americans have "a more enlightened perspective on private property rights" than Cuba. But it doesn't mean we do everything perfectly when it comes to "private property rights," while Cuba never does anything right with regard to their "property rights."
Besides, private property rights may be one issue. But to suggest (if that's what you're suggesting) it's solely about private property rights is a simplistic and naive way to frame the topic.
The Israeli government has admitted that at least 1/3 of the West Bank settlements are built on confiscated land. Can you imagine the outcry if a foreign nation confiscated privately-owned land in the United States in order to build private settlements?
Say Mexico "confiscated" California "in order to build private settlements" in California. Sure, on the face of it, it'd obviously cause an "outcry," to put it mildly. However, let's say Californians were using California as a base from which to mount terrorist attacks against Mexico and kill Mexicans. That'd put a different spin on the story, wouldn't it? I'm not implying that's exactly what's happening in the West Bank. Rather my immediate point is simply to say there's more than meets the eye to what you're saying. Like you say, it's far more "complicated" than how you're describing it.