Q&A: The Right to the Land
The Right to the Land
Question
What do you think about the following claims?
The Partition Plan allotted the Jews more territory than their percentage of the population in the country. All this came after massive immigration in the decades preceding the establishment of the state, whose purpose was to a large extent to maximize the amount of territory the Jewish state would receive. In this context one can ask about the justification for using violence to prevent a creeping takeover of collective territory (since the lands were legally purchased from the private owners). Was it permissible for the Arabs to fight in order to prevent the loss of that territory? You could argue that there was no distinct Palestinian people at that time from whom the territory was taken, but that argument is problematic. In the past you justified harming civilians incidentally in the course of fighting, viewing them as part of the enemy collective. That means you recognize the existence of a collective even if it does not include all the characteristics of an ancient people. Can such a collective not demand to establish a state in territory empty of any people's control (the British had left the country) in which it constitutes a majority? On the other hand, one must remember that the Jews lived in the land in the past and were dispossessed from it mainly because of the Arab conquest in the seventh century. Regarding that, the question arises how far back one goes in trying to create justice; perhaps there is something like established possession here (although there certainly was no abandonment on the part of the Jews).
Answer
Anyone is permitted to fight for what he thinks is right, provided he bears the consequences if he fails. As far as I am concerned, if there is a public that defines itself as a public for purposes of fighting me, then it is a public. The fact that by the accepted criteria they are not really a people is a different discussion (and not all that interesting or relevant).
Discussion on Answer
In my opinion, their war was not justified. Even if there was a difference in the proportional allocation of territory, there are other considerations too (such as the distribution of the population). But it is not relevant what I think. They think otherwise. From my perspective I am not a thief.
B. Absolutely not. As I wrote.
C. There is no abandonment by the owners because this is not about ownership but about attachment and sovereignty. History definitely validates our claim. They expelled us by force, and there was no other sovereignty when we returned. I do not see the problem.
A. Could you elaborate more on the additional considerations? I also did not understand what you meant regarding the distribution of the population.
C. The attachment itself is the lack of abandonment by the owners. 2. As is well known, Arab loyalty is first of all to the tribe; most Arab states are a Western fiction that does not endure. Is the hold of the Arab clans on the land not their sovereignty?
D. Suppose the land was empty of sovereignty. Are we not obligated to allow the return of those refugees who were expelled by us (the Arabs of Lod, for example)? After all, the claim that the aggressor must bear responsibility is directed by you to the collective. It applies to individuals who are not involved in the fighting only when it is necessary to stop the pursuing collective by harming "one of its limbs." I would note that an answer saying we are still threatened by those refugees addresses this point, but there is a practical difference for a time when we will no longer be threatened by them.
A. When the population is spread over a larger and more dispersed area, or over land of lower quality, there is room to change the proportions of the partition.
C. No. Sovereignty is a legal concept, and that does not meet those criteria.
D. If they pose no danger, then ownership of private property should be respected. And if people have already settled on the land, then appropriate compensation can also be given. But the aggressor certainly has to bear the consequences of his actions, including the individuals within it who were not actually involved. Those who were involved acted in their name.
C. Sovereignty is a legal concept. But since there is no world law book that determines what counts as sovereignty, we have no choice but to rely on common sense and define the concept accordingly. Against that background I asked: can a tribe not be considered sovereign over the territory in which it sits? Especially in a society that defines itself by tribe.
D. In your view, is the collective perspective (the comparison to a collective pursuer) correct only in wartime, or not? As I understood it, your argument was (among other places in this column: https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%99%D7%91%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%98-%D7%95%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%9C-%D7%95%D7%93) that unlike ordinary law, where a person must be judged based on evidence in court, in the case of a pursuer one may harm him on the spot. Building on that, you argued that in war there is a collective pursuer, and therefore one need not put oneself at risk in order not to harm enemy civilians. With regard to loss of property and land, the element of a pursuer does not exist, even though it is an enemy collective. In that case, if both stages in your argument are necessary for the rule to apply, one would need to prove regarding each person whether he was a partner in the war against us in order to determine whether he deserves compensation (though perhaps the burden of proof is on the one seeking to extract money from another).
C. There was no sovereignty here by any standard. The proof is that right now they are claiming sovereignty in the accepted legal sense. Even a clan living in some territory does not challenge the concept of sovereignty.
D. I explained everything.
I have exhausted the topic.
A. Obviously one is allowed to fight for what one thinks it is right to fight for (that is almost a tautology). The question is whether in your opinion their war was justified, since they were a majority here and the partition proposal was not proportional. If so, they should not have to bear the consequences, because then you (as a state), as a thief, should give them the territory.
B. Does their being a collective for purposes of war not justify recognizing them as a distinct entity also for purposes of self-determination as a state?
C. If you could address the claim about the existence of the Jewish people in the land until the Arab conquest: does that validate the Jewish ownership even today, or has too much time passed? And does it matter that the Jewish people dreamed of returning and there was no abandonment by the owners regarding the land?