I think the question is this: should there be a cut-off date, or should there be a statute of limitations?
When in human history should reasonable people find a "cut-off" of the right of title by conquering?
One thing that settles the question of most past conquests is the (eventual) acquiescence of the conquered:
-
when a diminished country accepts the losses of territory in a treaty (e.g. Mexico, Germany)
-
when the population of a wholly conquered/absorbed country is now overwhelmingly OK with the new status (e.g. Hawaii)
-
when the people of a conquered country does not exist anymore as a separate entity (e.g. Britain)
So Mexico, Germany, Britain and Hawaii are not really pertinent to the Israel/Palestine question.
How many divisions can the right to not be conquered field? How many allies can it marshal to its defense? Does it count for anything after its houses are burned, women raped and…well hell, it’s the modern age, how about vaporized by a flying robot?
I don’t think you can generalize. There are so many factors, for example:
How many people of each population are there? If it’s something like Hawaii, there may be just too many settled and assimilated “conquerers” to fairly kick them out. But if it’s an area that is held in name but is still mostly settled by the original inhabitants, there may be the possibility of doing it somewhat fairly.
What do the people involved think? Tibet has been pretty much under martial law for two decades because people are so grumpy about how things turned out. This is different than someplace where the situation has been pretty much accepted, like most of the United States.
How important is the held area to the conquering state? Hawaiian independence would vastly change America strategically and culturally in a way that Puerto Rican independence wouldn’t. China argues that Tibet is an essential part of China culturally and historically, but I think plenty of people find that claim suspect.
How were the borders drawn? I think there are plenty of randomly-drawn colonial borders that can be adjusted without too much trauma, but something with a greater historic basis will be harder to change.
You move on. There’s a cute .sig that plays on “All rights reserved.” It’s “All wrongs reversed.” But it’s not going to happen. Dr. Pangloss was wrong: this world is imperfect.
Many claims may seem silly upon detailed inspection. Irish grievances against England? Their genes have been diluted by intermarriage, but principle (English-hating) landowners throughout Ireland own their land because of Anglo-Norman conquests against native Irish centuries ago.
A rule of thumb that makes some sense to me is the question: Are the dispossessed still alive? 130 years ago, it might have made sense for renegades to compensate the widows of Sioux warriors, but do we need the renegade’s g-g grandson to compensate the g-g- grandson of the warrior today? Note that Palestinian refugees who “want their homes back”, in general never saw or lived in those homes, nor did, in most cases the parents! And in many cases they did not lose the homes due to Israeli eviction, but rather voluntarily, to allow their military wing to wage massacres against innocent Jewish settlers more easily.
(Sorry for the hijack, BTW, but last time I read a thread at SDMB complaining about Jews stealing Palestinian land, the poster was not informed or articulate enough to explain whether his complaint was against the 1967 War, the 1947 Arab aggression, the Balfour declaration, … or perhaps Joshua’s siege against Jericho 3200 years ago. :smack: )
The question seems somewhat poorly conceived, if Israel is the point here. Israel is perhaps unique among states in having been established by an act of international law rather than conquest.
(One might claim that international law is simply another form of conquest, but if that’s true and there’s no such thing as “law,” then it’s meaningless to talk about “rights”).
I guess Israel does claim to have conquered the Golan Heights and intends on keeping them, but I don’t think it has ever claimed to own the West Bank or Gaza, as opposed to simply occupying them.
It was established by the UN, but weren’t all the Middle Eastern states set up as acts by “The Powers that Were” at the time? The Ottoman empire got carved up, and the Brits, French etc. decide what the new borders would be, post colonial rule. I don’t see that as substantially different, and I think the Kurds would agree.
Israel was established by force. The UN recognized the declaration of Israeli independance, but the state so recognized never existed (it was one-half of the ‘partition plan’, which was never enacted).
The best way to put it is that the new Israeli gov’t gained some legitimacy from official recognition. Were it not for force, i.e. winning the resulting War of Independance, the Israeli state would not now exist.
In this, they are exactly like most other states in the world. International law of war & peace Reminds me of:
The establishment of a state is often an example of “treason, prospering”. International recognition is a sign of that “prospering”.
When is a conquest or treasonous rebellion “valid”? When it has successfully “prospered”.
That’s always been true in the past, and as far as I can see, remains true. We haven’t seen very many examples of “prospering” conquest, because the big powers have not been to war recently - but think (for example) of South Vietnam. Is that a legitimate part of the country of “Vietnam”, or not?
Yes. That’s part of the concept behind affirmative action, that dispossessing one generation dispossesses the generation who would have been its heirs, and the generation after that, and so on. But the principle of living in a community with equal respect for all requires some active compensation.
So? If it should have been theirs, and is not, how is that unreasonable?
THAT’s voluntary? You really think so?
The complaints are about a pattern of behavior, and the attitudes behind them, that continue to this day, and could be redressed if there was any recognition of an obligation or desire to. Does that help clarify it?
There is also the question of how many ancestors of the Palestinians actually owned land in the area before the state of Israel was declared. I remember reading an article by H. L. Mencken about his visit there in the thirties. A lot of the Palestinians were tenants living on land that was actually owned by absentee landlords in Cairo or Istanbul or whatever. The Jews that moved there in the thirties actually bought the land from the landlords that actually held legal title to the land.
Naturally, the Arabs that were dispossessed were royally pissed off about this and tended to direct their resentments at the people who bought the land, rather than the people who sold it out from under them. It didn’t help that the Jewish farmers brought in modern farming methods and quite a bit of investment capital and made what were subsistence farms into prosperous enterprises. Even back then Jewish farmers plowed their fields with a rifle on their back in some areas.
Mencken didn’t think a peaceful resolution was likely back then either.
I checked and the chapter is called “Pilgrimage” in his book “Heathen Days”. It was later collected into book, “The Days of H. L. Mencken”.
To expand on this, I am given to understand that much of the pre-Balfour and pre-WWII Jewish immigration consisted of Jews immigrating, buying what land was for sale, and working it. I am not aware of any significant or systematic attempt by the Jews/Israel to evict Arabs or persecute them until well after the 1948 war had started (by neighboring Arab nations who were offended by the partition plan for political reasons, and who decided the best way to protest the UN deciding territorial borders was to blame it on the Jews and declare the intent to cause genocide).
Or, what Joel said. Essentially, one of the bigger problems with deciding who’s “rightfully entitled to the land in Palestine” is bound up in the fact that in many cases the tenant-farmer Palestinians were sold out by their rich/powerhungry fellow Arabs and blamed it on the Jews they could reach instead of the absentee landlords they couldn’t. Add in the fact that the current hatred of Jews by Arabs is largely a product of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem whipping up anti-Jewish sentiment as a precursor to whipping up anti-Colonialist-British sentiment.
I pretty much agree with that. Is there any doubt that had the Americans lost their war of Independence, that the leaders would have been tried for treason? It was, after all, a treasonous act. But we won, and so it wasn’t.
Old joke:
Jew: The conflict started when Moses was in the desert, and from out of nowhere without provocation got a rock thrown at him by a Palestinian Arab.
Arab: What are you talking about? There were no ‘Palestinian Arabs’ in those days!
Jew: A-HA!
Who was it who said something like:
‘Gentlemen, we must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang individually’
Ben Franklin.
Thanks! Sounds like something he would have said, all right. 
The thread asks: When do we “cut off” right of title? Mexians aren’t bombing us to get Texas back. Germans aren’t bombing Poland to get their possessions there back. And Palestinians would be prospering if not for cynical Arab “leadership.” (And do note, as others in the thread point out, that title to much of the disputed land was transferred to Israelis by Arabs.)
Gaza fires rockets into Israel to kill Israeli civilians and proudly gloats that it’s at war, yet Israel is then condemned for asking an embargo-running ship to submit to inspection. :smack: Arab oil is dear, but anti-Semitism available very cheaply. Does that help clarify things for you?
Their boundaries may have originally been drawn by western powers, but if memory serves, most of the Middle East nations were members of the UN in 1948 and participated in the partition vote. They lost the vote, but they weren’t excluded from the process.
We don’t cut off right of title, not if we want to live in true peace. We reach settlements on a just, equitable, and mutually respectful basis, as I would suggest to you occurred in both your examples.
Yes, yes, all the responsibility for everything bad in the region is on the Arabs, and Israel has no responsibility for any bit of it. We know. That gets said here repeatedly. :rolleyes:
Care to go back a little further into the past than just last week? The origins of the problem in something a little more subtle than “The Arabs simply hate Israel and it’s all their fault” might emerge.
I didn’t mean to imply that they were excluded. Just that all those countries were set up by outside authorities. Israel is not unique in that sense.