How Much Land is Enough?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How Much Land is Enough?

By RUTH R. WISSE

December 03, 2007

The Harvard Crimson

I received this by email from a friend. It pretty much says what has been on my mind for quite some time now. And it does so without the standard jingoism, distortions and biases. From the article:

Before you begin reading this, please have before you on screen, paper, or wall, a reliable full-scale map of the Middle East, one stretching from Morocco to Afghanistan, from the Caspian Sea to the Gulf of Aden. You will note that the territory covering 5.25 million miles belongs to states of the Arab League—18 independent Arab states and three part-Arab Muslim states, Mauritania, Somalia, and Djibouti. There is one holdout in that hegemony: Along the Mediterranean, south of Lebanon, east of Egypt, and west of Jordan, is the 8,000 square mile Jewish state of Israel—the only Jewish homeland that ever was and ever will be. The population of Israel, 7 million, is 20 percent Arab. The ratio of Arab to Jewish land is 640:1.

This article was republished in Jewish Current Issues (with "touch-ups" for emphasis in the text—a standard habit in the Jewish publications I have read that republish pro-Israel material—why do they always have to do that?). A small map was included. Just so we can get a visual idea of what Ms. Wisse is saying, here is the map:

Outside of ANY OTHER consideration, the land issue is so lopsided in favor of the Islamic countries that it is hard to take their arguments against Israel seriously. I can analyze many issues, especially cultural ones or how the Palestinian Arabs have been treated, especially the current insistence on using them as a political football. But with the the land issue, there is not really much to analyze.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Michael -

A brief reaction:

1) The notion that Party A has hundreds times as much land as Party B shouldn't count for anything to argue for redistribution in either direction - that (and you are arguing in the other direction, of course!!!) is a typical argument from envy which comes from the altruist party - "they have so much more, they should share" - forgetting the source. Though of course a typical redistributionist argument would go THE OTHER WAY from the direction of the Palestinian argument - giving to the one with little from the one who had much. It is at least jarring to hear that "there is no room" and then look at an actual map. Israel might be compared to a few large counties in some USA staes.

2) The real issue is ownership of the land, of course.

3) It is a good reminder, however, looking at the map: Note the extent to which all those 'friendly Arab states" have failed to share even a little land with the "poor Palestinians" (no discussion at the moment on whether "Palestinians" is even a valid designation. One would think they would march to their supporters in some of the Arab countries and say "how about a little land" instead of "can you help us get a few tiny acres from Israel."

Alfonso

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Alfonso,

I don't know of any country that was not demarcated by conquest using force, including the entire Ottoman empire. I am not sure where the idea of redistribution fits here, except maybe how the British mandate was redistributed into Jordan and Israel. But that was more a dismantling than redistribution.

I find it supremely ironic that Islamist antisemitism has its roots in Germanic antisemitism, which has its roots in the fact that it had no real colonial colonies (like England, Holland, Spain, France and even Portugal) other than some rinky-dink little places here and there. Back then, Germans were extremely envious of the other European powers, not Jews per se. Germans did their damnedest to be accepted as equals, but they were always looked down on by the royalty of the other countries. This led to WWI and Germany's total humiliation before those very powers. Unfortunately a humiliated German is a spiteful creature.

Jews, having no country back then, had always been active in financing governments almost as a survival procedure, so when paying for the war came around and the hyper-inflation, they did not suffer as bad as the rest of the population. Some became quite well off. The Germans hated them because they were near and coping well. They seethed with hatred for those who humiliated them and could not do anything against them until Hitler came along. But they could hate the Jews next door for coping better than they were doing and that is exactly what happened.

Many of the pre WWI colonial colonies by the non-Germanic powers were in northern Africa. These powers are the very ones who supported the formation of independent countries. If Germany had had its way in WWII (meaning if it had won the war), none of these Islamic countries would have existed. They would all be Nazi colonies. Yet these countries harbor the very antisemitism that surged because Germany had had few colonies—and they harbor this as the good.

They ape their destroyers.

Michael

[syrakusos]

Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is a reflection of their own experience before the "Final" solution. (The first solution was the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, but the British were opposed to that.) Today, we call this the Stockholm Syndrome: captives take on the values of their captors. That Japan became a democratic nation after WWII is attributed to the US victory. True as that is, this is just another operation of the same principle: you adopt the values of your conquerors. This may be some kind of natural law of human action.

As for land qua land, I think that if you divided the size of China by its population, you would find it underpopulated. Density is about 139 people per sq km whereas for the Netherlands it is over 400 people per sq km. You could do this for every place on Earth if you care to build up a spreadsheet. Land is irrelevant.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Michael E. Marotta

[BaalChatzaf]

Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is a reflection of their own experience before the "Final" solution. (The first solution was the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, but the British were opposed to that.) Today, we call this the Stockholm Syndrome: captives take on the values of their captors. That Japan became a democratic nation after WWII is attributed to the US victory. True as that is, this is just another operation of the same principle: you adopt the values of your conquerors. This may be some kind of natural law of human action.

As for land qua land, I think that if you divided the size of China by its population, you would find it underpopulated. Density is about 139 people per sq km whereas for the Netherlands it is over 400 people per sq km. You could do this for every place on Earth if you care to build up a spreadsheet. Land is irrelevant.

Correct. The quality and intentions of one's neighbors count for way more than square miles. The Israelis responded to their tormentors. Every since the state was declared in 1948, every neighbor of Israel set out to destroy it. This changed somewhat with the peace established with Egypt when Sada'at was in charge. He was murdered by fanatical fellow Muslims for doing this rational thing. Such is the quality of Muslims and Islam. Everyday a Muslim bomb or IED goes off. Every hour of every day. It is without cease. Such is the quality of Muslims and Islam. By their bombs ye shall know them.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

As for land qua land, I think that if you divided the size of China by its population, you would find it underpopulated. Density is about 139 people per sq km whereas for the Netherlands it is over 400 people per sq km.

I need more Lebensraum! :pirate:

[syrakusos]

Every since the state was declared in 1948, every neighbor of Israel ...

There is a metaphysical problem there. The "state" of "Israel" could have no "neighbors" until its existence was declared (by whom? blank out).

By what logic is there a mandate to create a (so-called) "Jewish State" in Palestine?

I mean, what if three million neo-Kantians decided to invade the Kaliningrad Oblast and make it a Kantian State where the Categorical Imperative was the highest law? Are we supposed to honor their historical traditions? By what standard? By what right?

Judaism is nice little tradition in its way, like Buddhism or Taoism, but it is, after all, a mystical, altruistic, collectivist mishmash of pseudohistorical inventions. People should be free to practice it if they want, you know, lighting candles, chanting, that sort of thing, but when it comes to establishing a "state" you have some basic problems. The Antarctic was wide open. They could have had a whole lot of that. Instead, they trotted out some mystical doubletalk and well, the history is too painfully known to all.

[BaalChatzaf]

Every since the state was declared in 1948, every neighbor of Israel ...

There is a metaphysical problem there. The "state" of "Israel" could have no "neighbors" until its existence was declared (by whom? blank out).

By what logic is there a mandate to create a (so-called) "Jewish State" in Palestine?

The same logic that lead to the creation of an independent United States. The People ordained it.

Two things are required. A political act of the People (as a body politic) and sufficient force and strength to maintain the state so ordained.

It is really very simple. Israel's neighbors objected and made ware on Israel. Israel whipped their asses. Nothing could be more straightforward. Might make Right.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[bmacwilliam]

Sometimes I don't know why I would bother getting into an ethical discussion with this person:

MSK:

"As far as I am concerned, Bob stays if he so desires. He can get irritating, but he stays within the posting guidelines and has respected OL by backing off when I have let him know that he is skirting too close to the limit on matters like bigotry."

Baal:

"He was murdered by fanatical fellow Muslims for doing this rational thing. Such is the quality of Muslims and Islam. Everyday a Muslim bomb or IED goes off. Every hour of every day. It is without cease. Such is the quality of Muslims and Islam. By their bombs ye shall know them."

MSK, let me ask you some questions

1) What exaclty is 'skirting' ?

2) Why is plagiarism worse than venomous hate-filled bigotry in your book of ethics?

I'll leave the third question out because it's rhetorical.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

As a matter of fact, you brought up an important point I was going to comment on. I want to apply Bob K's reasoning to another area:

American drivers responded to their tormentors. Every since the automobile was mass produced in the early 1900's, every user of public highways set out to actually use them for personal reasons. This changed somewhat with the traffic laws established by local governments, since they were in charge. But drivers are still murdered by fanatical fellow highway users for doing the rational thing of following the laws. Such is the quality of American drivers and American traffic laws. Everyday an American driver or public highway user gets into a fatal crash. Every hour of every day. It is without cease. Such is the quality of American drivers and American traffic laws. By their crashes ye shall know them.

That kind of thinking is superficial and easy as pie.

Note to Bob K: you already know, so I don't have to say it. This site is not John Birch Living or KKK Living or Zionist Living.

Bob M is right to object. I am going to start deleting offensive comments. To hell with babying grownups...

Michael

[syrakusos]

Might make Right. -- Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al (may I call you "Ba'al"?), may I ask you whether or not you actually consider yourself an Objectivist and if so by what standard? Which of the principles of Objectivism do you actually hold as your own? I have to ask because the quote above seems so contrary to my own understanding that I have a hard time fitting you within the spectrum or matrix of adherents. I mean, MSK and I have disagreed on things and as you can see, I am not in favor of the war in Iraq, though many other Objectivists are supportive of the intent, if not the implementation. That said, though, I think we all agree on the law of identity and the role of reason and the existence of natural rights and a few other things. But "might makes right" is (to my understanding) outside the limits of Objectivist discourse. Is there something I do not understand?

[BaalChatzaf]

Might make Right. -- Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al (may I call you "Ba'al"?), may I ask you whether or not you actually consider yourself an Objectivist and if so by what standard? Which of the principles of Objectivism do you actually hold as your own? I have to ask because the quote above seems so contrary to my own understanding that I have a hard time fitting you within the spectrum or matrix of adherents. I mean, MSK and I have disagreed on things and as you can see, I am not in favor of the war in Iraq, though many other Objectivists are supportive of the intent, if not the implementation. That said, though, I think we all agree on the law of identity and the role of reason and the existence of natural rights and a few other things. But "might makes right" is (to my understanding) outside the limits of Objectivist discourse. Is there something I do not understand?

I have stated several times that I am not an Objectivist nor was I ever an Objectivist. I like Rand's novels. I do not buy her views as Holy Writ.

My own system I dub Reality Lite ™. I developed it before I ever read any works of Rand.

1. There is an Out There out there and we are sufficiently capable of dealing with it that we can survive over a protracted time interval as a species.

2. We have enough talent In Here to comprehend enough of what is Out There to manage. We don't have to know everything in order to know enough to survive and even flourish.

3. Reality is what it is regardless of what we think it is and there is more Out There than we shall ever know (individually or collectively) during the time we exist as a species.

That takes care of the metaphysics and epistemology.

For ethics:

4. What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours.

4a. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you, assuming they are harmless.

For aesthetics:

5. Our taste is in our mouths and beauty is in the eye of the beholder and the ear of the listener. In short, beauty is subjective and therefore opinion. There are no aesthetic facts. There are only aesthetic opinions.

for politics:

6. I care not what you do as long as it does not threaten me nor mine or keep decent folk awake at night or scare the horses.

for economics:

7. Free markets are preferable however some institution or government might be necessary to regulate and certify weights and measures.

8. Contracts must be kept, barring an Act of God or an Overwhelming Force or Event.

The rules of War:

9. Kill your enemies before they kill you. If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, rip his head off and defecate down his neck.

And that pretty well covers the ground.

I sound somewhat like a libertarian. I prefer government to anarchy but I like government just large enough to mount a national defense and to keep the peace domestically.

And that pretty well covers my ground.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mike11]

Hello again, its me, Oist Troll qua Oist Troll.

I honestly haven't been able to follow most of this conversation, the "Stockholm Syndrome" and "land qua land" comments went over my head. Also, I'm not sure what is meant by -

Outside of ANY OTHER consideration, the land issue is so lopsided in favor of the Islamic countries that it is hard to take their arguments against Israel seriously. I can analyze many issues, especially cultural ones or how the Palestinian Arabs have been treated, especially the current insistence on using them as a political football. But with the the land issue, there is not really much to analyze.

So my comments here may be already known by all, out of context, or supremely irrelevant. That said I want to state a few basic opinions I've heard from Thomas Friedman, Mark Tessler, the usual historical revisionist suspets (Morris, Schlaim) and some Palestinians (Khalidi) with the grace of everyone who uses name dropping in place of arguementation

I question the relevancy of basing anything on that map because it ignores the peril implicit in Israel holding the Territories, a peril that threatens the existence of Israel far more than the traditional arab adversaries and also it attempts to subsume palestinians into the arab world (by implication).

For the Israelis:

You can not have the territories captured in 67 integrated into the democratic jewish state given the arab population growth in the teritories being well beyond jewish growth. The first scenario is Israel remaining democratic and giving the vote to its arab inhabitants who would constitute a clear majority, in this case Israel ceases to be jewish and also possibly ceases being democratic. The second scenario is Israel keeping the territories but not extending sufferage, this is just a return to the pre 87 situation only Palestinian violence becomes even more pronounced given its current nationalism. The third possibility being Israel keeps the land, does not extend sufferage but decides to begin a campaign of outright ethnic cleansing as a solution to terror and the problem of being democratic and jewish; one last dirty task for the Right before the ideal can be realised.

There is no scenario in which keeping the territories is good for Israel.

For the Palestinians:

As many have pointed out in this thread the arab attitude has largely been to give the cold shoulder to the Palestinians whenever possible, thier expulsion from arab states and Jim Crow like disrimination is famous. When combined with Israeli actions individual Palestinian groups have become a nationality through shared conditions and shaed struggles. In the 1970s the free elections held in the territories overshelmingly voted the PLO the representitives of the people. The Israeli Occupation was so thorough the arabs could see thier salvation only with each other, not through Jordan or Egypt. The go to Palestinian schools, they belong to Palestinian organisations, they no longer all themselves Syrian, Jordanian, or Egyptian.

They are every bit the nation the Jews were in 1947. They have the same right to self determination. It does not matter what land Iraqis, Saudis or Libyans have any more than Arabs can argue the Israelis have America, France, Germany or Russia.

You can argue the Palestinian Identity is now more religous than nationalist and so the arabs can be repatrioted to Islam but that would not be true. Hamas won more due to Fatah corruption than inherant Islamism among Palestinians:

"The focus in this election really was on Fatah corruption. A quick example:

While waiting for the paperwork to be signed for our car, the Arab rental agent spoke animatedly to one of our crew. He kept banging on my window for emphasis. When our Arabic speaker entered the car, he told me that the agent had been a campaign manager for an independent Fatah candidate. He and his candidate had been summoned to Ramallah – Fatah headquarters - a few weeks earlier, and told to withdraw the candidacy or they would “pay a heavy price.” The agent said he is finished with Fatah and resolved to vote for Hamas. I heard the same disgust with Fatah corruption, particularly financial, from every voter interviewed. "

( link ) From The Philadelphia Jewish Voice

"Hamas has an extensive network of charities and social services. Its candidates swept to wins in West Bank municipal elections last month.

Hamas' parliamentary campaign focused on ridding the Palestinian Authority of Fatah corruption and boosting living standards."

( link ) From USA Today

"Hamas is thought to have capitalized on perceived corruption within the Palestinian Authority and Fatah, as well as what is seen as the authority's inability to manage the affairs of the Palestinians.

"Today was a great day for Palestine," said Mustafa Barghouti of the Palestinian National Initiative, a democratic opposition movement. "Mostly, they were voting for opposition and voting against Fatah -- against corruption, against nepotism, against the failure of the peace process, and against the lack of leadership."

( Link ) From CNN

Even Hamas itself views argues fo an Islamic Palestinian Nation, distinct from the Islamic community as a whole.

From the Hamas Charter

Article Six: Peculiarity and Independence

The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinct Palestinian Movement which owes its loyalty to Allah, derives from Islam its way of life and strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine. Only under the shadow of Islam could the members of all regions coexist in safety and security for their lives, properties and rights. In the absence of Islam, conflict arises, oppression reigns, corruption is rampant and struggles and wars prevail.

Part III - Strategies and Methods

Article Eleven: The Strategy of Hamas: Palestine is an Islamic Waqf

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection. Who can presume to speak for all Islamic Generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari’a, and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. This [norm] has prevailed since the commanders of the Muslim armies completed the conquest of Syria and Iraq, and they asked the Caliph of Muslims, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, for his view of the conquered land, whether it should be partitioned between the troops or left in the possession of its population, or otherwise. Following discussions and consultations between the Caliph of Islam, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, be peace and prayer upon him, they decided that the land should remain in the hands of its owners to benefit from it and from its wealth; but the control of the land and the land itself ought to be endowed as a Waqf [in perpetuity] for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. The ownership of the land by its owners is only one of usufruct, and this Waqf will endure as long as Heaven and earth last. Any demarche in violation of this law of Islam, with regard to Palestine, is baseless and reflects on its perpetrators.

Article Twelve: Hamas in Palestine, Its Views on Homeland and Nationalism

Hamas regards Nationalism (Wataniyya) as part and parcel of the religious faith. Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims. And this becomes an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband’s authorization, and a slave without his masters’ permission. This [principle] does not exist under any other regime, and it is a truth not to be questioned. While other nationalisms consist of material, human and territorial considerations, the nationality of Hamas also carries, in addition to all those, the all important divine factors which lend to it its spirit and life; so much so that it connects with the origin of the spirit and the source of life and raises in the skies of the Homeland the Banner of the Lord, thus inexorably connecting earth with Heaven. When Moses came and threw his baton, sorcery and sorcerers became futile

Hamas argues that Islam ought to rule over the Palestinian nation in the same way early Zionists argued Communism should rule over Israel, the two are by no means mutally exclusive.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike11,

We seem to soundly agree on one thing: it's a hell of a mess over there.

Michael

[Mike11]

Mike11,

We seem to soundly agree on one thing: it's a hell of a mess over there.

Michael

True, I find with the Israeli/Arab dispute its about finding the least morally repugnant solutions, this is why I think for the sake of reality 2 states based on ethnic nationalism is the only solution possible, and even that may be beyond the capacities of many.

I am curious though, what did you most strongly agree or disagree with?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike11,

Frankly, I am reluctant to get too deeply into the controversy. I prefer to mention the big things, like (just to mention the negative side) the Arab lopsidedness of land mass or the Nazi influence on Islamism and Islamist antisemitism, or on the other side the Zionism of groups like Samson Blinded or the phrase "Chosen People" all to easily becoming "Master Race" in policy.

Even saying these things in the manner I just did will probably cause heated accusations and denials. Yet you might notice that in my posts, I favor neither Jews or Muslims wholesale, but instead judge them according to reason and limit the judgments to the issue I am discussing.

I have noticed that rational thought is the first thing that is abandoned in this conflict, but supporting reason is precisely the answer I give when asked, "Do you support the Muslims or the Jews?"

I support reason.

Notice that all the hostility poisons the positive, also. If you mention the heartfelt universal sense of the human condition of Chaim Potok in literature and the refreshing childlike innocence of Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) in popular music in the same breath (and these are two great artists I enjoy immensely), you get all kinds of people screaming at you from both sides.

Over what? I just can't get motivated or enthusiastic when people act like that.

So I make broad statements that are so common-sense it would be silly to consider them a problem in any other context—try to keep a lid on the bigotry—and hope that reasonable people eventually show up. Fortunately, there are many reasonable people on OL, so I do not think it's time for man to leave it all to the cockroaches. There's hope.

Michael

[Mike11]

Notice that all the hostility poisons the positive, also. If you mention the heartfelt universal sense of the human condition of Chaim Potok in literature and the refreshing childlike innocence of Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) in popular music in the same breath (and these are two great artists I enjoy immensely), you get all kinds of people screaming at you from both sides.

Over what? I just can't get motivated or enthusiastic when people act like that.

Michael

Fair enough. This is prabably the one conversation one can have where saying you prefer peanut butter will get you denounced at once as antisemetic and a neocon warmongerer.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is prabably the one conversation one can have where saying you prefer peanut butter will get you denounced at once as antisemetic and a neocon warmongerer.

Mike11,

No.

Eating peanut butter is highly irrational and shows just what a subjectivist mystic and collectivist you are. You probably think Jews and Muslims like peanut butter, huh?

That shows how much you know.

Don't even get me started on jelly or bananas...

Michael

[Mike11]

This is prabably the one conversation one can have where saying you prefer peanut butter will get you denounced at once as antisemetic and a neocon warmongerer.

Mike11,

No.

Eating peanut butter is highly irrational and shows just what a subjectivist mystic and collectivist you are. You probably think Jews and Muslims like peanut butter, huh?

That shows how much you know.

Don't even get me started on jelly or bananas...

Michael

Well, my wagons have been circled; my house of cards collapsed like dominoes. Checkmate. I tip my hat off to you sir.