Finders keepers

Reading David B's interesting post on territorial claims, I find myself surprisingly in accord with followup comments made by his pseudonymous fellow blogger, with whom I typically disagree, "Godless Capitalist":

It seems that many people have a model of human migration as a sort of "Finder's Keepers" game, where all population groups were concentrated in the Congo at the start and then loosed to grab their spot in the world. Once a tribe landed in a particular area, it was theirs in perpetuity, and any displacement is prima facie a reason for outside tribes to weep and rend their garments in agony at the outrage. I can of course understand the displaced tribes' annoyance (though not when it's more than a generation or two in the past)

This is what I had to say about this last year:

This is the most important principle. I think that historical justifications are probably the least appropriate for determining territorial allegiance. Two generations is the minimum period of time which suggests itself to me, empirically, as the appropriate period of time to recognise that a partition has taken place or a region has been annexed. In this case the overwhelming majority would have grown up recognising the extant borders as a practical matter.

I had been thinking about this again recently. Abiola recently made the excellent point that almost everybody accepts that a sort of statute of limitations ought to apply to those Germans displaced in the aftermath of WWII yet almost nobody accepts that this principle ought to apply to Palestinians displaced by the Arab-Israeli wars. It seems to me that some sort of statute of limitations should apply in any such dispute. There is simply no way of resolving a dispute based on competing historical grievances. Typically there is no version of that history which is accepted by both sides. As a practical matter, such disputes may only be resolved by disavowing a priori any argument from history.

As someone of libertarian inclination, I consider that the first and most important principle ought to be to defend property rights. Without a generally accepted, unambiguous system of title, neither liberty nor prosperity can thrive. Yet, even this principle must be practically based: Such property rights ought to apply to individuals and their immediate heirs. Once the chain of title has been broken for several generations, it is not clear at all that the utilitarian benefit, of upholding the rights of such previous property-owners as may be identified, outweighs the utilitarian cost of such a system of spiralling competing claims. After all, who can ever claim to be the "original" owner? Such a system would practically tend to be injurious to property rights.

One of the most irritating aspects of contemporary (extreme) Irish Nationalism is to assert that the primary basis for the territorial claim over Northern Ireland ought to be that "our side" are the "original" occupiers of that territory and that any preference on the part of (greater) proportion of the population to remain in the United Kingdom may be dismissed out of hand as they are the descendents of "settlers". This is often crudely expressed as "They can f**k off back to Scotland!". This conviction is so deeply held that it will not suffice to note that this particular population's "settlement" considerably predates the settlement of the United States. Maybe a different example is needed. There is an Irish village established by British settlers much later than the Ulster plantations. Occupants of this village still bear the British names of their ancestors and one of their number has even been elected to the Dail. Perhaps the "Brits Out" extremists might think twice before inviting Sinn Fein TD Arthur Morgan of Omeath, Co. Louth to "F**k off back to Wales"

Comments

[enda johnson]

heh heh.
well if mr morgan asserted that omeath was in fact a part of wales and ought to be governed by the welsh in perpetuity it might be expected that other inhabitants of omeath and its environs might indeed suggest to him that perhaps his undying affinity to all things welsh might indeed be best satisfied in ... wales.

There is simply no way of resolving a dispute based on competing historical grievances ... apart from the tried and trusted application of violence, of course. in our own little corner of the world most have decided not to resort to such measures anymore (as neither side could in the past bring enough violence to bear) but of course that may not always be the case.
i can see some merits to your statute of limitations concept, but would this not mean that the palestinians should just accept the facts on the ground and get on with life and stop moaning about wars their grandparents lost? at least until such time as they felt they could bring enough violence to bear. and then of course they could reverse the situaution and it would be for the israelis to 'accept' matters, until such time as they amassed enough force. in this scheme, what are the palestinians to make of new settlers from the US, Russia, Ethiopia (maybe even France!!)? is it ok to resist them or are the expanding settlements merely a consequence of earlier defeats, to be borne stoically?

is this not just a restatement of the old might is right maxim that gave us most of the world's political borders to begin with? is this the libertarian analysis - a free market of force?

[Frank McGahon]

ell if mr morgan asserted that omeath was in fact a part of wales and ought to be governed by the welsh in perpetuity it might be expected that other inhabitants of omeath and its environs might indeed suggest to him that perhaps his undying affinity to all things welsh might indeed be best satisfied in ... wales.

So by that reckoning a Northern Irish Nationalist who asserted that Northern Ireland was a part of the Republic of Ireland and ought to be governed by the the Irish in perpetuity it might be expected that other residents in NI might indeed suggest to him that perhaps his undying affinity to all things Irish might indeed be best satisfied in ...the Republic of Ireland.

If you want to make sure your argument is sound you should try it the other way around and see if it works, yours fails the test, at least for your intended purpose. It is only by making the prior assumption of Irish sovereignty over NI that it stands up and this prior assumption is not shared by the other side.

but would this not mean that the palestinians should just accept the facts on the ground and get on with life and stop moaning about wars their grandparents lost?

Well, in the case of those Palestinians, yes, that would be the most prudent course of action. There is no way that Israel is going to simply reverse its own establishment so it is a futile task to seek that. Someone who was born and raised in a "refugee" camp is not a refugee in any meaningful sense. It may be comforting to entertain vengeful fantasies about righting the wrong you imagine was done to your grandad but it doesn't do you any real good. It is different in the case of any West Bank Palestinians more recently dispossessed.

Note that the point is not to argue that "might is right" but that some sort of statute of limitations has to apply. At some stage a grievance becomes purely rhetorical and may not be assuaged without creating an equal counter-grievance. I suggest a two generation statute of limitation as the optimum, if a dispute hasn't been resolved over two generations there is no reason to believe it may be resolved given more time and that any resolution which post-dates the deaths of all involved really means that much.

it would be for the israelis to 'accept' matters, until such time as they amassed enough force. in this scheme, what are the palestinians to make of new settlers from the US, Russia, Ethiopia (maybe even France!!)? is it ok to resist them or are the expanding settlements merely a consequence of earlier defeats, to be borne stoically?

But this is a classic begged question. You assume that the land "belongs" to those third generation Palestinians who may have never even set foot in their "homeland". You would surely not suggest that the descendents of Germans displaced from Poland and Russia during the war (most of whom had been there for centuries or longer) should "resist" settlement of "their" land by "alien" Poles and Russians? Further, you make the error of conflating several generations of Palestinians. Future generations of Palestinians who have "amassed enough force" would have an even more tenuous claim on that territory.

Please also note that this is not an argument about contemporary settlements but about how one ought to consider historical disputes. If those settlements in the disputed territories endure they will become de facto legitimate, but that is a big if.

[enda johnson]

a Northern Irish Nationalist who asserted that Northern Ireland was a part of the Republic of Ireland ... well i have never heard anyone make such a claim, so it hardly refutes my original comment.
thinking more about your statute of limitations idea, i find it less and less appealing. consider ireland in the year 1900. it had been under british rule for 300 odd years and yet enough of the population still held a grievance to launch a bloody revolution a few years later. i would contend that the reason for this grievance was not 300 years worth of "shoulder chips" but rather 300 years of ongoing oppression and occupation. granted the revolution was proclaimed in the name of the 'dead generations', but this would have had little resonance if not for the ongoing injustices. similarly, those living under british rule in the north (400 years and counting!) who wish to be free of that injustice are motivated more by the shitty treatment at the hands of the planters right up to the present day, rather than to the weight of their forebears' expectations of liberation.
i would contend that an injustice ought to be resisted and a long standing injustice is no more worthy of maintenance. the key for the israelis & the serbs & the british etc is to neutralise the sense of injustice by extending the same civil structures & rights to the 'annexed' territories. the israelis are failing spectacularly in this regard, the serbs went down the eradication route in bosnia & kosovo (with mixed results) & the british failed in ireland (though they seem to have suceeded in Gibraltar, so it can be done). by imposing a statute of limitations, you incentivise the bosnians to retake srebrinica, in as bloody a fashion as possible so as to ensure the serbs can't recover in the two generation deadline. it would make more sense to me for world opinion (whatever that is) to mandate that ethnic cleansing, plantation etc is a medieval practice that has no place in the 21st century.

[Frank McGahon]

well i have never heard anyone make such a claim, so it hardly refutes my original comment.

Well you must have a rather sheltered existence: The claim that the territorial remit of the Republic of Ireland extends to include the six counties of Northern Ireland was up until recently part of our constitution

thinking more about your statute of limitations idea, i find it less and less appealing. consider ireland in the year 1900. it had been under british rule for 300 odd years and yet enough of the population still held a grievance to launch a bloody revolution a few years later. i would contend that the reason for this grievance was not 300 years worth of "shoulder chips" but rather 300 years of ongoing oppression and occupation.

Enda, you're missing the point. I don't argue against self-determination. If my argument was as you caricature it then no territories could ever change sovereignty. My point relates to two specific things:

1) Whether a boundary should be considered to exist. This is a very important one for Ireland as the most frequent device used by republicans to counter the problem (from their point of view) that more people within NI prefer the status quo is to claim that the partition, or the boundary is "artificial". My point is not to say that NI should be forever British but instead that the border has acquired a de facto status since partition and may not be wished away. If Ireland is to unite it must be with the consent of both territories on the island separately

2) Historical disputes as to territories which are held to supercede the wishes of those resident on that territory. My statute of limitations idea merely reverses this. The people who should determine sovereignty or allegiance of any territory are those who actually live there, no matter the rights and wrongs of how their ancestors came to live there, and not the (great, great..) grandchildren of those who fled.

Looking at it this way you should see that it doesn't impose an obligation on the 1900 era Irish to remain part of Britain, in fact it upholds the notion that the sovereignty of Ireland rests with those who live there.

Further, the statute of limitations upholds the rights of contemporary Kosovars over "ancestral" Serbs.

more by the shitty treatment at the hands of the planters right up to the present day

You see, with a remark like that you may as well forget about being taken seriously. First of all: the day has long passed that Ulster protestants lorded it over Irish Catholics. Secondly, it is only a crank who refers to contemporary protestants as "Planters". That was part of the point of the friggin post in the first place! If residents of Northern Ireland must be considered a planters then so must everybody else

i would contend that an injustice ought to be resisted and a long standing injustice is no more worthy of maintenance.

well then you are confirming your obstinacy and imperviousness to reason. Part of the problem is that you seem to have a definition of "injustice" that is so wide as to become meaningless. If you look hard enough you will be sure to find some "injustice" meted out to your ancestors. This injustice ought not be considered in the same light as something actually happening to you.

[Trackback]

I agree, as a fellow libertarian, with your focus on property rights. Only remember that we don't just feel that our most precious possession is ourselves on a gut level, but that our ownership of ourselves is overwhelmingly also the source of the vast majority of our market-valued wealth. Our inheritance just doesn't amount to very much for the vast majority of us, and certainly not our land inheritance.

Take [name deleted - FMCG], aka "Godless Capitalist" at GNXP, as an example. He is of Tamil Brahmin extraction, but born in the US and living in Viking-infested Wisconsin. All irrelevant, of course, to where he ends up in life, because, as I'm sure he'd agree, his IQ and genetic background far surpass in importance whatever his land or money inheritance, and this is so no matter where he lives.

[enda johnson]

The claim that the territorial remit of the Republic of Ireland extends to include the six counties of Northern Ireland was up until recently part of our constitution ... and i think you'll agree that northern nationalists had no hand, act or part in that document and voted overwhelmingly to remove that provision at the first opportunity.

the most frequent device used by republicans to counter the problem ... but of course this is just an argument by republicans in favour of unity. surely they are entitled to make that argument, even if it doesn't convince you? it seems to me that republicans have accepted that If Ireland is to unite it must be with the consent of both territories on the island separately, while still disputing the right of London to have any say in the matter.

the day has long passed that Ulster protestants lorded it over Irish Catholics i accept the day has passed, but not that it passed very long ago while also appreciating that for those fortunate enough to live in larne, carrickfergus etc it it not necessarily obvious that it has passed at all.

i deliberately used the provocative term planter to highlight what i feel to be the flaw in your argument. many ulster protestants, though irish for many generations, do not see themselves as such. they see themselves as planters and behave accordingly. if the gaels, the danes, the norse, the normans, the english and whoever else continued to assert their 'otherness' from the broader society, then they too would remain planters. the point is they don't.

you seem to have a definition of "injustice" that is so wide as to become meaningless ... if you reread my post i think you'll find that the injustice i was referring to is the ongoing injustice of oppression and occupation, rather than generations old migrations (or plantations even). in this regard, this is something that is happening to palestinians right now and was until very recently happening in the north ... hence the violent response. it is obvious to me that the border issue in ireland would have been settled in perpetuity in the 1920s and 1930s if the northern state had build a society that all its citizens could be a part of. it didn't and so sowed the seeds for its own demise. israel seems determined to go down the same road, while ignoring the fine example of the proponents of the apartheid state, who stopped thinking of themselves as planters and started thinking of themselves as south africans.

[Jon Ihle]

Enda,
It is important, I think, to acknowledge the legal difference between Israel and the territories post-1967, the final status of which is to be determined by treaty, and Northern Ireland post-1922, the status of which was determined by treaty. Notwithstanding the existence of Jewish settlements in the territories, Israel should not extend Israeli law into the territories since to do so would be a de facto annexation contrary to the UN resolutions which foresee a final settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Technically and legally speaking, either the full integration of the territories by Israel or Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the territories would constitute a violation UNSCR 242. Perverse as it may seem, occupation is the correct and legal path. And, I might add, it could have ended in 1967 if the Palestinians had been willing to recognise the futility of their opposition to the state of Israel and just accepted their defeat with grace and honour. They'd have their goddamned state today.

[enda johnson]

interesting. how would israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories violate 242?

i think that israel has failed to extend full citizenship and status to arabs living within israel and so fails to make living in the israeli state seem just or attractive to the arabs. this fuels resentment both within israel and the occupied territories. if israel were a state for all its citizens, rather than a 'jewish state for a jewish people' i feel compromise would be more likely to emerge.

it seems to me that the israelis are determined not to abide by the 1967 borders and so a resolution to the problem is impossible. it's a fair point that the palestinians have only recently come to accept the 1967 borders, but now that they have, i feel the onus is on the israelis to reciprocate.

if we were to impose frank's statute of limitations, then the occupied territores would soon be de facto part of israel (which is what the settlers wish to achieve) and this to me is unjust. i accept the basic premise that it is futile to try and roll back decades or centuries old migrations, but the settlers are doing their thing right now and ought be stopped on the gounds that plantation is a medieval practice.

[Frank McGahon]

i deliberately used the provocative term planter to highlight what i feel to be the flaw in your argument. many ulster protestants, though irish for many generations, do not see themselves as such

Enda, can you not see the gaping hole in your argument?: you assume that the "proper" cultural identity for people on this island is "Irish", i.e. Gael. This is an arbitrary stance and backed up only by the notion that "We" were here first. My point is that, however comforting it is to reassert this over and over, it is the wrong approach and wouldn't suffice to convince a neutral let alone an opponent of the merit of your position.

[Frank McGahon]

Trackback (I notice that you prefer to remain anonymous yourself) I have deleted the name you have proffered as the "real" Godless Capitalist.

I've done a bit of googling on this and I'm profoundly sceptical that this individual is actually "Godless Capitalist". It seems to have spread around the blogosphere but as far as I can see the only "evidence" to link the two individuals is a solitary usenet post back in 1996 (!) from sci.military.naval on where that individual, an avowed Randite, adds the term Godless Capitalist to his signature. Most of this Wisconsin individual's postings are to do with the military and military history, subjects in which "Godless Capitalist" has shown scant interest. Neither writing style is similar and my guess is that GC is significantly younger than the first mentioned individual.

[enda johnson]

you assume that the "proper" cultural identity for people on this island is "Irish", i.e. Gael.
sorry frank, i never made such an assumption. in fact i believe i stated the exact opposite - if the gaels, the danes, the norse, the normans, the english and whoever else continued to assert their 'otherness' from the broader society, then they too would remain planters. the point is they don't.

what i meant by this was that all previous migrations integrated into the broader society and accepted and embraced their irishness. the northern protestants in general do not. so although i and most observers consider them irish, they themselves assert a meaningless 'otherness' and based on this imaginary distinction, they carved out an enclave for themselves. unfortunately they failed to constuct a society which treated all its members equally and so a substantial and increasing minority never gave allegiance to the enclave. now, over the next few decades it is possible that this minority will indeed decide to accept the status quo and all will be well. current events suggest however that this is unlikely.

[Frank McGahon]

Enda: sorry frank, i never made such an assumption

Enda: all previous migrations integrated into the broader society and accepted and embraced their irishness. the northern protestants in general do not

This implies that that "irishness" which one can only presume means "Gael" cultural identity is the only "proper" identity. It is quite wrong to assert that the cultural identity of Ulster Protestants is based on a "meaningless 'otherness'". This is only the case if you have a preconceived idea of "non-otherness". In fact, the Ulster protestant cultural identity is not "other" at all, it is just different to the "gael" cultural identity. Ulster Protestants consider themselves British but also of Ulster. This is a specific identity rooted in a particular place and not one based on Englishness. There is no difficulty understanding how the Scottish or Welsh reconcile Britishness and differentiation from Englishness, why is there when it comes to Ulster's british?

[enda johsnon]

This implies that that "irishness" which one can only presume means "Gael" cultural identity is the only "proper" identity i don't accept this interpretation at all. i would hold that the only meaningful interpretation of "irishness" is "of ireland". i reject utterly the notion that this means exclusively gaelic, danish, norse, norman, english or scottish, but rather one big happy mix of them all.

Ulster protestant cultural identity is not "other" at all, it is just different to the "gael" cultural identity exactly frank. i agree 100%. it is not "other". they are as irish as all previous settlers. i believe however that most ulster protestant do not see it this way at all. they do consider themselves "other", in a way that none of the previous settlers did. (at least not for more than a couple of generations). if the viking settlers along the east coast continued to hanker after danish or norse rule, then we'd have at least one more border to contend with. especially if the current governments of denmark and norway held dublin, arklow, wexford & waterford and backed the "planters" to the hilt. thankfully they don't and we don't.

[Frank McGahon]

i believe however that most ulster protestant do not see it this way at all. they do consider themselves "other"

Well you may believe what you like but until you try and imagine things from a non-nationalist perspective you will always struggle with this. The descendents of the settlers are only backed by Britain because they are still part of the United Kingdom. That is their free choice, whether you like it or not and for now there are more in NI who prefer this status quo than who don't. That you can't tolerate this demonstrates your own intolerance.

i reject utterly the notion that this means exclusively gaelic, danish, norse, norman, english or scottish, but rather one big happy mix of them all

Except that the default "Irish" cultural identity has not been "one big happy mix of them all" at all but a rather narrow "Gaelic" Nationalism. This is an important point because it has a relevance beyond the issue of Ulster's British which extends to how one treats recent immigrants from elsewhere.

[Trackback]

Sorry, not trying to get anyone in trouble. I thought godlesscapitalist was pseudonymous, like Glenn Reynolds is "instapundit," not anonymous (since he certainly does seem to like attracting attention).

I did a google search on him on reading your site here, and his name is all over. He even replies to the name, without denying it is his name, at a (reasonably) reputable site:

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/05/075238.php

[Frank McGahon]

My guess is that GC, as Abiola suggests today, is probably a janitor or some sort of non-academic staff member at a good quality university with access to the library. I'd be surprised if he was any older than mid twenties. He is utterly fixated on race, intelligence and immigration. By contrast, that Wisconsin individual (with a non-hindu name to boot) is much older, posting to Usenet as early as 1990 on subjects related to military history and objectivism. I haven't seen anything which hinted at an interest in GC's hobby horses.

For those on the left there probably doesn't seem to be much difference between Libertarianism, Randian Objectivism or "Paleo-Conservatism" but there is and while the Wisconsin individual appears to be a Randite, GC styles himself a Paleo-Con and opposes many aspects of Libertarianism including, natch, immigration. It suits his purposes not to deny that he is that individual, all the better to protect his cherished anonymity - so that he can be as racist as he likes without attracting any opprobrium from friends, family and work colleagues, as opposed to the "PC thought police" - and if some poor other sap gets saddled with the racist tag, all the better for the purposes of the smokescreen.

My primary interest in deleting the name was to avoid dragging some random guy into a world of crap he doesn't want. It didn't take me too long to find his home adress with a helpful link from yahoo to a map with driving instructions!

[Trackback]

Well, I appreciate your efforts, and keeping an innocent bystander out of trouble is certainly worthy.

And honestly not meaning to show you up, or to spend too much time on this, but the name "[name deleted]" is in fact a Tamil name. The name of the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka (home to the Tamil people) was until earlier this year [name deleted]. (I love google.)

[Frank McGahon]

Thanks for the clarification, although as far as I'm aware GC claims to be of Indian descent and my (admittedly dim) understanding of Tamils is that they do not consider themselves to be Indian

[enda johnson]

frank,
i said: i believe however that most ulster protestants do not see it this way at all. they do consider themselves "other"

you replied:you may believe what you like but until you try and imagine things from a non-nationalist perspective you will always struggle with this. The descendents of the settlers are only backed by Britain because they are still part of the United Kingdom. That is their free choice, whether you like it or not and for now there are more in NI who prefer this status quo than who don't. That you can't tolerate this demonstrates your own intolerance

i don't see how your reply challenges my assertion. in fact, rather than challenging it, you seem to accept it and then claim that i cannot tolerate the fact, thus showing intolerance. may i point out that it is insufficient to ascribe to me intolerance, by merely stating i cannot tolerate something. i fail to see how you can infer this from anything i have said, apart from my questioning of your statute if limitations idea. in that regard, you yourself are awash with intolerance (in your case of social democracy, of income tax, of social welfare, of me etc) as i imagine is anyone who is conscious.

Except that the default "Irish" cultural identity has not been "one big happy mix of them all" at all but a rather narrow "Gaelic" Nationalism. perhaps, but i hardly feel this can be laid at the door of northern nationalists. look to your own FF/PD little irelanders and how they treat new arrivals, before trying to cast aspersions at people who've struggled a long time for what you take for granted.

[Frank McGahon]

i fail to see how you can infer this from anything i have said, apart from my questioning of your statute if limitations idea. in that regard, you yourself are awash with intolerance (in your case of social democracy, of income tax, of social welfare, of me etc) as i imagine is anyone who is conscious.

Ok Enda I think we are running out of road on this one but I'd just point out that tolerance ought to apply to individuals and not ideas. There's nothing wrong with being "intolerant" of bad ideas and the fact that you disagree with the Unionist political view doesn't make you intolerant.

What does make you intolerant is that you are not prepared to accept that cultural identity is something for each individual to choose. There is no such thing as a "proper" cultural identity and such a thing ought never be imposed on individuals by the mob. The tolerant approach is to respect individuals self-identified culture and leave it at that, not to insist that it is an "other" and deserves to be banished from the island.

[enda johnson]

i agree we are going in circles here. i can only conclude from your last paragraph that i am spectactularly inept at making my points, as it appears to conclude that i favour the banishment of all "others" from the island. i find it incredible that i could have led you to believe this, and hope that the limitations of the medium have something to do with the garbling of my argument, as the only other possible cause is my own ineptness, which i am not yet quite ready to accept.
i apologise for wasting your time.

[Jon Ihle]

interesting. how would israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories violate 242?

I was making a technical point concerning the (legal) reason for Israel's ongoing occupation: the future status of the territories, as per 242, is to be determined by negotiations, not unilateral action (such as pulling out). This is why Arafat opposes the Sharon's Gaza plan. Remember, there was no Palestinian sovereignty in the territories pre-1967 - they were previously occupied by Jordan and Egypt, who have since relinquished their claims to the land.

i think that israel has failed to extend full citizenship and status to arabs living within israel and so fails to make living in the israeli state seem just or attractive to the arabs.

On the contrary, Arab Israelis enjoy equal rights in Israel, including (but not limited to) the right to work, the right to own property, the right to own businesses, the right to vote and the right to hold office, all of which they exercise. In fact, life is pretty attractive for the one million Arab Israelis - so attractive that most of them want no part of any future Palestinian state.

if israel were a state for all its citizens, rather than a 'jewish state for a jewish people'.

You mean the way Ireland is an Irish state for an Irish people? Why should the Jews, alone among nations, not enjoy the benefits of a state for their people? This by no means keeps Israel from being a state for all its citizens any more than Ireland, as a state for the Irish, isn't also a state for me, a resident American. Or don't I belong here?

it seems to me that the israelis are determined not to abide by the 1967 borders and so a resolution to the problem is impossible. it's a fair point that the palestinians have only recently come to accept the 1967 borders, but now that they have, i feel the onus is on the israelis to reciprocate.

The Israelis are under no obligation to abide by the pre-1967 borders, since nobody had legal sovereignty in any of the territories they now occupy. And, of course, the Palestinians will not have accepted the pre-1967 borders as long as they insist on the right of return.

if we were to impose frank's statute of limitations, then the occupied territores would soon be de facto part of israel (which is what the settlers wish to achieve) and this to me is unjust. i accept the basic premise that it is futile to try and roll back decades or centuries old migrations, but the settlers are doing their thing right now and ought be stopped on the gounds that plantation is a medieval practice.

You seem to assume that prior to 1967 Jews didn't live in any of the places in the West Bank where there are now settlements. This is false. Jews lived in many parts of the West Bank up until 1948 when they either chose or were forced by political/military circumstances to leave. A 20 year hiatus hardly invalidates centuries of continuous habitation of places like Hebron, Bethlehem and Nazareth, to name a few. That's not plantation. (And we haven't even touched on Arab migration to the West Bank and Gaze post-1948). Anyway, why exactly should Israel continue to respect an armistice line (the pre-1967) that the Palestinians and their Arab supporters were happy to ignore in both the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur war? Would any responsible government, having repelled several invasions, go back to the geographical status quo that enabled them? Be serious.

[enda johnson]

jon,
Arab Israelis enjoy equal rights in Israel - this may be true on paper, but it is not in practice. no more than the position of nationalists in the north 30 years ago. a little googling turned up this: The Government does not provide Israeli Arabs, who constitute approximately 20 percent of the population, with the same quality of education, housing, employment, and social services as Jews ...

Ireland, as a state for the Irish, isn't also a state for me, a resident American. Or don't I belong here? - i'm sure you do. and if you married an irish lady i would oppose strenuouly any attempt by the irish government to follow isreal's lead

The Israelis are under no obligation to abide by the pre-1967 borders - i never said they were, i just stated that unless they do, no resolution is possible (bar total annihilation of one side or the other). as for the right of return, this seems to me to be no more than a negotiating position of the palestinians, just as the israelis proclaim jerusalem's eternal indivisibilty.

You seem to assume that prior to 1967 Jews didn't live in any of the places in the West Bank - not at all, i'm sure they did. i doubt they were ethiopians or russians or americans though. and recently sharon has called for more french planters ...

why exactly should Israel continue to respect an armistice line - because there will never be peace until they do.

[Jon Ihle]

enda,
they're not just ethiopians, russians, americans or french - they're jews. which is the point, no? surely you know the reason the jewish nation spread to places like ethiopia, russian, the US and france is that there they had no state of their own. now they do. planters? it all comes down to brit analogies with you, is that it? how original.

[enda johnson]

it all comes down to brit analogies with you, is that it? - this is unfair. i was merely following the themes of the thread as laid down by frank's original post. your post doesn't address the substance of any of the points i made, perhaps because you feel i made no substantial points at all! fair enough, but i would get more from the exchange if you elaborated on why you feel this to be the case, rather than just dismissing me.

they had no state of their own. now they do. - correct. but the way in which it was formed was in part by plantation. i wonder how many jews were living in what is now israel before the states foundation? i suspect much if its population is now made up of people who migrated after 1948 and their descendants. what is this if not plantation? now while i agree it is futile to try and undo this two or three generations later, it is outrageous that some israelis feel it is ok to carry on settling the west bank and gaza at the expense of the arabs living there.