The notable philosopher John Locke maintained that justified land titles are predicated upon homesteading — the first person to mix his labor with the land is the rightful owner of it. Not the most recent occupant, the original homesteader. Unless, of course, the rightful owner abandoned his property. Then the next person to step up to the place and occupy it assumes that role.
The Jews have occupied contested territory in the Middle East for about 3,500 years. They were busily homesteading quite a bit of it even then, making (at least some of) the desert bloom. The Arabs have been in that part of the world for at most three centuries. Therefore, in any squabble between the two groups, the nod goes to the first dwellers, the Jews.
Recommended Stories
There are two types of proof for this contention. First, the Al Aqsa Mosque lies above the Jewish Second Temple, and both are perched above the First Jewish Temple. Why two of the latter? Because the Hebrews, up until 1948, had been conquered by numerous invading armies: the Romans, the Ottomans, and several others. Nor is the evidence limited to these few acres.
Second, archeological evidence, all over the Holy Land, definitively demonstrates that, yes, Arab coins, clothes, and emblems can be widely found several feet down. But when the dig is deeper, is it all Jewish, all the way down (the Canaanites and the cavemen before them, whoever they were, left virtually no traces of their habitation)
But the Jews have never, ever, abandoned the territory they once occupied and rightfully still own. There have been Jews in this area since time immemorial. Even those expelled, and now located in the diaspora, pray facing Jerusalem, wish for “next year in Jerusalem” speak the Hebrew language (they do this privately, since all too often to do so publicly would be dangerous).
Therefore, those who now occupy these disputed lands, the Arabs, are trespassers. They are squatters on the areas that belong to others, the Jews. The latter group is the rightful owner of all of Gaza, the Golan Heights, and large parts of the surrounding territory. It may be an exaggeration to say “From the river to the sea, Israel should be free,” but if so, it is only a slight one.
However, this analysis of property rights has come under criticism. The argument is that Locke’s insights only apply to individuals, not to groups. Possession is properly nine-tenths of the law. Right now, the Palestinians are the de facto, albeit not de jure, owners of this terrain under dispute. How many individual Jews can trace their parentage back not over a mere few centuries, but three actual millennia? Maybe, a few Kohanim, but far too few to justify anything like the territory to which a Greater Israel is entitled.
But this individualism business is an unduly restrictive qualification. Yes, it is true that in economics, particularly the Austrian version thereof, only individuals can act. When all members of a group depart, there is nothing left of the group. The collective consists of nothing outside, above, apart from, the individuals who comprise it.
But it is an unwarranted step to reason from what is correct in the dismal science, a positive enterprise, to law, which is a normative discipline. David Hume correctly reasoned that an “ought” cannot be logically deduced from an “is.”
As a legal matter, groups may indeed own property. There are partnerships, corporations, homeowners’ associations, kibbutzim, condominiums, etc. The Native American tribes properly owned property collectively. Individual members did not own the land on which their teepees were perched. When they moved back and forth from the summer and winter quarters, the entire tribe, the collective, owned the relevant acreage.
WHAT IF NETANYAHU SURRENDERED? ISRAEL’S REAL CRIME IS REFUSING TO DIE
They do not properly own the entire U.S. There were only some 4-5 million of them when the Europeans first arrived on the scene. This is far too few to own the entirety of the country, at least based on Lockean principles. There are now some 360 million occupants, and, except for a few dozen cities, the land is almost empty. But to adhere to this fallacious doctrine that only individuals, not collectives, may own property is to say that these folk do not own as much as one single square inch. This would be an obvious and appalling injustice.
Also, Locke was not discussing countries. How, then, can we claim that Israel, not any of its neighbors, should have sovereignty over a disputed area? Stipulate, arguendo, that you are an anarchist, opposed to all governments per se. Still, a resolution may be made. Just ask which group, collective, has a greater, more justified claim on the territory under contention. When this is done, and the physical evidence is examined, there can be only one answer to this question. So, yes, when Moishe from Brooklyn engages in Aliyah and emigrates to Eretz Yisroel, he has a right to do so that no non-Jew possesses.
Walter E. Block, Ph.D., is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans.
