Engage

20 Feb 2009

Kung Fu Jew was kind enough to respond to yesterday’s post about Israel, and ask some very interesting questions, to which I most eagerly reply. Please note that my dissection of these questions does not signify a desire to prove them wrong, merely an attempt to more fully explain my opinion, and to more accurately respond to the state points.

But do all people have a right to their own land?

I think that everyone has a right to land. Whether it’s “theirs” or anyone else’s is a matter of contention. What I do know for sure is that no one has the right to take someone else’s land. This goes both ways. The Israeli settlers who took Arab land in the past have built their lives there, and handed those lives down to their children. Those children deserve the right to continue living there as much as anyone else does. Unification into a single state with equal religious recognition and proprietary rights for all must occur.

And is that peoples or people?

What a fabulous question! As I understand it, what we’re dealing with here is the idea of national identity. If a person declares themselves to be part of a larger group (an ethnicity, religion, political party, etc.), can that group claim legal status or recognition based on the fact that its constituents have those rights? I don’t think so. Human rights don’t add up. They do not accumulate. If there are four people in one group and two in another, the first group doesn’t have twice the rights of the first. Each person still retains all of their full, inalienable rights. The system of a parliamentary democracy is actually conducive to this; it allows for compromise between seemingly uncompromisable factions. Hence a great potential for Israel to set a standard of religious tolerance and socio-political cooperation.

Im asking whether every nation should have a state, and whether each person is entitled to property ownership?

It is my opinion that no nation should have a state. Such a state will neverreach total neutrality towards all of its citizens. As long as it is a religious state, it is intrinsically biased. Bias by a governmental system or agency towards or against any of its constituents is intolerable. Government must be by the people, for the people. End of story. As to property ownership, it is is an injustice if someone is afforded more opportunities by virtue of governmental privilege to accrue property, or exempted from punitive measures applied to others for the same transgressions. Whether it is a case of the U.S. usurping land from native peoples by governmental policy, or of the Israeli government closing one eye and looking the other way as settlers steal land and property from its rightful owners, it is the same: the government is making a decision as to who to prosecute for crimes and who to silently endorse. In this case, complacency truly is compliance.

I welcome more opinions on this issue. My viewpoint is not at all static, and I am always looking for meaningful debate and discussion.