What should a country do with conquered territory?

[Ifat Glassman]

Suppose country A attacked country D, and country D has won the war and even succeeded conquering some of country A's territory.

Is it acceptable in the world that D would keep that territory as it's own (destroy what they don't like in it, build houses for their citizens etc), as a territory under military occupation for protection (if so then for how long?), or as a political negotiation card (peace for land)?

Or in other words what is acceptable in the world?

Second question is, what RIGHTS do the conquering country (D) have over that territory?

Third question is, what should be done with the population of country A that is living in the conquered territories?

How do the answers to these questions change when the conquering country is the Aggressor (Assuming A won the war)?

Edited July 25, 2006 by ifatart

[DavidOdden]

Your question can't be answered because you've left out hugely important details. Who attacks and who wins are probably the two least relevant facts to consider. At this point, it's beginning to look like Israel needs to take a significant chunk of south Lebanon and turn it into a totally unoccupied buffer zone. It's hard to say how wide a zone is needed: it depends on whether they can or will also obliterate the governments of Syria and Iran that supply missles. As for the former residents of south Lebanon, they should be allowed to retreat to further north: it would be unjustified to exterminate them without allowing them the option of leaving (I suppose a week would be sufficient but probably they'd be given 30 days, politics being what it is).

[mrocktor]

First of all let us restrict the discussion to the case where the conquering country has a moral (i.e. rights respecting) government - discussing what a dictatorship should do with conquered land is irrelevant after all.

In a war waged by a country with a moral government, it is safe to assume that the object of the war is to protect it's citizen's rights from foreign aggression. If territory is gained and kept in that war, the government now is responsible for protecting individual rights in those territories as well. The key is that individuals in the conquered territory have rights - a moral government will protect them.

A good policy would be:

1- Identify and persecute individuals from the conquered area for their responsibility in the war (from the assumption above, someone in the conquered territory was a threat).

2- Assess property claims of individuals from the conquered area. If there is unclaimed land or resources in the areas conquered, it is open to being claimed (homesteading is a good way to handle this).

3- Protect individual rights in the conquered area. It would be immoral to selectively protect individual rights in the conquered areas (i.e. only protect the rights of the individuals originally from the conquering country and not those of the conquered peoples).

So, to answer your unstated question, Israel should have governed the conquered territories and treated the palestinians as citizens and individuals (whether they liked that or not). Israel should never have accepted a competing government inside it's territory - especially one not based on, and not the least interested in, protecting individual rights.

mrocktor

[Myron Azov]

Suppose country A attacked country D, and country D has won the war and even succeeded conquering some of country A's territory.

Is it acceptable in the world that D would keep that territory as it's own (destroy what they don't like in it, build houses for their citizens etc), as a territory under military occupation for protection (if so then for how long?), or as a political negotiation card (peace for land)?

If a free nation triumphs over an aggressor nation, justice may be served by making part or all of the conquered territory a permanent possession of the victorious nation. This is what became of Puerto Rico after the Spanish-American War.

1. By its initiation of force, the aggressor nation clearly demonstrates it has no concept of or regard for rights. By taking over its territory, the free nation would be spreading the protection of rights.

2. It is the moral obligation of the aggressor nation to make reparations for its use of force. Such payment may take the form of transferring titles of certain industries, real estate and natural resources to the aggrieved party (citizens of the victimized nation).

3. By dissolving the defeated nation’s government, the victorious nation would be reducing the total number of governments in the world and thus minimizing the opportunities for inter-governmental disputes and maximizing the rule of objective law.

How do the answers to these questions change when the conquering country is the Aggressor (Assuming A won the war)?

It is the moral obligation of the aggressors to lay down their arms and beg their victims for mercy.

[DavidOdden]

One further point: we are not actually dealing with the clarity of nation against nation, we are dealing with nation against barbarian mob. Lebanon did not invade Israel: Lebanon allowed Hezbollah to attack Israel. So you listen to the news and hear all of these whiners going on about the evil Israelis attacking civilian targets -- for the love of Moses, there are no Lebanese civilians in this war. The whole idea behind not attacking civilians is that the invading forces are clearly distinguished: shoot the soldiers, not the civilians. In this context, all citizens have to be presumed to be enemy combatants. Until there is ultimate and irrevocable surrender by the aggressors, the Israeli army really has a moral obligation to capture and isolate all of the enemy troops, even the women and children. If it becomes necesary to remove the central "government" in Beirut in the process (just as it was necessary to remove the central government in Kabul 5 years ago), then that should be done. Right now, Lebanon is only slightly better than Somalia in terms of actually being a country.

[mrocktor]

2. It is the moral obligation of the aggressor nation to make reparations for its use of force. Such payment may take the form of transferring titles of certain industries, real estate and natural resources to the aggrieved party (citizens of the victimized nation).

A nation cannot make a payment, only individuals can own things. Transfering ownership of anything from an individual to another because the former's country loes a war is theft. If the first individual has responsibility for the war, persecute him (the punishment may include expropriation). If there was government owned property in the conquered nation, that is up for grabs too. "Hello Mr. Assad, I'm taking your farm and giving it to Isaac here because you are an arab and "the arabs" lost the war" is completely immoral.

mrocktor

[Myron Azov]

A nation cannot make a payment, only individuals can own things.

Really? Who owns the U.S. military's jets, submarines, missiles, nukes and who pays the wages of the people who run them?

Transfering ownership of anything from an individual to another because the former's country loes a war is theft.

Does that mean we have to give Saddam his palaces back? And what about all the produce, livestock, wagons, rail cars, tools, and personal belongings that Sherman’s army stole? Does all that have to be returned now?

If the first individual has responsibility for the war, persecute him (the punishment may include expropriation).

And what about prosecuting those who helped wage the war on the aggressor's side? And those who worked in the factories that produced munitions, uniforms, food and medicines for the aggressor's troops. You're going to need an awfully big courtroom.

If there was government owned property in the conquered nation . . .

What government property? See your first sentence: ". . . only individuals can own things."

that is up for grabs too. "Hello Mr. Assad, I'm taking your farm and giving it to Isaac here because you are an arab and "the arabs" lost the war" is completely immoral.

Look, there are Arabs living in the U.S., but no one here is talking about taking their property. The issue is 1) defense, 2) future security, and 3) justice for the victims. Just as it is legitimate "to inflict suffering on complicit civilian populations” in the waging of war ( http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4581 ), so it may be appropriate to seize property from complicit populations in the processing of war reparations.

[Ifat Glassman]

My intent was to discuss the History of the Arab-Israeli conflict, from the time after the declaration of independence of Israel (There was hostility between Arabs and Jews even before the country was announces as independent by the UN in 1948, but I don't want to discuss that).

I was referring to the War of Liberation, and what followed. The agreement with the Arab nations in the end of the war was that Israel would hold certain territories in a cease-fire agreement, under a military control. It meant that the Arab population in Gaza and in the west bank lived under military control for many years.

Here are the borders that the UN decided on, in 1947: http://www.passia.org/Palestine_facts/MAPS...-plan-reso.html, and here are the borders after the many wars Israel has known over the years (primarily influenced by the war of liberation and the six days war): . Areas (1) Are conquered territories under Israeli law (include east Jerusalem) and areas (2) (The west Bank and Gaza strip) are under military control with limited authority for the Palestinian authority in some of the regions.

In the end of the six days war Israel had to face the problem of what to do with the conquered territories:

"At the end of the war Israel controlled a population of approximately 3 million Palestines... Israel decided not to append most of the occupied territory, which would have meaningfully lessened the percent of Jews in the country. On the other hand, Israel didn't want to back out of these territories, for strategic, political, and ideological considerations (protection and negotiation). Israel therefor established military control over these regions (in the "spirit" of the forth Janeva convention), and appended east Jerusalem by law (and gave citizenship to the Palestinians who lived there). Israel also started encouraging settlements in the occupied areas.

The green line remained an administrative line for territories under Israeli law. The territories within the "Green line" remained under Israeli law, while the territories outside them remained under the law of the previous country that owned that territory prior to the war, but with Israeli military control.

Now, mrocktor, I agree with what you said. Israel did not do your proposal number (3) which was:

3- Protect individual rights in the conquered area. It would be immoral to selectively protect individual rights in the conquered areas (i.e. only protect the rights of the individuals originally from the conquering country and not those of the conquered peoples).

However, There was a justification for this. At the time that Israel was just declared, Most Arabs did not recognise Israel (to say the least) and there have been many cases of raids of local Arabs on the Jewish population, before the country was even declared. I guess the leaders of Israel at the time feared that this would happened with Arabs of other nations as well. (even though this consideration does not appear in the wikipedia quote above).

As for respecting the right of property of individual Arabs, there was a problem with that as well (know as the "right of return"). What happened, in short was that many Arabs fled during the beginning of the war of liberation and the six days war, from fear of getting hit by the Arab armies when they strike. They were hoping to get their homes back after the war ends. Instead, Israel has won those wars, and did not allow the Arabs to return to their homes (under the claim that it is Israel's right to decide who has the right to emigrate into it). The Arabs that stayed in Israel during their war received citizenship (in some cases, depending where their houses were located).

Myron, I agree with your (1) and (2) (for a change), but I don't agree that the reparating country has the right to treat it's citizens as "natural resources" and hand them over to the other country. Or maybe I did not understand what you meant.

Anyway, I feel that this whole issue of the History of this conflict is something I haven't yet decided about (in terms of moral judgement of everything that happened), so this is why I am having this discussion now.

This can either be a general discussion about relations between two countries (but I realise now that without the full context it might be impossible to discuss), or a particular discussion about Israel and the Arab countries in the region.

Oh yes, and another problem about this conflict is the need to determine what gives a group of men ownership over a piece of land. Without this we cannot judge who was good and who was bad in the conflict.

The situation in Israel before it became a country, was that Arabs abd Jews lived together under British law. When they left the UN plan for dividing the country was suppose to determine who gets what territory. The question is, was it immoral for the Arabs who's land was suppose to be given away under that plan, to rebel against it (after all, I don't think that Britain or the UN offered any sort of compensation for Arabs who's land was suppose to be given away)?

[Myron Azov]

Myron, I agree with your (1) and (2) (for a change), but I don't agree that the reparating country has the right to treat it's citizens as "natural resources" and hand them over to the other country. Or maybe I did not understand what you meant.

By participating in a war of aggression, a rogue government and its complicit population forfeit most if not all of their rights. If the people of the Aggressor Nation do not like surrendering their homes and fortunes and livelihoods to the Victim Nation, they should think twice about ever cooperating with aggression in the future. They made their salad of bitter herbs; now they have to eat it. As the Talmud says, “Take away, O Lord, all hope from them. Destroy all foes of Thy nation."

The question is, was it immoral for the Arabs who's land was suppose to be given away under that plan, to rebel against it (after all, I don't think that Britain or the UN offered any sort of compensation for Arabs who's land was suppose to be given away)?

Israel is the only legitimate government in the area. Therefore, any revolt against Israel is a revolt against reason, individualism and quasi-capitalism. As Dr. Leonard Peikoff has written, "Israel established a nation morally. Land was not 'stolen' from the nomadic tribes meandering across the terrain, any more than the early Americans stole this country from the primitive, warring Indians. Israel established a civilized, Western-style outpost in which, for the first time in that region, individual rights were recognized." http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JServSes...ws_iv_ctrl=1021

[mrocktor]

Myron,

Your criticism of my affirmation about property is justified. I will rephrase it as: Collectives cannot own property. A government can own property, a nation cannot. A man can own property, a race cannot.

The rest of your post is a huge straw man. It's so obvious that I'll not even grant it the legitimacy of a reply.

Ifat,

I believe Israel's failure to enforce rights among the palestinian population is a central cause to the continued troubles in the conquered (notice I am not using occupied) territory. As to the "right of return", if an individual has a documented claim to some property and is willing to submit to the laws of the country (and this is key), it would be immoral to keep him out or to take his property away. Assuming of course he is not culpable for the war.

mrocktor

[Myron Azov]

Myron,

Your criticism of my affirmation about property is justified. I will rephrase it as: Collectives cannot own property. A government can own property, a nation cannot. A man can own property, a race cannot.

Your idea of nation is only one of several accepted meanings. I agree that a race cannot own property. However I used “nation” in the sense of definition 2 below:

na·tion

n.

1. a. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country. b. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.

2. The government of a sovereign state.

3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest).

4. a. A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans. b. The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nation

The rest of your post is a huge straw man. It's so obvious that I'll not even grant it the legitimacy of a reply.

Really? You wrote: “Transfering ownership of anything from an individual to another because the former's country loes a war is theft.” Aside from spelling errors, this statement is clear, straightforward and unambiguous. Why is it then a strawman to ask how your principle would apply to Iraq and the Confederacy?

And speaking of strawmen, what is this? “Hello Mr. Assad, I'm taking your farm and giving it to Isaac here because you are an arab and ‘the arabs lost the war’ is completely immoral.” Where did I say anything about dispossessing all Arabs--or any other ethnic group?

[Ifat Glassman]

So to sum it up, all of you are saying that if a country that has been attacked conquers land from it's enemies, it has the right to claim permanent ownership of that land.

Can anyone give a detailed explanation to the justification of that? (I agree that this is just, but I want a full explanation why).

Also, no one answered my first question though - which was: what is the acceptable thing to do in such a case ("world's opinion")? Because I've been told that the acceptable view is that that country should only hold those territories for military purposes, until it reaches a peace settlement of some sort (A view I do not agree with but I would like to know if it exists).

mrocktor, You also said that country D should respect the right of property of the former citizens of that land, and to protect them by law (acknowledge their individual rights).

Hmm. this means that every act of violence committed after the conquest should be judged in a civil courthouse, and not in the context of war (i.e, we can't take such a man as a war prisoner).

How do you suppose we should have treated the Intifada activists?

As for protecting the Palestinians by the Israeli law (when the country was just founded): The problem with that was that a lot of the Arab population was hostile to Jews (Not necessarily because of racism, but because Jews were Buying land from Britain, a land that the Arabs made a living of, and because of other reasons).

As for the Arabs living in Israel before the country was announced - Was their battle for their land justified or not? Because, as I said, the UN simply divided the area, but they didn't give anyone any compensation for having to leave their land (Jews or Arabs).

This conflict is very complex...

I think that the main problem with Arabs is that, for some reason, they have a strong tendency to resort to violence when they don't like something. I agree that Israel should have tried to give them equal rights, to encourage their economic development (instead of not giving them permission to develop independent agriculture, not allowing them to build things, having very tight control over their economics, with the intention of forcing them to be a workforce inside Israel rather than becoming independent), but why do they resort to violence to show their discontent? I mean, there were other people who had to fight for equality (like black people in the USA) but they didn't do it violently. Jews were also suffering from discrimination in Europe, but they didn't start riots over it. It must be something in (some of) the Arab's philosophy then. I just don't know what it is or where it's coming from.

[Myron Azov]

So to sum it up, all of you are saying that if a country that has been attacked conquers land from it's enemies, it has the right to claim permanent ownership of that land.

Can anyone give a detailed explanation to the justification of that? (I agree that this is just, but I want a full explanation why).

You are not paying attention. I gave you a detailed justification in this thread yesterday:

1. By its initiation of force, the aggressor nation clearly demonstrates it has no concept of or regard for rights. By taking over its territory, the free nation would be spreading the protection of rights.

2. It is the moral obligation of the aggressor nation to make reparations for its use of force. Such payment may take the form of transferring titles of certain industries, real estate and natural resources to the aggrieved party (citizens of the victimized nation).

3. By dissolving the defeated nation’s government, the victorious nation would be reducing the total number of governments in the world and thus minimizing the opportunities for inter-governmental disputes and maximizing the rule of objective law.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=121725

Also, no one answered my first question though - which was: what is the acceptable thing to do in such a case ("world's opinion")? Because I've been told that the acceptable view is that that country should only hold those territories for military purposes, until it reaches a peace settlement of some sort (A view I do not agree with but I would like to know if it exists).

The acceptable and moral thing is to do is 1) determine what is in a nation's rational self-interest and 2) do it. That desideratum outweighs your vaunted "world's opinion" any day of the week.

[Ifat Glassman]

1. By its initiation of force, the aggressor nation clearly demonstrates it has no concept of or regard for rights. By taking over its territory, the free nation would be spreading the protection of rights.

So is "spreading the protection of rights" by itself a justified reason for conquering land? Because what I understood from your sentence is 1) let's determine which country is free and which isn't. 2) the free country has the right to take over lands of the non-free country because it is free. Did I understand you correctly?

In the war of liberation, the Arab nations were attacking Israel out of a desire to take over the land entirely, and not allow any Jewish settlements to take place. Israel didn't have a fully functioning government and laws at that time, and there was no knowing what would become of it (a free or unfree country). Would you say that the Arab nation's attack was justified? why not?

Moreover, the simple act of taking over the land does not by itself mean "spreading rights". It depends what the conquering country is doing with the land, and the people in it. Agree? So what do you think should be done with those lands and the people in it after they've been taken?

2. It is the moral obligation of the aggressor nation to make reparations for its use of force. Such payment may take the form of transferring titles of certain industries, real estate and natural resources to the aggrieved party (citizens of the victimized nation).

....

By participating in a war of aggression, a rogue government and its complicit population forfeit most if not all of their rights. If the people of the Aggressor Nation do not like surrendering their homes and fortunes and livelihoods to the Victim Nation, they should think twice about ever cooperating with aggression in the future. They made their salad of bitter herbs; now they have to eat it. As the Talmud says, “Take away, O Lord, all hope from them. Destroy all foes of Thy nation."

I agree that the government and the complicit population forfeit the demand that their rights be respected by the attacking country. However, what method do you have of telling the complicit population from the innocent population in the conquered areas? Do you automatically assume they are all complicit, or do you assume they are innocent until proven guilty?

As for the Talmud business... Should I set up a meeting with a Raby for you ?

3. By dissolving the defeated nation’s government, the victorious nation would be reducing the total number of governments in the world and thus minimizing the opportunities for inter-governmental disputes and maximizing the rule of objective law.

I'm not talking about that sort of victory (with the result of a government being dissolved), only of conquered territories.

The acceptable and moral thing is to do is 1) determine what is in a nation's rational self-interest and 2) do it. That desideratum outweighs your vaunted "world's opinion" any day of the week.

I was not asking about the moral thing, I was asking about the acceptable thing. It's important to know what the "world" is expecting, to analyse and predict it's actions.

[Myron Azov]

So is "spreading the protection of rights" by itself a justified reason for conquering land? Because what I understood from your sentence is 1) let's determine which country is free and which isn't. 2) the free country has the right to take over lands of the non-free country because it is free. Did I understand you correctly?

No slave state has a right to "sovereignty" or "self-determination" or "non-intervention." By placing a yoke on his own citizens, a tyrant forfeits any claim to legitimate rule. As Ayn Rand said, “The only thing to be concerned with is: who started that war? And once you can establish that it is a given country, there is no such thing as consideration for the ‘rights’ of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of rights.” http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...lian_casualties

Now whether the government of a free nation should undertake the liberation of that slave state is a separate matter. A cost/benefit analysis may show that more would be spent than gained by conquering the slave state. That was certainly the case with the Kosovo War of the Clinton era.

In the war of liberation, the Arab nations were attacking Israel out of a desire to take over the land entirely, and not allow any Jewish settlements to take place. Israel didn't have a fully functioning government and laws at that time, and there was no knowing what would become of it (a free or unfree country). Would you say that the Arab nation's attack was justified? why not?

No, because the Arab states were run by insane executioners who trampled the individual rights of thousands every day before sitting down for breakfast. See the first point above.

Moreover, the simple act of taking over the land does not by itself mean "spreading rights". It depends what the conquering country is doing with the land, and the people in it. Agree? So what do you think should be done with those lands and the people in it after they've been taken?

I've already stated my answer earlier in the thread: “2. It is the moral obligation of the aggressor nation to make reparations for its use of force. Such payment may take the form of transferring titles of certain industries, real estate and natural resources to the aggrieved party (citizens of the victimized nation).” The scale of this property transfer would be determined by the extent of damages suffered by the Victim Nation and its costs in waging a defensive war. As for the former subjects of the Aggressor Nation, once they have paid their debt they are free to start their lives over. Those who held vital roles in the Aggressor Nation, however, would have to serve long terms in hard labor prisons.

I agree that the government and the complicit population forfeit the demand that their rights be respected by the attacking country. However, what method do you have of telling the complicit population from the innocent population in the conquered areas? Do you automatically assume they are all complicit, or do you assume they are innocent until proven guilty?

In wartime, the Victim Nation does not have the time or moral necessity to sort the innocent from the guilty. If someone is firing at you from an automobile, you don’t have to wait for everyone to get out of the car before firing back. You have every right to shoot in the direction of the assailant, even if it means hitting an innocent person inside the car. The same principle follows in warfare. There may be some innocent people in the Aggressor Nation, but probably very few. As Ayn Rand said, “In Soviet Russia, there aren't very many innocent ones—and they're mainly in concentration camps.” http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...lian_casualties

Once the Victim occupies the Aggressor Nation, there may be an opportunity to discover what few brave souls fought against the regime, but it will typically be an insignificant number.

As for the Talmud business... Should I set up a meeting with a Raby for you ?

See him yourself first. You seem to be the one who is full of moral ambiguity.

I'm not talking about that sort of victory (with the result of a government being dissolved), only of conquered territories.

I, too, am speaking of conquered territories.

I was not asking about the moral thing, I was asking about the acceptable thing. It's important to know what the "world" is expecting, to analyse and predict it's actions.

I don’t give a d*mn about world opinion. The sooner we forget about what the world thinks and focus instead on our self-interest, the sooner we will defeat our enemies.

[Ifat Glassman]

I've never seen anyone who talks so much and answers the actual questions so little. I also sense that in every sentence you're trying to prove some sort of superiority. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in a full understanding of this issue, which would be achieved by an organized discussion. The Rabi joke was not intended as some sort of personal insult. you seem to take things very personally.

Now that we have that clear, I'm going to talk about your answers:

[ifat]So is "spreading the protection of rights" by itself a justified reason for conquering land? Because what I understood from your sentence is 1) let's determine which country is free and which isn't. 2) the free country has the right to take over lands of the non-free country because it is free. Did I understand you correctly?

[Myron]No slave state has a right to "sovereignty" or "self-determination" or "non-intervention." By placing a yoke on his own citizens, a tyrant forfeits any claim to legitimate rule. As Ayn Rand said, “The only thing to be concerned with is: who started that war? And once you can establish that it is a given country, there is no such thing as consideration for the ‘rights’ of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of rights.” http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...lian_casualties

Now whether the government of a free nation should undertake the liberation of that slave state is a separate matter. A cost/benefit analysis may show that more would be spent than gained by conquering the slave state. That was certainly the case with the Kosovo War of the Clinton era.

Did you notice how you never answered my question? I was asking what should be the justification for conquering land from an enemy and keeping it. You replied that "The aggressor shows that it does not respect rights by it's actions" and "By taking over its territory, the free nation would be spreading the protection of rights.". That is not an answer, unless you take "spreading of rights" as the justification for conquering land.

The interesting thing in your answer though, was the quote by Ayn Rand " “The only thing to be concerned with is: who started that war?". According to this quote, she claims that it doesn't matter which country is freer, but only "who started the war". I'll read that article later, it'll probably be very useful.

Here are another 2 questions you didn't answer:

[ifat]Moreover, the simple act of taking over the land does not by itself mean "spreading rights". It depends what the conquering country is doing with the land, and the people in it. Agree? So what do you think should be done with those lands and the people in it after they've been taken?

[Myron]I've already stated my answer earlier in the thread: “2. It is the moral obligation of the aggressor nation to make reparations for its use of force. Such payment may take the form of transferring titles of certain industries, real estate and natural resources to the aggrieved party (citizens of the victimized nation).” The scale of this property transfer would be determined by the extent of damages suffered by the Victim Nation and its costs in waging a defensive war. As for the former subjects of the Aggressor Nation, once they have paid their debt they are free to start their lives over. Those who held vital roles in the Aggressor Nation, however, would have to serve long terms in hard labor prisons.

I asked, what should the country that has conquered those lands do with them, and with the people in them, and not what the country that has lost should do.

You only answered my question partially by saying that "Those who held vital roles in the Aggressor Nation, would have to serve long terms in hard labor prisons." and that "complicit population has to pay". What about the rest of the population? What methods should be used to determine who is innocent and who is complicit? Or are you saying that we should assume (and you are ASSUMING that, you don't know it for sure unless you checked) that all the citizens are complicit? And even if we do receive compensation from the complicit population, can you talk about the other aspects of their life? Should they receive protection by law? Should they be given economic freedom?

I already asked you this, but got an answer that was not related to my question at all:

[ifat]I agree that the government and the complicit population forfeit the demand that their rights be respected by the attacking country. However, what method do you have of telling the complicit population from the innocent population in the conquered areas? Do you automatically assume they are all complicit, or do you assume they are innocent until proven guilty?

[Myron]In wartime, the Victim Nation does not have the time or moral necessity to sort the innocent from the guilty. If someone is firing at you from an automobile, you don’t have to wait for everyone to get out of the car before firing back. You have every right to shoot in the direction of the assailant, even if it means hitting an innocent person inside the car. The same principle follows in warfare. There may be some innocent people in the Aggressor Nation, but probably very few. As Ayn Rand said, “In Soviet Russia, there aren't very many innocent ones—and they're mainly in concentration camps.”

Once the Victim occupies the Aggressor Nation, there may be an opportunity to discover what few brave souls fought against the regime, but it will typically be an insignificant number.

I was not asking about wartime, I was asking about citizens living in those conquered areas, after the war ended. As for your opinion (which is irrelevant to THIS discussion) that there should be no attempt to discriminate civilians from the army of the enemy, I don't respect that opinion, and I saw no justification for it.

It also seems from your quote above that you think that such a thing as "innocents in war" hardly exists. 1) How do you know that, unless you've done a survey? Seriously. 2) While this may have been the case in the examples you provided, it is not correct to assume this is the true in all cases.

[Myron Azov]

I've never seen anyone who talks so much and answers the actual questions so little.

It only seems that way because you keep evading the answers. (See examples below.)

I also sense that in every sentence you're trying to prove some sort of superiority.

It is unnecessary to prove the obvious.

Did you notice how you never answered my question?

No, because I answered it.

I was asking what should be the justification for conquering land from an enemy and keeping it. You replied that "The aggressor shows that it does not respect rights by it's actions" and "By taking over its territory, the free nation would be spreading the protection of rights.". That is not an answer, unless you take "spreading of rights" as the justification for conquering land.

Ah, now you've got it! 1) Those who routinely trample individual rights forfeit their authority to rule. They are properly deposed and 2) a new government is established by the conquering free nation, which sets about righting past wrongs and establishing objective law.

The interesting thing in your answer though, was the quote by Ayn Rand " “The only thing to be concerned with is: who started that war?". According to this quote, she claims that it doesn't matter which country is freer, but only "who started the war". I'll read that article later, it'll probably be very useful.

By all means.

Here are another 2 questions you didn't answer:

I asked, what should the country that has conquered those lands do with them, and with the people in them, and not what the country that has lost should do.

You only answered my question partially by saying that "Those who held vital roles in the Aggressor Nation, would have to serve long terms in hard labor prisons." and that "complicit population has to pay". What about the rest of the population?

Already answered in previous post:

There may be some innocent people in the Aggressor Nation, but probably very few. As Ayn Rand said, “In Soviet Russia, there aren't very many innocent ones—and they're mainly in concentration camps.”

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...lian_casualties

Once the Victim [Nation] occupies the Aggressor Nation, there may be an opportunity to discover what few brave souls fought against the regime, but it will typically be an insignificant number.

Obviously, any citizen of the Aggressor Nation who is truly innocent would not be held responsible for reparations.

What methods should be used to determine who is innocent and who is complicit? Or are you saying that we should assume (and you are ASSUMING that, you don't know it for sure unless you checked) that all the citizens are complicit?

Did they serve in a police/military/administrative position? Or in a war industry? Did they pay taxes? Did they not revolt against the government?

And even if we do receive compensation from the complicit population, can you talk about the other aspects of their life? Should they receive protection by law? Should they be given economic freedom?

Do you even bother to read my answers?! To repeat--once more: "By taking over its territory, the free nation would be spreading the protection of rights." And: ". . . once [citizens of the Aggressor Nation] have paid their debt they are free to start their lives over."

I already asked you this, but got an answer that was not related to my question at all:

I was not asking about wartime, I was asking about citizens living in those conquered areas, after the war ended.

And those citizens are precisely what my answer above addressed.

As for your opinion (which is irrelevant to THIS discussion) that there should be no attempt to discriminate civilians from the army of the enemy, I don't respect that opinion, and I saw no justification for it.

First of all, I never said that it would be wrong to discriminate civilians from the army of the enemy. The vital point is that in providing national defense for a free nation, such discrimination is a secondary consideration. If you in fact believe that innocent civilians should never be harmed by retaliatory force, then you would urge your government to get rid of its nuclear weapons--which cannot make any distinction between guilty and innocent life forms. Yet, your defense of such weapons in an earlier thread shows that you are quite hypocritical on this topic:

No, I wouldn't [urge Israel to divest itself of nuclear weapons]. I do think that in case that there is no other option available, and we are facing ither annihilation or using the bomb, then use the bomb against the attacking country. (which would be the same as letting free a man who killed someone under a gunpoint, on the individual case). Besides, the bomb is a good method to deter enemy countries from attacking.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=120409

It also seems from your quote above that you think that such a thing as "innocents in war" hardly exists. 1) How do you know that, unless you've done a survey?

The number of "innocents" in a target area has zero relevance to the right of a threatened nation to use retaliatory force. I'll make this easy for you. If a Victim Nation must wipe out one million “innocents” to kill the one man who threatens its continued freedom and existence, then the Victim Nation is completely justified in doing so.

Seriously. 2) While this may have been the case in the examples you provided, it is not correct to assume this is the true in all cases.

Cases may change. Principles do not.

[mrocktor]

Myron, you are so deep in the fallacy of generalization you cannot even see the way out.

1. By its initiation of force, the aggressor nation clearly demonstrates it has no concept of or regard for rights

Who is this nation you speak of? Is it Ahmad or Malek? Who get's to get plundered by your "moral" country and who gets to live? You have given no answers, as Ifat has keenly pointed out. Protecting the rights of your citizens does not give you a moral blank check to ignore the rights of men outside your country. Until you grasp that simple fact, further debate with you is pointless.

Ifat,

if a country that has been attacked conquers land from it's enemies, it has the right to claim permanent ownership of that land.

Can anyone give a detailed explanation to the justification of that? (I agree that this is just, but I want a full explanation why).

Countries don't own land. People own land, companies own land (which is another way of saying people own land), governments own land (though they shouldn't). The definition of government is "the entity that claims the exclusive use of retaliatory force in a geographical area". That is why land becomes part of your country when you make that claim - whether you call it an occupied territory, buffer zone or simply a new province.

The test of whether such a change of government is morally justified is a simple one: does the new government serve its proper function (protecting individual rights) better or worse than the previous? Assuming, as I did in my first post, that your country protects individual rights, it is immaterial whether you started the shooting war or whether you were attacked. A moral country would only start a war if threatened anyway.

World opinion is completely irrelevant to ethics. Things are what they are, no matter what people think.

You also said that country D should respect the right of property of the former citizens of that land, and to protect them by law (acknowledge their individual rights).

Hmm. this means that every act of violence committed after the conquest should be judged in a civil courthouse, and not in the context of war (i.e, we can't take such a man as a war prisoner).

Yes, the rights of people that did not take part in aggression are not voided by their countrymen's moral breach. This is what Myron does not see. A moral man trapped in the insanity that is palestine does not have an obligation to denounce his terrorist government and praise Israel and America. The fact that he may choose not to do so does not mean he supports Hamas, it means he does not want to die. After defeating his insane government do you take his property or do you set him free?

Special war tribunals should be set up to judge active participants in the war, civil courts are responsible for judging crimes commited after the war is ended and law has been established. Of course the law would frown on conspiring to detonate explosives in shopping centers.

As for protecting the Palestinians by the Israeli law (when the country was just founded): The problem with that was that a lot of the Arab population was hostile to Jews (Not necessarily because of racism, but because Jews were Buying land from Britain, a land that the Arabs made a living of, and because of other reasons).

If the land lawfully belonged to britons or to the British government, the transaction was lawful as well. If, on the other hand, Britain transfered legal ownership of land that was in fact occupied and improved by other people - that would be morally reprehensible, and would constitute fraud by the British government for selling something they did not own.

This question is immaterial nowdays. Unless records exist showing that a specific person owned specific land and was expropriated, there is no way to correct this wrongdoing. Restitution requires a specific victim. "Giving land back to the palestinians" is not restitution, since "the palestinians" never owned any land - "the palestinians" is a collective and not an actual existent.

Were specific arabs wronged during the creation of Israel - I'm sure they were. Were "the arabs" wronged? No, you can only violate the rights of individuals - a race, a nationality or a religion have no rights.

mrocktor

[Ifat Glassman]

Myron, the way you put things is not organized enough for me, and the logic behind it is not stated explicitly: instead you give quotes that represent your final conclusions and get angry if I don't agree immediately. My intention is to have an understanding of the proper application of Objectivist ethics as I know them so far with the Israeli-Arab conflict (the history of it). I have no interest in accepting your opinion, or anyone else's on faith. Other than that your style of discussion is intentionally insulting.

Therefor I get little value from discussing with you and I am not going to answer your posts from now on.

mrocktor, for some reason this subject is hard for me to analyze. Probably because it has many parameters that has to be taken into account. So I won't always reply immediately to your posts, sometimes I need to "sleep on something". Hope you stick around even if my responses would be slow. Now to your post:

Countries don't own land. People own land

This subject is complex. First of all what you said implies that you think the disengagement was immoral (I agree). But consider the fact that in order to protect the people living in the settlements, the IDF had to jeopardise a lot of soldiers. The lives of those soldiers had to be considered as well. Just pulling back the soldiers and letting the people in the settlements decide if they want to stay would have had the same effect as ordering to evacuate those places. In other words, I think that the government should have a certain amount of control over the territory it decides to protect (or to "own"). In the case of the disengagement I agree that it was immoral. I'm not going to go into the reasons for it to stay focused on the discussion. My second point about your claim is that a government should be in charge of making sure that citizen's interests won't collide. For example, say that some people want to settle in Mars. The government should be involved in arranging the different areas for settlements. If two people want to use the same land, one for a hotel and one for a factory of some sort, the government should be involved in deciding who should get that territory, otherwise you'd have anarchy. What I'm saying is that I don't agree with your claim that government should not own territory. However, once a person bought a certain territory, and that ownership does not collide with the rights of other citizens, the sole meaning of "ownership" of a government over that land should be in the sense that you said: "the entity that claims the exclusive use of retaliatory force in a geographical area".

I think that for this discussion, using the last definition that you provided should be good enough.

Now to the real problem:

The test of whether such a change of government is morally justified is a simple one: does the new government serve its proper function (protecting individual rights) better or worse than the previous?

Well according to your criterion, Israel had no right over the conquered territories, but the Arab countries did. Israel gave no citizenship to the Arabs living in the conquered territories, and limited their freedom of movement (and economic freedom) as response to actions taken by certain individuals (terrorists living among them).

you already talked about this issue, that you think that the conflict is partially a result of Israel's failure to protect Palestinians individual rights. The problem with giving them freedom was that it would have meant great risk to the Jewish population. Arabs have been attacking Jewish settlements before the country was even declared. while it is true that we have no proof that ALL Arabs in the area were hostile to Jews, the rulers of the country had a reason to believe that removing military control from the conquered area would cause raids on Jewish settlements. Do you think we should have taken that chance and treat them as individuals anyway? (along with the tribunals you suggested).

As for the raids of Arabs on Jewish settlements, no it wasn't justified. Britain sold lands that the Arabs were working on as hired workers, not as owners of that land.

As for the right of return: Yes, there are proofs of former ownership of those lands. Some Arabs hold the keys to their old houses till this day. (if you want, I can search online for a list of the claims).

That's what I have to say for now

[mrocktor]

I think that the government should have a certain amount of control over the territory it decides to protect (or to "own").

This is extremely important as it touches on a cornerstone of Objectivist Ethics, and therefore Politics. It is a matter of principle, derived by the nature of man, that you have an inalienable right to your property. That means that you don't own land because the government lets you - it is yours by right.

A government therefore defends its citizens from aggression, and thus defends its citizen's land. The government does not own the country - the people do.

Well according to your criterion, Israel had no right over the conquered territories, but the Arab countries did. Israel gave no citizenship to the Arabs living in the conquered territories, and limited their freedom of movement (and economic freedom) as response to actions taken by certain individuals (terrorists living among them).

I doubt the previous governments of those areas had a better record than Israel in protecting the right to life (they kill people who give up their religion, for instance), property (they tax like every other existing government) or freedom of choice (they tell you what you can and can't eat, for crying out loud).

I maintain that by not those peoples rights Israel basically gave up the moral justification for holding that land. This was greatly worstened by the settlements, as I doubt they were set up in unclaimed areas. This is an example of what I meant by respecting the property of inocent people in the conquered region. By taking conquered land, treating it as unowned and giving it to jews, the Israeli government expropriated actual people.

I'm not arguing palestinians should have been given free access to Israel proper until terrorists were rooted out, nor that Israel should passively accept terrorist activity. A clear statement of intent (we will protect life, property and freedom) and a clear policy (i.e. areas where terror occurs will be put in martial law as conflict areas - basically a contained war zone) would go a long way though.

As for the right of return: Yes, there are proofs of former ownership of those lands. Some Arabs hold the keys to their old houses till this day.

Depriving an inocent man of his property is morally abhorrent.

mrocktor

[Ifat Glassman]

The right to property is the right to own (or to keep, and decide about) the products of one's work. What about land? A peace of land by itself was not created by human beings, and therefor people cannot claim to own a land without processing it in some way (building on it etc) and outside a method of exchanging and claiming ownership that is acceptable on society. When people settle in an unsettled territory for the first time, they first have to agree of some method to divide the land among themselves to prevent anarchy (=I have more guns therefor I get to keep this land). This means that an individual who wishes to settle in that place would have to comply with the method the majority has agreed on. He will be acting against the local law if he simply occupies a certain land while ignoring the rules that were set up to ensure fair division of the land. As much as I would love to build myself a house in the middle of Yosemite, I would justify the rangers that would soon come to evacuate me . I do not have the right to settle anywhere I feel like, and claim ownership (And Yosemite is owned by the state of California, not by any individual).

Moreover, once a country already exists, there might still be territories that no one has built on yet. Is your stand that whomever gets there first has the right to build in those areas, without a permission from the government? Such a method would mean anarchy and the use of force to get lands. Here is a simple example: Suppose there is a river flowing through the country. And throughout the river people are exploiting the river for different purposes (to produce power, to cool down the machines of the factory, to swim in, to build a hotel next to it etc). Now suppose I settle in a land next to the river, and I start building a dam, or to divert the path of the river, for my own purposes. According to the definition of the right to property nobody owns the river. Therefor the government supposedly don't have the right to tell me what to do on my territory, because supposedly I didn't violate anyone's rights. Do you see why I am saying that a government must have a certain involvement in the issue of owning land? and the government must have a well defined method for commerce with lands, and on certain occasions dictate what a person can or cannot do with his land. The interference must be minimal, to ensure fair use and fair ownership of lands, nothing more.

So to go back to my question about the Arabs living in Israel (in the territory that was meant to belong to "Israel") when it was declared: The conclusion from what you said is that the division of the British Mandate to Israel and Palestine (note that the division was based on race, or origin) should have had secondary validity after prior ownership of land. i.e, if an Arab was living in what was to become Israeli territory he had to be given the chance to become an Israeli citizen and nobody had the right to chase him out of his house by force. Very well. I agree.

There seem to be a contradiction in what you say afterwards. on one hand you say that:

I maintain that by not those peoples rights Israel basically gave up the moral justification for holding that land. This was greatly worstened by the settlements, as I doubt they were set up in unclaimed areas. This is an example of what I meant by respecting the property of Innocent people in the conquered region. By taking conquered land, treating it as unowned and giving it to Jews, the Israeli government expropriated actual people.

on the other hand you say that:

I doubt the previous governments of those areas had a better record than Israel in protecting the right to life (they kill people who give up their religion, for instance), property (they tax like every other existing government) or freedom of choice (they tell you what you can and can't eat, for crying out loud).

and by that implying that Israel DID have a right to "own" those lands, even if it didn't give the Arabs in those territories individual rights, simply because they gave more freedom than the Arab nations. Or, another possible conclusion from what you said is that nobody had a right to own those lands, because nobody was willing to acknowledge the rights of the individuals living there. In my last sentence I am using the word "own" in the manner that you defined it for a government ("the entity that claims the exclusive use of retaliatory force in a geographical area").

I think that Israel had the right to "own" those lands, because those lands were used to attack the citizens of Israel (over and over again during the years). There is a conflict here, however, between the rights of the innocent Palestinians living there and between the right of Israeli citizens to their life.

Why not, do you ask, make the effort to protect the Palestinians living there with the Israeli law, and only prosecute the guilty (people who fought against Israel, and people who helped them do that in any way)?

Well, on one hand I tend to agree with you, and think that we did a terrible mistake by not trying hard enough to do just that. On the other hand, the history of Israel was filled, as I said, with cases of raid on Jewish settlements. Those gave Israel a reason to believe that almost all the Arab population in the conquered territory would do the same if they had the opportunity.

However, I think that if we applied your method of judging individuals (no matter how long it would take and how many resources we would have to invest in it) eventually the result would be justice (and also, in the life quality of Israelies, much better than today). Thanks for the great insight. I'll have to think about this more though.

Edited July 27, 2006 by ifatart

[Ifat Glassman]

On second thought, I realized that something was wrong in what I said. What was wrong is that Israel was still at war even after the territories were taken. The reason it was a war was the fact that most of the Arab population (or at least a significant enough part of it, from a possible damage to Israel viewpoint, and from a viewpoint of the need to enforce law in those areas) did not recognize Israel's right to exist, they did not respect the Jew's right to life. They have demonstrated it many times. The rules in war and in peace are completely different. In wartime a country should not make a separate trial to each individual before using defensive force against a mob (or some form of army). In times of peace a country is obligated to protect the rights of all people living within it's borders. So our basic discussion should be whether or not the condition between the Palestinians and the Israelis can be considered as war or not, and what were the reasons for that: There is a difference if the Arabs resisted the fact that their rights were trampled on, or if they fought for annihilation of Israel. And we have to back up each claim we make with evidence.

Here is the definition of war:

WAR - A contention by force; or the art of paralysing the forces of an enemy.

It is either public or private. It is not intended here to speak of the latter.

Public war is either civil or national. Civil war is that which is waged between two parties, citizens or members of the same state or nation. National war is a contest between two or more independent nations) carried on by authority of their respective governments.

War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it.

National wars are said to be offensive or defensive. War is offensive on the part of that government which commits the first act of violence; it is defensive on the part of that government which receives such act; but it is very difficult to say what is the first act of violence. If a nation sees itself menaced with an attack, its first act of violence to prevent such attack, will be considered as defensive.

To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the Constitution with this power. And it seems it need not be declared by both the belligerent powers. By the Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Congress is invested with power "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; and they have also the power to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy."

Now I need to go over the the different periods in history and decide if we were in a condition of war, and what was the purpose of the Palestinians in each act of aggression.

[Olex]

@Ifat:

I'm suprised no one in this thread has posted a link to "Just War Theory" by Yaron Brook. Close to the end, it discusses occupation.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues...-war-theory.asp

Search for "The question of occupation" to find the part that talks about the topic of this thread. I think the article is well-laid out and consistent.

[Gal]

I had something to say, apparently it was already said, and I can't find a way to delete my post.

Edited July 31, 2006 by Gal

[mrocktor]

Ifat,

Do some research on "homesteading" with regards to your questions about establishing property rights over previously unowned land.

Also, please think about the distinction between owning land and governing territory. The Brazilian government governs the territory where my house is, they don't own that land though (although they act like they do). This distinction unravels the apparent contradiction you mentioned.

As to your latest post, I agree that Israel was at war even after the territories were taken.

mrocktor