REPARATIONS
 |
James Joyner | Thursday, November 13, 2003 |
Eugene Volokh challenges this call by the Jersusalem Post for Europeans to return any and all property once owned by Jews that was taken by questionable means:
Lists of confiscated Jewish communal property in Europe should be expanded to include not just buildings taken by the Nazis or the Soviets, but by their medieval forebears as well. The Foreign Ministry, working together with Jewish organizations, should press the Europeans to come clean, and demand the return of our stolen patrimony.
Eugene, quite reasonably, thinks this is problematic:
First, the argument rests on the notion of group guilt and group entitlement, which has so often been used against Jews, now being used supposedly on behalf of Jews. So some Jews in Spain had their property stolen. That’s horrible. But why should it now be given to completely different Jews today, simply because they share the same ethnicity or religion?Second, the argument completely ignores the rights of subsequent owners of the property. There are people, entirely innocent people, who now own or use the property that was stolen 500 years ago. They’ve invented their time, effort, and money to keeping it up, improving it, and investing orders of magnitude more into it than it was worth 500 years ago when it was taken.
The Post edititorial anticipates this argument,
There can be no time limit when it comes to justice, and there can be no excuse for holding back on returning stolen Jewish property.Centuries may have passed, but that in no way dilutes Europe’s moral obligation to correct what can still be corrected. There is simply no reason why buildings such as Monti-Sion, or Jewish religious objects which sit gathering dust in convents and monasteries across the Continent, should not be restored to their rightful owners, the Jewish people.
But peoples don’t own property, individuals do. It’s absurd to suggest that 500-year-old claims have any merit. By that reasoning, all the military conquests throughout history must be reversed. Indeed, none of the European diaspora’s claims to North America are nearly 500 years old. By the Post’s reasoning, we should give it all back to the aboriginal tribes. The legacy of misconduct simply can’t be passed through generations.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- Caption Contest
- Palin – Beck 2012
- Obama: Disloyal, Ruthless, Cold
- Weak Democrats Hurt 2010 Senate Chances
- Third Quarter Growth Revised Downwards
- Obama Cabinet’s Limited Private Experience
- Google Apologizes for Michelle Obama Monkey Picture
- No OTB Radio Tonight
- Colleen Blanchard Schuler, RIP
- That’s What I Call A Loophole…
I think this op-ed is intended as a parody of Palestinian irredentism, not a serious request.
Chris,
Nothing in the editorial suggests that. Indeed, Palestinians aren't even mentioned. Not to mention that the Palestinian claims are to things within the memory of living Palestinians.
True, although I think this is the money graf:
"Europe does not hesitate to preach to Israel about morality in international affairs, even as it continues to enjoy the fruits of hundreds of years of pilfering and theft of Jewish property. The time has come to correct this injustice and to demand that Europe atone for its numerous transgressions."
Maybe it sounded better in the original Hebrew. I still don't think it's meant to be taken seriously.
The irony would seem to be inescapable, especially with regard to Palestinians' claims for the Right of Return, e.g. "my grandfather's orange groves in Jaffa," (which apparently were so numerous and extensive that they stretched all the way to the Euphrates).
The article, in English, gives no hint of irony however, as noted above.
The writer is very, very subtle, or very, very obtuse.
Maybe not, although they say stuff like this all the time.
How about a compromise. Instead of giving the Jews reparation payments, the Europeans can stop supporting the Arabs who are trying to kill the Jews.
WRT the Palestinian right of return, I guess the Jews religious claim to the home land fits into the same bill?
Guys, I think it is both. (satire and serious)
Rush Limbaugh says all the time that he illustrates absurdities by being absurd. I'm pretty sure that is what the guy is doing. But for it to be truly well done, there has to be a ring of truth to it.
Paul
And a ring of satire, too.
---
Comments are Closed
