For a long time, people have moved from place to place, and there’s no valid basis for claiming land based on ancient history. No one can say, “I’m a Hun, and 2,000 years ago, the Huns lived in Germany, so all Germans should leave.” This idea—that you can identify with a group from the past and use that to overrule current property rights—is ridiculous and wouldn’t be accepted anywhere.

Civilisation depends on property rights. Respecting individual property rights is the foundation of peace, progress, and prosperity. Without them, we descend into chaos. This is the main point of my book Principles of Economics. It’s a case for civilisation, starting from first principles. Imagine people stranded on an island—they’d need to respect each other’s property to survive and build a society. The same applies to all human progress. To the extent that we honour property rights, we build civilisation. To the extent that we violate them, we regress into violence and destruction.

Now let’s look at Palestine. In the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, there was a system of property rights in Palestine. While not perfect, it included private ownership of land. Jewish immigrants and the Zionist movement respected that system and bought land under it, recognizing the legitimacy of the existing property titles. But the idea that they could claim the land because their ancestors lived there 2,000 years ago makes no sense.

Even if you wanted to argue this point—which I don’t—it’s further complicated by modern genetics. DNA studies show that Palestinians are more closely related to the ancient Jewish population of the region than many European Jews who immigrated during the Zionist movement. Even David Ben-Gurion admitted this. He said that the Palestinian peasantry (the fellahin) are the descendants of the ancient Jews who lived there.

When Arabs arrived in Palestine around 700 AD, they didn’t displace the local population. Instead, they replaced the Byzantine rulers while the local people remained. Over time, most of the population converted to Islam. Umar Ibn Al-Khattab, the Muslim Caliph at the time, famously entered Jerusalem and assured the local population—Christians and Jews—that their lives and property would be protected. His approach was not to displace people but to coexist. He even declined to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, to ensure it remained a Christian place of worship. A mosque was later built next to the church, symbolizing peaceful coexistence.

So, modern Palestinians are primarily descended from the region’s original inhabitants, along with some Arab, European, and African ancestry. But none of this matters for property rights. Property is individual, not collective, and it certainly isn’t tied to DNA.

Before 1948, there was a functioning property system in Palestine. The real conflict began when the Zionist movement started violating those property rights in the 1940s, and it escalated with the establishment of Israel. Israel didn’t just expel Palestinians or deny them the right to return to their homes—it also destroyed the free market in land. Today, almost all land in Israel is government-owned, and Palestinian refugees, like my wife’s family, cannot buy back their property, no matter how much money they have. But if they converted to Judaism, they could get land at subsidised prices. This is not a legitimate property system—it’s a discriminatory one.

I made this point in my debate with Walter Block, an Austrian economist and libertarian. Walter argues for privatising everything—oceans, outer space, you name it—but when it comes to Palestine, he supports the Israeli government owning 90% of the land. That’s completely inconsistent with libertarian principles, and I believe it was the strongest argument in our debate.

Saifedean Ammous