[Editor’s Note: Toward the goal of fostering a deeper discussion of issues pertaining to the current conflict in Gaza, and of the implications of libertarian thought for issues of foreign policy more generally, we are running the following guest submission by John Glaser. Glaser is the Senior Editor at Antiwar.com. He was formerly an Editorial Assistant at The American Conservative magazine and an intern at the Cato Institute. – MZ]

I should start by saying I greatly admire Mr. Horwitz, his work, and his unparalleled ability to simplify economic principles for the layperson. I chose to respond to his latest piece not out of malice or for a shouting match, but to try to correct the record, speak for the anti-war libertarians critical of Israel, and to move towards a greater understanding within the libertarian movement on important issues of US foreign policy. I participated in the Facebook discussion that prompted Mr. Horwitz’s essay, and I think I’m well suited to respond.

Mr. Horwitz’s first mistake is to conclude that, beyond demanding that the US government “keep its military and our money out of” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he’s “not sure how much libertarianism, at least of a thin variety, can say” about it. This thinking leads him to approach the issue in a vacuum, forgetting one vital strain in libertarian thought that I think is instructive.

As things stand, and as everyone knows, the US is not a neutral player in the conflict. Israel receives over $3 billion in aid from Washington every year, not including the mountains of military hardware and expertise that the Israeli Defense Forces are now unleashing on the Palestinians. As Noam Chomsky, a harsh critic of US foreign policy and the intellectual mentor of many a bleeding heart libertarian, said, “my own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state.” There are two reasons this is instructive in the case of Israel-Palestine. First, Israel’s violence and abuse of the Palestinians – supported with unparalleled US backing – is immeasurably greater than Palestinian violence towards Israel, and therefore rightly attracts far more criticism. Secondly, Americans are supporting and giving sanction to Israel’s violence towards Palestinians, and therefore a simple moral calculus leads us properly to focus on that violence, as opposed to any that we are not directly responsible for. “And that is a simple ethical judgment,” according to Chomsky. “That is, the ethical value of one’s actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences.”

To really understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Horwitz correctly notes, “we need a much thicker libertarianism that actually goes out and reads a whole lot of history and tries to carefully untangle the knot.” I actually think this ought to be something of a prerequisite to talking about the issue in general and we should be skeptical of those that try to shape the opinions of our fellow libertarians without this strong reliance on the history and facts on the ground.

To that end, allow me to lay out some limited context. Just what is America supporting? Well, for 45 years Israel has militarily occupied Palestinian territory in the West Bank and Gaza, while using unqualified support from the United States to block the wildly popular political settlement based on the borders set in 1948. Many Palestinians aren’t happy with this settlement, given that it reaffirms Israel’s territory on almost 80 percent of historic Palestine. But many have accepted this as a viable deal to end the stalemate and occupation of what’s left of Palestine. The Arab League has officially endorsed this settlement, along with the Palestine Liberation Organization, and even some elements of Hamas.

But Israel has blocked this settlement for decades, insisting on continuing its brutal occupation of both the West Bank and Gaza. Not only has the occupation continued, but Israel has been slowly seizing more and more territory. In the West Bank, Israel has been demolishing Palestinian homes that have rested on that land for generations and building up Israeli settlements in their place, paid for by the Israeli state which also subsidizes Israeli citizens willing to live there. This is a direct violation of the international laws that were created in order to criminalize Nazi war policies in World War II. Occupying powers are prohibited from transferring their own civilian populations into occupied territory.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies over the last three years have drawn tens of thousands of Israelis into the West Bank, causing the Jewish population in Palestinian territory to increase by 18 percent. And the number of Jewish settlers that the Israeli government has incentivized to live on Palestinian land has tripled since 1993 to more than 342,000 at the end of 2011. That number does not include some 200,000 Jews living in East Jerusalem, which Israel annexed from the Palestinians in 1967. In 2012 alone, at least 476 Palestinian homes were demolished by Israel, according to a September UN report. In 2011, more than 1,100 Palestinians, half of them children, were displaced by Israeli demolitions.

A report from the European Union in January found that “a combination of house and farm building demolitions; a prohibitive planning regime; relentless settlement expansion; the military’s separation barrier; obstacles to free movement; and denial of access to vital natural resources, including land and water, is eroding Palestinian tenure of the large tract of the West Bank on which hopes of a contiguous Palestinian state depend.”

The report warns, “If current trends are not stopped and reversed, the establishment of a viable Palestinian state within pre-1967 borders seem more remote than ever.”

And indeed, that seems to be the point. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Likud Party Charter declares Jewish settlement in the West Bank and Gaza as “the realization of Zionist values” and describes the whole of the West Bank and Jerusalem as belonging to Israel.

Israel unilaterally withdrew its military forces and settlers from Gaza in 2005. This has led many Israeli leaders to claim they made a major concession to the Palestinians, without much in return. In a free election, which was heavily monitored by international organizations, Gazans elected Hamas to power in 2006. Israel decided they voted the wrong way and proceeded to impose an economic blockade on all of Gaza, for what they described as security reasons. The blockade has been devastating. Israel uses the coercive power of the state to block the flow of goods and people in and out of Gaza and it has resulted in severe poverty and suffering.

Israel claims the economic blockade on Gaza is in place for security reasons, but it includes purely economic and humanitarian resources as well as other non-military items including children’s toys.

Several fact-finding missions in Gaza, including one by the International Committee of the Red Cross, have claimed the blockade is illegal. It has subjected Gazans to collective punishment in “flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law.” According to one UN special rapporteur, about one third of Gaza’s arable land and 85 percent of its fishing waters are totally or partially inaccessible due to Israeli military measures, while at least two-thirds of Gazan households lack reliable access to food as a result of the blockade.

“I urge Israel to lift its harsh restrictions in order to ease the plight of civilians and bring an end to the closure,” the UN chief Ban Ki-Moon declared in a speech to the UN’s Human Rights Council in September. “Keeping a large and dense population in unremitting poverty is in nobody’s interest except that of the most extreme radicals in the region,” he added.

In a January 2008 secret Israeli document released in a recent court case, Israel decided to allow Gazans to eat 2,279 calories worth of food each day, as if they were dogs in a cage. They estimated therefore that they would allow 1,836 grams of food per person, per day. The policy was summed up by Dov Weisglass, an adviser to former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, years before the document was written. “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,” Weisglass said, claiming the hunger pangs are supposed to coerce Palestinians to force Hamas out of government.

These realities, and many more that I don’t have the space to explain here, are what motivate libertarians like me to emphasize Israel’s crimes over those of the few Palestinians in Gaza who launch rockets into Israel. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are victims and they don’t have a big terrible government to counteract Israel’s transgressions and thus attract more of the blame. The situation is very one-sided. Israel has the military and economic power. It has the support of the most powerful nation on Earth, the US. And it is using these coercive tools to dispossess Palestinians of their lands and their livelihoods.

Horwitz wrote in his piece “there is one and only one state in the region that rests on broadly classical liberal values and that is Israel.” While “it is far from perfect,” he admits, “it is the most classical liberal game in town.”

What Horwitz misses here is that the other states in the region that he is comparing with Israel have for decades been subsidized and propped up by the US government.

As a top-secret National Security Council briefing put it in 1954, “The Near East is of great strategic, political, and economic importance,” as it “contains the greatest petroleum resources in the world” as well as “essential locations for strategic military bases in any world conflict.”

To this end, America needed to prop up brutal dictators that would allow such US imposition. As a 2004 report out of the Department of Defense recognized, with regard to “the tyrannies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan and the Gulf States,” unfortunately “The United States [is] the longstanding prop and alliance partner of these authoritarian regimes. Without the U.S. these regimes could not survive.”

So yes, the region is bad all around and Israel does – at least for those it considers Israeli citizens – more closely resemble stable, liberal government values. But the story is not so clear as that. According to a poll released last month, 58 percent of Jewish Israelis believe “Israel practices apartheid against Arabs.” Fifty-nine percent of respondents said they want preferences for Jews over Arabs in admission to jobs in government ministries. Almost half, 49 percent, want the state to treat Jewish citizens better than Arab ones; 42 percent don’t want to live in the same building with Arabs and don’t want their children in the same classes with Arab children.

About a third of the Jewish public wants a law barring Israeli Arabs from voting for the Knesset and 69 percent objects to giving Palestinians the right to vote if Israel annexes the West Bank. “A sweeping 74 percent majority is in favor of separate roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank,” Haaretz reports.

Even if Israel were incomparably better for liberty than all of its neighbors, that still wouldn’t excuse Israel of its crimes and it still shouldn’t convince libertarians to favor Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians.

This latest clash between Israel and Hamas has rightly prompted many libertarians to object, loudly once again, to US-Israeli policies. Israel’s latest bombardment of Gaza began when a lull in cross border violence was broken on Nov. 8th – not with rocket fire into Israel – but with Israeli tanks invading southern Gaza and shooting and killing a 13-year old boy. Gaza militants responded by shooting an anti-tank missile at an IDF vehicle, wounding four soldiers. Then Israel significantly escalated airstrikes.

The conflict then took a turn for the worst when Israel launched a targeted airstrike on Hamas commander Ahmed Jaabari, who was killed while acting as the lead negotiator for Hamas in an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire proposal. Israel instead rejected the peace deal and chose to escalate further.

Hamas has indeed launch over 1,000 rockets into Israel, most of them blocked by Israel’s missile defense system. Five Israelis died, tragically. On the other side, Israel has unleashed countless airstrikes into Gaza, killing over 145 Palestinians and wounding more than 900, most of them civilian men, women, and children.

Since the end of the last war (which Israel also instigated) in 2009, 16 times as many Palestinians have been killed by Israel than Gaza militants have killed Israelis.

With proportions like these, and with the limited context I provided above, I think libertarians, especially leaders of the movement looked up to by so many, should not hesitate to roundly condemn Israel’s actions. Everyone has his or her bias. But I sincerely believe the proper bias for libertarians is to always lay heavier scrutiny on those with more coercive power. And in this case the military occupier and blockader has, and uses, immeasurably more of it.

Print Friendly
Tagged with:
 
  • martinbrock

    I don’t read this site for bullshit artistry on either side of the Israel/Palestine debate. I can get a nauseating belly full of that in countless virtual venues. I couldn’t care less how many mad religious/national/ethnic fanatics killed each other in the promised land today or which sacred or secular statutory text they used to rationalize it.

    • http://twitter.com/KevinCarson1 Kevin Carson

      Yeah, why should you have to go to all the trouble of scrolling past stuff you’re not interested in just so a bunch of people who are interested in it can read it? Especially when they’re forcing you to click on the actual post and leave a comment on why it shouldn’t be there. They’re pretty inconsiderate toward longsuffering readers like you.

      • martinbrock

        I comment to express my opinion of the post, like everyone else, Kevin.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=758982709 Adrianne Mora

    Martin, then why read the article? As a relatively “newbie” libertarian coming from the American evangelical Christian culture, I find this perspective educational and interesting.

    • martinbrock

      I didn’t read the article beyond the first few paragraphs.

  • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

    This is such a stunning misreading of history and such a faulty analysis as to leave me at a loss of where to begin. Some of the most obvious falsehoods are refuted here: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&x_article=2337. Even Wikipedia presents a far more balanced and nuanced narrative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_blockade. Just to reply to a few items, it should be noted that Egypt controls the main border crossing and can let in or exclude what it likes. Egypt has its own reasons for not allowing Hamas to smuggle in weapons and other items that can be made into weapons, but that is Egypt’s decision, not Israel’s.

    Also, Hamas is a terrorist entity sworn to the destruction of Israel. Mr. Glaser devotes a great deal of energy to showing that it was duly elected. This is not exactly true, but even if it is, so what? Under what libertarian principle does democracy sanitize the terrorist actions of a state. I venture to say that our elections are more “free and fair” than those that brought Hamas to power. Does this mean that all of our actions are morally legitimate?

    Rockets have been flying from Gaza to Israel even since Hamas came to power. Just the latest salvo involves well over 1000. Yet Glaser says that “These realities, and many more that I don’t have the space to explain here, are what motivate libertarians like me to emphasize Israel’s crimes over those of the few Palestinians in Gaza who launch rockets into Israel.” Few? It takes a lot more than “a few” to construct these rockets, smuggle them in, store them, set them up, and launch them. And, as Glaser says, Hamas was elected, so its supporters must approve of its policy.

    Glaser spend much time on the history of the West Bank, which he gets completely wrong, but this narrative has nothing to do with Hamas and the Gaza Strip. Hamas has no control over the West Bank, and it and the Palistinian Authority are mortal enemies at this point.

    Finally, yes, thanks to Hamas and its desire to destroy Israel, many more Gazans have been killed than Israelis. Again, so what? When Nazi Germany attacked Poland in 1939, should we have been sad if, contrary to history of course, many more German soldiers dies than Polish. Or, when Soviet Russia attacked Finland?

    • Aeon Skoble

      Seconding what Mark said.

      • Andrew

        Thirding.

        • Sean II

          I fourthify!

          Let me add: Hamas counts on Israeli liberalism as one of its chief political and military assets. The only reason why we’re having this pleasant little conversation today is because Israel has so far refrained from reducing the entire Gaza strip to a smoldering ruin, which it could easily do with conventional weapons inside of two months.

          That’s what we did to two of our enemies, just a bit more than 60 years ago. That’s what most nations would have done to their enemies at most points throughout human history, limited only by the extent of their technology. And that is damn sure what Hamas would do, if it ever got the upper hand in money and weapons.

          The central fact of this discussion is Israel’s comparative restraint, and that in turn is the clearest proof of its claim to liberalism.

          • good_in_theory

            Ah, yes, so Zionists adopt the coercive power of the state to get themselves their own monopoly on legitimate violence, they use this monopoly, and their other friends with such monopolies, to aggrandize their newfound state, and since they, with their nice new little state, could, if they wished, simply do as states are wont to do and wipe a bunch of poor people off the face of the map, we should really forget about the whole fact that these people went out seeking a state so that they could conquer, dispossess, and dislocate others.

            But let’s just forget about the deeply illiberal quest for state power in foreign land, backed explicitly by a commitment to armed conflict and military conquest (always convenient when you can get the British to do the actual conquering for you, I suppose) and focus on the formally liberal institutions of a religious ethno-nationalist state.

          • Sean II

            G.I.T…I’ll ask the same of you as I’ve asked of everyone on your side: if you’re going to take that position, be consistent, and let the reductio ad absurdum come crashing down on your head.

            First, we kick the Jews out of Palestine. Now we have to put them somewhere. Surely, at a minimum, they are entitled to have Krakow back, right? They homesteaded the shit out of Poland for 600 years, so that seems only fair. At this point who can remember why they even left such a paradise in the first place.

            Okay, cool, so we kick the Poles out of part of Poland, and move the Jews back in. Where can we put those Poles? I know! We’ll give them a bit more of Germany, as forced labor reparations from WWII. That sounds Rothbardian enough to me!

            But what about the displaced Germans? Don’t worry! We can move them back to the Volga, thanks again to homesteading theory, since Stalin wiped out a whole population there (called, you guessed it, the “Volga Germans”) way back when.

            But what of the displaced Russians? Now I must admit I’m stuck. Maybe we could send them to France…?

            Or, on second thought, we could go with my idea, and simply recognize that international borders are arbitrary and blood-soaked and inherently illegitimate, and that the only thing worse than living with them, is trying to undo them?

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            Well said.

          • Joseph R. Stromberg

            Maybe we can take seven or eight red herrings and have them for dinner.

          • Sean II

            I guess it had to happen. There had to be a billionth time someone used the term red herring incorrectly on the internet. Congratulations.

            You wanna know something that hasn’t happened even once? No one has presented any reason why Israel replacing Palestine is different from the many other map changes that happened in the mid 20th century.

            No one has said one word to explain why a recovered property claim should ONLY be made in Palestine, when obviously the logic of such claims applies in countless other places.

          • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

            “No one has said one word to explain why a recovered property claim should ONLY be made in Palestine.”

            You’re right. No one has said that. But I don’t see anyone saying that any principle apples in Palestine but not elsewhere. Maybe such people exist. But I don’t see anyone being inconsistent in that way here. But even against these people, I don’t find very compelling the argument: “The Israeli state stole land, but so have other governments.” If indeed “countless other places” should be criticized more, let’s go for it. But when the Israeli state kills over 100 people in one week, that’s as fair a time as any to focus on that state’s possible injustices.

          • Sean II

            Once again, you speak in the certain knowledge that you will never have to live with the absurd consequences of what you propose. If we attempt a general reckoning on behalf of ALL people aggrieved by territorial losses and stolen homesteads, we would have to watch a billion refugees cross a hundred borders. The net effect would be an astronomical increase in the sum of human misery.

            The only way to avoid such madness is to arbitrarily declare a zero hour, and start the game anew. And yes, that means accepting the accomplished fates of yesterday for the sake of peace tomorrow.

          • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

            I don’t think you need to believe a billion people should be displaced simply to believe that Israel’s government shouldn’t bomb Palestinians.

            Israel’s alleged land theft was much more recent that US land theft from American Indians. But I do favor the Black Hills going back to the Lakota. Yet individuals are all who have rights—not states. So fundamentally, I believe living individual Palestinians with a plausible claim to land taken in their lifetimes should be given restitution. You’re right that after some time it becomes murkier. I don’t favor slave reparations in 2012 America. But in 1865, and maybe as late as 1895 or so, I could see a strong case for liquidating the assets of past slaveowners and giving the proceeds to former slaves.

            But again, regardless of land claims, Israel dropping bombs on Palestinian neighborhoods is clear aggression. Do you think those neighborhoods belong to the state of Israel? Even if they did, the bombing would be wrong.

          • http://www.marketmentat.com GT

            Isn’t the whole “Israel” schtick ENTIRELY about recovering property (the one for which countless generations of foreskins were traded in a blood-and-race cult, after a Sky Wizard made a deal with an incestuous Iraqi nomad)?

            So we agree, in fact – it’s nonsense that a bunch of lily-white, blue-eyed Eastern Europeans whose ancestors converted to a blood-and-foreskin cult, can lay claim to ‘recover’ property based on being co-religionists with its inhabitants 2000 years ago.

            If I converted to worship of Norse gods, it would not give me a claim over Dublin. Or so the anti-Thorites claim…

          • tribunalis

            It´s not drivel, Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria together in relative peace with arabs for millenia.

          • good_in_theory

            Slippery slope fallacies aren’t compelling, and I haven’t said anything about kicking anyone out of anything. I’m talking about the legitimacy of the use of state power and the legitimacy of an existence of an ethno nationalist state, exerting control over people. I would have thought such things were of importance to “libertarians”.

          • Sean II

            That’s true. My response was perhaps not properly directed at you. Others here are making an argument that “Palestinian homesteading = case closed, m’kay”, but you’re not really one of them.

            A closer read of your comments suggests that you’ve been taking a more consistent line to the effect that “Zionism = statism”, and of course that is perfectly true.

            The problem is, it’s not very helpful. The whole world is infected with statism, and there are only a handful of places where anti-statist ideas manage to stay alive, even on an ideological respirator. For all it’s flaws, Israel is one of those places. Gaza and Egypt and Syria certainly are not.

            So the question is: why aren’t you on here reminding everyone that BOTH Israel and Hamas are bad guys, from an anarcho-capitalist perspective? And why aren’t you simply conceding Horowitz’s original point, which is that Israel is on balance the least morally repugnant of the two?

            In other words, we aren’t you judging each party in relation to the level of its power? Israel kills a small fraction of those it could kill. Hamas kills nearly everyone it can.

            To what kind of person would that distinction NOT matter?

          • good_in_theory

            Well, there are states, and then there are colonial states. I suppose I object much more strongly to the latter. And I don’t really buy the claim to Israel moral superiority. Israel has the power to appear much more ethical in its conduct. But its current ruling parties are, as a matter of their originating platforms, committed to a territorially maximalist policy. That’s what Revisionist Zionism was. It holds as it’s founding figure a guy who wanted to start a Zionist regiment in the British army to conquer Palestine. Of course, talking about settlement and a right to land is all much nicer sounding than talking about killing one’s enemy, butt it’s the same damn thing.

            And, of course, unlike Palestine, in Israel military conscription is nearly mandatory. Almost Everyone actively participates in the state’s killing apparatus. That’s not very nice.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            This really is pure garbage. Israel expanded very slightly after the partition in 1948, when the day after Israel was recognized by the U.N. its five Arab neighbors tried to, in their words, drive the Jews into the sea. Then, in 1967, Israel was the victim of another war of aggression, and in the aftremath of the Six Day war the settlement movement slowly began on land that formerly belonged to Jordan. The obvious point is that your claim that “Israel’s current ruling parties are, as a matter of their originating platforms, committed to a territorially maximalist policy,” is either the product of massive ignorance or an outright lie. Israel was content with the 1948 borders but its Arab neighbors were not, but you don’t critcize them at all. How strange.

            Also of note, at the 2000 Camp David Summit, Israel offfered to give back 95% of the settlement land and to make the rest up via a territory swap. This hardly seems “maximalist” to me. But the deal fell apart because the great humanitarian Arafat insisted on the right of returm, foregoing the monetary compensation offered.

          • good_in_theory

            This silly fetishism of 1948 and 1967 is why I earlier brought up 1922 in the first place. There’s no reason 1948 should be the ex ante reference point. 1948 is a result of a project of colonization undertaken through an imperial power which conquered Palestine at the end of WW1.

            As to my “ignorance” or “lies”, you might want to note that I was referring to the origins of its *current* ruling party.

            Likud party platform, 1977, first lines:

            ” The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

            b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a “Palestinian State,” jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.”

            What’s that? A maximal territorial policy, opposition to the existence of a Palestinian State, and the backing of uninterrupted ethno-religious sovereignty over the territory in question…

            Before Likud, its predecessor Herut was dedicated to challenging the legitimacy of the Kingdom of Jordan, with its commitment to possessing land on both banks of the river. Herut, as an offshoot of the Irgun, did not have the best reputation. Einstein, Arendt, and others on Herut in 1948:

            “Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.”

            And all one needs to say of the Irgun is “Deir Yaasin.”

            As the maximal goals have become impracticable, they have been walked back. Moderation in the face of admonishment, resistance, and failure is not a sign of good will, it’s a sign of pragmatic resignation.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            Gosh, every time you open your mouth you shift ground and dig your hole deeper. You said: “But its current ruling parties are, as a matter of their originating platforms, committed to a territorially maximalist policy.” (my emphasis). Then you quote something from one party in 1977 about the West Bank!

            But until the 1967 War, there was no discussion in any mainline party about the West Bank, because it was part of Jordan. No mainline figure or party in Israel ever proposed a war against Jordan to take it. When Israel was attacked in 1967, they did after winnning this defensive war permit settlements on a relatively small portion of the land so as to have defensive territorial boundaries. Hardly maximalist, hardly “originating” and hardly sinister.

            And, in 2000 Israel offered to return 95% of this land in the context of a comprehensive peace. I am done with you, really, but I would caution: stop digging before you get to China.

          • good_in_theory

            I was wrong on the current parties. I was thinking of the coalition before May with Beitenu. But even Kadima engages in double talk, with its platform claiming a right to the whole of Eretz Israel, but nonetheless conceding to a two state solution. ‘We have a right to everything, but because having everything would make the state majority Arab, we won’t act on that right, since it’s incompatible with preserving both a democratic state and a Jewish state,’ basically.

            The simple point here is not to confuse political pragmatics with underlying ideology. The hard right in Israel, based in Revisionist Zionism, has been consistently committed to exclusive control over as much territory as politically feasible. Their concessions are political, not ideological. The ideology remains, in principle, supportive of much more expansive territorial control than is on the table. What territorial control has been achieved is a result of a long term application of force within the Palestinian Mandate/Southern Syria/Eretz Israel/whatever.

          • Joseph R. Stromberg

            Well, sure, short of Hiroshima, all other crimes appear ‘moderate.’ Short of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, all states are reasonable. A rather low standard.

          • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

            Joe, I wouldn’t be surprised if some on this thread would defend the nuking of Hiroshima.

          • http://www.facebook.com/nskinsella Stephan Kinsella

            Wouldn’t surprise me either; I’ve known lots of soi-disant “anarchists”–usually influenced by Ayn Rand–who are still pro-war, pro-“America,” etc. Sad.

          • Sean II

            That was wildly unfair. No one here said anything defending the Hiroshima murders.

            The point I and others are trying to make is precisely that Israel did NOT follow the brutal logic of Hiroshima and Dresden over these past 65 years, even when other nations probably would have.

            On any given day, Israel behaves far better than the United States, which went completely batshit crazy after 2,500 deaths at Pearl Harbor and then went moronically insane after 3,000 deaths on 9/11.

            Israel has lived under the threat of war for most of its existence, and the threat of terrorism for all of it. Day in and day out, they handle it far better than we ever did.

            There is no anti-war side in this dispute. There is a Palestinian war against Israel, limited by Palestine’s very modest weaponry. There is an Israeli war against Palestinians, in which Israel has all the weapons it needs to totally destroy its opponents, and in which the limiting factor is therefore something else…international pressure, Israeli restraint, or some combination of such things.

            Anyone who says he is simply anti-war in this matter is choosing an option that does not practically exist. No matter what we do here in England and America, there will be a war going on there.

            I could hardly respect you more, Mr. Kinsella..but that comment was just an ugly smear, and the decent thing would be to apologize for it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

            “There is no anti-war side in this dispute. There is a Palestinian war against Israel, limited by Palestine’s very modest weaponry. There is an Israeli war against Palestinians, in which Israel has all the weapons it needs to totally destroy its opponents, and in which the limiting factor is therefore something else…international pressure, Israeli restraint, or some combination of such things.”

            Of course there’s an antiwar side. I take the antiwar side. I think both sides should stop the killing of civilians unconditionally. Antiwar Palestinians might want to pressure Hamas to stop killing, independent of what Israel does. Antiwar Israelis and antiwar Americans might want to pressure the Israeli government to stop killing, independent of what Hamas does. War involves mass murder in at least two directions. There is always a strong case for any and all of the mass murder to stop.

          • Sean II

            I’m glad you said that so plainly, because it really helps to clarify that what you’re selling here is a form of naive pacifism, very much in the tradition of the “Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament” in the 1980s.

            Now as then, there is a profound immaturity and moral selfishness at work. Let me explain what I mean…

            Because the CND had absolutely no chance of influencing Soviet strategic arms policy in the cold war, it was in effect a movement for the unilateral disarmament of Western democracies. Given the Kremlin’s stated and demonstrated foreign policy at the time, that meant it was also in effect a movement for Soviet world domination, and a movement AGAINST the right of self-defense for everyone on earth who was not a member of the politburo. This, because people must be held responsible for the natural and probable consequences of their actions.

            Fast forward to 2012. You have no chance of influencing Hamas. The kind of conversation we’re having here would not be understood by the inhabitants of the Gaza strip. The kind of ideas and values to which you are appealing do not exist there, expect perhaps as the faintest stirring in the minds of a tiny few. Your anti-war sentiments would seem quaint, incomprehensible, dishonest, or foolish to most everyone who lives there.

            So what you’re really advocating is not peace (because Hamas will never let you have that) but unilateral Israeli disengagement. You want Israel to stop retaliating for Palestinian rocket attacks, even though you know this will only increase the number and intensity of those attacks. You know the Israeli gesture of de-escalation will not be matched by the other side, and you do not care.

            You call this result a step toward peace, when in fact it is merely a step away from it, because you induce some people to give up the right of self-defense without actually gaining any security in return.

            You blithely assert that it would be better if no one killed anyone in the middle east (bold stance, that), but you provide no means of achieving this condition. I might just as well assert that I am anti-scarcity, and then denounce any economist rude enough to explain why my wish cannot magically be granted. That’s what makes your position immature – you wish for something you cannot possibly deliver or even credibly describe.

            What makes it selfish is this: you get to hang out on this board, making the grown-ups here look all ugly, pragmatic, and mean, simply because we refuse to consider an action apart from its almost certain consequences. What you are playing at is not morality, but moral self-grooming. You’ve made yourself sound superior to those of us who believe that good ideas must be capable of thriving even in the filthy soil of facts. You’ve kept your ideas pure, but you’ve done so only be hiding them far away from any contact with those facts.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            Exactly right. To quote Aeon Skoble’s earlier comment:

            “The reason this [not responding to attacks] doesn’t work is that it allows the aggressor to set the level of badness. A bunch of collectivists who want to kill you start launching missile strikes from a residential neighborhood, happy to ignore the combatant/non-combatatnt distinction on their side and yours, and indeed enjoying popular support. On traditional JWT, and on your view, you cannot defend yourself. That’s wrong, IMO.”

            To which I would add that morality can’t require this because it is a formula for the triumph of evil. The bad guys attack and kill, and the good guys do nothing. Eventually the bad guys win, and morality dies.

          • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

            “To which I would add that morality can’t require this because it is a formula for the triumph of evil.”

            This doesn’t seem to make sense at all. Let’s say someone stole some gum from you and is running away. If he gets away, that will be a triumph of (minor) evil. Yet you are limited in the ways you can legitimately stop him. You might be restricted in the violence you can use even against just him. You are certainly constrained in the violence you can use when third parties are in the crossfire.

            Let’s say someone breaks into a person’s house and kills one of his family members. He can surely chase the perp. He can shoot him, I would surely say. But I don’t think he can spray machine gun fire at him in a crowd, even if he’s a murderer, and even if shooting the machine gun is the only way to get him for sure.

            Even if you are being threatened with bodily injury or death, if somehow the only way to stop that would be to kill 100 million people, I do not think you have the right to do that. Those 100 million people have rights independent of your predicament.

            Sometimes the world puts you in a place where morality dictates that you act in ways that allow evils to triumph. Yet committing evil yourself to prevent evil from triumphing is not only a contradiction, it often doesn’t even pass the utilitarian smell test.

          • Sean II

            In fairness I must say I am puzzled. In an exchange with me, you reject the right of self-defense flat out (specifically, your reject even the idea of self-defense against nuclear weapons). But in the above exchange with Mark, you acknowledge an individual right of punishment and revenge (specifically, the right to kill the fleeing murderer of a family member).

            How’s that? When Leonid Breznev and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten me with nuclear weapons, I can’t threaten them (along with their collaborators and hostages) in return, because that would be immoral. But if someone shoots my wife, I am allowed to chase him across town and shoot him in revenge, as long as I aim carefully and don’t hit anyone else?

            Is that really your position?

          • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

            Israeli leaders say they want to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. But that doesn’t justify bombing Israeli school kids. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might say all kinds of nonsense, but that doesn’t justify killing Iranian kids. The material difference, of course, is that Iran doesn’t have nukes and Ahmadinejad doesn’t even control Iranian foreign policy.

            If we did things your way, maybe America would have attacked the Soviets directly and there would have been a nuclear war. I for one think the Soviet Union would have collapsed earlier if not for the Cold Warring United States.

            In any event, war is not the same as self-defense. Self-defense against individual aggressors is a right. People have a right to shoot would-be rapists and murderers. People have a right to resist unjust arrest. People have a right to fight back against invading soldiers. People don’t have a right to bomb civilians or tax me to finance their killing sprees. I don’t see how any libertarian could confuse state-waged wars with “self-defense.” They have less in common with one another than the welfare state does with charity.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            Yes, there must be, as you say, proporionality, but this in no way addresses my point. Say you are von Stauffenberg in July 1944 in Hitler’s East Prussian bunker with your brieface bomb. This is your one chance to kill Hitler, overthrow his regime, and save the lives of several million German and Allied soldiers, Jews, Gypsies, etc. But Hitler has become very foud of the infant child of one of his aides and keeps the child on his lap constantly. To kill Hitler you also have to kill the child. So you do nothing, right, and Hitler lives on. That, I am afraid, is the logical implication of your absolutist stance, and would indeed under the right circumstances lead to the triumph of evil.

            It is not a contradiction of anything to activate the bomb in the circumstance I describe. Von Stauffenberg’s motive would be pure, and would save millions of lives. An opposite decision would be morally obscene.

          • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

            In such an extreme cases, I would find it very tempting to murder the child to kill Hitler and save millions of people. But that’s just what I would be doing: murdering the child. And such an amoral at best calculation should never be trusted to the state, to conduct in the systematic and repetitive way it does in war. When the Israeli state killed 1400 Palestinians four years ago, it wasn’t stopping 1400 Hitlers and thus saving 1400 x millions of people—so obviously the state has a tendency to make these utilitarian calculations differently from how I would, since if I did murder that child to kill Hitler, I certainly would feel awful about having done it for my entire life.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            This is your answer? Really? So, fine, alter my example slightly and assume von Stauffenberg is a paid (double) agent of the O.S.S. or K.G.B. In other words he is (OMG) an employee of a state!!! Now, he should NOT murder the child? Of course state officials are venal, stupid, incompetent, etc, but this doesn’t entitle you to assume that they always act wrongly or to duck the tough philosophical questions with easy, pat, and dare I say smug, answers.

            BTW, I’d feel bad about the child too, but I’d feel really good about saving several million lives. I would have no trouble sleeping at night, but I would condemn myself forever if I lacked the courage to detonate the bomb.

          • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

            It’s not just a matter of what state employees should do. It’s also a matter of what state policy should be. I don’t believe the state should hold up murder as legal state policy.

            If I murdered the child, I’d have trouble sleeping at night. How could I not?

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            Sorry, this is essentially non-responsive. Nobody is claiming the state should have a policy of “murder,” and in any case state officials often have substantial discretion, as in my von Stauffenberg example. The real question is whether a military officer could morally kill some innocents if unavoidably necessary to save orders of magnitude more innocents. This was the point of my hypothetical, which I think you still have not answered.

          • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

            My point is, for these utilitarian calculations whereby rights are violated for the greater good, you can make an argument that people as individuals will make such decisions in good faith, but the state should not be empowered to make such decisions.

          • http://www.marketmentat.com GT

            You’re sneaking up on the exculpation of what Statists commonly call ‘collateral damage’ (i.e., the murder of innocents).

            Re-write your paragraphs, but have Yasser Arafat launching a missile that will take out the entire IDF leadership during a visit by a bunch of schoolkids form a settlement… see if you feel the same way.

            No, didn’t think so.

            Unless and until you can slough off your ethno-cultural baggage and indoctrination, you cannot see this for what it is. A bunch of white Eastern Europeans used a ludicrous piece of Iron Age tribal racial-supremacist “Gott Mit Uns” primitive drivel, to justify stealing land from people who had inhabited it for centuries longer than the ‘original’ Israelites.

            Read Shlomo Sand or Israel Finkelstein (or are they now branded as SHJ’s, unworthy to be the heritors of Hashem’s bloodlust?).

          • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

            I don’t think I’m the one most guilty of refusing “to consider an action apart from its almost certain consequences.” I’m the one saying that Israel’s approach to “self-defense” has “almost certain consequences” that damn the approach as one we must oppose: (1) It is almost a certain consequence that when you bomb Gaza the way the Israeli state has, you will kill dozens of people, including dozens of children, all of whom are no less worthy of life than any child in Israel; (2) It is almost a certain consequence that this bombing will stir up resentment, radicalize people on the fence, and increase the number of people willing to risk death and kill innocent people among you in a vain effort to stop your government from killing their children; (3) you will increase the resentment against the United States, since it finances and supports these acts of killing Palestinians.

            9/11 was a consequence of this kind of madness. Anti-Israeli and anti-American terrorism are consequences of these government’s policies of occupation, war, and collective punishment. You think I’m the one failing to be an adult by applying the same moral standards to all actors, and by recognizing that the killing of innocent Arabs in recent years hasn’t made anyone safer? I guess I all of us antiwar people were so immature in the 1990s to warn that the dehumanization of Arabs, such as in America’s Iraq policy, might come back to hurt Americans at home one day.

            As for unilateral nuclear disarmament, I do in fact favor it. It is immoral to use nuclear weapons in response to an attack. If somehow Iraqis got a nuke and killed thousands of Americans in response to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis murdered by US foreign policy, that would be immoral. Similarly, it would have been immoral to respond to any other act of aggression with nuclear war. Nuclear explosions in war are necessarily murderous. It is immoral therefore even to threaten their use. And of course I would have favored disarmament even in the 1980s, when the “realist” Americans were still fantasizing that the unworkable Soviet system would last forever.

          • Sean II

            Wow. You are in any case an honest man. Most people on these boards would kick and scream and cheat and lie before accepting the analogy between their position here and unilateral nuclear disarmament in the cold war. Instead you just admit it, straight and true. It’s hard not to admire that.

            From this point the story almost tells itself. If you’re the type of person who favored standing down against the Soviets way back when, then I know for sure what I suspected before: you’re the type of person who would let the world die or be enslaved in order to spare himself the necessity of killing or threatening to kill. The cleanliness of your hands is worth more to you than the preservation of human freedom or human life. Gandhi was no libertarian, and neither are you. There can be no right to anything without a right of self-defense.

            You are correct of course that Israel in its retaliation kills people, and even children. That is indisputably true, and indisputably horrible. Unfortunately you are right about nothing else.

            You are wrong to think that the murderous hatred of Jews is a recent phenomena, tidily explained as a response to Israeli “provocations”. The fact that Jews exist is all the provocation their would-be killers have required for thousands of years. Shame on you and anyone else who doesn’t make that the very starting point of his analysis. How dare you speak of 1948 or 1967, without remembering 1940, the year Auschwitz opened for business.

            You are wrong to think that preventing “resentment against the Unites States” is a valid reason for Israel to renounce its right of self-defense. We Americans are hated as much for our good deeds as for our bad. That is our problem; it is not their’s.

            You are wrong – inexcusably wrong – to think you know “the” cause of the 9/11 attacks, and that it must be a nice little rational reason of the sort a Westerner would readily understand. Who ever said there was a reason for such things? Hier ist kein warum.

            19 men killed themselves and many others, evidently in the sincere belief they would be transferred to an other-worldly paradise after the deed was done. How dare you try to explain that act without reference to the insane beliefs of those men, which was so clearly a necessary and perhaps even a sufficient condition for their hideous crime.

            If you are honest enough to state your views now, I can only hope you will be honest enough to reconsider them in time.

          • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

            The correct libertarian position in the Cold War was unilateral nuclear disarmament. Rothbard was right about this. Nuclear disarmament should be a fundamental principle of any libertarian and a major priority.

            I find your post here a bit offensive. You are assuming things about my views that would appear to be unwarranted.

            “he cleanliness of your hands is worth more to you than the preservation of human freedom or human life. Gandhi was no libertarian, and neither are you.”

            No, it’s just that I don’t think the ends justify the means. I believe in the right of self defense, just like i believe in the right to make a living to feed your family. Threatened by aggressors, I have a right to kill the aggressors, but no one else. Threatened by starvation, I have a right to fight the starvation, but not steal from third parties. I am not a pacifist. I am a libertarian. Libertarianism involves respecting the rights of third parties. If I happen to be standing in the United States and my government drops a bomb on your children, you have no right to retaliate against me. If I happen to be standing in Gaza, and Hamas launches a rocket your way, you have to right to retaliate against me.

            “You are wrong to think that the murderous hatred of Jews is a recent phenomena, tidily explained as a response to Israeli ‘provocations.'”

            I don’t imply this at all, nor do I believe it. But there is no one single “murderous hatred of Jews.” The Blood Libel and Dreyfus Affair and Holocaust and attacks on Jewish children at school are different things that require some degree of separate analysis.

            “How dare you speak of 1948 or 1967, without remembering 1940, the year Auschwitz opened for business.”

            This looks like a boilerplate response to me, almost a talking point, since I don’t recall even issuing an opinion on 1948 or 1967. Where did I do so? My view is that even if Israel’s current borders are 100% just, its actual treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories, and its bombing of Gaza, are unlibertarian, immoral, and indefensible.

            The extermination of Jews in Poland and Eastern Europe in the 1940s cannot justify the Israeli state’s conduct in the least bit. It wouldn’t even justify inflicting violence on Germans today, so how could it be invoked to justify violence against Palestinians? My rights to use force against X are not contingent upon what Y has done to me—only upon what X has done. The Arabs didn’t round up millions of Jews and torture them in medical experiments, cook them alive, and gas them at Treblinka. Clearly, there was no worse atrocity in world history than the Shoah. But it wasn’t the Palestinians who did this. And besides, there is no such thing as “the Palestinians” when we are discussing morality and self defense. There are only individuals. Group punishment inflicted on people who happen to live in the same neighborhood as Hamas is awful collectivism.

            If you mean to say I am soft on anti-Semitism or indifferent to the plight of the Jews, I’d appreciate that you take it back. You don’t know me, apparently, and you say things about me that strike me as ugly and unfair.

            “You are wrong – inexcusably wrong – to think you know “the” cause of the 9/11 attacks, and that it must be a nice little rational reason of the sort a Westerner would readily understand.”

            There was a vast literature before 9/11 explaining that Islamic blowback against the West was motivated mostly out of occupation and US intervention. Then 9/11 happened and bin Laden said the attack was a response to US policy in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Israel. That’s what he said. There are religious elements to the violence, but it is mainly blowback. al Qaeda doesn’t attack Sweden, as bin Laden said. Why? Because Sweden doesn’t kill Arabs by the hundreds of thousands like the United States has.

            Do you agree that the US has waged wars of aggression in recent years? Or are all these acts of mass violence “libertarian” as well?

          • Sean II

            Hold up, friend. I did not accuse you of being soft on anti-semitism, nor of being anti-semitic. I would never say that to anyone who did not afford me direct evidence. What I accused you of is being ahistorical.

            The Ashkenazi Jews who weren’t murdered had every right to leave Europe as fast as they could in 1945. They had to go somewhere. I wish that somewhere had been America or the United Kingdom. But what I wish now isn’t worth shit back then, because in the only history that actually exists, they went to Israel instead.

            There, too, they found themselves surrounded by anti-semites, even if the local variety chanced to be far less systematic than the German type. They bought some land, but took more than they bought. Palestine, not yet a nation in any sense, could have cut its losses right then and there, and EVERYONE ON PLANET EARTH, INCLUDING EVERY PALESTINIAN MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD WOULD BE BETTER OFF TODAY, if they had only one so.

            But they didn’t. They couldn’t stomach the racial insult of sharing land and legal equality with Jews, so they and their allies tried to kill them instead. Mostly they failed. But man, did they ever keep trying.

            Your account does not include those facts. That’s what I’m accusing you of.

          • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

            OK, well I’m sorry if I wrongly took this as an accusation that I was soft on anti-Semitism:

            “You are wrong to think that the murderous hatred of Jews is a recent phenomena, tidily explained as a response to Israeli ‘provocations’. The fact that Jews exist is all the provocation their would-be killers have required for thousands of years. Shame on you and anyone else who doesn’t make that the very starting point of his analysis. How dare you speak of 1948 or 1967, without remembering 1940, the year Auschwitz opened for business.”

            I didn’t want to delve into the origins of Israel because I have some deal of ignorance about them. I have heard the account you give. I have seen accounts far more critical of the Zionist movement than I would be comfortable repeating, mostly because I don’t know where the precise truth is.

            But here’s what confuses me. If we are to simply move forward the best we can despite what might have happened in the 1940s and 1960s, shouldn’t that cut both ways? I just don’t see how the occupation and bombing can be defended on any basis.

          • Jordan

            I think maybe you should take a real look at the history of 1948 and 1967. He covers it in the first 25 minutes if you can’t watch the whole thing.

          • Sean II

            Okay, fine, but I don’t care about that right-of-return, King David, “title deeds” horseshit. I’m not interested in some of the phony ownership arguments made in support of Zionism over the years. As far as I can tell, Steve Horowitz and most of the commenters supporting him don’t care about that crap either. Your video answers an argument we never made.

          • Jordan

            You’re whole premise is that Israel has been the victim this whole time. If you listened to the youtube, it’s clear that they weren’t. Their goal is a “Greater Israel” that can only be created by expansion. Israel is the aggressor which is why we must condemn their government.

          • http://www.marketmentat.com GT

            “I did not accuse you of being soft on anti-semitism, nor of being anti-semitic”…

            Asounding in its – dare I say it – chutzpah, given your flagrant and deliberate misrepresentation of Stephen Kinsella’s prior comment further up the thread (and of course the demand that he apologise was the topper). If Kinsella is required to apologise for what he never said, you should likewise aplogise for calling Mr Gregory an anti-Semite (even if you didn’t, it was there to be inferred, and you well know it).

            You and your ilk always go to the ‘anti-Semite!’ card at some point (the point where it becomes clear that you have no moral leg to stand on in defending the occupying force in its continued oppression of the indigenes).

            It’s the “Reverse Godwin” for the hasbara.

          • tribunalis

            “there is a profound immaturity and moral selfishness at work”. You, betcha! The younger they come, the more easily and principled they spout their opinions. Everything is black and white, equally bad and equally good. Teenage minds … cheezus!!

          • tribunalis

            What an moronic opinion, “I think both sides should stop the killing of civilians unconditionally”. Who doesn´t? Please, tell that to Hamas, Hizbollah, Fatah and all the other terrorists, please … I really think they will listen to you.

          • http://www.marketmentat.com GT

            Your last paragraph is a deplorable (and hackneyed) attempt to score debating points by claiming to be outraged by – and demand an apology for – something that Kinsella NEVER SAID.

            He did NOT claim that YOU held that view – he simply stated that he had ‘known lots of soi-disant “anarchists”–usually influenced by Ayn Rand–who are still pro-war, pro-“America,” etc. Sad.’

            I’m surprised you didn’t leap straight to “Obviously Kinsella clearly wants all Jews to be sent to gas chambers” – the “Full Spectrum Dershowitz” level of insane non-sequitur gibbering, where anybody who disagrees with the Cult’s claims can be calumniated to the skies, with no regard whatsoever for their actual stated position.

          • tribunalis

            Apologize? Lefties in all shades and colors don´t know the concept … me myself and my selfrighteous opinion

          • Joseph R. Stromberg

            I’m sure they do. Maybe they can defend the infamous ‘turkey shoot’ in the First Gulf Bloodbath. I know there is some abstruse military punctilio they could use.

          • tribunalis

            Ooohh, nice conversation killer.

          • Sean II

            Whether its a low standard or not is immaterial. It is the only standard grounded in historical fact.

            History is not made by Matt Zwolinskis and Kevin Valliers (though of course I would prefer it that way). So why would I compare Netanyahu to those guys? The proper comparison set for him really is Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Arafat, De Gaulle, Bush, etc.

            And by that measure, he comes out looking rather well.

          • Joseph R. Stromberg

            Meanwhile, the *actual conduct* in foreign affairs of several wonderful liberal democratic states remains deeply immoral and their nice internal institutions ain’t doing a damned thing to prevent this outcome.

            Deriving your moral standards directly and entirely from history can be a bit perilous, although Hegel and Marx did make the attempt. Deriving them from past American, British, etc. military ‘precedent’ will yield a revolting dog’s dinner. Standards are quite material, but we have to work through a lot of custom, revelation, and (as a last resort) philosophy to acquire them.

            If the comparison is really wanted, De Gaulle may come out best. But it was a short list that was just presented.

    • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

      “Again, so what? When Nazi Germany attacked Poland in 1939, should we
      have been sad if, contrary to history of course, many more German
      soldiers died than Polish?”

      I don’t think Palestinians being killed in Gaza, most of them civilians, are at all comparable to Nazi soldiers invading Poland. Even if I put 100% of the blame for all of this on Hamas, the closest parallel to the Palestinian civilians being killed would be the German civilians being bombed by Britain in 1940. And if indeed dozens or a hundred times as many Germans were being killed during World War II as there were people being killed by the Nazis, that would indeed greatly influence our assessment of that war’s belligerents, even though the Nazis started it. If in 1939, in response to the Germans murdering 65,000 or so people in their invasion of Poland, the Allies somehow killed millions of Germans living in Germany, we would all look very differently at that part of the war.

      • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

        I was responding to Glaser’s point that the disproportionate casualties shows by itself that Israel is acting immorally. I believe my examples disprove this, and nothing you said contradicts my argument, or supports his, as far as I can see.

        No government and no people (whether they have a government or not) are morally required to endure constant rocket attack for several years without responding. I defy you to cite a single nation or people in history that has suffered such provocation, without taking action. Israel thus can either do nothing or (i) attempt to knock out these rocket-launching sites with air strikes or (ii) launch a ground invasion. The latter, which Israel may still be forced to undertake, would be far more costly in civilian deaths.

        The Israelis do what they can to mininize civilian deaths, but Hamas deliberately launches its rockets from the midst of civilian population centers, knowing that this will lead to casualties. When a government (Hamas) launches an unjust attack on another state or people, it–and not the victim state–is responsible for what happens.

        • Aeon Skoble

          Again, I am saved from having to reply because Mark is saying almost exactly what I would say. Thanks Mark!

        • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

          Do you believe the US has committed any wars of aggression? Was the Iraq war a war of aggression? Would Iraqis be justified in bombing America because a majority of Americans supported the bombing of Iraq?

          • Aeon Skoble

            No. A tyrant has no right to rule, so deposing him doesn’t violate his rights. No number of people supporting a tyrant legitimates his rule. That said, I think US troops should have pulled out many years ago.

          • Aeon Skoble

            Sorry, the “no” was in response to the your second question, about Iraq. Your first question, that’s probably yes. If not outright aggression, certainly unwarranted intervention in several cases.

          • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

            OK. Well, now we’re getting somewhere. I have an honest question to try to figure out your position and explain why I disagree. What’s an example of a US war of aggression?

            And do you think the Nazi invasion of Russia was a war of aggression despite the illegitimacy of Stalin’s reign? And if so, is this purely due to the illegitimacy of Nazi rule? And if so, how do you determine Nazi rule was illegitimate independent of its wars of aggression?

          • Aeon Skoble

            Spanish-American War might be a candidate. Other examples of wars I disapprove of are better characterized as unwarranted intervention, e.g. WWI and probably Korea and Vietnam. I do think the Nazi invasion of Russia was aggressive, because their intention was not to liberate the Russians from Communist tyranny, but to conquer Russia.

          • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

            When Nixon firebombed Cambodia secretly and illegally, his goal was not to liberate Cambodia from communist tyranny. His goal was to bomb a mostly neutral country to screw over North Vietnam, itself a horrible communist dictatorship that nevertheless later liberated the Cambodians from the communist tyranny that Nixon’s firebombing ushered in. The US actually backed Pol Pot, the worse one, in that war between communists.

            There are too many—dozens too many—examples of US foreign policy actions in the last century that are so egregious in consequences, conduct, strategy, and moral calculation, that we are simply forced to acknowledge that the US has, from time to time, engaged in outright aggression against foreigners. Aggression that is every bit as morally indefensible as Hamas’s rocket attacks on Israel. Yet NONE of this US aggression would justify foreign terrorism against America when innocents are in the crossfire, even if the sole goal of the terrorism is to get the US to bring the troops home—a goal we share. This is because it’s simply wrong to engage in acts of violence that predictably kill the innocent. Any ethic that defends the way Israel has treated Gaza would defend crimes against American innocents as well.

            As for the statement: “If we call _those_ states tyrannical, then we have no word to describe Uganda or the USSR or Nazi Germany or the Terror.”

            I strongly disagree. Washington was right to call King George a tyrant. The Whiskey Rebels were right to call Washington a tyrant. But neither of them held a candle to Woodrow Wilson. But Wilson wasn’t as bad as Mussolini. Yet Lenin makes Mussolini look liberal. Yet Hitler was worse than Lenin.

            Just because Nazi tyranny was lightyears worse than the British empire in the late nineteenth century doesn’t mean the empire wasn’t extremely tyrannical toward the American colonists. Obama is a tyrant—who tells CEOs to resign, a nuclear stockpile at his fingertips, a kill list and indefinite detention powers—but that doesn’t mean he’s as bad as Harry Truman or Mao.

          • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

            If you don’t think the US has waged any aggressive wars, we’re probably never going to agree on applying libertarian principle to real-world questions of war and peace.

            But I will say that I never argued that the Iraq war was a war of aggression “against Saddam Hussein.” My concern is for those who were standing in the way when US bombs fell and killed them. The tyrant’s rights don’t enter into it. Stalin didn’t have a right to rule; that doesn’t mean the Nazi invasion of Russia in 1941 wasn’t pure aggression.

            “No number of people supporting a tyrant legitimates his rule.” So how do we determine the US (or Israel) is not a tyranny?

          • Aeon Skoble

            Neither the US nor Israel can be called tyrannies except in a hyperbolic sense. If we call _those_ states tyrannical, then we have no word to describe Uganda or the USSR or Nazi Germany or the Terror. As Steve noted in the original post, one can think that all states are bad (I do) without concluding that they’re all _equally_ bad.

        • http://www.facebook.com/ochrochaigh Caoimhin O Crochaigh

          There is a constant mis reading of conflict between Gaza and Israel by both anti and pro Israel critiques. Israeli critiques usually state something along the lines of “the Israeli response was disproportionate”. However nearly every round of aggression in Gaza is started by Israel. It is not a response to rockets fired from Gaza. The most recent round of fighting began in November 5 when Israel shot and killed a 23 year old Palestinian man and later on November 8th shot and killed a 13 year old Palestinian boy as he played soccer along the border region. So it much more correct to say that it was Hamas who responded to Israeli aggression.

          In a broader context an occupying power cannot “defend” itself as all military action taken against it should be viewed in the context of that states initial aggression, ie occupation, against another territory.

    • Sergio Méndez

      Lets see:

      “Also, Hamas is a terrorist entity sworn to the destruction of Israel. Mr. Glaser devotes a great deal of energy to showing that it was duly elected.”

      True, but then, the State of Israel as a terrorist entity (how is not terrorism to bomb and murder palestinian civilians systematically as israel has been doing for years?) has denied palestinians the right to have an state, has slowly (even when negotiating,, like in the 90´s increased its settler controled areas inside israeli territory).

      “Rockets have been flying from Gaza to Israel even since Hamas came to power. Just the latest salvo involves well over 1000. Yet Glaser says that “These realities, and many more that I don’t have the space to explain here, are what motivate libertarians like me to emphasize Israel’s crimes over those of the few Palestinians in Gaza who launch rockets into Israel.” Few? It takes a lot more than “a few” to construct these rockets, smuggle them in, store them, set them up, and launch them. And, as Glaser says, Hamas was elected, so its supporters must approve of its policy.”

      Yeah, but then, again the same claims cand be made of israeli goverment and citizens who have aproved the systematic terrorism israel is excercing against them (and which is not limited by bombings, but also by them being reducted to live in giant gethos in Gaza and teh west bank, the cout out of water sources and the economic stagnation, not to mention the destruction of palestinian houses by bulldozers for the “crime” of being a relative of a suicide bomber). And anyways, the realities Glazer is speaking here is the disproportionality in means and number of deaths in the conflict. 5 death israelies vs more than 100 palestinians? And the numbers were equally high in the last massive israeli attack against palestinians in 2008.

      “Yes, thanks to Hamas and its desire to destroy Israel, many more Gazans have been killed than Israelis. Again, so what? When Nazi Germany attacked Poland in 1939, should we have been sad if, contrary to history of course, many more German soldiers died than Polish? Or, when Soviet Russia attacked Finland?”

      Your comparison with Nazi german invasion of Poland is ludicrous! Who is the agressor here? Who has been deprived of their national state here? Who are the ones living in getthos behind a wall? Israel may not be Nazi Germany, but if anybody is closer to be one here, it is the hebrew state, not palestinians.

      • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

        Since your understanding of the facts is so radically different from mine, I don’t think its worth arguing with you. But, just in case you are ignorant of this, you might want to review the history of the 2000 Camp David Summit organized by Pres. Clinton and actually conducted by Dennis Ross. If you have a half-way open mind (which I doubt), it might change your opinion.

        • Sergio Méndez

          Mark:

          Calling close minded (something that has crosed my mind about you and the rest of israel apologists, I admit) is not an argument, is just closer to an ad hominem fallacy. Funny, what facts are for you in dispute of my post? The fact that Israel has increased its settler presence on palestinian territory, including the cam david negotiations? The fact that it has bombed palestinians and killed more palestinians (by large margins) than plaestianians have killed israelies? The main differences here are not factual, but valorative (the proportionality issue in israel response, the fact that I call israel goverment terrorist, the ludicrous comparison you have tried to stablish between palestinians and nazis, that not even I tried on Israel etc.).

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            Please read what I, Sean, and several others have posted on this and the previous Israel thread and it will be more than obvious what the disputed facts are. Have you done that? Then, answer my point about the Camp David Summit.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/2OZ5PV6WZXMMMSHWHJT4MFDEXE Sanja

            The fact that Israel has increased its settler presence on palestinian territory

            False.

            The West Bank is not “Palestinian territory”. The is no “Palestine”.

            The fact that it has bombed palestinians and killed more palestinians (by large margins) than plaestianians have killed israelies?

            Misleading.

            First of all, the number of Israeli casualties are not as negligible as you would have us believe – during the Second Intifada alone, more than 1,000 Israelis were killed by Palestinians.

            Secondly, the reason there are not more Israeli casualties than there are, is because Israel spends incredible amounts money and effort to thwart or mitigate deadly Palestinian attacks against its civilians. This effort by Israel does not make those Palestinian attacks any less immoral or worthy of condemnation, nor does it affect their status of war crimes.

            Thirdly, the reason there are as many Palestinian casualties as there are, is because Palestinian leaders deliberately induce them – by sending hordes of low-trained militants (brain-washed using a pseudo-religious “martyrdom” cult) to attack professional Israeli soldiers guarding Israeli territory, by launching rockets from soccer fields next to playing kids or from hospital roofs, by placing military command centers and weapons depots inside inhabited apartment buildings, by dropping their uniforms and fighting in civilian clothes when engaging Israeli ground troops in the mids of Palestinian civilian neighborhoods, etc…
            These despicable tactics by Palestinian leaders and militants don’t make Israels right to self-defense any less legitimate.

            the proportionality issue in israel response

            Defining proportionality by blindly comparing casualties statistics on different sides is immoral and irrational.

            International humanitarian law clearly does not define it that way, either. The Fourth Geneva Convention states that how excessiveness of military attacks that could cause civilian casualties is to be measured, is “in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”.
            The number of civilians of a different group that happen to be killed during the same period of time, does not enter the equation at all.

            Nor should it.
            Or would you seriously suggest that if Israel were to end all its efforts to protect its civilians (like the ridiculously expensive Iron Dome, etc.) and instead use them as human shields like Hamas does with Palestinians, so that as a result Israeli casualty numbers would rise to the Palestinian levels, that in this scenario – all other things being equal – Israels operation against Hamas should be considered more moral and less worthy of condemnation than you consider them now?

            I would strongly maintain the opposite.

          • Sergio Méndez

            Sanja:

            “The West Bank is not “Palestinian territory”. The is no “Palestine”.”

            “Of course. And “De-nial” is not simply a river in Egypt.

            “First of all, the number of Israeli casualties are not as negligible as you would have us believe – during the Second Intifada alone, more than 1,000 Israelis were killed by Palestinians.”

            I am not talking about the intifada, but about the more recent bombings (2008 and what is happening today), were the difference between palestinian and israeli casualities around 20 or more times bigger. But even if I accept your numbers on the intifada I bet far more palestinians died on that period of time.

            “Thirdly, the reason there are as many Palestinian casualties as there are, is because Palestinian leaders deliberately induce them – by sending hordes of low-trained militants (brain-washed using a pseudo-religious “martyrdom” cult) to attack professional Israeli soldiers guarding Israeli territory, by launching rockets from soccer fields next to playing kids or from hospital roofs, by placing military command centers and weapons depots inside inhabited apartment buildings, by dropping their uniforms and fighting in civilian clothes when engaging Israeli ground troops in the mids of Palestinian civilian neighborhoods, etc…
            These despicable tactics by Palestinian leaders and militants don’t make Israels right to self-defense any less legitimate.”

            But then, most palestinian killed in 2008 and now are not “hordes” sent by palestinian leaders to fight israel, they are palestinians being bombed without mercy by israel, many of them civilians, including women and children. And israel has already being caught bombing palestinian hospitals and schools, not to mention using forbidden weapons (like uranium depleted made shells). So excuse me if I do not buy your assesment of the situation.

            “The number of civilians of a different group that happen to be killed during the same period of time, does not enter the equation at all.”

            Yeah right…

            “Or would you seriously suggest that if Israel were to end all its efforts to protect its civilians (like the ridiculously expensive Iron Dome, etc.) and instead use them as human shields like Hamas does with Palestinians, so that as a result Israeli casualty numbers would rise to the Palestinian levels, that in this scenario – all other things being equal – Israels operation against Hamas should be considered more moral and less worthy of condemnation than you consider them now?”

            What I suggest is that Israel has clearly used excecive force in retaliation for palestinian attacks and that even if it has a right to defend itself, that hardly equates with the mass slaughter of palestinians civilians and the destruction of their property, which is exactly what israel has been doing. And that is just for starters, since the roots of the conflict, the oucpation of palestinian land, the economic stagnation and getthoization of their life, is as injust and criminals the methods they are using to fight back Hamas or any other palestinian in control of goverment.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            Sergio:
            Most of what you say is so hysterical, wild-eyed, conclusory, and just vague, that it is impossible to respond to. There are no specifics, no dates, no locations, no historical context, just crazy accusations like: “mass slaughter of palestinians civilians,” “getthoization of their life,” “occupation of palestinian land,” etc. Like the 1948 and 1967 wars, started by the Arab nations, and Arafat’s refusal of the offer to return 95% of the settler’s land (at the Camp David Summit in 2000) never occurred. Its impossible to argue like this: what you say is not even false.

            However, I note one exception where you succeeded in saying something actually false: congratulations. That’s the one about depleted uranium use. This is an old one, dating back to at least 2001. It can be found all over the net, usually on a blog written by Arafat’s cousin or the like. The problem is that the U.N. (the Zionism = rascism folks) debunked this in 2006: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20532&Cr=leban&Cr1. Did you know about this, or just forgot to mention it? Israel has consistently denied it, then and now.

          • Sergio Méndez

            Mark:

            The person who actually claimed Palestinians are like Nazis invading Poland dares to use the word “hysterical” in this conversation? Really?

            So you want specific, lets have specifics:

            I claimed that the difference between victims in 2008 and these recent bombings is around 20 times. Actually, I was wrong. According to Wikipedia, in the “Gaza war” between 2008 and 2009, 5 Israeli civilians were killed, while between 295 (according to IDF) and 926 (according to Palestinians) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War ) civilians were killed. In any case the rate is more than 20 to 1, but minimum around 60 to 1. And I said the rate is similar in the current hostilities (20 to 1), but then I was wrong again (the
            death toll of Palestinians in an UN report was around 90 persons killed, versus 3 Israelis, which gives us a rate of what, 30 to 1?). So yes, I claim that is massive slaughter of Palestinians and destruction of the properties.

            Second, there is the claim of uranium depleted material. I was wrong in the sense I was thinking about the use of forbidden weapons, specifically the use of white phosphorus in their shells. Amnesty International and Human Right Watch have reports in these (of the later, one title “Rain of Fire, Israel unlawful use of white phosphorus in Gaza” ( http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/iopt0309webwcover.pdf ) Anyways, I am not talking about events that happened before 2006, which is the date of the report you use to refute my claims. I am talking about 2008-2009 Gaza was, and yes, there are also reports of the use of depleted uranium shells in that conflict too ( http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/un-to-probe-claim-israel used-depleted-uranium-bombs-in-gaza-1.268599 ).

            Finally, there is the issue of settlers in the west bank and the myth you repeat so blindly of the “generous offer” during the Camp David negotiations. You start talking about the wars Arabs have conducted against Israel since 1948. Well, it should be interesting to start to wonder what authority had the UN to create a Jewish state in a land where this people were a minority, against the overwhelming will of Palestinian inhabitants. But I don´t think discussing if Israel existence is justified or not. It is there, and I think a bigger injustice will be to destroy that state. But Israel, no happy with installing itself as state in a land that was not theirs, has denied Palestinians systematically their right to have an state and has colonized slowly, their land, even as, when they were supposedly negotiating peace at Camp David, The
            story of the settlement, in numbers tends to confirm that. The presence of Israeli settlers passed from 111,600 in 1993 to 234,487 in 2004 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement ), it doubled. Regarding the myth of the generous offer, is that you fail to see the specifics. Israel will have taken the most fertile parts of the west bank (controlling the precious water, one of the not often mentioned reasons of conflict) and second, it will have created a Palestinian state full of Jewish enclaves inside its territory. The “generous offer”, was indeed, unacceptable and treacherous. A good debunking of that myth is found in this article ( http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113 ).

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            I don’t have much more patience for this, especially since you deliberately misquote what I said about Nazi Germany and Poland.
            You ask what moral authority the U.N. has to recognize the state of Israel. The Holocaust ended in 1945, and there were hundreds of thousands of survivors with no practical home, because they were hated and persecuted in those lands that used to be home. What would you have done with the survivors? One of the necessary conditions of the Holocaust was that the Jews had no place of refuge. Other nations at the time of Nazi persecution, including the U.S., would not take them. Israel is now that place of refuge.
            If you have any knowledge of history you would appreciate that given that the Jewish roots in the Holy Land go back at least 3000 years, that there were always Jews living there, and given the centrality of this land to the Jewish religion and people, there was no other appropriate place for the Jewish homeland. In contrast, there is no historical “Palistinian” claim to this land, because the Palistinians are not ethnically or historically distinct from the Arab population at large. When you read the New Testament, just about everyone in the story is a Jew. I don’t recall reading about any “Palistinians.” The Palistinians have no special connection to this land; the Jews do.
            So, the U.N.’s recognition of Israel did not give a moral license for the Arabs to try to finish off what the Nazis started, as they tried in 1948 and 1967 and to this day.

          • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

            “Other nations at the time of Nazi persecution, including the U.S., would not take them. Israel is now that place of refuge.”

            The United States should have let all Jews into its borders in the 1930s and 1940s, and I would strongly favor letting as many of them relocate to America today.

    • sass

      The second i saw the link to CAMERA link, I knew you are just repeating old discredited hasbara….the reasons Egypt has blockaded Gaza has very much to do with Israel and the US, namely billions in US aid and IMF loans….Then you rant on with more discredited hasbara ,never disclosing the fact that the blockade was a response to a Hamas election….so was cutting the water , electricity and kidnapping most of the elected leadership so that the elected government would not have a chance to function. Then when the rockets started coming out of Gaza and even when Israel accepted a cease fire, as it did in June 2008, it instantly violated it, maintaining the siege, a act of war, and preventing UNRWA from replenishing its stores. In the weeks that followed Israel tightened the siege with disastrous consequences for all,esp civilians. Both sides escalated the violence, only Palestinians killed, until the full scale invasion in December 2009 .

      You try to compare Israel to Palestine with one having a state and the other totally occupied and controlled

      Then you finish with more hasbara about the Arab citizens inside of Israel. There is plenty of evidence to prove beyond any doubt that they are ruled over by their Zionist masters.

      Please leave the hasbara at home.

      PS…. you should have a read of the thousands of Palestinians held in Zionist dungeons , sometimes for years , with no charge.

    • tribunalis

      Hear, hear! Well spoken.

  • Sheldon Richman

    This is an excellent statement by John Glaser. I would only add that Israel was imposed on the Palestinian Arabs (and Palestinian Jews for that matter) by the British, UN, and Zionist movement without the indigenous population being consulted at any time. No one gave a damn what the Arabs of Palestine thought about seeing more than half their land being turned over to the Jewish State. When the Arabs resisted, Israel engaged in violent ethnic cleansing and ended up with 78 percent. This is not controversial: Israeli historians acknowledge it, sometimes approvingly. (In 1967 Israel took the rest of Palestine.) At most, Jews had purchased about 7 percent of the territory by 1948, but many of those sales from absentee feudal landlords, with subsequent expulsion of long-time tillers of the soil, would not pass Lockean muster. I am distressed that so many libertarians feel they can walk into the middle of the movie and still understand the plot. My advice: Read some history.

    • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

      OK, I did. It seems that there was some guy named Jesus who lived in what is now Israel about 2000 years ago. And he was Jewish and his followers and enemies were Jewish. In fact the whole place was Jewish, and there was a holy Temple where the Jews worshipped. And this Temple and an earlier one has stood there for about 1000 years before Jesus, and Jesus is reputed to have thrown the moneychangers out of the Temple, and then bad things happened to Jesus, and eventually a new religion was born, and so on, and so forth. But, I don’t recall a “Palistinian” civilization there, just a Jewish one. History didn’t start in 1948.

      BTW, the rest of you narrative is also deeply mistaken.

      • Jordan

        And for about 1300 years leading up to 1948, it was controlled by Islamic forces and the indigenous population was mostly Muslim. I guess non-Jews living there before 1948 don’t count as people.

    • http://www.facebook.com/les.nearhood Les Kyle Nearhood

      You know what guy? Even if I took all that you said at face value, SO what? Israel has been in existence now for well over half a century, and so it is an established state with rule of law and all the rest of it. It’s legitimacy is not in question by rational beings. The crux of the matter is that if the Israelis have their way, then everyone lives in peace and prosperity, But if the Palestinians have their way, All jews are put to death, they continue to kill one another, and they all live in an iron age society under repressive sharia law.

      That, to me, is the reality.

    • Aeon Skoble

      Half their land? Jordan is what, 10 times the size of Israel?

    • Sean II

      Sheldon, tell us: what makes this claim different from all the other revanchist grudges that COULD HAVE arisen in the aftermath of WWII?

      Why stop with the Palestinians? Why not give half of Ukraine back to Poland, then half of Poland back to Germany? Why not give Iwo Jima back to Japan, so they can give it back to the people of the Mariannas, or whoever had it before?

      And why are we acting like its even possible to give land to the Palestinian people in a libertarian sense? Anything we might do at this point would amount to delivering the people of Palestine into slavery at the hands of Palestinian statists.

      What’s the moral advantage in that?

      • Sergio Méndez

        Sean II:

        Maybe because there are no large groups of people fighting for statethood in those examples you mention, while palestinains certainly demand it (the way zionists did, even when they were for most of the XX century a minority in palestinian land).

        • Sean II

          Okay Sergio, but all that does is rephrase my question: Why are the Palestinians – alone among the millions upon millions of people dislocated in the late 1940s – still trying to change the map as if nothing else in life matters and no cost could possibly be too great?

          • Sergio Méndez

            Why all nations who once were dominated by a foreign power tried to create their own state? Why should palestinians give you an specific account to you or any other critic on that matter? And who told you palestinians are alone in that group? Never heard of the kurds, or the catalans, or de vasques, just to mention a couple of examples?

          • Sean II

            The PKK has been under cease-fire for several years, the Basques packed it in awhile ago, and the Catalans renounced violent struggle way back in the 1990s. Hell, even the shame of my people – the IRA – has almost managed to get itself out of the kid-killing business. If they can do it, anyone can!

            It’s getting lonely for the Palestinians, and frankly I cannot understand why anyone, libertarian or otherwise, would create a special standard for them. Our usual line with everyone else (and indeed the strategy we ourselves take against statism!!!) is one of strict non-violence.

          • Sergio Méndez

            Sean:

            You asked what nations were seeking independence, not by which means. Now, if you say libertarians ought to be giving any nation “speciall standards” for them, why are you and israel apologists speciall standards to rule the lives of palestinians, destroy their houses, colonize their land and murder brutally their people, including children. If you are going to demand strict non violence (and since when that is that the libertarian standard anyways. I am a libertarian, not a pacificist) why don´t you demand it to Israel too?

          • someotherdude

            Did the UK indiscriminately bomb and punish Roman Catholic neighborhoods in Dublin or Boston for supporting the IRA? When the IRA stopped violence against London, and splinter groups began to antagonize Protestants in Northern Ireland was the UK within its rights to collectively punish Roman Catholic communities in Belfast?

          • Sean II

            The Brits killed and tortured their share of people in Ireland, but in general they showed a lot of restraint from the 1960s forward.

            That restraint had absolutely nothing to do with the IRA’s decision to back down, however.

          • someotherdude

            And what makes Israel think Hamas or Islamic Jihad will stop? And Israel is not just limiting their vast state powers to assassination & torture. They use collective punishment and mass death. They resemble Oliver Cromwell more than Thatcher .

          • Sean II

            The international war memorial lists direct deaths from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as 15,000 people between 1948 and 2009. The Cromwellian conquest of Ireland is thought to have cost 200,000 lives at a time when the total Irish census was likely well under 2,000,000.

            So yeah, it’s…um…nothing like that at all.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/2OZ5PV6WZXMMMSHWHJT4MFDEXE Sanja

      without the indigenous population being consulted at any time.

      Does
      the US government need to get permission from the inhabitants of every
      Caucasian-dominated district, before allowing foreigners to immigrate
      and move & settle freely within the US?

      No
      one gave a damn what the Arabs of Palestine thought about seeing more
      than half their land being turned over to the Jewish
      State.

      Their land? Who is “they”?

      The
      region of “Palestine” within the Ottoman Empire was very sparsely
      inhabited before modern Jewish immigration began. There wasn’t a “native
      people”, there were individual families of various ethnicities, all
      (except for the “Old Jews”) descendants of settlers who had immigrated
      during the preceding few centuries, living together under Turkish rule.

      The
      information that the majority of the inhabitants were Arab, is
      incomplete without mention of their very small number in absolute terms,
      and the fact that they in no way identified as a collective tied to
      that geographical location, but rather each Arab family ethnically
      identified with the particular Arab tribe it belonged to. Each of those
      tribes was spread across much of today’s Arab world, and was in many
      cases hostile towards other tribes.
      The indigenous Jewish minority and and other minorities similarly were not a “people”.
      They
      all were individuals/families of non-territorial ethnicities, living
      side by side in the few populated places of a mostly empty and desolate
      land.

      Jews had purchased about 7 percent of the territory

      Before
      the modern Jewish immigration started (in the late 19th century), most
      of the land consisted of desert and malaria-infested swamps and was not
      owned or used by anyone. Many of the modern Jewish immigrants claimed
      patches of this land, and started cultivating them.

      Even of the
      part of the land that had already been cultivated, most was
      government-owned. Only a small portion was actually privately owned by
      Arab families or landlords, of which some was over time purchased by
      Jewish immigrants.

      The popular Antizionist “trick” to draw the
      pre-1948 maps with those areas officially purchased by Jews from Arabs
      as “Israeli” and everything else as “Palestinian” is
      extremely deceitful.

      When the Arabs resisted

      Yeah, “resisted”, like the Ku Klux Klan “resists” Mexican immigrants.

      While
      Jewish immigration was already well underway, two other ideologies
      started to take a foot-hold in the region: Pan-Arabism and Islamism.

      Both
      encouraged Arabs to start seeing themselves as one big group, and
      fight for a unified Muslim Arab nation that would claim the whole Middle
      East and beyond as its “territory”.
      And both encouraged ethnic violence against Jews.

      Israel engaged in violent ethnic cleansing and ended up with 78 percent.

      ‘Ethnic
      cleansing’ is usually indicated by the disappearance or diminishing of
      an ethnic population. The previously small and stagnating Arab
      population in the region of Palestine, on the other hand, started to
      multiply dramatically following the start of modern
      Jewish immigration.

      The Jewish immigrants dried up Malaria
      swamps, built hospitals, and kick-started a real economy – and all this
      affected Arab families as well, who enjoyed a rise in life expectancy
      and especially a dramatic decrease in infant mortality, which accounts
      for much of the sudden Arab population boom.

      Another large part
      of it was due to immigration of Arabs from surrounding areas, who were
      drawn to the improved living conditions and economic opportunities
      available in the towns that had started to see economic development by
      Jewish immigrants. A large percentage of today’s “Palestinians” descend
      from Arabs that immigrated after modern Jewish immigration was already
      well underway.

      Fact is, all of them, both Arab and Jewish
      families, became legal inhabitants; they were all allowed to immigrate
      and settle in the region by the Ottoman Empire.

      After the Ottoman
      Empire was gone and the British Mandate of Palestine took over, the
      trend continued – both Jewish and Arab populations continued to increase
      significantly, in both cases due to reproduction as well as continued
      immigration.

      All the while, ethnic tension and violence continued
      to increased. Jewish extremist groups like the Irgun launched terror
      attacks against Arab civilians and the British authorities, although
      they did not have the support of the majority of Jewish inhabitants nor
      the Jewish civilian administration.

      On the side of the
      increasingly united and collectively-self-aware Arab inhabitants, the
      goal of ethnic cleansing to become the only inhabitants did not remain a
      dream of fringe extremists, but actually became an
      identity-establishing element in their formation as a people. Outbursts
      of violence against Jews such as the 1929 Hebron massacre were
      instigated not by fringe groups, but by the highest Arab leadership in
      Mandatory Palestine of the time.

      The British believed from the
      start that the establishment of separate states would be necessary to
      end the violence. Transjordan (today’s Jordan) was split off in 1921
      already, as an Arab state. Jews were forced to leave.

      In the
      smaller, western portion of Mandatory Palestine that remained, they
      intended to allow a Jewish homeland to be created according to promises
      British politicians had made to Zionists during the preceding decades,
      and at the same time also allow the Arabs to end up with enough
      territory for either another Arab state or to extend the state of
      Jordan.

      This is the situation in which the 1947 UN Partition Plan
      was issued and Israel founded, whereas the Arabs – in pursuit of a
      Jew-free Pan-Arabia – refused categorically and instead launched a war
      of annihilation against the newly founded Israel.

      It didn’t turn
      out so well – hundreds of thousands of Arabs become refugees due to the
      war, and after Israel had won it refused to let them back in.
      Simultaneously, hundreds of thousands of Jews were expelled from Arab
      countries – many of them re-settled in Israel.

      As Egypt and Syria
      and Jordan and other Arab countries transformed into modern nation
      states, the ideal of Pan-Arabism faded away and left its Pawns – the
      Arabs who happened to live in the western part of Mandatory Palestine by
      1947 – behind. Prompting them to form a collective identity as an
      independent people.

      As the decades went by, they started
      appropriating the terms “Palestinian” and “Palestine” for themselves (by around the 1960s),
      and retroactively grafted this perceived identity as “the Palestinian
      people” on pre-1948 history, forging and continually expanding exactly
      the narrative of the sovereign Palestinian people in their ancient Homeland of Palestine being attacked and expelled by the evil Jewish
      invaders, that you have recited in your comment.

      (And they’re far
      from finished fleshing out that narrative – in recent years, clerics of
      the Palestinian Christian minority started teaching their congregations
      that Jesus Christ was a Palestinian murdered by Jews; Palestinian
      archaeologists announced to have “discovered” that the ancient
      Philistines from which the Jews conquered land in Old Testament times
      where Palestinian ancestors; the list goes on…)

  • District 9 Resident

    That Israel has the power to impose a Naftaly Frenkel (Stalin’s associate) food rationing policy on Gaza serves as more evidence that Horwitz not merely justifies Israeli foreign policy based on mythological descriptions of domestic Israel–but ignores Israel’s foreign policy totalitarianism. The irony here is that Horwitz is a self described Austrian– but does not miss the opportunity to denigrate Rothbard and Mises; and Friedman, a self-described Nozickian, quickly turns neocon monster when it comes to anything “foreign” to the US and Israel.
    Is it unfair to describe Horwitz’s and Mark Friedman’s opinions as bigoted?

    • Sean II

      No. It’s always helpful to start calling people racists. The world will not be a truly decent place until everyone lives in constant fear of being called a bigot.

      Thanks for doing your part.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/2OZ5PV6WZXMMMSHWHJT4MFDEXE Sanja

    Israel’s violence and abuse of the Palestinians – supported with
    unparalleled US backing – is immeasurably greater than Palestinian
    violence towards Israel”

    You can not morally compare violence by simply tallying up its effects. Context is important.

    A country’s military doing what is necessary to protect its citizens may or may not be legitimate, depending on each situation at hand.

    Racially and religiously motivated terror attacks against civilian populations are never legitimate.
    (This is also what int’l humanitarian law says.)

    Well, for 45 years Israel has militarily occupied Palestinian territory
    […] it reaffirms Israel’s territory on almost 80 percent of historic Palestine

    There is no Palestinian national territory that could be occupied.

    And there is no historic Palestine except as a completely non-ethnic, purely geographical/administrative name of a region ([i]much[/i] bigger than nowadays Israel+Gaza+Westbank) inside historic empires.

    Occupying powers are prohibited from transferring their own civilian populations into occupied territory.

    And territory can only be occupied territory according to those laws, if it legitimately belongs to an actually existing national state that governed it in the past before the current rulers took control.

    If current trends are not stopped and reversed, the establishment of a
    viable Palestinian state within pre-1967 borders seem more remote than
    ever.

    Nor is there a law of nature stating that there must be a Palestinian state with exactly those so-called “pre-1967 borders” in order for the world to continue to rotate.

    That 1949 armistice line between Israel and Egypt/Jordan/Lebanon/Syria (note the absence of the word “Palestine” in the preceding list) is nothing more than a completely arbitrary artifact of history. The cease-fire contract even explicitly guaranteed that no side would treat it as an actual permanent legal border.

    In a free election, which was heavily monitored by international
    organizations, Gazans elected Hamas to power in 2006.

    …and Hamas celebrated by throwing opposition members from rooftops, establishing a fanatical religious regime of torture and intimidation, and abolishing elections. Oh so very liberal democratic.

    Israel decided they voted the wrong way and proceeded to impose an economic blockade on all of Gaza

    Because it can’t have anything to do with the fact that after Israels withdrawal from Gaza and Hamas rise to power, the frequency of rocket attacks from Gaza onto Israeli towns went up by an order of magnitude, right?

    Several fact-finding missions in Gaza, including one by the International Committee of the Red Cross, have claimed the blockade is illegal.

    …while other reports came to the opposite conclusion.

    In a January 2008 secret Israeli document released in a recent court case, Israel decided to allow Gazans to eat 2,279 calories worth of food each day

    That’s not what the document actually says. It was a study that determined, passively, how much Gaza Palestinians would need to eat in order to avoid malnutrition. It reflects no active decision about how much food was actually allowed into Gaza.

    Also, the blockade has been considerably eased since 2008.

    Gazan supermarkets are full; luxury hotels and restaurants are being built in the city; the number of Gazan millionaires is rising. And more Palestinian kids are overweight than underweight according to the latest data.

    So stop pushing the “Israel is starving Palestinians to death” slander.

    The situation is very one-sided. Israel has the military and economic power.

    It also has the moral legitimacy.

    Israel fights, first and foremost, to survive.

    The Palestinian governments (with overwhelming support from their population) fight, first and foremost, to destroy Israel.

  • http://www.facebook.com/DonnyLighto Donnie Lighto

    ” First, Israel’s violence and abuse of the Palestinians – supported with unparalleled US backing”

    “As
    things stand, and as everyone knows, the US is not a neutral player in
    the conflict. Israel receives over $3 billion in aid from Washington
    every year, not including the mountains of military hardware and
    expertise that the Israeli Defense Forces are now unleashing on the
    Palestinians.”


    Secondly, Americans are supporting and giving sanction to Israel’s
    violence towards Palestinians, and therefore a simple moral calculus
    leads us properly to focus on that violence, as opposed to any that we
    are not directly responsible for”

    ~~That
    is frankly not true. Arab countries, Egypt and (once) Lebanon and
    Jordan and Saudi Arabia, receive more funding than Israel, as mentioned
    here:

    Israel has received more direct aid from the United States since World
    War II than any other country, but the amounts for the first half of
    this period were relatively small. Between 1949 and 1973, the U.S.
    provided Israel with an average of about $122 million a year, a total of
    $3.1 billion (and actually more than $1 billion of that was loans for
    military equipment in 1971-73) . Prior to 1971, Israel received a total
    of only $277 million in military aid, all in the form of loans as credit
    sales. The bulk of the economic aid was also lent to Israel.

    By
    comparison, the Arab states received nearly three times as much aid
    before 1971, $4.4 billion, or $170 million per year. Moreover, unlike
    Israel, which receives nearly all its aid from the United States, Arab
    nations have gotten assistance from Asia, Eastern Europe, the Soviet
    Union and the European Community. Congress first designated a specific
    amount of aid for Israel (an “earmark”) in 1971. ~~

    so
    all this talk about violence “unleashed” upon Palestinians is frankly
    weird. the US is as “directly” responsible for Israel justified attacks
    for the non-justified palestinian attacks (money goes to arab states who
    spew hatred against jews or train bombers and so on – there are even
    organizations supported by the federal government who used to give money
    to Hamas).

    “To
    that end, allow me to lay out some limited context. Just what is
    America supporting? Well, for 45 years Israel has militarily occupied
    Palestinian territory in the West Bank and Gaza, while using unqualified
    support from the United States to block the wildly popular political
    settlement based on the borders set in 1948.”

    now
    that is basically weird. occupied “PALESTINIAN” territory??? do groups
    have property rights, gee, I thought it’s only individuals. weird logic
    there. and wait a second, wasn’t the palestinian (Which is pronounced
    FALESTINIM in hebrew) national identity developed only after the 67′
    war? who, de facto controlled that piece of land before the 67′ war???
    Oh, wait, it was the state of Jordan.

    Israel
    was attacked (again) by several Arab states and occupied the Jodea and
    Samaria territory, which Jordan used to send Fedayun squads to slaughter
    Jews whilst they sleep and shoot farmers.

    “.
    Many Palestinians aren’t happy with this settlement, given that it
    reaffirms Israel’s territory on almost 80 percent of historic Palestine.

    what the hell is “historic palestine”?

    “But
    many have accepted this as a viable deal to end the stalemate and
    occupation of what’s left of Palestine. The Arab League has officially
    endorsed this settlement, along with the Palestine Liberation
    Organization, and even some elements of Hamas.”

    that
    is an utter lie. palestinians want the so called “refugees”, which are
    children, grand children, and grand grand children of palestinians who
    escaped from israel during the war, would come back and flood israel
    with no less than 3 million palestinians. think as if there is a sudden
    indian resistance claiming rights on several parts of the US which it
    wants to settle in and kick people from their homes. and pardon moi, but
    the Indians didn’t really looked to wipe out the american people.
    Indian leader did not go to greet Adolf Hitler in Germany (Look for Haj
    Amin El Husseini).

    No
    other organization in the world has it’s own “refugee” program destined
    to help them and only them (Classical AIMED moral hazard – Look up
    UNRA). people who havent lived in israel, never saw what it looks like,
    claim to be “refugees”. nonsense.

    Furthermore, this whole 1967′ lines is a collectivist bizzare idea. why 1967 borders? based on WHAT?

    Besides
    the fact that there is NO justification for insisting on that, there is
    the mere fact that there are 700 thousand israelis who live there and
    Abu Mazen said that there “will be no jew left in future palestine”, the
    logical conclusion is to transfer over half a million people. GO GO
    PROPERTY RIGHTS!

    “But
    Israel has blocked this settlement for decades, insisting on continuing
    its brutal occupation of both the West Bank and Gaza”

    Israel
    left Gaza many years ago, and instead of making it the Singapore of the
    middle east, they deiced to set up a launching pad and throw Fatah
    political rivals off the roof and drag them on the streets like pigs.
    the real brutal occupation is by Hamas.

    “Israel
    unilaterally withdrew its military forces and settlers from Gaza in
    2005. This has led many Israeli leaders to claim they made a major
    concession to the Palestinians, without much in return. In a free
    election, which was heavily monitored by international
    organizations, Gazans elected Hamas to power in 2006. Israel decided
    they voted the wrong way and proceeded to impose an economic blockade on
    all of Gaza, for what they described as security reasons. The blockade
    has been devastating. Israel uses the coercive power of the state to
    block the flow of goods and people in and out of Gaza and it has
    resulted in severe poverty and suffering.”

    Palestinians
    in Gaza chose Hamas which has in it’s charter quotes from the Protocols
    of the Elders of Zion and also a clear quote from the Quran about what
    is the Jews fate (a hint, it involves the stones and trees tell the
    muslim where the jew is hiding and he slaughters him). Palestinian
    population in Gaza is equally as responsible for their leaders as were
    the Germans who chose the Nazis.

    5
    days only after the evacuation from Gaza a missile was launched toward
    civilian population, injuring two. there has never been a “real”
    blockade, since Hamas has a border with ANOTHER STATE and supplied over
    70% of it’s electricity and Fuel. I, as an Israeli tax payer, am against
    that. palestinian population get billions upon billions of dollars from
    worldwide organization, and it’s all going to corrupt pockets of
    politicians. Hamas is making the big bucks out of taxing commodity that
    goes threw the vast network of tunnels going under the Gaza Strip. the
    poverty that is there is a consequence of Hamas not of Israel.

    “Israel
    claims the economic blockade on Gaza is in place for security reasons,
    but it includes purely economic and humanitarian resources as well as
    other non-military items including children’s toys.”

    NONSENSE. Israel accepts every item ANYONE sends to
    Gaza and sends it to them. Gaza does not have a shortage of products
    anyway but the sea blockade is mainly for security reasons although I
    personally think it should be off and the we should get inside Gaza and
    fight this Nazi regime till the ground.

    “In
    a January 2008 secret Israeli document released in a recent court case,
    Israel decided to allow Gazans to eat 2,279 calories worth of food each
    day, as if they were dogs in a cage”

    Blunt
    lie. Israel did not “allow” anything, its the decision about how much
    food Israel would transfer to Gaza (out of my tax money). they can eat
    as freaking much as they want, no one enforces otherwise.

    “These
    realities, and many more that I don’t have the space to explain here,
    are what motivate libertarians like me to emphasize Israel’s crimes over
    those of the few Palestinians in Gaza who launch rockets into Israel.
    Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are victims and they don’t have a
    big terrible government to counteract Israel’s transgressions and thus
    attract more of the blame. The situation is very one-sided. Israel has
    the military and economic power. It has the support of the most powerful
    nation on Earth, the US. And it is using these coercive tools to
    dispossess Palestinians of their lands and their livelihoods.”

    It
    is a really reversed point of view, to see the part that has more
    capabilities, economic and military wise, and actually blame him for
    that. question that ought to be asked is what would have happened if
    things were reversed. question can be found in Syria. very shallow and
    utter simplistic criticism, that really doesn’t pay attention to the
    aims, goals and ways of both participants in the conflict.

    “Israel’s
    latest bombardment of Gaza began when a lull in cross border violence
    was broken on Nov. 8th – not with rocket fire into Israel – but with
    Israeli tanks invading southern Gaza and shooting and killing a 13-year
    old boy. Gaza militants responded by shooting an anti-tank missile at an
    IDF vehicle, wounding four soldiers. Then Israel significantly
    escalated airstrikes.”

    This just keeps crossing the line.

    Go
    into this link, translate that, do whatever you want. November 6th,
    Hamas put detonations near a Kibbutz, injured 3 soldiers, a week after a
    Soldier died in a patrol. the man who wrote this post is either a
    deliberate liar or a really ignorant individual.

    http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4301607,00.html

    • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

      Thanks for telling the truth about Gaza.

  • Andrew

    This has sort of been said already, but it’s important to note that Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza after a war. Such an action is rarely criticized elsewhere.

    • Aeon Skoble

      A defensive war, at that.

    • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

      Andrew, I think consistent libertarians should strongly criticize such occupations regardless of which government is responsible. I strongly criticize the US for all its similar actions throughout history and now.

      • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

        I think all libertarians should condemn all modern wars as mass murder, central planning, and nationalist statism.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/2OZ5PV6WZXMMMSHWHJT4MFDEXE Sanja

          The question is, rather, what means are permissible for defense when the other side chooses war.

          • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

            Violence against individual aggressors only. I don’t believe in collective morality. Only individuals act. But if I did believe in collective morality, that’s where proportionality comes in, and killing ten to a hundred times as many of “theirs” as they kill on “mine” should be cause of worry.

          • Aeon Skoble

            The reason this doesn’t work is that it allows the aggressor to set the level of badness. A bunch of collectivists who want to kill you start launching missile strikes from a residential neighborhood, happy to ignore the combatant/non-combatatnt distinction on their side and yours, and indeed enjoying popular support. On traditional JWT, and on your view, you cannot defend yourself. That’s wrong, IMO.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            Yes, Yes, Yes. THIS is the key point. Morality cannot be a recipe for the triumph of evil, which would be the end of morality.

          • good_in_theory

            As compared to the bunch of collectivists who lobbied the British, and then the US, to go get them a legitimate monopoly on violence in the Arab peninsula…

          • Aeon Skoble

            That’s a non-sequitur. The entire region was Ottoman Empire until after WWI when it came under European control. Rather than remain colonialists, they started parcelling out the area so that locals could run it. A tiny bit of it became Israel and the vast majority of it became the several Arab nations. I get that ancap theory says all states are illegitmate, I’ve said it myself, but Israel doesn’t have _less_ right to exist than any other state. Hamas disagrees.

          • good_in_theory

            Rather than remain colonialists, they decided to let someone else do the colonizing for them. That’s not “parcelling out the area so that locals could run it.”

          • tribunalis

            Precisely. It is not often you hear this kind of knowledge when discussing about this conflict. I think it kinda sets the baseline for all contiued discussion on the matter.

          • Jeff Riggenbach

            The truth is, of course, that you *can* defend yourself under such circumstances; it’s just more difficult. But warmongers like Skoble can’t tolerate having their murderous zeal (which they rather comically attempt to pass off as a principled commitment to “self defense”) made more difficult to actualize, in even the smallest degree.

            JR

          • tribunalis

            “allows the aggressor to set the level of badness.” Exactly!

      • Andrew

        If you consistently use your car to attack me, I would take myself to be fully justified in taking your car and not letting your access it again. I hope the parallel with territory is clear.

        • http://www.facebook.com/anthonyleegregory Anthony Gregory

          If you consistently shoot at me from the balcony of an office building, I am not permitted to bomb the office building.

          • Andrew

            I like that analogy a lot Anthony. It’s pretty clear that I would be entitled to prevent you having access or control of the balcony.
            As for bombing the building: agreed. Now the question is whether that analogy holds. By some reports, Israel has been quite measured in its responses, even warning civilians of coming strikes. (Of course, there are errors and civilian casualties. War is hell. We knew that already.)

          • Sean II

            The analogy needs improvement. What if a clear majority of people in the office building actively support the gunman who is trying to kill you, and indeed raise their children to grow up as future gunman, sworn to continue the effort until you are dead. What if virtually NO ONE in the office building ever does anything to try and stop the gunman?

            Now can you bomb the place?

          • Aeon Skoble

            Yes.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            Now I second your emotion!

          • tribunalis

            A low scale war like this is in the intrest of anti-semites, commies and human butchers and lovers of violence. A war has the basic purpose, in some respect, to be won as fast as possible to spare life. Therefore the Israelis retaliations are not unproportional enough. I´m saying that the Israelis are giving the slaughterers exactly what they want by not wiping the terrorists out totally, once and for all, and save the arab hostages in Gaza.

          • tribunalis

            Well I´m not doing that. I´m following you on my infrared cam, and try to shoot you, when you run from floor to floor hiding in the ladies room all the time …

  • Pingback: Why Libertarians Might Not Take Israel's Side in the Latest Gaza Skirmishes - Unofficial Network()

  • Joseph R. Stromberg

    I think you’ll find it is the *conduct* of the occupation that can be and is being criticized, not just the mere *fact* of occupation. There were some problems, likewise, with the American occupation of Iraq, and some criticisms; but American historical memory being of little depth, these may not be remembered.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Philip/591615305 Michael Philip

    lots of falsehoods and context dropping in that article. Not surprising though

  • Pingback: Why Libertarians Might Not Take Israel's Side in the Latest Gaza Skirmishes - Hit & Run : Reason.com()

  • LIBIntOrg

    The correct solution is what is happening now: Pro-Libertarian Israelis and pro-Libertarian Palestinians working for change. At present both are focused on structural issues: Ending national service, state monopolies, promoting secularism and encouraging private -building efforts–and the larger work for democracy and secularism through the Islamic world. Ongoing work is shared at our Facebook. Thanks.

  • chris fisher

    New flash, the US and the rest of the world subsidize Palestine much more than Israel on a per capita basis: “Since the establishment of limited Palestinian self-rule in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the mid-1990s, the U.S. government has committed over $4 billion in bilateral assistance to the Palestinians, who are among the world’s largest per capita recipients of international foreign aid” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22967.pdf

    • good_in_theory

      This year, Israel will receive 3 billion dollars in US aid. Newsflash: what the hell are you talking about?

  • Radact

    In way I hope one day the nukes go off to end all this squabbling once and for all and turn that property into a radioactive wasteland that no one can settle.

  • http://twitter.com/DonKenner Don Kenner

    This article so ridiculous and historically false I wouldn’t even bother to try and correct the record. Those who can smell bullshit will seek the truth elsewhere. But I wanted to thank you for publishing the article. I was on the fence about whether to consider Bleeding Heart Libertarians as a legit source of news and opinions. Now I realize that this site doesn’t even deserve a place under my “libertarian” web browser bookmarks. Furthermore, you’ve given me a new term to describe clueless fake libertarians who support the murderers of children and the initiation of violent aggression under the guise of rational discourse: Bleeding Heart Libertarians. BHL. Or, if you prefer, Butt Hurt Lefties pretending to support capitalism while mainlining Noam Chomsky. Cheers!

  • Pingback: Articles for Another Friday » Scott Lazarowitz's Blog()

  • Irfan Khawaja

    BHL readers may be interested to know that the most recent issue of Reason Papers (which came out yesterday) has a 50 page symposium on Israel/Palestine, focused on Sari Nusseibeh’s recent book, “What Is a Palestinian State Worth?”, with a response by Nusseibeh. There are some pertinent comments in the Editorial that opens the issue as well.

    http://www.reasonpapers.com/archives/

  • Pingback: Let’s Talk Fundamentals: Israel is Not The Problem and Israel Does Not Have The Solution | Bleeding Heart Libertarians()

  • Pingback: Let’s Talk Fundamentals: Israel is Not The Problem and Israel Does Not Have The Solution | Bleeding Heart Libertarians()

  • Pingback: Libertarianism, Self-Defense, and Innocent Shields | Bleeding Heart Libertarians()

  • http://www.facebook.com/sethlevy Seth Levy

    Funny how, in your mind, Israel takes up 80% of historical Palestine when Jordan takes up 77%. I wonder how many percentage points historical Palestine has to offer?

  • Pingback: Is Israel or Palestine to blame? | popthe bubble()

  • Phil_in_VA

    If you’re going to get into bodycount wars, you’re looking at Vietnam all over again.

  • Pingback: Radley Balko: Morning Links: More Guns, Less Crime in Virginia; Libertarianism and the Middle East; Intrade Pulls Out of the U.S. | Rumors and News()

  • tribunalis

    Judea and Samaria was occupied by Jordania in 1948. Israel was all land west of the river Jordan. Those areas was Israels in the deal, including Gaza. Israel then took them back 1967, case closed. We already have a two-state solution. Jordania and Israel was the old protectorate Palestine under Ottoman rule and then under the British. Shouldn´t Jews and arabs be able to live together in that wast area? But this conflict will only go on until the day people and some libertarians (I´m ashamed) will realize the true, inner cause of this conflict.

  • Pingback: Libertarians and War: A Bibliographical Essay — The Libertarian Standard()

  • Pingback: Libertarians and War: A Bibliographical Essay | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG()

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.