Why Libertarians Might Not Take Israel's Side in the Latest Gaza Skirmishes

As a ceasefire is announced today in Gaza, John Glaser at Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog offers some reasons a libertarian might take special care to not take Israel's side in that (hopefully squashed for now) conflict.

Excerpts:

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....

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...

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...

 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...

Gazans have some legitimate reasons to feel aggrieved by the Israeli state:

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....

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...

Glaser is responding to the argument (made on the Bleeding Heart Libertarian blog by Steve Horwitz) that since the Israeli state is--its military actions notwithstanding--a more liberal state than ones its Arab neighbors seem ever likely to establish, libertarians might want to give them some consideration on those grounds. Glaser doesn't see it that way:

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...

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...

I wrote back in July 2006 an annoyingly still timely piece on the proper allocation of blame in a previous Israel-involved Middle Eastern military conflict, this time against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Schu||

    Support the underdog because they are the underdog is what I took away from this. Stupid argument.

  • RBS||

    Did somebody say Underzog?

  • Lyle||

    Doherty is an imbecile. His knowledge of history isn't too good either.

  • AlmightyJB||

    He lost me at the headline.

  • RBS||

    Good to see at least two people don't know the difference between Brian writing an article and Brian making a blog post about someone else's article that he thought readers of this site might find interesting. Or even bothered to read his 2006 article. Congrats morons.

  • Lyle||

    Except he linked to his own prior work which agrees with some of what the above say.

    Hello.

  • ||

    Horwitz's piece never said that Israel's bad actions should be ignored, but that it didn't mean we should be against the existence of the state of Israel. I think the problem here is an implicit assumption that a "side" should be taken, either the "Israel" side or the "Palestinian" side, and that anyone who defends one "side" or another and/or their actions is "siding" with that group. I don't even think of things like that. I look at actions. I haven't paid enough attention to what's going on over there to take some stance on who is right or wrong in which actions, so I won't comment about that. But liking Israel doesn't mean you have to think everything does is justified, and feeling sympathetic to the Palestinians doesn't mean everything they do is justified either.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    We have a winner with this comment right here.

  • ReformRealist||

    Exactly

  • Zeb||

    Indeed, well said. No country is ever going to be all good or all bad. And it is a good thing to point out the good and bad actions both of any government or other group.

  • Lyle||

    Hamas is actually much worse than the KKK ever was in America. So there is only one side a libertarian can take when it comes to Hamas and Israel.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "there is only one side a libertarian can take"

    ummm

  • Lyle||

    ummm what? you mean libertarians could have been on the side of those KKK men that blew up the four children in Birmingham, Alabama.

    Give me a fucking break.

  • ||

    More like, uhm, false dichotomy. Saying one has to take Hamas or Israel's side is like saying one has to take Team Red or Team Blue's side.

  • Lyle||

    Haha... you're incompetent.

  • Obese American||

    The folks at BHL are hard-left statists who may throw a sop to private enterprise from time to time. They share the same "anti-colonial" ethos as their left-wing brethren. They couldn't care less about the rights of individual Palestinians under a Hamas regime, it's all about the evil Western imperialism.

  • ReformRealist||

    Horwitz is a statist?

  • SIV||

    Yes

  • ReformRealist||

    What is your definition? How does Horwitz qualify?

  • SIV||

    Someone who is willing to use the state to violate my rights. Horwitz is on record as saying that if liberty doesn't produce his desired outcome he is in favor of "something else".

  • ReformRealist||

    Ok thanks for the reply

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Gazans have some legitimate reasons to feel aggrieved by the Israeli state:

    None of which have any bearing on whether or not it is appropriate to respond to a group of armed thugs who explicitly target civilian populations in the hopes of starting a genocidal war that they cannot hope to win.

    FFS, the West Bank has been improving its lot and addressing its own grievances with Israel for the past decade in a relatively peaceful manner, and it's working. It is beyond tedious to pretend that Hamas is a good faith partner in these proceedings, much less a potential object of sympathy.

  • ReformRealist||

    Did Horwitz say Hamas? Gazans regardless of whether they voted for Hamas or not are being collectively punished. Horwitz is right to point out, for example, Israel has exerted a tremendous amount of control over Gaza over for the last 45 years.

    Israel and the US still blocked the bid for statehood spearheaded by Fatah in the West Bank. Israel won't annex Palestinian lands either because that would mean they would be entitled to all the same rights, which would end up making Jews a minority of the electorate

  • Cytotoxic||

    Gazans aren't being 'punished'. This is just a natural consequence of Hamas et al using your area as a base to launch genocide against another country. If they don't like it, get rid of Hamas.

  • ReformRealist||

    It's very possible Hamas would lose in an election, but there has not been one since 2006.

    It isn't a punishment when you are denied certain goods or banned from exporting goods. Stringent travel restrictions also aren't a punishment?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Restrictions are an injustice. Bombing Gaza is a just act of self-defense against the injustices perpetrated by Hamas.

  • ReformRealist||

    So you agree the restrictions placed on all Gazans are not just?

  • Lewisite||

    "Just" and necessary are two different animals.

  • Adam||

    And in this case neither applies.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    The only good being banned from Gaza are weapons. Israel allows TONS fucking food, medicine, and other shit to enter Gaze EVERY FUCKING DAY, and the UN keeps a log of it. You can keep up with it yourself, if you give a rats ass about the actual facts of this situation.

    Bleeding Heart Libertarians just harm the cause of libertarianism when they put Hamas' balls in their mouth.

  • American||

    "It's very possible Hamas would lose in an election, but there has not been one since 2006."
    Gee, wonder why.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    "Gazans regardless of whether they voted for Hamas or not are being collectively punished."

    What would you do as PM if your country's citizens were attacked by people across the border on a consistent basis, and the reigning government not only refused to arrest and prosecute those people but in fact provided those folks succor?

    You're damn right the Palestinian people don't deserve the government that they have, but Israeli citizens don't have to put up with getting rockets lobbed their way, either. If you have a solution to that conundrum that doesn't involve telling Israelis to take a hike when they want folks who attack them to be dealt with justly, then I'm all ears -- and in doing so, you will not have been giving the Palestinian government a free pass as the article above does.

  • ReformRealist||

    What would you do if your country (what you consider to be your country anyway) has been occupied for 45 years? I don't agree with the Palestinian response at all, but the Israeli government has not been saintly either. This same government also blocks any attempt made to achieve statehood and discriminates against you essentially based on your ethnicity.

    The Israeli government subsidizes settlements on lands internationally-recognized as being illegal only for Jews and has even admitted a 1/3 of this land was stolen. I know this is the West Bank and not Gaza, but it is considered to be a part of Palestine.

    Why do you only take the Israeli perspective? I understand they have security concerns, but it does not mean they have free reign (at least imo) to punish individuals who never voted for Hamas or had no choice in the matter like children.

    Also, from what I have seen most international legal experts conclude that the blockade is illegal ( the Palmer report notwithstanding)

    Hamas as it is currently constituted is an impediment to peace, but the Israeli government continues to fan the flames as well with the continued construction of settlements and its "economic warfare" towards Gaza, although they have started to ease some of the restrictions.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    What would you do if your country (what you consider to be your country anyway) has been occupied for 45 years?

    Pray. Organize peaceful resistance. Determine what my grievances are and what I'm willing to compromise. Get sympathetic media to cover our peaceful protests. Organize defensive militias in my town. Help educate myself and my people to prepare for the day we have self-government. Set up umbrella organizations representing the resistance, to exclude violent or non-representative elements. Finding common ground (philosophical or practical) with the occupiers.

    Why do you only take the Israeli perspective?

    Because in this particular case, they are the wronged party. I will never take the side of people who murder civilians in order to rack up the casualty count in their holy war. When a Palestinian is unjustly deprived of his property, I will take the Palestinian's side unequivocally. Sorry if that troubles you.

  • ReformRealist||

    I agree with you, but I can understand why the Gazans/Palestinians feel like they have been wronged. Of course, I don't support targeting innocents. However, I believe the blockade targets innocents in the sense that it punishes all Gazans and as I said I believe it fans the flames of conflict.

    I also don't feel as if I'm taking the Palestinian side. I denounce Hamas and their tactics, but at the same time I want to understand the conditions which led to their rise and what continues to create a climate of violence and hate in the region.

    What particular case? The current cycle of violence or the situation as a whole? Some sources said that what started the violence was the wounding of four IDF soldiers (not civilians) by a rocket on November 10. Others more sympathetic to Palestine point to the death of the 13-year old child in crossfire a few days before that or the death of a mentally ill man who approached the border.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    There is a difference between targeting innocents and instituting policies that adversely impact innocents. There's no question that a blockade hurts innocents, but (at least as far as I can tell) that is not the purpose of the blockade. Honest question: what would you do? Would you let trade through and hope that you can stop it eventually?

    Ideally, one of the groups or the other would move far away and set up shop in Baja California or something. That's not going to happen. As I see it, the Palestinians need to find a way to coexist with Israel and hold their criminals to account, and the Israelis need a fair, impartial way to account and provide restitution for the Palestinian losses and a transfer of power in the Territories to responsible governments. Short of that, we're just going to keep seeing the violence go on.

    In any case, I'm glad that we can agree that third-party violence is unhelpful to the extreme.

  • ReformRealist||

    Israel has made it clear that the intent of the blockade is not just about restricting the importation of weapons or weapon parts, but also keeping the Gazan economy weak partially in the hopes of Hamas being overthrown.

    As such an obvious effect of that is the harming of innocents. Thus the distinction is not as clear as many portray it as at least in my view.

  • Cytotoxic||

    What would you do if your country (what you consider to be your country anyway) has been occupied for 45 years?

    I would be super thankful I lived under the benevolent hand of Israel.

    The Israeli government subsidizes settlements on lands internationally-recognized as being illegal only for Jews and has even admitted a 1/3 of this land was stolen.

    LIES. The vast vast majority of that land was unoccupied before some of those damn JOOS built stuff on it. BTW none of those settlements are in Gaza.

  • ReformRealist||

    Israel's own civil administration has said that: http://www.haaretz.com/print-e.....s-1.239485

  • Adam||

    Good point! They just cram over a million Palestinians into an city small enough to make it one of the most condensed populated areas in the world, not let them travel outside without permission, limit the amount of food and needed items that enter the area.....

    Sorry, but I've been living in the region for a number of years, and "benevolant hand" is a very poor word to describe the way they treat ALL Palestinians. I'm as anti-Hamas (and PA) as anyone else, but for Libertarians to feel that Israelis have taken a strictly, or even near strictly, self-defensive approach to this problem, is cherry-picking which actions they want to focus on.

    Although this guy is a total statist, I think his analysis of the events leading up to the current strikes are fairly accurate. Most people, including here, begin with Hamas missle-lobbing into open fields. Why not start from the beginning?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yGBP9CPJdU

  • Seanin||

    Gaza is less densely populated than Tel Aviv.

  • Adam||

    That may be.....however, changing that doesn't really alter my argument much, and is just as strong (or weak). Take that out, leave the rest then.

  • Seanin||

    Perhaps your argument and its premises are conditioned by this and other myths, like that Israel 'crammed' the Palestinians into Gaza in the first place.

  • Adam||

    So, they are stuck within the limits of Gaza, only allowed to leave when Israeli security bureaucrat says they can. Clearly you've never been there and don't know anyone from there. I do, and happen to know they are stuck there and don't get to leave when they want. Also, the economic blockade would tell a different story than yours.

    Sorry, but you don't have a fuckin' clue...like half of people on here. Come on over some time and I'll be happy to help you look for yourself. Yes, I live in the region and have visited both Gaza and the West Bank. Dickheads like yourself really need to quit telling other people what reality is like for people you've never met, and live in situations that you've never seen. Until then, fuck off with your "that's a myth" bullshit.

  • American||

    How is the palestinian practice of having 11 kids Israel's fault? As for "not letting them travel outside it without permission, it's called borders, dumbass. America has them too.

  • Drake||

    What would you do if you were a German Prussian? You lost your home and state as part of a collective punishment for the actions of a murderous government you didn't vote for. Your homeland has been occupied by the Russian military for 67 years now.

    That's why were are always hearing about German terrorists bombing Russia.

  • Brutus||

    Or, more aptly, Poland. Gdansk is the former Danzig.

  • Drake||

    You are right - I was thinking of that chunk between Poland and Lithuania that the Russians kept for themselves.

  • ||

    That's why were are always hearing about German terrorists bombing Russia.

    Maybe we should be hearing about them.

    I have a hard time believing how many people on here are claiming the position that one should never use violence to contest an occupation.

    I have no love for Hamas, who are essentially just a bunch of murderers and thugs who were able to organize themselves a little more than your average murderous thugs.

    But that doesn't take away from the fact that if my homeland was being occupied, I would sure as shit take that to be an initiation of force, which I am then morally justified in responding to with violence.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Violence against a military or paramilitary responsible for enforcing the state of affairs with force of arms is OK in my book -- not ideal, but it is defensible. If a terrorist group in Pakistan decided to go to Creech AFB and target *only* drone pilots, I wouldn't be happy about that (esp not as a former drone jockey), but it could be construed as a legitimate expression of self-defense IMO.

    Targeting unrelated third parties (civilians, doctors, random people on buses) is absolutely unacceptable -- especially from the libertarian POV. If you are a Palestinian and you absolutely feel that you must express your resistance violently, direct it towards the IDF. Not ideal, but it is not blatantly immoral in the same way that intentionally attacking civilians is.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If you are a Palestinian and you absolutely feel that you must express your resistance violently, direct it towards the IDF.

    I've always wondered, for the past 60 or so years, where the Palestinian Ghandi, Mandela, or Martin Luther King was.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Same here. Mandela wasn't perfect, but IIRC he and his resistance movement made a point of targeting military and law enforcement -- targets which *are* fair game.

    Unfortunately, the west is all too willing to hail any thug as the Palestinian MLK (see Yasser Arafat).

  • ||

    Targeting unrelated third parties...

    See my post below about Palestinian Christians.

  • ||

    Also, I pretty much subscribe to that belief myself, which is why I went out of my way to describe Hamas as nothing more than scum.

    If the Israelis killed every man who shot a rocket, and every one of the politicians who aided/abetted them, I'd be fine with it.

    If they're going to target the entire population of Gaza with a blockade (which I count as aggression), then it's unfair to claim that they have that right but the Gazans must restrict themselves to purely military targets.

  • American||

    Anything that goes into Gaza goes to Hamas. It's a dictatorship. I suppose you would have opposed the blockade of germany too.

  • Lewisite||

    "that if my homeland was being occupied"

    You gotta have a homeland first, not just some place you stopped to take a piss at whilst traveling between Turkish provences.

  • Drake||

    Gojira - No. It is more a case of letting wars be fought to their logical conclusion. In 1945, Germany had it's guts stomped out. They didn't object to being kicked out of Prussia because anyone objecting would have been shot and left to rot in a ditch - and nobody in the West would care even a little. The rest of Germany was more concerned with finding something to eat and avoiding raping Russian soldiers. They were well and truly beaten.

    All those Arab-Israeli wars were stopped before the real stomping started.

    The Israelis should have made Egypt take Gaza and Jordan take back the West Bank after the '67 or '73 war.

  • Sevo||

    ReformRealist| 11.21.12 @ 5:45PM |#
    ..."This same government also blocks any attempt made to achieve statehood and discriminates against you *essentially based on your ethnicity*."...

    Uh:
    "Hamas Principles
    The principles of the Hamas are stated in their Covenant or Charter, given in full below. Following are highlights.
    "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory)."
    Seems you might be fudging a bit.

  • Zeb||

    They all suck. Except the ones that don't.

  • ReformRealist||

    Every Palestinian arab (or Gazan arab) should be treated as if they subscribe to that belief?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The ones in power and who self-identify as Hamas should be treated that way, yes.

  • ReformRealist||

    But that is not what is being done. The blockade, travel restrictions, etc. treat them as the same.

  • Drake||

    Call up the Israelis and let them know how to, uh... discriminate.

  • Adam||

    you meant to say "...how to uh...discrimate more than they already do".

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    "The Israeli government subsidizes settlements on lands internationally-recognized as being illegal..."

    Internationally recognized by statist thugs who you would not consider an authority or legit source in ANY OTHER FUCKING DISCUSSION, whether it be property rights, immigration, the proper role of government, climate change economics, or drug policy.

    But there is a whole sub class of "libertarians" who suddenly regard these statist whores as legit moral authorities whenever Pali savages decide to murder Jewish civilians. Fuck off.

  • American||

    "Also, from what I have seen most international legal experts conclude that the blockade is illegal ( the Palmer report notwithstanding)"
    I never heard of any "international law" that forces a state to permit free trade and travel within it's borders.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    FFS, the West Bank has been improving its lot and addressing its own grievances with Israel for the past decade in a relatively peaceful manner, and it's working.

    Israel has continued the military occupation of the West Bank, denies the Palestinians basic rights, refuses to even meet for negotiations with them, and has used the breathing room to continue vastly increasing its settlements, pushing more and more Palestinians off their land.

    How exactly does that qualify as "it's working"?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Among other things, it paved the way for the first US President to explicitly endorse a two-state solution in 2004.

    The West Bank is not subject to the same economic blockade as Hamas. Four settlements in the West Bank were completely dismantled by the Israelis in 2005. Prior to Hamas control of the Gaza Strip, Israel unilaterally dismantled all of its settlements in the strip and gave control to Fatah. The West Bank has a good deal more control of its own airspace and movement of goods than the Gaza Strip. Its people are healthier and more prosperous than those in the Strip.

    Things are improving. Hardliners in both camps don't want to admit that, but it's true.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Four settlements in the West Bank were completely dismantled by the Israelis in 2005

    You'll notice that 2005 was during Ariel Sharon's term. The moritorium on settlement expansion ended when Netanyahu was elected.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Perhaps the lesson that Palestinians can drawn from this is to be savvy enough in the way you approach this issue so as not to have to have a Netanyahu on the other side of the table.

    Part of that involves not giving the Israeli public justification for voting in a hawk, as they were given by consistent rocket barrages. (Those barrages were not the fault of Fatah, but their continued presence as a fixture in Gaza sure as hell is the fault of the other half of the PA, Hamas.)

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Perhaps the lesson that Palestinians can drawn from this is to be savvy enough in the way you approach this issue so as not to have to have a Netanyahu on the other side of the table.

    Oh come on. You could justify any rights violation in this manner. If we don't like Obamacare, I guess the lesson we can draw is that we should have been more politically savvy to prevent BO from getting elected.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Building settlements is not a rights violation.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You'd have no trouble with Norks loyal to the Kims building settlements on unoccupied land in Nevada, then?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    It is if you're building it on land someone already owns*.

    * - And I mean ownership in the moral sense, regardless of whether the Israeli government deigns to recognize it.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I guess you didn't read my second paragraph.

    And yeah, maybe conservatives and to a lesser extent libertarians should have more savvy to prevent BO from getting elected and passing ObamaCare. The Bush years certainly didn't do wonders for our cause in that respect.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I did read your second paragraph. It's basically a restatement of the first.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It's really not. The first paragraph regards pragmatism. The second points out that electing a hawk to deal with a threat to civilian populations is a fairly straightforward, forseeable, and justified reaction on the part of citizenry to consistent terrorist attacks against civilian populations originating from an identifiable source.

  • ReformRealist||

    And yet Israel denied the bid for statehood they spearheaded, continues to allow the construction of settlements and even continues to subsidize a few.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Uh, so? I said things were getting better, not that they were fantastic.

    If things keep going as they've been going, the West Bank *will* get statehood or much greater autonomy as some sort of Israeli protectorate or client state, and Gaza *will* continue to be a besieged shithole.

    So please explain to me why I should in any way sympathize or provide special allowance to a leadership which is rejecting a viable way forward for peace, which seems to be working at getting Palestinians at least *some* of what they want.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    the West Bank *will* get statehood or much greater autonomy as some sort of Israeli protectorate or client state

    Don't hold your breath on that. Seriously? Wow.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Seriously. The Israeli position has shifted from integration of the areas currently under PA authority, to grudging acceptance (at least in public) of a two-state solution.

    It will happen if trends continue.

  • ReformRealist||

    Many commentators continue to doubt that as it looks like a two-state solution is becoming increasingly unlikely as more settlements continue to be built.

    Fatah and Hamas have begun the process of reconciliation, so maybe eventually both regions will see some sort of economic or political convergence. I agree the approach of the West Bank is much better, but I just feel like the Israeli approach towards Gaza is counterproductive and looks to only heighten the tensions that created the current situation in the first place.

    Also, can you address the poor economic situation in East Jerusalem (I posed an article on it earlier), which is supposed to be the capital of a future Palestinian state?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    My opinion is that having Jerusalem as a capital for a future Palestinian state is one of those things that will have to go away. For all practical purposes, the capitals of Israel and Palestine are Tel Aviv and Ramallah, respectively. More likely than not, any peace accord will either have Jerusalem as part of Israel with some accomodation made for its Palestinian population, or perhaps establishing Jerusalem as an international city. (IIRC, some variation of the above was a part of both of the major peace plans in recent times.)

  • ||

    Given the issues that have plagued that city for the better part of 2,000 years, I think having Jerusalem as an open/free city is by far the best way to go about it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    More likely than not, any peace accord ...

    "Peace accord"?!? HA HA HA! That's a good one. The Arabs don't want peace, they want victory. And their willing to pay the price for victory with as many dead children as necessary.

  • ||

    The Arabs don't want peace...

    Except for the thousands of Arab Christians who want no part of this war and don't support either side.

    Jesus flerking christ, what's up with all the collectivism on display in this thread?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Jesus flerking christ, what's up with all the collectivism on display in this thread?

    Don't be obnoxious. One doesn't have to append a boilerplate at the end of each post saying "I realize that these views aren't shared by 100 percent of the population". You know as well as I do that I was referring to the governments of the Arab nations that border Israel in my comment. Games of semantic "gotcha!" doesn't change the reality of the situation, which is that life is cheap to the old bearded men who send young Arab men to their death by the hundreds.

  • ||

    I'll agree with you about the Arab governments.

    However, as a limited gov't man yourself, I would hope that you draw a distinction between "the gov't" and "the people".

    They are NOT the same thing, particularly in the despotic shitholes that make up a lot of the middle east.

    And if you're just going to say "the Arabs", you're damn right you need to attach boilerplate to it.

    See if this sounds nice: "The blacks are just a bunch of uneducated, irresponsible criminals".

    "Oh don't be obnoxious! You know very well that when I say The Blacks, I only mean ghetto gang-bangers!"

    Well no, I don't know that. When you say "the [insert race]", I must assume you are ascribing whatever is said to every member of that race.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    "The blacks are just a bunch of uneducated, irresponsible criminals".

    That's not the same thing as "The Arabs don't want peace, they want victory." There is nothing derogatory about the Arab people in that statement. The fact is, if the Arab populace wanted peace with Israel, the governments of Arab countries wouldn't have to attempt to out do one another with the vitriol of their Jew-hatred in order to gain the approval of the "Arab Street".

    I think you underestimate the massive cultural shock of the Arab defeat in the Six Day War. Indeed, the defeat was the main impetus for the creation of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, now known as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

    As an American and a liberty-minded person, you are uncomfortable with collective identification. Me too; however, I understand that different cultures around the word have differing views on this and many cultures relish collective identification. Arab culture instills one with a sense of belonging to one's family, tribe, and religion before one's own individuality. The continued existence of Israel, as the victor over certain Arab armies, is seen as a daily humiliation to the Arab people as a whole. Does that mean every single Arab on the face of the planet believes that? No. Does it mean the majority might? I'm willing to put money on that.

    [cont]

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    [cont]

    So when I say that the Arabs don't want peace, they want victory. I mean that there is a powerful cultural impetus in continuing the violence at the expense of the Palestinian people in order to rectify what they see as a humiliation not just to the Arab belligerents of the Six Day War, but the pan-Arab nation, and by extension, the Muslim world as a whole. You don't have to take my word for it, read up what Dr. Mohammed Mathir, former Prime Minister of Malaysia has to say about it.

  • ||

    That's not the same thing as "The Arabs don't want peace, they want victory."

    It is if you're talking about "victory" as being the destruction of Israel and possibly killing all Jews.

    I know a lot of Arabs relish the thought of that. But not as many as I think you believe do.

    In my entire time in Iraq, I only heard one Arab mention Israel at all. Most Arabs are just regular folks, going to their regular jobs, trying to get by. They don't feverishly follow international politics, like many of us on this comment thread do. Most of them don't have unbiased sources of information handy.

    So no, I'm not going to judge them all collectively, for those reasons. I don't give a damn what any prime minister has to say, because the government is not the people. It's an alien imposition upon whatever people it rules over.

    I have a lot of experience with Arabs (including being shot at by some of them) and found them, in general, to be pretty normal, not these frothing-at-the-mouth fanatics that get shown on TV (because that's what gets the ratings; would any of these places have any functioning gov't at all if all their streets were really full of those types all day long?).

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If I thought all Arabs were homicidal fanatics, I wouldn't be hosting a Saudi family for Thanksgiving tomorrow. However, one doesn't need to froth at the mouth to support a continuance of a war. Most Americans aren't hydrophobic Christian fanatics calling for the Tenth Crusade, but how many of them would support continued drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan even though they can't find those places on a map?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Quite a bit of the problem is that much of the Palestinian leadership has been a client of some part or other of the Muslim world.

    There's no way that a Palestinian leader acting in good faith would have rejected the deal that Yasser Arafat walked away from.

    Unfortunately, that is a problem that can only be fixed from within. Arafat won some 90% of the vote when he ran for President of the PA against a candidate who founded and ran the largest and most effective Palestinian charity at the time.

  • ||

    Having a shady vote doesn't make the people who occupy a space responsible for what the winner of said shady vote does.

    But I think you touch on a very interesting point that doesn't get discussed much: the degree to which Palestine is a cat's paw to the other regional powers.

    I can't even begin to think about how they might untangle that problem, but I don't see much ink spilled on it, and that's a shame.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Doesn't make them responsible, but to the extent that it can't be changed it does present a problem in resolving the broader conflict between Israel and its neighbors.

    Palestine is a very, very useful political football for the regional powers to throw around and play with. Changing that will be difficult, as you say.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    ReformRealist: there are no people in the entire world less deserving of a state than the Palestinians. I would sooner give a tribe of fucking cannibals in darkest Africa a state in the U.S. than allow Pali vermin a base from which to further attack the ONLY capitalistic, semi-free country in all the middle east.

    I apologize for bringing up capitalism, free markets, and property rights. I know that bleeding heart libertarians don't like to talk about those things when discussing Israel.

  • Adam||

    "Free markets", "property rights", "Capitalist"....You should've said "socialist" and you would've been closer. Property right protections are only marginally better in Israel than in the Palestinian controlled territories. Seriously, you're clueless.

    I know Palestinians that've enjoyed some semblance of property rights, and I know Israelis (and foreigners) that've had their property rights violated by Israel.

    Yes, the level of corruption is worse with the PA and Hamas, but your generalizations don't help anyone, and are far from accurate.

  • ReformRealist||

    Also, East Jerusalem does not seem to be faring very well: http://forward.com/articles/15.....pin/?p=all

  • Cytotoxic||

    denies the Palestinians basic rights

    That's a lie. Israel better respects Pali rights than the PLO.

    refuses to even meet for negotiations with them,

    Good.

    ncreasing its settlements, pushing more and more Palestinians off their land.

    The land is unoccupied. No one lives there. It's no more Palestinian land than Georgia is Confederate land.

  • ||

    That's a lie. Israel better respects Pali rights than the PLO.

    Fuck you. The church I used to belong to (before going atheist, but I still have friends/relatives there) runs missions all the time into Gaza to help Christian Palestinians who are no longer allowed to commute to the holy places where they used to make a living selling trinkets to tourists/pilgrims. These people aren't even muslim, but to the Israelis, a Palestinian is a Palestinian is a Palestinian.

    As part of the economic blockade, the folks who run the mission have to sneak out the little olive-wood carvings a lot of these families make (and used to sell openly), then sell them in America, and smuggle the money back in to them through the Red C resent and other relief organizations active in the area.

    I know you believe that if you have the misfortune of living in a land where your countrymen elected somebody you don't like and have nothing to do with, it's perfectly acceptable for somebody else to bomb the shit out of you, regardless of whether or not you have done anything. But don't sit there on your high horse and act like that isn't a violation of their economic rights.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    No, Gojira, FUCK YOU. Christian anti-Semites in the Pali controlled area have spent the last half century shilling for their anti-Semitic Muslim comrades and sucking on Arafat's cock. They chose their side and now they want everyone to think they were neutral. They gave both tacit and overt support to "Palestinian resistance" (terrorism) and now they bitch and moan because the security wall cuts them off from their stupid rituals.

    Where were these Christian fucks when Sbarro's pizza was blown up? No where and silent. Pali terrorists used the Church of the Nativity (know that that is?) as a urinal when they were fleeing Israeli soldiers, and COMPLETELY TRASHED the place. Response from your christian friends? Defense of the terrorists. Spare us the poor christian fairy tale.

  • Adam||

    You're a fucking idiot. You point to one or two instances, without any context at all. I happen to have been there and know Palestinian Christians who have been persecuted by both the Muslims in the area AND the Israel government. They didn't give any support, over, tacit, or otherwise to any violence by the Muslim community. The Christian community (fuck you for your name calling as well, you ignorant dickhead) is busy trying to find a safe place to hide from both of the oppressive groups.

    Just because they point out injustices by the Israeli government isn't "shilling" for anyone. If that's true, then I'm "shilling" for Obama when I critize the Republicans. Everyone, and possibly even yourself, on here can see the idiocy in that. Yet, for some reason it doesn't apply to Palestinian Christians.

    It's anything but a fairly tale. I've seen it. Fuck off.

  • ReformRealist||

    Again, I'll ask if it is possible both Israel and the PA routinely violate the rights of Palestinians?

    The settlements in the West Bank are internationally-recognized as being illegal and Israel's own Civil Administration has admitted a third of the settlements are built on stolen land: http://www.haaretz.com/print-e.....s-1.239485

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Again, I'll ask if it is possible both Israel and the PA routinely violate the rights of Palestinians?

    Absolutely.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    ReformRealist, since you are using Haaraetz to bolster your position, I assume you'll allow any statist to use The Nation, Mother Jones, or the New York Times when discussing property rights or Obama Care, right?

    Israel is at war with savages, idiot. Not everything they do is good or just, but the Arab fucks brought it all on themselves. And Israel is remarkable restrained compared to how ANY other Western country would respond to similar attacks.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    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...

    Correction: the blockade includes *specific* toys which have moving parts which have been used to create weapons. What a truly pathetic attempt to engender sympathy this article is.

  • ReformRealist||

    The Blockade does appear to be about more than security: "As part of their overall embargo plan against Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed to (U.S. embassy economic officers) on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge," one of the cables read.
    Israel wanted the coastal territory's economy "functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis," according to the November 3, 2008 cable."

    http://www.reuters.com/article.....GH20110105

    It has also apparently been referred to as economic warfare by an Israeli official:

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/201.....ckade.html

    Do you have a justification for everything that was banned like jam or chocolate?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Security requires economic warfare.

  • ReformRealist||

    Then I guess no government should try to pursue something approaching free trade and should actively undermine any attempt by other governments to engage in free trade.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Um. No government should allow trade with an entity at war with it, no.

    False equivalence is false.

  • ReformRealist||

    All you said is security requires economic warfare, so...

    Gaza's status as an "entity" (whatever you want to call it) rather than an independent nation (it's occupied) is part of what makes the blockade illegal to many international legal experts. That is why groups like the Red Cross believes Israel is violating its duty to an occupied territory under the fourth geneva convention.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    So security equals total warfare. Why do they bother using "security reasons" as justification then? Just to mess with our heads?

  • PapayaSF||

    "Total warfare"? Give me break. If they wanted to, the Israelis could kill everyone in Gaza. That they don't is a sign of how restrained they are. On the other hand, if Gazans could kill everyone in Israel, they'd do it in an instant.

  • ||

    Make broad collectivist statements about diverse people much?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    To be fair, all those who disagreed with Hamas went to the West Bank, if they were able.

    After seeing the orgy of destruction that occurred after the Israelis left Gaza in 2006, I'm under no illusions that the majority of Gazans would gleefully slaughter any Jew they came across.

    Remember the Palestinians who literally tore apart two Jewish policemen with their bare hands and showed their bloody palms, dripping with ichor, to a cheering crowd?

    Sorry, but the evidence against the average Gazan is damning enough.

  • ||

    It doesn't matter if a majority of them want to. What matters is treating them all as if they are actively engaged in doing so.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It doesn't matter if a majority of them want to. What matters is treating them all as if they are actively engaged in doing so.

    Kind of hard to do when the guy launching missiles at your cities surround their launch sites with human shields. For what it's worth, I don't believe Israel is correct in its economic blockade of Gaza for precisely the same reason you posit.

  • ||

    Honestly I wouldn't have any issue w/ the Israelis capping any member of the Hamas gov't that has given any material aid to those rocket fuckers, along with the death sentences that should be meted out to said fuckers.

  • PapayaSF||

    Wars are, by nature, collective actions that don't allow a lot of careful individual distinctions. And it's not as if the anti-Israeli opinion is held by some tiny minority of Palestinians:

    39% of all Palestinian Arabs, and 55% of Gazans, support a return to what they call "armed resistance,” that is, terrorism. Some 47% of all Palestinian Arabs, and 62% of Gazans, support armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel, as opposed to the allegedly legitimate attacks against Israelis outside the Green Line who they believe deserve these attacks for serving as occupiers.
  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    "Make broad collectivist statements about diverse people much?"

    Make dumb-ass statements about a situation you don't understand much?

    It is a fact that Israel could destroy all of Gaza, and therefore is showing restraint. It is also a fact that the majority of Palis in Gaza support the destruction of Israel; they have shown this frequently over the years in polls, surveys, and election results.

    I'm so sorry reality doesn't correspond to your left-wing fairy tale.

  • Adam||

    If she does, she's enjoying good company with yourself.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The Gazan problem would be settled very quickly if Israel ever decided to go the total war route.

  • RightNut||

    Gaza also gets electricity, water, and other utilities from Israel, as far as I know, for free. Sorry but you cant get something for free and then be mad when other items are withheld.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It rubs on the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.

  • PapayaSF||

    Those poor oppressed Palestinians! All they've done is repeatedly try to destroy Israel since 1948, and have an even longer tradition of oppressing and killing Jews. Now they live in a giant refugee camp because their leaders want them to, consuming vast quantities of international welfare, and spend their spare time building rockets, killing suspected spies, and teaching their kids to resent and hate Jews and Americans.

    And yet they aren't happy? Karma can be unpleasant.

  • ||

    Yep, every single Palestinian is guilty of those crimes. All of them. That's why it's justified to treat them as a collective. Like any good libertarian would do.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, most Palestinians who aren't guilty of those crimes tend to call themselves 'Israeli Arabs'.

    Jus' sayin'

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    Gojira, good libertarians wouldn't support a savage band of Jew-hating religious nutjobs who deny both property and human rights (as a matter of religious law) and teach their children to be monsters.

    "every single Palestinian is guilty of those crimes"

    He didn't say that, and you know he didn't. It is possible to talk about a group (nation, people, state, etc.) as a whole without meaning that every single person holds equal blame.

    So Israel should just sit back and take it because there are some innocent bystanders (angels, I'm sure) in Gaza? That's idiotic.

  • Sevo||

    From the link:
    "Sari Bashi, the director of Gisha, said the documents prove that Israel isn't imposing its blockade for its stated reasons, but rather as collective punishment for the Palestinian population of Gaza"

    It does nothing of the sort. It is the legal fiction which allows Israel to keep various items on the list without leaping hurdles ever time Hama's figures out a new way to smuggle in stuff that it turns into weapons.

  • ReformRealist||

    "A country has the right to decide that it chooses not to engage in economic relations or to give economic assistance to the other party to the conflict, or that it wishes to operate using 'economic warfare,'" the government said.

    The Israeli government took an additional step Wednesday and said the economic warfare is intended to achieve a political goal. A government spokesman, who couldn't be named as a matter of policy, told McClatchy that authorities will continue to ease the blockade but "could not lift the embargo altogether as long as Hamas remains in control" of Gaza.

    Also, wasn't the wikileaks cable clear enough about Israel's intent to keep Gaza's climate weak?

  • ReformRealist||

    Economy should be there instead of climate

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    reuters? are you fucking out of your mind???

    An Italian (pro-Pali) news reporter went to Gaza to record the "starvation" and was shocked to find tons of food left on the docks, rotting, and shopping malls full of goods.

    Again, fucktard, TONS OF FOOD, MEDICINE AND FUEL come through that checkpoint every goddamn day, and is recorded.

    If one fucking "box of chocolate" is confiscated because it is suspicious-looking, Pali liars contact the lefty media and report that the JOOS! are stealing their chocolate. NO ONE in the major media tries to verify this and reports that contradict it are published only in official reports and the alternative media.

    Why are you so fucking stupid?

    Tell me, if you have the balls, how exactly do the evil JOOS blockade an area when they don't even control one end of it (the Egyptian end). What magical evil Joo powers allow them to do this?

  • Gladstone||

    Gazans have some legitimate reasons to feel aggrieved by the Israeli state

    So? Pretty much every country has legitimate grievances against the country they are fighting against. Doesn't make everything they do justified.

  • Cool Story, Bro||

    While the Israeli gubmint continues to build settlements on Palestinian land in direct violation of international law, I simply cannot bring myself to support a group that uses the vile religion of Islam to justify firing rockets behind the cover of children. Palestinians sealed their own fate when they elected Hamas to lead the country. Fuck 'em.

  • Virginian||

    Pretty sure its been a few years since the Israelis were building those settlements. Didn't Sharon pull out of the West Bank and demolish a few Israeli towns?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Yeah, Sharon's not been PM for a long time though. Since Netanyahu came in, the settlements have been expanding like crazy. In some cases in violation of Israel's own law, as Netanyahu refuses to enforce court orders against illegal settlements.

  • Cytotoxic||

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

    What a lying sack of shit. The only 'violence' Israel has directed against the Palis is in defense against aggression.

    The term 'Bleeding Heart Libertarian' is an abomination of terms, an abomination of morality. You can't base a rational philosophy on an irrational base like emotionalism, as is implied by the 'bleeding heart'. 'Bleeding heart' means 'puts feelings above thought. It is evil, and BHL is the product of that evil.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Oh Please, Israel is the PoliceOne of international politics. The routinely violate the rights of Palestinians, and if there's any sort of resistance use it as an excuse to pound the crap of them in the name of "National Safety".

    Both Israel and Palestine are terrorist states, and the US would be better off looking after it's own interests then continually trying to referee the "who can commit more attrocities" competition between the two.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The routinely violate the rights of Palestinians

    LIES. That is a fucking lie. Palestinians are better treated by Israel than by the PA. You're a relativistic amoral slug and part of what needs to be amputated from the libertarian movement.

  • ReformRealist||

    Your statement did nothing to dispute his really. Isn't it possible both Israel and the PA routinely violate the rights of Palestinians?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The federal government routinely violates the rights of libertarians.

    Should we start shooting unguided rockets into DC?

  • ReformRealist||

    I was never justifying the use of rockets against civilians. I was responding to Cytotoxic's attempt to divert attention away from Israeli abuses.

  • Adam||

    From my perspective it's not "possible" but something I've seen with my own eyes, in addition to the dozens of stories I've heard, and is at this point an undisputable fact.

  • Adam||

    Apparently you've never had to cross a Palestinian checkpoint with a Palestinian friend, nor have you discussed this issue with average Palestinians. If you had you'd know that the position you currently hold is absolute bullshit.

    You sound like most of my so-con friends, who are almost all evangelicals. Just as they don't have a clue what happens to the average Palestinian, neither do you.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    Adam: apparently you've never met a mother who had to identify pieces of her daughter after your Pali friends blew up a pizza place that was a teenage hangout.

    Apparently you've never met a father who had to view an x-ray of his dead five year old daughter, which showed her entire body riddled with nuts, bolts, and screws from a Pali bomb.

    Fuck you and your pali friend. I'm not a so-con and it shows what a soft, steaming, piece of shit you are that you would try guilt by association. If that's the best you've got you should over the The Nation and masterbate with the socialist Israel-haters.

  • Adam||

    I've met a mother, but I've a brother and a sister. I actually live in the region and visit Israel and the Palestinian territories regularly. I've forgotten more details of their stories than you'll ever hear, so take your know-it-all attitude and shove it up your ass.

    Gawd, you're a fucking dick. I also know a Christian whose wife died because of dangerous situation during labor, and she was denied exit out of the west bank to get emergency help. So, unlike yourself I've seen the ugliest of both sides.

    Saying you're a so-con is only the start of "what I've got". Your reasoning is just like theirs. The difference between you and me is I've actually seen and talked to those effected. Come on over here and I'll show the bullshit that innocent Palestinians have been goign through for decades. Just because the PA is full of corrupt cocksuckers doesn't mean I have to defend Israel socialists and their unjust approach to their security problems. I don't "hate" anyone. I don't "hate" leftist/socialists here. But I'm not going to stay quiet just to keep assholes like you happy.

  • Sevo||

    Stormy Dragon| 11.21.12 @ 6:12PM |#
    ..."Both Israel and Palestine are terrorist states"...

    False equivalence is false.

  • ||

    The straw, it burns!

  • PapayaSF||

    That statement annoyed me as well. In 1948 the Jews got a tiny sliver of the Middle East, and the Arabs got everything else. But noooo, that wasn't enough for the Arabs: the Jews had to have nothing. It all belongs to Arabs, even the area known since antiquity as "Judea." So they tried to destroy Israel and failed, again and again and again. Conventional armies lost, so they've been trying terror for nearly 50 years now. Why should I have any sympathy toward hated-filled, violent idiots?

  • Charlotte Falcon||

    This summary sounds closest to my understanding of what has happened since 1947. I think it is a catch-22 for the Israelis. If they don't defend themselves aggressively they will seek to exist. If they do they are terrorists and villains. They should all pack up and move to California.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I see libertarians having an issue with Property Rights (ha ha ha) and possibly not getting involved in other countries affairs.

    However, in general (and I am generalizing), Jewish Libertarians will side with Israel and be A-OK with every TAX PAYER in America sending them $5billion/year while we lay off teachers and other government workers. Tax is Theft...but not if it goes to Israel.

    The truth is, Israel was acquired without the permission of the people that lived there...70 years ago.

    The Facts:
    - Perhaps consideration should have been given 70 years ago
    - The Palestinians LOST
    - Israelis are not giving up Israel
    - All the Palestinians can do is throw rocks, fire crackers, and cry

    Palestinians need to accept the fact that THEY LOST ALREADY.
    Israelis should stop taking the self-righteous position that they lawfully and by god's will are entitled to live in Israel.

    I believe that now, 70 years later, the Israel has a right to exist. Many generations of Israelis call Israel their homeland. And just as the Americans are not going to give land to the Indians, Israelis should stay.

    The Israelis should apologies for not respecting the Arabs property rights and perhaps setup a welfare state like the Americans did to the Negros and the Indians they killed off.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    You know if every single Jew who moved to Israel in the past 70 years had only moved there in a purely libertarian fashion, renting or buying homes and farms, not even settling on spoils of war, unfriendly neighbors would still be trying to kill them, and the conflict would still remain. So unless you anti Israel libertarians can elucidate some principle that says Jews alone don't have the freedom to immigrate to another land, while Mexicans and everyone else can, I think you are just mindlessly parroting idiot leftovers.

  • ReformRealist||

    The Israeli civil administration has admitted a 1/3 of settlements in the West Bank were built on stolen land: http://www.haaretz.com/print-e.....s-1.239485

    They also have an incentive to understate, so it would not surprise me if more of it was stolen. In any case, these settlements are internationally-recognized as being illegal. The Israeli government has not just tolerated them, but has subsidized them and only allows Jews to buy them.

    Land has no doubt been seized illegally: http://www.haaretz.com/news/co.....s-1.241487

  • RightNut||

    What do settlements have to do with the current conflict? Israel forcibly pulled out all Israeli settlers from the West Bank in 2005

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The settlements are a complete red herring, at least as far as Gaza goes. There hasn't been an Israeli settler within striking distance of Gaza for the last 7 years and that has fuck-all to do with Hamas and what's going on now (which only started after the settlements were evacuated).

    If anything, Hamas-controlled Gaza is making it less likely and more difficult for Israel to scale back its settlements in the West Bank.

  • ReformRealist||

    Not completely in that Gazans still view the West Bank along with the land occupied by settlers as being a part of Palestine.

  • Sevo||

    ReformRealist| 11.21.12 @ 7:00PM |#
    "Not completely in that Gazans still view the West Bank along with the land occupied by settlers as being a part of Palestine."

    So it's a red herring for which you have a red herring argument?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    If that is the case, then it strikes me that Gazans are a whole lot more militant about the settlements in the West Bank than Palestinians in the West Bank themselves are. A significant number of Gazans view the whole of Israel as being part of Palestine. Ethnically-motivated irredentism is not a legitimate casus belli, even if the methods used by Gazans in prosecuting the war were sound.

  • ReformRealist||

    That may very well be the case, which could partially explain the election of Hamas in the first place. I would point out though that anger (does not justify violence against innocents, but can explain it in part) over the settlements is not entirely without merit as they are acknowledged to be illegal by the UN and pretty much every government around the world.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Not completely in that Gazans still view the West Bank along with the land occupied by settlers as being a part of Palestine.

    Nice dodge.

    The Gazans consider all of Israel to be part of Palestine.

  • Adam||

    Some Gazans, not all. Also, there is more to the issue than settlements in the West Bank.

    They are only allowed to travel when given permission, and have had severe restrictions that have made daily life extremely difficult for everyone there. Just as sanctions against Saddam Hussein's regime was criticized by most Libertarians as useless, and at the same time responsible for a lot of suffering by ordinary,innocent Iraqis, so too is the blockage around Gaza.

    Also, the reason Hamas (whom I don't support) began lobbing (very innacurately) rockets towards (almost never hitting, and btw, the Iron Dome system isn't nearly as accurate as some news portrays....similar to the Patiot missle system during Gulf War I) Jewish populations only after the IDF entered Gaza to kill someone. It didn't begin with them lobbing rockets as too many on here assume.

  • ReformRealist||

    There are over 300,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank

  • Sevo||

    So what?

  • ReformRealist||

    I was responding to RightNut, but he made a mistake in the post I responded to.

  • PapayaSF||

    Yeah, what are Jews doing living in an area known since antiquity as... Judea?

  • Adam||

    should have read "...was known in antiquity as Judea". Hasn't been for well over a millenia.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    "There are over 300,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank"

    Not enough. Could we triple that please, and give them weapons?

    The Israeli govt. routinely confiscates their weapons in an act sure to provide a boner to all Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

  • Adam||

    They claim they confiscate "most to all" of them....but by some strange coincidence, they seem to have plenty of them lying around. Must be the economics of prohibition at work.

  • Jordan||

    However, in general (and I am generalizing), Jewish Libertarians will side with Israel and be A-OK with every TAX PAYER in America sending them $5billion/year while we lay off teachers and other government workers. Tax is Theft...but not if it goes to Israel.

    Prove it, moron. I want to see you make one - just one - comment that does not contain a strawman of libertarians.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    Alice Bowie wrote: "Jewish Libertarians will side with Israel and be A-OK with every TAX PAYER in America sending them $5billion/year while we lay off teachers and other government workers. Tax is Theft...but not if it goes to Israel."

    I'm a Gentile libertarian, but I think this is false. Most libertarians (Jew or Gentile) who are not lefty assholes (like some posting here) are against handouts (aid) to all countries, but we resent the psychotic fixation that some so-called libertarians have with aid to Israel (and their complete ignoring of the actual historical facts, while embracing a Noam Chomsky historical revision)

    3 billion in US aid to Israel is demonized while 2.7 billion to Egypt (to use figures from some years back) is not even worth mentioning to these so-called defenders of liberty.

  • Cytotoxic||

    he Israelis should apologies for not respecting the Arabs property rights

    They respect them better than Arab governments.

  • Alice Bowie||

    What I mean is, for good or for bad, Americans apologized to the Negros and the Indians. And, the people doing the apology, didn't have anything to do with Slavery or the genocide of Indians. But that apology went a long way. And now, we Americans feel A-OK, no guilt.

    One may argue that it was worth murdering all of the Indians. Look how much better the White Man has put the Land to use... Something Pat Buchanan might say.

  • Tman||

    Does this make sense to anyone?

  • Alice Bowie||

    I'll put it this way for you Tman.

    Isn't the Land of Israel put to better use by a bunch of germans (i mean jews) than a bunch of a-rabs?

  • Tman||

    Alice,

    Jews have been living in Jerusalem for several thousand years. What the fuck are you talking about?

    I'll put it to you another way, courtesy of Larry Miller -

    "Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, everyone will be pals. Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding."

    http://weeklystandard.com/Cont.....1yaihr.asp

  • Alice Bowie||

    I know that. The fact is, the ZIonist Movement of the 1800's migrated many Jews to Israel way before 1947...and, these Jews lived in peace with the Arabs.

    It wasn't until the big move of 1947 that the arabs got testy.

  • Sevo||

    Alice Bowie| 11.21.12 @ 5:51PM |#
    "I know that. The fact is, the ZIonist Movement of the 1800's migrated many Jews to Israel way before 1947...and, these Jews lived in peace with the Arabs.
    It wasn't until the big move of 1947 that the arabs got testy."

    Uh, you really need to read up on things:
    "During the annual Nabi Musa procession in Jerusalem in April 1920, violent rioting broke out in protest at the implementation of the Balfour Declaration which supported the establishment in Palestine of a homeland for the Jewish people. Much damage to Jewish life and property was caused"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini

  • ||

    Pretty sure the Arabs (and pretty much every one else) have been testy about the lands of Israel since before writing was invented.

  • Sevo||

    Must be something in the water...

  • PapayaSF||

    Muslims have been testy about Jews since Mohammed.

  • RightNut||

    Thats absolutely and verifiably false. Google Jaffa riots if you want just one example.

  • Sevo||

    Alice is spouting lefty nonsense; facts not required. Or accepted.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Isn't the Land of Israel California put to better use by a bunch of germans (i mean jews) Messicans than a bunch of a-rabs Anglos?

    How do those edits look to you?

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    No. Her remarks are idiotic.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Alice is an admitted sockpuppet. They're stupid on purpose. Just ignore it.

  • ReformRealist||

    You should stop criticizing the US government for violations of individual rights because it protects rights far better than many other governments around the world.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Divert! All power to diversion!

  • ReformRealist||

    You are diverting by covering up Israeli abuses by pointing to abuses by the PA or other Middle Eastern governments. Just because another government is doing something worse does not mean the other government is completely in the right.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    Gee, let's see: in Israel an Arab woman can get a PhD at a university, a job teaching anti-Israel bullshit, and then get elected to the Israeli Knesset.

    In Pali controlled areas she can get beaten to death for wearing pants, using a cell phone, or touching her clitoris in a way that offends Allah.

    Yep. No difference there worth mentioning.

  • Oso Politico||

    What has led to today's situation? Well, let's start with 1948 and the dispossession of land and the abrogation of Palestinian property rights by the Zionists. To me, that is the substance of any libertarian argument in favor or contra the two sides: The Palestinians wuz robbed. They have been fighting back ever since.

  • RightNut||

    By that same token, its fine for Native Americans, Mexicans, French, and others to kill none-native Americans.

  • Alice Bowie||

    If the non-native americans came to take their land...well, maybe?

  • Sudden||

    Every single Mexican citizen living in the territory conceded in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was given U.S. citizenship and allowed to maintain the lands and rancheros they owned under Mexico. There is not a single Mexican who was dispossessed.

  • ReformRealist||

    I believe it was not as simple as that in reality. State governments/territories did quite a lot to find loopholes I believe.

  • Sudden||

    Any citations on specific examples of citizenship or lands being denied? The only effort I'm aware of was the Greaser Act in California, which was an attempt to segregate Mexicans, and was repealed a few years after it's 1855 passage.

  • Sevo||

    Sudden| 11.21.12 @ 5:55PM |#
    "Any citations on specific examples of citizenship or lands being denied?"

    Dead-tree cite: "Age of Gold", Brands, Mariano Vallejo.
    It was all done under the veil of legality, but it was out and out theft.

  • RightNut||

    Tell that to the Acadians who got shipped to Louisiana.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Bullshit. When it comes right down to it, there's a lot of truth to the claim that many Palestinians were never interested in coexisting, and that many of them supported the Arab League's war against Israel in which the goal was to destroy the Israeli state and its Jewish inhabitants. While that isn't all Palestinians, those Palestinians who were in that group were -- quite justly -- deprived of the land and resources that they were using to assist in an attempted genocide. Those innocent of such activity should certainly have their property rights protected and insured by a just government, but as far as I'm concerned loss of property is the least of what should happen to people who help wage an aggressive war of genocide.

    Mandatory Palestine had a history before 1948. I would recommend that you better educate yourself on it before blithely issuing proclamations on who is in the right in this conflict.

  • Alice Bowie||

    The Palestinians were fighting for their country back. They fought a war and lost.

    The Israelis took it in the 1st place.

  • Obese American||

    The country of Palestine? Who was the government of that "country" in 1948? In 1900? 1800?

  • Sevo||

    "The Israelis took it in the 1st place."

    "In favour, (33 countries, 72% of voting):.."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U....._Palestine
    Someone took some land, but it looks like 33 countries did that.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Yea but it happened 70 years ago. And, the Zionist have managed to weasel their way into keeping the Land.

    Nothing anyone can do. It happened.
    Just like the White Man did to the American Indian 500 years ago. Israel is guilty of no less. In fact, u gotta give them credit, they didn't murder all of the palestinians.

  • Tman||

    the Zionist have managed to weasel their way into keeping the Land.

    No, they fought for it and won. Several times.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Exactly, through aggression and courtesy of the USA Tax payer, Israel has been able to fight and win.

  • RightNut||

    I don't think Israel got any financial help from the US in the 1948 war of Independence.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Of course, these 1.2 million germans (i mean jews) just went through a holocaust and were being shuffled back-and-forth.

    America has played a significant role in funding Israel. Without it, they would have not survived the invasions.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    That's just terribly inaccurate. The US government did not significantly fund Israel until well into the 70s. Indeed, it did not even sell Israel weapons of importance until LBJ approved the sale of Phantom fighters to Israel in '69. Prior to that, Israel's main source of arms and equipment was France.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    She's too busy repeating what she read in Newsweek 10 years ago at the dentist office to check those facts.

  • ||

    You seem fabulously ignorant of demographics. Until the recent Russian immigration, the majority of Israelis had immigrated (or descended from immigrants) of Arab countries.

  • RightNut||

    Man, someone should have told the Jews they were Germans, I'm sure they would have moved to Germany instead...Oh wait..

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    Alice, American aid is fairly recent addition to this conflict. Both the 1948 wars and (for the most part) the 1967 wars were fought by Israel, without outside help. This is not a controversial opinion; it's out there for any who want the facts.

    To say Israel suffered invasions BECAUSE of American aid may be the stupidest fucking thing said during this entire discussion.

    And that's saying a lot.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Correct. Israel was at the time seen as a potentially communist nation by many in State due to the kibbutzes and socialist tenor of the Zionist project in its early years. Truman recognized the state of Israel against the advisement of Dean Acheson, IIRC.

    There were, however, quite a few successful funding drives which succeeded in obtaining funds from private individuals residing in the US.

  • Adam||

    "...and socialist tenor of the Zionist project in its early years."

    FYI, not much has changed......still very Socialist. The whole thing.....i.e. not much to support from a truly libertarian point of view.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    Adam, WTF? Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Israel knows that it is a largely secular country with a significant (and vocal) religious community that enjoys certain legal advantages and political weight.

    Israel is also a VERY dynamic capitalist economy that suffers under the remnants of its quasi-socialist past.

    To say there is nothing for a libertarian to support is like saying there is nothing in America for a libertarian to support because of the New Deal or nothing in Hong Kong to support because of Chinese regulations.

  • Adam||

    "...a VERY dynamic capitalist economy that suffers under the remnants of its quasi-socialist past." Those two clauses deserve to be connected with some explanation.

    FYI, "not much" and "nothing" are two different words that have very different meanings. I suggeset you look them up.

    Also, I support any movement toward freedom, both economically and socially, both inside and outside the States, regardless of the country. So criticizing their collectivist tendencies is just as justified as my criticisms of Neal Deal-like legislations (which I do constantly), or anti-freedom policies in China (which I do quite a bit, as my wife is Chinese).

    "Very dynamic" is a matter of opinion. For the record, the economy in Israel is far from free. Latest rankings of Economic Freedom rank them 48th, behind Jordan, Oman and the UAE (as well as Costa Rica, Peru and El Savador)....none of which are terribly free.

  • Tman||

    Um, no. Israel was attacked -several times- and defended itself. It has given back more land it obtained through defensive conquest than it currently has today.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Yes, it was attacked by the Arab Neighbors...and won.

  • Sevo||

    "Exactly, through aggression"

    No, through self defense. Israel was attacked first in 1948.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Yes, they were attacked when they first took the land.

    Just like you would attack me the 1st day I come to your house and move your entire family to the basement and tell you to shut up because this was my house 20 years ago.

  • Sevo||

    Alice Bowie| 11.21.12 @ 5:49PM |#
    "Yes, they were attacked when they first took the land."

    Which means you were lying.

  • ||

    Just like you would attack me the 1st day

    I am pretty sure i would be asking for rent instead....unless you had a hot daughter then who knows what i would do...

    In any case it probably would not come down to me attacking you.

    I imagine at worst the Sheriff would escort you off the property.

  • Alice Bowie||

    If there was the rule of law.

    There was no rule of law when israel was handed over.

  • ||

    If there was the rule of law.

    Under the table rent from squatters and trading in willing hot daughters has little or nothing to do with the rule of law.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yes there was. Israel is the only ME nation aside from Turkey and Kurdistan with the right to exist.

  • Sevo||

    Alice Bowie| 11.21.12 @ 6:34PM |#
    "If there was the rule of law.
    There was no rule of law when israel was handed over."

    Nor was there any before.

  • Drake||

    Compare a political borders map from 70 years ago to today's. A lot of stuff changed - Poland, Germany, Finland all lost major cites and big swaths of land. They all got over it.

    The Palestine Arabs haven't got over it because they don't want to.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You know what other nation's creation involved dispossession? EVERY SINGLE ONE. It was mutual in the formation of Israel.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Well, let's start with 1948 and the dispossession of land and the abrogation of Palestinian property rights by the Zionists. To me, that is the substance of any libertarian argument in favor or contra the two sides: The Palestinians wuz robbed. They have been fighting back ever since.

    If you want to to start playing that game, the Palestinians ultimately robbed the Jews, who are ultimately the original extant inhabitants of that land. The Jews were robbed by the Romans, who became the Byzantines, who were eventually conquered by the Ottoman Turks, who held the land up until they were in turn conquered by the Allies in WWI.

  • Adam||

    "If you want to to start playing that game, the Palestinians ultimately robbed the Jews, who are ultimately the original extant inhabitants of that land."

    Actually, if you want to start playing "that game", then the Caananites were the original inhabitants.....who later the Philistines....who are the Palestinians. All of this while the Israelis were stuck in slavery in Egypt....that is if you want to sound like a Bible-thumper....which it appears that you do.

  • Sevo||

    Oso Politico| 11.21.12 @ 5:13PM |#
    "What has led to today's situation? Well, let's start with 1948 and the dispossession of land and the abrogation of Palestinian property rights by the Zionists.

    "Final vote
    On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions and 1 absent, in favour of the modified Partition Plan. The final vote was as follows:
    In favour, (33 countries, 72% of voting):"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U....._Palestine
    Uh, allowing that you're only focusing on the Arabs who were up-rooted rather than the Jews, you're still going to have a hard time claiming is was 'zionists'.

  • Brutus||

    The Arab nations around Israel wanted to wipe the new Jewish country off the map and told Arabs living in the path of the coming invasion to move out so as to not get in the line of fire.

    It's hard to have sympathy.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    That is only partly accurate. There are confirmed incidences of Jewish evacuations of Arab areas, from which stem many of the justified resentments in the conflict on the part of the Palestinians.

  • RightNut||

    "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."

    Why does it matter what the ratio is? What bearing does that have at all on whether Israel's or Hamas's actions are moral?

    More Germans died in World War 2 than Brits, should we have sided with the Germans because they had higher casualties?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Well it kinda puts truth to the lie that Israel is trying to avoid civilian casualties. They target the other side's civilians for purposes of terror just as much as the Palestinians do.

  • RightNut||

    How does that make it a lie? Gaza is much more densely populated than Israel, much less prepared for attacks, and Hamas intentionally places civilians at risk to garner positive headlines.

  • Cytotoxic||

    StormyDragon is a lying shitsack whose efforts to discredit Israel are typical of the left: tell whatever lie you want to believe like you believe it.

    It's not Israel's moral imperative to minimize civilian casualties.

  • Sevo||

    Cytotoxic| 11.21.12 @ 7:14PM |#
    "It's not Israel's moral imperative to minimize civilian casualties."

    Disagreed, which does nothing to reduce SD's propaganda.
    Israel seems to make every effort to reduce civilian casualties in Gaza *within the requirement to reduce civilian casualties in Israel*.
    When civilians are used as shields, there will be civilian casualties.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yes, we know you think living under a nonlibertarian government means you forfeit your life.

  • Sevo||

    Stormy Dragon| 11.21.12 @ 6:22PM |#
    "Well it kinda puts truth to the lie that Israel is trying to avoid civilian casualties. They target the other side's civilians for purposes of terror just as much as the Palestinians do."

    I've seen what are claimed to be cites for this statement. Strangely, the 'civilians' 'targeted' by Israel all seem to live right next to an ammo dump or a weapons battery.
    Wonder why that is?

  • Gladstone||

    Not sure why US funding of Israel is a factor on who libertarians should side with? Wouldn't that mean the Palestinians would be the bad guys if the US gave them more money than the Israelis?

  • Tman||

    It is a bit convenient to leave out the fact that the US gives plenty of money directly to Palestine and shoulders the brunt of the AID distributed to Palestine through the UN.

    This is just a dumb argument for several reasons, but to use the aid aspect and ignore what Palestine receives as well is disingenuous.

  • Gladstone||

    Hence why I said "more money" than the Israelis.

  • Tman||

    Not you Gladstone, I mean the article. I agree with you.

  • ReformRealist||

    Not nearly as much I believe. I'm not saying that makes the Palestinians right all of a sudden, but I believe Israel has received a whole lot more over its history from the US.

  • David Emami||

    Not sure why US funding of Israel is a factor on who libertarians should side with?

    The author, John Glaser, is one of the Rothbardians over at Antiwar.com, and for them that's definitely a factor -- for the most part, the factor -- in deciding what side to take in any international dispute. Their apparently logic boils down to: "We want a completely non-interventionist US foreign policy, therefore anyone whom the US intervenes against -- or even criticizes -- is the good guy." They don't come out and say so, but it's a good predictor of their positions. Witness Justin Raimondo's writings on the Russia/Georgia conflict in 2008, or Paul Craig Roberts' statements on the 2009 protests in Iran and the Pussy Riot protests against Putin.

    To paraphrase Churchill: if the US criticized Hell, the folks at Antiwar.com would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil on their site.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Antiwar.com should just change it's name to AntiAmerica.com. I mean a magazine called Reason should not have anything to do with a site as discredited as antiwar.com.

  • Gladstone||

    I remember after the Falklands War Rothbard pretty much said the US and the UK are always on the wrong side in every conflict.

    Speaking of Raimondo I remember during the Israeli capital flap at the Dem Convention that he pretty stated that the location of the Israeli capital is US business due to the funding and support Israel gets from the US. Seems he was saying is that Israel should start acting like a US Puppet State dammit and US Puppet States should be doing stuff that he wants. The fact that this line of argument essentially renders the whole non-interventionist, anti-war positions moot is not addressed.

  • David Emami||

    You would think that if it were merely a matter of the US intervening where it doesn't belong, sheer random chance would put us on the side of the good guys sometimes. But apparently, if the Rothbardians are to be believed, the US is the anti-Google, with an official policy of "be evil."

    I hadn't heard about the Falklands bit, but it doesn't surprise me. For people claiming to be anarchists, he and his followers sure do tend to come down on the side of nation states against actual people a lot -- in that case, Argentina vs. the residents of the Falklands.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's easy to see how they slide into Anti-Americanism. LRC is a never ended parade of the evil done by the US government. Immersion in that world view for long can lead to believing that the US is evil(hell a portion of the people here probably agree with that statement). And then the enemy of my enemy is a short step to seeing the "good" side of every third world dirtbag that opposes the US government.

  • Gladstone||

    The worst part about this line of argument is that it really isn't really anti-war at all as it makes it look the real problem with the US is that it supports the wrong side or that US intervention is wrong because the US state is the problem.

  • Gladstone||

    I should mention Paul Craig Roberts has called for nuclear war against the US. Err yeah.

    He also said that his he thinks his life in danger because of his attacks on the US government. Which is why he continues using his real name and publishes his work on a site of a known associate of Ron Paul.

  • David Emami||

    it really isn't really anti-war at all

    Raimondo defends Russia's 2008 actions in Georgia by agreeing with the Russian claim that they moved in to protect minorities. Whether or not that's true, when the US does something like that the Rothbardians denounce it as inherently evil meddling in other people's business.

    Similarly, there's the stuff Roberts says about the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine. Any US allies are "puppet governments" in his eyes, but when the Ukrainians balk at being a Russian puppet, their protests have been "orchestrated by the CIA."

  • Adam||

    or how about the fact that the US is taking sides in the first place?

  • David Emami||

    or how about the fact that the US is taking sides in the first place?

    I'm not talking about whether it's good or bad for the US to take sides. Even if you think it's bad, that doesn't justify the Rothbardian reflex of automatically labeling as evil anyone the US sides with.

  • Adam||

    While it's not some kind of reflex for me, I personally reject almost every one of them because it's clear from the beginning (often earlier) that the US is supporting them due to political calculation, and has absolutely nothing to do with justice, in any accurate sense of the word.

    Is it a coincidence that the US usually supports some despots (read the "kingdoms" in the middle east), yet supports the opposition, when it suits them? Of course not. While I'm familiar with most of Rothbard's views, I didn't follow how he responded to specific US actions.

    You maybe correct, but we do have to ask ourselves why the US supports someone....and the answer often is that they'll forcefully impose the US's military/corportarists (read: not capitalist) interests in (insert region here). That being said, you're correct to reject "automatically labeling" them.

    Personally, I see the US support for Isreal differently, for a variety of reasons. Yet I disagree with the way every administration supports them, regardless of what they do, or how bad the Palestinian actions are.

  • Gladstone||

    Everything you said is unique to the US how? It's not like the Chinese and Russians are pure of heart in their foreign policy.

    Also US supporting a cause for cynical political reasons does not mean that the cause itself is evil. This argument isn't really anti-war since it makes it look like the problem is that the US "takes the wrong side" rather then that the US shouldn't be taking sides at all.
    Also this means that when the US switches sides (nothing unique about this either) then the Rothbardians have to switch sides too! For example they gush more about 1980s Iraq when they said the exact opposite about Iraq during that the time.

    Not to mention the Rothbardian view is that China and Russia should be able to intervene in the affairs of their neighbours. But US attempts to overthrow Castro are wrong. They use lots of tu quoque arguments as well.

  • Adam||

    Why does it have to be? I could care less if it's unique to the US or not, and it doesn't change my argument. As far as I'm concerned any outside influence in internal politics of sovereign nation is almost always bad in my opinion.

  • David Emami||

    While I'm familiar with most of Rothbard's views, I didn't follow how he responded to specific US actions.

    As I said, just assume that the US and anyone it supports is evil, and anyone it opposes is good, and you'll be able to predict the Rothbardian positions quite accurately. During the Cold War, they were just the Soviet positions with a coat of libertarian paint, and they've continued on in that tradition.

    After all, why would any libertarian -- or even semi-decent human being -- sneer at the the Iranians protesting the mullahs in 2009, as Paul Craig Roberts did? Or say that the Pussy Riot girls were "misguided" in opposing Putin, because doing so put them on the same side as the US?

  • David Emami||

    hell a portion of the people here probably agree with that statement

    Some of the Reason editors appear to agree with a milder version of it, hence their admiration for anyone who opposes US foreign policy -- for example, Gore Vidal's wonderfulness for criticizing "US imperialism."

  • Gladstone||

    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...

    Isn't saying "we" are responsible for Israel's violence rather collectivist? Also doesn't the US give aid to the Palestinians as well? How responsible are Americans for Hamas' actions then? Also isn't the US not really directly responsible for IDF's actions?

  • Alice Bowie||

    Israel must be the most touchy subject.

    The fact is, the Palestinians are victims of the HOLOCAUST.
    Had the HOLOCAUST of Germans (I mean Jews) by the Germans had not happened, 1.2million Germans (I mean Jews) would have not moved to Israel so abruptly.

    Perhaps the Palestinians should use the HOLOCAUST angle to get a free-bee.

  • Gladstone||

    Perhaps the Palestinians should use the HOLOCAUST angle to get a free-bee.

    They have.

    http://www.amazon.ca/The-Israe.....0970378424

  • Obese American||

    Why are you capitalizing that word? Are you trying to bait Jews?

  • Sevo||

    "The fact is, the Palestinians are victims of the HOLOCAUST."

    Yeah, yeah, and Gaza is a PRISON, too. Pretty sleazy attempt at redefinitions.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    How is Gaza not a prison?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Um. People can move around at will. They have satellite TV. Christ you are a stupid asshole.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Lots of prisons have satellite TV too. And as for moving around, try leaving without Israel's permission and see what happens.

  • Sevo||

    Stormy Dragon| 11.21.12 @ 8:07PM |#
    "Lots of prisons have satellite TV too. And as for moving around, try leaving without Israel's permission and see what happens."
    Uh, care to tell us why Gazans can't leave through Egypt?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Because Israel them to get visas to cross the Philadelphi Route.

  • Sevo||

    Stormy Dragon| 11.21.12 @ 6:24PM |#
    "How is Gaza not a prison?"

    How is Stormy Dragon not an ignoramus?
    Too stupid to be worth an answer.

  • RightNut||

    Why are they victims? Am I victimized when I get new neighbors?

  • Adam||

    If the government uses eminent domain to force you off of a chunk of you property, kick some of your family members out, and say they can't ever return, and then call the new inhabitants your neighbors.....then yes you'd be a victim, and I'd be calling my representatives and they'd get a, very loud, earful.

    And yes, the analogy isn't perfect, but I'm just going with what you started.

  • thinksubstance||

    Ok before anybody starts to pontificate, why don't you read the Hamas Charter:
    http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

    And you got to love this statement, "Hamas has indeed launch over 1,000 rockets into Israel, most of them blocked by Israel’s missile defense system." So because the missile defense system shot down most of the missiles, the Israelis surely can live with this inconvenience, right? I'm sorry this guy is a wack job to say it nicely. The Arabs of Palestine are in the position they are in because of a complete absence of true leadership of their people. They teach hate to their children, they honor kill their wives, they kill people for being gay, they set up rocket launchers near schools and hospitals, they stock pile weapons in mosques, and they respect no other religion except Islam. This sounds like a people America should support. I'm missing something right?

  • RightNut||

    Nope your not missing anything. Many people view the conflict threw a victim/aggressor prism, which is an insane simplification.

  • ReformRealist||

    Support? Who is saying we should support Hamas?

    What I am saying is that Israel has received hundreds of billions from the US over the years and now possesses the military technology to protect itself against any range of threats in the region. Do they still need billions more every year.

    I would also point out it is possible to criticize Israeli policy toward Gaza without supporting Hamas. i believe Israeli actions in the region are counterproductive.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    As someone you responded to in this thread:

    1) I wholeheartedly endorse cutting foreign aid to Israel *and* Palestine.

    2) I also believe that many Israeli actions in the region are unjust and counterproductive.

    The article above is not about any of those things -- rather, it attempts to make the case that the Palestinians are categorically more deserving of libertarian sympathies than Israelis. Those issues, while important, have no bearing on the OP's subject.

  • Sevo||

    The fact is that peace is available to the Palestinians any time. All they have to do is accept Israel as a sovereign state and quit attacking.
    That's all.

  • ReformRealist||

    Will there be a freeze of settlements? Will some of the stolen land be returned? Will Palestinians be given their own state or will they be given full voting rights in Israel?

    I think you are painting a picture that is a little simplistic.

  • Sevo||

    ReformRealist| 11.21.12 @ 5:57PM |#
    "Will there be a freeze of settlements?"
    Well, if the Arabs quit making attacking and losing, they wouldn't lose the land where Israelis settle, would they?

    'Will some of the *captured* land be returned?'
    FIFY

    "Will Palestinians be given their own state"
    You'd have to ask the UN about that.

    "or will they be given full voting rights in Israel?"
    Got me. I'd be a bit nervous about granting voting rights to those who swear to the eradication of me or my country.

  • ReformRealist||

    You don't believe at least some of the land Israelis have settled on is stolen? The Israeli civil administration even disagrees: http://www.haaretz.com/print-e.....s-1.239485

    Also, the settlements are internationally-recognized as being illegal and from my understanding multiple justices on Israel's high court have also concluded this: http://www.haaretz.com/news/di.....f-1.449909

    It looks like you group all Palestinian arabs into one group

  • Sevo||

    "You don't believe at least some of the land Israelis have settled on is stolen?"

    From the link:
    "Third of settlements built on land seized for 'security purposes'"
    Ah, yes. It's STOLEN! And Gaza is a PRISON! And, and, and lies on lies.
    --------------------------
    "Also, the settlements are internationally-recognized as being illegal and from my understanding multiple justices on Israel's high court have also concluded this:"

    Do you read your own links?:
    "The committee, headed by retired judge Edmond Levy, determined that construction in the occupied territories is in fact legal."
    --------------------------
    "It looks like you group all Palestinian arabs into one group"

    It looks to me like you've got some real special pleading going on here.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I'll disagree with you here. There are some very clear cases of land grabs that would make ED abuse in the US look like the model of Madisonian restraint -- and in addition, legal =/= good. I generally consider myself pro-Israel, but it's a fact that Israel's honoring of Palestinian property rights has been at best spotty.

    I would recommend this article as a brief introduction to the subject, if you are interested: http://weblaw.haifa.ac.il/he/F.....ime/14.pdf

  • Sevo||

    I will read that, but it leaves RR's links in the hole.
    Now that I look at it, how about a cite by page number or similar; the abstract isn't much help, and I'm not really interested in spending time searching for something that supports your POV.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Haven't read the article in a while, but here's a quote on the subject referring to lands within Israel:

    "``Investments that have already been made and that will be made in the future must be safeguarded. Legally unauthorized actions that have already been taken must be given legal force, in order to prevent complications and legal claims against the government or against the possessors of this absentee property. The Absentee Property Regulations and the Fallow Land Regulations are transitory regulations and prevent any possibility of using these properties permanently'' (1949).
    Lifshitz had recently argued against the return of Palestinian refugees (Morris, 1987), and he now advocated the permanent use of their property for the political and economic benefit of the state. He asserted that countries in similar situations, such as Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia had assumed vast powers in order to
    liquidate refugee property for state use and urged the Israeli Government ``to proceed in a similar manner'' as ``there is no lack of precedents''"

    Suffice it to say the enormity of the problem with property rights after 1948 was no small task to tackle even if you have the best of motivations, and any attempt to tackle the problem would have been met with sour grapes. That said, there were some bad-faith attempts to take advantage of the confusion on the part of some top-level Israeli administrators for their own ends.

  • Sevo||

    "Suffice it to say the enormity of the problem with property rights after 1948 was no small task to tackle even if you have the best of motivations,..."

    OK, sort of looks like Israel is pulling the same sort of 'eminent domain' tricks as are the US states, and it would be easy to see the Arabs are getting the short end of the stick. And the issues are far more difficult than what the US judges face.
    I'll buy that, much as I'll buy that Kelo was found by legal scholars to be crap. Problem is, well, that is the problem...
    Still doesn't back RR's claims or link.

  • ReformRealist||

    This link may also be useful for you: http://www.haaretz.com/news/co.....s-1.241487

  • Sevo||

    No, as a matter of fact that link was an appeal for donations.

  • ReformRealist||

    You might have to reload the link because about half the time it shows up as an ad.

  • ReformRealist||

    "More than one-third of West Bank settlements were built on private Palestinian land that was temporarily seized by military order for "security purposes," according to a report by the Civil Administration that is being published here for the first time."

    The land was not "temporarily seized", but was stolen and you have got to think it's doubtful they could still be justified for security purposes today. Even under the security arrangement apparently the original owner retained title to the land and must be paid rental fees for its use.

    "Until the late 1970s, most settlements were built on land seized by military order. In 1979, however, the High Court overturned a seizure order for the land on which Elon Moreh was slated to be built, saying it saw no "security necessity" for the settlement. Following that ruling, Menachem Begin's government decided that all new settlements or expansions of existing ones would be built only on state land...

    However, a Haaretz investigation found that at least 19 of the 44 settlements on the Civil Administration's list were established after 1979, which means they violated this decision. Efrat, for instance, was established in 1983."

    I would appreciate it if you read the links in detail before insulting me. My bad with the second link though. I was just trying to find a link about decisions like Dwikat vs. Government of Israel, but I posted the wrong one. At least the first article touched on it.

  • Sevo||

    ReformRealist| 11.21.12 @ 9:05PM |#
    ..."I would appreciate it if you read the links in detail before insulting me."...

    Uh, no, it is not my intent or obligation to search through pages of copy to find a nugget which you hope support your claims. If you have such evidence, let's see it.
    So far, I've seen conflicting evidence, including (as mentioned) an obvious suggestion that Arabs are getting less than equal treatment; /= organized land theft, just normal government grabs.

    "Also, in any case the settlements are still recognized as being illegal by the international community."
    Uh, yeah, I'm sure whiners world-wide are griping. So what? Is this a Lit-Crit issue?

  • Sevo||

    See date stamp regarding this reply compared to another.

    "More than one-third of West Bank settlements were built on private Palestinian land that was temporarily seized by military order for "security purposes," according to a report by the Civil Administration that is being published here for the first time."
    The land was not "temporarily seized", but was stolen"

    That's your claim, nothing more
    -------------------------
    "Until the late 1970s, most settlements were built on land seized by military order. In 1979, however, the High Court overturned a seizure order for the land on which Elon Moreh was slated to be built, saying it saw no "security necessity" for the settlement. Following that ruling, Menachem Begin's government decided that all new settlements or expansions of existing ones would be built only on state land...
    However, a Haaretz investigation found that at least 19 of the 44 settlements on the Civil Administration's list were established after 1979, which means they violated this decision. Efrat, for instance, was established in 1983."

    Yep, surprising! One part of the government disagrees with the other!

  • ReformRealist||

    The point is that the Israeli government repeatedly violated the precedent set by the Israeli High Court ruling in Dwikat vs Government of Israel by building and/or allowing the 19 settlements talked about above.

    Also, if this land was only "temporarily seized" it sure has been seized for a lengthy amount of time.

  • ReformRealist||

    Also, in any case the settlements are still recognized as being illegal by the international community.

  • RightNut||

    Their have been at least two major attempts at peace in the last 15 years. In 2000, Ehud Barak reached a deal with the PLO to give them statehood, however at the last moment Arafat demanded the Palestinian right of return, something he knew the Israeli's would never allow. That ended that attempt and launched the 2nd intifada.

    In 2007-8 the Olmert government tried to negotiate a peace treaty, which would have done land trades to account for Israeli settlements. This deal would have given 95% of the west bank and gaza as the Palestinian state. The talks stalled again of the right of return, and then ended when Olmert resigned.

    From those two experiences, it seems pretty clear the Israeli's want peace, and are willing to do everything but slit their own throats for it. The Palestinians may want peace, but on terms that would eliminate Israel.

    Its also a good idea to mention that Hamas is much more militant and less likely to agree to a peace deal than the PLO.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Your honor, on two occasions I attempted to enter into negotiations for the victim to give me all of his money. His failure to agree to either of these deals clearly demonstrates that he was not serious about peace, which is why I had to shoot him in self defense and take his wallet.

  • Sevo||

    Stormy Dragon| 11.21.12 @ 6:28PM |#
    'Your honor, on two occasions I (the Palestinians) attempted to enter into negotiations for the victim (Israel) to give me all of his money.'
    I presume that's what you mean, since that's the fact.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    There's a better chance of all of those things happening if Palestinians don't fire rockets at civilians.

  • Adam||

    Actually, Palestinian refugees from the '67 war, and later events, will not be allowed to returned no matter what the Palestinians do....and Israel has made this clear.

  • ||

    Will Palestinians be given their own state

    I am pretty sure a state is one of those things that can't be made and given to someone...it is one of those things you have to make for yourself.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The Palestinians don't deserve a state.

  • Calidissident||

    You sure do love being the Final Moral Arbiter on everything don't you?

  • Brutus||

    Are you bonkers? Every jihad-crazed, lunatic authoritarian pack of gangsters in the Mideast deserve a state.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    What I get from this piece is:

    1) the author blames Israel for a blockade of Gaza, though Gaza has borders with Egypt and Jordan Israel does not control

    and

    2) it is Israel's fault that it spends money on an anti missile shield for its citizens, while Hamas, the Palestinians, and Iran spend money on rockets to shoot into Israel, instead of on their own anti missile weapons, instead hoping to use their own children as innocent shields.

  • ||

    Gaza does not border Jordan.

  • ReformRealist||

    Hasn't Egypt pretty much ended their enforcement of the blockade after the removal of Mubarak whom was a dictator? Jordan is also ruled by a monarch, so I don't know how much popular will was involved in regards to these countries enforcing the blockade.

  • Sevo||

    ReformRealist| 11.21.12 @ 5:59PM |#
    "Hasn't Egypt pretty much ended their enforcement of the blockade after the removal of Mubarak whom was a dictator?"

    I think Egypt's 'enforcement' was always more noise than activity. Those tunnels could have been shut down in Eygpt without a lot of effort.

  • Alice Bowie||

    If I were to come to your house and by force and the will of the everyone else (except you)
    - moved your family into the basement
    - forced you to shut up and take what i give you
    - tell you that you are welcome to leave and can't use the yard
    - justify this by saying that I lived there 20 years ago

    What would you do if you were un-armed?
    Would you leave quietly?
    Would you stand up and Fight?

    Me, I would leave.

  • RightNut||

    That's an idiotic analogy. And I think your smart enough to know it too.

  • Alice Bowie||

    It is truly the same thing.
    And, there's no sheriff to come to your rescue. And, God wants it that way.

  • RightNut||

    Fine, I'll bite.

    -moved your family into the basement.

    Most Arabs fled Israel for Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon after the Israel state was declared. Many influential Jews tried to convince Arabs to stay in Israel. Some did, which is why over a million Arabs are Israeli citizens.

    Forced You to shutup and take what I give you - Huh? The Palestinians are probably the most vocal group on earth. How have they been shutup?

    Tell you are welcome to leave and cant use the yard - You are on crack. Please save your gobbledygook for another forum. Once again, many of Israelis founders wanted the Arabs to stay.

    Justify this by saying I lived there 20 years ago - You make it sound like the ONLY reason Israel takes the action it does because they feel they have a right to the land because Jews have lived their before. It may be a reason for claiming Jerusalem as the capital(their are many others) but it certainly is not the only one.

  • Xmas||

    To be fair, many influential Arabs were telling the Palestinians that the Jews were about to do lots of terrible things. And the Zionists were doing some terrible things to the British, like blowing up trains.

  • Sevo||

    Xmas| 11.21.12 @ 8:04PM |#
    "To be fair..."
    Cite(s) with some context, please.

  • Adam||

  • Adam||

  • ||

    Given the obesity epidemic in Gaza, the calorie/food restriction stuff seems like utter bullshit.

  • Mike M.||

    Frankly, this journal is getting worse by the day.

  • jdgalt||

    This is complete, anti-Semitic BS. Israel has had just cause for all its wars, and has cause to exterminate Hamas and conquer Iran now.

    And the club of dictators (AKA UN General Assembly) does not equal world opinion, nor should it matter if it did.

  • Metazoan||

    snore, opposing Israel is anti-semitism blahblahblah

  • Sevo||

    "snore, opposing Israel is anti-semitism"

    See A.B. above: "The fact is, the Palestinians are victims of the HOLOCAUST."
    While I support the Israelis (given that they are not the aggressors), there is no lack of hyperbole on either side.

  • Metazoan||

    Sure that is hyperbole. That doesn't make it right on either side.

  • ||

    True enough. Claiming some second Holocaust has gone on here and claiming that any criticism of Israel or Israeli actions must be ant-Semitism: they're both B.S.

  • Metazoan||

    The only thing I have to say about this conflict is that the US has no place here.

    And for the record, neither Israel nor Palestine is a libertarian paradise.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    While that's true, Arab and Palestinian gays and Christians and Jews fare better in Israel than they do in Gaza.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Jews fare better in Israel than Gaza? No way!

  • sticks||

    But which side can correctly say how old the earth is? Whichever side can must be in the right.

  • ||

    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.

    whoooooaaaaaa there big guy.

    If an army of soldiers killed 12 civilians then another army kills 50 soldiers of the original army then in your view the 50 soldiers are greater then the 12 civilians.

    Also if someone comes at me with a gun and i kill him defending myself in your view my reaction is greater as well.

    This is not how it works....nor do i think this is consistent with libertarian thought.

    If you are going to use proportional morality then you must explain the context. The aggressor and defender are not morally equivalent.

  • Brian from Texas||

    I'm certainly not the most hawkish person in the world nor do I think Israel is 100% blameless. But when someone hits me I hit back. So why shouldn't the Israeli people, who are being hit by terrorists for no other reason than for being Jewish, hit back also?

  • Bruce Majors for Congress (DC)||

    Because Jews alone have no right to self defense. They alone are evil if they resort to using the police power of a state, when the state has monopolized all defense services. They alone must die because of the alleged misdeeds of their ancestors.

    It's a deep Christian ethical imperative apparently.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    But when someone hits me I hit back.

    Yes, but if they hit you because you were in the process of robbing them, it ceases to be self defense. Israel's continued expansion into Palestinian land has nothing to do with security, and as long as it continues it weakens any claim they have to self defense.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's not Palestinian land. There is no legitimate Palestinian state.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    CYTO EST LOCUTA

  • Stormy Dragon||

    So, the rights to property ownership don't come from the state. If you've enclosed and improved a parcel of land, you are its owner. And if someone else comes and chases you off it with violence, they are stealing it, regardless of what "legitimate state" has authorized it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And if someone else comes and chases you off it with violence, they are stealing it, regardless of what "legitimate state" has authorized it.

    Which is what the Romans did to the indigenous people of Judea and Samaria...or is there some sort of statue of limitations for forced exile and genocide than I'm not aware of?

  • Sevo||

    Stormy Dragon| 11.21.12 @ 6:34PM |#
    "Israel's continued expansion into Palestinian land has nothing to do with security, and as long as it continues it weakens any claim they have to self defense."

    You really don't think anyone's dumb enough to swallow that, do you?
    The "expansion" is lands captured after attack by Arabs; absent those attacks, there is no "expansion".
    So, no, there is no weakening of claims of self defense.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    If I get mugged in Philly, that doesn't justify me kicking some completely unrelated person out of their home and moving in because they happen to be the same ethnic extraction as the mugger. Likewise, the fact that Israeli A was attacked by Palestinian B doesn't justify Israeli C taking over Palestinian D's farm.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That would be a great analogy if that accurately described the history of Israeli settlement of Judea and Samaria, but it doesn't at all.

  • Sevo||

    Stormy Dragon| 11.21.12 @ 8:02PM |#
    ..."Likewise, the fact that Israeli A was attacked by Palestinian B doesn't justify Israeli C taking over Palestinian D's farm."...

    Now, here is a request for national moral purity I'm sure I've seen before:
    A nation, attacked by its neighbors, and successful in driving off that attack, is to make specific judgements about whether the individual citizen of that neighbor supported the attack?
    Uh, you've gone beyond any sort of claim for neutrality; you're now working on fantasy.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    If they're going to punish them by siezing their property, then yes. In fact looting civilian property during wartime is a war crime under the Geneva Convention.

  • Sevo||

    Stormy Dragon| 11.21.12 @ 10:20PM |#
    "If they're going to punish them by siezing their property, then yes. In fact looting civilian property during wartime is a war crime under the Geneva Convention."

    Fail. Sorry, you are too much of a lying asshole to bother with a response.
    If you think your 'clever' answer means something, well, stuff it sup your ass. I'm tired of trying to educate ignoramuses.

  • ReformRealist||

    In this statement you are only taking the Jewish perspective. This ignores the issues of land, blockade, unequal rights before the law , etc.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    None of which has anything to do with whether a response *in this particular circumstance* is justified.

    FFS, dude, Gaza hasn't had an Israeli settler in the past 7 years and was guaranteed a level of autonomy to the point of being allowed to vote genocidal lunatics like Hamas into power.

    The blockade might be excessive in some cases, but the fault for it can be laid entirely at the feet of Hamas.

  • ReformRealist||

    There is disagreement over when this current cycle of violence started and it looks to be unclear to me, so I can't comment extensively on your first point.

    If it is excessive then the fault lies with Jewish policy makers. I don't like Hamas at all, but it isn't as if they wrote the rules for the blockade.

    From my understanding Hamas was elected due to a perceived failing by Fatah to deliver economically as well as in obtaining a Palestinian state. I'm also sure anger/hate towards Israel had a lot to do with it, but I fear policies like the blockade (and the settlements for that matter) only make problems worse for Israel in terms of crafting a lasting peace as it raises resentment and tensions.

  • Sevo||

    ReformRealist| 11.21.12 @ 6:50PM |#
    "There is disagreement over when this current cycle of violence started"

    Only among those stupid enough to presume so.
    Don't bother trying to sell that bullshit; no one is buying a beef cut that thin.

  • ReformRealist||

    Enlighten us on the exact event that started it then.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That would be the assassination of al-Jabari on the 14th, no?

  • ReformRealist||

    Wouldn't that make Israel the aggressor in this cycle of violence, which I'm not sure is a position Sevo would support.

  • Sevo||

    ReformRealist| 11.21.12 @ 9:02PM |#
    "Enlighten us on the exact event that started it then."

    Dipshit, the "current" cycle of violence started when Hamas continued to lob rockets into Israel and Israel got fed up with it.
    Is that so hard to under stand?

  • ReformRealist||

    I was looking for a specific incident, but I feel as if we have covered pretty much all we can.

  • Adam||

    Your the dipshit....that's not at all how it started. For someone who is so "tired of trying to educate ignoramusus" you sure don't have a grasp on the relavent facts.

    It started well before that:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=___cwmIRgj8

  • Sevo||

    ReformRealist| 11.21.12 @ 9:02PM |#
    "Enlighten us on the exact event that started it then."

    Put it another way:
    Enlighten us when Hamas will stop lobbing rockets into Israel and will accept Israel as a sovereign nation.
    IOWs, when will Hamas act like a decent civilization? When will that be? When will Israel not have to worry about rockets flying into civilian areas?
    When, exactly, will Hamas act like a decent neighbor?

  • ReformRealist||

    Hamas is a terrible organization, so I have no idea if they ever will change, but I feel as Israeli policies like the blockade exacerbate the the tensions.

  • Sevo||

    ReformRealist| 11.21.12 @ 10:35PM |#
    ..."but I feel"...
    Therein lies the problem. Try thinking

  • ReformRealist||

    I have thought about it and I've concluded I don't support collective punishment.

  • Lewisite||

    "but I feel as Israeli policies like the blockade exacerbate the the tensions."

    Yeah,...nothing dissuades a 'sworn' enemy's murderous onslaughts like laying supine and begging for rational discourse, or hoping they will ‘go away’...if only Israel would be the "bigger man" and simply try. Crushing a genocidal death cult's ability to wage war against you is counterproductive, and only angers them further. War is an ugly affair; best left to the military...the incessant need to scrub and sterilize it is the realm of politicians and armchair pundits.

  • ReformRealist||

    Israel's current strategy towards Gaza does not seem to be making any significant strides towards a lasting peace deal.

    Also, if Israel wants to go after Hamas then I suggest they try something other than a blockade that punishes all Gazans. All Gazans are subject to the same severe travel restrictions, import restrictions, etc. regardless of whether they are a part of Hamas or even support them.

  • ReformRealist||

    I should have said Israeli perspective

  • JeremyR||

    My problem is that Israel seems to get singled out for this sort of criticism.

    How is the Palestinian situation any different than the Kurds in Turkey?

    You have a people who have lived there basically forever (it's called Kurdistan), you have invaders coming in and conquering the place (earlier, 1400s vs 1950, but still not quite ancient history, since we constantly hear from Hispanics about how evil Anglos are), trying to repress their culture.

    And while the Kurds are certainly terrorists, they are the IRA sort, targeting mostly military and paramilitary targets. Not civilians first like the Palestinians do.

    So why is there no criticism of Turkey, or even coverage in the press of what they do to the Kurds? You have to pretty much search for it, it never makes the headlines. No one ever brings it up. But it's as bad as anything Israel does.

    I lost any sympathy for the Palestinians when they blew up a disco. Dance music is pretty much some of the most apolitical, inclusive stuff there is (with a few exceptions like Paul Van Dyk after he became a douche), and blowing it up was just despicable.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Same goes for Turkey in Northern Cyprus and to a limited extent East Thrace, for that matter.

  • ReformRealist||

    Isn't the treatment of the Kurds by Turkey one of the issues holding up their bid for membership in the EU?

  • RightNut||

    How often do you see convoys of protesters going to Kurdistan to show solidarity with the Kurds?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Officially, yes. Unofficially, no one in Europe wants a situation where Turkish immigration to their countries is unfiltered.

    They let in Romania and are in the process of letting Moldova in despite a whole raft of human rights problems that both countries have. (Same goes for a few of the countries in the Balkans, but I'm too lazy to go look them up.)

  • Cytotoxic||

    Turkey treats the Kurd much worse than the Israel treats palis.

  • Adam||

    Actually that's not entirely true. They treat members of militant Kurdish groups harshly, but actually they let the average Kurdish citizen of Turkey travel freely within Turkey. This alone makes them better off than every single Palestinian that is not a Israeli citizen.

  • Drake||

    So if Palestine becomes a state... what happens the first time they start lobbing mortars and rockets? Does Israel declare war and smash them flat?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Sure. Why is Israel so afraid of that eventuality?

  • Drake||

    They are afraid that a sovereign Palestine will acquire significant amounts of WMD materials. That a real war would cost Israel a sizable chunk of their civilian population before the Israeli military sterilized Palestine.

    That would make me a little nervous to.

  • Oso Politico||

    So, libertarians that favor open borders for the US presumably favor them for Israel also - nicht wahr?

  • Sevo||

    Oso Politico| 11.21.12 @ 7:54PM |#
    "So, libertarians that favor open borders for the US presumably favor them for Israel also - nicht wahr?"

    I'm sure you can say "false equivalence", right?
    adjective \ˈfȯls\, noun \i-ˈkwiv(-ə)-lən(t)s\
    Tulpa, is this you? The sophistry has a certain smell to it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Considering this whole war started from closed borders....

  • Drake||

    You sure?

    The closed borders only dictate WHERE it started.

  • Adam||

    Not exactly...it also dictates part of the reason it started. If you really want to understand how you can come and try to enter a security checkpoint into the West Bank with me sometime. Then we can discuss all of the different ways Israeli soldiers treat even clearly peaceful Palestinians as enemies.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    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.

    Glaser writes such a lie and doesn't even feel it necessary to provide evidence to give his lie the illusion of truth. To him, engaging in Judeophobic blood libel is justified if it fits his twisted narrative of "social justice".

    Meanwhile, in reality, Palestinians in Gaza drag corpses through the streets in a grizzly display, as 8-year-old Egyptians praise the jihadist death cult of martyrdom.

    In a sane and just world, John Glaser would be set upon and brutally beaten and sodomized by that same braying mob of Gazan savages before his eventual painful death, of which afterwards, his corpse would dragged through the streets like Hector before the gates of Troy, but without the post-mortem protection of Apollo and Aphrodite.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    *grisly...damn auto-correct

  • Stormy Dragon||

    How is calling for the torture, mutilation, and execution of someone for the crime of writing an article you disagree with any less savage than the Palestinians and Egyptians you're complaining about?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm not calling for anything. I'm just making an observation about appropriate karmic justice, as befitting my role as the Left Hand of Buddha.

  • Robert Jordan||

    Caution: I'm neither Libertarian nor bleeding heart.

    Israel took control of the "territories" after yet another attempt by their neighbors to attack Israel, an attempt which Israel defeated by launching a large scale spoiling attack in 1967 which got the jump on their aggressors. (Would you patiently wait for your assailant to begin clubbing you before shooting him? Neither did the Israelis.)

    I am not aware of Israeli "violence and abuse of Palestinians" approaching, much less surpassing Palestinian violence by some "immeasurable" amount. Perhaps it is immeasurable on account of it being imaginary?

    - Hamas is scum. When bad things happen to Hamas, I count it as good things happening to the world.

    - Other than the (infuriating) U.S.S. Liberty incident, the Israelis don't shoot at Americans. Being an American, (though less enthusiastically of late), I certainly appreciate it.

    - Hipster, whiny, occutard types like to identify with some nebulous "Palestinian" cause, though they couldn't articulate a coherent description of said cause if they had to. Offending them gives me a nice, comfortable warm feeling all over.

    Did you know that it was a Hamas member who received the first ever call on a smart phone?

  • Lewisite||

    Twelve rockets hit Israel after truce

    That didn't take long, now did it? Now what was that you were saying about the heavy handed Israelis vs. the misunderstood Palestinians, ReformRealist?

  • Lewisite||

    "Hamas says 'Israel failed in its goals', thanks Iran"

    LOL Hamas...."I'am bleeding, making me the victor!

  • RightNut||

    The truce will allow Hamas to rearm with more Iranian rockets. Hamas doesn't care that they lost 150 people. Long term they know if they can arm themselves with enough rockets they will be nearly immune from Israeli attack and be able to force concessions. Or spark a major ground invasion of Gaza, which Hamas also wants.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "The truce will allow Hamas to rearm with more Iranian rockets"

    Exactly. The only reason they ever want a "truce" is when they start getting their asses kicked it gives them a chance to regroup. They've been playing that game for ever and they always get the international community to back them when they do that.

  • Lyle||

    Fuck Hamas. Libertarians who don't support Israel are immoral imbeciles.

    Y'all are like Northern Democrats or Republicans who were not fully committed to the abolition of slavery.

    Frederick Douglass would verbally abuse you lot if he were alive today.

  • ||

    Shorter Lyle: "Any criticism of Israel's actions is like not being against slavery."

  • Lyle||

    A smarter darius404 would have written: "Any criticism of Israel's action against Hamas is like not being against slavery".

    You're a stupid, immoral person whoever you are. You can't even use your real name. Haha.

  • Lewisite||

    Have you been drinking?

  • Lyle||

    Is that against the law or something?

    And no I have not been drinking, but I'm about to start. You going to call the cops or something?

  • Lewisite||

    No, drinking isn't illegal. I just didn't understand your rationale in your posts...so I assumed were probably drunk, and angry.

  • Lyle||

    Maybe you should articulate what it is you don't understand about my posts rather than asking me if I'm drinking. Yeah?

  • Lyle||

    Hamas dragging an executed Gazan through the street.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....g-mob.html

  • SIV||

    OT question for all you cosmo liberaltarians:

    Do you consider yourself a "religious freedom absolutist"?
    Just wondering because when it comes to individual liberty I'm kinda an "absolutist" about everything.

  • Lewisite||

    Absolut vodka?

  • waaminn||

    Sometimes you jsut gotta roll with the punches dude.
    www.Privacy-Max.tk

  • Sevo||

    Headline: "Hamas cries victory; truce with Israel holds"
    "Hamas leaders in Gaza declared victory over Israel on Thursday, and thousands of flag-waving supporters rallied in celebration..."
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/wor.....058989.php

    Some victory. 'The war has progressed not necessarily to Japan's advantage...'

  • mongconnennguoi.com||

  • Beezard||

    Cut US funding to both sides. Then it's not an American libertarian issue any longer.

    It's not our job to subsidize Israel's weird militant racial socialism. They have their own agenda and would chop us off at the heels if there were 2 bits in it for them.

    Conversely, it's not really any of our business how they defend themselves. And I have yet to hear one reasonable reason for them having any real strategic value as an ally (beyond mutterings of oil or they're more like us).

    And frankly, we're robbing ourselves of the ironic cosmic comedy that unfolds when Israel has to choose between enslavement, dispersement, or annhilation of a troublesome minority within their borders.

  • Beezard||

    (the assumption being of course that once they invade Gaza, it will be within their borders, or some sort of controlled buffer state. Either way they inherit the population)

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Let me ask a question. If the Palestinians were to decide "Screw the whole JOOOOOO-killing thing. It just hasn't worked out all that well for us. Let's just try to build a functioning society, instead.", what do people think would be the outcome of that course of action? My guess is that you would hear a giant sigh of relief from the Israeli side of the border and see the gradual (or not so gradual) removal of the checkpoints, travel restrictions and embargoes. You'd probably see diminished support for the Israeli settlements and massive improvements in the standard of living of the average Palestinian.
    Now, let's imagine what the outcome would be if the Israelis decided "Screw this entire restricting the Palestinians thing. Let's cease all military action against Palestinian targets and remove any travel or trade restrictions we currently have on them." Do people think the consequences would be as rosy? I'm inclined to think not.
    Any conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that doesn't recognize this as a basic starting point, is kidding themselves.

  • American||

    God I hate libertarian socialism. "Bleeding heart libertarians." WTF? This is just a ploy to turn liberals into libertarians or(more likely) visa versa.
    "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"
    It's called winning a war. Dumbass.
    "Secondly, Americans are supporting and giving sanction to Israel’s violence"
    Sure, none of our money went to feeding all those palestinian suicide bombers.
    "Israel decided they voted the wrong way "
    They also shot rockets into Israel's territory. But that wouldn't fit the narrative.

  • American||

    It's wierd to hear libertarians crying about israel's not letting steel and concrete into gaza. Who's paying for that steel and concrete? Our government, which woulodn't happen if BHL had it's way

  • American||

    Hey bleeding hart liberals, would you have opposed the blockade of Germany? Answer the fucking question

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement