Can Moshe Feiglin Reconcile Libertarianism With Militant Israeli Nationalism?

The deputy speaker of the Knesset takes a hard line on individual freedom-and Gaza.


Moshe Feiglin
Public Domain/????????

A member of the governing Likud party and a long-time rival of its chairman, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Moshe Feiglin currently serves as the Knesset's (Israeli parliament) deputy speaker. An advocate of personal liberty and self-identified libertarian on domestic policy, he's also a hawk who makes headlines with his hard-line stance toward Palestinians.

Feiglin has been vocal supporter of Israel's current military operation in Gaza and recently advocated turning Gaza into a new Yafo, a peaceful enclave in the southern part of Tel Aviv, largely inhabited by Israeli Arabs.

"There are two factors," Feiglin tells me about the conflict in Gaza. "Historically, Gaza has always part of Israel. There's no difference between Gaza and Yafo, for example, except that Yafo was recaptured in 1948. The whole discussion should be about rightness, not about occupation. Gaza belongs to the Jews."

In an open letter to PM Netanyahu, Feiglin argued for the killing of Hamas fighters and their supporters. Following the operation, hostile Palestinian families would be deported to a number of countries, first passing through tent encampments near the border with Egypt. After the operation Gaza would become a "flourishing Israeli city with a minimum of hostile residents," Feiglin wrote.

Feiglin's solution sparked outrage in Israel and abroad. In response, Feiglin told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he's not advocating for genocide, but for removal. Feiglin's views seem to be rooted in the idea that to plant the seeds of a liberal order you must remove Hamas and those who fight Israel and bank on those who accept Israel's presence.

Whether this is feasible morally or operationally is another matter.

Controversial and unique

Indeed, Feiglin, a regular guest on Israeli TV and an eloquent and calm orator, is commonly perceived as one of the more controversial figures in Israeli politics. Politically he is a mixed bag, accompanying his hawkishness with strong emphasis on personal liberty within the state of Israel.

His brand of Orthodox Judaism coupled with a strong belief in domestic freedom within the rule of law, stand out among his peers on the right. For example, Feiglin has been an advocate of legalizing marijuana and ending U.S. aid to Israel. He also advocates ending the military draft, and calls for "free market capitalism tempered by charity."

When high-profile politicians such as Danny Danon and foreign minister Avigdor Liberman pushed for a loyalty oath or a biometric ID, Feiglin lamented that such laws would endanger the rights of the individual.

In fact, Feiglin has warned that "whoever thinks that the state is the supreme value edges uncomfortably close to fascism."

Perhaps the guiding principle of Feiglin's domestic political philosophy is best encapsulated by a Ralph Waldo Emerson quote that can be found on his office wall in the Knesset: "Good men mustn't obey the laws too well."

"The quote applies to everything," Feiglin assures me. "Every responsible citizen should understand that we need laws, but on the other hand the country's political leadership should know that laws are not a religion. And most laws we simply don't keep so well."

Feiglin's positions may seem confusing because the Israeli political milieu, while deeply tribal, is broadly perceived—among pundits and constituents alike—as a battle between the right, seen as anti-Arab and religious, and the left, viewed as secular and pro-peace.

In addition to such simplified perceptions, politicians are defined and remembered for past indiscretions. In the eyes of Tel Aviv's left-leaning middle class, both Netanyahu and Feiglin are recalled for their opposition to the Oslo peace process of the 1990s.

However, now that even some of the chief architects of Oslo are speaking publicly against the peace process, Feiglin might find himself absolved of past sins while the antipathy towards Netanyahu runs deeper and is unlikely to change.

American parallels

There are some distinct similarities between the U.S. and Israel. Unlike other western style democracies, both countries have religious elements mixed in their founding principles. For an American observer, the rise of men like Feiglin is comparable to the rise of personalities, like bombastic tea party favorites Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio in the U.S., who see a need to reconnect to those historical roots.

Feiglin asks Israeli Jews to embrace Judaism in order to gain and retain a deeper understanding of the role and purpose of the modern state of Israel.

"I want Israel to be a peaceful country, but enemies must fear us. The society must have a high moral level. It's not only about technology [Israel is known for its dynamic hi-tech/start-up sector]. The basis of the society must be liberty and this should be the main message," Feiglin says.

What about the special relationship?

While Feiglin clearly wishes to cultivate Israel's close relationship with the U.S., he is adamant about ending American aid to Israel.

"Israel, since 1967 has had a special connection to the U.S.. We've had 40 years of good relations, but at the same time, it's is built on the wrong concept: a concept of a big brother or even a father. This must come to an end. While we have common values and common interests, the relationship should be based on mutual respect," Feiglin laments.

According to Feiglin most of the aid Israel receives serves the interests of the American patron.

"It's not really aid. It's called aid for psychological reasons. Jews don't want to feel alone. We have no economic need for it. In actuality, the so-called aid is harming us by not letting us determine independently our security concerns. For example, Israel is planning to buy the U.S.-made F-35 fighter plane. Israel does not need this plane; it is forced upon us by the Americans. The plane works only with American-made missiles therefore harming our capability to conduct aviation warfare effectively."

Political prospects

Feiglin's hard-line views might be an easier sell in the eyes of the skeptical Israeli left when accompanied with emphasis on freedoms such as privacy, voluntary military service, and legalized marijuana. His libertarianism on economics and social issues puts him at odds with the Israeli mainstream, but might also add to his appeal to the disillusioned left, still in search of its post-Oslo identity.

In fact, when I ask my left-leaning friends in Tel Aviv how they feel about him, the answer is usually a few seconds pause followed by confused and uncharacteristically disjointed answers.

Indeed, while Feiglin's particular brand of libertarian-infused Orthodox Judaism is unique in Israeli politics, one wonders why there are so few with such views.

"Good news is that since I started my message of combining freedom and classical liberalism it has been catching on quite well. Revolutions often start from one man. Until now, we in Israel have been stuck in old conflicts," Feiglin says, hinting that the time might be ripe for a political shift.

It is difficult to categorize Feiglin as an advocate of one particular political ideology. He espouses extreme views towards the Palestinians, but advocates for a small state at home. He is unlike anyone else in Israeli politics.

Feiglin is an anomaly and for now, he has no place on Israel's traditional political spectrum, and may be denied higher office as a result. After all, in order to become a prime minister, one must moderate and often sacrifice one's views. In light of this, it's unlikely that Member of Knesset Feiglin will become Prime Minister Feiglin any time soon.

NEXT: Refusing to Negotiate With "Terrorists," Adam Carolla Continues His War on Patent Trolls

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. An advocate of personal liberty and self-identified libertarian on domestic policy, he’s also a hawk who makes headlines with his hard-line stance toward Palestinians.

    In other words, he’s not a libertarian.

    1. Anti-Pali is pro-freedom.

      1. I agree. Some libertarians still don’t understand how they acquire and have liberty.

        1. No, no, no.

          Liberty is a suicide pact and you’re not truly free till death.

        2. Americans don’t “acquire and have liberty” by messing around in Middle Eastern conflicts.

          I have no idea who is right or wrong in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It simply isn’t America’s business.

          1. Are you thinking that he is American or that only Americans can be Libertarian?
            I’m not getting where ‘America’s business’ comes into this article other than he doesn’t want any more American aide.

    2. In other words, he’s a Jew who is not going to put his neck to the sword or stumble onto that train.

      Or maybe you define “libertarian” as “someone who is too stupid to live.”

      But thanks to adding to the libertarian purity test. We don’t have enough asinine rules already.

      1. “he’s a Jew who is not going to put his neck to the sword or stumble onto that train.”

        How do you explain his support for policies that have failed? The rockets are still flying from Gaza. Stopping them was the stated purpose of the current (and previous) operations. The unstated purpose, isolating Hamas, has been disastrous, with Hamas gaining in West Bank, Europe and America.

        What is it with the Jewish sense of survival, whether it is voluntarily boarding trains for Auschwitz in 1945, or Moshe touting policies that accomplish the opposite of what he says he wants? In Moshe’s case, the answer may lie in his Libertarianism. As an individual and a politician, he does well out of these failures. He gains fame and influence. I’d never heard of him couple months ago. What the rest of the Jews think they get out of the failed policies, I don’t know.

        1. Hamas gaining in West Bank, Europe and America.


          The only failed strategy here is allowing Hamas to exist ie your strategy. Moshe wants something new fresh and effective ie ending Hamas.

          1. Go to twitter and check out the photos of pro-Hamas demos.

            You think, really, that the recent operation has brought the goal of ending Hamas closer to realization? As I say go to twitter and have a dig around there.

            1. Oh some demonstrations in a backwards continent that has always been hostile to Israel and the Jews. Oh noes. I am sure Israel is trembling in its feet.

              You think, really, that the recent operation has brought the goal of ending Hamas closer to realization?

              As is, no. That’s why Israel must use total war to root Hamas out of the strip and WB. Then it will be exiled like the PFLP and all the other has-been alphabet soup groups.

              1. ” That’s why Israel must use total war to root Hamas out of the strip and WB”

                Root out Hamas and leave the peace-loving Palestinians to stay? Who’s going to do this? Dreams can be comforting, I’m sure those Auschwitz-bound Jews had high hopes for the hot meals, warm beds and productive labour that the Nazis promised them.

                1. “If we just work hard enough, the NAZIs will come to see the error in hating us”.

                  1. Yes, and if we just kill enough sleeping children, the good people of Palestine will rise up against their Hamas oppressors.

                    I understand how fanatical Zionists would swallow this line, but American Libertarians?

                    1. This always amazes me. Every nation under terror attack has hardened against the attackers, yet they turn around and apply the same terror to their attackers, justifying it as “it will work this time because we have God and Justice on our side.”

                      How any so-called libertarian can think total war will work, this time, is beyond me, especially when they are the same ones who mock socialists for thinking it will work This Time, because Top Men.

                    2. How any so-called libertarian can think total war will work, this time

                      No one has waged total war since the US in WWII.

                    3. umm the VC? Pol Pot? Chairman Mao? Uganda? lots of people have waged total war since WWII.

                    4. American libertarians shouldn’t concern themselves with this b.s. at all. It’s not America’s business.

                    5. American libertarians shouldn’t concern themselves with this b.s. at all. It’s not America’s business.

          2. if not Hamas it will be another group. Rather than failing time and time again to address the real issues, you advocate the repeatedly failed policies of aggression.

            Hint: you can not kill an idea.

            1. Hint: you can not kill an idea.

              Yep, murderous savages will be with us always.

            2. I have the bodies of German and Japanese nationalism that say otherwise.

            3. You can kill enough of an idea’s adherents to make them cower, powerless, in some diluted corner of the web like, say, Stormfront.

    3. Oh, I’m sure someone is acting in self defense. I’m just not sure who that is.

      1. It’s Israel.

        1. Oh yes, and the Palestinians say it is them, because Israel kicked them out in 1948, and built that stupid apartheid wall, and so on. The Israelis will say We Were Here First, and Palestinians will say Then How Did We Get Here Unless You Left, and the Israelis will say Only Since Muhammed and mention King David and Moses, and on and on it will go.

          Claiming any kind of absolute moral righteousness is pathetically stupid.

          1. Israel didn’t kick them out in 48, they left before the war started so they wouldn’t be killed in the massacre of the Jews. Only they didn’t get their way did they?

    4. Yes he is. He is a libertarian that doesn’t have his head up his ass re foreign policy and lives in the real world, unlike some commenters.

      1. how do you kill an idea?

  2. It’s another question of whether the ends justify the means…I mean, it’s pretty clear that there would be a lot less violence in general if the Palestinians and Israelis didn’t live near one another, but killing indiscriminately anyone labeled a Hamas supporter and then systematically deporting most non-Jews seems a little extreme DYT?

    1. Wouldn’t they identify themselves?

  3. What’s a little ethnic cleansing and genocide as long the Chosen Ones can smoke pot right?

    1. Genocide? Oh please just fuck off. Killing Hamas its supporters (collateral damage) is not genocide you ignoramus, even if one disagrees vehemently with that strategy.

      And sending violent, armed, terrorist palis out of the area so that peaceful Arabs and Jews can dwell is not ethnic cleansing.

      Take Lew Rockwell’s balls out of your mouth and perhaps you’ll make more sense.

      1. You should chill bro. You’re going to have a heart attack while simultaneously sounding like a retard. That’s rare and embarrassing.

        1. Hitler killed thousands of weak people like you.

          1. Are you saying Jews are weak? or that those who gave them shelter were weak? or retarded people or gypsies or blacks were weak? These are all types of people he systematically killed, so I’m trying to determine which one you’re calling weak in order to create the comparison…

            1. Right on cue, here comes the ol’ “But Hitler killed lotsa other people” canard.

              Right, because the Nazis went out of their way to accede to power based on their virulent hatred of the Gypsies or the less than 10000 blacks in Germany.


      2. The events make me think of elements of European history on steroids, from the Shah to the current IS. Playing catchup. Maybe this is wishful thinking.

        Europe has gone through several stages of homogenization over the last 50’000 years. Additionally, we continuously sent off our more reckless members at various points (e.g.: the Crusades). Perhaps this is what is happening.

        Secularization (in institutions) will come to the ME in time. As we all know, technology, globalization, and exchanges of philosophy play a substantial role in effecting this evolution.

        I wonder if future-oriented thinking and impulse control fit into this in any way?

        1. “‘Secularization (in institutions) will come to the ME in time.””

          Sam Huntington would dispute that

          so would i

          One of the greatest errors in Western political philosophy is the idea that all systems can/should/will eventually evolve in similar patterns as Western-Christendom

          Its a bunch of ‘end of history’ bullshit. And its that kind of thinking that lead the neocon morons to think they could ‘transform’ the middle east just by knocking off Saddam

          1. Agreed.

            It’s more likely that the ‘west’ will degenerate back into medieval barbarism than that the mideast will evolve into a british style parliamentary democracy.

            1. Well, to be clear(er)

              I’m not in any way making a case for some kind of ‘cultural determinism’ – which is how critics of Huntington (or to be fair, he himself) sometimes spin that point.

              I don’t think Arabs are necessarily ‘unsuited’ to democracy, or that any particular cultural forces make certain adaptations *impossible*

              (which is the silly claim made by many re: Latinos, as though immigrants carry some kind of genetic predisposition to totalitarian banana republics with them wherever they go)

              I’m just saying that the idea that the Middle East will – eventually, inevitably, by itself – achieve western-style secular institutions of governance, rule of law, democratic structures, etc…. is by no means *a given*

              while I dig huntington’s main points, i think the real lesson is that ‘cultural exchange’ (can) happen on the boundaries of conflicts.

              Its possible that with trade, with relations, with cultural exchange, greater engagement, that two dissimilar cultures can become *more like* one another.

              1. “Its possible that with trade, with relations, with cultural exchange, greater engagement, that two dissimilar cultures can become *more like* one another.”

                That’s all true, but look at Gaza. There is no cultural exchange, trade or engagement. Blockades will do that. Still, check your youtube. You’ll find lots of videos of Gazan youth, rapping in English, calling for Arab unity.

                1. was there a point there?

                  1. Only that there must be other ways. Gaza is extremely isolated and under war-time discipline yet still manages to adopt foreign ways. Must be something to do with the youthfulness of the population. It’s also one of the most, if not the most, densely populated areas. I largely agree with your comment, but don’t think much of Sam’s work.

                    1. 🙂

                      I once pointed out that Clash of Civilizations is sort of like the Bible.

                      The people who “disagree” with it the most never fucking read the thing.

                    2. I enjoy the link very much. I give some thought to this topic. I believe it is realistic to assume that genetic engineering will help broaden our views of culture and civilization in the long-term, eventually enabling greater diversity of offspring (by mixing and matching from multiple groups and combining in one individual) while converting the “ethnic differences” into a mere catalogue of predilections, thus circumventing the whole civilization clash in its present form. As quoted in the comments section of another article, Wade writes: “It is?impossible, by looking at single genes, to say on genetic grounds that one?[group]?is genetically more prone to violence than any other?Genes don’t determine human behavior; they merely create a propensity to behave a certain way.” However this is viewed, after a certain period of time this genetic engineering of offspring will become not only fashionable, but also common. The PRC (China) is already researching this.

                      In the mid-term, however, there will be some ugly elements. Perhaps knocking off Saddam did kick-start some of the (likely inevitable) turmoil we now see in the ME; and perhaps this is a part of the “fast-forwarding of history”. But it’s probably nothing more than compounded error. As you point out: It is absurd to think of the ME in terms of “end of history”. I think the acknowledgement of different values of civilization is necessary, and I think these differences are useful and beautiful.

                    3. All humans have value, and we are only beginning to use technology to identify that value (because we’re only now able to) ? and we’re stuck here on Earth together, so we might as well make the most of it.

                      Perhaps there is some minuscule element of truth to ‘cultural determinism’. I agree that cultural forces do not make certain adaptations “impossible”: after all, we are a variation on a theme, like dogs (look what we’ve made of them in such a comparatively short time). There are many breeds of dogs — but they’re still dogs.

                      Perhaps ‘cultural determinism’ isn’t best viewed as a matter of ability, but desire. What society makes you feel most comfortable? What sorts of reactions to specific activities release optimal amounts of dopamine or oxytocin, and on average within a population? What pattern emerges in us as libertarians? What are the origins of this pattern? How can that be altered or applied? How many introverts are present in Korean society vs American society? If there is a genetic predisposition for certain functions in individuals (beyond simply disease) ? even on the smallest of levels, like dogs ? wouldn’t there be group averages, with variations of sets of outliers (as in everything else)?

                      It’s if these observations turn into racist, bigoted, or individual judgments that they cross that line into the unproductive.

                    4. The book “The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently? and Why” by Richard Nisbett is insightful.

                      I like to believe that creativity will overcome destruction, even in the ME ? and even if the process requires several generations. Again, that might be wishful thinkment. 🙂

  4. So Feiglin’s message seems to be that Jews have to be alive in order to enjoy freedom. What a concept! He’s what I call a truth-teller, so he is usually despised by all and sundry.

    “According to Feiglin most of the aid Israel receives serves the interests of the American patron.”

    Absolutely true, but Moshe, baby, you are destroying the simplistic narrative of the anti-Israel blowhards.

    I find it hard to believe that Feiglin’s message will resonate with the Israeli left. Before Palestinian bombs could reach Tel Aviv they tended to see those bombs as legitimate resistance. That line dwindled when their wealthy, artsy city joined the fun.

    But who is this Dennis Mitzner who writes so well about Israel? Dennis, a bit of advice. If Sheldon Richman offers you a glass of Kosher wine, don’t drink it.

    1. “So Feiglin’s message seems to be that Jews have to be alive in order to enjoy freedom.”

      I agree.

    2. Mitzlin is informed and writes a good column. He’s the anti-Sheldon.

      1. Sheldon is an imbecile who is lucky to be an American.

        1. Lucky? With all the guilt he’s got to carry about because of the accident of his birthplace?

          1. Where else could he be so free to be so stupid? Russia? China? Nope, the answer is America.

  5. “flourishing Israeli city with a minimum of hostile residents,”

    Did anyone see what he did there?

    1. Don’t even TRY to say that’s a thinly veiled appeal to wipe out the Muslims! DON’T EVEN TRY!!!

      1. Actually I was just pointing out the irony of his sentence.

        1. I don’t get the irony. I see him using the word hostile to mean Muslim. Normally, I wouldn’t make that leap, but the fact that he first said that Gaza does and has always belonged to the Jews kind of set that up…

          1. The irony is that a purely Jewish city would still have far more than a “minimum” of hostile residents.

          2. I see him using the word hostile to mean Muslim.

            That’s because you’re stupid. Re-read the article.

            1. Why don’t you look at the quotes he made, which I’ve included, and then refute my point instead of saying you’re stupid. It’s pathetic.

  6. Oh wow, he was only elected in January 2013. Hopefully his pro-liberty views will spread.

    1. Unless you’re a Muslim. Then you can either leave or die…

      1. Except that’s not what he said.

        1. Except it’s kind of what he said…

          “Gaza belongs to the Jews”

          “After the operation Gaza would become a ‘flourishing Israeli city with a minimum of hostile residents,”‘

          That’s pretty clear.

          1. I meant to specifically reference the views of his that are unambiguously pro-liberty, rather than those that are contested within this forum.

          2. Except it’s kind of what he said…

            Stop lying.

            1. Pretty hard to lie when you include the quotes from the guy…

            2. fuck you Cyto, you shill. You cannot repeat lies and think that everyone is fooled. The man was quoted vebatim. Questions?

    1. Death!!!!????! or cake?

      1. Well, from my limited reading on the subject, this entire mess is, as is usually the case with warring factions throughout the world, a direct result of British imperialism. If not for GB claiming ownership of the region, the colossal mistake of giving land to the Jews wouldn’t have been made. Great idea… Let’s give land claimed by one group to a bunch of people with differing religions. What could go wrong?

        My solution:

        Since this is all GB’s fault (and ours to an almost equal degree) I propose we give up a military base, on the British island of Diego Garcia to be the new Jewish state of Israel Mark II. It is fitting, we give up something for our part and it’s even more fitting that the Brits give up one of their imperial conquests for its part.

        DG is about the same size and has the added benefit of being right smack dab in the middle of the Indian ocean, where the most hated people throughout history may live in peace, without the worry of rocket attacks. It has the added benefit of having NO indigenous population to piss off. (At least it doesn’t now. Not sure if there were and the Brits shipped them off?)

        Problem solved.

        The end.

        1. No one gave the land to the Jews. The Jews came on their own and took it. All the UN did in 1948 was recognize what had already occurred. And GB did everything it could to keep the Jews out of Palestine in the 20s and 30s. This fact condemned a large number of Jews to their deaths at the hands of the Nazis.

          If you want to blame anyone or anything for the creation of the hated, evil zionist Jew state, blame European antisemitism. That is what gave Jews no where else to go and made them decide to create a country of their own. You can also blame the flat out refusal of most of Eastern Europe to accept the survivors of the camps back into their homes. The reason why most Jews made the exodus after the war was because after they were liberated and tried to go home, the people living there told them not to come back. You don’t hear about that very much since Europe likes to pretend the Holocaust was done by some alien group called the “Nazis” rather than being perpetuated and cheered on by pretty much the entire continent sans Holland.

          1. In that case, I propose selling arms to both sides and let them annihilate each other.

            Or give nukes to the Palestinians. That would set up d?tente pretty fucking quick.

            OR, and I know this sounds crazy, we could mind our own business and let them take care of their problems on their own.

            This mindless, “well they started it”, bullshit is absurd. Either kill them or STFU and live together. This shit has been going on all my life. I’m SO UTTERLY TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT THESE TWO FUCKING CHILDREN FIGHTING ON THE PLAYGROUND!

            1. If the world would stay out of it, I am pretty sure the Israelis would have solved this problem long ago.

            2. *Or give nukes to the Palestinians. That would set up d?tente pretty fucking quick.*

              LOL. Detente. Yeah, that’s what would happen.

              As soon as the Palestinians figured out how to detonate the things, they’d detonate them. There’s your “detente”.

          2. Yep. Iraelis are the original gentrifiers. They bought up a bunch of land in Palestine at cheap prices because the Palis never made anything substantial out of it.

        2. 1. Clearly you’ve never been to Diego Garcia, it isn’t even remotely close to being similar in size to Israel. Even including the lagoon (which is, uhh, fucking water dude) it isn’t as big. I guess you are including the entire Chagos Archipelago into the calculation. It’s still only 2/3rds as big as Israel, and that’s including the water.

          2. There were a bunch of people displaced by the British so that the US could establish a base there. They are still campaigning for the right of return.

          /picking nits

          1. I got stuck there over Christmas in 01, after ferrying a B-1 to replace the one they crashed. Good bonefishing.

            1. So, they’d need to build vertically. Maybe some floating apartment buildings. Still beats the desert.

            2. We have been responsible for some really shitty things.

        3. There is this persistent idea that the ME would be better if only the borders were drawn right. This is hooey. Pakistan and India drew a border ‘organically’ and Pakistan is as bad as ever. No matter how you draw these borders there is a backwards ass evil society oppressing a minority be it gays or Bahai.

          Britain did not give the Jews land they were already living there. I really hope you don’t think Arab dominance would be a better outcome.

          1. a. I didn’t say ALL conflicts were caused by British cartographers. Just most of them. Nor did I say there wouldn’t be conflicts between nations with natural borders.

            b. So the Jews took over Israel from the Palestinians? I thought you said, above, that the Jews were the ones acting in self defense? Besides, the Brits and US moved an addition 100k there and supported the creation of a Jewish state in the area claimed by Palestinians.

            c. Why would I care if the Jews or the Arabs “dominate” the region? It doesn’t affect the United States in the slightest either way.

            1. Britain took almost 80% of Palestine and gave it to an Arab family who had helped in WW1.

              That land is now, by law, judenrein.

              So, basically, bullshit.

    2. I blame the British not just for this, but a great deal of strife all over the world. I scoffed about this when Bob Falk explained it, & there’s probably still some details he’ll say about it that I’ll scoff at, but mostly he turns out to be correct.

      1. The British did the same with Palestine that they did with North America: screw everyone.

      2. “Robert|8.10.14 @ 1:30PM|#

        I blame the British not just for this, but a great deal of strife all over the world.”

        Have you read this?

        I think its one of Chris Hitchens’ best pieces of writing.

        the details and conclusions are debatable… but as pure, ‘essay style’, its hard to beat.

      3. If only they had just wiped out the natives like the Ottomans did.

        I blame the British for not being psychopaths like the Ottomans!

    3. Aw come on. The french probably had something to do with it. Sykes Picot? its at least partly french. it always is.

  7. “Good news is that since I started my message of combining freedom and classical liberalism it has been catching on quite well. Revolutions often start from one man. Until now, we in Israel have been stuck in old conflicts.”

    Not even to mention that he’s a complete fucking narcissist…

    1. Narcissism is underrated.

      1. Why am I not even a little surprised you’d say that…?

  8. Israel needs open borders and mass immigration so it can be culturally and economically enriched.

    1. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Awesome.

    2. And gay marriage.

    3. I agree. It is just like what is going on in Iraq. I would imagine a good number of Isis fighters would happily come to the US if they could. Provided they came as individuals, why shouldn’t they? Who other than racist, neocon retards would say they can’t.

      Yes, a few of them may cut off innocent people’s heads. And we can throw them in jail for that when they do. And native Americans murder people too. Do we lock them out of the country out of fear of what the might do? No. So why should the Isis fighters be any different?

      If we let them come here as they please, Isis will be deprived of the manpower necessary to take over Iraq and the conflict will be solved. And even if it is not, Americans have no right to tell them they can’t come here or try and do anything to them until they actually commit a crime.

      Why the open borders people are not advocating this solution remains a mystery. Do they think freedom is only available to Mexicans?

      1. Hell, the open borders people don’t even care that they’re enriching criminal gangs who are taking the kids money for a hope.

        Somehow these little angels are not only running from the gang violence, but also being “helped” by the gangs to get to America. That’s just too adorable.

        1. They live in a bubble and honestly think everyone is just like them. They wouldn’t be a problem so why would anyone else?

      2. But why are you a retard? Maybe because you think the US-Mexico border resembles a ziplock bag, which hasn’t been sealed because Obama is too incompetent to do such a simple thing? And why are you a racist? Because if a terrorist wants to get in, why wouldn’t he come through Canada as has been done before? Shall we zip up that border too, or do you just not give a shit about that one for *whatever* reason? As for neocon, simplistic thinking with respect to complex international problems is the hallmark of that worldview.

        1. Tony you are stupid I can’t even make fun of you anymore. You have devolved to the point that conversation is impossible. How do you feed yourself? You are quite possibly the dumbest person on earth. You can’t even understand sarcasm anymore.

      3. This is hilarious since the only way you can keep terrorists out is with open borders that only block out people who are really bad, not those who are arbitrarily excluded.

        Given the nature of the strawman you are beating is you that lives in a bubble.

        1. This is hilarious since the only way you can keep terrorists out is with open borders that only block out people who are really bad

          The only way to keep people out is to let everyone in. Yeah, that makes sense. The moment you say there are some people you want to keep out, you no longer have open borders. Further, since the people you want to keep out are unlikely to self identify, you will have to screen everyone and you are right back to having the same border control apparatus we have today.

          And lets not forget, we can just wave a magic wand and screen the hundreds of millions of people who would come here if they could to keep out the undesirables. The government is totally up to that.

          Why do you allow your ideology to make you stupid?

  9. That dude jsut looks corrupt as the day is long lol.

    1. Stopped clock this time’s wrong.

  10. What, no open borders? I thought that was the definitive libertarian position.

  11. Historically, Gaza has [sic] always part of Israel

    No, it hasn’t. Judaism’s claim over Gaza is only slightly more justifiable than Islam’s claim over Jerusalem (i.e., While there is archeological evidence than the Kingdom of Israel under King David held Gaza for a while, Islam’s claim to Jerusalem stems from a Koranic story of Muhammad visiting the Dome of the Rock in a one-night round trip from Mecca to Jerusalem using his pegasus. Seriously!) Point is that Gaza was Canaanite in origin; and even if Fieglin wasn’t justifying the conquest of Gaza through a tenuous Biblical connection, he still would be a lunatic for ignoring all the rules of grand strategy by wanting Israel to step with both feet into that tar baby again.

    1. Nowhere am i more non-interventiony than when it comes to this Israel bullshit

      When people start whipping out bible stories in the context of real-estate discussions, its time to let the motherfuckers just bomb each other. Because it really has nowhere to go at that point.

      1. The Bible is a bad basis for borders. Israel’s rightness as a free state and Gaza’s unrightness is a much better basis for the annexation of Gaza.

        1. They took it in the war of ’67. The same way that almost every border of every country was fixed.

    2. Obviously the Jews were in Israel long before Muslims, in fact Jews were in Saudi Arabia long before Muslims.

      Before Mohammed murdered them all. (source: Koran)

  12. “and even if Fieglin wasn’t justifying the conquest of Gaza through a tenuous Biblical connection”

    He’s not about to do that with a Western reporter. No doubt he’ll save that line for his true believer supporters.

    1. A “Western” reporter? I wasn’t aware the Hatikvah sounded like this.

    2. He’s not about to do that with a Western reporter. No doubt he’ll save that line for his true believer supporters.

      Whatever floats your strawmen.

      1. I don’t think you’ll find any recent instances of Israeli politicians justifying Israeli actions on religious grounds. It’s not just Moshe.

        1. Cool story bro. I won’t hold my breath for your citation.

          1. “I won’t hold my breath for your citation.”

            Wise move. If you’re not up to speed on the issues, ask your teacher if you are a student, a librarian if you are not. I’m not here to hold your hand.

          2. You don’t cite anything ever. You just call people dumb or say they need to reread a story and then express your knee jerk reactions.

            1. “You don’t cite anything ever”

              There are a lot of things I don’t do, ever. Sorry, Brian, people are dumb. But teachers and librarians are there to help. I’ve got other fish to fry.

              I will stake my decent, healthy, knee jerk reactions over your tortured tergiversations any day, thank you.

              1. My response was to cytotoxic. That’s why its on the want indent as yours. I don’t even know who you are. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

  13. Whoah, it’s almost like the Israeli-Jew version of…me. This guy’s cool. Not perfect, but he should totally replace Bibi.

  14. “Unlike other western style democracies, both countries have religious elements mixed in their founding principles. ”

    Huh? You know Britain has anti-blaspheme law. The preamble to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”… You want me to keep going. I can.

    Do you just invent these statements out of thin air. Five minutes of internet research can show this wrong so where are the editors on this story?

  15. I’m gonna say it: fuck Israel, fuck Hamas. Fuck them both.

    Nothing “anti-semetic” about that. I think both groups manipulate the world so they can gain legitimacy for their actions. I don’t support religious states- whether they be Muslim, Jewish or other. I believe in the individual. In this conflict, you have the world’s 17th largest economy and most powerful military in the region basically bombing the shit out of entire neighborhoods because some sorry ass gangbangers shot some rockets. Didn’t kill anyone, mind you, or at least many. Oh, Hamas is in the wrong, no doubt. But you are putting a huge mechanized force against the people not just some uniformed Hamas. And Israel cries and cries: boo hoo, look! They hide in the neighborhoods! THAT’S why we killed 60 kids.

    It’s blatant blame-shifting and victim mentality, from BOTH sides. Simply, I’m not Israeli (nor Jewish) and simply DON’T GIVE A FUCK about either side. I don’t have to “stand” with anyone. At all. Both Hamas and Israel browbeat people into feeling sorry for them and frankly, I could care less if they kill each other. I won’t fight wars for either of them. Comprende?

    1. Yes I understand your sentiment, but by your insistence that this is about Israel and Hamas, you are still a stooge for Israeli spin. This conflict is about, has always been about, since the 60s at least, Palestine vs. Israel. You don’t mention the word Palestine in your comment. You’ve been duped into erasing some 50 years of pretty recent history, and parroting this Hamas business. There are lots of groups rocketing Israel from Gaza. Hamas is only one.

  16. He believes in libertarian freedoms for his own kind but not for others. This is the fundermental hypocrisy of nationalist libertarianism. Its well and alive in amerika as well.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.