I already have a feeling given what I’ve read, but I’m still curious.
Peace with all nations, alliances with none.
Israel was an impossible idea, trying to impose a racial/national republic on a land that had always been multi-ethnic. By subsidizing it the American empire simply perpetuates the impossibility.
the same could be said for those seeking a palestinian state, they are arguably more intolerant on issues of race/ethnicity.
The point being that the US should not be sending aid to either Palestine or Israel and if people want to get involved with the matter then they should do so on a personal level.
I am with AC…
With the addition, that it is none of the damn business of anyone but Israel and her enemies, let them sort it out…
These answers are pretty much what I thought they’d be. Thank you for responding so quickly though.
Peace and free trade with all nations; entangling alliences with none.
Fixed.
The US should end its relationship with Israel. The country is completely hopeless. The revolutionaries that formed the country kicked enough folks already living there off of their property. Over the years Israel has taken some of that property and used money from the US to build stuff there. Then to make matters worse the government has constructed a network of fortifications, check points, roads, etc to protect their citizens living there and give them access to the other places in Israel. This has made the significant number of folks who were kicked out or worse their decendents legitimately angry. Now Israel is stuck with hundreds of thousands of folks with previously legitimate property claims and no records to determine what they are. So they have a stalemate. Of course the countries around Israel: Egypt, Jordan etc hate having to take care of people with no property who are all riled up that their decendents have lost it. Eventually the weapons used against Israel will be more modern and accurate delivering conventional munitions or worse into population centers in the country forcing Israel to kill lots of other folks.
The only solution to minimise death and destruction is to do the following:
-
The US gives Israel a place with a similar climate in the US.
-
The US gives Israel enough help to move the entire country there.
-
The US refuses to help any Israelies refusing to leave.
-
The Israel ceases to exist with the agreement that the Jewish Holy Sites will be under secular ownership and that Jewish folks can visit them.
I disagree with you Bogart.
“Austrian economics” doesn’t have a position on the existence of Israel or any other normative issues. That said, most Austrian economists as well as most libertarians are non-interventionists: they do not want to meddle with the affairs of other nations. I believe that an ancap society would deal with foreign policy issues much more intelligently. We would not have to deal with any nation building or unjust wars. We would only enter war when a foreign nation clearly violated the rights of a member of a security agency. Even then, such a war would be on a very limited scale.
I have a very good friend who is an Israeli-American and we frequently agree on just about everything especially economics but he is from a generation that lost relatives in the Holocaust and he grew up in Israel so he is naturally biased. His largest complaint and rightfully so is the media propaganda that demonizes Israel. Whether you agree with their existence or not stating propaganda about the reality of what is actually going on there only fuels anti-semitism. This is one area I strongly disagree with Ron Paul when he made his comments about Gaza being a “concentration camp”, which is absolute nonsense. Even implying that the Jewish state of Israel would engage in anything remotely like what they fight to prevent is disingenuous. You cannot just ignore Hamas and Hezbollah launching thousands of rockets into Israel and killing civilians and then demonize Israel doing something about it. Studying the history of Israel after its creation you will see how much of the land in question that Israel “occupied” was AFTER they were attacked was kept to create buffer zones. In various negotiations they later returned much of the land only to be attacked over and over. Israel has sought peace but it is those who it makes “peace” with that keep breaking the treaties.People who make other claims either have never studied the actual history of Israel, have never visited Israel of simply read propaganda about it.
I always ask people that if they had to live in a country in the middle east which one would they choose, without hesitation for me it would be Israel.
Even with that being said I do not support any U.S. foreign aide to any country including Israel let alone the Palestinians. Israel is more then capable of defending themselves. I also support full and free trade with them.
Those asking about why Israel was created where it was needs to look no further then to simply ask Israelies. I asked my friend this one time and he responded “where else would God want us?”. So it is deeply religious and not just a simple logistics issue. I am not excusing this but explaining it and while you may disagree with this reasoning (as you have every right to do so) I do not believe people have the right to be dishonest with the facts or history of Israel.
I strongly sympathise with the sentiment you express, its a torturous issue for anarchists, so one must tread carefully.
I simply hate the state. of course, that does not stop me from recognising that a lot of liberals who pronounce that Israel is ‘particularly evil’ (i.e. compared to some standard set by other presumably not evil, or less evil states) or that zionism=apartheid or nazism or whatever; express a good deal of hypocrisy and/or a superficial understanding/evaluation of the scenario.
i feel the following article to be pertinent to my point, an old article kinsella wrote back when he was more randian minarchist than the anarchist he is now. but still, putting aside the issue of the crimes of all states to individuals within and without their borders, and the ‘collectivism’ (i.e. lack of sophisticated methodolical individualist analysis) on a pure comparative analysis it is intersting because it make me think, if i was a statist-minarchist-libertarian(sic), I would be ‘pro-israel’ in the classic sense…
All of this land was occuppied after the six-day war and it is the settlements in the west bank driven largely by the religious-right of Israel that is fueling the tension. They are not kicking people off land but occupying essentially empty desert which is near existing Palestinian settlements. Too much has been made of this myth of Israel coming in with bulldozers and forcibly removing Palestinians so Israels can settle, this is not happening. Since Palestine is not a country, property rights laws to unsettled land is in dispute and IMO has not been adequately established. The simpliest solution (though not remotely easy) is to remove all settlements from the west bank and establish internationally recognized land ownership to the Palestinians then allow them to sell the land back to Israel if they so choose.
Now you hit the nail on the head. You have a territory dispute (A bunch of malcontents decided to take something that was not theirs.) resolved according to the “winning” side in a war. The other side does not deem this resolved and is rightfully angry about it. The USA government has exactly the same situation with Native American groups. Only in the US case there were not many native folks and the ones that were on property wanted by the new folks were simply kicked off their property and had it stolen. Of course there were several wars and there are still problems with territory claims between Native American groups and the US Government. These problems are all over this hemisphere where there are wars waging and territory disputes from Patagonia to the Artic Circle.
If the reviolutionaries in Israel simply purchased the property or had their claims settled by a third party then this would never have gotten this far. Similarly, if the US Government would have upheld territory claims by the Hawaiians, Cherokees, Sioux, etc then there would not be anything near the problems faced by these people.
As for the Israelis, their war was within one lifetime. This means that there are people who have claims or know folks who have claims where the documentation of such claims was destroyed. These folks can not be satisfied easily.
I am only spouting one solution to this problem given that the government of the USA, without my permission, continues to steal my money and uses it to assist sometimes Israel and to prop up its enemies in the vain hope that if everyone has money then everyone will be happy and not slaughter eachother.
Otherwise I agree with the other postings that the gang that calls itself the US Government should stop all foreign aggressions and dismantle the military first, the welfare state second and dissolve itself third.
Now that I’ve read what you guys think, I will tell you what I think.
I think there will never be a sustainable two state solution. I think that that land will either be occupied by Jews or by Palestinians exclusively. The way it’s going, it looks like it’s going to be Palestinians. People will ask “why isn’t peace possible?” Because this is a religious conflict. Both groups believe they are divinely entitled to that land. Both groups will die defending that right and will not accept compromise. Being Jewish, I would like to see the land remain in Jewish hands. Especially since Islam is a religion that inevitably degenerates into factions of violent extremists and lends itself to dictatorships. I think Judaism needs its home. Judaism, with its Socratic tendencies towards public discourse and democratic assembly is just a better religion. What we need right now is for the United States to stay strong on its support for Israel and not ask the Israelis to capitulate to the Palestinians. Appeasement never works.
And Bogart, dismantle the military? Really? I’m perfectly willing to have my tax dollars go to the military, not so much the welfare state. So I’m not with you on that one at all.
The economic resources of the USA are so vast that if threatened by another party or country, there could easily spring up a company, maybe a company from another country in the business of defense. This would be made easier as there is only the homeland to defend. Instead you have tax dollars going to defense, taken from me by force and from you by choice, that neither you nor I can say what defense to provide, whom to defend, how to perform the defending and where to do it. The only things we do know are that: 1. The government HAS ZERO obligation to protect your individual person or property and 2. The government can enlist you in this defence without your permission.
Sounds like you are getting a great deal for your money.
The military is another form of welfare…
Welfare (entitlements) “You are too poor to survive”
Welfare (Military) “You are too week to survive”
Same difference, it is produced by stealing from some to advantage all others…