Zionism and Libertarians

Miscellaneous General
21

That is my position, though it depends on one’s definition nationalism (supporting the sovereignty of your nation and others is good, adoration of state power certainly isn’t).

I’m a religious Jew and Zionist, though not a Religious Zionist. I never really saw a contradiction between this and my libertarianism. I want Jewish independence in the Jewish National Home, the only place Jews have been sovereign and the cradle of Jewish civilisation. Of course, the only independent states or kingdoms that have ever existed in the historic Land of Israel (Eretz Yisroel) have been Jewish ones.

We had to fight a war to get it, but our declaring independence did not cause the war, we were attacked by those who tried to crush any notion that dhimmis could be independent in a tiny part of the former Caliphate. I draw parallels with America’s Second War of Independence. I am not American, though I did live there for a few years. When I first learned of the events of 1861-65, my sympathies lay with the Confederacy in the same way they did with the Zionists. I was always taking abuse for my position living in the most Yankee of Yankee territory (Boston).

Palestinian Arabs were hurt in 1947-48, as were many Jews. The 1947-48 Civil War and War of Independence periods actually saw more Jews than Palestinian Arabs killed, so it is odd that people are commemorating it now as some kind of genocide committed by Zionists. I never bought the ‘Naqba’ narrative, as there are simply too may holes in it. The vast majority of those who fled were not forced out by Jewish forces. Most fled before Israel’s Declaration of Independence and the formation of the IDF. Before that, no Jewish militia was capable of displacing hundreds of thouands of people. The Institute of Palestine Studies in Beirut once did a study and found that 68% of Arab refugees surveyed never even saw a Jewish soldier uring the war.

So, I support Zionism, (the national liberation movement of the Jewish nation is how I would define it), but don’t get me wrong: I’ve travelled extensively in Israel and the Arab territories, areas I love, and Arab independence is sorely needed. I and most Israelis, and I believe the sensible majority of Palestinians, can live in an era of Shalom and Salaam, and mutual respect under their own vines and fig trees or whatever, with none to make them afraid.

A haunting yet inspiring recording of liberated Jews singing the Zionist anthem ‘HaTikvah’ (The Hope) after liberation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syUSmEbGLs4

22

I, too, am a religious Jew and a Zionist, and I do not see any contradiction between Zionism and libertarianism. What you say is very true and I have yet to understand how people can criticise the victor of a war of aggression launched by the Palestinian Arab community against the Yishuv after the Arabs’ rejection of the UN Partition Plan. I have watched that video and found it very moving.

23

You can hardly call yourself a libertarian and then support a partition plan devised by a ghastly transnational organization of state tyranny and then fault the Palestinians and Arabs for fighting against what amounted to mass-expropriation.

24

Yes I can. The standard Rothbardian approach here, when applied consistently, is to hold that no state should have ownership of the land and that it should function as an anarcho-capitalist area of prosperity. Unfortunately, that wasn’t realistic then and it isn’t realistic now. What we should do is accept that the legal state ‘owners’ of the land (the British) turned the land over to a legal authority who then decided to partition it. Not only did it most emphatically not amount to ‘mass-expropriation’, the Arabs were given around 88% of Mandate Palestine if one counts Transjordan, which certainly was more than their share of the population. The Jews were landed with a state cut in three and mostly made up of the barren, uninhabited Negev Desert. Still, the Palestinian Arab community was upset by the decision and launched hostilities against the Jewish community.

This was noted by acclaimed historian Benny Morris, who is considered one of the foremost ‘New Israeli Historians’: “The Arab states and the Palestinian national leadership, headed by Haj Amin al-Husseini, opposed the partition of Palestine, claiming all of Palestine for the Arabs. When the General Assembly voted in favor of partition, on 29 November 1947, the Palestinian leadership rejected the resolution and the Palestinian militias launched hostilities to abort the emergence of a Jewish state. They were aided by money, arms and volunteers from the Arab states. In the course of this first, civil-war half of the 1948 War (roughly from 30 November 1947 until 14 May 1948) the Palestinian militias attacked Jewish traffic and settlements for four months. But eventually the Jewish militias, chiefly the Haganah, went over to the offensive (in early April) and routed the Palestinians, and some 300,000 were displaced from their homes and lands. On 15 May 1948, the day after the Zionist leaders declared the establishment of the State of Israel, the armies of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq invaded Palestine, in defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the partition resolution, and attacked the Jewish state. The army of Jordan, the fourth invading army, occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the core of the territory earmarked in the partition resolution for Palestinian Arab statehood. (The Palestinians failed to declare statehood, and Jordan did not allow the Palestinians to establish a state and subsequently formally annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Egypt emerged from the war in control of the Gaza Strip.) During the weeks and months after 15 May, the Israeli army contained the invading armies and eventually drove them out of most of Palestine. Another 400,000 Palestinians were displaced from their homes in the course of the fighting: Some were expelled by Jewish troops (for example, from Lydda and Ramle in July 1948), some were advised to leave or ordered out by Arab leaders and officers (for example, from Haifa in April 1948 and Majdal in October). But most of the 700,000 simply fled out of fear of being caught up and harmed in the fighting. In summer 1948 the Israeli government decided not to allow the displaced Arabs—most of whom ended up in refugee camps in other parts of Palestine, i.e., the West Bank and Gaza—to return to the area of the State of Israel, deeming them inimical (they had just assailed the Jewish community and tried to destroy the Jewish state) and a potential Fifth Column.”

(Source)

25

Well, if the British said it was okay then it must be…

26

As the legal owners of the land, that’s right.

27

Hahaha. Are you serious with this shit?

The British did not obtain the land through voluntary means. The fact that, through force, they were able to obtain control of the land, does not give them the right to do with it as they please. That’s a completely unlibertarian position, and one that could be used to justify any state intervention into private lives. Since the state determines what’s “Legal”, anything they do has your seal of approval. Give me a break.

28

As far as Zionism is about establishing a territorial coercive monopoly, you don’t see the blatant contradiction?

The sovereign nation or the State, by definition, necessitates the expropriation of private property. By you own “good” definition of nationalism, the State is in very much in contradiction with the principles of libertarianism and voluntarism.

29

There is such a thing as a minarchist libertarian.

30

I don’t believe the British presence was legitimate.

However, we can’t derive an ought from an is. Under the Ottoman Empire, the vast majority of the land area that became the British Mandate of Palestine (which initially included Jordan until Britain gave it to Hashemite allies in 1922) was not privately owned in the Western sense, but by the government. The British didn’t change this, and neither has Israel. When the British left, 77% of the land that was owned by the government was passed to the new one.

31

My views are not fully formed on the minarchist/anarchist debate.

Panarchy is an idea I have been attracted to. There is actually precedent for this in Israel before independence. Before 1948 the Jewish community built extensive governing institutions and political movements. For instance, Labour Zionists and others had their respective school systems, clinics and employment centres available to those who payed their dues.

Even the soccer teams in Israel have their origins in party politics. Teams with the moniker ‘Hapoel’, such as ‘Hapoel Tel Aviv’ are socialist/llabour leaning, ‘Maccabbi’ (as in Maccabbi Haifa) indicates a Liberal Zionist origin while ‘Betar’ (as in Beitar Yerushalayim) names originate from the Revisionist Zionists, the ‘right-wing’ movement today embodied by the Likud Party.

32

No there isn’t. There are no such things as a fat skinny person, a triangular square, and even an expropriating property right protector.

Now, if you want to redefine the term libertarianism, perhaps as one that does not include NAP or self-ownership, then go ahead I don’t care. You can call a square a triangle as far as I’m concerned and you will indeed have your triangular square.

33

Regardless of how you and I feel about minarchism being consistent, it is impermissible to hijack the meaning of the term libertarianism for one wing of the movement, banishing the other. Libertarians where minarchists generations before Molinari came up with his brilliant paper. So I’d never dream of denying the name ‘libertarian’ to minarchists, no matter how I feel about the strength of their system. I invite you to do the same.

34

What an accusation. What is the meaning of libertariansm that I have hijacted?

35

Minarchists called themselves libertarians before us ancaps did. How, then, would you call denying that name to them, and arrogating it to ourselves alone? How is this any better than the hijacking of the term ‘liberal’ perpetrated by the socialists?

36

Don’t strawman me. I’m well aware of the standard libertarian position - i.e. Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism around these parts, but I already explained how such a position was unrealistic when dealing with the land at the time. It remains unrealistic now, so we must turn to more widely accepted means of determining state control - the law.

37

You claim that I hijacked the meaning of libertarianism.

Well then, to support this accusation you must at bare minimum be able to define what this meaning is or was that I had hijacked. So I ask you again now: What is the meaning of libertarianism that I have hijacked?

Either you can support this claim in argumentation or you cannot. If you cannot then you are just blowing hot air right now.

Edit: BTW, the notion of hijacking (or stealing) terms or meanings is nonsensical. One cannot steal or hijack non-scarce things. Terms can be misused or redefined. Nothing more.

38

That is great, but you are not a libertarian. A libertarian knows the difference between attack and defence. You can not have a war of national liberation in a place that is not your home.

39

You’re rather pathetic with your “I’m more libertarian than you!” shrieks. You evidently know little about Zionism or the history of the Jewish people if you’re making a claim such as this.

40

So the questions are: “If not us, who? And if not now, when?” The Israelis could have made all of the land that became part of Israel privately owned, couldn’t they have?