Zionism and Libertarians

Miscellaneous General
101

Zeev Maoz is simply wrong. He documents history then presents opinion. It has no real basis. Let’s take the 1967 war and prove that Israel didn’t initiate it. Israel did not initiate the 1967 war.

  • “On the evening of May, 1967, while Israel’s leaders were milling about on the terrace outside PM Levi Eshkol’s office overlooking the stadium where an Independence Day tattoo was about to begin, Lt. Gen. Yitzhak Rabin, chief of the IDF general staff, took Eshkol (who had succeeded Ben-Gurion in 1963) aside and reported unusual Egyptian troop movements across the Suez Canal into the Sinai Peninsula. Within three weeks the equivalent of seven divisions would be deployed in defensive positions, in depth, along the border with Israel. Previously the Egyptians had had less than one division in Sinai.” (Morris, Righteous Victims, page 302.)
  • Scholar of international law Yoram Dinstein notes that, “a careful analysis of events surrounding the actual outbreak of hostilities would lead to the conclusion that the Israeli campaign amounted to an interceptive self-defence, in response to an incipient armed attack by Egypt (joined by Jordan and Syria). True, no single Egyptian step, evaluated alone, may have qualified as an armed attack. But when all of the measures taken by Egypt (especially the peremptory ejection of the UN Emergency Force from the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula; the closure of the Straits of Tiran; the unprecedented build-up of Egyptian forces along Israel’s borders; and constant sabre-rattling statements about the impending fighting) were assessed in the aggregate, it seemed to be crystal clear that Egypt was bent on an armed attack, and the sole question was not whether war would materialise but when.” (Dinstein, War, Aggression, and Self Defense, page 173. Also see Dinstein, The Legal Issues of “Para-War” and Peace in the Middle East.)
  • Yoram Dinstein further points out: “The Arab–Israeli conflict is a classical illustration of a whole host of cease-fires, either by consensual arrangement between the parties or by that of the Security Council, halting hostilities without bringing them to an end. Thus, if we take as an example the mislabelled ‘Six Days War’ (sparked in June 1967 and proceeding through several cycles of hostilities), the Council insisted on immediate cease-fire e.g. in June 1967 and in October 1973. Israel and Egypt negotiated a cease-fire agreement e.g. in November 1973. Israel and Syria agreed on a cease-fire e.g. in May 1974. In none of these cases did the cease-fire, whether initiated by the parties or by the Council, terminate the war. In the relations between Israel, on the one hand, Egypt and Jordan, on the other, the ‘Six Days War’ ended only upon (or on the eve of) the conclusion of Treaties of Peace in 1979 and 1994 respectively. In the relations between Israel and Syria, the ‘Six Days War’ is not over yet, after more than three decades, since thebilateral peace process (albeit started) has not yet been crowned with success. A number of rounds of hostilities between Israel and Egypt or Syria (most conspicuously, the so-called ‘Yom Kippur War’ of October 1973) are incorrectly adverted to as ‘wars’. Far from qualifying as separate wars, these were merely nonconsecutive time-frames of combat, punctuated by extended cease- fires, in the course of a single on-going war that had commenced in June 1967.” (War, Aggression, and Self Defense, page 53.) In short, Dinstein is saying that since the Israeli War of Independence of 1947-1948 didn’t technically come to an end, all Israeli-Arab wars since then have been a continuation of that war and those who broke the ceasefire are in the legal wrong.

You can’t understand Israel’s other wars without ending back at the first one (since they are all the same war, legally) and Maoz himself asserts that Israel fought that first war out of necessity.

I find it incredible that you can take Morris quotes out of context. There are several things wrong with your analysis:

  1. You are inferring that Morris’ poltiical opinions have any bearing on his worth as a historian. You are wrong, since Righteous Victims was written totally detached from politics and he doesn’t ever mix them (One State, Two State is the most partisan of his works).

  2. You quote out of context. I’ve read the Morris’ interview in question many times and I quoted from it earlier. Here are some excerpts:

  • “Ideologically, I support the two-state solution. It’s the only alternative to the expulsion of the Jews or the expulsion of the Palestinians or total
    destruction. But in practice, in this generation, a settlement of that kind will not hold water. At least 30 to 40 percent of the Palestinian public and at least 30 to 40 percent of the heart of every Palestinian will not accept it. After a short break, terrorism will erupt again and the war will resume.”

  • (When asked about Ben Gurion’s transfer) “If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948. Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself. But I am not a statesman. I do not put myself in his place. But as an historian, I assert that a mistake was made here. Yes. The non-completion of the transfer was a mistake.” He is claiming historical mistake. Ironically, he is right, since a full expulsion would have stabilised Israel more than leaving them would.

  • Yet, he does not believe that they should be expelled. “If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion of the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and perhaps even from Galilee and the Triangle, I say not at this moment. I am not willing to be a partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within. But I am ready to tell you that in other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the
    front with Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential.” He’s talking about apocalyptic circumstances when Israel/the Jewish peoples’ very existence is threatened, like the 1947-48 war.

But, if we’re doing character attacks, Shalim and Pappe aren’t without criticism. Pappe: “As a youngster he was a Zionist, passing through the routine stations of high school, army, and undergraduate studies in Israel. (He even mentions his service in the Golan Heights during the 1973 war, apparently still a source of pride.) His glissement into militant anti-Zionism began, he recalls, in 1982, at St. Antony’s College, Oxford, where he was supervised in his doctoral studies by Albert Hourani, an Anglo-Lebanese historian who in an earlier life (1945-1947) had served as a spokesman for Hajj Amin al-Husayni and the Palestinian cause. Hourani went on to become a major historian of the Middle East, and the author of the elegant and acclaimed book A History of the Arab Peoples… While Pappe, as a citizen, was a clear dabbler in radical politics, he still operated within the Zionist camp to the extent that the Israeli Communist Party, to which he belonged, posited the existence of the Jewish state within the framework of a two-state solution-in line with Moscow’s position.”

Morris on Shlaim: “Avi Shlaim steadily drifted leftward (if that really is the direction of people expressing understanding and sympathy for the likes of Yasser Arafat and Hamas), largely under the impact of the Second Intifada. I myself, while still believing that a two-state solution is the only just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, have moved marginally rightward–and in Israel and Palestine, while mildly praising my historiographic work, Shlaim castigates me for this in an essay called “Benny Morris and the Betrayal of History.” (“Benny is in danger of becoming … ‘a genuine charlatan,’” Shlaim writes, which is a very British way of saying that I am a charlatan. Also “his post-conversion interpretation of history is old history with a vengeance … indistinguishable from the propaganda of the victors.” Shlaim fails to explain how, precisely, I have “betrayed history,” and his name-calling is motivated solely by political disagreement.)”

PS - Your link is Pappe’s ‘refutation’ of a separate review by Morris. It is not Pappe’s response to Morris’ review of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, which is the book you quoted and I provided a substantial article against. Nonetheless, it does not cover most of the things Morris brought up in his review of A History of Modern Palestine. For instance, Pappe glosses over major issues with his book by saying things like “My book has in it mistakes of the dates, names and numbers as do his books. We should all try and minimize them to note, I agree.” All Pappe does is say “oh Morris is wrong because he’s a Zionist and they’re all bad.”

102

This particular quote, I accept, and from previous posts most on here accept, is real, although I note that these things come from a very small number of rabbis. For every one of these quotes I could find you ten rabbinical quotes against. By tarring Zionism because of the comments of some you are committing the association fallacy. “Rothbard voiced support for David Duke so all libertarians are white supremacists” is a similar claim which is fallacious.

  • You left out the criticism he received from other Jews too: “The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) on Monday also condemned Rabbi Yosef’s comments as “offensive and incendiary,” cautioning that his words “contribute to a potentially dangerous environment of intolerance and hatred. Particularly on the eve of renewed peace talks, and on the eve of the Jewish New Year, one would have hoped that Rav Yosef could have inspired his students and followers with a message of hope, humility, repentance and forgiveness,” said a statement from ADL chief Abraham Foxman."

  • The American Jewish Committee condemned the Yosef’s remarks, stating that “Rabbi Yosef’s remarks – suggesting outrageously that Jewish scripture asserts non-Jews exist to serve Jews – are abhorrent and an offense to human dignity and human equality […] Judaism first taught the world that all individuals are created in the divine image, which helped form the basis of our moral code. A rabbi should be the first, not the last, to reflect that bedrock teaching of our tradition.”

  • Three weeks later, Yosef sent out a conciliatory message reiterating his old positions in support of the peace process. He wished the Palestinians and their leaders, “who are partners to this important [peace] process and want its success long days and years”. He continued, “The People of Israel are taught to seek peace, and three times daily pray for it. We wish for a sustainable peace with all our neighbors". He blessed “all the leaders and peoples, Egyptians Jordanians and Palestinians, who are partners to this important process and want its success, a process that will bring peace to our region and prevent bloodshed.” (Source)

If you go back and read my post, when I spoke of the “falsified claims from spurious fascist propaganda” I was referring to your so-called Talmudic sources. They do not exist. You quoted false halacha. You tried, in vain (because it’s wrong), to dictate to me what halacha is and I know very well what it is. It does not treat the gentiles as non-human (rather, Jews serve gentiles because we’re here to teach them God’s word through exercising the 613 commandments) nor does it sanction premeditated murder.

103

Tartan Pimpernel said: “ Zeev Maoz is simply wrong. He documents history then presents opinion. It has no real basis”

Well you can’t just dismiss a serious historian just because you don’t like what he is saying. You need to show that he distorted facts and how he did it. Quoting other authors who contradict him doesn’t prove anything.

104

This debate reminds me of the Albanian-Serbian debate over Kosovo (and a few other with our neighbors). Now, having seen that debate unfold many times, even in this forum, I can only say this: the past is the past, and it canto be changed. The problem is in the present, and borders need no historical justification to cause all this literary war. Referendum and only referendum can give ‘moral’ (as moral as a state can be, of course) borders.

So, should cut the crap and let the (or any part of its territory that wants to secede) do as it wishes. On the other hand, the West Bank should not be surprised if bombs start falling form the sky if it seeks to turn itself into a larger . Being independent does not give you the right to physically attack you neighbor by thousands of rocket a day, which is indeed what I fear many Palestinians would love to do. Anyhow, the solution is far simpler than its made to be: referendum borders.

105

Er, Zionism isn’t exactly flattering towards Judaism either, given that it a) explicitly contradicts orthodox Jewish beliefs on Promised Lands only being given by divine command and not on human intervention, and b) has had a leader who proposed a mass religious conversion of Jewish people in order to save their lives. Strangely, it is involved not so much with religion (for already mentioned reasons), not so much with race (Jews come from many possible races), not so much involved with a nation either (given that there are non-Israeli Jewish people across the world who call themselves “Zionist”). It’s just a very very very confusing and complicated body of thought, as far as ideas of Theodor Herzl and its early implementation are concerned.

You know, it’s a pretty severe body of thought, in its early form, given its demands for so many people across Central Europe and Eastern Europe to leave their homes and settle on a new land among not so welcoming strangers.

If Zionism is harsh towards gentiles, what is it towards Jewish people and their faith?

106

The Solution for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The only possible solution the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a bi-national state where Israelis and Palestinians live side by side with equal rights. The two-state solution is no longer possible. The Israelis should give up the unrealistic dream of living in an ethnically pure state of Israel. In historical Palestine there are now about as many Israelis as there are Palestinians. In pre-1967 Israel Palestinians who live peacefully next to Jews (proving that given equal rights Palestinians have no problem living side by side with Jews) represent already 20% of the population and growing. In a few decades due to an important birth differential, Palestinians will be the overwhelming majority in the Holy Land.

In a world where mass exterminations or ethnic cleansing are no longer acceptable, and with the US empire overstretched and crumbling under debt (thanks to clueless keynesians like Krugman), Israel will increasingly become isolated and will have no choice but to give Palestinians equal rights or face total isolation.

For Israelis who live with the traumatic memory of the Holocaust this is difficult to accept. But reality has a way of imposing itself.

The truth is that Israel is an island of 6 million Jews in a sea of over 200 million Arabs in an ocean of 1.5 million Muslims. It cannot permanently count on military might to force its will on its neighbours. Sooner or later its adversaries will acquire nuclear weapons and at that moment the whole strategic balance in the middle east will shift.

Israel has maybe a decade or two ahead when it will still enjoy a military qualitative edge over its neighbours but the gap is narrowing. Israel’s experience in Lebanon shows Israel’s enemies are getting tougher.

The Crusader states lasted almost 200 years before they were swept away because they lost their military superiority. Israel has been around for only 63 years.

I hope for the sake of the region and the world that a solution to this conflict will be found before it’s too late. It’s time for these quarrelsome semitic tribes (Arab and Jews) to come to terms. The world is getting tired of this endless feuding over a tiny piece of barren desert and rocks, the size of New Jersey.

In peace there will be an end to violence and there will be prosperity. And who knows? If there are enough Rothbardians in the area they could convince the rest to get rid of the borders and give security to private firms. The holy sites in Jerusalem would be managed by a private trust and accessible to all. And we will all live happily ever after in complete anarchical bliss. Dare I say:“I have a dream”?

107

I don’t know what real indepence Gaza really has, its an outright lie to pretend as if Israel has ever left them alone. I also look at it as highly suspicious the old story that Gazans are aggressors and israel is just defending its territory with retaliation- and not the other way around. The IDF is always given higher moral superiority for absolutely no reason at all.

108

Prateek Sanjay: You have come out with some of the worst clichés and myths about the conflict.

‘‘Jews were already living peacefully side by side with Christian and Muslim Arabs, but the Zionists decided to wage war on them and kick them off of their land, destroy their homes, etc.’’

I wrote something about this myth recently on my own blog in a review of a very biased British TV Series: http://thesystemworks.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/the-promise-breaks-its-promise/

''To begin with, it is important to note that well before the mass organised immigration (or aliyah) of Jews to the corner of the Ottoman Empire often known as ‘Palestine’ (from the Roman name Syria-Palestina, given after 135 CE) there were religiously inspired pogroms and blatant discrimination towards a long-established Jewish community. Interestingly Karl Marx was one of the people who observed this, and after a visit to the Holy Land in 1852 he published an article in which claimed the following:

Firstly, the Jews were in a majority in the city of Jerusalem (this has been confirmed in every census since they began in the 1840s).

Secondly, Jews were the most oppressed even in areas where they were a majority.

Finally, the Jews were living in a situation of constant insult from the Muslim population, who were ethnically Arab and Turk amongst others. Contrary to modern claims that today’s Palestinians have been living in Israel and the Palestinian territories for thousands of years, the Muslim population of the area was disparate, with many arriving in the 19th Century from Egypt and the Ottoman Empire in general. There were settlements full of Armenians, Circassians and many others. Certain sections of academia have gone to great pains to cover this up and ruin the careers of those who don’t follow the official line, but in Marx’s time it was not controversial in the least, as there was no conflict in which many people had a proverbial dog.

There were during periods such as the Egyptian occupation of Palestine in the 1830s, when the native Jews were intensely persecuted for no other reason than Muslim zealotry. According to De Haas’s ‘History of Palestine’ in 1934, Jewish households systematically ‘were sacked and their women violated’ and later in the year the Jews of Hebron were victims of a large-scale massacre. The most interesting writing I have found comes from the British consul in Jerusalem in the early to mid 1800s, decades before Herzl organised a Zionist movement. His name was William Young and he sent fairly chilling report to the British Foreign Office in 1839 on the condition of Jews in the city of Jerusalem in at that time:

‘‘I think it my duty to inform you that there has been a Proclamation issued this week by the Governor in the Jewish quarter — that no Jew is to be permitted to pray in his own house under pain of being severely punished — such as want to pray are to go into the Synagogue….

There has also been a punishment inflicted on a Jew and Jewess — most revolting to human nature which I think it my duty to relate. In the early part of this week, a House was entered in the Jewish Quarter, and a robbery was committed — the House was in quarantine — and the guardian was a Jew — he was taken before the Governor-he denied having any knowledge of the thief or the circumstances. In order to compel him to confess, he was laid down and beaten, and afterwards imprisoned. The following day he was again brought before the Governor, when he still declared his innocence. He was then burned with a hot iron over his face, and in various parts of the body — and beaten on the lower parts of his body to that extent that the flesh hung in pieces from him. The following day the poor creature died. He was a young Jew of Salonica about 28 years of age — who had been here but a very short time, he had only the week before been applying to enter my service.

A young man-a Jew — having a French passport — was also suspected — he fled — his character was known to be an indifferent one — his mother an aged woman was taken under the suspicion of concealing her son — She was tied up and beaten in the most brutal way…

I must say I am sorry and am surprised that the Governor could have acted so savage a part-for certainly what I have seen of him, I should have thought him superior to such wanton inhumanity — but it was a Jew — without friends or protection-it serves well to show, that it is not without reason that the poor Jew, even in the nineteenth century, lives from day to day in terror of his life’’.

As a persecuted minority, Jews had no legal redress, as the report observed:

”Like the miserable dog without an owner he is kicked by one because he crosses his path, and cuffed by another because he cries out – to seek redress he is afraid, lest it bring worse upon him; he thinks it better to endure than to live in the expectation of his complaint being revenged upon him.

Scarcely a day passes that I do not hear of some act of Tyranny and oppression against a Jew — chiefly by the soldiers, who enter their Houses and borrow whatever they require without asking any permission-sometimes they return the article, but more frequently not. In two instances, I have succeeded in obtaining justice for Jews against Turks-But it is quite a new thing in the eyes of these people to claim justice for a Jew-and I have good reason to think that my endeavors to protect the Jews, have been — and may be for some little time to come, detrimental to influence with other classes — Christians as well as Turks….”

In 1842, in a message to Viscount Palmerston, Mr. Young noted how defenceless the Jewish population was against such onslaughts, which had no cause other than ‘’the blind hatred and ignorant prejudice of a fanatic population’’. This was well before a Jewish state, before Herzl, before any occupation, before any Western power came into control of the area. Reports from other writers who visited the Holy Land, such as A.W. Kinglake, abound with similar stories – Kinglake, Winston Churchill’s favourite writer, witnessed and wrote about anti-Jewish riots and looting in Safed, though in holding anti-Semitic views he was not as sympathetic as men like William Young. So how did the myth swallowed by The Promise get started? My guess is it originally came from Islamic apologetics, where Muslim writers contrasted their historic relations with the Jews with that of Christendom, which were historically worse. The radical left in the West seems to have adopted this defence of Islam and the Orientals and warped it for their own needs. The left-of-centre public broadcasters then use our tax money to give these opinions a platform. I can’t imagine The Promise being brave enough to declare that for centuries Jews lived in ‘mostly-peaceful subservience’ to their Muslim rulers, which would be more accurate’'.

Secondly, as an Orthodox Jew I can most certainly say Zionism does not contradict Orthodox Jewish belief, but that a number of Orthodox Jewish sects do oppose the idea, and the are a minority. There is a notorious movement of Haredi Judaism known as Naturei Karta whose propaganda you may have swallowed with the help of an ignorant media. They have about 5,000 members around the world, and about a hundred or so guys who actively campaign against the State of Israel in America and Britain. They gained notoriety for showing up to Ahmadinijad’s Holocaust-denial conference (see Bill Maher’s film ‘Religlous’). They traditionally associate with a larger group of anti-Zionist Hasidim known as Satmar, the most isolated of all Hasidic dynasties (even from other Jews), whose deceased Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum started the anti-Zionist movement within the Haredi sector. However, Satmar has grown more wary of NK for befriending folks like the Ayatollah and they have been forbidden from using their synagogues and facilities in some places. Many Jewish authorities have considered issuing a form of excommunication for Naturei Karta, which would be the first of its kind in a very long time. I think its very important to qualify mention of Naturei Karta with the facts. These are the people who supported the Mumbai massacre in the Chabad House, as Chabad’s style of Chassidus is too open and tolerant for NK. I’m serious. NK are tiny, but generate a lot of attention, partly as they are given copious amounts of airtime on Arab and Iranian television (many Muslims are led to believe they are the only true Torah Jews left in the world). They are often used as a kind of Jewish fig leaf for groups like Hamas and the Respect Party. Israel-bashing groups always display them like prize heifers at events, and its always the same 10 or so led by R. Yisroel Dovid Weiss. Then again, the Palestinian Solidarity Campaigns seem to award their members with a free car if they can find a Jew who agrees with their opinions. Despite the fact only 3% of Jews in the UK do so.

I’ve also discuseed earlier in this thread the simple impossibility for the Zionist forces to have forcibly removed hundreds of thousands of people. The Zionist militias simply did not have the power, and the largest of them (the Haganah) did not launch any major offensives until April 1948, and by that time most Arabs had already left. The smaller and more radical groups did ebgage in terorist attacks against civilians, but they only numbered 2000-2500 fighters at most.

109

I certainly would not give the IDF the mantle of all-wise protectors. But the fact remains and is uncontested: every day hundreds of rockets are fired at Israel form Gaza. Is this retaliation? Is it acceptable by our standard to retaliate against Israelis in general? Is the IDF perfectly right when blasting the houses form which those rockets are launched, and killing in land incursions those responsible?

Whatever Israel did in the past, palestinians have no right at all to bomb civilians. I think it’s a rather straightforward situation, at least regarding IDF incursions/air strikes in Gaza. They are even showing great colleens under fire. I can tell you that if any other nation would see civilians subjected to bombing, it would eradicate the perpetrator. We got to give the IDF its due when it deserves it.

110

A few things:

1-For a serious and non-polemic discussion of the conditions of Jews in Muslim lands I recommend this book: Under Crescent and Cross:The Jews in the Middle Ages by Mark R. Cohen

Mark R. Cohen, winner of the 2010 Goldziher Prize from The Center for the Study of Jewish-Christian-Muslim Relations at Merrimack College
National Jewish Honor Book in Jewish History

Here’s a summary of the ideas he presents:

“Did Muslims and Jews in the Middle Ages cohabit in a peaceful “interfaith utopia”? Or were Jews under Muslim rule persecuted, much as they were in Christian lands? Rejecting both polemically charged ideas as myths, Mark Cohen offers a systematic comparison of Jewish life in medieval Islam and Christendom–and the first in-depth explanation of why medieval Islamic-Jewish relations, though not utopic, were less confrontational and violent than those between Christians and Jews in the West.”

2-The Palestinians in Gaza are under siege by Israel. Do you remember Israel’s storming and killing of activists on the Mavi Marmara? So they respond by the only weapon they have, home made rockets which most of the time fall in the desert. How many Israelis have been killed by Gazan rockets? And how many Gazans have been killed by Israelis?

Since 2000 the Israelis have killed 1463 palestinian children while Palestinians have killed 124 Israeli children. The numbers speek for themselves.

__See the excellent graphs on the site If Americans Knew, What every American needs to Know About Israel/Palestine: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/__

111

I don’t think the formation of a state is the solution. It may in fact make matters worse than it already is. If Zionism is pro state, then it’s not part of the solution. The same would go for radical Islam if it adheres to the same pro state position.

Recognizing individual property rights would be the first logical step in the right direction regardless of how that society would choose to organize itself.

No individual should be able to impose their will upon another - i.e., there should be a voluntary social order and free trade. This is why I believe minarchists have a much more difficult challenge in keeping their limited government from getting out of hand. In time, or even immediately, individuals with political power will impose their will upon others. Perhaps Jefferson’s view of generational revolutions is the way that works, but I have doubts as this seems more like tit-for-tat than justice. While I believe anarchy would work, I don’t believe the people would easily embrace the idea let alone make it work constructively - at least not at this time.

Differences between individuals need to be worked out and settled between the affected parties. Killing people, bulldozing homes, driving people from their lands, etc. does nothing to resolve the situation.

I think it’s pretty clear there are some who are too heavily invested in revenge or hate to even begin to attempt the difficult task of settling their differences. Perhaps the solution involves time where a younger generation accepts the challege while the older generation dies out.

I think in general folks tend to get caught up in labels and also tend to group individuals into clusters of similar ideologies (or what they believe others believe regardless of accuracy). Zionism, whatever is really meant by the term, probably has a broad range of people with different ideas and beliefs. Just as libertarians have a broad range of people with different ideas and beliefs. Even in their most basic definitions there are disagreements.

112

About Israeli mistreatment of its minorities here’s an article from the leading Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz:

Christians in Jerusalem want Jews to stop spitting on them

A few weeks ago, a senior Greek Orthodox clergyman in Israel attended a meeting at a government office in Jerusalem’s Givat Shaul quarter. When he returned to his car, an elderly man wearing a skullcap came and knocked on the window. When the clergyman let the window down, the passerby spat in his face.

On Sunday, a fracas developed when a yeshiva student spat at the cross being carried by the Armenian Archbishop during a procession near the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City. The archbishop’s 17th-century cross was broken during the brawl and he slapped the yeshiva student.

Evyatar says he himself was spat at while walking with a Serbian bishop in the Jewish quarter, near his home. “A group of yeshiva students spat at us and their teacher just stood by and watched.”

To read the whole article go to:

[ View : http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/christians-in-jerusalem-want-jews-to-stop-spitting-on-them-1.137099]

113

Rocket and mortar attacks have not been as numerous as “hundreds a day” since the simultaneous conflict with Hezbollah back in 2006, I think? It should also be remembered that reprissal attacks affect, harm and even kill people who had nothing to do with the rockets or mortars. I don’t quite know how collective punishment can be justified within a libertarian framework.

In any case, there are sporadic rockets and mortars fired into the most desolate part of Israel. Sure, perhaps an attack in response could be justified but I do not see how imposing a unilateral blockade upon the place is.

The final point I’d like to make is that the idea that Gaza is a national threat to Israel is just ridiculous. These people are using Soviet-era and homemade armaments against the most powerful military in the region. What I don’t get it is how reprissal attacks could be cheered on when you could probably bribe most of the people in Gaza for the price of one cruise missile. You’d think a group of people who survived a time where many avoided certain death by bribery would at least recognize the irony of their State’s actions…

114

Israeli hatred for the Palestinians

Let Israelis speak for themselves, see this video on you tube:

[ View : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t_ZjetcSMQ&feature=player_embedded]

Scary!

115

It should also be remembered that reprissal attacks affect, harm and even kill people who had nothing to do with the rockets or mortars. I don’t quite know how collective punishment can be justified within a libertarian framework.

They can’t and that’s why I find the IDF policy of targeting the houses form which rockets are launched laudable. I’ll not illude myself that no innocents are killed, but in the crazy situation over there, its indeed a very ‘clean’ operation.

Sure, perhaps an attack in response could be justified but I do not see how imposing a unilateral blockade upon the place is.

If we accept states for now, which is what we must do in order to avoid closing the debate with “call me back when there’s anarchy”, than we must see that they exert authority over what they consider as their boundaries. And the ‘blockade’ is just an instance of Israel closing its borders to Gaza, which is cool for us. No one owes the Palestinians, or anyone else for that matter, open borders. So the blockade can only be attacked for the Israeli point of view, not the Palestinian.

The final point I’d like to make is that the idea that Gaza is a national threat to Israel is just ridiculous. These people are using Soviet-era and homemade armaments against the most powerful military in the region. What I don’t get it is how reprissal attacks could be cheered on when you could probably bribe most of the people in Gaza for the price of one cruise missile. You’d think a group of people who survived a time where many avoided certain death by bribery would at least recognize the irony of their State’s actions…

People tend to break under pressure, and all considered the IDF is keeping its cool, as I said. Now I myself find the whole Gaza policy in need of a fine-tuning, but that’s it, a fine tuning. Employ Mosad to kill known terrorists, post bounties, go on with precise air strikes and so on. All of these techniques are being used, though I’d do away with ground incursions.

So, to me Gaza is the most sensible Israeli policy right now. When attack stop form Gaza, in time the blockade will crumble under pressure. But with rocket being fired daily, even if they hit the dessert most of the time, ‘forgiveness’ and ‘peace’ is unthinkable. It took 12 years of noncontact between Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo for a negotiated political truce to even be considered.

116

According to Israeli Human Rights Organization B’Tselem:

following the abduction of the soldier Gilad Shalit on 26 June 2006, Israel initiated an extensive operation, which was given the name Summer Rains. In the operation, the army bombed civilian infrastructure and made incursions into crowded population centers. Since then, Israel has attacked the Gaza Strip several times.

In all these actions (until 26 December 2008), Israel killed 522 Palestinians who were not taking part in the hostilities. This number included 195 minors, 49 women, and 25 men over age 50.

On 27 December 2008, Israel began its most extensive operation, which it called Cast Lead. Operation Cast Lead continued until 18 January 2009 and caused unprecedented harm to the civilian population - 1,389 Palestinians were killed, including 759 civilians who did not take part in the hostilities, and thousands were wounded. Israel also caused enormous damage to buildings and infrastructure, causing electricity, water, and sewage facilities, which were on the verge of collapse before the operation, to cease functioning completely. According to UN figures, Israel destroyed over 3,500 residential dwellings, leaving large numbers of persons homeless.

Source:

[ View : http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/]

117

Negative. They blockade the seas and the airspace and put pressure on the Egyptians via the U.S. to keep their border closed. As Bastiat noted, if goods don’t cross borders eventually armies do.

118

Well again, if we go through this issue in a strict anarchist way, than we cannot discuss anything: both sides are wrong, call us when there are no states in that region.

If we insist on discussing even if we acknowledge that states exist, than me must take a proxy view that states in this conflict have a ‘right’ to ‘their’ land. So Israel has a ‘right’ to blockade goods passing through its territory. I do not get why everyone is so outraged at the ‘blockade’ of Israel and says nothing at all about the blockage of Egypt! The famous flotilla could have made port to Egypt and no one would have stooped them. So why does Israel get all the blame?

119

So the airspace above Gaza and the ocean it borders is Israel’s “territory”?

You also missed the point where I stated that Egypt would maintain a blockade of Gaza at the behest of Israel and the United States.

120

In the flotilla case the ships where heading for an Israeli port. Again, if they had wanted to ‘run the blockade’ they could have headed to Egypt.

As for Egypt, political pressure is all right form our perspective. Israel has any right to pressure whichever country it likes into anything, as long as they can pull it off without aggression. Even instigating revolts is all right as a form of non-aggressive competition. Rothbard wrote on such things.

So, in both cases, if you seek a guilty party, look to Egypt.