Zionism and Libertarians

Miscellaneous General
141

Occupation/trade embargoes/and daily killings are certainly the fault of Israel. Gazans are simply retaliating from israeli aggression(not that rocketfire will ever result in anything positive, quite the opposite).

The real thugs hold the higher body count, and some of the most powerful weapons in the world. Most IDF killings are pretty well known since there are so many of them- I’d be surprised for anyone to talk so much about the subject and not have done any research on their own as if IDF murders are a mystery. Its a very powerful miltary country, why would it be any surprise that they will engage in crime?

I’d could bring up anecdotal evidence too from people I know, but that won’t convince anyone. Palestinians have no lives to live, they’re choked out by all sorts of problems from israeli aggression then they’re labeled as the barbarians for not submitting completely to Israeli might. Its like if someone comes into your house and kills your whole family with a shotgun, then when you raise a bat to him he calls you the aggressor.

142

More reasons libertarians are against Zionism

Racism-Zionists: Israel is a Jewish state even thought Palestinian Christians and Muslims represent 20% of Israeli citizens and 50% of the people ruled by Israeli State.

Racism- Israeli Palestinians are identified as Arabs on their ID cards. [ View : http://www.jkcook.net/Articles3/0472.htm]

Racism -Israel has Jewish-only settlements connected by Jewish-only highways [ View : http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/broken_peace_process]

Racism-Deliberate discrimination against Arabs. Here’s what the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had to say about that:

[ View : http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3622276,00.html]

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says longtime discrimination against Israeli Arabs seeking public service posts deliberate.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert painted a grim picture Wednesday in respect to discrimination against Arabs seeking public service jobs.

In a special parliamentary session on the matter, Olmert said: “It is terrible that there is not even one Arab employee at the Bank of Israel (out of 900 employees) and that in the Israel Electric Company Arabs constitute fewer than 1% of all workers.”

“The issue of integrating Arab employees into the public service has been occupying me greatly,” he said. “The gap between their ratio in the population and their integration into the public service arouses concern and unease.”

The prime minister said that over the years the State maintained a policy of discrimination,

143

Being rascist is not against being a libertarian… People are free to discriminate, just like people are free to walk around naked in their property…

144

Most of these are lies (the myth of Jewish-only highways, for instance). Yet I cannot help but laugh at the way you characterise Israel as a “racial” state. Jews are not a race, they are a nation. And in nation states (which most of the world’s countries are) there tends to emerge one dominant culture and people. In Israel, this is the Jews. This is not a racial thing since Jews are of many races: Mizrachi, Ashkenazi, Beta Israel etc.

From a pro-capitalist, libertarian standpoint, we must argue that if the state is going to maintain public services in the first place (which it should not, but let’s just say it is for the meantime), it should not be under any obligation to implement racial quotas. Just as the idea of a Federal Reserve which mandates 14% of its employees be black is racist and uncalled for, the idea of Israel implementing legislation demanding that 20% of its government’s workers must be Arab is equally absurd.

PS, your idea that all Zionists and Israeli officials are racist is proved wrong by your own link, in which the Israeli Prime Minister of the time himself said that it was terrible that Arabs were underemployed. Kind of defeated your own point there.

145

Hey come on, that guy was Albanian

146

“The Law of Return (Hebrew: חוק השבות, ḥok ha-shvūt) is Israeli legislation, enacted in 1950/5710, that gives Jews, those of Jewish ancestry, and their spouses the right to migrate and to settle in Israel and gain citizenship. The law gives the right of return to those born Jews and those with Jewish ancestry.[1]”

[ View : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return]

And from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

[ View : http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/State/Acquisition+of+Israeli+Nationality.htm]

"The Law of Return (1950) grants every Jew, wherever he may be, the right to come to Israel as an (a Jew immigrating to Israel) and become an Israeli citizen.

For the purposes of this Law, “Jew” means a person who was born of a Jewish mother, or has converted to Judaism and is not a member of another religion."

Sounds clear to me that the law of return is based on racial discrimination (you have to have Jewish blood) and/or religious discrimination (and not be a member of another religion)

147

Jewish Only Highways

In the West Bank there are Jews living in settlements built on land stolen from the Palestinians. There are Palestinians, christians and Jews. There are highways the Palestinians are banned from using. Since Palestinians are not allowed to use these highways and the highways are used only by Jews from the settlements they are in reality Jewish Only highways. The Israeli government can call them anything they want but the truth is that these highways are for the exclusive use of the Jewish settlers.

See this video on you tube:

[ View : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyS7gBGbOVw&feature=player_embedded#at=135]

148

So you’ll concede that the highway law isn’t racist. Just because Israeli Arabs choose not to use them does not mean that they can’t. Since only Jews really care about living in the West Bank, these roads are under Israeli jurisdiction and thus only open to Israeli citizens. Israeli Arabs can use them, but they don’t. This is not legal discrimination.

Secondly, the citizenship law works like that of most countries. Two systems exist whereby countries determine who can become a citizen. Some countries use “jus soli” (right of soil) meaning if you were born there you can get nationality. Most countries use “jus sanguinis” (right of blood) whereby citizenship is given based on your bloodline, and this is the case in most European countries and others such as Japan. Israel is not the only state which operates on a ‘right of return’ basis. In fact, Israel, along with the United States, Canada, Italy, Germany (as of recently), Greece and the Republic of Ireland use a mixture of jus soli and jus sanguinis. All Israeli Arabs have full citizenship and their children inherit that, provided those children are born within Israel.

For every case red herring and false propaganda you throw up, instead of having to have me refute it, can you not just do some research into it instead? That’d be helpful.

149

Plus, Israeli settlements are not on “stolen land.” If anything, Jews pay Arabs well above market rate for property because Jews value it more than Arabs because it has a divine meaning. Most of the large settlement blocks in the West Bank are constructed on previously unused government land, which is more often than not barren desert. Under libertarian homseteading principles and land investment, there really shouldn’t be a problem with this. I’m starting to think that you’re not that libertarian at all, JB Say, since you seem to be regurgitating some quite anti-liberty Arab propaganda regarding Israel.

150

It’s really funny to see Tartan’s intellectual gymnastics at work, He is trying to make Israel look like a heaven of libertarianism.

1-The equivalent of the Israeli law of return in US would be if the US said that anyone of caucasian blood and of christian religion anywhere in the world is entitled to American citizenship. Comparing Israeli law of return to citizenship laws in western countries is nonsense.

2- The West Bank was taken by force by the Israelis in the 1967 war. So it’s a stolen land and no amount of Zionist propaganda and spin can change that fact.

3- You can accuse me of not being a libertarian but you cannot accuse Rothbard of not being a Libertarian. Here’s some of what he said about Zionism:

"The one Jewish movement that made no sense was Zionism (…)The fact that Palestine was not a virgin land, but already occupied by an Arab peasantry, meant nothing to the ideologues of Zionism (…) Because of the Arabs resident in Palestine, Zionism had to become in practice an ideology of conquest.

After World War I, Great Britain seized control of Palestine and used its sovereign power to promote, encourage, and abet the expropriation of Arab lands for Zionist use and for Zionist immigration. Often old Turkish land titles would be dredged up and purchased cheaply, thus expropriating the Arab peasantry on behalf of European Zionist immigration. Into the heart of the peasant and nomadic Arab world of the Middle East there thus came as colonists, and on the backs and on the bayonets of British imperialism, a largely European colonizing people."

So according to Rothbard Zionism is about expropriation and conquest. Zionism is therefore incompatible with libertanian principles

See whole article here:

[ View : http://original.antiwar.com/rothbard/2010/03/02/war-guilt-in-the-middle-east/]

151

Applying libertarian principles to Israel

1) Individualism not collectivism Libertarians believe only individuals have rights. Libertarians do not recognize the right of religious, ethnic, racial or ideological groups, governments or groups of governments to use either private or state violence to enforce some collectivist vision on the life, liberty or property of others. They do not accept collectivist rationales like “God’s will”, racial, ethnic or religious superiority, collective historical rights etc.

2) Property rights should be inviolate libertarians “oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.” Property rights are created when individuals or voluntary associations either trade for land or homestead unused or voluntarily abandoned land (as opposed to land whose owners have been driven off in recent times by war, massacres or empty promises). Libertarians support everyone’s right of return to unjustly confiscated land. And they have little sympathy for individuals or governments who use force and fraud to confiscate property and then claim the right to defend their stolen loot.

3) Might does not make right Libertarians oppose the notion that a group of people (criminal or terrorist gang, “liberation army” or government) which has the military ability to kill people and drive them off their land, has the moral right to do so.

4) Political self-determination and secession Libertarians believe everyone, no matter their religion, ethnicity, ideology, etc., has the right to secede from any political union or colonial or occupied territory on their justly acquired land and to self-govern themselves on it.

6) Opposition to Collective Punishment libertarians agree that people who bear no responsibility for a crime, be it done by governments of other nations, or by members of a family without the consent of the family, should not be denied due process or collectively punished.

7) Freedom of Speech Libertarians defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press and to dissent from government itself. This means the right to criticize any state anywhere in the world; the right to criticize any special interest or foreign interest influencing government policy.

8) The Right to Rebel Against Oppressors Libertarians abhor state or rebel violence against innocent civilians, defining that as terrorism. However, they defend the right of individuals and groups to violently rebel against the soldiers and police who enforce the laws of repressive governments, including those of occupying foreign powers.

So in light of the principles mentioned above it’s no wonder so many libertarians oppose Zionist policies.

I was inspired by this article:

[ View : http://www.carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/principlesandisrael.html]

152

It’s quite obvious, JB, that you’re not reading any of my points or doing any of your own research into them, so I’ll repeat.

  1. The Israeli citizenship law is NOT the equivalent of the USA declaring that all Christian whites can gain citizenship. If America were to have a truly equivalent law, it would state that all those of American ancestry can gain citizenship. I did write this above. “Two systems exist whereby countries determine who can become a citizen. Some countries use “jus soli” (right of soil) meaning if you were born there you can get nationality. Most countries use “jus sanguinis” (right of blood) whereby citizenship is given based on your bloodline, and this is the case in most European countries and others such as Japan. Israel is not the only state which operates on a ‘right of return’ basis. In fact, Israel, along with the United States, Canada, Italy, Germany (as of recently), Greece and the Republic of Ireland use a mixture of jus soli and jus sanguinis. All Israeli Arabs have full citizenship and their children inherit that, provided those children are born within Israel.”

  2. I’m not trying to make Israel sound libertarian at all, that’s a straw man. What I’m trying to do is point out that it is more free than you and your chronies make out it is. You’re happy to throw around what libertarianism means yet you’re so reluctant to put it into practise. Whether or not Israel started the 1967 war (and they fired the first shot only after Egypt amassed its army along the two countries’ border), states cannot ‘steal’ land from other states. Thus any civilian, whether Jewish or Arab, is right to settle state owned desert and turn it into a viable community.

Let me ask you this, and answer it honestly. If a group of Israeli Jews were to settle a large area of previously uninhabited desert in the West Bank, and turn it into a flourishing, modern community, would you be opposed to this? What you have said so far hints that you would.

I’m actually writing a long refutation of Rothbard’s article on Israel since it is riddled with historical error (not surprising, since it was written forty five years ago). Your statement “according to Rothbard Zionism is about expropriation and conquest. Zionism is therefore incompatible with libertanian principles” is such a logical fallacy that I don’t know where to begin with it. Appeal to authority doesn’t work since Rothbard is not an authority on Jewish history, the Yishuv/Arab clashes or Zionism. You assume in your original point that Rothbard is the unfailing, always-correct hero by which you can deduce conclusions from based on purely opinion. It doesn’t help that Rothbard thinks in terms of colectivised property in his article, i.e. “a land that was most emphatically NOT theirs” - who is he to decide that Jewish land purchases should be forbidden because an Arab political entity previously ruled it? It smacks of collectivism to say that one Jew cannot buy land in a certain area because all those around him are of Arab extraction and therefore all land, settled and unsettled, public and private, is “Arab land”.

153

Tartan,

Your arguments are laughable. You are obviously an inconditional supporter of Israel and that’s your right. But you’re not going to win many people to your point of view by dismissing any reasoning or fact that doesn’t suit you.

You seem to imply that people have to be experts on a topic in order to have an opinion on it. Well I don’t need to be a specialist in Nazism to know that Nazis were bad people and I don’t need to have a PhD in the history of Zionism to know that the Zionists were a bunch of thieves and murderers. You can spin the facts all you want but I think a majority of people now know the ugly truth about Zionism and Israel.

Also Rothbard was a great scholar and a respected authority on Libertarianism, a man of great moral integrity and a man who stuck by his principles at great personal cost.

So now you are telling me that you know more than Rothbard and you are going to write an article showing how clueless he was about Zionism? I didn’t know I had the privilege of exchanging on this forum with such a great authority on Zionism and Israel/Palestine as yourself! Could you direct me to one of your many illustrious works so I can educate myself further?

154

I’m perfectly aware of the fact that you can make moral judgements about things without knowing much about them. For instance, Rothbard would have been acting intellectually honestly if he had set out to criticise Zionism from a libertarian perspective, which, as you say and we all know, he is an expert on, since he clearly has done research into it. Likewise, you can launch a criticism of Nazism without knowing much about the Nazis, and you can do so on libertarian grounds.

What you cannot do, however, is attempt to write a history of Nazism without knowing much about it. And that is what Rothbard did with Zionism. He abandoned the idea of launching a libertarian criticism of Israel, which would have been fine, and instead attempted to write a history of Zionism and the creation of Israel - without sources! All this from a man who evidentely knew little about Zionism and spoke very litte about it after writing the article. That was intellectual dishonesty on Rothbard’s part, and that particular piece was one of his sloppiest works (as were a lot of his history pieces, he should have stuck to philosophy and economics).

You don’t have to have published works on Zionism to be well versed in the subject or be an ‘authority’. I doubt many people on here have published anything on libertarianism, yet they have read scores of works on the issue and can be considered authorities. You can read the article when I’ve finished it. I’ll PM you then or something. That’s if you’re interested?

I also wonder if you’re interested in criticising any other forms of nationalism. I often ask myself why so much criticism is levelled at Jewish nationalism and the idea of a Jewish-majority state as ‘racist’ and ‘apartheid’, yet no one seems to bat an eyelid at Palestinian nationalism. Some of the most ardent critics of Israel and the idea of a Jewish-majority state frequently call for the immediate creation of a Palestinian state which, by definition, would require a Palestinian majority. French nationalism, Brazilian nationalism, Irish nationalism… Most states in the world today are nation-states with a dominant nation underpinning the state’s identity and setting that state’s outlook - why no criticism of these? The idea of the nation-state is not limited to Israel.

Perhaps you can answer the question again since you so carefully dodged it in your reply. If a group of Israeli Jews were to settle a large area of previously uninhabited desert in the West Bank, and turn it into a flourishing, modern community, would you be opposed to this? Would this constitute an ‘apartheid illegal settlement’?

155

The topic here was about libertarianism and zionism that’s why I talked about Zionism. If the topic was about Bahrein for example or China or Turkey I would have criticized their mistreatment of their minorities with the same severity as I criticized Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. You see many Zionists think the whole world is antisemitic as if there’s is something in the genes of gentiles who makes them irrationally hate the Jews. That’s not true for the most part.

Actually many intellectuals criticized the French war in Algeria, America’s involvement in Vietnam, the Khmer Rouge’s massacres in Cambodia, China’s occupation of Tibet, Sudan’s crimes in Darfour etc. So Israel is not singled out for criticism as many of Israel’s supporters claim.

The problem with Israel’s supporters is that they want Israel to get a special treatment, some sort of moral dispensation based on Jewish historical suffering and that’s not right.

I don’t see why it’s ok to criticize the US, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Serbia, Russia, China etc. but not Israel.

156

You can’t secede and take someone else’s land with you.

Your bandeeing about the 77% ‘state owned’ figure is without effect. States do not own anything, and most of that was barren and unowned desert. Palestinians owned the mayority of that land which was in private hands. They were also, as per the homesteading principle and the principle of reversal of feudal land theft, the rightful owners of almost all privately cultivated ‘public’ land.

The would-be Israelis were free to secede with the land which they owned privately, and were free to homstead the trully unowned land, eg in the Negev. Had they done so and conflict arose, it would be they who would have been in the right.

Instead they seceded 700,000 Palestinians from their homes, by not permitting them to return to and take back control of their parcels they had, fearing for their safety, fled.

157

Tartan said: “Perhaps you can answer the question again since you so carefully dodged it in your reply. If a group of Israeli Jews were to settle a large area of previously uninhabited desert in the West Bank, and turn it into a flourishing, modern community, would you be opposed to this? Would this constitute an ‘apartheid illegal settlement’?”

As I said earlier Israeli Jews should be treated as any other social group and submited to the same moral judgement. So If they acquire land in a libertarian friendly way they they should be able to do with it as they wish.

But in historical Palestine the Israelis already got 3/4 of the land. The international community recognizes Israeli sovereignty on 78% of mandate Palestine. The Palestinians now accept that and want to have their own country on the 22% left but the Israelis say no, they also want a piece of that 22%. Who is not being reasonable here?

Also there’s plenty of uninhabited desert in the Negev where the Israelis could build all the settlements they want an no one will criticize them for it.

Tartan said: “The Israeli citizenship law is NOT the equivalent of the USA declaring that all Christian whites can gain citizenship. If America were to have a truly equivalent law, it would state that all those of American ancestry can gain citizenship.”

If we follow your logic what would be then the equivalent in the American law of: “has converted to Judaism and is not a member of another religion.”?

Israel didn’t only say those of Israeli ancestry have a right to citizenship, it also said any Jew in the world even those whose ancestors never set foot in Israel have a right to the citizenship. But the Palestinians who where born in what is now Israel and were expelled in 1948 and their descendents don’t have a right to return and to citizenship..

A better equivalent to the Israeli law of return would be if the UK said every person of English ancestry has a right to return but those of Scottish ancestry do not have a right to return

Here is the law again:

"The Law of Return (1950) grants every Jew, wherever he may be, the right to come to Israel as an (a Jew immigrating to Israel) and become an Israeli citizen.

For the purposes of this Law, “Jew” means a person who was born of a Jewish mother, or has converted to Judaism and is not a member of another religion."

Source: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

[ View : http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts+About+Israel/State/Acquisition+of+Israeli+Nationality.htm]

158

Most Arab Palestinians were given, you forget, official opportunity to return, back after the intitial war the Arabs launched upon founding of Israel.

Most Arab Palestinians did not return and fled to Arab countries, heeding call of militia leaders to flee, because they had joined in militias or collaborated with militias which killed Jews and some killed Jews and destroyed other their private property themselves.

Then, they did not succeed in war. They assumed, quite correctly, that people who participated in murder would be punished, and due to extended families having at least one such person in most places, decided they could not return.

This is same situation as Chinese peasants who banded with Mao Tse-tung when he was just bandit leader. They were inspired by Soviets to kill all wealthy peasants in their village, and when other peasants revolted against all those public executions in late 1920’s to 1940’s, and began to favour nationalists, those peasants and their families who had ties to Communist agitators feared that with blood on their hands they could not return to their villages and make peace with families of people whom they killed.

Thus, as intended by Russians, more and more peasants had to become communists, simply because their someone in their families participated in Communist atrocities.

Are you realy suprised? Really? And now, decades and decades later, when land that they departed has been put to use, they claim this was taken from them, forgetting that their families fled it to escape punishment they feared for crimes that other family members at that time had committed.

And in Japan, again same thing: during 1870’s and 1880’s, small landowners and gamblers staged anti-foreigner and anti-equality-with-merchants and anti-“usury” peasant revolts. When government sent troop to disperse these roaming bands of bankrupt thieves and murderers, many leader and agitators did not even consider bargaining with army, although most revolt participants were punished merely with monetary fines and short jail sentences.

These revolt leaders and families went into hiding into forests for as long as two to three decades in some cases! Go figure if other landowners got their land and then sold it and resold it until it was no longer recognizable.

159

Ha! Please do tell us more. Do expand on what it means to be given an “official opportunity to return”. Scandalously I have a totally unfounded feeling it is not quite the same as being allowed to come back to your property unconditionally.

Oh yes, they were war criminals and they fled correctly assuming they would be punished. This was so obvious they only realized this once their militia leaders told them. What would these Arabs ever do without their militia leaders to explain things for them? And what a coincidental blessing for the Israelis that is how their militia leaders broke it down to them. The stupid Arabs expelled themselves!

Ah those pesky Russians, always pulling strings in Chinese villages. I guess some see the Jews behind everything nefarious, but others in this role cast the Russians.

What a clever strategy too! Adding to the number of Communists by alienating peasant villagers and turning them against Communists! Who else, but the Russians, could have thought of that? No wonder they can’t be beat at chess!

160

Auh. One of my favorite subjects, but only because I love picking out the double standards. I’ll get to that later.

Some neo-nazis latch on to libertarianism because they feel it will destroy the ZOG, since in their minds Jewish bankers control the oil companies and, well, banks. I noticed the correlation between (from what I thought was libertarians) libertarians and neo-nazis and when I ran into a man by the name of Frank Weltner on YouYube in 07. He has a site called “Jew Watch” and his YouTube videos were almost entirely about Mossad being to blame for all problems in the world. I kid you not. He and his followers were Libertarians, Ron Paul 08 Spamers. You know, those guys. Now does this make libertarians neo-nazis? No. Some neo-nazis just happen to latch onto the libertarian movement and they are what they’ve always been, and that’s loudmouths.

“I’m not a neo-Nazi or anti-Jewish!” Really, huh? Then why conveniently leave out the atrocities Muslim tyranny has caused. If Hamas were to take over, women’s rights would be gone, clitoris would be cut off, and homosexuals whipped, killed and their bodies hung for all to see. And I know. I know. Because I have heard it from left-wing marxists to right-wing neo-nazis when I bring that last part up: “I’m not for what either side does.” But see that’s too late, the impression has already been made. You should have also pointed out that you’re not for the other side and X,Y and Z is why. But see I have never seen that happen. Not once. I’ve come to the conclusion that it gets down to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Now lets push dem Jews into the sea.” Sorry, but that’s just what it seems to comes down to.

Now if someone wants to explain to me why I should side with radial “Palestinianism,” if you will, I will be more that happy to take it into consideration. But until then I’m going to keep my opinion on why Israel is singled out by some people.