I notice that many libertarians I find on the internet are very opposed to Zionism. Why is this? Is this due to anti-Semitism, or what is the reason for this? I would think that the libertarian position would be that the Jews had the right to form Israel in 1948, but the Palestinians have the right to secede from the country.
shazam: I notice that many libertarians I find on the internet are very opposed to Zionism. Why is this? Is this due to anti-Semitism, or what is the reason for this? I would think that the libertarian position would be that the Jews had the right to form Israel in 1948, but the Palestinians have the right to secede from the country.
Zionism is an anathema to true libertarians. What was done to the Palestinians was one of the biggest rape and ethnic cleansings ever performed in the history of the earth. The Palestinians were forcibly dispossessed of their land. Obviously the forcible dispossession of land is a slap in the face to libertarianism.
This link will give you a view of the events that has been sanitized from U.S. Education Systems at the bidding of the Neo-conservatives and their Zionist partners.
http://www.palestineremembered.com/
A true libertarian is a natural enemy of both the philosophy and practitioners of Zionism and of their fellow scoundrels known as Neo-conservatives.
While Jews had a right to peacefully EMIGRATE to Palestine and settle on unoccupied land, they did NOT have the right to form the nation of Israel.
Palestinians were never given the choice to secede, they were forcibly cleansed from their rightful lands.
Both sides of the conflict, the Palestinians and the Jews, lay claim to the land which is now called Isreal.
The libertarian position would hold true to the non-aggression principle, and the mind your own business, MYOB, principle (not sure the latter is a libertarian principle, but seems to be true for most libertarians.)
The land was forced out of Palestine's hands by the UN, and placed into the Jews after WWII, violating both of those above principles. If the Palestine and Isreal have disagreements over the land, let them figure it out on their own. The US nor any other country should be involved in their dispute.
As an ethnic "jew" myself, I have always been hostile to Zionism and Israel.
Zionism should be properly understood as a political ideology. In particular, an ultra-nationalist political ideology that supports what amounts to more or less a forcibly ethnically or religiously exclusive state. While Zionism's roots may have started out in a seemingly innocent manner as the mere desire for a "Jewish homeland", it has grown far beyond such simplicity and has become an all-encompassing political ideology that blatantly supports aggression as a means to its ends. The assumption that opposition to zionism is inherently anti-semetic is a PC taboo without much merit, especially considering the existance of people within the Jewish community around the world who are rather explicitly opposed to zionism.
The state of Israel was formed on the basis of land theft and cold blooded murder. This is of course not unique to Israel, since to some degree all nation-states have initially been formed through such methods of conquest, but it sticks out as a particularly blatant case of it. Many Palestinians were forcibly exiled from their own lands in order for certain Jews and particular European individuals who claimed Jewish descent to be moved onto it. The state of Israel continues to be a fairly aggressive state to this day. And while the radical Islamic side cannot be said to be entirely innocent in the matter, the media generally sides with Israel in a very unfair way. The Israel state most certainly is an aggressor, not merely engaging in defense.
The land was forced out of Palestine's hands by the UN, and placed into the Jews after WWII, violating both of those above principles.
The situation isn't quite as clearcut as that. The 1967 borders were a de jure recognition of what de facto already existed: the areas allocated for Jews already had a supermajority of Jews, who got the land legally through buying and selling. If the situation were left alone for another few decades, the self-segregation of Jews and Arabs would have proceeded to the point that Israel existed all but officially. But the situation could not have been "left alone," because the British ruled the territory and forcibly prevented Jewish immigration, and before that Turkey ruled the area and enforced Islamic law by which non-Muslims were second-class citizens and could be expropriated more or less at will.
The UN decision touched off Arab anger in a way that the fact of Jewish ownership prior to the decision did not, because it burst the illusion (or the reality) that Arabs were first-class citizens, and that the entire levant were part of dar al Islam. Without that decision, and under the Ottomans, the bubble would have burst years later, when Jews finished buying up lands in Jewish areas, and the Arabs would have responded simply by expropriating them of their lawfully-purchased property.
This doesn't justify the UN decision, or the British mandate, or Ottoman rule, but it does point to the deficiency of the tale that the UN simply stole Arab land and handed it over to pesky European Jews.
--Len.
ViennaSausage:The US nor any other country should be involved in their dispute.
Yes, American soldiers should never be expcted to fight in a war and die for the benefit of another country or taxpayers have their money going to a foreign cause they might not agree with.
Mark B.:Zionism is an anathema to true libertarians. What was done to the Palestinians was one of the biggest rape and ethnic cleansings ever performed in the history of the earth. The Palestinians were forcibly dispossessed of their land. Obviously the forcible dispossession of land is a slap in the face to libertarianism.
If your going to criticize the Zionists for doing all of those things to the Palestinians shoudn't you also criticize the people who founded this country for doing pretty much the same thing to the Indians?
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Free Software Foundation
Yes, very true. But that doesn't defeat the argument against the Zionist political agenda and the Israeli state. It puts it into a broader historical and comparative context. And it points to the proposition that nation-states are initially founded on some degree of conquest through devices such as land theft (which eventually institutionalizes itself into a territorial monopoly), intergenerational extortion (which eventually institutionalizes itself as taxation) and mass-murders. In the background, of course, this must be read against a framework of some degree of cooperation or patronage among the initial criminals involved.
I don't know of any anti-Semitic libertarians.
Many libertarians are anti-Zionist because:
1. The Jews had no "right" to take over the Arab land in Palestine.
2. 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.
3. Zionism is a nationalistic, racist ideology that preaches hate against gentiles.
Political Atheists Blog
It appears that no one here is aware of these facts: that war has not been waged exclusively by the Israelis, that massacres of jews prior to the establishment of Israel were frequent, that the Israeli state has 3 million arabs, while a jew in the palestinian terroritory can't be said to be safe at all, that muslim fundamentalists kill their own co-religionaries more often than Israeli civilians, that palestinian radical movements don't want peace under any circumstance, that they are funded by states such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, in the past also Iraq, for reasons of domestic political stability (hate for the enemy makes the state healthier, and perpetual war means perpetual hatred).
There is only one solution: coexistance. And only one sure fact: palestinian political movements don't want it. So, there will never be peace, and Sionism has nothing to do with that, unless one wants to defend the deportation of six million people. The sad fact is that the greatest problem of the palestinian people are their palestinian rulers and muslim neighbours...
For what concerns anti-semitism in libertarian movements, it appears that it is the sad consequence of a political tactics: libertarians in the eighties went closer to extreme-right movements such as white supremacists, segregationists, anti-semitists, full fledged conspirationists (now we can add 9/11 truthers) and other extremists... all this is absolutely harmful to libertarianism, even much more dangerous than the new-leftism of the '60... at least hashish smokers have never harmed anyone...
There is only one solution: coexistance. And only one sure fact: palestinian political movements don't want it. So, there will never be peace, and Sionism has nothing to do with that, unless one wants to defend the deportation of six million people.
The Zionist political movement doesn't seem to want it either. They are no less aggressive than the radical Muslims. Both sides deserve some level of blame. But as far as the institutional problem goes, the Israel state in and of itself and the tactics used is a significant contributor to the hostile nature of the situation.
And I don't believe I've seen anyone suggest mass-deportations in this thread. Part of the complaint or beef with the Israeli state is that it forcibly exiled people from what was originally their property. This is a valid beef to have. I can tell you one thing. Hegemony with the U.S. and a militaristic policy of the Israeli state is not going to lead to peaceful coexistance. It will only be inflammatory and it has been so for quite some time.
There is a degree of truth to this. Rothbard shifted his alliances more in the direction of paleoconservatives and white nationalists in the 80's and early 90's. I believe that alliance started to fray, however, around the time Rothbard died. Furthermore, I don't lump all opposition to Zionism into those movements. It is fallacious to assume that all opposition to the Israeli state and Zionism comes from anti-semites, white nationalists and the like. There are even Jewish anti-zionist movements.
The Zionist political movement doesn't seem to want it either. They are no less aggressive than the radical Muslims. Both sides deserve some level of blame.
A majority of Israelis support a two-state solution. Israelis march in support of Palestinian causes. Palestinians are not only protected by the geneva convention, but by the Israeli constitution--in other words, they can sue the Israeli military in civil court, and have won.
That doesn't mean abuses never happen, but good luck finding Palestinians who support a two-state solution, or respect the Israelis' basic human rights. The David-and-Goliath-story-with-Israel-as-Goliath is mostly myth.
Hehe that is pretty much my position on it too.
@Mark B - What a load of pathetic nonsense. The Palestinians were only evicted after the vast majority of them attacked the Jewish community with the intention of destroying it. You clearly know nothing about the history and get your facts from ultra-leftist websites like that one above. Read Benny Morris' "Righteous Victims", it's been praised by both sides.
It’s not the simple situation its often made to be. Who fired the fists shot? The Israelis who wanted their own state? Or the Arabs who where strongly opposed to further mass Jewish emigration? It makes all the difference on earth and yet I seldom hear the point discussed.
Perhaps the situation precipitated when the settlers tried to erect their state, or perhaps their mere presence set a chain reaction of attacks and counter-attacks in place. If this was the case, I cannot help thinking that the whole mess was horrible but inevitable, and just a modern repetition of what has gone down thousands of times in history, before states ever existed.
Now, Israel has no ‘right’ to exist, but neither does any other state. And given that there are states around, the more states there are the better. So, one cannot say a priori that Israel should not exist.
So for me, the Israelis where mistaken in seeking a state (especially one that encompassed Arab lands), but I certainly would not say that this makes them fully guilty of the Arab flight. Perhaps it was inevitable.
Zionism is not nationalistic. It merely opinion that if Jews cannot get justice insofar as property in life in some countries, they could buy land elsewhere and then secede and form their own government. This is very classical liberal point of view. That is, right to buy, right to secede, right to defend property.
This is what did happen, but large landowners in that part of the world said that all buying of land by Jews is not valid, because contracts made between Jews and Muslims cannot be valid if Jews decide to secede from Muslim government.
Then there was war, which attackers lost, and they have been angry ever since. They lost territory which they used as base to attack from, as in any war between any countries, but apparently rules which are valid for other nations are not to be granted to Jews?
There is parable by Ambrose Bierce to explain all anger at Israel for what it really is:
"People of Madagonia had antipathy to people of Novakatka and set upon some sailors of a Novakatkan vessel, killing two and wounding twelve.
"King of Madagonia having refused either to apologise or pay, King of Novakatka made war upon him, saying that it was necessary to show that Novakatkans must not be slaughtered.
"In the battles which ensued the people of Madagonia slaughtered two thousand Novakatkans and wounded twelve thousand, but the Madagonians were unsuccessful and lost this war, which so chagrined them that never thereafter in all their land was a Novakatkan secure in property or life."
Lol I'm always shocked to hear about "pro israeli" or israeli sympathizers from libertarian folks. As for Zionism not being nationalistic........
I'm pretty sure that's the Jewish symbol, a star of david, enough said.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Well, provided you're ready to get rid of the crosses in the flags of Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark, we can start talking about the Judeocentrism of Israel's vexillogy. Most Israelis these days are only cultural Jews, with the Orthodox and Hasidics being to Israeli society what the "Bible Belt" is to the US. Though, estimates do vary wildly on the secularity of Israelis, depending on the criteria you use. About half don't keep the Sabbath, for starters, and the only real influence the Chief Rabbinate possesses outside of the usual "births, deaths and marriages" trinity (well, there's conversions and folks can submit doctrinal questions too, but anyhow...) is over certification of kosher goods and administration of holy sites like the Kotel. It's definitely not a Jewish version of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Taliban-Afghanistan or other places where believing in the wrong deity can get you stoned in the non-Californian manner.
In any case, what's wrong with a country being nationally based? Homogenous nation-states like the Roman Republic, Austro-Hungarian and German Empires or modern day Mexico are a hell of a lot better from a dozen different perspectives than multiculturalist theocracies like the EU or Britain. Nobody ever kicks up a fuss when the Japanese prefer their country to be Yamato, or the Chinese any of the 50-some ethnicities in their jurisdiction. So what's wrong with, say, Britain being culturally (not ethnically, necessarily. Wouldn't work with the whole English-Welsh-Scottish-Irish thing anyhow) British? Or America American?
You're right. Nationalism is not wrong or anti-libertarian at all. Rothbard wrote about this.
Nationalism is as anti-libertarian as love of one’s family is anti-libertarian.
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
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.
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
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)
Well, if the British said it was okay then it must be...
As the legal owners of the land, that's right.
Tartan Pimpernel: As the legal owners of the land, that's right.
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.
thesystemworks: I never really saw a contradiction between this and my libertarianism
As far as Zionism is about establishing a territorial coercive monopoly, you don't see the blatant contradiction?
thesystemworks: That is my position, though it depends on one's definition nationalism (supporting the sovereignty of your nation and others is good
That is my position, though it depends on one's definition nationalism (supporting the sovereignty of your nation and others is good
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.
DD5: thesystemworks: I never really saw a contradiction between this and my libertarianism As far as Zionism is about establishing a territorial coercive monopoly, you don't see the blatant contradiction?
There is such a thing as a minarchist libertarian.
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.
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.
Merlin:There is such a thing as a minarchist libertarian.
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.
DD5: Merlin:There is such a thing as a minarchist libertarian. 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.
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.
Merlin: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.
What an accusation. What is the meaning of libertariansm that I have hijacted?
DD5: Merlin: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. What an accusation. What is the meaning of libertariansm that I have hijacted?
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?
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.
Merlin: DD5: Merlin: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. What an accusation. What is the meaning of libertariansm that I have hijacted? 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?
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.
I'm a religious Jew and Zionist, though not a Religious Zionist.
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.
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.
thesystemworks: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.
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?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum