Irrelevant. Last I checked, Taiwan is not a recognized sovereign state, yet somehow it is a de facto state...It is immaterial what type of seat the PLO has if it is a de facto state. A state is a state is a state.
No, like I said Israel still doles out the tax money to the PLO. They are like subjects of Israel.
Really? Equivocate much? Not only is the PLO a state (as in, you know, a government ruling by aggression), it also has territory. I wasn't aware that the PLO was a political party within the borders of Israel. I thought the state of Israel banned that.
This isn't true. They aren't a State. They are a paramilitary organization that is trying to become a State, but the US and Israel do not allow it. They have territory (referred to as a reservation), but again, they are not ruling by force. ISRAEL rules them by force, they tax the palestinians and dole out the money to the PLO only if they behave as Israel wishes...
And America doles out tax money to Israel. The state of Israel is not sovereign which is the primary feature of a state.
You are confusing the realtionships between the two. The PLO is not allowed money to operate until Israel gives it (tax money) to them. The US gives aid to Israel. The US doesn't tax the Israeli citizens, but Israel taxes the Palestinians. The U.S. gives Israel tax money as a gift. There is a huge difference. Study up, son.
Here is a brand new news article that clarifies the Palestinian statehood issue.
The Palestinians have continued to insist upon a moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank and east Jerusalem as a precondition to resuming talks. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has declared his willingness to resume the diplomatic process immediately without preconditions. One Israeli government official said that if the PA follows through with its threat to unilaterally ask for statehood recognition in the UN General Assembly it would be a “very negative development that would not in any way further the real establishment of a Palestinian state.” Such a state, the official said, could only be achieved through negotiations with Israel.
The Palestinians have continued to insist upon a moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank and east Jerusalem as a precondition to resuming talks. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has declared his willingness to resume the diplomatic process immediately without preconditions.
One Israeli government official said that if the PA follows through with its threat to unilaterally ask for statehood recognition in the UN General Assembly it would be a “very negative development that would not in any way further the real establishment of a Palestinian state.” Such a state, the official said, could only be achieved through negotiations with Israel.
You are in way over your head in understanding this issue.
Since the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, Israel has withheld some of the taxes it owes the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. In June 2008, Israel withheld part of the taxes it owes the Palestinian Authority in an apparent retaliation for Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority Salam Fayyad attempting to undermine Israel – European Union relations. In response to Palestine's bid for full membership in the United Nations, admission to UNESCO, and Fatah's steps to reconcile with Hamas in the Fatah–Hamas conflict, Israel refused to transfer about $200 million in taxes collected during October and November 2011
Here it is apparent that Israel has conditions of Palestinian Authority behavior. PA is the SUBJECT of Israel. Israel is sovereign and the PLO is not. Israel has stolen money from the Palestinians in this case.
Also, gotlucky, it actually isn't clear if Taiwan is a state since it is part of China.
Aristophanes: You are in way over your head in understanding this issue.
You stay classy. Your anti-semitism is getting quite irritating. Read the damn wikipedia entry you linked to:
Taxation in the Palestinian territories is a complex system which may involve payment to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and/or Israel in the context of the sraeli–Palestinian conflict. In 2005 the Palestinian Authority collected approximately $34 million per month from taxes and other charges, and Israel collected about $75 million per month in tariffs on foreign imports and value added taxes (VAT) on Israeli goods and services and on average kept about $15 million for the payment of water and power bills of Palestinians, while forwarding the other $60 million to the PA. Israeli collected funds account for about two-thirds of the authority's self-generated revenue. Since the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, Israel has regularly withheld the taxes it owes the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.
Perhaps it is the case that Israel taxes the Palestinians. But it does not say that here. It does not say that in the source articles that make up that page. All it says is that Israel taxes on behalf of Palestine. And you may notice that it specifically states there that Israel taxes Israeli stuff. It sounds like Israel is taxing Israelis in order to pay money to the PA.
Now, perhaps that is not the case, but the stuff you have provided does not indicate otherwise. Please provide a source that backs your claims. If I have missed something in my reading those sources, please cite and quote the passages.
I don't understand your fascination with the Jews. Jews are not evil. Jews do not rule the world. I don't see you condemning Jordan for its history with the Palestinians. Nor do I see you condemning the PLO, PA, or Hamas. All I see is that you are condeming the state of Israel and its conscripts. You didn't even bother to make a distinction between the conscripts that have aggressed and the ones that haven't. Since you like to be so picky about words, I'm going to assume that was intentional.
Furthermore, I have stated that I do not believe any libertarian should support or defend either state, yet you seem bent on supporting the Palestinian gangs. As far as I'm concerned, both the Palestinian gangs and Israeli gangs are despicable, but somehow you have yet to actually condemn the Arabs. You have only condemned the Jews.
Interesting. Like I said, you are very choosy in what you say.
I don't understand your fascination with the Jews. Jews are not evil. Jews do not rule the world.
Can you find where I claimed that, please?
Robert Kaplan mentions why I am (and I'm sure others are) interested in the issue.
The statelessness of Palestinian Arabs has been a principal feature of world politics for more than half a century. It is the signature issue of our time.
I actually study politics. I don't "a priori hypothesize" like the Clayton in his recent apotheosis worthy ruminations. Kaplan is a big name in academia in case you'd wonder why I'd go to this article. This is the most controversial issue in politics. That is why I am interested in it. That is why you cannot help but claim I am racist. That is why Nom Chomsky has spoken on it for so long. That is why nuclear war looms overhead of the issue.
I don't see you condemning Jordan for its history with the Palestinians. Nor do I see you condemning the PLO, PA, or Hamas.
Did you watch any of the videos I posted? I don't absolve anyone
I think they are all religious maniacs. Israeli politicians are just as much religious fanatics as those in Iran. I tend to be more sympathetic to the Arabs, however, only because the mainstream Western world has had such a campaign against them. Not to mention the amount of influence that Israel has on US policy is sickening. I certainly don't get called an anti-semite when I complain about Arabs, do I?
You stay classy. Your anti-semitism is getting quite irritating.
Oh, and the term antisemite...people realize that arabs are semetic too, yes? I can't be antisemetic if I am pro either one and against the other...again you are in way over your head for real intellectual discussion of this topic. All you are is mad at me and wanting to discredit me in the eyes of others...libel...if only I made money off of this...
You didn't even bother to make a distinction between the conscripts that have aggressed and the ones that haven't.
If a conscript doesn't act aggressively then I do not condemn them. However they aren't the ones that make the news.
Furthermore, I have stated that I do not believe any libertarian should support or defend either state, yet you seem bent on supporting the Palestinian gangs.
Fair fighting is fair. Israel doesn't fight fair.
You have only condemned the Jews.
Or do only condemn the Israeli State? And not one time "Jews." I have made this point very clear but YOU KEEP BRINGING IT UP.
By the way, as occupied territories...the Israelis may be the ones being taxed. That doesn't change the morality of not allowign the PLO to have a state to operate itself. It still relegates them to the role of subjects. You seem to imply that if Israel is taxing itself that it shouldn't have to give them anything. And I highly doubt that the goods that the palestinians import aren't taxed. I'm not sure what, if anything, they produce.
Israeli and Palestinian Children Killed September 29, 2000 - Present
126 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 1,476 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information)
Israelis and Palestinians Killed September 29, 2000 - Present
1,096 Israelis and at least 6,568 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information)
Israelis and Palestinians Injured September 29, 2000 - Present
10,792 Israelis and 59,575 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information.)
Daily U.S. Military Aid to Israel and the Palestinians Fiscal Year 2011
During Fiscal Year 2011, the U.S. is providing Israel with at least $8.2 million per day in military aid and $0 in military aid to the Palestinians. (View Sources & More Information)
Current Number of Political Prisoners and Detainees
0 Israelis are being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 5,604 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel. (View Sources & More Information)
Demolitions of Israeli and Palestinian Homes 1967 - Present
0 Israeli homes have been demolished by Palestinians and 24,813 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israel since 1967. (View Sources & More Information)
Israeli and Palestinian Unemployment Rates
The Israeli unemployment rate is 6.4%, while the Palestinian unemployment in the West Bank is 16.5% and 40% in Gaza. (View Sources & More Information)
Current Illegal Settlements on the Other’s Land
Israel currently has 236 Jewish-only settlements and ‘outposts’ built on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinians do not have any settlements on Israeli land. (View Sources & More Information)
While I am not a supporter of Israel, these civilian casualty ratios are meaningless statistics by themselves. I have yet to see any rational interpretation of them besides "Israel is the devil."
Just my unsolicited two cents.
Number of deaths on either side is meaningless.
If the Palestinians are habitually aggressing against the Israelies and getting shot--which I think is an accurate depiction of history--then it's exactly what you'd expect.
The thing is, Israel has a 45 year old occupation of Palestinian territories. Which makes Israel the aggressor.
Aristophanes: The thing is, Israel has a 45 year old occupation of Palestinian territories. Which makes Israel the aggressor.
Therefore any Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians is not aggression. Man, you just can't make stuff like this up.
Is that what I said?
Not an aggressor. Not one of the aggressors. THE aggressor. GTFO.
Not an aggressor. Not one of the aggressors. THE aggressor. GTFO
It is a military occupation. Why do you insist on down playing that fact? Seriously, where are the Palestinian helicopters, tanks, bulldozers, white phosphorus, etc.?
The Israelis force martial law upon an almost defenseless people. Strapping together cheap IEDs is the only thing they can do to fight back...(killing civilians probably isn't their best plan, however)... Are the Iraqis or the Afghanis aggressors when they attack US stuff?
If it were the 60's I bet you'd be standing up for Britain in Ireland. If it were the 1800's I bet you'd be standing up for General Sherman, right?
It is a military occupation. Why do you insist on down playing that fact?
I have never played down that fact. In fact, I have consistently stated that both gangs are aggressors and should not be defended by libertarians. You, however, make it a point to consistently criticize only the gang made of Jews. You only ever "criticize" the Palestinians when I call you out on it. Yet whenever you can, you make disgusting comments such as the Israeli gang being the aggressor, as if the Palestininian gangs are not aggressors.
The Israelis force martial law upon an almost defenseless people. Strapping together cheap IEDs is the only thing they can do to fight back...(killing civilians probably isn't their best plan, however)...
Wow. Really, you just can't make stuff like this up. You say defenseless people and the next five words you type are describing how these people are not actually defenseless. And really, I don't even know what to make of your paranthetical. Killing civilians is not their best plan? Really? I mean, I guess I should be thankful I got that much out of you...but really? I should think that any libertarian worth his salt would think it's the worst plan. Besides, every time the Palestinian gangs kill an Israeli civilian, they just give more food for the Israeli gang to use as propaganda.
But really, not their best plan. Just wow.
If it were the 60's I bet you'd be standing up for Britain in Ireland. If it were the 1800's I bet you'd be stnding up for General Sherman, right?
Lol k, kid. I'm against aggression. You apparently are only against aggression unless it's against the Jews. If it were the 1940's, I bet you would be standing up for Adolf Hitler, right?
Yet whenever you can, you make disgusting comments such as the Israeli gang being the aggressor, as if the Palestininian gangs are not aggressors.
Because they are under a military occupation. I see a hard time thinking that they can be aggressors if they are throwing rocks at tanks...
Besides, every time the Palestinian gangs kill an Israeli civilian, they just give more food for the Israeli gang to use as propaganda.
And vice versa, right? Every time the Israelis bulldoze a Palestinian home they create a new band of "terrorists" that "aggress."
Yeah, people get desperate, huh?
I'm against aggression.
Unless it is Israel. Then you can only criticize the car bombs that the Paletinians strap together, not the class-A military weaponry Israel uses.
You apparently are only against aggression unless it's against the Jews. If it were the 1940's, I bet you would be standing up for Adolf Hitler, right?
aahahaaha. You brought Hitler into it. Your last line of defense.
And before you try to start saying that you said "almost defenseless", you weren't being honest by saying that cheap IEDs are "the only" thing they can do to fight back. Because that is not all these gangs have done or are doing. Of course, one of the most famous cases of blatant terrorism was the incident at Entebbe. But please, the Palestinian gangs have been pulling a ton of shit in the last decade.
Only thing they can do my ass. Please, both sides are wrong. Stop trying to pin it all on the Jews. It's quite unbecoming.
Please, both sides are wrong.
Yet, you don't ever mention that Israel should be NOT OCCUPYING the territory. Let me ask you this, would terrorism DECREASE if Israel pulled out?
Why do you keep swearing?! My eyes!?!?!?!
Aristophanes: Because they are under a military occupation. I see a hard time thinking that they can be aggressors if they are throwing rocks at tanks...
Right. That's exactly what happens when Palestinian terrorists kill Israeli civilians. I bet the rocks just bounce off the tanks and the Jews in the head. Maybe the rocks hit him in their hooked noses too, eh?
Well, I'm not the one claiming about best plans or anything like that. You are the one saying that killing civilians is "probably not their best plan". Man, you are just so disgusting.
Aristophanes: Unless it is Israel. Then you can only criticize the car bombs that the Paletinians strap together, not the class-A military weaponry Israel uses.
Absolutely not. I demand that you quote where I have ever said Israel was above criticism. You, on the other hand, have stated that "Israel [is] the aggressor."
Aristophanes: aahahaaha. You brought Hitler into it. Your last line of defense.
And you brought "If it were the 60's I bet you'd be standing up for Britain in Ireland. If it were the 1800's I bet you'd be stnding up for General Sherman, right?"
Your last line of defense.
Man, it really sucks to have Aristophanes on this forum. At least with kylio we know he's just a troll. But you, man, there is something seriously wrong with you.
Aristophanes: Yet, you don't ever mention that Israel should be NOT OCCUPYING the territory. Let me ask you this, would terrorism DECREASE if Israel pulled out?
Who knows? I can't predict the future. I would like to think that if the Israeli gang left the Palestian people alone, that the Palestinians gangs would cease to attack Israeli civilians or Israelis in general. But who knows? Maybe not. After all, states and gangs thrive on violence. Maybe they would keep it up in order to provoke attacks by the Israeli gang.
But not only should the Israeli gang cease to rule the Palestinians, they should cease to rule the Israelis. There shouldn't be a separation. There shouldn't be borders. I'm a libertarian after all. I'm against states. I would think that goes without saying. But you are the one who blatantly stated that only Israel was the aggressor. And then you pull this nonsense that the Palestinian gangs don't kill civilians, they throw rocks at tanks...
OOooooohhhhh, I get it. You are Jewish? Is that why you take this so personally?
Dodging the point that Israel has a hostile occupation of foreign territory. More ad hominem.
Everyone of your posts seems to say that the Palestinians killing Israeli civilians is deplorable, but there is no mention fomr you on the fact that Israel kills their civilians as well. And in much higher frequency.
And you brought "If it were the 60's I bet you'd be standing up for Britain in Ireland. If it were the 1800's I bet you'd be stnding up for General Sherman, right?" Your last line of defense. Man, it really sucks to have Jew haters on this forum. At least with kylio we know he's just a troll. But you, man, there is something seriously wrong with you.
Man, it really sucks to have Jew haters on this forum. At least with kylio we know he's just a troll. But you, man, there is something seriously wrong with you.
ahahahahahhaha. You keep insinuating I am racist...my guess is in attempts to get the mods to act. hahahaha
There is nothing wrong with me. I think you are taking personal offense to my standing up for the Palestinians. Because if anyone stands up for them, they must be a "Jew hater." ahahahahaha
Salem. ahahahahahahaha
And then you pull this nonsense that the Palestinian gangs don't kill civilians, they throw rocks at tanks...
Yeah, that is in direct contradiction to what I said before, but you're not disingenuous at all. Keep it occupied, Theodor.
Aristophanes: OOooooohhhhh, I get it. You are Jewish? Is that why you take this so personally?
I'm an athiest.
Aristophanes: Dodging the point that Israel has a hostile occupation of foreign territory. More ad hominem.
What dodge? The post right above states that the Israeli gang ought to leave the Palestinian people alone. Accusations are not ad hominem, FYI.
Aristophanes: Everyone of your posts seems to say that the Palestinians killing Israeli civilians is deplorable, but there is no mention fomr you on the fact that Israel kills their civilians as well. And in much higher frequency.
Really? So what do you think it means when I say that the Israeli gang is an aggressor against the Palestinians? What a liar you are.
Aristophanes: ahahahahahhaha. You keep insinuating I am racist...my guess is in attempts to get the mods to act. hahahaha
Nah, I've given up on the mods acting when they didn't act against your blatant and disgusting insults toward Malachi. "Fucking cunt" really doesn't belong on this forum. I'm quite dissapointed that no action was taken against you for that. Maybe I should just pm Daniel James Sanchez directly? Would that make you happy?
Aristophanes: There is nothing wrong with me. I think you are taking personal offense to my standing up for the Palestinians. Because if anyone stands up for them, they must be a "Jew hater." ahahahahaha
No. There is nothing wrong with condemning the Israeli gang. My problem is with you hating Jews. Remember when I asked who you were referring to and you got all snarky and started calling Malachi a "fucking cunt"?
Yeah. You hate Jews.
Aristophanes: Yeah, that is in direct contradiction to what I said before, but you're not disingenuous at all. Keep it occupied, Theodor.
What can I say? You like to contradict yourself. Like, how about this:
When I say: Yet whenever you can, you make disgusting comments such as the Israeli gang being the aggressor, as if the Palestininian gangs are not aggressors.
You say: Because they are under a military occupation. I see a hard time thinking that they can be aggressors if they are throwing rocks at tanks...
Come on. Really? Because that's clearly what we were talking about...You tried to deflect the murder of innocent Jews into self-defense against aggressors...Jewish civilians != soldiers in tanks.
Nice try, Aristophanes.
It's been real. I'm going to bed. I have work to do tomorrow.
My problem is with you hating Jews.
ahahahahaaahahahah Not one time have I said anything even close to that. You simply have no arguments, so you retreat into accusations of racism. I don't even use "Jew" or "Jewish" to describe Israel or the occupiers. I refer to the State of Israel. Every time. Call me a "jew hater" all you want, I don't care. I know better.
You tried to deflect the murder of innocent Jews into self-defense against aggressors...Jewish civilians != soldiers in tanks.
You pretend that Israeli tanks somehow aren't killing civilians. it is only car bombs from those dirty arabs that kill civilians.
Does Noam Chomsky hate Jews? (You can start at minute 38:00 to get his view of terrorism and aggression.)
Or Rothbard?
Under unbelievably intense pressure from the United States, the UN – including an enthusiastic U.S. and USSR – reluctantly approved a Palestine partition plan in November 1947, a plan that formed the basis of the British pullout and the Israel declaration of existence on May 15 of the following year. The partition plan granted the Jews, who had a negligible fraction of Palestine’s land, almost half the land area of the country. Zionism had succeeded in carving out a European Jewish state over Arab territory in the Middle East. But this is by no means all. The UN agreement had provided (a) that Jerusalem be internationalized under UN rule, and (b) that there be an economic union between the new Jewish and Arab Palestine states. These were the basic conditions under which the UN approved partition. Both were promptly and brusquely disregarded by Israel – thus launching an escalating series of aggressions against the Arabs of the Middle East.
Jew Hater: Yet, you don't ever mention that Israel should be NOT OCCUPYING the territory. Let me ask you this, would terrorism DECREASE if Israel pulled out? Who knows? I can't predict the future. I would like to think that if the Israeli gang left the Palestian people alone, that the Palestinians gangs would cease to attack Israeli civilians or Israelis in general. But who knows? Maybe not. After all, states and gangs thrive on violence. Maybe they would keep it up in order to provoke attacks by the Israeli gang.
Jew Hater: Yet, you don't ever mention that Israel should be NOT OCCUPYING the territory. Let me ask you this, would terrorism DECREASE if Israel pulled out?
What incredible logic. You remember this? Because you are "booing."
I don't think it's a coincidence that this debate is in a thread titled 'What is wrong with this forum?'. Come on, 'Jew hater', really?? I agree with Aristophanes here and my girlfriend is Jewish. Checkmate. (Sorry I couldnt resist stooping to your level of argumentation)
EDIT: Also being atheist does not mean you can't be considered Jewish at the same time.
I don't think it's a coincidence that this debate is in a thread titled 'What is wrong with this forum?'. Come on, 'Jew hater', really??
Weird, I was just thinking this to myself. I suppose this is just one of those issues that even the normally reasonable can let emotion take over.
While I agree that both sides act as aggressors against innocent civilians, and am against the idea of any state, it seems that the state "in charge" (Israel) gets cut a lot more slack from the western world for its atrocities and the atrocities committed by the Palestinians is highlighted, even though it would seem that the Israeli military, in weaponry, collateral damage, injuries, and deaths seems to be more egregious in its aggression than the Palestinians, who are not free of guilt and are worthy of criticism, as well.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
Finally a bit of history revisionism. True or false you tell me? This guy does appear to have an agenda or an axe to grind, but it realy is an interesting discussion.
All the history aside, Israeli state is a relatively new creation that i could never agree with under any circumstances and that does not mean i am siding with Palestinians or Islam. In fact I am against Islam and all religions and would like for all religions to be eradicated, that however does not mean that I support ethnic cleansing or segregation or the destruction of peoples property.
Aristophanes: You pretend that Israeli tanks somehow aren't killing civilians. it is only car bombs from those dirty arabs that kill civilians.
Of course, if Israel were in private hands (as parts of it were, de facto, in the last years of the British Empire's occupation):
1) Arabs would leave it alone.
2) If they didn't, private land owners wouldn't respond to aggression with military force (resulting in collateral damage). They would use really strong language and feather dusters.
Does Noam Chomsky hate Jews?
Why did you decide to bring Noam Chomsky? Oh, because he is Jewish, and Jews don't hate other Jews? You've never heard of 'self-hating Jews', have you?
I was going to write a reply, but then my laptop's battery ran out (seems to be a common theme, but not the forum's fault).
The gist is that Israel has its share of problems because it is a schizophrenic Jewish democracy (the fact that it is Jewish makes it more schizophrenic, because everyone thinks he is right, and everyone else is an idiot). It tries to be democratic, but 'Jewish' (whatever that means; since the politicians are not, sadly, religious fanatics, they don't really know themselves). It tries to be civil, but based on Jewish religious values. Etc. But in that, it is not different from the rest of the democracies, who by their nature are self-contradictory and schizophrenic, each in its own way (just look at the mess in Germany, where citizens have to pay a church tax, but if they don't, they are banned from attending churches).
But, I just don't see what private land ownership would change, except speed things up in the way of destroying the belligerent fuckers surrounding Israel. The 'settlers' have been living in the 'territories' for centuries, or at least for decades. That land did not belong to anyone in particular before they settled, much of it was desert, which they turned into gardens. One would imagine that a libertarian be on the side of the settlers, but no. States are fucking their citizens all over the world, and Israel is actually one of the more benign ones, but there is this strange fascination with the little strip of land in the Middle East.
So, I have no idea who is an anti-semite or what. It just smells a little funny. I just don't see many libertarians constantly criticizing UK and being on the side of the 'real IRA'.
Aristophanes: [map of 1949 borders]
[map of 1949 borders]
So, what would be your response if your daughter was blown up going to school in a bus by Native American Liberation Front whose goal is to get the disease-ridden Europeans off their ancestral lands (to which they actually have a good claim) and dismantle the White 'settlements' all over N. and S. America?
Okay, so that last two didn't have profanity, but I wanted to include at least one insult that didn't have a curse word in it. And he suggested that he might just be trolling us. So, perhaps it might make more sense to you now why someone might choose to ignore his posts. I'm also a little disappointed that the mods did not at least publicy reprimand Aristophanes for his behavior. Papirius was banned for 30 days for a lot less. Same with Smiling Dave.
I'm also a little disappointed that the mods did not at least publicy reprimand Aristophanes for his behavior. Papirius was banned for 30 days for a lot less. Same with Smiling Dave.
Yeah, no one should be defending any state or gang over in the Middle East. This means that no one should support or defend the state of Israel or the PLO. Both are guilty of aggression against their subjects and the subjects of the other. That the state of Israel happens to have more power and therefore can aggress more is immaterial. Neither deserve a libertarian's support.
Oh, Aristophanes, what are we going to do with you. At any point in time, you can choose to actually clarify what you meant. I asked a simple question that you dodged repeatedly. Here are some examples of possible responses: 1) You meant that all Jews that reside within the borders of Israel are racists and demons. 2) You meant that only the politicians and soldiers within borders of Israel are racists and demons. (Of course, many of those soldiers are conscripted, but perhaps you would still support this statement). 3) You meant that only the politicians (rulers) within the borders of Israel are racists and demons.
Oh, Aristophanes, what are we going to do with you. At any point in time, you can choose to actually clarify what you meant. I asked a simple question that you dodged repeatedly. Here are some examples of possible responses:
1) You meant that all Jews that reside within the borders of Israel are racists and demons.
2) You meant that only the politicians and soldiers within borders of Israel are racists and demons. (Of course, many of those soldiers are conscripted, but perhaps you would still support this statement).
3) You meant that only the politicians (rulers) within the borders of Israel are racists and demons.
You... cannot help but try and paint me as a racist as your "argumentative tactic."
I have never played down that fact. In fact, I have consistently stated that both gangs are aggressors and should not be defended by libertarians. You, however, make it a point to consistently criticize only the gang made of Jews. You only ever "criticize" the Palestinians when I call you out on it.
gotlucky, replace all of your "Jew Hater" lines with the person's real username within 1 day, or I will ban you.
Mr. Sanchez,
Okay, I will do that now. I am in the process of typing up a more mature response too. It's long, though.
EDIT: I removed them from my quotations of Aristophanes, and I removed a few more to be safe.
Warning: Long post ahead! For any who are interested, this is the thread that started it all. Also, I am uncensoring Aristophanes' posts. He edited them later, but I am uncensoring them so that you can better see understand my point of view:
Marko: I agree that mods should had done something about this as it makes the forum look bad. At the same time I think the reason you're infuriated with Aristophanes' posting isn't his unnaceptably liberal use of profanities, but because of positions he stakes out.
I agree that mods should had done something about this as it makes the forum look bad. At the same time I think the reason you're infuriated with Aristophanes' posting isn't his unnaceptably liberal use of profanities, but because of positions he stakes out.
Actually, it's the fact that he used profanities and insults and a distraction of grammar from my original question that caused me to believe that he is an antisemite.
First, I would like to repost a post I wrote last year. I did not expect any of you to be familiar with it or go out of your way to search for my viewpoints on this matter, but I would like you all to see what my beliefs on the subject have been:
gotlucky: It can be very difficult to see the libertarian principles in some situations. I see that you are refrencing the Zionism/Libertarian thread. There was one person mentioning that the authoritarianism in North Korea is an internal matter that only affects Koreans, so it's different from the Israel/Palestine situation. I understand where he is coming from, but I disagree with that. I do not care to what culture/ethnicity/religion/group someone feels they belong to - they have a right to not be aggressed against by the state or any other individual. Whether it is the North Korean state against the North Korean people, the Israeli state against the Israelis, the Israeli state against the Palestinians, Hamas against Palestinians, Hamas against Israelis, or the American government against etc. You get the point. I feel that many people in that thread missed the point. There has been aggression by many individuals in that situation. Saying that Zionists stole the land is to generalize about all Zionists, and there were many who purchased land legitimately, even if there were more (I don't know the percentages) who may have used violence instead. To say that the Jews (because when we say Israeli, we really don't mean Israeli Arabs) stole the land of the Palestinians is to do a very un-libertarian thing. Just as it is un-libertarian to generalize that the Palestinians want to kill all the Jews etc. As a libertarian, I cannot support either Hamas or the Israeli state. When governments are at war with each other, I really cannot side with either one. The people under the state may or may not support warring with each other, but it is ultimately the individuals in the state that do the warring. That being said, governments can be less evil than other governments. Then it depends on your own criteria on how evil you think a government might be. I'm going to step away from talking about that thread any more.
It can be very difficult to see the libertarian principles in some situations. I see that you are refrencing the Zionism/Libertarian thread. There was one person mentioning that the authoritarianism in North Korea is an internal matter that only affects Koreans, so it's different from the Israel/Palestine situation. I understand where he is coming from, but I disagree with that. I do not care to what culture/ethnicity/religion/group someone feels they belong to - they have a right to not be aggressed against by the state or any other individual. Whether it is the North Korean state against the North Korean people, the Israeli state against the Israelis, the Israeli state against the Palestinians, Hamas against Palestinians, Hamas against Israelis, or the American government against etc. You get the point.
I feel that many people in that thread missed the point. There has been aggression by many individuals in that situation. Saying that Zionists stole the land is to generalize about all Zionists, and there were many who purchased land legitimately, even if there were more (I don't know the percentages) who may have used violence instead. To say that the Jews (because when we say Israeli, we really don't mean Israeli Arabs) stole the land of the Palestinians is to do a very un-libertarian thing. Just as it is un-libertarian to generalize that the Palestinians want to kill all the Jews etc.
As a libertarian, I cannot support either Hamas or the Israeli state. When governments are at war with each other, I really cannot side with either one. The people under the state may or may not support warring with each other, but it is ultimately the individuals in the state that do the warring. That being said, governments can be less evil than other governments. Then it depends on your own criteria on how evil you think a government might be.
I'm going to step away from talking about that thread any more.
So, I would like to point out that I have actually been consistent on these forums about condemning both the Israeli and Palestinian gangs. And this was from a thread more than a year ago, not from just a week ago.
Second, I would like to point out that when Clayton was talking about circumcision, I did not ever accuse him of antisemitism nor did I suspect him of that. The reason is that Clayton was *very* clear as to why he was against it. When I asked him and critiqued his position, he did not create a smokescreen to hide behind. He was blunt and honest about why he believes what he does, and his reasons have absolutely *nothing* to do with Jews and everything to do with the practice in itself.
So, it seems some of you think that I think Aristophanes is an antisemite because he is against the state of Israel. Well, I'm against the state of Israel, and I'm not an antisemite. So, why do I think Aristophanes is an antisemite? Let's look at the exchange that started this whole absurdity:
Aristophanes: Israel is a pathetic state run by racists and demons. They deserve what they get.
Israel is a pathetic state run by racists and demons. They deserve what they get.
My response:
gotlucky: I'd like a clarification of who this "they" is.
I'd like a clarification of who this "they" is.
Now, you might wonder why I asked this question. Well, I have no real problem with the first part. It might not be true. After all, the rulers of Israel might not actually hate Palestinians...they might just use them as a scapegoat for justifying many of the actions they do (such as expanding settlements). But, I think Aristophanes is correct. I do think that many of the rulers of Israel are racists and demons.
So, why would I ask him to clarify? Because of the following sentence: "They deserve what they get". To me, that seemed like a red flag. Who deserves what they get? After all, most of the Israeli victims of Palestinian violence are probably Israeli civilians. To be clear, I am not saying that no Palestinian violence is justified. I am saying that out of all the violence done by the various Palestinians, it's been my understanding that the people on the receiving end were mostly Israeli civilians, not Israeli soldiers or politicians. Perhaps that is incorrect, but it is why *I asked for Aristophanes to clarify.*
So, while Aristophanes set off a red flag in my head, I had not accused him of anything. You see, what I actually did was give him the benefit of the doubt and asked him what he meant.
Now, let's look at the response I got from Aristophanes:
Aristophanes: I'd like a clarification of who this "they" is. Why don't you re-read what you quoted ... "Israel is a pathetic state run by racists and demons. They deserve what they get." To whom could "they" POSSIBLY refer to? tbh, that is the kind of idiotic question that makes me want to punch libertarians in the face.
Why don't you re-read what you quoted ...
"Israel is a pathetic state run by racists and demons. They deserve what they get."
To whom could "they" POSSIBLY refer to?
tbh, that is the kind of idiotic question that makes me want to punch libertarians in the face.
Okay...Really? Was that the appropriate response to my question? Keep in mind I had not accused him of anything. Anyway, Malachi responed to Aristophanes with this:
Malachi: He is a collectivist. He thinks anyone who pays taxes to the israeli govt is "they." interestingly enough that includes anyone who pays taxes to us gov because of foreign aid.
He is a collectivist. He thinks anyone who pays taxes to the israeli govt is "they." interestingly enough that includes anyone who pays taxes to us gov because of foreign aid.
And then I responded with this:
gotlucky: The term "state" can refer to a great many things. Sounds like a question dodge to me. Malachi may just be right about you. Prove him wrong.
The term "state" can refer to a great many things. Sounds like a question dodge to me.
Malachi may just be right about you. Prove him wrong.
This is Aristophanes' uncensored response:
Aristophanes: Malachai needs to go back to grammar school, can go fuck himself, and is wrong on my being a collectivist (ahahahhahahaha). You may need to attend with him. You guys should read Henry David Thoureau...my point, to which Malachai refers (however incorrectly), is that if you protest war (for instance) and still pay taxes, then you are a hypocrite. His assumption is off base. The term "state" can refer to a great many things. Sounds like a question dodge to me. Yes, it sure can. But State is dun dun dunnnnnnnn "singular." You see, the demonstrative pronoun that I selected was...."they" which is ..... plural. Further, a demonstartive pronoun that is plural cannot refer to a singular entity. 0_o Israel is a pathetic state run by racists and demons. They deserve what they get. "They" refers to those that run the state of Israel. It's all about that grammar school. EDIT: He is a collectivist. He thinks anyone who pays taxes to the israeli govt is "they." interestingly enough that includes anyone who pays taxes to us gov because of foreign aid. Just look at all of the connotations that his sleazy truck stop educated ass is trying to make about me. This is wholly offensive. I think it is libel as well....
Malachai needs to go back to grammar school, can go fuck himself, and is wrong on my being a collectivist (ahahahhahahaha). You may need to attend with him. You guys should read Henry David Thoureau...my point, to which Malachai refers (however incorrectly), is that if you protest war (for instance) and still pay taxes, then you are a hypocrite. His assumption is off base.
Yes, it sure can. But State is dun dun dunnnnnnnn "singular." You see, the demonstrative pronoun that I selected was...."they" which is ..... plural. Further, a demonstartive pronoun that is plural cannot refer to a singular entity. 0_o
"They" refers to those that run the state of Israel.
It's all about that grammar school.
EDIT:
Just look at all of the connotations that his sleazy truck stop educated ass is trying to make about me. This is wholly offensive. I think it is libel as well....
Let's examine this post. Okay, so of course Aristophanes starts off with the insults. Let's move past that to his response to what I wrote. When I said the "state" can refer to a great many things, what did Aristophanes do? Did he define what he meant by state? No, he absolutely did not. Instead, he decided to insult my understanding of grammar.
So, I have now asked him twice, and he has twice refused to answer my question. Now, you might say, "But look, gotlucky! Aristophanes did say 'They refers to those that run the state of Israel.'" But here's the thing, that's not what my question was. Aristophanes said "they" deserve what they get, so that's why I wanted to know who he was referring to with the term "state". But hell, Malachi could be right, that Aristophanes considers anyone who pays taxes to the Israeli government to be included in that.
That is precisely why I asked him what he meant by what he said. I did not expect to be insulted and have him hide his beliefs behind a smokescreen.
Anyway, in one of Aristophanes following responses, he says:
Aristophanes: There isn't any truth to what you said you fucking cunt. The specificity of my original statement rules out "they" refering to "state." You know that. You also still do not use plural pronouns to refer to collective nouns....
There isn't any truth to what you said you fucking cunt. The specificity of my original statement rules out "they" refering to "state." You know that. You also still do not use plural pronouns to refer to collective nouns....
Okay, so Aristophanes is making this more about grammar. "They" referred to "racists and demons" and not "the state". Who cares? It's not at all answering my question! I want to know who he considers to deserve what they get!
Now, I am not going to repost every post from the lovely yet irrelevant debate about grammar between Malachi and Aristophanes. But, I think this one deserves to be reposted:
Aristophanes: Uhhh, where is politics not, in its nature, collectivist? Libertarian dogma, such as this insistance upon clarification that "one does not blame the people, (in a democratic nation....) for the actions of their state" is what gets libertarians laughed out of every place they go. They aren't worth engaging. The straight fact is that the people in the US and Israel are to a level responsible for what their states have done. Brainwashing and all that shit aside, they all vote. They all place the leaders into power regardless of the structure of elites that help influence it. Being petty has its price. I cannot wait until interest rates rise. Then the people in the US might learn a fucking lesson. "The specificity of my original statement rules out "they" refering to "state." "" it could refer to "Israel" actually. Who refers to nation states in the plural? If I were to refer to Israel, I'd say "it." Please dont act as though your obscenity-laden rants are so well-constructed that we can assume a pronoun always refers to the proximate noun. "they" may be used to refer to nations, But, I only refered to ONE "state." "It" was never a nation. Both of you had to go out of your way to imagine that a singular noun would be refered to in the plural. You are just trolling. as a nation is a group of people with a collective identity. Oh, so the definition of the word is collectivist, huh? What bastards that make these definitions up. It's a good thing I refered to a "State" and not a nation........ You habe done this yourself again and again, so theres no need to get butthurt when someone asks you for clarification. You put words in my mouth. You know that you really have to stretch the definition of these terms to make your case...You're a prick for even insinuating what you did. I hope your house burns down.
Uhhh, where is politics not, in its nature, collectivist? Libertarian dogma, such as this insistance upon clarification that "one does not blame the people, (in a democratic nation....) for the actions of their state" is what gets libertarians laughed out of every place they go. They aren't worth engaging.
The straight fact is that the people in the US and Israel are to a level responsible for what their states have done. Brainwashing and all that shit aside, they all vote. They all place the leaders into power regardless of the structure of elites that help influence it. Being petty has its price. I cannot wait until interest rates rise.
Then the people in the US might learn a fucking lesson.
"The specificity of my original statement rules out "they" refering to "state." "" it could refer to "Israel" actually.
Who refers to nation states in the plural? If I were to refer to Israel, I'd say "it."
Please dont act as though your obscenity-laden rants are so well-constructed that we can assume a pronoun always refers to the proximate noun. "they" may be used to refer to nations,
But, I only refered to ONE "state." "It" was never a nation.
Both of you had to go out of your way to imagine that a singular noun would be refered to in the plural. You are just trolling.
as a nation is a group of people with a collective identity.
Oh, so the definition of the word is collectivist, huh? What bastards that make these definitions up. It's a good thing I refered to a "State" and not a nation........
You habe done this yourself again and again, so theres no need to get butthurt when someone asks you for clarification.
You put words in my mouth. You know that you really have to stretch the definition of these terms to make your case...You're a prick for even insinuating what you did. I hope your house burns down.
Let's examine this one. Aristophanes said this verbatim: "The straight fact is that the people in the US and Israel are to a level responsible for what their states have done. Brainwashing and all that shit aside, they all vote. They all place the leaders into power regardless of the structure of elites that help influence it. Being petty has its price. I cannot wait until interest rates rise.
Then the people in the US might learn a fucking lesson."
So, Marko, perhaps you can see why I would want Aristophanes to clarify? So "the people in the US and Israel are to a level responsible for what their states have done"? Interesting. So, does that mean that the Israeli civilians ought to be counted among those that get what they deserve?
Perhaps you are beginning to see why my question was not so silly?
Oh, and of course Aristophanes is still hiding behind the grammar of it all. I mean, come on. Malachi, that "sleazy truck stop educated ass" as Aristophanes so classlessly put, was able to understand the purpose of my question. Why couldn't this genius figure it out?
Anyway, let's move on to what I said:
gotlucky: Your grammar is amusing. Clearly "they" referred to "racists and demons". Clearly my question was who those people were in your mind. Clearly you have avoided the question numerous times. Clearly you have something to hide about the meaning of your statement. I suspect it's anti-semitism.
Your grammar is amusing. Clearly "they" referred to "racists and demons". Clearly my question was who those people were in your mind. Clearly you have avoided the question numerous times. Clearly you have something to hide about the meaning of your statement. I suspect it's anti-semitism.
Now for Aristophanes' response:
Aristophanes: Ah, the weakness of your intellect is displayed. I KNEW this is where you were going to go with it. Pathetic. I refered to "the state" of "Israel" being run by "racists and demons." The plural "they" (in my original statement) was clearly referring back to the only plural objects from the previous sentence. I referred to the State, not the Nation of Israel (they are different in denotation and connotation). And If I were racist, would I have a disdain in my voice for other racists? Or would I understand their subjective preference? You're just as bad as a partisan; impossible to have conversations with due to the political correctness required for controversial subjects with you.
Ah, the weakness of your intellect is displayed.
I KNEW this is where you were going to go with it. Pathetic.
I refered to "the state" of "Israel" being run by "racists and demons."
The plural "they" (in my original statement) was clearly referring back to the only plural objects from the previous sentence.
I referred to the State, not the Nation of Israel (they are different in denotation and connotation).
And If I were racist, would I have a disdain in my voice for other racists? Or would I understand their subjective preference?
You're just as bad as a partisan; impossible to have conversations with due to the political correctness required for controversial subjects with you.
AHA! Now we see that all along Aristophanes claimed to know what the purpose of my question was. He just knew it all along? Okay, so then why wouldn't he just clarify what he meant? I don't see Clayton pull this nonsense. I don't see you, Marko, pull this crap either. And of course, in a later post, Aristophanes insinuates the possibility that he has been trolling me.
Marko: Strange how I never felt he needed to clarify anything as he had been perfectly clear from the start. He said "the racist demons running the state of Israel". So it is clear who he did mean and who he did not mean. I do not believe every single Israeli is in the business of running the state of Israel.
Strange how I never felt he needed to clarify anything as he had been perfectly clear from the start. He said "the racist demons running the state of Israel". So it is clear who he did mean and who he did not mean. I do not believe every single Israeli is in the business of running the state of Israel.
As I have no explained above, that is not why I asked Aristophanes to clarify. I asked him to clarify because of his statement regarding certain people getting what they deserve. I wanted to know who those certain people were.
Marko: Aristophanes has a point here. He uses profanities, but your accusing him of racism is much worse because it is dishonest and because of the consequence it could have. Him using a profanity just makes him look silly, but unjustly branding a person a racist could create real problems for them. Just because he stakes out a position you do not like and is passionate about it does not somehow prove he is a racist.
Aristophanes has a point here. He uses profanities, but your accusing him of racism is much worse because it is dishonest and because of the consequence it could have. Him using a profanity just makes him look silly, but unjustly branding a person a racist could create real problems for them. Just because he stakes out a position you do not like and is passionate about it does not somehow prove he is a racist.
I will not accuse you of dishonesty even though I think you are mistaken. I do not think you read the thread that sparked this ridiculousness. As I have now pointed out above, what lead me to believing that Aristophanes is an antisemite is the fact that he delibrately created a smokescreen so as to not respond to my question.
Then again, perhaps he was trolling me as he insinuated. But then he really shouldn't cry foul, as he would have delibrately gone out of his way to make it seem that he was an antisemite so as to call me out for false accusations.
Marko: It does not sound to me like you would be terribly interested in discovering a competing interpretation like that.
It does not sound to me like you would be terribly interested in discovering a competing interpretation like that.
I gave Aristophanes the benefit of the doubt originally. He abused that by thoroughly insulting both me and Malachi. I'm done giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Marko: That isn't a valid argument. You can not complain that someone makes the argument A, without also making the argument B alongside it. Some kind of demand to only be able to criticize Israel when one also criticizes the PLO and to the exact same extent is very silly. (So I couldn't criticize Romney/Johnson without also criticizing Johnson/Romney even if I really wanted to write about just the one on this particular day?) Also to do so would make one's critiques completly irrelevant as Rothbard warned when he wrote against sectarianism and irrelevancy in the War Guilt in the Middle East.
That isn't a valid argument. You can not complain that someone makes the argument A, without also making the argument B alongside it. Some kind of demand to only be able to criticize Israel when one also criticizes the PLO and to the exact same extent is very silly. (So I couldn't criticize Romney/Johnson without also criticizing Johnson/Romney even if I really wanted to write about just the one on this particular day?) Also to do so would make one's critiques completly irrelevant as Rothbard warned when he wrote against sectarianism and irrelevancy in the War Guilt in the Middle East.
It is true that one does not have to criticize both at the same time. I viewed his criticisms as additional signals to his previous behavior.
Marko: Since he readily conceeds the point Palestians are guilty of some aggression, he probably used it as a shorthand simplification since 'in virtually every war, one side is far more guilty than the other, and on one side must be pinned the basic responsibility for aggression'.
Since he readily conceeds the point Palestians are guilty of some aggression, he probably used it as a shorthand simplification since 'in virtually every war, one side is far more guilty than the other, and on one side must be pinned the basic responsibility for aggression'.
Again, normally I would give someone the benefit of the doubt, but after Aristophanes' massive tangents about grammar, I decided to take him at his written word.
Regarding Rothbard, you will note that Rothbard states "thus launching a series of aggressions against the Arabs of the Middle East." He does not say that the state of Israel is the aggressor. He states that the state of Israel is an aggressor.
Anyway, this is my last post in this thread. The point of this post was to explain why I believe that Aristophanes is either an antisemite or a troll. Obviously, you all may disagree, but I will emphasize that it was absolutely not because Aristophanes criticizes the state of Israel. Aristophanes' general behavior is what lead me to believe it. If any of you want to PM me about it, that is fine. But I think I will not fuel this anymore in public. Obviously, Aristophanes can have the last word in public on this matter.
"So "the people in the US and Israel are to a level responsible for what their states have done"? Interesting. So, does that mean that the Israeli civilians ought to be counted among those that get what they deserve?"
Perhaps. And so what? The civilians who have given popular support to an aggressor state, and thus, according to Aristophanes, deserve to suffer, happen to be Jewish. That does not mean they deserve to suffer because they are Jewish.
You are going through an awful lot of trouble to connect non-anti-semitic dots to make an anti-semitic picture. Unless someone actually says anti-semitic things, it is not okay to smear them as an anti-semite here.
Marko: I think more comparable scenario would be if Germans expelled from Silesia and Eastern Pomerania in 1945, which are now in Poland, would be blowing up civilian buses in these two regions. Would this be justified as a way to try to get ridd of squatters from their land they were forcefully driven off from, since it is obvious that no lesser use of force is ever going to work? Is it OK to use explosives to blow up a squatter who is occupying your land if there is absolutely no other way of getting rid of them? Well that is a more philosophical-ethical question, but I think your answer should be the same for both cases. On the practical side we may ask how come the Germans are not doing this? Is it because, they are not primitive savages as some have suggested the Palestians are, or is because the Poles are content to occupy only the regions they gained and cleansed in 1945 and are not maintaining the occupation of Germany beyond the Oder river so as to be preventing real German statehood even in the cut-down Germany?
You seem to be under impression that the 'settlers' are living on the land, on which private Arabs used to live. That's not true. They live on the land that Arab government claimed as its own that Israeli government started claiming as its own after it expanded its 'borders' in a defensive war. Government claims (which are of no concern to the libertarians) aside, the lands on which the settlements are built were ownerless. They had never been homesteaded before the settlers came. Bedouins (nomads) claimed them as their own, but in the sense that they allowed their camels and livestock eat the grass on a given spot and then would move on, coming back in five years. I.e., it was a typical statist claim, the same way that France claimed 'Louisiana' as belonging to the French king.
This is quite different from coming and kicking out Silezian Germans out of their houses and allowing Poles to settle in the same houses (or on the same land).
East Jerusalem is the only exception to the above, but that's a whole another story.
You seem to be under the impression I'm talking about the 500,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank. Actually, I'm talking about the 5 million Jewish settlers in Israel proper.
Whose land are they living on? Most of the lands were privately bought by Jews before 1948 or were ownerless ('publicly owned' as pro-Arab web-sites call them). (I am not talking about E. Jerusalem and the few villages in which documented displacement has happened.)
Bought from whom?
Some from Arabs and some, presumably, from the British and Turkish gov'ts. (The sales of land went all the way back to at least 18th century or so.) Also, as my wife points out, if you look at some of these pre-1948 maps, you will see that certain areas were X% owned by the Arabs. Well, all those Arabs still live there! They still live in their villages and cities and most of them had not been displaced.
I am not disputing the fact that Arabs were kicked out of W. Jerusalem and a few isolated villages (and I agree that kicking them out was criminal).
In other words, all the international outcry, etc., involving these maps is that Israel (a 'Jewish state') controls the lands that used to belong to Arabs. Instead, an Arabic state must control them, the argument goes.
But why would a libertarian fall for this argument? Likewise, why would a libertarian care whether N. Ireland is under the Queen's rule, or (S.) Ireland's gov't's rule? What matters is whether a private person X lives on his own territory (whatever that means -- in any country -- considering that most 'private' territories were bought from the gov't; including, e.g., USA in the former Louisiana Purchase territory) or on somebody else's territory who has a better demonstrable claim.
Some from Arabs and some, presumably, from the British and Turkish gov'ts. (The sales of land went all the way back to at least 18th century or so.)
Oh, from absentee/fiat landlords who had taken control of the property through force? Ok I get it, now.
See this thread: http://mises.org/community/forums/t/31805.aspx
Also, going back to terrorism question, if you are going to blow up a police station belonging to the state (a criminal organization) that has (supposedly) displaced you, that's one thing.
If you blow up the person who is living on specifically your land who was sold this land by the government (which is what most Americans are doing vis-a-vis Native American land), that's another thing.
If you you blow up indiscriminately someone who is supposedly 'represented' by the gov't that supposedly displaced you, that's a totally another thing.
There may be an argument about the first and second cases, but third is absolutely without any doubt (in my mind) criminal. And that is what West-Bank and Gaza Arab terrorist are doing. (Note that I did not just call all Arabs living there terrorists.)