The current conflict in Gaza really challenges the idea that you can defend yourself without killing innocent people in the process.
Hundreds of rockets hit Israel in the last few days. The rockets are fired from launching sites that are located near hospitals and schools. Many times the rockets are stored in mosques. How can Israel destroy all this infrastructure and kill the militants without hurting the civilian population?
I'm sure the surrounding countries are asking themselves the same thing about Israel.
Precision-strikes, boots on the ground, kinetic-energy-missiles (KEM), etc.
Military-tech is getting continually more precise and force-limited.
It might eventually be possible to use lasers, for instance, to disable launch sites without any collateral damage.
Anyway, it's also despicable of the Palestinians to locate their launch sites in places that will put innocents in harm's way.
It doesn't challenge the NAP, it just creates a moral-quandry for the Israelis.
The simply fact is that concerns about hurting innocents on the other side is only a consideration for people when they have the luxury of it, when they aren't mortally threatened. If there was a nuke site next to a school, I doubt there's anyone who would eat a nuke to avoid taking out a school, it would be a question of murder of innocents by nuke on the Israeli side versus the enemy-forced manslaughter of Palestinian innocents to take out the nuke-site.
Malachi:The bottom line is that it would require highly-trained, dedicated infantry to do such a thing and thats why defense is best left decentralized.
Israeli infantry is exactly such infantry today. And they have tried multiple things. Unfortunately, when they enter Gaza, they suffer high losses. Eventually, Israelis decided not to send their sons into Gaza and strike the rocket launchers from the air instead. Not that Israelis are not trying to minimize collateral damage as it is. They sometimes call of rockets (mid-flight) if the targetted truck is passing by civilians, and they warn the civilians in an area that a strike is about to happen. I agree with you that this conflict would benefit from privatized protection services. Such a protection service would come into Gaza, clear out the terrorists and occupy the area indefinitely until it was clearly shown that the citizens (or whoever is in control) are willing to live with the protection service's clients.
How do you know the "ordinary" Palestinians aren't complicit with the "terrorists"?
The Palestinians cowardly choice to put launchers next to civilians is an attempt to force Israel to bring in ground troops.
Generally not a good tactic to let your enemy dictate the battlefield.
israel itself is a violation of nap.
Palestinian people are no more complacent than israels people or the american people in war activity.
Shackleford: How do you know the "ordinary" Palestinians aren't complicit with the "terrorists"?
How do you know that "ordinary" Americans aren't complicit with the crimes of the state?
There are probably lots of Palestinians who are complicit to some extent, but that doesn't mean it's a majority of them. It's the same with any state or gang - if enough people tolerate these entities, then they will retain power. You also don't know how many of them are complicit because they support the terrorists or if they fear them.
cab21: israel itself is a violation of nap.
Any state is a violation of the NAP. Any gangs that aspire to be states are violations of the NAP.
gotlucky: Shackleford: How do you know the "ordinary" Palestinians aren't complicit with the "terrorists"? How do you know that "ordinary" Americans aren't complicit with the crimes of the state? There are probably lots of Palestinians who are complicit to some extent, but that doesn't mean it's a majority of them. It's the same with any state or gang - if enough people tolerate these entities, then they will retain power. You also don't know how many of them are complicit because they support the terrorists or if they fear them.
Isn't Hamas the duly-elected government?
So what?
gotlucky: So what?
People in this thread are wondering if the Palestinians will kick out the terrorists. I don't think that's going to happen. I'm willing to bet most of them support their antagonism against Israel. Otherwise, they would not have elected an avowed and infamous terrorist group.
Obama was elected.
I think the point about Israel being a state is moot.
Imagine I am a mafia racketeer and force you to pay me protection money for... protection. Then you get attacked by Joe. I do X (whatever it is).
When examining whether X was violation of Joe's rights (or his family's right, if they happen to have suffered from my protection of my client and attack on Joe), it doesn't matter whether I am protecting my client with his permission or without.
FlyingAxe, I'm not sure I'm following your point. Could you rephrase?
Imagine that IDF was a private protection agency hired by Jewish people living in the territory known as "Israel". Then ask: are IDF's actions against Gazans a crime? Don't mix in the crime of Israel being a state with the presumed crime of its attacking Gazans.
For a state formed in the 1940s, Israel sure has seen a lot of war...I wonder why that is.
My Mom visited Israel during the Yom Kippur War.
I agree with that.
Marko: Any state is a violation of the NAP. Any gangs that aspire to be states are violations of the NAP. An aspiration is not and can not be a crime. As libertarians we do not believe in thoughtcrime.
It is, however, perfectly viable to array ourselves against a group that clearly favors statist solutions and looks forward to establishing a state, explicitly.
It's not a crime, but it is something we oppose as unjust.
Well, as Ron Paul himself would say let's ask ourselves why the Palestinians are so angry with Israel. If I were forced to live in what's little more than a giant gulag I think I'd be angry too. Want to leave? You can't. For all their cheap rhetoric about Muslim solidarity the Gulf States won't touch Palestinian immigrants with a ten ft pole. They much prefer getting their manpower from Bangladesh, Pakistan etc. Europe, for all her verbal diarrhea about "human rights" won't touch Palestinians with a twenty ft pole despite letting in the scum of the Earth.
Personally, given the depth of infiltration of Palestinian organizations by the dreaded Shin Beth, I wouldn't be surprised if Palestinians were somehow coaxed or cajoled into firing the first shot. For over a year Israel has been torn by strikes and protests by workers, unions etc about the common theme all over the West: poors are getting poorer, rich are getting richer, inflation is spiraling out of control etc. What better way to unite the country than a foreign attack?
Probably the Tsa'hal HQ also wants to see if their troops quality has somewhat improved. While the failure of the 2006 Lebanon offensive is often pinned on stiff resistance by Hezbollah, in reality it was much down to the low morale of the once legendary Israeli soldier. Whole infantry units refused to carry positions and tank crews often withdrew their vehicles at the first sign of danger. Note that during the Yom Kippur War Israeli tank crews often displayed such suicidal bravery as to daze the well armed Arab forces: desperate resistance by a handful of Centurion tanks was all it took to break the momentum of the Syrian offensive in the Golan. This was confirmed in later years when, for the first time in Israeli history, thousands of reservists failed turn up at summons or performed the bare minimum to avoid disciplinary sanctions. The tactics experimented during Operation Cast Lead were a direct response to this unexpected deterioration of the human material: heavier reliance on indirect fire, heavier reliance on air strikes, heavier reliance on sniper fire and so on. As Moshe Dayan (he was not a great general, as demonstrated by how he easily cracked under pressure during the Yom Kippur War, but he knew psychology very well) said Israel cannot let the "Arabs" think it's weak. I am sure reports from Hezbollah about low Israeli morale were on Iranian desks in a matter of weeks.
Raimondo (2009):
We all know the rationalization for Israel’s brutal invasion of the Gaza Strip. After all, it’s been reiterated endlessly over the airwaves by official and unofficial spokesmen for the Israeli government, on all channels, and with no rebuttal or skeptical perspective from Palestinians or, indeed, from anyone vaguely sympathetic to their plight. Their argument goes like this: if rockets were coming from Mexican territory and landing in San Diego, posing a threat to the life and safety of American citizens, we all know what would happen. This is supposed to settle the question of the morality of the invasion, but it doesn’t. Because what we are seeing in this argument is a variation on the old cherry-picking technique of the neocons in the Bush administration, who utilized "talking points" that were very selective in their presentation of the facts to make the case for invading Iraq. What the rationalizers leave out, of course, is the ongoing blockade of Gaza, imposed after Hamas took control in the wake of its overwhelming election victory – and an attempted (and partially successful) coup d’etat by the losers of that election, the Fatah organization of the late Yasser Arafat (now headed up by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas). The blockade itself was an act of war, by which the Israelis struck the first blow. With this correction made, then, let’s revisit – and reverse – the Israeli argument, putting all the known facts in their proper context. If Mexico – in an attempt to regain its lost territory, the promised land of California – invaded California, drove the residents of San Diego from their city, cooped them up in, say, Death Valley, and wouldn’t let anything but a basic minimum of consumer goods and medical supplies either in or out, well, we all know what would happen.
This is supposed to settle the question of the morality of the invasion, but it doesn’t. Because what we are seeing in this argument is a variation on the old cherry-picking technique of the neocons in the Bush administration, who utilized "talking points" that were very selective in their presentation of the facts to make the case for invading Iraq.
What the rationalizers leave out, of course, is the ongoing blockade of Gaza, imposed after Hamas took control in the wake of its overwhelming election victory – and an attempted (and partially successful) coup d’etat by the losers of that election, the Fatah organization of the late Yasser Arafat (now headed up by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas). The blockade itself was an act of war, by which the Israelis struck the first blow.
With this correction made, then, let’s revisit – and reverse – the Israeli argument, putting all the known facts in their proper context. If Mexico – in an attempt to regain its lost territory, the promised land of California – invaded California, drove the residents of San Diego from their city, cooped them up in, say, Death Valley, and wouldn’t let anything but a basic minimum of consumer goods and medical supplies either in or out, well, we all know what would happen.
Why don't they just send the 30000 troops in to the mosque and houses and confiscate all the weapons but don't kill or kidnap innocents in the process. That seems some what reasonable. But knowing isreal history with fase flag attacks and their sheer lack of empathy. It would not surprise me if isreal set off the rockets or allowed the rockets to bet set off at the least, in order to give justification to attack gaza. I don't think that isreal is above the attack and murder of its own population in order to gain popular support in the murder of Palestinians and other non jews.
The non aggression principle is not so relevant in this context, for one both sides are partaking in aggression so both sides have an argument of defensive aggression and two, both sides have a government and acting with and and behalf of patriotism and respect for country. Institutionalised violence on both sides. If anything Palestinians are more on the side of individual aggression out of personal emotion, but that is only due the lack of organisation and technological capabilities that they have available, which is arguable due to isreali treatment of gaza for the last few decades.
It's really strange to hear claims, the equivalent of 'it's really difficult not to kill innocent human beings'. No it is not. You make a decision you are not going to murder people and so you don't. It is only difficult not to murder when it is easy for you to kill innocents. It is we who decide what is the easier course of action for us. Israelis could decide that not killing innocent people could never be the easier path for them and that would be it. But they do not because the innocents in question are Arabs who dislike them and against whom Israel exacts measures of collective reprisals. The idea the IDF would kill 10 Israeli civilians in order to kill one Hamas fighter is laughable. They would simply consider the scenario where they kill 10 Jewish non-combatants a non-starter.
Marko: gotlucky:Any state is a violation of the NAP. Any gangs that aspire to be states are violations of the NAP. An aspiration is not and can not be a crime. As libertarians we do not believe in thoughtcrime.
gotlucky:Any state is a violation of the NAP. Any gangs that aspire to be states are violations of the NAP.
Gang:
Criminal groups are violations of the NAP. The point of my post was that even if Hamas is not a state, it is certainly a criminal group, and therefore a violation of the NAP.
You spoke specifically about gangs which are aspiring to become states, implying you draw a distinction between a gangs which are aspiring to become a state and gangs which are not aspiring to become states. If you meant to be clear it is the 'gang' portion of the characterization you have a problem with and not the 'aspiring to become a state' portion you should have left the latter information out as non-relevant.
Marko: You spoke specifically about gangs which are aspiring to become states, implying you draw a distinction between a gangs which are aspiring to become a state and gangs which are not aspiring to become states.
You spoke specifically about gangs which are aspiring to become states, implying you draw a distinction between a gangs which are aspiring to become a state and gangs which are not aspiring to become states.
You inferred that was what I was talking about. I did not imply it.
Marko: If you meant to be clear it is the 'gang' portion of the characterization you have a problem with and not the 'aspiring to become a state' portion you should have left the latter information out as non-relevant.
If you meant to be clear it is the 'gang' portion of the characterization you have a problem with and not the 'aspiring to become a state' portion you should have left the latter information out as non-relevant.
My post was a direct response to cab21's post about Israel being a violation of the NAP. I was drawing a parallel between the Israeli government and Hamas, not between the Israeli government and the Crips. The distinction was relevant to the context of cab21's post.
I'm glad we cleared that up.
The zionists were the ones who used force to clear non-Jews out of Palestine, in order to live there.
Now they have to deal with constant war. Which they call terrorism, because they don't want to believe there is an actual opposition to what they did.
Just like white people think no native American could possibly be angry about the current US.
Should I also imagine the land in the territory known as "Israel" is legitimately owned by these "Jewish people", or should I imagine they came to claim it after they drove out these "Gazans" from their homes in "Israel" into Gaza?
John Ess: The zionists were the ones who used force to clear non-Jews out of Palestine, in order to live there.
I thought the Palestinians left Israel, abandoned their homes, of their own free will, because they were told to by the surrounding arab nations who had decided to destroy Israel during the upcoming '67 war. Problem was, Israel won that war.
I thought the Palestinians left Israel, abandoned their homes, of their own free will, because they were told to by the surrounding arab nations who had decided to destroy Israel during the upcoming '67 war.
Problem was, Israel won that war.
Marko: Imagine that IDF was a private protection agency hired by Jewish people living in the territory known as "Israel". Then ask: are IDF's actions against Gazans a crime? Don't mix in the crime of Israel being a state with the presumed crime of its attacking Gazans. Should I also imagine the land in the territory known as "Israel" is legitimately owned by these "Jewish people", or should I imagine they came to claim it after they drove out these "Gazans" from their homes in "Israel" into Gaza? You should imagine whatever the hell you want, but meanwhile get off Native Americans' land and go back to Europe. You have 15 seconds to do that; a rocket aimed at your house is in the air. | Post Points: 5
Marko, if my neighbor allowed the use of his house for staging an attack on my house, I would also prevent his return to it after I kicked out his aggressing cousins. The same way that I would take away a gun that belonged to my 'innocent' neighbor that his cousin unfortunately borrowed to shoot at me. It's ridiculous to say that I am aggressing against my neighbor since he personally did not shoot at me with his gun.
Contrast it with another neighbor who did not lend his gun to the aggressor... and whom I've been living in peace with ever since.
What if your neighbor ran off because he heard on the wire that a motorcycle gang was coming to shoot up your house. Would you burn his house down? Prevent his return?
You know what I've never understood about these flare-ups we have every few years? Why do Israel and the Palestinians need outside parties to "broker" a cease fire? Maybe there's a good reason and I just don't know it, but to me, trying to force peace from the outside is in the same camp as trying to artificially prop up an economy when it should be going into recession. Not that I think it would be good for them to have more killing, but it seems to me, they obviously have a beef with each other, so why does Hillary Clinton riding in on her high-horse all of a sudden make them willing to sheath their swords?
Anenome: John Ess: The zionists were the ones who used force to clear non-Jews out of Palestine, in order to live there. I thought the Palestinians left Israel, abandoned their homes, of their own free will, because they were told to by the surrounding arab nations who had decided to destroy Israel during the upcoming '67 war. Problem was, Israel won that war.
That's my understanding as well. If Palestinians wanted to live peacefully in Israel, they could.
" That's my understanding as well. If Palestinians wanted to live peacefully in Israel, they could."
Israel is only for Jews. It is based on rights for them, not for anyone else.
it would be like saying that Christians or Hindus can live peacefully in Saudi Arabia.