Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Preserving NAP in Gaza

rated by 0 users
This post has 102 Replies | 10 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Eugene:

The current conflict in Gaza really challenges the idea that you can defend yourself without killing innocent people in the process.

??? Thousands of people do it every year.

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?
This is only raises the question, "what right does the government of Israel have to protect the people of Israel?"

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Tue, Nov 20 2012 10:34 PM

John Ess:

Israel is only for Jews.  It is based on rights for them, not for anyone else.

This is false. There are Israeli Arabs, of which some are Christian and some are Muslim. There are Mulsims in the Israeli parliament. Undoubtedly non-Jews (especially Israeli Muslims and non-Israeli Muslims) are second class citizens, but there are plenty of non-Jewish Israelis that live in Israel and coexist peacefully with the Jewish Israelis. However, all Jewish Israelis must be enslaved into the Israeli military, whereas Israeli Christians and Muslims are exempt from this. Being enslaved into the military is quite unfortunate, because it forces many Israeli Jews into a position of aggression should they be called to action - not just war but checkpoints or raids or whatever.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

they are figthing war how is this nap?

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 2:14 AM
 
 

It seems to me the Palestinians are continually the ones initiating attacks on Israel. That is relevant to the NAP.

Even if they were right about occupation or w/e, it's not ethical to respond to non-lethal force of being refused right of return with lethal force. That makes you an aggressor in your own right just as surely as a store-owner shooting someone stealing a stick of bubblegum.

People have said that if the Palestinians laid down their arms, there'd be peace in the Middle-east, and if the Israelis laid down their arms, they'd all be killed.

I think that's accurate. Thus, via the NAP test, the Palestinians are aggressors and bear the most blame for the situation.

Since I expect Clayton to throw a fit, I'll say that I am willing to hear you out, but will be surprised if I hear anything new that sways me :\ The conflict is not really about their homes and right of return. This conflict has been going on for at least hundreds of years. And the Israelis really do have an ancient claim to the territory, and thus the best property claim, and a historical claim to much more land surrounding them than to which they presently occupy.

Yes there are various problems surrounding Israeli and Palestinian oppression and statism and a hundred other factors. But in terms of who is aggressing, I think it's primarily the Palestinians.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 2:23 AM

Palestine is under Israel occupation, so it's not initiation.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-and-natural-gas-the-israeli-invasion-and-gaza-s-offshore-gas-fields/11680

http://www.diakonia.se/sa/node.asp?node=962

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 256
Points 5,630
And the Israelis really do have an ancient claim to the territory, and thus the best property claim, and a historical claim to much more land surrounding them than to which they presently occupy.

And the same way the American Indians have a claim to their land as well.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 907
Points 14,795

And the Israelis really do have an ancient claim to the territory

Do you mean as a nation, or individually? How a someone with three generations of ancestors living in Europe has more claim to land in Levant than someone with three generations of ancestors living in Levant?

The Voluntaryist Reader - read, comment, post your own.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 2:30 AM

one difference between the american indians is they were the first to settle the area, israelis were not the first to settle the area, they conquered the area by force.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 2:30 AM
 
 

cab21:

Palestine is under Israel occupation, so it's not initiation.

That assumes the Palestinians generally have the best claim to that territory, which I don't accept.

And again, mere occupation is not life-threatening. Murder is not an acceptable response to a non life-threatening aggression, even if I agreed it were an aggression.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 2:34 AM
 
 

Al_Gore the Idiot:

And the Israelis really do have an ancient claim to the territory, and thus the best property claim, and a historical claim to much more land surrounding them than to which they presently occupy.

And the same way the American Indians have a claim to their land as well.

Yes, just like that. And if Libertarians ever take over, they'll get their land back. And it would mean, perhaps, 5% or more of the US territory changing into their hands. People typically assume it means the US would be completely changed over into American Indian hands. This is not the case.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 2:35 AM

controlling of supplies and movement is life threatening,

if you agreed it was agression, then it would not be murder to defend against such agression.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 2:42 AM
 
 

Andris Birkmanis:

And the Israelis really do have an ancient claim to the territory

Do you mean as a nation, or individually?

I mean individually, but if they choose to handle that ownership corporately, it's not really up to us to say they can't do that, except to counsel against it for obvious reasons.

For instance, it's said many Jewish families can still trace their line back to the Levites. Such a person undoubtedly has a claim to the ancient territory of Israel, which predates the more modern claim of Palestinians.

Andris Birkmanis:
How a someone with three generations of ancestors living in Europe has more claim to land in Levant than someone with three generations of ancestors living in Levant?

I'm basing this idea on Rothbard's enumeration of how such property problems should be handled, from For a New Liberty.  He states that if a property has been taken from someone and their ancestors can be found, the current owner must give it up without compensation and it should be given back to the rightful owner who has a better claim on it.

I think this fits the Israeli situation.

Long ago, the Israelis were driven from Israel by the Romans largely, had the land taken from them. It doesn't seem unreasonable under Rothbard's rubric to recognize that claim.

Where that reasoning begins to fall apart is that only particular property claims should be returned to their rightful owner, and how on earth could we possibly prove which family owned which plot thousands of years ago. Impossible. But I think at the least it makes sense to recognize Israeli sovereignty on that basis and let them figure it out on their own. Expecially given the Arab action of abandoning their property in order to enable an aggression on the Israelis.

Similarly, for an American Indian tribe, the thing to do would be to return their traditional hunting grounds in toto, not try to discover something like a western concept of delineated plots, and let them corporately manage that property, as the tribes had done in pre-western times.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 2:44 AM

cab21:

controlling of supplies and movement is life threatening,

How so? Please elaborate. What supplies / movement are being controlled in a life-threatening way?

cab21:
if you agreed it was agression, then it would not be murder to defend against such agression.

It would have to be life-threatening aggression, not merely aggression. Defensive coercion must be commensurate to the aggression, or else becomes aggression itself.

 

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 2:51 AM
 
 

cab21:

one difference between the american indians is they were the first to settle the area, israelis were not the first to settle the area, they conquered the area by force.

This is true, the Israelis in ancient times conquered the territory, but let's apply Rothbard's rubric yet again.

If the property was taken by one's ancestors and the original owners or their descendants can be found, then the property should go to the found heirs.

But if the property was taken by one's ancestors and the original owners or their heirs cannot be found, then the property is to be considered to be in an unowned state at that point.

If the current owner is a descendant of the original thief and the heirs of the original owner cannot be found, then he cannot be held responsible for the actions of his ancestor. He is considered to be the first user of unowned property, and thus to have homesteaded its use and to thereby have the best claim and can be considered its rightful owner.

Unfortunately the people they conquered the land from in ancient times are all gone. Thus, the Israelis today have the best claim on the land, and it is a rightful claim.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 2:55 AM

then they should do some ethnic cleansing if to make sure each person is there by blood rather than conversion or other reason. some genocide could do the region good.

plenty of palistineasn legitamitly own the land from that perspective as well, so i don't see how it would just be one ethnic group.

that's not even the property theory isrial uses, the state owns a great majority  in the present model.

http://www.buypropertyinisrael.com/article/types-of-land-in-israel

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 907
Points 14,795

Thus, the Israelis today have the best claim on the land, and it is a rightful claim.

The moral of the story: make sure you killed all the heirs of the property you've stolen?

The Voluntaryist Reader - read, comment, post your own.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 3:14 AM
 
 

Andris Birkmanis:

Thus, the Israelis today have the best claim on the land, and it is a rightful claim.

The moral of the story: make sure you killed all the heirs of the property you've stolen?

Well, Rothbard handles this by saying if the thief is the current owner of the property and the original owner or his heirs cannot be found, his property should be taken away and auctioned off or something, as the thief cannot be allowed to profit from his theft.

But if the thief is dead and his heirs currently own the house, and the original owners cannot be found, nor their heirs, the property is now in an ownerless condition. Thus it becomes home-steaded by its first-user in that condition, which would be the thief's heir.

Seems harsh but also seems internally consistent :\ In cosmic terms, it's a massive injustice for the original owners, but they're gone now so how do we move forward.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 3:43 AM
 
 

If you disagree with this comic, tell me why?

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 3:48 AM
 
 

See I find this one misleading, because it presents Israel as the aggressor in the first panel. Which it simply isn't. And the amount of force either can bring to bear means absolutely nothing to the moral judgment of the actions.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 5:24 AM
 
 

excel:

Do you lambast the israeli's as similarily despicable for putting women and children (and other civilians) in settlements built on occupied territory acquired through war to force Palestinians to potentially injure innocents in order to take back their land?

I do, but such a dispute should be handled through a dispute resolution / tort, not by armed conflict on anyone's part. A settlement dispute is at its heart a property dispute and should be handled as one. If the mediator hands it over to the Israelis, fine, if the Palestinians, fine.

But if the Palestinian territories are then used to lob missiles at the Israelis, they should defend themselves as humanely as possible.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 247
Points 4,055
excel replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 6:05 AM

 

I do, but such a dispute should be handled through a dispute resolution / tort, not by armed conflict on anyone's part. A settlement dispute is at its heart a property dispute and should be handled as one. If the mediator hands it over to the Israelis, fine, if the Palestinians, fine.

But if the Palestinian territories are then used to lob missiles at the Israelis, they should defend themselves as humanely as possible.

I was thinking more specifically in regards to the image of the israeli standing in front of a woman, whereas the palestinian was hiding behind a woman. If you truly accept the idea espoused in my earlier comment then surely they should both be behind their respective women, as the civilians in those settlements are basically human shields strapped to the israeli war machine.

As for settling the issue as a property dispute, I believe the international community in the form of the UN votes on this issue almost every year. If we take them to be a valid dispute resolution agency (that is, the diplomatic envoys that make up the UN) the vote is overwhelmingly (usually the world vs the US, Israel and a couple of other nations) in support of ceding the land back to the palestinians. (Back to the 1967 borders)

If we accept this as a valid resolution, what is a legitimate response when the losing party in such a resolution continues to militarily hold on to the property that the commonly accepted dispute resolution agency has found to not be their legitimate property?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975
John Ess replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 7:12 AM

"

 

If you disagree with this comic, tell me why?"

Yeah, because the media is so anti-Israel.  It just can't stop criticizing them.  Just like everyone in the US Government is always hating on them.  So unfair.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 117
Points 1,935
h.k. replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 7:30 AM

First of all I don't care who  "owned" the land "historically", it is 2012 now. So Arabs and Jews have to prove their ownership with Libertarian homesteading, with documentation and such. It is likely that both Arabs and Jewish people own a lot of land legitimately, to say neither does is untruthful.

 

 Violation of the NAP is determined on a case-by-case basis, so stop worrying about which side is right.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975
John Ess replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 7:50 AM

"This is false. There are Israeli Arabs, of which some are Christian and some are Muslim. There are Mulsims in the Israeli parliament. Undoubtedly non-Jews (especially Israeli Muslims and non-Israeli Muslims) are second class citizens"

Keyword being second class citizens.  But the fact remains that the Israeli state is for only the Jewish, so either those muslims and christians are Uncle Toms or rebels working from the inside.

Afu Agbaria is in the Knesset and tried to get Israel tried in the international criminal court, because of nonstop attacks on Arab neighbors.

Mohammad Barakeh worked to get Israel to let go of Gaza and the West Bank.

Haneen Zoabi is a Muslim woman in the Knesset, but she opposes the idea of a Jewish state.  She has said it is 'inherently racist', and that Netanyahu et al. are "a bunch of fascists pure and simple."  She claims to be Palestinian and not a Zionist.  Btw, doesn't wear a burka or headcovering.

Taleb El-Sana criticized Israel so much, that the Jerusalem Post argued that he should be deported like Abraham Lincoln deported people during the Civil War.

Raleb Najadele refused to sing the national anthem, because it is expressly promotes only Hebrew-speaking Jewish culture.  He also claims that Israel is a Jewish state.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 7:55 AM

John Ess:

Yeah, because the media is so anti-Israel.  It just can't stop criticizing them.  Just like everyone in the US Government is always hating on them.  So unfair.

BBC LIES ABOUT GAZA VICTIM

A Wikipedia Entry on Bias

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 7:58 AM

Keyword being second class citizens.  But the fact remains that the Israeli state is for only the Jewish, so either those muslims and christians are Uncle Toms or rebels working from the inside.

Clearly there are non-Jewish Israelis, so you really ought to support this with more than just irrelevant claims. So what that some Arab Israelis criticize the state? So what that some newspaper criticizes them back? That happens in America too, and any claim that America is only for Christians or white males is absurd. The situation in Israel sucks, but please stop with this dishonesty.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 8:02 AM

 

h.k.:

First of all I don't care who  "owned" the land "historically", it is 2012 now. So Arabs and Jews have to prove their ownership with  Libertarian  homesteading, with documentation and such. It is likely that both Arabs and Jewish people own a lot of land legitimately, to say neither does is untruthful.


 

  Violation of the NAP is determined on a case-by-case basis, so stop worrying about which side is right.

This. It's amazing how some libertarians on this board suddenly want to talk about the conflict in terms of collectivism instead of applying methodological individualism. It's fucking weird.


 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975
John Ess replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 9:17 AM

"

BBC LIES ABOUT GAZA VICTIM"

Breitbart is a site for a delusional pro-war and heavily zionist neocons.

To say the media is anti-Israel is so idiotic it is not even worth discussing.  Their problem is that they are butthurt by even discussion that is common within Israel.  Because neocons are more zionist than even Israeli citizens.  HAlf of them are end of the world Christian nuts, and the others are cynical imperialists.

To your other point.  I didn't say America was only for white people.  but it is not controversial that Israel is a Jewish state.  Even people who like Israel say it.  They have a star of David to symbolize it, and their claim is based on religious ideology.  The 'problem of demographics' is constantly discussed, meaning too many non-Jews is a problem as is intermarriage.  Jews from anywhere in the world are collectivisticly given 'rights to land'.  It's not even a point of contention.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 10:12 AM

There's your dishonesty again. I am not contesting that it is a Jewish state. I am contesting your claim that "it is only for the Jewish."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 151
Points 2,705

Anyone have an opinion about my question above? I've just heard a ceasefire has been reached. I just don't get why Hillary and other outsiders showing up to "broker" all of a sudden to makes the Israelis and Palestinians willing to stop killing each other.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 12:25 PM

This comic is over the top, but I do think that in addition to there being a very strong anti-Arab and pro-Israeli bias in the media, there is also a clear, if far less consequential anti-Israeli bias emmanating from certain corners (the most bleeding heart liberal internationalists).

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 850
Points 27,940
Eugene replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 1:48 PM

Is anyone familiar with a war where civilians were spared or mostly spared? I just have a real hard time convincing my Israeli libertarian friends that it is possible to do more to safeguard the civilian population in Gaza other than what Israel already does (phone calls, leaflets, accurate bombs, etc...)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 2:37 PM
 
 

Clayton:

All that and still no answer to my question: The difference is in putting explosives on children and using them as weapons. How many Israelis vs. Palestinians have done this, Clayton? No more strawman arguments, please. Just an answer.

I don't know. There's your answer.

I know there are Palestinian terrorists who do because they're blatant about it. But who stands behind them? Who funds them? No one? Does Mossad use this tactic? Do Mossad agents disseminate knowledge in explosives and other tactics to Palestinian terrorists? Do they work with external intelligence agencies (Jordanian, Egyptian, etc.) who do? We'll never know because they work in the shadows.

But this is all a distraction from the real question we should be asking: Who is killing children (or any non-combatants, for that matter)? The answer is that Palestinian terrorists and the IDF/Mossad are both killing. And if you want to play the "who is killing more than who?" game, the Israelis are far and away the most prolific killers - whether of children or adults - in this conflict.

This is the game the pro-Palestinian people play, equating numbers killed with moral legitimacy. I'm surprised someone steeped in libertarian concepts of justice and the NAP can actually parrot this with a straight face.

Numbers matter not at all, what matters is justice. We, of all people, should know that, being political minorities to the extreme, but being the only group promoting justice as a guiding principle for society, and believing that numbers do not make right in our fight against the idea that democracy and majority vote makes anything ethical done against the minority.

Israel does not want to harm innocents in protecting itself. The Palestinians use this fact against them and place their military installations near civilian targets.

Palestinians want to harm Israeli innocents, just witness the bus bombing this morning.

And every time conflict flares up, it's Palestinians initiating violence. How can you defend these terrorist groups that have no respect for innocents, not even their own, and certainly no concept of the NAP.

The Palestinians, from a wider view the conflict, are a religious and political football, tossed continually against Israel as part of a religious and ideological war, an attempt by Muslims in general to recapture physical and political control of Jerusalem. They are a living pretext for proxy war. And I will not reward that cynical use of an entire population with support, ever.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 60
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975
John Ess replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 4:41 PM

" I am not contesting that it is a Jewish state. I am contesting your claim that "it is only for the Jewish."

There is no difference.  It is there to promote them as a nationalism and collective identity.  And this goal is worth all of the conflict and hatred and violence and everything else, just like all nationalism brings into existence.  There is no purpose in Israel for non-Jews, except to serve the Jews and the Jewish nation-state.   Jews are the 'real population' and ruling class.  No one else matters.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 630
Points 9,425

I definitely have to disagree with you Anenome, Isreal is clearly the aggressor. They are the ones that are destroying homes and erecting massive walls. How can you not see that the people in gaza are trying to defend their own land? After the second world war the jews created isreal an illegitimate state. They then went on a rampage of ethnic cleansing which has resulted in the current situation of apartheid. From the information that I have come across the Israelis are brutal to say the least.

I am not specifically for gaza or against Isreal i am fairly impartial in this and dislike all religions equally including judaism. But to try and make out as if isreal are the victims is ridiculous. Israel is a military state that lives in a state of war. They live for it and they take great pleasure in their brutality. Listening to some of the Israeli speak about Palestinians it is difficult to think otherwise.

At this point Palestine is pretty much destroyed, they have had sanctions and restrictions placed on to them for decades by the isreali state. Have you seen the wall? Do you think if people in say a district of New York started firing rockets at another part of the city the US government would be within the right to build a massive wall and subject everyone within the vicinity to brutal measures?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 4:45 PM

I have nothing left to say to you.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 452
Points 7,620

Jack Roberts:

I definitely have to disagree with you Anenome, Isreal is clearly the aggressor. They are the ones that are destroying homes and erecting massive walls. How can you not see that the people in gaza are trying to defend their own land? After the second world war the jews created isreal an illegitimate state. They then went on a rampage of ethnic cleansing which has resulted in the current situation of apartheid. From the information that I have come across the Israelis are brutal to say the least.

I am not specifically for gaza or against Isreal i am fairly impartial in this and dislike all religions equally including judaism. But to try and make out as if isreal are the victims is ridiculous. Israel is a military state that lives in a state of war. They live for it and they take great pleasure in their brutality. Listening to some of the Israeli speak about Palestinians it is difficult to think otherwise.

At this point Palestine is pretty much destroyed, they have had sanctions and restrictions placed on to them for decades by the isreali state. Have you seen the wall? Do you think if people in say a district of New York started firing rockets at another part of the city the US government would be within the right to build a massive wall and subject everyone within the vicinity to brutal measures?

 

Why don't the Palestinians live peacefully in Israel like other Arabs? Gaza receives more charity per capita than anywhere else on the planet.

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 5:21 PM

fountainhead:

Anyone have an opinion about my question above? I've just heard a ceasefire has been reached. I just don't get why Hillary and other outsiders showing up to "broker" all of a sudden to makes the Israelis and Palestinians willing to stop killing each other.

I think it's because America actually has leverage on both sides. Both sides accept large amounts of money and support from us, etc. And neither really wants us mad at them.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 5:26 PM

I'm more concerned about seeing people express pro-Palestinian views than anti-Israeli views on this issue, because I think there are major problems on both sides for someone who believes in liberty, but to dismiss Palestinian aggression is particularly evil to me as someone who holds the NAP as a core value.

It's not about Israeli occupation when viewed in a wider historical context. That's mere pretext. It's about Arab ego and muslim religion claiming Jerusalem, which as a Jewish city vastly, vastly! predates the creation of Islam.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,288
Points 22,350

So now religions can claim property?

The Voluntaryist Reader: http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/ Libertarian forums that actually work: http://voluntaryism.freeforums.org/index.php
  • | Post Points: 35
Page 2 of 3 (103 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS