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

Not Ranked
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 5:30 PM

Aristippus:

So now religions can claim property?

Are you claiming 'jewish' is a religion only, absent an ethnic identity?

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 1,288
Points 22,350

Well you said 'muslim religion'.  Anyway sure, I'll add the question 'so now ethnic identities can claim property?'

The Voluntaryist Reader: http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/ Libertarian forums that actually work: http://voluntaryism.freeforums.org/index.php
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 630
Points 9,425

I thought the Palestinians have been segregated and restricted from entering isreal. Surely it is isreal who has prevented Palestinians from integrating. Isreal has been genociding the Palestinians for decades. To draw a comparison with apartheid South Africa. What you have just said is a kin to saying, why can't the repressed Africans like Mandela just live peacefully as second class citizens?

How anyone can support the isreali state and claim to agree with the nap and an cap is beyond me, in my opinion they obviously have some religious or other interests in the isreali state that supersedes their opinions on anarcho-capitalism.

Why support the isreali state but be against statism in general?

"Jewish" is not an ethnic identity. Judaism is a belief system. Jews are no more an ethnic group than Christians or Scientologists.

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 452
Points 7,620

Aristippus:

So now religions can claim property?

 

The argument is that it's "stolen" land from the Palestinians. Newt Gingrich was right. They're a fabricated people used for political and financial leverage. If they, en masse, wanted to live in peace with the state of Israel and the Jewish people, they could. There is no question about that.

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 5:38 PM

Why support the isreali state but be against statism in general?

If I understand Anenome correctly, he doesn't support the Israeli state. He just hates Hamas and the PLO more.

"Jewish" is not an ethnic identity. Judaism is a belief system. Jews are no more an ethnic group than Christians or Scientologists.

Ignorance is as ignorance does.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 5:47 PM

Right, I'm not saying either side are angels in the conflict, I just refuse to fall into the typical narrative on why we should blame Israel. It's a true case of perception crafting. And regardless anything that happened in the past and all the complex events, I don't accept that the Palestinians can ethically begin shelling Israel at whim.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 5:50 PM
 
 

Aristippus:

Well you said 'muslim religion'.  Anyway sure, I'll add the question 'so now ethnic identities can claim property?'

By that I mean the various Arab countries around Israel support the Palestinian attacks on Israel, both ideologically and materially and with fighters even, because they have a common cause to retake Jerusalem due to majority muslim populations in those countries.

We westerners may think strongly in terms of national boundaries and identities, but in the middle east they have a stronger sense of the muslims as a unified people seeking worldwide dominance.

As for ethinic identities, I'd give the remaining Jews the land of Israel as rightfully theirs just as I'd give the remaining American Indians their entire traditional hunting grounds and the like.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 1,288
Points 22,350

As for ethinic identities, I'd give the remaining Jews the land of Israel as rightfully theirs just as I'd give the remaining American Indians their entire traditional hunting grounds and the like.

Look, if you're going to go back thousands of years, and assuming that 'ethnic claims' are viable, the Jews themselves claim that they conquered the land from others (e.g. under Joshua), so they cannot be the rightful owners of the land per the NAP.

The Voluntaryist Reader: http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/ Libertarian forums that actually work: http://voluntaryism.freeforums.org/index.php
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 5:56 PM
 
 

Jack Roberts:

Why support the isreali state but be against statism in general?

I'm supporting their individual right to self-defense, as I would anyone else's. It is almost strictly in NAP terms that I view the conflict. I'm certainly not supporting their statism.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 630
Points 9,425

Well just because people point out that isreal is not a victim does not mean that they support violence against isreal by Palestinians. I would also like to disagree about the typical narrative the typical narrative or the mainstream narrative is that isreal is a victim.

From what I understand when Palestinians are firing rockets at isreal that is because they have been repressed against. ie Israeli bombs killed their family and so on. When we hear about isreali brutality that is not done out of emotional desperation. Isreali violence is done out of arrogance and self righteousness. Isreali's shoot children on the border throwing stones for fun, they joke about it. Do you see the polar difference there? 

I also think there is a possibility that some of the isreali attacks are false flags, done in order to gain popular international support in the further genocide of Palestinians. I have seen some videos of the results of rocket attacks on isreal and I watch the bombing of Palestine a few years ago and the results of that. What do you expect an impartial third party like myself to think?

The only way the conflict is going to end is when the bigger party, isreal, change their attitude and refuse to violently retaliate. I am not saying they should ignore rocket attacks. I doubt they are capable of that. But to start with they could end the military conscription and start to end the culture of apartheid, by teaching young isrealis that Palestinians are people as well.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 6:02 PM
 
 

Aristippus:

As for ethinic identities, I'd give the remaining Jews the land of Israel as rightfully theirs just as I'd give the remaining American Indians their entire traditional hunting grounds and the like.

Look, if you're going to go back thousands of years and assuming that 'ethnic claims' are viable, the Jews themselves claim that they conquered the land from others (e.g. under Joshua), so they cannot be the rightful owners of the land per the NAP.

That depends on whether those others they took it for can be found. If they can be, then I will support their claim to it.

If they cannot be found, then the land can be considered unowned and the best claim goes to he who homesteads it by living there, which would be the ancestors of the conquerors.

This is an application of Rothbard's rubric for dealing with who has the best claim to property in For a New Liberty.

If you wanna make a case for the true owners previous to the Jews I'd certainly be willing to hear you out; though i've never heard anyone make a case for that and assume it's not possible. If people groups don't make it into modern times with an identity in-tact it would be impossible to say.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 1,288
Points 22,350

Wait, so if I murder someone and all his family (all his heirs), and then take all his stuff, I get to keep it?  Fantastic.

If they cannot be found, then the land can be considered unowned and the best claim goes to he who homesteads it by living there, which would be the ancestors of the conquerors.

I assume you mean descendants, who are assumed to be the heirs.  But how can you be sure that the Jews of today even are those heirs?  Not only would there be Jews that are not the rightful heirs, but there would be many descendants/heirs who are now non-Jews!!  So on the one hand, many people would be initiating aggression, and on the other hand many people would be unjustly deprived of their rightful property.  That's why the whole idea of restoring huge swathes of land that were stolen thousands of years ago to individuals of a particular 'ethnic identity' is ridiculous and would have no place in an emergent legal system.

The Voluntaryist Reader: http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/ Libertarian forums that actually work: http://voluntaryism.freeforums.org/index.php
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Nov 21 2012 6:20 PM
 
 

Jack Roberts:
Well just because people point out that isreal is not a victim does not mean that they support violence against isreal by Palestinians.

I'll tell you who are the victims: innocents in either camp.

And you have Palestinians driving the attack on innocents on both sides, by both placing their launchers, etc., near their innocents and actively targeting Israeli innocents with their weapons.

Jack Roberts:
I would also like to disagree about the typical narrative the typical narrative or the mainstream narrative is that isreal is a victim.

It's the typical narrative on the left, and also around much of the world, and it's been infusing ever deeper in the American consciousness with the left driving it.

Jack Roberts:
From what I understand when Palestinians are firing rockets at isreal that is because they have been repressed against. ie Israeli bombs killed their family and so on.

See, this is a distorted justification. Why is Israel blockading Gaza. Because Arab nations continue trying to sneak entire ships of weapons into Gaza, and because Palestinians have continually used them against Israel. That's the start of that problem, the initiation of force.

Would there be this 'repression' without the Palestinian desire for continual aggression? No. There'd be peace and no repression from Israel, who's mainly trying to keep weapons out of the hands of those who desire to use them on Israel.

Then the media turns the narrative around. Now they're attacking Israel because of Israeli blockade and oppression which ignores utterly the premises of the conflict.

Let me ask you, suppose Israel ends the blockade entirely. What would result? If the conflict is really over repression, you'd have to say peace would result, since the cause--Israeli repression--has ended. But you know very well that the result would be a barrage of missiles and bombs on Israel. So that cannot be the cause.

Israeli repression and blockade are defensive measure, and (as an adherent to the NAP I find) are justified as defensive coercion.

Jack Roberts:
When we hear about isreali brutality that is not done out of emotional desperation. Isreali violence is done out of arrogance and self righteousness. Isreali's shoot children on the border throwing stones for fun, they joke about it. Do you see the polar difference there?

Again, no angels on either side.

Jack Roberts:
I also think there is a possibility that some of the isreali attacks are false flags

Prove it then talk. I don't take mere speculation seriously.

Jack Roberts:
I have seen some videos of the results of rocket attacks on isreal and I watch the bombing of Palestine a few years ago and the results of that. What do you expect an impartial third party like myself to think?

Do tell.

Jack Roberts:
The only way the conflict is going to end is when the bigger party, isreal, change their attitude and refuse to violently retaliate.

Is that what the NAP holds? Do we say that when a woman is being raped that the way to end the violence is for her to stop retaliating against the rapist? How on earth do you come to this conclusion?

The way to end aggression, the only way that has ever proved viable in human history and in all applications, is to muster defensive coercion to put down the aggression, by force.

Jack Roberts:
I am not saying they should ignore rocket attacks. I doubt they are capable of that. But to start with they could end the military conscription and start to end the culture of apartheid, by teaching young isrealis that Palestinians are people as well.

Have you looked at what Palestinian textbooks say about the Jews? I think there's far more dehumanization occuring on the Palestinian side.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 452
Points 7,620

John Ess:

" 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. 

 

There are plenty of Arabs living peacefully in Israel that prove your statement is utterly false. Christians and Hindus can't live peacefully in Saudi Arabia because of Islam and Muslims. Plenty of Arabs and non-Jews live peacefully in Israel. Muslims cause trouble in northern Africa, in France, in the U.K., in Russia, in India, in Palestine, etc.

Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.
What bothers me most is not that Arabs kill our children, but that they force us to kill theirs.

“From the Al-Qassam Brigades to the Zionist soldiers: The Al-Qassam Brigades love death more than you love life.”

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 117
Points 1,935
h.k. replied on Thu, Nov 22 2012 6:31 AM

Anenome:

 
 

Aristippus:

Well you said 'muslim religion'.  Anyway sure, I'll add the question 'so now ethnic identities can claim property?'

As for ethinic identities, I'd give the remaining Jews the land of Israel as rightfully theirs just as I'd give the remaining American Indians their entire traditional hunting grounds and the like.

 
 

 

This is where you start sounding like a collectivist. Stop talking about "rightfully theirs", this is statist talk to me. I don't care about their ethnic history, who you  "think" deserves more, or who you like more.

 

Indians also claim to own more land than they actually do, so the act of homesteading something has to be proven in court. Also Israel seems to support our obnoxious interventionist foreign policy, which is another reason why they're unpopular (in case you wanted to understand why they're not the most trusted). Unintended consequences and blowback like Ron Paul says.

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975
John Ess replied on Thu, Nov 22 2012 2:06 PM

"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.
What bothers me most is not that Arabs kill our children, but that they force us to kill theirs."

Aww, how difficult it must be for them.  Killing someone's children is a lot of hard work.

This statement was a propaganda by Golda Meir.

It sounds like the same bullshit that promoted the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  White people have a burden to kill all of the people over there to help them set up their governments.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Fri, Nov 23 2012 2:30 AM
 
 

h.k.:

This is where you start sounding like a collectivist. Stop talking about "rightfully theirs", this is statist talk to me. I don't care about their ethnic history, who you  "think" deserves more, or who you like more.

There's really no other meaningful way to talk about a land-claim that goes back some 2,000 years :\ And they didn't exactly hold that land in terms of individual ownership, but as a tribal collective and via the year of jubilee. I don't think we can decide out of hand that they don't get to own a historical land-claim because they didn't hold that land as individual fiefs but as a willing collective. Neither for them nor for the indian tribes. There seems something innately unfair in that.

h.k.:
Indians also claim to own more land than they actually do, so the act of homesteading something has to be proven in court.

Sure, but if you knew anything about Indian affairs in the US, you'd know that they were given official quantities long ago that are now massively stripped down due to states and the fed shenanigans, such as forcing individual land title on them and then charging them property taxes, forcing large numbers of them to lose their land entirely. Some tribes now maintain as little as 5% of what they were originally granted. I think it would be more than fair to return to those previous tribal boundaries.

h.k.:
Also Israel seems to support our obnoxious interventionist foreign policy, which is another reason why they're unpopular

Sure, right there with you on that. Again, no angels. But how anyone could think the Palestinians would be any better is beyond me.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 452
Points 7,620

John Ess:

"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.
What bothers me most is not that Arabs kill our children, but that they force us to kill theirs."

Aww, how difficult it must be for them.  Killing someone's children is a lot of hard work.

This statement was a propaganda by Golda Meir.

It sounds like the same bullshit that promoted the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  White people have a burden to kill all of the people over there to help them set up their governments.

 

You completely ignored the third quote that validated the first one.

http://thephoenixsaga.com/
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975
John Ess replied on Mon, Nov 26 2012 10:55 AM

Hamas is what is at issue here.  It cannot be separated from Israel, in the same way Islamic fundamentalism can't be separated from the US.

Israel supported and tolerated Hamas for many years in order to allow them to destroy PLO and Fatah.  And even Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish said that they were an arm of Taliban.

The US supported fundamental Islam in the cold war to cynically defeat Arab nationalism and democratic movements not convenient to oil and banking interests.  They supported Muslim Brotherhood (against Nasser),  Al-Qaeda (against Soviet union), Taliban (against Soviet union), Wahabbi Saudis (from the  FDR administration to today), and even initially the Iranian government under Ayatollah Khomeini.  Many of these things had consequenes for the US's other interest in Israel.  Very seldom do they think about the contradictions in their policies.

You argument that they can live peacefully is a vulgar one.  Anyone can live peacefully under a set of preconditions, but none would wish to if it was degrading to themselves.  Hence anyone can live in Saudi if they convert to Islam, or in Israel if they serve the Jewish supremacist state.  People could live peacefully in USSR.  As Libertarians we especially see 'peace' as not a sufficient condition for life.  One can live peacefully as a slave. You can peacefully obey anything our own state says without complaints, but only an idiot will.

That is not to advocate the opposite in violence, but that most people have a highe standard for society they want to live in than simply not having a war.  On the one hand, they want a society that makes sense culturally for them as a separate ethnicity:  the very reason why some Jews want their own society.  The opposite is a fragmentation or tiered class system.  On the other hand, one that is shaped by themselves and not someone else.  Particularly when they were on the land the first.  The idea that they should just submit to the state to avoid violence is idiotic and anti-libertarian.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Mon, Nov 26 2012 2:28 PM

The US supported fundamental Islam in the cold war to cynically defeat Arab nationalism and democratic movements not convenient to oil and banking interests.  They supported Muslim Brotherhood (against Nasser),  Al-Qaeda (against Soviet union), Taliban (against Soviet union), Wahabbi Saudis (from the  FDR administration to today), and even initially the Iranian government under Ayatollah Khomeini.  Many of these things had consequenes for the US's other interest in Israel.  Very seldom do they think about the contradictions in their policies.


Of course John Ess himself supported US supporting fundamentalist Islamists in Libya.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 117
Points 1,935
h.k. replied on Mon, Nov 26 2012 6:49 PM

Anenome:

 
 

There's really no other meaningful way to talk about a land-claim that goes back some 2,000 years :\ And they didn't exactly hold that land in terms of individual ownership, but as a tribal collective and via the year of jubilee. I don't think we can decide out of hand that they don't get to own a historical land-claim because they didn't hold that land as individual fiefs but as a willing collective. Neither for them nor for the indian tribes. There seems something innately unfair in that.

 

No the problem is your style and diction are poor this time, from an Austrian POV. You still sound like a collectivist not someone impartial. There's something in your writing style that still leaves something to be desired as a capitalist, so it concerns me.

Sure, but if you knew anything about Indian affairs in the US, you'd know that they were given official quantities long ago that are now massively stripped down due to states and the fed shenanigans, such as forcing individual land title on them and then charging them property taxes, forcing large numbers of them to lose their land entirely. Some tribes now maintain as little as 5% of what they were originally granted. I think it would be more than fair to return to those previous tribal boundaries.

There's nothing to discuss, you're not providing me with Libertarian solutions so stop pontificating.

I don't care what you think, that's the whole point. What matters is Libertarian homesteading.

 

Sure, right there with you on that. Again, no angels. But how anyone could think the Palestinians would be any better is beyond me.

 
 

 

No you don't seem to get it, it doesn't matter that one side is "more good". Israel is in a position of power, and they will be held to a higher standard just like I hold our "superior" American politicians to a high standard. They are ultimately more a threat to their enemies than vice-versa, so we should not defend their overbloated state apparatus. This goes for any interventionist nation. I defend individual Jewish people from terrorism instead.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Tue, Nov 27 2012 12:07 AM
 
 

h.k.:
No you don't seem to get it, it doesn't matter that one side is "more good". Israel is in a position of power, and they will be held to a higher standard just like I hold our "superior" American politicians to a high standard. They are ultimately more a threat to their enemies than vice-versa, so we should not defend their overbloated state apparatus. This goes for any interventionist nation. I defend individual Jewish people from terrorism instead.

That's the only cogent argument along those lines I've seen, and I think you make a good point.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 6
Points 105

There are 1.5 million (20% of the population) Israeli Arabs with the exact same citizenship rights as Jews.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 3 of 3 (103 items) < Previous 1 2 3 | RSS