Tuesday, August 26, 2014

A Libertarian Israeli on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Anarcho-Capitalism

Yossi L. emails in response to Why Israel Lies :

As an Israeli who has left Israel to a large degree because a great deal of these accusations are true, I’m still dismayed by the shallow analysis in the comment section here. It seems like when things come to Israel, libertarians are very content to forget what methodological individualism is and instead apply collectivist analysis trying to portray one population as good and the other criminal.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is bewilderingly complex from a libertarian point of view, and raises very interesting questions. The Jews who settled Palestine before 1948, by and large, did that peacefully, buying land from its rightful owners according to the prevailing laws of the time. However at the same time their leaders declared that
they want to establish a Jewish-majority state and that could have rightly been seen as a threat of violence towards the native inhabitants who weren’t interested in that. From this, does it follow that ANY Palestinian had a right to target EVERY Jew that immigrated to seek refuge or economic opportunity?

In the lead-up to the 1948 war Arab leaders were declaring they are going to slaughter all the Jews in the land when they recapture it. Some Jews felt compelled or justified in uprooting about 700,000 Palestinians and deport them in supposedly self-defense from this impending slaughter by the Arabs. Obviously many Arabs neither made threats nor could possibly be at fault for the bellicosity of their leaders. However at the same time, only a fraction of the Jewish settlers actually took an active part in the deportation of the Arabs and many of them had nothing to do with it. Once the deportation was committed almost all Jews in Israel felt that letting the refugees return would be a death sentence to themselves. As many of them were not involved in the fighting, asking them to put themselves at peril was and still is immoral.

After the establishment of Israel, its population tripled itself over the course of ten years. These new comers had nothing to do with the dispossession of the Arabs. In fact, most of them, including my mother, were kicked out of Arab countries in retaliation for what happened to the Palestinians (following collectivist “justice”). Many have settled areas that were uninhabited before. Do they owe anything to anyone? Many of those immigrants are still living in peripheral territory that borders with Gaza and Lebanon and shoulder the brunt of the indiscriminate rocket fire aimed at them. They were and still are cannon fodder for Zionist statists. What would be a correct libertarian solution to their predicament? What kind of a service would a free-market defense agency offer them in an AnCap world?

And finally, today, the Hamas says that it would establish an Islamic State should it come to possess the land. What kind of self-defense is justified against this sweeping threat? And how different is it from the threat that the Jews posed to the Arabs when they wanted to create a Jewish state?

What I’m seeing in Israel is for the large part people living two or three or four generations after some big crimes and threats of crimes have been committed and voiced. They would mostly just like to live in peace but they are facing a foe that is uncompromising---yes, despite the Palestinians being on the receiving side of most violence at this point, they make very little effort to conceal how uncompromising their position is.

Israel *IS* an Apartheid state, but like in South Africa, in the final balance, it may be the best deal that the people over there can hope to have---and I’m talking about both Jews and Arabs. Arabs who choose to integrate economically in the Israeli society are flourishing and are afforded freedoms which they will not have under Arab rule. My dad is a judge and his boss, the head of the Haifa court is Arab. My mom was a university professor and multiple of her deans over the years were Arab. I had Arab colleagues while working in IBM at Haifa. If you step into a mall in Haifa, the dynamic there between Jews and Arabs has completely transformed over the last ten years (which is ironic given how politicians have dug deeper and deeper into their positions). Almost all the shopkeepers are Arab and they have gotten rid of any residue Arab accent, they are gracious and provide excellent service. They are becoming more and more affluent, buying prime real estate in the best neighborhoods. They didn’t have to do much more than signal that they are ready to integrate---and it happened. The population are still segregated when it comes to education and marriage---but that’s the way everybody wants it. They don’t feel the need to enact some pie-in-the-sky progressivist agenda that is foreign to both Jews and Arabs of all religions and sects.

Unlike what Chris Hedges says, there is a clash of civilizations over there. True, Israel is not a Western Democracy. It’s more like a modern Sparta. But it is a place that encourages human excellence and is fairly liberal (in the good old sense) unlike the Islamic civilization which is a form of virulent fascism which hasn’t been able to generate any form of excellence in the last 700 years.

I resent the Israeli propaganda and especially AIPAC but when it comes to what happens between Jews and Arabs in Israel I think the right libertarian attitude should be “let the chips fall where they may”.

And finally, if AnCap theory can’t provide a working solution for the Jews in Israel then it’s kind of bunk, because if it’s supposed to work, then it should also work in those situations where you have neighboring societies which aren’t liberal or rational, and where the AnCap society itself is far from angelic (or does AnCap require white-as-snow citizenry?)


  1. Now this is a good response to that previous article. Very much enjoyed reading it, and agree with almost all of it. Thank you Yossi for writing it, and thank you Bob for posting it. I'm staying in Israel with the goal of minimizing state power as much as possible. We have our Ron Paul for the job (not as good as Ron, but I'm working on him). Hopefully you'll be hearing about him a lot more in a year's time, God willing.

  2. Yossi-

    Thank you for that educational piece. You're 100% correct- the conflict is too complex to call one side right or wrong. Thanks.

  3. "But it is a place that encourages human excellence and is fairly liberal (in the good old sense) unlike the Islamic civilization which is a form of virulent fascism which hasn’t been able to generate any form of excellence in the last 700 years." Apparently blood is thicker than ideology. Yossi is struggling with his conscious regarding the Israeli government's actions but he resorts to this tired old excuse. And so his "form of excellence" must be imposed on others. Both sides are fascist and there can be no peaceful resolution as long as might makes right is the prevailing attitude. I don't believe AnCap requires "white-as-snow citizenry" but it does require that most of the citizens are mostly rational most of the time. That condition exists nowhere and least of all in the middle east.

    1. Brian,

      I don't think I have my blinders on that bad. The argument is very simple. Let's assume that some of the citizens of Israel are responsible for X number of crimes. Let's assume that the aggrieved parties will only take as restitution a return to their former homes and the establishment of an Arab-Muslim state in lieu of the current Jewish state. My contention is that given the resulting suffering which is likely to result from such a move, as extrapolated from the current development level of any Arab country you choose to imagine Palestine will resemble, the harm to innocents will greatly outweigh the benefits of justice to those who have been wronged. The harm will be directed not only towards Jews but also towards Arabs who enjoy a more Western way of life which will be denied to them in a Muslim-Arab state, and that pertains especially to non-Muslim Arabs (in Israel: Christian and Druze) as well as Muslim Arab women. You simply can’t disregard the very real differences between life in Israel and life in an Arab country, that’s denying basic reality, and for libertarians who put such a strong emphasis on ideas, it should be easy to understand that this is the result of what ideas and ideals are prevalent in each society.

    2. I thought you were against collectivist analysis. You are making my point: The condition where most citizens are mostly rational most of the time exists nowhere.

  4. AnCap does not require white-as-snow citizenry. It does require a commitment to the truth and to non-violence. Nothing that is "settled" by violence is truly settled. No use of force is ever permanent. The ancaps on each side must push truth and non-violence constantly, separately and together. Same as in America, and the west, and the rest of the world. Our struggle is the same everywhere: man against the state.

    1. Dwight, this answer is depressing because it means that a society cannot become AnCap without all of its foes also following suit. Somewhat of a messianic vision I would say. David Friedman was trying to address this question when he was suggesting that the US could become AnCap while the cold war was still going on. He called it the hard problem of anarchism and I do agree it is the hard problem.

    2. Yossi, I have no idea how you read my comment and came to your conclusion. I was merely describing how to get there: constant effort on our part to seek truth and bring about change non-violently. It will certainly reach the tipping point in different places at different times. That is very good news. The collapse of the Soviet Union did not require anything from the rest of the world. The collapse of states will happen because they are based on lies, but each in its own time. We must be ready when it happens.

  5. "In the lead-up to the 1948 war Arab leaders were declaring they are going to slaughter all the Jews in the land when they recapture it."

    I really wish authors would take the time to provide links to claims like this. I am not an expert in the Middle East and have no idea whatsoever if this claim is true. Proper use of reason dictates that I suspend belief until evidence is produced that justifies the claim. I don't have the time to look up evidence for each claim made.

    A note to authors - take the time to link to evidence in support of your claims. Especially claims such as this.

    1. You even do not need to delve so far in history - today Hamas keeps setting to kill all the Jews:


      As a result, "This pattern has since continued because the Arabs-Muslims have been unable to sit down and negotiate with any sense of reality but instead fantasize of total victory or death. And they just keep getting the latter." (Chris LeRoux)

    2. Then Mr Graf why did they help in creating Hamas?

    3. It’s rubbish to justify the Zionist aggression taking place and what later took place. Most of the 7 percent of Palestine the Zionists acquired before 1948 was acquired from absentee landowners and only “legal” because the land was occupied by the British. There's good article written by the libertarian attorney Stephen P. Halbrook in 1981 titled “The Alienation of a Homeland: How Palestine Became Israel*” that covers this and what followed, for those interested in the facts, not zionist propaganda

      Also, British backed Zionist terrorism was used against the Palestinians well before 1848.
      "Palestine and the Special Night Squads"

      Lastly, the Zionists would never have conquered Palestine without the use of British and US smuggled military weapons into Palestine, and Israel has never and could never survive without major foreign military and financial support for themselves and foreign intervention on their behalf in the neighborhood.

    4. Jack, I think you're more right than most Israelis realize. The state of Israel (not the people) is a function of Anglo-American empire. It's still a complex issue, more so than I realized.

    5. To Health:
      Hamas was an offspring of Muslim Brotherhood created in Egypt in 20s, years before the reinstatement of Israel so Israel did not create Hamas but definitely did not prevent the expansion of its influence, perhaps helped it against PLO - that time PLO was militant but Hamas was peaceful. The same way the US helped Taliban and Ben Laden against Soviets in 70s-80s, or Russia used Shamil Basayev in war in Abkhazia against Georgia in 90s, who later in 2000s was the leader of Chechen Islamists fighting against Russia, etc.
      States are states... but how does it justify the later militant and terrorist activities of Hamas, and its leaders vowing to kill all the Jews?

    6. Jack,

      So are you saying that if I buy a home from a bank who has seized the property after foreclosure it won’t be legit because the bank is an absentee landlord and is tilting the law system with crony lobbying? Yes, I wouldn’t be the purest soul doing that, but most people would consider it fair game.

      Aside from that, the article you linked to contained so much rubbish. Here’s a sample:

      “If the state of Israel has a right to exist, it can only be because its citizens acquired the land in a just manner”.

      As an anarchist, I don’t think any state has a right to exist. But let’s say we believe this statement, let’s try to apply it to other countries: how about Hungry, Turkey, the USA, Mexico.. all the lands currently in the possession of current citizens in these countries was always acquired in a just manner? Hmm… and if Hamas would be able to establish a state in what is now Israel would its citizens would have come to acquire all their would-be lands in a just manner?

      “If Palestine was in essence stolen from its people, not only does Israel’s existence become negotiable, but a secular democracy becomes imperative”

      Ah yes, unfortunately a secular democracy, with all its shortcomings, is not an available option under Arab rule in Palestine, more than in any other Arab state. So the question is whether you can correct the wrong of Zionist dispossession of innocent Arabs with the wrong of Muslim dispossession of innocent Israelis.

      I agree with your statements regarding the importance of British backing to the Zionist project. With respect to US backing—perhaps it was crucial in the past but not anymore. I think the Israelis will do just fine without it, at this point. If anybody tries to push them too hard, they’ll pull out the nukes.

      And just to be clear, as a forced American tax payer, I don’t like it that my money is being used on foreign intrigue, Israel included. And I like it even less that people like you who definitely don’t like Israel one bit have to finance it.

    7. Edward,

      Good point, I apologize for the hasty note. I didn't imagine it will attract all this attention.

      Azzam Pasha, the secretary general of the Arab League, in an October 1947 article of Akhbar al-Yom, said: "I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades". Later on in 1948 just before the Arab armies marched, trying to recapture Palestine, he said “It does not matter how many [Jews] there are. We will sweep them into the sea.”

      Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

      The intention of Arab mobs towards Jews was made ample clear during the Palestinian riots and uprisings of 1920, 1921, 1929 and the Great Arab revolt of 1936-1939, during all of these the going slogan was “Itbah al-Yahud” which means “kill the Jews”, which they did when they could (still, many Arabs wanted no part in that and actively protected Jews from their rioting brethren, e.g., during the Hebron massacre of 1929).

      The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a supporter of the Nazis and he helped them organize the Muslim brigades of the SS. In 1941 while in exile in Iraq he incited against the Jewish population there which resulted in the Farhud massacre. Similar violent riots were targeted at Jews in Libya (1945), Egypt (1945), Lebanon (1945), Syria (1947), Yemen (1947) and Bahrain (1947) giving reason to believe that the animosity and murderous intentions were pretty universal towards Jews in the entire middle east. You can read all of that in Wiki, starting with this:


  6. Interesting and informative post.

    "(or does AnCap require white-as-snow citizenry?) "

    AnCap requires that individuals be willing to cast aside the superstition of government in favor of a voluntarist society. This transformation starts inside the mind. Until ones mind changes its way of thinking AnCap (or any system for that matter) cannot manifest itself. This is precisely why institutions such as The Mises Institute exist. It provides the intellectual firepower that an individual requires in order to not merely make an informed judgement on the matter but the information necessary to spark the beginnings and eventual transformation of the manner in which one thinks. One cannot change what he thinks until he changes how he thinks. This is the goal set before us libertarian anarcho-capitalists.

    Given the religious and even tribal mentality of some Israelis and many Arabs such a mindset is unlikely to occur in the near future.

  7. When people get lied to, specifically, from side, which in Christian America it's all about Israel, a person tends to have a visceral reaction against what they were told to believe in. Then, to top off that, are made to believe that all Arabs are Muslims and that they're all out to get us.

    I would imagine that the negative sentiments and irrational arguments would be different if the U.S. and Israeli governments weren't so closely associated. One for spending so much tax money and supplying weapons for such endeavors. Then, to have one government spying on the other - but no government is NOT guilty of that. It just comes off as a slap in the face to spy then to still ask for money and weapons for something nefarious and counter to what most Americans believe in.

    Then, I would imagine the arguments and viewing of Israel and its government would be much different when there is no assistance from foreign money. The Israeli government would have to make changes in its policies, including, I would hope, in diplomacy when dealing with Palestine, rendering today's arguments and rhetoric pointless.

    My impression from Israel and her citizens are that there's a bunch of liberals/atheists, the government (incompetent), and Zionists (not all Jews and not all in Israel). History of the conflict: Everything was cool. Then some jerk decided to put up a government, which naturally caused havoc and bloodshed. Then, the other side reacted by putting up their government, and then the ensuing perpetual apartheid and wars came. It's government, government is the problem, but the "realistic" diplomacy dictates that there must be a two-state solution. As for Zionists and the Israeli government, I don't think the government wants to do Zionist activities. I've been watching this one goofy pastor, a Zionist, go to Israel, make a fool out of himself on Twitter, and it's like the government reps that he met just did not care for his Christianity or Zionism. They wanted his money and support to gain more money - political agenda. Could be wrong but that's what I was getting out of it. It's like the Zionists are annoying.

    1. So true, everything you wrote At Odds. People don't realize how the people in Israel are completely oblivious to what is being called Globalist Zionism, this is totally an American Jewish thing. When it comes to Israeli politicians they are also mostly clueless about globalist machinations, with the exception of Netanyahu, who is essentially an American, who won't spend one day in Israel after completing his term.

    2. At Odds, I'm sorry but the idea that "Everything was cool" is so completely off the wall that I can barely believe anyone is capable of even entertaining the thought, let alone writing it in a blog comment. At which point in the ancient, troubled and bloody history of the Orient was 'everything cool'? When Adam and Eve were still in the Garden of Eden?

      The various parties have been at each other's throats for thousands of years. When was there ever more than a fleeting 'peace' or 'temporary cessation of hostilities' in that region? It has been trampled on, divided, conquered, wasted, rebuilt, reconquered, re-divided, and so on and so forth, almost ad infinitum since the dawn of human civilization. Aside from the tribal wars that have afflicted the entire inhabited planet at one point in time or another, the aggressing forces were often imperialistic, seeking to expand their power base and create new revenue streams under the command of some narcissistic psychopath or another with messianic pretensions. Truly nothing has changed.

      And yet through all that conflict, death, misery and mayhem, Israel survives! She has outlived every single one of her conquerors. Yes, the coercive entity that calls itself the government of Israel is positioned, like all states, somewhere along the spectrum of violence. But Israel, again like all nations, is so much more than its government. And it is an amazing place populated by amazing people. It is vibrant, thriving, intelligent, industrious and disciplined. What's more, I don't think there's another nation on earth that puts so much time, money and effort into raising its young to become self-reliant adults.

      What's more, in my opinion, Israel's ancient religious texts provide us with a very attractive blueprint for just the kind of society many of us here would like to see in the form of the period of the judges, before king Saul took power and started levying taxes and taking young men for foreign wars (sound familiar?).

      To close, the old saying applies: If you think you know what’s going on there, you haven’t been listening ;-)

    3. Wasn't referring to the whole history of the region. I was referring to the era before the 1920s-40s. And, no, I'm not touting even that era as the most peaceful ever (but when will it ever be?), but people were getting along for the most part.

      "What's more, in my opinion, Israel's ancient religious texts provide us with a very attractive blueprint for just the kind of society many of us here would like to see in the form of the period of the judges, before king Saul took power and started levying taxes and taking young men for foreign wars (sound familiar?)" Yes, sounds like the state of Israel and U.S.G. I would suggest the Israeli government should follow that text and do the same.

      "To close, the old saying applies: If you think you know what’s going on there, you haven’t been listening ;-)" Well, I did read Yossi's comments: "The Jews who settled Palestine before 1948, by and large, did that peacefully, buying land from its rightful owners according to the prevailing laws of the time." I would suggest you do the same.

    4. Okay At Odds, fair enough.

      Yet the fact still stands that the sliver of land we now call Israel was in those days little more than a wasteland backwater of the imperial oriental playground. I think you'll find that aside from a few private absentee Ottoman and Lebanese landlords, nearly all the land was in the possession of the Ottoman Empire at that time – i.e. The State. It then passed into the hands of another State, the British Empire, after WWI. Under the Balfour Declaration it was then granted to the nascent Jewish State (though the original boundaries of that declaration were far greater than the tiny patch of indefensible soil the Jews finally inherited in 1948).

      Thus the State of Israel still holds most of the land in its possession – anathema to us libertarians! What you need to understand is that the land the Jews of the late 19th and early 20th centuries started to buy and settle legally and peacefully was largely lying fallow. What’s more, they often had to pay way over fair market value for property and land owing to the absurd idea – still popular in our day and age – that all Jews are rich.

      Yes, there were of course pockets of ancient tribal possession and industriousness – many of them Christian and Druze of Arabic descent that survive largely intact to this day. But to suggest that the Jews of that time settled in a thriving and populated country is somewhat disingenuous.

      The fact remains that Muslim Arab belligerence towards Jewish settlement has always been much more widespread than among other people groups. It is an animosity that reaches far back in time to the sibling rivalry of two brothers – to Jacob and Ishmael, to be precise. And without that ancient context, one can never hope to make sense of the implacable hatred the Jewish people have had to put up with throughout their entire history.

      And nothing feeds that hatred more than a strong Jewish nation on land that many Muslims would consider to be part of the promised Caliphate as granted to their possession in perpetuity by Allah.

      So given that even the most passivist libertarians agree that one has an intrinsic right to defend oneself against aggression, Israel’s behavior is not without merit, notwithstanding the role of the coercive state authorities. When someone asserts himself as your implacable enemy and swears to fight you to the death, what do you do? Lie down and accept your fate in the name of upholding the NAP? Or stand up like a man and face him off, destroying him if necessary?

      Of course, as always, it’s the little people that get the hardest deal, and that ‘dynamic of war’ applies especially to the many civilian Arabs living in militarized Gaza, most of them very young. And that is a tragedy. But remember, there's not a Jewish home in Israel that is unfamiliar with tragedy on an epic scale...

  8. I am really tired of anti-Israel hysteria in many libertarian communities. Thank you for this balanced response. Another good rebuttal from libertarian/ AnCap prospective to similar one-sided articles and presentaions are here http://peacefreedomprosperity.com/7871/real-truth-molyneuxs-alleged-truth-israeli-arabmuslim-conflict/ - it would be great Bob to post it here too...
    And, of course, Walter Block on Israel - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4A5hpzYb94 (starting with 15 min) - more objective and where he provides interesting perspective

  9. "... libertarians are very content to forget what methodological individualism is and instead apply collectivist analysis trying to portray one population as good and the other criminal."

    " there is a clash of civilizations over there... unlike the Islamic civilization which is a form of virulent fascism which hasn’t been able to generate any form of excellence in the last 700 years."

    I guess someone forgot what methodological individualism is.

    So long as the US gov continues to supply weapons to Israel nothing is going to change.

    Take away the US and Israel would quickly realize its military escapades and governance are economically untenable.

    1. not necessarily. it is likely that taking the aid would simply force the israeli government to redistribute resources away from its social welfare state (which is surprisingly large) and toward its military. remember also, these "military escapades" are hardly escapades when the enemy is literally a few miles away and is able to target three-fourths of your country's population. It is not as if Israel is attacking areas half-way around the globe like we have been.

    2. If the Israeli gov. began taking resources away from its welfare state to put toward its military, the population would be far more suspicious of what they're gov. is doing. When a gov.starts rasing taxes or cuts down on "services", populations don't exactly react with calm.

      In a way, the US is subsiding the welfare state of Israel, since Israel would not be able to afford it if they did not receive weapons from the US.

      The "enemy" of the state of Israel might be a few miles away, but, destroying civilian infrastructure and bulldozing homes are "military escapades".

    3. Privatize Israel - 100% agree.

      Cut off US funding to BOTH sides and the entire region-world - 100% agree.

      If do not want "destroying civilian infrastructure", do not turn Gaza into the large military missile unit launching 3,000 rockets to Israeli cities (reaching Tel Aviv international airport). If you do not want "bulldozing homes", do not kidnap and kill Israeli teenagers.
      1.6 mil. Israeli Arabs (25% of its citizenry) live in Israel, and nobody bomb them or "bulldozing" their homes...

    4. Are u serious?! Are you saying that all Palestinians are responsible for the actions of Hamas?

      Well, since in your mind all Palestinians are responsible for rocket attacks and the kidnapping of Israelis, then how about the Israelis fire bomb the whole territory (dresden style).

      You sound just like the war mongers in the US gov. who classify all Arab men between a certain age as terrorists when they turn up dead in a drone strike.

    5. It seems that you put your words in my mouth. "...classify all Arab men between a certain age as terrorists" - actually, I said the opposite "1.6 mil. Israeli Arabs (25% of its citizenry) live in Israel, and nobody bomb them". Probably, because they do not launch rockets to their neighbors? Please, do not confuse cause and effect blaming Israel for retaliation.

      With regard to "civilian casualties" in Gaze - they are inevitable - this is sad and they should be minimized but cannot be avoided. If you interested in libertarian analyses why it is justifiable to shoot in response even whey the assaulter shields with hostages - please watch this interview with Walter Block https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4A5hpzYb94

  10. I echo Yossi's final statement and would like to know how AnCap responds to non-AnCap cultures/nations that it will eventually come into conflict with. Can AnCap only work in an all AnCap world? If so then it is not useful. If it can then I would very much like to see how as geopolitical issues seem to make it untenable.

    1. An AnCap society would be a well armed (individually, and in voluntary systems collectively- aka militia) society with enough money to buy weaponry that would make any outside society VERY wary of initiating any attack.

      Imagine Israelis woke up tomorrow in a completely AnCap society. Such a society would have to negotiate, in good faith (and be prepared for the Palestinian collective to not act in good faith) with a lot of up front apologies and agreements to make whole. Similar concessions should be demanded of the collective, but should not be necessary for the good faith compensation.

      At that point, any rockets fired from Palestine could be met with force by the individuals and voluntary militia.

      Reminds me of a song - "Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word"...

    2. Fundamentally I agree, I am just not sure that would happen practically. For example: tomorrow Israel decides "I like this AnCap thing, lets do it". They pull back their troops, start talks to make restitution for past wrongs and try to stop hostilities.

      Hamas says, that's great. We want the entire West Bank. Israel reluctantly agrees. Hamas uses new controlled territory to shell the rest of Israel.

      At this point Israel defends itself. Under AnCap what are Israel's options?
      * Do they just destroy the the artillery
      * Does Hamas' act of aggression now justify Israel to retake the West Bank and kick all Arab's out?
      * Must Israel seperate the wheat from the chaf and only defend itself against Hamas the political unit, or does the Civilian's share culpability for their government in which case Israel is justified in blowing up city blocks?
      * Or is is something else?

    3. I always love these questions.

      Q: Hey Ancaps, the government's of the world have ruined everything, you get one chance, how would you fix everything.

      It's going to take baby steps to get government of people's lives and the less government the better people's lives will become.

      Baby Step #1 - Stop holding the Palestinian people in an open air prison.

    4. I don't think you get what anarchist capitalism means - it means the end of the state so if there is no state of Palestine,there is just individuals free to do whatever they like according to the non aggression principle then there is no need for Hamas or Fatah or whoever. No need for tunnels or rockets.
      If the Israeli Government offered a deal which sent the PA to the scrapheap in exchange for the Israelis not interfering in the Palestinian Territories the Palestinians would accepted in a heartbeat. the hot heads will continue be there of course but the vast majority of people in the PT will actually have no qualms about handing said dickhead over to the Israelis to preserve their own freedom. Then the State of Israel could be dismantled too.

  11. my take away from this is nothing new. No matter what artificially/politically bounded bordered place on earth we are talking about, there will always be a minority of sociopaths doing there best to make life miserable for the rest of us.

    The solution is to create a large enough group who simply won't stand for this anymore. But most feel compelled to choose:for or against Israel. It's a false choice. The choice should be those (in both Israel and palestine) that want to solve problems without bombs vs the sociopathic minority who do.