RoR: Forum

Post 0

Saturday, August 7, 2004 - 12:55am

Link

Edit

what is solo's stance on israel?

being a long time reader (and whole hearted agreer with) ari's stance (in support of Israel), i found the following shocking:
_________________________________________________________
"The belief in God and the acting on that belief is evil. It divorces one's knowledge and actions from reality, with consequences ranging from the trivial (wasting one morning a week) to the disastrous (crusades, having unwanted children, Israelis and Arabs slaughtering each other over a patch of desert, wasting one's entire life working for a purpose not one's own, etc.)"
_________________________________________________________
from: http://www.solohq.com/Objectivism101/Mystical_God.shtml

it sounds as if you equate the actions of israel defenders, with those of their would be murderers.

then, looking around, i found this:

_________________________________________________________
"In Moral Defense of Israel - A thorough moral defense of Israel against its terrorist attackers (Added by Admin on 2/23, 9:55pm)"

[this was a web site link -eli]
_________________________________________________________
from: http://www.solohq.com/Spirit/Directory/index.shtml#Issue%20Sites

so i don't know what the stance is...

now, i am certainly not pro-judaism (or whatever the jewish religion is called: i am an athiest), but those comments above are like saying that: religion is the reason that americans and arabs are slaughtering each other.

it is true, that religion is the motive of the arab terrorists (well, such horrors extend to anywhere islam goes, actually), but it is no more the motive of the israeli's then it is ours.

they want to defend themselves from viscious murderers. don't equate them.

Post 1

Saturday, August 7, 2004 - 8:47am

Link

Edit

Eli,

I'm not sure whether SOLO as an organisation has any kind of "official line" on Israel, if that's what you mean. But generally I think most SOLOists (and indeed most Objectivists) would be far more sympathetic to Israel than to the Arabs (as I'm guessing for your comments you are). Israel in my personal opinion is far from perfect due to Judaism's position and has tended to be fairly socialistic in the past, but they seem to be moving in a more market oriented direction, and have a workable court system, free press, democracy etc, none of which the Palestinian "authority" (read: terrorist-supported dictatorship) has.

As for the religion quote you cited, I think it means simply that the religious differences between Jews and Muslims are a major cause of the conflict there. Al Quaida are a muslim fundamentalist group, so in that sense religion is one of the driving forces behind that crisis also.

Post 2

Saturday, August 7, 2004 - 11:30am

Link

Edit

ok, thanks. it was the wording that got me. it sounded like both sides were crazy religious fanatics bent on the destruction of infedels (instead of just 1 side).

Post 3

Saturday, August 7, 2004 - 11:39am

Link

Edit

Eli,

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is less symmetrical and more complex than the more simplistic "libertarian" writers would have you believe. It is also more symmetrical - AND more complex - then what you are likely to see in American media.

The religious fanatics on the Arab side believe that the whole country was given by God to Moslems, and that Jews who claim to have actual rights, rather than merely privileges (dhimma) granted by moslems, are blasphemers and criminals. The religious fanatics on the Jewish side believe that the whole country was given by God to Jews, and that Arab "trespassers" have no rights that an authentic Jew needs to respect. If the number of innocent Arabs killed by Jewish fanatics is less than the number of innocent Jews killed by Moslem fanatics, it is only because Jewish fanatics are less numerous - about 60% of Israelis are non-religious. But: most of the seculars on both sides are implicit existentialists, who envy the "authenticity and commitment" of the fanatics. So when Jewish religious fanatics seize the private property of Arabs by force, and build illegal settlements on illegally expropriated land, the secular government "legalizes" those settlements afterward, and ignores or excuses the crimes of the settlers.

Which brings us to the application of Objectivism. Rights, including the right to be secure in the ownership of one's legitimate property, are preconditions of life qua man. And often, men who cannot live as men will choose not to live at all. Peace will require that Israeli settlements built on land seized by force from Arab owners be torn down, and the land returned. A realistic plan in that direction, the "Geneva Accords," exists but has been ignored by the Israeli government. Context matters, and seldom does anything, including terrorism and war, have only one cause.

Post 4

Saturday, August 7, 2004 - 3:29am

Link

Edit

Eli,

Your criticism of the posts you cited is correct, but SOLO does not have a stance on Israel for the simple reason that SOLO is a collection of individuals, each with his own independent mind. The nice thing is that you can post your own opinion and respond to other people's posts. Check the discussion on the "Euphemism of Antisemitism" for a better representative of the SOLO crowd.

Incidentally, the ARI has a staunchly pro-Israel stance that, to my knowledge, does not address the religious issue.

Beshalom, Michelle

Post 5

Saturday, August 7, 2004 - 1:36pm

Link

Edit

"Peace will require that Israeli settlements built on land seized by force from Arab owners be torn down, and the land returned. A realistic plan in that direction, the "Geneva Accords," exists but has been ignored by the Israeli government."

peace will not require that civilization negotiates with barbarians. murderous savages have no property rights. the "illegally expropriated" land was taken by israel in a war in which they were the defenders, if i recall correctly.

i don't know history well, so i can't truly argue intelligently about the subject, but it seems pretty clear which side is evil, and which is semi-free.

"If the number of innocent Arabs killed by Jewish fanatics is less than the number of innocent Jews killed by Moslem fanatics, it is only because Jewish fanatics are less numerous - about 60% of Israelis are non-religious."

no, it is because the israelis target terrorists, while the terrorists target school busses, and restaurants.

the israelis want to defend themselves, while the palestinians want to kill israelis.

if a palestinian accidentally finds himself in israel, he needn't worry about being murdered, and having fanatic jews bathe in his blood. it is not so for an israeli in palestine.

these bastards need their own country as much as al-queda does. and israeli needs to negotiate with them about as much too.

to see the difference among palestinians and israelis, just look at their methods:

the israelis go door to door with troops, in heavily booby trapped terrorist dens, risking themselves (foolishly, i'd say) in order to not risk civillian casualties (though they may have wisened up, and started attacking from afar).

the palestinians, on the other hand, specificly target children, and non-military adults.

but it's not in their method that their true evil lies. i don't consider killing an innocent army person any better than killing an innocent civillian.

their evil is in their intent. they are called "freedom fighters", but what freedoms are they fighting for?

the freedom to enslave women? the freedom to kill infedels? the freedom to establish theocracy?

i prefer the israeli (semi) freedoms.

Post 6

Saturday, August 7, 2004 - 2:47pm

Link

Edit

Eli,

QED.

Post 7

Saturday, August 7, 2004 - 3:12pm

Link

Edit

lol.

that i am for the killing of terrorist scum, does not mean i am for killing of innocent civilians. however, i don't consider the deaths of innocents at the hands of the israelis who are effectively engaged in a defensive war to be victims of the israelis. they are the victims of the aggressors in that war, the palestinians.

i don't see how i demonstrated what you wanted to show. i didn't argue that the land belongs to the israelis because god gave them that land. i am an athiest, opposed to all religions, including the jewish one.

israel deserves the land, because israel is more free than the other contenders for that land.

Post 8

Saturday, August 7, 2004 - 6:21pm

Link

Edit

Eli,

What you have demonstrated is that you are a collectivist. A change in what government has jurisdiction over a territory does not change, if the government is a civilized one, the legal and moral rights of the individuals who inhabit it. The fact that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is the result of a defensive war, does not give its government a "right" to legalize illegal settlements built on land seized from individuals who own it. The right to be secure in the ownership of one's property is an INDIVIDUAL right, a prerequisite for life proper to a human individual. When individuals are deprived of this right they are deprived of the ability to live as men. When people are deprived of their ability to live as humans, it becomes predictable that some of them will act in accordance with what is done to them. This is only one of many factors in this conflict, but one that Objectivists understand.
(Edited by Adam Reed on 8/07, 6:30pm)

(Edited by Adam Reed on 8/07, 6:31pm)

Post 9

Saturday, August 7, 2004 - 8:52pm

Link

Edit

When people are deprived of their ability to live as humans, it becomes predictable that some of them will act in accordance with what is done to them.

The Palestinians are deprived of their ability to live as humans by the Palestinian Authority and the terrorist organizations that rule their lives. If any of them tries to speak up against violence toward Israelis, he is shot or shut up. If some of them want to act in accordance to what was done to them, they should turn against their own "leaders." The Israelis were ready to negotiate a peace agreement in 2000 and this agreement would have included the return of land in the West Bank, thereby reinstating the property rights of the individual Arabs. It is Arafat and his gang that don't give a damn about the possibility of such reinstatement.

-- Michelle

Post 10

Saturday, August 7, 2004 - 10:24pm

Link

Edit

couldn't have said it better michelle.

as for:

"What you have demonstrated is that you are a collectivist."

eh, so then siding with the nation that is more free, and respects individual rights, as opposed to the would-be nation that wants enslavement and murder, i am a collectivist?

i consider the property taken from innocents to make the buffer zone in the same light as i consider the lives of innocents lost in order to kill the terrorists:

the guilty party is the palestinians, and the nations that engaged in war against israel. they made that expropriation necessary, for the safety of israelis.

Post 11

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 12:56am

Link

Edit

Michelle, Eli,

Nothing stops the Israeli government from removing the "legalized" illegal settlements, and restoring the property rights of individuals, right now. And of course there can be no legitimate "buffer zone" to protect a settlement built on property seized from its individual owners by force. Wars, and other emergencies, are not a moral blank check, issued by God to religious and collectivist fanatics, to destroy individual rights at will. The limit of right action in an emergency is to borrow, even without consent, what you must have to defend yourself - and then, as soon as possible, return what you borrowed and compensate the owner for his temporary loss. To seize land, supposedly for defense, and then build settlements on that land instead of returning it to its owners, and then seize more land as buffers around those settlements, and then expand the settlements into the buffers, and seize more buffers and so on - that is lawlessness on a scale that only a government of fanatics and collectivists is capable of. Any analysis of the situation, in terms other than the rights of individuals on both sides of the conflict, is not an Objectivist analysis.

Post 12

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 1:05am

Link

Edit

Post 13

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 1:12am

Link

Edit

Post 14

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 6:59am

Link

Edit

Adam --

1. Posting the same post three times to make a greater impact is a deception.

2. As I said, in 2000 Israel offered to return the bulk of the West Bank territory, only to be refused by Arafat, who instigated the second Intifada.

3. I am curious what you think about the ARI position on Israel, specifically the settlements.

-- Michelle

Post 15

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 8:09am

Link

Edit

Michelle,

As I would have assumed you to know, some Web browsers have bugs, and multiple copies of a posting are often the result of software defects. This specific instance happened because my browser failed to display the feedback page the first two times I hit "post." It does not become you to leap directly to a verdict of malicious intent, or to publish the result of such a leap. Unfortunately people, like computers, sometimes suffer a glitch. I won't hold it against you.

The 2000 offer cut Palestinian territory into several pieces separated by barriers. This was corrected in the Taba negotiations, which experts on both sides regarded as a workable solution. The Taba agreement was repudiated by Sharon, with support from fanatics on the Israeli side, after his election. After Sharon listed his objections to the Taba agreement, independent military and security experts from Israel met with military and security experts from the Palestinian Authority, and adddressed the remaining objections, producing the Geneva Accords. These too were rejected by the Sharon government, this time without explanation.

As you know, ARI is split on the settlement issue, and, as is usual when there are internal disagreements, ARI staffers publish their perspectives using a separate website, rather than directly on aynrand.org. Yaron Brook, the most vocal supporter of settler collectivism from the ARI side, has posted views on this issue that I would regard as incompatible with Objectivism, and close to those of a typical Israeli existentialist with fanatic-envy. I think that ARI's precaution of using a separate site, to make it clear that those views are not part of Objectivism, is a very sensible move - and I think that TOC would do well to follow a similar policy with respect to its crackpots.

Post 16

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 8:39am

Link

Edit

Adam

I apologize for jumping to conclusion about your triple posting - I thought it was an extension of your talkativeness. Thank you for not holding it against me. You wrote:

The 2000 offer cut Palestinian territory into several pieces separated by barriers. This was corrected in the Taba negotiations, which experts on both sides regarded as a workable solution. The Taba agreement was repudiated by Sharon, with support from fanatics on the Israeli side, after his election.

What you exclude from this scenario is the reason Sharon was elected -- the outbreak of almost daily terrorist attacks by Palestinians against Israelis starting in Fall 2000. The Palestininas did not exhibit good will to carry out the agreement of the Taba negotiations. While the pre-Sharon Israeli government had the Israeli fanatics who opposed the agreeement under contorl, the PA in fact supported and incited their own fanatics. It makes sense to repudiate an agreement once you realize you have no partner.

And I agree with you about the ARI policy on Israel.

-- Michelle

(Edited by Michelle Cohen on 8/12, 4:38am)

Post 17

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 9:28am

Link

Edit

"Nothing stops the Israeli government from removing the "legalized" illegal settlements, and restoring the property rights of individuals, right now."

except that it would be irrational to move the people who want to destroy them into closer proximity.

while it is true that not all palestinians want this, israel and palestine are engaged in war, and israel can't risk losing it to protect the rights of the few innocents on their enemy's side.

"Wars, and other emergencies, are not a moral blank check, issued by God to religious and collectivist fanatics, to destroy individual rights at will. The limit of right action in an emergency is to borrow, even without consent, what you must have to defend yourself - and then, as soon as possible, return what you borrowed and compensate the owner for his temporary loss."

compensate them for their loss?!! there are, of course, some innocents from whom property was taken, but their loss is the fault of the aggressors in this war, not the israelis'

let them seek compensation from the plo.

"Any analysis of the situation, in terms other than the rights of individuals on both sides of the conflict, is not an Objectivist analysis."

while i have written about the rights of those on both sides, you seem to only write of the property rights of the palestinians (incedentally, i don't know: do palestinians have the legal right to property under their gov't?).

Post 18

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 4:29am

Link

Edit

Would the individual who saw fit to "no sanction" my post #1 in this thread care to offer up an explanation? Not that I care much about the atals points, but I fail to see precisely what was so contentious about that particular post.

It does however remind me of this discussion, which I had meant to respond to at the weekend prior to being distracted by certain annoying problems elsewhere. I would like to thank Adam for his knowledgeable explanation of the situation, certain elements of which I admit I was previously unaware of. My general position remains unchanged: Isreal is much freer than the PA and thus preferable. That does not of course mean that I would endorse or defend every single action taken by the Israeli government. One point which seems missing from the responses here is that the Arab land Israel has "seized for defence" (Adam's words) was occupied as the result of a series of wars initiated by Arab states, with the express purpose of ending Israel's existence as a separate state. Yes the resolution ought to be based on individualist principles, but lets not forget that the Israelis have good reason to be suspicious of their neighbouring Arab states, as well as the PLO savages.

MH

Post 19

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 7:12am

Link

Edit

I essentially agree with Adam on this issue. We have to distinguish those aspects of the Israeli occupation which are genuinely defensive from those which are, to put it bluntly, a land grab--and support the former while repudiating the latter. That was the official U.S. position until Bush changed it a few months ago. It really is sad that the Bush Administration has more or less thrown away decades of U.S. policy on the settlements by more or less giving Sharon a green light to settlement-building in the West Bank in return for the Gaza evacuation. It's also sad that so many Objectivists seem willing to ignore the fact that the Israeli government has (until 2003) been at the top of the U.S. aid list while systematically violating U.S. policy on the settlements. If you want the full story on Israeli land policy, go to the website of B'tselem, go to their publications list, and read their May 2002 report, "Land Grab: Israel's Settlement Policy in the West Bank." I don't see that as consistent with Objectivism.

It almost goes without saying that part of the point of distinguishing the defensive from the land grab elements of the Israeli occupation is to support Israel's campaign against the terrorists. I have defended Israel's spring 2002 actions in Jenin directly to Palestinians who have claimed that it was a "war crime." I wouldn't compromise on any element of Israel's security. But what I won't do is play the fool for ideologues who use security for their own agenda. And a position on the conflict which proceeds as though all Palestinians are the same, all are savages, and none have rights we need respect, is just not one that deserves to be taken seriously. (I'm not ascribing this position to anyone here; my point is that I have long encountered such views on the political Right, a claim I recently defended at this forum. Michelle was there, so she can attest to the utter reasonability of what I said. :-)

SoLO on Israel