Israeli Independence And Libertarian Blindness


Recommended Posts

Good reply SoMad. I'll put it so - when you pull up Objectivist morality to "prove" whatever you want it to prove, try to understand it first. If you don't know, ask someone. That I haven't ever seen you do that shows some sort of pseudo-egotism to me. You haven't the moral right to use principles which you obviously misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret, or possibly oppose. This is disingenuous or downright deceitful.

Your views on the M.E. are prejudiced by what other people have told you. You've added nothing new, except make clear your prejudice.

Maybe I'll take your recommendations seriously when you stop believing nonsense that is in blatant contradiction with the facts.

SoMad,

One thing, I do believe you really do believe yourself.

Above any person who's been closely following the Middle East for 40+ years.

"Facts"? Which facts? There are billions out there on Palestine-Israel alone.

Which ones do you prefer?

"Are all facts equal" - is the real question. How would you know without conceptualizing?

How would you judge them without principles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

SoMad,

One thing, I do believe you really do believe yourself.

Above any person who's been closely following the Middle East for 40+ years.

"Facts"? Which facts? There are billions out there on Palestine-Israel alone.

Which ones do you prefer?

"Are all facts equal" - is the real question. How would you know without conceptualizing?

How would you judge them without principles?

Why don't we start with the fact that Israel has received and continues to receive billions in foreign aid from the US?

In light of this fact, do you still believe that "Israel has made something of itself out of nothing - completely, from rational self-interest"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In light of this fact, do you still believe that "Israel has made something of itself out of nothing - completely, from rational self-interest"?

I do.

Not as stated because that is a loaded question.

But I do believe Israel has made something out of itself out of a wish for Jews to survive in a world hostile to them and the Jewish people have used "rational self-interest" to make their country prosper.

Even my ex-father-in-law, who was no friend to the Jews because he was a Bedouin (a real one), used to say with admiration that the Jews made a garden out of the desert. That if two Arabs were walking on a dirt road in the desert and encountered a boulder, they would climb on top of it and take a shit to show off, then move on. But two Jews would remove the boulder and plant a garden. (That is a direct translation, too.)

He didn't like Jews, but he did not deny them their achievements. He, a prejudiced Muslim (and proud of it), had more in the way of rational identification than the people who don't like Jews here in the USA, the alleged cradle of enlightened people.

He, for one, never talked about catching his thumbs between the two bricks. With all his faults, he said it like it was, then judged. No blank-outs.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael – I agree that anti-Semitism in many if not most cases is more than envy. I was thinking specifically of leftist intellectuals, the kind who really hate self-made business folks and the U.S. and Israel that have succeeded generally through the efforts of their citizens.

Also I appreciate your efforts, not doubt frustrating, to deal with the confused posts on this site.

From some 40 years of observing Objectivists—and being one!—I not that more than a few of them have a serious problem actually using its principles to understand and live in the real world—a distinct problem for a philosophy that upholds objective reality above all else. The problem, as many have observed, is that Objectivism emphasizes dichotomies—either-or, good or evil, etc. But the world is complex. People are complex. Countries are complex.

This is not to say that principles are of no use. Quite the contrary, in a complex world they are key to understanding the nuanced nature of the world. But more than a few Objectivists have mastered the skill of making sound, balanced judgments that d get to essentials.

The leftist indictment of the United States might provide an object lesson for some of those on this thread who seem unable to make sound judgments about Israel. Leftists will often cherry-pick every negative thing they can from America history—slavery, mistreating native peoples, etc. They add in Marxist fallacies about the wealth of America being “stolen” either from the native peoples—a tough argument since there was virtually nothing here when settlers began flowing in—or from the “workers.”

They ignore what is unique and good about America, what sets it off from all other countries in history, what made it the prosperous and free city on a hill that, even in its degraded state, makes it a magnet for millions of immigrants.

Has was the subject of my commentary, Israel has its faults. But taken in context, we see that the fundamental values underlying its culture and system are the basically those of life, liberty, and prosperity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SoMad,

One thing, I do believe you really do believe yourself.

Above any person who's been closely following the Middle East for 40+ years.

"Facts"? Which facts? There are billions out there on Palestine-Israel alone.

Which ones do you prefer?

"Are all facts equal" - is the real question. How would you know without conceptualizing?

How would you judge them without principles?

Why don't we start with the fact that Israel has received and continues to receive billions in foreign aid from the US?

In light of this fact, do you still believe that "Israel has made something of itself out of nothing - completely, from rational self-interest"?

You like fact-figures, here are some more for you.

Indeed, $118 billion aid over 65 years. Equals less than $2 billion per annum.

Context: USA's military budget for 2013 = $640 billion.

Context: Israel has 5th highest military spending in the world per capita - 6.2% of GDP. (Right now the Knesset has approved an increase in that).

Even with its severe defence budget and highly mobilized man-and woman-power, Israel still manages to be an upbeat economy. What do you think it could achieve in peace? Do you perhaps not think it wants peace - badly? That capitalism depends on trade with other peaceful countries? iow, does it exist in a vacuum?

Of course not, by you Israel is too intent on using its resources to tyrannize Palestinians!

Principle: Building a nation takes far more than capital, it also takes ideas, energy, far-seeing planning and rational convictions.

If, as you intimate, "You [israel] did not build that!" Who did?

A conjecture: It could be that many Americans may firmly believe that $2 billion per annum of aid to Israel is a good investment in that country's future. I'm guessing obviously. However, another figure-fact is that Israel lies somewhere in the top national rankings of patents and innovative technology, which have benefited the US in the past. Leave aside what will seem to you sentimental attachments, like shared principles culminating in a strong alliance against common enemies.

Those would not come under "rational self-interest" to a book keeper's mindset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Half of the doo-dads in your computer including the USB connector were invented by Israeli Jews. Israel is very useful to the world (including us). The Palestinians are not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I appreciate your efforts, not doubt frustrating, to deal with the confused posts on this site.

Ed,

Believe it or not, I like it.

:)

If this does not happen and people with vastly different ideas and beliefs do not engage, how do we convince anyone? Or how do we get our own eyes opened when that needs to happen?

I constantly say that the purpose of OL is not to teach or preach Objectivism. It is to start from a shared interest in Objectivism (for as profound or as shallow as that interest and understanding are) and let each person work out ideas according to his or her best thinking.

I trust people to come to good conclusions for their lives in the end. And that usually means good conclusions for everyone. But it gets awfully messy along the way.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You like fact-figures, here are some more for you.

Indeed, $118 billion aid over 65 years. Equals less than $2 billion per annum.

Context: USA's military budget for 2013 = $640 billion.

Context: Israel has 5th highest military spending in the world per capita - 6.2% of GDP. (Right now the Knesset has approved an increase in that).

Even with its severe defence budget and highly mobilized man-and woman-power, Israel still manages to be an upbeat economy. What do you think it could achieve in peace? Do you perhaps not think it wants peace - badly? That capitalism depends on trade with other peaceful countries? iow, does it exist in a vacuum?

Of course not, by you Israel is too intent on using its resources to tyrannize Palestinians!

Principle: Building a nation takes far more than capital, it also takes ideas, energy, far-seeing planning and rational convictions.

If, as you intimate, "You [israel] did not build that!" Who did?

A conjecture: It could be that many Americans may firmly believe that $2 billion per annum of aid to Israel is a good investment in that country's future. I'm guessing obviously. However, another figure-fact is that Israel lies somewhere in the top national rankings of patents and innovative technology, which have benefited the US in the past. Leave aside what will seem to you sentimental attachments, like shared principles culminating in a strong alliance against common enemies.

Those would not come under "rational self-interest" to a book keeper's mindset.

The US taxpayers. I don't see why you think it's ok for the US government to steal money from its citizens so it can give it to a foreign power. If Israel was such a good investment, then why not let people decide that for themselves and pay for that investment out of their own pockets? That might be a good idea. But I guess I can understand how dealing with other people on the basis of reason and not force could be considered controversial on a forum for objectivists.

And no, I don't believe that Israel imposes tyranny for its own sake. They have a clear agenda with regard to Palestine. They want to capture and control any usable land and water resources in the region, and if any Palestinians get in the way that's just too bad for them. If Israel really wanted peace, they could just let the Palestinians have their own state. But that can't be allowed to happen because the Palestinians might want to be compensated for the use of their resources. Much easier to just take it by force, like any "civilized" or "rationally self-interested" or "enlightened" country would do.

Half of the doo-dads in your computer including the USB connector were invented by Israeli Jews. Israel is very useful to the world (including us). The Palestinians are not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Just because you don't think somebody is not useful to you in no way justifies the use of force against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US taxpayers. I don't see why you think it's ok for the US government to steal money from its citizens so it can give it to a foreign power. If Israel was such a good investment, then why not let people decide that for themselves and pay for that investment out of their own pockets? That might be a good idea. But I guess I can understand how dealing with other people on the basis of reason and not force could be considered controversial on a forum for objectivists.

And no, I don't believe that Israel imposes tyranny for its own sake. They have a clear agenda with regard to Palestine. They want to capture and control any usable land and water resources in the region, and if any Palestinians get in the way that's just too bad for them. If Israel really wanted peace, they could just let the Palestinians have their own state. But that can't be allowed to happen because the Palestinians might want to be compensated for the use of their resources. Much easier to just take it by force, like any "civilized" or "rationally self-interested" or "enlightened" country would do.

SoMad,

You've really lost the plot.

At any time, Israel could have owned everything from the Suez to Lebanon, from the Med to the River Jordan - if she so wanted. Not even evident facts impress you. Water resources? Well, several nations have bought Israel's desalination technology in which it's tops.

You've picked up some libertarian ideas, though - so all's not wasted. After you've sorted out the $2 billion that goes to Israel out of taxes, are you going to also tackle the $640 billion expenditure from the same taxpayer?

If not, I'll assume this tax dodge is all just to conceal your anti-Israeli bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SoMad,

You've really lost the plot.

At any time, Israel could have owned everything from the Suez to Lebanon, from the Med to the River Jordan - if she so wanted. Not even evident facts impress you. Water resources? Well, several nations have bought Israel's desalination technology in which it's tops.

No, it could not. The US would never allow it.

And fresh water still beats desalinated water because it's much cheaper to produce.

You've picked up some libertarian ideas, though - so all's not wasted. After you've sorted out the $2 billion that goes to Israel out of taxes, are you going to also tackle the $640 billion expenditure from the same taxpayer?

If not, I'll assume this tax dodge is all just to conceal your anti-Israeli bias.

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SoMad,

You've really lost the plot.

At any time, Israel could have owned everything from the Suez to Lebanon, from the Med to the River Jordan - if she so wanted. Not even evident facts impress you. Water resources? Well, several nations have bought Israel's desalination technology in which it's tops.

No, it could not. The US would never allow it.

So - to be consistent to your original heart-felt concern, that "They want to capture and control any usable land..."

it is all moot. The US would disallow it. So why mention it in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SoMad,

You've really lost the plot.

At any time, Israel could have owned everything from the Suez to Lebanon, from the Med to the River Jordan - if she so wanted. Not even evident facts impress you. Water resources? Well, several nations have bought Israel's desalination technology in which it's tops.

No, it could not. The US would never allow it.

So - to be consistent to your original heart-felt concern, that "They want to capture and control any usable land..."

it is all moot. The US would disallow it. So why mention it?

This is boring.

You're just quoting selectively, which is a dishonest way to argue.

I never said that the US would not allow Israel to take any land from anybody. The US most certainly does allow Israel to take whatever it wants from the Palestinians.

If Israel was allowed to conquer the entire Middle East, then the US would become entirely dependent on Israel for access to cheap oil in the region. Strategically, being dependent on anybody is a bad place to be. That's why the US would never allow Israel to take whatever it wants. However, the US has no need for Palestinian water resources or land, and so Israel is allowed to take that for itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SoMad,

You've really lost the plot.

At any time, Israel could have owned everything from the Suez to Lebanon, from the Med to the River Jordan - if she so wanted. Not even evident facts impress you. Water resources? Well, several nations have bought Israel's desalination technology in which it's tops.

No, it could not. The US would never allow it.

So - to be consistent to your original heart-felt concern, that "They want to capture and control any usable land..."

it is all moot. The US would disallow it. So why mention it?

This is boring.

You're just quoting selectively, which is a dishonest way to argue.

I never said that the US would not allow Israel to take any land from anybody. The US most certainly does allow Israel to take whatever it wants from the Palestinians.

If Israel was allowed to conquer the entire Middle East, then the US would become entirely dependent on Israel for access to cheap oil in the region. Strategically, being dependent on anybody is a bad place to be. That's why the US would never allow Israel to take whatever it wants. However, the US has no need for Palestinian water resources or land, and so Israel is allowed to take that for itself.

Who said the "entire Middle East"? Then you haven't looked at a map, even. The region I talk about is tiny and is nowhere near the "oil".

At one time the territories I indicate were all controlled by Israel after the wars, and handed back to Egypt and Palestine. No oil, anywhere there.

These seem like conspiracy theories you've gobbled up from the Net, I guess. You do not know the history, the geography or the politics of the region. "The Oil" argument is the common refrain for simple folk who don't know anything to do with the complex strife in the ME. In other words you have not independently thought through anything at all. Your knowledge is limited and loaded one way, which means your prejudice is obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said the "entire Middle East"? Then you haven't looked at a map, even. The region I talk about is tiny and is nowhere near the "oil".

At one time the territories I indicate were all controlled by Israel after the wars, and handed back to Egypt and Palestine. No oil, anywhere there.

These seem like conspiracy theories you've gobbled up from the Net, I guess. You do not know the history, the geography or the politics of the region. "The Oil" argument is the common refrain for simple folk who don't know anything to do with the complex strife in the ME. In other words you have not independently thought through anything at all. Your knowledge is limited and loaded one way, which means your prejudice is obvious.

I was just using that as an example.

The Arab-Israeli war began in 1948, about 3 years after the UN charter went into effect forbidding member states from acquiring territory through conquest. Israel had no choice but to give back the conquered territories.

This is the reason that the US does not recognize Palestine as a sovereign state and has vetoed its membership in the UN.

But what do I know? The UN is just a fiction made up by conspiracy theorists on the internet right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony,

Have you noticed how the argument always goes with people like this?

The problem is the Jews...
The Jews are the problem...
If it weren't for the Jews...
It's those Jews that are messing things up...
Everything was OK until the Jews...
Unfair? What about the Jews?...
(This problem also applies to everybody.)
I wish there were something those Jews would do right...
Ever since those Jews did...
Those Jews keep bullying...
Jews are oppressing others...
We need to get the Jews to act right...
If the Jews would be moral, but they never are...

Then when you ask, aren't you being biased? You hear the person say, "Well I said the problem also applies to everybody. I'm not biased at all. (I'm so moral.)"

:smile:

I used to wonder if this was actually the way it seemed, so I started paying attention to quantity. Sure enough it is. Take any habitual critic of Israel who claims not to be biased and start counting the comments anti-Israel and anti-anybody else in the Israeli conflict. It's quite illuminating.

This reminds me of something I read by Alan Dershowitz in his 2003 book, The Case for Israel. (pp. 1-2):

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times got it right when he said, "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction--out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East--is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." A good working definition of anti-Semitism is taking a trait or an action that is widespread, if not universal, and blaming only the Jews for it. That is what Hitler and Stalin did, and that is what former Harvard University president A. Lawrence Lowell did in the 1920s when he tried to limit the number of Jews admitted to Harvard because "Jews cheat." When a distinguished alumnus objected on the grounds that non-Jews also cheat, Lowell replied, "You're changing the subject. I'm talking about Jews." So, too, when those who single out only the Jewish nation for criticism are asked why they don't criticize Israel's enemies, they respond, "You're changing the subject. We're talking about Israel."


There is a variation on this rhetoric. Instead of saying, "You're changing the subject," people now say, "You're right. Others do wrong too, but..." and they go back to talking about Israel in the proportion above.

Look on this very thread and you will see it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony,

Have you noticed how the argument always goes with people like this?

The problem is the Jews...

The Jews are the problem...

If it weren't for the Jews...

It's those Jews that are messing things up...

Everything was OK until the Jews...

Unfair? What about the Jews?...

(This problem also applies to everybody.)

I wish there were something those Jews would do right...

Ever since those Jews did...

Those Jews keep bullying...

Jews are oppressing others...

We need to get the Jews to act right...

If the Jews would be moral, but they never are...

Then when you ask, aren't you being biased? You hear the person say, "Well I said the problem also applies to everybody. I'm not biased at all. (I'm so moral.)"

:smile:

I used to wonder if this was actually the way it seemed, so I started paying attention to quantity. Sure enough it is. Take any habitual critic of Israel who claims not to be biased and start counting the comments anti-Israel and anti-anybody else in the Israeli conflict. It's quite illuminating.

This reminds me of something I read by Alan Dershowitz in his 2003 book, The Case for Israel. (pp. 1-2):

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times got it right when he said, "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction--out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East--is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." A good working definition of anti-Semitism is taking a trait or an action that is widespread, if not universal, and blaming only the Jews for it. That is what Hitler and Stalin did, and that is what former Harvard University president A. Lawrence Lowell did in the 1920s when he tried to limit the number of Jews admitted to Harvard because "Jews cheat." When a distinguished alumnus objected on the grounds that non-Jews also cheat, Lowell replied, "You're changing the subject. I'm talking about Jews." So, too, when those who single out only the Jewish nation for criticism are asked why they don't criticize Israel's enemies, they respond, "You're changing the subject. We're talking about Israel."

There is a variation on this rhetoric. Instead of saying, "You're changing the subject," people now say, "You're right. Others do wrong too, but..." and they go back to talking about Israel in the proportion above.

Look on this very thread and you will see it.

Michael

Yeah, it's totally biased to focus on Israeli policy in a thread about Israel.

Also, it's simply true that any criticism of Israel is an attack on Jews. The collectivism is strong with this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what I see and I've been seeing this stuff for a long time.

Bang bricks if you must, but nobody believes that crap about the thumbs anymore.

(I do know people HATE IT when you blow the cover off their little games.)

Michael

Michael:

It looks like our game-player-extraordinaire has been gamed herself.

A con man is the most gullible target of cons, as Greg I think remarks.

What I mean, and what I'm intensely concerned about, is that I'm picking up too many signals from too many diverse sources that a propaganda campaign is in full swing over Israel. The original instigators we can surmize without any trouble. The objective is, I believe, too ominous to simply dismiss this time.

(And I am the farthest from a conspiracy theorist, ever imaginable.)

What's being achieved, I think, is a world-wide sense of Israeli 'injustice' over Palestinians on a scale never seen previously. Throw in "Those Jews, this or that" (but never outrageously anti-Semitic; we wouldn't want to look racist, you know) to further stir up the narrative.

Taken all in all, somebody is setting the scenes for what they plan to do. To weaken international resistance when it kicks off - and to have a ready self-justification for after.

I can just see the aftermath.

"Hey, big pity about Israel, wasn't it? But you know, they had it coming. Look how they treated those poor Palestinians..."

Israel is always one step away from disaster. One blunder, one hesitation - with no room for tactical manouevre in such close proximity - and that's the end. The fact that Gaza and the West Bank will also be destroyed will go down as unfortunate collateral damage...

So you are seeing more of these unthinking cynics who regurgitate all the unquestioned homilies about Israel/Palestine - never realising that they are useful idiots in a bigger plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what I see and I've been seeing this stuff for a long time. Bang bricks if you must, but nobody believes that crap about the thumbs anymore. (I do know people HATE IT when you blow the cover off their little games.) Michael

Michael:It looks like our game-player-extraordinaire has been gamed herself.A con man is the most gullible target of cons, as Greg I think remarks.What I mean, and what I'm intensely concerned about, is that I'm picking up too many signals from too many diverse sources that a propaganda campaign is in full swing over Israel. The original instigators we can surmize without any trouble. The objective is, I believe, too ominous to simply dismiss this time.(And I am the farthest from a conspiracy theorist, ever imaginable.)What's being achieved, I think, is a world-wide sense of Israeli 'injustice' over Palestinians on a scale never seen previously. Throw in "Those Jews, this or that" (but never outrageously anti-Semitic; we wouldn't want to look racist, you know) to further stir up the narrative.Taken all in all, somebody is setting the scenes for what they plan to do. To weaken international resistance when it kicks off - and to have a ready self-justification for after.I can just see the aftermath."Hey, big pity about Israel, wasn't it? But you know, they had it coming. Look how they treated those poor Palestinians..."Israel is always one step away from disaster. One blunder, one hesitation - with no room for tactical manouevre in such close proximity - and that's the end. The fact that Gaza and the West Bank will also be destroyed will go down as unfortunate collateral damage...So you are seeing more of these unthinking cynics who regurgitate all the unquestioned homilies about Israel/Palestine - never realising that they are useful idiots in a bigger plan.

If I've been conned as you say, then it should be easy to disprove my claims about the injustice of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians. As it stands, you have failed to provide even a single defense of those policies that doesn't immediately collapse under the slightest bit of investigation of the facts. Instead you resort to ad hominem arguments and conspiracy theories, because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I've been conned as you say, then it should be easy to disprove my claims about the injustice of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians. As it stands, you have failed to provide even a single defense of those policies that doesn't immediately collapse under the slightest bit of investigation of the facts. Instead you resort to ad hominem arguments and conspiracy theories, because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

Uh SoMad. This is bigger than you.

Sometimes it's wise to understand that one has no understanding of something, and just - drop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I've been conned as you say, then it should be easy to disprove my claims about the injustice of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians. As it stands, you have failed to provide even a single defense of those policies that doesn't immediately collapse under the slightest bit of investigation of the facts. Instead you resort to ad hominem arguments and conspiracy theories, because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.

Uh SoMad. This is bigger than you.

Sometimes it's wise to understand that one has no understanding of something, and just -leave it.

:laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Name one single specific fact that I've "blanked out".

Naomi,

Not while you are this way.

You have at least started quoting Rand when you talk about her ideas.

That's a huge improvement over the past.

So... baby steps.

But I have faith in you.

:smile:

Michael

That is just an excuse to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

The truth is that I did not ignore a single fact in the course of making my arguments.

All of my opponents, on the other hand, have simply tried to ignore facts which contradict their views, refused to defend their beliefs while implicitly assuming their truth, or dodge the issue in some other way.

That is a blank out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now