It’s a big question, perhaps the biggest of all those facing the world today. You hear about it all the time, and so many events are occurring right now in the region that they barely make the news unless they include the drama of CCTV images and a Mossad hit. Israel, Palestine, Zionism, the Arab question: is there a central libertarian view on this conflict or, like virtually every aspect of the conflict itself, are there always divergent viewpoints on the same events and actions which could easily lead to opposite interpretations?
I’m taking a class on Israel and Palestine now. Luckily, it’s taught by a knowledgeable and neutral professor who pretty much knows all the ins and outs of the conflict. I’m at least familiar with most of the major historical events at this point, but I was curious about past libertarian thinking on the subject.
One one hand, we have the idea that, while pretty much unspoken, is most likely the basis for American support of Israel to this day: Israel is simply superior to those who oppose Israel. Israelis produce some of the major medical advances in the world today, and Israel is a modern and prosperous society with a degree of freedom not seen in the Arab nations that oppose it so strongly. If the Palestinians regained part of Israel, what would they do with it? This view, sometimes exaggerated, is elaborated on by the Ayn Rand Institute.
Israel and those who attack it are not moral equals. Israel is, like the United States, a “mixed economy,” which retains a significant respect for individual rights. Its citizens, whatever their race or religion, enjoy many freedoms, including freedom of thought and speech, and the right to own property. The purpose of Israel’s military is only self-defense: to protect its citizens from aggressors. Consequently, Israel has a moral right to exist.
Those attacking Israel, by contrast, are terrorist organizations, dictatorships and theocracies, which deliberately violate the rights of their own subjects. Even if these organizations and regimes had never initiated force against Israel, they still would have no moral right to exist.
Although Israel is often accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of human rights, these attacks are rarely made in the same discussion against Arab states (including Jordan) and never in the United Nations, which Arab interests can dominate due to their plethora of countries. There was never any condemnation of the Palestinian National Authority under Arafat for its human rights violations.
I just met a Jordanian girl who said she had to leave because she simply had no rights in the country. Women couldn’t do anything or have jobs. Israel is certainly not perfect and can make progress in the areas of equal human rights for all its citizens (and those in the territories), but what’s the alternative? Have you ever seen a woman in Gaza who didn’t have a head scarf on? Do they all just choose to wear it? Is Hamas known for encouraging freedom of speech, assembly, and choice among the citizens it rules in Gaza? Even Jordan, with a majority Palestinian population, is ruled by a king who, while Americanized, doesn’t find it necessary to give his people democracy or property rights, or grant his country’s women equal rights, let alone gays or other maligned groups.
Forgetting the past, does Israel have a right to exist just based on the fact that it is a freer nation with more individual liberty than a Palestinian state would be?
Since this is merely intellectual masturbation, I’d like to broaden the question: Does the United States ‘have’ a right to exist? Does France, the UK, Germany, Russia, Indonesia, Australia, or any other country in the world ‘has’ a right to exist, or did they earn that right by protecting their borders from those who would seek to destroy their identity, and claim their territories?
Nations celebrate their ‘Independence day’, and not the ‘I was granted a right to exist’ day, because in this physical, violent world, some rights need to be taken.
Moreover, I would say that an outsider, sitting safely in her safe space, not fearing the brutal murder of all her loved ones, and debating if someone else’s home has ‘a right to exist’ is nothing short than ridiculously condescending.
Erick S
March 15th, 2010
I would say no, that the perceived legitimacy of a country or our interpretation of the moral relativity doesn’t dictate a right to exist or not. For me, I guess I give more credence to whether there is a historical context for a people to exist in their own homeland (if they were forced to leave, if they were conquered and if there has been an attempt to keep a connection to that place over time). So if a people love their authoritarian government or oligarchy (most of the middle east), who am I to say that is wrong for them or that their country is illegitimate in comparison to our own. Given that, I must say that the United States’ “right to exist” only extends so far as we are willing to defend it. We (I mean culturally “we” not actually you and me) colonized this continent and displaced people who, I feel, had a prior right to this land. We made treaties with them that gave them the short end of the stick, and then didn’t even honor the majority of them (while continuing to trumpet “rule of law” and respect for rights). To this day, we call some of them sovereign nations but refuse to grant real autonomy. So until we fix our problems of national correctness at home, its hard for me to judge someone else’s problem.
I do admire much about the Israelis ability to produce so much from such a small piece of land (the abilities of the IDF etc…) and feel for the fact that most every nation around them would like nothing more than to wipe them off the map (and why the left doesn’t have a real issue with this kind of racism) but also I don’t fully understand the Palestinian point of view (given that Israel was “recreated” by the UN).
So all I hope for is peace but have no concrete view on such a long standing historical and political conflict. Thanks for writing the article and making us think about the idea of a nation’s “right to exist”.
The Green Libertarian
March 19th, 2010