If you are against killing of any sort, there are two ways of looking at this. A killing is bad, simply because it’s a killing. Or, a killing is good if the person in question would have caused more killings through living. In that way, it’s a bit of self-defense. The problem is, the lines between these can be tricky to navigate sometimes.

As you might have surmised, the theoretical Orthodox rabbi doesn’t exist. The religious official in question was Sheikh Ahmed Hassin, killed by the Israelis in a 2004 airstrike, along with about nine or ten civilians. 200,000 Palestinians (half the city’s population) lined the streets of Gaza City for his funeral, so it’s clear he was loved by the Palestinians despite tendencies some of us might find quite objectionable. His killing might have spurred yet more of what seems to be endless violence. Or, the end of Hassin’s endless calls that annihilating Israel was a worthy calling and goal to work toward may have prevented some young Palestinian from being encouraged to blow himself up in a public square. We can’t really know. Isn’t it, then, a microcosm for this entire conflict?

“The first thought that enters an Israeli’s head when he wakes up in the morning is, Fuck you. It’s there before he even has an idea to whom he wants to say ‘Fuck you.’” -  Israeli academic Dan Schueftan

Of course, the above could be equally attributable to Palestinians, and I guess that’s really our essential problem.

One of the issues most pertinent to those interested in liberty in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not centered in the Middle East at all. Ironically, it’s easier for Israelis themselves to criticize their government’s policies (and many do) than it is for an American or really anyone from any other country to criticize Israel’s policies without a news release blasting them as anti-Semitic from what are usually American groups. While private groups have the right to say anything they want, that doesn’t mean they should. Yes, Jews have historically (and tragically) been victimized in countries around the world, for their beliefs or their culture, or their occupations they were forced into anyway. That doesn’t mean that everyone in the world is an anti-Semite or that the only reason someone would criticize Israel is because Israel is a Jewish nation. Even odder, AIPAC has itself disagreed with Israel. Is AIPAC therefore anti-Semitic by its own definition?

But aside from being too quick to judge anti-Semitism, is AIPAC really so bad? In some ways, I don’t think it’s any worse than some academics I’ve encountered who blindly back the Palestinian side no matter what develops in the conflict. It seems that for both sides, facts are less important than demonizing the other side.

While I don’t think members of Congress should pay any attention whatsoever to lobbyists, it’s clear lobbyists should be able to exist. At heart, and ignoring their often nefarious goals, they’re Americans representing a point of view to Congress. AIPAC says it represents support of Israel within Congress, and that’s fine in and of itself (although it has in the past been more hawkish than some Israeli governments, so it doesn’t limit itself to what the Israeli government wants, but what AIPAC wants.)

I think the best way to solve the issue is not for AIPAC to cease, but for the Palestinians to begin to develop their own equivalent American-based lobbying group (the American Association for Palestinian Equal Rights is trying to do just that). Whether you “side” with Israel or the Palestinians, it’s clear the Palestinians have been disadvantaged in a few important ways since the beginning– and it’s certainly clear that today, they are not the ones bargaining from a position of power. It’s undeniable that outside of American and European academia, the Palestinians have an image problem.

Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.  ~ George Washington’s 1796 Farewell Address

America, the most powerful country in the world, by default tagged with fixing this problem, doesn’t have a population that sympathizes with the Palestinians, even moderate Mahmoud Abbas, who commands a 14% approval rating in the US. No doubt this stems from the primary images Americans received over many years about Palestinians– hijacking planes, killing Olympic athletes, refusing to negotiate. The Israelis are not just a powerful and wealthy state, but they can say that God chose them as His chosen people, a “light unto the world.” How can the Palestinians possibly compete with that, especially when their primary newsmaking consists of allowing terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah to undertake activities on their behalf? Sure, remaking the Palestinian image would be a tough row to hoe in America, but the thing is– the Palestinians have never even tried. Neither have the Arab states, with whom the Palestinian states tragically aligned themselves at the beginning of this mess.

At first, it seems almost an impossible task. How can the images of guns, black hoods, and militancy be overcome? There are actually a few ways I think Palestinians could market themselves that would have resonance with the American public.

1. Emphasize the lack of access Christians have to certain Jerusalem holy sites within Israel compared to pre-state Palestine. Of course, Palestinians themselves were not ncessarily in charge during pre-state Palestine, but that could easily be left out and give the appearance that the Palestinians (many of whom are indeed Christians) respect Christian holy sites and traditions more than the Israelis (who banned all Christian holy site tourists from the Church of the Sepulchre during Easter last year. Church members were prevented from praying (one of the things that set off pre-state Palestinian Jewish settlers against the Muslims who controlled access to the Wailing Wall), had to go through checkpoints, and were barred from “practicing ancient traditions” despite there never being a security problem in any site of Christian worship in Jerusalem. This would deal head-on with a few ongoing issues: making a case that the Palestinians should have East Jerusalem as their capital, that Palestinians might be better stewards in certain areas than Israelis are, that Palestinians are not just all Muslim extremists, and that Christians should support Israel just because Israel is Israel.

We can all relate to the suffering of a Palestinian child.

2. In the areas where public opinion has swayed to the Palestinians, it’s been because of the pictures of dying Palestinian children. To a libertarian (and a Christian, and to a human being…) a Palestinian’s life is necessarily worth the same as a Jewish life or an Israeli life, and it is especially easy to make this connection in the case of children. Children are not terrorists, can’t help where they live, can’t fight back, and since we were all children at one time, they’re easy to relate to. Often dismissed as “collateral damage,” Palestinian children are sympathetic figures.

Other libertarian-related issues I’ll address in future posts:

What happens to the foreign aid we grant to Israel — and the Arab nations? Why do we want to impose further economic sanctions on Iran through the front door while we enrich Iranian businesses through the back door?

What about Iran, and how is it different from North Korea?

What about Benjamin Netanyahu?

Why are settlements so important?

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?

I turned to those watching with me and said, “Could they get away with saying that about any of our other allies? Imagine Biden saying, ‘I’ve been England’s greatest supporter during my 30 years in the US Senate’ or ‘I wouldn’t have joined Barack Obama on this ticket if he didn’t share with me a passion for England.’”

Of course, no at-home swing voter mentioned this in the post-debate follow-ups, the mainstream media hasn’t touched it, and it seems to be perfectly acceptable in America today to love a foreign country, but only if it’s a certain foreign country. I’m glad to see that at least Glenn Greenwald, a very smart guy, was thinking the exact same thing I did during this exchange.

Could Sarah Palinget away with saying “I’m glad to see that we both love Spain” or “I’m so glad you love France, too” during an American debate like this? Just think about it for a minute, and you realize how absurd it is.

You can’t get very far in Austria without being reminded of the country’s Nazi past. Austria was invaded by Germany, although it accepted the invasion willingly at the time. Today, the country has erected a “Monument Against War and Fascism” in its capital city, Vienna, to commemorate victims of violence in all wars, but especially those who died at the hands of the Nazis during World War II. Many Austrian Jews, including the preeminent economist Ludwig von Mises, were forced to flee under the threat of being sent to concentration camps.

Austria learned that it is sometimes best not to take sides in a war, because you may very well be siding with evil.

One particular statue included in the Monument Against War and Fascism includes an image of Orpheus burying his head in the stone on the way to the underworld. According to Rick Steves, it “reminds Austrians (and the rest of us) of the consequences of not keeping their government on track.”

Steves goes on to write:

In 1955, after 10 years of joint occupation by the victorious Allies, Austria regained total independence on the condition that it would be forever neutral (and never join NATO or the Warsaw Pact). To this day, Austria is outside of NATO (and Germany).

Perhaps we in other countries could take a lesson from Austria in this way. Why do we need NATO? Why do we need countries meddling in other countries’ business? Austria allowed Germany to take it over because the Austrians thought they were doing the best thing possible for Austria.

Perhaps other countries are making these same mistakes right now. Yesterday I left Vienna for Innsbruck, but this particular lesson is not one that can be left behind.

“With our MacArthur Regency in Baghdad, Pax Americana will reach apogee. But then the tide recedes, for the one endeavor at which Islamic people excel is expelling imperial powers by terror or guerrilla war.

They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon. We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went before. The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.”

Pat Buchanan can get it wrong. He can get it really, really wrong. I was always wary of him because of his views on gay people, but one of Buchanan’s most enthusiastic supporters has been Justin Raimondo, so if he can get over it, I certainly can. I’ve come to appreciate him recently, because most of the time Buchanan gets everything right, really, really right.

Pat Buchanan, Iraq War, Justin Raimondo, gay rights

One of today’s speakers said she also spoke to a protest march in DC on the first anniversary of “Shock and Awe,” and she would speak every year until it ends. The problem with this attitude is that you have to protest every day until you get something changed. You can’t just have a once-a-year event and expect that to make any type of difference at all.

Many of the speakers got it wrong, as well. One guy– who was actually one of the best speakers overall– asked if anyone in the audience was 18. Since it was a college campus, there were quite a few there who were. He said that we had been at war with Iraq for these people’s entire lifetime, from the Persian Gulf War to our many years of sanctions (under Clinton, although of course he didn’t mention that) to the current quagmire, in which we expected them to be happy to be liberated after we had sanctioned them. This version of events completely ignores the fact that they were ruled during that time by a mass murderer who delighted in terrorizing his constituents, and most Iraqis were actually very happy when we liberated them from Saddam Hussein’s regime– if not at first, within a few weeks– and then they wanted us to leave right away.

When someone acts like the Iraqis were just living idyllic lives in their desert paradise until we came along and ruined it for them, it gives less credence to anything else they might say. The Iraqis were glad to have us come and throw Saddam out; they just didn’t like what happened next, when their country (and its heritage) was looted under our watch, their army was disbanded and insurgents allowed to flourish, oil lines were repaired before their electricity and water supplies, al Qaeda franchises sprang up, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed, and the country divided itself along sectarian lines. While they were glad we came in the first place, they now want us to leave. They are now optimistic about the future, just as they were four years ago, but at the same time they don’t give us any credit for improving things.

That means that we’re either completely ineffective or that the Iraqis don’t appreciate or notice what we do for them; in either case, it means it’s time to let them rebuild their own country just as our own Founders once had to do. The French helped us, but they didn’t rebuild our country for us. That’s a much more powerful argument than simply claiming that America has been Iraq’s one and only oppressor for many years. It’s too bad that speakers at an event against something as obviously misguided as the Iraq War can’t make better arguments than this. One girl even claimed that one million Iraqi civilians had been killed, which is far above even the high estimates that I’ve heard. When people say outlandish things like that, it works against their cause, not for it.

“We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.” — George W. Bush, March 19, 2003

Bush said when the war began that he wanted to send the various branches of the military over there so that we wouldn’t have to fight “it” with our police here. The actual result is that our police and firefighters have been sent there, while crime becomes more of an issue over here. It’s something no one has touched on, but which I think is one of the most convincing arguments against the war. It’s causing safety problems in America. National Guard troops which would be guarding the border are sent overseas, which leaves the border wide open for any terrorist group that wants to walk right on over– or hire a poor Mexican to do it for them. The military competes directly with police departments for recruitment of men between the ages of 20 and 30– but the military can offer spectacular bonuses and seems to be winning that particular battle. This leaves some police departments so desperate for new officers that they want to employ non-citizens. Local police departments have a six- to 12-month wait for the ammunition they want, because soldiers in Iraq get first dibs.

“In the meantime,” I told Larry, “local crime goes up, local costs go up, and local police vacancies stay high.”

“All of which goes to show that the late, great Tip O’Neill had it almost right,” said Larry, paraphrasing the former speaker of the House. “All war is local.”

“Our investigation staff operates with not nearly enough personnel, and I’m discouraged by all issues regarding methamphetamine trafficking. These issues have not declined due to [our] lack of officers.” — Fargo, North Dakota police chief Keith Ternes

I don’t know about you, but personally I’m more worried about someone robbing or killing me as I walk down the street than I am about a terrorist attack, of which the chances are approximately nil in the scheme of things. Yet, we take away our police officers to send them to Iraq? I’m more likely to be struck by lightning and about a billion times more likely to be killed in a car crash, even if al Qaeda had the ability to even try to come over here and attack us. Even if you believe in this war for “security” reasons, you should not also be willing to sacrifice actual security in this country for security for a country half a world away.

I’m quite pleased to let the Republican leadership know that Republicans in my voting district agree that we should “strengthen the ‘War Against Islamic Jihadists’”– by leaving Iraq as soon as possible. We also want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent– and abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing. While we’re at it, let’s create “a stronger national defense” Reagan would be proud of– by closing most of our 140+ military bases throughout the world and securing our own borders. Let’s help the economy– by abolishing the Federal Reserve to stabilize the money supply. I’ll also tell them that education has no place in legislation at the federal level, and although the survey oddly says nothing about guns, I’m going to mention that guns are important to safety, too.

Senator Ensign writes that he wants to “reconnect with our grassroots base and refocus our policy agenda on the core Reagan Republican principles upon which it was founded– smaller government, cutting wasteful spending, lower taxes, a strong national defense and a belief in our inalienable individual liberties and freedoms.”

Wow, that sounds a lot like what I’m saying, but not what other Republicans are, and not even what the committee is saying in its own survey! It says it wants a “smaller government” and then goes on to ask about increasing Social Security, defense spending, education spending, and foreign aid. If we increase spending on all or even one of these programs, how exactly are we going to have a “smaller government” and no “wasteful spending”?

Ensign goes on to say that ending the “War against Islamic Jihadists” would be “retreat-and-defeat” or “cut-and-run.” This is pretty disingenuous. First of all, there were no Islamic jihadists within Iraq until we came along, as our own government admits. Internationally, jihadist terrorism has increased 600% since we invaded Iraq. So if we’re fighting a war against Islamic jihadism by invading Iraq and staying there indefinitely, we’re really not doing a good job with that. (Sure, that study was published in a left-leaning publication, but if it’s not true, why has there not been a survey done in response finding that terrorism has decreased? If it had, surely a right-winger would by now have come up with a study confirming this.) Indeed, the CIA’s top bin Laden expert for 10 years said Iraq “broke the back of our counterterrorism program.” We would be better off with actually capturing the people responsible for the September 11 attacks, who are not in Iraq but most likely in Pakistan, which is our ally.

Well, Senator Ensign, I’m mailing my survey to you today. I’m sure you’ll be excited to hear from me, a typical Republican Party leader.

I spent the weekend in Miami and was on my way home early Tuesday morning when I heard on the radio that Fidel Castro had decided to hand power over to his brother.

When I told the friend driving with me the news, and how disappointing it was that we had just left Miami and missed the inevitable celebrations that would probably be going on in Little Havana and elsewhere in Miami yesterday, the conversation went like this:

Him: “So, does this mean there won’t be a Cuban embargo anymore?”

Me: “No, of course there will still be an embargo, Cuba is still going to be communist.”

Him: “But, if we ended the embargo, their communist government might fall in about a week.”

Me: “Yes, that’s true, but the politicians don’t care more about ending communism in Cuba than they care about campaign donations from the Cuban expatriates who hate Castro and want a Cuban embargo.”

In fact, many people and groups, including a few braver-than -the-average members of Congress have asserted that they believe the Cuban embargo has allowed Castro to maintain power for decades longer than he would have been able to otherwise because it has impoverished his people and given him fodder to stir hate of America and democracy.

If we really dislike communism and Castro and what he and it stand for, we should end the Cuban embargo and allow the Cuban people to grow powerful enough to overthrow their regime and start a democracy for themselves. Despite 47 years of failed attempts, the US never managed to bring down Castro. In the end, Castro brought himself down (with a little help from Mother Nature and old age, which of course the free market will hopefully solve for us all, one day).

Tags: Cuban embargo, Castro resignation, Castro resign, Castro embargo, Fidel Castro

I’ve been against the Iraq War from the start, but since we’re in it, and since leaders are saying that we might invade Iran or Pakistan or even other countries in addition to what we’ve gotten ourselves into in Iraq, we have to think of what our policy will be if and when we make those mistakes as well.The obvious solution is to follow the Constitution, not actually go to war without a declaration of war from Congress, put all our efforts into winning it, and leave. This requires a full war effort on the part of every American– including rationing of food and plants shutting down to produce planes and cars for the war. What are you sacrificing for our war in Iraq? Probably not much other than higher gas prices.

I agree with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson when she said in last month’s Texas Monthly:

“Ken Burns talked in his documentary [on World War II] about everyone supporting that cause because everyone sacrificed– not just people in the war but people back home who were saving bacon grease, who were giving their pots and pans to make weapons, who were not able to eat everything they wanted to eat because food was rationed. That has never been the mood of our country with [the Iraq] war. I don’t think people have come together and felt a part of this effort.”

If we did take these measures, would it make any difference? Can the war be “won” under any circumstance? If we really wanted to win in Iraq, why are we not trying these things? Are people only willing to sacrifice the lives and comfort of others for a cause they say is such a noble imperative?