The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Arab-Israeli Conflict Analysis

rated by 0 users
This post has 9 Replies | 4 Followers

Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 246
Points 6,430
Individualist Posted: Fri, Jan 30 2009 9:30 PM

What is the proper libertarian view of the Arab-Israeli conflict? Should we support an Arab state in Palestine?

 

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under."  - H. L. Mencken

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 783
Points 14,600

The problem is the concept of "state" itself. This is a very good article on the subject.

I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.

Educational Pamphlet Mises Group

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 256
Points 3,965
kiba replied on Fri, Jan 30 2009 9:47 PM

Richard Chambers:

What is the proper libertarian view of the Arab-Israeli conflict? Should we support an Arab state in Palestine?

 

Their should be no state in Israel.

 

It is likely that the conflict will continues as the two groups hate each other and refuse to reconsole their difference. Basically it is an eye for an eye gone really wrong.

Plus elements on both side probably have an interest in crushing the opposition. Basically everybody lose out. The only possible solution for us outsider is just stay the heck out of their way when they go shoot each other to death. The only possible solution for peace is for all party to admit wrongdoings and start paying retribution if possible.

http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 4,114
Points 66,145
Moderator

kiba, whilst technically i agree you, i would urge caution in how you present the argument.

i know that to many people hearing 'there should be no state of israel' makes them think the speaker is anti-semitic , or has a desire to see jews crushed by their anti-semitic persecutors. Just so, it would be more prudent to say that Their should be no state in Israel or Palestine, for israeli's or palestinians, or americans or english or japanese. etc. so they get the idea of where we are coming from on this.

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 246
Points 6,430

I agree that it would be best to have no states in the area, but are there no less "radical" steps that can be taken to improve the situation there?

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under."  - H. L. Mencken

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 776
Points 13,910
Marko replied on Sun, Feb 1 2009 2:18 PM

Richard Chambers:

I agree that it would be best to have no states in the area, but are there no less "radical" steps that can be taken to improve the situation there?

For starters Israel could stop building more West Bank settlements and walls on land privately owned by Palestinians.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,669
Points 81,345

Marko:

Richard Chambers:

I agree that it would be best to have no states in the area, but are there no less "radical" steps that can be taken to improve the situation there?

For starters Israel could stop building more West Bank settlements and walls on land privately owned by Palestinians.

This.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 246
Points 6,430

Marko:

Richard Chambers:

I agree that it would be best to have no states in the area, but are there no less "radical" steps that can be taken to improve the situation there?

For starters Israel could stop building more West Bank settlements and walls on land privately owned by Palestinians.

Would you please elaborate on how they violate Arabs' property rights?

The other day, Lew Rockwell called expansion of Israeli settlements an act of eminent domain. What'd he mean by that?

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under."  - H. L. Mencken

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 51
Points 895

Richard Chambers:
The other day, Lew Rockwell called expansion of Israeli settlements an act of eminent domain. What'd he mean by that?

 

I suppose he meant that the settlements are using the power of "eminent domain," which is really just seizing land. Here in the U.S., eminent domain at least requires some token repayment for losses by the government.

Should the settlements be located on private land--Arab or Israeli--it would violate property rights.

The tricky thing about this conflict is that the individuals involved tend to see themselves as part of some collective entity, and the land at some level also belongs to that entity. This collective attitude is what I feel drives this conflict. When the Arabs and Israelis wake up one day and decide that they will not be part of their respective collectives, then will peace break out.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 2,567
Points 45,435

Privatize the Middle East!

Now there's a slogan.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (10 items) | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap