Does Israel have a right to exist? This question is often asked by defenders of Israel as a means to establish complete agreement on the right of Israel, because anyone who says "no" will be branded as anti-Semitic (i.e. as a bigot). The question left intentionally unasked is: Does Palestine have a right to exist? Personally, I believe both questions should always occur together. Asking the former, while omitting the latter, reveals the bias—and the bigotry—of the questioner. I believe the answer to both questions is yes, but a detailed answer requires a discussion of political philosophy. I'm a libertarian, and libertarians never miss an opportunity to discuss political philosophy.
States, countries, and governments do not have natural rights. Only human beings—or, in a broader sense, only living beings—have natural rights, rights endowed to us by our Creator. However, states, countries, and governments can have artificial rights—rights created by man—as a means to protect the natural rights of their people. Natural rights are inalienable, and superior to artificial rights.
When the natural rights of human beings collide with the artificial rights of states, justice requires that the natural rights of human beings should triumph. For example, during the U.S. Civil War, the South fought in favor of the artificial rights of states, while the North fought in favor of the natural rights of human beings. The North was right. The North was just. Thankfully for human liberty, the North won.
Israel has an artificial right to exist as a means of protecting the natural rights of Israelis. But the natural rights of Palestinians also need protecting. Currently, the Palestinians have no voice in the government that controls them. They are at the mercy of Israel. The Palestinians, constituting roughly 36% of the people under the control of the state of Israel, have no elected representation in the Israeli government. That is not modern democracy. The Israeli government regularly tramples on the human rights of the Palestinians. The Palestinians have no liberty. They deserve either full, elected representation in the Israeli legislature, the Knesset, or they deserve complete independence. Currently, they have neither.
So, yes, Israel has the right to exist. But a Palestinian state has the same right to exist—and for the same reason—to protect the natural rights of its people. The right of Israel to exist is no greater than, and no less than, the right of Palestine to exist. It is moral hypocrisy to support one and deny the other. So I ask you: Does a state of Palestine exist?
Showing posts with label Foreign policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Foreign policy. Show all posts
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
The real Saif al-Islam Gaddafi
Here is Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, son of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, as he presents himself to the west: a civilized gentleman with a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics.
The truth is very different. Not only did he plagiarize parts of his Ph.D. dissertation, but he's also quite uncivilized. Just watch him in this video:
How many Ph.D.s go around wielding AK-47s like that?

How many Ph.D.s go around wielding AK-47s like that?
Friday, October 9, 2009
George W. Bush wins third Nobel Peace Prize for Americans!
Anti-Bush sentiment has won America its third Nobel Peace Prize in a single decade. President Obama follows previous winners Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. We've never had a hot streak like this!
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Bank collapse could cause financial panic in Venezuela
It looks like the anti-American dictator might have his hands full:
The collapse of a Venezuelan bank owned by R. Allen Stanford, the Texas financier accused of fraud, is raising concern that the run on its deposits could spread to other banks, threatening the nation's economy.That last sentence is classic! You've gotta love economically ignorant dictators.
On Saturday, President Hugo Chávez blamed his political enemies for rumors about mass withdrawals, and urged depositors not to pull their savings from domestic banks. ...
Mr. Chávez moved to restore confidence a day after speculation spread among brokerage-house trading desks and businessmen that at least one major bank had faced unusually large deposit withdrawals. The speculation is difficult to confirm because it is too recent to be reflected in the latest official bank data.
While Mr. Chávez may succeed in restoring confidence, the concerns underscore the problems facing the 54-year-old, anti-American former soldier, who recently completed a decade in power and last month won a referendum to alter the constitution to permit indefinite re-election.
Mr. Chávez's ability to fund welfare programs and other subsidies at the core of his popularity is undercut by plunging oil prices. Increasingly, residents of Venezuela say they believe Mr. Chávez will have to devalue the "strong bolivar" currency he introduced last year. Price controls meant to contain 30% inflation have led to food shortages. On Saturday, Mr. Chávez dispatched troops to force rice makers to boost production.
Monday, December 22, 2008
How will the global recession affect China and India?
The Economist examines the possibilities:
THE speed with which clouds of economic gloom and even despair have gathered over the global economy has been startling everywhere. But the change has been especially sudden in the world’s two most populous countries: China and India. Until quite recently, the world’s fastest-growing big economies both felt themselves largely immune from the contagion afflicting the rich world. Optimists even hoped that these huge emerging markets might provide the engines that could pull the world out of recession. Now some fear the reverse: that the global downturn is going to drag China and India down with it, bringing massive unemployment to two countries that are, for all their success, still poor—India is home to some two-fifths of the world’s malnourished children.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
A humorous example of international diplomacy
From Chris Blattman's blog:
"I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls," Putin told Sarkozy, referring to Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.
Mr Sarkozy responded: "Hang him?"
"Why not? The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein," said Mr Putin.
Mr Sarkozy replied, using the familiar "tu": "Yes but do you want to end up like [President] Bush?"
Mr Putin was briefly lost for words, then replied: "Ah, you have scored a point there."
Friday, November 14, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Election of Obama reduces flag burning abroad
Johann Hari paints a picture of how the election of Barack Obama has changed the world's view of the United States:
I spent yesterday trawling the shops in here in London for Stars and Stripes to decorate my apartment for my Presidential election party — and across the city they were all sold out. One shopkeeper in the East End told me: "For the past eight years we've done a big trade in American flags because people buy them to burn them. This is the first time I can remember people buying them because they actually want to wave them."
Friday, July 18, 2008
Something all Americans should know about Iran
The International Herald Tribune tells a gripping story of the escape to freedom of Iranian dissident Ahmad Batebi.
Meanwhile, The Economist points out something that all Americans should hear:
Meanwhile, The Economist points out something that all Americans should hear:
Mr Batebi thinks Iran could well turn solidly democratic some day. In neighbouring states, religious extremism is popular. In Iran, he says, the government is religiously extreme, but the people are not.When a strict religious dictatorship controls a country, the people are likely to get firsthand experience with its downsides and then wish for the opposite: freedom and democracy.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
More on Iran's missile test deceptions
From the New York Times:
Iran’s war games this week featured more bluff and exaggeration than displays of menacing new power, military analysts said Friday.
The half-truths, the analysts said, included not only a doctored photo of a salvo firing but also misleading statements about the range of the largest missile and two videos that made the firings seem more numerous and fearsome than they really were.
“Deception was rampant,” said Charles P. Vick, an expert on the Iranian missile program at GlobalSecurity.org, a research group in Alexandria, Va. “The bottom line is that the Iranians are tweaking our noses.”
The missile firings on Wednesday and Thursday shook the oil markets, helping drive up the price of crude to a record of more than $147 a barrel on Friday from $136 on Wednesday. That rise, if sustained, would mean billions of added dollars for Iran, one of the world’s top oil exporters. ...
Aside from the theater of the missile firings and the prospect of windfall oil revenues, Mr. Allison said, “the question is, Does this represent any significant advance in any relevant military capability to do any damage? And I think the best judgment is, no.”
The Iranians, he added, “have a history of puffing out their chests and pounding on them.” ...
Overall, Mr. Vick concluded, the two days of missile firings represented no escalation over what the Iranians have done before in previous tests.
“I remain unimpressed,” he said.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Gorbachev: Will the U.S. be an empire or a democracy?
Former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, winner of the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize, asks the U.S. presidential candidates to think about whether the United States will be an empire or a democracy.
The present administration, particularly during George W. Bush's first presidential term, was bent on trying to solve many foreign policy issues primarily by military means, through threats and pressure. The big question today is whether the presidential nominees will propose a different approach to the world's most urgent problems.
I am extremely alarmed by the increasing tendency to militarize policymaking and thinking. The fact is that the military option has again and again led to a dead end.
One doesn't have to go very far to find an alternative. Take the recent developments on nonproliferation issues, where the focus has been on two countries - North Korea and Iran.
After several years of saber-rattling, the United States finally got around to serious talks with the North Koreans, involving South Korea and other neighboring countries. And though it took time to achieve results, the dismantling of the North Korean nuclear program has now begun.
It's true that nuclear issues in Iran encompass some unique features and may be more difficult to solve. But clearly threats and delusions of "regime change" are not the way to do it.
We have to look even deeper for a solution. "Horizontal" proliferation will only get worse unless we solve the "vertical" problem, i.e. the continued existence of huge arsenals of sophisticated nuclear weapons held by major powers, particularly the United States and Russia.
In recent months there seems to have been a conceptual breakthrough on this issue, with influential Americans calling for revitalizing efforts aimed at the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have now endorsed that goal....
Today the United States produces about half of the world's military hardware and has over 700 military bases, from Europe to the most remote corners of the world. Those are just the officially recognized bases, with more being planned. It is as if the Cold War is still raging, as if the United States is surrounded by enemies who can only be fought with tanks, missiles and bombers. Historically, only empires had such an expansive approach to assuring their security.
So the candidates, and the next president, will have to decide and state clearly whether America wants to be an empire or a democracy, whether it seeks global dominance or international cooperation. They will have to choose, because this is an either-or proposition: The two things don't mix, like oil and water.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)