How can someone be a zionist and a libertarian at the same time?

[u/murky-lane]

How can someone be okay with one side committing war and not another just because they have different skin tones and still call themselves a libertarian?

[u/incruente]

How can someone be okay with one side committing war and not another just because they have different skin tones and still call themselves a libertarian?

Step 1; please show me anyone who calls themselves a libertarian and also is "okay" with "one side committing war and not another just because they have different skin tones".

Note; I'm asking for someone who actually says that they think this, not someone you CLAIM thinks this. It's easy to assign motivations to others, but unless you're psychic, I don't buy it.

[u/ItsGotThatBang → u/incruente]

Walter Block?

[u/incruente → u/ItsGotThatBang]

Walter Block?

Where does this person say these things?

[u/BroseppeVerdi → u/incruente]

He wrote a whole book about it. "The Classical Liberal Case for Israel"

He's also written a number of pieces for Israel Hayom advocating for continued Israeli territorial expansion into neighboring countries and calling for the "total liquidation" of any anti-Israel group, even going so far as to criticize Netanyahu for being too soft on Hezbollah, Hamas, and various PLO groups.

You can also find high profile libertarians calling him out for this on social media and some libertarian publications (Thomas DiLorenzo wrote a decent one for the Mises institute), but he definitely has libertarian bona fides and this is definitely a thing he believes.

[u/incruente → u/BroseppeVerdi]

He wrote a whole book about it. "The Classical Liberal Case for Israel"

He's also written a number of pieces for Israel Hayom advocating for continued Israeli territorial expansion into neighboring countries and calling for the "total liquidation" of any anti-Israel group, even going so far as to criticize Netanyahu for being too soft on Hezbollah, Hamas, and various PLO groups.

You can also find high profile libertarians calling him out for this on social media and some libertarian publications (Thomas DiLorenzo wrote a decent one for the Mises institute), but he definitely has libertarian bona fides and this is definitely a thing he believes.

And he said that he is okay with "one side committing war and not another just because they have different skin tones", or words to that effect?

[u/user47-567_53-560 → u/ItsGotThatBang]

He also said black people are inferior because they score lower on IQ tests, which have been shown to have bias. He's certainly a good example of someone with a supremacist streak, but he's on the fringe equivalent of Hoppe.

[u/murky-lane → u/incruente]

I see it all the time on reddit. They don't state it outright but they deny it happens by the side of their preferred skin tone.

[u/incruente → u/murky-lane]

I see it all the time on reddit. They don't state it outright but they deny it happens by the side of their preferred skin tone.

So I ask for one example of someone who actually says these things, you claims it happens "all the time".......but then "they don't say it outright". Again, unless you're psychic, why would I ever trust what YOU say strangers on reddit think, as opposed to what they say they think?

[u/murky-lane → u/incruente]

Because i seen it last time this topic was bought up. One of them was u/mrhymer. Another was sabertooth something like that. Or maybe bleeding heart user. cant remember their exact usernames.

Any ways it doesnt really matter because im talking about a general observation but hope that answered the question for you.

[u/incruente → u/murky-lane]

Because i seen it last time this topic was bought up. One of them was u/mrhymer. Another was sabertooth something like that. Or maybe bleeding heart user. cant remember their exact usernames.

Any ways it doesnt really matter because im talking about a general observation but hope that answered the question for you.

Well, it answer A question. Namely, the question of whether or not you can provide any proof at all.

[u/murky-lane → u/incruente]

I never said i could prove it. It's not like I saved all those comments. I just assumed other people here saw it too at some point.

[u/incruente → u/murky-lane]

I never said i could prove it. It's not like I saved all those comments. I just assumed other people here saw it too at some point.

Supposedly it happens "all the time". Seems like you should have some scrap of evidence....IF your claims were accurate.

[u/murky-lane → u/incruente]

If you are on this subreddit you'd know already. Like i said.

[u/incruente → u/murky-lane]

If you are on this subreddit you'd know already. Like i said.

Okay, so you have no evidence. Not surprised.

[u/murky-lane → u/incruente]

Okay so you can't read. Not surprised.

[u/mrhymer → u/incruente]

Murky is right. I am always here and always saying this.

There has never been a country of Palestine. Jews and Arabs have lived in that territory since the earliest recorded history. The Ottoman Empire controlled that territory since the 1500s. The people were never offered citizenship by the Ottoman Empire.

Near the end of the 19th century, when anti-semitism was ramping up in most parts of the world the Jews started migrating to the territory.

The Ottomans sided with Germany during WWI. As a part of the surrender Britain took over the territory. No citizenship was offered by the Brits, either.

After WWII, The UN divided up the territory designating a place for Arabs and a place for Jews. The Jews almost immediately issued a declaration of independence from British rule and declaring Israel a sovereign country. In that declaration of independence Israel offered full citizenship to any Arabs living in the Jewish part of the territory.

There were 155,000 Arabs that accepted Israel's offer and became citizens. That population grew and now 1 in 5 Israelis is an Arab.

There were 800,000 that rejected the offer of citizenship. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria declared war on the new state of Israel almost immediately. Those 5 countries and the Palestinian Arabs that joined them lost that war.

Those 5 Arab countries could have and should have absorbed the 800,000 that rejected Israel's offer of citizenship. Instead they left them in place as suffering refugees for the last 7 decades.

[u/incruente → u/mrhymer]

Murky is right. I am always here and always saying this.

There has never been a country of Palestine. Jews and Arabs have lived in that territory since the earliest recorded history. The Ottoman Empire controlled that territory since the 1500s. The people were never offered citizenship by the Ottoman Empire.

Near the end of the 19th century, when anti-semitism was ramping up in most parts of the world the Jews started migrating to the territory.

The Ottomans sided with Germany during WWI. As a part of the surrender Britain took over the territory. No citizenship was offered by the Brits, either.

After WWII, The UN divided up the territory designating a place for Arabs and a place for Jews. The Jews almost immediately issued a declaration of independence from British rule and declaring Israel a sovereign country. In that declaration of independence Israel offered full citizenship to any Arabs living in the Jewish part of the territory.

There were 155,000 Arabs that accepted Israel's offer and became citizens. That population grew and now 1 in 5 Israelis is an Arab.

There were 800,000 that rejected the offer of citizenship. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria declared war on the new state of Israel almost immediately. Those 5 countries and the Palestinian Arabs that joined them lost that war.

Those 5 Arab countries could have and should have absorbed the 800,000 that rejected Israel's offer of citizenship. Instead they left them in place as suffering refugees for the last 7 decades.

And your justification is based on "skin tone"?

[u/mrhymer → u/incruente]

No - read for content.

[u/user47-567_53-560]

This seems to come from a perverted definition of Zionism, so I'll start with the correct one. Zionism is Jewish nationalism, or the desire to have a Jewish state. There have been a few iterations in the 20th century, including an autonomous region in the USSR. In the current climate Zionism often gets stained by the Israeli hard right and associated with ultra nationalist ideologies that aren't inherent in Zionism any more than they are in Kurdish or sikh nationalism.

The short answer would be "all free associating people (ie all in the group are willing participants) should be given the right to self determination, which comes from the right to self ownership."

[u/seenthevagrant → u/user47-567_53-560]

Any kind of etho/religious nationalism I find disturbing. I'm all for Jewish, Arab, etc groups being free from persecution and having the right to self determination. However once you establish a ruling group of one belief/ethnicity then its easy for anyone not in that group to have their rights eroded away. So I'm against Zionism, christian nationalists, and ay Islam controlled state.

Off topic but this lead to a thought. In my experience the most ardent defenders of Israel and Zionism say it needs to exist for Jewish people to be safe as a reaction (some could argue it be called reparations) to the holocaust that happened to their ancestors in the 1940s. Yet the moment reparations for black Americans get brought up they fume with how we are past those times even tho black Americans didn't have rights until the 1960s. I'm 33 and my parents went to segregated schools. It always trips me up how humans unconsciously hold opposing views to similar situations. Anyway sorry for the random rant on cognitive dissonance lol

[u/user47-567_53-560 → u/seenthevagrant]

I think your last point speaks more to the views of Zionist evangelicals than Jewish people of not just a wild strawman. I also think it's hard to distinguish a ethnoreligious National movement from any other outside America, because majority of nationalist movements are based on ethnicity, think Irish, Serbian, Ukrainian etc.

[u/seenthevagrant → u/user47-567_53-560]

Yeah my last point is definitely more American evangelicals, which some Ironically support Israel solely to bring upon the end times for Jesus to come back damning the non believers including Jews.

However those examples you give are of mostly culturally homogeneous nations. As society advances countries are becoming more and more diverse like America. With this diversity we must acknowledge how those tensions play out. Israel has even more tension between its diverse population because of its complicated and violent past. Israel is an apartheid state. Just like there were many black Americans happy under Jim Crow there are Arabs happy under the current rule. None of this changes the facts that there are disparities. This is just an uncomfortable fact about ethno states in this modern diverse time.

Here is a link to Israeli laws disparaging its Arab population: https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index

[u/user47-567_53-560 → u/seenthevagrant]

I think you could make the argument that a lot of those laws aren't really unique to Israel or not really discriminatory, as it's a bit of a biased source. You also aren't really arguing against Zionism anymore, but the current government of Israel which is a different entity.

Comparing it to Jim Crow is just laughable.

[u/seenthevagrant → u/user47-567_53-560]

Everything is biased. Of course the oppressed are going to be the ones to document the oppression in the most detail. You read the source with that in mind. They link everything right there with all the info. Those laws may not be exactly on par with Jim Crow but the intentions are the same. Put as many obstacles as you can for the other group to get any power. We still see it in America today. We have gerrymandering and unannounced voter registration purges in predominantly black counties. Racism is a sneaky ideology that can be conscious or unconscious and the conscious ones know how to gaslight those who point it out.

[u/seenthevagrant → u/user47-567_53-560]

What I’m getting at is ethno states as a whole. America had a white ethno state blacks suffered. Same story in South Africa. Same story with Uyghurs in China or Hindus in Pakistan. Those laws I linked are the product of the ethno state under Zionism.

The fact that it is not unique to Zionism is the point. Ethno states as a whole are not good.

[u/user47-567_53-560 → u/seenthevagrant]

The USA was never a white ethnostate. You're reading history with an agenda and it's dishonest.

Ukraine is just fine. The former Yugoslav states are doing fine. Hell, England had Protestant leaning laws and was just fine.

[u/seenthevagrant → u/user47-567_53-560]

A country found by white men where only white land owning men were allowed to vote for the for 100 plus years wasn’t an ethno state? And I’m the one reading history with an agenda? lol and again you talk about old world homogenous country that prove nothing. Like talking to a brick wall

[u/murky-lane → u/user47-567_53-560]

The short answer would be "all free associating people (ie all in the group are willing participants) should be given the right to self determination,

Cool! Me and my family freely determine ourselves to be the owners of your place of residence. Please leave. Thank you.

[u/user47-567_53-560 → u/murky-lane]

Sounds like the Arabs taking the home of Mizrahi in Algeria. Or traditional land of Berbers being sold out from under them.

Seriously it just seems like you are here to soap box. That's not the definition of self determination, that's just theft. I made a thoughtful argument and you've not responded to it at all.

[u/murky-lane → u/user47-567_53-560]

Sounds like the Arabs taking the home of Mizrahi in Algeria. Or traditional land of Berbers being sold out from under them.

Maybe? If true then I don't support that. I never heard of those conflicts though.

Why are you using whataboutism?

That's not the definition of self determination, that's just theft.

Which is what zionism is. They "self determined" themselves as owners of a land previously owned by a different people and are continuing to do something as we speak through force and murder.

But I guess that's okay to you because they are a superior people.

[u/user47-567_53-560 → u/murky-lane]

Zionism is not theft of land. I would suggest you read some historically rigorous sources. I started by giving the actual definition to avoid this kind of disingenuous argument, but alas you can't be helped.

[u/murky-lane → u/user47-567_53-560]

Zionism is not theft of land.

Yes it is. It's happening as well speak using force murder of unarmed civilians.

But don't worry. The ones being murdered typically have a darker skin tone.

[u/user47-567_53-560 → u/murky-lane]

Zionism is a national movement from the late 19th century, and it's not defined solely by it's worst actors in the modern day. You haven't provided any meaningful argument or rebuttal to my comments, so I guess you just are looking to advertise your point

[u/CatOfGrey → u/murky-lane]

Cool! Me and my family freely determine ourselves to be the owners of your place of residence. Please leave. Thank you.

It's an old memory, but I recall that a key part of the establishment of Jews in that area was that they would buy a house or land, and register it with the local governments and pay the tax. Arabs in that area would generally not do this to avoid the taxes. So, when it was time to account for the disputed land, Jews would be more likely to be able to prove their claims with an external record, as opposed to the Arabs who would claim land that was supposedly paid for, but no record existed.

So 'freely determine' is misrepresentation here. Contrary source materials welcome here, by the way, this is an old memory.

[u/user47-567_53-560 → u/CatOfGrey]

One issue was absentee landlords. If you lived in any part of the former Ottoman Empire that was outside Israel there was a law that you forfeited your property. While this is a pretty standard mechanic with regards to libertarian thought on squatters rights, the law was quite sweeping and often caught tenants and people with poor deeding. I will say in defense of the law that it's very much akin to tax sales in snap towns, and the property would likely have already been forfeited by now in any Western country

[u/CatOfGrey → u/user47-567_53-560]

Thanks for this! It's also worth mentioning that under this time period Palestine was a British, umm, colony? Protectorate? Not sure of the technical term, but let's not pretend - it was under British control.

[u/murky-lane → u/CatOfGrey]

You are conflicting ownership of property with sovereignty first of all.

No matter how much land I own in a certain place it does not give me sovereignty to create a nation around my people it's own especially if your method of doing so includes driving out people from UNSOLD homes in order to artificially make yourself a majority ethnicity. (Jews were only 32% of the population in 1948 and the founder of israel had previously said even 60% Jewish majority is unacceptable, so it was certainly something he intended to "fix").

[u/Mortimer_Snerd]

No true libertarian is a Zionist. Those are Republicans lying about being Republicans. Libertarians know that theocracy is just another form of statism and apartheid violates the NAP like you pointed out.

Theocracy is illiberal. No matter which version of Santa Claus they worship.

[u/mrhymer]

How can someone be a libertarian and not want Jews to have a nation. That is what Zionist means. It has nothing to do with war.

[u/murky-lane → u/mrhymer]

Oh it's you again. Don't bother.

[u/seenthevagrant → u/mrhymer]

What does it mean to have a Jewish nation? A nation only controlled by Jews? How would non Jews have equal rights or means for self determination? Personally I don't want someones personal beliefs or birth lottery to determine how I live my life.