Born in Terrorism

Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, by Alison Weir

I continue with this second installment in my review of this book.

The Lobby

There are millions of active and well-organized Jews in America, and their position in life enables them to be most dynamic and influential.  They live in the nerve-centres of the country, and hold important positions in politics, trade, journalism, the theatre and the radio.  They could influence public opinion, but their strength is not felt, since it is not harnessed and directed at the right target.

-        Zionist  and future Israeli foreign minister Moshe Shertok

The problem with Americans Jews is that they thought of themselves as Americans first and Jews second.  The harnessing of this untapped power toward the right target by Zionists began in earnest in the late 1930s.  This Zionist effort was met with opposition from others in the American Jewish community. 

Anti-Zionist Jews received nowhere near the same level of funding as did the Zionists.  They did, however receive other “gifts” in large measure:

Among other things, would-be dissenters were afraid of “the savagery of personal attacks” anti-Zionists endured.

Non-Zionist Jews were anti-Semitic?

Christian support was manufactured; $150,000 was raised to revive the American Palestine Committee with the objective of providing moral and political support for the Zionist cause.  The Christian Council on Palestine was also formed –the two organizations could boast of almost 10,000 prominent members by the end of World War II.

These Christian groups didn’t know or didn’t care that many Christian sites Palestine were attacked by Zionist forces – including in May 1948, the month of Israel’s birth. Orthodox Coptic, Armenian and Syrian churches were all attacked as were Catholic churches.

“When we get control you can take your dead Christ and go home.”

I guess this is the Second Coming?

Terrorism

Zionists planned to buy land from the Arabs; failing this in any meaningful quantities, they planned terror and war:

When the buyout effort was able to obtain only a few percent of the land, Zionists created a number of terrorist groups to fight both the Palestinians and the British.

Terrorist and future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was asked in a 1974 interview:

“How does it feel, in the light of all that’s going on, to be the father of terrorism in the Middle East?”

To which he replied:

“In the Middle East?  In all the world.

Just to be sure you have no doubt.

Truman Accedes

Truman ignored all of the advice offered by the US State Department, various intelligence agencies, and the military and chose to accept the Zionist partition plan; his political advisor, Clark Clifford, felt that Jewish money and the Jewish vote were important for his election.

…Truman reportedly receiving a suitcase full of money from Zionists while on his train campaign around the country.

UN General Assembly Members Accede

Despite gaining US support, the Zionists did not have the two-thirds votes needed in the General Assembly to pass the plan; they secured a delay in the vote.

In a page recently borrowed by Trump…

…Zionists would use their influence to block economic aid to any countries that did not vote for partition.

Mink coats and blank checkbooks were distributed freely; after passionate speeches against partition, within 24 hours those same delegates would vote in favor of the plan.  On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly passed the resolution.

But it carried no weight without the Security Council approving the resolution; it never did.  However, the General Assembly vote resulted in an increase in violence in Palestine.  Within months, the Zionists forced out over 400,000 Palestinians – now refugees.

In May 1948, Zionists announced the creation of their state – without declaring boundaries or writing a constitution (apparently a situation that continues today).

A Swedish UN mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, who had previously rescued thousands of Jews from the Nazis, was dispatched to negotiate an end to the violence.  Israeli assassins killed him…

No good deed goes unpunished.

Massacres

There were at least 33 massacres of Palestinian villages, half of them before a single Arab army joined the conflict. …over 750,000 Palestinian men, women, and children were ruthlessly expelled.

Children’s heads smashed; women raped and shot; families lined up and shot; the King David hotel (home of the British administrative headquarters) blown up.  A future colonel in the Israeli army would write of the militia members, “They didn’t know how to fight, but as murderers they were pretty good.”

Perhaps a good place to take a break.  I need a shower.

Managing My Borders

The comments section has been a chore to manage lately.

As you know, I moderate comments.  What this means is that I see the comment before allowing it to be posted on the site.  Why do I do this?  My simplest answer: I don’t want this comments section to turn into the comments section at ZeroHedge – a competition of vulgarity, fallacious ad hominens and abuses of all sorts. 

Before I get into some detail, let me offer those of you who are not familiar with the google blogger back office some insight.  As mentioned, I see the comments before they are published.  But this isn’t completely accurate; I can see only a couple hundred characters of the comment before deciding if it will be displayed.  Sometimes this is enough.  Often I have to publish the comment in order to read it all, after which I might decide to delete it.

Lately I have had to delete more comments than I have had to delete probably in total since I started this blog; I have stopped posting any comments from two or three individuals (I think one of these came back as anonymous, as the style and critique were similar). 

This could be because I am getting tired of the repetition; it could be because I am getting tired of being ignored; it could be because I consider that those who use profanity outside of meaningful context to be illiterate and not worth my time.

I have been called a phony; I have had an offer for a sexual liaison, in the vulgar way you could imagine (and without a picture of the one making the offer, I could not consider the possibility); questions asked several times by me or others have been repeatedly ignored; I am accused of ignoring opinions contrary to mine – despite even having dozens of new blog posts dedicated to a single feedback with which I take exception.

All of this in the last week or two.  Perhaps I am touching on some nerves.

I appreciate and enjoy the dialogue at this site.  I appreciate views that I had not considered and also contrary views.  I find these worthwhile only if supported with logic and reason; I find these worthwhile only if the feedbacker properly engages in actual dialogue.

These are my borders and I intend to manage these such that my appreciation and enjoyment of the dialogue continues. 

For those who don’t like this, good riddance. 

For the rest of you, Merry Christmas.

NAP Time III

From the comments to my post An Adult Enters the Room.  The dialogue was started by The NAPster December 20, 2017 at 9:36 AM, but I will pick up the conversation beginning with his comments at The NAPster December 23, 2017 at 5:13 AM:

…is the fact that one is unable to get what one wants fast enough (or even ever) a philosophical justification for violating the NAP?

I begin here because this point raises one of the foundational issues to the entire dialogue.  I have written far too many times: the idea of “open borders” cannot be derived from the non-aggression principle.  So how can I be making a philosophical justification for violating the NAP when the thing I am arguing against cannot be derived from the NAP?

I would appreciate an answer to this question.

BM, is it fair to say that our different approaches to achieving our objective can be summarized as follows: I am advocating chipping away at the state from the bottom, and you are advocating directing it from the top?

No, it is not fair to say.  First of all, are we discussing the entirety of this thing called “the state” or are we discussing this specific issue of open borders?  Why would you make such a sweeping generalization based on the discussion of a very narrow topic?

I would appreciate an answer to these questions.

Second, I have written specifically what I am advocating on this specific topic – the steps offered by de Soto along with my step requiring a sponsor.  Let’s examine what you are advocating:

Perhaps instead of “open borders,” the better description of what I am advocating is “self-managed borders,” even if it seems to be a less effective policy, contrasted with your proposal of “state-managed borders.”

In a world of state borders, can you come up with an option – any option – in which the state will not manage the borders?  Now, I can come up with such options for drug laws, prostitution, medical care, courts, money and credit, etc. – the state just needs to take such laws of off the book and / or the state just needs to eliminate the monopoly protection it affords to itself.

But as to managing state borders in a world of state borders, can you come up with an option in which the state is not the entity managing the borders?  It is not acceptable to suggest that “no one will manage the state borders.”  First of all, there is nothing libertarian in such a concept – as even you admit, someone will manage the borders (in your case “self”).

Second, and I will greatly simplify an argument I have expanded on several times: borders can only be derived from a minarchist view of the NAP; one plank of the minarchist view is that the state provides for defense; so how will the state provide for defense unless it knows who is crossing the borders and for what purpose?

I would appreciate an answer to these questions.  Because if you cannot come up with another option, then it will be the state that manages the borders.

So, referring to the aforementioned de Soto, he offers steps that mimic “self-managed borders” as much as is possible in a world of “state-managed borders.”  Because, until you have an answer to managing state borders that does not involved the state managing the state borders, well…the state will manage state borders (do you see the common theme here?).  All that is left is the “how.”

Now, you could advocate that the state just do nothing: no border agents, no passport checks, no nothing; in other words, impotence when it comes to managing my property.  But, in a way, I guess you are advocating this…First, you cite my earlier comment:

For a principle grounded on respecting full private property rights, impotence kind of seems like a worse alternative than the one I propose. 

You respond:

I would say impotence in terms of timing only; my proposal may get us there eventually, but in a longer time-frame than your proposal.

I have had this same discussion with Walter Block; I offer, in the following, the key passages.  As background, Block has identified that the libertarian position on open borders requires two things: full private property rights and open immigration – not just one thing (being open immigration).

Hooray for Trump!

Today could go down as the single greatest day in Trump’s presidency:

UNITED NATIONS — [The] majority of the world’s nations delivered a stinging rebuke to the United States on Thursday, denouncing its decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and ignoring President Trump’s threats to retaliate by cutting aid to countries voting against it.

In a collective act of defiance toward Washington, the General Assembly voted 128 to 9, with 35 abstentions, to demand that the United States rescind its Dec. 6 declaration on Jerusalem, the contested holy city.

“You’re fired!”

This is unbelievably great news.  Trump will now cut off any foreign aid or funding to 128 nations – I suggest he also cuts aid to the 35 cowards that wanted to rebuke the United States but didn’t have the courage.

And who were these nine courageous supporters?

The US was joined in its "no" vote by Israel and a slew of small nations, including Micronesia, Nauru, Togo and Tonga, Palau, the Marshall Islands, Guatemala and Honduras.

Togo?  Palau?

Apart from Israel, none of the US' closest allies spoke.

Cowards.

The vote came after US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley issued a direct threat, saying that the US will think twice about funding the world body if it voted to condemn Trump's decision.

"The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in this assembly," Haley said. "We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world's largest contribution" to the UN and when other member nations ask Washington "to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit."

Hooray Nikki Haley!  Cut off funding to the United Nations!  You go, girl!

Conclusion

The best part of this day? 

Few countries seemed cowed, as nation after nation blasted the US at the emergency session of the UN General Assembly, condemning the Jerusalem decision as illegal, destabilizing, and a violation of international law leaving Washington largely isolated.

A big middle finger was offered!

The Betrayer of High Principles

Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, by Alison Weir

The United States has a moral prestige in the Near and Middle East unequaled by that of any other great power.  We would lose that prestige and would be likely for many years to be considered as a betrayer of the high principles which we ourselves have enunciated….

-        Loy Henderson, US State Department, 1945

Having recently completed a series on Hugh Wilford’s book, America's Great Game: The CIA’s Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East, I have decided to go further into this backstory with this complimentary examination offered by Weir.

Weir’s book is not long – sixteen chapters at just over 90 pages.  There are, however, about 110 pages of endnotes and almost 25 pages of “Works Cited.”  It seems safe to say that what this book lacks in wordiness is more than made up for in foundation.

In this review and given the relatively short length of each chapter, I will briefly summarize each chapter; the section titles are my own – not chapter titles in the book, but reflective of the title / content.  I will likely cover the book in about three posts.

The Birth of the Special Relationship

The reality is that for decades U.S. foreign policy and defense experts opposed supporting the creation of Israel.

And then things changed.  The result has been never ending wars, funding, and a destruction of freedom for America and Americans.  It has given birth to bigotry toward an entire population, religion and culture – a population with which America had previously held prestige.

In the Beginning…

…was “political Zionism,”

…an international movement that began in the late 1800s with the goal of creating a Jewish state somewhere in the world.

The First Zionist Congress was held in 1897, in Basel, Switzerland and led by Theodor Herzl.  The Congress established the World Zionist Organization – initially with 117 groups worldwide, by the next year about 900.

Several locations were considered for this Jewish state – apparently including Texas!  They settled on Palestine as the objective.  There was a small problem:

…Palestine was already inhabited by a population that was 93 – 96 percent non-Jewish.

The Palestinians would be pushed out – financially if possible, violently if necessary.

American Zionists played a prominent role in this endeavor:

By 1918 there were 200,000 Zionists in the U.S, and by 1948 this number had grown to almost a million.

Within the US government, memo after memo made clear that Zionism was contrary to US interests.

The Parushim

The Perushim were disciples of the Vilna Gaon, Rabbi Elijah ben Solomon Zalman, who left Lithuania at the beginning of the 19th century to settle in the Land of Israel, which was then part of Ottoman Syria under Ottoman rule. They were from the section of the community known as mitnagdim (opponents of the Chassidic movement) in Lithuania.

This chapter has nothing to do with this group; instead…

Negative Liberty’s War on Nature

Luther and His Progeny: 500 Years of Protestantism and Its Consequences for Church, State, and Society, edited by John C. Rao.

What I would like to demonstrate in this study is the unnatural “nature” of what has been labeled “negative liberty.”

So writes Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro-Carámbula (to save myself much trouble, from here on I will refer to him as IBC).  In this post, I will not examine the background of why the author lays blame on the Reformation for the war on nature brought on by the spread of the idea of negative liberty; I will merely examine the ramifications of this idea – ramifications that are manifest in the west today.

The non-aggression principle offers precisely this negative liberty; it offers a “do not.”  Do not initiate aggression.  It does not offer a “do.”  It is in this void that I have been exploring the value and import of culture in the context of achieving and maintaining a libertarian order. 

[Negative liberty] is an empty concept, a “freedom” from the restraints imposed by fundamental realities.

Freedom from the restraints imposed by fundamental realities.  This is libertinism gone wild.  Take the chapter titles from Walter Block’s Defending the Undefendable, add to this the cornucopia of newly invented sexual / gender / animal preferences, and you will have a pretty good starting point of the “fundamental realities” that need no longer restrain man – well, at least until nature (and the inevitable conflict between and amongst men) fights back.

What are some of these fundamental realities (well, besides gender and stuff)?

…man is not created to live in isolation… From his very birth, the Lord places a man in a natural social context…

IBC offers family, community, and political society as this “social context.”

Through the concomitant action of family, other natural communities, and the Church, the individual receives language, culture, a sense of belonging to a structured society, and a spiritual community of which he is a legitimate member.

If you don’t like the theological source for this, I offer Rothbard:

Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange. They forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture.

…usually including an ethnic group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions.

Yes.  Many contemporary libertarians ignore the fact that humans are human…with some fundamental realities.

Returning to IBC:

Negative liberty seeks to destroy this purposeful and socially guided development of positive liberty.  A rational understanding of the absurdity of such absolute, negative freedom must be grounded on the perennial philosophy that accepts the objective reality of the external world.

I will note two things from this statement: first, note how IBC considers the term “positive.”  It is not used, at least in this context, as we often use the term – a description of “rights” demanded from others.  It is a positive liberty offered by living within a real (not mythical or utopian) community.

Second: if all we have is this absolute negative liberty (the aforementioned Block chapter titles and cornucopia of newly invented sex/gender classifications)…well, doesn’t this fly in the face of “the objective reality of the external world”?

Humans are, after all, human.  They have a nature, they live in a social and historical context – there is a fundamental reality to “human.”  Whether you believe that nature was placed by God or developed over countless millennia of time, it is real.  A human, after all, is a real person:

In speaking of individual freedom, we must always be concerned for the real person in his concrete historical reality: not the abstract “citizen” of liberalism.

“The non-aggression principle is for everyone.”  So we are often told.  Even if I grant this as true, inherently it cannot be for everyone wherever and whenever you might plop him down in space and time.

An Adult Enters the Room

A Libertarian Theory of Free Immigration, by Jesús Huerta de Soto

…libertarian doctrine traditionally declared itself, with no qualifications or reservations, in favor of the principle of complete freedom of emigration and immigration.

From the title of his essay and this sentence in the opening paragraph, I approached this piece with some caution – given my view that one cannot derive “open borders” from the non-aggression principle.  Maybe I am just a bit jumpy, given recent discussions of the topic.

I am glad, however, that I stuck to it and read the entire essay.  De Soto rightly points out the violations of the non-aggression principle inherent in the state’s management of border control.  But he also sees that this coin is not one-sided:

However, the coercive action of the state manifests itself not only in hindering the free movement of people, but, at the same time, in forcing the integration of certain groups of people against the wishes of the natives of a given state or region.

This coin has two sides, and the two sides are almost irreconcilable – and certainly not conducive to simple slogans like “open borders is the only libertarian position!”

In light of their apparently contradictory nature, the foregoing problems show the importance of isolating their real origin, and piecing together a libertarian theory of immigration that clarifies the principles that should govern the processes of immigration and emigration in a free society.

Which de Soto does.  He begins by examining the pure libertarian model, as explained by Rothbard (and which generated so much heat for me when I referred to it); it is a model of full private property rights – a model that, inherently, means borders managed by the property owner:

The conditions, volume, and duration of personal visits will be those accepted or decided by the parties involved.

And that would be that; an easy problem to solve if there were no state borders and if all property was private.

But the problem becomes more complicated when factoring in the reality of the state:

Thus, today, there is often the paradox that those who wish to abide scrupulously by the law find that their movements are not permitted, even if desired by all the parties involved. At the same time, the existence of public goods and the free availability of welfare-state benefits attract, like a magnet, a continuous tide of immigration, mostly illegal, which generates significant conflicts and external costs.

I am not allowed to invite who I choose and I am forced to suffer and pay for who I do not want.  It is not a libertarian solution to take one side of this coin and not the other – it is merely a different scheme of a state-managed border.

I have many other issues from a libertarian perspective with the open borders position in a world of state borders.  I have written extensively about these in the past, so I will merely summarize here:

·        As a property owner has the right to manage his border, he has the right to join with his neighbors to form a common agreement.

·        He and his neighbors also have the right to grant agency to a third party to manage their outside borders.

·        That the state has forced these neighbors to “hire” the state to act as the agent does not remove the right that the property owners hold.

Finally, as state borders cannot be derived by a strict application of the NAP one must look to the minarchist position; as minarchists allow for the state to provide defense…how is defense to be provided unless the state is knowledgeable about who crosses the border and for what purpose?

Returning to de Soto:

The ideal solution to all these problems would come from the total privatization of the resources which are today considered public, and the disappearance of state intervention at all levels in the area of emigration and immigration.

I have had this discussion with Walter Block who has acknowledged the issue.  It is not only the ideal solution; before a fully libertarian solution can be offered, full private property rights must be supported. 

I find this much different than for issues like drug laws, prostitution, etc.  In each of those cases, the state need do only one thing: eliminate the laws that criminalize non-violent behavior.  Nothing more need be done; this action causes no damage to me or my property.  In fact, the damage to me is reduced as the government need not tax me to pay for enforcement and incarceration of these non-criminals.

But for open borders, two actions must occur: eliminating state border control and also supporting full private property rights; without both actions, attacks on my property increase.  The number of ways by which attacks increase are too numerous to list, but should be apparent.