Pages

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

From Immigrants and Refugees to Terrorists



For the first few years of World War Two, most Jews in Palestine played nice with the British.  If Britain was victorious in the larger conflict, the Zionists would have some chance to continue their immigration in Palestine and achieve their hoped-for state.  If Germany was victorious, there was no chance of this.

This approach did not survive the war.

One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate, by Tom Segev

Immigrants and Refugees

Jews were dying in Europe.  The British held little concern for this; the Jews in Palestine felt the same:

“I was not well-versed on matters of saving of the Jews of Europe, even though I was chairman of the Jewish Agency,” Ben-Gurion wrote a few years later.  “The heart of my activity was enlisting Jewry in the demand to establish a Jewish state.”

The Arabs, in the meantime, saw the risk:

“We all sympathize with the Jews and are shocked at the way Christian nations are persecuting them.  But do you expect Moslems of Palestine…to become more Christian or more humanitarian than the followers of Christ: Germany, Italy, Poland, Romania, etc. etc.?  Have we to suffer in order to make good what you Christians commit?”

Ben-Gurion was troubled by the possibility that Jewish survivors in Europe might not want to come to Palestine, but would choose to settle elsewhere.

“I think we should not treat this danger lightly.  It is the greatest danger not only to Zionism but to the Yishuv.”

But the Jews from Europe came – before the war, during the war, and after the war; the number of Jews in Palestine increased eight-fold during the Mandatory period, to one-third of the total population; Muslims and Christians doubled.

Terrorists

“The revolt sprang from the land and from the blood,” wrote Menachem Begin, Etzel leader.  Despite its name, though, Etzel’s action was not a revolt, but rather a decision to resume terrorist activities, largely against the British.

Menachem Begin was one of those immigrants turned terrorist, arriving in Palestine in May 1942.

Etzel (Irgun) announced the beginning of terrorism on February 1, 1944.  The more radical among the Zionists decided it was time to run the British out.

Etzel’s funds came from robbing banks or extorting money from local businessmen; the organization received contributions as well, mostly from America.


The terrorism was not just for the benefit of driving out the British; Etzel hoped to magnify their standing when compared to other, less violent, Zionist organizations.  Ben-Gurion would refer to Etzel as a “Nazi gang,” Jewish Nazis.”  He compared Begin to the fuehrer, Etzel’s supporters as a bubonic plague.

In August 1944, an assassination attempt was made on British High Commissioner Harold MacMichael.  They threw a bomb at his car, he was slightly wounded.  His driver was seriously injured.  This was the second attempt on MacMichael’s life.

A few months later, Britain’s senior representative in Egypt, Lord Moyne, was murdered.  This cost the Zionists the “friendship” of one of their most important supporters, Winston Churchill.

An attempt was made to murder Police Superintendent Raymond Cafferata; his secretary was a secret agent for the Zionists, copying every one of his memos to pass along.  The 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel – administrative headquarters for the British in Palestine – was planned. 

The British ordered 100,000 soldiers and policemen to surround dozens of Jewish settlements; a curfew was imposed, even in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.  They arrested some 3000 people.  The bombing of the King David Hotel was executed four weeks later.  The attack resulted in over 90 dead.

The British in Palestine quickly turned hostile toward the Jews, promising they would finish what Hitler had started.  The Jews would refer to the British as the Gestapo.  Churchill would note that most British officers in Palestine were pro-Arab.

MacMichael recommended dismantling the Jewish Agency – he warned of war in Palestine once World War Two was brought to an end.  His suggestion was filed away by the British government.

Instead, the British just wanted out.

From Terrorism to War

The United Nations declared partition, unacceptable to the Arabs and some Jews. 

In any case, the British left.  “The sooner we go the better.”  They described their Mandatory presence as “stupidity.” 

No one believed in the U.N.’s map; everyone knew there would be war.

While some Arabs from outside Palestine came to fight, the numbers were relatively few; wealthy Arabs offered little to no financial support; the politicians were incompetent and corrupt; while war raged, the leaders bickered about their salaries. 

Had the Arabs united, the Jews would have almost certainly been driven from Palestine.  The Jews understood the value of “tribe”; the Arabs did not.

Conclusion

In the words of one British official: “Little has been achieved.”

That was true, of course, only for the British.  The Jews, for their part, had achieved independence.

And the Palestinian Arabs, having lost their home, achieved permanent refugee status.

Epilogue

From the comment section to my post “The Soros Dilemma,” I offered:

The NAP requires the term "aggression" to be defined. Many will say that the only place to draw a solid line is physical aggression, else the NAP is rendered meaningless - yet even this definition isn't completely free of gray.

Rothbard (in his later years) has offered (paraphrased): spouting theory without consideration of the ramifications in the real world is for dummies.

We want to think of aggression in three dimensions: height, width, depth. Perhaps Rothbard is suggesting we might want to think about a fourth dimension - time. To do so, we must consider human nature in the equation.

Where along that fourth dimension did Jewish immigration into Palestine turn into aggression? We cannot pick a moment, we only see the result - the reality that it happened.

I have seen those who prefer the early Rothbard - much more hard-core, plumb-line. What happened to him in his later years?

I say, the man developed basically the entirety of libertarian theory from scratch; I don't hold it against him that it took him some years to fully get from point A to point ZZ.

14 comments:

  1. This line of reasoning has me confused. The British occupation of Palestine was a clear violation of the NAP. The Palestinians would have been justified had they expelled the invaders by any means possible. That would have prevented the later immigration issues, and would not have violated the NAP.

    I don't see how any of this reflects on the validity of the NAP or its suitability for a given situation. It is absolutely not a violation of the NAP to resist state actions, and that includes the importation of potentially peaceful immigrants. That resistance might be futile or even suicide, but that is a strategic issue rather than a moral one.

    The same goes for the Soros of the world. Their wealth and power comes from the state, profiting from laws that distort free markets - often by their own bidding. Importing an incompatible culture into another is an act of aggression, and in Soros' case, his intentions are openly stated. I see no NAP violation in resisting his actions by any means possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Under present conditions, a bunch of immigrants can come into a country. In a few years, they can out-vote the former majority and take all of their possessions. Legally.

      Under AnCap, the property owners can be very careful to limit the rights of “immigrant” workers on the present owners’ lands. A majority of immigrants means nothing technically in terms of who owns and controls what. However, a vast majority of hostile people can always just revolt and take over.

      Delete
    2. "The NAP requires the term "aggression" to be defined. Many will say that the only place to draw a solid line is physical aggression, else the NAP is rendered meaningless - yet even this definition isn't completely free of gray."

      I admit I don't spend a lot of time on strictly libertarian sites discussing libertarian ideas. So maybe I'm simply missing a common accepted concept like the definition of aggression. It's force or fraud according to my understanding and limited reading; essentially any infringement on property rights. That infringement justifies a response that is not bound by the NAP.

      " We want to think of aggression in three dimensions: height, width, depth. Perhaps Rothbard is suggesting we might want to think about a fourth dimension - time. To do so, we must consider human nature in the equation."

      "Where along that fourth dimension did Jewish immigration into Palestine turn into aggression? We cannot pick a moment, we only see the result - the reality that it happened."

      And this is where I become confused. What has been described is a clear violation of the NAP: the British rulers, a defacto violation, imposing immigration on the population, another violation. Resistance at the minimum is more than justified by the NAP. But instead of considering these clear justifications, we are to include human nature in the mix to better define aggression.

      The above seems to me a libertarian justification for preemptive war.

      What if there were no rulers forcing the immigration, and the immigrants who came were invited by some of the property owners. And what if some of the other property owners found the new immigrants disagreeable? The new comers eat different food, and crowd the restaurants and shopping centers, fill them with the smells of their funny food. Whatever. They are certainly changing the culture. At what point to the property owners decide the newcomers are invaders violating the NAP; kick them out against the wishes of their hosts/employers?


      Delete
    3. “This line of reasoning has me confused.”

      Take away the British Empire or government funding for ships / etc. and insert Soros. A private actor is privately paying for bringing in one million immigrants into your county. Once in the country, they homestead virgin land or buy residences from willing sellers.

      This storyline was basically true for Jews in Palestine. Yet, if someone privately finances the ships today, for many libertarian advocates of open borders they find nothing wrong with this. They dismiss the welfare costs, the role that immigrants will play in governing, etc. Those issues are different issues, they will say.

      I will attempt to further clarify via my thoughts via responding to a few other of your comments / questions.

      “It is absolutely not a violation of the NAP to resist state actions, and that includes the importation of potentially peaceful immigrants.”

      But if Soros pays for it, many, many, many libertarians would disagree with you.

      “Importing an incompatible culture into another is an act of aggression, and in Soros' case, his intentions are openly stated. I see no NAP violation in resisting his actions by any means possible.”

      Who says “culture” is your property? Many, many, many libertarians would disagree with you. They either say so explicitly, or their silence suggests that they are not comfortable with the internal contradictions raised by this question – they quickly turn from actively engaged in the comments section to silence.

      “What if there were no rulers forcing the immigration, and the immigrants who came were invited by some of the property owners?”

      I think in such a case, the immigration would be a trickle – at least immigration by people of drastically different cultural and religious backgrounds. Few people truly enjoy being a minority; I will say it differently: the world has offered infinite examples of the problems minorities have when the going gets a little rough.

      In any case, I have written before: immigration via natural, voluntary means in a regime that respects private property is a wonderful thing. I truly find benefit in this.

      I see a significant difference in the gradual (and beneficial) cultural changes brought on by such immigration vs. the monumental changes brought on by government allowed / subsidized / forced immigration (and would say the same regarding Soros-privately-financed mass immigration, as in my example).

      And this is the connection I am making to the issue of Palestine: take away the source of funding. What’s the difference?

      Delete
    4. Jeff, a better question would be at what point to the immigrants decide that they own your property?

      Let's remove the British occupation of Palestine from the equation for a moment. Let's say the incoming Jews simply purchased property (as in the Soros dilemma) and began their colonization project. Do the native Palestinians have to wait until the the incoming Jews make their move? Do they just watch Jews stockpiling weapons and setting up artillery pieces?

      It's not that hard.

      Delete
  2. "..many, many, many libertarians would disagree.."

    This does ring true. I tend to avoid certain forums with youthful but seemingly naive posters. I may be somewhat naive myself expecting a more real world viewpoint from the majority. I hope not - and I'm not referring to you here in any way! :)

    "Who says “culture” is your property?"

    I don't think culture is property. I think incompatible cultures will have serious identifiable conflicts when they are combined en mass.

    "And this is the connection I am making to the issue of Palestine: take away the source of funding. What’s the difference?"

    There would have been no mandate, and there would have been 100K+ fewer soldiers available to enforce the immigration. There would also have been MUCH less incentive for Jewish immigration (as you say, a trickle). You need a motive, the Brits or a Soros, and those are readily identifiable threats IMO.

    What is the same would be a better question. The Palestinians were not remotely a free society before or after the British took over. They were hardly ready to identify and deal with the risks of a mass Jewish immigration. In a free society with a cohesive culture, who is going to be selling land to a million immigrants with dubious motives?

    I haunt this blog because of your writings on the need for a cohesive culture in a free (libertarian) society. Such people would not allow barbarians to infiltrate their lands under false pretense.

    So we have a state/tyrant/strongman financing and enforcing the immigration, or we have a free society left to deal with it. The former warrants resistance under the NAP. The later is unlikely to be fooled into selling homes to invaders IMO, and the invaders would have to use more conventional means.







    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff

      Maybe I am misunderstanding your statement. If so, forgive me and please clarify.

      There are many libertarians that believe in open borders for all. They accept this even if government subsidized. Hornberger, Richman, Carson, Johnson, Tucker come to mind (I believe Tucker came out recently with a mea culpa - going from not addressing it to advocating for open borders). These are not youngsters - they are all well-known libertarian writers.

      If a private individual bought one million immigrants plane tickets to fly over, why would these libertarians object? On what NAP basis? Remember, they accept immigration in the face of welfare, social services, etc. They accept immigration regardless of cultural issues. So why would they object if Sores bought the plane ticket?

      As to culture, I agree with you fully. The point to my raising the question: many libertarians value culture not at all. I have been in debates with them, I have addressed them at this site or by email.

      Delete
    2. "There are many libertarians that believe in open borders for all. They accept this even if government subsidized. Hornberger, Richman, Carson, Johnson, Tucker come to mind (I believe Tucker came out recently with a mea culpa - going from not addressing it to advocating for open borders). These are not youngsters - they are all well-known libertarian writers."

      I guess I knew that, having read a fair amount from most of them. The concept of open borders in a welfare state is so naive it's difficult to think of it as anything but a mistake of youth.

      "If a private individual bought one million immigrants plane tickets to fly over, why would these libertarians object? On what NAP basis? Remember, they accept immigration in the face of welfare, social services, etc. They accept immigration regardless of cultural issues. So why would they object if Sores bought the plane ticket?"

      The state controls immigration, imposes its will on the existing population, collects taxes used to provide for the immigrants, gives those immigrants a certain amount of influence over the laws governing the existing population. All of those things are NAP violations, and the million ticket buyer is using the state to impose those NAP violations on the existing population one million times over.

      So those libertarians should object, or at least recognize that aggression by proxy is still aggression. It doesn't mean, necessarily, the immigrants themselves are also aggressors. Your example doesn't cover that.

      With respect to these libertarians accepting (forced) immigration in the face of welfare, etc., you should ask them if they would feel the same if the state simply killed a subject for every immigrant it let in. Both are NAP violations. Is it a question of scale?

      "As to culture, I agree with you fully. The point to my raising the question: many libertarians value culture not at all. I have been in debates with them, I have addressed them at this site or by email."

      Your reasons for this series of blogs makes a little more sense to me now, thanks.

      However, I still question your approach of redefining aggression into a sort of proactive predictor. In my mind it has a very clear meaning, one that is derived directly from self ownership. If libertarians begin redefining such terms, those terms could then be reintegrated to disprove self ownership and invoke or justify positive rights. Then we really will have forced immigration sanctioned under the NAP.

      Delete
    3. "However, I still question your approach of redefining aggression into a sort of proactive predictor."

      Jeff, this is what I wrote: "Perhaps Rothbard is suggesting we might want to think about a fourth dimension - time."

      I didn't - or didn't intend to - make a declaratory statement. I do understand the dangers of a political system based on what someone might do some day.

      At the same time, do we ignore culture - drastically different cultures smashed together? Is this not worth considering as a factor likely to lead to conflict?

      And if the answers to these questions do not fit neatly into the NAP cube, do we throw away the questions and just go on chanting "NAP, NAP, NAP"?

      Delete
    4. "I didn't - or didn't intend to - make a declaratory statement. I do understand the dangers of a political system based on what someone might do some day."

      I definitely read some advocacy into your original statement. My mistake : )

      "At the same time, do we ignore culture - drastically different cultures smashed together? Is this not worth considering as a factor likely to lead to conflict?

      "And if the answers to these questions do not fit neatly into the NAP cube, do we throw away the questions and just go on chanting "NAP, NAP, NAP"?"

      So far, I have not seen discussed any real world examples of incompatible cultures being smashed together that did not involve NAP violations. The history books are full of (more or less) peaceful cultures that were unable or unwilling to protect themselves. In this respect I am 100% in agreement with UC, "People like Soros have to be dealt with directly. They are simply an enemy. There is no magic society where enemies are forced to play nice. They need to be neutralized."

      I still challenge anyone to provide a real world example that doesn't involve NAP violations.






      Delete
    5. “So far, I have not seen discussed any real world examples of incompatible cultures being smashed together that did not involve NAP violations.”

      Jeff, you and I are closer together than we are apart. For those whom I listed earlier (I am more certain about some than I am about all), this is irrelevant. They come by the millions to Germany and Sweden, a “true libertarian” would welcome them.

      “I still challenge anyone to provide a real world example that doesn't involve NAP violations.”

      As do I.

      Delete
    6. "...a “true libertarian” would welcome them..."

      Ha, I like that. It's about the most un-libertarian statement one can make. The sad part is "these libertarians" aren't even politicians yet.

      Delete
  3. "Do the native Palestinians have to wait until the the incoming Jews make their move? Do they just watch Jews stockpiling weapons and setting up artillery pieces?"

    You would need willing sellers, or the Jews would have to setup on the outskirts of the territory and make their intentions even more obvious, assuming weapons stockpiles were not enough. In a cohesive culture, willing sellers to a million armed outsiders would be in short supply.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your discussion has gone down a Rabbit Trail.

    problem is big government ( USA imperial policy).

    problem between Jews and Palestinian live for them to solve.

    no many before Refugees and Terrorists before 1990, what changed since than.

    ReplyDelete