Adam_Min_Hayeshuv

Too bad it didn't really happened. You may want to consult Wikipeida on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant#Statements_about_Israel We in Israel believe that the press is highly biased against us the amount of misinformation I observe here seems to affirm this view.

Nothing. They don't violate my property rights by disliking something. The plan is that as In an anarchy you will need an insurance company backing you if you want to register you kids to school or work somewhere than they will have to prove to prove to that insurance agency that they don't plan any terror attack. Furthermore, an Arab PDA will have to prove to other PDAs with which she wants to coexist that she is not affiliated with DAASH, HAMAS or something like that. I can assure you one thing. Hamas is not some sort of a libertarian underground. For example, they teach there children to kill jews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57Q8K5TmivM Hamas established a religious dictatorship in the Gaza strip he wants to expand that dictatorship to all of Israel and at a later state to connect it with a world wide Islamic State. Is it so hard to consult the relevant entry in wikipedia rather than find anecdotal data by publicity hungry "experts" in their own eyes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews#Paternal_lineage.2C_Y_chromosome Anyway, genetic descent is not a pre condition for the jewish claim on ERETZ YISRAEL just like if you have a house you can inherit it to who ever you want including adopted children.

Essentially two things: 1. Set up a trust to manage the alluvial title over ERETZ YISRAEL and privatise everything else in s gradual process that will culminate in anarchy. Some questions do arise: 1. Can a nation with real security threats like Israel do only with private armies? 2. Shouldn't we let other nations which reside in less hostile environments such se Denmark or Canada try out anarchy first? 3. What constitution should that trust adopt? 4. how to prevent the trust from extending its alluvial rights and becoming a state? I'm still thinking about it. From my part, the best case scenario would be: 1. private armies would provide adequate defence 2. all parts of ERETZ YISRAEL would be liberated (and thus restoring my property rights). 3. the trust will limit itself to ensuring that no one will secede with its land and unite with a neighbouring arab state or host an ISIS sleeper cell.

I believe that most palestinians (in contrast to their leaders) want peace & freedom and therefore they can stay. It may be interesting to note that most Israeli citizens of arab nationality object to land exchange initiatives (chiefly advanced by an Israeli politician named Liberman) under which they remain on their land but the land becomes part of the Palestinian Authority.

There are several aspects to this conflict Civilian Casualty Ratio We Israelis claim that we have the most moral army in the world. As an evidence you may want to consult wikipedia entry on Civilian Casulty Ratio (CCR): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#Israeli.E2.80.93Palestinian_conflict Our cynical enemies are aware of our humane nature and using their own population as 'human shields' is part of their tactic. Sources: http://nypost.com/2014/08/05/hamas-manual-details-civilian-death-plan-israel/ Note that it emphasises the humanitarian achievement of the Israeli army as it is much harder to maintain low CCR when the enemy is aware of your humanitarian policies and makes cynical use of its own population. Despite of the above (why let facts spoil a chance to bash Israel?) almost every outlandish accusation was made against Israel it always turns out to be false but it is a large effort & time consuming task to disprove. http://archive.adl.org/main_anti_semitism_international/blood_libel_algeria.html#.U_zKeFZbtFw The palestinians also have an organized disinformation arm sometimes called Palywood https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLg7ARmfofNHgljlBppzHt28v17O8Du8iA Peace efforts I personally object to any compromise over the land of Israel exactly as you would probably object to a compromise on your home with an intruder. But the Israeli government likes to emphasise its peace efforts and the reluctance of the Palestinians to make peace. (yet another reason why not to have a government). Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#Accusations_of_Palestinian_responsibility Land claims As I discussed above, the Israeli position is that ERETZ YISRAEL (land of Israel) belongs to the people of Israel in exactly the same way as tibet belongs to the tibetians and japan to the japanease. From my point of view, it has nothing to do with religion although some religious jews & christians also see a religious justification to this. Sources: http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=495

I'm also interested chiefly in principles. None of my arguments are based on religion. I do claim that the alluvial title to the territory which comprised the state of Israel is owned in communion by all the jews. The jewish people had a long history before the age of kings. In fact, SEFER SHOFTIM (book of judges) discusses. During all this time there was national identity among the jews and they have perceived ERETZ YISRAEL as their home. So a state is not a pre requisite to have a country and a nation. My main points: 1. I have defined the owner (Definition1). 2. I have defined the property (Definition 2). 3. I have elaborated on the form of ownership (Definition 3). 4. I have specified a universal moral rule (Rule 1). 5. I have applied this rule to the owner and property defined above which establishes my claim. Definition 1: A jewish person is a: a. A founding father or mother. b. any descendent of a jewish person by the female line. Remark: The jewish people may change the rules of membership from time to time as it sees fit. Definition 2: ERETZ YISRAEL is the land which came under a sovereign jewish law at the time of the 1st or the 2nd temple. Definition 3: Ownership in communion is a form of ownership where all owners posses the property simultaneously in an undivided manner and carries a right of survivorship. Rule 1: If a property was forcibly robbed and maybe even abandoned by the aggressor or given to a third party than it still belongs to its original owner.

Wow you were fed anti zionist propoganda with a large spoon :-) I'll refute your claims but observe that you raise petty objections because you can not argue with my general arguments. It is very convenient for an anti-zionist to begin their narrative at recent times. The land of Israel belongs to the Jews like Japan belongs to the Japanese and burma to the burmease. Anyway, if you argue that ownership expires after a certain period than the same hold for the arab claim to the land of Israel. Furthermore, it is more than a bit cynical to base your argument on the small number of of jews living in Israel prior to the age of SHIVAT TZIYON as the reason for the small number is that they were killed, exiled, robbed & humiliated by the conquerers including the arabs. International law doesn't say that. Again you have swallowed anti zionist propaganda without even checking your sources. The wall was build to stop terror attacks against Israeli civilians. The jewish settelements are also fenced from the same reason. The blockade is meant to stop terror organisation smuggle weapons to Gaza. They receive more supplies than they pay for. Both the west bank & Gaza are integral part of the land of Israel and jews have every right to build their home there it also means that international law is morally invalid there. I've never trusted the United Nations anyway. The arabs in west bank and Gaza have access to water in a quantity larger than they could have derived from local sources. Unlike other western armies who invade foreign lands and fight terrorists who doesn't constitute immediate threat while causing large collateral damage. The Israeli army only tackles ticking bombs and has by far the least amount of collateral damage. Had the arabs wanted peace they would have agreed to the too generous peace treaty offered to them (to which I personally object) but instead they have chosen the way of terror. It is very convenient for anti zionist to ignore the defensive nature of the anti terrorist campaigns. So you basically project your anger on your mother to all of the Israeli people and this is your way to illumination? Now this is the level of argument I've expected when coming here. I have several reason to think otherwise: 1. A valid way to homestead a land is by defending. 2. The property of the hebrews contained not only their homes but their fields and grazing grounds & defence lines which covered large areas, 3. If you homestead the perimeter of an area then you also obtain the interior. The jewish nation is different than other nations because it has a large amount of enemies. During the age of enlightment in europe jews though that at the modern world but they were proven wrong in a series of events which culminated in the holocaust. Zionism is in essence a post modern movement which rose from the disillusionment of jews from the hope of achieving equality at their hosting nations.

I think that there is a serious philosophical issue here that wasn't adequately addressed before. If your property is taken away from you by force and than the aggressor abandons it or gives it away to a 3rd party. To whom this property belongs? My answer is that it belongs to the original owner from which it was initially robbed. Now, it is easy to apply this principle to the case of Israel & the jewish people.

Excellent question! I do cosier myself to by part of Am Yisrael (nation of Israel) I don't identify with the state of Israel as I'm not a statist I'm also not religious. I believe that the alluvial title to Eretz Yisrael is owned in communion by all the jews (in the sense that every jew owns all of Eretz Yisrael) not because god had given it to us (I'm not religious) but be because our ancestors worked, conquered and purchased it (like the ancestors of every other nation on earth) and we have inherited it from us the same way parents inherit their house to their children. I believe that the best way to enforce this property right is through anarchy. The Israeli army response to murderous attacks by our neighbours is too mellow and doesn't do full justice to the property rights of the residents of the attacked settlements. I believe that we would be best serve by a private armies.

If you refer to jews, the people who introduced morality to the world, as brutal than I don't wish to engage in a discussion with you.

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas When the orcs swarmed helm's deep I doubt if the knights pondered minute aspects of rothbardian philosophy. Similarly, it may not be the best time to push for anarchy at Israel while the self proclaimed "leaders of the free world" preoccupy themselves with tying the hand of the Israeli leadership behind her back while she attempts to protect the civilian population from attacks directed at them by a murderous gang of thugs. Statists like to commit others to impossible "moral" standards while exempting them selves and their chorines. For example, european & american soldiers carpet bomb vast areas in iraq, afganistan & else where and don't even shy from using depleted uranium weapons marly becouse there is a theoretical possibility that some residents of those areas might some day make a terror attack on a western country (doesn't this assertion hold for everyone?) Israel on the other hand only reacts against ticking bombs and makes by far the least collateral damage to civilian population although its enemies routinely use their own civilian population (whose interests they pretend to represent) as human shields and launch missiles (directed against israeli civilians) from schools, hospitals, kindergartens etc. Still the criticism is mainly directed towards Israel. In regard to anarchy, I do believe that under anarchy the jews will be able to better defend themselves. For example, the Israeli army made only faint attempts to stop the rocket launching while it was restricted to a relatively narrow band around gaza. Under anarchy the inhabitants of this region and their supporters would have assembled their own military force and react as they see fit.

Excellent questions! I'll gladly answer them one by one. The jews are a nation. According to jewish law all jews are descendants of Avaraham & Sara. For example, a convert to judaism is considered, by law, a direct descendant of out founding fathers & mothers (Avraham, Sara, Yitzchak, etc.). As such he has he inherits from them their rights over the land of Israel. Rights which they acquired by a combination of purchase, fighting & homesteading. Some anti-semites try to claim that the jews are not biological descendants of the ancient hebrews however, this can be shown to be wrong according to genetic evidence and even if it wasn't it doesn't matter because the rights in Eretz Yisrael are passed to converts as well. A homeland is a land which is held in communion by all members of a nation. Therefore the sale of allodial title to any part of it is an illegitimate transaction regardless of circumstances. In theory, if all past, present and future generations will agree to the transaction than it can be made but this is a bit impractical :-) Furthernote that leasing even for unlimited time is possible but the allodial title is not for sale. If your property was taken by force from you, than you have a right to claim it back. It doesn't matter if the original purpetrotor abandon it or gave it away to a third party. The question whether the original aggressor of any of its ancestors is still alive is irrelevant. The jews were driven out of Israel by several conquers it is a little bit known fact that the main reason why there weren't many jews in Israel at the beginning of SHIVAT TZIYON (return of the sons of Israel to the land of Israel) is that the byzantine empire decimated the jewish inhabitants to next to nothing. This makes the assertion that the arabs were the majority in Eretz Yisrael before the time of SHIVAT TZIYON extremely cynical. I'm not knowledgable in native american history, law & customs therefore I rather not comments about it. I hope it was helpful :-)

The land of Israel is the historic homeland of the jewish people. We were forcibly removed from it, and we have forcibly reclaimed our property. As was demonstrated by the Dreyfus affair and to a much larger extent by the Holocaust, the jews need a state of their own. In this context I would like to note that after the holocaust there were persecutions against jews mainly by polish murdering holocaust survivors who came to reclaim their own homes (how different are they from the arabs?). After the downfall of the 2nd temple, several other jewish states existed outside israel but all of them were short lived. Apparently, a jews will not fight for a state which isn't located in Israel. Hence to summarize, the jews need a state and it must be in Israel which is their rightful property anyway. Most of the people in the land of israel, jews & arabs, are new immigrants. Jews have came after being disappointed from the emancipation process in Europe and arabs migrated due to the work opportunities created by jews and later british. For example, it is well known that most christians in northern Israel came from lebanon after WWI. Palestine was a land without a people for a people without a land. The sparse local arab population saw themselves as residents of southern Syria . The PLO was created by foreign arab nations at 1965 after they have given up hope of challenging Israel at the battlefield. The palestinian people was invented as a PR stunt and was meant as an anti thesis to Zionist claims that no other people sees Israel as their homeland (although this claim is not essential for the zionistic argument). In support of my assertions above, I propose the following facts: 1. The so called Palestinians never revolted against the jordanian occupation in the west bank nor agianst the Egyptian occupation in the gaza strip. 2. The PLO constitution is destructive in nature and it speaks about the abolishment of Israel rather than the construction of their own state. In fact they bending over backwards in an effort to eternalise the so called "arab refugees" poor living conditions On the other hand, Israel has rehabilitated jewish refugees who were expelled from arab lands. Almost needless to say, that Hamas constitution follows suit with the PLO constitution. 3. Prior to 1965, on various attempts, local arab leaders requested that 'Eretz Yisrael' would be incorporated as part of Syria. The question does arise, why does the arab fight over a land which doesn't belong to them? I believe that it is ultimately due to the european occupation of arab lands which created a sense of inferiority among the arabs, this together with their identification of Israel with Europe explains the willingness to finance and propagate the Palestinian myth. Hence, although some mistakingly identify israel with european colonisation the trough is that Israel is one of the main victims of that historic movement.

Thank you all for your enlightening comments. It seems to me that a free society offers a different form of security than a state. A state theoretically brings about a form of 'PAXA ROMANA' inside its control zone where law abiding citizens in good neighbourhoods don't expect to encounter any form of violence but they might be forcibly drafted to the army to defend the state from real or imaginary enemies. Whereas, in a free society, limited quarrels may be possible in case of coersion from clients of hostile DROs but there are no expensive wars against imaginary enemies (a DRO might still attempt to sell insurance against a virtually non existing threat) and anyway there is no obligation to take active part in them (unless the DRO contract obliges that as was the case in Iceland). It might be argued that those limited quarrels have more in common with state's armed policing efforts than with wars between states.

81% left brained. No surprises here :-)

It is surprsing to encounter an endorser of nationalism and/or socialism let alone their unholy mixture at a libertarian forum.

Let us assume that we had successfully established a free society (Yey!). Let us further assume that, as we anticipate, personal protection services are provided by Private Defence Agencies (PDAs) each proposing its own private set of laws while conflicts between PDAs are resolved by mutually agreed upon arbitration agencies. My question is whether wars would be possible under this regime and if so, is it good or bad? More concretely, I have several specific scenarios in mind, I ask whether they are likely to happen & if so whether this is a flaw in the anarcho-capitalist vision which requires a remedy? The scenarios: 1. NOT POPULAR IS NOT FUN: Customer C of PDA P is a sceintist which conducts his experiments on monkeys that he rears for this purpose in his private property. His studies attract negative publicity from animal rights activists and are presented to the public as atrocious and superfluous. Public opinion is swayed against him and 10% of the customers of P petition it to end its business relations with C, As a result, PDA P now considers C as a liabilty rather than an asset, updates its laws to forbade such activities & requires customer C to conform to the updated law or give up her services. Customer C considers this to be his life's work and refuses to stop his research he prefers to hire the services of another protection agency but no serious agency agrees to accept him due to his unpopularity. The road is now open for animal rights activists to organise together & launch an act of aggression against the unpopular sceintist. In their rage, they kill the scientist & his family (to minimise the chance of future attributions against them) & divide all his property among them. 2. SUBJECT THE SECT: An indian sect from its own PDA, denoted A, in order to live peacefully under their own laws. PDA B, knowing that A's customers will never join it utilise its military advantage to impose a one sided agreement between A & B, which requires PDA A to pay PDA B an annual fee and forces A's customers to utilise agency B's courts in any dispute with B's customers. 3. FAR FROM THE EYE, FAR FROM THE HEART: Suppose that an agency in a desolate spot, converts to a rouge mode of operation (North Korea style), as the economic potential is small and as long as it doesn't provoke any major PDA she might be allowed to exist for a very long time as not enough individuals might be interested in funding liberation wars against it. In fact she might even agree not to compete with the other major PDAs and in return they might outlaw funding war operations against it. 4. DIVIDE & CONQUER: Suppose that PDAs are geographically well localized, than a rouge agency might be able to divide & conquer its enemies as remote agencies might be reluctant to pay for the war efforts.