On Israel’s Alleged Land Grabbing and Zionism: Turning the Tables on Dishonest Libertarians
“If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” — Hasan Nasrallah
This is a continuation of my Facebook debate with a Ron Paul Libertarian supporter who believes that Israel should “cease to exist”.
I think this Libertarian, Warlito Nobleza Vicente, owner and webmaster of Antipinoy.com, is worse than Ron Paul. To be fair, the Republican Representative who I call “Conservative or Catholic Libertarian” simply believes that the Israelis “can take care of themselves”. He opposes sending U.S. aid to Israel.
“To me, foreign aid is taking money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich people in poor countries, and it becomes weapons of war…” said Paul at the Western Republican Presidential Debate. A lot of people, particularly some of his fellow Libertarians who support Israel, believe Paul is antisemitic. Objectivists simply believe he’s wrong on foreign policy and that he’s an evil appeaser of Islamism.
Paul believes that the United States should end its foreign policy relations with Israel because it’s the war aggressor and the perpetrator of armed conflict in the Middle East (at least this is how I read Paul’s almost cryptic position on the Israel-Middle East conflict).
This so-called antiwar Libertarian politician repeatedly said his position on Israel is motivated by his principle of anti-interventionism and isolationism. He said he’s “the one candidate who would respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate to her about how she should deal with her neighbors.” He further said that he “supported Israel’s right to attack the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 1980s, and I opposed President Obama’s attempt to dictate Israel’s borders this year.” What he said shows that some of Israel’s past actions were justified while some not.
Yet the following YouTube video shows Ron Paul opposes Israel for blocking the flow of “humanitarian” supplies into Gaza.
He said: “We finance Israel. Any weapon they use or ship they own or plane they own or any threat they make, we back them up. We back them up on this embargo, preventing food and medicine going into Gaza. So, we’re
morally responsible. I think embargo, sanctions and boycotts, preventing goods from going in is an act of war, so this is why recently a few of us voted against sanctions against the Iranians. It’s absolutely wrong to prevent people that are starving and having problems, almost like in concentration camps, and saying, ‘yes, we endorse this whole concept that we can’t allow ships to go in there in a humanitarian way.”
Paul is clearly referring to Israel blockade of Islamic “freedom” flotilla that attempted to ship not only alleged foods and medicines into Gaza, but also weapons.
This Washington Times editorial observed:
“Had the terrorist sympathizers on the ship not incited the violence, no one would have been killed. There were no casualties on other ships in the flotilla where people did not resist.
“Backers of the illegal blockade-running effort portray themselves as humanitarians, but this claim is dubious. They had rejected an Israeli offer to send the supplies they were carrying to Gaza overland, joining the tons of supplies that flow to Gaza daily, but this would not have fulfilled the organizers’ goal of having a splashy, made-for-media event. So they went ahead with their voyage, fomented the incident, and international organizations, governments and the press fell for it, as expected.”
Frontpage Magazine also exposes Ron Paul’s lies and dishonest:y
“If you, unlike the Congressman from Texas’s 14th District, feel the slightest sense of obligation to inform yourself about the facts of any given situation before opening your mouth (and feel obliged to tell the truth about those facts once you do know them), you’d know this is all bogus: the blockade was born out of legitimate and urgent security concerns, the IDF has been letting humanitarian aid through, and Gaza’s “concentration camp”-like conditions have been vastly exaggerated.”
In that interview, Paul is informed that that Israel was actually allowing food and medicine to pass, but was stopping only the flow of weapons. Paul simply dishonestly dodges it saying, since Hamas was democratically elected, they should have the right to get the weapons, too. What this Libertarian ideologue is trying to say is, Hamas, which explicitly made very clear its intention to annihilate Israel, should be entitled to obtain weapons masquerading as humanitarian aid, simply because they were democratically elected.
That is actually how many Libertarians think. They simply believe Israel is the main aggressor, simply because it is guilty of what they call “land grabbing”, which is one of the most egregious, dishonest, anti-history, anti-logic Libertarian lies ever made.
My debate with Warlito:
Here’s his reply to my blog post titled ‘Inside the Libertarian Mind: ‘Israel is the Aggressor Because it Invaded Palestine’: “The point is to stop the violence and stop statism on both sides. As to partitioning the Philippines .. absolutely yes.. who needs that pathetic excuse of a state. People can reconstitute a new state when the old state has ceased to protect individual proverty from coercion. It is the collectivist statist who wants to cling to the benefits of a hijacked government . Like john puruntong. not individualists.”
Warlito is simply stubborn and determined to repeatedly raise his “stop the violence and stop statism” rhetoric as if Israel was never committed to peace.
My reply: “Read your arguments again, Warlito Nobleza Vicente. You’re simply putting all the blame on Israel… Like Israeli PM Netanyahu said: “If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.” Historical evidence shows the Israelis do not want war.”
Warlito: “Historical evidence shows the Zionists disenfranchised the indigenous people living ‘in the geographic area called palestine and dragged non Zionist jews into the conflict. Fact is the non zionist jews were living in peace with arab communities before the zionist state came into being. Just because the US practiced ethnocide on the indigenous natives doesn’t make it right .. it never was right in the past. It still not right in the present.or the future. Landgrabbing is not right.”
Observe that this Libertarian is not willing to look at the facts. He’s too dogmatic with his belief that the “Zionists” are guilty of land grabbing and “disenfranchising” of Palestinians. I’ve given all the facts that debunked his lies and propaganda that Israel is the guilty party, yet it seems he’s not interested to engage in an honest discussion.
Warlito further said: “So what if the Zionist state of Israel ceases to exist? Does it mean all jews will cease to exist? The non zionist jews and arabs indigenous to the area can reconstitute a new nation where jews and arabs have equal rights much like the melting pot called America.”
Now that statement encapsulates the entire anti-Israel Libertarian mindset.
Vincenton Post: “Not according to your own terms. The State of Israel rightfully belongs to its current settlers. State of Israel ceases to exist = another holocaust. I didn’t know you’re an apologist for those who deny holocaust. Didn’t you see the fatal contradictions in your Libertarian arguments? You don’t call yourself a statist when you’re for Palestinian intervention and invasion and even for mass killing of all Israeli inhabitants. Plus, you don’t want the Israelis to defend themselves. You’re worse than a statist. You must a monster.”
Warlito: “I said i am not in favor of statism whether Israeli or Palestinian. To state that i am in favor of Palestinian statism is a STRAWMAN. John puruntong.. hindi lang closet collectivist.. ang hilig sa strawman, parang si valdemort.”
Now it’s crystal clear that he’s simply demagoging.
Vincenton Post: “You want the State of Israel to cease to exist, that means you want the Palestinians invade it, which means you want the Jews massacred. That is not a straw man. Unless you strongly want to maintain your argument cryptic and unclear, Warlito Nobleza Vicente. Stop acting/behaving like a kid. I am simply using your own trick against you. Make your ‘what you want happen’ clear.”
Warlito: “John puruntong.. the closet collectivist. Abolishing a statist regime does not mean genocide that’s a non sequitur. Not being in favor of Israeli statism does not mean support of Palestinian statism. That’s a nonsequitur. John puruntong the collectivist strawman.”
Like I said, Warlito Nobleza Vicente, the only issue here is: Does Israel have a right to defend itself?
You said: “So what if the Zionist state of Israel ceases to exist? Does it mean all jews will cease to exist?”
At this very moment, there is only one possible way to make that happen. To make Israel “cease to exist”, and that is thru invasion, war and total massacre of the Israeli people by Palestinians and its allies.
This is not just a war between Palestinians and Israelis. How many times have I told you other Islamic Arab ME nations like Syria, Jordan and Egypt also tried to invade Israel but failed. All of these countries sought to push the Jews “into the sea”. They publicly made their intentions very clear for the world and useful idiots to hear and see.
Well, if Israel ceased to exist, not all Jews would die, since there are Jews in some parts of the planet. But that means:
- Invasion by Palestine and its allies of Israel;
- Total war;
- Massacre of all Israeli inhabitants.
And this is not just about Jews. There are also millions of non-Jews and Arab citizens in Israel. I don’t care if Israel were populated by Jews. What I care is that it is the lawful, legal, rightful owner of that territory. The citizens of Israel turned that piece of barren land into a technologically advanced, and the FREEST state in all of the Middle Eastern region. It is the only state in ME that respects the rights of women and gays and minorities. It is the only state in that totalitarian region that allows critics to criticize the government.
Then he proceeded with his dishonest dodging tactic. He actually didn’t want to directly engage with what I said.
Warlito: “Did abolishing the statist communist Poland lead to genocide of the polish people? Did the breakup of Czechoslovakia lead to genocide of czechs and slovaks? John puruntong will swear that he will have you sacrifice your life for his closet collectivism.”
I simply re-posted my reply, which he dishonestly tried to evade.
I added: “Besides, there is no legal or even historical evidence that the Palestinians are the rightful owner of that piece of land because they owned it over 1000 years ago. If that’s your argument, then the Jews also have a legal and historical right to that territory. The FACT IS, both warring parties (Israelis and Palestinians) have their own lands and territories. Israelis did all it could to appease its enemies. It respects and recognizes the existence of the State of Palestine. The problem is, Palestine clearly said: NO RECOGNITION, NO NEGOTIATION, NO PEACE.”
Warlito then went back with his “statism” mantra. His only reply: “Statism on both sides is wrong.”
Vincenton Post: “There were Jews when in that embattled territory when the State of Israel was created. Many Arabs were willing to be part of that new state in 1947. You should know that. Together, the original settlers plus the Jews and OTHER NON-JEWS in Europe and other parts of the planet BUILT technologically advanced and semi-free society. Don’t tell me Israel and the rest of Middle East are morally equal. No. They’re not both equally statists. In fact, Israel is FREER, economically and politically, than the Philippines and most countries in the world.”
Warlito: “Does Israel have a monopoly on defending itself? Does it have the authority to grab the lands of indigenous people already in possession of private property?”
Wow! That sounds like a child’s argument.
I simply said:
Get these basic facts:
- There were already Jews in that area when the State of Israel was created.
- The Arab settlers joined the Jews and immigrants to build that new State.
- That means, the creation of the State of Israel and the State of Palestine was equally justified and legal.
Since the State of Israel was created, WAS IT PROHIBITED TO ADMIT JEWISH AND NON-JEWISH IMMIGRANTS after its creation?
It’s as if you’re telling me the FIRST SETTLERS of Israel were all European Jews. That’s a lie. There were already millions of original Jewish and Arab settlers when the State of Israel was created.
It’s just the same as SECEDING from a defunct state.
Are you now telling me some people are not allowed to secede from a DEFUNCT state?
Remember, the Ottoman empire was dissolved. That means any group of people may create their own state.
The only DIFFERENCE IS, it’s a JEWISH STATE, and that’s no longer acceptable to the Arabs who were oppressed and killed by their fellow Arabs for hundreds of years.
I am now lecturing you on the principles of INTERNATIONAL LAW HERE, Warlito Nobleza Vicente. LOL!
He didn’t reply. That was the end of out lengthy facebook debate. But I wasn’t done yet. I had to expose the many contradictions in his Libertarian arguments.
The Libertarians say YES to secession. In fact, Warlito repeatedly said some regions of the Philippines should secede because of our STATISM. They are in fact obsessed with secession.
Remember what he said above: “As to partitioning the Philippines .. absolutely yes.. who needs that pathetic excuse of a state.”
Yes, who needs an oppressive, murderous, anti-freedom and anti-rights Islamic State [of Palestine or Egypt]?
But let’s consider this…
Let me try to objectively simplify the issue of Israel creation.
FIRST, the Ottoman empire that governed all of the ME region, including today’s territories of Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, etc., was dissolved in 1917.
SECOND, the losing Ottoman Empire willingly entered into ‘loser’ agreements or treaties with the war victors. Anyways, it’s one of the initiators of the World War 1. This is a basic REALITY in international affairs and law.
Now, let’s just set aside the fact that Britain had acquired the ‘legal’ right to partition the Ottoman empire.
But since Libertarians strongly favor secession, I think it follows that the people in those dissolved territories had the right to form their own states, which THEY DID. Right? Right, Warlito?
What if the JEWISH people in those territories (and they existed in the hundreds of thousands) wanted to form their own state? WHICH THEY DID. What if other original Arab settlers joined the Jewish people in the formation of that new state? Which they also did.
Then, a new STATE was created. They admitted immigrants from different parts of the globe. I think IMMIGRATION is perfectly fine in the book of Libertarians. In fact, they call for OPEN IMMIGRATION.
This sounds VERY, VERY CONSISTENT with the principles of Libertarianism. It is also very consistent with the principles of LIBERTARIAN SECESSION.
However, what is NOT ACCEPTABLE is that this new state is called State of Israel or Jewish State. That’s no longer acceptable to the Arab Muslims whose god strictly tells them to kill the Jews. In fact, their prophet also tells that that the 12th Imam won’t arrive unless all the Jews are annihilated.
Don’t tell me Israel is statist. Yes, it is. But it is the FREEST state in all of ME region. In fact, it is FREER, economically, than most countries on planet earth!
We all know Israel successfully defended its statehood, sovereignty and independence. The Jewish state’s statehood was recognized, in accordance with international law, by other states—including the Soviet Union and the United States. The Palestine Authority, on the other hand, fails to secure the basic characteristic of a state necessary for such recognition. The 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States lays down the basic requirements. To be a state an entity must have (1) a permanent population, (2) a defined territory, (3) a government, and (4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
Apply your Libertarian principles here. Apply sound logic!!!
I didn’t know Warlito is a very good anti-Zionist propaganda artist.
He recently made propaganda, nonfactual statements and claims that can be easily debunked.
- “ISRAEL = A Zionist state that was built by ethnocide.” DEBUNKED: It is the only liberal democracy in the totalitarian Middle East.
- “Just because The ISLAMIC OTTOMAN empire killed HUNDREDS OF MILLION KAFIRS UNDER ITS RULE. – does not mean Zionist can do likewise…” DEBUNKED: Blood libel against the Jews.
- “The Jews and Arabs were living in Peace..” DEBUNKED: Ayan Hirsi Ali exposed this ‘Jews living peacefully with Arabs’ lie.
- “Then the Zionists (not not all Jews are Zionists) came and undertook the landgrabs.” DEBUNKED: This is pure propaganda and a product of historical ignorance.
- “The Palestinians are against the Zionist state – and the jews who support Zionism.” DEBUNKED: 73% Palestinians want to kill all Jews.
- “The islamists are not against individual Jews – they are against the Zionist state…” DEBUNKED:Kill all Jews for Allah.
- “The individual palestinians and individual jews can conduct trade and commerce – this time around without the apartheid policies of the Zionist state…” DEBUNKED: Israel is NOT an apartheid state.
Libertarian Party Secessionist Principles:
The Libertarian Party Statement of Principles certainly has plenty of room for both community self-governance and secession, starting from its first sentence: “We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.” Particularly relevant to community self-governance is the sentence, “Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals.”
Libertarians certainly extend to Americans the right to secede that they extend to the other 6 billion inhabitants of the planet! Therefore, party members should move the secession plank to a new Number 24 under “I. Individual Rights and Civil Order.” I personally believe the right to secession should be considered the most basic political right.
Libertarian Party Secessionist Strategy:
The party by-laws do not restrict the party only to electing candidates in election years and many state and local libertarian parties already combine single issue ballot initiatives, lobbying, protest and even civil disobedience with electoral politics. For moral, political and public education purposes, the national Libertarian Party should spearhead an explicit amendment to the U.S. Constitution ensuring the right of individuals and their chosen political units to secede from the union.