Block and Futerman make case for Israel

A small excerpt from Marco den Ouden's review of The Classical Liberal Case for Israel by Walter Block and Alan Futerman. 

A New Book Makes a Solid Case for Israel and Zionism | Savvy Street | Marco den Ouden:

May 30, 2024 - "I was asked to review a new book supporting both Israel and Zionism, The Classical Liberal Case for Israel by Walter Block and Alan Futerman.... I had a review of well over 5000 words divided into a discussion of Block and Futerman’s book followed by a critique based on ... elements they chose to ignore. I opted to publish the critique as a stand-alone essay called The Battle for Israel’s Soul without mentioning the book. Now I am presenting the other side of the story: Block and Futerman’s compelling case for the moral right of Israel to exist and the moral right of the Jewish people to have a homeland, namely Zionism.... 

courtesy Amazon..com.

"The authors argue forcefully for the legitimacy of the state of Israel as a Zionist enterprise. They provide considerable documentation to support their charges.... The basic thesis of their book, they state, is that 'The Land of Israel was built up and developed by Jews who were unjustifiably expelled from their homeland thousands of years ago and are now back to reclaim their lost property and add to it by building and developing otherwise virgin land. It is really as simple as that.” (xxvi)....

"In Chapter 1 they argue that some parts of ancient Judea are demonstrably of Jewish origin.... They also contend that there are Jews alive today who can be genetically traced to these ancient Jews.... In Chapter 2 — Zionism — they argue that Zionism, the political movement promoting a Jewish homeland state, namely the country of Israel, is justified on a number of counts. They point out that emigration to Palestine took place long before the 1948 UN partition that created the state. 'It arose from the spontaneous actions of hundreds of thousands of Jews who returned to Zion in order to build their homes, and only much later their state.' (37) Cultural Zionism preceded political Zionism.... They challenge the idea that 'the Jews somehow stole the land from Arabs,' arguing that Jewish migrants to Palestine purchased land from existing owners, some of them absentee landowners. They purchased uncultivated land, and in many cases, land that had been regarded as uncultivable. And they homesteaded unowned (government-owned) land.... 

"Chapter 3 on The Palestinian Fiction Factory, the longest chapter in the book at 70 pages (excluding bibliography) argues that claims that Palestinians were expropriated and/or forced from their land are false.... Jewish land was either bought at exorbitant prices, much of it from non-resident Arab landowners, or it was homesteaded on land declared as uncultivable. Jewish entrepreneurship turned much barren land into productive farmland. As a result, there was an influx of Arabs, increasing the Arab presence in the area. They were drawn by Jewish wealth and the opportunities it presented. So, far from ethnic cleansing, Jewish settlement encouraged Arab immigration into the area.  All Jewish land was either purchased or homesteaded, they aver. None was forcibly taken.... 

"Section 4 of the chapter on The 'Expulsion' Plan discusses the immediate aftermath of the UN declaration. It argues that Israel’s Arab neighbors launched an aggressive war to destroy Israel and that Israel had the legitimate right to self-defense. The Arab aggressors warned Arabs resident in Palestine to flee for their own safety. Many did. The objective of the war was Israeli genocide, to wipe Israel off the map. Israel encouraged Arabs to stay. Arabs who opted to stay in the state of Israel now comprise twenty percent of the population.... Regarding alleged massacres of Arabs such as Deir Yassein, 'there was no policy of massacres, and Israeli authorities investigated and even condemned such incidents.' (emphasis added) (Benny Morris in Kramer et al., “Counter-Error: Separating Fact from Fiction in the Middle East,” The Washington Institute, October 27, 2016, page 95)....

"[In] Chapter 6: Critique of the Classical Liberal Case for Anti-Zionism — the authors critique Murray Rothbard’s analysis of the Israel/Palestine conflict.... Rothbard’s position is that Zionism was an offshoot of British imperialism..... But this is untrue, the authors argue. They cite Ilan Troen’s 2011 study which argues that the first forty years of Jewish migration to the area took place under the Ottomans. It had nothing to do with imperial expansion.... While they acknowledge that the Balfour Declaration supported the Zionist enterprise during the British Mandate, in fact, according to Charles Bard, the British reaction to waves of Jewish immigration in the '30s following the rise of the Nazis was to restrict such immigration to appease the Arabs.... 

"The authors argue that Rothbard is totally wrong in his analysis of events post-partition in 1948. 'Contrary to Rothbard, the Jews accepted the partition and the Arabs who already lived in Jewish areas were an integral part of the new State of Israel (and treated as such)'.... But at the time of partition, 'seven Arab armies invaded Israel after it was completed. Why should Israel be blamed for the resulting situation when it was only defending itself from outside attack?' (265) Moreover, Rothbard offers 'no explanation of why and how a new state built virtually entirely on homesteaded or purchased areas, labored on and developed by Jewish majorities, constitutes an aggression against the collective of Arabs of the entire Middle East'.... 

"As I noted earlier, I also found a lot to disagree with, points I elaborate on in my separate essay, The Battle for Israel’s Soul. But this essay looks at the positive points they make, points that should be noted and bear repeating:

1. Zionism was a cultural movement long before it became a political one. Jews started emigrating to Israel, their historic homeland, from the late 1800s on, decades before the creation of the state of Israel.
2. No land was usurped from Arabs. It was either bought, often at exorbitant prices, or homesteaded on unowned land deemed uncultivable.
3. Arab antisemitism was rife before the creation of the state of Israel. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem himself was a virulent antisemite and concluded a pact with Hitler to exterminate the Jews.
4. When the state of Israel was created, its seven Arab neighbors launched an immediate war against the new state, expecting a quick and easy victory. Israel was, from day one, a victim of aggression by its Arab neighbors.
5. Decades of peace talks and attempts at a two-state solution have been consistently rejected by Palestinian authorities, no matter how favorable the deal was for the Palestinians.
6. Israel has repeatedly been the victim of suicide bombers and rocket attacks by Palestinians.
7. The Palestinian Authority pays and incentivizes Palestinian terrorists to the tune of $300 million a year or 22% of its foreign aid budget.
8. The Palestinian Authority forbids trade with Israel and selling land to an Israeli is a capital crime.
9. Hamas uses human shields and builds missile launch sites and tunnel hideouts under and near schools and hospitals and other areas populated by civilians. It uses its citizens to create martyrs.
10. Anti-Zionism in the form of BDS is completely one-sided. Only Israel is targeted. Egregious tyrannies and dictatorships are completely ignored.
11. There are double standards in the treatment of Israel, even by its parent and creator, the United Nations. Israel has been condemned by the UN more often than every other country in the world combined. The violent, fascist, repressive, misogynistic state of Iran has been censured a mere six times by the UN compared to 68 times for Israel. Russia the invader of Ukraine, Cuba the operator of extensive repressive political prisons (See Against All Hope by Armando Valladares), and China the largest mass-murdering regime in the history of the world, have never been censured by the UN. Not once!

"These are just a few of the points that Block and Futerman make. Despite some drawbacks that I pointed out in my other essay, this book deserves a hearing."

Read more: https://www.thesavvystreet.com/a-new-book-makes-a-solid-case-for-israel-and-zionism/

Is Zionism a libertarian movement? | גלעד אלפר | October 1, 2023:

This year's anti-libertarian book worth the read

"What sets Andrew Koppelman’s book apart from most critiques of libertarianism,"  says reviewer Marco den Ouden, "is that he actually knows what he’s talking about."

Libertarian Limitations | Quillete | Marco den Ouden:

A review of Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed by Andrew Koppelman, 320 pages, Macmillan (Oct 2022)

September 12, 2023 - "Andrew Koppelman ... is a Professor of Law and of Political Science at Northwestern University, a civil libertarian, and the author of books on antidiscrimination law, gay rights, same-sex marriage, healthcare reform, and religious liberty. He declares himself to be 'a pro-capitalist leftist' and acknowledges that his 'embrace of that position here will make many of my friends on the left feel betrayed.' The thing that turns Koppelman’s crank is what he regards as a heartless, narrow, and blinkered understanding of liberty on the part of many libertarians.... 

"What sets Koppelman’s book apart from most critiques of libertarianism is that he actually knows what he’s talking about. He’s clearly read and researched libertarianism in considerable detail. And while he is sometimes harsh in his criticism, he clearly sees the value in many libertarian positions. His background in law and political science, as well as his writing on civil liberties, allows him to bring some fascinating insights to bear in his analysis. And he sometimes turns libertarian ideas on their head, using libertarian ideas to argue against what he sees as a perversion of libertarian ideas in the works of Rothbard, Nozick, and Rand. 'You ought to be a libertarian—of a certain kind, and only up to a point,' he writes. 'This book is not only a critical description of libertarianism. It aims to marry what is best about libertarianism with the agenda of the left'....

"Koppelman notes that the modern political Left is often more concerned with identity politics than with alleviating poverty. 'A right to be different,' he continues, 'pushes toward localization of power and away from central planning.' The people on the Left, who continue to malign capitalism, 'don’t grasp the anti-socialist logic of their present views.' And because Hayek was not a doctrinaire absolutist in his opposition to a role for the state in the economy, he 'thought redistribution to provide basic needs was an appropriate supplement to a free market. Such a supplement was not central planning, because it left the recipients free to make their own decisions'.... Ronald Reagan, Koppelman suggests, 'succeeded in shifting American politics—and American understandings of liberty—in a Hayekian direction.' Bill Clinton’s Democrats adopted these views and implemented some of the things Reagan could not.... 

"But while Democrats since Clinton have adopted a Hayekian approach to markets and regulation, Republicans have moved steadily in a more radical and fundamentalist libertarian direction, distilled from the later views of Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick, and Ayn Rand. Before considering those views, Koppelman digresses with a chapter on the Lockean theory of natural rights. Hayek was lukewarm at best on rights theory, but it is the centerpiece of the Rothbard/Nozick/Rand approach. And of course, it holds a key place in the American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The fundamentalist view of property rights holds that people work and the fruits of their labor is their property. They have a right to it. Such rights are absolute. And, as per the Declaration of Independence, 'to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' This does not give government carte blanche to do what it wants.... 'You must not spend money that’s not yours.' But, Koppelman notes, if this view is correct, 'it straightaway entails that most of what government does is illegitimate.' This, he continues, 'is the moral core of much modern libertarianism'.... 

"Koppelman identifies Rothbard’s 'core moral principle' as nonaggression, as expressed in For a New Liberty: 'No man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.' Koppelman says that Rothbard adopts this principle because 'each man may only live and prosper as he exercises his natural freedom of choice,' thus 'if someone aggresses against him to change his freely-selected course, this violates his nature; it violates the way he must function.' Koppelman agrees that this 'axiom entails anarchism'. So how will justice be administered in an anarchist world? By private contractors—“multiple private police forces, with no central authority over them.” Koppelman compares this to a society of warlords, each trying to gain dominance. 'What actually emerges from networks of protective associations, all over the world, is some variety of hereditary aristocracy.' In other words, feudalism.... .  

"Koppelman brushes Nozick off in a few paragraphs and moves on to consider the influence of Ayn Rand.... Koppelman seems to have mixed feelings about Rand. He clearly admires some of her writing and philosophy, and he appreciates her support for charity as expressed in her essay 'The Ethics of Emergencies'.... Elsewhere, he writes that, 'the most attractive aspiration in Rand is the independence of judgment, and faith in oneself, displayed by Roark, the hero of The Fountainhead. The book has surely helped many young people with its message that they should pursue their own deepest aspirations, and not care about impressing others'.... But in Atlas Shrugged, Rand 'offers a far cruder picture.' She argued that under capitalism, 'it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability—and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward.'This leads to the view that 'markets give people exactly what they deserve and any redistribution is unjust'.... 

"In Rand’s opposition to any relief by the state, she shared Rothbard’s position. But while she did argue in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal that 'without property rights, no other rights are possible,” Koppelman suggests that “at Rand’s core is, not a theory of property rights, but an ideal of reciprocity. That ideal is attractive. It is, I suspect, the source of her rhetorical power.” According to the Oxford dictionary, reciprocity is 'the practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefit'.... 'She has in fact captured an important ethical ideal,' Koppelman continues, 'the value of interpersonal respect between "men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value"'.... 

"Koppelman concludes with chapters on paternalism, discrimination, and how the lack of appropriate regulation has led to the aggrandizement of modern day moochers and looters....  

|I was a doctrinaire libertarian/Objectivist from 1969 to 2000, and I came to my libertarianism through Ayn Rand. The first libertarian book I ever read was Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I was hooked and read everything Rand ever published during her lifetime and much of what was published posthumously. My drift away from orthodox libertarianism accelerated after I retired in 2014, started blogging, and returned to university. I became an admirer of Isaiah Berlin's value-pluralism—the view that genuine values can conflict, which is anathema to libertarians. Although I have read very little of Hayek, Koppelman's book makes me want to explore his thought in more detail. Koppelman presents a good case for taking the Hayekian approach with a work that is rich in detail and full of thought-provoking ideas. It is well worth the read, whether you ultimately agree with him or not."

Read more: https://quillette.com/2023/09/12/libertarian-limitations/

Are libertarians greedy and delusional? A Soho Forum debate [Andrew Koppelman vs. Gene Eptein] | ReasonTV | May 22, 2023:

Christmas not just for Christians

An Atheist Celebrates Christmas - Marco den Ouden, The Jolly Libertarian:

December 16, 2015 - "I was raised in a fairly religious Christian family. We dutifully went to Sunday school each week, but after attending confirmation classes at around age 12 or 13, I declined to be confirmed.... To their credit, my parents agreed....

"It wasn't until I discovered Ayn Rand in university that my atheism became explicit. I came to understand and respect 'that religion is an early form of philosophy'. Rand says 'that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points.' But their ultimate problem is they are based on faith, not reason.

"So while disagreeing with the supernatural aspect of religion, I find much of value in religious teachings, and much to learn from....

"For myself, there is just one ritual that has great meaning. And that is Christmas. I love Christmas. Our whole family loves Christmas. Christmas means good will, family get togethers and family dinners, colorful lights, and joyful music. I love to hear Christmas music. Even the religious carols are full of joy, hope and optimism.

"Again Ayn Rand puts it much better than I can.

The secular meaning of the Christmas holiday is wider than the tenets of any particular religion: it is good will toward men - a frame of mind which is not the exclusive property of the Christian religion.... The charming aspect of Christmas is the fact that it expresses good will in a cheerful, happy, benevolent, non-sacrificial way. One says: 'Merry Christmas' - not 'Weep and Repent.' And the good will is expressed in a material, earthly form - by giving presents to one's friends, or by sending them cards in token of remembrance....

And while many decry the 'commercialism' of Christmas, Rand finds this one of its best features. 'The gift-buying stimulates an enormous outpouring of ingenuity in the creation of products devoted to a single purpose: to give men pleasure.' 'One would have to be terribly depressed,' she goes on, 'to resist the wonderful gaiety of that spectacle' (of lights, colors and decorations)....

 "For our family, Christmas has always been special. And we have traditions, rituals as it were, that we follow year in and year out. Decorating the tree (my daughter always places the tree topper), opening one gift on Christmas eve, everyone gathered around the tree on Christmas morning as I, sporting a Santa hat, hand out the gifts, the hugs and appreciation all around, the big turkey dinner, games and other fun activities, and so on....

"And we love the Christmas movies. Although we have seen them all many times, every year my wife and I watch four in particular in the weeks leading up to Christmas - Christmas Vacation, White Christmas, Miracle on 34th Street and It's a Wonderful Life. There are a few others we watch occasionally, but those are our favourites.

"The essence of Christmas is the greeting we often see on Christmas Cards - Peace on earth and good will towards all men! Even in wartime, combatants usually call a one day truce on Christmas Day. One wonders why, if they can stop fighting for a day at the drop of a hat, why they can't stop fighting altogether. Peace on earth. This is, as I have written in a previous blog, the very essence of libertarian philosophy. Another reason Christmas is a special time."

Read more: http://jollylibertarian.blogspot.ca/2015/12/an-atheist-celebrates-christmas.html
'via Blog this'