12

Ayn Rand’s Thoughts on Israel

Posted by DrEdwardHudgins 3 years, 4 months ago to Politics
39 comments | Share | Flag

On the anniversary of Israel’s founding, what do you think about Ayn Rand’s thoughts on Arabs and Israelis?
SOURCE URL: http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/6012-ayn-rand-s-thoughts-on-israel


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  ObjectiveAnalyst 3 years, 4 months ago
    Hello DrEdwardHudgins,
    "One does not and cannot “negotiate” with brutality, nor give it the benefit of the doubt. The moral absolute should be: if and when, in any dispute, one side initiates the use of physical force, that side is wrong—and no consideration or discussion of the issues is necessary or appropriate." “Brief Comments,” The Objectivist, March 1969, 1

    It is clear that "some" Arabs in the region will initiate brutal force to eradicate the other for simply being, while Israelis are generally not the initiators, but act in retaliation or self defense. However, many other Arabs do not initiate and thus should not be collectively considered, since they too are victim.
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 4 months ago
      Yes, and in Israel today, there are Arabs and Muslims who are citizens, enjoying more liberty than their counterparts elsewhere in the region, and even hold elective office. Can't say the same for Jews in surrounding countries, since most were driven out.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 3 years, 4 months ago
    As usual, Rand was right in '74 just as she is right today. Things have changed, but only minimally. The cultural divide is as deep as ever and no meaningful changes are on the horizon. I think it was Thatcher who made the succinct comment that If Israel laid down their arms they would be slaughtered, if Arabs laid down their arms there would be peace.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by saucerdesigner 3 years, 3 months ago
    Game Theory & Israel's Strategic War Planners. How Israel Calculates the Potential Success of Deception

    Criminal State--Jeff Gates & Anthony Lawson

    A Closer Look at Israel's Role in Terrorism
    https://youtu.be/pNjb1MGmGDc
    Part 2
    https://youtu.be/GxhMmjDlIC0
    Part 3
    https://youtu.be/OrkpcbmXAWE

    "Israeli strategists rely on game theory models to ensure the intended response to staged provocations and manipulated crises. With the use of game theory algorithms, those responses become predictable, even foreseeable—within an acceptable range of probabilities. The waging of war “by way of deception” is now a mathematical discipline.

    "Such “probabilistic” war planning enables Tel Aviv to deploy serial provocations and well-timed crises as a force multiplier to project Israeli influence worldwide. For a skilled agent provocateur, the target can be a person, a company, an economy, a legislature, a nation or an entire culture—such as Islam. With a well-modeled provocation, the anticipated reaction can even become a powerful weapon in the Israeli arsenal.

    "For instance, a skilled game theorist could foresee that, in response to a 9/11-type mass murder, “the mark” (the U.S.) would deploy its military to avenge that attack. With phony intelligence fixed around a preset goal, a game theory algorithm could anticipate that those forces might well be redirected to invade Iraq—not to avenge 9/11 but to pursue the expansionist goals of Greater Israel."

    http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/…...

    Clash of Civilizations-Samuel Hunnington, 10 yrs Before 911

    "The image of the new enemy comes from Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel Huntington, two policy-makers of American intelligence and foreign policy, von Bülow said. "Already in the middle of the 1990s, Huntington believed, people in Europe and the U.S. needed someone they could hate." - See more at: http://www.bollyn.com/911/#sthash.y6t...

    July 8, 1996: Neoconservative Think Tank Advocates Aggressive Israeli Foreign Policy

    The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank, publishes a paper titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” [WASHINGTON TIMES, 10/7/2002; CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, 3/6/2003] The paper, whose lead author is neoconservative Richard Perle, is meant to advise the new, right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu."

    https://youtu.be/lLokQZSKMnQ
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 3 months ago
      Any half assed infantry soldier could see that Israel cannot trade space for time or the eventual hoped for arrival of a wishy washy on again off again treaty partner. The answer there is to trade some one elses' space for their time and the easiest way to do that is divert attention to other more dangerous to the US parts of the middle east. Given the inexperienced illogical and basically still running for office chicken heart in the White House one could count on 8 years of continued idiotic adventuring by the likes of OBumbler and a sharp decrease in the amount of troops lost on the part of the US military which is win win for Israel and the
      US Military and exposure as an egg on face shit for brain for their Commander In Chief and his friends in Mecca. Afghanistan after finally getting out of Iraq and Add bonus points for ISIS and Syria made what any average infantry grunt could see as one helluva a good idea and it beat dying for nothing much less at the rate the 'faithfull lemmings are dying. That includes US Socialist Party faithful.

      AND it galvanized and focused US public opinion against Islam to the point they are singing All we are saying is give Latinos a chance.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 3 months ago
        Your action then should be two fold. First is obtain complete recall across the land. Do not forget those selected in your State as delegates to the federal government for they are your responsibility. Be not afraid to begin the petitions for in that way you will train your servants as you would your dogs. Make no one working in such a manner, as delegated servants of the people. As for the leadership test them as you would test any employee or piece of equipment. Some more than others as you will give them a higher status and trust your life and that of your family into their care.

        Select, train, elect, monitor, reject if needed.

        Let their time of service be measure and not automatically renewed. And if they say things such as, 'these recalls and initiatives are very costly and time consuming that will tell you they have been doing a bad or poor job. Replace them instantly and jail them if necessary. do not wait for election cycles A recall is a swift whip. Those who serve faitfhfully need never fear the lash.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years, 4 months ago
    Respectfully, but Rand misses the boat completely on the real cause of hatred of Israel by Muslims: religion. That's the long and the short of the whole matter. That Israel supports a free market system, supports advancements in science and technology, and supports elected governments while Muslims support a class hierarchy, stagnation, and a caliphate/theocracy is in the end a side-show. The true issues comes down to religion.

    The problem started with the two sons of Abraham: Ishmael and Isaac. There is no question that Ishmael was the older of the two, but Ishmael was born to the concubine, and the rights of land and property always passed to the first-born son of the natural wife, so when Isaac was born, Ishmael was basically disinherited - and Abraham was very wealthy. Ishmael survived to father many nations in the land (with a two generation head start) before they had to compete with what would become the Israelite nation. Further, the Israelites moved to Egypt where they were enslaved for hundreds of years before coming back to the area through military action. The population sizes even then were sizeably different.

    Fast forward several millenia through the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, etc. down to the Romans and the fall of the Roman Empire. Now we get into the introduction of the Muslims via Mohammed. Mohammed capitalized on the bad blood between the remnants of the Arab nations (predominantly descendants of Ishmael and also Isaac's son Esau who parted ways with Jacob who would become Israel) and the Israelites (now just the Jews) and used religious fervor to stoke the flames. Mohammed even claimed to have had a vision on the site of the ruined Jewish Temple (aka Temple of Solomon, et al) so as to give the excuse for the Dome of the Rock Mosque on the same site. Even the site of Jerusalem itself is holy to both sides only through the birthright given to Abraham.

    Should a capitalist nation which supports natural rights side with Israel over the Muslim nations? Absolutely. Despite its lack of oil, Israel is a tremendously productive nation and society which supports capitalism and natural rights. Their people are hard-working, disciplined, and honorable.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 4 months ago
      They also don't openly state they are going to kill us as a matter of politico/religious/cultural policy one that is unchanged for a thousand years. BUT there are 82 or so divisions. and divisions within divisions. Question? Given what he said and I just said how come the inhabitants of the middle east are treated to genocidal policy on a daily basis while our government including a senior official who deserted his unit during the Vietnam War are making an enemy a nuclear power.

      Probably to foment another in a long line of never ending wars.

      PS Kerry could have stayed with his units but after a few scratches cut and ran using some easy out ruling ...one that seems to have been just for the Navy. I don't remember it in the 101st and scratches didn't merit awards.

      So don't mind me I have no time for a proven coward. That's my point of view.

      Rand or Kerry remember judge in the context of the times always.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 4 months ago
    Dr Hudgins, I would like to add my thoughts on your article, specifically the last part. Perhaps this is my unfounded perception, but it appeared to me that in an effort to end on a hopeful, if not necessarily a positive note, you may be giving undue validity to the Islamic savages. Of course, there is a possibility (though remote) of the savages willingly becoming civilized, perhaps in a few centuries, yet your last paragraph made them appear as potential candidates and almost human. The problem with that approach is that it puts murderous savages on the same plank as human beings, thus limiting a proper response to their attacks, which should be complete and utter annihilation. I am aware that my approach is begging for the question who am I, or we, to allow ourselves to annihilate others? The answer is simple - a savage has all the rights in the world to remain a savage, but when that savage is hell-bent on murdering people in our civilization, it is our duty, and certainly the duty of any government, to destroy the threat. Completely. Without stopping and preserving their savage culture, or equating it in any way to civilization. It is the responsibility of the savage to acquire civilization, not the civilization's responsibility to civilize the savage.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years, 4 months ago
      I don't suggest that there is any approach to, for example, ISIS member but to kill them. Sending them copies of Atlas Shrugged won't work. But Egypt, for example, fought four wars to eliminate Israel and finally made peace. Jordon has something like normal relations with Israel. So my last paragraph both highlights and underlying value for most Israelis--they just want to living in peace and not face the threat of extermination--but also the possibility that in the ling run there will be moral countries and their people who prefer peace and prosperity to war and destitution. FYI, see this other recent piece where I discuss this: http://atlassociety.org/commentary/co...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 4 months ago
        You may also want to read this: http://www.timesofisrael.com/from-hez...
        This is a story of Ibrahim Yassin, a former Hezbollah operative who switched over to the Israeli side. A couple of excerpts:
        "He recounted his daughter’s abuse at the hands of a group of Palestinian fighters, who tied her to a pair of cars, then began driving them in different directions."
        Describing his torture at the hands of one of Hezbollah's leaders, Imad Mughniyeh:
        “He’d hang me up by my hands, shoot the rope and let me drop into a vat of scalding water. Not a day went by that I didn’t lose consciousness at his feet.”
        Failing to make headway, Mughniyeh eventually brought Sinai’s infant child before him. When Sinai continued to profess innocence, the militant leader had Sinai’s son “burned alive before my eyes.”

        None of this is exceptional compared to what ISIS is doing, but the difference here is that this was done to one of their own people. These animals have to be treated just as they are - animals. You can't "hope" that a wild animal will not eat you just because you're treating it "fair."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 4 months ago
        I think that the Muslim savages have used every opportunity to prove their desire to remain savage. The only language that they understand is that of force. Wasting hope on them takes away our resources and precludes us from talking to them in their language.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 4 months ago
          It's the culture they are born and bred to drag out any conversation for days and when you think there is agreement it isn't after all Allah may be visit and after prayers and say different. Lawrence of Arabia was one depiction. The book Around the Bend by Nevil Shute the classic sequence. And they sent a rank amateur like Pinky Promise Kerry to negotiate? How Droll, how clumsy how stupid. Well considering who sent him I'd say Pinky K was set up by the guy in the Oval Office. .
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by marc 3 years, 4 months ago
    I agree completely. We MUST continue helping Israel - and Obama be damned!

    I once wrote an article: "We Have Met The Enemey - And His Name Is: ISLAM!", and I wish I could reproduce it in full here. I will be glad to send it to anyone who wants it, butI willneed an email address.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 3 years, 4 months ago
    I have not been able to the locate the source for Rand’s quotation. Therefore, I do not know the context. However, if she was saying the U.S. government should support Israel by sending money and free military equipment, then I say she was wrong because it forces everyone to do what she believes is correct using tax money taken at the point of a gun.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 4 months ago
      All of which dovetails nicely with .... what:

      Took about two seconds to follow the provided link, eight seconds on Google and then time to hear Rand speak directly. Instead I was treated to some story but couldn't find one instance of your taxes being taken at the point of a gun.

      Was it big gun? Might have been.

      Instead I found a plethora of unsure hesitant, I do not know if she was saying leading to an uninformed conclusion indicative of subjectivism at best.

      Did you find the gun quote? Or did you not look.You might also have spent 15 seconds looking up her opinion on taxes in a fully free society.

      I could have finished the first sentence with bigotry or supporter of Islam or worse but did not because you really go nowhere and that easily corrected by a few minutes on google.

      I could have mentioned intentionally ignoring resources or perhaps intellectually lazy. But I did not. Or that in checking reality and usefulness as any good objectivist does and stated I found a sort of spin doctor wanna be situation...but I did not that would be going way over board since we all know spin is another word for deceit.

      So why did I bother? It proved useful as my support of having an ignore button has once again passed it's quarterly exams.

      WAIT did you have some axe to grind. ...A word of advise. Look it up. An ancient and honorable skill almost an art form leading to it's own truth by days end. Those of us who excel can do at least two cords a day.

      Now you may complain....Or better yet. Hit the ignore button. END

      Edit..I may be picking on someone or was I engaging in honest debate to the extent deserved? Upper left corner is a place for minus and plus opinions. I have some kindling to split.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 4 months ago
      Arabs do not hate Israel because Israel is Jewish; Arabs hate Israel because Israel is Western Civilization on their doorstep. Israeli's have been saying this for 60 years and the world ignored it. Now, the Arabs have stepped over the doorstep and are murdering westerners in their own countries. Western civilization needs to be helping Israel not because it feels [whatever] for Israel or the Jews, but because Israel is a buffer between the savages and the Western Civilization. Unless, of course, you prefer to fight this war on your own doorstep.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Esceptico 3 years, 4 months ago
        I disagree. One of the great points of Objectivism is disagreement is okay so long as no one initiates the use of force. What I am not understanding about your conclusion “Western civilization needs to be helping Israel” is whether you view means (1) those who want to help Israel are free to do so or (2) others should be forced to help.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 4 months ago
          I am considering Israel as a front line of defense of the Western Civilization against the Islamic savagery. Since an accepted role of any government is the physical protection from outside enemies, you decide if it's better to fight a war outside of your borders or within, and you think that taxation for that purpose is fair or not.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Esceptico 3 years, 4 months ago
            My issue is not whether Israel is good or bad, or if it should be a front line of defense, etc. My issue deals with tenets of Objectivism. As I said, I can’t find the Rand quotation and cannot see the context. What I am still not understanding about your conclusion “Western civilization needs to be helping Israel” is whether your view means (1) those who want to help Israel are free to do so or (2) others should be forced to help.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 4 months ago
              If you consider federal taxes for national defense as legitimate, e.g., requiring the legitimate use of force to collect them, then spending that money in Israel is smarter than fighting the savages in NYC. Personally, I do believe that one of the very few legitimate functions of a government is national defense. And any function of a government necessitates the use of force, actual or potential. It is my understanding that AR thought so and clearly the Founding Fathers did so as well. I don't think that anyone is arguing against any and all government altogether, except for diehard anarchists. And anarchy is a step toward dictatorship.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Esceptico 3 years, 4 months ago
                I disagree with defending Israel. I am subject to federal taxes. Part of my taxes go for the defense of Israel.

                Israel did not exist 80 years ago. Iraq did not exist 100 years ago. Why are either of these part of the cost of defense of the US?

                I am in my mid 70s and the US has been at war my entire lifetime. I was hood winked into thinking the US was always in the right. Independent study changed my mind. Now my view is the major contributors to established politicians love war because they make crony capitalism money from wars and politicians love war because people accept the lies of government and gravitate to those in power during a war. If lied to about the purpose of a war, the citizens accept the lie in the name of patriotism without checking. I object to the various wars. You want wars, go make war but do not use force to make me join in something with which I disagree.

                My point is this: on the Objectivist moral principle of not initiating force against another person you (and others who want wars) do not have (from the Objectivist point of view) the right to initiate the use of force against me to make me participate. You want war? Fund and fight it yourself on a volunteer basis. In the meantime, leave the rest of us alone and we will not be hated when we visit foreign countries.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 4 months ago
                  You have brought up several topics. Let me address them one by one.
                  Patriotism - I abhor the word and the concept. It's corollary is "My Country Right or Wrong" and the meaning is to send other people to their deaths for the benefit of the ones that do not wish to risk anything.
                  You say that you object to various wars. One must differentiate between defense and aggression. Although most of America's wars since Korea were either aggression or just plain stupid, I am not willing to make a blanket statement that I object to all wars. Otherwise, the next one may very well be your last.
                  As to "You want war?" - no, I don't. I do not want war in order to "improve" other people's lives, or to bring them into the fold of "democracy," etc. But I will take war any day if someone attacks me. Self defense is my duty to myself and the government's duty to me. And that brings us to the question where and when to fight a defensive war (since you and I agree on not fighting aggressive wars)? Some prefer to stick their heads in the sand and react only when they feel pain of the exposed parts; others prefer to avoid that situation. As I've said earlier, the Arabs are not hating and fighting Israel because they hate Jews; they hate Israel because it is a bulwark of Western Civilization on their doorstep. Do not forget that the Muslim world has been fighting against all other civilizations from the day of its creation. And due to the deterioration of the Western World, caused by the Church, they have almost won. What stopped them was eventual European technological superiority, due in great part to the monetary / banking system created by the Jews, which made investments possible, while at the same time the Muslim world forbade investments, just like the Church. So, it seems that the Jews were instrumental in saving Europe from the Muslim conquest. Now, again, Israel is the West's front line against the new Muslim attack. It was ignored and it's warnings have been ignored. 9/11 is one of the results. No doubt you know of many others. Europe had known them since the '70's, but capitulated shortly afterwards. I do not wish to go the European way. Do you?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Esceptico 3 years, 4 months ago
                    I hate to keep bringing this up, but my point is this: the Objectivist moral principle is of not initiating force against another person.

                    I get the feeling you are trying to convince me you are correct in your analysis of whether we should send Israel billions of taxpayer money. That is not the issue. Assuming, for purposes of discussion, all you say is correct. From the Objectivist point of view how do you reconcile your desire to force me to conform to your desires of defending Israel with my desire not to contribute to the defense of Israel?

                    I don’t know how to frame my question more clearly. I’ll work on that.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 4 months ago
                      If you agree with my claim that helping Israel is in fact the same as defensing ourselves, then the only question left is are you willing to defend yourself and at what stage of an aggression against yourself and the country do you consider it in fact an aggression? So, the question is immaterial regarding Israel or the billions that go to Israel - it is a question of what and when do any citizen considers to be an aggression and what is the proper response. I am not an Objectivist scholar, but my understanding is that Objectivism recognizes the role of government in national defense. As such, the government is authorized (morally) to use force, both for taxation and for requiring military service, when it believes it is needed. I don't think that your objection to military service or taxation for that purpose is supported by Objectivist philosophy. I may be wrong - anyone care to comment and present evidence?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Esceptico 3 years, 4 months ago
                        I said for purposes of discussion because the defending Israel is not even close to my point about fromcing somebody to do what you want them to do.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 4 months ago
                          I did take it for the purposes of the discussion. So, that leaves the fundamental question, does the government have the moral authority to force its citizens to participate in the defense of the nation, both financially and physically?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by Esceptico 3 years, 4 months ago
                            I think I see what you are saying. You are saying that defending Israel = defending the U.S. The idea is so abhorrent to me I failed to grasp your point. Restated, you are saying it is moral to tax (initiate the use of force against the citizens) to defend the country and defending Israel is defending the country. Am I right in this interpretation?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 4 months ago
                              I think that you are combining two separate issues.

                              The first issue is: Is it moral for a government to initiate force by a) taxing citizens and b) by forcing citizens to perform military duty?

                              The second issue is, if the answer to the above is "yes," should we consider our allies against a common enemy as worth defending as much as ourselves and our own shores?

                              These questions can be answered in multiple ways, but each option has consequences.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 4 months ago
                  Now isn't that better? Your reasoning is "I" want to go somewhere and all this bother is in my way. May I suggest a yacht trip on the Red Sea?

                  The one worth while statement was 'do not use force to make me join in something with which I disagree. You have of course been collecting signatures to repeal the draft? No? Damn. I've been trying to find one to sign. Hint you won't find them hanging with the people that started most of the wars and caused the most loss of life and are the only group to try and get it re-activated.

                  There you see the whole exercise was profitable. Another blow struck against Non-Universal Military Conscription.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 3 years, 4 months ago
    Her comments are as appropriate today as they were when originally said.
    my thought is if ther oil dried up they would mount their camels and be nomads again.
    stupid is just stupid and they are savages.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 4 months ago
      It was also an interview comment and remarkably stayed on track to 'Don A. Hews question. Being an athiest I doubt she gave much time for religion.

      BUT it is true from our point of view today. So whose up to bat next. Iran, North Korea, Venezuela?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo