Therefore I'd like to try a comprehensive take on Israel according to my values and be judged accordingly. This isn't because I think what happens in Israel is very important to the larger picture, but just as a test of my own character.
First, I believe in the Declaration of Independence. I especially favor this all-important line of political philosophy, later picked up by Wilson and deemed the right to self-determination:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
This was, perhaps, the signature breakthrough of the Enlightenment in political philosophy. It has led to endless good in the world, and wherever it is ignored, it has led to endless evil. Unfortunately, the premise as stated in the Declaration of Independence is based on a series of 'pious lies,' as Plato would say. All men are not created equal, no one is endowed with any rights from on high, and there is no Creator endowing us or creating us in the first place. Everything must be understood through the lens of utilitarianism. Here would be a better version of the above:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that government should treat all members of a society equally, that they are endowed by our contract with them to certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and a reasonable opportunity to achieve Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, whether to the whole population or any sub-group within the country, it is the right of said aggrieved to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Let's try to clarify even further. The only right a nation has to a person's allegiance is due to his informed, and free, consent. He must have, preferably explicitly, but at least implicitly, affirmed the nation he lives in as meeting his fundamental wishes and worthy of his support (moral support, financial support, military support, etc). If at any time a government betrays the contract it signed with this individual, the individual has the right to withdraw his support, and seek some new form of government which would earn his consent and secure his fundamental wishes. Unfortunately, it isn't possible for every individual to live in their own state. A state requires a group of people. It doesn't take a very large size, though like all things economies of scale support larger states in terms of economic and military efficiency. But it does take a reasonable amount of people, something that is sustainable and serious, before anyone else has to take them seriously. A basic floor generally requires two things -- a highly geographically concentrated region wherein a large majority desires independence, and a population of at least one million such that it could genuinely run itself if it were independent. Sadly, no white nationalist nation meets said criteria to be founded in America. This is why we really have no right to complain. Despite many people desiring to secede, they all have their own idea of what the new state would be based around, they are all spread out, they are always in the minority at any given location, and there aren't enough of us anyway.
Therefore, we must look at other aspiring and successful secessions to find examples of where this principle is working and where it isn't.
The South: In the Civil War, 13 states desired to break away from the Union and form a new nation more befitting their prosperity and ideals. They had a large population with strong majority support, and they were in a definable, contiguous geographic area. Not only this, but they were in the very same nation that just 70 years before had spelled out exactly why states could secede from their motherlands and was itself the product of secession. This should have been a no brainer. However, one giant flaw exists in the midst of Southern apologetics. Slavery.
Slavery completely ruins any legitimate claims the South had to independence. First off, where no slaves were present, the majority of Southerners actually supported the North and staying in the Union. This was true for West Virginia, the hills of Arkansas and Tennessee, and many other regions. It appears that the only people who expected to be better off from Southern Independence were people directly related to the slave industry. But no claim for self determination can exist among people who deny self-determination to others, within Their borders. Therefore, without giving their slaves a free and informed consent as to whether they desired to remain in the South as slaves, they had no basis for claiming the same right to themselves. No one has the freedom to escape a less tyrannous country so that they can set up a more tyrannous one that lets them abuse some other sub-group more than ever before. This isn't idealism, it's sophistry. Many southern states were in fact majority black -- South Carolina and the like never consulted the opinion of their blacks on whether they wanted to form the Confederacy and leave the Union, so none of their votes can possibly be considered valid. More liberty per capita was available to Americans by staying within the Union than by leaving it. Though I feel sorry for truly honorable people like Robert E. Lee who opposed slavery and just wanted a free South for cultural and local reasons, the majority of the Confederacy was just about empowering evil doers. If the South had freed the slaves and deported them back to Africa, like Lincoln wished, instead of causing a fruitless civil war and assassinating Lincoln before he could implement his plan, it would have been much better off today. Or the South could have given a proportionate amount of land to blacks as their population justified and formed a separate country (like Swaziland was created from South Africa), then claimed the right of freedom and independence for themselves. Instead the South wanted to permanently extend slavery in their borders, invade all of their neighbors, import more slaves from Africa, and in general just be ruthless profiteers of human misery. The South is entirely to blame for losing its right to secede by not respecting the fundamental principles of the Declaration of Independence.
Kosovo: Kosovo is an interesting pseudo-state that only half of the world currently recognizes. It's unknown at this time if they'll actually achieve independence. Kosovo has serious legitimate grievances. Even though every other ethnic group was allowed to break away from the former Yugoslavia, with due respect being paid to the right to self-determination, for some arbitrary reason Kosovo was not. This, even though the region is 90% Albanian, far less ethnically mixed than Bosnia which was allowed their freedom. This, even though the Serbs brutally cracked down on Kosovar civilians and displayed quite clearly that they had severed all contractual obligations to their citizens of this sub-group. When the safety and happiness of regular Kosovar's had been ruined by Serbian aggression, and when a sub-group highly desires independence in a region that's almost entirely geographically theirs, Kosovo clearly deserves independence. There are only two flaws to this nation's right to secede -- their random claiming of ethnically Serbian territory which never desired independence from Serbia, based on imaginary lines on a map, and their constant terrorist and criminal aggression against Serbia both before they were cracked down upon and after NATO rescued them.
So long as Kosovo claims ethnically Serbian territory that does not desire independence, but refuses them the right to secede back to Serbia, they are themselves denying the principles of self determination. Those who aren't willing to grant human rights to others, deserve none themselves. Therefore, Kosovo has denied itself any reasonable basis or claim for its own independence. In addition, the fact that they violently persecuted innocent Serbian civilians both before and after the war was a slow act of ethnic cleansing -- Serbia was hardly wrong to respond in kind, and in any event this kind of activity shouldn't be rewarded by the world community. Kosovo should not be granted independence from Serbia on present terms. Serbians living in Kosovo should have the right to a referendum where they live, whether they wish to join Kosovo or Serbia. Kosovo should restore the land, property, and security they took from Serbians during the last twenty years or so and make financial restitution to them, reversing any gains they made from previous ethnic cleansing. After all of these wrongs are righted, they can seek their own future, without treading upon others.
Chechnya: Chechnya is another mixed case. Most Chechens, it can be believed, desire independence and they have a geographically centralized location. They have also been greatly wronged by their government, both in the past and the present, which clearly displays a complete disinterest in fulfilling a government's contractual obligations to this people. Stalin rounded up and deported, killing many on the way, the entire Chechen population from Chechnya. Later, Yeltsin's brutal crackdown on Chechnya, and Putin's brutal follow-up, killed hundreds of thousands more, most completely unrelated to the war. If people deserve a government that consults their safety and happiness, Russia never deserves to be trusted with that mantle again. Unfortunately, Chechnya refused to stay the victims and fight a defensive war of independence. Instead, they projected their force outwards in the form of terrorism, crime, and even attempts at foreign conquest. It is useless to wade through who started what, when. The point is Chechnya denied itself the justification of human rights and self determination when it tried to conquer neighboring Dagestan and Ingushetsia, which has no desire to secede from Russia. It denied itself basic human rights by bombing hospitals and schools full of helpless children. It denied itself anyone's sympathy by showing no sympathy to innocent train passengers, theatre goers, and school children in a constant, fruitless, inexplicable hatred and resentment. It has even aided Al Qaeda in their terrorist war on the West, who largely supported Chechnya and tried to mitigate the human rights abuses of Russia. This is a stinging lack of gratitude and universal animosity towards people who have never done anything to them.
So long as Chechnya acts more like a rabid dog than a group of men interested in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they have no right to their own nation. Rabid dogs must be put down, they aren't men, and they aren't endowed with anything.
South Ossetia: South Ossetia is a slam dunk. South Ossetia, at the time Russia was breaking up, didn't wish to leave Russia and was dragged away by the majority Georgians who surrounded them. Ever since, they have not renounced their desire to secede, while also not engaging in major acts of terror or imperialist dreams of conquest that would render their claims moot. A couple years ago, Georgians, without provocation and without any fig leaf of morality, attempted to conquer and slaughter the South Ossetians, starting by indiscriminately shelling a small town into cinders. Russia came to South Ossetia's rescue, drove out the Georgian aggressors, and restored South Ossetia to a de facto, though not legal, independence. Since then South Ossetia has done nothing to hurt Georgia and has continued to, we can imagine happily, live out their new, safer, freer lives. The world should recognize South Ossetia's wishes and victimhood, and allow them independence or to be reabsorbed by Russia, whatever they see fit.
Kurdistan: Kurdistan is an unfortunate morass of tyranny and terrorism all intermixed. Turkey killed perhaps 30,000 Kurds suppressing their rebellion. Saddam likewise gassed whole cities of kurds in Northern Iraq who hoped to break away there. Iran also has Kurdish problems, and really it seems the kurds make enemies out of everyone. The Kurds, not content with that, even broke into two factions in Northern Iraq and made war on each other. The PKK, not content with the largely sovereign status they enjoy in Northern Iraq, now free of all oppression from the central state (thanks to the USA), continues to pursue its imperialist agenda by invading Turkey and freeing the Kurds who live there. In an ideal world, perhaps all Kurd dominated regions should be allowed to break away from their respective countries and join a greater Kurdistan. However, it would be more reasonable of Kurds who feel oppressed to move to northern Iraq where they are free.
Basically, Kurdistan exists already, it has both the financial strength of large oil reserves and a legal power to self-rule. Any Kurds who hate their native country should find what they're looking for by moving to Northern Iraq. If their desire for freedom is so limited that they won't move, it must not mean much to them in the first place. Their position is much less sympathetic ever since 2003 gave them this seminal chance to restart their lives.
Flanders: If the majority of the inhabitants of Flanders desire independence, they should be granted it forthwith. Flanders was conquered in an illegal, immoral war of aggression hundreds of years ago, and then oppressed for hundreds of years afterwards, never given equal rights compared to their Walloon compatriots. They have a legitimate grievance against the State, which abuses their liberty and transfers their wealth to the southern Walloons still to this day. The only problem is that even in Flanders it seems like only 30-40% of Flemish desire to separate from the rest of Belgium. Until their own people decide what they want, its hardly Wallonia's fault that they are still here. Flemish independence due to a peaceful referendum would be an ideal example of how secession should work, without any war or terrorism before hand. It would be as welcome an example as Slovakia finally gaining its long wished for goal of independence from the Czech Republic through peaceful negotiation. The same can be said of Quebec. This is another country with a different language, culture, and ethnicity from the majority of the nation, in a concentrated geographic area. It would make sense if they desired independence, but they themselves voted not to break away. Canada, perfectly willing to accept the will of the people, has been a model sovereign, and in a way, disarmed any fears or grievances Quebecois might have. Now most Quebecois are content to remain a part of Canada, differences and all.
With this as reference material, what can we say about Israel? First, that Israel has caused legitimate grievances that would make any Palestinian question their commitment to an Arab's safety or happiness. The indiscriminate bombing of Gaza which took 1,000 lives last year over a few petty rocket strikes that took less than ten, is proof enough that Israel has no intention of treating Gazans equally. The current blockade of Gaza, however light a touch, is a clear violation of human rights and a clear act of aggression that no sub-group should have to endure as a part of a nation so visibly hostile to its existence. Not only this, but the vast differences between Palestinians and Jews, would make anyone wish to live separately and according to their own customs among people more like themselves. The only problem is Hamas, and Palestinians in general, keep mixing up their desire for independence and self-determination and basic human rights, with terrorism and imperialism. Like I've said before, those who do not grant human rights to others do not deserve human rights themselves. Palestinians have the right to resist militarily the military aggression of Israel, but they don't have the right to kill random civilians -- even if said civilians approve of Israel's actions. This is because nothing is achieved through terror and bloodshed. Even when Americans firebombed whole cities of presumably loyal German civilians who supported their troops and the Nazi government, it did little to change the course of the war. Only defeating the German military out in the field led to the surrender of the German nation. After Germany's military was defeated, the people quickly came around. This shows that civilians who support their nation's policies and militaries are not legitimate targets in a war. Basically, their affect on the course of the war is too little to justify the horrible pain you are causing by targeting them during a war. The nuclear strikes on Japan are different, because the sheer scale of intimidation they caused helped bring the war to a swift conclusion, saving both Japanese civilian lives (who were on the brink of starvation), American troops, and Japanese troops (who were being armed with wooden stakes and told to fight to the end.)
Terrorism against civilians is pointless and cruel. All it does is stir up Israel's fear and hatred of Palestinians. Instead of showing your humanity and gaining jewish sympathy, they act like rabid dogs and are treated as such. The Hamas demand for the restoration of all Israel is the same. If Hamas feels it has some claim to all Israel's land and can legitimately secure said land by violence, what right do they have to complain if Israel feels the same about the Gaza strip and the West Bank? How preposterous is it for Hamas, as weak and helpless as they are, to be pursuing an imperialist goal of wiping Israel off the map anyway? Israel may have won its land cruelly and unfairly, but that was 70 years ago. Most Israelis weren't even alive at the time, they created their own wealth and opportunities -- they didn't steal it from anyone -- and they are rooted to this land due to family, economic, historical, and religious values. Israelis actually lives on Israeli soil, it isn't a phantom claim like Mexico's control of the western United States, inhabited by just a few dozen Mexicans at the time we took it from them. If Hamas wants to play the game of taking other people's land, I feel no sympathy for them if Israel builds settlements on their land. In so far as other Palestinians support Hamas, they also lose any right to complain about settlements (and it appears most Palestinians fall into this category.)
This isn't about Israel's security. For a long time now, Israel has been completely secure. Israelis probably lead safer lives than Americans, and certainly live safer lives than South African whites. Palestinians are so toothless that their terrorism, and their imperialism, is completely incapable of harming Israel. The point is that Palestine continues to pursue these goals ANYWAY. A toothless rabid dog is still a rabid dog. Giving them independence would only aid them in regrowing said teeth, which might make them a threat thirty, fifty, or a hundred years down the road. Why should Israel help out its avowed enemies? What we need to see from Palestine is maturity. A nation that wishes to provide life, liberty, and happiness to itself instead of take it from others. Once Palestine decides to pursue the goals of the declaration of independence, instead of their current desire for revenge and Jihad, they too should be granted their freedom. Until then, let them eat sand. They brought their fate entirely upon themselves.
Never have more people honestly wished to work with a nation's aspirations for self determination more than the world community with Palestine. They have the sympathy and funding of the whole world to set up their own country and live, peacefully, in a way that accords with human rights. It is only their incredible intransigence that has denied them the fruit of our outstretched hands. Refusing to grant Israel's right to exist, refusing to end their terrorist attacks which usually don't even kill anyone but always don't kill enough people to possibly be of military significance, refusing to sign multitudes of accords like the one Ehud Barak(?) offered Yassar Arafat at Camp David that would have given Palestine its freedom, is all due to the Palestinians.
Meanwhile, it behooves Israel to act like a moral and civilized people, and not to respond with excessive force to the toothless provocations made against them. If Israel wished to gain the deserved sympathy and support of the world, they must stop killing thousands of people in Lebanon and Gaza over the deaths of ten or less Israelis. They must start treating the human rights of others as importantly as they treat their own. They must endure, and simply shrug, under the blows of the occasional lucky rocket strike, or inflammatory speech, said by their Arab rivals. It must not continue its imperialistic schemes of peopling former Palestinian conquered land with more Jewish settlements. Everyone has told them this for decades. Stop using excessive force, stop harming civilians, stop building settlements. Israel never listens. Because they never listen, because they are atrocious in upholding the sentiments of the Declaration of Independence, they are universally hated all over the world. There is plenty of land for Israelis within Israel itself without having to settle Palestinian territories. There is plenty of security for Israelis without having to bomb cities to a pulp. Why can't they just ignore the Palestinians and lead their own, secure, life within the walls they've already built? Why can't they be the bigger man? What we seem to be seeing is the inexplicable mentality of two semitic tribes more intent on feuding and vendettas than reasonable men aspiring to their own well being. A pox on both their houses is the only reply to such mindless feuds. I certainly have no desire to help or protect an Israel intent on unnecessary imperialism and human rights abuses. America should give no diplomatic, moral, financial, or military support to Israel so long as they engage in these activities. Israel should be condemned for their excessive use of force and over-reaction against the flotilla that attempted to reach the Gaza Strip. Supporting Israel comes at the price of your soul -- so many clearly immoral acts must be whitewashed in so many ways, that you end up justifying any crime under the sun. The fanatical supporters of Israel, generally jews and their brainwashed supporters, have basically claimed that Israel can do no wrong no matter what happens. Like I say, Israel is a touchstone which reveals someone's morals. If they can't find a connection between first principles and why they support Israel, you have found a rat.
Israel has no right to attack Iran because, A) Despite what people say, Iran has made no genuine threats to nuke Israel. B) Every nation has the right to arm themselves however they please, that's what it means to be a sovereign and independent state. C) Iran has never invaded or attacked any of its neighbors for hundreds of years, something Israel and America can't say. D) Iran has legitimate needs of self defense considering they were just recently invaded by Iraq, threatened by Bush's 'axis of evil' speech that America would soon attack them, and the constant threats Israel is making towards them. It is no wonder they would be arming themselves as quickly as they could. The Iran controversy is entirely Israel and America's fault. If we just left them alone, they would leave us alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment