Reading the official statement from ARC on support for Israel sort of begs the question of: "Why not support political candidates who principles are diametrically opposed to the ARC in some sense but virtuous in others? Why wade into this particular morass? Furthermore, since when has US interests and Israeli interests converged to the point that they have become one? Why not challenge this idea on the basis that is not in Americas self interest to be joined at the hip with another country so that if they sniffle, we sneeze? Does it seem odd that the ARC has a such a strong position on Israel? Their entire statement is not even factual, what kind of statement is, “We understand that those who threaten Israel’s freedom also threaten America”? Really? When was the last time you saw someone attacking Israel that was not in response to Israel’s aggression. I’m sure you watch the news and have noticed that it is Israel who openly threatens its neighbors and has at one time or another invaded preemptively ( a euphemism for aggression) nearly every country that borders it,
One of the principles of Objectivism is the evil of the initiation of force. If one wanted to establish who the victim and criminal is in a given situation, this principle is all that is needed. I believe the aggressor and the victim are clearly defined, the NUMEROUS violations of the rule of law are well documented, and the attacks on the individual rights of the indigenous people rival those of apartheid South Africa. A close study of the facts will reveal that the lines between truth and lies have been blurred to the point where the average American would end up supporting policies that mirror the Nazis.
No, I am not using words loosely or engaging in hyperbole. If you would like for me to qualify any of these statements just let me know and I will be glad to do so. Each would require a lengthy response and would be too much for one post.
I am not as familiar with the positions of the ARC as I am with ARI but it seems they are unanimous in their support for Israel which is not surprising.
If there is one single issue that has united arab nationalists against the US, it is support for Israel. The 9/11 commission found that of all the terrorists captured and interrogated by the US-American support for Israel is the number one reason. Bin Laden in his fatwas repeatedly stated that American support for the humiliation of the Palestinians was proof that America does not desire peace only imperialism. But I do not want to get into politics .
It is difficult to understand the overwhelming support of Israel by Objectivist institutions. On nearly all accounts, Israel does not meet any of the conditions of the type of society that Objectivism advocates as a political ideal. Hell, it’s a socialist paradise!
First-the rule of law and the initiation of force
Just as law is an extension of morality in the lives of individuals and society, so is international law in the realm of sovereign states. Just as it is illegal to initiate force against someone in domestic law, it is illegal to initiate force against people and countries outside your sovereign borders. It is also illegal to invade another entity and occupy their country and impose a military dictatorship and start transferring your population there. It is also illegal under international law to collectively punish 1.5 million people with a medieval siege for the policies of a freely elected democratic government. Currently, there are over 220 UN resolutions against Israel-keep in mind that at the time Saddam was attacked in the first war, there were only 69 violations.
Terrorism and indiscriminate attacks on civilians:
If the definition of terrorism is the killing of innocent civilians for a political purpose, then who is the more guilty? The one who kills 1400 and wounds 5000 in one fell swoop or the one who kills in self defense? According to the principles of Objectivism, the initiator of force forfeits ALL rights when he attacks his victim, including the right to his own life. If Israel has attacked, invaded, and annexes another entities’ territory-isn’t this an act of aggression? Do the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves by any means necessary? Isn’t it also true that if the methods they use are unsavory that it would still have to be shown that they were not a response to the actions of the aggressor? It is written in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that a people invaded, have a right to defend themselves-why does this right not extend to the Palestinians.
Apartheid:
According to the international law -Apartheid is a crime against the humanity of a group of people.To be clear, the type of Apartheid that is practiced is religious apartheid. It is clearly defined under international law. It has criteria that is descriptive. Not to go too deeply but what else can be meant by the term “A Jewish State”? Doesn’t it by definition mean that Jews will be given preferential treatment? Doesn’t it mean that the laws and policies will benefit Jews more than any other group? Doesn’t it mean Jewish emigration will be encouraged and non Jewish emigration discouraged? Doesn’t it mean that the 700,000 Palestinians who were forced out will not be allowed to return because it would change the demographic of the state? Doesn’t it also mean that the national symbols,flag, official language, etc.. will be of a Jewish nature irregardless of the indigenous people who live in Israel?
Proof:
Let me begin by defining my terms.
From the UN definition of Apartheid and international law:
—>c. Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;
d. Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof; <----
First:
“Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including ..the right to freedom of movement”
First Israeli Arabs are prevented from visiting family members that live in countries that Israel does not approve. This law does apply equally to all citizens. Proof:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/997986.html
They have also set aside lands for the purpose of constructing “Jewish only” roads. Wonderful , wide , and well-paved roads, brightly lit at night–all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way. May I also add that humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either. Curfews also fall under restriction of freedom of movement. Based on a series of long curfews in the majority of Palestinian towns and villages and hundreds of CHECKPOINTS navigable only with Israeli-issued permits,movement between towns and villages is extremely restricted, and often impossible. DO YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS DESIGNED TO RESTRICT FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR A PARTICULAR RACIAL GROUP-YES OR NO?
proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/804600.html
Next:
“Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by…the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups.”
The Citizenship and Entry Law-The law, passed July 31, 2003 prohibits Palestinian spouses from obtaining citizenship, permanent residency and temporary residency status in Israel by marriage to an Israeli citizen. Under the new law, thousands of Palestinians living in Israel must go back to the West Bank or Gaza, and they will be denied identity cards—their passports to get past police checkpoints.
The Nationality and Entry law forbids the marriage of Palestinians and Israelis and also forbids spouses of Arab citizens, who reside in the occupied territories from joining their families in Israel? THESE LAWS PROHIBIT INTERMARRIAGE AND MEETS THE CONDITIONS ABOVE- DO YOU AGREE YES OR NO?
proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135963.html
Next:
…the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof
Absentee Property Law (1950)
Classifies the personal property of Palestinians who fled during the Zionist terror campaign of 1947/48 as “absentee property” and places it within the power of the Custodian of Absentee Property. According to the law, even the property of Palestinians who are present within the newly created state of Israel, but are not physically present on their property (“internal refugees”), becomes “absentee property.” This creates the category of “present absentees.”
National Planning and Building Law (1965)
Creates a system of discriminatory zoning that freezes existing Arab villages while providing for the expansion of Jewish settlements. The law also re-classifies a large number of Arab villages as “non-residential” creating the “unrecognized villages.” These villages do not receive basic municipal services such as water and electricity; all buildings are threatened with demolition orders.
DO THESE LAWS TARGET A PARTICULAR RACIAL GROUP WITH THE EFFECT OF SEIZING THEIR PROPERTY? YES OR NO?
proof: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1076058.html
Next:
… in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to leave and to return to their country.
Law of Return (1950)
Grants right of immigration to Jews born anywhere in the world. Amended in 1970 to extend this right to “a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew.” A “Jew” is defined as “a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.”
Non-Jewish native-born Palestinians - most importantly those who fled during the Zionist massacres in 1947 and 1948 - are in most cases prevented from returning.
Nationality (/Citizenship) Law (1952)
Confers automatic citizenship upon all who immigrate under the Law of Return. Non-Jews - including native-born Palestinians - must prove residency and pass other tests; citizenship is granted at the discretion of the Minister of the Interior.
Under the new interim policy for “family unification” passed by the Israeli Cabinet in 2002, and made part of the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law by the Knesset in 2003, a discriminatory system has been put in place preventing applications for residency or citizenship from Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens.
DO THESE LAWS PREVENT PALS FROM EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF RETURN? YES OR NO?
And there’s more…
By the way, all of these things are written into Israeli law. Can this be a true democracy?
Yet this is what is the two Institutions support and advocate for. If you haven’t noticed, there has been an overwhelming consensus against Islamic countries and Muslims in general by the ARC and ARI. The two institutions were advocating for war against Iran even before the nuclear issue came up. They were saying we should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq as early as 2003. Iran and Iraq are enemies of Israel not the US. So why do they do it?
