Israel Has No Right To Exist

by Puck T. Smith

DIGG THIS

I have been watching with horror as the current escalation of violence between the government of Israel and Hamas thrusts itself upon the consciousness of the world.   It has prompted me to consider the oft repeated canard about Israel's "right to exist."   Based on the principles that have come to inform my political philosophy I am forced to conclude Israel has no such "right."

Now before you brand me as antisemitic let me explain what I mean.

From my perspective no nation has a "right to exist" because nations do not have rights, they are artificial legal constructs, much like corporations.

At one time the word nation had a valid definition as a group of people who shared a common culture, language, ethnicity and history--among other things--that distinguished them in general from everyone else.   Nation sat at the top of the hierarchy of individual, family, clan and tribe.   With the advent of rapid travel, instant communication, world wide commerce and mass migration that higher level of the hierarchy has lost its meaning.

Nation now refers to a geographical territory enclosed by arbitrary boundaries, usually established by military action, ruled by a government that claims a monopoly on force within that territory.   In most people's minds that government is synonymous with the nation, so much so that a government is able to propagandize that a threat to itself, that is a threat to its monopoly on power, is a threat to the people as a whole.   As a result people have been lead to commit horrible atrocities in defense of their nation when in reality the only threat was to the power and privilege of the people who rule them.   Nations, that is the governments who claim to represent them, do not have rights, they have power, generally usurped from those unfortunate enough to be enclosed within their borders.

People have rights.   Every Israeli, every Palestinian--every person in the world--has the right to life, liberty and lawfully acquired property.   As long as those rights are not respected there will be neither justice nor peace.

The government of Israel unlawfully suppressed the liberty and expropriated the property of a vast number of individual Palestinians.   Until that is addressed those people and their progeny have a legitimate grievance.   On the other hand, Hamas, and before them the PLO, have targeted the lives of individual Israelis who did not participate in the government of Israel's crimes for no other reason than they happen to be in range.   Both governments are concerned only with preserving and expanding their power, neither is concerned with the welfare of the people under their control.   They exploit their suffering for political reasons.   If that were not true Israel would stop encouraging and subsidizing the expansion of settlements on the property of Palestinians, knowing full well it will draw reprisals, and Hamas would stop provoking the wrath of Israel onto innocent Palestinians by targeting innocent Israelis and then hiding in residential neighborhoods.

Neither the Palestinian people nor the Israeli people are to blame.   The blame lies with the amoral elites who rule them and who will stop at nothing to expand their power, privilege and control.

The state of Israel has no "right" to exist, neither does the state of Palestine.   The people who live in the land occupied by those two regimes have every right to live free of the pernicious parasites who will not be happy till the sea is filled with blood.

December 29, 2008

DIGG THIS

Puck T. Smith is the nom de plume of a man who wishes to live his life in peace and obscurity while at the same time sharing the insights he has acquired through both suffering and joy in more than half a century of living in this world of terrible tragedy, radiant beauty and dizzying possibilities.

Rubicon in the Rear-View

There is widespread but very mistaken view that only those on the political left are concerned about freedom and civil liberties. William Norman Grigg is a very conservative Bible-believing Christian. His blog, Pro Libertate, contains some of the most hard hitting, even courageous, examinations of the threat posed to our country by the national security mindset.

He has written a series of three essays which standout among the many other clear-eyed and important expositions he has posted on his site, unfortunately unread by any but the wacko, nutbag fringe of which I am proud to name myself a member.

Rubicon in the Rear-View, Part I: Militarizing the Police


The future of law enforcement: The 193rd Military Police Battalion, Colorado National Guard, trains at Ft. Carson last July 12 in preparation for deployment as part of JTF-DNC -- the military component of security arrangements for the Democratic Convention in Denver.

There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. ~ Garet Garrett, The Revolution Was (1938)

Rubicon in the Rear-View, Part II: Perpetual War, Here and Abroad


Two missions that should never intersect are those of the military and of the civilian police, respectively. The logic of empire ultimately demands that which our rulers have now provided: A militarized apparatus of coercion in which military and police roles are inextricably blended.

Rubicon in the Rear-View, Part III: En Route to Military Rule

The military occupation of New Orleans, post-Katrina.

Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free. ~ Alexander Hamilton (of all people) Federalist Paper No. 8

When it all comes down to it, given the choice, whom would you prefer to look up and find by your side?

These guys...


...or him?


It's a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.

My friends in the Standing Bear Community

The Standing Bear Community was formed to provide a safe environment for individuals to experience and strengthen their spirituality through community, education, and ceremonial support for the Way of the Pipe. Our premise is Pragmatic Spirituality based in Native American Traditions and practice. We hold Ceremonies for individuals to interact with Spirit and give honor to our ancestors seven generations ago for the seven generations to come. We endeavor to keep Have One Mind and One Heart, All Things are Divine and that We are all Relations in the forefront. Therefore, this community is intended for those who truly want to learn, participate, or live this way of life. It is not for gawkers, site-seers or Wannabes. We respect that you come to Ceremony with an understanding of your spiritual path and traditions, our Ceremonies are not restricted to any specific religion, tradition or path. Ceremony is a way of life and a time for prayer.

All who come in a good way are welcome
http://www.standing-bear.org/

aravoth strikes again

The voice of one crying in the wilderness.

Climate Change

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

“Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

More MSM on the Fed

Gerald O'Driscoll, a former senior Fed official and very able economist, recently said it best: "The central bank is like an arsonist watching a fire he set, expressing amazement at how such an event could have happened. The Fed created a moral hazard by first, implicitly, then explicitly promising to bail investors out of risky commitments. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan promised to 'mitigate the fallout' from asset deflation. How does a central bank do that? By reflating asset prices, or, as Greenspan euphemistically put it in his 1999 testimony, 'ease the transition to the next expansion.'"

The Fed: Solution or problem? by Richard Rahn

NPR Outs the Federal Reserve!

I am totally flabbergasted, NPR actually came right out and said the Fed just created $800 billion out of thin air. The threw in some fluff about them later taking it out of the economy later, in time to save the day, but I almost crashed my car when I heard that.

Ron Paul is still winning!

Go listen, especially at 3:32.

Here's the story. The have a link there to the audio.

This goes straight to the player at NPR and might not work.

Pro Libertate: Free Mark Cuban!

Pro Libertate: Free Mark Cuban!

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By
Meg Sullivan
| 8/10/2004 12:23:12 PM

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

Stuck in the Cold

Senators McCain, Obama, Biden, Governor Palin, and their senior colleagues are all Cold-War leftovers—secular imperialists, really—chaffing to involve America in wars where no U.S. interests are at stake and those started by their own democracy-crusading. The difference between parties is just nuance: Republicans prefer to provide a strong, close-up whiff of gunpowder before coercively imposing their values on foreigners, while Democrats prefer raining anonymous death from 20,000 feet on foreigners, who – if they live – will have new values drilled into them. All are imperialism’s paladins and, like Rudyard Kipling and Woodrow Wilson, they are: aching to dictate their kind of freedom to various little brown brothers; willing to kill those who obstruct efforts to make the world made safe for the brand of democracy they peddle; and eager to use an M-16 or two-ton bomb if it takes that to teach their undemocratic, Muslim brothers to elect good men.

Read the rest...