Dear Brad; Excellent. My only "problem" with what you brilliantly state, is that too few people will see this. I urge you to add to this and get it published for a wider audience. I am honored that you chose to make this available by the readership of this substack. Best regards, Walter
Thank you, Walter, for sending Oded Jacob's excellent article. I've posted a longer comment on his substack, taking issue with only a small fraction, and congratulating the clear discussion of the conflict of approaches. As you may recall, I'm far more on "your side" than on the others' side, as it were. Your position on Israel's defense is fundamental classical liberalism and morally the most defensible.
I truly appreciate your post and am especially glad that the article has led not only to thoughtful dialogue but also to a growing friendship and the potential for future collaboration.
I'm grateful that we met. Your work had had a meaningful influence on me—both in my personal development and in shaping broader libertarian thought.
I value your intellectual decency and integrity, as well as your communication style: direct, open, and grounded in mutual respect.
I've seen libertarians who not only defend Hamas as a non-state actor, I've seen them defend various dictators. I understand the idea, we can observe as the US will first create a boogieman and then use that image as an excuse to attack. However, that's still no excuse for pretending that someone like Chavez is a great guy or Putin for that matter.
You can believe they are none of our business, which is my stance generally speaking, but we shouldn't make excuses for leaders of states or leaders of stateless people when they commit crimes. Hamas is elected, they have the power to tax and enforce laws, etc., so I'm not sure the stateless definition truly holds anyway. By most definitions they are in charge of what amounts to be a State, but I digress.
I could understand not agreeing on what actions Israel can and can not take in response to Hamas, there is a limit to what any group can do before it's so disproportionate that it becomes revenge or murder, especially if there is no hope of success. That disagreement should not get you labeled a non-libertarian, not as long as it's in good faith. (rather like the abortion arguments)
I can't understand anyone who would claim that Israel can take no action again Hamas at all, that's insane to me. The argument should really only be about the extent that they can go, this should be especially obvious when prisoners are involved. What extent would anyone go to, to get their loved ones back and to keep others safe from future attack? It's certainly more than nothing for any of us.
Just as note of interest; Most nations actually have a formula called the Non-Combatant Casualty Value (NCCV). This tells commanders whether or not they can hit a target. For instance a high value target in Gaza once had a NCCV of 300 to 1. Typically a low level Hamas member is around 15 to 1. If you were a US soldier on the ground in Afghanistan, anything higher than 1 to 1 was considered grounds for investigation, although some of that was because of over-aching goals such as winning hearts and minds. During the invasion of Iraq, during shock and awe in particular, 60 to 1 was common.
All Western nations grapple with this problem and none of them have come up with a one size fits all answer. How many civilians can be killed to rescue hostages? "It depends" is the only real answer. There are tons of factors, all of which rely on a number of judgment calls. How likely is success? How likely is it that the action will lead to further escalation? Is there any other way to get them back? Etc., etc., etc..
Sadly, some of the people who really don't like Israel or the US empire, have set such an unrealistic bar that they have effectively told Israel that any action they take will be wrong. Some of them of course have decided that the Israel people are automatically the aggressor, for simply existing on land that some deem stolen, as if they bought none of it, nor mixed their labor to make it their own.
Furthermore, as I stated, I've seen some of these same people make excuse after excuse for Putin, Chavez, Assad, etc. etc.. So, there does seem to be a group who will defend Anyone, state actor or not, who is opposed to the US empire. I suspect this is also based on the idea that the US empire is the aggressor at all times, therefore anyone opposed to us must be right.
Just one small correction—*hostages*, not *prisoners*. The people kidnapped from their homes on the morning of October 7th weren’t arrested—they were taken.
Dear Brad; Excellent. My only "problem" with what you brilliantly state, is that too few people will see this. I urge you to add to this and get it published for a wider audience. I am honored that you chose to make this available by the readership of this substack. Best regards, Walter
Dear Oded: Thanks. The feeling is mutual. Best regards, Walter
Dear Richard: Thanks for your support on this.; Best regards, Walter
Thank you, Walter, for sending Oded Jacob's excellent article. I've posted a longer comment on his substack, taking issue with only a small fraction, and congratulating the clear discussion of the conflict of approaches. As you may recall, I'm far more on "your side" than on the others' side, as it were. Your position on Israel's defense is fundamental classical liberalism and morally the most defensible.
Thanks, Richard. I'll reply shortly.
Dear Walter,
Thank you sincerely.
I truly appreciate your post and am especially glad that the article has led not only to thoughtful dialogue but also to a growing friendship and the potential for future collaboration.
I'm grateful that we met. Your work had had a meaningful influence on me—both in my personal development and in shaping broader libertarian thought.
I value your intellectual decency and integrity, as well as your communication style: direct, open, and grounded in mutual respect.
With gratitude and warm regards,
Oded Jacob
I've seen libertarians who not only defend Hamas as a non-state actor, I've seen them defend various dictators. I understand the idea, we can observe as the US will first create a boogieman and then use that image as an excuse to attack. However, that's still no excuse for pretending that someone like Chavez is a great guy or Putin for that matter.
You can believe they are none of our business, which is my stance generally speaking, but we shouldn't make excuses for leaders of states or leaders of stateless people when they commit crimes. Hamas is elected, they have the power to tax and enforce laws, etc., so I'm not sure the stateless definition truly holds anyway. By most definitions they are in charge of what amounts to be a State, but I digress.
I could understand not agreeing on what actions Israel can and can not take in response to Hamas, there is a limit to what any group can do before it's so disproportionate that it becomes revenge or murder, especially if there is no hope of success. That disagreement should not get you labeled a non-libertarian, not as long as it's in good faith. (rather like the abortion arguments)
I can't understand anyone who would claim that Israel can take no action again Hamas at all, that's insane to me. The argument should really only be about the extent that they can go, this should be especially obvious when prisoners are involved. What extent would anyone go to, to get their loved ones back and to keep others safe from future attack? It's certainly more than nothing for any of us.
Just as note of interest; Most nations actually have a formula called the Non-Combatant Casualty Value (NCCV). This tells commanders whether or not they can hit a target. For instance a high value target in Gaza once had a NCCV of 300 to 1. Typically a low level Hamas member is around 15 to 1. If you were a US soldier on the ground in Afghanistan, anything higher than 1 to 1 was considered grounds for investigation, although some of that was because of over-aching goals such as winning hearts and minds. During the invasion of Iraq, during shock and awe in particular, 60 to 1 was common.
All Western nations grapple with this problem and none of them have come up with a one size fits all answer. How many civilians can be killed to rescue hostages? "It depends" is the only real answer. There are tons of factors, all of which rely on a number of judgment calls. How likely is success? How likely is it that the action will lead to further escalation? Is there any other way to get them back? Etc., etc., etc..
Sadly, some of the people who really don't like Israel or the US empire, have set such an unrealistic bar that they have effectively told Israel that any action they take will be wrong. Some of them of course have decided that the Israel people are automatically the aggressor, for simply existing on land that some deem stolen, as if they bought none of it, nor mixed their labor to make it their own.
Furthermore, as I stated, I've seen some of these same people make excuse after excuse for Putin, Chavez, Assad, etc. etc.. So, there does seem to be a group who will defend Anyone, state actor or not, who is opposed to the US empire. I suspect this is also based on the idea that the US empire is the aggressor at all times, therefore anyone opposed to us must be right.
Spot on. ✔️
Just one small correction—*hostages*, not *prisoners*. The people kidnapped from their homes on the morning of October 7th weren’t arrested—they were taken.