Libertarianism is all about maximising interpersonal Liberty. In
order to achieve this goal, Libertarians have identified the state as
the main obstacle to a free society. Many Libertarians are anarchists
for that reason. Some are minimal statists, who support a limited
mandate for a monopolists power to secure the rule of law. But even
the latter kind of Libertarians does realise that the state is a
great danger to liberty. They usually argue that practically states
cannot be completely abolished. If they were, a new state would
emerge automatically. But this new state would then be at risk of
being much more anti liberty then the previous one. Therefore,
Libertarians should work towards making the existing state more
minimal, rather then advocating to abolish them all together.

This is certainly a perfectly acceptable position to take within
Libertarianism. I personally happen to be an anarchist and personally
do not subscribe to the idea of minimising the state. I think this is
a dangerous strategy with very little prospects of success.
Nevertheless, I do see that minimal statists are libertarians, as
their goal still is to maximise liberty. We just happen to disagree
on the strategy.

In any case, this is of cause a very theoretical view of
Libertarianism. Currently, Libertarianism is picking up steam. It is
more and more developing into a real political movement. As this
happens, more and more people are coming to the party that are not
too concerned with details of what it means to be a libertarian.
There are now people calling themselves libertarians, who try to
introduce all kinds of positive liberty concepts into the Ideology.
This ranges from people arguing in favour of certain welfare
programs, to people arguing in favour of closed state borders. In
principal this is a very good sign. It means that Libertarianism has
become so strong that a lot of people, who are not really
Libertarians in the purest sense, nevertheless feel that
Libertarianism is the place to be. If Libertarianism wants to be
successful, it will need to tolerate a number of these people despite
the fact that they are not Libertarians in the most strict sense.

However, it is also clear that this tolerance needs to have some
limits. Otherwise Libertarianism will become meaningless and will
fail. The success of a political movements very much depends on how
successfully this line between Libertarians and non-Libertarians can
be drawn. That is why one needs to be a bit wary about people coming
to this movement with all kinds of positive liberty concepts. If I
was the Establishment, trying to get in control of a rising
libertarian movement, I would almost certainly try to make the word
meaningless, by defining libertarianism in my own way. This happened
to the word liberalism, which today in the english speaking world
describes someone who does believes the state needs to control
capitalism. The classical liberals, which were of cause libertarians
in the modern sense, made the mistake to integrate certain welfare
ideas, like state education, into their agenda.

Luckily, most people who don’t like liberty, so far don’t want to
call themselves Libertarians. But there are exceptions. One group of
people that I am particularly wary about are ‘Libertarians’ who are
also strong zionists. Zionism can mean all kinds of things, but here
I am referring to supporters of a jewish state in the middle east. It
seems very odd to me that Libertarians should support such a state.

There are two groups of arguments, why people may want liberty.
There are moral reasons on the one hand and utilitarian reasons on
the other. No matter which one you prefer, the Israeli project looks
rather bad from both angles. Why was there a zionist movement? There
were two main goals of zionism. At the end of the 19th and
the beginning of the 20th century, Jews were facing two
problems. In eastern Europe, where the majority of european jews were
living, and of course in Germany as well, Jews were facing an
increasingly hostile population. That lead some of them to conclude
that they will never we accepted. The other problem was, that there
were places in the world in which they were to well accepted. That
meant that jews increasingly stopped being jewish and simply adapted
to the local culture. The solution for the zionists seemed to be
clear. Jews needed their own homeland, a place in which they were the
domineering culture and in which they could be safe. So far so good.
From here on, the story could still end well from a Libertarian point
of view. The problem with zionism is that they decided to create a
jewish state on a territory largely owned by Palestinian Arabs.

First let us look to the decision to create a state. One of the
problems of statism is that it surprising consistently tents to
achieve the opposite of what it wants. If the state fights poverty,
you will get more poverty. If it fights gun violence, you will get
more gun violence. It it fights terrorism you will get more terrorism
etc. This should be a basic inside to every Libertarian. So jews
decided to use a state to make them more save and preserve their
culture. What would you expect to happen? Exactly, less security and
a destruction of the culture. And that is exactly what we are seeing.
Does anyone believe that jews are now more save or jewish culture
more prosperous since the state of Israel came into existence? So in
principal, the strategy of using a state to achieve any goal should
be highly suspicious to libertarians.

Unless we are talking about a minimal state, states are of course
highly problematic if you want to maximise liberty anyway. States
turn always out to be rent seeking organisations. They always produce
a class of people that is able to exploit the rest of society. Israel
was never intended and therefore never was anything close to a night
watchman state. It was planned to be a racist jewish state. One of
the earliest supporters of Israel was the Soviet Union. Although it
likes to count itself as a western country, Israel till this day has
a higher level of bureaucracy and regulations than other western
countries. And that although pretty much all western countries at
this point are closer to socialism than capitalism. It is a country
with a long military draft, state censorship of the media and even
legalised torture. Why, in principal would any Libertarian become
exited about such a state?

And then of course there is the big problem, the problem that any
supporter of Israel would rather not talk about. How come, jews are
now in a majority in a territory that when zionism started only had a
very small jewish population? The initial jewish population there got
along with the local Arabs without any major problems. And yet
supporters of Israel will tell you that all the opposition to Israel
comes from a vicious irrational anti-semitism. At first zionist,
indeed started to settle peacefully in the region. And if that was
all they were planning to do, there could be no objections from
Libertarians. Libertarians of course ought to support the movement of
people, free from government intervention. The problem was that they
had already decided and announced that they were planning a jewish
state in the region. They had won over the British, who occupied the
territory at the time as their ally in it. The British paid lip
service to the rights of the Arabs in the region. But the Arab
population, totally correctly started to sense that there was a
conspiracy being planned to make them second class citizens in their
own home. There were a number of Palestinian rebellions against the
British in the 1920th and 30th. Being good
imperialists, the British every time send over commissions to assess
why the Palestinians were rebelling. Every time they concluded that
it was obvious that they were rebelling against the prospect of a
state in the region that would make them second class citizens. When
the state of Israel was then announced, war broke out immediately. A
lot of Palestinians got out of the territory of the newly announced
state. It is still a bit of a dispute among historians, why they got
out. Were they forced out or were they fleeing from a war zone? It
was probably a mixture of both. But whatever it was, the fact remains
that after the war they were not allowed back onto their rightfully
owned property. Israel had to get them out in order to create a
jewish majority state. None of this is in any form compatible with
Libertarian principles. Zionism is an inherent collectivist and
statist ideology. Individual liberty does not play any role in it.

And yet, in these days when the conflicts gets escalated again by
Politicians, I see a lot of same proclaimed libertarians, waving
enthusiastically Israeli flags to support the government fighting
evil Palestinian terrorists. Not that there aren’t any terrorists
among Palestinians. But what is going on now has very little to do
with fighting terrorism. The Israeli government lied the people into
war operations. These war operations are pretty much the equivalent
of shooting fish in a barrel. The Israeli government with its highly
sophisticated military weaponry is bombing the homes of civilians in
Gaza. The people there are largely unarmed and literally locked up,
they cannot get out. Most of the casualties are women and children so
far.

But all of that does not seem to bother zionist Libertarians,
because you see, what is happening in gaza is self defence. And self
defence is of course perfectly compatible with libertarianism. The
Israeli, in their love for humanity are even calling a few minutes
before they hit a house. Isn’t that nice. No it isn’t! Because they
certainly do not check whether the people really got out. They
sometimes hit the wrong target. And anyway, since when are such acts
legal, without even a trial? Calling that self defence is like
justifying a rape with the argument that it is her fault, since she
was wearing a short skirt. But try to mention to a zionist Libertarian that the Israeli government might not always have the
best intensions, yes it may even sometimes outright lie to the
public, as it did to justify these airstrikes. You will be
immediately accused of being anti-semitic, a crazy conspiracy nutter
or both. According to zionist Libertarians, the state is bad, unless
it is fighting terrorists or is called Israel.

No sorry, this is not a form a Libertarianism that I can accept.
It basically rejects everything that libertarianism is about. The
reason why I am finding this particularly annoying is, because our
governments are all good allies of Israel. This state seems on a
suicide mission with its crazy policies. And because our governments
are supporting it, it is dragging us down with it. Every new enemy
Israel makes will also be an enemy of the rest of the west. Zionist
libertarians are supporting all these crazy policies of our
governments, because it is perceived to help Israel. They are
damaging the goals of Libertarianism and should therefore not be
allowed to get away with it.