Finally, an America Hater

Bring up US foreign policy to a warhawk, point out that the terrorists have specifically named US policy in Muslim lands as the reason for their desire to kill, and the response is always the same: you are blaming the victim, which is America, and exonerating the guilty.

This is nonsense! To say that the wife killed the husband to get the insurance money isn’t to blame the husband for being insured. To say the robber held up a bank to get the money isn’t to say that it’s the bank’s fault for keeping money there. As Gene Callahan tirelessly points out, establishing a motive is essential to proving guilt. It doesn’t exonerate; it convicts.

So let’s talk motive. It’s a fact that the terrorist actions and continuing threats are a direct response to US troops in Saudi Arabia, trade sanctions against Iraq, and the perception that the US approves of the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Anyone who pays attention to the news, and understands anything about the region, knew that these policies spelled trouble even before bin Laden announced it.

To take the next step in the libertarian argument requires that we make judgments about whether the policies that inspired the attacks are justified. Even independently of the attacks, the US can and should change these policies because they are bad, period. If by our doing so, potential terrorists no longer feel inspired to poison people and hijack planes, that’s all to the good.

Hence, the neoconservative claim that we libertarians are just blaming America for the crimes of others doesn’t fly. Even in the case of most leftists who oppose this war, they are not "blaming America" but identifying US government policies as a motive force. It’s a simple matter of observing that folks don’t like it, for example, when 1 million people die as a result of sanctions you impose.

For weeks, I’ve looked in vain for someone to actually say the things that the neocons accuse us of saying: that America deserved the attacks, that this is the price we pay for being such a sinful country, that the American way of life needed to get a good wallop. We’ve all looked and looked for actual America haters among those who oppose the US war against Afghanistan.

Where are the people who are saying such things? Certainly no one on LRC. I’ve yet to see any major spokesman for peace promote such absurdities. Does anyone who thinks like that actually exist, apart from a few drugged-up antiglobalism protestors or professors in minority studies programs?

Much to my amazement, a person who actually does fit the neocon stereotype has at last shown his face. It is none other than our old friend Bill Clinton.

Speaking at Georgetown University, Clinton indulged in a flight of fancy about all the things America has done to call down these attacks on us. In particular he named the fact that "we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery, and slaves quite frequently were killed even though they were innocent."

If that isn’t bad enough: "this country once looked the other way when a significant number of native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human."

So there you have it: a blame America Firster, someone who actually believes that the attacks are the price we pay for our original sin, as well as events a century and a half old. When you hear this kind of drivel, it’s enough to get the old patriotic juices flowing. It tempts one to observe that this man, this former president of the United States, secretly hates this country. That sure would explain much about the Clinton regime.

Or perhaps it’s not a psychological state at all. It’s all the more gripping when you realize that the real reason for the attacks were the policies carried out under his administration. So he more than anyone else would have a good reason for wanting to distract people from events of the last 10 years to events of ancient history–events that no one can control now.

Clinton is pleased to promote the hatred of America, especially among college students, so long as it averts people’s eyes from the US government’s actions in the 1990s. So there we have the motive for the first genuine case of anti-Americanism I’ve seen. Wouldn’t you know that it comes from the mouth of the former president, whom historians will probably someday consider "near great" for his policies that got us into this war.

When Jerry Falwell said the attacks might be God’s judgment for Americans’ sins of abortion, the whole world came crashing down on him. That hasn’t happened and won’t happen to Clinton. The most the Wall Street Journal could muster was a pathetic: "wartime is hardly the time for an American politician to be harping on America's shortcomings."

The problem isn’t the harping as such; it’s Clinton’s theory itself, that the US was born in sin, and terror is the price we pay. I’m willing to bet that the hijackers didn’t care a flip about slavery or Indian policies, and Clinton doesn’t believe they did. His is a metaphysical argument, an anti-American argument. We are paying the price for Bill Clinton and those like him.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and editor of LewRockwell.com.

So let's talk motive. It's a fact that the terrorist actions and continuing threats are a direct response to US troops in Saudi Arabia, trade sanctions against Iraq, and the perception that the US approves of the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Anyone who pays attention to the news, and understands anything about the region, knew that these policies spelled trouble even before bin Laden announced it.

Even that minimal statement is far from obvious to me. Hosni Mubarak has stated that he never heard or heard of the word 'palestinian' crossing bin Laden's libs prior to 9/11. This whole thing is a power struggle in Saudi Arabia and bin Laden is one of the players, seeking to establish moxie by waking up to the world's remaining superpower and kicking it in the ass while it sleeps. Due to the nature of the last eight years worth of American government, he simply thought he could get by with it.

Neither bin Laden nor ny other arab outside of palestinians gives a rats ass for palestinians. If they did, they would not still be living in camps 60 years after the fact. Arabs treat palestinians worse than Israelis do and you have to believe there's a reason for that.

In Palestine before partition, 92% of the land belonged to Arabs. In Israel proper (about two-thirds of Palestine), 80% of the land belongs to the government. How exactly do you think that this remarkable transformation took place? Could it be related to the fact that 700,000 Arabs were forced off their property in 1947-48? Or maybe it came from the tooth fairy? What exactly do you think that Palestinians mean by "the right of return?" They want their stuff back.

They want their stuff back.
Does this include the Negev and other desert areas where there were no Palestinian farmers to steal land from. Most of Israel is uncultivable desert. Maybe cultivatable with drip irrigation which the Palestinians certainly didn't have. Pull out a map and learn something. So your leftist narrative of farmers being dispossessed is not so true.

Thanks for the clarification. In other words this land was won in the War of 1948. Arabs attacked, other Arabs fled, Israel won this war and the Arabs have been whining about "stolen" land ever since. When the reality was that this land was won in a war. So the word stolen is really just a propaganda word I can find at most Pallie and ArabProp websites. Thanks much architect. Prior to this war Jews bought land as my previous post proves. Who better for an authority than the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

Could it be related to the fact that 700,000 Arabs were forced off their property in 1947-48?

More leftist nonsense. Arab society is very hierarchical. These farmers and other Arabs did not often live on *their* property or cultivate *their* property. They were renters, were tenants and tenant farmers. You are romanticizing the Arabs once more.

How about the 800,000 Jews who were driven out of Arab nations? Many had lived there for centuries. The score seems even to me. How come you are only outraged by Arab refugees. How come these Jewish refugees don't count for you?

"Read the line I bolded in #23 again. You added your words to Lew's statement and then condemned your "new and improved" version. Admit it or stand accused of lying."

I stand by my statement. Lew Rockwell's intent is clear from the linkage made, and I quote: "I’ve looked in vain for someone to actually say the things that the neocons accuse us of saying: that America deserved the attacks, that this is the price we pay for being such a sinful country, that the American way of life needed to get a good wallop." Any reasonable person must conclude after reading my comment: "I know of no serious person who would claim that LewRockwelldotcom has called American a "sinful country" deserving of a "good wallop" because of these sins.", that I AGREE with Rockwell. No CREDIBLE person WOULD make accuse Rockwell of believing that GOD was punishing America for her "sins". And, that is precisely why this is a "strawman" argument on Rockwell's part.

Do you really understand what you are describing here? It's about feudal landlords selling their land and expelling the peasants who lived on it, some of whose families had lived there for centuries. The peasants quite understandably viewed the land as theirs, although technically it did belong to an "Arab from Beyrouth". As least this process had the facade of legality, unlike what happened in 1948.

This happened on only 7% (at most) of the land right? So what do you really care? The 7% is your number for the land owned by Jews in Israel proper to 1948 war.

This may shock you but most of the land the Jews bought (I will look for a source) was marginal land with few if any Arab tenants to be dispossessed. Marginal land. Land that the Jews made bloom. They had to drain swamps, install drip irrigation, drill wells and do other things that the Arabs didn't or wouldn't do. It is a leftist fantasy to think that Jews buying land in Palestine were buying good land with a lot of Arab tenants.

The peasants quite understandably viewed the land as theirs, although technically it did belong to an "Arab from Beyrouth".

So now you are anti capitalist. What the Jews bought they must return? With no compensation for the improvements since then? Laughable. And this happened 50-90 years ago! This is nuts!

In other words this land was won in the War of 1948. Arabs attacked, other Arabs fled, Israel won this war and the Arabs have been whining about "stolen" land ever since. When the reality was that this land was won in a war.

Land won in a war is stolen land and your claim that there is a difference simply proves your moral bankruptcy. This would be true even if your claim that "Arabs attacked, other Arabs fled" were true - and it's not. Israeli terrorists, including at least one who later became Prime Minister, were engaging in ethnic cleansing before the British left Palestine and the Arab countries launched their ineffectual attack.

More leftist nonsense.

This is rich, coming from someone who supports the socialist state of Israel.

So now you are anti capitalist. What the Jews bought they must return? With no compensation for the improvements since then?

Huh? You brought up the buyouts of feudal land, not me. I never claimed any of this should be returned. I was talking about what happened in 1948.

I do think the process was sleazy - and that the implicit property rights of peasant farmers were violated in the process. But as I said, it was technically legal. My own ancestors came to America when they were expelled from Scotland in the same way two hundred years. Expelling share-croppers from their land reeks to high heaven. But it's legal to do so.

BTW, I could care less how much of the land was marginal. It still reeks - and it's still legal.

Land won in a war is stolen land

Nonsense. Land won in war is conquered land. No one agrees with you on this one. If this is really true than have your Muslims return all the Christian land they conquered ten centuries ago. Have America return land to the Indians who I suppose farmed it. LOL

and your claim that there is a difference simply proves your moral bankruptcy. This would be true even if your claim that "Arabs attacked, other Arabs fled" were true - and it's not.

Of course it's true. Some fled and some were driven. And 800,000 Jews were driven (and some fled) from Arab lands. This is what sinks your argument. You can never admit to these Jewish refugees driven from Arab lands

Israeli terrorists, including at least one who later became Prime Minister, were engaging in ethnic cleansing before the British left Palestine and the Arab countries launched their ineffectual attack.

Not the Jews fault if Arab armies are armies of losers. They certainly have the numbers so what's the problem?

More leftist nonsense.

This is rich, coming from someone who supports the socialist state of Israel.

America turned socialist during WW2. All nations at war and under attack turn somewhat socialist. Israel has a more capitalist economy than any Arab nation. Syria is so primitive it's run along Stalinist lines complete with 5 year plans.

Bring up US foreign policy to a warhawk, point out that the terrorists have specifically named US policy in Muslim lands as the reason for their desire to kill...

Policy, schmolicy. Are you referring to U.S. policy such as opposition to the complete destruction of Israel?

You know, Israel, the mideast country which many Muslim nations have sworn to destroy, a position which is their official foriegn policy, in both their documents and leadership?

And, just what are US troops doing in Saudi Arabia? Only protecting it from being invaded by Iraq, which would give Saddam majority control of the world's oil supply. And last time I checked, they were there at the request and with the permission of the Saudi government, which has been in power for many many decades.

Those are the facts. The United States has already begun to make adjustments in policy where they are warranted. These policy adjustments WILL NEVER include allowign the destruction of Israel, or allowing Iraq to gain control of the Saudi oil fields.

I know we have a lot of propaganda over here in America, but it pales in comparison to the suicidal insanity believed by many in the Muslim world. These attitudes offer no hope whatsoever for their causes. Indeed, these attitudes can and do result in unspeakable suffering. Read their hate-filled school textbooks in Palestine and realize that if those people continue to be indoctrinated in this way then they are ultimately doomed. And we might be, too.

They will have to change their thinking much more radically than us. If they don't, they will end up drowning in their own blood. That is a fact if for anyone who knows anything of the history of our military.

The facts being what they are, the Muslim world will NEVER win such a debate, and until they can shake off the yoke of despotic religious fanaticism, many more generations of poverty and death await them, aw well as their less-ignorant and more-civilized Muslim brethren.

http://www.salam-shalom.net/salam-shalom/arcjan06b.htm
Almost all the rest [i.e. 88 percent of the 20,225,000 dunums within the 1949 armistice lines] belongs at law to Arab owners, many of whom have left the country (Jewish National Fund, Jewish Villages in Israel, p.xxi, quoted in Lehn and Davis, The Jewish National Fund) (...) Consider, for instance, the following outline by Don Peretz [estimates of the value of the abandoned property of Palestinian Arabs vested with the Israeli Custodian of Absentee Property]: The CCP( United Nation Conciliation Commission for Palestine) Refugee Office estimated that although only a little more than a quarter was considered cultivable, more than 80 percent of Israel's total area of 20,850 km.sq. represented land abandoned by the Arab refugees. Three-quarters of the former Arab land was sub-marginal land or semi-desert in the Negeb. Evaluation of the property varied from that of the United Nations - 120 million pounds sterling - to the Arab League's estimate of over than ten times that amount. Abandoned property was one of the greatest contributions toward making Israel a viable state. The extent of its area and the fact that most of the regions along the border consisted of absentee property made it strategically significant.
___________________________________________

You might want to look at the above URL. It is not just pro-Israel.

BTW, I could care less how much of the land was marginal. It still reeks - and it's still legal.

Who really cares if you could care less. In the real world marginal land is always cheaper and more available. You can buy swampy land real cheap in America.

The Jews of Palestine bought marginal land from absentee Arab and Turkish landlords. This land had few if any Arab tenants. These Jews improved land that could not be cultivated. Made it into land that produced. It's your problem if you can't deal with this! I actually prefer people who misguidedly cling to lies and illusions. Makes them weaker and me stronger.

So now we come to your bottom line. "We fought. We won. They deserve what happened to them". Justice and the rule of law are irrelevant. I rather doubt that most people would agree with you. But let's say you are right.

Given that this is the case, why do you bother bringing up Jews expelled from Arabs lands? Obviously, the same is true for them. They fought. They lost. They deserve what happened to them.

Personally, I take a different point of view. If people have been treated badly by the government of Iraq, then they need to bring up their grievance with Iraq. Perhaps they should bring their case before the international community as well.

Iraq and other Arabs states used Israeli maltreatment of Palestinians to justify their actions. It is no excuse for an atrocious violation of human rights. But they do have one small point in their favor over you Zionists. The Israelis did it first.

Perhaps the greatest Zionist hypocrisy is "see look how they reacted - we were right to invade their land and take it using theft and murder" mentality. What I fail totally to understand is how you get away with this in front of the American people. Even the Israelis themselves are more honest about this than Americans are.

This whole thing is a power struggle in Saudi Arabia and bin Laden is one of the players, seeking to establish moxie by waking up to the world's remaining superpower and kicking it in the ass while it sleeps. Due to the nature of the last eight years worth of American government, he simply thought he could get by with it.

Basically I agree. This is a fight for control of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi hijackers were hoping to stir things up in the Kingdom by attacking its biggest backer.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.