LIBERTY is Israel – By José Benegas

http://www.laprensapopular.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/i298.jpg

Sovereignty is the rule that a Government exercises over a territory. A Government is a monopoly of force, not a buyer in the market. I want to say that sovereignty is not a property right. It is an area in which a unit of force collects resources in a compulsive way and acts more or less favorably to the existence of real property rights that belong to individuals or to the voluntary associations of individuals.

The confusion between these two concepts (sovereignty and property) leads to things like the myth of the "indigenous peoples were robbed". They were conquered not robbed; there was an aggression, but native Governments were not more owners that the non-native from the territory, they simply followed in the exercise of power in violation of the rights of its "subjects" without an agreement. As such pre-existing sovereignty was collectivist in nature, the native’s or not- native’s property rights began at some point after the conquest, and all restitution theory is nothing more than ingenious gibberish to obtain privileges abusing the "European-like" State and sustenance on racial criteria, collectivist by definition.

But these theories are not the subject of this reflection. Everything related to frontiers is arbitrary responding to a political situation that is not exempt from great injustices and even bad faith. There is not an international law developed as civil law, because the parties in international law are not peaceful trading individuals, but key political bodies, collectors, and mystics’ creators.

For someone interested in individual rights -which have nothing to do with the “rights of Governments to govern”- the fact that a State has a piece of territory and another takes it, by itself does not mean anything relevant. The only important thing is how the population’s welfare living in that territory is before and after the fact, but the cost of the change has to be added. The allies were not owners of Germany when they came to liberate Europe (in part); they crushed sovereignty, but defended rights in the western.

I notice that when the situation in Israel with its neighbors is commented, this issue is forgotten. Israel is the civilized country in that region, the country that respects its natives or immigrants. In that region of the world it is always better the Rule of Law -if it is what interests us- inside Israel rather than outside. In the same way that more rights of either native or “imported” individuals are respected in the "European-like" States of America than they were under the Inca Empire.

Perfection? We are talking about a Government, about a State. No, there is no perfection. When someone finds it let me know, I would like to meet it. I'm talking about alternatives.

For the particular purposes of the people to be free, the rights of Governments are not of interest at all, but just how these Governments are. What I propose on this basis is a total relativism regarding sovereignty. The Liberty issue is not there. This region in particular is, in terms of acquired “sovereignty” rights, impossible to fix, the only thing that can be achieved is to consolidate matters of fact and make them stable through agreements.

Peace is important, so that there is room for discussions on acquired “sovereignty” rights to avoid unnecessary problems. But Peace can be left out by Liberty.

Now, those who are waiting for Israel to represent perfect freedom and irreproachable conduct -when it is surrounded by enemies- fall into an unforgivable infantilism. The only thing that is achieved by adopting this attitude is that the available Liberty defender is at a permanent disadvantage in relation to the absolutely blatant enemy of Liberty. Hell on Earth is the only consequence that I know of the search for paradise on Earth.

I don't understand, for example, why some people realizes that it is not important who’s the Malvinas/Falklands are, but conditional to its inhabitants’ rights, but they move the issue to other place on the planet and they do not follow the same reasoning; because if we talk about acquired “sovereignty” rights, those of England do not exist. They don't matter, but they do not exist.

The other essential issue to clarify is the scope of the right to defense. If Israel had a goal like conquering a seaport, and to achieve it, fires its weapons, that would be wrong. There are people who would add "resulting in innocent victims". But in an act of such nature “innocents” are all, also soldiers of the attacked country because they are not aggressors. Others would add "civilian victims", but the problem is the same. Guilty or innocent, civilian or military, should not be attacked if there is no aggression to us.

In matters of war, "Innocent” is too vague a term. That is why I refer to "not aggressors". Responding to aggressors is fine. Attacking no-aggressor is an aggression, is wrong. Many people are everything they want to know: completed, fulfilled, life seems easy, being good is simple; we ask the iPad if any non-aggressor died and then we condemn who had shot him. But it is not so simple, and this is the part where those who do not stand not to live in the clouds will accuse me of justifying aggression, ignoring the arguments that, for certain circumstances, I am going to give. For the purists, gray areas have no solution, they ignore the dilemmas.

In life we are facing not only what is right and what is wrong, is applicable here what I said of infantilism about seeking perfection from a Government rather than comparing it with its alternatives

Life is the beginning of all knowledge, of all ethics, of all philosophy. Life in a collectivistic sense? …The answer is no! I am talking about our life. We are individuals who want to live; the maximum value is life itself and we are the only ones who can determine in what circumstances is worth to give our life for other/s. Otherwise our lives would be contingent upon the welfare of other or others, and what results is collectivism. If this is the alternative, it is not important if the other or others are guilty or innocent or what are guilty or innocent of.

I explained before but I want to reinforce it: No one is obliged to preserve the life of another if such action adversely affects, clearly and not vaguely, survival of self. This statement remains valid as long as those are the conditions; all aggressors raise self-defense.

Simplistic minds would quickly say "That, is wrong"; of course, if someone that is not attacking me dies, is wrong; only that it is not so bad as if I die. The individual is neither sacrificial nor obliged to sacrifice for others. Everyone likes heroism. But heroism is not a calling.

Some said to me: “But perhaps, is not such reasoning giving to the socialists the reason on Needs Creating Rights?”  No, the socialists believe that needs are procured by beatings. Here I speak of a clear dilemma in a situation of force, not as of in daily life in which, in contrast to what socialists believe, it does not confront one’s life against other’s, but the clear need to collaborate and exchange.

The hypothesis is the following: a missile is aimed to me and the only way to stop it is by shooting at it, then perhaps, the device falls on an apartments building and kills who would be called "innocents", i.e. not aggressors. When firing to intercept the missile, I am not doing justice, I only intend to survive (Justice is not available) and no one has the right to require from me to proceed otherwise. Moreover, if the aggressor originates the dilemma hiding behind civilians, less responsible I am.

 “That is not right”, I've been told by those who want to live among clouds and angels. It is obvious that is not right. It is not right to kill not aggressors, but I have a surprise: not even is right to kill aggressors; It is not correct to kill. The purpose of the use of defensive force is not killing anyone, but to avoid dying ourselves; killing aggressor is sometimes the unavoidable means, nothing more. Life in the cloud prevents from seeing what in both cases is; killing aggressors or not aggressors is a dilemma in which choice must be made between two evils. Condemning the lesser evil means enabling the greater one, but purists will ignore that point and will assume the moral responsibility for my death.

Of course, third parties are entitled to prefer other not aggressors’ survival than mine, but I have another opinion.

Israel is called for a degree of altruism and self-sacrifice that not even religions demand.

But what if Israel shoots anywhere only to scare terrorists? Then Israel becomes Hamas; what I am saying applies to the idea of the "collateral damage" as it implies the choice between the life of its own and that of others, I'm not saying even remotely that one is entitled to shoot for being themselves virtuous, which is what Hamas holds.

Hamas is not based on any principle, it uses human shields, i.e. it causes the dilemma in which Israel is, but it is not reproached, why? Because the defenders of heaven actually have fear of being accused of justifying "innocent" deaths by those who elaborated the strategy of de-legitimization of the defense through forced victimization, and that after finishing with Israel they - defenders of heaven- will be followed as prey. The law-humanism holds them in a quandary that they only know how to resolve it is by cutting the weakest link and attacking whom they know won't hurt them.

Source: http://josebenegas.com