On moral equivalence and terrorism


Looking at the costs of each choice.
Tom Hanna is another one who should have been in my blogroll a long time ago. He makes a great point about moral equivalency and terrorism.

The problem for the terrorist’s apologists is twofold. First, when was the last time you heard of six Palestinian groups, especially relatively mainstream groups in the Palestinian population, opposing the targeting of civilians by Palestinian terrorists? Second, and more important, what apparatus has the Palestinian Authority created to enforce the rights of Israelis against Palestinian abuse?

The Israeli courts do enforce the rights of Palestinians against the Israeli government. Further, the Israeli government has always, to my knowledge, respected the final rulings of those courts. Even under Fatah the Palestinian Authority lacked any apparatus that would come close to giving a fair shake to Israeli citizens. In fact, even Palestinians probably get a fairer shake in Israeli court than they would in the corrupt kangaroo courts of Fatah or the Sharia courts of Hamas.

My mixed support for the War on Terror and my ongoing frustration at the immigration issue are probably the two biggest issues where I differ from most small "l" libertarians. Those two things are also among those opinions that enrage progressives when I talk or write.

In my opinion, the War on Terror is the least bad choice.

It would be one thing if we were dealing with a culture that had the rule of law, respect for the individual, and honor towards "the other." When it comes to Islamists, that is not what we are dealing with. And please notice, I am deliberately making a distinction between Islamists and Muslims.

Put simply, they are playing a different metagame with it's own rules.

This in itself wouldn't be an issue, except they live in an area that has tremendous economic importance. Money and fanaticism are not a good match.

While it is not very politically correct OR very libertarian to say so, not all cultures and societies are created equal. And because of the way that the United States plays the metagame, dealing with the fanatic Islamists also forces us to deal with our own fundamentalist impulses and our own fanatic citizens.

I do not believe that is an accident.

But even as we are working through it, we need to realize that very few others are playing the metagame by our rules. We've deliberately put limitations on ourselves, limitations that no other nation would accept. The French and Germans may denounce us when they aren't "reluctantly" supporting us, but at the same time they are selling under the table and hoping we don't notice. The United Kingdom is walking a fine line between their own historical expectations and the nation they wish to become. China wants to contain American influence. Russia wants to restart the Cold War on it's terms.

No matter what we do, the United States will be criticized. We can't please anyone. So we might as well do the right thing.

Why has Iraq become the battleground for freedom?

Because the President of the United States decided that the Iraqi people deserved liberty.

Why is Israel under constant attack?

Because it's people are mostly free.

When the alternative is tyranny and death, somebody has to make a stand.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Fri - July 14, 2006 at 03:45 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved