Douglas Macgregor discusses U.S. military intervention.

Franklin Lamb discusses Syrian migrants and their plight.

William Blum discusses the Berlin Wall.

Sheldon Richman discusses torture and Obama.

Lucy Steigerwald discusses the War on Drugs abroad.

Richard M. Ebeling discusses Ludwig Von Mises and the business cycle.

David S. D’Amato discusses Henry George.

Charles Davis discusses why pro-war pundits are always wrong.

Randall Holcombe discusses how a new Obama appointee supports individual rights.

Shamus Cooke discusses Obama’s foreign policy with respect to Iran.

Steve Chapman discusses Ted Cruz and presidential power.

Stephen Zunes discusses the recent Israeli war in Gaza.

Sheldon Richman discusses how the state is not the friend of the worker.

Jeffrey Tucker discusses whether government should have the power to quarantine.

Matt Gilliland discusses living like you’re free.

Jeremy Scahill discusses how Erik Prince is still rich and free.

Ivan Eland discusses Turkey’s desire to stay out of the war against ISIS.

T. Hunt Tooley discusses WW1.

Robert Koehler discusses the Vietnam War.

Aaron Tao discusses Radley Balko’s book on police militarization.

Ferdinand A. Hoischen discusses the state.

Michael D. Yates discusses the rule of capital and employers in the workplace.

Franklin Lamb discusses the potential expulsion of an ISIS affiliate from Libya.

George H. Smith discusses self-interest and social order.

George H. Smith discusses political philosophy.

Anthony de Jasay discusses classical liberalism.

Jacob G. Hornberger discusses WMD blowback in Iraq.

Paul Keres defeats Laszlo Szabo

Paul Keres defeats Max Euwe.

This criticism is made all the more easier when you are not present within the nation that is being governed. An outsider’s perspective, where only the bad news makes headlines, and only the tragedies live long in the memory. This is the position I find myself in currently with more news reaching us in the UK of the atrocious manner in which Obama and his administration continues to conduct business.

The hope that Obama was a bright new future for the American people faded almost as soon as he was inaugurated. His policies at home and abroad, no matter what he may say and feel personally, prove that he is only a continuation of a long line of puppets. Away from the bright lights of the oval office sit the real masters, and they have Obama dance a similar tune to that of the previous President.

The importance of this show cannot be overstated. The US is the world’s only superpower, as much as Russia would hate to admit it. With its position within the world, the US lays at the centre of a tangled web of international geo-politics and decisions. Phonecalls cannot be made in Germany without the US listening in, papers cannot be signed in the UK without its nod of approval, and rockets cannot be fired in Israel without the supply arriving from North America.

The US appears to be at the centre of most things. The doctrine of “follow the money” inevitably leads you back to those in and around the White House. It is because of the US’s global position, and because of its impact, that if real change is to be made in this world, it needs to begin within the United States.

The war crimes committed by Israel recently are simply another offence to add to the rap sheet of that criminal state. UN resolutions have been continuously broken, economic blockades have been put in place, human rights have been violated, and illegal settlements are springing up at an alarming rate.

Palestinian resistance to this is often no more than throwing rocks at tanks and bulldozers as they roll through their towns and villages. The futility of that action is not just evident by the fact the rock causes no damage to the tank, but also that the tank is the wrong target.

Israeli action in Palestine is a direct result of decisions made above the White House. They say that the White House is the “highest office in the land”, but I can assure you there are many who look down upon on Obama. The real enemy of the Palestinian people is not the Israeli oppressor, but is in fact the people who support, fund and defend Israeli action. Attacking Israel is attacking the effect, and it is vital that you get to the cause.

With Gazan Twitter users sending advice to those Americans in Ferguson, it is this realisation that struck me. Though one is based in Palestine, fighting an Israeli oppressor, they both face the same enemy. Palestine’s struggle against Israel will never end in victory unless the people of the United States partake in a similar struggle against their own oppressors, the US government.

As disgusting as the events of Ferguson are, the real disgust should come in the knowledge that this is not an isolated incident. These scenes and these actions are relatively common on US soil, and each one further reinforces the fact that the US government views its own people as enemies.

Robert David Steele, a former marine and member of the CIA, recently presented a paper which was based on the findings from his latest book. He told the gathered audience “that all the major preconditions for revolution… were now present in the United States”. With everything in place, there needs only to be a spark to ignite the flames of revolution. A revolution which is long overdue, and much needed.

Non ho potuto fare a meno di pensare ad un’altra riconciliazione, avvenuta cinquant’anni prima. Allora Ngo Dinh Diem e Ho Chi Minh, rispettivamente del sud e del nord del Vietnam, avviarono un dialogo per formare un governo ad interim di unità nazionale per l’intero paese, seguito da elezioni nazionali ai termini dell’accordo di Ginevra del 1954. Data l’antipatia dei contadini verso la classe di governo, formata da proprietari terrieri cattolici che vivevano di rendita, e la popolarità del Fronte di Liberazione Nazionale in gran parte del sud, è probabile che il governo degli Stati Uniti non avrebbe gradito il risultato delle elezioni.

Questa riconciliazione storica fu seguita dal rovesciamento militare di Diem, nel 1963, su istigazione della Cia, e dalla sua sostituzione con un generale più obbediente agli ordini americani. In maniera molto simile al colpo di stato, appoggiato dai sovietici, che misero Karmal al potere in Afganistan, l’instaurazione di un capo di stato compiacente aprì la strada all’introduzione massiccia di forze militari americane nel Vietnam meridionale.

Come gli Stati Uniti di cinquant’anni fa, anche Israele ha ragioni per temere la pace tra i due ex avversari. In questo senso, l’attacco massiccio contro Gaza degli ultimi giorni non avrebbe potuto arrivare in un momento più propizio.

Le due cose sono connesse? Non posso dirlo con certezza. In passato, però, le ondate di missili di Hamas erano solitamente la risposta a provocazioni di Israele, come la violazione di una tregua o l’assassinio di un leader di Hamas. Gli attacchi missilistici servivano poi da pretesto per un attacco militare da parte delle forze armate israeliane. Sembra quasi che le forze armate israeliane compilino un elenco di obiettivi da colpire e ogni due o tre anni inventino una scusa per attaccare.

In questo caso, Israele ha accusato Hamas di aver rapito e ucciso tre giovani israeliani, ma non ha fornito le prove. Hamas, che solitamente rivendica queste atrocità, questa volta ha negato. Ciononostante Israele, con la sua Operazione Guardiano del Fratello, ha arrestato centinaia di palestinesi accusati di nulla, e ha bombardato o raso al suolo centinaia di case; in altre parole, ha attuato una rappresaglia collettiva sulla popolazione civile. Hamas ha risposto alla provocazione lanciando missili. E Israele ha preso quest’ultimo fatto come pretesto per un’altra delle sue guerre mostruose e inumane contro quel campo di prigionieri che è Gaza.

E ora incredibilmente i leader di Israele ammettono che non è stata Hamas ad uccidere i ragazzi.

Sui social media ho visto molti sionisti e difensori di Israele che parlavano del desiderio di pace di Israele e della natura bellica dell’Islam. Se non credono che Israele cerchi a tutti i costi una scusa per mettere in pratica il suo elenco di obiettivi da colpire, tutto quello che mi viene in mente è che sono un mucchio di idioti. Io non posso provare che Israele abbia istigato deliberatamente la guerra proprio perché temeva una Palestina unita sotto un unico partito. Ma certo che le apparenze portano esattamente a quella conclusione.

Creare pretesti per una guerra, dicendo che bisogna contrastare un’imminente “minaccia dall’esterno”, è ciò che fanno gli stati. Nel 1939, molti tedeschi credevano sinceramente che Hitler avesse dichiarato guerra alla Polonia per autodifesa, in risposta ad attacchi contro cittadini polacchi di etnia tedesca a Danzica. Se allora ci fosse stata una Cnn tedesca, i suoi mezzibusti, quelle Persone Serissime, avrebbero sicuramente avviato una riflessione profonda sulla maniera appropriata di rispondere alla “minaccia polacca”.

Nella stragrande maggioranza dei casi, l’obiettivo reale di una guerra e le ragioni esposte dallo stato come pretesto sono due cose completamente diverse. Utah Phillips, che disse “In Corea ho capito che mai più, in vita mia, avrei ceduto ad altri la mia capacità di decidere quale è il nemico”, aveva ragione.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Proprio così. Lasciamo perdere il fatto che i razzi sparati da Gaza sono una roba amatoriale, che chiunque potrebbe fabbricare facendo un salto in un negozio di hobbistica, e che provocano appena l’uno percento delle vittime delle rappresaglie israeliane. Lasciamo perdere il fatto che questi razzi – condannabili in certe circostanze come attacchi contro i civili, a prescindere dalle provocazioni israeliane – provengono da disperati che vivono nell’equivalente mediterraneo del ghetto di Varsavia e finiscono in casa della nazione colonialista che ha cacciato questi disperati via dalle loro case. Lasciamo perdere il fatto che il lancio di razzi è stato spesso causato da violazioni del cessate il fuoco da parte di Israele.

Lasciamo perdere tutto ciò. Hamas – che l’apparato propagandistico israeliano presenta alla popolazione israeliana e al mondo come una minaccia esistenziale paragonabile ad Alien, scatenando l’isteria degli israeliani al punto che applaudono il bombardamento degli ospedali dall’alto delle colline – Hamas, si diceva, è stata creata in parte da quegli apparati dello spionaggio di quello stesso stato che sostiene di combattere una guerra su questioni di vita o di morte contro la stessa organizzazione.

Anthony Cordesman, analista strategico in questioni di sicurezza mediorientali presso il Center for Strategic Studies, racconta come Israele negli anni settanta abbia aiutato Hamas ad emergere come contrappeso alla Organizzazione per la Liberazione della Palestina (OLP). Un anonimo ex ufficiale della Cia concorda sul fatto che Israele abbia appoggiato segretamente Hamas come oppositore religioso di una “forte e secolare OLP”. Il grande appoggio popolare dato a Hamas negli anni ottanta, risultato in parte della rivoluzione islamica in Iran e in parte dello spostamento della sede OLP a Beirut, prese alla sprovvista i leader di Israele.

Qualcuno sostiene che l’appoggio israeliano a Hamas vada ancora più indietro nel tempo, e che sia lo Shin Bet che le autorità dell’occupazione militare abbiano appoggiato la crescita della Fratellanza Musulmana e la fondazione di Hamas già negli anni sessanta. A quei tempi, Hamas era contro le organizzazioni nazionaliste palestinesi, e dirigeva gran parte delle proprie energie contro Fatah, Fronte Popolare per la Liberazione della Palestina (FPLP) e OLP nei territori occupati (fonti: Richard Sale, “Analysis: Hamas history tied to Israel,” UPI, 18 giugno 2002; Robert Dreyfuss, “How Israel Backed Hamas,” Institute for Public Accuracy, 22 luglio 2014).

Purtroppo prevalse la genialità di alcune persone della sicurezza israeliana, che preferivano avere come nemico palestinese una temibile organizzazione teocratica come Hamas piuttosto che una secolare che chiedeva la nascita di uno stato palestinese in cui arabi e ebrei potessero vivere assieme in pace. Hamas impersona meglio il personaggio di Goldstein nei due minuti di odio di 1984.

Lo schema è inquietante. Hamas in origine era un prodotto della Fratellanza Musulmana a Gaza (e negli anni cinquanta aveva ricevuto l’appoggio americano come opposizione religiosa alle tendenze nasseriane e baathiste). Anche al Qaeda è emersa come guerriglia Mujaheddin appoggiata dagli Stati Uniti e diretta contro l’occupazione sovietica dell’Afganistan. E lo stesso si può dire dell’Isis, nata in circostanze simili in soccorso dei ribelli anti-Assad in Siria. Quindi tutti questi movimenti, creati con l’aiuto di fondi neri e di addestramento forniti dalla Cia, i berretti verdi o il Mossad, vengono usati per spaventare la popolazione in occidente e costringerli ad appoggiare le numerose guerre criminali in cui vengono commesse atrocità su larga scala contro la popolazione civile.

Da qui due lezioni. La prima è che la versione ufficiale dello stato riguardo le “minacce esterne” è quasi sicuramente una bugia, come quella della Germania, che mise suoi uomini in uniforme polacca e poi strillò: “a Danzica i polacchi attaccano i nostri fratelli tedeschi”. La seconda è che molto probabilmente lo spauracchio straniero è una reazione alle stesse politiche di stato. Gli stati cercano di dare legittimità al loro governo di classe e al loro imperialismo appellandosi al comune “interesse nazionale” condiviso da tutti, indistintamente. In verità queste politiche, private delle fesserie patriottiche, sono lì per servire gli interessi dei ricchi che controllano lo stato. E quasi sicuramente finiranno per portare morte e distruzione alle loro popolazioni, come gli americani hanno appreso l’undici settembre e come gli israeliani cominciano a capire ora.

Non fidatevi dello stato. Serve solo a mandarvi a morire, magari in qualche campo di battaglia in terre lontane, o nella vostra stessa casa.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

I couldn’t help thinking of another historic reconciliation — this one fifty years earlier. Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh of North Vietnam engaged in talks to form a single interim national unity government for the whole country, followed by nationwide elections as originally provided under the terms of the Geneva Accord in 1954. Given the peasantry’s antipathy toward the ruling class of rack-renting Catholic landlords and the popularity of the NLF in much of the South, it’s likely the outcome of any such election would have displeased the US government.

This historic reconciliation was followed by the military overthrow of Diem in 1963, instigated by the CIA, and his replacement by a general more compliant with US direction. Much like the later Soviet-backed coup which installed Karmal in Afghanistan, the installation of a cooperative head of state opened the way for the large-scale introduction of US military forces into South Vietnam.

Like the United States fifty years ago, Israel has every reason to fear peace breaking out between two former adversaries. And from that standpoint, Israel’s all-out assault on Gaza in recent days couldn’t have come at a better time.

Are the two connected? I can’t say. But waves of Hamas rocket attacks in the past have generally been in response to a unilateral Israeli provocation, like violating a pre-existing truce or assassinating a Hamas leader, followed by the IDF’s use of the attacks as a pretext for all-out military assault. It’s almost as if the IDF compiles a sweet target list and every few years looks for some manufactured excuse to put it into effect.

In this case, Israel accused Hamas of kidnapping and murdering three Israeli teenagers, with no evidence to back it up. Hamas, which generally takes credit for such atrocities, denied it this time. Nevertheless Israel, in Operation Brother’s Keeper, arrested hundreds of Palestinians without criminal charge and raided or demolished hundreds of homes — collective reprisal against a civilian population, in other words. Hamas responded to this provocation with rocket attacks. And Israel took this as a pretext for another one of its monstrous and inhuman wars against the open-air prison camp in Gaza.

And guess what — now the Israeli leadership admits it wasn’t Hamas after all that killed those boys.

I’ve seen a lot of Zionists and Israel apologists on social media wringing their hands about Israel’s desire for peace, and the warlike nature of Islam. All I can say is, if they don’t think Israel has been itching a long time for a war and an excuse to put its latest target list into play, they’re prime suckers. I can’t prove Israel deliberately instigated this war precisely because it feared a unified Palestinian party across the bargaining table. But it sure looks to me like the dots line up that way.

Creating pretexts for war, ostensibly to counter some imminent “foreign threat,” is what states do. Many Germans in 1939 sincerely believed that Hitler went to war against Poland in self-defense, in response to terroristic provocations against ethnic Germans in Danzig. And if a German CNN had been around back then, its talking heads and Very Serious People would doubtless have solemnly mulled over the proper response to the “Polish threat.”

In the great majority of cases, the real purposes of a war and the ostensible reasons a state gives as its pretext are entirely different things. Utah Phillips (“I learned in Korea that I would never again, in my life, abdicate to somebody else my right and my ability to decide who the enemy is)” had the right idea.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, La Guerra di Israele a Gaza: Non Guardate Dietro il Sipario.

Exatamente. Vamos ignorar o fato de que os foguetes lançados de Gaza são mecanismos simples que poderiam ser feitos com equipamentos adquiridos em qualquer oficina e que causam menos de um por cento dos danos das represálias Israelenses. Vamos ignorar o fato de que os foguetes — que são repreensíveis enquanto ataques a civis em quaisquer circunstâncias, não importando as provocações de Israel — são disparados por pessoas desesperadas que povoam o Gueto de Varsóvia no Mediterrâneo em Israel, tendo como alvo a nação colonizadora que os expulsou de suas terras. Vamos ignorar também o fato de que lançamentos de foguetes ocorrem com frequência em resposta a violações de cessar-fogo unilateralmente cometidas pelos israelenses.

Ignoremos todos esses pontos. O Hamas — que é pintado pela máquina de propaganda do estado israelense para o público e para o mundo como uma ameaça existencial comparável aos insetos gigantes de Tropas Estelares, levando o povo de Israel ao tipo de frenesi que os faz comemorar o bombardeio de hospitais — foi criado em parte pelo aparato de inteligência do estado que afirma estar lutando uma guerra de vida ou morte contra ele.

Anthony Cordesman, um analista estratégico de questões de segurança do Oriente Médio do Center for Strategic Studies, afirma que Israel apoiou o Hamas nos anos 1970 como contrapeso à OLP. Um ex-agente da CIA anônimo corrobora essa versão de que Israel apoiou secretamente o Hamas como um concorrente religioso à “forte e secular OLP”. O aumento do apoio popular ao Hamas nos anos 1980 — resultante em parte do triunfo da Revolução Islâmica no Irã e em parte da mudança da sede do OLP para Beirute — surpreendeu as lideranças israelenses.

Alguns afirmam que o suporte dos israelenses ao Hamas é ainda mais antigo e que Shin Bet e as autoridades da ocupação militar apoiaram o crescimento da Irmandade Muçulmana e a fundação do Hamas nos anos 1960. Na época, o Hamas era hostil às organizações nacionalistas palestinas e direcionava a maior parte de suas energias ao combate às forças do Fatah, da FPLP e da OLP nos territórios ocupados (as fontes são as seguintes: Richard Sale, Analysis: Hamas history tied to Israel, UPI, June 18, 2002; Robert Dreyfuss, How Israel Backed Hamas, Institute for Public Accuracy, July 22, 2014).

Infelizmente, os gênios do estado policial israelense preferiam que uma organização teocrática assustadora como o Hamas fosse a face principal do inimigo palestino, ao invés de uma organização que buscasse um estado secular palestino em que árabes e judeus pudessem conviver em paz. O Hamas funciona muito melhor como Goldstein nos dois minutos de ódio.

É um padrão perturbador. O Hamas originalmente era uma dissidência da Irmandade Muçulmana em Gaza (que havia sido silenciosamente apoiada pelos EUA nos anos 1950 como oposição ao nasserismo e ao baathismo). A al-Qaeda surgiu das guerrilhas Mujahedin apoiadas pelos Estados Unidos que lutavam contra a ocupação soviética no Afeganistão. O ISIS surgiu a partir de apoios parecidos dos EUA a rebeldes anti-Assad na Síria. E, então, esses movimentos, criados com o orçamento secreto e treinamento da CIA, dos Boinas Verdes ou do Mossad são usados para amedrontar a população local e fazê-la apoiar guerras criminosas no exterior e atrocidades em larga escala contra civis.

Duas lições devem ser aprendidas: primeiro, a narrativa oficial sobre ameaças do exterior provavelmente é uma completa mentira — uma mentira do mesmo quilate de quando a Alemanha infiltrou agentes no exército polonês e depois propagandeou “ataques poloneses a nossos irmãos étnicos alemães em Danzig”. Segundo, há uma boa chance de que todos os problemas no exterior sejam repercussões das ações do próprio estado. Os estados tentam legitimar suas políticas imperiais de domínio de classe através do apelo a um “interesse nacional” compartilhado por todos, de classes altas e baixas. Mas suas políticas, para além da retórica estúpida de patriotismo, serve aos interesses dos ricos que controlam o estado. E eles provavelmente levarão mortes e destruição para seus próprios povos, se necessário, como os americanos aprenderam no 11 de setembro e os israelenses aprendem agora.

Não confie no estado. Essa confiança pode matá-lo — talvez em um campo de guerra no exterior, talvez na sua própria casa.

Traduzido para o português por Erick Vasconcelos.

That’s right. Never mind that the rockets fired out of Gaza are amateurish things that could be crafted from hobby shop supplies, causing barely one percent as many casualties as Israeli reprisals. Never mind that the rockets — reprehensible as attacks on civilians are under any circumstances, regardless of Israel’s provocations — are fired by desperate people from inside Israel’s Warsaw-Ghetto-on-the-Mediterranean, out into the settler nation that drove them out of their homeland. Never mind that rocket firings have often occurred in response to unilateral Israeli violations of ceasefires.

Never mind all this. Hamas — which the Israeli state propaganda apparatus presents to the Israeli public and the world as an existential threat comparable to the Bugs in “Starship Troopers,” whipping the people of Israel into the kind of frenzy where they sit on hillsides cheering the bombing of hospitals — was actually created in part by the intelligence apparatus of the state that claims to be fighting a life-and-death war against it.

Anthony Cordesman, a strategic analyst of Middle Eastern security issues at Center for Strategic Studies, says Israel aided Hamas back in the ’70s as a counterweight to the PLO. An anonymous former CIA official concurs that Israel secretly supported Hamas as a religious challenger to a “strong, secular PLO.” The upsurge in popular support for Hamas in the ’80s — resulting in part from the triumph of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and in part from the PLO moving its headquarters to Beirut — caught the Israeli leadership off-guard.

Some allege that Israeli support for Hamas goes back even further, and that Shin Bet and the military occupation authorities supported the growth of the Muslim Brotherhood and foundation of Hamas in the ’60s. At the time Hamas was hostile to Palestinian nationalist organizations, and directed most of its violent energies against Fatah, PFLP and PLO forces in the Occupied Territories. (Sources: Richard Sale, “Analysis: Hamas history tied to Israel,” UPI, June 18, 2002; Robert Dreyfuss, “How Israel Backed Hamas,” Institute for Public Accuracy, July 22, 2014).

And unfortunately, some geniuses in the Israeli security state just preferred having a scary theocratic outfit like Hamas as the main face of the Palestinian enemy, rather than an organization calling for a secular Palestinian state where Arabs and Jews can live together in peace. Hamas makes a much better Goldstein in the Two-Minute Hate.

This is a disturbing pattern. Hamas was originally an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza (which had been quietly supported by the US in the 1950s as a religious challenge to Nasserism and Baathism). Al Qaeda emerged from the US-sponsored Mujaheddin guerrillas fighting Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. ISIS originated in similar US aid to anti-Assad rebels in Syria. And then these movements, created with the help of black-budget aid and training by the CIA, Green Berets or Mossad, are in turn used to scare the domestic public into supporting criminal wars abroad with large-scale atrocities against civilian populations.

Two take-home lessons: First of all, the state’s official narrative about “foreign threats” is quite likely to be an outright lie — I mean a lie on the scale of Germany putting operatives in Polish army uniforms and then using “Polish attacks on our ethnic German brothers in Danzig.” And second, there’s a good chance the foreign bugaboo is blowback from the state’s own policies. States try to legitimize their policies of class rule and empire by appealing to a common “national interest” shared by all, high and low. But their actual policies, stripped the patriotic hogwash, are meant to serve the interests of the rich folks who control the state. And they’ll most likely bring death and destruction home to their own people, as Americans learned on 9/11 and Israelis are learning now.

Don’t trust the state. It’ll just get you killed — maybe on a battlefield overseas, maybe in your own home.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, Gaza: I Nodi Vengono al Pettine.

Hamas is wrong to fire rockets at civilians (though few hit their targets), even considering that the villages those civilians live in were once Palestinian villages that Zionist/Israeli forces seized during the 1947-48 ethnic cleansing. The rocketing, however, is a sign of weakness versus Israel, not strength, and must not permit us to overlook this background of brutality against Palestinians. This year Hamas agreed to join the Palestinian Authority’s coalition government (after the Israeli government, again, made a mockery of “peace talks”) signaling an endorsement of the PA’s agenda — including recognition of Israel. Was this a welcome step for the Israeli government? No. It immediately set out to punish the Palestinians for this new unity — it prefers a divided Palestinian community and a Hamas it can demonize. (Years ago, the Israeli government nurtured the emergence of Hamas precisely because it could serve as a religious rival to the popular secular Fatah.)

Hamas, it is true, maintains a charter that calls for the destruction of Israel, but that has not kept it from issuing statements over the years — joining the coalition is only the most recent — indicating a willingness to accept Israel as part of a two-state solution. It is Israel that has broken truces with Hamas. Its soldiers have often killed and injured Gazans minding their own business on their own side of the fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel, while Hamas leaders have been assassinated by the Israeli government following offers of a truce. It is clear that Israeli leaders do not want a Hamas they can make peace with, just as they don’t want an Iran with which they can have normal relations. They need the specter of an “existential threat” to maintain their iron rule. In particular, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must push this intransigent line especially hard to keep the members of his coalition government who are further to the right than he is (yes, further) on the reservation.

Israeli leaders and spokesmen continually say that their only goal in this war is “peace and quiet” for the people if Israel. Maybe a decent goal would include justice for the long-suffering Palestinians. This is not about Hamas, an organization that endangers the innocent people it claims to champion with futile yet criminal activities like the rocket fire. This does not let the Israelis and their brutal response — underwritten by American taxpayers and supporter by their rulers — off the hook, however. Ont the contrary, since Israel created and maintains the open-air prison, it is responsible for all the evils that go on inside. Its hard-line policies embolden the most extreme elements and undercut the moderate voices. Has the “peace process” even slowed the building of illegal settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank?

No, it’s not about Hamas; it’s about the Palestinians, who do not deserve this punishment at the hands of the Israelis.

For further discussion of the larger context, see Ramzy Baroud’s “Ravaging Gaza: The War Netanyahu Cannot Possibly Win.” Also worthwhile are Nathan Thrall’s “How the West Chose War in Gaza” and Neve Gordon’s “On ‘Human Shielding’ in Gaza.”

When Hamas, a quasi-state claiming to represent the Palestinians, launches rockets that predictably kill or maim everyday Israelis, destroy property, and cause fear among civilians, it is committing terrorism. Regardless of the legitimate grievances Palestinians have, it is wrong to use deadly violence in a way that inevitably hurts the innocent. This is the moral principle toward which we should hope all humanity strives.

When the Israeli state, claiming to represent the Israelis, launches bombs at densely populated Palestinian neighborhoods, killing and injuring many civilians, this too must be condemned. The right of self-defense against aggressors does not entitle one to inflict collective punishment or even to be criminally reckless with the lives of innocent third parties. Nothing entitles one to be so reckless. We have all sorts of fundamental rights in life—not to be enslaved, not to be killed, and to pursue peacefully a living and our happiness. And the right of self-defense. But self-defense does not include the right to hurt innocent people any more than the right to feed one’s family entitles one to steal.

For many years, the U.S. government has supported foreign governments in their militarism. Americans should have a particular interest in what these governments do. It is of course a disgrace that the U.S. has backed such awful dictators as Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak.

Very consistently, U.S. policy has been to support Israel financially, diplomatically, morally, and militarily. Israel uses U.S.-provided hardware to bomb Palestinian communities. America’s perceived one-sided support for Israel was one of the major grievances named by Osama bin Laden in explaining why al Qaeda attacks the United States. Israeli policy should thus be of special interest to Americans in our national foreign policy discourse.

As with the rest of American diplomacy, there is very little dissent in the mainstream on this issue. During their foreign policy presidential debate, Obama and Romney competed strenuously over who would be more unwaveringly pro-Israel. That was the extent of the debate: not what the right position is, but which one of them held that same position more firmly.

Critics of Israel are sometimes accused of singling out Israel. I’m sure some of them do. And some appear to have bad reasons for doing so. But there are good reasons to carefully scrutinize the close allies of your own government, whose policies you might have a marginal chance in changing. This becomes even more important when all conventional discourse is silent on or supportive of the status quo of mass violence that has failed to bring peace and incites terrorism. Moreover, if out of general principle, regardless of the excuse, you don’t approve of governments occupying communities where they’re not wanted, putting up checkpoints on internal main roads, choking off commerce and suppressing cultural exchange—if you don’t approve of blockades, restrictions on exports, or governmental attempts to stop private individuals from transferring small arms—you should be unhappy that your government backs these policies by proxy.

We often hear that we should defend Israel because it is a liberal democracy, at least compared to the Muslim theocracies nearby. But that shouldn’t temper our critique of the government’s policies in the occupied territories. Liberal states have often been guilty of some of the greatest crimes in foreign policy. On the eve of the American Revolution, one of the central colonial criticisms of the British Empire was that it acted hypocritically, championing human rights at home while treating foreigners with a much lower moral standard.

This is true of U.S. foreign policy in general. Americans like to believe their government defends something akin to the relative liberty we associate with America at home. Yet U.S. foreign policy has often conspicuously stood in sharp contrast with the values espoused at home. It has been characterized by firebombings, torture, massacres of villagers, and alliances with some of the most brutal states in modern history. Often, the victims’ humanity is dismissed in mainstream political discourse as if their lives don’t matter as much as our lives do.

The collectivism of war is one of the most wicked forms of tribalism in our time. Most Americans recognize that Muslim terrorists are guilty of regarding innocent people as a disposable means to an end. But they are not alone. U.S. and Israeli leaders do this too. The United States deliberately killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians through sanctions in the 1990s. Today, Israeli politicians and important public figures use crazed language calling on the government to “flatten Gaza” or “send it back to the Middle Ages.”

I’m not saying there is a simple solution for the Middle East. But it should be obvious that just as Hamas’s rocket attacks are an immoral and ineffective way to defend the Palestinians, Israel’s provocations and reactions, which tend to kills dozens of times as many people, are also immoral and counterproductive. Whether the goal is seen as self-defense or to maintain an illegitimate occupation, the Israeli government has committed human rights abuses that in practice do not serve to defend anybody. The U.S. government should not force taxpayers to finance any of this, and so long as it does, Americans ought to be particularly critical.

Supposedly the raid had to be done, because the flotilla challenged Israel’s control of Gaza. When a mindset is adopted that the state must control everything within a certain area, then anything the state does not have a hand in is seen as a threat. But transporting medical supplies and “luxuries” like toys and unapproved foods really only threatens a government’s control.

Essentially, the activists on the ships were attacking Israel’s concept of the border by transporting supplies in violation of the rules made by those who drew the boundaries with force. Believing that a border must be defended from those who peaceably defy it leads to attacks on human beings. The preservation of power comes before the preservation of human life.

One can see parallels in United States border politics. Immigrants from a certain demographic are thought of as less-worthy humans and blamed for the harm that the ruling class has done. Those apprehended by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement are regularly treated worse than actual criminals. New Jersey Civil Rights Defense Committee and The Nation reporter Jacqueline Stevens have described routine abuse and secretive detention centers used to punish those who infringe on a statist concept.

Israeli officials have whined about a heavily armed boarding party getting struck with bludgeons and sharp objects. The ships’ crews and passengers had every right to repel boarders from their ships — even if they had used firearms, which there is no evidence of anyone on board possessing. And even if Israeli forces did not begin shooting before landing on the ships, as some allege.

The concepts of sovereignty and authority mean that some people are assigned higher worth than others. The king’s men may assault you, and resisting them automatically legitimizes any violence done against you, including the violence against you that began the exchange. It is like when cops batter and cage an individual for pushing them back, or shoot a person during a drug raid.

As Roderick Long notes in his aaeblog.com post The Logick of Kings: “The Israeli government explains that it had to kill innocent people because they defended themselves when attacked.”

Israeli officials have told the media that weapons had been found aboard the ships. Maybe they should present evidence of these weapons, unless we’re just to assume that the pipes and sharp pieces of metal used to defend against the raiders represent a significant threat to the Israeli military. Of course, since the ships are under control of the Israeli government, it probably wouldn’t be too hard for some government agents to plant a few crates of weapons on board.

Israeli forces, unlike the Free Gaza flotilla, are thoroughly equipped with the latest in military hardware. We are not supposed to question the massive amount of military aid the United States Government gives to the Israeli government, because it’s not considered criminal when certain armed gangs attack civilians to keep control of their turf.

One obvious bit of statist logic in the attempts to justify the Israeli attack is the “with us or against us” mindset. If you are not assisting the state expand its power, then you are an enemy, and you will be equated with all of the state’s rivals, whether they be Stalinists or Hamas. Those who acted against the interests of Israel’s ruling policy are automatically assigned to the same category as terrorists who fire rockets into cities.

The logic of the state is the logic of control. When we look for consistency, we find only attempts to institute total control. The antithesis of the state is the true liberty, equality, and solidarity advocated by anarchists.