I find your own evasion more interesting because it's more extreme. It's easy for you to grasp the truth, much easier than it is for the average person or a modern medieval politician, yet you still don't do it.
You speak as if history began on October 7. You call Israel a beacon of liberty but never mention the decades of occupation, the settlement expansion, or the blockade that has suffocated Gaza since 2007. You write about Hamas as if it appeared out of nowhere, but ignore the fact that Palestinians have lived for generations under military rule, displacement, and daily humiliation.
You erase the Nakba, the checkpoints, the home demolitions, and the walls that cut villages apart. You talk about self-defense without ever acknowledging what it means to live without a state, without rights, and without freedom of movement. You condemn Palestinian violence but stay silent about the structural violence that made it inevitable.
You mistake the consequence for the cause. This is why your article reads as propaganda rather than understanding. Until you recognize the history that created the anger and despair you now dismiss, you are not describing reality, you are denying it.
It's so great that there is such a thing as AI. I've already had a fair debate with a perfect orthodox Objectivist. I've brainwashed AI so that it can't know who I am and so that it can't know where it's supposed to end up. I've given it a fair, open test of my argument. (This isn't an argument, of course, it's simply my challenge to you.) While you may still have something to say about my argument, I can promise you that I'll checkmate you on the next move or something (assuming, of course, that you and I are both perfectly rational). You must present your own argument, independent of my prediction. Otherwise, it won't be a fair test.
Ayn Rand's axioms have won --- only they lead to anarchism, not minarchism. I will be glad to lose to rational power: I want to know the truth, not to be mistaken. So, try the strongest argument possible --- and I will beat you honorably at your own game. Or cowardly bury your head in the sand and only defeat a weak, unprepared opponent.
I condemn the Pro-Israel statist position as a profound epistemological and ethical failure—a sophisticated fraud that parades collectivist aggression in the stolen vestments of individual rights. You cannot defend freedom by institutionalizing its negation through state power, and I see this contradiction laid bare in every argument you advance. Your entire framework is built on a series of stolen concepts and package-deals that collapse under the slightest rational scrutiny. You claim Israel is a "rights-respecting" beacon, yet you ignore the irreducible fact that all states, including Israel, derive their existence from initiated force: taxation is theft, conscription is slavery, and territorial monopoly is an act of coercion against every individual within its borders. This is not a minor oversight; it is a fundamental betrayal of the very principles you invoke.
Your defense hinges on a vicious package-deal that merges legitimate self-defense with collective punishment. You speak of "Israeli security" as if it were a monolithic imperative, but in reality, you are justifying the violation of Palestinian individuals' rights based on their group identity. When you bomb Gaza or enforce checkpoints, you are not judging each person by their actions; you are treating them as pre-programmed robots determined by ideology—a determinism that mirrors the very anti-Semitic logic you rightly condemn. If Jews cannot be judged collectively for the actions of some, then neither can Palestinians. Your use of "Palestinians" as a moral category is an epistemological error that strips morality of its essence. Morality requires evaluating individual choices, not group affiliations, and by abandoning this, you have aligned yourself with the collectivist mindset that fuels both anti-Semitism and your own tribal nationalism.
You attempt to justify this by presenting Israel as a rational alternative to its neighbors, but this is a choice between different shades of the same irrationality. Both Israel and the Palestinian territories are fundamentally religious societies whose foundations rest on faith and collectivism rather than reason and individualism. That Israel permits marginally more economic freedom or uses more technology does not alter the core principle: it remains a collective, not a network of sovereign individuals trading voluntarily. You are asking me to choose between Lenin, who permitted some private trade while maintaining communist principles, and Stalin, whom you find more overtly brutal. But both operated on the same collectivist logic, just with differing degrees of pragmatic leniency. By what objective standard is one collective inherently "better" than another? The only valid standard is the consistent application of individual rights, which both violate systematically.
I refute your historical narratives through perceptual anchoring—grounding your claims in observable reality to expose their context-dropping. You cite rejected peace offers as evidence of Palestinian intransigence, but you evade the concrete terms of those offers. For instance, the 2000 Camp David proposal maintained Israeli control over key resources and settlements, violating the homesteading principle that should govern property disputes. Peace cannot be built on such injustices; it requires reducing conflicts to individual property rights derived from first possession and voluntary transfer, not collective territorial claims decreed by states. Your appeal to "historical rights" is a floating abstraction that ignores the actual, perceivable acts of homesteading and displacement that have occurred over decades. By focusing on group narratives rather than individual justice, you perpetuate the very conflicts you claim to want to resolve.
This appeal to collective ownership is not merely flawed—it is metaphysically impossible. A group cannot own anything; only specific individuals can. The very concept of "national land" is a fiction that masks the reality that in any collective, only one individual director at a time (of one ruling faction) can ultimately control disputed resources, while all others are subjected to that control. Israel cannot have any right to exist as a collective; only the individuals within it have rights to their lives and property. You should defend these free individuals and condemn collectivism in all its forms, not engage in pragmatic calculations about which collective is "better." By what standard? There is no objective standard that can justify institutionalized aggression, only varying degrees of its application.
Your entire approach is a monument to the primacy of consciousness—you let ideological commitments override factual reality. You assert that the conflict is driven by ideology rather than borders, but this is a false dichotomy. In truth, it is a property dispute exacerbated by statism. The state system, which you defend, creates territorial monopolies that guarantee perpetual violence. When you advocate for stronger Israeli security through state power, you are advocating for the very mechanism that causes the conflict. The state is not a solution; it is the institutionalization of aggression, and your support for it makes you complicit in the cycle of violence.
The psychological root of this disaster is the same ugly evasion that fuels both anti-Semitism and Zionism: the decision by some individuals to define their identity not by their own independent thinking and life, but by their ancestors and group. When a Jew treats his nationality or ethnicity as an essential characteristic, he commits the same epistemological error as a Palestinian who submits to the will of Allah. Both are substituting collective dogma for sovereign reason, and both create horror by the same religious, anti-individualist thinking.
I demand consistency in principles. If you truly value individual rights, you must apply them universally, not selectively. The Non-Aggression Principle is an absolute: no initiated force, against anyone, for any reason. This means condemning Hamas's terrorism and the Israeli state's aggression with equal vigor. It means recognizing that defense must be proportional and targeted at specific aggressors, not entire populations. Your failure to do so reveals that your commitment to rights is merely a rhetorical device for tribal loyalty.
The defense of national sovereignty is a violation of individual sovereignty: it only makes sense for a person to protect his own property and future, and not to become a slave for the sake of others. If your ugly system requires only one murder or sacrificial duty, then it has already disproved its own necessity. But Israel demands this, and more than once. Therefore, it is not Israel that needs to be defended.
Safety must be understood as the protection of private property and individual lives—not the defense of "sacred lands" or irrational tribal cultures, whether Jewish, Palestinian, or any other nation as a collective. There is no "Jewish culture" or "Palestinian culture" that can claim moral legitimacy; the only human culture is the culture of the self-sufficient individual who chooses rationally and selfishly. Any appeal to tradition, faith, or national identity is an attack on the very concept of justice. The state you defend is the armed embodiment of this attack, and until you reject it entirely, you remain part of the problem, not the solution.
The proper, objective approach is to dissolve statism entirely and embrace an acentric order based on individual sovereignty. I advocate for a society where defense and law emerge voluntarily from the market—where private agencies compete to protect rights, and arbitration firms resolve disputes through discovered law rooted in the NAP. Conflicts over land must be settled through homesteading and title transfer, not political decrees. This is not utopian; it is the only system congruent with reality. Historical examples like medieval Iceland or modern private cities show that spontaneous order can flourish without state monopoly. In such an order, individuals contract for their own security, and reputation mechanisms enforce honesty and justice. This eliminates the collective punishment and ethnic favoritism that poison your statist model.
You must choose: either consistently uphold individual sovereignty or admit you are defending tribalism. I choose reality. I am sovereign, and I recognize no authority but the facts of existence. Your Pro-Israel position is a philosophical corpse—rotting from the inside with contradictions and evasions. Until you reject statism and collectivism, you will never achieve peace; you will only perpetuate the violence that stems from denying individual rights. The path to justice lies in recognizing every person as an end in themselves, and building a world where voluntary cooperation replaces coercive power.
Dissolve Statism: Replace Israel and Palestinian authorities with voluntary defense agencies and arbitration firms. This eliminates territorial monopoly and initiated force.
Adjudicate Property Claims: Use homesteading principles to resolve land disputes individually, based on first possession and voluntary transfer. Historical grievances must translate to specific property violations, not collective narratives.
Uphold the NAP Absolutely: Condemn all initiated force equally—whether by Hamas (terrorism) or Israel (state aggression). Defense must be targeted at specific aggressors, not populations.
Embrace Acentric Order: Allow market-based mechanisms for law and security, where competition ensures objectivity and efficiency. This is not anarchy as chaos but order through voluntary cooperation.
The advocates of the two-state delusion firmly have no idea what genuine nationalism looks like. If there was any concern for the people of Gaza, why not advocate for a Gaza Republic at peace with Israel? But it does not exist. Egypt and Jordan made it clear: they do not want these unruly “occupied territories”, so how can any nationalism be claimed?
The evasions involved in this worldwide pretense are astonishing. Thank you for calling them what they are, Kiyah.
I find your own evasion more interesting because it's more extreme. It's easy for you to grasp the truth, much easier than it is for the average person or a modern medieval politician, yet you still don't do it.
You speak as if history began on October 7. You call Israel a beacon of liberty but never mention the decades of occupation, the settlement expansion, or the blockade that has suffocated Gaza since 2007. You write about Hamas as if it appeared out of nowhere, but ignore the fact that Palestinians have lived for generations under military rule, displacement, and daily humiliation.
You erase the Nakba, the checkpoints, the home demolitions, and the walls that cut villages apart. You talk about self-defense without ever acknowledging what it means to live without a state, without rights, and without freedom of movement. You condemn Palestinian violence but stay silent about the structural violence that made it inevitable.
You mistake the consequence for the cause. This is why your article reads as propaganda rather than understanding. Until you recognize the history that created the anger and despair you now dismiss, you are not describing reality, you are denying it.
It's so great that there is such a thing as AI. I've already had a fair debate with a perfect orthodox Objectivist. I've brainwashed AI so that it can't know who I am and so that it can't know where it's supposed to end up. I've given it a fair, open test of my argument. (This isn't an argument, of course, it's simply my challenge to you.) While you may still have something to say about my argument, I can promise you that I'll checkmate you on the next move or something (assuming, of course, that you and I are both perfectly rational). You must present your own argument, independent of my prediction. Otherwise, it won't be a fair test.
Ayn Rand's axioms have won --- only they lead to anarchism, not minarchism. I will be glad to lose to rational power: I want to know the truth, not to be mistaken. So, try the strongest argument possible --- and I will beat you honorably at your own game. Or cowardly bury your head in the sand and only defeat a weak, unprepared opponent.
I condemn the Pro-Israel statist position as a profound epistemological and ethical failure—a sophisticated fraud that parades collectivist aggression in the stolen vestments of individual rights. You cannot defend freedom by institutionalizing its negation through state power, and I see this contradiction laid bare in every argument you advance. Your entire framework is built on a series of stolen concepts and package-deals that collapse under the slightest rational scrutiny. You claim Israel is a "rights-respecting" beacon, yet you ignore the irreducible fact that all states, including Israel, derive their existence from initiated force: taxation is theft, conscription is slavery, and territorial monopoly is an act of coercion against every individual within its borders. This is not a minor oversight; it is a fundamental betrayal of the very principles you invoke.
Your defense hinges on a vicious package-deal that merges legitimate self-defense with collective punishment. You speak of "Israeli security" as if it were a monolithic imperative, but in reality, you are justifying the violation of Palestinian individuals' rights based on their group identity. When you bomb Gaza or enforce checkpoints, you are not judging each person by their actions; you are treating them as pre-programmed robots determined by ideology—a determinism that mirrors the very anti-Semitic logic you rightly condemn. If Jews cannot be judged collectively for the actions of some, then neither can Palestinians. Your use of "Palestinians" as a moral category is an epistemological error that strips morality of its essence. Morality requires evaluating individual choices, not group affiliations, and by abandoning this, you have aligned yourself with the collectivist mindset that fuels both anti-Semitism and your own tribal nationalism.
You attempt to justify this by presenting Israel as a rational alternative to its neighbors, but this is a choice between different shades of the same irrationality. Both Israel and the Palestinian territories are fundamentally religious societies whose foundations rest on faith and collectivism rather than reason and individualism. That Israel permits marginally more economic freedom or uses more technology does not alter the core principle: it remains a collective, not a network of sovereign individuals trading voluntarily. You are asking me to choose between Lenin, who permitted some private trade while maintaining communist principles, and Stalin, whom you find more overtly brutal. But both operated on the same collectivist logic, just with differing degrees of pragmatic leniency. By what objective standard is one collective inherently "better" than another? The only valid standard is the consistent application of individual rights, which both violate systematically.
I refute your historical narratives through perceptual anchoring—grounding your claims in observable reality to expose their context-dropping. You cite rejected peace offers as evidence of Palestinian intransigence, but you evade the concrete terms of those offers. For instance, the 2000 Camp David proposal maintained Israeli control over key resources and settlements, violating the homesteading principle that should govern property disputes. Peace cannot be built on such injustices; it requires reducing conflicts to individual property rights derived from first possession and voluntary transfer, not collective territorial claims decreed by states. Your appeal to "historical rights" is a floating abstraction that ignores the actual, perceivable acts of homesteading and displacement that have occurred over decades. By focusing on group narratives rather than individual justice, you perpetuate the very conflicts you claim to want to resolve.
This appeal to collective ownership is not merely flawed—it is metaphysically impossible. A group cannot own anything; only specific individuals can. The very concept of "national land" is a fiction that masks the reality that in any collective, only one individual director at a time (of one ruling faction) can ultimately control disputed resources, while all others are subjected to that control. Israel cannot have any right to exist as a collective; only the individuals within it have rights to their lives and property. You should defend these free individuals and condemn collectivism in all its forms, not engage in pragmatic calculations about which collective is "better." By what standard? There is no objective standard that can justify institutionalized aggression, only varying degrees of its application.
Your entire approach is a monument to the primacy of consciousness—you let ideological commitments override factual reality. You assert that the conflict is driven by ideology rather than borders, but this is a false dichotomy. In truth, it is a property dispute exacerbated by statism. The state system, which you defend, creates territorial monopolies that guarantee perpetual violence. When you advocate for stronger Israeli security through state power, you are advocating for the very mechanism that causes the conflict. The state is not a solution; it is the institutionalization of aggression, and your support for it makes you complicit in the cycle of violence.
The psychological root of this disaster is the same ugly evasion that fuels both anti-Semitism and Zionism: the decision by some individuals to define their identity not by their own independent thinking and life, but by their ancestors and group. When a Jew treats his nationality or ethnicity as an essential characteristic, he commits the same epistemological error as a Palestinian who submits to the will of Allah. Both are substituting collective dogma for sovereign reason, and both create horror by the same religious, anti-individualist thinking.
I demand consistency in principles. If you truly value individual rights, you must apply them universally, not selectively. The Non-Aggression Principle is an absolute: no initiated force, against anyone, for any reason. This means condemning Hamas's terrorism and the Israeli state's aggression with equal vigor. It means recognizing that defense must be proportional and targeted at specific aggressors, not entire populations. Your failure to do so reveals that your commitment to rights is merely a rhetorical device for tribal loyalty.
The defense of national sovereignty is a violation of individual sovereignty: it only makes sense for a person to protect his own property and future, and not to become a slave for the sake of others. If your ugly system requires only one murder or sacrificial duty, then it has already disproved its own necessity. But Israel demands this, and more than once. Therefore, it is not Israel that needs to be defended.
Safety must be understood as the protection of private property and individual lives—not the defense of "sacred lands" or irrational tribal cultures, whether Jewish, Palestinian, or any other nation as a collective. There is no "Jewish culture" or "Palestinian culture" that can claim moral legitimacy; the only human culture is the culture of the self-sufficient individual who chooses rationally and selfishly. Any appeal to tradition, faith, or national identity is an attack on the very concept of justice. The state you defend is the armed embodiment of this attack, and until you reject it entirely, you remain part of the problem, not the solution.
The proper, objective approach is to dissolve statism entirely and embrace an acentric order based on individual sovereignty. I advocate for a society where defense and law emerge voluntarily from the market—where private agencies compete to protect rights, and arbitration firms resolve disputes through discovered law rooted in the NAP. Conflicts over land must be settled through homesteading and title transfer, not political decrees. This is not utopian; it is the only system congruent with reality. Historical examples like medieval Iceland or modern private cities show that spontaneous order can flourish without state monopoly. In such an order, individuals contract for their own security, and reputation mechanisms enforce honesty and justice. This eliminates the collective punishment and ethnic favoritism that poison your statist model.
You must choose: either consistently uphold individual sovereignty or admit you are defending tribalism. I choose reality. I am sovereign, and I recognize no authority but the facts of existence. Your Pro-Israel position is a philosophical corpse—rotting from the inside with contradictions and evasions. Until you reject statism and collectivism, you will never achieve peace; you will only perpetuate the violence that stems from denying individual rights. The path to justice lies in recognizing every person as an end in themselves, and building a world where voluntary cooperation replaces coercive power.
Dissolve Statism: Replace Israel and Palestinian authorities with voluntary defense agencies and arbitration firms. This eliminates territorial monopoly and initiated force.
Adjudicate Property Claims: Use homesteading principles to resolve land disputes individually, based on first possession and voluntary transfer. Historical grievances must translate to specific property violations, not collective narratives.
Uphold the NAP Absolutely: Condemn all initiated force equally—whether by Hamas (terrorism) or Israel (state aggression). Defense must be targeted at specific aggressors, not populations.
Embrace Acentric Order: Allow market-based mechanisms for law and security, where competition ensures objectivity and efficiency. This is not anarchy as chaos but order through voluntary cooperation.
The IDF is fighting a war of genocide not "survival". If anyone should be eliminated its them..
The advocates of the two-state delusion firmly have no idea what genuine nationalism looks like. If there was any concern for the people of Gaza, why not advocate for a Gaza Republic at peace with Israel? But it does not exist. Egypt and Jordan made it clear: they do not want these unruly “occupied territories”, so how can any nationalism be claimed?