TGIF: What Should I Do on Election Day?

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. --H. L. Mencken

This column was prompted by a conversation I had with a few neighbors, whom I do not know, over the Nextdoor.com platform. I thank them for being unwitting grist for my mill. Of course, the names are withheld to protect the innocent.

A woman was upset about something the state government had done. She took to social media to say that this shows that we all need to vote. Always up to a challenge, I decided to weigh in. I asked what good would her plea do considering that one vote almost never decides an election. The chance of any given voter making a difference is virtually nil. How many tied elections have you heard about? In my longish lifetime, no election would have turned out differently had I acted other than I did. Not one.

Did the Nextdoor.com participants not think about the arithmetic? Why agonize over the "choice" they will face on election day? Why lose a wink of sleep?

You might think that since the woman was addressing an audience larger than one, she might respond that this is about more than one vote. I don't think that works because her audience was too small to make a difference, even assuming everyone she reached votes the way she wants them to -- which is unlikely. 

That aside, you'd have thought I had insulted the participants' religion -- which in a way I did. Democracy is a religion.

My neighbors' responses were predictable. What if everyone felt the same way as you? they asked. One person said that if everyone agreed with me, "nothing would get done." I might have responded, "If I thought everyone was going to stay home, then I might vote if a worthy person were on the ballot. (Not likely.) My candidate would win 1-0. Whoopee! Or: considering what governments do to us, getting nothing done would be a feature, not a bug.

Instead, I asked them: why is voting the only matter about which you ask, "What if everyone thought that way?" The world would be in a sad state if everyone had done what any given person had done over the years. Does an aspiring doctor, lawyer, or plumber ask, "What if everyone chooses what I've chosen"? It's a paralyzing question.

How is the question even relevant? We're not doing philosophy here. It's a practical question. No matter what I do on election day, everyone else is going to do what he or she is going to do. They won't consult me. I guarantee it. So the outcome is going to be the same no matter what I do. In that case, why not do something that makes a difference, like play with the kids, have a conversation, read an article, watch a movie, donate blood, or make some money? In those cases, the means will almost certainly produce the end sought. That's not the case with voting.

Since my neighbors didn't want to face the math, I found little interest in the related point that they had no incentive to become truly informed voters. But this is like ignoring the 800-pound gorilla over there in the corner. One person thought it was enough to get the candidates' position papers and to look at Ballotpedia.com. I said that was hardly adequate. Everything that governments do affects the economy, which means us and our everyday lives. Wouldn't voters need to study economics before properly judging the candidates? I posed a thought experiment: candidate A favors the minimum wage. Candidate B opposes it. Other things equal, whom do you choose and why? No one answered. Someone said that's not what matters.

In fairness, I should concede that people have reasons to vote other than to influence the result. People vote because they see it as a sign of good citizenship, even if few people observe it. I suppose people vote simply to express support for a candidate or cause. It's like applauding at a major league baseball game. Your joining in (or not) doesn't make a difference. Related to this is the sense that voting is a sort of chipping in on behalf of someone you like. For these people, the point about not individually affecting the outcome won't apply. Voting makes them feel good.

I submit that all of this confirms what Bryan Caplan says about why democracies consistently choose socially destructive policies. It's not that special interests control the politicians, who then ignore the voters. That theory overlooks too much, as David Friedman shows in The Machinery of Freedom, chapter 38. (free PDF). He writes:

It seems more reasonable to suppose that there is no ruling class, that we are ruled, rather, by a myriad of quarreling gangs, constantly engaged in stealing from each other to the great impoverishment of their own members as well as the rest of us.

As Caplan argues, the public generally supports destructive policies that harm each member individually. Why? Caplan doesn't think the problem is rational ignorance that comes from the impotence of one vote. Rational ignorance ought to lead to pro-market choices about half the time and anti-market choices the other half. Instead we find systematically anti-market bias. Since you can't affect the election and acquiring information is expensive, you may as well vote according to your biases. It will feel good, and it's cheaper.

Caplan writes, "[C]ompetition impels politicians to heed what voters favor [protectionism, farm subsidies, etc.], not what is best for them." Remember, politicians want to be reelected or achieve a legacy.

I don't tell people what to do, so I don't tell them not to vote. I have no reason to think they'd listen to me anyway.

Keeping Perspective

To put things into perspective, be aware that people with advanced degrees from our best universities say things like, "Since no one, including criminals, has free will and hence is morally responsible for his or her actions, we ought to come up with a more appropriate criminal justice system. Therefore I propose that we hold a conference next spring to discuss this important matter and make recommendations for change. Be sure to save the date."

TGIF: Trump Loves NATO

Trump is either contentedly ignorant of the things he talks about or callously scornful of his adoring fans, whom he sees as rubes eager to swallow whatever he says. He could be both. Above all, Trump is a Trump supremacist.

Does he believe in NATO or not? (Believe in it? Hell, I've seen it!) Trump wants it both ways. He loves the response he gets at rallies when, populist-style, he seems to put NATO down as a freeloader on America. But he doesn't really put it down. He is a devout NATOist.

How can that be? Look at his record. He's called for expanding NATO to the Middle East! (He said it would allow the U.S. government to disengage, but how likely would that be?) During the Trump administration, North Macedonia joined the alliance. (Another country for potential American rescue, thank you very much.) And NATO members near Russia think Trump left the alliance stronger than it was before he took office. Yes, once or twice he threatened to pull the U.S. government out, but that's like the guy who starts to walk out of a car showroom in a bluff to get undercoating and rustproofing included in the price of the car.

So let's not play games. Trump loves NATO. It enables him to be a big cheese on the world stage. His fans say we should take him seriously, not literally. What does that mean? Trump is a shameless snake oil salesman. (That doesn't mean I think the alternative is better.)

Take the latest brouhaha. Trump has upset the usual suspects by saying that if a NATO member government were "delinquent" in paying "its bills," "I" -- he personally? -- would not protect it from an attack by, say, Russia. He even said he would "encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want." He's rather casual about other people's lives.

The first thing to notice is that he would protect members that had paid what he calls their "bills." He believes in NATO's mutual defense commitment. QED.

Under Trump (like any other president), Americans could be forced to fight for and/or materially assist other NATO governments that came into conflict with non-NATO countries. That's the point of NATO! An attack on one is an attack on all. The collective defense commitment under Article 5 -- which has been invoked only once, by the U.S. government after 9/11 -- provides wiggle room with the phrase "such action as [each member government] deems necessary," but still it expresses an intention for mutual defense. And, most importantly, the U.S. government's nuclear arsenal is in the background.

The next thing to understand is that Trump's talk about bills and dues is balderdash. NATO members don't pay dues. What Trump must be confused about is the members' agreement to try to raise their military spending to at least 2 percent of their GDP. That money does not go to NATO; it's part of their government budgets. This agreement is understood as a guideline, not a commitment. Members have no deadline, so they can't be delinquent. According to the Washington Post, using NATO figures, 11 of the 31 members have met the guideline. (Iceland has no armed forces.)

How does Trump know that 2 percent is the magic number? He doesn't. How does he know that striving for 2 percent by raising taxes or cutting other spending wouldn't destabilize one country or another? He doesn't. But the issue gives him another chance to pretend that the United States is the aggrieved party internationally. NATO members are taking advantage of America.

That's been his shtik since he started running for president in 2015. No demagogue would get far by ranting that the United States has bullied other countries long enough and it's time to stop. No, his pitch is that the United States has been trampled on by others long enough. That's how a populist rallies support. The fact is that for decades in foreign affairs, the U.S. foreign-policy elite has called the shots and others have knuckled under or else. As President George H. W. Bush said in 1990, "What we say goes." This power has been waning recently: other people will take only so much pushing around, and other power centers rise up.

One reasonably winces at Trump's invitation to Russia, although Russia is unlikely to be interested in accepting it or even capable of doing so. We wince because when a government, any government, crosses borders, innocent people die. It's not something even to joke about.

To point out Trump's buffoonery, however, is not to defend NATO. Decades ago, libertarians started calling for the U.S. government to leave the alliance and the others. That was during the Cold War. It was motivated by, among other things, an understanding that what looks like defense to you might look like aggressiveness to him. Glancing back and pronouncing NATO a success because World War III did not happen might be a post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy (after this, therefore because of this). We don't know what would have happened had NATO not existed or if it did, the U.S. government had not participated, especially if free entrepreneurship in security had been allowed to flourish. Maybe we were just lucky over 40-some years, especially concerning nuclear war, which would have ended the world.

Moreover, by what right does the U.S. government commit American individuals to fight or otherwise assist in another government's war? It is not an answer to say: "That's what governments do." That begs the question regarding the state's authority. I suspect Trump wouldn't understand.

TGIF: Tariffs Tax Consumers

We seem to forget that a tariff is a tax. It is formally levied on importers, not on foreigners or things, but since it can usually be passed along, it ends up as an indirect tax on consumers.

The point of tariffs is to protect certain domestic businesses and their employees from formidable foreign competitors by raising import prices and reducing consumer choices. Higher prices! Less choice! Raising import prices gives domestic businesses room to raise their prices -- that's the point. Why have a tariff otherwise? (Tariffs intended to raise revenue rather than protect domestic companies have been imposed in the past, but in those cases, the government wanted people to buy the imports or else no revenue would have been raised.)

To put it mildly, taxes are bad. They are the government's way of taking money from people by force -- stealing -- and preventing them from spending it on their own purposes, activities that would have benefited others through production and trade. In a free society individuals are supposed to be at liberty to set and pursue their own goals. A society in which the government preempts individuals' goals is not fully free.

Even if under some market circumstances importers and foreign exporters have to pay some of a tariff, it's still an indirect tax on other Americans. Diverting money from importers and exporters to the government leaves them fewer dollars to spend or invest here. That's an unseen loss. Was Trump, who promises new anti-China and universal tariffs, daydreaming when he attended the Wharton School all those years ago? What's Biden's excuse? He's left most of Trump's 2017-2020 tariffs in place.

Advocates of tariffs think the taxes will protect American businesses and jobs. But as Milton Friedman liked to remind us, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Even if some jobs are preserved or even restored, it comes at a high price. And, as the radical liberal economist Frédéric Bastiat would say, the price is imposed on a large unseen group of people. That includes people who can least afford it. That's not fair.

Because those forced to foot the bill are not readily identifiable, the overall cost of the tariffs is also unseen and hence unappreciated. Most of us have no sense of the damage the protectionists have done. One study estimated that a single round of Trump anti-China tariffs cost the "typical household" $831 a year. Even when some jobs are saved, the price per job is stupendously expensive. As Donald Boudreaux and Phil Gramm wrote in the Wall Street Journal (paywall), Trump's tariffs to "close the 'washing-machine gap' ... cost $815,000 per job saved, and ... his steel tariffs ... cost ... more than $900,00 per job saved." Think of the opportunities forgone! Think of the opportunities forgone! And remember, for semi-finished goods, some American companies' output is other American companies' input -- meaning higher production costs than foreign companies face. (See "Who Really Pays the Tariffs? U.S. Firms and Consumers, Through Higher Prices.")

Some people will argue that America's astounding economic success in the 19th century is attributable to protective tariffs. The land of the theoretically free certainly had outrageous tariffs from the start. But beware of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (after this, therefore because of this). America had something else besides tariffs: largely free enterprise and low taxes inside a large free-trade zone. That's a much better explanation; it has a solid theory behind it. (See Donald Boudreaux's "Tariffs and Freedom.") Slavery was the worst departure from classical liberal, or libertarian, principles, but there were other, though less monstrous departures. The tariff was one of them.

Slavery and the tariff had something in common. Both prevented people from freely doing what would do the most good for themselves and others. Through private property, free exchange, and the price system, unmolested markets tend to channel workers' efforts and scarce resources to the activities that best accord with consumers' and hence entrepreneurs' most intense demands. Enslaved people, forcibly and cruelly barred from free labor markets, were forbidden to choose what they would have anticipated as their most rewarding work. That was one way in which slaves suffered, but the prohibition also made almost everyone else poorer than they would have been. How so? As Adam Smith showed in 1776, specialization through the division of labor makes us richer. The bigger the market, the better.

We got rid of slavery, thank goodness. When will we finally get rid of that other mark of tyranny: the tariff and other forms of protectionism? And when will we finally stop taking protectionist demagogues seriously?

Weird Defenders of the Palestinians

Weird: the Palestinians' advocates who as a rule are unenthusiastic (to put it mildly) about private property rights.

An Anti-Semite's Idea?

Did anti-Semites think this up? Let's put the wretched survivors of the Nazi Judeocide where their presence will necessarily disrupt a predominantly Arab-Muslim population by 1) encroaching on land the Palestinians and their ancestors have lived on for many generations and 2) setting up a new nation-state dedicated only to the world's Jewish people and in which non-Jews at best would be second-class citizens.

That's what the Jewish anti-Zionists asked from the start.

TGIF: Autocracy -- Boo! Democracy -- Hiss!

Here's why democracy is a dubious idea. Government decisions are high stakes. It decides matters of war and peace, prosperity and poverty, freedom or oppression. Yet we let incompetent people steer the ship of state. Most voters are ignorant and process what little information they have in biased and irrational ways. They fall prey to propaganda and demagogues. They are conformists and don't even try to vote their interests. Democracy is the political equivalent of drunk driving.

--Jason Brennan, Democracy: A Guided Tour

Well, we're into another out-of-control presidential election year. I'm sure everyone is thinking what I'm thinking: someone wake me when it's over.

This will not be my idea of fun. For good political news, we'll have to look to Javier Milei in Argentina (fingers crossed), assuming dethroned cronies and so-called labor leaders don't run him out of Buenos Aires on a rail.

Unless lightning strikes, the presidential race will be dominated by the execrable Biden and Trump -- and what could be more depressing than that? Thank goodness my one vote wouldn't count. Biden has been a blowhard weathervane since he was a whiz-kid senator. (In another life I was a newspaper reporter in Delaware.) Trump won't shut up until someone gives him a shot of sodium pentothal. Both are ethically challenged, and neither understands a whit about individual freedom.

Between the tribalism of party politics and the predictably woeful condition of monopoly governance, does anyone need any further demonstration that democracy stinks? What would it take? Why do people put up with it? I know why. Because they think the only alternative to democracy is autocracy. That's drummed into them in the government schools. Everyone learned that Churchill said democracy is the worst system -- except for the rest. But he rigged the competition. "The rest" did not include the only real alternative: the system of consent, cooperation, and contract. That's the free market, rooted in individual -- not collective or national -- self-ownership,  private property, free exchange, and free enterprise. There's the winner, Winnie.

Democracy is a scam perpetuated by rulers who want to deflect blame and anger by persuading the people that since they rule, they must be at fault for any shortcomings. It long ago morphed into a cult with articles of faith like "Every vote counts." It can't withstand scrutiny.

Most people wouldn't want to live in a pure direct democracy where they voted on all legislation. For one thing, they know the time demand would drive them crazy. But just as important, most of them know that they are not qualified. The government today has its tentacles in virtually every part of life. No one can be well-informed about, much less expert in, virtually everything. But that's what would be called for. Sure, people could consult experts. Um, which experts? (Other moral and epistemological objections, such as coercion and tacit knowledge, also apply.)

Representative democracy is supposed to address that problem, but it just kicks the can down the road. Instead of knowing everything about everything (or even a lot about a lot), the people only have to know which candidate fills the bill. That theory doesn't even look good on paper. 

To make things even more absurd, legislators theoretically represent large groups of people. Does that mean they should solicit their constituents' opinions? We've already seen that the constituents are unqualified. The alternative is for representatives to act on behalf of what they believe their diverse and largely ignorant constituents should want. No problem there, right? Wrong. 

Of course, while people speak solemnly about their responsibility as citizens, everyone knows his or her single vote won't make a difference in the election outcome. So where is the incentive to educate oneself in light of the huge costs if it is to be done correctly? People don't normally perform futile acts at great expense.

Think of the most serious-minded officeholder that you know of. Do you really believe that person is qualified to fulfill the de facto job description -- to, in Jason Bennan's words, "decide matters of war and peace, prosperity and poverty, freedom or oppression"? That's why most people vote for candidates who wear the same color cap and jersey as they do. How did they choose that color? In most cases, through a collection of social and economic biases.

I know: a constitution is supposed to protect basic rights from the legislature by placing them off limits. But how has that worked out since 1789?

As for the market alternative, what about negative spillovers from market transactions, like pollution? We must always ask: compared to what? Does democracy have no spillovers? Those who vote for the winning candidates are not the only ones who bear the burdens of their choices. Others do too. Many other people who didn't vote for the winners will pay higher taxes, suffer unemployment from the minimum wage, go without unaffordable homes in desirable places because of regulation, and die or see loved ones die in foreign wars. At least the market contains powerful profit incentives to "internalize the externalities." You cannot say that about the government. (I recommend once again David Friedman's essay "Do We Need Government?" Here's my take.)

Looking for a Good Cause?

The problem for (not with) the younger generations is that all the good social causes have been taken and substantially addressed. (Of course, nothing can be perfect.) But hold on: one good cause is left: political-economic individualism. Looking for a good cause to enlist in? There you go.

Palestine and Israel: What's It All About?

Current events aside, the fundamental reason to favor the Palestinian cause over the Zionist project is not that the Israelis are Western and the Palestinians are not. That's knee-jerk woke "decolonial" claptrap, which does the Palestinians no favors. There's nothing inherently wrong with being Western, just as there's nothing inherently right with being Eastern, Southern, or whatever. Regions are neither virtuous nor vicious. From time immemorial, non-Westerners have been as brutal, domineering, and interested in slave-holding/trading as Westerners. Slavery was the uncontroversial norm for millennia everywhere -- including in the pre-Columbian West. It still exists in Asia. So the non-West gets no points on that count. On the other hand, the ultimately successful antislavery campaign arose in the West in the 19th century, not somewhere else. You don't hear much about that. Kudos to the British and the founders of the North American antislavery societies. 

No, the fundamental reason to side with the Palestinian cause is that the right to private property in land is legitimate. Sorry, socialists. For the most part, Palestinians had their land taken by force, as Zionist leader and first Israeli president David Ben-Gurion acknowledged. Today's troubles flow from that.

TGIF: Without the State, Who'd Drag Us into Other People's Wars?

This article was posted shortly before the International Court of Justice ruled provisionally that Israel's Gaza military operation can plausibly be described as acts outlawed by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The ICJ ordered Israel to take all actions possible to prevent the acts forbidden by the convention. But the court did not order a ceasefire. A full ruling will come later. The complaint against Israel had been filed by the Republic of South Africa.

What’s more off-putting than seeing U.S. government officials and their spokesmen trying to wriggle out of embarrassing questions about American support for Israel’s continuing atrocities against the people of the Gaza Strip? That's the location of just the latest conflict into which we Americans have been dragged by our caring rulers without our consent. The previous one, in Ukraine, is still going on, though largely forgotten. Isn't the state a wonderful thing? 

Theoretically, it's illegal for the U.S. government to give weapons to governments that will use them to violate people's rights. But that is exactly what the U.S. government has done for Israel over many decades. Hence the U.S. government's bobbing and weaving over Israel's unambiguous war crimes. Our "public servants" have to evade. What else can they do? They can’t acknowledge that Israel's policy is to systematically kill, maim, and starve large numbers of innocent noncombatants and to destroy their homes and society. Still, those officials can’t deny it outright either because, given what we mere citizens can easily learn from a variety of credible sources online, they would look like the know-nothing damn fools they are. So they subtly acknowledge the crimes by politely suggesting that Israel try not to kill so many noncombatants, even as they insist Israel's army remains the most moral army in the world. (Here is a video summary of the horrors that the U.S. government is abetting in Gaza.)

Why should Americans be forced to underwrite this nightmare for Gazans or other foreign conflicts? It certainly doesn't protect Americans -- on the contrary. (See 9/11.)  What makes it worse is that the forced assistance is crucial to the aggression. Israel could not continue to destroy Gaza if the U.S. government stopped sending ammunition, population-annihilating bombs, and spare parts. We Americans make the massive war crimes possible.

And it could get worse by bringing more direct U.S. intervention. The U.S. government is bombing Yemen -- without a congressional declaration of war. (Not that it would make the bombing better.) The U.S. military is also striking Iranian-backed militias in Syria and Iraq because they have hit U.S. forces. But why are U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq? Why is Iran a player in Iraq? Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. 

Even though we haven't consented to any of this -- individually, I mean, not by majority vote -- it's a shameful mark on the country. No doubt, some aggrieved people, who perhaps have lost children and parents in the onslaught, want vengeance. Like Osama bin Laden, they think the American people control U.S. foreign policy. Who can blame them for thinking that? American rulers, by bragging about democracy, say that all the time. It's absurd, but that fallacy is not confined to jihadists. American and Israeli politicians annihilate people for acts they did not commit or consent to.

This all adds up to a strong indictment against government per se. What other organization can steal our money and use it to help destroy other societies in our name without consent? Embroiling us in foreign conflicts is one of the government's tools, with many benefits to the political class and its clients. Although people with bad intentions will be attracted to that power, interventionism will be tragically misguided even when well-intended, as perhaps it often is. The interventionists can never really know what they are doing. Unintended consequences will abound, and optimistic predictions will quickly turn sour. No constitution could permanently curb, much less abolish that power because every constitution will have to be interpreted. Who do you think will do the interpreting?

What can conscientious objectors do? Stopping traffic at rush hour doesn’t work. Closing down railway terminals and sitting in at government offices are no better. Your meager one vote is impotent. In the short term, I see no way out. Over the long term? Try to convince enough people that we can't afford government either monetarily or morally.

TGIF: Milei at Davos

\Javier Milei, the newly elected president of Argentina, spoke the other day at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The WEF is essentially a group of people who want world affairs centrally planned by political authorities. They are hardly advocates of laissez-faire free enterprise and individual liberty. Milei, on the other hand, is. He describes himself as a libertarian, an unabashed advocate of the free market, and even a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist. Milei's speech has to be unlike any speech given at a WEF meeting. It would shine bright even if today's political landscape were not as bleak as it is. As a public service, I present it below. (You can watch here.)

Good afternoon, thank you very much: today I am here to tell you that The West is in danger, it is in danger because those, who are supposed to defend the values of the West, find themselves co-opted by a vision of the world which – inexorably – leads to socialism, consequently to poverty.

TGIF: Smells Like Genocide

If it looks like genocide, sounds like genocide, and smells like genocide, chances are it's genocide. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will rule provisionally on whether that is what Israel is committing against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. The Republic of South Africa filed the complaint, which is ironic because Israel was a staunch ally of South Africa's former apartheid regime.

The official complaint is welcome, but thanks to social media, each of us already has ample evidence from a large variety of sources showing Israel's assault on the Gazans. Just watch the abundant video evidence that has accumulated since October 7, when Hamas fighters and perhaps other Gazans committed unspeakable atrocities against Israeli civilians after breaking through the fence that has kept them in an open-air prison for many years.

Since that horrible day, the Israeli Defense Force has brutally and indiscriminately pounded the 2.3 million people, about half of whom are children, who live in that 25x5-mile, densely populated strip. The conservatively estimated death toll -- there must be many victims under the rubble -- now stands at over 23,000, about half of whom are kids. Hundreds of thousands of residences have been destroyed or damaged. People have been displaced. Infrastructure and medical facilities have been rendered inoperable. Gaza resembles nearly Hiroshima after the U.S. government dropped the atomic bomb.

Moreover, one need not advocate strictly limited government (or no government at all) to be appalled at the U.S. government's complicity in that genocide, a word I do not use casually and have, I think, never written before.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted after the Nazi nightmare, formally defines as genocide several "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." (My emphasis.) Those acts are:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Israel argues that it is not killing Gazans indiscriminately because they are members of a particular ethnic or religious group; rather it tries to minimize collateral damage while rooting out lethal Hamas and its infrastructure. But is that credible? So many babies, toddlers, elderly, and seriously ill have been killed or maimed, so many homes, hospitals, and sanitation facilities destroyed.

South Africa's 84-page application to the ICJ is a well-documented comprehensive paper and bill of indictment against the state of Israel's conduct. In great detail and with much background, it enumerates both the Israeli government's genocidal actions and the many public statements made by Israeli civilian and military officials that declare in no uncertain terms their intention to do what is defined as genocide under the international convention.  Israel is a signatory to that convention, as is the United States.

At this stage, South Africa is requesting an immediate provisional order for a cessation of Israel's onslaught while the merits of its case are considered.

South Africa's application states:

South Africa unequivocally condemns all violations of international law by all parties, including the direct targeting of Israeli civilians and other nationals and hostage-taking by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups. No armed attack on a State’s territory no matter how serious — even an attack involving atrocity crimes — can, however, provide any possible justification for, or defence to, breaches of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ..., whether as a matter of law or morality. [My emphasis.]

Note the condemnation of Hamas for its atrocities. It goes on:

The acts and omissions by Israel complained of by South Africa are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group, that being the part of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.... The acts in question include killing Palestinians in Gaza, causing them serious bodily and mental harm, and inflicting on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction.

This threat to the Palestinians has not passed, says the application, so a provisional cease-and-desist order is imperative right now:

...Israel has engaged in, is engaging in and risks further engaging in genocidal acts against the Palestinian people in Gaza. Those acts include killing them, causing them serious mental and bodily harm and deliberately inflicting on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction as a group. Repeated statements by Israeli State representatives, including at the highest levels, by the Israeli President, Prime Minister, and Minister of Defence, express genocidal intent. That intent is also properly to be inferred from the nature and conduct of Israel’s military operation in Gaza, having regard inter alia to Israel’s failure to provide or ensure essential food, water, medicine, fuel, shelter and other humanitarian assistance for the besieged and blockaded Palestinian people, which has pushed them to the brink of famine. It is also clear from the nature, scope and extent of Israel’s military attacks on Gaza, which have involved the sustained bombardment over more than 11 weeks of one of the most densely populated places in the world, forcing the evacuation of 1.9 million people or 85% of the population of Gaza from their homes and herding them into ever smaller areas, without adequate shelter, in which they continue to be attacked, killed and harmed.

As of the filing in late December,

Israel has now killed in excess of 21,110 named Palestinians, including over 7,729 children — with over 7,780 others missing, presumed dead under the rubble — and has injured over 55,243 other Palestinians, causing them severe bodily and mental harm. Israel has also laid waste to vast areas of Gaza, including entire neighbourhoods, and has damaged or destroyed in excess of 355,000 Palestinian homes, alongside extensive tracts of agricultural land, bakeries, schools, universities, businesses, places of worship, cemeteries, cultural and archaeological sites, municipal and court buildings, and critical infrastructure, including water and sanitation facilities and electricity networks, while pursuing a relentless assault on the Palestinian medical and healthcare system. Israel has reduced and is continuing to reduce Gaza to rubble, killing, harming and destroying its people, and creating conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction as a group.

And no end is in sight. The Israeli government has said the attack will go on for months, even a year. The Israeli ambassador to the UK, Tzipi Hotovely, said on television that "every school, every mosque, and every second house has an access to a tunnel...and of course ammunition." When asked if that meant all of Gaza should be destroyed, she responded, "Do you have another solution how to destroy the underground tunnel city?"

That was just the latest in the many official Israeli statements -- from the prime minister and president on down -- indicating that the target of the onslaught is the entire population of Gaza, whether by bombing or by systematic deprivation of food, water, fuel, and medical supplies. (Even ambulances have been attacked.) Those statements are documented in the South African application because they demonstrate the Israeli government's genocidal intention. As a South African representative told the ICJ on Thursday, "The evidence of genocidal intent is not only chilling, it is also overwhelming and incontrovertible."

This death, injury, starvation, dehydration, and utter destruction of homes and infrastructure is perpetrated by a nation whose most devout supporters worldwide believe it has a holy mission to be a "light to nations." (Isaiah 42:6, 49:6, and 60:3) Yet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rallied his troops by invoking the biblical story of the divinely commanded Israeli destruction of the Amalekite men, women, and children. Before the ICJ, Israel tried to explain that invocation by fully quoting Netanyahu, who told the troops, "The IDF is the most moral army in the world, and IDF does everything to avoid harming the uninvolved...." But the Israeli leaders have indicated repeatedly that no Gazans are uninvolved.

While the application was filed against Israel, the U.S. government -- for obvious reasons -- should not regard itself as off the hook: the genocide convention also prohibits "complicity in genocide." Moreover, a complaint has been filed in another court, the International Criminal Court, against President Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin for their role in helping Israel. Moreover, the prohibitions in the genocide convention have counterparts in U.S. law.

The Biden administration opposes South Africa's application, though it admits it has not investigated the matter. Revealingly perhaps, an Israeli government spokesman dismissed South Africa as an "advocate for the devil."

Discussing Gaza on Kibbe on Liberty

Matt Kibbe and I talked about the emergency in Gaza on his podcast. Watch here.

Conversation on Israeli Genocide

I discussed matters related to Israel's genocidal attack on the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip with Saifedean Ammous. The podcast is here.

TGIF: The Right to Move

If people individually own themselves and have a right to be free of aggressive force, then they have a right to change their location in ways consistent with other people's rights. Whether you call this moving around relocating, emigrating, or immigrating, doesn't much matter. The default position is that each individual may rightfully move to somewhere else permanently or temporarily.

Inside the United States, nobody questions this. People freely move from state to state, etc., sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. They need no one's permission.

Why should things be different when we talk about countries rather than smaller jurisdictions and when the individuals who do the moving are not recognized as citizens of the destination country? An opponent of the freedom to move might begin by rejecting self-ownership and nonaggression, so the argument with him would take place at that basic level. But what if the opponent of the freedom to move espouses support for self-ownership and nonaggression? That's a different kettle of fish.

Remarkably, both kinds of opponents make a similar case for why government control of the borders is necessary. Starting from a different basis, they agree on the alleged need for coercive social engineering by politicians and bureaucrats, who might be pursuing agendas that most people would want no part of.

We often hear it said that just as no one has a right to enter your home without your permission, so no one has a right to enter the country without the permission of the purported equivalent of the owner. That owner is said to be "the people," in whose name the government claims to act. The truth of the matter is different.

I can see a collectivist taking this shaky position, but an individualist advocate of self-ownership? A country isn't a home. It's not a country club either. Homes and country clubs are rooted in private property and voluntary contract. But a country is not. The view that a country is owned at all has been the basis of collectivism and tyranny.

A property owner may decide he doesn't want someone or some group to enter his property. Fine. But by what right does he impose his rule on other property owners? It does not matter if a majority of property owners and others likes his rules. The dissenting minority -- individuals with rights -- might welcome newcomers as potential employees, employers, tenants, landlords, customers, sellers, friends, romantic partners, or what have you. Majorities shouldn't be able to nullify the rights of dissenters or those of aspiring migrants.

Relocation in itself violates no rights. If a rights violation occurs, that should be dealt with, not the relocation. We can always imagine dire emergencies  -- "Let justice be done though the heavens fall" is a dubious principle -- but this does not justify routine militarized border control, walls and fences, internal checkpoints, employment databases, etc. By definition, dire emergencies are the exception. The words "Show me your papers" should make Americans (and everyone else) cringe.

People today, like in the past, imagine that they see signs of cultural decline and threats to democracy from foreign-born newcomers. When I hear the latter fear expressed, I want to reply sardonically, "We're capable of growing our own anti-freedom voters, thank you. We need no help from foreigners." Seriously, though, who can be sure how immigrants will vote in the future, especially if their alternatives include a strong freedom party that welcomes newcomers? Meanwhile, let's work on shifting the public's business from the flawed democratic arena to the realm of private property, contract, and social cooperation in the free market.

As for the wish to protect the culture from change, nothing so surely spells tyranny. Imagine what would have to be done to carry out such a plan. Who would you want to run the cultural ministry? It wouldn't work, of course, but trying would be a road to hell. Besides, do you want to live in a place without a constant flow of new restaurants? And why stop at the change that originates outside the country? What about the sometimes radical change that occurs from domestic sources?

The logic of immigration control ought to worry every freedom advocate -- for we can ask, as noted, why stop at national borders? Why not control movement between states, counties, cities, towns, and neighborhoods? (Maybe I shouldn't given anyone ideas.) If you can't accomplish a goal through voluntary exchange, then leave it alone.

That control mentality blinds people. As Bryan Caplan points out, when poor people move to rich places, their productivity skyrockets, so they make not only themselves better off, but also the people around them. Yes, some unskilled high-school dropouts would see some decline in income because of competition from new workers who speak little English. Change --  progress -- always has a relatively small short-term downside for a few people. But even they, and most certainly their children and grandchildren, will be better off: more goods, lower prices, more employees, more employers, and a larger variety of offerings, not to mention fresh energy and cultural stimulation.

Remember the ever-present potential for gains from trade! Despite the impression given by demagogues, we have nothing resembling open borders, and the problems at the U.S.-Mexican line are the homemade product of U.S. anti-immigration policy.

As Oscar W. Cooley and Paul L. Poirot wrote in a 1951 Foundation for Economic Education pamphlet, "The Freedom to Move":

Can we hope to explain the blessings of freedom to foreign people while we deny them the freedom to cross our boundaries? To advertise America as the “land of the free,” and to pose as the world champion of freedom in the contest with communism, is hypocritical, if at the same time we deny the freedom of immigration as well as the freedom of trade. And we may be sure that our neighbors overseas are not blind to this hypocrisy.

A community operating on the competitive basis of the free market will welcome any willing newcomer for his potential productivity, whether he brings capital goods or merely a willingness to work. Capital and labor then attract each other, in a kind of growth that spells healthy progress and prosperity in that community. That principle seems to be well recognized and accepted by those who support the activities of a local chamber of commerce. Why do we not dare risk the same attitude as applied to national immigration policy?

TGIF: Beware Elitists in Populist Clothing

We're led to believe that today's political struggles are largely a contest between populists and elitists. But something besides libertarians is missing from that simple tale: the elitists in populist clothing, or elitist populists. We have no better example than a conversation the other day between the leading "right" populist Tucker Carlson and the leading "left" populist Glenn Greenwald. (The quotation marks are to indicate that these tribal labels are seriously problematic.)

To their credit, Carlson and Greenwald consistently defend a noninterventionist foreign policy and free speech. However, advocates of full individual liberty should take care because these pundits voice positions that seriously trash individual liberty. See their views on the free movement of people and goods across national boundaries. Voluntary exchange is not a priority for Carlson and Greenwald.

Even knowing this, I was unprepared for what they would say. Carlson offered this (at 28;10):

I think a lot of people have awakened to the now-demonstrable fact that libertarian economics was a scam perpetrated by the beneficiaries of the economic system that they were defending. So they created this whole intellectual framework to justify the private-equity culture that's hollowed out the country.... I think you need to ask, Does this economic system produce a lot of Dollar Stores? And if it does, it's not a system that you want because it degrades people and it makes their lives worse and it increases exponentially the amount of ugliness in your society. And anything that increases ugliness is evil. Let's just start there. So if it's such a good system, why do we have all these Dollar Stores?... If you have a Dollar Store, you're degraded. And any town that has a Dollar Store does not get better. It gets worse. And the people who live there lead lives that are worse. The counterargument, to the extent there is one, oh they buy cheaper stuff. Great. But they become more unhappy.... [The Dollar Store] is also a metaphor for your total lack of control over where you live and over the imposition of aggressively in-you-face ugly structures that send one message to you: which is you mean nothing; you are a consumer, not a human being or a citizen."

There you have it. The market is an exploitative scam, and the Dollar Store, which many of us regard as a godsend, is an ugly, degrading, and dehumanizing snare. Who knew?

Where to start? Libertarian -- in other words, consistent free-market -- economics is a self-serving scam? Really? Got proof? Were Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Kirzner, Sowell, Williams, Buchanan, Rothbard, etc. actually members of a cabal that was getting rich at our expense? Is Carlson having a laugh?

He would have been on firmer ground if had said that libertarian economics is used as a cover for elitist government interventions. But libertarians have said this roughly forever.

"So they created this whole intellectual framework to justify the private-equity culture that's hollowed out the country." This is pretentious rubbish. We must always distinguish market institutions in themselves from the distorted monstrosities created by social engineers through government control. The market for private equity -- otherwise known as private property in the means of production -- is not the problem. It's indispensable for raising the living standards of eight billion people. The problem is privilege: goodies and influence bestowed by the state. How could Carlson not know that?

Now we get to that alleged symbol of ugly American modernity and degradation: the Dollar Store. This is too silly to require an answer. He doesn't the stores are just physically unsightly. Actually, they're not. He means that the very idea is ugly and destructive of good things. Has he asked people who shop there? Do they see it as symbolic of a lack of control? He would have had a point had he lamented that such stores are valued because the government central bank sucks the purchasing power out of the dollar by printing money. Or he might have noted that without the Federal Reserve, more stuff would cost only a dollar. (HT: Bob Murphy.)

Lest you think that Carlson's complaint is about 21st century America, understand that the first "five and dime" store -- officially, F.W. "Woolworth's Great Five Cent Store" -- opened in Utica, New York, in 1879. Children of the 1950s like me fondly remember the Woolworth as a cheerful fixture on the avenue. I don't recall being treated as a "mere consumer," whatever that means. (The Woolworth lunch counter in the Jim Crow South was a different story, but that's not what Carlson has in mind.) Woolworth soon had competitors, such as W.T. Grant.

Carlson's elitism is undisguised when he expresses his disdain for the Dollar Store and the people who welcome them. I'm quite sure he and his fellow millionaires don't shop there.

If you expected some pushback from Greenwald, you would have been disappointed. He laughingly recalled how he got into trouble for suggesting that Carlson and Donald Trump's one-time gray eminence Steve Bannon "are a lot more socialist in a certain limited sense than a lot of people who claim that title." He's right. That's because, he added, "you [Carlson] are focused so much on the welfare of ordinary people." I'm not seeing much focus on ordinary people.

As to Carlson's point about ugliness, Greenwald elaborated:

You go to anywhere in the world. You go to Western Europe and you see these structures that people spent 200 years building just for the sheer beauty of it and you go into nature and you see beauty like it never exists. And you go to developing countries and you see a kind of dedication to buildings even that are designed to be inspiring to stimulate things in the human soul. And then you go to places in the United States where our infrastructure is falling apart, where our new structures are designed to be as ugly as possible. And it's a very difficult thing to do to communicate the spiritual components of our politics.

Has it occurred to Greenwald that those beautiful old European structures were built by ordinary people for the government-privileged aristocracy? (HT: David Henderson) Greenwald apparently sees no beauty in the fact that the market-oriented West (despite abundant government intervention for its cronies) brought the first mass production for ordinary people in history. The upper classes of the not-too-distant past would envy the middle and lower classes over what they consume every day. You might expect that to thrill a populist -- but not these delusional champions of ordinary people.

Finally, Greenwald writes that "ultimately politics does have no purpose other than to elevate the happiness of our citizenry." But he doesn't lift a finger to defend this position, which is fraught with difficulties not least because of human differences and the universal need for individual freedom. To name just one, since the state is founded on aggressive force, what does Greenwald have planned for those of us whose happiness requires that the politicians and bureaucrats stop stealing from us and stop trying to manage society? Wouldn't it be better for the government to stay out of the happiness business and to respect freedom of association? 

No doubt Carlson and Greenwald favor a foreign policy of nonintervention for some good reasons that libertarians also embrace. But they favor it for a bad reason as well. Instead of favoring the taxpayers keeping their own money, Carlson and Greenwald want to spend the Pentagon's huge budget on a gigantic, compulsory, inflationary, wealth-destroying, coldly bureaucratic, intrusive, and condescending welfare state if not outright government ownership and control. 

Individual liberty? What's that?

Appearance on the Scott Horton Show

Scott Horton and I talked about issues related to the Israel-Palestine conflict on his show recently. You can listen here.

TGIF: Ahad Ha'Am's Prophetic Warning about Political Zionism

Ukrainian-born Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg (1856-1927), whose pen name was Ahad Ha'Am (Hebrew for one of the people), was a proponent of Spiritual, or Cultural, Zionism, which made him a rival to Theodor Herzl and Political Zionism, the movement dedicated to creating a nation-state in Palestine for all Jewish people worldwide. Ahad Ha'Am remains relevant to understanding the roots of the conflict in Palestine and Israel that has cost so many innocent lives. Hans Kohn, a Bohemian-born American writer, shed light on Ahad Ha'Am's thinking about the "Arab problem" for Herzl's movement in "Zion and the Jewish National Idea," published in Menorah Journal, Autumn-Winter 1958. (The journal ceased publication in 1962.) Here's part of what Kohn wrote. Pay close attention to the quotes from Ahad Ha'Am:

In 1891 Ahad Ha-'Am laid his finger on the problem which, for practical and ethical reasons alike, was the fundamental though neglected problem of Zionism in Palestine -- the Arab problem. To the eyes of most Zionists, the land of their forefathers appeared empty, waiting for the return of the dispersed descendants as if history had stood still for two thousand years. From 1891 on Ahad Ha-'Am stressed that Palestine was not only a small land but not an empty one... He pointed out that there was little untilled soil in Palestine, except for stony hills and sand dunes. He warned that the Jewish settlers must under no circumstances arouse the wrath of the natives by ugly actions; must meet them rather in the friendly spirit of respect. "Yet what do our brethren do in Palestine? Just the very opposite! Serfs they were in the lands of the Diaspora and suddenly they find themselves in freedom, and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination." That was written in 1891 when the Zionist settlers formed a tiny minority in Palestine. "We think," Ahad Ha-'Am warned, "that the Arabs are all savages who live like animals and do not understand what is happening around. This is, however, a great error."

This error unfortunately has persisted ever since. Ahad Ha-'Am did not cease to warn against it, not only for the sake of the Arabs but for the sake of Judaism and Zion. He remained faithful to his ethical standards to the end. Twenty years later, on July 9, 1911, he wrote to a friend in Jaffa: "As to the war against the Jews in Palestine, I am a spectator from afar with an aching heart, particularly because of the want of insight and understanding shown on our side to an extreme degree. As a matter of fact, it was evident twenty years ago that the day would come when Arabs would stand up against us." He complained bitterly that the Zionists were unwilling to understand the people of the land to which they came and had learned neither its language or its spirit....

In a letter of November 18, 1913 to Moshe Smilansky, a pioneer settler in Palestine, Ahad Ha-'Am had protested against another form of nationalist boycott proclaimed by the Zionist labor movement in Palestine against the employment of Arab labor, a racial boycott: "Apart from the political danger, I can't put up with the idea that our brethren are morally capable of behaving in such a way to men of another people; and unwittingly the thought comes to my mind: If it is so now, what will be our relation to the others if in truth we shall achieve 'at the end of time' power in Eretz Israel? If this be the 'Messiah,' I do not wish to see him coming."

Ahad Ha-'Am was in the prophetic tradition not only because he subjected the doings of his own people to ethical standards. He also foresaw, when very few realized it, the ethical dangers threatening Zion.

Ahad Ha-'Am returned to the Arab problem in another letter to Smilansky, written in February, 1914. Smilansky had been bitterly attacked by Palestinian Zionists because he had drawn attention to the Arab problem. Ahad Ha-'Am tried to comfort him by pointing out that the Zionists had not yet awakened to reality. "Therefore they wax angry toward those who remind them that there is still another people in Eretz Israel that has been living there and does not intend at all to leave its place. In the future, when this illusion will have been torn from their hearts and they will look with open eyes upon the reality as it is, they will certainly understand how important this question is and how great is our duty to work for its solution."

...In 1920 (three years after the Balfour Declaration) Ahad Ha-'Am warned against exaggerated Zionist hopes. "The Arab people," he wrote, "regarded by us as nonexistent ever since the beginning of the colonization of Palestine, heard [of the Zionist expectations and plans] and believed that the Jews were coming to drive them from their soil and deal with them at their own will." Such an attitude on the part of his own people seemed to Ahad Ha-'Am unthinkable. In his interpretation of the Balfour Declaration he stressed that the historical right of the Jews in Palestine "does not affect the right of the other inhabitants who are entitled to invoke the right of actual dwelling and their work in the country for many generations. For them, too, the country is a national home, and they have a right to develop national forces to the extent of their ability. This situation makes Palestine the common land of several peoples, each of whom wishes to build its national home there. In such circumstances it is no longer possible that the national home of one of them could be total.... If you build your house in an empty space but in a place where there are also other homes and inhabitants, you are an unrestricted master only inside your own house. Outside the door all the inhabitants are partners, and the management of the whole has to be directed in agreement with the interests of them all."

How different things would have been if the Political Zionists had paid heed to Ahad Ha'am.

Anti-Zionism Is NOT Anti-Semitism

 

Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro says what needs to be said -- and he said it two years ago, before the clowns in Congress (Thomas Massey and a few others excepted) decreed otherwise. I have nothing to add.

 

TGIF: Inspiration for the Nakba?

The unspeakable violence that plagues Israel and Palestine daily relates in part to the assertion of an ancient, ancestral, and even divinely bestowed property right to a parcel of land, which is often called "holy" and "promised." For background, here are a few influential -- which is not to say factual -- passages from a perennially bestselling book (or set of books) deemed important by the three Abrahamic religions.

From the Book of Genesis:

[15:18]In that day [the Lord] made a covenant with Abram, saying: 'Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt [Nile] unto the great river, the river Euphrates [Iraq]; [15:19][the land of] the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite, [15;20]and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Rephaim, [15:21]and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Girgashite, and the Jebusite.'

From the Book of Joshua:

[1:1][T]he LORD spake unto Joshua the son of Nun [allegedly in 1400 BCE] ... saying, [1:2]...go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel. [1:3]Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses. [1:4]From the wilderness [Sinai?] and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast. [1:5]There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. [1:6]Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them. 

[6:20]So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. [6:21]And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.... [6:24]And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein....

[8:1]And the LORD said unto Joshua, Fear not, neither be thou dismayed: take all the people of war with thee, and arise, go up to Ai: see, I have given into thy hand the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land: [8:2]And thou shalt do to Ai and her king as thou didst unto Jericho and her king: only the spoil thereof, and the cattle thereof, shall ye take for a prey unto yourselves: lay thee an ambush for the city behind it. [8:3]So Joshua arose, and all the people of war, to go up against Ai: and Joshua chose out thirty thousand mighty men of valour, and sent them away by night. [8:4]And he commanded them, saying, Behold, ye shall lie in wait against the city, even behind the city: go not very far from the city, but be ye all ready: [8:5]And I, and all the people that are with me, will approach unto the city: and it shall come to pass, when they come out against us, as at the first, that we will flee before them, [8:6](For they will come out after us) till we have drawn them from the city; for they will say, They flee before us, as at the first: therefore we will flee before them. [8:7]Then ye shall rise up from the ambush, and seize upon the city: for the LORD your God will deliver it into your hand. [8:8]And it shall be, when ye have taken the city, that ye shall set the city on fire: according to the commandment of the LORD shall ye do....

[8:11]And all the people, even the people of war that were with him, went up, and drew nigh, and came before the city, and pitched on the north side of Ai: now there was a valley between them and Ai. [8:12]And he took about five thousand men, and set them to lie in ambush between Bethel and Ai, on the west side of the city.... [8:14]And it came to pass, when the king of Ai saw it, that they hasted and rose up early, and the men of the city went out against Israel to battle, he and all his people, at a time appointed, before the plain; but he wist not that there were liers in ambush against him behind the city. [8:15]And Joshua and all Israel made as if they were beaten before them, and fled by the way of the wilderness. [8:16]And all the people that were in Ai were called together to pursue after them: and they pursued after Joshua, and were drawn away from the city. [8:17]And there was not a man left in Ai or Bethel, that went not out after Israel: and they left the city open, and pursued after Israel.

[8:18]And the LORD said unto Joshua, Stretch out the spear that is in thy hand toward Ai; for I will give it into thine hand. And Joshua stretched out the spear that he had in his hand toward the city. [8:19]And the ambush arose quickly out of their place, and they ran as soon as he had stretched out his hand: and they entered into the city, and took it, and hasted and set the city on fire. [8:20]And when the men of Ai looked behind them, they saw, and, behold, the smoke of the city ascended up to heaven, and they had no power to flee this way or that way: and the people that fled to the wilderness turned back upon the pursuers. [8:21]And when Joshua and all Israel saw that the ambush had taken the city, and that the smoke of the city ascended, then they turned again, and slew the men of Ai. [8:22]And the other issued out of the city against them; so they were in the midst of Israel, some on this side, and some on that side: and they smote them, so that they let none of them remain or escape. [8:23]And the king of Ai they took alive, and brought him to Joshua.

[8:24]And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness wherein they chased them, and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword. [8:25]And so it was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai. [8:26]For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. [8:27]Only the cattle and the spoil of that city Israel took for a prey unto themselves, according unto the word of the LORD which he commanded Joshua. [8:28]And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day. [8:29]And the king of Ai he hanged on a tree until eventide: and as soon as the sun was down, Joshua commanded that they should take his carcase down from the tree, and cast it at the entering of the gate of the city, and raise thereon a great heap of stones, that remaineth unto this day.....

[10:40]So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. [10:41]And Joshua smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon. [10:42]And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel.

[11:1]And it came to pass, when Jabin king of Hazor had heard those things, that he sent to Jobab king of Madon, and to the king of Shimron, and to the king of Achshaph, [11:2]And to the kings that were on the north of the mountains, and of the plains south of Chinneroth, and in the valley, and in the borders of Dor on the west, [11:3]And to the Canaanite on the east and on the west, and to the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Jebusite in the mountains, and to the Hivite under Hermon in the land of Mizpeh. [11:4]And they went out, they and all their hosts with them, much people, even as the sand that is upon the sea shore in multitude, with horses and chariots very many. [11:5]And when all these kings were met together, they came and pitched together at the waters of Merom, to fight against Israel. [11:6]And the LORD said unto Joshua, Be not afraid because of them: for to morrow about this time will I deliver them up all slain before Israel: thou shalt hough their horses, and burn their chariots with fire.

[11:7] So Joshua came, and all the people of war with him, against them by the waters of Merom suddenly; and they fell upon them. [11:8]And the LORD delivered them into the hand of Israel, who smote them, and chased them unto great Zidon, and unto Misrephothmaim, and unto the valley of Mizpeh eastward; and they smote them, until they left them none remaining. [11:9]And Joshua did unto them as the LORD bade him: he houghed their horses, and burnt their chariots with fire. [11:10]And Joshua at that time turned back, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms. [11:11]And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Hazor with fire. [11:12]And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and smote them with the edge of the sword, and he utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD commanded. [11:13]But as for the cities that stood still in their strength, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn. [11:14]And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe....

[11:16]So Joshua took all that land, the hills, and all the south country, and all the land of Goshen, and the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same; [11:17]Even from the mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir, even unto Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon under mount Hermon: and all their kings he took, and smote them, and slew them. [11:18]Joshua made war a long time with all those kings. [11:19]There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle. [11:20]For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses. [11:21]And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel: Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities. [11:22]There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained. [11:23]So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.

The land thus acquired was then divided among the tribes of Israel. In 24:13, Joshua reported to his assembled people that the Lord had said, in summarizing all the favors he had done for them, "And I have given you a land for which ye did not labour, and cities which ye built not, and ye dwell in them; of the vineyards and oliveyards which ye planted not do ye eat."

Postscript: Archeological and historical evidence -- or more precisely, the lack thereof -- tells us that these alleged events of 1400 BCE never happened. But that cannot be said of the Nakba, Arabic for catastrophe, of 1947-48 CE, when 750,000 Palestinians were dispossessed and hundreds of others killed and wounded in the formation of the state of Israel. That was all too real.