The

Simple-Ideas Occasional
A publication dedicated to the study and celebration of common sense and repeatable experiments Robert L. Nuckolls, III Medicine Lodge, KS Number 118B, 8 June 2011

The Palestinians Need the Israelis

A few days ago I was reading comments to some article that was discussing the Middle East peace process. The author of the article (and the majority of comments) were solidly engaged in one-upsmanship. This side killed more than that side. This side has rights of succession to certain lands. That side is hell bent upon sadistic suppression of the other side. Etc, etc, etc. While pondering this statistical, political, economic and philosophical cat fight . . . it occurred to me that any potential for prosperity outside the borders of Israel is heavily dependent upon the prosperity of individuals inside the borders of Israel. I suggest that the recipe for success has been demonstrated over thousands of years and is independent of religious, political or cultural preferences for the individuals involved. Let us consider readily observable facts: Promotion and protection of liberty is the prime directive of civilized societies. If your neighbor is not engaged in dishonorable activity, then you have no charter to bring force of any kind against their person or property. There is a phenomenon that describes human behaviors for thousands of years where the "border lands" between two nations become fuzzy as to populace, even fuzzier as to real borders. For example: There are many historians and social economists who are watching our own "border lands" between the US and Mexico. Present trends plotted into the future suggest that in the next 50 years or so, the US territories as far as 200 miles north of the US/Mexico border will become just such a territory. The inevitable outcome is that the United States will suffer campaigns of "social unrest" that run the gamut from simple protest to overt violence by sympathetic citizens and invading individuals alike for a benign acceptance of this new demographic. Many will suggest that the US agree to an appropriate adjustment of borders. We may well witness a "lands for peace swap" between the US and Mexico. The earliest manifestations of this phenomenon are already visible. Signs erected by the US Government just north of the border warn US citizens to

stay clear lest they fall prey to hostile immigrants or drug smugglers. Say what? Thats like opening the gates to a prison and then erecting signs in the surrounding countryside warning citizens of a new risk that the government is unable or unwilling to control. A lands for peace deal simply establishes a new border land between the two countries. It encourages a progressive escalation of pressures against the defensive nation: A tactic of the despotic progressive - constant, unrelenting pressure. Israel has successfully defender herself on many occasions and has prevailed in spite of nearly continuous harassments and the occasional overt military action. One reward for a successful self-defense is the establishment more defensible borders. Irrespective of how anyone feels about ancestral, legal or moral rights of either side, consider the following: Suppose all the peoples who occupy Israel said, "Okay, we give up. Dont shoot any more Were leaving." Suppose further that the peoples who occupy Israels border lands move in and take over. What is the likelihood that an infusion of land, facilities and infrastructure will take root and carry this new national entity to a Utopian state of peace and prosperity? If they truly desire the benefits of a civilized, productive society then they more than the land and facilities, they NEED the honorable cooperation of the peoples who designed, built and operate those facilities. One learns by following the examples of teachers, people who have demonstrated recipes for success. To run all the chefs out of a successful kitchen benefits you not. You are left with a room full of pots, pans, stoves and perhaps a pantry full of spoiling foods that nobody knows how to prepare. Lasting peace comes from a sharing of time, talents, and resources by peoples who enjoy individual liberty among a populace that enjoys communal liberty. From this grows the free-market exchange of value where everybody benefits. Suppress that liberty and everybody loses. Individuals who live outside Israels borders are not well known for their industry or their championship of liberty.

Copyright 2011 by Robert L. Nuckolls, III. This document may be reproduced in any form or venue when authorship is properly cited and the work is not exploited for the purpose of securing a profit or obscuring context.

Many individuals have sided with people that live outside the borders of Israel. They are fond of citing factoids from history. More of As kids have been killed than of Bs kids. Organization C has run amok through Ds neighborhoods bulldozing houses and assassinating anyone who seems to have displeased them. Folks within Israels borders expanded their defensible borders on several occasions that they were attacked first, yet the sympathizers say those borders should be contracted and the lands returned. If the lists of Israeli transgressions are without defensive foundation, then they must be either (1) of offensive or (2) the acts of sadists who take pleasure in abusing their neighbors. The offensive cause doesnt make sense. Israel has the horsepower to conduct a simple, precise clean sweep of the disputed lands. Israels neighborhood pest problem has a short solution. So whats keeping them from exterminating the entire populace of their border lands?. What about these allegations of theft, detention, assassination, bulldozing of homes, sundry attacks and political persecutions? If not righteously defensive and certainly not a practical offensive, what then? The sympathizers. would have us believe the laundry list of Israeli sins are simply adult manifestations of behavior by children who grew up tearing the legs of bugs and turpentining cats. Now fitted with bigger toys and a national mission, they can turn their sadistic pleasures upon the next door neighbors and their children. Given that Israel has not made a move to purge the disputed lands of their inhabitants suggests two explanations for Israeli behaviors: (1) The inhabitants of Israel are either sadists or (2) there is measured reason behind the actions that everyone finds so distressing and saddening. As the title of this essay suggests, the true road to peace has nothing to do with the suggestions or demands by present world leadership A theme oft repeated in these essays reads thus: Liberty is the condition which allows the individual to go through life free of force or fraud against their person and property, i.e. the right to be left alone. Communal liberty is the condition that fosters cooperation between individuals in a free-market exchange of value that raises the socioeconomic condition of a nation and all nations with which they trade. A lust for possession of a resource does not guarantee a

Utopian outcome for taking that resource. Suppose you or I were handed the keys to a nuclear power plant, "Take it, it's all yours." Now what? It would be incumbent upon us to enlist a constellation of others who's collective time, talent and resources make successful operation of the plant possible. Let us step around any notions of racism by hypothesizing a boundary A inhabited by population A1. Doesnt need to be Israel. It can be anywhere on the planet. It might be the state of Maryland. Let us further suppose that boundary A touches boundaries B, C, D and E inhabited by populations B1, C1, D1, and E1. Let us suppose that further examination of those populations reveals subsets B2, C2, D2, and E2" who are not champions of liberty; they preach a doctrine of total destruction of population A1" and the taking of all resources within boundary A. B2" could be a street gang having designs on expanding their own territory and using language of despotic progressive bully to garner neighborhood support for their goals. Humans tend to be the most content when their boundaries are populated with honorable individuals engaged in free-market exchanges of value amongst themselves and with populations in other boundaries. The meteoric rise of the US in a mere 200 years is a validation of that particular recipe for success. When deprived of liberty and the resources for exploiting individual and communal liberty, struggles for basic comforts consume great amounts of time . . . . the idea of building anything new and better are easily displaced by the destructive rhetoric of by peoples B2 and friends who sing a compelling tune in four part harmony: "It's Easier to Take than to Build." Being thus distracted from the opportunities offered by a productive relationship with their neighbors, they assign blame for their admittedly uncomfortable condition upon those same neighbors and may even react on those beliefs with violence. Let us suppose that all folks in boundary A say, "Okay, we quit, you can have it" . . . and vacate the borders of A. Now what? Is it far-fetched to suggest that if you cannot build an honorable free-market exchange of value, then you are not probably not qualified to own and operate such a system confiscated from others. Countries and the institutions it contains are not mere machines in which you hit the start button and go. What happens to once coveted institutions when placed in control of individuals without talent to build on past successes? If B1 and friends tossed inhabitants of

Copyright 2011 by Robert L. Nuckolls, III. This document may be reproduced in any form or venue when authorship is properly cited and the work is not exploited for the purpose of securing a profit or obscuring context.

boundary A out, Ill suggest they are left with an empty kitchen. I suggest the outcome will include some combination of the following: The ownership of all resources within A are beyond the time, talent and resources for B1 and friends to operate and maintain. It will fall in to abject decay. Utopia is wrecked in a few years. B1 and friends might enlist the populations of F, K, J, and M to lend their time talents and resources to the ownership and operation of their newly confiscated Utopia. The new socioeconomic melting pot is no longer the Utopia described in the songs which were sung with so much hope for change. Utopia belongs to somebody else. If the peoples living outside the borders of A cannot now take what they desire by force, what are the expectations for being able to defend their booty if it were simply handed to them? The victory party for the new owners of A might be short lived should the inhabitants of K decide to exploit their defensive weaknesses in a spectacular and brutal way. I will suggest that it matters not if inhabitants of boundary A are members of any particular group. They could be Arab, Irish, Presbyterian, Brazilian, or members of the Rotary Club. It matters not whether B1 and friends are of any particular group. It does matter that B2 and friends are members of groups that range from simple neighborhood street gangs up to an including world-wide promoters of dishonor, death and destruction. Discussion of these conditions in the context of racism, class, or community is moot. It's a human condition that has repeated countless times over the centuries. If you were to conjure up recipes for success for say, Cuba or Haiti, would they not do better to study and emulate the successes of their neighbors? If the Pharaoh of Egypt had facilitated the growth of his slaves into an industrious, independently self-sufficient and thriving population he could have then imposed a 10% tax on goods and services. Egypt could have been a much different nation. Of course, by modern times the nation might be mostly in the hands of chefs who make the kitchen produce . . . but does it matter? What matters is that there is a robust, honorable free-market economy that offers opportunity for any individual to exploit their personal potential. When one turns humans into livestock, you must feed, clothe, house and then direct their every activity. A burdensome and expensive task as the Pharaoh of Egypt

discovered. Of course, one can forgo that expense and simply kill them off. Either action is an overt demonstration of ignorance of human potential and a tragic waste . . . and the pyramids don't get built either. I suggest that individuals who occupy the lands surrounding Israel are in demonstrably in greater need of free-market exchange with Israel than the other way around. Im willing to bet that Israel would be delighted to participate in the exchange of time, talent and resources that promote peace and prosperity for both sides of all borders. However, both sides need to be free of conditions that promote reflexive running for cover when the rockets fall, airplanes fly over or camo-painted trucks come rolling around the corner. Meetings held and documents signed in Geneva, the U.N., Paris, or Camp David are but dreams of fools who believe one may assuage any of the worlds discomforts by writing law, hiring bureaucrats, building armies and throwing money at it. It didnt work a thousand years ago, didnt work 50 years ago, wont work tomorrow. But the Nobel Prize Committee is still heavily invested in this obscene notion. Liberty is such a simple thing to establish and practice. Just quit doing things to each other and set up forums of exchange. Peace will come to the Middle East (indeed the entire world) only when B2 and friends become sociological pariahs and are shunned or forced out of power. Our founding fathers prescribed one demonstrable treatment for the discomforts of all honorable citizens. When the Constitutional Convention closed in 1787, one Dr. James McHenry heard a lady ask Dr. Franklin. Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. Dr, Franklin replied, A republic . . . if you can keep it. And so it is with the peoples who live around but outside the borders of Israel. Even if the Israelis left tomorrow, the new owners are unlikely to exploit Israels successes. Further, somebody with more firepower might pounce upon the new inhabitants and take their hard-won possessions. Individuals are far more valuable as partners than as targets of destruction or as slaves. This is especially true of partners who know how to do really cool stuff!. Is it not better that they figure out ways to trade with the Israelis and seek mentorship in the creation of wealth? Theyll be much more prosperous and secure in their own persons and property if they snuggle up close to and trade with somebody who has repeatedly demonstrated both willingness and ability to defend themselves. Israel is not their enemy. Israel is their salvation.

Copyright 2011 by Robert L. Nuckolls, III. This document may be reproduced in any form or venue when authorship is properly cited and the work is not exploited for the purpose of securing a profit or obscuring context.