Search results

it will get rid of israel

why shouldn't Israel surrender

the logic being...?

the vice versa is that Israeli aims are as inimical to the interests of the Palestinians as hamas--which you agreed with, upthread. arguing otherwise is unhinged. the interests of the Palestinians are obviously not best served by their annihilation by israel, surely

I just mean that in general planning is literally essential, markets do not make themselves

he definitely overstates the risks of planning. consider that the firm--every firm--is an island of command and control

for the current configuration of Israeli politics then. where do you see this ending up, in terms of outcomes that are immediately achievable? to me it seems that israel has two options, both of which are failure modes: occupy gaza, or abandon it to hamas (or whoever replaces them)

in general, Hayek is better than his acolytes

it really is basic clausewitz stuff-- war as "politics by other means", the problem, for israel, is that there is no political solution to which it can push the dial absent the one thing it regards as unthinkable: some form of sovereignty for the Palestinians

you're basically holding the Palestinians for ransome, right? hamas have their hostages and israel have theirs. Israel's hostages are the entire Gaza strip. *they* are Israel's leverage.

or vice versa

but evidently they dont, so the whole logic fails. if Israel could kill their way out of this problem they wouldnt be in it. but they are.

i dont understand your logic. hamas doesnt care about civilian casualties and israel doesnt either. both sides are morally responsible - israel cant push all of this on hamas

in fact some degree of planning, even to construct classically "free" markets, such as financial or commodity markets, is absolutely necessary. markets do not arise from the aether, they must be created.

hayek is on solid grounds criticising the efficacy of comprehensive centralised planning. the notion that planning in general is destructive of democracy doesn't hold water however - it's clear that the existence of nationalised health care, for example, doesnt lead to inevitable tyranny, and it...

unfortunately it's not hamas who's getting smashed repeatedly in the face

level of rancor in this thread is ridiculous. let's stick to less contentious issues like the Israel-Palestine war, until everyone calms down a bit, ok?

lsrael is, in a sense, stuck in a quagmire, it cannot--probably evident since 73, certainly evident today--acheive a decisive military victory over its foes, but it also cannot conceive of an alternative strategy which all sides--including the Palestinians--can live with, so it is doomed to...

I agree with you and think it's important, as with Russia, not to fall into the trap of stereotyping Israel as unthinking war-mongerers. you can certainly read israel's attempts to build bridges with SA etc as tacit acknowledgement of the fact that it needs to find peaceful rapprochement with...

good article on the tension between the "rules based order" and international law: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/choice-before-us-international-law-or-a-rulesbased-international-order/7BEDE2312FDF9D6225E16988FD18BAF0