print“There is a pithy aphorism from a Tractate of the Jewish Law regarding the right of self-defense. The Talmud, as the law is called, is a veritable minefield of complexities and interpretations. The rabbis would have prefaced their edict with extended discussion. They would have argued about the threshold that must be met before a pre-emptive strike can be carried out, what constitutes imminent danger, and whether defensive actions apply only to individuals or to collective action as well. These scholars belonged to a people that spent a good part of their history perfecting the Christian art of turning the other cheek. Yet ironically, and doubtless after careful consideration, the rabbis recommended that, ‘He who rises to kill thee, ye rise earlier to kill him.'” (See “Facing the Onslaught of Jihad”)
Likewise, I am not a pacifist, although I am a libertarian.
There is no doubt in my mind that Iran would evaporate Israel if it could. Yet mention to Iran’s apologists that Israel is being considered by Ahmadinejad as The Bomb’s designated test site, and the reply one invariably gets is, “Oh, c’mon; are you referring to all that ‘wipe Israel off the map’ stuff? Haven’t you heard of ‘Scheherazade of the Thousand and One [Arabian] Nights? Ahmadi’s excitable. That’s his style. Chill, man.”
[READ “That Persian Pussycat.”]
There is a strong suspicion that Israel is behind “The Stuxnet worm, ‘the most sophisticated malware ever’ … [it] has been discovered infesting Iran’s nuclear installations. There’s growing speculation that these were indeed the intended targets of what the mainstream continues to call a ‘virus’ — it only infects certain Siemens SCADA systems in specific configurations. There’s also speculation that it’s state-sponsored malware, with fingers pointing at either Israel or the U.S.”
Reuters reports that “Cyber warfare has quietly grown into a central pillar of Israel’s strategic planning, with a new military intelligence unit set up to incorporate high-tech hacking tactics, Israeli security sources said on Tuesday.”
To be sure, hacking is a violation of property rights. That is as clear as crystal. Why, spam is trespass. But this alleged Israeli property trespass is also non-violent (I doubt very much that Israel is messing with systems that sustain life).
It would seem to me, then, that if indeed Israel is under a real existential threat from Iran—and not everyone believes this—the Jewish State has found the quintessential libertarian method to begin to combat some of the Iranian menace.
What do you think?
UPDATE I: TokyoTom: An act either does or does not comport with the libertarian non-aggression axiom. I spoke about your logical error in “LIBERTARIAN WRANGLING”:
“From the fact that many libertarians believe that the state has no legitimacy, they arrive at the position that anything the state does is illegitimate. This is a logical confusion. Consider the murderer who, while fleeing the law, happens on a scene of a rape, saves the woman, and pounds the rapist. Is this good deed illegitimate because a murderer has performed it?”
Iran’s leaders have threatened to annihilate Israel. They could easily do so, given Israel’s size. The act jibes with their beliefs. The more senior leader, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, right-hand man to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, once explained with lethal logical that “a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counter-strike can only cause partial damage to the Islamic world.”
They know Israel would never launch a nuclear strike first. Iran’s top dogs have clearly done the math.
The men and women of the Israeli military, with their families in mind, have come up with a peaceful way to mess with this program of mass destruction threatening their community. And libertarians protest this? Don’t you just love the way so many libertarians inveigh against the evil of nuclear weapons, except when they are pointed at Israel?!
UPDATE II (Sept. 29): With respect to “contemplationist’s” comment here, I thought it was obvious to all libertarians who regularly weigh in on BAB, that the debate about the proper purview of the state is limited to its enforcement of natural rights only. That’s the mandate of the state in classical liberal thinking. As I have said often, to the extent that the American Constitution respects the natural law, to that extent only is it legitimate. It should be obvious to the same folks, for example, that, unlike Glenn Beck or other “Constitutionalists,” this writer views a great deal of the constitution as an affront to man’s natural rights. The 16th Amendment, for example.
“Sometimes the law of the state coincides with the natural law. More often than not, natural justice has been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute,” I wrote in a March 20, 2002 column.
“Contemplationist” has broadened the nightwatchman role of the state in classical liberal theory—confined as it is to the protection negative rights only—to include a plethora of positive duties, including intervention into the economy.
That’s statism, not classical liberalism. The debate in this post, in particular, is as to whether the Israelis, in disabling Iran’s nuclear-related cyber-operation, are defending their natural, negative rights.
When I first heard the news I was suspicious but not certain about where this worm might have been designed. It strikes me as a very clever way to if not destroy the “infected system” it could certainly delay its utility for some time. The beauty of the solution is that no civilians are killed and I’m sure the Iranians are thoroughly frustrated with their useless equipment. If nothing else it buys the Israelis time …
Yes indeed, utilitarianism helps here in boundary cases. Better less damage than more if possible.
What is so wonderfully juicy is that one can never get to the bottom of what happened (or is happening). For example:
(1) Dr. Ahmed screwed up on his own and is blaming Israeli-American induced software
(2) Uranium/software supplier Boris screwed up or sold some junk already containing a virus/worm.
(3) The Israelis (or Americans or Saudis or French or Chinese or ??) sent a virus/worm.
And how does one get to the truth? And what is the response?
And what of the UN – denounce the “Zionist entity” for all computer problems the world over?? (not that the UN would mind doing it but even that level of stupidity might not cut it with Jimmy Carter)
Certainly no sobs for the Iranian mullahs. And software is better than dozens of bombs, or radioactive goop flying, ineffective sanctions, a continuous blockade. And all of them are better than an American style
Liberation/Invasion/Permanent-Occupation and regional destabilization.
Other then the collateral damage to Ahmadinejad’s Facebook Page (my joke) – no lives were lost. So the operation and/or non-operation was quite cute.
I’m not impressed…Iran’s pirated copy of Windows 95 was probably pretty EZ to take down. And I don’t care if at some point, facing this “existential threat”, Israel decides to turn Jihadist Iran into a slab of radioactive glass. I just don’t want the USA doing it for them; tired of this tail-wagging-dog routine. Too much blowback. Cf. 9/11.
I have a problem with the whole question. Not your article Ilana; but, the Iranian nuclear question. Iran states that it is only building nuclear electric generators, while its loud mouthed president runs his mouth about ‘wiping Israel off the map.’ I know that if A-Jab keeps up the rhetoric, violence is going to occur. Sources I have read state that that though they export crude oil, Iranians have to import natural gas and refined gasoline to run their generators and vehicles. The nuclear energy that they are obtaining is far too low for warheads, but enough for power plants or so they say. The US Government lies more often than it tells the truth, so I can’t believe what I read in the news. I am glad that someone has developed a worm for nuclear weapons but in the case of Iran, is it necessary?
Ilana, one can say they prefer a nonviolent attack on nuclear facilities to a violent one, but one can hardly say that ANY of the activities of a state are “libertarian”.
Libertarian-type actions by governments return power to citizens. Israel, in contrast, continually insists that its citizens (and ours) serve the purposes of government (and of the military/police state industrialists who direct its activities
Let’s try a thought experiment.
Put a loaded pistol on a table say, 30 feet directly behind you. Take a loaded pistol in hand.
Now, 30 feet directly in front of you is a raving madmad screaming, “I’m going to kill you! I’m going to kill you!” as he edges slowing in a wide circle around you, but definitely in the direction of that pistol…
Ilana Thats not fair. I was only saying just because the state is doing it, doesn’t mean its bad or would not be done in a market setting. I assign no positive role to the state. I am, depending on mood of the day, a market anarchist or a minarchist. I favor free currency competition and no legal tender laws. I tend to think this will be much much better than the monopoly Federal Reserve.
However, ASSUMING the fed, IF the Aggregate Supply/Aggregate Demand model is correct (i believe it is, and does NOT contradict Austrian theory of malinvestment, only complements it, properly understood), and IF wages are sticky (either because of the state or human nature or both), then monetary easing done properly will boost the economy.
I was only commenting on the (in my opinion) fatuous hyperventilating about inflation that libertarians have been engaging in for the past year only to be stumped over and over again by non-inflation. I hope libertarians take more time to truly understand the sophisticated model of monetary economics.
The view that “printing money creates prosperity” is a stupid straw-man.
Again, you should read Scott Sumner. You don’t have to accept what he says. You can reject monetary econ like Arnold Kling does, but you must understand it, and understand the role of EXPECTATIONS in generating inflation.