Nightcap

  1. The achievement of Columbus Nick Nielsen, The View from Oregon
  2. Goodbye, Columbus Irfan Khawaja, Policy of Truth
  3. China and the new Middle East Michael Singh, War on the Rocks
  4. Rawlsian democracy and markets David Gordon, Mises Wire

Nightcap

  1. Another Arab state has recognized Israel Mark Landler, NY Times
  2. Why can’t Seoul and Tokyo get along? Sung-Yoon Lee, Origins
  3. Is this how the American Century ends and China’s begins? Tom McTague, Atlantic
  4. Charles Murray reviews Ross Douthat Claremont Review of Books

Hazony’s nation-state versus Christensen’s federation

Yoram Hazony’s 2018 book praising the nation-state has garnered so much attention that I thought it wasn’t worth reading. Arnold Kling changed my mind. I’ve been reading through it, and I don’t think there’s much in the book that I can originally criticize.

The one thing I’ll say that others have not is that Hazony’s book is not the best defense of the status quo and the Westphalian state system out there. It’s certainly the most popular, but definitely not the best. The best defense of the status quo still goes to fellow Notewriter Edwin’s 2011 article in the Independent Review: “Hayekian Spontaneous Order and the International Balance of Power.”

Hazony’s book is a defense of Israel more than it is a defense of the abstract nation-state. Hazony’s best argument (“Israel”) has already been identified numerous times elsewhere. It goes like this: the Holocaust happened because the Jews in mid-20th century Europe had nowhere to go in a world defined by nationalism. Two competing arguments arose from this realization. The Israelis took one route (“nation-state”), and the Europeans took another (“confederation”). Many Jews believe that the Israelis are correct and the Europeans are wrong.

My logic follows from this fact as thus: the EU has plenty of problems but nothing on the scale of the Gaza Strip or the constant threat of annihilation by hostile neighbors (and rival nation-states).

The European Union and Israel are thus case studies for two different arguments, much like North and South Korea or East and West Germany. The EU has been bad, so bad in fact that the British have voted to leave, but not so bad that there has been any genocide or mass violence or, indeed, interstate wars within its jurisdiction. Israel has been good, so good in fact that it now has one of the highest standards of living in the world, but not so good that it avoided creating something as awful as the Gaza Strip or making enemies out of every single one of its neighbors.

To me this is a no-brainer. The Europeans were correct and the Israelis are wrong. To me, Israelis (Jewish and Arab) would be much better off living under the jurisdiction of the United States or even the European Union rather than Israel’s. They’d all be safer, too.

Nightcap

  1. Sexuality and the law in the Ottoman Empire Shireen Hamza, JHIblog
  2. Was World War II the last colonial war? Branko Milanovic, globalinequality
  3. Seattle’s hard-Left secessionist movement has claimed its first territory Christopher Rufo, City Journal
  4. The Israeli political crisis: ideology or ethnicity? Ori Yehudai, Origins

Nightcap

  1. Comparing economics and epidemiology? Tyler Cowen, MR
  2. Um, we still need a back-to-work plan John Cochrane, Grumpy Economist
  3. Israel, Arab citizens, and coronavirus Afif Abu Much, Al-Monitor
  4. How about just 10% less democracy? Adam Wakeling, Quillette

Nightcap

  1. Do quarantines work? Eleanor Klibanoff, Goats and Soda
  2. Trump’s Middle East plan Nathan Thrall, New York Times
  3. Trump’s Middle East plan Michael Koplow, Ottomans & Zionists
  4. Texans don’t want any more Californians Derek Thompson, Atlantic

Nightcap

  1. Nozick, State, and Reparations Irfan Khawaja, Policy of Truth
  2. No friends but the mountains Maurice Glasman, New Statesman
  3. The layers of Israel’s Trump mistake Michael Koplow, Ottomans & Zionists
  4. Why hasn’t Brexit happened? Christopher Caldwell, Claremont Review of Books

Nightcap

  1. Antisemitism, Zionism, and the changing politics of the Left David Feldman, Financial Times
  2. Revolutionary postcards in imperial Russia Donald Rayfield, Literary Review
  3. Dreamtime social games (better institutions) Robin Hanson, Overcoming Bias
  4. In defense of the people Roslyn Fuller, spiked!

From the Comments: Dual loyalties and American hypocrisy

I am on the road. I’m in Utah, actually, for a wedding. I drove here with my little family. From Texas. It’s a beautiful drive. But long. I’ll have more American pop-sociology soon enough. In the mean time, here’s Irfan on an important topic, and one that’s gone almost cold in libertarian circles:

Thanks for mentioning this post of mine. I hope people will take a look at the comments as well as the post itself. One hears so much loose talk about “anti-Semitism,” and the insult implied by talk of “dual loyalties.” But it’s not a criminal offense in the United States to believe or assert that Muslims celebrated the 9/11 attacks, or imply that Muslims side with Al Qaeda or ISIS. The President encourages people to believe and say such things, and they do, from the federal executive down to the local level.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/454555-new-jersey-school-board-member-says-his-life-will-be-complete

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/2019/07/25/sussex-gop-backlash-over-anti-muslim-tweets-governor/1821539001/

Meanwhile, the State of New Jersey is seeking to make it a criminal offense to assert that Palestinians have a right of self-defense against attackers who happen to be Jewish: $250 fine, six months in the county lock up. In this universe, either there is no such thing as a Jew who aggresses against a non-Jew, or if it happens, non-Jews are not to resist in such a way as to “harm” their attackers.

As for “dual loyalties,” here is an undeniable, demonstrable fact that no one engaged in the “dual loyalties” debate has managed to address: American Jews have the right to maintain dual citizenship, US and Israeli, to enter the Israeli military, and to serve under Israeli commanders. Those commanders have the authority to order those under their command (including American “Lone Soldiers,” as they’re called) to shoot at anyone deemed a threat under rules of engagement that cannot be questioned by anyone outside of the chain of command. The potential targets include Americans like me (or Rachel Corrie, or Tariq Abu Khdeir). No soldier has the right to refuse such an order. You get the order? You fire at will–to kill.

If an American serving under foreign command faces the prospect of shooting an American in a foreign country, exactly what description are we to give that situation but precisely one of dual loyalties? The soldier holding the weapon has one loyalty to a foreign commander, and one to the United States (or else to the principle of rights), which proscribes shooting a fellow citizen under questionable circumstances. How he resolves the dilemma is up to him, but you’d be out of touch with reality to deny that he’s in one. Is it really “racist” or “anti-Semitic” to identify this blatantly obvious fact? Apparently so.

If the New Jersey bill passes, my merely raising the preceding issue out loud, even as a question–iin the presence of someone who might report me to the police–makes me a criminal suspect, subject to arrest and prosecution. Though I teach at a private university, and the bill seems to apply only to public universities, the wording is extremely vague and ambiguous, and in case, even on the narrow interpretation of its scope, it implies that I lose my rights of free speech if I move to a public university or (perhaps) if I engage in a speech act while being present at a public university.

As someone who’s already been arrested on campus for “saying the wrong thing” (where the offended parties weren’t the usual left-wing snowflakes) this whole censorship thing is starting to get old pretty fast. If the passage of this bill wouldn’t mark a descent into fascism, with a rather large assist from the pro-Israel lobby, what would? If a constituency threatens to imprison you for exercises of free speech and academic freedom in the name of a sectarian state, are you really obliged to pretend that it’s not doing what it practically admits to be doing?

Dr Khawaja blogs at the always-excellent Policy of Truth.

Here is stuff on antisemitism at NOL. And on Palestine. And on free speech.

Nightcap

  1. Murray Rothbard on reparations for slavery Jeff Deist, Power & Market
  2. Outstanding analysis of Israeli politics Michael Koplow, Ottomans & Zionists
  3. My book was arrested but I am free” Victor Sebestyen, New Statesman
  4. Breakfast has resisted globalization, until now Josie Delap, 1843

Nightcap

  1. Israel’s political balagan Michael Koplow, Ottomans & Zionists
  2. A summary of the rights of British America Thomas Jefferson, Avalon Project
  3. Studying Singapore before it was famous Frank Beyer, Asian Review of Books
  4. The mystic life of Hermann Hesse Philip Hensher, Spectator

Nightcap

  1. Israelis versus Jews Jonathan Bronitsky, Claremont Review of Books
  2. Silk, Slaves, and Stupas Peter Gordon, Asian Review of Books
  3. Erdoğan’s Flights of Fancy Kaya Genç, NY Review of Books
  4. Why Free Markets are Better than Globalism David Gordon, the Austrian

From the Comments: How can we not consent to government if we obey it voluntarily?

Irfan Khawaja has a good argument on Yoram Hazony’s new book on nationalism, which is being thoroughly and thoughtfully dissected by Arnold Kling:

Does anyone understand the point that Kling and/or Hazony are making about the relation between legitimacy based on voluntary acceptance, and consent? On the one hand, the claim is that in a legitimate government, we obey the law “voluntarily”; on the other hand, the claim is that we do not consent to government. How can we not consent to government if we obey it voluntarily? Coming the other way around: how can we obey it voluntarily if we don’t consent to it? Even if Hazony wants to broaden consent beyond the Lockean account, that’s still a broadening of the conditions of consent, not a nullification of the role of consent. The combination of claims that Kling attributes to Hazony does not seem coherent.

Well?

As a reminder, this is not a philosophical argument. Well, it is but it isn’t. I suspect this is about Israel and Palestine as much as it is about logical rigor. Stay tuned, and don’t be shy about having your say!

Nightcap

  1. Why did Israel attack the USS Liberty? Rick Brownell, Historiat
  2. Slouching toward Bethlehem Joyce Chaplin, Times Literary Supplement
  3. Looking back on the festivals of the Revolution Mike Follert, Age of Revolutions
  4. Beasts of Rebellion Jonathan Saha, Colonizing Animals

Nightcap

  1. Responding to the challenge of modernization Branko Milanovic, globalinequality
  2. The Victorian Achievement Nick Nielsen, The View from Oregon
  3. The Warriors and Rockets win with defense Chris Herring, FiveThirtyEight
  4. An ignored, scary development in Israeli politics Michael Koplow, Ottomans and Zionists