If you consider federal taxes for national defense as legitimate, e.g., requiring the legitimate use of force to collect them, then spending that money in Israel is smarter than fighting the savages in NYC. Personally, I do believe that one of the very few legitimate functions of a government is national defense. And any function of a government necessitates the use of force, actual or potential. It is my understanding that AR thought so and clearly the Founding Fathers did so as well. I don't think that anyone is arguing against any and all government altogether, except for diehard anarchists. And anarchy is a step toward dictatorship.

My issue is not whether Israel is good or bad, or if it should be a front line of defense, etc. My issue deals with tenets of Objectivism. As I said, I can’t find the Rand quotation and cannot see the context. What I am still not understanding about your conclusion “Western civilization needs to be helping Israel” is whether your view means (1) those who want to help Israel are free to do so or (2) others should be forced to help.

I am considering Israel as a front line of defense of the Western Civilization against the Islamic savagery. Since an accepted role of any government is the physical protection from outside enemies, you decide if it's better to fight a war outside of your borders or within, and you think that taxation for that purpose is fair or not.

I disagree. One of the great points of Objectivism is disagreement is okay so long as no one initiates the use of force. What I am not understanding about your conclusion “Western civilization needs to be helping Israel” is whether you view means (1) those who want to help Israel are free to do so or (2) others should be forced to help.

Arabs do not hate Israel because Israel is Jewish; Arabs hate Israel because Israel is Western Civilization on their doorstep. Israeli's have been saying this for 60 years and the world ignored it. Now, the Arabs have stepped over the doorstep and are murdering westerners in their own countries. Western civilization needs to be helping Israel not because it feels [whatever] for Israel or the Jews, but because Israel is a buffer between the savages and the Western Civilization. Unless, of course, you prefer to fight this war on your own doorstep.

Dr Hudgins, I would like to add my thoughts on your article, specifically the last part. Perhaps this is my unfounded perception, but it appeared to me that in an effort to end on a hopeful, if not necessarily a positive note, you may be giving undue validity to the Islamic savages. Of course, there is a possibility (though remote) of the savages willingly becoming civilized, perhaps in a few centuries, yet your last paragraph made them appear as potential candidates and almost human. The problem with that approach is that it puts murderous savages on the same plank as human beings, thus limiting a proper response to their attacks, which should be complete and utter annihilation. I am aware that my approach is begging for the question who am I, or we, to allow ourselves to annihilate others? The answer is simple - a savage has all the rights in the world to remain a savage, but when that savage is hell-bent on murdering people in our civilization, it is our duty, and certainly the duty of any government, to destroy the threat. Completely. Without stopping and preserving their savage culture, or equating it in any way to civilization. It is the responsibility of the savage to acquire civilization, not the civilization's responsibility to civilize the savage.

I agree completely. We MUST continue helping Israel - and Obama be damned!

I once wrote an article: "We Have Met The Enemey - And His Name Is: ISLAM!", and I wish I could reproduce it in full here. I will be glad to send it to anyone who wants it, butI willneed an email address.

I have not been able to the locate the source for Rand’s quotation. Therefore, I do not know the context. However, if she was saying the U.S. government should support Israel by sending money and free military equipment, then I say she was wrong because it forces everyone to do what she believes is correct using tax money taken at the point of a gun.

Her comments are as appropriate today as they were when originally said.
my thought is if ther oil dried up they would mount their camels and be nomads again.
stupid is just stupid and they are savages.

As usual, Rand was right in '74 just as she is right today. Things have changed, but only minimally. The cultural divide is as deep as ever and no meaningful changes are on the horizon. I think it was Thatcher who made the succinct comment that If Israel laid down their arms they would be slaughtered, if Arabs laid down their arms there would be peace.

Hello DrEdwardHudgins,
"One does not and cannot “negotiate” with brutality, nor give it the benefit of the doubt. The moral absolute should be: if and when, in any dispute, one side initiates the use of physical force, that side is wrong—and no consideration or discussion of the issues is necessary or appropriate." “Brief Comments,” The Objectivist, March 1969, 1

It is clear that "some" Arabs in the region will initiate brutal force to eradicate the other for simply being, while Israelis are generally not the initiators, but act in retaliation or self defense. However, many other Arabs do not initiate and thus should not be collectively considered, since they too are victim.
Respectfully,
O.A.

And given the repeated wars, inability to learn as well.

Yes. The ugliness of envy on full display.

This is most definitely another case of hatred of the good for being the good.