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.

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

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.

Game Theory & Israel's Strategic War Planners. How Israel Calculates the Potential Success of Deception

Criminal State--Jeff Gates & Anthony Lawson

A Closer Look at Israel's Role in Terrorism
https://youtu.be/pNjb1MGmGDc
Part 2
https://youtu.be/GxhMmjDlIC0
Part 3
https://youtu.be/OrkpcbmXAWE

"Israeli strategists rely on game theory models to ensure the intended response to staged provocations and manipulated crises. With the use of game theory algorithms, those responses become predictable, even foreseeable—within an acceptable range of probabilities. The waging of war “by way of deception” is now a mathematical discipline.

"Such “probabilistic” war planning enables Tel Aviv to deploy serial provocations and well-timed crises as a force multiplier to project Israeli influence worldwide. For a skilled agent provocateur, the target can be a person, a company, an economy, a legislature, a nation or an entire culture—such as Islam. With a well-modeled provocation, the anticipated reaction can even become a powerful weapon in the Israeli arsenal.

"For instance, a skilled game theorist could foresee that, in response to a 9/11-type mass murder, “the mark” (the U.S.) would deploy its military to avenge that attack. With phony intelligence fixed around a preset goal, a game theory algorithm could anticipate that those forces might well be redirected to invade Iraq—not to avenge 9/11 but to pursue the expansionist goals of Greater Israel."

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/…...

Clash of Civilizations-Samuel Hunnington, 10 yrs Before 911

"The image of the new enemy comes from Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel Huntington, two policy-makers of American intelligence and foreign policy, von Bülow said. "Already in the middle of the 1990s, Huntington believed, people in Europe and the U.S. needed someone they could hate." - See more at: http://www.bollyn.com/911/#sthash.y6t...

July 8, 1996: Neoconservative Think Tank Advocates Aggressive Israeli Foreign Policy

The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank, publishes a paper titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” [WASHINGTON TIMES, 10/7/2002; CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, 3/6/2003] The paper, whose lead author is neoconservative Richard Perle, is meant to advise the new, right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu."

https://youtu.be/lLokQZSKMnQ

Respectfully, but Rand misses the boat completely on the real cause of hatred of Israel by Muslims: religion. That's the long and the short of the whole matter. That Israel supports a free market system, supports advancements in science and technology, and supports elected governments while Muslims support a class hierarchy, stagnation, and a caliphate/theocracy is in the end a side-show. The true issues comes down to religion.

The problem started with the two sons of Abraham: Ishmael and Isaac. There is no question that Ishmael was the older of the two, but Ishmael was born to the concubine, and the rights of land and property always passed to the first-born son of the natural wife, so when Isaac was born, Ishmael was basically disinherited - and Abraham was very wealthy. Ishmael survived to father many nations in the land (with a two generation head start) before they had to compete with what would become the Israelite nation. Further, the Israelites moved to Egypt where they were enslaved for hundreds of years before coming back to the area through military action. The population sizes even then were sizeably different.

Fast forward several millenia through the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, etc. down to the Romans and the fall of the Roman Empire. Now we get into the introduction of the Muslims via Mohammed. Mohammed capitalized on the bad blood between the remnants of the Arab nations (predominantly descendants of Ishmael and also Isaac's son Esau who parted ways with Jacob who would become Israel) and the Israelites (now just the Jews) and used religious fervor to stoke the flames. Mohammed even claimed to have had a vision on the site of the ruined Jewish Temple (aka Temple of Solomon, et al) so as to give the excuse for the Dome of the Rock Mosque on the same site. Even the site of Jerusalem itself is holy to both sides only through the birthright given to Abraham.

Should a capitalist nation which supports natural rights side with Israel over the Muslim nations? Absolutely. Despite its lack of oil, Israel is a tremendously productive nation and society which supports capitalism and natural rights. Their people are hard-working, disciplined, and honorable.

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.