REJOINDER TO GORDON AND NJOYA ON ISRAEL AND LIBERTARIANISM

Block and Futerman (2021) maintain that the classical liberal political-economic philosophy, when properly understood, strongly supports Israel. Gordon and Njoya (2024) disagree and criticize the thesis of the two present authors. Gordon and Njoya (hence, GN) offer several arguments. For one thing, they maintain that we are mistaken in asserting a connection as we do between John Locke, libertarian theoretician of homesteading and private property rights, and Zionism. Our friendly critics aver that contrary to the title of our book, The Classical Liberal Case for Israel, we are simply making, instead, a typical or ordinary Zionist case to this end. GN also charge us with taking the position “that the legitimacy of the only Jewish state should not be questioned if the legitimacy of all other states is accepted.” Our learned colleagues hold the view that we “… consider that principles of property law are the only relevant benchmark by which a libertarian may ascertain war guilt. “All four of the present authors are staunch Rothbardians (we do not agree with him on this issue). Perhaps the widest divergence between the present authors and GN is the following: They opine that we “have misfired in (our) claim that Rothbard’s views of Zionism reflect a mistaken application of libertarian principles.“ The present paper is our response to these criticisms of our book made by Gordon and Njoya.