Update 01-01-principles-apologia.md

01-principles/01-01-principles-apologia.md

@@ -17,6 +17,9 @@ To be even more cautious, we have decided to explicitly address each of the repu
      - An individual possessing such a rational faculty loses its rights only upon committing an act which violates the private property sovereignty of another such individual possessing the like rational faculty, and the infringing individual becomes subject to the jurisdiction of its victim only as far as is required to enable recovery for damages and the additional enforcement of a penalty to disincentivize repeat offenses.
      - The European settlers had full rights to homestead and to proceed according to the principles of capture law. They did not have the right to displace Native Americans from their own homesteaded settlements.
      - The European settlers had full rights to defend their own homesteaded settlements and to expand into unsettled areas which had not been homesteaded (by the Native Americans). The nascent American colonies would have best represented individualist ideals by carefully registering the title to the Native Americans in the areas where they observed the Native Americans to have settled and firmly protecting their (the Europeans') own settlements.
+   - We also disavow her views on the Israeli-Arab conflict; specifically, we disavow this statement which she gave at the same segment at West Point, New York in 1974: "I am incidentally in favour of Israel against the Arabs for the very same reasons [as those she gave for being in favour of the European settlers in America].", and we disavow them for the very same reasons as those we gave above.
+     - However, this is not to be construed as a bias against the Israeli state either. This disavowal amounts to a disavowal of the reasoning Ayn Rand used when she stated her disapproval of the idea that the Native Americans had a claim to private property rights. We have explained that rights are derived from the Identity and properties (specifically the rational faculty) of the species, and that the cognitive content of an individual member of such a species' mind does not unfit that individual from securely possessing its rights.
+     - The `WS` view on the Israeli-Arab situation is that we do not have an interest in the conflicts of foreign polities and they are merely, to us, two polities with their own dispute to resolve on their own. `WS` is an isolationist constitution, and unless a polity in the Israeli-Arab conflict triggers a condition in the `SovWI` law, we have nothing to say about them, whether good or bad; and should their actions trigger a response according to `SovWI` law, then whatever we may be forced to say about them, whether good or bad, will be based solely on their relationship to `WS` itself and on the interests of the residents of `WS`, and will have nothing to do with their past or present actions in the Israeli-Arab conflict.
 - Leonard Peikoff:
   - We disavow the view that in war, the civilian populace of an enemy nation is in effect, fair game and acceptable collateral damage. We assert that in war, the ideological and political leaders of the enemy entity should be targeted directly where possible, and where it is necessary to engage in large scale destruction in order to destroy the enemy entity, all measures should be taken to be as surgical as is **reasonable and practical** (while also being sure not to paralyze ourselves with inaction in the face of a threat of our own destruction), and **if practical**, to warn civilians to get to safety beforehand.
 - Antonin Scalia: