Rand Paul’s Stance on Israel a Lesson for
the Liberty Movement to Follow:
A(nother) Libertarian Defense of Israel

by Aaron Biterman

A recent article in The American Spectator by Philip Klein highlights Dr. Rand Paul’s view of Israel. In short, Rand Paul supports free trade with Israel, call for divestment from Iran, and “strongly objects to the arrogant approach of (the) Obama administration” toward the peace process, according to documents Klein obtained from the Paul campaign. Continues the Kentucky doctor, “Only Israel can decide what is in her security interest, not America and certainly not the United Nations.” The younger Paul says, “As a United States Senator, I would never vote to condemn Israel for defending herself. Whether it is fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, combating Hamas-linked terrorists in Gaza or dealing with potential nuclear threats in the Persian Gulf, Israeli military actions are completely up to the leaders and military of Israel, and Israel alone.”

The truth is that most Kentucky voters agree with the above-stated positions. Most Americans — especially those right of center — also agree with these positions. From a libertarian perspective, there is simply nothing objectionable about the above position statement. If you’re a minarchist and support the ability of the U.S. military to defend our borders against attacks, then it stands to reason that other countries should also be able to protect their borders.

But there is a vocal and growing fringe element within the libertarian/Constitutionalist movement (see DailyPaul.com to hear their rants and raves, or pick up a copy of the filthy American Free Press newspaper) who agree with left-wing radical Helen Thomas, who recently opined that all Israeli Jews should leave Israel and go back to Europe. (View her disgusting comments here.)

This article has been written to refute their bogus claims and defend a pro-Israel position from a libertarian perspective. (Other pro-Israel arguments have been made by libertarians, such as this excellent defense of Israel from Ilana Mercer.)

To Whom Does the Land Belong?

The prime argument driving the anti-Israel fervor is the claim that Jews belong somewhere other than Israel — that they have no legitimate claim to the land of Israel. Those individuals making this claim believe that the millions of Arabs from the 1948 exodus should be returned to their original homes in pre-1967 Israel based upon the libertarian conception of private property rights. This would clearly result in an Arab majority Israel.

I don’t agree with his argument for several reasons. In late 1947, the United Nations voted in favor of the partition of Palestine, proposing the creation of a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem. Partition was accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab leaders, leading to civil war. One party was willing to compromise and the other was not — a familiar trend in the seemingly never-ending feud.

When Israel was declared a state in 1948, most of the Arabs living within the boundaries were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews. These Arabs were promised Jewish property after victorious Arab armies won the war. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?  Think 1939 to 1945 in Europe.

Of course, the day after Israel was declared a state (in 1948) it was attacked by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen. And it’s been on the defense ever since. It is hard to believe that any libertarian — a person who purports to believe in the right of self-defense, even for a nation — would deny that a nation like Israel should be permitted to defend itself against terrorists seeking to exterminate Jews in the Middle East and replace Israel with a Taliban-style Islamic theocracy.

According to Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute and his co-author Peter Schwartz, “Only a state based on political and economic freedom has moral legitimacy. Contrary to what the Palestinians are seeking, there can be no ‘right’ to establish a dictatorship.” The Palestinians elected a Hamas majority to the Palestinian Legislative Assembly and now Hamas controls Gaza. Hamas is a radical Islamist terrorist organization that seeks to wipe Israel (and all Jews) off the face of the earth and replace it with an Islamic Palestine.

Concludes Brook and Schwartz, “Israel’s founders — like the homesteaders in the American West — earned ownership to the land by developing it. They arrived in a desolate, sparsely populated region and drained the swamps, irrigated the desert, grew crops and built cities. They worked unclaimed land or purchased it from the owners. They introduced industry, libraries, hospitals, art galleries, universities-and the concept of individual rights. Those Arabs who abandoned their land in order to join the military crusade against Israel forfeited all right to their property. And if there are any peaceful Arabs who were forcibly evicted from their property, they should be entitled to press their claims in the courts of Israel, which, unlike the Arab autocracies, has an independent, objective judiciary — a judiciary that recognizes the principle of property rights.”

Double Standards and the Need to Single Out Israel

The individuals leading the vocal anti-Israel movement within the broader coalition of pro-liberty activists claim they are interested in the quality of the lives led by the non-Jews living in the region who are being persecuted by the evil tyrant nation of Israel. But it’s rare to hear these same vocal anti-Israel critics talking about the fact that Jews cannot enter Mecca or Medina, that Jews cannot purchase or sell land in Jordan (nor can they become citizens), or that Jews and Israelis are banned from entering Saudi Arabia.

Not only do Arabs have representation in the Jewish Knesset (legislative branch of government), but Israel also offers one of the few safe havens for women and homosexuals who fear persecution (and humiliation and/or death) in many other parts of the Middle East.

The vocal anti-Israel voices within the broader liberty movement always single Israel out whenever they have an opportunity. They ignore the fact that Egypt, Jordan, and the Sudan are each on the top ten list of recipients of U.S. foreign aid, with Egypt receiving nearly $2 billion annually.

They don’t talk about anti-Semitism at all. Perhaps they believe it doesn’t exist. The truth is that worldwide, scores of anti-Semitic (anti-Jewish) outbursts are recorded each month by monitoring groups, ranging from armed and other attacks on individuals and property to the desecration of cemeteries and Holocaust memorials and the daubing of anti-Semitic slogans on buildings, often those housing Jewish communal offices and synagogues.

In the U.S., for example, the number of anti-Semitic crimes went up from 969 in 2007 to 1,013 in 2008. Such episodes represent 66 percent of all religiously motivated crimes and 12 percent of all recorded hate crimes. These are unsettling numbers when we consider that Jews constitute approximately 2 percent of the general population. Anti-Semitism is widespread throughout the Arab and Muslim world, manifested in every segment of society. Here (.pdf) are some examples from the Arab media alone.

As Ilana Mercer mentions in her defense of Israel, any libertarian who defends Israel recognizes its many imperfections. It is a quasi-socialist country which has violated human rights in the past via demolition of houses and closure of the Palestinian territories. We don’t excuse this behavior and criticize the Israeli government when it oversteps the rule of law.

But Israel’s current air and naval blockade on Gaza — which is controlled by Hamas — is justified defense of Israel.  Clearly Hamas intends to acquire lethal weaponry to wipe Israel and its citizens off the map.  As is pointed out in The Washington Post, an organizer of the ‘humanitarian’ boat that was stopped by Israel last week admitted that the boat was meant to break Israel’s blockade, effectively ending their inspection process. If successful, weapons — no doubt meant to exterminate all Jews in Israel — could be obtained by the radical government in charge of Gaza.

Regardless, libertarians in the U.S. who support Israel do not support U.S. foreign aid for Israel (although many believe that the U.S. should help Israel with arms technology development), believing instead that private aid would be more than enough to defend Israel against its enemies.  Of course, they believe that foreign aid should also be cut off to all other countries as well.

Just as libertarians in the U.S. support a strong national defense of our own country, pro-Israel libertarians also support Israel’s right to defend herself against attack. The same libertarians defending Israel’s right to self-defense can simultaneously defend a non-interventionist foreign policy. There is no contradiction, except by those who would have Israel wiped off the face of the earth due to an erroneous claim to ‘property rights’.   

Libertarians Should Support a Two-State Solution

A two-state solution is the sensible answer to the problem in the Middle East.

A two-state solution would create two separate states in the Western portion of the historic region of Palestine.  Israel would remain a Jewish state and Arabs would be given citizenship by a new Palestinian state. The new Palestinian state would also offer refugees citizenship, while Arab citizens of present-day Israel would be offered a choice of citizenship among the two states.

A one-state Palestine will, as Ilana Mercer put it, have “no economy, no free speech and press, no independent courts, no sound contract laws, and no individual or property rights.” Even worse, there is a huge threat that such a government will be run by radical dictators with an agenda that has little to do with protecting the rights of their citizens.  Such an endeavor would not only threaten the Middle East, but the world as well.

Why so many so-called freedom fighters continue to advocate this ’solution’ — a one-party dictatorship state — is beyond me, but in the interim Israel will continue to defend itself — as any libertarian should expect it to.

When analyzing the situation in the Middle East, it’s important to look at the big picture. Over a period of many years, Israel has worked to reach an agreement — a compromise — but the other side has not.

That’s why Rand Paul stands by Israel and why you should, too.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Aaron Biterman is Vice Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus. As it is stated below this post, this article is just one opinion. We realize some RLC members will disagree with this opinion. If you would like to write a counter piece to be published in this blog, contact the Republican Liberty Caucus.  Only articles from dues-paying members of the RLC will be considered.

This video is from Jack Hunter, a conservative commentator and columnist. We’ll let the video speak for itself.

Three U.S. Senate candidates who have been endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus are well on their way to securing victories in November.

First, Pat Toomey won an easy victory last night in his race and will face Congressman Joe Sestak in November. Toomey, while more of a social conservative generally, has a proven record of voting for less government. His new opponent, Sestek, is telegenic and has a heavy populist streak, so Toomey will have to energize his base while also reaching out to independents and moderates to win in the swing state of Pennsylvania.

Mike Lee is now in a run-off with Tim Bridgewater in the Republican U.S. Senate primary in Utah, which will be decided by Utah Republican Party voters on June 22. Lee’s opponent Tim Bridgewater is someone that has been running for various positions locally for quite some time. Like Lee, he is concerned about too much government interference, but his policy solutions are different. Specifically, Mr. Bridgewater believes in more U.S. intervention abroad and much more federal involvement in immigration. After looking at the issue pages of their websites again, I have no doubt that Mike Lee is the solution-focused leader that Utah needs in the Senate. Which is why the Republican Liberty Caucus endorsed him, along with his commitment to limited government.

Most importantly, Rand Paul is the Republican nominee in Kentucky. Dr. Paul gained nearly 60% of the vote in his primary yesterday. He will face Attorney General Jack Conway in November. While watching the fair and balanced news last night, I already saw various left-wing pundits excited that Rand Paul was the victor so they could start attacking his views.  Will the Tea Party and the Liberty Movement have the power to take Rand to the finish line?

These candidates, while not perfect, are our best hope to achieve liberty in the coming years. With these three committed small government advocates in the Senate, our country will be much better off.  Work tirelessly to support them in the coming months.

The Republican Liberty Caucus National Board confirmed the following endorsements at our Board meeting yesterday.

The endorsed candidates include: Brett Gaspard (District 69) and Tim Fairfield (District 78) for State Representative; Cathy H. Flaig (Boone County) and John Riley (Spencer County) for Judge Executive; Peter Garrett for Campbell County Commissioner; and Cindy Arlinghaus Rich (Incumbent) for Boone County Property Valuation Administrator.

These endorsements are in addition to our previous endorsement of Dr. Rand Paul for U.S. Senate in the May 19 Kentucky primary. Good luck to these candidates!

This article is a Republican Liberty Caucus exclusive by Wes Messamore. If you like what you’re reading, please check out my blog.
————-

As a huge fan and supporter of Rand Paul’s father, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, I was thrilled to learn that his son was considering a U.S. Senate run for what would turn out to be an open seat in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Months ago, when Rand Paul’s U.S. Senate campaign wasn’t yet a campaign, just a fledgling exploratory committee by a “long-shot” candidate from Bowling Green, Kentucky, he still managed to win an online poll at a Kentucky news website. When I heard about that online poll at a Ron Paul message forum, I turned out with a thousand other “Paulians” and voted for Rand.

Living just an hour away from his headquarters, I had a chance not very long thereafter to meet with Rand personally, and during our conversation, someone mentioned his poll victory. Rand- with his characteristically dry sense of humor- shrugged and said that would be fantastic if he was running to win the Internet’s vote… he’d be Kentucky’s next Senator for sure.

His point was well-made. Much of Rand Paul’s early support predictably surged from young, web-savvy, libertarian-leaning activists who supported Rand’s father Ron Paul. While their support was welcome, it would have been hardly enough to get Rand Paul where he is today.

Now Rand leads all his major challengers in state-wide polls, is closing in on $3 million in funds raised, and has the endorsements of big names like Sarah Palin, Steve Forbes, and Reagan PAC. How did Rand Paul’s campaign manage to gain so much ground, putting it in striking distance of electoral victory?

Because my grandma supports him. The secret to Rand Paul’s success is not that he resonates with people like me, but that he resonates with people like my grandmother. I’m a young, enthusiastic libertarian Republican; she’s a traditional, conservative, Reagan Republican- and Rand Paul’s message speaks to her.

Originally from Oklahoma, my grandmother has lived in the Bluegrass State now for longer than I have been alive. Her father was a staunch Democrat and all four of his children, including my grandmother, became Republicans during the Reagan years, when the two parties experienced a major realignment.

She started listening to Rush Limbaugh during the Clinton years- and still does. She loves Glenn Beck, she voted for Bush both times, and she even has a crush on Dick Cheney (but you didn’t hear it from me). She thinks and feels like most Kentucky Republicans do about what’s best for her state and what’s best for the country.

Rand was right those many months ago when he implied that kids like me who supported his father are a poor barometer for his success in Kentucky’s upcoming U.S. Senate election. It is not the Internet that will sweep him to victory, but Kentucky’s registered Republicans like my grandmother- the perfect barometer for Kentucky opinion.

The Paul family message of fiscal conservatism, strict constitutionalism, and principle over party has reached beyond the Internet and college campuses, and swept into the hearts of the people who were inspired by the Reagan revolution of the 1980s, and that’s why he will win.

Rand Paul will be the next U.S. Senator representing Kentucky. Not because I support him, but because my grandma does. And when he gets there, he may just be the one of the very best Senators this country has ever had.

by Aaron Biterman

A headline in this week’s Tampa Tribune is titled “GOP infighting shakes party”. The article talks about a familiar 2009 theme: “An increasingly fractious challenge to the Republican Party from its own conservative base could relegate the party to indefinite minority status,” says author William March.

No state has more of a fight on its hands than Florida, where Republican Party Chair Jim Greer has, no doubt, acted illegally to prop up his favorite candidates and help his friends defeat his enemies.  This was already clear when Greer had his cronies boot Republican Liberty Caucus members from the party in September. Now there are increasingly vocal calls for Greer to resign as party boss.

In Florida, State Senator Paula Dockery is challenging Attorney General Bill McCollum for the Republican nomination for Governor and Senator Carey Baker is challenging U.S. Rep. Adam Putnam in the primary for Florida Agriculture Commissioner. Both Dockery and Baker are more conservative than their moderate and establishment opponents. RLC members are supporting Dockery and Baker.

The reason that governorship is open, of course, is that Charlie Crist is running to become Florida’s junior U.S. Senator. Crist faces opposition from Marco Rubio — who has been endorsed by Senator Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund — and former New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith.

But, never fear, the National Republican Senator Committee (NRSC) has plans to come to the rescue. As has been standard practice since the election of George W. Bush in 2000, the NRSC has already coronated its top-tier candidates for Senate in 2010 — without any regard for the opinions of GOP primary voters.

Those candidates include Crist, Carly Fiorina in California, and Trey Grayson in Kentucky.  All three have more conservative and credible opponents: former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, and Kentucky taxpayer advocate Dr. Rand Paul.

Whatsmore, the NRSC is now encouraging its readers to take advice from Karl Rove. In an e-mail the NRSC sent out yesterday, its Communications team forwarded an article from Karl Rove to all NRSC subscribers. Rove’s article was published in The Wall Street Journal, and the NRSC team said it’s a “WSJ Editorial You Should See”.

I saw it, and — shock! — I am not impressed.

Why is the NRSC encouraging its members to listen to Karl Rove? Rove’s name has come up in many political scandals, including the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Moreover, his strategy of “compassionate conservatism” along with his support of the Bush Doctrine are among the main reasons why Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008.

In the article, Rove says, “In Connecticut, Sen. Chris Dodd trails former Republican Rep. Rob Simmons 35% to 48% in the latest Quinnipiac poll.” Rove does not acknowledge that two other Republican candidates also poll ahead of Chris Dodd: Linda McMahon and RLC-endorsed candidate Peter Schiff. This “ignore at all costs” strategy has been something that Republican establishment candidates have been very skilled at, but has not yielded successful results.

The strategy, a familiar Rove tactic, was employed masterfully by George W. Bush throughout both terms as President, and trickled down to candidates that the NRSC and NRCC supported (mostly unsuccessfully) in 2006 and 2008 such as John Gard in Wisconsin and Darren White in New Mexico. Both Gard and White — unfamiliar names to most readers — had primary challengers that were more conservative, but simply relied on the Bush Administration and the NRCC to “ignore at all costs” these opponents. Both Gard and White went on to lose their general election contests in conservative-leaning districts.  The result was Democrat pickups.

The title of Rove’s article is, “Can Republicans take back the Senate in 2010?”

The answer is yes, but not if they listen to Karl Rove or the NRSC.

The NRSC cannot be allowed to select Republican Senate candidates for GOP primary voters.

Registered Republicans in CA, CT, FL, IL, KY, and other states should select the best candidate to represent the state — without NRSC interference.

It’s still early to be thinking about 2010 elections, but the Republican Liberty Caucus National Board has approved several endorsements for 2010 already.

Liberty fans across the country will be pleased to note that the RLC endorsed Rand Paul in his bid to become U.S. Senator in Kentucky, and Peter Schiff in his bid to represent Connecticut in the Senate.

The RLC has also endorsed Jason Shepherd for State Representative in Georgia, Shane Schoeller (Incumbent) for State Representative in Missouri, and Bill Hunt for Orange County Sheriff in California.

Our endorsements process has just begun, so please stay tuned for more endorsements of worthwhile, liberty-loving candidates. In 2008, the RLC endorsed over 220 pro-freedom candidates, many of whom were inspired to run as a result of RLC Advisory Board member Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential bid.

RLC members will be working to help all of the above candidates succeed. Our Connecticut and Kentucky chapters are in the process of chartering, which we believe will be tremendous assets to the Paul and Schiff campaigns as we head into 2010.

Kentucky U.S. Senate challenger Dr. Rand Paul, son of RLC Advisory Board member Texas Congressman Ron Paul, is now leading his opponent, former Democrat and Secretary of State Trey Grayson.  A solid analysis is provided from a local Kentucky news station:

Dr. Rand Paul, who is running in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate against Attorney General and former Democrat Trey Greyson, was the featured guest at an event hosted by Republican Liberty Caucus members in Kentucky.

This event occurred in Georgetown (near Lexington), Kentucky this past Saturday. It was hosted by RLC activist Sheryl Ford and longtime Kentucky RLC Coordinator Michael Moreland helped organize it.

This is the second time in the month of October that Dr. Paul has met with RLC members. The first was in Northeast Florida, where Dr. Paul met with the Florida RLC Chairman and other RLC members at an event hosted by one of his former medical school classmates.

The videos of Dr. Paul’s remarks to RLC members in Georgetown are as follows. Special thanks to our RLC volunteers in Kentucky for making this event a tremendous success!

Part 1:

Part 2:

Dan Halloran, Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New York, has been running for New York City Council for the better part of the year now. But some in the Queens Republican Party are hoping to replace Halloran with another candidate — Paul Vallone — after the Queens Tribune profiled Halloran’s religious faith. According to an article that came out earlier today, “Their choice to replace him is Paul Vallone, who finished third in the district’s recent Democratic primary.

That’s right. Replacing a Republican candidate with a current or former Democrat. This is actually an upsetting trend that I have noticed cropping up in national and state-level politics.

Why are some in the Queens GOP upset with Halloran? Well, he’s engaged in that all American ritual called religious freedom. Yes, Mr. Halloran has chose his own faith, and it’s not a popular one: he’s a practicing Theodist who worships with the pre-Christian pagan faith of Theodism.

Fortunately, it seems that the Queens Republicans are going to make the correct decision and go with their original choice. An article published just a few hours ago, entitled “GOP has faith in Halloran,” says that, “Queens Republicans said they did not believe City Council hopeful Dan Halloran’s adherence to a pagan religion would have any affect on the Auburndale attorney’s bid to fend off Democrat Kevin Kim in the race to replace Councilman Tony Avella (D-Bayside).”

Score one for freedom conscience and for liberty-loving Republicans. Halloran actually has a good chance of defeating Democrat Kevin Kim, and if he does so he’ll be one of only two or three Republicans serving in elected positions in New York City government.

But back to the trend of Republican establishment leaders selecting current or former Democrats over good liberty-loving Republicans.

It’s happened twice to the most prominent libertarian Republican family, the Pauls: once to RLC Advisory Board member Dr. Ron Paul and once (now) to his son Dr. Rand Paul.

In 1995, the Republican Party, which had gained a majority in the House for the first time in four decades, offered U.S. Rep. Greg Laughlin (D-TX) a seat on the Ways and Means committee if he joined the Republican Party.

In the subsequent congressional election in 1996, Laughlin was endorsed by the Republican establishment, including then-Governor George W. Bush, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and other members of the party from outside the district and the state. Despite this, Republicans in Laughlin’s district still saw him as too moderate, and he faced a primary challenge from former Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul and his 1994 opponent.

Laughlin won the initial primary election with 42 percent of the vote, but by failing to win a majority he was required to face the second-place Paul in a run-off election. Paul defeated Laughlin by a 56-44 percent margin in the runoff election and went on to win the congressional seat.

In an important race for liberty-lovers across the country, Dr. Rand Paul is running to become the junior Senator from Kentucky. Despite having grassroots support and having raised the necessary cash, he has hit a wall called the Republican Establishment — led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and fueled by National Republican Senator Committee Chair Senator John Cornyn (R-TX).

Cornyn and McConnell have selected a former Democrat, Trey Grayson, to run for the open Kentucky Senate seat as a Republican. They’ve tried to clear the way for Grayson, but thus far have been unsuccessful in doing so. Grayson is another former Democrat and supported Bill Clinton’s campaign in 1992.

Why does the Republican establishment continually insist on backing poor quality candidates who lack principled commitment to the Republican Platform?  Shouldn’t these candidate choices be left to Republican Party voters to decide?

These types of ex-Democrat candidates rarely turn out successful for the Republican Party, as in the case of Laughlin, who lost to Ron Paul in 1996 and has been a lobbyist in DC ever since.

UPDATE: Apparently the potential Halloran replacement nominee (a Democrat-turned-Republican) is now supporting the Democrat candidate for the Queens-area City Council seat — an election taking place in November.

UPDATE #2: Doug Guetzloe, a longtime Republican Party activist and RLC member in Florida, says the following: “Last night the Orange County (Florida)  Republican Executive Committee met.  The Chair is Lew Oliver, the individual who lodged the grievances against both Nick Egoroff and me for ‘violating our oath’.  Last evening Oliver nominated Sarah Rumpf for REC membership. Ms. Rumpf was the campaign manager for Democrat state attorney Lawson L. Lamar last year against our GOP nominee Mercedes Leon. Ms. Rumpf also is supporting Democrat candidate for Orange County Mayor, Bill Segal. Mr. Oliver defended Ms. Rumpf and called out of order a motion from one our Liberty Coalition member David Mack to remove her from the ballot.  Mr. Oliver also threatened Mr. Mack with arrest. Ms. Rumpf was elected to the Republican Executive Committee. Incredible.”