Rand Paul’s Stance on Israel a Lesson for the Liberty Movement to Follow
By Aaron - June 5, 2010 at 11:52 PM
Filed under Foreign Policy , Issues , Kentucky , Opinion , Property rights , Special Interest , States
Filed under Foreign Policy , Issues , Kentucky , Opinion , Property rights , Special Interest , States
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.
On June 6th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Rand: “I would never vote to condemn Israel for defending herself.”
That’s never been an issue. What has been an issue is whether certain Israeli acts are defensive or offensive. Terminating or retaliating against home-made Hamas rockets could have been done easily and quickly: just launch three rockets back from the Gaza location where one has been launched. Israel has been faulted for grossly disproportionate retaliation, not defensive acts.
Rand: “Israeli military actions are completely up to the leaders and military of Israel, and Israel alone.”
Except they’re not, because the U.S. has been paying for the expansion of Israeli military weapons (even atomic bombs) for decades. How they’re used is certainly relevant to whether that “defensive” aid will continue and multiple U.S. administrations have never been reluctant to express – if not impose – their opinions on how those resources will be used.
While it is a truism that Israel is a sovereign state, that fact shouldn’t preclude us (or the U.S. government) from crticizing any improper military action taken by any government, whether we subsidize them or not.
It has never been the case that Americans simply ignore aggressive and oppressive acts by other governments and Israel should not be exempt simply because it is a sovereign state. If “anything goes”, then we have lost any moral compass regarding the use of force by governments.
On June 6th, 2010 at 11:11 am
As a Libertarian I dont care what Israel does or doesnt do to protect itself. Just dont ask me to support or condemn it. Anyone who wants to donate or support Israel can do it with their own time and money. I shouldnt be forced via the government to support or condemn another country or the decisions they make.
Also its kinda hard to implement the two state solution when Israel refuses to halt settlements on the west bank. Just thought Id point that out to you….
On June 6th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Comparison Between Israel and the U.S.
Alleged illegal Jewish immigrants flood Palestine in the late 1930′s.
Alleged illegal Mexican immigrants presently flood the United States.
The Jewish immigrants violently rebelled and formed a state.
The Mexican immigrants via La Raza talk of rebellion.
If Americans flee California does California cease to be part of the U.S. if Mexican immigrants rebel and overthrow the government of California?
If California ceases to be part of the U.S. and Americans who are native Californians put up pockets of resistance after a failed U.S. military campaign to liberate California would you condemn them in the same manner you condemn Hamas?
The modern historical conversation of Israel ought not begin in the 1940′s. It should begin in 1917 or even including the events leading up to the Balfour Declaration.
On June 6th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Excellent piece Aaron. Very well-balanced between the Hawk Libertarian position (Dondero-ian/Thiesian) and the Dove/Pacifist stance (as exemplified by Westmiller.)
But then again, Rand’s position is well-balanced, as well, unlike his Dad’s.
Very well-researched too.
On June 6th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
tjefferson – kinda hard to have a two state sollution when one state (Arabs) insist on killing everyone in the other state (Jews)
Westmiller – Home made rockets? Even if that were true, they kill people – how about I just lob some home made rockets at your house – might change your mind. If your daughter was killed by one – what is your response. Everyone seems to forget that to have peace in the middle east is easy – just let Israel and Jews live without the fear of attack.
On June 6th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Here are just a few of the Libertarians who disagree with Aaron and support Palestinian private property rights, including the right of return:
In “War Guilt in the Middle East” Murray Rothbard details Israel’s “aggression against Middle East Arabs,” confiscatory policies and its “refusal to let these refugees return and reclaim the property taken from them.” http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_3/3_3_4.pdf
Attorney Stephen P. Halbrook in “The Alienation of a Homeland: How Palestine Became Israel” writes: “Palestinian Arabs have the rights to return to their homes and estates taken over by Israelis, to receive just compensation for loss of life and property, and to exercise national self-determination.” http://mises.org/journals/jls/5_4/5_4_2.pdf
In “Property Rights and the ‘Right of Return’” professor [[Richard Ebeling]] writes: “If a settlement is reached between the Israelis and the Palestinians, justice would suggest that all legitimate property should be returned to its rightful owners and that residence by those owners on their property should be once again permitted.” http://www.fff.org/comment/com0305o.asp
On June 7th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
The 750,000 Jewish refugees (and their descendants) expelled from Arab nations after Israel’s founding are every bit as entitled to compensation as are the Arab former residents (and their descendants) of what is now Israel. Similarly, Arab residents of the territory comprising the British Mandate are entitled to a state with full self-determination – and 83% of that land is currently Arab. They simply lack self-determination because a cheiftain from elsewhere in the Arabian Peninsula was installed as ruler there (the “Transjordan”) by the British as recompense for their support in a meddlesome attempt to thwart the ascendency of the House of Saud as that family consolidated control over what is now Saudi Arabia. Remove the Hashemite family from Jordan and self-determination for the Arab residents of the onetime Mandatory territory will be achieved. That’s the two state solution that works.
On June 7th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
re: Westmiller
How are you define a commensurate response to rocket attacks? I would think the only reasonable response is one that prevents them from continuing. When a group wields unprovoked violence that is NOT in self-defense they loose the moral high ground. If there was EVER evidence or a demonstration that a Palestinian state would be peaceful it would have happened already.
re:Tjefferson
On some level I agree with your sentiment and the more we stay out of everyone else’s business, especially when it comes to funding…but on the other hand, if the government of one nation was committing genocide, attacking neighboring countries, etc. would you really want the US to go on with trade and business as usual and have NO standards of morality? The US waited to get involved in WWII until we were directly attacked but perhaps lives could have been saved if we would have gotten involved sooner instead of sticking our own heads in the sand. It can be in our own interest to support democracy around the world.
Also, the violence against Jews in Israel long predates any settlements in the West bank and is hardly an excuse for it. Why is it unreasonable to establish an Arab state in the West Bank and expect that the citizens and authorities there would protect the rights of Jews living there as they would any other citizens? Why are the human rights abuses against Muslim and Christian Palestinians, as well as the murderous attitude towards Jews in the West Bank considered acceptable for a people who claim that they deserve nationhood?
re: common sense’s posting
A BIG distinction is that that land that Jews migrated to and settled prior to the Balfour declaration was not a Palestinian or Arab state and hadn’t ever been historically. Most of the Jewish homes and structures were newly built or purchased, not co-opted from existing residents If the Arabs who lived in those territories were capable of living peaceably with their new neighbors and upheld religious tolerance there would never even have been a need for a Jewish state to be formed.
re: Carol Moore
For those who were forcibly evicted from their homes in Palestine, I don’t think anyone argues that they should not be offered the right of return or financially compensated. However, this is a minority of the current Palestinians, even among those who were original inhabitants. The numbers have been greatly inflated with an insane birthrate and the influx of antagonists of Israel over the years. There is very little that is grass-roots about the Palestinian side of this conflict.
On June 7th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Some of the comments above betray a lack of knowledge about the history of the Middle East. To understand the present conditions, it is necessary to go back a good deal further than 1917. A study of the Ottoman Empire, and it’s policy of relocating “troublesome” people–and it’s policy of selling land at its fringes–would be a start.
Has there ever been a Palestine in the sense that there has been a State of California? No.
Should there be a Palestinian state? Yes. If the people there can make one and keep it. Much of the misery in the Gaza and in the West Bank has been caused by the very people who claimed to want a state took a good deal of aid money to buy weapons, and to buy the good life in Europe (think Yassir Arafat’s millions in France), but did not use it to create the infrastructure that would lead to a state. That’s the problem with foreign aid in general–it makes for dependency, and dependency leads to slavery. It’s a tragedy that has unfolded over and over again.
Should the Jews leave Israel and go back home (Poland and Germany a la Thomas)? And would that benefit the people of Gaza?
No and No.
This idea that there was at sometime in either the near or distant past an ideal state of affairs where people were where they “belong” is a myth. Ever since Homo sap. sap. displaced Homo sap. neanderthalis (and most certainly before) populations–whether human or animal–have always moved about, displacing other populations.
How far back should we go? A little ways back, and those Jews in Israel were in Germany, Poland, Russia–oh, and Egypt, Yemen, Morocco, Libya, and Ethiopia among others. (They were expelled from the latter four; Those Jewish populations, barely clinging to civilization and dominated through dhimmitude had probably never heard of the modern state of Israel). So should the Jews of Israel go back to those places?
Hey, Europeans in America are also from somewhere else. Should they go back there? But if “anglos” leave New Mexico to cede it back to Mexico that solves nothing. Because go one turn prior, and Mexico was was owned by Spain. So should it then be ceded back to Spain? But before that it belonged to the Aztecs? So should we kick the Spanish out of New Mexico and send them back to Spain? And what about the Mestizos? Do they go or stay? Or are we going to start calculating quarters ad eighths of bloodlines?
Back to the Jews in Israel. There are some populations of Jews who have lived in Israel since time immemorial. Their bloodlines and residence go back to pre-Davidic Canaan. Should we send them back to Iraq (where Ur was located)? And the Arabs came in from the East and the Sinai via the Muslim Conquest? Should we displace them in order to give it back to the Canaanites? If we can find them? And the Canaanites never held the coast, we’re going to have to find the descendents of the ancient Phoenicians to resettle the coast.
And then what about the Palestinians? They do not descend from the Bedouins or Jews who lived in the land if Israel in ancient times–so we’d need to send them back to the Turkish provinces from which their ancestors were relocated only a few hundreds of years ago. And resettle the Jews on that land. But–hey, we just took them out to send them back to Poland and Germany.
And of course, wherever populations go, they meet and marry–there’s no such thing as a “pure” anything. So once again, what about those of “mixed” descent? Are we going to calculate gene frequencies?
European Askenazi Jews show a disturbingly large frequency of genes that can be traced back to ancient Israel, and further, back to Mesopotamia. (My husband and a colleague from Iran, who thinks of himself as purely Persian, look more like twins than my husband and his actual twin do). And those same genes show up in other populations in the middle east. So if we believe in genetic determinism, then the Jews have as much right as any other middle easterner to be there.
And what about Ireland? The Celts originally came from the environs of modern day Turkey. They dispaced a population that had been there before–if we could figure out where they went, we could restore the land.
And Russia? Oy. Who gets it? The Danes? The Cossacks? And where does everybody else go?
The whole problem is the idea that some ubiquitous “we” can determine were whole populations of people belong. Talk about absolute tyranny.
Maybe we should go back 4 million years, to Lucy in the Afar Triangle. Abandon all other continents. We all came from there. Originally.
And then we have to consider Egypt. Arab peoples there took it from the ruling descendents of Alexander the Great’s three Generals. And they took it from the Egyptians–many of whom show genetic heritage back to central Asia via the Aryan invasion of India that swept across the middle east at the time of the Middle Kingdom.
On June 7th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
. . . and etc.
On June 7th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Westmiller – Disproportionate response? What would you call the US response to 9/11? Well, you probably agree with me on that one. But why expect Israel to do less than our country does?
Following the logic of the Arab world and Ms. Thomas, most Americans should go back to Europe and/or Asia and let the Native Americans have their land back.
It should be a precondition to any negotiations that all Arab/Palestinian/Muslim entities recognize Israel’s right to exist. You can’t negotiate with someone whose stated objective is your destruction. Isn’t that obvious?
On June 7th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Libertarians don’t believe in the UN. Libertarians don’t believe that the UN had a right to “partition” Palestine and divide it up against the native population’s will in the first place.
Whoever wrote this article is not a true libertarian and puts way too much stock in international global government entities like the UN.
Same ol’ “wipe Israel off the map” whining and b.s. It appears to me that Israel has been on the offense just as much as it is been on the “defense”… if not more. I think the recent example of them killing 9 people, including an American, in INTERNATIONAL waters serves as a good example.
On June 7th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Several posters:
“… Home made rockets? Even if that were true, they kill people …”
Qassam rockets are home-made, not mass-produced or imported (though black powder has been smuggled under the Gaza border with Egypt).
According to Israel, those rockets don’t kill people. Although the IDF estimates between 1,000 and 3,000 rockets fired from Gaza, they all land in the desert, well short of Sderot, and only one Israeli soldier on a desert tank mission has been injured in two years. The rockets are always described as being “aimed at Israeli cities”, but they don’t have the range to hit anything but Sderot, where only a handfull have caused property damage.
I DO NOT approve of the rockets and Israel has every right to retaliate in the areas of Northeast Gaza where radical youth pretend they’re fighting a war. Israel DID chose to make it a war, killing over 1,000 Gazans … claiming it was retaliation for the rocket launches that killed no one. I call that disproportionate.
On June 8th, 2010 at 3:44 am
How much of their land did the PLO and Mahmud Abbas obtain by observing peace and not “launching rocket” on Israel?Did that stop the colonisation process in the occupied territories?
Does indeed a behaviour different from that of Hamas pay? The will for a real peace in the region can come from the US( AIPAC to be precise) of from nowhere.
On June 9th, 2010 at 9:58 am
The PLO and Mahmud Abbas have never pursued peace or a non-violent solution. The destruction of Israel remains in their charters and they have never preached anything short of conquering ALL of Israel to their constituents. Radical Islam is not interested in compromise.
Funny how Jewish “colonization” in a country smaller that New Jersey in a place with no prior organized government and a power vacuum is such a huge threat to humanity and the world…but NO ONE complains about the Islamization of Pakistan, Kashmir, SE Asian states, North Africa, the former Soviet Republics, and the increased radicalization and intolerance in existing Muslim countries …with many people being truly massacred over the decades. Wake up Libertarians! This is not about caring about Israel (though obviously many Americans do). This is about an intolerant and dangerous force that is actively conquering parts of the world and will eventually be strong enough to pose a direct threat to the sovereignty of the US. Were the first WTC attack and then 9/11 not enough of a clue? We need to help stave it off out of self interest.
On June 13th, 2010 at 2:33 am
Westmiller -
Pardon my French, but you don’t have a clue. Qassam does kill people. Here is a partial list:
http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=883997&ct=3887857
The Palestinians don’t only shoot Qassams but also Iranian made Grad rockets, which are not home made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21_Grad#Iran
Qassam and Grad also cause post-trauma. There are several hundred thousands of Israeli civilians who suffer from some level of post trauma caused by that.
The latest news are that they probably posses a small number of Fajr 3 rockets smugled through the tunneles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fajr-3
Once the blockade is broken they will be able to have more advanced missiles by the courtesy of the great democracy of Iran.
On June 23rd, 2010 at 2:16 pm
@dugmanegdit, funny, more people die from peanut allergies in Israel than rockets.
On June 23rd, 2010 at 2:31 pm
If Muslims did 9/11, why were five Israeli nationals filming it before the first plane hit? When interviewed on an Israeli talk show, they said they were in NYC to “document” the event…how did they know the event was going to happen to have bought their plane tickets in advance and known the EXACT TIME, DATE AND DIRECTION OF WHERE TO FOCUS THE CAMERA in anticipation of the plane hitting the WTC complex??????
If it was Muslims who knew and did it, why weren’t they filming it?
Has Islam gained from 9/11? Have they gained from occupation of two Muslim nations and two more threatened and one being bombarded with pilotless drones killing hundreds of innocent civilians a month?
You guys are being hoodwinked.
Ever heard of Noahide Law? It’s coming to our shores because you all are ignorant and believe the Zionist press.
Sanhedrin was reestablished as well as the Noahide Council in Israel. They are rolling it out worldwide folks…and they’ve got you chasing your tail thinking the Muslims are doing all this.
Noahide Law will be the new world religion folks if you let it happen.
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/anatomy_of_a_one_world_religion_noahide_laws.htm
And fine, still consider Sharia law a threat and ask yourself why you haven’t heard a word about Noahide Law…just ask yourself why.
Then research and find out what the punishment is for celebrating Christmas or Easter under Noahide Law.
Fools. You’ve been had.
On June 23rd, 2010 at 7:09 pm
And what’s wrong with the Noahide law exactly?
On May 20th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
One caveat: A two-state solution is only viable and should only be on the table if and when the governing bodies of the Palestinian state renounce the intention to destroy Israel and kill all of the Jews in the world, and when they recognize Israel. Israel cannot and should not be expected to negotiate with governments and organizations that deny her right to exist.
On May 20th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
One caveat: A two-state solution is only viable and should only be on the table if and when the governing bodies of the Palestinian state renounce the intention to destroy Israel and kill all of the Jews in the world, and when they recognize Israel. Israel cannot and should not be expected to negotiate with governments and organizations that deny her right to exist.
On June 5th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
I’m not so sure I totally agree with Rand Paul on one. With that being said and with all the ideas floating around, has anyone considered the idea of Cantonization? The Swiss have implemented this with great success. Give each community relative autonomy within its region of the new Israel-Palestine having a constitution which allows for liberty and justice for all. Maybe under such a system, the country could be a role model for others in the Middle East to follow!
On August 22nd, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Hundreds of thousands of Jewish and Arab extremists would need to be eliminated in that region of the world for there to be peace. The extremists at each other’s throats both have legitimate grievances.