Libertarian Israel Carol Moore

8/12/2019 Libertarian Israel Carol Moore

1/21

Return to CarolMoore.Net/LibertarianParty

AS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 2004LIBERTYFORALL.NETMinor corrections from original have been made; significant additions notated ingreen.

-Sound off Soapbox-Is Applying Libertarian Principles to Israel

Anti-Semitic?

Or -- Challenging Libertarians to Save America from MiddleEast Wars

by Carol MooreExcessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive

dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see

danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even

second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who

may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become

suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the

applause and confidence of the people to surrender their

interests.George Washingtons 1796 Farewell Address

Since the United States invasion of Iraq in

March, 2003 there seem to be mountingaccusations of anti-Semitism by self-described libertarians, Jewish

and gentile, towards libertarians throughout the movement who have

criticized the state of Israel or its partisans. Included for particular

criticism are those who speak up for the property and human rights

of the Palestinians.

These accusations are made despite critiques made on libertarian

grounds of opposition to force and fraud and support for individual

life, liberty and property. They are made even if the person is an

infrequent critic. And they are made with the clear intimation that

repeat offenders should be shunned by the libertarian movement

and all polite society. The implication is that applying libertarian

principles to Israel is anti-Semitic, an implication that a small

minority of vocal libertarians, and a great majority of less vocal ones,

deny.

Bigotry is defined as smears and abuse against any group of
http://www.carolmoore.net/libertarianpartyhttp://www.libertyforall.net/2004/feb22/carol-moore.htmlhttp://www.carolmoore.net/libertarianpartyhttp://www.libertyforall.net/2004/feb22/carol-moore.htmlhttp://www.libertyforall.net/2004/feb22/carol-moore.html


2/21

people, including because of the characteristics, failings or

misdeeds of a minority of them. Of course, liberal politicians and

media have accused libertarians of being government haters

because of our disdain for those who profit off state force and fraud.

And perhaps some Israel supporters fear libertarians someday will

focus their disdain on the state of Israel, becoming "Israel haters."

However, any such fear would not justify persistent preemptive

strikes that harm the whole libertarian movement.

In this article I first list relevant libertarian principles, ones which are

hardly inherently bigoted or anti-Semitic. I follow with a short

overview of general libertarian criticisms of Israel. I continue with a

brief history of the "Israel" issue in the libertarian movement, as well

as a review of how the issue has come to the fore since the March

2003 United States attack on Iraq. I then analyze the late summer

2003 Ilana Mercer attacks on libertarians in WorldNetDaily.com andfollow with a brief review of such attacks on rank and file

libertarians. Finally I discuss what libertarians should do about

these unjust attacks and challenge them to consider making

United States military withdrawal from the Middle East a high

movement priority.

Libertarian Principles

This listing of relevant libertarian principles seems innocuous

enough. And it should be noted they apply equally to all peoples,

including Arab Palestinians and Jewish Zionists.

1) Individualism not collectivismLibertarians believe only

individuals have rights. We do not recognize the right of religious,

ethnic, racial or ideological groups, governments or groups of

governments to use either private or state violence to enforce some

collectivist vision on the life, liberty or property of others. We do not

accept collectivist rationales like Gods will, racial, ethnic or

religious superiority, collective historical rights, manifest destiny,

colonial prerogative, United Nations sanction or benevolent world

hegemony. And we do not defend the sinister machinations of

nation states, especially when their claims of self-defense are

plainly bogus.

2) Property rights should be inviolateAs the Libertarian Partys

platform correctly states, libertarians oppose all government

interference with private property, such as confiscation,

nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of


3/21

robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation. Property rights are

created when individuals or voluntary associations either trade for

land or homestead unused orvoluntarilyabandoned land (as

opposed to land whose owners have been driven off in recent times

by war, massacres or empty promises). Libertarians support

everyone's right of return to unjustly confiscated land. And they

have little sympathy for individuals or governments who use force

and fraud to confiscate property and then claim the right to defend

their stolen loot. (It should be noted this last point is also the

position of the international community, as expressed in Article 13 of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and as applied over the

years to the former Yugoslav republics, Guatemala, South Africa,

Kuwait and dispossessed European Jews.)

3) Might does not make rightLibertarians oppose the notion that

a group of people (criminal or terrorist gang, liberation army orgovernment) which has the military ability to kill people and drive

them off their land, has the moral right to do so. While individuals

have the right to defend their justly acquired land and the nation to

which it belongs, governments do not have the right to confiscate

private property of others as spoils of war or for alleged self-

defense.

4) Military Non-interventionism and No Entangling Alliances

The United States government should pursue good relations and

free trade with all nations and military alliances with none, refusing

to use American lives and wealth for the benefit of foreign allies. Itshould not attack and occupy foreign nations on bogus evidence of

imminent attack on America. It should not succumb to political or

military black mail, including nuclear, or bullying from any alleged

ally.

5) Political self-determination and secessionLibertarians believe

everyone, no matter their religion, ethnicity, ideology, etc., has the

right to secede from any political union or colonial or occupied

territory on their justly acquired land and to self-govern themselves

on it.

6) Support for Due Process and Opposition to Collective

PunishmentLibertarians support the due process provisions of

criminal law, as well as the consistent and impartial enforcement of

laws that protect individual rights. We support restitution for the

victim at the expense of the criminal or wrongdoer, even if that

wrongdoer is a government. There may be some debate as to


4/21

whether innocent taxpayers should be forced collectively to pay

restitution for the crimes of their own governments, with many

preferring to first sell off government assets. But libertarians agree

that people who bear no responsibility for a crime, be it done by

governments of other nations, or by members of a family without the

consent of the family, should not be denied due process or

collectively punished.

7) Freedom of SpeechLibertarians defend the rights of individuals

to unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press and to

dissent from government itself. This means the right to criticize any

state anywhere in the world; the right to criticize any special interest

or foreign interest influencing government policy - or the libertarian

movement; and the right to focus on any issue of interest to the

individual, be it, for example, decriminalizing paid sadomasochism,

high quality heroin or weapon silencers,withoutautomatically beingaccused of intending to commit crimes. Similarly libertarians defend

one's right to focus on supporting the rights to property and self-

determination of any of the hundreds of separatist groups on the

planet, including those in the United States,withoutautomatically

being accused of supporting bigotry or terrorism.

8) The Right to Rebel Against OppressorsLibertarians abhor

state or rebel violence against innocent civilians, defining that as

terrorism. However, they defend the right of individuals and groups

to violently rebel against the soldiers and police who enforce the

laws of repressive governments, including those of occupyingforeign powers. (And let me say here, as I always do, that I wish

libertarians would emphasize that such violence should be a last

resort, only when all other methods of nonviolent protest, civil

disobedience and noncooperation had been rendered impossible,

and only in self-defense.) They also support the rights of Americans

to supply aid to those rebels. While libertarians may support the

right of Americans to also support foreign governments, they do so

only to the extent that those governments are not depriving

individuals of life, liberty and property. Can anyone who morally or

materially supports the oppressive efforts of a foreign government

be called a libertarian?

After the September 11 attacks some pro-interventionist libertarians,

including strong supporters of Israel, declared everything has

changed! -- something they had not declared when extremists

botched what they intended to be a similarly devastating terrorist

attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. What had changed? It


5/21

was that neoconservative imperialists now surrounded the United

States president, George Bush. They were eager and able to

pursue American world dominance with a ruthlessness never before

seen, using the specter of Islamofacists who want to take our

freedom" as their bogey man. And far too many self-styled

libertarians fell for it. But more about that later.

Libertarian Criticisms of Israel

Anyone who has bypassed official Israeli state propaganda and read

a history of Israel from libertarian or Jewish critics, from neutral

academic sources or even from Palestinian refugee and survivor

web sites, quickly understands why just mentioning these principles

and Israel in the same article can infuriate staunch Israel supporters.

Libertarians who believe even half of Palestinians tales of

victimization since 1948 through massacres, forced relocation (a.k.a.ethnic cleansing) and systematic deprivations of human rights may

become highly critical of Israel and even support some forms of

Palestinian resistance. While most would respect Palestinians'

decision to settle for less than a truly just settlement, not all will

respect libertarians who claim an unjust settlement is a just one.

Other libertarians are disturbed by Israel's history of drawing the

United States into its many wars. The United States threatened use

of nuclear weapons to prevent Soviet intervention in most of them.

Israel has threatened to use its own nuclear weapons to secure

U.S. support. And its regional nuclear bullying to help achieve itsexpansionist territorial aims. Many libertarians remain outraged by

the ongoing cover-up of the 1967U.S.S. Liberty incident, which

killed 34 Americans and injured 172. Survivors swear attacking

Israelis knew throughout the 90 minute incident that they were

bombing and strafing an American ship and its lifeboats. The U.S.

and Israeli governments claim it was merely a case of mistaken

identity.

Obviously, libertarians oppose American taxpayers' funding of all

this, to the tune of $379 billion since 1973. The total includes not

just $240 billion in aid to Israel, but $117 billion to Egypt and $22

billion to Jordan in return for their signing peace treaties with Israel,

according to Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in

Washington.Christian Science Monitorreported in December 2002

that he arrived at these numbers by adjusting the official aid to 2001

dollars in purchasing power.
http://www.ussliberty.org/http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.htmlhttp://www.ussliberty.org/http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html


6/21

Stauffer also counted up a number of other related costs, including

the increased price of oil due to the instability the U.S. alliance with

Israel creates, and reached a total figure of Israels cost to

Americans of about $1.6 trillion $5,700 per American. Looking at

just one year of aid,one critical economist wrote: "Take the Jewish

population of Israel (5.24m) -- the primary beneficiaries of the aid,

and one obtains a $540 per capita benefit just for 2001 -- four times

as much as the touted Tax Cut of 2001 to Americans!" In 2003

Congress raised yearly aid to Israel from more than $3 billion to

more than $4 billion, and that's what is on the books. See other

statistics atWRMEA.comandUS-ISRAEL.org.

Finally, libertarians familiar with the American Israel Public Affairs

Committee (AIPAC) and its vast network of wealthy (and often

stealthy) political action committees cannot be comfortable with its

ability to keep the United States firmly on Israel's side, right orwrong. AIPAC and its allies can defeat any congressional

candidate, or harm any presidential candidate, who does not support

its agenda. Fortune Magazine's last "Power 25" listing (2001) of the

most powerful lobbies lists AIPAC as number four, after the NRA,

AARP and National Federation of Independent Business. The

unrelentingly pro-Israel propaganda in the media reinforces the

Israel Lobby's power.

A Short History of Israel Debates in the Libertarian Movement

When libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard -- Mr. Libertarian -- splitfrom Ayn Rand in the 1950s, the issue of Israel probably was not at

the top of the differences between the two Jewish intellectuals, but

eventually it would have been. Rand was a staunch Israel

supporter, though probably not as rabid as her "Objectivist" followers

today. Rothbard was an outspoken critic of Israel, authoring pieces

like War Guilt in the Middle East (1969) where he argued that there

are some wars that can be blamed more on one state than another

and that the Israelis were to blame for most of the Israeli-Arab wars.

In Pat Buchanan and the Menace of Anti-Anti-Semitism (1990)

Rothbard railed against the cruel despotism of Organized Anti-Anti-

Semitism, stating: Wielding the fearsome brand of Anti-Semite as

a powerful weapon, the professional Anti-Anti-Semite is able, in this

day and age, to wound and destroy anyone he disagrees with by

implanting this label indelibly in the public mind. How can one argue

against this claim, always made with hysteria and insufferable self-

righteousness? To reply I am not an anti-Semite is as feeble and
http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij1116.htmlhttp://www.wrmea.com/us_aid_to_israel/http://www.wrmea.com/us_aid_to_israel/http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.htmlhttp://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.htmlhttp://www.fortune.com/fortune/power25/0,15233,,00.htmlhttp://www.mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_3/3_3_4.pdfhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch6.htmlhttp://www.counterpunch.org/rooij1116.htmlhttp://www.wrmea.com/us_aid_to_israel/http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.htmlhttp://www.fortune.com/fortune/power25/0,15233,,00.htmlhttp://www.mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_3/3_3_4.pdfhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch6.html


7/21

unconvincing as Richard Nixon's famous declaration that I am not a

crook."

The libertarian movement today remains divided on the issue, with a

small but dedicated pro-Israel, and largely objectivist camp, a larger

but less vocal Israel-critical camp in the style of Rothbard, and a

great middle ground skeptical of Israel but reluctant to express

criticism. Part of the reason Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Eric Garris

and Justin Raimondo left Libertarian Party activism after the 1989

Libertarian Party national convention in Philadelphia was frustration

with party leader and members' disinterest in actively promoting a

non-interventionist foreign policy agenda. (See Lew Rockwell's

"Rothbard Vindicated." Note that I myself voted against the

Rothbard faction national committee chair candidate that year

because of "lifestyle" issues which obscured the foreign policy

ones.) Over the years the issue of support for Israel has cropped upduring Israels various wars, or when small factions attempted to

promote a pro-Israel platform change or resolution at the national

level -- or when someone loudly denying the Nazi Holocaust

against Jews declared themselves a libertarian, as David Duke, for

example, did in the 1990s.

There are a few hard core anti-Semites who identify themselves as

libertarian. However, theircollectivistnotions that all Jews are part

of vast Jewish conspiracies reaching deep into every facet of society

only illustrates that they are not libertarians. Whenever I run into

these individuals I protest their bigotry. However, those of us whocriticize the real machinations of Israel and its most dedicated

supporters in influencing United States foreign policy and in stifling

dissent against it shouldnotbe confused with obviously paranoid

and anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists.

In mid-2001 the issue of Israel raised its head again when rumors

circulated that Jewish Defense League (JDL) leader Irv Rubin was

considering running as a libertarian congressional or gubernatorial

candidate in California. Some libertarians raised a row for two

reasons. First, while Rubin did favor ending aid to Israel, he did so

because he believed the strings attached to the aid prevented Israel

from driving millions more Arabs out of Israel, the West Bank and

Gaza and confiscating their property. Second, Antiwar.com's Eric

Garris and Justin Raimondo both detailed the various acts of alleged

and actual bombings and terrorism by Jewish Defense League

members against Soviet government targets and Arab civilians.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/rothbard.htmlhttp://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/rothbard.html


8/21

Such acts include not only Boruch Goldsteins 1994 gunning down of

29 Arab worshipers in Israel but very possibly the 1985 bombing

murder of Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee Director

Alex Odeh at his office in Southern California. The FBI investigated

JDL members for the murder, including Rubin who had publicly

claimed Odeh got what he deserved. (Amazingly, some Jewish

Californian libertarians currently support JDL attempts to get a

memorial statue of Odeh, which already has been vandalized,

removed fromtheSanta Ana Central Library.) See details on my

Jewish Defense League page, part of my online book The Return of

Street Fighting Man.

Discussion of Irv Rubin and Middle East conflicts on a libertarian list-

serve prompted me to write, and other libertarians to propose, a

resolution at the August 2001 Libertarian National Committee (LNC)

meeting relevant to what seemed to be the mounting threat ofMiddle East war. (A few weeks later the September 11th attacks

proved how prescient we were!) It stated that the party should re-

iterate its position against aid to all Middle East nations and for

bringing home all U.S. troops from the Middle East. (This and

resolutions mentioned below are available at theLibertarians for

Peaceweb site.)

During LNC debate one dominant member, ironically named Elias

Israel, argued that those who supported the resolution were "anti-

Jewish." Another member, Ben Scherrey, said he disagreed with the

party's non-interventionist platform and that the U.S. had aresponsibility to support Israel which he claimed would be

"destroyed in three weeks" without the aid. This blatant intimidation

helped kill the resolution and angered many libertarians who later

heard about it.

Additionally, those who questioned the wisdom of an Irv Rubin

candidacy and supported the resolution were denounced by some

as anti-Semites for several months at least until soon after the

September 11th attacks, when Rubin and a friend were arrested on

charges of terrorism. They were indicted for planning to bomb two

Southern California targets: a mosque and Arab-American

Congressman Darrell Issas office. Few libertarians came to Rubins

defense and he committed suicide 10 months later in prison, just

before the prosecutors were about to reveal in court their audio tape

and witness evidence. His alleged co-conspirator pled guilty soon

after.
http://www.carolmoore.net/sfm/jdl.htmlhttp://www.carolmoore.net/sfm/jdl.htmlhttp://www.carolmoore.net/sfm/jdl.htmlhttp://www.libertarians4peace.net/http://www.libertarians4peace.net/http://www.libertarians4peace.net/http://www.carolmoore.net/sfm/jdl.htmlhttp://www.carolmoore.net/sfm/jdl.htmlhttp://www.libertarians4peace.net/http://www.libertarians4peace.net/


9/21

Some pro-Israel libertarians still maintain Irv Rubin was framed and

murdered and consider him to be a libertarian hero. A few months

after his death one of them started the JewishLibertarians yahoo

group which prominently displays Rubins photo on its home page.

One of its members, Bruce Cohen, is running in 2004 for congress

as a libertarian in California, making a top priority a "strong military."

Hiscampaign web page's main menuhas a link to his "Support

Israel" page which states: "it's in America's best interest to support

the country of Israel," and "America should privatize foreign aid," but

"we should start with countries that deserve it least." (Note that

Cohen did say he was going to update the page and clarify points

after relevant criticisms.)

Hopefully these libertarians do not join theJDL's 2002 call for the

defeat of Representative Ron Paul and othersbecause he voted

"no" against the 2002 "support for Israel" resolution. If the JDL hadread Paul's November 2002 "Unintended Consequences" article

criticizing Israel on Antiwar.com -- plus other of his articles archived

at that page -- they really would have singled him out.

In the fall of 2001 LNC member Elias Israel announced his

candidacy for Chair. Labeling himself a "hawk," Israel pushed

through a controversial October 2001 LNC resolution effectively

supporting U.S. troops rooting out and destroying terrorists in other

nations, something that goes against the platform's strong

preference for first pursuing diplomatic options. Concerned

libertarians responded by starting theLibertarians for Peacegroup.

Just one of its objectives was opposition to Elias Israels candidacy,

as well as those of three other LNC candidates overly supportive of

the state of Israel. We circulated questionable pro-intervention

quotes from them, and all were defeated or ended their

candidacies.

Libertarians Vigorously Opposed the Iraq War

During 2002 and 2003 libertarians lead attacks on the

neoconservative agenda of making the United States a dominantand aggressive world power, starting with a pre-emptive attack on

Iraq, obviously to be followed by attacks on other Middle East

nations. The three most frequently visited libertarian online sites,

Antiwar.com,LewRockwell.comandFFF.Org(Future of Freedom

Foundation), which collectively receive hundreds of thousands of

hits a week, pummeled the neoconservatives and the Bush

administration. They linked to articles and editorials accusing them
http://getbruce.com/http://getbruce.com/http://www.jdl.org/action/armchair/congress_israel.shtmlhttp://www.jdl.org/action/armchair/congress_israel.shtmlhttp://www.jdl.org/action/armchair/congress_israel.shtmlhttp://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul55.htmlhttp://www.libertarians4peace.net/http://www.antiwar.com/http://www.antiwar.com/http://www.lewrockwell.com/http://www.fff.org/http://getbruce.com/http://www.jdl.org/action/armchair/congress_israel.shtmlhttp://www.jdl.org/action/armchair/congress_israel.shtmlhttp://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul55.htmlhttp://www.libertarians4peace.net/http://www.antiwar.com/http://www.lewrockwell.com/http://www.fff.org/


10/21

of everything from stupidity to treason. They published leading

libertarians like twice Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Harry

Browne, Representative Ron Paul, Justin Raimondo, Sheldon

Richman, Jacob Hornberger, Alan Bock, Steve Chapman, Ted Galen

Carpenter, Richard Ebeling, Walter Block and Jon Basil Utley, as

well as conservatives who might not get their opposition pieces

published in conservative publications. I do not even try to repeat

here all their many arguments against neoconservative neo-

imperialism and the invasion of Iraq.

Antiwar.com and LewRockwell.com also repeatedly published

libertarian and conservative accusations that neoconservatives tied

to Israels extremist Likud Party were promoting a war whose major

goal was to make the Middle East safe for Israels expansionist

territorial polices. This would be the fulfillment of neoconservatives

1996 report written for then Israeli Prime Minister BenjaminNetanyahu titled Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the

Realm. Published by Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political

Studies (Israeleconomy.org) and signed on to by now influential

Bush administration officials Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and

David Wurmser, the report boldly stated: "Our claim to the land -- to

which we have clung for 2,000 years -- is legitimate and noble." It

recommended using Cold War-like propaganda to lure Americans

into supporting Israeli ambitions. Israeli Prime Minister Sharon

adopted the Clean Break vision. So did 30 million "Christian

Zionists" who support the expansion of Israel for their own religious

purposes. (See numerous articles about theArmageddon Lobby.)

Once neoconservatives took power in the White House, Pentagon

and State Department under President George Bush, Sharon made

sure that President Bush "got with the program." He visited born

again Christian President George Bush seven times in two years,

becoming the most frequently visiting foreign leader.

Even usually conservative libertarians like the Cato Institute's Ed

Crane and William Niskanen went after neoconservatives. They

wrote in a July, 2003 article titledUpholding Liberty in America:

"Some in the neoconservative movement have openly called for an

American empire around the globe. Max Boot, the writer, recently

praised what he termed America's 'imperialism' and said it should

impose its views 'at gunpoint'. James Woolsey, the former director of

the Central Intelligence Agency, has called for a decades-long

campaign to re-order the entire Middle East along neoconservative

lines. Such thinking is profoundly un-American."
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htmhttp://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htmhttp://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htmhttp://israeleconomy.org/http://www.againstbombing.com/ArmageddonUpdates.htmhttp://www.againstbombing.com/ArmageddonUpdates.htmhttp://www.cato.org/dailys/07-09-03.htmlhttp://www.cato.org/dailys/07-09-03.htmlhttp://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htmhttp://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htmhttp://israeleconomy.org/http://www.againstbombing.com/ArmageddonUpdates.htmhttp://www.cato.org/dailys/07-09-03.html


11/21

Paul Craig Roberts forecasted on theDecember 31, 2002

predictionspage of LewRockwell.com: In 2003 the story will be

confirmed that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a secret Israeli plan

designed to involve the U.S. long-term in the Arab-Israeli conflict,

cynically sold to the Bush White House by neoconservatives as a

reelection strategy. At this point it is being confirmed only on the

pages of libertarian, conservative and left-wing and pro-Palestinian

web sites.

The most vehement and unceasing libertarian critic of Israel, of

course, is Antiwar.coms editorial director and columnist Justin

Raimondo, a long-time Murray Rothbard ally and author of his

biography An Enemy of the State. Raimondo's newest book The

Terror Enigma: Israel and the 911 Connection

Typical columns during the run up to the U.S. attack on Iraq

included: This War is Treason that claims neoconservatives waged

it for Israel; Whats it all about, Ari? that claims Ariel Sharons

Mossad intelligence agency forged the Niger yellow cake

documents; Whose Road Map that paints George Bush as a

puppet of right wing Likud Party operatives; and countless columns

that expose dozens of neoconservative bigwigs by name and labels

them dupes of the Israeli government, or worse. As a historian of the

right, Raimondo knows just who is in bed with whom.

The Jewish Defense League started Raimondo Watch to respondto all his articles criticizing Israel, but gave up after half a dozen.

However, Antiwar.com's Managing Editor, Eric Garris, reminds those

who lambast the site for Justin's "anti-Semitism" that he himself is

Jewish. In fact, every day Antiwar.com posts four to seven articles

critical of Israel, many of them from Israeli and other Jewish

publications.

Despite Raimondos alleged anti-Semitism, USA Today printed a

March 2003 Raimondo column "War is Not in U.S. Interest" which,

Raimondo later wrote, pointed out that the war is not in America's

national interest and that Israel is the one and only beneficiary of

this war. This prompted a protest letter to the USA Today editor

from Anti-Defamation League chair Abe Foxman. Nevertheless,

Raimondo continues his onslaught against dual loyalists, Israel

firsters and neoconservative "traitors to this day.

Twice independent presidential candidate, conservative Pat
http://lewrockwell.com/orig3/predictions.htmlhttp://lewrockwell.com/orig3/predictions.htmlhttp://lewrockwell.com/orig3/predictions.htmlhttp://www.antiwar.com/justin/j030703.htmlhttp://www.antiwar.com/justin/j031403.htmlhttp://www.antiwar.com/justin/j050503.htmlhttp://www.jdl-ny.org/raimondowatch.htmhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-03-17-oppose_x.htmhttp://lewrockwell.com/orig3/predictions.htmlhttp://lewrockwell.com/orig3/predictions.htmlhttp://www.antiwar.com/justin/j030703.htmlhttp://www.antiwar.com/justin/j031403.htmlhttp://www.antiwar.com/justin/j050503.htmlhttp://www.jdl-ny.org/raimondowatch.htmhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-03-17-oppose_x.htm


12/21

Buchanan known for his frequent joking about Israels Amen

Chorus -- has managed to survive charges of anti-Semitism and

remain a successful columnist, publisher and television news

personality. At the height of the March 2003 bombing of Iraq,

Buchanan wrote a widely quoted article in The American

Conservative. Suddenly, the Israeli connection is on the table, and

the War Party is not amused. Finding themselves in an

unanticipated firefight, our neoconservative friends are doing what

comes naturally, i.e., yelling anti-Semitism." He continues: "For

this venerable slander is designed to nullify public discourse by

smearing and intimidating foes and censoring and blacklisting them

and any who would publish them. Neocons say we attack them

because they are Jewish. We do not. We attack them because their

warmongering threatens our country...

The Ilana Mercer Attacks

In August of 2003 WorldNetDaily.Com published a column by self-

described libertarian and "ex-Israeli" Ilana Mercer who currently is

living in the United States. Titled "Libertarians who loathe Israel" the

article rails against libertarians who religiously and robotically depict

Israel as the devil incarnate. The problem, of course, is that Justin

Raimondo is one of the few libertarians who do anything like that

and she describes him as the gifted libertarian writer and only

chides him for some of his least rancorous statements.

Nevertheless, Raimondo hit right back in hiscolumn,writing: It isn't

Israel we loathe, it's Israel's American amen corner, typified by LaMercer.

Mercer saves her real ire for two libertarians whose academic

articles in libertarian publications undermine Israels claim to most of

its land, the inevitable outcome of applying libertarian principles to

Israel. She criticizes Stephen P. Halbrook whose libertarian

prescription is to turn Israel into a multicultural potage with a Right

of Return for any self-styled, United Nations Relief and Works

Agency-sponsored Palestinian agitator. Of course, what she

ridicules is Halbrooks 1981 legal article in The Journal of Libertarian

Studies, The Alienation of a Homeland: How Palestine Became

Israel. It investigates who justly owns the land of Israel or

Palestine and provides land ownership details that verify Palestinian

claims that Israel holds just claim to only a small percentage of even

Israel proper.

Halbrook writes in his conclusion: "Palestinian Arabs have the rights
http://www.amconmag.com/http://www.amconmag.com/http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34057http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j081503.htmlhttp://www.antiwar.com/justin/j081503.htmlhttp://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/halbrook.htmlhttp://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/halbrook.htmlhttp://www.amconmag.com/http://www.amconmag.com/http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34057http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j081503.htmlhttp://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/halbrook.htmlhttp://www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/halbrook.html


13/21

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. Palestinians may have moral claims not

only against Zionists who took their lands by force but also against

members of the Arab elite who made huge profits in land sales to

Zionists by evicting tenants who had cultivated the land since time

immemorial." He also supports similar rights of Jews driven from

Arab lands in retaliation for Israel driving out Arabs in 1948.

Ms. Mercer neither knows nor cares that in the years since Halbrook

has gone on to become one of America's top Second Amendment

attorneys, having won two Second Amendment Supreme Court

cases. One decision, in 2000, lifted the 25 year sentences for gun

charges from five Branch Davidian survivors. (Halbrook either did

not see or did not bother to respond to her article.)

Mercer then attacks libertarian scholar Sheldon Richman in an even

more underhanded manner. I understand that libertarians like

Sheldon Richman (and the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical

Review) believe, mistakenly, that all the land belongs to the Arabs.

WorldNetDaily.com necessarily posted two Richman replies to her

smear, a column titled "Disregard for the Truth" and a later letter to

the editor. He informed readers that the Institute for Historical review

is not libertarian. (It is a notorious group which had ridiculed German

atrocities, including by offering a $50,000 reward to anyone who

could prove the Germans used gas chambers to kill Jews.) And he

pointed out that Mercer was referring to a 1991 Cato Policy Analysis"'Ancient History: U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War

Il and the Folly Of Intervention which The Institute of Historical

evidently had reprinted without permission.

Richman also reminded Mercer that he himself is Jewish and chided

her inability to find and correctly name the relevant paper or quote

the relevant sentence for which she originally assails. That

sentence, Jewish land purchases accounted for only 10 percent of

the proposed Jewish state, is contained in Richmans critique of

how the United Nations unfairly carved Israel out of Palestine.

In it Richman writes: The Arabs would get 43 percent of the land,

the Jews 57 percent. The proposed apportionment should be

assessed in light of the following facts: The Jewish portion was

better land; by the end of 1947 the percentage of Palestine

purchased by Jews was less than 7 percent; Jewish land purchases

accounted for only 10 percent of the proposed Jewish state; and
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34152http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.htmlhttp://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.htmlhttp://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34152http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.htmlhttp://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html


14/21

Jews made up less than one-third of the population of Palestine.

Moreover, the Jewish state was to include 497,000 Arabs, who

would constitute just under 50 percent of the new state's population.

(Note that this was the original plan, before Israel grabbed another

big chunk of land in 1948 and expelled 700,000 Arabs. See maps

and tables in the Halbrook article.) Richman's paper also opines that

the United States advocated a solution in Palestine which went

contrary to self-determination as far as the majority population of the

country was concerned.

If Ms. Mercer had done her homework she would have found other

objects of attack on this issue. Just a few months earlier, in May of

2003, Richard Ebeling published an article Property Rights and the

Right of Return" which fully supports the rights of Palestinians,

including the original owners and their several million descendants,

to return to their land and property inside Israel. Ebeling is theLudwig von Mises Professor of Economics at Hillsdale College in

Michigan and vice president of academic affairs at The Future of

Freedom Foundation.

Ms. Mercer also could have found a real Palestinian-American

libertarian to pick on, long time Libertarian Party activists I. Dean

Ahmad, Ph.D. of the Minaret of Freedom Institute. His article "The

Real Reason to Oppose Aid to Israel" states: "...at the time of

Israels founding, Jews, Zionist and non-Zionist alike, owned less

than 7% of the land. This included land recently acquired from

absentee landlords. Thus, the Jewish National Fund demanded ofthe new government that it use its power of eminent domain to seize

the land so that it could 'acquire this year as much land as it

acquired in 47 years of unremitting effort.' (Jewish National Fund,

Jewish Villages in Israel. Jerusalem: Keren Kayemeth Leisrael

1949.) This land was not to be turned over to private Jewish

ownership. It was to be turned over to collective ownership of the

Jewish people."

Mercer ended her column by insulting all Americans, asking, But let

me ask my fellow libertarians this: When last did an American man

fight honorably for his land, his home, his women, and his children?

The men of the South circa 1861? I thought so. As much as

libertarians hate them, Israelis, at least, defend what they perceive

to be their land, their homes and their freedoms.

But Ms. Mercer was not finished. She replied to Raimondo and

Richman with an even more vituperous WorldNetDaily.com screed
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0305o.asphttp://www.fff.org/comment/com0305o.asphttp://www.minaret.org/israeliaid.htmhttp://www.minaret.org/israeliaid.htmhttp://www.fff.org/comment/com0305o.asphttp://www.fff.org/comment/com0305o.asphttp://www.minaret.org/israeliaid.htmhttp://www.minaret.org/israeliaid.htm


15/21

"Foaming at the mouth over Israel." Her bottom line analysis follows

a twisted theme promoted by neoconservatives: Libertarian animus

against neoconservatives has translated into revulsion for Israel

because so many prominent neoconservatives are pro-Israel Jews.

This time Mercer squarely takes on Raimondo saying: the emphasis

by these libertarians on myth-history and conspiracy to describe all

matters Israel (sic) suggests an irrational belief system where the

Zionists are seen as the root of all evil. And she finds another

article by Richman, Cant and the Middle East, to misrepresent and

assail, snidely commenting that being Jewish doesn't inoculate one

against being anti-Semitic. After thisJacob Hornbergerand

Wendy McElroywrote pieces defending Sheldon Richman and

neoconservativesTom AmbroseandRobert Bidinottodid so

defending Mercer.

Mercer is correct in her second article when she points out that

neither Raimondo or Richman in their replies present a systematic

theory of libertarian land rights to counter her. While they may have

been too disgusted with her to bother, their refusal still allows Mercer

to claim: If anything, Raimondo and Richman are being evasive in

their refusal to explain the rationale behind their one-sided and

singularly pro-Palestinian perspective.

To add insult to injury, Mercer plays the role of good libertarian by

stating: To the extent that property has unjustly been incorporateden route, this must be remedied. If the Israelis don't fix the property

injustices Raimondo alleges, then I share his outrage. So long as

property is not appropriated without consent and just compensation,

there is nothing immoral about a well-enforced border, both during

peacetime and in war. Of course, Mercer does not recommend that

Israel withdraw to the 10 percent or so of Israel proper that Halbrook

and Richman's original articles indicated had been justly acquired in

1948, plus whatever small percentage has been justly acquired

since then.

What Mercer does here, of course, is to place her targets in a

classicdouble bind. If you try to detail how Israelis unjustly

confiscated land from 1948 on, as had Halbrook and Richman, you

are an Israel-loathing anti-Semite. But if you do not detail how Israel

unjustly confiscate land so that those injustices can be corrected by

Israel, you are a flaky and irrational and obviously an anti-Semite!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34181http://www.fff.org/comment/com0205h.asphttp://www.fff.org/comment/com0308l.asphttp://www.zetetics.com/mac/blog/00000216.htmlhttp://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34369http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/http://www.envf.port.ac.uk/illustration/images/vlsh/dbpc.htmhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34181http://www.fff.org/comment/com0205h.asphttp://www.fff.org/comment/com0308l.asphttp://www.zetetics.com/mac/blog/00000216.htmlhttp://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34369http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/http://www.envf.port.ac.uk/illustration/images/vlsh/dbpc.htm


16/21

Mercer and similar libertarian Israel supporters evidently believe

individualism, property rights, non-initiation of force, self-

determination, due process, freedom of speech, revolution against

oppressive states and military non-interventionism are all fine

libertarian ideas just as long as you do not dare apply them to the

state of Israel, or to its lobbying groups. Similarly, critiquing the

neoconservatives and their increasingly fascist American police

state is anti-Semitic too!

As I have heard innumerable times, the only time any criticism of

Israel is allowed is ifallnations are critiqued equally -- in other

words you have to list the faults of all 180 odd of them (or at least all

the Arab and Muslim states) in order to criticize Israel. That's one

way to suppress criticism!

(Obviously libertarians also oppose financial and military andsupport for nations like Egypt and Lebanon [which receive it to

prevent them from attacking Israel] and to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and

other nations that oppress their people. But none of them are

territorially aggressive nuclear nations receiving a massive amount

of U.S. aid; and none of them have one of the most powerful U.S.

lobbies which demands constant increases in that aid. That is what

makes Israel more deserving of criticism.)

Mercer (like neoconservatives in their Clean Break report) does

allow libertarians to call for ending U.S. foreign aid to Israel on

grounds that it would force Israel to free up its markets andstrengthen its economic and military capabilities. Remember that Irv

Rubin supported ending U.S. foreign aid because the U.S.

discouraged Israel from ethnically cleansing millions of Arabs from

the West Bank and Gaza. Of course, many pro-Israel libertarians

believe that U.S. government foreign aid to Israel is the last program

that ever should be cut.

If Ms. Mercer is looking for more high profile libertarians to attack as

"Israel haters" for applying libertarian principles, she might look at

Cato Institute Senior FellowDoug Bandow's December 2003 Japan

Times column "Ethnic cleansing on the Jordan River," or his critical

December 2003 article in Pat Buchanan'sAmerican Conservative

magazine on "Israel's Democracy Dilemma." Or she can go after

noted libertarian author James Bovard for his September 2003

article "Should the U.S. Military in Iraq Adopt Israeli Methods?" Or

she can assail Ivan Eland, Senior Fellow and Director of the

Independent Institutes Center on Peace & Liberty, whose thorough
http://www.cato.org/people/bandow.htmlhttp://www.cato.org/people/bandow.htmlhttp://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20031204db.htmhttp://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20031204db.htmhttp://amconmag.com/http://www.amconmag.com/11_3_03/feature.htmlhttp://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0311c.asphttp://www.cato.org/people/bandow.htmlhttp://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20031204db.htmhttp://amconmag.com/http://www.amconmag.com/11_3_03/feature.htmlhttp://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0311c.asp


17/21

1998 Cato Foreign Policy BriefingDoes U.S. Interventionism

Overseas Breed Terrorism? The Historical Recordis interwoven with

criticisms of Israel, not to mention his December 2003 critique of

U.S. forces in Iraq titled "Winning over Arabs Using Israeli Tactics."

And then there are the many lesser known lights who have criticized

Israel over the years on the pages of Antiwar.Com and

LewRockwell.com. When she finishes with them, she can move on

to libertarian activist web pages, blogs and e-mails.

Unrelenting Charges of Anti-Semitism Effectively Crush

Libertarian Dissent

Raimondo and Buchanan through shear moxie have pursued

successful careers without toning down their criticism of Israel and

its lobbies, including on libertarian grounds. However, only a few

independent libertarians are willing to take the heat that Rothbard'sself-described "Anti-Anti-Semites" apply to libertarians who publicly

apply libertarian principles to Israel. Per the opening quotation, I am

sure that George Washington wouldnotbe pleased!

Since September 11, 2001 libertarians forwarding even mainstream

and libertarian articles criticizing Israel or neoconservatives to

libertarian list-serves and yahoo groups have found escalating

charges of anti-Semitism. Ornery libertarians who defend their

comments, counter pro-state of Israel propaganda, or post even

more such articles and commentary just to prove they will not be

silenced, are accused of being "obsessed" and therefore obviouslyanti-Semitic. After all, who but an anti-Semite keeps posting such

things once they are told to stop doing so? What dark, evil motives

must they have? Or, as two fellows put it on different venues in the

same week in early 2004, repeatedly posting these articles MIGHT

mean someone THINKS anti-Semitic thoughts and therefore he or

she must be treated as if he or she IS a rabid and public anti-

Semite! Thought crimes 101??

As a member of 75 odd libertarian list-serves and yahoo groups who

posts frequently to several, and checks out most of their archives at

least once a month, I have noticed that at least a third contain one or

more members who decry any criticism of Israel. On only a few lists

and groups are issues like Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon

encouraging the U.S. attack on Iraq, Israel's oppression of the

Palestinians, its threats to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, the power

of the Israel Lobby, etc. debated freely.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-050es.htmlhttp://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-050es.htmlhttp://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-050es.htmlhttp://www.antiwar.com/eland/e121003b.htmlhttp://www.antiwar.com/eland/e121003b.htmlhttp://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-050es.htmlhttp://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-050es.htmlhttp://www.antiwar.com/eland/e121003b.html


18/21

At least two Libertarian Party members have boasted about joining

list-serves and yahoo groups where allegedly anti-Semitic criticism

of Israel appear in order to fight it; their tools tend to be insinuations,

accusations, smears and insults. One Libertarian Party state

committee member joined at least three yahoo groups where this

outspoken critic of Israel and its U.S. lobbies posted, just to harass

me. By the time he was finished, four fed up group owners

moderated his posts to end the unceasing, vicious and even

scatological attacks -- as well as demands that I and my ilk commit

suicide! (See a small sample of suchemail postings.)

Most people do not want to deal with such attacks. As one state

chair told me, despite his personal disgust with Israel, I just dont

want to get involved in that argument. And, as I can say from

experience, even those of us with thick skins can be enraged and

demoralized by such continuous attacks. (See myreply to NealBoortz'posting my most Raimondo-like missive on his web site.)

Of course, libertarians do rebel against the oppressive tactics, if not

always in the most appropriate fashion. In early 2004 an Israel

supporter on a libertarian state party yahoo group attacked as a

Holocaust denier an individual who had admitted to being a

Holocaust skeptic. Almost immediately half a dozen state party

members, and even one Libertarian National Committee member,

jumped into the fray admitting that they had various doubts

regarding the numbers of Jews the Nazis had killed and methods

used to kill them. Most of them, and even some who support currentHolocaust claims, denounced the way Nazi atrocities against Jews

are used to apologize for Israeli atrocities against Palestinians. The

original accuser fled the discussion, doubtless in shock, just before

the thread evaporated and the group returned to its usual lack of

concern for Middle East issues.

Empathy? Yes. Resistance? Definitely!

I think libertarians must, and largely do, empathize with the paranoia

of Jews who cling to their history of more than 2000 years of

persecution, including the Nazi ethnic cleansing and attempted

genocide which decimated European Jewry. I have not found a

single libertarian who justifies Palestinian murder of or suicide

bombings against innocent civilians in Israel. The fact that there are

so many libertarians with at least some Jewish heritage, or who are

married to or close friends with Jews, certainly ads to the empathy

quotient. And who can forget that two of our icons, Ayn Rand and
http://www.carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/stevesassobnoxiousemails.htmlhttp://www.carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/stevesassobnoxiousemails.htmlhttp://www.carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/replytoboortz.htmlhttp://www.carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/replytoboortz.htmlhttp://www.carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/replytoboortz.htmlhttp://www.carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/stevesassobnoxiousemails.htmlhttp://www.carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/replytoboortz.htmlhttp://www.carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/replytoboortz.html


19/21

Murray Rothbard, were Jewish?

On the other hand paranoia and outrage about past injustices by a

small minority do not justify the ruthless suppression of discussion

and dissent now practiced by a few dozen libertarians, Jewish and

gentile, in the libertarian movement. Jewish Defense League type

accusations and harassment arenotallJews.

I only wish that non-interventionist libertarian Jews and gentiles

could standup together and openly resist these scurrilous tactics.

Maybe it is time to circulate a letter for signing or even put up a

Petitiononline -- something to make it clear that this concerted

bullying and intimidation arenotacceptable in the libertarian

movement.

Why Libertarians Should Make Ending Occupation of, Aid toand Alliance with Middle East Nations A Top Issue

There are some very good reasons that a few intrepid libertarians

keep up criticism of Israel and its lobbies in America. And they are

the same reasons libertarians should consider making getting the

United States out of the Middle East our highest priority. (And by

this I include the whole area surrounding Russia's southern flank,

another possible flash point for future wars!)

1. To Maintain the Integrity of the Libertarian Movement

To quote libertarian truisms, "eternal vigilance is the price of

freedom" and extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." The

libertarian movement cannot allow itself to be intimidated by any

special interest, domestic or foreign, to the point that it silences

itself, changes its positions, or strangles an important strategy.

Such intimidation on the Israel issue only can lead to internal discord

and demoralization and, as mentioned above, an increase in dislike

not just for the culpable intimidators but for Jews in general, i.e.,

anti-Semitism.

Israel supporters have to face choices. Do they owe a greater

allegiance to the state of Israel or to the concept of liberty? To Israel

or America? To free speech or to silencing critics of Israel?

Libertariansnotpreoccupied with the welfare of the state of Israel

also face choices. Can they continue to call themselves libertarians

if they do not support an assertive non-interventionist stance? Can


20/21

they call themselves Patriots if they are not willing to look atallthe

threats to America, including those from the state of Israel? And can

they call themselves individuals of principle and courage if they are

afraid to criticize Israel or even consider making getting the United

States out of the Middle East a high priority?

2. To Convince the Growing Libertarian Minority in America We

Are Serious About Liberty

Other than promoting the right of individual and community

secession, I believe no other issue would convince Americans that

we are serious about liberty. (See my article published previously in

LiberyforAll.Net Why Libertarians Should Emphasize Secession

and Community Autonomy)

Lets face it, 30 years of promoting legalized drugs, income taxabolition and general deregulation, with a little foreign non-

interventionism thrown in for flavoring, have led to the big ho hum.

Any one who noticed we have taken on special interests knows we

have made little real progress. Look at the massive budget deficits

and imperialist warmongering under a "conservative" president and

congress.

If the libertarian movement made critiques of U.S. and Israeli

imperialism in the Middle East a major focus as well, it would

impress and energize millions of cynical independents and non-

voters fed up with AIPAC-intimidated politicians who refuse toaddress the issue. (We could promise big energy tax breaks from

the military budget savings to assuage those who fear loss of Middle

East oil.) And publicity would be guaranteed because the Israel

Lobby and its many friends in media would go ballistic.

Of course, if libertarians do not want to take on the issue, they can

join me in building the libertarian secession movement, starting with

promoting an educational right to secede amendment to the U.S.

constitution. That is one way to promote positive alternatives to our

failed constitutional system.

3. World Nuclear War is Inevitable if We Do Not Get Out Now

i.e., Save America

I have just completed a web page article entitledIs World Nuclear

War Inevitable?It includes six scenarios by which malfunction,

terrorism, or preemption by small nuclear states and/or the United
http://carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/http://carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwarhttp://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwarhttp://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwarhttp://carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/http://carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwarhttp://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar


21/21

States or Russia could spiral out of control into a devastating world

nuclear war. Four of the six scenarios center around the Middle East

and Eurasia.

Such a war would kill probably ninety percent of Americans, and

eighty percent of the worlds population. It would mean misery,

illness and early death for the survivors the end of the American

Dream.

My site includes a separate page on Israeli Nuclear Threats and

Blackmailwhich illustrates how Israeli nuclear bullying is targeted

not just at Arabs and Muslims but at Europeans, Russians and

inevitably Americans. One possible trigger of a world nuclear would

be an Israel devastated by nuclear or other terrorism lashing out in

the Samson Option nuclear revenge not just against Arab

capitals but all those anti-Semites in Europe, including in Moscow.And when Israel nukes Moscow, Moscow nukes its closest ally - the

United States.

The solution is clearly pointed out in the current Libertarian Party

platform and in various libertarian prescriptions across the Internet:

Get Out of the Middle East Now! Get out of the rest of the world

soon after. Begin unilateral steps to nuclear and conventional

disarmament. Empower and encourage the people of the world to

disarm their own authoritarian governments. Make the libertarian

movement a true peoples liberation movement, not one more

movement and party manipulated by special interests wanting toprotect their government privileges or repeal only the laws that hurt

them.

I think it is time libertarians prove to themselves, each other and all

America they care more about saving America and its liberty than

protecting their own reputations from outrageous and specious

charges, whatever they may be.

Carol Moore is a 25 year member of the Libertarian Party, a long-

time peace activist, and founder of several sites including

Secession.Net,WhatWouldGandhiDo.Net,Non-Intervention.Net.

She is also webmaster forLibertarians for PeaceandPro-Choice

Libertarians. See her other web sites, published and online articles,

photographs, etc. atCarolMoore.Net.
http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/israelithreats.htmlhttp://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/israelithreats.htmlhttp://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/israelithreats.htmlhttp://www.secession.net/http://www.whatwouldgandhido.net/http://www.non-intervention.net/http://www.non-intervention.net/http://www.libertarians4peace.net/http://www.libertarians4peace.net/http://www.libertarians4peace.net/http://www.pro-choicelibertarians.net/http://www.pro-choicelibertarians.net/http://www.pro-choicelibertarians.net/http://www.carolmoore.net/http://www.carolmoore.net/http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/israelithreats.htmlhttp://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/israelithreats.htmlhttp://www.secession.net/http://www.whatwouldgandhido.net/http://www.non-intervention.net/http://www.libertarians4peace.net/http://www.pro-choicelibertarians.net/http://www.pro-choicelibertarians.net/http://www.carolmoore.net/

Documents

Libertarian Israel Carol Moore