Return to CarolMoore.

Net/LibertarianParty
AS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 2004 LIBERTYFORALL.NET
Minor corrections from original have been made; signifcant additions notated in green.
-Sound off Soapbox-
Is Applying Libertarian Principles to Israel
Anti-Semitic?
Or -- Challenging Libertarians to Save America from Middle
East Wars
by Carol Moore
Excessive 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 infuence 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 confdence 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 mounting
accusations 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 ofenders 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 defned as smears and abuse against any group of
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 proft of 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 frst 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 and
follow with a brief review of such attacks on rank and fle
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 collectivism Libertarians 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 inviolate As the Libertarian Partys
platform correctly states, libertarians oppose all government
interference with private property, such as confscation,
nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of
robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation. Property rights are
created when individuals or voluntary associations either trade for
land or homestead unused or voluntarily abandoned land (as
opposed to land whose owners have been driven of in recent times
by war, massacres or empty promises). Libertarians support
everyone's right of return to unjustly confscated land. And they
have little sympathy for individuals or governments who use force
and fraud to confscate 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 right Libertarians oppose the notion that
a group of people (criminal or terrorist gang, liberation army or
government) which has the military ability to kill people and drive
them of 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 confscate
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 beneft of foreign allies. It
should 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 secession Libertarians 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
Punishment Libertarians 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
whether innocent taxpayers should be forced collectively to pay
restitution for the crimes of their own governments, with many
preferring to frst sell of 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 Speech Libertarians 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 infuencing 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, without automatically being
accused 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, without automatically
being accused of supporting bigotry or terrorism.
8) The Right to Rebel Against Oppressors Libertarians abhor
state or rebel violence against innocent civilians, defning 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 occupying
foreign 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 eforts 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
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 ofcial 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 its
expansionist territorial aims. Many libertarians remain outraged by
the ongoing cover-up of the 1967 U.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 strafng 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 Staufer, a consulting economist in
Washington. Christian Science Monitor reported in December 2002
that he arrived at these numbers by adjusting the ofcial aid to 2001
dollars in purchasing power.
Staufer 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 fgure 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 benefciaries of the aid,
and one obtains a $540 per capita beneft 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 at WRMEA.com and US-ISRAEL.org.
Finally, libertarians familiar with the American Israel Public Afairs
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 frmly on Israel's side, right or
wrong. 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 -- split
from Ayn Rand in the 1950s, the issue of Israel probably was not at
the top of the diferences 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 insuferable self-
righteousness? To reply I am not an anti-Semite is as feeble and
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 up
during 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, their collectivist notions 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 who
criticize the real machinations of Israel and its most dedicated
supporters in infuencing United States foreign policy and in stifing
dissent against it should not be 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 confscating 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.
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 ofce 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 from the Santa 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 conficts 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 of
Middle 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 the Libertarians for
Peace web 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 a
responsibility 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 ofce. 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.
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."
His campaign web page's main menu has 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 the JDL's 2002 call for the
defeat of Representative Ron Paul and others because he voted
"no" against the 2002 "support for Israel" resolution. If the JDL had
read 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 efectively
supporting U.S. troops rooting out and destroying terrorists in other
nations, something that goes against the platform's strong
preference for frst pursuing diplomatic options. Concerned
libertarians responded by starting the Libertarians for Peace group.
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 dominant
and 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.com and FFF.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
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 fulfllment of neoconservatives
1996 report written for then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu 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 infuential
Bush administration ofcials 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 the Armageddon 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 titled Upholding 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."
Paul Craig Roberts forecasted on the December 31, 2002
predictions page of LewRockwell.com: In 2003 the story will be
confrmed that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a secret Israeli plan
designed to involve the U.S. long-term in the Arab-Israeli confict,
cynically sold to the Bush White House by neoconservatives as a
reelection strategy. At this point it is being confrmed 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 respond
to 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 benefciary 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
frsters and neoconservative "traitors to this day.
Twice independent presidential candidate, conservative Pat
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 frefght, 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 his column, writing: It isn't
Israel we loathe, it's Israel's American amen corner, typifed by La
Mercer.
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
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 profts 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 fve 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 ofering 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 fnd 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
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 the
Ludwig von Mises Professor of Economics at Hillsdale College in
Michigan and vice president of academic afairs 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 of
the 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 efort.' (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
fght 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 fnished. She replied to Raimondo and
Richman with an even more vituperous WorldNetDaily.com screed
"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 fnds 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 this Jacob Hornberger and
Wendy McElroy wrote pieces defending Sheldon Richman and
neoconservatives Tom Ambrose and Robert Bidinotto did 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 incorporated
en route, this must be remedied. If the Israelis don't fx 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
classic double bind. If you try to detail how Israelis unjustly
confscated 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 confscate land so that those injustices can be corrected by
Israel, you are a faky and irrational and obviously an anti-Semite!
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 fne
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 if all nations 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 fnancial and military and
support 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 and
strengthen 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 profle libertarians to attack as
"Israel haters" for applying libertarian principles, she might look at
Cato Institute Senior Fellow Doug Bandow's December 2003 Japan
Times column "Ethnic cleansing on the Jordan River," or his critical
December 2003 article in Pat Buchanan's American 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
1998 Cato Foreign Policy Briefng Does U.S. Interventionism
Overseas Breed Terrorism? The Historical Record is 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 fnishes with them, she can move on
to libertarian activist web pages, blogs and e-mails.
Unrelenting Charges of Anti-Semitism Efectively 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's
self-described "Anti-Anti-Semites" apply to libertarians who publicly
apply libertarian principles to Israel. Per the opening quotation, I am
sure that George Washington would not be 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 obviously
anti-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 diferent 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.
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 fght 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 fnished, 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 such email 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 my reply to Neal
Boortz' 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 current
Holocaust claims, denounced the way Nazi atrocities against Jews
are used to apologize for Israeli atrocities against Palestinians. The
original accuser fed 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? Defnitely!
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 justifes 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
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 are notall Jews.
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 are not acceptable in the libertarian
movement.
Why Libertarians Should Make Ending Occupation of, Aid to
and 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 fank,
another possible fash 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?
Libertarians not preoccupied 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
they call themselves Patriots if they are not willing to look at all the
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 tax
abolition and general deregulation, with a little foreign non-
interventionism thrown in for favoring, 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 defcits
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 to
address 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 entitled Is World Nuclear
War Inevitable? It includes six scenarios by which malfunction,
terrorism, or preemption by small nuclear states and/or the United
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
Blackmail which 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 to
protect 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 for Libertarians for Peace and Pro-Choice
Libertarians. See her other web sites, published and online articles,
photographs, etc. at CarolMoore.Net.