Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Walter Hudson

Bio

July 21, 2014 - 12:11 am

As the presidential prospects of Senator Rand Paul grow more viable, so does the intensity of the foreign policy debate within the Republican Party. At the center of that debate is the U.S. relationship with Israel. What obligation do we hold to the Jewish state?

PJM associate editor Bryan Preston responds to a report from the Washington Free Beacon regarding a list of books scrubbed from Senator Paul’s website after the Weekly Standard called out some of the books as “anti-Israel.” Preston concludes:

I’d like to like Rand Paul, for his small government, libertarian principles. I share those, and the fact is, we will go bankrupt as a country if we do not get spending under control. But Paul’s foreign policy instincts have too much of the far left, Dennis Kucinich, blame-America-and-Israel-first detritus to make him a serious commander in chief. This reading list is a symptom of that. It suggests that Paul sees Israel as the prime problem in the Middle East, and Jews the prime problem in the world.

Whether Paul holds such views or not, a broader question emerges from the association of non-interventionist foreign policy with antisemitism. Does one indicate the other? Must we “support Israel” in a particular way to prove that we do not hate Jews?

Lost in the loudest rhetoric dominating the Republican foreign policy debate is an application of non-interventionism which nonetheless acknowledges Islamic totalitarianism. As Ayn Rand Institute executive director Yaron Brook explains in the clip above, the U.S. and Israel share a common enemy, an ideology which expressly seeks to deprive individuals of their rights. Non-intervention does not mean sticking our head in the sand and ignoring real enemies. It means limiting our response to actions which defend us rather than police the world.

Certainly, influences within the Paul family orbit err on the side of pacifism, and those forces deserve rebuke. Even so, it would be a mistake to dismiss the principle underlying non-interventionism. We should “support Israel” to the extent it defends our citizens by defanging a common enemy, not for Israel’s sake, but for ours. What that looks like in practice remains open to debate.

(Today’s Fightin Words podcast is on this topic available here. 16:14 minutes long; 15.64 MB file size. Right click here to download this show to your hard drive. Subscribe through iTunes or RSS feed.)

Walter Hudson advocates for individual rights, serving on the boards of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Minnesota, Minnesota Majority and the Minority Liberty Alliance. He maintains a blog and daily podcast entitled Fightin Words. He also contributes to True North, a hub of conservative Minnesotan commentary, and regularly appears on the Twin Cities News Talk Weekend Roundtable on KTCN AM 1130. Follow his work via Twitter and Facebook.
All Comments   (4)
All Comments   (4)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
If I support Israel, I am lambasted by the Left and Secular American Jews for enabling Israeli behavior.

If I support Israel, I am lambasted by the Israelis who insist that they neither need nor desire my support.

What's a goyim to do?
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
It can be hard to see the distinction between being anti-Israel and anti-Jewish, but the distinction is real. I am pro-Israel and I have a fondness for the Jewish religion, though I am not a member.
Israel is something less than a libertarian paradise; it's roughly parallel to Europe as a welfare-nanny-state. And that puts it very far in front of all Muslim-dominated countries that I know of. The few that weren't borderline Sharia -- Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia -- seem to be slipping that-a-way.
The line between wise intervention, consistent with any libertarian's view of liberty I think, and meddling -- that's a hard one to find. I'll draw fire from my libertarian friends when I say G.W. Bush was doing well on that.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
100 years ago and more, prior to WW I, Jews immigrated from Europe into present day Israel/West Bank. They moved into an Islamic Ottoman empire and with a large majority of local Arab Muslims; Jews were no more than 10% of the population. The inevitable conclusion is that Jews had no fear of prejudice from either the Ottomans or their Arab neighbors.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
You are partly right. It depends on who was leading the empire at the time.
8 weeks ago
8 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All

2 Trackbacks to “The Libertarian Case for Supporting Israel”