The following statement was adopted by the State Central Committee of the California Peace and Freedom Party at its meeting on November 18, 2012.
The California Peace and Freedom Party condemns the recent attacks on the people of the Gaza Strip, the most aggressive since the massacres of 2008. We join the many voices calling for an end to sending arms to Israel. The United States is responsible for these and other violations of U.S. and international law performed with regularity by the Israeli military. As long as the United States enables the Israeli government by providing support such as money, weapons, and diplomatic cover, the violence will continue. As Americans we must once more say “Not in our name.”
We furthermore applaud the Associated Students of U.C. Irvine who voted unanimously to divest from companies making a profit from the Occupied Territories. We call for a more vigorous effort to ensure the progress of the BDS (boycott, divest, sanction) movement.
Good point.
However, if millions of Jews felt compelled to leave the US in a fairly short time frame, there would probably not be another place most would be allowed to go to.
With the ex-Soviet emigration to Israel, it’s not that most of those people wouldn’t have preferred to go to the US, Europe, etc – quite possibly most did – it’s just that Israel was the only country willing to admit so many of them.
With my own relatives that waited to leave Russia until after 1980, they have had to move to Israel because the US was not letting them in.
Exactly.
Well, yeah.
How many of those Western democracies exist on a tiny sliver of land surrounded by dozens of hostile nations that contain hundreds of times as many people as they do? How many have been attacked from all sides several times in the last several decades? How many have been frequently shelled? How many have had to deal with terrorism on nearly the scale of Israel?
Look at how the 9/11 attacks have altered the US and our long standing civil liberties. Israel has a 9/11 relative to the size of their population every few days.
How would the US or other Western nations behave under those same circumstances?
On the other hand I completely agree that they should stop asking for American aid. They no longer need it at all. They take it just because they can. It’s not good for Israel or the US for Israel to take that money. Many Israelis I have talked to agree.
Root’s Teeth Are Awesome @24
How can you not see that “Toffee and the Gorilla” that you embedded is *satire*. It was produced by a socialist/pacifist leaning group to make fun of supporters of the israeli military/political establishment.
The roles have been reversed. Eric Cartman on South Park gave a speech glorifying Hitler and urging extermination of Jews in the episode “The Passion of the Jew”.
The reaction of the Jewish establishment ?
It was praised by the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish newspaper The Forward, which called it “perhaps the most biting critique of ‘The Passion’ to date.”
Why is it that so many LP’ers are so smart, but don’t get sarcasm/satire? It’s like having a political discussion with Dr. Sheldon Cooper.
Why is it that people who criticize Israel about this rarely complain about Muslim countries?
Because it’s a given that many Muslim countries are theocratic dictatorships. Saying so is stating the obvious, and something almost everyone agrees upon.
OTOH, Israel (and its supporters) claim moral superiority over other nations. They say that it shares America’s values of liberty, freedom, democracy.
This claim of moral superiority is one of the reasons (though not the only one) given to justify American support for Israel.
Yet Israel is hardly morally superior. It may be better than many Arab dictatorships, but it’s arguably worse than many Western democracies (at least if you’re not Jewish).
Israel is a hybrid nation, like apartheid South Africa or Jim Crow South. A free nation for the favored majority, but oppressive for the minority.
So the reason critics focus on Israel is because it falsely claims a moral superiority, and demands American support partially based on this false claim.
If you don’t want to be a target, don’t stand on a pedestal.
I’ve noticed this too, and it’s a disturbing situation, especially when Libertarians do it. The socialist left is usually the most vocal about it, but some Libertarians have fallen in line also.
I had a discussion about this on FB recently, as well as on IPR previously, about the phenomenon.
Another example here.
” Why should principled people care if the Israeli state is ‘Jewish’?”
Why is it that people who criticize Israel about this rarely complain about Muslim countries?
Personally I also oppose religious states. But the Israeli version is far more tolerant of other religions and atheism.
“Right now if I was the Mossad I would be coming up with a way to make most Jews want to leave the US for Israel.”
If I left the US, Israel would not be my destination.
John Jay Myers summarizes War For Terror for Lake Highlands High School: http://www.youtube.com/user/clearsky24#p/u/2/_WOL7hNPgqI
Libertarian Products and Supplies make GREAT GIFTS too: http://www.LPSTUFF.COM/shop
I think I am, therefore, I am. I think.- George Carlin
U.S. Deaths in Afghanistan: Obama vs Bush: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/obamavsbush
Yes, that is the Libertarian position on Israel.
Anything else is actually individual opinion, something which LP members as well as other people are allowed to have and express.
I thought the Libertarian position on Israel was that the US government should not collect taxes and send a portion of those taxes to other countries. Foreign aid should be the province of the individual. If a person wants to give aid to Israel or the Palestinians or whom ever that should be their right.
Personally, I am really tired of the US government using a portion of my work effort to help other people kill each other.
One must also consider the position of women under Islam.
In many majority-Muslim countries, women have about the same rights as slaves. To assume they have the ability to limit the number of children they have is a fantasy.
Under those conditions, where basic human rights are denied to half the population, and birth control and education are de facto prohibited, the women will always bear more children — voluntarily or not.
Perhaps due to the history of the Jewish diaspora which led to a Zionist movement in the first place. To get an idea of the scope of that history: there was no effective birth control until very recently, so the number of kids people had was about the same for all ethnicities and religions. If the Jewish population had kept up with the world population during the diaspora there would now be about 200 million Jews rather than about 15 million. Some of that difference was due to voluntary conversion; most was not. And there were numerous measures by which Jews were repressed that did not always involve an artificially early death or forced conversion, although there were plenty of those.
You don’t have to go very far back in history either. For example, there were millions of Jews living in every or just about every majority Muslim nation until a few decades ago, and now there are virtually none. All those folks did not just move to Israel because it was fun and easy. So, there’s a fairly reasonable expectation that if Arabs and/or Muslims become a majority in the area that is now Israel, that Jews might have to leave or die. But if that turns out to be true, where would they go? Is the US prepared to accept several million Jewish refugees?
And how would that change the US if it happened? Anti-Jewish prejudice was much more prevalent in the US in the past. Many people point to 1967 as the turning point.
What about Europe? Well, there’s a long history of anti-Jewish prejudice (and much worse) in Europe, worse than in the Muslim nations until the 1940s, so understandably many Jews may not want to go there.
And given the more recent history of Jews in the Muslim world they probably would not be too welcome there.
The former Soviet nations, which many left, are another place with a bad history. And also not necessarily eager to have a lot of Jews move back there or move there for the first time.
Israel is not completely secular. It is officially a Jewish state, and that includes religion. However, many European nations also have an official religion – even a particular church denomination – and they are also considered secular, when compared with true theocracies such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Europe in the middle ages. Most Israeli Jews are secular, although there is a growing ultra-religious minority.
The Muslim world isn’t very liberal, hence some people’s concern.
No offense intended, but the concern over manipulating the future demographics of Israel is borderline racist and plainly reactionary. Why should principled people care if the Israeli state is ‘Jewish’? Why is a state so dedicated to a particular ‘race’ or ‘religion’ described as secular? Whenever people talk about Israel, it’s like we are in a time warp into the 19th century, or in the 1960s South, or in 1980s South Africa. It’s amazing and appalling to see liberal intelligent people thinking and talking in these absurd and outmoded categories.
Chartier had some good thoughts on principles for a civilized dialogue on these issues.
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/11/some-principles/
Israel still faces a demographic cliff. Arabs will soon outnumber Jews in Israel, and would have already if not for the immigration from ex-Soviet nations.
The question in my mind is how they plan to get all or most US Jews to move to Israel, which would be the only way left to forestall it.
Right now if I was the Mossad I would be coming up with a way to make most Jews want to leave the US for Israel.
What could I come up with? US Jews being blamed by non-Jews for economic collapse and/or a wider mideast war?
Actually what many whites resisted en masse was *forced integration*.
The mistake they made was that segregation was set up & enforced with tax dollars. You can’t tax everyone then discriminate with the bennies.
So take a walk through Detroit.
These days, it’s not so much a race thing as a class thing. The middle class does not want to be around the poor, especially when being poor is so often a result of bad choices (having irresponsible sex and thus fatherless kids, doing drugs, senseless violence, dropping out of school, etc).
Whites and blacks now “live in relative peace” because whites left the increasingly violent cities and moved into suburbia where they could raise their children where they wouldn’t get raped, beaten, and killed. Middle-class blacks also moved out to the suburbs — and for the same reasons. Thus the transformation from a race thing to a class thing.
Nevertheless, those concerns about rape and other crimes are not entirely without basis.
Ultra-Orthodox (Hassidim) do have high birth rates, as do Muslims. Most Jews in Israel (90%+) are secular or relatively secular and and most of those have few or no children. That has not changed.
The small population of Hassidim having lots of kids does not change that Arabs in general have a lot more kids than Jews in general.
That’s been a lot more true in South Africa (and the former Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, etc). Perhaps because it is in Subsaharan Africa, surrounded by many other African nations. Israel would be a lot more like that than the US, where African-Americans are still a minority, even if they are a majority in some local areas. Israel on the other hand is in the middle of a bunch of countries hat are hostile to them, and Palestinian Arabs are doubly so.
The Arab population is growing much faster than the Jewish population,
Is that still true today?
For years I’d read that Israeli Arabs had the higher birth rate. But then a few years ago, I read that Jewish birth rates now surpass Arab birth rates. This is partially due to the ultra-orthodox, who have very large families.
American whites also made all sorts of dire predictions of what would happen should blacks gain their freedom, and then their equality. That they’d be raping “our women” and “taking over” and such.
Turned out not to have been so. Whites and blacks now live in relative peace.
This statement is about as ignorant of history as any I’ve seen on the topic.
First, you may not believe in religious states, but others do. Israel is surrounded by other religious states.
Second, periodically, Islam has lashed out at the Jews, Christians, animists, Bhuddists, and other adherents within the territories they control. “Lashing out” usually meant a combination of terror, genocide, rape, forced conversion (often by taking the children of Jewish tribes away en masse, forcing them to learn Islam and be sex slaves). Muslim countries have continually lurched further toward being 100% Muslim for reasons that have a lot less to do with free choice than actively and violently discouraging alternatives.
Yes, discrimination can be found among other religions, including Judaism.
But if the region is to learn to be at peace, either *both* sides must be expected to “respect” others, or only one will — and that one will be wiped out.
Agreed.
But this is about the P&F party.
This is exactly the problem I have with the national socialist left: any time Israel misbehaves, they step up to the podium. Any time anyone else **other than** Israel misbehaves, crickets.
The bias is clear.
Somehow I don’t see that as a problem for the Arabs.Saudi Arabia and other benefactors will be happy to supply them with weapons all day long every day.
The Arab population is growing much faster than the Jewish population, and that’s without even factoring in the Palestinians who don’t currently live in Israel or the occupied territories. It would be majority Arab pretty quickly. In fact Israel proper would already be majority Arab right now if it had not been for the mass immigration of Jews from the former Soviet nations in the 1990s and 2000s. Now there are not a lot of Jews in any other parts of the world left other than the US and Israel. So, unless something causes a mass migration of Jews from the US to Israel soon, it will be majority Arab, not even factoring in Palestinians abroad.
Not exactly. While they were subjected to less harsh treatment than in Europe, they were still heavily discriminated against under the law in numerous Muslim nations and in many eras.
Palestinians and Jews have lived side by in the Trans-Jordan areas in peace for thousands of years. It could happen again if the will was there. For that matter Jews lived all over the middle east in peace for thousands of years. After all they are all Semites. I don’t believe in religious states.
@ 18: This does not answer what would happen to the current residents of Israel.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I did answer that. I said: In a one-state, all the Jews and Arabs stay where they are now,
@ 18: You are deliberately ignoring the likely impact on current Israeli residents of your final solution. That likely impact is Arabs killing all the Jews,
Equal rights means a Final Solution? Exaggerate much?
The Jews are far better armed than the Arabs. In a one-state, the populations would be roughly 50/50 Jew/Arab, with the Jews better armed. How then would the Arabs “kill all the Jews”?
In a one-state, Israeli Arabs would be like American blacks post-emancipation. Equal on paper, but still largely powerless and at the mercy of the Jews (much like American blacks remained at the mercy of whites).
@18: and probably the Palestinian Christians with them.
Actually, Palestinian Christians already endure bigotry and discrimination from the Jewish majority …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcLTqo4jEK4
These TV shows would be regarded as anti-Semitic if the roles were reversed. (Imagine if Christian Zionists knew how their faith was portrayed on Israeli TV…)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOKEvNfFDnc&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA6vRC1xW_c&NR=1
A utopian idea with dystopian consequences.
Strangely there are many rational people in Israel who do not support this approach. And not just Jews.
Very.
I agree.
Now that we’ve solved this problem let’s tackle abortion!
Wredlich,
It’s really very simple. Rational people would sit down and work out an arrangement for a secular constitution. Displaced, maimed, and aggrieved individuals would be compensated as justly as possible. Both Palestinians and Israelis would get citizenship in a secular state with equal political rights. And everyone would just have to live with it. Religious radicals, racists, and terrorists would no longer receive government support or assistance, and the constitution and culture of the new secular state should do what it can to marginalize such elements.
It’s utopian, I know, but it’s the right thing to do.
Deran, you were not (as far as I could tell) one of the two people who advocated this “solution.”
As a Jew I’m a little nervous whenever advocates something that sounds like a final solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution
As for Root’s Teeth:
“Silly question.
In a one-state, all the Jews and Arabs stay where they are now, only in the one-state, only in the one-state, the Arabs would have the same rights to travel back and forth from the West Bank and Gaza to what is now “Israel,” and have equal rights”
This does not answer what would happen to the current residents of Israel. I did not ask how it would affect the Arab residents who live outside of the 1967 borders.
You are deliberately ignoring the likely impact on current Israeli residents of your final solution. That likely impact is Arabs killing all the Jews, and probably the Palestinian Christians with them.
Much easier to support a solution when you ignore the likely consequences for its victims.
By the way, does the GP support Jews’ right of return in Arab countries?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100088159/the-forgotten-refugees-jews-forced-out-of-arab-countries-what-about-their-right-of-return/
In a one-state Palestinian solution, what happens to all the current residents of Israel?
Silly question.
In a one-state, all the Jews and Arabs stay where they are now, only in the one-state, the Arabs would have the same rights to travel back and forth from the West Bank and Gaza to what is now “Israel,” and have equal rights to live where they want, equal rights to build and access water, equal rights to civil service jobs, and not be forced to travel on apartheid roads: http://www.exposingisraeliapartheid.com/ or be separated by an apartheid wall.
It’d be like the U.S. after Jim Crow. Whites still live in the South, only now the blacks are equal.
Actually, there is already a one-state, only it’s officially Jewish, which is a bitch if you’re not Jewish. Gaza and the West Bank were never independent. Gaza has been called an open-air concentration camp.
Err, Mr. Redlich, I specifically answered you question? Some think a democratic secular binational state can be established right now, some, like me, think two states are more realistic right now. Maybe they will mesh into one state in the future.
Two states does mean that ALL of the illegal Jewish colonies in the occupied territories would need to be dismantled and the land and resources returned to the Palestinians.
Or, those that won’t leave can become Jewish Palestinians, the same as there are Arab Israelis.
So the answer to my question is deafening silence?
I guess that sounds better than genocide.
The idea of a “Jewish State” or a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, or any other religious State is totally disgusting to me. In no way can I support such an entity.
As far as the specific Israel/Palestine problem, it is no different than anything else in my eyes. Government cannot do anything except make it worse. The USA should stay COMPLETELY out of it. It is partially our fault that the problem exists. It is also partially our fault that the problem hasn’t been resolved in the last 65 years. However, we have absolutely no chance of solving the problem. In the long term, our continued involvement will do nothing but harm. The sooner we get out of the way the better off everyone will be.
I know there are people on both sides that could live together reasonably , given or attaining a decent standard of living. The trouble makers have to be weeded out, and equal justice under the law,once you establish one. A reasonable person wouldn’t bahave like a killer, there’s an element that makes them nuts.
The “one state” idea on the Left is envisioned as a single secular state with Jews and Arabs living together in a democratic and civis state.
I don’t see that as a real world solution. Maybe in a couple decades of Palestine and Israel coexisting and becoming economically, culturally and resource intertwined. And that give time for kids to be born and grow up not knowing fear or hate (at least between Israelis and Palestinians.
But Israel has an internal problem with it being based on a “Jewish state” and having 20% of the Israeli state’s population not fitting the determining classification to be an official Israeli. If Israeli can not be a unfied society it will always have internal ethnic problems. imo.
In some parts of the US Left there is a mistaken idea that a single state of Arabs and Jews is possible all at once right now.
In a one-state Palestinian solution, what happens to all the current residents of Israel?
I’d like to think that if all parties looked at it dispassionately they would agree on the one-state solution as the only way forward. Sadly there’s so much hatred and ideology fogging things up.
The US should immediately pull out all support of Israel and declare a one-state solution, a Palestinian solution.
I would say that the LP should not be commenting on or urging groups in other countries on what to do. Urging usually follows commenting, strong urging follows urging and various sorts of actions usually follow strong urging. In a political realm people in other countries need to be allowed to pursue their own interests and self-determination without political comments from people who have less understanding of the conditions there than the people who live there.
When the US Libertarian Party and its supporters have broken the US government of its international interventionism then perhaps commenting and even urging might be warranted. We (the US and the LP) are not at that point yet.
The LP should not take sides because the membership has diverse views.
The LP should always apply libertarian principles to public policy issues.
Nor does the LP’s “non-intervention” stance prohibit it from issuing opinions on foreign states’ un-libertarian policies.
The LP condemns North Korea, and I’m sure it’s condemned the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany even though they’re no longer around.
The only problem is that LP members disagree on the historical facts of the Mideast, and how LP principles apply — but that is not an insurmountable problem.
Problems of disagreement can always be solved in contentious conventions, if only temporarily, until the next convention.
Nothing wrong with contentious conventions. Better than turning a blind eye to important issues and feigning a phony “unity.”
The only statement the LP should make would address ending foreign aid and US interventionism. The LP should not take sides because the membership has diverse views.
I just searched their website for “assad”. Nothing.
Agreed.
I wish the LP would make some kind of a statement obout the bloodshed. They wouldn’t even have to take sides–just call for both sides to stop killing each other.
I just checked their website, so if they have anything to say about it they haven’t posted it yet.
I wonder what the P&F have to say about the UN action yesterday? I know the Greens are solidly in the “one secular state” camp The act yesterday was based around the 1947 two state partition.
I know the P&F work hard to be a coalition party, and that the US Left is split between those supporting a one state or two state proposal.