Two new internet radio ads for Joe Kennedy from RightMarch PAC:
http://www.rightmarch.com/media/JoeKennedy1.mp3
http://www.rightmarch.com/media/JoeKennedy2.mp3
Joe Kennedy on Israel / Palestine
I am a Pro-Israel candidate and I support the Israel barrier also known as the separation or security fence as it is an effective solution in providing safety to the Israel civilian population.
To end the conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians I am first and foremost a proponent of a two state solution. I believe there is potential for the creation of a Palestinian nation, which would dramatically decrease the conflicts as well as give Palestinians a nation of their own. I look to Israel and Palestine to work out such an agreement and I fully support it.
I also believe that simply stating that a two state solution is the answer is the easy way out. As much as the vast majority of people (including myself) advocate a two state solution, we must be prepared with other alternative solutions to address the issues of violence in the region and the needs of its people. If a two state solution is not achievable I would recommend the following alternatives to deal with the many issues in the region. To that end, I have addressed these other alternatives by highlighting five areas of action: Refugees; Jordan Cooperation; Judea, Samaria and Gaza; Demographics and Religious Sites.
Refugees
The vast resources that have been poured into refugee camps by UNRWA and other organizations towards must be refocused on rehabilitation efforts. The focus must be on closing the camps, and eliminating these people’s refugee status by offering them permanent places of residence and citizenship in various Arab and other countries. The Arab countries, Israel and the international community must share the responsibility of absorption and economic assistance. The key is providing economic assistance to countries that are willing to absorb refugees so they do not become a burden, but rather contributing citizens to that nation. Helping the refugees is primarily a humanitarian mission, but is also overcomes one of the key obstacles towards achieving stability in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The continued existence of refugee camps filled with millions of people without permanent homes or suitable economic opportunities has only fueled the violent conflict by creating a vacuum which has been filled by resentment and extremism. Eliminating these camps would be in the interest of all Middle Eastern countries that desire regional stability
Jordan and other stable Arab regimes
In the absence of a stable, united Palestinian Authority (and its would-be successor state), Jordan should be recognized as a viable, stable alternative. A Palestinian state on the West Bank would pose a similar danger to Jordan as it would to Israel. Jordan has proven it’s ability to positively govern its Palestinian population, and its position can be further bolstered economically and militarily with support from the Israel and the international community. Jordan should be encouraged to grant citizenship to the Arab residents of the West Bank, who would then be allowed to stay in Israeli territory as citizens of Jordan who reside in Israel. While Jordan is a key partner, it is also imperative for Israel to foster cooperation with other Middle Eastern countries like Turkey and Egypt. Israel will need the continued backing of the international community in order to combat the cogent threat posed by Iran and other extremist Islamic entities and organizations.
Judea, Samaria and Gaza
Israeli sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Gaza. It is imperative that Israel clarify the legal status of these regions in order to create a sense of ‘normalcy’ and ‘law and order’ in these parts. The legal ambiguity and status quo of military rule has only contributed to the environment of violence. Israel must make efforts to develop these regions economically for both Jews and Arabs – in cooperation with its neighbors. It is also imperative that the Israeli military be able to operate freely in these parts to eliminate any potential terror threats. However, the annexation of these regions would free the Israel Defense Force of its current civil administration duties and allow the military to focus on security alone.
Demographics
The demographic threat to Israel will be addressed by providing the Arab residents with alternative options. The core demographic threat is posed by the refugees who will be rehabilitated and absorbed in other countries. This includes the refugees of Gaza and the West Bank. Many of the others will become citizens of Jordan. The remaining Arabs in Israel’s territory will be given the option of citizenship in Israel (assuming they meet basic criteria of loyalty to the state), although they will also be given the option of relocating to other countries with economic assistance. The Arabs will ultimately have the choice between living as a religious and ethnic minority in a Jewish democracy with full civil rights, or choosing to live in a country which is closer to their cultural and religious norms.
Religious Sites
This solution is unique in the fact that it realistically allows full access for all religions to their sites in the Holy Land. The experience with Palestinian Authority and Muslim control over religious sites (Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Shechem, etc.) has shown that there would not be religious freedom in a Palestinian state for Christians, Jews or other non-Muslims. Israeli control over areas of the Holy Land west of Jordan would guarantee access for all religions to their sites with full security.
Mike Cann writes at Examiner.com:
US Senate campaign, Joe Kennedy reaches out to supporters of marijuana legalization
There is an alternative to "reefer madness" in the MA Senate election.
His name is Joe Kennedy.
My name is Garrett Anderson and I am the Scheduling Director for the Joe Kennedy for U.S. Senate campaign.
Mr. Kennedy is an Independent running in the Massachusetts Senate Special Election set for January 19, 2010.
Now that the holiday season has come and gone, Joe will now begin to criss-cross the state of Massachusetts to bring his message to the electorate and make his case for his candidacy.
Joe Kennedy, a resident of Dedham, is interested in speaking with and meeting with MassCann sometime between now and January 19th. Joe is very interested in meeting with the group to have a dialouge on the the legalization of marijuana as well any other issues that come up in the question & answer session. If you are interested in hosting Joe, please let me know. Joe is the only candidate in the race who is open to the idea of legalizing marijuana. Joe believes that this is a state issue; therefore, the federal government should have no role at all. Legalizing marijuana is 100% off the table for Scott Brown and Martha Coakley. Joe is hopeful that he can meet with your club to expand on this issue and get a true dialouge going on the issue. I appreciate your consideration in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Thank you and have a great day!
Sincerely,
Garrett Anderson
Scheduling Director Joe Kennedy for U.S. Senate
Joe Kennedy running for US Senate.
Courtesy of Joe Kennedy’s campaign
Related articles
Independent candidate Joe Kennedy for US Senate on marijuana
US Congressman and Senate Candidate Mike Capuano answers medical marijuana question
US Federal Government statistics, "Violent crime down, cannabis use up"
2009 top 10 Massachusetts marijuana reform actions
Steven Epstein testifies at MA state house on marijuana legalization bill
2009 IPR post archive for Joe Kennedy
76 responses so far ↓
1 Andrew Panken // Jan 3, 2010 at 1:09 am
I don’t think it’s advisable to propose solutions to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The key is both sides must believe a full peace agreement would be in their best interest. Obviously, they can’t agree on true peace. Our financial aid to both sides isn’t helping them or us, considering we are actually a bankrupt banana republic.
2 Ralph Swanson // Jan 3, 2010 at 1:34 am
Did this guy talk to the Libertarians in Israel?
3 Brad // Jan 3, 2010 at 1:43 am
What’s their position?
4 Thomas L. Knapp // Jan 3, 2010 at 1:46 am
I thought this guy was running for a seat in the US Senate, not the Knesset. The US government should get its nose out of the Arab-Israeli conflict entirely. Turn off the aid spigots (not just to Israel but to the “Palestinian” Authority, Egypt, etc.). Let them work it out, or not, themselves.
5 iLovePalestine // Jan 3, 2010 at 2:21 am
Joe Kennedy starts his position on israel/Palestine by stating he is PRO ISRAEL. he then delves into his NAZI-LIKE tirade of racist filth disguised as “solutions” to the problem. Wouldn’t it be more refreshing for new politician to start his campaign by saying I am pro, Justice, fairness, peace, equality, reconciliation… instead of disqualifying himself from the opening sentence and then have the galls to present you his “views” on the conflict. The reason this conflict is still raging is exactly because of SLAVES like Joe!
I understand that the Zionists are holding ALL America’s politicians by the balls by give me a break Joe. You are nothing but another one of those spineless cowards who specialize in Zionist boot licking. Seems nowadays the harder you lick Zionist boots and suck on Zionist balls (at least more than your opponent) the greater your chances of success.
You should be condemned for your racist contemptible and genocidal views about the Palestinians NATIVE population of the land. No Israeli Jew can ever claim that he was there first. 99% of the Jewish population of israel have either immigrated (invaded) Palestine themselves or are first Generation born to Jewish immigrants. Imagine Joe of this could be applied in any other country including yours the USA. Imagine that Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) not only take over and occupy and rule over the whole USA, but also suggest that you need to be thrown out from your country because you are a threat to its new Mexican characters. Even you (Americans) did not do that to the Native Americans who escaped your slaughter of the Millions of native American population. No one until this day question the fact that the Natives are the original owners of the land and no one has the right to suggest that they “leave”! how dare you Joe, do you crave that seat to the point that you are willing to sell your soul to the Zionist devil to win? Research the Christian/Palestinian views on the occupation before assuming things, no Palestinian Christian takes the same stand as you. and they are victimized by the occupation as their Muslim brothers/sisters. You are a heartless Hitleroid who is willing to do anything to get the Jewish thumbs up to run. Joe are those solid views on iZrael/Palestine or do you reserve the right change if needed? Think about it, what if your opponents start licking harder and deeper than you do? will you go more extreme in your views to satisfy your Masters. We’ve all seen the presidential candidates of the last election. It was a sight to behold, those vying for the highest office in the land of the world’s ONLY superpower falling allover themselves competing in the Zionist shoe/butt licking game.
You people have no shame nor honor, I feel sorry for you because I know you can not sleep at night knowing that those parasitic Zionists OWN YOU!
6 Morgan Brykein // Jan 3, 2010 at 3:20 am
I just find it distasteful that the United States is concerning itself with solving the problems of other countries.
7 Born Again Non-Voter // Jan 3, 2010 at 3:20 am
“The demographic threat to Israel will be addressed by providing the Arab residents with alternative options. The core demographic threat is posed by the refugees who will be rehabilitated and absorbed in other countries.”
Demographic threat? You mean, because just by living on their ancestral land, the native born Arabs threaten a Jewish majority?
If someone called Mexicans or a “demographic threat” to a white majority America, that person would be called a racist — and rightfully so.
America annexed Mexican land — and took the people with the land. You take the land, you take the people. And you give them full citizenship. And equal rights.
If Israel wants Gaza and the West Bank, go ahead and annex them. But you take the land, you take the people.
There’s no libertarian right to a “Jewish majority” state; just as there’s libertarian right to a “Christian majority” or “white majority” state.
8 Ralph Swanson // Jan 3, 2010 at 3:25 am
@3
The ones I talk to like the 2 state solution, compensation or return of land, and don’t like the barrier–and US and US politicians out of Israeli affairs. But the real problem is the weak property and harsh tax policy, and that Israel is not truly a secular state (IMHO this is the real problem with all the Islamic and Middle East countries that’s behind terrorism and worse), and the courts are a joke. But some are more interested in market theory and tend to take a conservative line.
A lot of them are involved in private initiatives to reach out, election reform and marihuana legalization. A Libertarian Club is in formation. Here are groups the Libs work with:
>http://www.ale-yarok.org.il/
>http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/427/greenleaf.shtml
>http://www.jims-israel.org/
>http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=751
Pro-Israel is nice, pro-individual better.
9 Melty // Jan 3, 2010 at 4:50 am
didn’t say cut off foreign aid? …that’s disappointing.
Good stance on cannabis!
10 Robert Milnes // Jan 3, 2010 at 6:56 am
OK, let’s update on the PLAS Experiment. Looks like we are going to blow off the Jan 5 special election in GA. A libertarian candidate-no Green. Might as well blow off the Jan 12 Green no Libertarian in CA. Now this special election in MA on Jan 19 has been getting a lot of attention in IPR. But no PLAS. So don’t be deluded. The ancient factors are at play in full force. A reactionary -dem or rep will win. MA is a lock for a dem. So that will be that no matter how many interviews, speeches etc this guy does. Whether he is a knee jerk Zionist lackey or not DOESN’T MATTER. He’s going to lose so get used to it if you haven’t long ago. So, no momentum going into the MO special election on Feb 2 a libertarian & no Green. So we might as well blow that off too. Tom K., might as well not bother to campaign in this one. Losers!
11 Libervention Price Club // Jan 3, 2010 at 10:51 am
Tom K. is correct, the US Senate and its candidates really have no business trying to solve Israeli/Palestinian problems, and I seriously doubt anything Americans say or do will resolve the issue.
I understand that Massachusetts has a large Jewish community so it probably came up a lot in the campaign, would be my guess.
But we really need to do get away from the idea that the United States is the world’s police force and civil/family court. That just leads to the kind of grandiose imperial overreaching that has always historically lead to domestic tyranny, martial law, bankruptcy, and eventual invasion and implosion of the imperial homeland.
This is why the founders of the US were suspicious of standing (permanent) armies, but wanted instead that national defense be provided by an unorganized militia of the whole people and armies raised for fixed terms only in times of declared war. Of course, it was only a matter of time before that morphed into a large, permanent standing military which spends more money than the rest of the world combined.
On marijuana, the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and pretty much across the board, Kennedy takes a sensible non-interventionist position, telling people that the US government is not here to solve all their economic problems, make their children and neighbors adhere to their social mores and cultural traditions, and bring Western ideas of government to every corner of the world. He should apply the same sensible reasoning to the Israeli/Palestinian issue.
12 Ben // Jan 3, 2010 at 2:30 pm
It’s odd that the Scheduling Directors says that Kennedy is open to pot legalization when he’s pretty much already endorsed it on his website:
•2943: Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2009 – Prohibits the imposition of any penalty under an Act of Congress for the possession of marijuana for personal use or for the not-for-profit transfer between adults of marijuana for personal use. Deems the possession of 100 grams or less of marijuana as personal use (one ounce or less for a not-for-profit transfer between adults). Allows the imposition of a civil penalty under the Controlled Substances Act for the public use of marijuana if such penalty does not exceed $100.
13 Ben // Jan 3, 2010 at 2:35 pm
I’m impressed to see a Libertarian supported by a Conservative PAC, even though the Libertarian is clearly to the left of the Republican on issues like drugs, marriage and immigration.
14 Robert Capozzi // Jan 3, 2010 at 2:46 pm
The Kennedy campaign diverts into the weeds on this one. Too much detail for zero payoff. He’s not going to win because he has a measured yet complex position on the ME. Odds are VERY high he’s not going to win at all, so the opportunity cost of attempting to thread this needle — one that no one has done for decades — gains nothing.
Less helpfully, he doesn’t tie it back to the failure of the Rs and Ds. I’d suggest his whole campaign theme should be the failure of the 2 party “system.” Why not take a page from Gary Hart campaign (the part that worked!) and talk about the need for “new ideas” — perhaps calling it “fresh thinking outside the corrupt 2 party system.”
Or something.
15 paulie // Jan 3, 2010 at 2:49 pm
I think with this recession a lot of conservatives are open to libertarian candidates since both Bush and Obama have engaged in unprecedented reckless spending.
However, even as recently as last year many of them were openly saying or insinuating that we should be rounded up and put in secret prisons for treason in their phony “war on terror.”
16 paulie // Jan 3, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Less helpfully, he doesn’t tie it back to the failure of the Rs and Ds. I’d suggest his whole campaign theme should be the failure of the 2 party “system.” Why not take a page from Gary Hart campaign (the part that worked!) and talk about the need for “new ideas” — perhaps calling it “fresh thinking outside the corrupt 2 party system.”
Good idea. BTW I think that is what drew me to the Hart campaign (which I worked on) before I really “got” libertarianism.
Unfortunately, Hart had too many contradicting obligations – on one hand to the New Left counterculture that was his original base, and the other to the people he became beholden to during the long process of “infiltrating” them – and ultimately he was forced to take himself out of the game to avoid facing those contradictions.
That whole process taught me to be cautious/suspicious of infiltrationist strategies to achieve power.
17 Michael H. Wilson // Jan 3, 2010 at 3:33 pm
For what my opinion is worth I would think that candidates should focus on getting the message across: Civil Liberties, Economic Freedom (this does not mean fiscally conservative) and a non interventionist foreign policy.
18 Michael H. Wilson // Jan 3, 2010 at 4:22 pm
It also might help if we had a clearing house for information that candidates could draw ideas from.
19 Steven R Linnabary // Jan 3, 2010 at 5:27 pm
I never thought I would see the day when a LIBERTARIAN candidate would suggest ethnic cleansing as a solution to ridding an area of refugees! And refugees that WE helped to create.
PEACE
20 Born Again Non-Voter // Jan 3, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Israel is the elephant in the room, for many parties.
A “Jewish state” is no different in concept from a “white state” ora “Christian state.” But because some otherwise principled Jews feel that Israel is “different,” nobody wants to raise the issue. It’s emotional and “divisive.”
But yes, Kennedy is calling for “ethnic cleansing.” That’s the right term. And it’s evil.
Evil if a German State does it to non-Aryans. Evil if an American State does it to Indians. Evil if a Moslem State does it to Jews. Evil if a Jewish State does it to Moslems.
Too bad if pointing out this simple truth makes some people feel “uncomfortable.”
21 Solomon Drek // Jan 3, 2010 at 9:43 pm
This is what happens when Libertarians hook-up with soemone who is a novice with no real history of political activism in the Libertarian Party.
George Phillies can’t run away from this one. He is promoting an anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bigot who would make most Israelis blush with shame.
He doesn’t even address the most relevant issue which is US taxpayer subsidies for Israel.
Just another example of the unholy alliance between rightwing reactionaries and Libertarians.
22 paulie // Jan 3, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Drek, BS.
Kennedy is not a bigot at all. Nor is he a rightwing reactionary.
23 Robert Milnes // Jan 3, 2010 at 10:22 pm
paulie, right.he’s just another dime a dozen losertarian.
24 paulie // Jan 3, 2010 at 10:25 pm
A “Jewish state” is no different in concept from a “white state” ora “Christian state.”
How about a French State, English State, Japanese state?
Now, I am against any of these, but most people find them to be acceptable.
But yes, Kennedy is calling for “ethnic cleansing.”
He calls for the forced expulsion of Arabs? That’s not what I read. As far as I can tell he was calling for offering them options as Israeli citizens or as citizens of Arab nations.
He even supports a Palestinian state, which many (most?) Israelis are against.
I would agree however that it should not be any of the US’s business.
25 paulie // Jan 3, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Milnes, wrong.
He’s already getting way more coverage than the vast majority of LP candidates, for example.
26 Solomon Drek // Jan 3, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Paulie: “Kennedy is not a bigot at all.”
In politics bigotry is in the eye of the beholder, or voters as the case may be.
You say he isn’t, I say he is.
And I’ll bet there are at least a few thousand Arab/Muslim voters in Massachusetts who agree with me.
27 paulie // Jan 3, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Yeah, there’s probably a few thousand Arab/Muslims who would agree.
So what if there are?
You mean he won’t get 100% of the vote? Shockingly enough you are correct in that.
Maybe there’s also a few thousand Arab/Muslims who would disagree too, or would consider other issues to be more important to them as Americans.
And, hey, I never said you don’t have the right to be wrong, and Joe Kennedy can live without your support, I’m sure, especially since you won’t be voting in this election.
28 Solomon Drek // Jan 3, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Paulie said: “How about a French State, English State, Japanese state? Now, I am against any of these, but most people find them to be acceptable. ”
Don’t be ridiculous. I’d like to see the reaction if the English and French offered to pay Moslems to go back where they came from.
Keep defending this clown. The LP will continue to be irrelevant and you’ll only make yourself look silly.
29 Brian Holtz // Jan 3, 2010 at 10:44 pm
@17 Re: policy and campaign resources for candidates, see http://libertarianmajority.net/tools. For an explanation of why the LP should not try to be yet another comprehensive libertarian policy shop, see http://libertarianintelligence.com/2009/10/libertarian-policy-well-is-not-dry.html.
30 Robert Milnes // Jan 3, 2010 at 10:46 pm
paulie @24, granted. But will it make any difference? That is my point. & the answer is NO!
31 Robert Milnes // Jan 3, 2010 at 10:47 pm
Oh my. I’m so ambivalent here. I tend to agree with Paulie but find it so tempting to join Drek & take jabs at him.
32 paulie // Jan 3, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Drek, you are the only one who is being ridiculous and clownish here.
The statement I was responding to was the statement that having a Jewish state is inherently wrong – not whatever you imagine I was replying to.
I said that yes, I think having any monopoly state of any sort is wrong, but I acknowledge that most people don’t agree with me on that and cited examples of other ethnic states which most people do not have a problem with.
Now, as to your silly non-objection, do the English and French have problems with squalid refugee camps that have existed for decades? If they did, I expect few people would have a problem with helping those refugees find homes.
In fact, the Arab nations could have done so long ago, but they choose to keep the refugee camps going as a propaganda tool against Israel.
33 paulie // Jan 3, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Brian @ 28
Thanks!
I was looking for that the other day and could not find it.
I didn’t see it linked from the front page of teh site unless I missed something.
Do you mind if I borrow some/all of that for the Libertarian Party of Alabama site I am working on?
http://allparty.wordpress.com
Already borrowed a couple of your videos….I hope that’s OK, but if it’s not please let me know.
How can we get all the state and county affiliates aware of all these tools being available?
What about creating a space where new tools of this sort can be created and worked on in an open source environment, and making sure it is well publicized?
34 paulie // Jan 3, 2010 at 11:00 pm
paulie @24, granted. But will it make any difference?
Yes.
In fact, I believe it makes a lot more difference than can be readily measured or identified.
It spreads libertarian ideas, even to those who are not willing to vote for our candidates, and puts pressure on the major party candidates to move in our direction.
To the people who hear our ideas, you never know where that will lead. They may get involved in the future in any number of ways, big and small. Some of them may eventually change the world.
Now you can say that the established politicians are not moving in our direction, but maybe things would be a lot worse if we did not make the effort.
It may yet make all the difference in the world.
35 Born Again Non-Voter // Jan 3, 2010 at 11:00 pm
How about a French State, English State, Japanese state? Now, I am against any of these, but most people find them to be acceptable.
There are National Front parties in England and France, who claim that they are nations of an Anglo-Saxon and Gallic people (respectively).
I don’t think most people find these National Front parties to be acceptable.
Modern Western nations embrace multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious values. They at least claim that anyone can be a Frenchman, Canadian, Englishman, American, etc.
Israel also claims to be a modern, democratic, Western nation. Israel should “get with the program” or cease pretending to be in the Western club.
36 Robert Milnes // Jan 3, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Solomon Drek, I’m not sure what Kennedy proposes is technically ‘ethnic cleansing” in the politically correct sense. If it is part of an overall comprehensive peace negotiation, it should at least be on the table. & the guy did step up to the plate here when no one else did, so that deserves some cred. But you are scoring points against paulie, so keep up the good work!
37 Robert Milnes // Jan 3, 2010 at 11:12 pm
paulie @33, all that sounds good & may very well be true & correct, but in the limited nuts & bolts sense, will it make more than a point or two difference in results & change Lib/loser to winner? Come on, now.
38 libertarianblue // Jan 3, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Unless I missed it, I never saw “Cut foreign aid to all countries” pity.
39 Solomon Drek // Jan 3, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Paulie said: “Now, as to your silly non-objection, do the English and French have problems with squalid refugee camps that have existed for decades?”
Read the following quote from your own candidate:
“The remaining Arabs in Israel’s territory will be given the option of citizenship in Israel (assuming they meet basic criteria of loyalty to the state), although they will also be given the option of relocating to other countries with economic assistance. The Arabs will ultimately have the choice between living as a religious and ethnic minority in a Jewish democracy with full civil rights, or choosing to live in a country which is closer to their cultural and religious norms.”
BS. And what happens if they refuse to “meet basic criteria of loyalty to the state”, whatever that is, and refuse to relocate to another country? Will there be a “final solution” for those who refuse loyalty and refuse to relocate?
He’s not talking about refugee camps. He’s talking about residents of West Bank and Gaza who have lived there for generations. I have been to West Bank and Gaza (have you?) and these people are not refugees. They are human beings kept as virtual prisoners in their own land.
You should read some of the other posts on this thread. I think I’m being generous in my characterization of your candidate’s position.
Keep defending this guy and you’ll only diminish what little credibility you have left as a principled Libertarian.
40 paulie // Jan 3, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Modern Western nations embrace multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious values.
In many ways Israel does too. Most of the population is actually secular, and Jews are actually only barely an ethnic majority – in fact they are only a majority at all by virtue of those living in the Palestinian areas that they conquered in 1967 not being offered citizenship (which they don’t want).
Other religions are tolerated in Israel, much more so than in neighboring countries. A large percentage of Israel’s population is Muslim, Christian, etc., and they are all allowed to practice their religion.
The state of Israel does have an established religion, but so do many other countries – many European countries still have official churches and church taxes collected by the government, and even the US still has government celebrations of religious holidays, “In God we Trust” on various government instruments (money, buildings, etc), “one nation under God” and so forth.
There is nothing particularly unusual about having some element of religious and/or ethnic identity in many nation-states.
I’m all for doing away for it as much as we can, but Israel is better in this regard than many other countries, and no worse than many others.
They at least claim that anyone can be a Frenchman, Canadian, Englishman, American, etc.
Strictly speaking, none of these nations make such a claim – they all have controls over both immigration and naturalization.
And there is no law in Israel that non-Jews (whether by ethnicity or religion) can not be citizens – in fact, many are.
41 paulie // Jan 3, 2010 at 11:17 pm
but in the limited nuts & bolts sense, will it make more than a point or two difference in results & change Lib/loser to winner? Come on, now.
I wouldn’t rule it out.
It may be unlikely, sure.
But who knows?
And even if it doesn’t, maybe it will help make it more likely in the future, or sow the seeds of liberty in some other way.
42 paulie // Jan 3, 2010 at 11:18 pm
But you are scoring points against paulie,
Hardly. He hasn’t even gotten within scoring range.
43 Steven R Linnabary // Jan 3, 2010 at 11:23 pm
The focus must be on closing the camps, and eliminating these people’s refugee status by offering them permanent places of residence and citizenship in various Arab and other countries.
Get out, NOW!!!
It is also imperative that the Israeli military be able to operate freely in these parts to eliminate any potential terror threats. However, the annexation of these regions would free the Israel Defense Force of its current civil administration duties and allow the military to focus on security alone.
It’s OURS!!! Now and forever!!
The core demographic threat is posed by the refugees who will be rehabilitated and absorbed in other countries. This includes the refugees of Gaza and the West Bank.
“Rehabilitated”?? As in Reeducation camps? I guess Sabra and Chattlilah weren’t enough! And then off to the reservation of some other Arab country where they will be segregated into squalid refugee camps.
Where does Kennedy even offer “citizenship” to the refugees? Of course, citizenship in Israel would be rather empty as Israel not long ago banned all Arab political parties.
FWIW, I really do hope that the Kennedy proposal above is merely a “first draft” that is meant to be amended.
PEACE
44 Michael H. Wilson // Jan 3, 2010 at 11:28 pm
@ 28 BH writes: “For an explanation of why the LP should not try to be yet another comprehensive libertarian policy shop, see http://libertarianintelligence.com/2009/10/libertarian-policy-well-is-not-dry.html.”
I see that you and I disagree a bit on this one and since I did suggest that we have some sort of clearing house for ideas I think I need to point out a couple of things.
First off the LPHQ would not need to run the show but it might help if there was some oversight by the Advertising & PR Committee.
Secondly what I would suggest need not be “comprehensive” but offer a short summary of ideas and examples. Example: How many know the history of zoning laws, the costs added to housing or that Houston basically does not have them? How many know about Rural Metro in Scottsdale, AZ? How many Libertarians know the number of troops stationed abroad and the costs of that deployment?
We might want to mention the history of jitneys in America and show where to get more detailed information. After all opening the urban transit market should be a top priority for any libertarian running for a position in an urban area.
Short summaries with examples might prove to be beneficial to many of our candidates.
45 paulie // Jan 3, 2010 at 11:28 pm
And what happens if they refuse to “meet basic criteria of loyalty to the state”
Then they don’t become the citizens of that state.
and refuse to relocate to another country?
Hmmm, dunno. All I saw him say was that they would be given two options that they don’t have now – a chance to become Israeli citizens, and a chance to make a fresh start elsewhere if that does not suit them.
By the way, anyone who becomes the citizen of the US has to take a pledge of loyalty. Did you know that?
Will there be a “final solution” for those who refuse loyalty and refuse to relocate?
Did you see him advocate one? I didn’t. It seems a lot more likely that they would either remain in their current situation or get to form their own country, as Kennedy also proposes.
He’s not talking about refugee camps. He’s talking about residents of West Bank and Gaza who have lived there for generations. I have been to West Bank and Gaza
And there are no refugee camps there?
You should read some of the other posts on this thread.
Read all of them, thanks.
I think I’m being generous in my characterization of your candidate’s position.
You can think whatever you want. It doesn’t make it true.
Keep defending this guy and you’ll only diminish what little credibility you have left as a principled Libertarian.
I have plenty of credibility as a principled libertarian, whereas you do not.
46 Michael H. Wilson // Jan 3, 2010 at 11:37 pm
BTW Brian may I have your permission to refer to http://libertarianmajority.net/tools in our news letter?
Thank you.
47 Solomon Drek // Jan 3, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Paulie said: “Other religions are tolerated in Israel, much more so than in neighboring countries”
Have you ever been to Israel? I have, several times. Spend some time in the West Bank and Gaza and see what it feels like, especially when you compare the status of jewish settlers in the West Bank with the native Arabs who were living there for generations.
Yeah, I agree that compared to its neighbors Israel probably does compare favorably. But it does not compare so favorably against the US and most European/western countries. Even among jews there is government-sponsored discrimination against reform and secular jews. The Israeli government has to keep redefining “who is a jew” for immigration purposes. I’m jewish, but my kids can’t immigrate to Israel because their mother is not jewish. It’s ridiculous.
Like I said before, I’m being charitable to your candidate compared to some other posts I’ve seen on this thread. And every other libertarian I know personally (and I’ve known more than a few in my time) would puke at your candidate’s comments, as would most other Americans I know.
48 paulie // Jan 4, 2010 at 1:15 am
By the way, anyone who becomes the citizen of the US has to take a pledge of loyalty.
I meant naturalized citizen. Sorry.
49 Brian Holtz // Jan 4, 2010 at 1:15 am
You bet, Michael — the more Libertarians that add http://libertarianmajority.net/tools to their toolbelt, the sooner we can dismantle the Nanny State.
50 paulie // Jan 4, 2010 at 1:29 am
Yeah, I agree that compared to its neighbors Israel probably does compare favorably.
But it does not compare so favorably against the US and most European/western countries.
None of which find themselves on a tiny strip of land surrounded by hundreds of millions of people who don’t think they have a right to exist. But you are correct.
Even among jews there is government-sponsored discrimination against reform and secular jews. The Israeli government has to keep redefining “who is a jew” for immigration purposes. I’m jewish, but my kids can’t immigrate to Israel because their mother is not jewish. It’s ridiculous.
I agree completely. The tiny religious parties have disproportionate influence because they hold the power to form coalitions in the Knesset.
None of that is an argument against anything I said, or against anything Joe said.
Ultimately, it is true that Israel faces a fundamental contradiction between being a Jewish state and being a democracy, since the Arab population is growing faster than the Jewish population. In fact Arabs are already the majority if you count the West Bank and Gaza, I believe. And Arabs would already be a majority in Israel proper if it were not for the ex-Soviet immigration recently.
The other problem they have is that if they become a democracy with no Jewish identity, an Arab majority may well be much more repressive to the Jews than the Jews ever were to the Arabs.
I don’t really know whether there is any solution to their problems, which is why I am glad that my parents decided against moving there as we had originally planned when we left Russia, and sorry that my relatives who left Russia later do live there.
if I was Joe my position would have been simple, leave the US out of it and stop giving either side any US taxpayer money.
Nor would I have seen any more urgent need to write a position paper about this than, say, about India-Pakistan tensions or the conflict over Cyprus.
51 Born Again Non-Voter // Jan 4, 2010 at 2:37 am
The other problem they have is that if they become a democracy with no Jewish identity, an Arab majority may well be much more repressive to the Jews than the Jews ever were to the Arabs.
Israel is comparable to apartheid South Africa, and in some ways, to the Jim Crow south. Some don’t like the comparison, but it’s more true than not.
Apartheid South Africa was a hybrid state, with a western, democratic government for a minority of whites, and an authoritarian government for a majority of blacks.
Like Israeli Jews, white South Africans valued democracy, but feared being outvoted by the majority blacks. Thus, the hybrid state.
Ironically, Jewish South Africans mostly supported granting equality to blacks, though many now don’t apply that standard to Israel.
Whites were mostly the majority in Jim Crow south, though they feared being overrun by blacks (a less rational fear than that of white South Africans or Israeli Jews).
In the end, the whites acceded to democratic values. Things seem to have worked out well enough for everyone in South Africa and the American south. Less so in former Rhodesia.
Jews, who’ve been among those promoting liberal democracy and equality in the West for the past couple of centuries, now face an irony: do they apply the values they’ve espoused to others, to themselves?
Some principled Jews want to, but all too many seek excuses not to.
The transformation of South Africa indicates that Israeli Jews need not be so fearful of equality or democracy. A transformation of a Jewish Israel to a multiculturally diverse state is possible, though difficult.
52 tab // Jan 4, 2010 at 7:45 am
“I am a Pro-Israel candidate and I support the Israel barrier also known as the separation or security fence as it is an effective solution in providing safety to the Israel civilian population.”
Sad. I liked Kennedy up to this point.
Support a barrier that cuts off the Palestinians from their own land including the most fertile farming land in the area.
Tis politics though. The chances of getting elected, especially in Massachusetts, are almost zero if you don’t come out in full support of Israel.
I guess I understand, but having support and promoting ignorant Israeli government talking points are two different things.
53 tab // Jan 4, 2010 at 7:48 am
“Tom K. is correct, the US Senate and its candidates really have no business trying to solve Israeli/Palestinian problems, and I seriously doubt anything Americans say or do will resolve the issue.”
Like it or not, this is an issue Americans care about. Or at least pretend to care about when told by their preachers they should support Israel. Why do you think Democrats and Republicans constantly come out in full support of Israel every single election and showing up at every AIPAC meeting?
54 tab // Jan 4, 2010 at 7:53 am
“He even supports a Palestinian state, which many (most?) Israelis are against. ”
Simply a clever catch phrase without describing exactly what type of Palestinian state will exist.
Does he support pre-67 borders and removing the over 200 illegal Israeli settlements from the West Bank? Does he support allowing a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital?
Unlikely on all three accounts.
55 ilona@israel // Jan 4, 2010 at 11:59 am
israeli citizens are mostly against events in gaza and we even had marcheres here in tel-aviv, but as for two-state fantasy-even if it will happen i am sure palestinians will start to ask for more and more land…
56 tab // Jan 4, 2010 at 12:45 pm
@ilona@israel,
I’m assuming you are a citizen by your use of “we” in your post so your perspective on the situation is interesting.
I think the Palestinian government, meaning the PA, would likely be happy if Israel made true concessions to retreat to pre-67 borders and allow a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital.
If Israel made those concessions then it would be difficult for the PA, who have made a number of good changes in the West Bank, to have any further major disputes with Isreal.
Both Israel and Hamas have an interest in maintaining war though. War is good for Israel because it gives them excuse to play the victim and continue to steal Palestinian land. War is good for Hamas because it allows them to maintain a small level of support in Gaza by provoking Israel.
57 Solomon Drek // Jan 4, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Paulie said: “None of which find themselves on a tiny strip of land surrounded by hundreds of millions of people who don’t think they have a right to exist.”
Now you’re beginning to sound like a typical apologist for radical zionism that I’ve been listening to since I was a kid. Hey, why not bring up the holocaust as well to justify Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians?
And where do you get “hundreds of millions” from? Israel has peaceful relations with Egypt and Jordan. Lebanon is divided by civil war and internal strife between christians and moslems, the former group tends to ally with Israel (have you ever heard of the 1982 massacre of thousands of palestinian civilians by christian militia under Israeli sponsorship at the Sabra and Chatilla refugee camps, prompting American military intervention?).
As to Syria they are the only front-line country which does not have a treaty with Israel. However, Syria’s population is comparable to Israel and by itself does not pose a credible military threat.
Ironically, the only other country with a history of military engagement against Israel has also been effectively neutralized at the cost of hundreds of billions of US dollars and nearly five thousand American lives. The war in Iraq did not make the world safe from weapons of mass destruction, but it sure helped make the middle east safe for Israel.
58 tab // Jan 4, 2010 at 1:14 pm
@Solomon,
Israel’s peaceful relations with Egypt largely exist because we give them a couple billion a year to remain peaceful. Otherwise those peaceful relations probably wouldn’t exist.
Also, how did the Iraq War make the Middle East safe for Israel? It made the Middle East infinitely more dangerous. It allowed Iran to emerge as the hegemonic power who is now likely pursuing nuclear weapons.
59 Solomon Drek // Jan 4, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Paulie said: “And there are no refugee camps there? ”
I’m glad you asked me that. I’ve been to those camps and they are the descendants of refugees evicted by Israel during the 1948 war for independence. Some were forcibly evicted from their homes while others fled in fear for their lives after Israeli militia massacred thousands of Arab civilians in towns like Deir Yassin. As Robert Milnes pointed out their status needs to be part of an overall negotiation between the parties involved, not a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum imposed by Israel at the point of a gun.
However, most residents of West Bank and Gaza live in towns and cities for generations. They are not refugees but they are second-class citizens in their own land. Jimmy Carter called it apartheid, but he has since apologized because his son is running for the Georgia State Legislature in a district that is heavily jewish.
60 paulie // Jan 4, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Now you’re beginning to sound like a typical apologist for radical zionism that I’ve been listening to since I was a kid.
Nope, just acknowledging reality. Would a radical zionist agree with me that the state of Israel should NOT exist?
And where do you get “hundreds of millions” from? Israel has peaceful relations with Egypt and Jordan.
With their governments right now. Certainly not in the past and not necessarily in the future. Try doing an opinion poll in those areas.
Before 1967, most of Israel was subject to shelling on a regular basis. before they invaded Lebanon, the same was true of northern Israel. It was true again leading up to the recent invasion of Gaza. In 1948 and 1967 Arab armies surrounded Israel. Terrorist attacks, proportionately to their population, are something like the equivalent of 9/11 every day or every few days.
They have a near-majority of Arabs in Israel proper, a majority if you count the occupied territories, and are basically living in a state of low level siege.
I don’t think Americans or Europeans would behave better under those circumstances.
have you ever heard of the 1982 massacre of thousands of palestinian civilians by christian militia under Israeli sponsorship at the Sabra and Chatilla refugee camps, prompting American military intervention?
Don’t be ridiculous. Of course I have. Although I usually remember seeing it transliterated as Shatila or Shatilah.
The war in Iraq did not make the world safe from weapons of mass destruction, but it sure helped make the middle east safe for Israel.
In so far as it has increased popular anger against Israel and America in the Muslim world, it has made the Middle East less safe for Israel.
The pro-US Arab regimes are, as Tad correctly pointed out, surviving on massive US bribes (as is Israel). Many of these pro-US Arab regimes are nevertheless happy to make financial contributions to non-governmental anti-Israel forces such as Hamas.
The pro-US Arab regimes are susceptible to popular Islamic revolution. What happened to the Shah in Iran could well happen to pro-US Arab regimes as well, especially since the US is busy poking the Muslim world in the eye with a stick. The resentment against America and Israel in the Muslim world is increasing, and it may well be just a matter of time for the Princes, Emirs, and presidents who live on the US dole.
I’ve been to those camps
Good, so you agree that what I said was correct.
their status needs to be part of an overall negotiation between the parties involved, not a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum imposed by Israel at the point of a gun
Who said anything about such an ultimatum?
Jimmy Carter called it apartheid
And he was correct.
61 Thomas L. Knapp // Jan 4, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Apart from the fact that getting entangled in foreign arguments is just not in the interests of America, there’s very good reason to avoid THIS argument in particular.
Simply put, none of the principal belligerent entities in the Arab-Israeli conflict have any desire or incentive to end the conflict under conditions which get them one iota less than 100% of their demands.
Unless they can get everything they want, they’re fine with keeping it at a low boil with occasional blowups, cashing the US aid checks that they get for doing so, and having each other to hold out to their subjects as bogeymen.
To put it a different way, US involvement in the argument is a key factor in keeping the argument going.
62 paulie // Jan 4, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Tom @ 60
Exactly.
63 Eric Dondero // Jan 4, 2010 at 8:07 pm
This is not a good development from a Republican perspective. Kennedy sounds like a real live candidate talking about important issues. And he’s taking a sharp move towards the right side on foreign policy with this statement.
While I deeply admire his stance on Israel, I also worry that this is going to cut into the support for my guy Scott Brown.
And I should mention not just “my guy.” But Scott Brown is staunchly supported by Massachusetts Libertarian State Senator Bob Hedlund (R), as well.
64 Solomon Drek // Jan 4, 2010 at 10:04 pm
“Terrorist attacks, proportionately to their population, are something like the equivalent of 9/11 every day or every few days. ”
Tell me about it. I saw one car bomb go off in Jerusalem killing 15 people and injuring dozens of others. I was riding in a cab and our driver was not permitted to continue because he was Moslem so we had to walk back to our hotel. There we were kept as virtual prisoners because of a curfew for several days.
I think we can stipulate that both sides are equally at fault, and I think we are also agreed that US interference is not only morally wrong but counterproductive as well. Which is all the more reason Mr. Kennedy needs to reconsider his position if he wants to be taken seriously as a credible Libertarian.
65 Solomon Drek // Jan 4, 2010 at 10:07 pm
“Kennedy sounds like a real live candidate talking about important issues. And he’s taking a sharp move towards the right side on foreign policy with this statement.”
Just my point. Kennedy sounds more like Alan Keyes and Pat Robertson than he does Ron Paul.
66 paulie // Jan 4, 2010 at 10:25 pm
I think we can stipulate that both sides are equally at fault, and I think we are also agreed that US interference is not only morally wrong but counterproductive as well.
Yes.
Which is all the more reason Mr. Kennedy needs to reconsider his position if he wants to be taken seriously as a credible Libertarian.
He’s certainly a serious libertarian, but if I was him my position would be much more non-interventionist. Praise from Dondero on foreign policy can never be a good thing, even though he does manage to find some kind of supposed libertarian credential for a big government RINO like Scott Brown (impressive stretch)!
67 Libervention Price Club // Jan 4, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Holy cow! Looking at Scott Brown’s positions on that chart #65…how does a “libertarian Republican” support a candidate like that?
68 Brad // Jan 4, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Is it true that Dondero was thrown out of the Tool Academy because he is….Just A Tool?
69 Born Again Non-Voter // Jan 4, 2010 at 11:09 pm
I think that D.C. libertarian peace activist Carol Moore wrote the classic article on this topic: Is Applying Libertarian Principles to Israel Anti-Semitic?
70 Thomas L. Knapp // Jan 4, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Carol’s article was interesting. Some time I’m going to have to get around to writing part two of my dissection of it (here’s part 1).
71 paulie // Jan 4, 2010 at 11:39 pm
Tom – excellent article!
72 Andy // Jan 5, 2010 at 2:18 am
“Like it or not, this is an issue Americans care about.”
I’m an American and I don’t give a rat’s ass about this issue. There are millions of other Americans who don’t give a rat’s ass about this issue either.
“Or at least pretend to care about when told by their preachers they should support Israel.”
Ever hear of the 1st amendment? Remember the part that says, “Congress shall make no law….respecting an establishment of religion,”? So who cares what anyone’s preacher or rabbi or mullah or whatever other “holy” person says? What’s that got to do with me or with the US Congress?
“Why do you think Democrats and Republicans constantly come out in full support of Israel every single election and showing up at every AIPAC meeting?”
Because they are unprincipled whores who will gladly violate the Constitution which they swear an oath to support and defend in exchange for campaign contributions.
All foreign aid is unconstitutional. AIPAC gives money (ie-bribes) to politicians who support their agenda (to give American tax payers money to Israel). Since all foreign aid is unconstitutional this is criminal (not to mention the fact that all taxation is theft, but that’s another issue). What AIPAC does is bribe politicians to give stolen money to a foreign government. This is solicitation of a crime. Therefore AIPAC is a criminal organization. The politicians who support AIPAC’s agenda are all criminals as well and they should be removed from office and put on trial for treason.
The ONLY libertarian position on the Arab-Israel conflict should be that the US government should stay the hell out of it. Cut off all aid to Israel and to all of the Arab countries and get the US military out of the region (and out of every other country as well). The people over there should solve their own problems. If they figure out a peaceful solution then great, if not, they can kill eachother. Whatever the case may be the US government should have nothing to do with it.
73 Libervention Price Club // Jan 5, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Praise from Dondero on foreign policy can never be a good thing, even though he does manage to find some kind of supposed libertarian credential for a big government RINO like Scott Brown (impressive stretch)!
Truly a marvel of Donderovian (TM) thought discipline.
74 tab // Jan 5, 2010 at 6:06 pm
“I’m an American and I don’t give a rat’s ass about this issue. There are millions of other Americans who don’t give a rat’s ass about this issue either.”
You don’t represent the vast majority and neither does anyone else who doesn’t care about Israel. There is a reason all candidates go out of their way to show how pro-Israel they are. It isn’t simply because they are whores. It is because they are doing what is needed to win an election.
“Ever hear of the 1st amendment? Remember the part that says, “Congress shall make no law….respecting an establishment of religion,”? So who cares what anyone’s preacher or rabbi or mullah or whatever other “holy” person says? What’s that got to do with me or with the US Congress?”
I’m quite sure you just made your own argument and responded to yourself. Where did I once say people couldn’t say whatever they want?
I said that is why the American people support Israel for the most part. Israel is an integral part to the Biblical prophecies.
I don’t disagree AIPAC bribes officials and holds quite a bit of influence in this country. But that point in no way discredits the fact that Americans overwhelmingly support Israel and care about the issue.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/39/the-u.s.-publics-pro-israel-history
75 Joe Kennedy updates: debate, candidate issue comparison, youtube ad, position paper on spending and taxes, Wayne Root endorsement | Independent Political Report // Jan 6, 2010 at 3:23 pm
[...] Joe Kennedy updates: internet ads, Israel/Palestine position, marijuana legalization Posted by Paulie 1/3 [...]
76 Libertarian Party blog: Joe Kennedy appears on 96.9 “Boston Talks” radio show | Independent Political Report // Jan 7, 2010 at 1:30 pm
[...] Joe Kennedy updates: internet ads, Israel/Palestine position, marijuana legalization Posted by Paulie 1/3 [...]
Leave a Comment