In a December 30, 2011 NPR interview with Robert Siegel, Johnson said:
SIEGEL: By the way, what do you make of Congressman Paul's libertarianism which pointedly does not include respect for the reproductive rights of women?
JOHNSON: Well, that would be one of our differences. I also happen to think that Israel, you know, we were responsible for the creation of Israel and that was through the United Nations; that they've been a strong military ally, that they will remain such. I do not think a military threat right now exists from Iran, but we should be vigilant to that. And I think it's naive to think that Israel is not going to act in their best interests should there be weapons of mass destruction showing themselves.
SIEGEL: And you would say the U.S. should support an Israeli action in that case, if Israel were to act militarily?
JOHNSON: Well, I would argue that that would probably be in our best interest. And to have them do that is a better situation than U.S. men and servicewomen engaged in the same.
Johnson's remarks sound vague and squishy to me. As if he knows that 1. many Libertarians support a strictly non-interventionist foreign policy (i.e., ending all foreign aid and military alliances/favored nations -- no exceptions), and 2. that other Libertarians (e.g. Wayne Allyn Root) want the LP to carve out an exception for Israel (i.e., continued U.S. aid and military alliance).
Johnson's answer sounds like he's hinting that he supports such an exception for Israel, without coming out and saying so unequivocally.
Curiously, while Johnson claims that Israel has been a "strong military ally" of the United States, there are counterclaims that Israel has never been -- legally or officially -- a U.S. ally, because no treaty of alliance has ever been signed between the two nations.
Carol Moore wrote the influential and controversial article, "Is Applying Libertarian Principles to Israel Anti-Semitic?"
0 comments:
Post a Comment