In a tweet on Christmas Eve, Senator Ted Cruz said that he had just gotten off the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to not only wish him a Happy Chanukah, but to assure Netanyahu that he has the “strong support” of the U.S. Congress.
Cruz also added that he is in favor of ending all U.S. funding of the United Nations until the anti-Israel resolution is reversed.
Sen. Lindsey Graham has announced that he will propose a measure to pull US funding for the United Nations unless the UN Security Council repeals the resolution it passed condemning Israeli settlements.Spoke w/ Israeli PM @netanyahu tonight to wish him Happy Chanukah & assure him of strong support in Congress. No US $ for UN until reversed.— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) December 24, 2016
These events highlight how libertarian issues do not always fit neatly on the mainstream political spectrum.
The failure of the U.S. to veto the Security Council resolution is fully in line with U.S. libertarian realpolitiks.
The United States should stay out of foreign entanglements when any issue comes before the United Nations which does not have a direct impact on the United States. It should abstain from such votes and should not direct the outcome of such votes by veto. In other words, the U.S. should be abstaining very frequently on all sorts of issues that do not directly concern the U.S.
This includes any resolutions put forward in the United Nations that are either pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, the U.S. response should be the same----stay neutral, abstain.
Thus, the libertarian will hold a view quite different than that of Sen. Cruz or Sen, Graham. However, the defunding of the United Nations by the United States is an attractive position for the libertarian and makes voting calculations from a libertarian perspective much more complex under this situation.
The United Nations is a dangerous world government organization which moves to bring the world under one set of rules created by it in conjunction with other one world bodies. It is, thus, a very dangerous organization from the perspective of the advancement of liberty and the Private Property Society.
The U.S. from a libertarian realpolitik perspective should only be a member of the UN from a defensive position, to only protect itself from actions within the body that would be a direct attack on freedom of the peoples of the U.S.
Thus, the U.S. defunding of the UN is an attractive proposal that the libertarian should support. The defanging of this world governing-lite body by cutting off funds should always be encouraged.
The libertarian can support the rabid Israeli supporters in Congress who call for a defunding of the United Nations, but the libertarian should not support such defunding in an effort to support Israel but rather because defunding will damage the efforts of the evil global organization.
In other words, the libertarian should stand by the U.S. neutrality on the resolution to condemn Israel, under most circumstances (see below for the exception) but at the same time applaud any defunding efforts.
Things become more interesting if defunding does occur that would continue in place until the Israeli settlements resolution is reversed. At such time from a libertarian realpolitik perspective, it could be argued very strongly that it is in the interest of the U.S. that the resolution not be reversed since the direct result, from a sound inward-looking policy perspective, of the U.S. would be the return of U.S. funding of the evil body. Thus, under such circumstances, the U.S. libertarian should support the position that the resolution should not be reversed so that the defunding stays in place.