Help Lisa Run for the Zehut List
Fundraising campaign by
Lisa Liel
-
₪525.00raised of ₪5,000.00 goal goal
No more donations are being accepted at this time. Please contact the campaign owner if you would like to discuss further funding opportunities
Campaign Story
I am interested in running for the Zehut Party list for the 21st Knesset. Primaries will take place in September, and it costs NIS 5,000 to enter as a candidate.
I think I have a lot to offer the party and the country. My views are substantially the same as those of Zehut Chairman Moshe Feiglin, but I'm happy to answer specific questions.
Politically and economically, I've been a follower of Objectivism for the past 22 years, which means that I am for the least possible government. I favor free markets, with government primarily engaged in police, army and courts, and not interfering in an individual's choice of what to do with his or her earnings. It's what most people would think of as a libertarian outlook.
I believe that parents have the primary responsibility for seeing to the education of their children, and that how they do so is not the business of the government.
I believe that protectionist limits on imports only harm the average Israeli.
I believe that it is incumbent upon us to immediately disarm the Palestinian Authority and to declare to the world that Israeli sovereignty applies to all of Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria, just as it does to Tel Aviv and Haifa.
I am an excellent communicator in English, if somewhat less so in Hebrew, where I am much better in writing than I am in speaking. I am a computer programmer by profession, and problem solving is what I do. And we have a lot of problems here in Israel that require solutions.
I don't have the NIS 5,000 that I need to enter the primary race. I hope that you'll be willing to make a donation of any size to help me run. Any money I receive in excess of NIS 5,000 will be used for campaign materials or donated to the Zehut Party.
Why Support Me?
I am more an ideologue than a politician. I care passionately about the future of Israel. And my rhetorical skills, with all due modesty, are better than anyone I've ever seen in Knesset. You don't want Bennett or Bibi talking to the press: you want me.
If you'd like to see some of the articles I've written, which reflect my views, and the positions that I will support as a Member of Knesset, here are a few:
- The Zehut Party – Something New Under the Sun
- Autonomy for Israeli Citizens?
- Zehut: A Jewish Israeli Party
- Arguing with the logically impaired
- Reality Check
- From a “random person on the Internet”
- A lesson from the Megillah
- Why are people so insane about Israel?
- What would you do?
- Obama and Bibi: two peas in a pod
- Tisha B’Av and Trigger Warnings
- Israel and Amalek
- Moshe Feiglin and the Failure of the Likud
- My Comments on the Feiglin Plan
- Why won’t Islamists make peace?
- Taking control of the terms of discussion
- Peace, As Opposed to Peace
- The Media Are Making America's Anti-Semitism Problem Worse
Finally, while I hesitated to add this (because it's easy to say, but words are cheap), I can't be bought. Those who know me are aware of this, and if I get elected, you'll have a chance to see it.
Organizer
- Lisa Liel
- Campaign Owner
Donors
- Anonymous
- Donated on Jul 07, 2017
- Lisa Liel
- Posted On Jul 06, 2017
Josh, that’s a legitimate question. The key here is "a war of aggression that’s been launched against you." Modern rules of warfare treat war as an acceptable thing, so long as it has rules. I disagree. War is unacceptable. Those who launch it against you need to be taken out of the equation so that they never do it again. Think of it as a kind of national evolution. If you know that launching a war is liable to result in your utter destruction, you’re less likely to do it. That makes peace a survival characteristic.
- Josh Weinstein
- Posted On Jul 06, 2017
You said you welcome questions, so I’d like to ask you about two things you said in the articles you listed here. You said, in the context of responding to a war of aggression: “Everyone on the enemy side of a war of aggression that’s been launched against you is deserving of death. Men, women, children. All of them.” “A Jew who commits a crime like robbing a store or mugging someone? He’s a bad dude, and must be punished for it. But a self-identified “Palestinian” who does the same thing should be put down on the spot.” The generally accepted ethical behavior in war (at least in the Western world) is that non-combatants are innocent civilians who should not be targeted. If military action is deemed necessary then part of the calculation of the cost of that action is collateral civilian causalities. You appear to be endorsing a method of warfare which does not recognize the concept of innocent bystanders. If so, how is that ethically different than terrorism which seeks to target civilians as well as enemy combatants?
No updates for this campaign just yet
Donors & Comments
- Anonymous
- Donated on Jul 07, 2017
- Lisa Liel
- Posted On Jul 06, 2017
Josh, that’s a legitimate question. The key here is "a war of aggression that’s been launched against you." Modern rules of warfare treat war as an acceptable thing, so long as it has rules. I disagree. War is unacceptable. Those who launch it against you need to be taken out of the equation so that they never do it again. Think of it as a kind of national evolution. If you know that launching a war is liable to result in your utter destruction, you’re less likely to do it. That makes peace a survival characteristic.
- Josh Weinstein
- Posted On Jul 06, 2017
You said you welcome questions, so I’d like to ask you about two things you said in the articles you listed here. You said, in the context of responding to a war of aggression: “Everyone on the enemy side of a war of aggression that’s been launched against you is deserving of death. Men, women, children. All of them.” “A Jew who commits a crime like robbing a store or mugging someone? He’s a bad dude, and must be punished for it. But a self-identified “Palestinian” who does the same thing should be put down on the spot.” The generally accepted ethical behavior in war (at least in the Western world) is that non-combatants are innocent civilians who should not be targeted. If military action is deemed necessary then part of the calculation of the cost of that action is collateral civilian causalities. You appear to be endorsing a method of warfare which does not recognize the concept of innocent bystanders. If so, how is that ethically different than terrorism which seeks to target civilians as well as enemy combatants?
- Anonymous
- Donated on Jul 03, 2017
Good luck! I hope you are successful with your campaign.
