Paul discusses his policy towards Israel beginning at 2:00.
From a Haaretz interview with Paul at the end of December:
I believe that Israel is one of our most important friends in the world. And the views that I hold have many adherents in Israel today. Two of the tenets of a true Zionist are “self-determination” and “self-reliance.” I do not believe we should be Israel’s master but, rather, her friend. We should not be dictating her policies and announcing her negotiating positions before talks with her neighbors have even begun. . .
I am the one candidate who would respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate to her about how she should deal with her neighbors. I supported Israel’s right to attack the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 1980s, and I opposed President Obama’s attempt to dictate Israel’s borders this year.
Guess non-interventionism cuts both ways. Here’s a longer excerpt:
Q. What was your reaction to your exclusion from the function held by the Republican Jewish Coalition, to which all the rest of the candidates were invited?
Paul: Well, it was a bit surprising and disappointing. I believe that Israel is one of our most important friends in the world. And the views that I hold have many adherents in Israel today. Two of the tenets of a true Zionist are “self-determination” and “self-reliance.” I do not believe we should be Israel’s master but, rather, her friend. We should not be dictating her policies and announcing her negotiating positions before talks with her neighbors have even begun.
Q. Were you disappointed with the lack of collegiality of the other candidates, who did not insist that you be invited as well?
Paul: No. I did not ask or expect them to boycott the event or insist to the organizers that I be invited.
Q. The RJC characterized your views on Israel as “misguided and extreme”. Why do you think they view your views in that way?
Paul: I do not know, as I am the one candidate who would respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate to her about how she should deal with her neighbors. I supported Israel’s right to attack the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 1980s, and I opposed President Obama’s attempt to dictate Israel’s borders this year.
Q. Do you think that the American debate on Israel is stifled?
Paul: There is no question that the problems of the Middle East have been intractable and may take new solutions and ideas. These ideas should all be openly discussed. I believe that my opinions have been distorted by those who want to continue America’s current role as world policeman, which we don’t have the money or manpower to sustain.
My philosophy, like that of the Founding Fathers, is that we should use our resources to protect our nation. Our policies of intervention and manipulation in Iran and Iraq and other places have led to unintended consequences and have not made Israel safer. Many in the Jewish community share my opinion, and it’s vital for both nations that we continue to have an open dialogue.
Phil had referred this interview earlier when Paul says, regarding Iran:
I believe I’m the only candidate who would allow Israel to take immediate action to defend herself without having to get our approval. Israel should be free to take whatever steps she deems necessary to protect her national security and sovereignty.
Adam has performed a valuable service.
All of these candidates are racist killers, and they don’t mind saying so in public!
Just push for boycott of Israel, and don’t waste our time humping for Paul or for any of the rest.
Yes, but:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08gTWqWrI4M
I’m reckoning that Paul’s position is actually more pro-Palestinian than he lets on in the current campaign. It is quite telling that his above statements are being dragged up now, by various pro-Israeli players, to defame him.
But the bottom line is that supporting Paul is the pragmatic choice from an I-P view. Withdrawing all support from both sides will be better for the side which has received less support, and we know which one that is. In addition, the EU and other players may be willing to pick up the tab for the Palestinians in such a case. That they’d be willing or able to prop up Israel’s arms budget in the US’ stead is doubtful. Finally, if Paul says that he would grant Israel carte blanche in dealing with its neighbors, that is in no way different from the Israel policy of previous administrations.
Funny, Israel doesn’t appear shackled to me….
Paul also believes that the USA should be friends with Iran. He almost certainly believes that Iran should be allowed to take immediate action to defend herself and that Iran should be free to take whatever steps she deems necessary to protect her national security and sovereignty.
It’s an interview with Israeli news. Of course, he’s going to articulate his view in a way that is not offensive to the country that is asking him the questions. That being said, every one of Paul’s views, including the one expressed here, comports with his reverence for the constitution and extremely limited government (Libertarianism basically).
After NH, I decided to refresh my understanding of his views by re-reading his book Liberty Defined, a sort of dictionary like, a to z guide on where he stands on issues. Don’t like unlimited campaign contributions or lobbying? Make sure there is less for the government to auction off. Don’t like what is going on in another country? Again, get rid of as much tax payer funded aid so as to avoid people being forced to contribute to causes they don’t believe in. Let citizens privately contribute to their causes. He will always come down on the side of the individual, not the state. With regard to foreign aid, he is pro American individuals, not Anti Israel or any other country. There’s a long entry in the above book about the unintended, often negative, consequences of our foreign aid to all countries. That being said, personally, he is very pro life in that he is against abortion (probably as a result of his experience as an ob/gyn), capital punishment, and torture. His pro life stance is also what fuels his aversion to wars and, what he sees as needless soldier and civilian deaths. I would find it hard to believe that he does not personally feel sympathy and compassion for the Palestinians and their plight, but his first priority is to the citizens who elect/elected him.