Ron Paul on Israel

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 83 Comments

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.

About Adam Horowitz

Adam Horowitz is Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

83 Responses

  1. Boycott Israel on Campus
    January 12, 2012, 5:16 pm

    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.

    • Hostage
      January 12, 2012, 9:31 pm

      I supported Israel’s right to attack the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 1980s

      Well Adam, if non-intervention cuts both ways, this logically begs the question Does Ron Paul support the right of other States to attack Israel’s nuclear facilities?

      The UN Security Council condemned the premeditated attack on Iraqi nuclear facilities as a clear violation of the UN Charter and international norms by a vote of 15-0; stated that Iraq’s program had complied with the IAEA non-proliferation program; and called for Israel to immediately place its own nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the IAEA. See S/RES/487 (1981) http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/487%20%281981%29

      It also fully recognized the inalienable sovereign right of Iraq and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economies and industry for peaceful purposes in acordance with their present and future needs and consistent with the internationally accepted objectives of preventing nuclear weapons proliferation.

      Israel has never pursued nuclear development consistent with the internationally accecpted objective of preventing nuclear weapons proliferation.

      • American
        January 13, 2012, 6:00 pm

        ” this logically begs the question Does Ron Paul support the right of other States to attack Israel’s nuclear facilities?”

        LOL…I’d say so.
        Paul isn’t stupid….for all practical purposes no ‘active’ US support for Israel or “hands off” Israel policy means an impotent Israel, a very small Israel, perhaps ending in no Israel depending on what they do.
        The zios know what he means .
        Simple benign neglect alone by the US would do Israel in.
        My only objection to leaving it at that is the damage they are inflicting on others like Palestines.

  2. Koshiro
    January 12, 2012, 5:17 pm

    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.

    • Justice Please
      January 13, 2012, 4:23 am

      I agree with Koshiros analysis.

      Sure, I would rather like a US president to contain expansionist Israel with US troops to keep the peace and finally reinstate pre-1967 borders, but as long as that is not going to happen, I favor “non-interventionism cutting both ways” over the current “let Israel do what it wants but punish Palestinians whereever possible”-approach.

      If the US was out of the way, the EU maybe would find a more balanced and productive way of dealing with Palestine-Israel.

      And always remember: Ron Paul is a force which, when supported rationally, can bring topics like US imperialism, active support for Israel, war, torture, police state etc. on the table. Other, maybe even better candidates, who until now had to hide, could later take the ball and return to a “productive” interventionism.

      That said, I am disappointed that Paul seems to support Israels right to have attacked Osirak. That’s preemptive war based on suspicions and paranoia, not on a clear and present danger. Because back then, Israel already had 200 nukes. No way Iraq would have attacked Israel with some alleged nuke produced in Osirak.

      • dahoit
        January 13, 2012, 9:14 am

        C’mon,he’s just saying their sovereignty is their affair,to their benefit or not,as ours should be,and which of course isn’t,or hasn’t been.
        If the Western international community didn’t fellate itself to Israel,don’t you think Israels bad policy decisions would cost it far more in sanctions and treasure,and maybe they would think twice before such provocative actions such as Osirak?
        And who set up the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein in the first place?I guarantee Zio forces in the US state department had some input,so it’s just more gravity towards Dr.Pauls non interference in foreign sovereignty.
        Israel will rise or fall on its own policy,and if you haven’t noticed,our influence on them is minute compared to their influence here.
        And that is where he’s concerned.

      • Philip Weiss
        January 13, 2012, 9:56 am

        Though no fan of Dahoit, this is where I agree. If you believe in the Israel lobby as a pernicious force, then you want Israel to make its own policy without a big brother (Hannah Arendt’s word) holding the bag. If that were the case, then Is. would not attack its neighbors, it would find a way to live with them.

      • Adam Horowitz
        January 13, 2012, 1:34 pm

        They could always find another big brother – http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=228199

      • Citizen
        January 13, 2012, 4:28 pm

        Yes, Phil, and I also agree with Koshiro–who else but Ron Paul stated on the public record on MSM that the Palestinians basically “live in a concentration camp”? Ron Paul is way smarter than he appears to be to way too many people. Did you get a gander at Santorum’s smug twisted boy scout smile & confident opera nodding when Ron Paul was saying he bet Santorum voted for War on Iraq? These jesus freak fascists crawl right out of the American woodwork and actually stand running for POTUS? This country is in dangerous times. Palin, Santorum, Bachmann, Perry–straight freaks; Newt, the picture of Dorian Gray come to life before our eyes–he’s a monster of selfishness divorced of even an ideological or religious cover! And, then we have Romney, the ultimate Hoover vacuum cleaner door2door salesman–like Hitler’s diplomat who was actually a wine merchant…

      • john h
        January 13, 2012, 6:02 pm

        Such a cool post, Citizen, so apt it had me chortling!

    • Tuyzentfloot
      January 13, 2012, 6:18 am

      Maybe Paul is only giving away part of his position. From a Libertarian point of view Israel is free to make its own decisions. One can emphasize that. The other shoe would be that Israel has to fend for itself and not expect the US to cover for it or support it in any way. The US will also put its own interests first. The effect could be pro-palestinian but the motivation is not.

      • Citizen
        January 13, 2012, 4:34 pm

        Ron Paul would at least make the USA an honest broker, and by cutting off aid to Israel & being more fair in UN SC, he’d at least inadvertently give the Palestinians a chance. Another fall out would be Israel would actually have to act like its a neighbor in the ME–a kid in a playground without support of the playground bully–is a different kid, a more responsible kid, a less threatening kid.

      • Tuyzentfloot
        January 14, 2012, 3:50 pm

        (@Citizen) Those could be pro-palestinian effects yes. All assuming someone with such policies could get elected and a president with such policies would be able to implement them.

  3. llama lady
    January 12, 2012, 5:24 pm

    Funny, Israel doesn’t appear shackled to me….

    • Shingo
      January 13, 2012, 7:57 am

      Funny, Israel doesn’t appear shackled to me….

      It’s worse than that, they are unaccountable. t’s like the too big to fail banks, who know they will always be bailed out. If they didn’t have a war guarantee from the US, they’d be a lot more cautious.

      • Citizen
        January 13, 2012, 4:35 pm

        Shingo, precisely!

  4. GalenSword
    January 12, 2012, 6:14 pm

    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.

    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.

    • seafoid
      January 13, 2012, 4:53 am

      if Israel wasn’t backed up by the Great Satan both politically and economically and had to make its own way in the world it wouldn’t be able to play at being Sparta redux. US support is worth $3bn in cash and maybe $15bn in intangibles and Israel doesn’t have that kind of financial firepower so any change would lead to a rapid remodelling of Israeli society.

      Lieberman and co act like the a*sholes they are because they know the US will always be there to fish them out if things go pear shaped.

    • Citizen
      January 13, 2012, 4:45 pm

      Yes, GalenSword, that follows from the principles Ron Paul has articulated on prime time TV and for many years; he actually thinks we should have an arms-length relationship with all foreign countries, and we should not be clinically enmeshed with any country, not even Israel! Gee, just like G Washington! He thinks we should trade with all countries, and use our thousands of tax-paid diplomats once in a while! He actually sees our history of balance of powers–and how it has been revoked in the ME regarding Israel. And for that, he’s a “silly old wacko white man” who should be shipped off on an iceberg. He reminds us we chatted with USSR & China even when both have had tons of nukes! He shows just how absurd and undeniably unAmerican our foreign policy has been for decades as to Israel and Iran.

  5. mhuizenga
    January 12, 2012, 6:16 pm

    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.

    • Citizen
      January 13, 2012, 4:55 pm

      Again, Ron Paul has recently stated on primetime TV that Palestinians essentially “live in a concentration camp.” He knows what’s up in the world. His basic stance in defense of the individual and individual choice is hardcore against both the left, right, and in-between–he favors the individual over all groups’ pressure with their respective eyes on their respective in-group goals. You will not see his like in high world affairs again if he is dismissed as net effect. He marks the last stand of The Enlightenment in this world.

  6. NorthOfFortyNine
    January 12, 2012, 6:25 pm

    The question to put to Paul is as follows:

    Suppose the 2 state solution fizzles into oblivion and suppose, as a response, Palestinians subject to Israel control but without recourse to civil institutions commenced a program to demand their civil rights; and suppose in response to that, Israel mounted a campaign of violence and intimidation to drive Palestinans out of the country — pogroms leading to ethnic cleansing, as per eee’s “prediction”. Is there any statge at which Paul would not consider this an “internal Israeli affair” and take actions to supposrt the victims? How many Deir Yassins would Paul have to witness before he did something to stop it?

    I am not sure I would like his answer. But that would be my question. -N49,

    • lysias
      January 12, 2012, 6:41 pm

      Without U.S. support, I doubt that Israel would attempt Deir Yassins, or that, if she did, she would be able to get away with it.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        January 12, 2012, 8:27 pm

        I agree Israel would be more inclined to pull in their horns w/o US support. That said, the answer RP would give would speak to his moral standing. -N49.

    • dahoit
      January 13, 2012, 9:17 am

      How many Deir Yassins did Harry Truman protest?Sheesh.
      How many Cast Leads did Obomba protest?

    • Citizen
      January 13, 2012, 5:03 pm

      Given our current campaign finance system and who controls our major media, no POTUS would do anything to help the Palestinians in your scenario–but only Ron Paul would make it much harder for Israel to do this to the natives because, sans US foreign aid (& under Ron Paul a more balanced US POV in the UN SC), Israel would actually have to be concerned about what it does to Arabs under its control in an Arab neighborhood. Right now, Israel is the Bubble Boy.

  7. jackrackus
    January 12, 2012, 6:31 pm

    Yes, “just push for a boycott of Israel”, with Ron Paul as President.

  8. jackrackus
    January 12, 2012, 6:34 pm

    …in a much safer world!

  9. irena
    January 12, 2012, 6:41 pm

    He is obviously trying to avoid being labeled anti-Israel because he needs votes but he rather wants American NOT to go around lobbying for Israel or funding it. That actually would HELP the Palestinians because now you don’t have a superpower backing up your oppressor. As for Israel doing whatever she wants for her defence and how that is dangerous for Palestinians, erm, it has been that way all along. It wouldn’t change a damn thing about Israel’s racist, recalcitrant and petulant behaviour

    • Adam Horowitz
      January 12, 2012, 10:32 pm

      Has Paul said he wouldn’t support Israel at the UN? He says, “I believe that Israel is one of our most important friends in the world.” Sounds like he’s not totally for cutting ties. He’s clear on cutting aid, but I haven’t anything on how he would handle Israel diplomatically. Assuming he didn’t figure out a way to dismantle the UN completely (which would seem to be his first choice), I’m not sure it’s clear what his stance towards Israel would be.

      • Citizen
        January 13, 2012, 5:07 pm

        Adam, I’d guess, being equally ignorant about it, that Ron Paul would (as long as the US is part of the UN–chances of it departing are next to none during any Ron Paul regime, and even if so, US would reconnect) look very close at any issue before the UN SC & he would not rubber-stamp Israel via vote as is currently the case. I’d bet on it.

      • anonymouscomments
        January 14, 2012, 3:18 am

        I admit my ignorance as well, but Israel being a “friend” or not, I think he would abstain or vote no on most anything that interfered with other nations. Given Paul’s honest talk about Israel historically, it seems this “friend” BS about Israel might just be the closest Ron Paul get to pandering for votes…. He never says anything that is actionable. Regarding his possible attack on the UN, he would be like Bush with Bolton… Paul could ignore the UN, but on the upside, unlike Bush, he would not undermine it’s very existence, twist it, and use it to “rubber stamp” aggressive wars. Bottom line… he might strengthen the UN by simply letting it be and ignoring it (yet also, adhering to the UN charter by default, as they fit his worldview anyways).

    • dahoit
      January 13, 2012, 9:21 am

      Do you really think Dr.Paul needs 1.7 % of our voting population to win?
      Of course the MSM power is formidable and hates him for his sanity,but he can get elected without Jewish support,which has not been forthcoming anyway from the wacko extremists.

      • Citizen
        January 13, 2012, 5:08 pm

        dahoit, I don’t understand your question. Pls elaborate.

  10. Dan Crowther
    January 12, 2012, 7:19 pm

    Is “freedom” the price for no more aid? If your of the view that Israel acts the way it does because of having carte blanche from the US, this would seem like a step in the right direction……

    Ive also heard him be sympathetic to Palestinians (in public) – so I don’t think he means, “go do what you want” with the West Bank and Gaza. Nor can I see him supporting the infamous “everybody move over one” strategy of Feith and Co. – which seems to be a part of the Obama agenda…..

  11. Bandolero
    January 12, 2012, 9:41 pm

    What Ron Paul does is that he wants to take away the blind US cover for all the Israeli actions and be quite neutral. And that’s on of the reasons why the Israel lobby is so much against him.

    Without blind US support, Israel cannot start a war with Iran. Or better said, Israel of course could start the war, but couldn’t deal with the consequences. Without blind US support Israel could not even start a war with Gaza or kill people on a ship like the Mavi Marmara, because with a US abstention in the UN security council, consequences would loom. So what woul be the result? Israel would have to strike some kind of peace deal with it’s neighbors to avoid collapsing. I think the zionist lobby hates peace, because they want at least all of Jerusalem and the Westbank to be “judaized” before any peace deal is struck, so they hate Ron Paul and his policy ideas. The zionist lobby woud instead like to see the US fight endless wars to make the continued “judaization” of Palestine possible, earlier against Iraq, and now against Syria and Iran.

    The other point why I believe the zionist lobby hates Ron Paul, is, as far as I see it, because he is willing to go after the FED. I guess that could be a kiss of death for the financial superiority of the banks in support of the lobby. They know it but they won’t dare to say so, because the Dollars leaking through the FED system to the banks in support of lobby must stay unvisible, or the system will provoke public anger.

    Goldman Sachs for example collected most funds for Mitt Romney, whose foreign policy is totally PNAC, and I would wonder if there is no connection.

    • dahoit
      January 13, 2012, 10:07 am

      Right on.

    • Citizen
      January 13, 2012, 5:19 pm

      Bandolero, for a person from Germany you sure are smart regarding American politics. How’d you get so smart? All you say is right on target, and that’s an elusive target. Only thing you forgot is Godman Sachs is also number one supporter of Obama–it was same during last campaign for POTUS-GS played both sides of the aisle. That’s why GS is looked on by inside Wall ST as the gold touchstone of banks–it is the contemporary of the R clan at the dawn of the modern era, when Napoleon was still active.

      • Bandolero
        January 13, 2012, 8:55 pm

        @Citizen
        Thanks for the flowers.

        What I’m doing fo a couple of years now is mainly comparing news in the internet, ie mainstream media news with “alternative” news and news from various non-NATO countries, especially Russia, China and Iran. Of course that includes also comparing different analysis and competing history narratives. Trying to think without much ideology I draw my conclusions on what I find most likely to be the truth, evaluate the truth with my ethical beliefs and sometimes I share my thoughts. That’s all I do.

        Together with some friends I run a small website – in German and English language – collecting hopefully eyeopening comparative news: Net News Global. It’s a site designed for people’s participation, so if anyone of the readers here has interesting news (or blog posts or so) he/she to be shared I’ld be happy if you’ld put it in our news box, so we can publish it:

        http://net-news-global.net/new.php

        PS: I know that the Wallstreet banksters supported Barry Soetero turned Barack Obama and they still support him. However I think they also distrust him. His major sin so far was that he – in his Cairo speech – asked Israel to stop building settlements, including in Jerusalem. The lobby got really angry, and Netanyahu answered – some time later – at AIPAC: Jerusalem is not a settlement but our capital. I think that is a sin punished by the lobby with disempowering. Will be interesting if the lobby manages to do it.

  12. AJM
    January 12, 2012, 9:49 pm

    Paul has said the least possible, casting his isolationist, libertarian stance, as good for Israel. The fact he’s the only one against war with Iran, and is not revelling in the Iranian scientists serial killings a la Sanitorum (http://bit.ly/yE94M1), among other things, means he is an enemy of the Israel lobby. As much as some Zionists will claim they dont want American aid, they’d rather cut the weak reigns that keep them, at least cosmetically, on a path to peace, Pauls stance on stopping aid also makes him an enemy. He should stop the pretence, start speaking up for Palestinian liberty

    • Adam Horowitz
      January 12, 2012, 10:27 pm

      Nothing about what he has said would indicate he cares at all about Palestinian liberty. Also, by saying he would “respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate to her about how she should deal with her neighbors . . . and I opposed President Obama’s attempt to dictate Israel’s borders this year,” I suspect if he was president and Israel moved to push all Palestinians out of the West Bank he wouldn’t really care to intervene. Wouldn’t that be considered a “foreign entanglement?”

      I think NorthOfFortyNine’s question above is a great one. Maybe we can find a way to ask him.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        January 12, 2012, 10:43 pm

        Take my question in relation to what he said here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4172992,00.html This links to an article that discusses an interview during cast lead wherein Paul referred to Gaza as a “concentration camp.” So a finer point can be put on the question: “Is intervention ever warrented when one group is being herded into a concentration camp by another group? First herded, then shelled? Where do you draw the line?” –N49.

      • john h
        January 13, 2012, 2:29 pm

        No, the question is, where does/would Paul draw the line? Or does he have no line?

      • mhuizenga
        January 13, 2012, 4:11 pm

        This is truly a tough question. Having read all of his books and followed him for 4 years, I have to agree with some comments here. Paul is not going to be an advocate for the Palestinian cause or any other foreign cause. He is not Obama, the community organizer, or Carter or Clinton, the peacemaker. He has gone on record as saying he admires the accomplishments of Israel, but to say that the terrible injustices and infringements upon “liberty” that the Palestinians face don’t bother him does not give him enough credit. This is where the whole “Gaza is a concentration camp” quote comes in. Paul feels heavy moral responsibility for what goes on because of American support of Israel. I look at it this way: Right now, the aid is justified by appealing to our moral consciences (ie., Israel is our ally, they are democratic, under fire from terrorists, etc.). If Paul had to justify not giving aid, inevitably he would have to appeal to the consciences of Americans too by pointing out and describing what the aid is used for and how it hurts the Palestinians. Some Americans might be hearing this for the first time. An objective America would most likely empower the Palestinians tremendously but might also induce the situation you are describing. Considering Paul usually has an answer for all his views, I’m ashamed I don’t have any reasonable speculation about his response. I might try to ask one of my fellow Paul pen pals at Blue Republican.

      • Citizen
        January 13, 2012, 6:46 pm

        So, Adam, U think Ron Paul has not suggested anything when he said Pals are living in a “concentration camp”?

      • Adam Horowitz
        January 13, 2012, 8:56 pm

        No, that’s certainly the best example of his speaking out on behalf of Palestinians, and remember a number of other politicians did at the time as well as the scenes from Gaza were so horrible. But still, it was good. At the same time he also said that the US should be on neither side of a conflict that has been going on “hundreds of years if not thousands of years.” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqtbqnWrWb8

        Sure, it would be great to cut aid to Israel, although it is primarily US corporate welfare, but what is really needed is for someone to hold Israel accountable and there are no signs Paul is interested in that.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        January 14, 2012, 1:56 am

        Adam,

        Your points are well taken and it would be fair to expect a plain answer from the Paul campaign. That said, Paul ain’t stupid and we’re not going to get one.

        It is my personal sense that Paul is a very fair man, I think he is, more than any other candidate, sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. He is serious (fanatical?) about personal liberty and what is going on on Israel now — the antithesis of personal liberty — would register sharply. That’s my personal sense.

        Paul comes to the stage with a highly idealized platform. (Whodda thunk it would have ever gotten so far? I am comfortable that if it ever had to be implemented, you and me both would have issues with it, but the resulting sausage would still taste better than we have now or might hope to get from somebody else.

        Try to keep an open mind when it comes to the guy. I can only say that a lot of good people I know tend to like him, whereas a lot of sleeze bags I know (of) tend to despise him. Take that for what it is worth. –N49.

    • American
      January 13, 2012, 6:05 pm

      “He should stop the pretence, start speaking up for Palestinian liberty”

      No –better off to keep to his America first theme than bring in others. That’s where a lot of his support also comes from.

  13. homingpigeon
    January 13, 2012, 2:12 am

    To process the statement from Ron Paul it is important to clearly understand how libertarians think. Citizens of most nations are conditioned to think that if we like something we must call upon the government to support it and if we don’t like something we must call and the government to suppress it and if we want something we need to beg the government to give it to us. Libertarians think exactly the opposite on these things.

    So, on Israel/Palestine – foreign aid and military support should go to no one in the libertarian world view. A citizen offended by Israel should not be compelled to support it via tax money any more than one offended by Hamas should be compelled to support it. Within the libertarian movement there is strong sympathy for the Palestinians and angst about the blank check to Israel. There are also Zionists in the movement who buy into the (incorrect in my view) theory that by subsidizing Israel to the extent that we do, the US has some influence over it. These Zionist oriented libertarians, who I think are few in number, make the case that the US should stop aid in order to give Israel more room to make its own decisions. While the analysis will differ, the conclusions will be the same and the path towards coming to these conclusions are one in which we agree to disagree.

    In conversations with American Zionists who are offended by the idea of cutting off Israel’s welfare check, I would ask them how they would feel if they lived in a world in which a Palestinian regime was oppressing Jewish residents of Palestine and in which American politicians had to fall all over each other every election to prove who could send the most money and armament to that Palestinian regime. I suspect they would find the libertarian way of thinking attractive.

    • Citizen
      January 13, 2012, 6:54 pm

      Homingpigeon, thanks for stating the obvious, which I think for many is not obvious at all.

  14. homingpigeon
    January 13, 2012, 2:17 am

    Further on how libertarians would think on Israel-Palestine…….

    While we might disapprove of a citizen joining a foreign army, we would not want the US government to forbid any American citizen from serving in either the Israeli Defense Forces or the Palestinian fighting forces. At the same time we would want the US government to easily and quickly process the visa applications for deserters from either of those armed groups.

    I personally would use every reason I could come up with to persuade a young person not to join the armed forces of any country or movement in the world.

    • Citizen
      January 13, 2012, 6:58 pm

      Homingpigeon, the way things are going in the USA right now, and have been for a long time, do you really think that an American choosing to fight for Palestine would be handled with velvet gloves as an American who chose to fight for Israel?

  15. homingpigeon
    January 13, 2012, 2:23 am

    More on how libertarians think on Israel-Palestine, this time on the matter of personal financial contributions. (Sorry, I’m not always with internet and free time so I have to blast a few off).

    An American citizen should have the right to contribute personal funds to whoever the citizen wishes, regardless of whether I or anyone else approves of the recipient. So you can donate your personal coin to Israel or to Hamas. I would disapprove but not attempt to use the power of the state to stop you.

    And oh yes, you wouldn’t get a tax break for your contribution.

    But then again, we’re working on repealing the personal income tax anyway, but that’s another subject.

    • homingpigeon
      January 13, 2012, 2:54 am

      PS, “you wouldn’t get a tax break for your contribution” Actually, some libertarians would say that everyone should get the tax break for the contribution,whoever it might be to. Current policy gives the tax breaks to those who donate to Zionist projects and prison for those who contribute to Palestinian ones.

      • Citizen
        January 13, 2012, 7:04 pm

        Everything about US tax breaks favor Israel to the max, and same for every law against “terrorists.”

  16. homingpigeon
    January 13, 2012, 2:41 am

    OK Habibis, last one for now on libertarians and our favorite sad subject.

    On this one there are some comrades who would disagree with me. There are some who crank on about dual citizenship and dual loyalty. I have no problem with this as I have dual loyalty, indeed triple and quadruple loyalty myself. Maybe more.

    There is no problem with dual loyalty. I understand why a Jewish American could have a soft spot for Israel as I would understand why a Palestinian American would have the same feelings for Palestine. It is good to have lots of friends and connections around the world. We are made up of immigrants, many of whom will have sentiments to their countries of origin which we cannot turn off with a switch. There are others who through their travels and accidents of history develop attachments. It wasn’t my choice to go live in Jordan at the age of one, but that’s where my American parents took me and where I was brought up and the Palestinian girl who took care of me taught me everything I needed to know before I was six. Well, nearly everything.

    So this dual loyalty is not a problem when the two countries are allies, but when the two are in conflict it is a problem in our present political situation. Again, I ask my Zionist American friends how they would feel if they lived in a world where there was an alliance with Palestinians equivalent to the current one with Israel, and the situation of Jews in Palestine was equivalent to that of Palestinians now. Their dual loyalty would be very stressful indeed. So in a libertarian society this would not be an issue at all. You could be as loyal as you wanted to a foreign state, as long as you didn’t make me contribute to murdering the people I am loyal to. And I won’t make you contribute to murdering people you are loyal to.

    But what I’d really like to do is work on the one country solution, and we could all be loyal to it. And let’s accomplish this without grovelling and whining and manipulating for tax money out of the Washington regime.

    • dahoit
      January 13, 2012, 10:53 am

      I would posit the only people who have a problem with dual loyalty,aint dual loyalists.
      Like 90+% of Americans.

      • Walid
        January 13, 2012, 12:55 pm

        “… the only people who have a problem with dual loyalty, aint dual loyalists. Like 90+% of Americans.”

        You’re confounding dual loyalties with being loyal to one country while having a nostalgic atachments to another. These are not conflicting loyalties. As to American Jews being hinted at here, I think most of them are loyal to only one country, the US. As to those others that put Israel first, they too don’t have dual loyalties but dual citizenships and their loyalty is only to Israel. I also have dual citizenships and a deep affection to one while my first loyalty is to the other.

      • American
        January 13, 2012, 6:11 pm

        Walid says:
        January 13, 2012 at 12:55 pm
        “… the only people who have a problem with dual loyalty, aint dual loyalists. Like 90+% of Americans.”

        You’re confounding dual loyalties with being loyal to one country while having a nostalgic atachments to another.”

        I think you might be confounding what the guy said because as said you have dual citizen ship with affection for one country but one first loyalty, I’m assuming where you live.
        I think he’s talking about Israel firsters, same as you said…….”As to those others that put Israel first, they too don’t have dual loyalties but dual citizenships and their loyalty is only to Israel”.

    • Citizen
      January 13, 2012, 7:17 pm

      No problem with dual loyalty, for example, my VA primary doctor here in USA is of Indian origin, and she also is the head of an NGO working to aid the poor of India. But she is not in anyway similar to those American Jews who look at America as a lackey for Israel.

  17. MRW
    January 13, 2012, 6:53 am

    Interesting YouTube support video for RP:
    “The World is Endorsing Ron Paul For President 2012”

  18. mhuizenga
    January 13, 2012, 7:22 am

    One more thought with regard to this year’s election and the Palestinian/Israel issue. I’m a Paul supporter, and it’s true what they say about us. Once you’re converted, you don’t tend to go back. Kind of scary actually. Still, if Obama gets re-elected, and that’s a pretty strong possibility, I will take solace in the fact that he will most certainly avenge, what he believes, is Netanyahu’s blackmailing/extortion. I lived in Chicago all my life up until a few years ago, and Obama is the epitome of political machinery that town is known for. I actually met him once briefly, and he can be a piece of work when crossed. So for those who believe in intervention for humanitarian reasons, I think he will not only continue the peace process as every other president has done, but motivated by animus and with nothing left to lose, he will press Israel very hard and in the process help the Palestinians.

    • Citizen
      January 13, 2012, 7:32 pm

      I lived in Chicago 30 years and I think Penny Pritzker is the key to Obama. I dated a Pritzker woman. Obama will NOT help the world by helping the Pals. He will help the Zionists for his own golf fun.

  19. Exiled At Home
    January 13, 2012, 10:29 am

    I don’t think we should read too much into these statements by Paul. First of all, with all of the attempts at delegitimizing his campaign that have been made by fellow candidates, pundits, and media coverage, Paul almost has to “toe the line” on Israel to keep his campaign afloat. So, he’s stressing that his views make him a true friend of Israel. It’s actually a pretty savvy semantics games. He says that Israel is free to do as she chooses, which on its face sounds great to the Israel first crowd. But, as Dahoit noted, the inverse of that statement, which Paul deftly does not mention, is that Israel is also free to fall by her own actions without US diplomatic, financial and military support propping her up. Paul says Israel is free to attack Iran. But he has also clearly and loudly and frequently proclaimed his opposition to the saber-rattling towards Iran. Paul would be no ally to an Israeli attack on Iran, quite the opposite in fact. Paul would not not provide diplomatic cover for Israel at the United Nations. Paul would not continue to provide unrestricted financial aid to Israel in excess of $3 billion a year. Paul would not provide the offer of mutual security interests that ensure that an attack on Israel is an attack on the US.

    In other words, a Paul administration would free the world to take the stance they want to take towards Israel without having to face off against the United States to do so. This is the most important point here. So, while Paul might not overtly work on behalf of Palestinian liberty (as that would be a foreign entanglement) his removal of backing from Israel would allow the EU to exert incredible pressure on Israel, for the UN to exert incredible pressure on Israel, for Russia and Latin America to exert incredible pressure on Israel, without any interference from the US. The world has been ready to put Israel in her place for some time. The only thing standing in the way has been the United States. Paul removes that obstacle.

    • Adam Horowitz
      January 13, 2012, 1:46 pm

      He says in the interview, “I opposed President Obama’s attempt to dictate Israel’s borders this year.” It should be remembered that Obama only said that the 1949 armistice line should be the starting point for negotiations, a position based in international law (which Paul opposes).

      To me, this Paul quote says he’d be fine with Israel running wild.

      • Adam Horowitz
        January 13, 2012, 1:49 pm

        Also, while I do think it’s not clear whether Paul would support Israel within the UN or not, I do think this is a good point – “a Paul administration would free the world to take the stance they want to take towards Israel without having to face off against the United States to do so. “

      • Exiled At Home
        January 13, 2012, 4:09 pm

        Adam,

        Thanks for your response. I understand what you’re feeling when it troubles you that Paul says “I opposed President Obama’s attempt to dictate Israel’s borders this year.” As someone who is staunchly in the Palestinian camp, I am all for the world -and the United States- dictating Israel’s borders. Someone needs to place limitations on Israeli expansion…

        However, the most important thing is not that Paul would “be fine with Israel running wild,” but rather that he would not get involved either way. In other words, Paul’s disassociation from entanglements and interventions consequently means that he would no longer support Israel’s running wild. This means Israel’s buffer against the international community becomes solely herself. This opens Israel up. This is a good thing.

      • Richard Witty
        January 13, 2012, 2:45 pm

        “To me, this Paul quote says he’d be fine with Israel running wild.”

        I was surprised by that quote as well.

        Did you consider my point earlier that as a constitutionalist, Ron Paul has declared that money in politics is constitutional protected free speech, and that as a constitutionalist, the president is duty-bound to implement the legislation passed by Congress (including war resolutions and other legislation that survives presidential veto).

    • Citizen
      January 13, 2012, 7:49 pm

      Exiled, yes indeedy.

    • Walid
      January 13, 2012, 1:33 pm

      From your Haaretz link, seafoid:

      “… Well, those who built the state(Israel) and destroyed the land were always blind to the scenery to which they came. It suffices to compare the minute spaces the state did not dare touch – those owned by Christian churches – to see how beautiful this land is when construction blends in with the landscape.

      Further testimony: Arab Jaffa (reconstructed for Jews ), old Jerusalem, the German colonies. Compare them with what were built as hamlets in the Galilee or the Jezreel Valley, and see how little our predecessors thought about the buildings blending in with the scenery. Take a look from afar at the “mitzpim” hilltop communities in the Galilee and how incongruous they are compared with the Arab villages alongside them. The mass construction of private homes in the 1990s at the instigation of Ariel Sharon, which received so much applause, is certainly the ultimate proof of this. “Villas,” indeed!”

      Very sad, seafoid, what Israelis did to a once beautiful land, and this story and other horrors they committed are being told by the Haaretz journalist.

      • Walid
        January 13, 2012, 1:44 pm

        More from the same seafoid Haaretz link:

        “… The (Israeli) father and son of the fable will travel north and reach Tiberias. Here the father will explain to his son what he had heard from his grandfather: It had been a very ancient town, Arab and Jewish, but after it was ethnically cleansed on April 18, 1948, orders were given to blow up all the Arabs’ houses “so that the city will be ours.” In this way, the city of black basalt stone disappeared from the shores of the lake and what was left was a row of ruins (the Palestinians’ homes) and houses (those of the Jews). On these ruins and among them, they built giant hotels along the waterfront, and boats with discotheques blaring loud music that ply back and forth. And as if all that were not enough, they also draw water from this lake, more than nature can replenish.”

        Bad, bad people, seafoid.

      • seafoid
        January 13, 2012, 6:27 pm

        Appalling. The pollution of the rivers too.

        http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/13065/israeli-court-convicts-five-in-maccabiah-bridge-disaster/
        “An Israeli court has convicted five people in the collapse of a rickety bridge at the Maccabiah Games in 1997 that left four Australian athletes dead and scores of others injured
        The tragedy occurred as the Australian delegation and some other athletes walked over a temporary bridge on their way toward the Ramat Gan Stadium to participate in the opening ceremony.

        Two Australian athletes, Greg Small and Yetty Bennett, immediately drowned in the Yarkon River, and hundreds were injured.

        Australians Elizabeth Sawicki and Warren Zines died weeks later as the result of complications linked to contaminants in the polluted water of the Yarkon. Dozens of athletes who were injured in the bridge collapse later suffered illnesses.”

        The land is something to be exploited in the Zionist mentality. They drained Lake Hula in the 50s. the Dead sea is way down on water. And the buildings are so ugly. Jerusalem is supposed to be a holy city too but it has been profaned.

        Such a sad story.
        It is the jihliyeh.

  20. kalithea
    January 13, 2012, 1:40 pm

    Oh bruuuuuther, do you really believe that Ron Paul supports Israel’s INTERVENTIONIST policies? Do you really believe he thinks Israel is defending itself when it attacked Gaza and Lebanon or does he in fact believe that Israel ANTAGONIZES AND PROVOKES its neighbors?

    Since foreign aid to Israel is to a large degree contingent on Israel purchasing U.S.-made weaponry why would Ron Paul forego that business by cutting off funding?

    You know what I think? I think Ron Paul is up to the wazoo with Zionists, as I am, and wants to disengage from Zionism, but it seems that some people confuse Zionists with Jews and fear and suspicion prevail, so the bashing campaign against Ron Paul continues on the “progressive” Jewish side.

    This article is so disingenous.

    If Ron Paul were President he’d give Israel the facts: attack Iran and sink into the Ocean because we’re not gonna rescue your ass from the fire!

    Stop presenting a fictitious picture of Ron Paul based on political speak directed at the lame-assed media who are there to trap him every which way!

    Ron Paul is doing what he needs to do to get where he needs to be to rescue America from the Neocon/Zionist cabal and God bless him!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orTsSboJSFU&feature=related

    Yeah, he’s all for Zionism! LOL!

    • Adam Horowitz
      January 13, 2012, 2:04 pm

      “Stop presenting a fictitious picture of Ron Paul based on political speak” – I just included two direct quotes from Paul himself. How exactly is that fictitious? Should we not trust anything he says to the media?

      Also, I don’t think Paul supports Israel’s interventionist policies, but I don’t think they particularly bother him either exempt for the fact that the US is implicated. If the US wasn’t connected, I don’t see reason to believe that he would do much about it.

      Re: Lebanon, he does say “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 thought this was interesting from Paul supporter Doug Wead (http://www.newsmax.com/DougWead/ron-paul-israel-garybauer/2011/04/11/id/392440):

      Most of all, Ron Paul believes that America should mind its own business and let Israel make its own decisions without interference and control from Washington. He recognizes that Israel has one of the best-trained, most elite armed forces in the world and he believes that we should NEVER try to use our influence to stop Israel from defending itself.

      Ron Paul refused to vote to condemn Israel during the 2006 war with Lebanon. And he will never try to pressure Israel into accepting a “land for peace” compromise before the Israelis themselves decide.

      I have spoken with Dr. Ron Paul about Israel. He recognizes the special relationship between Israel and the United States based on our shared values and Judeo-Christian history. As the former vice president of Christian and Jews United for Israel, I would strongly argue that Ron’s position of friendship, free trade, ending support for Israel’s enemies, and a cessation of meddling in Israel’s internal affairs would provide for a stronger U.S.-Israeli relationship and a net advantage for the Israelis.

      • American
        January 13, 2012, 6:17 pm

        Political puffery.
        A bone toss ‘for the record’ on anti Israel accusation.
        But Paul knows he isn’t getting any money or votes from the Jews irregardless of his Israel position.

  21. kalithea
    January 13, 2012, 2:28 pm

    Unfortunately, I have to go, but I’d like to get back to this topic.

    In the meantime, there’s a moment in the video when he states something like: “there’s a point when Christian conservative groups joined the Neocons ignoring[….}the cause of Just War. Something like that. I can’t check the exact wording, right now, but it’s at minute 4:57. So then if Christians joined the Neocons, then he’s implying Neocons are for the most part, not Christian, ergo, we should assume they’re specifically Zionist Jews. And notice how he starts with: Who’s in charge? And then goes on to mention an “influential group” is in charge.

    Hmmm, this sounds like he’s against Zionist influence to me.

    • Adam Horowitz
      January 13, 2012, 3:47 pm

      I think we’re talking about two different things. I would never say that Paul is a Zionist. At the same time, I don’t think he would do anything to constrain Israel either.

      • NorthOfFortyNine
        January 14, 2012, 6:12 pm

        @ Adam: I don’t think he would do anything to constrain Israel…

        Yes, but he also would not constrain other countries from constraining Israel either. That would go a long way if you stop to think about it.

        I also think Paul-in-office would look different than Paul-on-the-campiagn-trail. Remember, what drives opinion on Israel is money. Paul is not beholden to Zionist money. That would also go a long way. -N49.

  22. kalithea
    January 14, 2012, 12:39 am

    Sorry, I was literally on the run while I was typing earlier. I would never say that Paul is a Zionist either. What I do sense however in that audio on Neocons is that he believes there’s a group other than the government setting policy and taking the country in the wrong direction. Ron Paul is obviously on the outside looking in; he’s an outsider not privy to this group’s interactions with much of Congress. He’s out of the loop. He’s this man, who’s an elected representative and who feels like he’s out in the cold with his hands tied. For someone who staunchly defends the Constitution; this must infuriate him. And who can blame him? The power bestowed on him by his constituency is hijacked by this group whose interests lie with a foreign allegiance. He was certainly frustrated enough to expose this cabal. I believe there’s more resentment there than he lets on.

    Haaretz and other sites reported recently that Ron Paul had a brief encounter in New Hampshire with Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss member of the Neturei Karta.

    “Approaching Paul, Weiss reportedly told the Republican presidential hopeful that Judaism “is a religion, and it should never be transformed into a nationalism, “to which Paul reportedly said that the suggestion was “good advice.” ”

    Ron Paul has had enough obstacles thrown his way by the media without putting himself on a collision course with The Lobby. He’s been very careful about his statements on Israel, not pandering, but at the same time stating the minimum without provoking controversy.

    But even so; he definitely wouldn’t allow himself to be bullied as President after witnessing the subservience to Israel in Congress, especially with his passionate devotion to the Constitution. I doubt he would surrender his power like Obama does.

    Pulling funding from Israel is more of a big deal than you make it out to be. Israel will have a hard time sustaining its instruments of oppression with a 3 Billion-dollar a year income reduction .

    Even if Ron Paul treated Israel like any other ally; it would still be a vast improvement to the present-day situation. Could Israel be guaranteed protection from sanctions and Resolutions under a Ron Paul Administration? I think not. So then the fact that Israel would no longer be under the protective wing of U.S. power would make Israel much more vulnerable to criticism and opposition and much more hesitant to breach International Law or attack its neighbors perhaps finding other solutions to its problems.

    Let’s just say that Israel has behaved like an unruly child under successive Administrations and it would be refreshing to have a President who thinks Israel should be on its own and grow up!

    As to how it would affect Palestinians. How could it possibly be worse than the status quo? I have the impression that Ron Paul knows Israel is headed for a brick wall, and that because of his non-intervention and disengagement policies, he would be very reluctant to throw more money down the peace process rabbit hole and this would no doubt accelerate the process towards A ONE-STATE SOLUTION.

    Why does this site feel it necessary to continuously go negative on Ron Paul? Quit dismissing the opportunity he presents to limit the influence of the Lobby. I have never been this hopeful; and I hope against hope the man makes it to the Convention.

    • Antidote
      January 14, 2012, 6:27 pm

      “Quit dismissing the opportunity he presents to limit the influence of the Lobby. I have never been this hopeful; and I hope against hope the man makes it to the Convention.”

      I can’t help remembering that many people felt like this about Obama, both before and after his election: That he would make a big difference, and not just wrt the Lobby. Remember the Cairo speech? What’s left of the ‘audacity of hope’? I’m not sure that the transfer of hope from Obama to Paul will solve the problem. This is not to say I am for or against Paul or Obama, nor does it matter. I am not American and will not have to decide how to vote. I would have voted for Obama, and I see no reasonable choices for 2012 other than either Paul or Obama.

  23. Adam Horowitz
    January 14, 2012, 5:07 pm

    Do you really think this site continuously goes negative on Ron Paul? We’re getting complaints about 10 to 1 in the opposite direction.

Leave a Reply