I missed this story last week but it is important to note, it reads like something out of the Onion. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul introduced a bill called the “Stand With Israel Act” that would bar funds to a Palestinian government that includes Hamas and would also (per the JTA)
cut U.S. funding to the Palestinian Authority unless its government recognized Israel as a Jewish state.
Of course, Paul is thought to have presidential ambitions, and he has a big Israel problem. He didn’t kiss up to Sheldon Adelson in Vegas recently at the Republican presidential beauty contest, he has called for cutting aid to Israel, and he has said that the US can live with a nuclear Iran. His father the former congressman Ron Paul has been openly critical of the special relationship, and the Israel lobby doesn’t like the son much either.
From Politico:
The Kentucky Republican introduced a bill this week to cut off U.S. aid to the Palestinian government because of the recent joining of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, saying that aid from the U.S. must be contingent on the joined entity recognizing Israel’s right to exist.
The legislation, titled the “Stand with Israel Act of 2014,” failed to gather unanimous consent in the Senate on Thursday and Paul’s request to pass it was blocked. After the bill failed to pass, the senator said he was “deeply disappointed and disturbed by the Senate’s inability to stand with me in defense of Israel today.”
The Free Beacon reports that AIPAC is against Paul’s bill because it doesn’t want to defund until Hamas joins the government. But Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and the Zionist Organization of America like the bill:
Paul brought his Stand with Israel Act to the Senate floor this afternoon [May 1] to ask for a unanimous consent vote aimed at expediting action on the measure, according to sources tracking the bill.
While the legislation is expected to garner widespread backing in Congress, AIPAC is quietly expressing reservations about it, according to those familiar with the group’s position.
“We are not supporting the Paul bill,” said one AIPAC insider. “We believe the law currently on the books is strong and ensures that aid is contingent on key conditions that help maintain America’s influence, keep Israel secure, and advance the peace process.”…
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has expressed support for Paul’s bill.
David Corn says that Paul is entering “neocon territory” with these tactical moves, but neocon Elliott Abrams writes that the bill is no help to Israel.
Remember that Mark Halperin of Time said on Hardball a couple weeks ago that Paul could evolve all he wants, he won’t satisfy the lobby:
That guy could evolve from Passover to Easter to Christmas to every holiday in the world. He could spend his whole life evolving. He will never evolve enough for the pro Israel wing of the party. And that’s not an insignificant thing, not only against people in the nomination fight, but in the general election. That is an important part of the current view of foreign policy. He can evolve all he wants, I just don’t think he can get over that hurdle with a lot of people.
Halperin’s father is a member of the liberal Israel lobby, but I think he’s wrong. The Israel lobby doesn’t care about anyone’s soul. They’re political. Say the right stuff and folks will come around. I sense that Paul is pivoting, as they say, and by 2016, he’s hoping that he can at least neutralize the lobby’s enmity.
P.S. MJ Rosenberg says Paul is grovelling:
He desperately wants “pro-Israel” Republicans to come his way… [but] Paul’s grovel ended up exposing him as someone who even crazy right wing Jewish billionaires could not support, not even Sheldon Adelson. The crazy Jewish right now hates him like poison.
I think there’s a very practical reason for Paul’s evolution: unlike his father, Rand Paul is a good politician with a willingness to accede to his votership’s preferences. Israel (and especially Greater Israel) is wildly popular on the ground, in the grassroots of the Republican base and especially in the TEA Party. If Paul ever has any hope of getting his 2016 campaign off the ground, this is an issue where he has to be perceived as “strong”.
Even considering Paul’s counter-culture and libertarian credibility, Israel’s domestic popularity is actually at an all-time high in the US and I assume that’s doubly true for a GOP base that pathologically hates President Obama and probably views him (incorrectly) as anti-Zionist. Thus, for Paul, the most obvious answer is likely the correct one: sheer electability.
ugh– I feel slimed just reading this.
Just before I read this new piece from Phil, I had just commented in the thread under another very recent article here: Who will be the last neoconservative? I suggested Rand Paul, precisely because of his new bill, subject here. When I first read his new bill I immediately (there than being tremendously disappointed) figured he was trying to get some Jewish Establishment support for his POTUS run. Phil’s piece here says he’s already now got some, not from AIPAC but from ZOA. I’n sure Randy would rather have AIPAC’s support.
Here’s the article I linked to under the MW article, Who will be the last neoconservative? http://mycatbirdseat.com/2014/05/showdown-at-the-foreign-policy-corral/
My guess at this point is that Rand and his consultants overlooked the fact that if the US drops its aid to Palestine, for whatever reason, Israel has to pick up the tab for its occupation. Presently, the US picks up most of this tab by funding PA. Nearly a third of these US aid dollars to Palestine go towards the Palestinian security apparatus (a rare giant proportion); 40% of Palestinian public servants operate in the security area. Their job is basically to operate as hired hands of Israel via USA, freeing up IDF to become real soldiers, not cops. And freeing up, like all aid to Israel, the Israeli government to spend money on other things, more domestic.
By the way, Chris Hayes tweeted a question re Kerry’s characterization (retracted of course) of Israel as (headed towards) “apartheid” What’s the proper or correct term for the moving Greater Israel? He also tweeted re his interview with Josh Block recently, that Block said a solution would be to make the West Bank part of Jordan. I watched; I thought Block was saying the WB Palestinians should be taken in by Jordan. Any thoughts?
“We are not supporting the Paul bill,” said one AIPAC insider. “We believe the law currently on the books is strong and ensures that aid is contingent on key conditions that help maintain America’s influence, keep Israel secure, and advance the peace process.”
Translation: If you cut off US aid and the PA falls then Israel will have to step in and go back to full-blown, full time occupying. It will be the end of Occupation on the Cheap.
Why would we expect anything differently from one of the most overtly racist and opportunistic politicians in the US? His father is a racist, and so is he.