Trending Topics:

Ron Paul for Palestinian statehood: ‘I believe in self-determination of peoples’

on 32 Comments

Say what you like about Ron Paul, he is the only person running for president who has taken this stance (link below):

While I do not see UN membership as a particularly productive move for the Palestinian leadership, I do not believe the US should use its position in the UN Security Council to block their membership.  I believe in self-determination of peoples and I recognize that peoples may wish to pursue statehood by different means.  As we saw after the Cold War, numerous new states were born out of the ruins of the USSR as the various old Soviet Republics decided that smaller states were preferable to an enormous and oppressive multi-national conglomerate.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

32 Responses

  1. Dan Crowther on September 27, 2011, 5:42 pm

    He then goes on to say, “why should we care about a tiny group of people on a tiny piece of land.”

    Hardly an inspiring ethos.

    • James on September 27, 2011, 6:54 pm

      look where all the grand visions for running the world from washington dc have ended up… ron paul brings a certain level of reason to any discussion that is always missing in those with the ””grand international”’ ideas that end up bringing more war or arms sales, and a huge disappointment when the reality check arrives…

    • gazacalling on September 27, 2011, 7:08 pm

      Come on, Dan, it’s a legit point. “Why are you so obsessed with singling out Israel?” is a common question. Phil has answered it here eloquently. All things being equal, we should be a lot more concerned about the injustices here at home than abroad. Of course, the US’s unconditional support is the reason. But absent that, the US shouldn’t go abroad looking for monsters to destroy — that’s the obsession of the warmonger.

      Ron Paul’s ethos does in fact inspire a significant segment of people. And ideologically speaking, he’s driving the Republican bus.

      • annie on September 27, 2011, 7:18 pm

        He then goes on to say, “why should we care about a tiny group of people on a tiny piece of land.”

        Come on, Dan, it’s a legit point. “Why are you so obsessed with singling out Israel?” is a common question.

        i think paul was referencing palestine, not israel.

      • RoHa on September 27, 2011, 7:23 pm

        “i think paul was referencing palestine, not israel.”

        Since Americans are required to care very much about Israel, I suspect he had Israel in mind.

      • john h on September 27, 2011, 7:42 pm

        It is a little unclear; he could have been referencing either or both.

        His very next statement is “Remember, the UN initiated this persistent conflict with its 1947 Partition Plan.”

      • James on September 28, 2011, 1:48 am

        i think he is thinking the i/p area and not singling out either country…

      • Dan Crowther on September 27, 2011, 10:13 pm

        James and Gaza,

        I focus on how many times Ive heard him say a variation of “why should we care about these people?” He seems to ask this alot and not just about people off in some far away land.
        I might agree with him about our foreign policy ( although getting out of the UN is ridiculous) – but any subscriber to the rand/hayek/friedman school of political economy, has, shall i say, credibility issues. I just dont think this guy can be trusted

      • Charon on September 28, 2011, 1:21 am

        Depends on how you’re looking at it. No politician can be trusted. Paul hasn’t really changed is stance or POV in 20 years. He’s a constitutionalist and he cares about America.

        I care about I/P but I/P doesn’t really benefit our country. Neither do central banks or globalization. Free trade is good, globalization is exploitable especially with the central banking cabal thrown in there. We’re broke mostly because of our foreign policy, because of a decade at war that does not serve the interests of our citizens. Paul wants to cut foreign aid, audit and potentially abolish the FED, get rid of income tax, get rid of the post 9/11 big brotherish security policies like the Patriot Act among many other things.

        He is the best choice available. The alternative is four more years of Obummer or religious nutters. Or not voting. The reality is Paul would have an impossible time getting anything accomplished. The president is but one person and mostly a puppet. Obama probably had good intentions. Look what he was reduced to addressing the UN.

        Instead of debating and worrying about presidential candidates, efforts should be directed on exposing congress and taking on the lobby. Otherwise it will never matter who is in the WH.

      • James on September 28, 2011, 1:50 am

        that’s interesting dan.. i have always admired ron paul for his commentary on the usa banking system from quite a while back.. he is a no nonsense kind of guy as i see it and he seems intent on questioning the purpose of all the military expeditions to faraway lands.. i think he sees the i/p issue in the same framework… i remain open to being wrong, but have generally liked what i have read from ron paul and his position with regard to the federal reserve especially..

      • JewishAnarchist on September 28, 2011, 4:43 am

        Before you bring up “credibility issues”, you should make sure the comment you’re posting does not damage your credibility.

        By claiming Paul subscribes the “rand/hayek/friedman school of political economy”, you reveal that not only are you not familiar with Paul’s views but that you’re also not familiar with the views of Rand or Friedman.

        Friedman was a member of the Chicago School (aka “monetarism” which shares its roots with Keynesianism) while Hayek and Paul are members of the Austrian School. If you’re truly interested in the major and irreconcilable differences between the Austrian School and the Chicago School, see Milton Friedman Unraveled, written by Paul’s mentor, Murray Rothbard (also a Jewish anarchist).

        Adding Rand’s cult of Objectivism into that weird conflation of incompatible philosophies makes even less sense.

        If you want to point out the areas where Paul is wrong, there is plenty to point out (not as much as there is to point out with Rand and Friedman but still plenty). I have actually written quite a bit on the subject. But, if you’re going to criticize, make sure you understand what you’re criticizing. Otherwise, it could lead to “credibility issues”. And while I certainly won’t be voting for Paul (or anyone for that matter), there is no doubt that he is the only person on the left of the political spectrum running for president (including Obama).

      • thankgodimatheist on September 28, 2011, 4:56 am

        Jewish Anarchist..
        Sorry but I have an issue with your moniker. Can’t one be an Anarchist without specifying that he’s Jewish? Aren’t many anarchists just that? Why this need to put forward the fact that one is a Jew? I’m an Arab and an atheist. It never crosses my mind to name myself an Arab atheist. Because it doesn’t matter. But that’s me.
        By the way, Anarchists Against the Wall are Jews. They didn’t feel the need to be specific. Because it doesn’t matter, they’re Anarchists.

      • Dan Crowther on September 28, 2011, 8:45 am

        My bad for saying “political economy” – i should have said “society” -where they disagree on economic philosophy, the do agree on the overall view of what society should look like – that is what i was referring to- the commonality of their ” I got mine, F you” views.

        I didnt realize there were academic standards for posting here, I do realize that they have “different” views on economics- but their views on society seem to be in line.

        Also, You would think that Jewish Zionists and Christian Zionists would have “incompatible philosophies” – but theres Glenn Beck in Jerusalem.

        Austrian School economists generally advocate a laissez faire approach to the economy[1] and are most frequently associated with libertarianism.

        —Friedman argued that laissez-faire government policy is more desirable than government intervention in the economy.

        However he (Hayek) and Friedman did work together in supporting a national student organization devoted to libertarian ideas, the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists

        Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism has been and continues to be a major influence towards the libertarian movement. Many libertarians justify their political views upon aspects of Objectivism.

        I know its “just wiki” – and i know your right on a technical level..but…

    • Chaos4700 on September 27, 2011, 7:19 pm

      You want flowery, empty speeches, vote for Obama a second time.

    • lysias on September 27, 2011, 7:28 pm

      But American noninterference in that part of the world would be a vast improvement over current U.S. policy. A great improvement for the Palestinians too.

    • kapok on September 27, 2011, 8:51 pm

      “An inspiring ethos”: Every man for himself. I don’t know how RP imagines a patchwork quilt of oligarchies each with its own squadron of drones would be preferable to a multi-national conglomerate.

    • Daniel McAdams on September 28, 2011, 11:29 pm

      “He then goes on to say, ‘why should we care about a tiny group of people on a tiny piece of land.'”

      Not what he said at all. It was a critique of those in the US who obsess about controlling the world, not a commentary on the significance of the Palestinian community or lack thereof. An absurd elite obsessed with every corner of the globe. It could well be Cote D’Ivoire. That is the point. It is a commentary on American elites not on the Palestinians.

  2. seafoid on September 27, 2011, 5:45 pm

    I also believe in self determination for social health insurance .

    In reality there is nobody for ordinary Americans in the presidential race.
    And Ron Paul is so far away from party orthodoxy that he just won’t be listened to.

    This covers the lunacy of the republican party stance on Israel

  3. pabelmont on September 27, 2011, 5:46 pm

    Good for Ron Paul. Compares Israeli occupation with USSR’s engulfing of small nations.

  4. Grumpy_Old_Man on September 27, 2011, 5:55 pm

    Ron’s Da Man.

    • ToivoS on September 27, 2011, 11:17 pm

      Where did you come from Grumpy? As a long time democratic activist I am on the verge of supporting that reactionary old fart myself. At least he is the only one that has a sensible foreign policy .

    • Real Jew on September 28, 2011, 12:09 am

      I agree Grumpy. God bless that man for bringing some humanity to politics (and a side order of balls)

  5. Chespirito on September 27, 2011, 6:39 pm

    Good for Ron Paul. Left-liberal types (like me) really need to learn to work with libertarians, paleoconservatives, & Ron Paul people on common goals. This is already happening to a degree, check out Scott McConnell’s encomium of CodePink in the last issue of The American Conservative. It is essential that Americans fed up with an imperial foreign policy and fed up with our senseless support for Israel learn to make not only moral, humanitarian arguments but also arguments from American self-interest. The two rhetorical lines are not contradictory, they are complementary, convergent even, and I advise my fellow left-liberal types to read Paul’s statement in full. (I don’t interpret it as callous and egocentric as Dan Crowther does; rather it’s a realistic assessment of the limits of American policy, the kind sorely lacking in our foreign policy discourse.) Let’s face it, we in the largely leftish antiwar movement have accomplished not a whole lot over the past 10 years, more proof that, like it or not (and I don’t) most Americans have no time for people who talk like Lisa Simpson. We will not get rightwing cooties if we learn a little from the Ron Paul crowd and cooperate with them where we can.

    Some strategic cooperation with realists/paleocons/libertarians does not mean we lose the ability to disagree about healthcare, immigration, labor, federally enforceable LGBT rights, all areas where I’ve shed lots of sweat & tears as a bleeding-heart lawyer. But on civil liberties and foreign policy we had better work together. If not, we’re effed.

    • Chaos4700 on September 27, 2011, 7:23 pm

      I agree. Progressives get pretty much no support whatsoever in the Democratic Party, we’re just told to sit down, shut up and vote “not Bush,” even though when we do we end up with Bush era policies anyway.

      There’s a lot to disagree with on libertarian ideology for people like us, but on CRITICAL issues — ending the wars, discontinuing our fealty to Israel, no bailouts for banks, closing the Fed — we agree. We can work out the finer points later, after we put out the fire that Republicans started and Democrats fanned.

    • Emma on September 28, 2011, 6:59 am

      Totally agree. That’s why I’m voting for Ron Paul in the Republican primary in my state. I’m glad to have a chance to vote for someone who takes a stand on at least some of the highest priority issues we need to get resolved: war, militarism, murder, imperialism, lawless federal government, loss of individual rights, pointless, destructive drug wars, etc. I hope he wins the nomination. I don’t agree with him on everything and I don’t give a damn. He has a point of view, he stands by it, and he doesn’t mince words in order to get elected or raise money. On these sorts of urgent issues he stands for what the majority of Americans want. They are ignored and I think Ron Paul doing well could change the political dialogue.

  6. john h on September 27, 2011, 7:49 pm

    Paul is not particularly pro either Palestine or Israel, he is pro US. This is how he puts it:

    Unfortunately the debate is dominated by those who either support the Israeli side in the conflict, or those who support the Palestinian desire for statehood. We rarely seem to hear the view of those who support the US side and US interests. I am on that side. I believe that we can no longer police the world. We can no longer bribe the Israelis and Palestinians to continue an endless “peace process” that goes nowhere.

    The real, pro-US solution to the problems in the Middle East is for us to end all foreign aid, stop arming foreign countries, encourage peaceful diplomatic resolutions to conflicts, and disengage militarily. In others words, follow Jefferson’s admonition: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

  7. thetumta on September 27, 2011, 9:24 pm

    Long time Libertarian. As I often remind my friends, our Constitution does have a general welfare clause, often a good investment, but you have to remember to pay the rent.

  8. Keith on September 27, 2011, 9:36 pm

    “As we saw after the Cold War, numerous new states were born out of the ruins of the USSR as the various old Soviet Republics decided that smaller states were preferable to an enormous and oppressive multi-national conglomerate.”

    These “old Soviet Republics” had a lot of help from Uncle Sam in deciding that “smaller states were preferable.” One can only hope that Ron Paul isn’t really so naïve as to think that US geo-strategic calculations and regime destabilization efforts didn’t play their part in the break-up of the USSR, and in the “color” revolutions which followed. But, you never know.

  9. crone on September 27, 2011, 10:39 pm

    well, this liberal won’t be voting for Obama in 2012…

  10. eljay on September 28, 2011, 7:40 am

    Ron Paul nails it yet again.

  11. CloakAndDagger on September 28, 2011, 8:45 am

    I think a lot more people will be voting for Ron Paul than is obvious from the zionist controlled media.

  12. Emma on September 28, 2011, 2:27 pm

    I may have posted this before, but this is Ron Paul’s statement in voting against the idiotic 2008 House resolution expressing the representatives’ love and awe of Israel’s massacring the people of Gaza.

    “Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or US interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers. What will adopting this resolution do to the perception of the United States in the Muslim and Arab world? What kind of blowback might we see from this? What moral responsibility do we have for the violence in Israel and Gaza after having provided so much military support to one side?”

Leave a Reply