Posted on 12/27/2011 12:56:08 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Not long ago, Newt Gingrich got into some trouble for claiming that the Palestinians are an “invented people,” although there is some basis for that statement, as prior to the British Mandate there was no such official designation for “Palestine” — and the British clearly included present-day Jordan as a major part of “Palestine” in the mandate. Another Republican candidate offered a history lesson on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2009, a moment recalled by Jeff Dunetz in this clip from the House floor. In it, we discover that Israel “started” Hamas as a counterweight to Yasser Arafat, or something, and manages to blame the CIA for radicalizing Muslims and the US for supplying weapons and funds that “kill Palestinians”:
This may be why Paul doesn’t get a lot of support from his own party in Iowa or New Hampshire, as Byron York reports today:
In a hotly-contested Republican race, it appears that only about half of Paul’s supporters are Republicans. In Iowa, according to Rasmussen, just 51 percent of Paul supporters consider themselves Republicans. In New Hampshire, the number is 56 percent, according to Andrew Smith, head of the University of New Hampshire poll.
The same New Hampshire survey found that 87 percent of the people who support Romney consider themselves Republicans. For Newt Gingrich, it’s 85 percent.
So who is supporting Paul? In New Hampshire, Paul is the choice of just 13 percent of Republicans, according to the new poll, while he is the favorite of 36 percent of independents and 26 percent of Democrats who intend to vote in the primary. Paul leads in both non-Republican categories.
“Paul is doing the best job of getting those people who aren’t really Republicans but say they’re going to vote in the Republican primary,” explains Smith. Among that group are libertarians, dissatisfied independents and Democrats who are “trying to throw a monkey wrench in the campaign by voting for someone who is more philosophically extreme,” says Smith.
So who started Hamas? Was it really Israel? Er … no, not really, and the suggestion that Israel wanted Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO is simply ludicrous. Hamas developed from a network of Muslim Brotherhood charities in Gaza in the mid-1980s. The Muslim Brotherhood was one of the most notorious of anti-Israeli organizations in the region, formed in the 1920s in opposition to the collapse of the Caliphate and the British Mandate that followed. At the founding of Hamas, it called for “jihad” to seize Israel and create an Islamist state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. They formed in direct opposition to the PLO (now called Fatah in the Palestinian Authority government), to some extent because Yasser Arafat was negotiating with Israel, albeit in bad faith while trying to drum up financial and political support in the West. Hamas gets its funding from Iran, hardly a disinterested third party in this conflict — and the main engine of radicalizing Muslims, eclipsing the Muslim Brotherhood ever since the Iranian revolution of 1979.
Paul only gets one thing substantially correct in this speech, which is that the US screwed up by pushing for an election in Gaza while Hamas had such a strong hold on the territory. We did warn, however, that we would not work with terrorists in a Gaza government, and after the unilateral Israeli withdrawal in 2005 it would have been difficult to argue against elections in Gaza. “Imposing” democracy in this case ended up backfiring, as it legitimized Hamas to some extent and made it more difficult to fight against their terrorism. But that’s a far cry from claiming that Israel started Hamas, a statement that is so nutty that it should be by itself disqualifying for voters looking to select the next Republican nominee.
Update: A few people have e-mailed me this opinion piece from the WSJ in 2009 as “proof” that corroborates Paul’s claims. It doesn’t back up Paul’s claim that Israel “started” Hamas, and it really doesn’t make the case that Israel encouraged the formation of Hamas, either. The closest it comes is this:
“Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel’s destruction.
Instead of trying to curb Gaza’s Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat’s Fatah. Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas. Sheikh Yassin continues to inspire militants today; during the recent war in Gaza, Hamas fighters confronted Israeli troops with “Yassins,” primitive rocket-propelled grenades named in honor of the cleric.
How did Israel “encourage” Hamas? By keeping tabs on it, as any intel service would have done:
Instead, Israel’s military-led administration in Gaza looked favorably on the paraplegic cleric, who set up a wide network of schools, clinics, a library and kindergartens. Sheikh Yassin formed the Islamist group Mujama al-Islamiya, which was officially recognized by Israel as a charity and then, in 1979, as an association. Israel also endorsed the establishment of the Islamic University of Gaza, which it now regards as a hotbed of militancy. The university was one of the first targets hit by Israeli warplanes in the recent war.
Brig. General Yosef Kastel, Gaza’s Israeli governor at the time, is too ill to comment, says his wife. But Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Segev, who took over as governor in Gaza in late 1979, says he had no illusions about Sheikh Yassin’s long-term intentions or the perils of political Islam. As Israel’s former military attache in Iran, he’d watched Islamic fervor topple the Shah. However, in Gaza, says Mr. Segev, “our main enemy was Fatah,” and the cleric “was still 100% peaceful” towards Israel. Former officials say Israel was also at the time wary of being viewed as an enemy of Islam.
Mr. Segev says he had regular contact with Sheikh Yassin, in part to keep an eye on him. He visited his mosque and met the cleric around a dozen times. It was illegal at the time for Israelis to meet anyone from the PLO. Mr. Segev later arranged for the cleric to be taken to Israel for hospital treatment. “We had no problems with him,” he says.
In other words, people want to “credit” Israel for creating Hamas because they didn’t oppose the establishment of (then) non-violent social charities. Later, in 1987, the Muslim Brotherhood formed these charities into Hamas, which adopted violent jihad and the destruction of Israel as the key goals of its charter. Israel didn’t stop it and continued for a brief time to maintain its contacts with the group until it launched an intifada, but that’s not the same thing as “creating Hamas,” or even “encouraging Hamas.”
Here’s the entire statement made on January 9th, 2009, from the Congressional Record:
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, not because I am taking sides and picking who the bad guys are and who the good guys are, but I’m looking at this more from the angle of being a United States citizen, an American, and I think resolutions like this really do great harm to us. In many ways what is happening in the Middle East, and in particular with Gaza right now, we have some moral responsibility for both sides, because we provide help in funding for both Arab nations and Israel. And so we definitely have a moral responsibility. And especially now today, the weapons being used to kill so many Palestinians are American weapons and American funds essentially are being used for this.
But there is a political liability which I think is something that we fail to look at because too often there is so much blowback from our intervention in areas that we shouldn’t be involved in. Hamas, if you look at the history, you will find that Hamas was encouraged and actually started by Israel because they wanted Hamas to counteract Yasir Arafat. You say, Well, yeah, it was better then and served its purpose, but we didn’t want Hamas to do this. So then we, as Americans, say, Well, we have such a good system;
we’re going to impose this on the world. We’re going to invade Iraq and teach people how to be democrats. We want free elections. So we encouraged the Palestinians to have a free election. They do, and they elect Hamas.So we first, indirectly and directly through Israel, helped establish Hamas. Then we have an election where Hamas becomes dominant then we have to kill them. It just doesn’t make sense. During the 1980s, we were allied with Osama bin Laden and we were contending with the Soviets. It was at that time our CIA thought it was good if we radicalize the Muslim world. So we finance the Madrassas school to radicalize the Muslims in order to compete with the Soviets. There is too much blowback.
There are a lot of reasons why we should oppose this resolution. It’s not in the interest of the United States, it is not in the interest of Israel either. 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 U.S. 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?As an opponent of all violence, I am appalled by the practice of lobbing homemade rockets into Israel from Gaza. I am only grateful that, because of the primitive nature of these weapons, there have been so few casualties among innocent Israelis. But I am also appalled by the longstanding Israeli blockade of Gaza–a cruel act of war–and the tremendous loss of life that has resulted from the latest Israeli attack that started last month. There are now an estimated 700 dead Palestinians, most of whom are civilians. Many innocent children are among the dead. While the shooting of rockets into Israel is inexcusable, the violent actions of some people in Gaza does not justify killing Palestinians on this scale. Such collective punishment is immoral. At the very least, the U.S. Congress should not be loudly proclaiming its support for the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza.
Madam Speaker, this resolution will do nothing to reduce the fighting and bloodshed in the Middle East. The resolution in fact will lead the U.S. to become further involved in this conflict, promising “vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.” Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country? I believe it would be better to focus on the security and survival of the United States, the Constitution of which my colleagues and I swore to defend just this week at the beginning of the 111th Congress. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
I understand and appreciate the humor. But we should all recognize that there is a real possibility that Paul's overt racism and anti-Israel attitudes, which approach antisemitism, along with his relationships with the most unsavory of the white supremecist community will be hung on the GOP should he make a couple strong primary showings. I was concerned about this 4 years ago, was wrong, people recognized he's a fruitcake representing no organized party. I've ignored the Paul threads this time round for that reason, but if he makes a showing the media and the Obama campaign, at the second tier, will be all over this. Not all over Paul, but all over what the GOP is "about". Not much to do about it, FR has been all over this fool for years. So far the only candidate who seems to be addressing the problem is Newt.
The same for his supporters.
Yesterday on the Five, Greg Gutfeld related that he’d spoken with a former RP campaign worker who talked about some of the many difficulties in working for that group. He told Greg, “Ron Paul really, really HATES Israel”.
All this seamy underbelly of the RP fanaticism is bad. Do any of the other candidates besides Newt have the guts to point out the hatefulness and bigotry? They’d better, and Newt needs to hit back harder, especially in light of RP’s vicious attacks on him.
Your posting has a lot of relevant points. We’d better think about rallying around a candidate (BESIDES RuPaul), and fast, or we’re screwed. And so is our country.
“It was at that time our CIA thought it was good if we radicalize the Muslim world. So we finance the Madrassas school to radicalize the Muslims in order to compete with the Soviets.”
This hateful, erroneous garbage RuPaul spews makes me see red!! Why don’t the other Congress people (and candidates) stand up, look him in the eye and tell him to READ THe F***ing KORAN???
It’s dangerous that so many, many people are brain-dead, uninformed or (in the case of his fan-atics) hypnotized and socially deviant that they swallow this shameful propaganda cloaked in “the Constitution”.
I believe if the Founding Fathers were faced with our dangerous climate of both immediate and worldwide threat of Islamic jihad, they’d be aghast at Ron Paul twisting their principles, words and intent for such evil self-aggrandizement.
“But he is, to me, the least palatable of the GOP candidates because of his unworldly views on foreign policy.”
Least palatable? In light of his racial bigotry, deep anti-semitism, affiliations with Code Pinko, Stormfront (neo-nazis) and complete ignorance (or affinity for?) for Islamists whose stated goal is to obliterate Israel, kill us (and all Infidels) toward a global caliphate and worldwide domination, I’d say “least palatable” is an understatement.
The “unworldly” part I’d agree with, though.
BTW, (aside from being the king of earmarks himself) RuPaul isn’t exclusive in his opposition to entitlement programs, profligate spending and big government. There are others who feel the same, but without RP’s hateful baggage.
[You don't need to ask to be on this Ping List.]
Well then, the Republicans should flat out disavow him for all the afore-mentioned reasons, and not be so afraid of ticking him off or that he’ll go third party. We need to do damage control now and everything we can to educate those who are sane and rational about his hateful and dangerous views. And our candidates should be vocal about this.
If our side is smart and stays a step ahead of the media on this, it shouldn’t matter so much if RP goes third party out of spite. There’s a high likelihood, imho, that he’ll do so anyway, but we have the opportunity to damage his “credibility” now, before it’s too late.
Based on his stated beliefs, I think the suggestion that he's a Nazi is probably wrong. Nazis want to invade the world, and cleanse it of anyone who's not Aryan. Paul wants to avoid protecting the world with American blood and treasure. He's also not averse to immigration from around the world, as long as entitlements are first abolished.
I think he does have a problem with our diplomatic and financial support for Israel. I don't think he believes Israel shouldn't exist, but he definitely believes we shouldn't be allied to Israel, because of the foreign policy complications it creates with 1 billion Muslims. He's anti-Israel, and he's critical of what he believes to be the Jewish American lobby's success in maintaining American support for Israel. When I add these things together, I don't see an anti-semite, not even an old line anti-semite of the kind that thought Jews should not be allowed into the elite schools or country clubs. I see someone who thinks interests alone, rather than values, should govern our foreign policy.
Where I differ with Ron Paul is this - I think our support for Israel is where our interests and values coincide. Where Paul sees a billion peaceful Muslims, I see a civilization that has repeatedly waged war on the non-Muslim world, mistreats non-Muslims within its own borders and seeks to enforce its dictates on non-Muslim countries. That our support for Israel is a painful thorn in the side of the ummah is a feature, not a bug.
It’s astounding that with their knowledge of Islamic enemies, Israelis would have preferred an Islamic freak like Sheikh Yassin to the PLO. Rotten as the PLO were and are, they are more secular than Hamas.
If you have to choose an enemy to deal with, choose the more secular enemy. I’d rather have the Soviets as our major enemy than Islamic freaks, because at least Soviet communism was a sober, modern evil, and the Soviets could be deterred, because they cared about their lives and the lives of their children. Islamic fundamentalism, however, is a crazed evil from the Middle Ages. It can not be deterred because its adherents are glad to die.
“but he definitely believes we shouldn’t be allied to Israel, because of the foreign policy complications it creates with 1 billion Muslims.”
Where to begin? For one thing, Israel is (and has been) our only true ally in the Middle East. We have benefited from their intelligence (which at times has been superior to ours) often throughout the years as well as their expertise in various areas - science, technology, etc. For another, neither our alliance with Israel nor our disavowing it will influence Islamists in their mission of global domination and extermination of ALL non-Muslims as commanded in the Koran, Hadith, etc. They are infiltrating and populating all western countries (including ours), waging stealth jihad on every aspect of our cultures until they achieve enough of a stronghold to take it to the next physical, openly militant level.
You even support my statement with your own - “Where Paul sees a billion peaceful Muslims, I see a civilization that has repeatedly waged war on the non-Muslim world, mistreats non-Muslims within its own borders and seeks to enforce its dictates on non-Muslim countries.”
That’s encouraging and, at least, a start.
Some more info on Ron Paul and Israel:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2825592/posts?page=33#33
********************************
Agreed. Imho, FR has a few very vocal Ron Paul supporters, and continues to experience what seems to be a growing number of trolls who have come on to this site to promote him.
It is my opinion that nothing good can come of Paul's candidacy.
Paul is motivated by an ingrained anti-Israeli attitude but, as this article explains, Hamas did benefit from some blowback from IDF operations.
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB123275572295011847.html
But he's not a nut case. I mean, would a nut case give a militia advice on how to select members or avoid goverment wiretaps? (Oh. Buy gold!)
But there's no reason to believe Paul was behind any of this stuff. It's not like his name or picture was on any of it.
Merry Christmas from Ron Paul! And watch out for those darn Trilateralists!
Unless you want to marvel at the fine line between Presidential candidate and pond scum (look out for the NEW WORLD ORDER!).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.