Skip to comments.Ron Paulís War on Israel
Posted on 12/29/2011 4:20:48 PM PST by mnehring
Rep. Ron Paul is now in first place in the Iowa caucus polls, second in New Hampshire and third nationally. This has prompted a former close aide of his, Eric Dondero, to speak out about the anti-Israeli views he expressed to him in private. The Paul campaign is ridiculing Dondero as a disgruntled former staffer and another aide, an Israeli, is defending Paul. A close examination of Pauls books, newsletters and statements give credence to Dondero.
Dondero worked closely with Paul from 1987 to 2003. After he left, he nearly ran against Ron Paul but instead supported another candidate. Dondero claims that the presidential candidate is not merely anti-Semitic but wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. Dr. Leon Hadar, a dual American-Israeli citizen who served as a foreign policy adviser to Paul during his 2008 presidential campaign, has risen to Pauls defense. He says that Paul does not want to see Israel eliminated as a state, yet Paul praises an anti-Zionist group that envisions just that.
On page 317 of his book, Liberty Defined, Paul laments the influence of the Israeli government on America and the apartheid conditions that Palestinians are subjected to. He says that Even newspapers in Israel are willing to discuss this issue openly, but it is essentially never permitted in the United States. He praises J-Street for challenging AIPACs monopoly control of the discussion and Peace Now. He expresses his pleasure that an anti-Zionist group called the American Council for Judaism has growing support.
The American Council for Judaism is opposed the concept of Jewish nationality and a Jewish state. The editor of its publications, Allan C. Brownfield, told the New York Times that While we wish Israel well, we dont view it as our homeland. In the fall of 2010, he wrote a glowing book review of The Dark Side of Zionism. The title speaks for itself.
In spring 2009, the American Council for Judaisms Issuespublication carried an article by Yakov M. Rabkin that defends Iran and bashes Israel. He writes that Jews are treated well in Iran and that the role of the Israel Lobby has been seminal in the anti-Iran hysteria.
The religiously inspired Iranian president predicts the end of the Zionist regime, but he does not threaten to massacre the inhabitants of Israel, the ACJs publication states. The author agrees with Ahmadinejad in predicting the eventual disappearance of Israel and talks about the contradictions between Zionism and Judaism. He also says that Zionism takes precedence over the human welfare and the very survival of the Jews. This is the group that Ron Paul speaks fondly of.
Voters first saw a glimpse of Pauls attitude towards Israel during an argument with Newt Gingrich. The former House speaker was under fire for calling the Palestinians an invented people. Paul did not necessarily disagree, conceding that Technically and historically Gingrich is right. He then added, You know, under the Ottoman Empire, the Palestinians didnt have a state, but neither did Israel have a state then, too.
Ron Paul defends Irans innocence, going so far as to say there is no evidence that it is seeking a nuclear weapon, stands in sharp contrast to the heaps of criticism he levels towards Israel. In January 2009, he talked to Iranian state TV about the tragedy of Gaza (his words) and said, To me, I look at it like a concentration camp, and people [in Gaza] are making homemade bombs, like they are the aggressors?
He made similar comments in an interview in June 2010 with Don Imus, calling the flotilla raid horrible and again accusing Israel of turning the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip into a concentration camp by blocking the arrival of humanitarian aid.
He consistently paints the terrorist threat as beginning and ending with U.S. support for Israel. He writes in A Foreign Policy of Freedom that American dollars and weapons are being used against the Palestinians as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israels occupation expands. Elsewhere in the book, hecomplains that all recent presidents have reiterated our obligation to bleed for Israel.
Ron Paul stresses that he is not an enemy of Israel. He calls the country Americas best friend, and says the U.S. should be a friend and not a master. He says that U.S. foreign aid is used to coerce Israel and They are a democracy and we share many values with them. Paul says that his opposition to foreign aid is in line with Zionism, which asserts Jewish independence and self-reliance. However, that is a separate question from whether he believes Israels foundations are legitimate, and, furthermore, he says that the U.S. should be a friend to all countries.
Ron Pauls old newsletters are being reviewed now that he is in the top tier. James Kirchick tracked almost all of them down andobserved that No foreign country was mentioned in the newsletters more often than Israel. A 1987 issue calls the country an aggressive, national socialist state. In 1990, it warned of the tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of experience.
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, his newsletter stated, Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little. Another talked about The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica. In November 1993, it referred to Bobby Fischer, an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier, as an American hero with views that are very politically incorrect on Jewish questions. The text seemed to decry the fact that that his opinions were overshadowing his accomplishments as a master chess player.
Ron Paul says he did not read the newsletters before they were published and does not agree with their content. His campaignsays that he did not write, edit or authorize them and that he completely rejects their bigotry.
Eric Dondero claims that Paul strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that saving the Jews, was absolutely none of our business. Blogger Jeffrey Scott Shapiro recalls a conversation he had with Paul in 2009 on the subject. He quotes Paul as saying that he wouldnt risk American lives to do that [stop the Holocaust] if it is purely as a moral imperative.
If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, thats fine, but I wouldnt do that, he quotes Paul. He is on record as describing himself as part of the Old Right, a movement that opposed U.S. involvement in World War Two.
Dondero also says that Paul opposed the war in Afghanistan and any retaliation for 9/11, pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of [9/11] memorial expressions and privately questioned whether 9/11 was an inside job. Ron Paul has repeatedly denied that he believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories, but in an interview in October, he was asked why he wouldnt talk about the truth behind 9/11. He responded that he just cant handle the controversy.
Rep. Ron Paul can state that hes a friend to Israel all he wants, but the published record stands. He views Israel as the catalyst for 9/11, defends Irans innocence, parrots the anti-Israeli propaganda of Hamas, and upholds an anti-Zionist organization that views Israel as an oppressive, illegitimate state. That is not a friend.
You think there's a choice if Paul get the Repub nod?
Hard to believe Ron paul is third in National polls. If he is the Republican candidate it will take a lot for me to stagger to the polls and vote for him.
Don’t know if I can do it.I sure don’t want to.
It’s a bit like condemning America to a certain death.
Much like voting for Obama.
God save us.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
I'll include my comment from this am's similar thread.
No, he isnt pro-Israel, and his positions on foreign aid are irrelevant.
On numerous occasions hes addressed the problem of Jewish neocons and the Likud Party control of the neocon tainted Bush administration. Including on the floor of the House. Thats not pro-Israel, its conspiracy lunacy. Hes stated that the Mossad, like the CIA, may have been behind the 1993 Trade Center Bombing. Not pro-Israel, conspiracy nonsense. Like his contention that GWB was pleased by 9/11, also libelous. It seems to me as a Government official he has an obligation to make the facts known, and turn them over to law enforcement
He does acknowledge Jews lived in the region a couple millennia ago. Thats nice, I guess its a plus, though its a pretty widely accepted fact
He describes the history of Zionism as a movement of Orthodox Jews (Herzl would be surprised as would have most of the "Orthodox" of the day) who wanted to separate secular European Jews from the culture they had assimilated into so well. Secular European Jews fully integrated and accepted into late 19th century Europe, like Alfred Dreyfus. 19th and 20th century European Jews would be surprised to find they were so well accepted and integrated. Is Paul stupid, or a revisionist, I dont know.
Somehow his history of Israel and Zionism skips from the late 19th century to 1948 and the evil UN. Nothing important happened in the interim I guess, WWI, WWII, Turkeys defeat, the Mandate period, economic development of Palestine (thats what the future Jewish state was done), movement of Arabs to the region for economic reasons, no San Remo, no partitioning an Arab state for Jordon, no pogroms, the Mufti, he even forgets the little dust up caused by the Reich. All insignificant, I guess. Not worth assessing whether a defective version of history makes him pro-Israel.
Simply skip forward to 1948 when the UN lets Israel take the Arabs land. By successfully defending themselves from genocide I guess.
Quite telling is the Paul experience meeting a young palestinian attending school in the US. Her story about how her family was thrown off land in her family for centuries touched his heart. Just to build Israeli settlements. Hes a sentimental guy, but this is the Arab version of history.
Did I mention this meeting happened in the early 1950s, clear proof that Ron considers Tel Aviv a settlement. Like San Antonio I guess. But what the heck, it was just a group of people taking land from others on the specious arguement that G-d told them to do it. Classic pro-Arab fairy tale from the Congressman, not a pro-Israel position.
For anyone interested in learning more about the conflict, Paul recommends Jimmy Carter's Apartheid work. It's on the Code Pink suggested reading list too. Largely discredited in pro-Israel circles.
The idea that Paul is pro-Israel is absurd, he has a clear anti-Israel mindset. Whether hes an antisemite is a different issue not worth getting into. Because its an opinion, and irrelevant given his willingness to associate with world class Holocaust deniers, Jewhaters and racists. That alone should be a disqualifier for high office, as it should have been for the current occupant of the White House.
Interestingly like Obamas racist baggage Pauls has been known here on FR for years, its a shame more people didnt pay attention, preventing a potential embarrassment for whoever the Republican candidate is, and depriving Obama supporters of an effective issue.
A village is missing its idiot.
Me: "May I have my free trip to the Holy Land now?"
He merely raised the question among other possibilities. No need to hyperventilate. What, precisely, was the reason for those attacks? Do you know?
Yes, just happened to suggeset an alternate theory for a settled crime. A Congressman, no less. Personally I find it disturbing, the idea that he thinks it doesn’t matter whether it was Islamists or the Mossad. Does he hate Muslims, want’s to see them in jail for crimes they didn’t commit? Does he use Israel as a strawman to appeal to his hate community support? Either way his actions are shameful for an public official and should be taken with the seriousness of the drunk at the end of the bar.
What, precisely, was the reason for the 9/11 attacks? Do you know?
Sending billions to Israel (or other foreign lands for that matter) is like purchasing the perfect stick with which to beat a hornet’s nest, beating the nest repeatedly, and expecting only thanks in return.
How much have we spent?
Where has it gone?
What have we gotten in return?
There are a good many people in this country who would like to find out. It’s called “accountability,” and there’s nothing kooky about it.
Good grief I am so sick of hearing - foreign aide foreign aide wa wa wa.......
Less than 1% yes less that ONE PERCENT of the federal budget, 2010 figures, (private charities send nearly four times as much), which amounts to approximate less than $90 a year per person, goes to foreign aide and out of that 20% of that less than 1% goes to Israel. So Israel gets 20% of 1% or 1/5%, one fifth of a percent of the fed budget.
Pretty small investment for our only alias in the middle east, I would say.
Same reasons they (islmaic thugs) have said since the beginning, they hate us because we are not them. It is their duty to kill us all.
...and if you look at the actual ‘aid’ Israel receives, a good majority of it isn’t handing them cash but comes from highly discounted military purchases. So a majority of that ‘aid’ is just discounting what they buy from us.
The Islamists wanted a new holiday and a reason to sell sweets and souveniers.
Love the lighter
I bot 3
We’re up to c. 200 billion on Israel so far. Pretty stiff price for two, big black eyes plus the ensuing expense of fighting wars on 2 fronts. But let’s not even think about it twice. That would be “kooky.”
Congratulations. Tasteless post of the year, and it’s only 1/2.
One twentieth of less than one percent of the federal budget to protect an alias.....nope I do not consider that kookie at all.
The question is why do you consider it an issue?
That could be true, discounting is a common practice. The big point is that foreign is less than one percent of the entire federal budget. I think PP, accorn, npr (couple of more liberal deals) get 1% combined.
I actually do not have a huge problem with aid to alais, I have a problem with aiding without accountability and to dictators.
I have also read that Paul (but can’t find the links) has said he want to keep aid to palestine. Although, it would not surprise me if he did, I also do not think he is stupid enough to say it.
You are right, Paul voted to continue aid to Palestine.
One of the many reasons he is “Fraud Paul”
You are correct it is tasteless, boarding on disgusting yet not nearly as disgusting as the left and some on the right trumpeting a mosque on 9/11 land. And of course a diatribe by Paul against America and people who are opposed to the joint.
So SJ, lighter versus anti-American rant = hum what do yo think is more egregious.
Both are tasteless, but only one gets the prize, namley the one found here where conservatives can amicably discuss their differences with facts and informed opinion.
I am intrigued that you state both are horrible/egregious yet it is a picture over an anti-American rant by a sitting Congressman running for President of the USA you find less so.
As they say “to each his own”.
Because it resulted in several attacks on our interests, and at least two wars in response. Any idea how much those cost?
I've got some folks in the ghetto I'd like to patrol. Don't want them causing any trouble. Care to chip in a few cents for my bazooka? I promise, I'll just walk around in the alley and let them know I'm there to make sure they behave themselves. And - - BONUS - - - You'll feel safer! And then, should I get shot at and shoot my bazooka here and there in self-defense, please book a first class flight and come personally to my defense. No big deal. Right?
The notion of building a mosque on 9/11 turf is what I find tasteless. If you want to post the picture in your video of choice up here, I’ll let you know which of the two images wins the prize. There’s always room to improve in that respect, and I’m sure you’d make a worthy contestant.
You maybe trying to be cryptic, if that’s the case then you win because I honestly am not getting your analogy.
Sorry I thought you were saying the picture was worse than the anti-American rant.
Also, read the “anti-American Rant” and did not find anything anti-American. Property rights are a solidly American concept, along with the idea that we do not deny those rights because we do not hold the same faith as the one who would own property. I would prefer that St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church be permitted to rebuild its sanctuary first. In my opinion it is utterly distasteful to build a mosque at, or near, the 9/11 site.
It is not anti-American to welcome people of all faiths, provided they work within our Constitutional framework. Certain Muslims cannot handle that. They should not be here, nor should they think they can get away with forcing a change in our founding principles. The ones who scheme that change, whether on our turf or over there, ought to be promptly, and quietly, dispatched.
You see little problem with donating a little bit to foreign entities so they can defend themselves. I am asking you to send me a little change, too, so I can do the same thing in my town. Just a very small percentage. Be advised, however, that if I must use the goods you’ve purchased in part on my behalf, you will also be required to invest much more. Maybe even spill a little blood.