Skip to comments.Ron Paul Should be the Zionist Choice for US President
Posted on 11/15/2007 3:18:48 PM PST by Esther Ruth
Published: 11/15/07, 10:04 PM
Ron Paul Should be the Zionist Choice for US President
by Shmuel Ben-Gad
He opposes US foreign aid to Israel.
Since the Six Day War, US presidents and presidential candidates have tended to speak of the US and Israel as great friends and allies. They have also tended to favor the shrinking of Israel's borders. This has reached a low point under the Bush administration, The US alliance with Israel has been a decidedly mixed blessing. which is the first one to explicitly make its policy the establishment of an Arab state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Thus, the US alliance with Israel has been a decidedly mixed blessing.
Israel receives military and financial assistance, and also some diplomatic support at the United Nations, but the US puts pressure on Israel to surrender parts of the homeland. Even worse, this relationship seems to foster a mentality of dependence amongst many Israelis who, it seems, cannot imagine Israel defying the United States in any major way.
In the upcoming presidential election, however, there is a chance to change this dramatically, by electing Congressman Ron Paul, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Dr. Paul favors a non-interventionist foreign policy. He has written:
"Yet, while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state. Many average Israelis and American Jews see America as hypocritically hedging its bets.... It is time to challenge the notion that it is our job to broker peace in the Middle East and every other troubled region across the globe.... 'Peace plans' imposed by outsiders or the UN cause resentment and seldom produce lasting peace.... The fatal conceit lies in believing America can impose geopolitical solutions wherever it chooses."
In this, Dr. Paul is hearkening back to what George Washington counseled in his famous farewell address: "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."
The Republican Jewish Coalition (a fervent supporter of the Bush administration, which it claims is a great friend of Israel) refused to invite Dr. Paul to its candidates forum because he opposes aid to Israel. But, as we can see, Dr. Paul's position is based upon a principled, modest, non-interventionist foreign policy - not upon anti-Zionism. Indeed, in a way, his foreign policy is mirrored by his small government domestic policy. Both recognize there are real limits to what a government can usefully do.
It is true that Israel is a small state in a highly dangerous neighborhood, but it is an economically and technologically vibrant country - even more so recently, as the shackles of socialism have been somewhat loosened. Cutting the apron strings to the US would, I think, make Israel become more maturely self-confident, because it would be more self-reliant.
A Ron Paul presidency would be healthy for Israel in yet another way. Dr. Paul is opposed to organizations like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court that dilute national sovereignty. If the United States, in a Paul administration, withdrew from the UN and similar institutions, imagine what a blow this would deliver to their power and Dr. Paul's position is based upon a principled, modest, non-interventionist foreign policy - not upon anti-Zionism. prestige. I find it a thrilling prospect. Maybe Israel would have a wise enough government to follow suit.
Now, I do not support Ron Paul only for Zionist reasons, nor do I think US pressure is the primary cause for the current politically and culturally debilitated conditions of Israel. The primary cause, in my opinion, is the self-debasement of the Hebrew nation both in the homeland and abroad. This manifested itself most severely in the Israeli government's expulsion of Jews from Gaza and northern Samaria, and in the almost total lack of opposition that greeted this from the Jewish Diaspora.
It seems to me a Ron Paul presidency would be good for Israel and for the United States. Its foreign policy non-interventionism and its concern to protect national sovereignty would provide Israel with a greater impetus to increase its own independence and sense of national honor. I hope American Zionists will resist the immediate, meretricious attractions of American financial assistance for Israel. Ron Paul would both end this infantilizing, and even corrupting, aid and respect Israel's national sovereignty.
Taking the long and deep view, Ron Paul should be the Zionist choice. 5 Kislev 5768 / 15 November 07
A few Rabbi’s are upset with our latest Peace Plans to take place in Annapolis. Saying if the process goes through, destruction will come down on us.
I recall an article similar to this was posted here on FR.
Frankly “Zionist” is the term used by people who hate Israel the most. They use it to polarize the debate. I sure hate it when folks who seem to support Israel uses that term.
I support Israel. I’ll pick who I think is best to support it and sound policies in the U.S.
If you like folk supported by Jewhaters and racists, he’s fine, as Michael Medved puts it, the neonazi candidate.
They still do. This new lot is not conservative. Never have been and their stripes are showing. From funding the 40 year old space bus (NASA) to throwing tax dollars around the world to Every Child Left Behind, their pitiful understanding of conservatism is about as strong as 1st grader's understanding of physics
Dr. Paul as usual is right on this issue as well. But instead of providing the Constitutional basis for wasting my tax dollars here and around the world, they'd rather call names
I totally agree with you. Also, as to the name-calling, they are employing tactics straight from Alinsky’s (and his disciple Hillary Clinton’s) playbook Rules for Radicals:
I would expect no better from Michael Medved, who is mentioned by one of the commenters above and who attended Yale and ran in the same circles as the Clintons. He is no conservative in my opinion.
I didn’t post this here to see the Pope bashed but that was the result anyway. Idealogical leaders of conservatism...religious leaders...former highly respected military officers, and all others who see our foreign policy as flawed are pilloried at this site as traitors.
Reasoned dialog is discouraged unless it fits a particularly narrow range of ideology...And that ideology imo is not a conservative one.
Hypocrisy in the Middle East
February 26, 2007
Hundreds of thousands of American troops already occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, a number that is rising as the military surge moves forward. The justification, given endlessly since September 11th, is that both support terrorism and thus pose a risk to the United States. Yet when we step back and examine the region as a whole, its obvious that these two impoverished countries, neither of which has any real military, pose very little threat to American national security when compared to other Middle Eastern nations. The decision to attack them, while treating some of regions worst regimes as allies, shows the deadly hypocrisy of our foreign policy in the Middle East.
Consider Saudi Arabia, the native home of most of the September 11th hijackers. The Saudis, unlike the Iraqis, have proven connections to al Qaeda. Saudi charities have funneled money to Islamic terrorist groups. Yet the administration insists on calling Saudi Arabia a good partner in the war on terror. Why? Because the U.S. has a longstanding relationship with the Saudi royal family, and a long history of commercial interests relating to Saudi oil. So successive administrations continue to treat the Saudis as something they are not: a reliable and honest friend in the Middle East.
The same is true of Pakistan, where General Musharaf seized power by force in a 1999 coup. The Clinton administration quickly accepted his new leadership as legitimate, to the dismay of India and many Muslim Pakistanis. Since 9/11, we have showered Pakistan with millions in foreign aid, ostensibly in exchange for Musharafs allegiance against al Qaeda. Yet has our new ally rewarded our support? Hardly. The Pakistanis almost certainly have harbored bin Laden in their remote mountains, and show little interest in pursuing him or allowing anyone else to pursue him. Pakistan has signed peace agreements with Taliban leaders, and by some accounts bin Laden is a folk hero to many Pakistanis.
Furthermore, more members of al Qaeda probably live within Pakistan than any other country today. North Korea developed its nuclear capability with technology sold to them by the Pakistanis. Yet somehow we remain friends with Pakistan, while Saddam Hussein, who had no connection to bin Laden and no friends in the Islamic fundamentalist world, was made a scapegoat.
The tired assertion that America “supports democracy” in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and its false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan- just to name two examples. If honest democratic elections were held throughout the Middle East tomorrow, many countries would elect religious fundamentalist leaders hostile to the United States. Cliché or not, the Arab Street really doesnt like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves Americas long-term interests.
A coherent foreign policy is based on the understanding that America is best served by not interfering in the deadly conflicts that define the Middle East. Yes, we need Middle Eastern oil, but we can reduce our need by exploring domestic sources. We should rid ourselves of the notion that we are at the mercy of the oil-producing countries- as the worlds largest oil consumer, their wealth depends on our business. We should stop the endless game of playing faction against faction, and recognize that buying allies doesnt work. We should curtail the heavy militarization of the area by ending our disastrous foreign aid payments. We should stop propping up dictators and putting band-aids on festering problems. We should understand that our political and military involvement in the region creates far more problems that it solves. All Americans will benefit, both in terms of their safety and their pocketbooks, if we pursue a coherent, neutral foreign policy of non-interventionism, free trade, and self-determination in the Middle East.
Are you disputing this statement?
"Yet, while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state."
And if not, do you approve of funding Israel's enemies?
Dr. Paul as usual is right on this issue as well. But instead of providing the Constitutional basis for wasting my tax dollars here and around the world, they'd rather call names."
Amen, and QFT.
Thanks for the ping.
Israel can handle any nation in that region, she doesn't need to have her hands tied by pro-Islamic U.S. foreign policy.
Good old Ron Paul. He’s got the NeoCons and their Globlists friends all tied up in knots.
Buh...buh...but Ron Paul is supported by the Zionist Neo-Nazis and the Multicultural White Supremacists and besides he is certifiably insane. Some guy in the Faux News focus group said so. What are ya’, some kinda kook?