Skip to comments.Former Aide: Ron Paul is 'Most Certainly Anti-Israel'
Posted on 12/26/2011 4:24:57 PM PST by Eleutheria5
A former senior aide to GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has decided to "set the record straight" in a 'tell all' post on the Right Wing News blog -- and in the process, has confirmed that Paul wishes "the Israeli state did not exist at all."
Eric Dondero served as former senior aide to Paul when he was a U.S. Congressman from 1997 to 2003, and worked closely with the candidate as an aide since 1988.
"I've noticed in some media that my words have been twisted and used for an agenda from both sides," Dondero wrote, explaining from the outset why he had decided to set forth his views in such a blunt manner, on the site that he chose. "I wish to set the record straight with media that I trust and know will get the story right: conservative/libertarian-conservative bloggers."
Ron Paul is not a racist, Dondero wrote. "I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once," he wrote. "Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mothers side), I can categorically say... No slurs. No derogatory remarks."
However, the candidate's feelings about Israel versus the Palestinian Authority are another matter entirely, Dondero wrote.
"He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs."
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
No wonder he’s getting support from Democrats.
WOW so Ron Paul hates Jews..now THAT is breaking news/sarc
...Maybe a grudge? Or some Blackmail in the futume.
That is an anti-semite? Somehow I didn't get antisemite from the article, even if the article said he didn't like Israel.
That would be like saying someone who doesn't like Canada hates white people.
I just pray that Ron Paul does NOT get the GOP nomination. There is a reason why Democrats support this guy, they know what will happen if he gets the nomination..and its downright scary, it will be between a whack job anti semite and a Communist
Until I heard it straight from Paul's mouth, it's political smear as far as I'm concerned.
I don't agree with everything Paul supports, but he is the closest candidate to a true constitutionalists.
Paul, regardless of all the nutball comments, is an accomplished individual. Served in the armed services, attended college and became a doctor, then has served ten terms in the congress.
He has been the most consistent representative on record with regards to fiscal policy.
Say what you will about Ron Paul, he is principled, consistent and conservative.
A dead giveaway of a JINO (Jew in name only). You can't be "half-Jewish" on your mother's side because "Jewishness" is passed down through the mother.
He didn’t say “half-Jewish”, he said Jew. If Paul gets the nomeination, we’re all screwed of course, but I’m starting to think it’s way too late anyway. Save yourselves.
And in my state (Virginia), the only two people going to be on the ballot will be Romney and Paul (not sure if write-ins are allowed for primaries or not). Might just not vote. Argh. Oy. Crud.
I pray that he does. Not wanting the U.S. to be an Israeli vassal is not the same as being anti-Semitic.
Wait? This guy was an aide to Ron Paul for over a decade?
I guess Ron Paul makes his own case that you can't believe this guy . . . or Ron Paul.
Oh. Merry Christmas and beware of those Trilateralist boogiemen in your closet.
I know a Jew! And he told me it was the Massad or them there disgruntled Jew fellas what done blowed up the World Trade Center. Signed - Your Friend Ron.
I saw that on Special Report. Just makes you shake your head to think that this....I hesitatate to use the word ‘loon’ so let me use one that’s much worse - fanatic....is going to win a national presidential caucus.
Don’t do this to the country, Iowa. Ya want to not go with the flow, then vote Rick Santorum. You put Paul at the top, no one should ever pay attention to Iowa again. This is worse than boosting Robertson, who was a good man but had no place on the presidential stage.
hesitatate = hesitate
I don’t think you should trust “accomplished individuals” who make “nutball comments” with nuclear devices. I don’t think people who want to erase entire countries for fiscal reasons are actually conservative, and even if they are, I live in the country he would rather not have around. I view his fiscal conservatism the way I view that crazed gunman who was obsessed with proper grammar. I like proper grammar, too. I also like fiscal conservatism. But I wouldn’t vote for a crazy person if I were you.
I'm not sure this is true, but I do know that the last thing the Republican party, and some here on FR, want is a candidate who is a principled, consistent conservative.
Being anti jew and anti Israel is very different. Thats like saying he’s anti-Taiwan and wish it didn’t exist, but not racist. Still... its not a good policy position to take. The bottom line, they exist and what are you going to do with it? If your policy is to help wipe those countries out, thats appalling
I’ll even concede Ron Paul isn’t anti-Semitic. Not wanting there to be an Israel, however, is not the same thing as not wanting America to be an Israeli vassal. I don’t want America to be an Israeli vassal, either, and I’m also not anti-Semitic. But I’m also opposed Iran developing nuclear weapons, and I’m also not nuts.
This is all just so troubling. After spending 3 days with family and friends I have now stated publicly that I’m so disappointed in how this election is turning out. Not going to stop me from voting, but just so damned sad for all of us. And don’t have a clue who to vote for in primary. :( (Never will be RP that’s for sure)
I can understand Ron Paul policy of non-interference but
Is this statement true
Ron Paul will criticize Israel
Ron Paul will not criticize Arab nations
Wouldn’t that be interfering. You’re taking a side
Ron Paul is not a racist, Dondero wrote.IOW, Dondero's never read Ron Paul's racist screed.
"He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs."Wow, there's a surprise.
Who wrote this article?
not anti-Jewish ...
so exactly what is supposed to happen to 6 million JEWS
living in Israel (which he wishes wouldn’t exist)?
guess we could ask Iran’s President Imanutjob if we can’t
get a straight answer from our nutjob
Paul opposes continued subsidies of Israel? That should win him the majority American Jewish vote.
He works for them, so he’s really their nutjob too.
The effort to drive Ron Paul from the gop continues. It will probably be successful. Problem is, it’ll cost the gop the general election when he simply runs as a third party candidate. Not that it’ll much matter; like there is all that big of a difference between mittens and barky anyway.
“I just pray that Ron Paul does NOT get the GOP nomination.”
Be careful what you pray for; you might get it. Especially if he is run out of the party and launches a 3rd party challenge in the general. Which I think is likely.
Too bad Sarah didn’t run. It would have avoided this ongoing circular firing squad.
“Say what you will about Ron Paul, he is principled, consistent and conservative.”
Now, now. Don’t go using logic. The idea of these threads is to see who can howl the loudest that Ron Paul is CRAZY!! ANTISEMITIC!! RACIST!! UNRELIABLE!! NAIVE!!
That he would likely cut the scope and breadth of government by more than any other candidate running for the gop nomination never enters into the equation.
I say, “A plague on both their houses.”
Does that mean I fail the litmus test?
No write-ins. Sorry. The fix is in.
It was those Establishment Republicans that did not want Sarah to run..and she knew that, she knew what she had to deal with if she had run. They would have done everything possible to make sure she did not get the nomination. How ironic how they were so terrified of her running but have NO issue with Ron Paul running..this guy is downright scary. If he gets the nomination Obama won’t have to do anything, he will have the election in the bag. Even if Paul launches a 3rd party challenge it will be the same like every time he runs, he will get a few percentage points of votes but it really wont make a difference, but if he gets the GOP Nomination all hell is gonna break loose
The Mossad possibly bombing the new york trade center building? Really? Sheesh....
“It was those Establishment Republicans that did not want Sarah to run..and she knew that, she knew what she had to deal with if she had run. They would have done everything possible to make sure she did not get the nomination.”
Yup. I think she decided that she didn’t need it. Can’t say I blame her. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
“How ironic how they were so terrified of her running but have NO issue with Ron Paul running..this guy is downright scary.”
They didn’t think he would do as well as he is. As for him being “scary”, I find him relatively innocuous. I disagree with him on a few issues but remember: the President is not a dictator. He has to get Congress to go along on most things, which will tend to moderate things.
“If he gets the nomination Obama wont have to do anything, he will have the election in the bag.”
Ron Paul won’t get the nomination. That has been ordained for mitt. But obama need not worry; when selecting between a socialist and someone who just acts like one, people will pick the real mccoy every time.
“Even if Paul launches a 3rd party challenge it will be the same like every time he runs, he will get a few percentage points of votes but it really wont make a difference...”
I respectfully disagree. There are so many people out there who are angry at both parties that Ron Paul will get a significant chunk of votes as a third party candidate regardless. I don’t think he can win it, but he can peel off maybe 15-20%.
“...but if he gets the GOP Nomination all hell is gonna break loose.”
It sure will. And it’ll be long overdue.
Palin and Paul, despite their differences on issues, were the only genuine anti-establishment candidates. Palin’s leaving left Paul the sole option for voters sick of the establishment.
They don’t get it ...not a clue as they are led down the garden path. They would rather mittens than Paul, a sad state we find ourselves in.
Perhaps. I liked her speaking out about the phony Kinsey Report but she seems to stick to the status quo on economic issues.
Please, Sarah Barracuda, don't be overly concerned. He could "win" the Iowa caucuses with 20% or so of the vote, but he won't go much further toward the nomination. He might take a smattering of delegates to the National Convention, but nowhere near enough to impact the party's policy. The GOP is still by far the stronger party on national defense and national security - and, logically enough, on support for Israel against the forces of radical Islam.
I would kindly suggest that if you dig Sarah Palin, you should support her political "twin" and friend, Michele Bachmann.
We really need to pay attention to the Congressional races, because regardless of the resident at 1600 PA Ave, the Congress can make things happen--or stop them.
That will take a Congress with the sense of purpose and collective visceral fortitude to get the job done. Even a pacifist in the WH cannot ignore a Declaration of War passed by the Congress--and as many have seemed to forget, that is Congress' Constitutional Authority, not the Executive's.
I think, in light of that, we'd be better positioned to correct our domestic situation (especially downsizing the Federal Government and reducing our expenditures and getting useless regulation out of the way of economic recovery), and the Congress `could demand what we need for the military--something it should have been doing.
What other candidate has embraced that position, other than to state intent to make big government more 'efficient' by streamlining an entity which still usurps the Constitutional powers and authority of the States and the People?
Romney is not likely to effect any change in the current mess, save for a little less criminal activity in the Executive Branch, provided he even managed to beat Obama.
Looking at the calculus of the situation:
We have disaffected, young, possible (and former) Obama voters who are disaffected, who believe they may get what they want from a non-establishment candidate.
The anti-Israel folks would be a wash, Obama isn't exactly kind to Israel, either, and may be far more mothvated in his emnity by Islamic influences.
Despite the stereotypes, there are those more strict constitutionalists who favor downsizing the Federal Government, eliminating executive branch agencies which have been the source of myriad 'regulations' which carry the force of law, effectively legislating by bureaucracy.
While returning the abortion issue to the states would not stop the slaughter entirely, in many jurisdictions it would provide an opportunity to legislate against the practice, and effectively reduce the number of 'procedures.
As for the drug war, we've been fighting that almost as long as the 'War on Poverty', and aside from consuming tremendous resources and getting people killed, the chief effect has been gutting the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights of Americans--we still have a drug problem, and the profit motive (and profits) have corrupted all levels of enforcement as well as likely having been the chief reason the border remains open.
Considering the small fraction of drug profits it would take to make those in charge wealthy, or to run operations which would politically compromise them, it would be simply a cost of doing business. Eliminate that motive, and eliminate the appeal of doing something rebellious for the young, and while there will still be those with problems I don't think there would be an appreciable increase in actual drug use (although there might be a few more who would admit it if it wasn't a crime). Pulling that huge underground economy into the spotlight would increase tax revenues as well, and provide for the means to prosecute those who did not pay taxes.
I find it ironic that we tax the bejeebers out of a pack of cigarettes, but the entire cocaine/meth/?/pot trade goes unencumbered, leaving billions of dollars in trade untouched. (Demanding a declaration of illegally acquired income violates the Fifth Amendment, as it requires self-incrimination.)
So the deciding factor in a Paul vs. Obama race would be the number of Conservatives and Republicans who really could pull the lever for Anyone But Obama, despite the full-court Alinsky tactics used against Paul.
It is far from over, there are a lot of primaries and caucuses left, and the convention may well end up being brokered, drafting a 'dark horse candidate.
We do live in interesting times, and I am still hoping for the draft option to be used at the Convention.
For those who are desperately emotionally involved in the campaigns, step back from the keyboard, take a deep breath, and recognize the first thing we have to do is beat Obama. From there it is a question of whether we can field a candidate who will not further the harm Obama has done, who can fix the domestic situation (especially economic), and who will actually downsize the Federal Government.
Economically, the road we are on is a road to impotence. Without an economically strong America, there can be no force to project, just a paper tiger.
Whereas Canada is just one of many nations whose population is majority white.
Did you not know this or find it relevant to this article?
It is, also, a patent lie.
Someone disagreeing with a political subdivision on the planet's surface does not translate to individually hating each and every person in the dominant demographic of that subdivision, worldwide.
It is possible to disagree with a national boundary without hating the people, just as "54.40 or fight!" wasn't anti-'white'.
A true anti-semite might not dislike Israel as a political entity, but would harbor universal emnity toward Jewish people wherever they are.
“They dont get it ...not a clue as they are led down the garden path. They would rather mittens than Paul, a sad state we find ourselves in.”
Keep in mind that FR represents a slice of the population. A lot of these folks are trying to reconcile themselves to the idea that the gop will nominate mitt, who does not represent their views very well. I think the bulk will do what they’ve always done; vote for the gop nominee regardless. But they’re trying to rationalize that. And it’s tough; mittens record is not conservative in any real sense of the word. As my site handle and tagline would indicate, supporting the gop has never been high on my priority list. I support conservatives.
Ron Paul does a lot better with the general population than he does with FReepers. And thus he will do better in the primaries and potentially the general election than these anti-Paul threads would seem to indicate.
Interesting thing I’ve noted, though, is that while most of these threads started with few people disagreeing with the “Ron Paul is _____ !(add the derogatory comment of your choice)” theme, I’m finding more FReepers stepping up to the plate and challenging that. That’s good news. It also makes these threads a lot more interesting. Debate isn’t any fun if no one is actually disagreeing.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
I haven't commented much on Paul this time around since his "conservatism" has been pretty much debunked on FR. In the unlikely event he makes a couple strong showings he'll present the bigotry issue to Obama on a silver platter, the fact that a few conservatives, on FR, outed him last election cycle won't matter. And the press will love it. However I'll add a comment I made a couple weeks ago, there's no question that Paul is anti-Israel.
Of course opposing aid isn't antisemitism, and I doubt is antisemitic though he's clearly anti Israel, sympathetic to arab revisionism.
Leaving aside his fetis with neocons and the Likud party, and the "Jewish Lobby", the only powerful lobby in DC, there's his view of the region as expressed in his book.
He does acknowledge a few hundred thousand were expelled a few millenia ago, and that a few families stayed. And unlike the Arab world that the Jews who moved to Palestine (don't think he knows that was the name for the Jewish Homeland, stupidity when you're commenting on an important topic. However he describes 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. Is Paul stupid, or a revisionist.
Then his history conveniently skips forward to post WWI, where the UN decided to partition Palestine. Apparently out of thin air, no Mandate, no partitioning at San Remo, no pogrums. The UN just up and decided to do it.
Probably most telling is his 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. To build Israeli settlements. This 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.
BTW, his #1 book to read on the topic, Jimmy Carter's Apartheid work. It's on the Code Pink suggested reading list too.
Well, it must be true, because Ron Paul hinted it.
Just like for $99/year for the newsletter than Ron Paul never read despite his name and photograph and the first person stories about his wife and children and congressional colleagues and the financial tips about gold that he gets credit for . . . you should know that (pssst!) AIDs could have been made by the gubmint, because it's the job of a U.S. Congressman to share important information like that (but not for free; information like that shouldn't be freely available to all of the public; only to those with $99 and a desire to read about the new world order, those nasty blacks, those damn Jews, and how to pick people for your militia group):
Ron Paul is an anti-Semitic Nut. What makes him so dangerous is that he sounds rational on domestic policy but his foreign policy statements expose him for what he is - a Nut.
Paul sure has some weird views, doesn’t he?
You make my point.
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.