Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Ron Paul and the Israel question


40oz
 Share

Recommended Posts

paul-israel-flag-640_s640x427.jpg?73b8e21685896c3f2859310aaa5adb253919b641

WASHINGTON, January 29, 2012―“He’s right on,” say many Republican voters of Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, “—except on foreign policy.”

Among social conservatives, who tend to be in favor of heavy defense spending and to be staunch supporters of Israel, this take on the Texas congressman’s campaign is all too common. Members of this large and very important electoral block appreciate Paul’s fiscal sanity, his dedication to Austrian economics, and his determination to cut $1 trillion in his first year in office. They embrace his pro-life position and concern for homeschooling rights. Some of them are beginning to understand his opposition to an unaccountable central bank and call to end the Federal Reserve. He also receives accolades because he respects the U.S. Constitution so stalwartly. But they just can’t get over his approach to foreign policy, which they see as dangerous and anti-Israel. The question we need to be asking is whether this disconnect is really a result of Dr. Paul’s policies or only of how these voters perceive them.

One of the strongest charges against the congressman is that he advocates cutting foreign aid to Israel. That fact alone makes many unwilling to consider supporting him or even take time to learn more about his position. This knee-jerk reaction prevents many voters from coming to an understanding of Paul’s beliefs, or even of the particulars surrounding his statements.

To me, foreign aid is taking money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich people in poor countries, and it becomes weapons of war –” said Paul at

.

Congressman Paul, would you cut foreign aid to Israel?” interrupted the moderator.

I would cut all foreign aid,” the candidate responded. “I would treat everybody equally and fairly.

Paul’s aim then is not to cut foreign aid to Israel specifically, but to cut foreign aid to everybody the US currently supports abroad. As he explained in an interview with Newsmax last month, Israel would actually come out on top in such a scenario.

“Stop and consider America’s policy,” the congressman said, “We give $3 billion a year to Israel in loans; and we give $12 billion or more in assistance to Israel’s self-declared enemies. Some of these are countries that say they will drive Israel into the sea.”

“What should our relationship be with Israel?” asked Newsmax contributor Doug Wead.

“We should be their friend and their trading partner,” said Paul. “They are a democracy and we share many values with them. But we should not be their master. We should not dictate where their borders will be nor should we have veto power over their foreign policy….I say [to Christian evangelicals who want foreign aid to Israel to continue] that our aid in the region is out of balance and it is wrong. Foreign aid does not help Israel. It is a net disadvantage. I say to them that “the borrower is servant to the lender” and America should never be the master of Israel…we should stop interfering with them. We should not dictate what she can and cannot do. We should stop trying to buy her allegiance. And Israel should stop sacrificing their sovereignty as an independent state to us or anybody else, no matter how well-intentioned.”

Paul then went on to talk about previous conflicts in which he had shown support for the sovereignty of Israel.Unbeknownst to many, the candidate stood by Israel three decades ago when she was heavily criticized by most politicians in congress at that the time.

“In October, 1981, most of the world and most of the Congress voiced outrage over Israel’s attack on Iraq and their nuclear development. I was one of the few who defended her right to make her own decisions on foreign policy and to act in her own self-interest.”

Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic recently wrote that Ron Paul’s position is actually the closest to a Zionist of all the Republican candidates, because, “a true Zionist is a believer in two core values of the Jewish liberation movement: Jewish independence and Jewish self-reliance.”

It would seem that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also feels strongly about the importance of Israel’s independence and self-reliance – values that Paul insists are crucial to the Jewish nation. Said Netanyahu in his 2011 address to the U.S. congress,

“My friends, you don't have to—you don't need to do nation-building in Israel. We're already built. You don't need to export democracy to Israel. We've already got it. And you don't need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves."

Israel certainly does defend herself. It has been estimated that the nation possesses from 75 to as many as 400 nuclear weapons.

In addition to concerns about undermining Israel’s national sovereignty through interference with their policies, Paul has offered another major reason why the foreign aid spending has to go. “We’re in bankruptcy,” he says, referring to the United States, a country with a $15.2 trillion national debt. “We’re not going to be there forever, we’re going to come home.” Thus, he maintains that dependence on U.S. money is “a bad risk” for Israel. “I think their dependency on us is very, very harmful to them,” he stated.

Perhaps social conservatives and Israel-supporters should take another look at Ron Paul and determine, based on the full import of his statements, whether he really is as anti-Israel as some of the media networks suggest. With his concern for her long-term interests and condemnation of the substantial U.S. funding extended to her enemies, could it be that Dr. No really has the best stance on Israel, one that will provide her with the strongest national defense and the most wholesome relationship with America?

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said.......the time has come for America to take care of America and not everybody else!!!! We give aid to so many that we have put ourselves in some serious HUGE DEBT!!!!!! Funny thing is that no other country comes to our aid when we truly need it.....!!!!!!!

The time is now and if we don't get Paul into office, it will be a very sad time in American history for sure!!!!!!!

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as you want RP to be the one the only way that will happen is if the other three drop out. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way it just is what it is. If he is the nominee I will vote for him even though I don't agree with all his policies.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

paul-israel-flag-640_s640x427.jpg?73b8e21685896c3f2859310aaa5adb253919b641

WASHINGTON, January 29, 2012―“He’s right on,” say many Republican voters of Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, “—except on foreign policy.”

Among social conservatives, who tend to be in favor of heavy defense spending and to be staunch supporters of Israel, this take on the Texas congressman’s campaign is all too common. Members of this large and very important electoral block appreciate Paul’s fiscal sanity, his dedication to Austrian economics, and his determination to cut $1 trillion in his first year in office. They embrace his pro-life position and concern for homeschooling rights. Some of them are beginning to understand his opposition to an unaccountable central bank and call to end the Federal Reserve. He also receives accolades because he respects the U.S. Constitution so stalwartly. But they just can’t get over his approach to foreign policy, which they see as dangerous and anti-Israel. The question we need to be asking is whether this disconnect is really a result of Dr. Paul’s policies or only of how these voters perceive them.

One of the strongest charges against the congressman is that he advocates cutting foreign aid to Israel. That fact alone makes many unwilling to consider supporting him or even take time to learn more about his position. This knee-jerk reaction prevents many voters from coming to an understanding of Paul’s beliefs, or even of the particulars surrounding his statements.

To me, foreign aid is taking money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich people in poor countries, and it becomes weapons of war –” said Paul at

.

Congressman Paul, would you cut foreign aid to Israel?” interrupted the moderator.

I would cut all foreign aid,” the candidate responded. “I would treat everybody equally and fairly.

Paul’s aim then is not to cut foreign aid to Israel specifically, but to cut foreign aid to everybody the US currently supports abroad. As he explained in an interview with Newsmax last month, Israel would actually come out on top in such a scenario.

“Stop and consider America’s policy,” the congressman said, “We give $3 billion a year to Israel in loans; and we give $12 billion or more in assistance to Israel’s self-declared enemies. Some of these are countries that say they will drive Israel into the sea.”

“What should our relationship be with Israel?” asked Newsmax contributor Doug Wead.

“We should be their friend and their trading partner,” said Paul. “They are a democracy and we share many values with them. But we should not be their master. We should not dictate where their borders will be nor should we have veto power over their foreign policy….I say [to Christian evangelicals who want foreign aid to Israel to continue] that our aid in the region is out of balance and it is wrong. Foreign aid does not help Israel. It is a net disadvantage. I say to them that “the borrower is servant to the lender” and America should never be the master of Israel…we should stop interfering with them. We should not dictate what she can and cannot do. We should stop trying to buy her allegiance. And Israel should stop sacrificing their sovereignty as an independent state to us or anybody else, no matter how well-intentioned.”

Paul then went on to talk about previous conflicts in which he had shown support for the sovereignty of Israel.Unbeknownst to many, the candidate stood by Israel three decades ago when she was heavily criticized by most politicians in congress at that the time.

“In October, 1981, most of the world and most of the Congress voiced outrage over Israel’s attack on Iraq and their nuclear development. I was one of the few who defended her right to make her own decisions on foreign policy and to act in her own self-interest.”

Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic recently wrote that Ron Paul’s position is actually the closest to a Zionist of all the Republican candidates, because, “a true Zionist is a believer in two core values of the Jewish liberation movement: Jewish independence and Jewish self-reliance.”

It would seem that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also feels strongly about the importance of Israel’s independence and self-reliance – values that Paul insists are crucial to the Jewish nation. Said Netanyahu in his 2011 address to the U.S. congress,

“My friends, you don't have to—you don't need to do nation-building in Israel. We're already built. You don't need to export democracy to Israel. We've already got it. And you don't need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves."

Israel certainly does defend herself. It has been estimated that the nation possesses from 75 to as many as 400 nuclear weapons.

In addition to concerns about undermining Israel’s national sovereignty through interference with their policies, Paul has offered another major reason why the foreign aid spending has to go. “We’re in bankruptcy,” he says, referring to the United States, a country with a $15.2 trillion national debt. “We’re not going to be there forever, we’re going to come home.” Thus, he maintains that dependence on U.S. money is “a bad risk” for Israel. “I think their dependency on us is very, very harmful to them,” he stated.

Perhaps social conservatives and Israel-supporters should take another look at Ron Paul and determine, based on the full import of his statements, whether he really is as anti-Israel as some of the media networks suggest. With his concern for her long-term interests and condemnation of the substantial U.S. funding extended to her enemies, could it be that Dr. No really has the best stance on Israel, one that will provide her with the strongest national defense and the most wholesome relationship with America?

The key sentence in this article is we give 3 BILLION TO OUR ALLIES AND 12 BILLION TO THEIR ENEMIES!

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as you want RP to be the one the only way that will happen is if the other three drop out. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way it just is what it is. If he is the nominee I will vote for him even though I don't agree with all his policies.

That's not true. You forgot about the option of American's voting against the recomendations of main stream media and overwhelmingly taking their country back from the cats.

The key sentence in this article is we give 3 BILLION TO OUR ALLIES AND 12 BILLION TO THEIR ENEMIES!

Thank you! It doesn't make any sense at all! It is possible that we are doing more harm than good. If that is so, then we are wasting money and putting our soldiers lives at risk when there may be a better way to get better results.

Edited by 40oz
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post.

I'm here in Florida,

and tomorrow is our primary.

The media and polling shows

that Ron Paul does not have a chance.

He even left early to Maine to campaign there.

Damn the media! dry.gif

I'll still be voting tomorrow for Ron Paul. ;)

Thanks krome. Was he even there at all? It was my understanding that he was not campaigning in Florida and focusing on caucus states. I know he did the debates but I thought that was about it.Have fun at the polls tomorrow, and make sure that everyone that you knows shows up too!

Edited by 40oz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks krome. Was he even there at all? It was my understanding that he was not campaigning in Florida and focusing on caucus states. I know he did the debates but I thought that was about it.Have fun at the polls tomorrow, and make sure that everyone that you knows shows up too!

Florida is a "winner take all" state.

It was reported that RP did not have the money for the advertisements needed for all the markets here,

and with the polling results, he chose to go to Maine and get a head start there.

I will not hold it against him, even though I would have greatly enjoyed hearing him in person,

but if this is his plan to win the nomination, I'll support it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.