The power of III

Summum ius summa iniuria--More law, less justice
--Cicero.

19 May 2011

Why supporters of Israel should support Ron Paul

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none."--Thomas Jefferson, first inaugural, 1801

Supporters of Israel (I am a strong supporter, and have been there many times) have voiced anxiety over Ron Paul's stance on Israel.  He has been variously smeared by the statist right, left, and their mainstream media shills as anti-Semitic or anti-Israel.  This is not the case.  His attitude is consistent on every subject, as he is anti big government, anti foreign aid to all nations, anti militarist.  This is easily verifiable to anyone willing to spend the time reading Dr. Paul's articles and interviews. 

I am a big supporter of Ron and Rand Paul, and will financially support their current and future campaigns.

This is taken from a 2007 op-ed piece from israelnationalnews.com, probably the only right-wing news service in Israel, before the 2008 presidential campaign, now relevant again for 2012.

15 November 2007

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, 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."
 
read the rest here. 

6 comments:

  1. Very true. Our President's current quarrel with Israel is the latest example of how there's no good outcome in meddling with another Nation's affairs!

    ReplyDelete
  2. You said it.

    I was going to update this post to say just that!! Perfect example. Not good for either nation, lose-lose (US govt, American taxpayer and Israel govt, Israeli citizen.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. If Paul would be able to stop the funding of our enemies, of Arab/muslim countries and governments - especially the billions given to the so-called "Palestinians" (Jordan's outcasts) - then it wouldn't matter if we stopped giving aid to Israel. The net effect would be beneficial to Israel. If he was successful (it will never happen, I'm afraid) in getting us out of the UN, it would be even better.

    The big question for me is this: will he still support Israel when it comes to selling them needed technology, equipment, spare parts for aircraft, etc.? If not, if he were to chose to isolate them from any such needed purchases, I would much prefer to vote for someone like Allen West or even Herman Cain. (I'd love to see Palin in there, but I don't think that will fly, either.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Since Paul's approach to foreign policy is Jeffersonian, I believe he would leave it up to individual companies to decide to sell them what they sought, and would no longer use tax payer money to fund or subsidize the sales. The Israelis would have to bid on the free market just like anyone else, and the defense companies would have to make their products competitive. If Ron Paul really became Pres. as he acknowledges, he wont be able to change things overnight. If nothing changes under his leadership, I would be surprised; I expect change in the right direction.

    I dont think he would isolate them based on Fedgov policy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wouldn't have any problem with that approach. I donated beaucoup to his campaign last time (which I've never done for any other presidential candidate in my 60+years), only to see him marginalized and shut out by his own party. If it looks like he could overcome that this time, I'd be willing to support him again.

    We need to plan on getting the likes of Graham and Boner (and Snow, etc., etc.) replaced at the same time. If we had control of Congress with Paul at the helm, it might be possible to still save the country from economic devastation. Then we could work at restoring the rule of law and recognition of the Constitution and BoR.

    ReplyDelete