# News & Current Events > World News & Affairs >  Ron Paul article from The Atlantic: How Ron Stands with Israel

## bobbyw24

DEC 6 2011, 7:06 AM ET
In the New York Sun, Seth Lipsky makes the case that Ron Paul should be included in tomorrow's Republican Jewish Coalition beauty contest: 
I've also covered Congressman Paul for years and have come to have a great deal of respect for him, even when we disagree. Which we do in respect of granting foreign aid to Israel. At least we disagree in part. I support giving to our allies, particularly Israel, military aid, which is what we are mainly now giving to Israel. It strikes me as important, especially in a time of war, and I would back Israel to the hilt. Foreign economic aid, however, has long struck me as a dangerous course for recipient countries.
There are good reason to include Ron Paul. He is, in one sense, a true Zionist, a believer in two core values of the Jewish liberation movement: Jewish independence and Jewish self-reliance. Independence is self-explanatory; self-reliance, in the context of national defense, holds that the Jewish state shouldn't seek the help of foreign soldiers to defend it.


I was struck in the foreign policy debate by something Rick Perry said, when asked about a looming confrontation between Iran and Israel: "(I)f we're going to be serious about saving Israel, we better get serious about Syria and Iran, and we better get serious right now."

"Saving Israel" should ideally be Israel's job. This is what Israelis tend to think. And it is also what Ron Paul tends to think. Here is some of what he said in the foreign policy debate on this subject: "Israel has 200, 300 nuclear missiles. And they can take care of themselves. Why should we commit -- we don't even have a treaty with Israel. Why do we have this automatic commitment that we're going to send our kids and send our money endlessly to Israel? So I think they're quite capable of taking care of themselves." (emphasis mine.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...ionist/249532/

----------


## pcosmar

I don't believe Ron Paul is a Zionist. There is no reason to insult him.




> *Now the LORD had said unto Abram,* Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
> 
>  And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
> 
>  And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.


This refers to the sons of Abram
This does not belong to the sons of Japheth.
It is widely misused.

----------


## undergroundrr

> I don't believe Ron Paul is a Zionist. There is no reason to insult him.


Well, I'm a classical liberal.  It raises eyebrows when I tell that to people.

The author's point is that the true definition of Zionism is tied to Israeli independence.  Ron Paul is the only candidate calling for Israel's right to assert that independence without US interference.

In that sense, he's the only one qualified to be at the Coalition's event.

----------


## Travlyr

> I don't believe Ron Paul is a Zionist. There is no reason to insult him.
> 
> 
> This refers to the sons of Abram
> This does not belong to the sons of Japheth.
> It is widely misused.


No doubt. No reason to insult Ron Paul.

----------


## undergroundrr

I'm really encouraged by these articles by the overtly Jewish journalists Lipsky and Goldstein.  It takes a lot of courage to show that fairness and support in print.

----------


## pcosmar

> Well, I'm a classical liberal.  It raises eyebrows when I tell that to people.


Well is certainly wouldn't call him a communist just because he suggests trade and non-intervention with China.

Nor would I call him an Islamist because he suggests trade and non-intervention with Muslim countries.

Ron Paul is an American and a Constitutionalist. To infer otherwise is insulting.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Well is certainly wouldn't call him a communist just because he suggests trade and non-intervention with China.
> 
> Nor would I call him an Islamist because he suggests trade and non-intervention with Muslim countries.
> 
> Ron Paul is an American and a Constitutionalist. To infer otherwise is insulting.


and a libertarian, and an Austrian economist, and a conservative.  If I read the top paragraph of Wikipedia's article on Zionism, I can see nothing there that contradicts the stated positions of Ron Paul.  

"Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות‎, Tsiyonut) is a Jewish political movement that, in its broadest sense, has supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland.[1] Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state and address threats to its continued existence and security. In a less common usage, the term may also refer to non-political, cultural Zionism, founded and represented most prominently by Ahad Ha'am; and political support for the State of Israel by non-Jews, as in Christian Zionism."

Islamism and communism denote political systems to which Dr. Paul is opposed since they violate individual liberty.  As I read that Wikipedia overview of Zionism, it occurs to me that Ron Paul is the only candidate who is for "the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland."

----------


## pcosmar

> and a libertarian, and an Austrian economist, and a conservative.  If I read the top paragraph of Wikipedia's article on Zionism, I can see nothing there that contradicts the stated positions of Ron Paul.  
> 
> "Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות‎, Tsiyonut) is a Jewish political movement that, in its broadest sense, has supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland.[1] Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state and address threats to its continued existence and security. In a less common usage, the term may also refer to non-political, cultural Zionism, founded and represented most prominently by Ahad Ha'am; and political support for the State of Israel by non-Jews, as in Christian Zionism."
> 
> Islamism and communism denote political systems to which Dr. Paul is opposed since they violate individual liberty.  As I read that Wikipedia overview of Zionism, it occurs to me that Ron Paul is the only candidate who is for "the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland."


OK,, Wiki as a source. Really?

Try looking at the History of Zionism and  Who was involved in it's creation.

Then talk to some Jewish folks that are deeply opposed to Zionism,,and find out why.

*This is another one of those thread titles that really needs to be corrected before it is Tweeted.*

Some education here, You can go farther if you wish.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...8-Some-History

----------


## musicmax

> I don't believe Ron Paul is a Zionist.


Mr. Lipsky uses a different definition than you apparently do.




> There is no reason to insult him.


There is no reason for you to pick a stupid fight over semantics.

----------


## Travlyr

> Mr. Lipsky uses a different definition than you apparently do.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no reason for you to pick a stupid fight over semantics.


For those of us who know what Zionism is... he totally insults Ron Paul.

It would be honorable if mods would change the thread titles before it gets tweeted out.

----------


## undergroundrr

I definitely think the world would benefit from accepting the Lipsky/Wikipedia definition rather than the non-dictionary one pushed by neo-cons.

AFAIK, Ron Paul hasn't expressed any antipathy for individuals supporting the state of Israel.  He just believes the US government shouldn't do so materially or in sentiment.

----------


## pcosmar

> I definitely think the world would benefit from accepting the Lipsky/Wikipedia definition rather than the non-dictionary one pushed by neo-cons.


Both of those definitions are are misleading. Zionism is National Socialism. It was started by people that rejected Judaism.
And were NON Semitic.




> AFAIK, Ron Paul hasn't expressed any antipathy for individuals supporting the state of Israel.  He just believes the US government shouldn't do so materially or in sentiment.


I have no problem with Ron's position. but Ron Paul is NOT a National Socialist (Zionist).

----------


## undergroundrr

So perhaps the subject line should include [Mod note: uses misleading conventional definition of Zionism instead of the one clarifying that all Zionists are National Socialists].

----------


## jtstellar

> I don't believe Ron Paul is a Zionist. There is no reason to insult him.
> 
> 
> This refers to the sons of Abram
> This does not belong to the sons of Japheth.
> It is widely misused.





> Well, I'm a classical liberal.  It raises eyebrows when I tell that to people.
> 
> The author's point is that the true definition of Zionism is tied to Israeli independence.  Ron Paul is the only candidate calling for Israel's right to assert that independence without US interference.
> 
> In that sense, he's the only one qualified to be at the Coalition's event.


see, from the exchange between two of you it's obvious enough-- often people who most frequently use the term zionism don't know what it means in depth even themselves.  not sure why we even bother with this term when we try to communicate with people.  i mean, the point is "to communicate"?  spreading our message, sway, persuade, convince, *in a way people can understand?*

----------


## undergroundrr

I agree. "Israel is our friend" is the decisive statement from Ron.  Should clear up any confusion.

----------


## pcosmar

> I agree. "Israel is our friend" is the decisive statement from Ron.  Should clear up any confusion.


I don't believe that the "State of Israel" is or ever was our friend.

Certain Powerful interests  have perverted our government and our policies.
I believe we were used in assisting in the creation and promotion of it.

I do not consider it a friend at all.
The sooner we disengage ourselves from it the better.

----------


## asurfaholic

Isreal is not my friend.... such a stupid and pointless debate. We have serious issues we can work on instead... like the collapsing world economy. A growing police state that threatens every american, even sweet little old ladies.

----------


## Inkblots

I consider myself a Zionist and I have the same views as Ron Paul - we both believe in Israel's right to self-determination and that the US should be friends with Israel, but shouldn't meddle in their affairs.  I'm glad some in the Jewish community are beginning to recognize that fact.

This is a good article, and I hope a lot of GOP voters see it.

----------


## Inkblots

> I don't believe Ron Paul is a Zionist. There is no reason to insult him.


Calling someone a Zionist isn't an insult.  Jewish people have just as much right to self-determination as any other group or nation.

----------


## pcosmar

> Calling someone a Zionist isn't an insult.  Jewish people have just as much right to self-determination as any other group or nation.


Then the Armenians have that right. The American Indians have a right to self determination.
The Arabs that lived in Palestine for a thousand years have a Right to self determination.

Why do the "jewish" people get a preferential treatment? What exactly makes one a "Jew"?
What the HELL does "Self Determination" even mean? Doesn't every human have a right to self determination?

If you are going to throw out propaganda phrases,, please define what you mean.




> I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.





> Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

----------


## ExPatPaki

> ?
> What the HELL does "Self Determination" even mean? Doesn't every human have a right to self determination?
> 
> If you are going to throw out propaganda phrases,, please define what you mean.


Michael Neumann (also Jewish) wrote a good article on the origins of the concept of self-determination and ethnic nationalism starting with Woodrow Wilson and how it was used by Hitler in justifying his aggression as well. Hitler's Nuremberg Laws form the basis of the concept of a Jewish people and their "right of return" to Israel. His article also demonstrates how Arabs are not an ethnic group, so therefore Palestinians are not the same people as Saudis or Iraqis.

http://kanan48.wordpress.com/2009/10...chael-neumann/




> It was not the Nazis, but Woodrow Wilson who made it a fixture of contemporary politics. This was the ideology of ethnic nationalism.
> 
> Wilson legitimized this atrocious doctrine during the peace negotiations that ended the First World War.   Wilson’s own secretary of state, Robert Lansing, anticipated its consequences all too accurately:
> 
> For his prescience Lansing incurred Wilson’s disfavour and was forced to resign. He seemed a fussy old spoilsport, unwilling to grant peoples their rights  – peoples, or, as he puts it in the language of his era, races. Could he not see the progressive implications of Wilson’s doctrine? Did he not understand that the self-determination of peoples – races, ethnic groups – was a sacred human right?
> 
> Well, one person did, the person who wrote:
> 
> “Human rights are above the rights of the State.”
> ...

----------


## jazzloversinc

Ron Paul is not a zionist.  Zionism is ruining our country.  Too much focus on Israel.

----------

