# News & Current Events > World News & Affairs >  Talking points: Israel

## Son of Detroit

With 2012 around the corner, it'd be nice to have a list of talking points we could use to convert potential Paul supporters.

One of the biggest issues when trying to convert Republicans is Israel.  It's no secret many believe we should be Israel's big brother and protect them.  Many feel if Israel gets into a war, we should get involved in that war on Israel's behalf.

Let's all brainstorm.  What would be the most effective points to hammer when it comes to Israel and our involvement?

And remember, keep it smart.  Can't go out saying "ISRAEL IZ EVIL!  THOSE EVIL JOO BANKERS AND ZIONISTS ARE GOING TO RUIN DA COUNTRY!  GO PALESTINE!"  If Ron Paul doesn't believe it, don't say it when you're supposed to be representing his ideas.

----------


## oyarde

They can take care of themselves . Let them .

----------


## Old Ducker

> With 2012 around the corner, it'd be nice to have a list of talking points we could use to convert potential Paul supporters.
> 
> One of the biggest issues when trying to convert Republicans is Israel.  It's no secret many believe we should be Israel's big brother and protect them.  Many feel if Israel gets into a war, we should get involved in that war on Israel's behalf.
> 
> Let's all brainstorm.  What would be the most effective points to hammer when it comes to Israel and our involvement?
> 
> And remember, keep it smart.  Can't go out saying "ISRAEL IZ EVIL!  THOSE EVIL JOO BANKERS AND ZIONISTS ARE GOING TO RUIN DA COUNTRY!  GO PALESTINE!"  If Ron Paul doesn't believe it, don't say it when you're supposed to be representing his ideas.


I don't believe it's possible.  They are waiting for the Rapture.

----------


## ibaghdadi

> I don't believe it's possible.  They are waiting for the Rapture.


Agreed. If their support of Israel is (as it normally is) based upon some interpretation of religion, then you can't hope to convert them on this topic at all. Nothing short of a holy miracle will.

That given, if their position is not based upon religion but rather built up through decades of media brainwashing, then there's some hope.

----------


## freshjiva

> I don't believe it's possible.  They are waiting for the Rapture.


I disagree. Here is something Ron can say when asked the question about Israel during interviews/debates:

"I fully support Israel's right to do whatever she feels is necessary to protect its citizens, and that the United States should _never_ hinder their or any other nations' efforts to deal with foreign threats. I also strongly support the idea to end all foreign aid being sent to both Israel and various Middle Eastern nations, as it is not in the interests of the American people for their tax dollars to be funneled to foreign governments. This is not a conservative approach to foreign policy, and is what George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, as well as modern conservatives like Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater all strongly denounced."

----------


## Imaginos

> Let's all brainstorm.  What would be the most effective points to hammer when it comes to Israel and our involvement?


We're broke.

----------


## Jack Bauer

The best way to deal with this, as I have found, is to ask people how they'd define a country to be an ally of the US.

Once they define their limits and ideas of what an ally should be, you can then ask them to illustrate how Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. are our "allys" based on their definitions itself.

Creates a ruckus but its fun doing so.

----------


## Old Ducker

> The best way to deal with this, as I have found, is to ask people how they'd define a country to be an ally of the US.
> 
> Once they define their limits and ideas of what an ally should be, you can then ask them to illustrate how Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. are our "allys" based on their definitions itself.
> 
> Creates a ruckus but its fun doing so.


Question.  What country was the first republic in the middle east?

----------


## TCE

It's probably not a good issue to start with a Neo Con on. I prefer to lure them with free markets and low/no taxes and build from there. If Dr. Paul is smart, he'll try and avoid talking about Israel in a Republican Primary, but I know he will. 

We're broke is a good response. Comparing this to World War I is another good one. If Serbia and Austria would have just went to war, it would have been fine. But because of a couple of alliances and agreements, it turned into a world war for no reason. Us backing Israel leads other countries to stand behind Israel's enemies. We help Israel and whichever country is in an alliance with Palestine attacks us and pretty soon the world goes insane.

----------


## Libertydad88

> I disagree. Here is something Ron can say when asked the question about Israel during interviews/debates:
> 
> "I fully support Israel's right to do whatever she feels is necessary to protect its citizens, and that the United States should _never_ hinder their or any other nations' efforts to deal with foreign threats. I also strongly support the idea to end all foreign aid being sent to both Israel and various Middle Eastern nations, as it is not in the interests of the American people for their tax dollars to be funneled to foreign governments. This is not a conservative approach to foreign policy, and is what George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, as well as modern conservatives like Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater all strongly denounced."


Having a half-converted mother, Israel has always been a difficult point for me, and yes, she is religious. I really like the above response and look forward to trying it out next time we talk politics. 

It doesn't sound anti-Israel, in fact it sounds pro-Israel, while maintaining the same message.

----------


## jmdrake

> Agreed. If their support of Israel is (as it normally is) based upon some interpretation of religion, then you can't hope to convert them on this topic at all. Nothing short of a holy miracle will.
> 
> That given, if their position is not based upon religion but rather built up through decades of media brainwashing, then there's some hope.


I have seen a few hardcore pro-Israel supporters here at RPF.  One was one of those "Christian zionists" types and her support was based on her interpretation of religion.  Unfortunately she got dog piled.  (I'll admit I was part of the pile, although I tried *really* hard to be nice).  So the real question is, how are people like that attracted to Paul anyway as opposed to how to "convert" the others.  We could learn a lot from each other instead of wasting time trying to change each other's opinions.

----------


## Romulus

Free trade and commerce with all, entangling alliances with none - should be our motto.

Also, if its religious reasons, fine, let them be. Put you can still point out that we as a nation are broke and shouldnt handing out foreign aid to any country, especially one (Saudi Arabia) in which the 9/11 attackers came from.

----------


## ibaghdadi

> ISo the real question is, how are people like that attracted to Paul anyway as opposed to how to "convert" the others.  We could learn a lot from each other instead of wasting time trying to change each other's opinions.


Agreed, but we also have to understand and appreciate Dr. Paul's insistence on a public discussion of foreign policy. He often skirts the Israel issue but I'm sure mentally puts it at the very center of that discussion.

The reason is that war is the health of the state. The primary and preeminent way in which the state grows is through warfare. And since we believe in small and limited government, warfare and those who incite and prod towards it are the enemy.

The fact is, even supporters of Israel cannot deny the fact that it's one main reason the United States goes to war, if not the main reason. Iraq was for the protection of Israel, Iran would be too.

And that's why I think that if someone love Dr. Paul on all policies but disagrees with him on foreign policy, he really does not understand anything about any of his policies or philosophy whatsoever! He's missing the entire point.

----------


## jmdrake

> Agreed, but we also have to understand and appreciate Dr. Paul's insistence on a public discussion of foreign policy. He often skirts the Israel issue but I'm sure mentally puts it at the very center of that discussion.
> 
> The reason is that war is the health of the state. The primary and preeminent way in which the state grows is through warfare. And since we believe in small and limited government, warfare and those who incite and prod towards it are the enemy.
> 
> The fact is, even supporters of Israel cannot deny the fact that it's one main reason the United States goes to war, if not the main reason. Iraq was for the protection of Israel, Iran would be too.
> 
> And that's why I think that if someone love Dr. Paul on all policies but disagrees with him on foreign policy, he really does not understand anything about any of his policies or philosophy whatsoever! He's missing the entire point.


But isn't it possible to support the state of Israel without advocating U.S. intervention?  For example many Catholics supported the terrorist IRA without ever advocating that the U.S. should go to war with England over northern Ireland.  I have no problem with private Americans sending money to Israel or the Palestinians.

As for the Iraq question, a *very* strong case can be made that the war in Iraq actually *hurt* Israel's security.  Michael Savage made that case here:

YouTube - Michael Savage - Awesome Monolgue - Iraq and Afghanistan, Oliver Stoned, and More! - Part 2

His argument is that because Sunni Saddam kept his neck on the foot of the Shiite majority and was willing to go to war with Iran he was a "stabilizing force" in the middle east by keeping Iran in check.  By overthrowing Saddam, Bush actually created a "greater Iran" which will pose a continuing threat to Israel.  So even from the standpoint of "I <3 Israel", the Iraq war was arguably a very dumb idea.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

There is no cure for stupidity that does not comprehend the Constitution, runs around clamoring about a Mexican illegal alien invasion, and is incapable of recognizing the illegal alien invasion that occurred in 1930's Palestine.

----------


## Romulus

> Agreed, but we also have to understand and appreciate Dr. Paul's insistence on a public discussion of foreign policy. *He often skirts the Israel issue* but I'm sure mentally puts it at the very center of that discussion.


No, he just doesn't engage in tribalism. It's not about picking on Israel. They themselves are not the issue. The issue is sending our tax dollars overseas. Period. It's not about who receives it. The Saudis and Egypt receive our dollars. So its not a case of tribal favorites - it's who supports our imperial global agenda.

That's why it was so laughable when Ben Stein pulled the desperate race card on RP. It was baseless!

----------


## YumYum

> As for the Iraq question, a *very* strong case can be made that the war in Iraq actually *hurt* Israel's security.  Michael Savage made that case here:
> 
> YouTube - Michael Savage - Awesome Monolgue - Iraq and Afghanistan, Oliver Stoned, and More! - Part 2


I can't listen to Savage. He is nauseating. Savage says that Obama promised during his campaign to end the war in Afghanistan; that is not the case.

First of all, during his campaign, Obama promised to bring the troops home from Iraq within 18 months from the day he began office, and that he would send more troops to Afghanistan, which, according to Obama was "the right war to fight" to go after bin Laden. While he broke his promise on Iraq, he has more than kept it with regards to Afghanistan.

Savage melodramatizes  that our country is bankrupt, and he is correct. He also says that the money we spent on the Iraq war was a waste, again, he is correct.

But would he be willing to stop all monetary and military aid to Israel, since we are so bankrupt? 

The dude is a snake and a closet communist (Did you hear that Frank?!?)

----------


## jmdrake

> I can't listen to Savage. He is nauseating. Savage says that Obama promised during his campaign to end the war in Afghanistan; that is not the case.
> 
> First of all, during his campaign, Obama promised to bring the troops home from Iraq within 18 months from the day he began office, and that he would send more troops to Afghanistan, which, according to Obama was "the right war to fight" to go after bin Laden. While he broke his promise on Iraq, he has more than kept it with regards to Afghanistan.


True.  But a lot of Obama supporters *believed* Obama really meant to end both wars.  Hey, I heard Obama decline to promise to have all of the troops out of Iraq by 2013 too, so "technically" he hasn't broken any promises on the war.  It just all depends on what soundbite you're listening to Obama on when.  He's as slippery as a snake, just like most "good" politicians.

Here's what Obama said about Iraq during the campaign.

_ MR. RUSSERT: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?

SENATOR OBAMA: I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there.

What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office, which it appears there may be unless we can get some of our Republican colleagues to change their mind and cut off funding without a timetable, if there's no timetable, then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there.

I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out._ 

The problem is that American people were *misled* into believing that the "16 month withdrawal date" actually meant something, when it didn't.  Further Obama has tried to have it both ways on Afghanistan, both promising a firm "withdrawal date" and then, through his underlings, saying there is no such firm date.  See:

YouTube - Did Obama Lie About Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal?




> Savage melodramatizes  that our country is bankrupt, and he is correct. He also says that the money we spent on the Iraq war was a waste, again, he is correct.
> 
> But would he be willing to stop all monetary and military aid to Israel, since we are so bankrupt? 
> 
> The dude is a snake and a closet communist (Did you hear that Frank?!?)


I don't know the answer to  your question about aid to Israel.  But you're *MISSING THE POINT!*  This thread is about how to reach people who actually *support* Israel.  If someone that has credibility with them comes out and says "The war in Iraq actually hurt Israel's security" *then that helps drive the point home that the Iraq war was stupid*.  It floors me how some people just don't get obvious strategy.  It's basic political judo.  Use the enemy's own weight against him.

----------


## YumYum

> I don't know the answer to  your question about aid to Israel.  But you're *MISSING THE POINT!*  This thread is about how to reach people who actually *support* Israel.  If someone that has credibility with them comes out and says "The war in Iraq actually hurt Israel's security" *then that helps drive the point home that the Iraq war was stupid*.  It floors me how some people just don't get obvious strategy.  It's basic political judo.  Use the enemy's own weight against him.


I know, you want to play mind games with people who support Israel to win them over. Ok, fine. But I just want to make clear that Savage isn't anti-war. He is all for America bombing Iran and wants America to fight Israel's wars. He is not the only neocon who is against the war in Iraq. More and more neocons are realizing that the Iraq war was a "misadventure" and they are calling the Aghan war (which Bush started) "Obama's war." Its all politics, and Savage is a Trotsky Communist who plays the role of being a "conservative" to make sure that America will continue its 100% unconditional support of Israel with more money and weapons and fighting its wars.

How do you win Savage fans over to Ron Paul once we are at war with Iran?

I know we are not there yet, but I hope you get my "obvious" point.

----------


## jmdrake

> I know, you want to play mind games with people who support Israel to win them over. Ok, fine. But I just want to make clear that Savage isn't anti-war. He is all for America bombing Iran and wants America to fight Israel's wars. He is not the only neocon who is against the war in Iraq. More and more neocons are realizing that the Iraq war was a "misadventure" and they are calling the Aghan war (which Bush started) "Obama's war." Its all politics, and Savage is a Trotsky Communist who plays the role of being a "conservative" to make sure that America will continue its 100% unconditional support of Israel with more money and weapons and fighting its wars.
> 
> How do you win Savage fans over to Ron Paul once we are at war with Iran?
> 
> I know we are not there yet, but I hope you get my "obvious" point.


Once you get them to finally realize the Iraq war was a stupid idea you can deal with the credibility of Savage.  Simply pull out an earlier video where Savage demonized people who dared say the Iraq war was not a good idea.  But you've got to get these people to first base before you try to go to home plate.  It's either get them to see the war was wrong from a "Savage" perspective, or give them an Alex Jones video.  Take your pick.  If you have a better option I'd love to hear it.  Simply going around talking about "blowback" all day didn't work last time.

----------


## K466

If we're going to win Ron Paul and his supporters must emphasize how his libertarian policies will benefit Israel. Anti-Israel rhetoric is a good way to drive a large voting bloc away.

Most Christians take this seriously: 


> Genesis 12:1-3 (King James Version)
> 
> Genesis 12
> 
>  1Now 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:
> 
>  2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
> 
>  3*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*.

----------


## jmdrake

> If we're going to win Ron Paul and his supporters must emphasize how his libertarian policies will benefit Israel. Anti-Israel rhetoric is a good way to drive a large voting bloc away.
> 
> Most Christians take this seriously:


That's the old covenant.  Most Christians also take this seriously.  

_# Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:27-29 (in Context) Galatians 3 (Whole Chapter)
# Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all._

They've just been drowned out by the "left behind" crowd.  It wasn't always this way though.

YouTube - Nixon Discussing Jewish Control Over America With Billy Graham

----------


## YumYum

> Once you get them to finally realize the Iraq war was a stupid idea you can deal with the credibility of Savage.  Simply pull out an earlier video where Savage demonized people who dared say the Iraq war was not a good idea.  But you've got to get these people to first base before you try to go to home plate.  It's either get them to see the war was wrong from a "Savage" perspective, or give them an Alex Jones video.  Take your pick.  If you have a better option I'd love to hear it.  Simply going around taking about "blowback" all day didn't work last time.


To be honest, I respect the efforts of those who want to infiltrate the GOP and change people's minds to "win" them over? But, to "win" them over to what? Have you been over to the "Economics Forum" and have read all the "doom and gloom" threads that forum members are posting? If you have you can see that this all going to collapse very, very soon. I'm at a point that I think it is more important right now to help educate people to prepare for the coming collapse, rather than trying to educate them to "win" them over politically. We really are on a sinking ship!

But, I see your point, and I agree with you that if you want to "win" people over so they will vote along side with you, then you have to do "whatever is necessary" to help them see the logic of Ron Paul's message. That will take a lot of work.

----------


## jmdrake

> To be honest, I respect the efforts of those who want to infiltrate the GOP and change people's minds to "win" them over? But, to "win" them over to what? Have you been over to the "Economics Forum" and have read all the "doom and gloom" threads that forum members are posting? If you have you can see that this all going to collapse very, very soon. I'm at a point that I think it is more important right now to help educate people to prepare for the coming collapse, rather than trying to educate them to "win" them over politically. We really are on a sinking ship!
> 
> But, I see your point, and I agree with you that if you want to "win" people over so they will vote along side with you, then you have to do "whatever is necessary" to help them see the logic of Ron Paul's message. That will take a lot of work.


I haven't read that, but let's assume your right.  Let's assume we are passed the "tipping point" and we are doomed.  What happens next?  Well what happened in Germany is that the same people who caused the problem propped up Adolf Hitler as the "solution" and most of the German people fell for it.  As they say, things are *never* so bad that they can't get worse.  (Sorry to be even more doomy / gloomy).

----------

