Ron Paul: Israel is Our Close Friend

When you are giving billions of dollars in foreign aid to a country, you have sufficient reason to dictate certain terms.
The difficulty here is that the Congress is going to continue to send that aid, and a President won't veto it. At this point, the President being in charge of much of foreign policy matters can and should use any available pressure means to advance the national interest.
On the question of whether or not Israel is a friend. That is debatable. Many evangelicals and jews in the US may consider Israel to be a friend, but people with no personal interest and affection for a foreign entity, such as Israel, probably don't find Israel to be much of a friend at all. In terms of muslim/arab perception of the US, Israel is like a 200 pound weight tied to the US, dragging it down into the mud, for little reason other than personal attachment, not in terms of national security interests.
 
friend ≠ entangling political alliance

RP doesn't want to take a side.

Support for Israel = Secret hatred for Muslims.

You can't REALLY support Israel, unless you have a genocidal hatred of Palestinians.

that's way over the top.
 
I completely agree with what has said in the article about Israel and foreign policy. It makes sense. I do think that RP should take a trip to Israel and some countries in the Middle East to beef up his foreign policy positions.
 
Israeli policies are ridiculous when it comes to their treatment of the Palestinians.

GEE golly willikers! Name me a government whose policy you don't think is ridiculous when it comes to the treatment of a group not of that country. If roles were reversed it would be same shit different day.
 
I completely agree with what has said in the article about Israel and foreign policy. It makes sense. I do think that RP should take a trip to Israel and some countries in the Middle East to beef up his foreign policy positions.

I agree with that assessment.
 
When you are giving billions of dollars in foreign aid to a country, you have sufficient reason to dictate certain terms.
The difficulty here is that the Congress is going to continue to send that aid, and a President won't veto it. At this point, the President being in charge of much of foreign policy matters can and should use any available pressure means to advance the national interest.
On the question of whether or not Israel is a friend. That is debatable. Many evangelicals and jews in the US may consider Israel to be a friend, but people with no personal interest and affection for a foreign entity, such as Israel, probably don't find Israel to be much of a friend at all. In terms of muslim/arab perception of the US, Israel is like a 200 pound weight tied to the US, dragging it down into the mud, for little reason other than personal attachment, not in terms of national security interests.


Can someone name me ANYTHING Israel actually does for us?
 
Though there are a lot of arguments here regarding israel, most people in these forums agree on the non-intervention policy.

The problem is when some members choose to support a neocon candidate simply because foreign policy is not a priority to that member. It's not a priority to them usually cuz they're pro-zionists. They say something like "at least this guy is not a socialist and supports our rights". Well that's how the tea party got neoconned. And that's like saying "at least these democrats are anti-war". We definitely don't wanna go down that route. Better to lose now and continue spreading the message rather than be co-opted.

Can someone name me ANYTHING Israel actually does for us?
The silence is defeaning, isn't it?

BTW, I don't think it's necessarily Israel that has so much influence on the US. There are a lot of zionists within the US, who are probably mostly Christians, that are very influential. I think they're the ones who are responsible for the current policies and favoritism towards Israel.
 
US diversions

In the past three decades, Arab leaders allied with the United States (and even the few who were not) have been telling their peoples that Iran, Shia, Sunni Islamists, the Palestinian people and their wretched cause, among others, are the reason for the hardship of Arabs. Indeed this conjuring up of enemies started with the US-Saudi-Kuwaiti plan to subcontract an all-out war against revolutionary Iran, as the enemy of Arabs, which was launched by Saddam Hussein in 1981 to defend America's oil wells - and which resulted by 1988 in the death of one million Iranians and 400,000 Iraqis.

In the meantime, and since the late 1960s, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon have engaged in wars with the Palestinian guerrillas and against Palestinian civilians, whom they identified as the enemy. Egypt launched a war against Libya when Sadat was in power, and later, under Mubarak, against its own Islamists and against the Palestinian people. Indeed even Algeria was conjured up as the enemy of Egyptians in Mubarak's last year on the throne.

Saudi Arabia, while repressing all of its population in the name of Wahabism, has not stopped hatching various plans (and plots) since 1982 to bring Israel into the Arab fold. When President Obama peddles the Israeli lie, that his pro-Israel advisors at the White House - and there has been no other kinds of Middle East advisors at the White House since the Clinton administration - feed him, that "too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people's grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half-century after the end of colonialism. Antagonism toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression," to which leaders is he actually referring? Sadat, Mubarak, Ben Ali, Kings Hussein and Abdullah II of Jordan, Kings Hasan II and Muhammad VI of Morocco, President Bouteflika, any of the Gulf monarchs or the two Hariri prime ministers, Rafiq and Saad?

Not only are such lies not believable to anyone in the wider world, but also, were the US administration to believe them, explain the ongoing foreign policy failures in a region the US insists on dominating - but which it refuses to learn much about.



Emperor Obama vs the Arab people
 
With all the Israel bashing on Ron Paul Forums, I figured I'd point out Ron Paul's view on Israel.

The founding fathers' view would be that Israel, Iran, Syria, Libya, Great Britain, France, China, Russia and any other nation you can think of should be our "close friend".

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson
 
Ron Paul’s stance to end all foreign aid across the board and overall non-interventionist position and record on US relations with other countries, is clearly superior to all other Republican candidates.

However, in his book "Liberty Defined", the chapter “Zionism” contains very flawed thinking and history, and is significantly at odds with libertarian principles. When the book first came out, much of that chapter was available online at Amazon.com, which is where I read it. That chapter is no longer available there, and I don’t yet own the book, so I unfortunately can’t quote from it here. Israel isn’t remotely a friend of libertarian principles, or Liberty, if that is approximately what one means by Liberty.

To start with in the chapter, as I recall, he shows the belief in the diaspora myth, that the Israelites of 2000 years ago are the same people as those who identify themselves today as Jews; and he justifies a property rights claim by this.

Following up with the above post, in the chapter "Zionism" of Ron Paul’s “Liberty Defined”, he writes the following:

There is no doubt that Jews have a historic claim on the land itself. The Bar Kochba revolt in AD 135 against' the Roman Empire prompted a large number of Jews to be exiled from the area now known as Israel. Some historians report that the Jewish population of 300,000 was further reduced to a thousand families during the Christian Crusades in the Holy Lands.

This is Zionist fiction. Those who call themselves Jews today are not an ethnic block with lineage back to the territory of historic Palestine 2,000 years ago.

He also writes:
From the 1890s until 1948, when Israel became a sovereign nation carved out of Palestine, immigration was mostly voluntary, gradual, and accomplished with due respect for existing land titles. Zionism, during the first forty years of this movement, was not about taking land by force nor was it about militarism.

This is grade A Zionist fiction. One can start with the many words and observations of Jewish Russian Ahad Ha'Am here.

Then there’s Attorney Stephen Halbrook’s well sourced article titled “The Alienation of a Homeland: How Palestine Became Israel*", published in the The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. V, No. 4 (Fall 1981), that lays out in detail what really happened. It begins with the following:
“Attorney Stephen Halbrook traces the origins of Palestinian displacement from their homeland to the organized band of robbers known as the Ottoman Empire who presumed to transfer title to land long inhabited by Palestinians to absentee Arab and Turkish landlords. These State-enforced titles were in turn transferred to Zionist organizations who were in turn backed by organized bands of Zionist terrorists—the earliest manifestations of the statelet of Israel.”

There’s also the ruthless Special Night Squads led by psychopath British Officer Orde Wingate in 1938-39, to put down any Palestinian resistance to the ongoing Zionist land theft and intended takeover of Palestine.

The Special Night Squads were a joint British-Jewish counter-insurgency unit, established by Captain Orde Wingate in Palestine in 1938, during the 1936-1939 Arab revolt. The SNS comprised British infantry soldiers and Jewish Supernumerary Police. Wingate hand-picked his men, among them Yigal Allon and Moshe Dayan, and trained them to form mobile ambushes...

Ron Paul also writes:
A continual peaceful transformation would probably have occurred except for the political actions after World War II in which the United Nations turned a local and demographic issue into an international and highly politicized one.

This is just nonsense. The Zionist movement, from the beginning and throughout, has been an international and political movement, never local; and the few Palestinan Jews that there were in Palestine, opposed Zionism. In 1947, Jews, comprising around a third of the population, virtually all recent arrivals from Eastern Europe, held around 6 percent of the land of Palestine (largely acquired by force through the use of absentee landowners). Then, using largely British and US military weapons, they ruthlessly drove most of the Palestinian population off the land they had lived on for centuries or more, and destroyed hundreds of villages. It’s well documented that the Zionist treatment of the Palestinians, over 100 years now, has been antithetical to everything libertarian principles (or Liberty) are about. Ron Paul's way off the mark on this subject.

There’s also Murray Rothbards article on the subject.
 
Last edited:
How can a government be someone's friend? Also, who among us got to make the decision for every American that Israel is our friend? I know I was never consulted on the matter, and I'll bet most folks on these forums weren't either. We don't even get to choose our friends anymore?
 
Last edited:
How can a government be someone's friend? Also, who among us got to make the decision for every American that Israel is our friend? I know I was never consulted on the matter, and I'll bet most folks on these forums weren't either. We don't even get to choose our friends anymore?

Depends how you define "Israel" and "our".
 
Back
Top