Rand Paul and Israel

Recently Rand Paul released a statement outlining his position re. Israel. The statement is generating some controversy on the non-interventionist right.

If nothing else, the statement is clever. Read superficially it could easily be interpreted to mean that Rand Paul is “pro-Israel” and supports policies vis-à-vis Israel that are similar to those supported by “mainstream” movement conservatives. However, parsed more closely, he arguably says nothing that runs gravely afoul of non-interventionist dogma. He denounces foreign aid to Israel’s enemies. (But doesn’t denounce explicitly foreign aid to Israel. Meaning what?) He denounces American pressure on Israel regarding what actions they can take concerning Iran. He states he would never denounce Israel. He denounces subsidies to Israel’s enemies. Etc. This is all consistent with non-interventionism and differs not at all from the positions of his father. The only part that may run afoul of non-interventionism is his calls for greater “pressure” on Iran, although non-interventionists don’t denounce normal diplomacy so even that could be consistent. The tone and language regarding Iran are troubling to me, however, even if we give him the benefit of the doubt that “pressure” does not mean more saber-rattling and chest-thumping. Also his approving use of the term “special relationship” is troubling.

But here is my biggest problem with the statement even if we give Rand the benefit of the doubt policy wise. The Good Book tells us that we are to “avoid the appearance of evil.” Well this statement does not “avoid the appearance of pandering.” In fact, it reeks of pandering. If an Israel Firster like the author of the post, Philip Klein, thinks it may concede enough, then it concedes too much. Perhaps I should appreciate the political acumen of Paul for being clever enough to make people think he is saying something he really is not, but in the current political climate, where everybody panders to Israel supporters, what is desperately needed is someone who will visibly stand up to and buck that trend. Here, I believe Paul concedes too much rhetorically if not actually.

As I have stated before, paleos and other non-interventionists have become so upset with the influence of the Israel Lobby that some have allowed themselves to become openly hostile to Israel and supportive of the Palestinians. This has not served us well. I am not arguing that Rand Paul should be openly hostile to Israel. I would not even argue that Paul not indicate his own personal support for Israel if he in fact feels that way. What I am arguing is that we need to foster an environment wherein what one thinks personally about Israel is of no more consequence than what one thinks about Cameroon. An environment in which Israel is just one of many other countries. (This is what I was getting at with my snide remark in the thread that I wonder when Paul is going to be releasing his statement on what he thinks regarding our policy toward Cameroon.) Paul’s statement does not foster that environment. It actually perpetuates the status quo. For this reason primarily I find the statement highly unfortunate.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

30 thoughts on “Rand Paul and Israel

  1. emanuel appel

    Dear Sir,

    You and your kind seem to have an obsession with Israel. Let me ease your anxiety.

    “The Israel Lobby” ,aka American Jews ,have a natural affinity for their kin as the Irish or Scots have for theirs. The Lobby exists for the simple reason that the nation of Israel wants to live at all costs and seeks allies anywhere. They are at the front line of Moslem/ Arab viciousness.

    I also hope that one day relations with Israel will be at the same level as relations with Cameroons. However, be advised that you have never insulted Cameroons as you insult Israel every day by holding that her capital, Jerusalem, is not hers. From 1948 to the present, the US has always had the Embassy in Tel Aviv. It’s an insult you would never tolerate. We do out of pragmatism but it’s always in the background and irritating. That’s why US “peace messengers” will never be taken seriously.

  2. Captainchaos

    Just what in the end will truckling before Jewry, who seek our genocide, yield in the end but our genocide? And, if Jews seek our genocide, just why is it that we should not be hostile, instead of neutral, to the existence of Israel?

    To flesh the point out: If we ever actually got around to dealing with the Jews in sufficiently muscular fashion – I mean at least the stripping of much of their wealth and positions of influence from them – does anyone here actually believe that Israel would not seriously considered its dooms day Samson Option to consume in nuclear fire the capitals of Europe in response (the Jews, with their hair-trigger paranoia, would view those necessary actions as a prelude to their open extermination at our hands)? In which case, would it not be the rational response to preemptively strike Israel with nuclear weapons thus neutralizing the threat?

    If in the end, it must be us or them, I choose us.

  3. S.L. Toddard

    “What I am arguing is that we need to foster an environment wherein what one thinks personally about Israel is of no more consequence than what one thinks about Cameroon”

    Very well said, Doc. I’m beginning to see the wisdom of this as well. The counterpart to Washington’s condemning “passionate attachments” was his proscribing of “permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations”. That is not to say we should not speak frankly of and criticize Israel when warranted, but only that anti-Israelism should not be, cannot be, a defining attribute of the real right. Israel is one country among many who should be freed from U.S. meddling, unfettered by the obligations receiving US aid entails, free to defend itself to any degree it deems necessary.

    It seems that Rand Paul’s statement was a response, or pre-emptive move to address this:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul664.html

  4. emanuel appel

    Dear Mr. Stoddard

    Are you American or a left-over from the Third Reich
    that came from under a rock?

    You can’t discuss issues, only trade slurs.

  5. Sean Scallon

    Darn it Red you took the words right out of my mouth! Very good though and thoughtful.

    Ultimately how Rand votes as a U.S. Senator will determine how we will view him.

    But first you have to get there.

  6. emanuel appel

    What is a “conservative”?

    In normal circles, a man who believes in respect for the rule of law, small government, and judicial restraint.

    In the Ron Paul world, it’s a man who gives aid and comfort to Third World tyrannies, like Iran, solely on the basis of their ability and desire to destroy Jews.

    Now, I can respect a consistent isolationist. If you don’t want to get involved in the Middle East because you hate or dislike all Semites, that’s fine. But, it’s a curious case of men like Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul who have sympathy for the Arab/ Moslem, notwithstanding the fact that these people have killed more American civilians than any other group. They carry out terrorism NOW( we just had one plead guilty of plotting to bomb NYC subways).

    Yet, some here work under the delusion that Jews actually plan to commit genocide on the American people. Creeps like that are what gives the American Right a smelly reputation.

  7. Kirt Higdon

    Rand Paul, unlike his father, is not trustworthy. I’ve had misgivings about him ever since the Sarah Palin endorsement. While Sarah may not know what she is doing one way or the other, her handlers know what they are doing and they are neocons to a man. I’m happy I made the decision not to contribute anything to Rand Paul’s campaign.

  8. RedPhillips Post author

    Captainchaos, you are the mirror image of the unhinged hyper-interventionist who insists that unless we bomb Muslim Country X right now we will all surely die, or at the least be overrun by Muslim terrorist who will force our women to wear burqas.

  9. RedPhillips Post author

    “If you don’t want to get involved in the Middle East because you hate or dislike all Semites, that’s fine.”

    That’s right emanuel, because the ONLY possible reason someone could have for not wanting to get involved in the Middle East is because they personally dislike Semites. It couldn’t possibly be because they think that is what is best for the United States or because they believe non-interventionism is the only foreign policy consistent with limited government conservative principles or because they want to follow the wise advise of General Washington. No, it must be only because they hate Semites.

  10. RedPhillips Post author

    “In the Ron Paul world, it’s a man who gives aid and comfort to Third World tyrannies, like Iran, solely on the basis of their ability and desire to destroy Jews.”

    Such mindless emotion based illogic can not be reasoned with. If you really think that Ron Paul is codling Iran because he wants to see all the Jews destroyed then there is no reasoning with you. You keep right on believing that buddy.

  11. S.L. Toddard

    “Are you American or a left-over from the Third Reich
    that came from under a rock?

    You can’t discuss issues, only trade slur”

    I’m sorry Mr. Appel? So far in this discussion you have implied that I am a Nazi, and so are the only one trading “slurs”. I asked you a simple question. You are not an American, correct?

  12. emanuel appel

    Dear Red,

    If your position is that of withdrawing from the world, isolationism a la 1930′s, is the proper foreign policy position of the US, that’s fine.

    Be advised that you can run but you can’t hide. The US tried that in the 1930′s and got Pearl Harbor. The US got the World Trade Center attack for being “even handed” in the Near East. By letting Moslems immigrate into the US, we are subjected to Islamic terror. Is that the world you want?

    I come to the conclusion that RonPaul and Pat Buchanan are anti _Israel because they defend and are sympathetic to exactly those tyrannical, fanatical cultures that are 100% opposite to all the traditional American values, even “conservative” ones.

    Buchanan was super hot, in the period of the Cold War, with confronting the Soviet Union. Imperialistic Islam gets the soft glove treatment. I don’t know how warlike Ron Paul was in that period but, if Buchanan like in anti communism, then hypocritical re Islam.

  13. emanuel appel

    To Stoddard

    You are nobody to question anyone re his nationality. I find it insulting.

    Is yo’ momma black?

  14. S.L. Toddard

    Mr. Appel, why would you find that insulting? Is your nationality an embarrassing one to have? Whatever it is, you should at least feel enough pride to admit it. I ask because you refer to Americans as “you” (i.e. “an insult *you* would never tolerate”).

    Feel free to keep your nationality a secret, and with it the implication that you are disingenuous.

  15. emanuel appel

    To all true conservatives

    Wanting to mind your own business is a praiseworthy quality. However, it can be a cover for cowardice.

    When America is engaged in the world, she will be pushed to act diplomatically or militarily. If you want to retreat behind the two oceans, that’s fine, but it’s a little too late unless willing to radically change government policy.

    How do handle religious imperialists ( Moslems ) who are willing to blow themselves up so long as you and your family die? How do you handle a Moslem missile owning, nuclear capable theocracy like Iran? She humiliated America during the Jimmy Carter presidency and he was an abject failure. He’s one of the most cowardly Presidents who abases himself before his enemies and betrays his friends. Is that what you propose?

  16. Bede

    Emanuel,

    Terrorism is an immigration – not a foreign policy – issue. If you want to stop terrorists, keep them out of the country.

  17. RedPhillips Post author

    “Be advised that you can run but you can’t hide. The US tried that in the 1930’s and got Pearl Harbor.”

    Umm … actually no we didn’t. It was our meddling against Japan that Japan was reacting to. FDR was deliberately trying to antagonize Japan into attacking us so he could back door us into the war in Europe. The East Coast elites were desperate for us to enter the war in Europe on behalf of England but Americans in the heartland opposed our entry into the War until after Pearl Harbor.

    “The US got the World Trade Center attack for being “even handed” in the Near East.”

    No. We got the WTC attack at least in part because we are viewed by the terrorists as being overly aligned with Israel.

    “By letting Moslems immigrate into the US, we are subjected to Islamic terror. Is that the world you want?”

    Non-interventionist paleoconservatives like those at this site strongly support immigration restrictions. In fact, we were for immigration restrictions before immigration restriction was cool and were getting called racists for our trouble.

    “I don’t know how warlike Ron Paul was in that period but, if Buchanan like in anti communism, then hypocritical re Islam.”

    Ron Paul has always been a non-interventionist. I think Buchanan now looks upon some of his Cold War hotness with regret, but Buchanan was one of the first and most prominent conservatives to call for a pull back and a “peace dividend” after the Soviet Union fell.

  18. Captainchaos

    “Captainchaos, you are the mirror image of the unhinged hyper-interventionist who insists that unless we bomb Muslim Country X right now we will all surely die,”

    I’m as hyper-ethnocentric as Appel the Jew, I’ll grant you that.

  19. Captainchaos

    Appel the Jew writes:

    “What is a “conservative”?

    In normal circles, a man who believes in respect for the rule of law, small government, and judicial restraint.”

    Right, White men should be aracial ‘individuals’ dedicated to abstract propositions whilst Jews pursue their collective interests dedicated to the principle of ‘what is good is what is good for Jews’. Makes perfect sense to me.

    “Wanting to mind your own business is a praiseworthy quality. However, it can be a cover for cowardice.”

    Damn, this lying, manipulative Jew (I know, those adjectives preceding ‘Jew’ are quit redundant) says it is “cowardice” not to fight wars on behalf of the Jews. The sooner we expel the Jews from all White countries the better.

  20. emanuel appel

    Well, gentlemen, you’ve expressed yourselves re foreign policy.

    As I said before, you may feel secure by withdrawing from the world but the world will find you.

    The Arabs, like the Japanese, feel entitled to kill you since you don’t do what they want. The Japanese felt entitled to American oil and metal resources, resented America’s military power, and decided to take you out to have a free hand in the Far East. Roosevelt didn’t “antagonize” them; he refused to have America behave like Japan’s puppet. If that’s bad, so be it.

    Regarding Germany, it was Germany who declared war on the U.S. So all you modern day Father Coughlins who like to think of “elites” or “Evil forces” dragging America to war are wrong. You just wish we were fighting for the other side.

    So, gentlemen, that is all I will say and bid you “conservatives” good-by.

  21. RedPhillips Post author

    “all you modern day Father Coughlins who like to think of “elites” or “Evil forces” dragging America to war are wrong.”

    After I wrote “East Coast elites” I deliberately put “on behalf of England” so some knucklehead wouldn’t accuse me of using code for Jews. I was referring to the East Coast WASP Establishment who wanted us to enter the war to save England, not Jews.

    “Roosevelt didn’t “antagonize” them”

    He most certainly did. This is a matter of the historical record. I have even read some neocons who admire FDR for his cunning in dragging a reluctant country into the War.

  22. RedPhillips Post author

    Captain, the more I think about it the more I realize you are exactly a mirror image of the hyper-interventionists. You want us to preemptively nuke Israel because it we don’t they will surely nuke European capitals. (Did I read you right? That is the first time I have every read such nonsense.) And they would do this in spite of the fact that it would mean their quick and sure destruction because Jews are by your reckoning uniquely malevolently evil. How does this differ from the hyper-interventionist who insists we must preemptively bomb Muslim Country X (currently Iran) because if we don’t they will surely nuke us? And why will they nuke us even though it would mean their inevitable destruction? Because Muslims are uniquely malevolently evil? Either way, a preemptive strike is necessary for our continued existence. It is all so crystal clear. Only a fool or the deliberately blind can’t see it.

  23. JW

    I’m definitely glad that the US did enter the war against Japan. If we hadn’t there is a decent chance that Japan would have invaded Australia and New Zealand at some point. One can imagine the Rape of Sydney being even worse than the Rape of Nanking given the animosity that many Japanese (and non-Westerners in general) had for the West at that time.

    In Europe, England (the country of our ancestors) was worth saving as well.

  24. Mike

    emanuel appel, you vile Zionist propagandist. Your lies are incitement of violence against Iran and Iranians. By forwarding the lie against Iran that it wants the “genocide” of Jews, all you are trying to rationalizing a war against it.

    America should not be sanctioning Iran, losing out on tens of billions dollars of oil/gas deal that would much needed revenues and jobs to America, and pushing Iran and its oil fields into China’s camp. You are an Israel-firster and and propagandist.

  25. Pingback: LOL! Transcript Of Sheikh Getting PWNT At Ronpaulforums! - Cameldog Mixed Martial Arts Forums

  26. roho

    Just found this thread, and laughed as U.S. Citizens allowed some Zionist sitting in a “Blog Room” in Tel Aviv play like he is anything other than an Israeli State sanctioned, “Blog Apponent”. Israel put these rooms together back in 2008 for the sole purpous of presenting the Zionist perspective around the world at different sites. He most likely had a different name at the PJB site that was attacked constantly?

    “Emanuel Appel”………Go eat your bagel, report to your handlers, and watch videos of the IDF killing Palestinian children with white phosphrus!

  27. Pingback: Rand Paul Sworn In With His Dad - WhiteNewsNow.com Forums

  28. Steve Spradlin

    Rand Paul has given notice that the Zionists’ puppetry is no longer effective. They are so used to manipulating people (like the fundamentalist Christians) they are trying to undermine the fact of hundreds of thousands of ordinary men and women who are putting their lives on the line to revolt against Zionist arranged oppression. The Zionists are so used to manipulation they do believe in what is so obviously a spontaneous revolt against their economic oppression imposed by their puppet tyrants.

    Zionist thugs you are put on notice that your day of reckoning is at hand and all those US furnished weapons will not be enough to maintain your predatory regime.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>