Replies

“I didn’t hear it, but if you go by what Paul says, he has no policy toward Israel, any more than he has a policy toware Korea, Taiwan, Japan or Europe. Our troops will be withdrawn from around the world and essentially we’ll have no foreign policy, only trade.”

Here’s what he’s said. Hard to disagree with this assessment!

PAUL: In many ways, we treat Israel as a stepchild. We do not give them responsibility that they deserve. We undermine their national sovereignty. We don’t let them design their own peace treaties with their neighbors. And then we turn around and say that, when you want to do that or you want to defend your borders, they have to check it out with us.

I think Israel would be a lot safer. I made the point earlier. We give three times as much money to the Arabs. Why do we arm their enemies? So if you care about Israel, you should be against all the weapons that go to the Arab nations.

(APPLAUSE)

And I just don’t see any purpose in not treating Israel in an adult fashion. I think they’d be a lot better off.

I think they, one time in the ‘80s, took care of a nuclear reactor in Iraq. I stood up and defended Israel for this. Nobody else did at that time.

But we need to recognize they deserve their sovereignty, just as we deserve our sovereignty.

PAUL: I believe that if they assumed more responsibility, there would be more peace there and that there would be a lot less threat to us. Besides, we don’t have any money to do this.

That's a sound bite not a policy, and it's consistent with his intent to withdraw American presence from around the globe. Clearly Israel would be free of American interference, as would all of our other allies. In the case of other allies it would entail multiple violations of treaties and agreements, in Israel's case only the moral obligation stemming from the treaty with Egypt to maintain Israeli military superiority. Paul would have no objection to selling arms to the Arab states.

Were we to believe things like the ads run by his supporters in the run-up to his appearance at the Arab American Institute, clearly Paul is the anti-Israel candidate.

His newsletters take it further, awards for one-state advocates, ironically an MK from a party subsequently banned in Israel, and support for the idea that the mossad was involved in the Trade Center Bombing.

But I understand Paul isn't responsible for what's said in his name, so I guess we ignore his nuttiness. But he has no credible foreign policy.