Could Rand Paul and Ron Paul be Zionists?

The View From Masada Blog ^ | February 17, 2011 | Matityahu Ben-Yosef

[Christian_Capitalist]

Could Rand Paul and Ron Paul be Zionists?
http://viewfrommasada.com/2011/02/17/ron-paul-rand-paul-zionists-of-the-year/
Posted on February 17, 2011 by Matityahu Ben-Yosef

While the Middle East has always been a volatile region, the last month has seen events unfold in the region whose global impact we still may not appreciate. From the fall of governments in Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt, and with other Middle East regimes to soon share their fate, the balance of power in the Middle East is changing before our eyes.

However, the most significant revolution taking place in the Middle East right now may not have anything to do with what’s unfolded in those countries mentioned above. In fact, the greatest potential revolution about to unfold in the Middle East has its home in Washington D.C., courtesy of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

Seriously.

Earlier this month, Rand Paul called for an end to US “welfare” to Israel, saying:

I’m not singling out Israel. I support Israel. I want to be known as a friend of Israel, but not with money you don’t have. We can’t just borrow from our kids’ future and give it to countries, even if they are our friends.

I think they’re an important ally, but I also think that their per capita income is greater than probably three-fourths of the rest of the world. Should we be giving free money or welfare to a wealthy nation? I don’t think so.

There are many problems with Israel accepting foreign aid from the United States, most notably among that them being that a country can not be both independent and dependent at the same time. By accepting foreign aid from United States, or any country for that matter, Israel is giving up her freedom to implement policies without foreign interference. Additionally, as we have mentioned before, not only does accepting foreign aid limit Israel’s independence, but it also is simply not economically smart, as a recent study by the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies has shown that every dollar of US Aid costs Israel up to 1.4 dollars.

Rand Paul highlights two other problems with continued US foreign aid. to Israel. First, it is legitimate to ask whether or not the US can still afford the luxury of bestowing foreign aid – not just to Israel – but in general. While there are certainly benefits to the United States ‘giving of foreign aid, today it may be a luxury that the American people simply can no longer afford.

Second, historically one of the problems with welfare,is that often times those receiving it have no real incentive to ever get off of it.

Zionism, being the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, believes in a strong and free sovereign Jewish state; a state that lives within her means and earns whatever she has, through the industriousness and ingenuity of her citizens.

An article in Middle East Quarterly, entitled “End American Aid to Israel?: Yes, It Does Harm,” stated the following:

Arnon Gafny, who served as governor of the Bank of Israel in 1976-1981, points out that foreign aid has caused Israel to suffer from what economists call the “Dutch Disease,” a generous but temporary gift (such as oil or external aid) that brings short-term benefits but impairs a country’s long-term competitiveness.

It is very difficult to prove that a rich country’s bestowing bilateral aid on a poorer one actually helps the poorer economy.

In an paper published by the Hoover Institute of Standford University, entitled “Why Aid to Israel Hurts . . . Israelis,” Alvin Rubashka stated the following:

Free money is the scourge of Israel’s economy. It is the difference between a free, prosperous Israel and a statist, dependent Israel. Before U.S. aid began flowing, Israel’s economic performance rivaled that of the high-growth Asian Tigers. Since then, Israel’s growth rate has fallen by more than half.

Forcing Israel to provide for herself will not hurt Israel’s economy, but actually strengthen it, serving as an impetus for Israel to challenge herself to develop her economy and industry in new ways, because there would no longer be free handouts from Uncle Sam.

Rep. Ron Paul went one step further than his son, calling on the United States to end all foreign aid to the Middle East. This past week, Paul sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to all members of the House of Representatives entitled, “Stop buying friends overseas, save $6 billion!”

Borrowing money from China — or printing it out of thin air — to hand out overseas in [an] attempt to purchase friends has been a failing foreign policy, as we see most recently in Egypt where there is not even a government in place! We should seek friendly relations and trade overseas, but we cannot justify lavish gifts to foreign leaders when American taxpayers are increasingly feeling the pain of our economic crisis.

Again, the motivation for this amendment has little to do with Israel, and much to do with the current state of the United States economy, but should such an amendment be accepted, it would greatly benefit Israel.

While the United States spares no opportunity to speak of its desire to see peace in the Middle East, particularly between Israel and her neighbors, it has consistently – for her own interests – armed both sides of the conflict. While Israel may be the US’s single largest recipient of military aid in the region, the amount of US military aid going to Israel’s neighbors makes the amount Israel receives pale in comparison. (This is in addition to the US training a Palestinian army under the leadership of US General Keith Dayton).

Lastly, and perhaps cynically, one must ask the question of what exactly does Israel receive in return for being a US ally? Being a US ally didn’t help those in power in Tunisia, Lebanon and Egypt, who were all quickly abandoned by the US when the going got tough. And, the US is strongly considering voting in favor of a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israel for allowing Jewish growth within her historic homeland.

With friends like these...

It’s time for Israel to act according to the wisdom of former French Premier, Charles DeGaulle, who said that, “Countries do not have friends, they have interests.”

Every country in the world understands this, and acts according to this principle. It’s time Israel does the same.

Israel’s leading business publication, Globes, has called for Israel to do the same:

The time has come to bid goodbye to the military aid that the US extends to Israel, that generous package (currently worth $3 billion) that enables the Israeli taxpayer to share the cost of procuring equipment for the IDF with the US taxpayer. Israel should itself initiate the process of detachment from the Washington breast. It should be done gradually, on terms that will enable Israel to wean itself off this intoxicating milk, before the Americans take action, on their terms. Israel won’t collapse.

None of this is to say that the United States and Israel shouldn’t be allies. To the contrary, Israel should seek to have positive relationships with every country in the world – relationships based upon mutual respect, benefit and interest. in instances where Israel and another country may not see eye to eye, each will be free to act according to their own interests.

Ron Paul and Rand Paul, through looking out for the best interests of the United States, may be providing one of the greatest contributions to Zionism in quite some time.

~~ Matityahu Ben Yosef is the Education Director of the Zionist Freedom Alliance

[Las Vegas Ron]

Paul puts in Pork through earmarks, then votes against the bill, knowing it will pass.

And then he brags about it.....what a con man he is.

[truthfreedom]

I did, I was looking for the right spell, and I’m right on point.

You, now, explain the relationship of earmarks to spending.

[truthfreedom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

[Las Vegas Ron]

Yes I recognize it but was not sure of the context of your post....I later asked you to clarify.

[rbmillerjr]

Another Alex Jones, Paul, Kokesh 911 Truther bites the dust...damn shame lol.

[Las Vegas Ron]

I did, I was looking for the right spell, and I’m right on point.

First, you point out where I have invoked Hitler....then we'll continue our discussion.

[OldNewYork]

Clarify what? You invited me to quote you. That was a quote you liked enough to have as the top of your profile here. I thought you would benefit from reading it again, and I thought anyone who happened across this thread would benefit from reading it too.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Let's start over....what does the heading of my homepage have to do with anything that has been posted on this tread?

[OldNewYork]

Alright, we’ll start over. What does my commenting on Rand Paul’s amusing, and perhaps regrettable, fashion when meeting Ronald Reagan have to do with someone being banned from the site?

[Las Vegas Ron]

I have to do my Sunday call to Mom, I’ll be back in a short while........

[OldNewYork]

Take your time. I don’t need any hurried answer to my question. I hope she’s well.

[truthfreedom]

You have the order wrong.

First, the money is spent.

Second, where the money goes is determined.

When the earmarks are going in, the money has already been spent. The amount of money being taken from his constituents
is not changed by an earmark.

The earmarks change where the money goes. If no earmarks, Obama gets to spend the money however he wants. If there is an earmark, it means that some of that money, instead of going to Obama to do whatever he wants with it, goes to a specific thing his constituent wanted instead of what Obama wants.

Very easy to understand.
2 steps.
1) Vote for spending - Yes or No?
(Ron Paul votes no)
After other people voted for spending, the money is spent, it’s gone from his consituents. Then step 2.
2) What does the money get spent on?
a) what Ron Paul’s constituents want?, or
b) what Obama wants?

Ron Paul puts in what his consistuents want. Because the money has already been spend, the earmarks have no effect on the total amount of money that is spent.

Do you understand this extremely easy process yet?

[rbmillerjr]

“Earmarks are spending, right? Or are they different from spending? “

An earmark is a specific funding for a group or organization or project that is not in the usual process or scrutiny of getting debated.

Politicians slip them in at times when they know they won’t be debated. They get out of committee and are overlooked in the broad debate of the Budget.

They are bullshit pork. Paul is famous for it, while he drones on about the Fed.

[wagglebee]

That was a well-deserved zot. He was an anti-Semite and should have been gone long ago.

[truthfreedom]

Read the words of the following link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

And you might realize where your understanding of Godwin’s Law is just a little bit off.

[rbmillerjr]

Actually, you are wrong.

The money is not spent. The money is appropriated.

You are also incorrect with you, “if not earmarks, Obama gets to spend whatever...”

Wrong. The House appropriates and can defund stuff from Obama if they wish.

---

I think you are the first RonPaul fan to actually admit that Paul earmarks...glad to see you guys coming out for corrupt and undebated Big Spending.

Paul is just another politician.

[truthfreedom]

But do Ron Paul’s earmarks (as opposed to some other kind) happen after the money is already spent?

And you didn’t answer the question?

Are earmark the same as, or different from, spending?
The answer is “different”, but let’s just see if you can figure that one out.

The money that is earmarked, is money that is gone. Ron Paul is getting it back. Whatever Ron Paul does with earmarks has no effect at all on the amount of spending, and only on whether Obama gets to spend that money or the various members of Congress should get a say in where the money goes.

Remember, Ron Paul did not vote to spend that money, and the earmarks come after the money is spent.

[Las Vegas Ron]

In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.

Uh huh, tell me where I'm wrong....where have I mentioned Hitler or Nazi's?

[truthfreedom]

But you admit, I think, that the Spending part (the Appropriations part) is first, and separate, and Ron Paul never votes for the spending.

Earmarking is simply getting that money back.

He didn’t want that money spent. He didn’t vote for spending. The RINOs, like McCain, who won’t stop spending, but would like people to think that it’s not “Spending”, which McCain does and Ron Paul doesn’t, but “Earmarking”, which just specifies where already spent (or appropriated) money goes, are the ones talking about the irrelevant Earmarking instead of the important Spending.

[truthfreedom]

Post 84.