Posted on 04/14/2012 12:45:01 PM PDT by free_life
Ron Paul to Obama and Romney: “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Get over it.”
News is now leaking out about a private meeting between evangelical leaders and presidential candidate Ron Paul which took place last Wednesday night. The leaders asked Dr. Paul about an Executive Order moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. “The real issue here is not what America wants but what Israel wants. We have no right to chose their capital,” Dr. Paul said, “If they say it is Jerusalem, then it is Jerusalem.”
The Barack Obama administration has consistently rejected this idea and Governor Mitt Romney steadfastly refuses to make a commitment on the issue.
The meeting held last Wednesday night in Ft. Worth, Texas, had two representatives of evangelicals presenting Dr. Paul with a list of questions they had received from denominational leaders, pastors and television evangelists. In the wake of Senator Rick Santorum’s departure from the presidential race, many evangelical leaders are turning to Ron Paul.
The question to Dr. Paul was posed by Rev. Brian Jacobs, one of the evangelical participants. Jacobs, a former consultant to the Billy Graham Association and a pastor of the Ft. Worth Metroplex Church asked the question at the beginning of the meeting. According to Jacobs, Dr. Paul asked, “How would we feel if some other nation told us that we would have to make our capital in New York and they refused to build their embassy in Washington, D.C. It is none of our business.”
Paul’s answer even surprised some of his own staff.
In earlier interviews Dr. Paul has stated that we should stop being Israel’s master and start being her friend and trading partner. In 1981, Dr. Paul was the only public figure who defended Israel’s military action when she took out the Iraqi nuclear facilities. He, alone, in the U.S. Congress, refused to condemn the action saying that Israel has the right to defend herself without approval of the United States.
Dr. Paul, nevertheless, has been the target of vitriolic attacks from evangelical leader, Gary Bauer, who issued a fund raising letter criticizing the Texas congressman for wanting to “cut off foreign aid to Israel.” Bauer’s letter failed to mention that Dr. Paul is calling for the end of all foreign aid, which not only includes the $3 billion the United States gives to Israel but also the $12 billion it gives to Israel’s avowed enemies, including Palestinians, who publicly proclaim that they will drive her into the sea. Dr. Paul points to America’s practice of borrowing money from China to give to Pakistan as foolish.
Ron Paul campaign officials have long complained that their man is so intellectually honest and so committed to a constitutional form of government he is easily tripped up by issues taken out of context by a demagogue.
On December 29, 2011, the Israeli Mossad Chief, Tamir Pardo, told 100 ambassadors gathered in Jerusalem that a “nuclear Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel.” When Dr. Paul said something similar in a debate the next week, insisting that we should not go to war with Iran on a presidential executive decision but only by consultation with the congress, he was heavily criticized and ridiculed.
In a GOP debate on January 9, 2012, Ron Paul said that, anyway, Iran was not on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. This statement too, was heavily criticized and called “dangerous” by media pundits. When Secretary of Defense, Leon Paneta said the same thing three days later on the CBS program Face the Nation no one apologized to Dr. Paul.
In the meeting with evangelicals Dr. Paul was asked questions about his personal faith. The Ron Paul campaign issued a statement of faith at the beginning of the campaign with Dr. Paul declaring “I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.” But the congressman admitted that his faith is very much a private matter.
Justin Machacek, an Emmy Award winning Christian television producer, asked Dr. Paul how his faith shaped his worldview.
Dr. Paul said, “I am not big on public displays and marches. I would not want a theocracy.” But as to how his faith shaped his character and his worldview? “You know I’ve been married 55 years,” he laughed, “So it is pretty obvious. It is how I live my life.”
Mr. Machacek said he was deeply moved by the meeting and wants other Christian leaders to meet with Dr. Paul themselves. “I’m drafting an email for a Christian leader who is a coordinator for a 10 denomination coalition. He will forward the idea about a meeting with church leaders.”
About time someone in the GOP said Israel has the right to decide their own capitol.
I agree with that, but quite frankly I have a hard time seeing Ron Paul as "someone in the GOP". I consider him a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican.
Which makes me especially depressed because that means I still can't think of someone in the GOP who says Israel has the right to decide their own capitol.
Newt Gingrich has a list of what he would do the first week in office as President.:
4. Respect Each Sovereign Nation’s Choice of its Capital. Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own Capital. Accordingly, the U.S. State Department should be instructed to respect the choice of each sovereign nation and place the American embassy in their Capital. (Israel is the only country the United States discriminates against in this regard. The people of Israel have designated Jerusalem as their capital. Yet the United States retains its embassy in Tel Aviv.)
So, Rep.Paul is second.
For more on what Newt Gingrich intends to do, go to http://www.newt.org
Good call. I was engaging in a bit of rhetoric in my comment at #3. Gingrich and Ron Paul are both correct. I’m sure there are a few others. It just seems like such a no-brainer, I don’t know why the US government can’t get on board the USS Obvious.
Would be wonderful to see a President recognize Israel’s choice Jerusalem as their capitol. Not going to happen with either Obama or Romney though.
I suspect it is because the Democratic Party is in cahoots with the Palestinian cause.
Would be wonderful to see a President recognize Israel’s choice Jerusalem as their capitol. Not going to happen with either Obama or Romney though.
President Harry Truman had a placard on his desk in the White House that said: The Buck Stops Here. The President is responsible for what his administration does, whether he knows about it or not.
Here is my problem with Dr.Paul: it doesn’t matter whether he did or did not approve the contents of the newsletter published in his name. It is the fact that he claims he didn’t know the contents yet his name was on it. Either way, if he knew or didn’t know, that is unacceptable behavior for a future President.
That is the sole reason.
If anyone were to look to history, you would see that the Jews built it. Romans documented it as well. And there are other sources. Archaeologists are digging and continuing to find kingdoms ruins..... and this is what the palestainians are wanting to prevent. Evidence, tangible evidence....
But, the great muslim Obama knows better.
From Wiki
The United States maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv, and a Consulate General in Jerusalem as part of the “Consular Corps of the Corpus Separatum”.[65] Under the Constitution of the United States the President has exclusive authority to recognize foreign sovereignty over territory.[66] The Congress has adopted a number of concurrent resolutions which support recognition of a united Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and urging Jerusalem as the site of the U.S. embassy. The resolutions expressed the “sense” of the House or Senate but had no binding effect. The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 stated that “Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999”. The Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the provisions of the bill invade exclusive presidential authorities in the field of foreign affairs and are unconstitutional.[67] The fact that a U.S. embassy is located in a particular city, like Tel Aviv, does not legally mean that the U.S. recognizes that city as a capital. Experts in the field of foreign relations law have said that, faced with congressional force majeure, the State Department could simply construct another embassy in Jerusalem, and continue to argue that the U.S. doesn’t recognize Jerusalem as the capital.”[68] The U.S. Consulate relocated to the neighborhood of Talpiot to provide visa and other consular services to residents of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Territories.[69]
Ron Paul is just pandering now. It wasn’t even a year ago he was calling Israel an “apartheid state”, compared Gaza to a concentration camp, and claimed Israel created Hamas and was secretly behind Islamic terrorism.
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/29/ron-paul%E2%80%99s-undeniable-war-on-israel/
http://www.thehotjoints.com/2011/12/30/video-ron-paul-blames-israel-for-2009-war-defends-hamas/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27esxkQtfTc
Actually Dubya made that promise on the campaign trail back in 99 to win over the evangelicals. After being elected, Dumbo proceeded to “forget” said promise.
He’s not running for reelection to the House — I’ll be surprised if he runs for office again.
The basic problem is that no rational government wants to have its embassy in an area that's subject to any kind of dispute. The whole process of establishing and maintaining an embassy is predicated on the understanding that the "host" country in which the embassy is located -- and the area within the country where it is located -- are stable enough for the "visitor" country to have a long-term presence.
One basic problem is that the legal status of Jerusalem will probably never be solidified as long as the Palestinian Authority maintains a claim on East Jerusalem as its own capital.
I mean, it's not as if we're in any hurry to give Boston back to the British and New Orleans back to the French, right?
Two minor problems. One, “palestinian” argument is the Jews never were there or it never was their land. Secondly, this argument comes from a admittedly created people, the palestainians (birth by arafat 1964).
Ron Paul makes, at first hearing, some hair-raising statements... That after some thought, I understand how he intellectually and constitutionally came to some of those beliefs. It hurts my ego to find that I was wrong, and in fact if I had put more effort into understanding the basic document of our Republic and the philosophy behind it, I would have come to the same conclusions. It is so much easier to be a knee-jerk Republican as, like Democrats, it relieves one of having to make the effort to think things through.
And per your post, Ron Paul campaign officials have long complained that their man is so intellectually honest and so committed to a constitutional form of government he is easily tripped up by issues taken out of context by a demagogue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.