If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
I'll include my comment from this am's similar thread.
No, he isn’t pro-Israel, and his positions on foreign aid are irrelevant.On numerous occasions he’s addressed the “problem” of Jewish neocons and the Likud Party control of the neocon tainted Bush administration. Including on the floor of the House. That’s not pro-Israel, it’s conspiracy lunacy. He’s stated that the Mossad, like the CIA, may have been behind the 1993 Trade Center Bombing. Not pro-Israel, conspiracy nonsense. Like his contention that GWB was pleased by 9/11, also libelous. It seems to me as a Government official he has an obligation to make the facts known, and turn them over to law enforcement
He does acknowledge Jews lived in the region a couple millennia ago. That’s nice, I guess it’s a plus, though it’s a pretty widely accepted fact
He describes the history of Zionism as a movement of Orthodox Jews (Herzl would be surprised as would have most of the "Orthodox" of the day) who wanted to separate secular European Jews from the culture they had assimilated into so well. Secular European Jews fully integrated and accepted into late 19th century Europe, like Alfred Dreyfus. 19th and 20th century European Jews would be surprised to find they were so well accepted and integrated. Is Paul stupid, or a revisionist, I don’t know.
Somehow his “history” of Israel and Zionism skips from the late 19th century to 1948 and the evil UN. Nothing important happened in the interim I guess, WWI, WWII, Turkey’s defeat, the Mandate period, economic development of Palestine (that’s what the future Jewish state was done), movement of Arabs to the region for economic reasons, no San Remo, no partitioning an Arab state for Jordon, no pogroms, the Mufti, he even forgets the little dust up caused by the Reich. All insignificant, I guess. Not worth assessing whether a defective version of history makes him pro-Israel.
Simply skip forward to 1948 when the UN lets Israel take the Arabs land. By successfully defending themselves from genocide I guess.
Quite telling is the Paul experience meeting a young palestinian attending school in the US. Her story about how her family was thrown off land in her family for centuries touched his heart. Just to build Israeli settlements. He’s a sentimental guy, but this is the Arab version of history.
Did I mention this meeting happened in the early 1950s, clear proof that Ron considers Tel Aviv a settlement. Like San Antonio I guess. But what the heck, it was just a group of people taking land from others on the specious arguement that G-d told them to do it. Classic pro-Arab fairy tale from the Congressman, not a pro-Israel position.
For anyone interested in learning more about the conflict, Paul recommends Jimmy Carter's Apartheid work. It's on the Code Pink suggested reading list too. Largely discredited in pro-Israel circles.
The idea that Paul is pro-Israel is absurd, he has a clear anti-Israel mindset. Whether he’s an antisemite is a different issue not worth getting into. Because it’s an opinion, and irrelevant given his willingness to associate with world class Holocaust deniers, Jewhaters and racists. That alone should be a disqualifier for high office, as it should have been for the current occupant of the White House.
Interestingly like Obama’s racist baggage Paul’s has been known here on FR for years, it’s a shame more people didn’t pay attention, preventing a potential embarrassment for whoever the Republican candidate is, and depriving Obama supporters of an effective issue.
A village is missing its idiot.
He merely raised the question among other possibilities. No need to hyperventilate. What, precisely, was the reason for those attacks? Do you know?