[Lattero]

Huh?

[Impy]

LOL at first I thought it said "King Kong" and I was really puzzled.

[BereanBrain]

I used to think Ron Paul was just a misguided nut.

I now know he is a lying devious nut. (after watching his smears of other’s positions and creative history of his)

[Jonty30]

Hong Kong is the jurisdiction of China. Hong Kong residents don’t have the right to govern themselves.

He is saying that Israel, probably especially Jerusalem, should not have the right to govern itself. In effect, Jews living in Israel would have to rely upon the UN to protect it.

Guess what he’s really saying...

[LukeL]

I see the monetary support of Israel as part of the war on terror. Thousands of terrorists have met their maker at the hands of the IDF and Mossad.

[nathanbedford]

... His Israel stance in particular has proven a stumbling block among a Republican electorate that typically considers support for the Jewish state sacrosanct.

Some questions that we conservatives ought to be asking ourselves:

Why should this be? Why should Republicans remain steadfast when they receive so little for their fidelity? If you prefer an analysis on other than partisan grounds, why should the United States risk terrorist strikes because of its support for a nation of 4 million to 8 million people with virtually no oil against hundreds of millions of Arabs with oceans of oil?

Is it thrall to the Israeli lobby? Is it thrall to the evangelicals with an eschatological obsession? Is it a commitment to a capitalist democracy? Is it a commitment to a socialist democracy? What do we get out of it?

Do we remain in support of Israel because we have always been in support of Israel and simply cannot extricate ourselves? Why does the left today reject our commitment to Israel which for decades had been a cornerstone of the Democrat platform?

Have American Jews become so secular they are indifferent to the fate of Israel? If so, does that explain why very few American Jews shift their allegiance to the Republican Party in the wake of the Democrats turning against Israel? Is there a visceral dislike of Christians in the American Jewish community which that community identifies with the Republican Party which is so deep that it overcomes their commitment to support for Israel?

If fidelity to an ally requires us to expend billions of dollars and risk nuclear war, does that mean we should continue to spend billions of dollars and risk nuclear war on behalf of South Korea and Taiwan? Do these commitments make us stronger, weaker, more or less vulnerable? Do we apply the same standards to all of our allies irrespective of the power of their lobbies in Washington?

Can the United States financially afford to continue its support of Israel? Can we afford to compensate the Arabs because of our support for Israel in order to get Middle Eastern oil? Do we even know the extent of the financial cost of our support for Israel? Do we really understand the geopolitical implications of our support for Israel? Can we even discuss those implications in a politically correct environment?

[JLS]

Hong Kong reverted, ie was given back to China. So does this mean Paul wants to give Israel back to the Palis?

[mylife]

Why is this assclown polling at 25%?

[incindiary]

Oh ok, I see what the problem is. The same thing that I suspect happens on most of the threads having to do with Ron Paul. Many people probably don't even bother clicking on the article, or watching the video. They just see the headline, and immediately react in a knee-jerk way. That is the pattern I see here, over and over.

Anyway, here is the video clip of that townhall meeting, in case anyone wants to see it: http://youtu.be/RHmgoFDkqoA

[circlecity]

Paul’s Israel policy here sounds pretty reasonable to me.

[Tzfat]

Too late, Mr. Paul. We saw you right arm stiffen and start to salute. We know why Strormfront loves you.

[SJackson]

Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

I presume Ron thinks Israel should exist as a subset of a larger mideastern power, with some level of autonomy. Like Hong Kong, China it could be Israel, Caliphate. Amongst Paul's other pro-Israel fantasies.

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.

[mnehring]

So if Israel is Hong Kong, then who are the ChiComs ruling them in Paul’s eyes? Egypt, Syria, Iran?