Ron Paul: ‘Israel should be the Hong Kong of the Middle East’

Washington Post ^ | 01/08/2012 | Felicia Sonmez

[Lattero]

At a campaign event that drew more than 300 people here late Sunday afternoon, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) defended his Israel policy in response to a question from an undecided voter, an answer that included, in part, the suggestion that Israel “should be the Hong Kong of the Middle East.”

“I would want to maintain very close relations with Israel,” Paul said. “I’d want to be a good friend of Israel. And I also want to respect them in many ways that I do not think the United States should undermine their sovereignty in any way.”

He went on to defend his position that the United States should not provide foreign aid to Israel and should not “tell them what to do.”

“If they want to have a peace treaty with their neighbors and they think they can work it out, they shouldn’t have to ask us for permission,” Paul said. “They shouldn’t have to ask us permission to defend their borders. That should be their business. But also, I do not believe that I should take money from anybody here and send money to Israel.”

He then rounded out his answer with the Hong Kong comparison. “We should be friends,” he said. “We should trade with them. I would encourage them to become the Hong Kong of the Middle East, or something like that. You know, have a really affluent society.”

[HiTech RedNeck]

or worse, it should be the bailiwick of slammie countries that surround it

[incindiary]

He is not an isolationist. He wants to trade with other nations, be friends with them, and respect their sovereignty - not build "walls" so to speak. Some would argue that what actually is "isolationist" is to have a foreign policy that is aggressive, and controlling or manipulative... because ultimately, that creates enemies or negative feelings toward the US, is that what we want?

As far as what you said about Israel - I disagree, because if we give 5 times as much to Israel's enemies, then cutting aid to both sides ends being a net advantage for Israel.

Let me ask you this... How would you feel if another nation, of even a global organization like the U.N ignored our independence and desire for sovereignty, and did things to get control over us, disrespecting our constitution or the will of the people? Would you like that?

[Jonty30]

I find US politics far more interesting than my Canadian politics.

[rmlew]

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?
Because Islamists hate us for a host of reasons unrelated to Israel and showing our weakness by surrending friends invites attack.

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?
If by Israel lobby you mean that vast majority of American cities, um yes.
And Socialists? I suppose, but so are we. And Israel is becomming less socialist every month.

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?
Always in what?
In 1948, we recorgnized Israel, then banned arms sales to Israel, while that Arabs had American and British weapons. Some support.
In 1956, we betrayed Britain and France just to screw Israel and protect the Arab Socialists, who still went Soviet, because they were ideological bent on this, regardless of the anticolonialist delusion of the schmuck behind "Atoms for Peace" and operation Keephaul.

We protected the PLO in the 1980s, and the price of getting Syrian support to help liberal Kuwait was forcing Israel to betray Lebanese Christians and put Hizbollah on their borders. Shall I continue with our support, or will you admitt that the claim of always is silly error?

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?
25% of Jews don't care of Israel. Of this group 80% are Democrats. Many other Jews care about Israel, but desperately want peace.

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?
The only time we risked nuclear war for Israel was 1973.
And selling out Israel won't make us any less vulnerable. We are dealing with lunatics. Bin Ladin blame the US for Serbia "atrocities" and Russian atrocities in Chechnya.

I'm more than happy to discuss this in a non-PC manner, so long as we are dealing with facts.

[DB]

It is probably as simple as “never again”.

[D-fendr]

How would you feel if another nation, of even a global organization like the U.N ignored our independence and desire for sovereignty, and did things to get control over us, disrespecting our constitution or the will of the people? Would you like that?

The U.N., no. It's an organization mostly of tyrants and dictators.

Ignoring this part, I think you are falling into moral equivalence. To take an extreme example: did we have the right to get control over Hitler and disrespect their sovereignty? Of course, because they were a threat to our freedom.

Do Israel's enemies threaten our freedom? I think so. Does our support for allies against them cause them to threaten our freedom? I don't see the logical argument for that. They wish to triumph over all free nations and bring them under the rule of Islam. To them, we are their eternal enemies until we are subdued.

We have the right to intervene for our own protection, that is not questionable, IMHO. We can debate where that is justified, how much, at what cost, when, etc. But not the basic concept. All governments, all nations are not morally equivalent. There are very bad and dangerous ones out there. Always will be.

[dixiechick2000]

“He wants to trade with other nations, be friends with them, and respect their sovereignty - not build “walls” so to speak. Some would argue that what actually is “isolationist” is to have a foreign policy that is aggressive, and controlling or manipulative... because ultimately, that creates enemies or negative feelings toward the US, is that what we want?”

Those same words could have come right out of Obama’s mouth.

Blame America first.

Frankly, as a country, I don’t want to be liked.

I want to be feared.

[Jonty30]

Prior to giving aid to Muslim countries, there were many attacks upon Israel. That aid bought the world peace.

If trade would give us the peace that we seek, there would have been peace between Israel and the Palestineans, because Israel at one time had a thriving trade with Palestine.

I’m more tham willing to cut AID to the Israel and the Muslim world, but there will be one of two paths, or both to take. We will either end up sending soldiers to help protect Israel or we will end up dropping nukes on the Muslim countries.

You tell me which is the preferable path.

[dixiechick2000]

Ha! I guess watching us self-destruct is a lot more interesting than watching you guys get your house in order. ;o)

[Jonty30]

It is, though at the time when Canada hit its wall, we were worse off than either Europe or the US.

We were just lucky when it happened.

[incindiary]

I don't disagree with your point. But I wasn't talking just about Israel's enemies. We give money to both sides. We are not respecting the sovereignty of Israel when we use our foreign aid as a way to have control, or meddle in their internal affairs. That was what RP was saying in the video, and that's why I asked Jonty how he felt about another nation trying to buy control over us, or telling us what we can or can't do. If we, as a nation, profess to be about liberty, independence and sovereignty, then I think our foreign policy should reflect those principles, in how we treat other nations.

Speaking of that, here's a quote...

"Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all....The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."

- George Washington, 1797

[incindiary]

"Those same words could have come right out of Obama’s mouth."

Sorry, but Obama has expanded the wars, he went against his phony claim to be opposed to the war - his foreign policy is like Bush's, so your statement is just plain incorrect. Even Bill Kristol said that, and called Obama a "born again neocon." You can see that here.

"Blame America first."

That made no sense. What is "blame America first" about wanting positive relations with other nations? Are you saying that because I disagree with our current foreign policy, that is "blame America first"? I'm sorry, but that is silly. America is not defined by a particular administration or policies like our current foreign policy. I believe in our constitution, and the principles this country is supposed to stand for. I am concerned about these things because I LOVE America, I consider myself a patriot, and I believe that we have some very unAmerican people in power, who care not about our constitution or our liberties, they just care about power and control. THEY are the ones who are anti-American, not people who criticize their actions.

"Frankly, as a country, I don’t want to be liked. I want to be feared."

So having positive relations with other countries is now a bad thing? Have we been THAT brainwashed by the powers-that-be that we now cheer on this world empire and aggressiveness and disrespect for the independence and sovereignty of other nations? Maybe you should answer the question I asked to Jonty, about how YOU would feel if another nation told us what we can or can't do, or tried to interfere in our internal affairs? Would that be OK with you?

[D-fendr]

We give money to both sides.

IF we had a smart aid policy, we'd give money to the Islamicists that weakened them, playing one against the other, buying information, building intelligence, etc. That's the only kind of aid program I support for them. We're not likely to buy off their goal of theocratic world domination, not as a long term policy anyway.

I don't worry about Israel being bought by our aid, I don't worry about it jeopardizing their sovereignty. They are engaged in a constant battle for survival, they're not about to sell-out.

If we, as a nation, profess to be about liberty, independence and sovereignty, then I think our foreign policy should reflect those principles, in how we treat other nations.

I think you are again seeking to find support for a moral equivalence argument. Acting on our rinciples demands we help the good and not help the bad.

We don't respect principles of domination and subjection of free peoples. It's not principled to tolerate intolerance. We offer respect where it is deserved - otherwise it is meaningless and our respect means nothing, is worth nothing.

The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.

I don't believe in habit as a moral principle. We should be fond of the good and hate the bad based on what they are now, not what they were.

Thanks for your reply.

[meyer]

You tell me which is the preferable path.

Nukes.

[cgbg]

You are correct—Paul is an isolationist, and that does leave other countries to their fate.

The question is, when we have to borrow every penny that we spend abroad, when we have military bases in over one hundred countries around the world, and when we have enough weaponry to destroy any nation around the globe or kill any individual anywhere anytime—when is enough, enough.

I have been a military hawk for a long time, but I am beginning to change my view. At this point, as Eisenhower feared, the military industrial complex has indeed gotten out of hand and needs to be reined in.

Israel can take care of itself.

The more interesting question is—can we?

[incindiary]

I think many have forgotten that we weren't always like this. Earlier I posted a quote by George Washington. We don't have to go back that far to hear what our nation should be like, we can go back to not so long ago. Please watch this short video, of GW Bush speaking about this topic:

The George Bush You Forgot

[Uncle Lonny]

The bottom line is Israels right to exist and whether its people can live their lives as they wish or be the victims of a second Holocaust, this time from hate driven Muslims.

Jews have been terrorized and driven out of their native countries ruled by Muslims all over the middle east. To think that these same Muslim rulers would be any more benign to Israel is a pipe dream. Besides the country of Israel is barely larger in size than some counties in the USA, and they have been attacked by Muslim armies several times. They need a strong military to survive.

To think that these same Muslim forces would become friendly to the USA once Israel falls is also a pipe dream.

Dont forget the Israelis already have nuclear weapons and they will use them if pushed to the brink.

So Pauls foreign policy would probably make nuclear war in the Middle East more likely if not inevitable.

[circlecity]

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

[nathanbedford]

Because Islamists hate us for a host of reasons unrelated to Israel

Yes but do they hate us for reasons related to Israel? If so, would rationalizing our relationship with Israel reduce the hatred and reduce the risk?

showing our weakness by surrending friends invites attack

Why do we think that rationalizing our obligations toward Israel constitutes "surrendering" our allies? After all, Israel has won every war it as fought and it alone among its immediate neighbors is possessed of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Does the same logic about inviting attack apply to Taiwan, South Korea?

If by Israel lobby you mean that vast majority of American cities, um yes.

I'm not clear on your meaning, but what is your view of the power of the Israeli lobby to influence foreign policy? This is not and illegitimate question it is being asked, for example, about our relationship with Cuba being influenced by Cuban Americans. In the past it was alleged that our relationship with China was affected by the "China lobby." As someone with partial Irish blood, I am very well aware of century long history of American politicians twisting the British lion's tail. The influence of the Israeli lobby is unquestionably strong, some would say the strongest in the nation, others would put it behind the NRA etc. but the point remains, the Israeli lobby influences our foreign policy and the subject should be addressed because it is not fair to subject Americans to the risk of terrorist nuclear attack without airing the issue.

Of course I can concede that our support for Israel has had its ebbs and surges but the overall course has been in support Israel even to court nuclear war with the Soviet Union as you point out in 1973. I cannot imagine a degree of support stronger than that except to actually engage in nuclear war on behalf of an ally. Unquestionably, Obama and the hard left are not fully in support of Israel and they would probably turn away from her entirely if it were politically feasible domestically. I will not admit that it is a "silly error" referring to our long history of support with the word "always". It is unquestionable that in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of the American domestic electorate America is inextricably identified with Israel. That includes the eyes of the Arab and Muslim world.

I have yet to hear what we get out of our support of Israel.

If we abandon our support for Israel tomorrow, why would that be "selling out" Israel? Why do we owe Israel anything? I have no doubt that we would still have some problems with the Muslim world if we abandon our support of Israel, but, "dealing with the facts," do you have any factual evidence that that is true? Michael Scheurer, for example, sees our problem with terrorism to be of our own making, part of which is our support for Israel.

You and d-fendr are the posters who replied with facts. I applaud you for that.

[nathanbedford]

Please see my # 59