Posted on 01/08/2012 10:56:14 PM PST by 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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I would encourage them to become the Hong Kong of the Middle Eastfrom the FRchives:
Too late, Mr. Paul. We saw you right arm stiffen and start to salute. We know why Strormfront loves you.
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.
Israel has one good advantage that the Arab nations do not: they have their own version of Silicon Valley, high tech wise.
So if Israel is Hong Kong, then who are the ChiComs ruling them in Paul’s eyes? Egypt, Syria, Iran?
We get the same thing as we get for our support of England.
(Or at least our former support as Obozo would seem to have abandoned both; and you apparently are with him, on this at least. "What's in it for me?" ME. ME. ME.)
ML/NJ
I'm sure you had a pleasurable visit.
thanks for your reply.
One point I didn’t make that relates to your question of what would happen if we stopped supporting Israel.
I believe our support of Israel keeps some big players from doing worse. Like it or not, the ME with its oil is an integral part of world affairs and diplomacy. If we greatly weakened our support, the big enemies of the US would, I believe, feel free to fill the vacuum in order to increase their power in this vital region.
Without US backing, the Soviets, Chinese, et al could dominate the region creating a huge strategic problem for the US.
You seem to be mixing past tense and present tense here. "Ronald Reagan was a Democrat in the early 1950's, clear proof that he's no conservative," right?
The Obama Administration has already stopped supporting Israel, some might argue.
And Ron Paul does not propose that we "stop supporting" our closest ally in the Middle East, or stop selling them weapons and systems with which they can defend themselves. Rather, he agrees with Israel's Prime Minister:
"My friends, you don't need to do nation-building in Israel. We're already built. You don't need to export democracy to Israel. We've already got it. And you don't need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves."
- PM Benjamin Netanyahu at the US Congress, May 24, 2011
Why are we sending billions of dollars per year in foreign aid to a first-world nation like Israel when we ourselves are broke? It sounds like Netanyahu is wondering the same thing.
We're not sending billions of dollars a year we don't have as foreign aid to England, and yet nobody is complaining that we've "stopped supporting" them.
Mr. Paul, I don’t presume to tell you how to listen to The Best of Art Belle CDs, so you don’t tell us how to be a country.
Mr. Paul, I don’t presume to tell you how to listen to The Best of Art Belle CDs, so you don’t tell us how to be a country.
Did I forget to mention that Ron Paul made the statement about Jews forcing Arabs off their land, after buying it Paul acknowledges, in late 2010. Reagan never advocated his positions as a Democrat in the 1950s in the 1980s. Paul advocates his biased position, formed in the 1950s, today. Sure, 6 months ago is past tense, but 6 months past, not 30 years. Are you suggesting Paul has changed his mind again?
Try to learn something about "Lend-lease," Pal.
ML/NJ
I doubt he recognizes your right to have a country, so he’ll gladly tell you how to run it.
I don't think "billions per year" is accurate.
I'd be for taking what we give Egypt and re-direct it to Israel though, now that they're not an ally it seems. When you have a common enemy, a billion per year to Israel is well spent, IMHO.
Netanyahu is talking about troups, which we don't send and shouldn't. We don't need to nation-build, etc. Aid to Israel's defense is a bargain in all regards.
Thanks for your reply.
I’m very proud of you Canucks. ;o)
I hope we get our act together soon.
“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?”
Frankly, the only thing I care about is our security. I don’t care about being liked one bit. That is such a naive view of the world.
“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?”
There’s that “feelings” word. NO...I don’t care about any other country’s, especially aggressive countries’, “feelings”.
“I have yet to hear what we get out of our support of Israel.”
Turning loose of the only true democratic form of government, and our long time ally, in the ME would be a form of slow suicide, IMO.
Would you do the same to England?
BTW, are you talking about the Michael Scheurer who said this?
“...the only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.”
Osama is gone. I guess we are doomed as a country.
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.