Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Ron Paul on Israel

Ron Paul said something I agree with! I know, I'm shocked too. I should have known that Paul would be one of the few politicians with enough crazy to have an honest and complex opinion on Israel and our "alliance" with them.

From News Real Blog:
NRB: David Horowitz and others have been critical of the effect that your foreign policy would have upon Israel… How would you describe a libertarian vision for alliance that could support democracies where people want to determine their own course while under threat by external forces?

Ron Paul: We’ve been involved a long time, since World War II, especially since we’ve inherited or developed our empire. We strongly supported all the dictators that surround Israel, and sometimes we buy peace and pay for it. But it’s unstable. And that instability has always been a threat to Israel. Now, when it’s coming apart, and our financial system’s coming apart, Israel is in worse shape than ever because of our so-called protection.

I believe in non-intervention. I believe we should treat all other countries alike, and that we should be friends. Israel is very, very powerful. If we weren’t in there, they could do what they want to protect themselves, and they wouldn’t have to ask us permission, and we would never have to be dragged in if something happens over there. I think they’d be much better off, and that would be a constitutional position.

NRB: Is there a point where the existence of Israel being under threat would compel even a libertarian to take action to protect her?

Paul: First off, they’re under threat because we’re there. We’re a greater threat to them, and our polices, because they have assumed that we’ll [intervene] if they don’t do the right things for themselves.

I don’t know of anybody who can militarily threaten them. They have 300 nuclear weapons. Nobody’s gonna touch them. This notion that we have to support them over the Palestinians – we shouldn’t favor one over the other. It’s a very different problem over there. If you’re a Palestinian-American, you might not like [America's position on Israel]. I’m not saying you should support the Palestinian side or the Israeli side. I’m saying let them work it out.
The fact some people would call Paul "anti-Semitic" for the mere suggestion that we should be giving Israel billions of dollars a year is bothersome. Just because someone isn't pro-Israel doesn't mean they're anti-Israel. I hate this sort of limited choice thinking. It's intellectual laziness.


  1. Can you be anti-Israel without being called anti-Semitic?

  2. The creation of Israel in 1948 has caused the death of thousands. Who does one side with if they side with anyone? The well armed and financed Israelis or the dirt poor Palestinians clutching bricks from the rubble of their internment camp.

    Off topic somewhat but, who's DNA is closer to the Christian's main man, Jesus... a Palestinian born and raised in Gaza or the Israeli who was born in Philadelphia, USA and moved to Israel to maintain the expansion of the Israel.

    What a sick world. The more I think, the more I wonder.

  3. Bret: Not usually, but that's just because people have a hard time differentiating between disagreeing with a government and hating an entire group of people apparently. (That's not to say you can't be anti-Israel without being anti-Semitic, but you'll probably be called a bigot.)

    Dion: "The more I think, the more I wonder." This exactly.

  4. Wow , I go away for a few days and you post the most amazing stuff :-)

    I agree with Ron Paul here. We have no dog in the Israel fight, let's stay out of it.

    I think Ron Paul may just be nutty enough to be a decent politician. I don't agree with him on many things, but I think he is, at least, better than most of the shit they throw at us and call government.

  5. mac: Thanks! And I agree. Even though I don't agree with most of Paul's stances, I like that he has his own stance on most issues. I can respect that.


What's on your mind?