Lawson on US policy toward Israel

[nicehairmitt]

Can anyone give me some idea of what (if anything) Lawson has said regarding US policy toward Israel? I looked on his site and Googled it, but can't find anything.

If he evidences a willingness toward a more balanced approached than our current policy, I'll donate. Most of our problems in the region stem from our unilateral, unwavering support to the Israelis. Lawson would APPEAR to diverge from that thought. But I've seen too many southern, Christian Republicans get into office and suddenly decide that the Bible means they have to blindly support Israel, no matter the harm it does to the US's standing in the world.

It'd be nice to have someone in the middle, not some anti-semitic moron, but not a religious zealot either, to support.

Give me some proof and I'll give some money!

[rp08orbust]

Can anyone give me some idea of what (if anything) Lawson has said regarding US policy toward Israel? I looked on his site and Googled it, but can't find anything.

I'm glad you can't find his opinions on Israel, because he's running for Congress, not the Knesset. Hopefully it means he's officially neutral, as the US government should be.

[amy31416]

I agree with rp08orbust, but one of his campaign people is often on here and can better answer your question.

That said, he's a fiscal conservative and is likely in line with RP on economic matters, so it only goes to reason that he would not be for welfare for other countries, no matter who.

[DRV45N05]

I work for the campaign. I haven't asked him specifically about this issue, but I would say that he would be in favor of a more balanced approach than is currently in place. Specifically, I know for sure that B.J. is for the ending of all government foreign aid, and that means foreign aid to both Israel and the surrounding Arab countries (to whom we give more aid than we do Israel).

I will bring this issue up with him and discuss it more with him. I'll get back to you with a more detailed response.

[yongrel]

Oh great. Let's not start this up.

I don't see Lawson's specific thoughts about Israel being terribly important. It only matters as a fraction of his overall foreign policy stance.

For Lawson to specifically address Israel would only alienate him from much of the Republican party he needs the support of in November.

[Kotin]

yeah dont worry. Israel is fine ;)

[nicehairmitt]

thanks to the campaign employee who said he'd get an answer.

as to those who are critical of the question- do you not realize our bias toward the Israeli side is what foments most of our problems in the region? the problem doesn't start or end with foreign aid either, it's the fact that we veto every sanction of them in the UN, share intelligence and political support unilaterally with them, to the detriment of their neighbors, and have unnecessarily tied ourselves to the right wing of that country.

it's not so simple as "we'll end all aid." there needs to be a plan to get from where we are now to that eventuality, and one that takes place while protecting our interests and ideally those of the Israelis and everyone else in the region.

if you can't realize that- have fun in your imaginary, theoretical world of isolationism- but it ain't ever gonna happen. and it sure isn't anything i'm gonna put money behind.

[Verad]

This is something that he may be better off not addressing until asked. I'm sure that his stance is very similar to Paul's (i.e. Foreign aid is unconstitutional; he's campaigning on getting the federal government to follow the constitution again), but this is a can of worms that should not be lightly opened from any way you may look at it. Preferably, he'll say something along the lines of "I oppose foreign aid to other countries by the federal government because it simply does not have the constitutional authority to do so. However, I do support the right of individuals to use their money for this purpose should they choose to do so." This way there is no qualifier needed ("I oppose aid to Israel," followed by an explanation as to why this is a good stance for all parties), and the statements balance a positive sentence and a negative sentence.

Just my .02 Federal Reserve Notes

[nicehairmitt]

i agree Verad. even the slightest hint of being objective about this issues leads to extreme claims from those who disagree. but, i do think ignoring an elephant in a room is a bit silly after a point. it's a shame we can't have an intelligent dialogue on the subject, and instead have to dance around it. but your comments are correct politically.

[Verad]

i agree Verad. even the slightest hint of being objective about this issues leads to extreme claims from those who disagree. but, i do think ignoring an elephant in a room is a bit silly after a point. it's a shame we can't have an intelligent dialogue on the subject, and instead have to dance around it. but your comments are correct politically.

Yeah, but I hate PC. It is for the weak-minded. Just to be clear, I would never advocate for BJ or another liberty-minded candidate to flat out avoid the issue at all costs. But unfortunately, you're right about the lack of an intelligent dialogue.

It keeps going back to my new favorite quote (by me, of course, though it may have slipped into my consciousness through someone else at some point, but I digress): "Until you treat people like adults, they will act like children."