ChrisDixon
10-30-2011, 10:27 AM
http://www.worldofjudaica.com/jewish-news/op-ed/is-ron-paul-good-for-israel/5428/61
Is Ron Paul Good for Israel?
by Mike Rosenthal
Now, look at it this way, and ask yourself the following question: If Hamas starts bombing Israeli cities again from Gaza (as they have been doing over the weekend) and Israel decides to respond, which candidate would be the least likely to interfere with an Israeli response in any way?
Meaning, which candidate would allow Israel to destroy Hamas entirely without restraining her? The answer is Ron Paul. How can we know this? Because in 1981 when Israel bombed the Iraq nuclear reactor, Ron Paul was one of the only congressmen to refuse to condemn Israel for doing so. Not because he supported it, but because he doesn't take sides on principle. This precedent shows that when pushed to take sides, Ron Paul will not do so, and will instead remain on the sidelines. (Unless a war is declared by Congress such as in World War II.)
Paul has said again and again that Israel should decide what she should do with her enemies, who to negotiate with, who to fight, and who to sign a treaty with. America should be left out of it all in his opinion. The price? $3 billion in annual aid.
Paul would also eliminate all foreign aid to any country, Israel along with her enemies. For the price of a measly 1% of Israel’s GDP, Israel can be free to make her own decisions on foreign policy. This means when she is attacked, she would no longer have to call the White House to ask what she is allowed to do about it.
Does Israel need that $3 billion in annual aid? Some would tend to argue that she does, but then again, Israel spent $30 billion evacuating the Gaza Strip in 2005, ten times the value of American aid. That, and Israel’s economy is still growing in the face of a global recession, even excluding the 1% of GDP that America gives Israel. As for weapons, Israel can easily just purchase them from America if she need to, or make her own, which Israel is certainly capable of doing.
I would argue that more than money, Israel needs real sovereignty, which she will get under a Paul administration, because Paul doesn’t want to take sides. America, unfortunately, currently takes both, which perpetuates the whole conflict.
As for the support of anti-Israel elements in his campaign, if you were indeed anti-Israel, would you vote for the candidate who wants to continue foreign aid to the Jewish State, or would you support the man who is trying to end it?
The next time Hamas bombs an Israeli city, I’d like to know that the White House is not breathing down my neck when I want to defend my people, which is why Ron Paul is the best candidate for Israel.
Is Ron Paul Good for Israel?
by Mike Rosenthal
Now, look at it this way, and ask yourself the following question: If Hamas starts bombing Israeli cities again from Gaza (as they have been doing over the weekend) and Israel decides to respond, which candidate would be the least likely to interfere with an Israeli response in any way?
Meaning, which candidate would allow Israel to destroy Hamas entirely without restraining her? The answer is Ron Paul. How can we know this? Because in 1981 when Israel bombed the Iraq nuclear reactor, Ron Paul was one of the only congressmen to refuse to condemn Israel for doing so. Not because he supported it, but because he doesn't take sides on principle. This precedent shows that when pushed to take sides, Ron Paul will not do so, and will instead remain on the sidelines. (Unless a war is declared by Congress such as in World War II.)
Paul has said again and again that Israel should decide what she should do with her enemies, who to negotiate with, who to fight, and who to sign a treaty with. America should be left out of it all in his opinion. The price? $3 billion in annual aid.
Paul would also eliminate all foreign aid to any country, Israel along with her enemies. For the price of a measly 1% of Israel’s GDP, Israel can be free to make her own decisions on foreign policy. This means when she is attacked, she would no longer have to call the White House to ask what she is allowed to do about it.
Does Israel need that $3 billion in annual aid? Some would tend to argue that she does, but then again, Israel spent $30 billion evacuating the Gaza Strip in 2005, ten times the value of American aid. That, and Israel’s economy is still growing in the face of a global recession, even excluding the 1% of GDP that America gives Israel. As for weapons, Israel can easily just purchase them from America if she need to, or make her own, which Israel is certainly capable of doing.
I would argue that more than money, Israel needs real sovereignty, which she will get under a Paul administration, because Paul doesn’t want to take sides. America, unfortunately, currently takes both, which perpetuates the whole conflict.
As for the support of anti-Israel elements in his campaign, if you were indeed anti-Israel, would you vote for the candidate who wants to continue foreign aid to the Jewish State, or would you support the man who is trying to end it?
The next time Hamas bombs an Israeli city, I’d like to know that the White House is not breathing down my neck when I want to defend my people, which is why Ron Paul is the best candidate for Israel.