PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Needs to Make a Statement on the Jerusalem Issue




ClydeCoulter
04-15-2012, 08:11 PM
I strongly believe that Dr. Paul needs to make a statement himself concerning the issue of his support for moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem that Doug made. Silence on this will appear to be confirmation.

BlackTerrel
04-15-2012, 09:09 PM
I strongly believe that Dr. Paul needs to make a statement himself concerning the issue of his support for moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem that Doug made. Silence on this will appear to be confirmation.

Why? Do you think he is likely to lose voters over this? I believe that is unlikely.

BlackTerrel
04-15-2012, 09:09 PM
.....double post

driller80545
04-15-2012, 09:24 PM
I think that he made the statement that he had no problem with it. Why do you?

ClydeCoulter
04-15-2012, 09:43 PM
Wow people, just google "The Jerusalem Problem" or "The problem with Jerusalem" and get a bit educated on the subject.

This is not up for argument, it's an issue of fact.

jemuf
04-15-2012, 10:48 PM
I just Googled "The Jerusalem Problem". Some pretty boring, 2 year old webpages came up as the top results.

It's hard to care about Jerusalem when Americans have to deal with Obama, his administration, #PropagandistMedia, Neocons/RINOs/Fake Republicans, Afghanistan War, Obamacare, Romney, The Establishment, NDAA, NDRP, weekly attempts to control & censor the internet, the Dept of Homeland Security buying 1/2 a Billion (with a B) hollow point bullets, and rigged caucuses/conventions.

BUT..."Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul revealed this week (13 April) that he would support moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, a surprising position that contradicts conventional wisdom about Paul's stance toward the Jewish state."

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-13/politics/31336407_1_israel-from-tel-aviv-evangelical-leaders-business-insider

ClydeCoulter
04-15-2012, 11:11 PM
I just Googled "The Jerusalem Problem". Some pretty boring, 2 year old webpages came up as the top results.

It's hard to care about Jerusalem when Americans have to deal with Obama, his administration, #PropagandistMedia, Neocons/RINOs/Fake Republicans, Afghanistan War, Obamacare, Romney, The Establishment, NDAA, NDRP, weekly attempts to control & censor the internet, the Dept of Homeland Security buying 1/2 a Billion (with a B) hollow point bullets, and rigged caucuses/conventions.

BUT..."Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul revealed this week (13 April) that he would support moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, a surprising position that contradicts conventional wisdom about Paul's stance toward the Jewish state."

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-13/politics/31336407_1_israel-from-tel-aviv-evangelical-leaders-business-insider

Yes, it usually doesn't hit home until it comes home. But, over there is where it started many years ago, and the world is what it effects. Do more digging and put the pieces together.

KerriAnn
04-16-2012, 09:49 PM
Why? Do you think he is likely to lose voters over this? I believe that is unlikely.
He may very well lose voters over this issue. And he may gain more than he loses. That's not the issue. I am a huge fan of Ron Paul, but my faith in him was very shaken when I saw this article from Business Insider. Ron Paul may not know right now that these words have been published, but he will know at some point, and I expect some clarification from him.
Even Doug Wead said he was "floored" by the statement, so doesn't that tell you that it was out of character for Paul?
The problem is, moving the US embassy to Israel is not a non-iterventionist strategy, since it would make the Palestinians VERY upset. And isn't Paul all about non-interventionalism?

thoughtomator
04-16-2012, 10:09 PM
It wasn't even slightly out of character for Paul, and if you think it was, you don't understand the first thing about his approach to foreign policy.

Paul was also the most significant Western politician to support Israel's right to choose to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.

Ron Paul is not anti-Israel, and if you are anti-Israel and that is your primary concern then you're going to be quite disappointed in Ron Paul. Ron Paul is anti-the USA arrogating to itself the right and authority to make decisions for everyone else in the world.

It's very simple: It's not our call to make. Israel is a sovereign nation and where it decides its capital is, is where its capital is. If you think that you as a non-Israeli have any say in that decision whatsoever then you differ from Paul in your position.

ClydeCoulter
04-16-2012, 10:31 PM
Really thoughtomator? Jerusalem is contested land, Israel occupies East Jerusalem and the Old city.
And the point is not where Israel says it's capitol is, it's where we put our embassy.

KerriAnn
04-16-2012, 11:15 PM
Paul was also the most significant Western politician to support Israel's right to choose to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.
Supporting Israel's right to bomb Iran is just that, supporting their RIGHTS, not meddling in their crap.



It's very simple: It's not our call to make. Israel is a sovereign nation and where it decides its capital is, is where its capital is. If you think that you as a non-Israeli have any say in that decision whatsoever then you differ from Paul in your position.
Exactly! It's not our call to make, maybe we shouldn't have an embassy over there in the first place? Or maybe, we should just leave it where it is. A policy that is "anti-the USA arrogating to itself the right and authority to make decisions for everyone else in the world" would entail that we leave our embassy in Tel Aviv, and NOT start slapping Palestine in the face by moving our embassy to Jerusalem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positions_on_Jerusalem
Ron Paul most distinguishing platform is his foreign policy, non-interventioninst. Since Jerusalem is being fought over by the Israelis and the Palestinians, don't you think the non-interventionist strategy would be to STAY OUT OF IT, until there is a resolution (which will likely be never.)

KerriAnn
04-16-2012, 11:21 PM
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positions_on_Jerusalem#Location_of_foreign_embassi es
"The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 stated that "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999". The Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the provisions of the bill invade exclusive presidential authorities in the field of foreign affairs and are unconstitutional."

Feeding the Abscess
04-17-2012, 11:34 PM
He may very well lose voters over this issue. And he may gain more than he loses. That's not the issue. I am a huge fan of Ron Paul, but my faith in him was very shaken when I saw this article from Business Insider. Ron Paul may not know right now that these words have been published, but he will know at some point, and I expect some clarification from him.
Even Doug Wead said he was "floored" by the statement, so doesn't that tell you that it was out of character for Paul?
The problem is, moving the US embassy to Israel is not a non-iterventionist strategy, since it would make the Palestinians VERY upset. And isn't Paul all about non-interventionalism?

Ron didn't say anything he hasn't already said, he even rejected that he'd move it unilaterally and said the US shouldn't have a say in the matter. Doug Wead spun it and is hyping it up for Christians.

If anyone needs to answer for what they've said, it's Doug Wead, for intentionally giving out misleading information.

KerriAnn
04-18-2012, 10:06 AM
Ron didn't say anything he hasn't already said, he even rejected that he'd move it unilaterally and said the US shouldn't have a say in the matter. Doug Wead spun it and is hyping it up for Christians.

If anyone needs to answer for what they've said, it's Doug Wead, for intentionally giving out misleading information.
I hope you are right. I'd like to hear it from Dr. Paul, a clarification of some kind.

BlackTerrel
04-20-2012, 08:08 PM
He may very well lose voters over this issue. And he may gain more than he loses. That's not the issue. I am a huge fan of Ron Paul, but my faith in him was very shaken when I saw this article from Business Insider. Ron Paul may not know right now that these words have been published, but he will know at some point, and I expect some clarification from him.

Why does it matter to you so much? Your opinion of him would change over where he wants to put an embassy?


Even Doug Wead said he was "floored" by the statement, so doesn't that tell you that it was out of character for Paul?[/quote[

I think Doug Wead was exaggerating to get the right wing Christian vote. I doubt he was really on the floor.

[quote]The problem is, moving the US embassy to Israel is not a non-iterventionist strategy, since it would make the Palestinians VERY upset. And isn't Paul all about non-interventionalism?

Cutting aid to Israel would makes the Israelites upset. Not protecting Taiwan from China would make the Taiwanese upset. Non-interventionism does not mean no one gets upset.

KerriAnn
04-21-2012, 12:36 AM
Why does it matter to you so much? Your opinion of him would change over where he wants to put an embassy?

[quote]Even Doug Wead said he was "floored" by the statement, so doesn't that tell you that it was out of character for Paul?[/quote[

I think Doug Wead was exaggerating to get the right wing Christian vote. I doubt he was really on the floor.



Cutting aid to Israel would makes the Israelites upset. Not protecting Taiwan from China would make the Taiwanese upset. Non-interventionism does not mean no one gets upset.
It matters to me because it matters to everyone. It's a big deal.
I still support Ron Paul. And you are right, no matter what we do, someone will be upset. But the fight over Jerusalem is well known, and I don't see why we can't just let the embassy stay in Tel Aviv, instead of upsetting even more people by moving it to Jerusalem. Why would we go to all that trouble to move the embassy and piss everyone off? It doesn't make any sense. And why the hell would we put the embassy in such a contested area? That makes even less sense!
I have decided that since Paul has not made a clarification on this issue, I will assume that Doug Wead spun Paul's words to get the evangelical vote.