Rand Paul Tells Brody File US Should Stay Out of Israeli Settlement Issue

[FSP-Rebel]

http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2013/02/12/rand-paul-tells-brody-file-u.s.-should-stay-out-of.aspx



Sen. Rand Paul: I think it’s presumptuous of politicians, many from this administration to go over there and tell them where they can build and where they can’t build. I think that’s a conversation that they need to have and there’s pros and cons to building neighborhoods and settlements but really it’s not American politicians that need to tell them where to build.
Video at link

[angelatc]

I think I agree with that, except that we also have to stay out of the inevitable wars that will start over the occupied territory. IF they want to start expanding their little empire, I don't care. But if we have to go in ad back them up when people start fighting back....that I'm not ok with.

Damn these foreign entanglements.

[fr33]

Yes and cut off all the funds.

[angelatc]

Yes and cut off all the funds.


LOL - that's true regardless. Israel could go back to the original borders and I'd still be against sending them or anybody money.

[Brett85]

This at least makes Rand more of a non interventionist than someone like Justin Raimondo.

[Confederate]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q47tLJuueM4

[Feeding the Abscess]

This at least makes Rand more of a non interventionist than someone like Justin Raimondo.

http://original.antiwar.com/rothbard/2010/03/02/war-guilt-in-the-middle-east/


No: Libertarians must come to realize that parroting ultimate principles is not enough for coping with the real world. Just because all sides share in the ultimate state-guilt does not mean that all sides are equally guilty. On the contrary, in virtually every war, one side is far more guilty than the other, and on one side must be pinned the basic responsibility for aggression, for a drive for conquest, etc. But in order to find out which side to any war is the more guilty, we have to inform ourselves in depth about the history of that conflict, and that takes time and thought – and it also takes the ultimate willingness to become relevant by taking sides through pinning a greater degree of guilt on one side or the other.

[Brett85]

Non interventionists aren't supposed to "take sides" in foreign conflicts. They're supposed to do what Rand Paul is doing here, which is to say that it's none of our business.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Non interventionists aren't supposed to "take sides" in foreign conflicts. They're supposed to do what Rand Paul is doing here, which is to say that it's none of our business.

Read the article.

[Brett85]

Read the article.

I read part of it; I'm not going to take the time to read all of it. I just don't see how it's a non interventionist position to try to stop Israel from expanding their settlements, as Justin Raimondo suggests we do.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I read part of it; I'm not going to take the time to read all of it. I just don't see how it's a non interventionist position to try to stop Israel from expanding their settlements, as Justin Raimondo suggests we do.

Raimondo suggests we don't give Israel any money, aid, or military defense. He's pointing out that, while receiving all of those from us, Israel is expanding its settlements, something it would likely not be able to do without our backing. Saying we should stay out the settlement issue while continuing the aid, which is Rand Paul's current position, is not non-interventionist. The article I pasted goes into detail about this very subject.

Taking your argument to another situation, arguing against arming rebels in Syria would be taking Assad's side in their civil war.

[mz10]

This at least makes Rand more of a non interventionist than someone like Justin Raimondo.

Raimondo is not a non-interventionist, nor is he a libertarian. He viscerally hates Israel, ends up taking the side of people like Ahmadinejad, and also has a disconcerting level of comfort with socialist politicians like Kucinich and Nader.

[Brett85]

Raimondo suggests we don't give Israel any money, aid, or military defense. He's pointing out that, while receiving all of those from us, Israel is expanding its settlements, something it would likely not be able to do without our backing.

Taking your argument to another situation, arguing against arming rebels in Syria would be taking Assad's side in their civil war.

No, my argument is that we don't have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, even if we give them money. We give money to other countries besides Israel. Since we give money to a country like Egypt, does that mean that we should get to decide who the leader of Egypt should be? Should we have the right to interfere in Egypt's elections just because we give them money? It just seems to me like Justin Raimondo is using the foreign aid we give to Israel as an excuse to intervene in Israel and interfere in their internal affairs, because he knows there's no chance that we'll ever cut off all aid to Israel anyway. He uses that as a justification to interfere in Israel's internal affairs.

[angelatc]

Taking your argument to another situation, arguing against arming rebels in Syria would be taking Assad's side in their civil war.

What would neutrality look like?

[Feeding the Abscess]

No, my argument is that we don't have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, even if we give them money.

Giving a government money is interfering in the internal affairs of another nation. If you want to try to macho flash on principles, you're not doing a very good job of it.


We give money to other countries besides Israel.

Well I'll be. I was totally unaware of that.


Since we give money to a country like Egypt, does that mean that we should get to decide who the leader of Egypt should be?

We already have a say in who the leader is.


Should we have the right to interfere in Egypt's elections just because we give them money?

Simply giving money to the government in Egypt achieves this goal. Again, I'm not sure what the point of your post is. Giving money, taken at gunpoint, to another country is interfering internally in another nation and giving moral sanction to the party receiving the aid. Commenting on the status of a situation, like how bad the Muslim Brotherhood may be in power, is not giving sanction to Mubarak. See the difference?


It just seems to me like Justin Raimondo is using the foreign aid we give to Israel as an excuse to intervene in Israel and interfere in their internal affairs, because he knows there's no chance that we'll ever cut off all aid to Israel anyway. He uses that as a justification to interfere in Israel's internal affairs.

No, he knows that we give moral sanction to Israel's actions by giving it money and military aid, and speaks out not only against that aid, but against the actions that are done with our approval and support.

[Brett85]

You twisted my comments into implying that I support foreign aid; I don't. I support ending all foreign aid. I'm just saying that the foreign aid that we give to other countries doesn't justify even further intervention in the internal affairs of these countries. It's not likely that all foreign aid will ever be ended in our lifetimes, because Congress would never vote in favor of that. While we still give foreign aid to other countries, I don't believe we should use the foreign aid that we give out as a justification to intervene even further in the internal affairs of other nations.

[Rudeman]

2 wrongs don't make a right, giving foreign aid shouldn't be a justification to further intervene. It would be great to end all foreign aid though.

[devil21]

Im ok with that stance. Non-intervention doesn't mean the absence of opinion, it means the absence of forcing taxpayers to pay for gov't meddling. It's basically Ron's official position as well.

[Confederate]

Im ok with that stance. Non-intervention doesn't mean the absence of opinion, it means the absence of forcing taxpayers to pay for gov't meddling. It's basically Ron's official position as well.

Yup.

[Brett85]

Im ok with that stance. Non-intervention doesn't mean the absence of opinion, it means the absence of forcing taxpayers to pay for gov't meddling. It's basically Ron's official position as well.

Ron made some anti Israel statements that really hurt him in the GOP primary and really didn't have anything to do with non interventionism. I agree with the substance of Ron's foreign policy views but always disagreed with some of his rhetoric towards Israel. I'm glad that Rand hasn't made those same statements.

[amy31416]

Raimondo is not a non-interventionist, nor is he a libertarian. He viscerally hates Israel, ends up taking the side of people like Ahmadinejad, and also has a disconcerting level of comfort with socialist politicians like Kucinich and Nader.

Does he or does he not have a right to support, as an individual, whatever side of the debate he wants? As of right now, nobody will address the fact that it is criminal to support Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran If a person chooses to do so.

It is interventionist to take a side, yet sometimes a person's morality dictates that he does just that. But it should be done morally--i.e. no government intervention. You might support Israel directly, and that's fine. But it's total bullshit to call people terrorists if they support the other side and do so personally.

And so far, I have not seen Raimondo support gov't intervention to back either Israel or Palestine.

[Confederate]

Ron made some anti Israel statements that really hurt him in the GOP primary and really didn't have anything to do with non interventionism. I agree with the substance of Ron's foreign policy views but always disagreed with some of his rhetoric towards Israel. I'm glad that Rand hasn't made those same statements.

What anti-Israel statements did Ron make?

[Brett85]

What anti-Israel statements did Ron make?

When he called Gaza a concentration camp.

[Confederate]

When he called Gaza a concentration camp.

It's not really anti-Israel, it's the truth. Although, I'd call it more of a ghetto.

[Brett85]

It's not really anti-Israel, it's the truth. Although, I'd call it more of a ghetto.

I'm sure a lot of people agreed with it; I just disagreed. I just think Rand is smart to support eventually ending all the aid we give to Israel but not actually make any statements critical of Israel. It just seems like some of these statements hurt our cause, whether true or not.

[supermario21]

I'm sure a lot of people agreed with it; I just disagreed. I just think Rand is smart to support eventually ending all the aid we give to Israel but not actually make any statements critical of Israel. It just seems like some of these statements hurt our cause, whether true or not.

A significant part of it comes down to wording. What Ron described a concentration camp Rand essentially said Israel needed to trade more to raise the living standard of Palestinians.

[Confederate]

I'm sure a lot of people agreed with it; I just disagreed. I just think Rand is smart to support eventually ending all the aid we give to Israel but not actually make any statements critical of Israel. It just seems like some of these statements hurt our cause, whether true or not.

I agree that those statements hurt our cause. It makes me sick, but the majority of conservative and Christians have been brainwashed into worshiping Israel.

[devil21]

I'm sure a lot of people agreed with it; I just disagreed. I just think Rand is smart to support eventually ending all the aid we give to Israel but not actually make any statements critical of Israel. It just seems like some of these statements hurt our cause, whether true or not.

You disagreed that he should say it or you disagreed that Gaza is a concentration camp? Not clear what you're saying.

[fr33]

When he called Gaza a concentration camp.

That's exactly what it is. Take their homes away and corral them like cattle and force a blockade to starve them.

[Brett85]

You disagreed that he should say it or you disagreed that Gaza is a concentration camp? Not clear what you're saying.

I disagreed that he should say it and the way that he said it. Like SuperMario said, wording is important.

"What Ron described a concentration camp Rand essentially said Israel needed to trade more to raise the living standard of Palestinians."