Is Ron Paul 'good for israel?'
After his remarkable 24-hour fund raising feat this week, Ron Paul has finally gotten noticed by zionists here and in israel who are beginning to ask whether he would be good for israel (nevermind that he's not running to be their president).
But, zionist meddling in American politics is, after all, business as usual. The REAL question is whether, in response to this new found interest, Ron Paul will begin to tailor his Middle East policy to fit their needs or, at least, to avoid invoking their wrath.
Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul says his foreign policy would benefit Israel.Mainstream Jewish groups have shunned Paul, a U.S. congressman from Texas upsetting his party's presidential field. His lonely anti-war candidacy, once thought of as a long shot, is now competitive with front-runners in fund raising.
Paul has long opposed defense and other assistance to Israel, a policy consistent with his opposition to all foreign aid. He also has said the pro-Israel lobby is too influential in Washington, another statement that is consistent with his disdain for foreign policy lobbying.
In a statement released Wednesday to JTA, the Paul campaign cast those beliefs in a pro-Israel light. It reads, in part:
"I do believe that our current policies toward Israel are doing more harm than good to those we profess to support. Our foreign military aid to Israel is actually more like corporate welfare to the U.S. military industrial complex, as Israel is forced to purchase only U.S. products with the assistance."
Paul said, "We have adopted a foreign policy that has left Israel surrounded by militaristic nations while undermining Israel’s sovereignty by demanding that its foreign and defense policies be essentially pre-approved in Washington."
He adds later, "The United States should take care of its own sovereignty while at the same time respecting the sovereignty of nations like Israel. That is the best way to preserve security and prosperity for all."
There's a lot of wiggle room in those statements to allow him to disengage from our israeli-induced Middle East quagmire while avoiding a head-on assault by zionists.
But, his readiness to rely on time-honored bogus zionist arguments like characterizing unconditional support for israel as 'corporate subsidies to the MIC' and 'an affront to israeli sovereignty', instead of the opposite, leaves me uneasy, especially in light of his surprise vote to table a resolution to impeach Cheney.
___________________________
thanks, Susan for the link to Haaretz, and thanks mparent7777 for the link to Ron Paul's statement
& the MIC is largely Zionist owned. It goes to weapons companies, what else would you call it? People like Richard Perle are on the Board of Directors of weapons companies in case you didn't know. Check out Ryan Dawson's work at http://www.anti-neocons.com & read some of his articles.
My opinion is that if Paul just started popping off about Zionist conspiracy it would definately please many in our little counterculture movement but it would also probably destroy his chances of winning.
I'm aware that zionists dominate (if not control) the defense industry, which means that any benefit to them is a benefit to israel.
So, the argument is invalid. But, it's commonly used and effective with people who aren't aware that the MIC IS zionist controlled.
Also, I can see why Ron Paul avoids a direct confrontation with zionists, but his strategy cuts both ways - by riding the fence, he could - if he wanted to - capitulate to their demands without contradicting himself, e.g. approve military aid that is NOT contingent on being spent with the MIC. This removes the 'subsidy' while 'freeing israeli sovereignty from US control.'
I'm not married to these concerns - just making observations.
---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
~ Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801.
It is still considered political suicide to criticize or even ignore State of Israel, because controlled MSM remains the kingmaker after all.
Mike Gravel probably committed political suicide by mentioning AIPAC on Newshour with Jim Lehrer as insinuated by reddit header "Where's the outrage? Senator Mike Gravel dropped from last night's debate by NBC President Jeff Zucker for comments the Senator made critical of AIPAC". Now Mike gets the same treatment by CNN as well.
I can say the two words openly: Fuck Israel.
As Mike Rivero said again and again, put America first, second and third. Not concede to the foreign power.
Ron Paul needs to read Paul Findley's "They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby," "The Israel Lobby" and the f*cking farewell address of George Washington.
Kudos to Carlos Latuff's genius:
I agree with Dave84. As a Washington politician, Paul is obviously mindful of the power of the Israel lobby, so he has to tread carefully on the issue of Israel for now. If he doesn't, he's fucked, it's just that simple. Of course, that paves the way for concerns like qrswave's:
but let's not get paranoid just yet. Think about the alternatives: Obama, Hitlery, the other Republicans. I just hope people don't shoot themselves in the foot now, right when Paul's campaign is gathering such momentum. I believe Ron Paul is essentially a moral, solid, good bet. For fuck's sake America, you needn't think of him as the messiah, but know he's the best chance you have, politically.
Saying it was the worst lobby in Washington, & the Zionists all called him an anti-semite for it. They tried to get him to retract & apologize for his statement but he wouldn't.
Seems that we have a spammer touring the site...
The spam comments have been deleted and the spammers username and IP has been blocked.