Last week we noted that if Rand Paul wanted to be a serious presidential contender as opposed to a libertarian gadfly he was going to have to distance himself from his father’s extreme anti-Israel views. No one should be holding their breath waiting for the Kentucky senator to speak a word against Ron Paul, but there’s no question he is preparing to cast himself as a different kind of candidate in 2016. To that end, not only did he take the trouble to engage in an exchange with COMMENTARY about his views on Israel, but as Business Insider reported last week, he is also planning a trip to the Jewish state next month.
Trips to Israel by senators and members of Congress are so common that they are hardly newsworthy. But for a devoted opponent of military aid to the Jewish state to be journeying there for the first time is a clear sign that Rand Paul wants to be seen as someone whose views on foreign policy are not the sort of grab bag of libertarian cant and isolationism that characterizes his father’s stance. Even more telling is that Paul will be accompanied on his trip by a group of evangelical leaders. The signal being given here is that the senator wants to be seen by the Republican base as a mainstream conservative and not a libertarian outlier.
Given his opposition to military assistance and his worldview that calls for a weaker U.S. presence in the world, that won’t be easy. But the trip to Israel and Jordan is a start. But the outreach here isn’t to AIPAC and its donors, who rightly regard the younger Paul as just a more presentable version of a father who remains an implacable foe of the U.S.-Israel alliance.
Ron Paul was able to build up a passionate following of libertarians who applauded his rants about the Federal Reserve as well as his isolationist tirades that sounded at times as if they were lifted from the left’s playbook. But he was never able to break through to conservative Christians. His son understands that he will also fail with that demographic and have little chance to win the GOP nomination if they view him as a clone of his father. Christian conservatives view support of Israel as even more of a litmus test than most Jews, so it is incumbent on Rand Paul to either moderate his views or to present them in such a way as to avoid being classified as an opponent of Zion.
However, Christian supporters of Israel won’t be so easily fooled as liberal Jewish supporters of the Jewish state.
Barack Obama was able to pass inspection by liberals by mouthing some platitudes (some of which he quickly retracted) and making an election-year campaign trip to Israel in 2008. So long as he was reliably liberal on other issues, few would look closely at his questionable associations and views on the subject.
But pro-Israel evangelicals are made of sterner stuff than that. Though he is being accompanied by a delegation of pastors and will, no doubt, make the usual stops in Jerusalem and perhaps even be schlepped to southern Israel to inspect the damage done by Hamas missiles, they will judge him on his record, not mere symbolism. Unless he truly changes his views on the subject, he is not likely to make much headway in a community that will judge him harshly for being a false friend to Israel.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”- voltaire n n
Jewish activists like Jonathan Tobin automatically assume that we are their slaves. n nWhy does America have to kowtow to Israel, and send Christian children to be slaughtered? n nWhy can Israel be an expansionist ethnostate, advancing Jewish power, but America and Europe cannot be White ethnostates advancing white interests and white fertility? n nWhy do hypocritical Jews in the diaspora agitate for mass 3rd world invasion, but want to cut off all non-Jewish immigration to Israel? n nThese are questions Rand Paul and indoctrinated White Christians should think long and hard before allowing their children to be slaughtered and their economy ravaged in the service of Jewish activists and Jim Crow Israel…
Conservative Christians,… dunno but for myself,.. Jews are gods chosen people from which redemption stems and thus we owe them a debt regardless whether they deserve it or not. The land they are on is what was given them and I won't question God on this. The phillistines or palerstinianz as the non-informed would call them are trespassing against their own will. They are but pawns of the muslims but all this will be taken care of soon enough when russia or gog, unwillingly leads iran turkey and a few others against israel at which point the us, canada, england and all the other countries will be standing around gowing, whatcha doing and looking stupid but its not all these other countries position to protect Israel.. After all, they are gods own chosen people and that is the land he gave them so for his own names sake and not theirs, he will intervend and then the muslims will be but a third what they are now. __good day.
You're off your meds. Seriously.
Ver deep questions, Deep, but I'm sure you already "know" the answers to all of them. n nAnyway, how did you Paulbots get here so fast? No matter, the coffee urn's at the table to your right and you can take some cake with you in a paper bag on your way out. Oh, and stay off the carpet, please, we just had it cleaned.
Deepak, why do you have such hostility to a tiny democratic state, surrounded by violent enemies? Israel just wants to be left alone. Peace in that region can arrive after the second that Israel's enemies renounce violence, recognize Israel and get to the business of formulating policies for their economically suffering that will give them the prosperity that Israelis increasingly enjoy.
"Israel wants to be left alone". n nTotal inversion of truth. Why do Jewish activists plunder American tax payer for billions and billions in foreign Aid. Israel's prosperity is built on the blood of American tax payer. n nAmerican children are without food, medical, education and many American couples cannot even afford a child anymore. n nAmerica wants to be left alone, from the clutches of Jewish activists. We do not want to send our children to die in middle east for Israel, we do not want to be plundered for Israel's foreign Aid. n nJewish activists should leave us alone. Alone. n nIsrael was created because Jews constantly complain about anti-Semitism. If White Europeans are so evil, why do Jews continue to live in America, Britain, Germany, and all of Europe? n nWhy don't they live in Nuclear armed, prosperous Israel and leave us alone? n nI have no hostility to Israel or Jews, if they stop plundering my pocketbook, and snatching my children for wars.
Deepak, it's unfortunate that you have resorted to such a strident formulation. There's a great deal that can–indeed should–be discussed about US-Israel relations. Fortunately, Rand Paul is making an effort to do so in a manner befitting a serious man. Many of us may end up as wary of his views on Israel and foreign policy in general as we have been about his father's positions. Such an attempt will get him, though, what he wants initially: a serious discussion and airing of his views. Commentary's postings about him underscore this. Your overheated rhetoric shows you're not a very serious man/woman on these topics and, regrettably, makes one wonder about the truthfulness of your comment that "I have no hostility to Israel or Jews."
what a self serving and insidious logic. n nThose who point to Jewish perfidy are unserious, overheated and liars, whereas those who do not hesitate to offer their lives and hard earned money are serious. n nJews are experts in pathologizing any honest debate on their role in mass 3rd world immigration to Europe and America and indoctrinating White children with dubious versions of history and heritage. n nIf Israel is a Jewish ethnostate for advancing Jewish interests, why can't Europe and America be white majority ethnostates, for advancing White interests and White fertility? n nJews want to maintain Jewish essence of Israel, but want to exterminate White "essence" of America and Europe. n nJews promote Muslim immigration and Glorify Muslim history and society in Europe, but aggressively deal with Islam in Israel and Mid-East. n nJews have absolutely no fear that their hypocrisy will ever be questioned by a majority of Americans or Europeans.
"Self-serving and insidious logic" Wow, you really are an angry man/woman. I think it's best to pass over you and hope others on this site who want good dialogue and an honest exchange of positions will do so as well.
Deepak, Stormfront called. They want their talking points back.
"But the outreach here isn’t to AIPAC and its donors, who rightly regard the younger Paul as just a more presentable version of a father who remains an implacable foe of the U.S.-Israel alliance." n nWhy should we be particularly concerned about the opinions of AIPAC—which is mostly an unofficial subsidiary of the Democratic Party?
"The apple does not fall far from the tree." I had no problem distinguishing myself from my late (and great) father when we disagreed. Rand Paul is chip off the old block in my view.
Did you do it in front of the entire world?
In this case, the apple does not fall far from the horse.
We really don't know where Rand Paul stands on Israel and possibly he doesn't know yet either. He has his father's libertarian ethos but how that is applied in the real world is up for question…and not just with regard to Israel (which is, of course, the hobby horse here at Commentary). Ron Paul was always only a cause and never a candidate…his son COULD be something more. n nAt some point though, even here among the Commentariat, there has to be some recognition that he, just as other candidates, would be running for President of the US and not Israel. So how can one be a "friend" of Israel (please don't insult people's intelligence with "ally") and at the same time disavow the Imperial Presidency and retreat from the imperative to expand the "Nanny State" and its reach both at home and abroad? n nMy suspicion is that Tobin and his ilk have as much contradiction and tension built into their world view as does Rand Paul and I am not sure that either is intellectually or politically viable.
Max..my comment was actually intended as a reply to yours. Not sure how it ended up a separate entry.
Thanks CincinnatiRick. I think Rand Paul could easily be pro-Israel without having to give in on his ideals by simply defending Israel on the international stage. If he doesn't denounce every settlement and also uses the US veto on the UNSC religiously he could be pro-Israel without spending a dime that would not otherwise be spent. Also he would be a vast improvement over the current administration and even some Republican ones. n nOn the foreign aid issue. I think Israel would be better off if everyone lost their US aid in the area. The Israeli GDP is $244 billion a year so they can easily live without the $3 billion a year from the US and still have a state of the art military (remember they pioneered drone technology and even developed their own main battle tank, the Merkava). However, where would Egypt be without US aid? With a backwards army with decades old technology. US aid simply helps the Arab states catch up to Israel which decreases its security.
That sounds like a good start…at least where the Arab states and Palestine are concerned. But the serious challenge to American isolationism (or, at least, disengagement in the Middle East) comes with respect to Iran. I believe that Israel can deal far more effectively with Hamas and Hezbollah without the American leash (and Hamas is increasingly an iranian proxy quite as much as Hezbollah) but Iran is, I think, a bridge too far with a nuclear capacity.
A nuclear Iran, almost a certainty with Obama as President for another 4 years, is definitely a quandry but I don't think any GOP President would have any policy other than containment.
Well, and apparently, the Commentariat have a problem with Paul because they believe that even containment might be beyond his vision of the proper role of the US in the world. They are looking for someone committed to bring the full might of American military power to bear to protect Israel and smite the Persians.Now don't get me wrong…I would very much like to see Iran defrocked and stripped of any offensive capability but there are questions of the end justifying the means as well as the constitutional cost to this country of our continued intervention and heavy footprint abroad.
No US President will go to war with Iran unless they invade Saudi Arabia, at which point even Rand Paul would get involved. If George W didn't with Dick Cheney lobbying for a pre-emptive strike, it just ain't happening. Iran is a mountainous nation and very hard to attack and invade. This is why Persians are still around after thousands of years, they simply have geographic advantages.
Oh, my. I don't know why ANYONE would even consider an "invasion." Even Bush surely learned something from Iraq (with, as I know you realize, was much easier terrain) and then there is Afghanistan. If anything, a military strike or strikes would have to be targeted and would involve little, if any, ground action.
I dont think any President will "smite" the Persians through the air either, short of an invasion of Saudi Arabia. The US has no history of such pre-emptive action. In terms of defending Israel though, it's the right thing to do. It is the Forward Operating Base of the West in the area. If it falls, the enemy just gets closer.
You say $3 billion is nothing to Israel when it amounts to over 1% of their GDP by your numbers. Well, if $3 billion truly amounts to so little in Israel, what does it amount to us then? And what level of US GDP should our defense occupy, and what level does it currently occupy? (The answers to these questions will show that >1% is indeed quite a lot; there is still more to be said of the nature of American aid to Israel and the nature and very purpose of foreign aid.) n nIt's also not like an absolute junk Egyptian army is even remotely a good thing. ("Absolute" being the key word.) An Egypt that could fall from a militants' revolution or that would fail to suppress one would be quite a danger to Israel. (The ideal [barring an ideal Egypt] is an Egypt that can't militarily threaten Israel too much, but that is still potent enough to suppress whatever elements it has to. I say this even though Egypt has largely failed in this regard, even so recently in Sinai.)
BreadAlone, Egypt has already fallen to a militants revolution so degrading its army is in both our and Israel's interests. Right now they have close to 1,100 M1 Abrams tanks! n nIsrael is a fast growing technological power. They will miss the $3 billion but not nearly as much as the Palestinians, Egypt or anyone else who is getting our money in the area
Egypt did not fall in a militants' revolution–its largely secular head fell in a popular revolution, and the Muslim Brotherhood used [as of now, one-time] democracy to take power there. This all happened with hand-wringing among hawks here as to whether or not we should support in the Egyptian elections whoever we thought optimal in power. We also, as I have alluded to, seen just recently militancy in Sinai that has spilled over to the Israeli border. This alongside the fact that Egypt is an important partner (we supplying the [only, largely] positive incentive) in practice with Israel (for such things as theroughly quarter part it [somewhat sorta] plays in the materials blockade on Gaza) is reason enough for it to not have "an absolute junk army." I have not argued for it to be anywhere near on par with Israel–it's just best that Egypt be able, on its own, to create and maintain some internal stability, lest Israel's blockade efforts became absurdly difficult. (And I think it's simply for your way of praising Israel and degrading Egypt that you got thumbs up, even as what you prescribe is incredibly harmful to Israel. Or maybe this post just attracted some Paulbots to rate you up.) n nAgain, an amount greater than 1% of Israel's GDP can in no measure be a small sum to Israel–and again, I'm not even going into the manner of aid Israel even receives, which in essence is really just a check we send (in Israel's name) to our own defense industry and economy; and again, $1 billion, which now you admit [somewhat] would be missed by Israel, if, as asserted prior, amounts to little for Israel, must surely amount less to the US, which has a GDP of $14 trillion.
I think you are way too optimistic of the current situation within Egypt. The only reason they are even faking cooperation with the US and Israel is to give the MB more time to consolidate power. They are now in the enemy camp, its only a matter of time before it becomes obvious to everyone.
I am not "optimistic." I am not some crazy lover of Mizraim. Mizraim is important for two reasons: one, its own sake (the US being somewhat moral, as far as nations go, though, as in the case of Mubarak, this has conflicted with realistic regional stability); and two, the sake of the Jews. Jeez. n nOf course Morsi is consolidating power (fact 1). He rules over a people that (as I believe we both believe) screwed up its one date with democracy. And of course he doesn't love Israel (fact 2)–he's Muslim Brotherhood and, hey, an Egyptian. Fact 1 though is a fact wholly to the effect that he'll be as "pro-Israel" (as they go in Egypt) as needed, for the fact that he'll need American aid to maintain his power and economy. (It was recently written in Commentary that this was the Egyptian formula: appease American foreign policy interests, rule as you would domestically.) n nMorsi will of course do what he can get away with. But heaven forbid the US give away its chiefest form of leverage that is not military intervention (if such you can call mere "leverage"), leaving only military intervention as an effective means of leverage. Seriously, Israel dealing with three quarters of a blockade and hostile [but mere] attitudes in a neighboring country with a [designated] demilitarized border zone is better than Israel dealing with four quarters of a blockade and a hostile country in general, with excursions needing be undertaken potentially to regulate this demilitarization. n nNo, I don't think I'm a wild-eyed optimist. If I am in any area, I am when it comes to action in Syria. Here I think you and any who would [simply] cut foreign aid to Israel and/or Egypt are the optimist. (And heaven forbid, of course, that aid be cut to Israel but not to Egypt.) Such talk smacks of optimism, of idealism, of populism, of… barf, many things other.
Ideally I would give aid to Israel but not to anyone else, but we all know that won't fly. The Rand Paul option of cutting all aid to everyone is probably idealistic also but I think it might be a net benefit to Israel. n nAs a country, we need new, creative solutions to get us out of our mess. Sure $3 billion to the US doesnt really matter but when you have hundreds of programs that are "just" $3 billion, it does. That's how we have a deficit so big that we won't even be able to raise taxes enough to cover it. And our debt is so big that soon there won't be enough foreign money to buy it.
Foreign aid simply is foreign policy (something all nations conduct, and something large nations [and economies] conduct more) and defense (the first duty of a nation) on the cheap. I am for fiscal soundness, but, I think, by my general taking of the designation "neoconservative," I theoretically have my heart and thought placed first in foreign policy and defense. Theoretically, that is, because I see no contradiction in continuing foreign aid and continued economic prosperity. n nEntitlements are first what have to be reformed, for these are large and ballooning items. Then what's to be prioritized is cutting other domestic largesse. Then and only then is cutting superfluous and counterproductive foreign aid and military spending to be even emphasized, I think, for simple proponents of simply cutting defense and foreign aid will run with the opportunity given them; these also overstate the numbers when talking about what is superfluous or counterproductive.
Not all foreign aid is created equal. Sometimes we are helping allies (Israel), sometimes we are doing it for altruistic humanitarian reasons (combat AIDS in Africa) but other times it is just a ransom we are paying to somewhat hostile regimes in order to make them not attack us or our friends (Pakistan & Egypt). Just a few years ago we were sending hundreds of millions of dollars to Russia for heavens sake. Just like any government system it is rife is fraud and waste and its difficult to reform. Thanks to baseline budgeting there is a certain amount of growth baked into foreign aid. At a minimum we need to go to zero-based budgeting where every dollar has to be re-argued.
I don't disagree with anything I've said, or, at last, with your last post, very generally. (Save Pakistan, see below.) Call me Socrates. (That's not a term of your surrender… it's more meant to be funny, or to display my weird personality.) Now I am gonna get lunch. (It was fun having such a responsive [in two senses, you yourself being responsive, and your logic being responsive and, somewhat, yielding] interlogue with such a responsive interlocuter, by the way.) n n(A parting shot yes but Pakistan is Egypt on nuclear steroids. All non-military leverage on Pakistan must be maintained, because I don't know if the US even has military leverage over Pakistan. Pakistani stability is of course very significant, because no one wants to contemplate Pakistan's nuclear arms falling into off hands. Pakistan… also happens to be Syria on nuclear steroids.)
Why did almost 80% of American Jews vote for 0bama? Are they anti-Israel? They must be.
That was in 2008. A smaller but still disheartening majority voted for him in 2012. And like a lot of Americans, a lot of them were simply gullible. n nOf course at the time of the Exodus, 80% of the Jews died during the plague of darkness because they were so mired in the filth of Egyptian culture that they could not leave Egypt. But I'm sure that number is just a coincidence, and I haven't made aliyah yet myself.
Ron Paul's "rants about the Federal Reserve" are straight out of Henry Ford Senior's "playbook" based on the Lie that Never Dies. nCoincidence that the elder Dr. Paul did his medical residency at the Henry Ford hospital in Detroit. Maybe he found a leatherbound copy of Ford Sr's venom at a yard sale… n nStop giving him cover, and whoever is taking him to Israel should change their mind. n n
I am about as as pro-Israel as an American can be. I want to see a convincing argument (not just assertions) that Rand Paul is problematic with regard to Israel. Aid to Israel is not a litmus test. Israel is an affluent country and the United States is broke. Certainly American aid to Israel should end, with a mature relationship between allies rather than donor and client.