Sunday, January 27, 2008

Why Zionists Should Not Support Ron Paul

Ron Paul's supporters have been quite adept at repackaging their anti-semitic candidate's negatives as positives, have tried to spin Ron Paul's repeated criticisms of Israel and foreign aid to Israel as a positive. Some Zionists have fallen for that line and are considering supporting Ron Paul in order to end American intervention in Israel.

The idea of ending foreign aid and intervention in Israel's domestic politics may seem appealing at first glance but a serious look at what would happen gives us a whole other picture.

First of all it's highly debatable whether Ron Paul could even end foreign aid to Israel because it has too much bipartisan support and Ron Paul has no track record for winning legislative brush wars. The Presidential veto is not absolute power.

Secondly, Ron Paul's own statement betray the same pattern of thinking that has driven administration after administration to pressure Israel.

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, January 29, 2003
And above all, the Arab Muslims are tired of us.

Angry and frustrated by our persistent bullying and disgusted with having their own government bought and controlled by the United States, joining a radical Islamic movement was a natural and predictable consequence for Muslims.

We believe bin Laden when he takes credit for an attack on the West, and we believe him when he warns us of an impending attack. But we refuse to listen to his explanation of why he and his allies are at war with us.

Bin Laden’s claims are straightforward. The U.S. defiles Islam with military bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands. There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it.

Now it's not particularly ambiguous where Ron Paul's sympathies lie here, with the Muslim terrorists. This is par for the course on the far right, but it once again pins the blame on Israel. Now what happens under a Ron Paul presidency when there are no US troops in Iraq or Saudi Arabia and no foreign aid but the terrorism continues?

A man who has structured his entire foreign policy on giving in to terrorist blackmail, will hardly turn back from meeting the final terrorist demand. Israel's existence. After all in Ron Paul's worldview, America helped set up Israel which caused Islamic rage. There can only be one form of acceptable restitution, aiding in the destruction of Israel. It would be a small step to take for a man whose base already rages against Israel, whose closest political friends like Pat Buchanan view Israel as evil.

It would be a small step for the man whose own newsletters suggested Israel was behind the original World Trade Center bombings, called Israel "an aggressive national socialist state" and accused it of muzzling the American media, to contemplate. And even if he didn't, his administration is sure to be packed with those who would.

Thirdly, Ron Paul is backed by a whole constellation of bigots and neo-nazis who don't just want an end to foreign aid to Israel, they want a whole lot of dead Jews. Ron Paul's base of support comes from the far right and from the far left, among his supporters are people like Pat Buchanan, David Duke, Joseph Sobran, Paul Findley, Don Black, Theodore Beale and Bill White whose hatred for Jews verges on the psychotic.

Apologists for Ron Paul claim that he is beholden to no one, but a short look at Ron Paul's appearance on Meet the Press demonstrates that he's quite willing to play political games and pass the pork and the legislative kickbacks so long as he doesn't formally vote for them. Throw the Saudis and criminal white supremacist businessmen like Carl Story and Vincent Bertollini into the mix and things will get ugly fast. As Ron Paul's Meet the Press appearance demonstrates, his incorruptible image is a lie just like everything else about his campaign. The exposure of a criminal botnet operating out of the Ukraine and stolen credit card donations to Ron Paul as well as serious amounts of fraud by Ron Paul supporters not to mention donations from white supremacists like Don White should raise serious questions about where all those millions are really coming from and what they're buying.

But tell you what, let's put all of that aside for a minute. Let's imagine that Ron Paul becomes President and America becomes completely isolationist. No more foreign aid, no more interference. What happens next?

1. For starters, American companies begin boycotting Israel again in order to comply with the Arab boycott. With no legal restraint, the high tech boom in Israel is going to begin running into trouble as American companies are forced to choose between dealing with the Sheiks and dealing with Israel. Some will choose to maintain innovation and civilization, others will choose oil money. Since many companies comply with the boycott anyway and since despite the boycott, Israel's products do continue to be resold and relabeled through the Muslim world, this may not be a worst case scenario but it isn't something to shrug off either.

2. America's departure does not free Israel, it creates a power vacuum and there are at least two players ready to step into that vacuum, the EU and Russia. Russia already has a fleet in the area and a naval base in Syria. It has Gaydamak's party in Israel, nuclear reactors in Iran and a whole raft of new weapons to unload. The EU is funding multiple Israeli groups such as Peace Now while funding the Arab terrorists and pressuring Israel. Getting rid of American pressure will simply substitute EU pressure in its place. And unlike America, the EU genuinely hates Israel and wants to see it gone.

The only real thing keeping the EU in check is America. In 1948 America served as a buffer against the British backing of Egypt and Jordan, a backing so intense that England provided weapons and training and even flew planes over Israeli positions in the Negev to create an international incident. King Hussein of Jordan described the British envoy putting a paper in front of him, telling him it was a request for troops and telling him to sign it. British troops were already landing at Aqba when American pressure and a backlash from the British public over a military adventure put a halt to the plan. Meanwhile during the Six Day War, the USSR fielded a plan to land troops in Hafia and lead an Arab uprising. The plan was well underway before it was aborted.

Despite the absurd statements by some political candidates, American troops will never fight for Israel, but America as a world power helps balance Russian and EU interference in the Middle East. With the Quartet, we've seen Russia and the EU muscle their way in further. Without America, Israel would have to face numerous superpowers on its own.

If Israel had a strong secure government, it could survive the diplomatic standoff and show enough strength to avoid anything nastier. But then again if Israel had a strong secure government, American pressure would never be a problem in the first place. Sharon said "No" to the State Department and meant it. Olmert can't say "No", he can only say "Maybe" and his wife is a member of the EU funded Peace now. As bad as things are with Rice in the driver's seat, would you really like to see the EU calling the shots?

I am personally opposed to foreign aid for Israel. I am also opposed to Ron Paul, not because Ron Paul is bad for Israel, but because Ron Paul is bad for America and the world. His foreign and domestic policy would be catastrophic and that would impact everyone. The struggle against the Jihad is a global one and it needs the remaining free countries of the world working together. An isolationist order would fall to the Jihad one by one, outnumbered and surrounded because in the end it only takes a single liberal politician a few years to dismantle everything that conservative politicians have done before, Rabin and Clinton are both excellent reminders of that. Israel or America as islands in the Caliphate would not survive for long as free nations, they would fall by violence or treachery or the decay of their morale in the face of a long siege.

And all that is secondary to the fact that Ron Paul cannot be President and will not be President. He is not a serious candidate, he is a spoiler candidate meant to insure a Republican does not become President. The real consequence of the Ron Paul campaign is to be a spoiler candidate, to have Ron Paul run as a third party candidate and bring Hillary Clinton or Obama to power.

Supporting the Ron Paul campaign for whatever reason insures that you are counted among the ranks of 9/11 Deniers, Holocaust Deniers, Neo-Nazis, Conspiracy Theorists, Anti-Semites who are the real engine behind the Ron Paul grass roots effort and when you join with them, you become their useful idiot. And when Ron Paul is trounced, whatever happens next, the numbers of his supporters will be used to prove that there is widespread support for investigating 9/11 conspiracies, an anti-Israel foreign policy and the various radical agendas of the far left and the far right.

When you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas and the Ron Paul campaign has some big ugly bloodsuckers on it. They don't support Ron Paul because they "love freedom", they support him because they hate freedom. The biggest tragedy in the lives of men like Pat Buchanan, Joseph Sobran, Don White and David Duke is that they were born too late and in the wrong country to join the SS and they've been trying to compensate for it ever since. The Ron Paul campaign harnesses every dirty trick operation that the Buchanan and Duke campaigns have used, every slimy tactic, for one last go at it. Some in Lehi once thought they could make a devil's bargain with the Nazis, but when you bargain with the devil, the devil always wins. The Ron Paul campaign is willing to co-opt Jews but its heart and its base remains in a very dark place.


steve klein said...

Nevertheless, some Jews will vote for Paul even though they are aware Paul does not like Jews. As one pro-Israel Jewish neighbor told me, he believes Paul's policies would be good for America , that he would leave Israel alone, that Israel would cease being a client state, at the whim of the U.S. State Department, etc.

I also like his pledge to eliminate foreign aid to Israel and the Arabs; thus reduce Israel's dependency on a nation that has selfish interests in the Middle East other than Israel's Jews. Paul appears to not simply be opposed to foreign aid however, I suspect he may not care for Jews; even less so than George W. Bush whom I believe is an anti-Semite.

Maybe like many of his supporters -- David Duke, Stormfront founder Don Black and others -- he believes Jews are less than human. If this is the case, what guarantee do we have that he will be a man of his word and leave Israel alone or let Israel exercise her independence and sovereignty as he claims?

Beyond that, more troubling to me is the groundswell of support I see for Paul here in the south. This gives the lie to the notion that "it can never happen again."

Given the right cultural and economic conditions and circumstances here in the U.S. -- like we saw in Wiemar Germany in the late nineteen twenties, early thirties -- I am not at all convinced that a populist / demagogue like Ron Paul could not win the White House one day.

I am of the view that Paul's popularity says much about the state of America as a whole culturally and spiritually. I very much believe in the ancient pledge, "I will bless those who bless you and the one who curses you, I will curse."

George W. Bush has set the Republican party (the party of values; ostensibly the party of Judeo-Christian values, morals and ethics) on an unalterable collision course with our Maker, sure to result in a decaying empire as all the great empires that persecuted the Jews decayed into oblivion or virtual oblivion. Where is the great Roman empire? Where is the Spanish empire? The British empire? Where are these great world empires today?

Gary Bauer told me, GOP's drive to establish a Palestinian state in the Holy Land will be a central aim of our party -- a feature of our national party platform -- for years to come. We can thank George W. Bush for this.

I will be watching to see what presidential nominee McCain or nominee Romney does with our national party platform visa vis the Holy Land next August. As it now stands, GOP is determined to engage the Almighty on the disposition of the land of Israel, as is the DNC but I don't expect this from conservative Republicans. I expect better.

Sultan Knish said...

yes some jews have been fooled, which is why I wrote this to point out that RP is no answer

I expect that McCain and Romney will maintain the same platform essentially and the same policies

if Giuliani loses, we fall back with a GOP nominee who is the somewhat lesser evil compared to an obama or a hillary, but who will essentially continue bush's policies

LemonLimeMoon said...

None of the candidates supports Israel and all of them feel kinship more with mohammedans it seems.
The lessons of 9 11 were lost on politicians.

Anonymous said...

I often wondered if US aid ceased, would Israel be more likely to make unfavorable decisions, especially the existential ones. Would Jews, like the Jews of 1967 make a resurgence?

Another big part of the problem is the galut mindset. I was at a fundraiser - to raise funds so Jewish kids at UC Davis can be educated on how to stand up for Israel when faced with the well funded Palestinians and their groupies. Twice in one week they erected the Apartied Wall and they're building a big mosque near campus. They are constantly hammering in the poisoned water crap. But I digress.

I stated to the group of wealthy Liberal Jews that "it's 1938 again even if you don't want to hear it."

I was called a fear mongerer with such vitriol. It was really embarassing. I was told flatly there was no correlation.

Regarding the election. I have two concerns among many: Many Jews are going crazy over Barack Obama and what is happening to Rudy Guiliani?

steve klein said...

You expect that McCain and Romney will maintain the same platform essentially and the same policies.

It's going to have to be altered. That is what I will be watching. As it stands now, since the 2004 national party convention, our platform calls for expelling Jews from Gaza and some communities in northern Samaria. Bush and Sharon have accomplished this. I wonder what the Republicans will write next August. Will they call for dismantling "settlements in the West Bank?" Perhaps some "illegal settlements" in east Jerusalem?"

You say a Republican president is a lessor evil compared to an Obama or a Hillary.

So far as domestic issues are concerned, I entirely agree with you but I am not sure I agree with you with respect to Israel, my primary concern. Israel is my comes before every other issue now when choosing a candidate at the national level. I am pro-life, pro-traditional family, however Israel comes ahead of abortion and other social issues now for me; since the advent of G. W. Bush and his policies.

Why are the Republicans more dangerous to Israel than Democrats?

1) Republican party has the well-earned reputation, being strong on national defense and national security. This engenders confidence within Israel's military establishment. Bush is far more credible than any Clinton, Obama or Carter when it comes to preaching security to Israel's leaders.

2) Perhaps more importantly, the Republican party has a massive (alternate media) propaganda "machine." Web masters like Frontpagemag, Michelle Malkin, The Weekly Standard, World Net Daily (Joseph Farah endorsed Bush in 2004 despite his pledge to not do this), Human Events, News Max, National Review Online, (perhaps you to an extent, though you are less partisan?), etc.

Then there are the blind partisan radio talk show hosts like Sean Hannity and "Mr. Big," Rush Limbaugh and a whole host of other smaller Bush apologists on the air all over the nation, Israel be damned.

3) All these above -- should Hillary be elected for example -- would be trashing her every foreign policy move, especially her efforts to establish a Palestinian terrorist state. Though identical to Bush's policies in every way, the "machine" would make her out to be an imminent threat to Israel's existence and to stability in the region.

I have come to believe, so far as Israel is concerned, a Republican president now (since the advent of Bush)poses a greater threat to Israel's existence than a leftist Democrat.

Eight years back, I would NEVER have made this statement. Bush has altered everything. Historians, I believe, will mark the Bush presidency a watershed presidency in the years to come, in terms of the damage he has done to our foreign policy and to stability in the Middle East.

His presidency has been an unmitigated disaster for this nation. One day conservative apologists like Mr. Hannity, Mr. Limbaugh and others, will be ashamed because of their negligence.

I will be there to remind them.

steve klein said...

OT Sultan, I am guessing you have contacts in Israel? Have you lived in Israel or spent any significant time in the land?

Sultan Knish said...

US aid buys influence but the reality is the US has a lot of influence even without the aid, if you look back at the Eisenhower administration and what it did to Israel, aid is far from the only form leverage on the table and in a bad israeli government, the decisions wouldn't get any better... it would just be the EU in the driver's seat

I expect the platform will call for the implementation of the road map

as far as a democratic vs republican president, there will be no jewish backlash against a democratic president but there can be one as a republican president

remember bush 1 vs clinton, democratic organizations have too many jewish groups in their pocket, by contrast openly abusive behavior by a republican president can trigger a backlash

ilovetheconstitution said...

So basically, you vote based on the interests of another country, and not based on the interests of our own country?

Sultan Knish said...

Read the post Paultard, it's not that hard

"I am personally opposed to foreign aid for Israel. I am also opposed to Ron Paul, not because Ron Paul is bad for Israel, but because Ron Paul is bad for America and the world. His foreign and domestic policy would be catastrophic and that would impact everyone."

steve klein said...

You wrote: "by contrast openly abusive behavior by a republican president can trigger a backlash.."

This is what makes George W. Bush so adept at maneuvering the Israelis. Unlike his father and former Secretary of State James Baker, this president is not openly abusive. Quite the opposite. This man is slick.

Your sometimes infrequent visitor, Marcel, goes by the handle "Smooth words" on one of Israel's news sites. It's an allusion to the prophet's admonition that ancient Israel trusted the words of the corrupt priests and the false prophets so long as they spoke smooth words (or smooth things) to the people. This is George W. Bush. He speaks kindly and soothing words to the Jews -- "Israel is our friend...I'm going to stand by Israel..." all the while he is stabbing us in the back.

The reason no Jewish group or organization will oppose the Republican or the Democrat party's position on Israel, is because to a man and woman, they virtually all believe in this "land for peace" delusion. Virtually every American Jew believes Israeli concessions might well deliver peace, with few exceptions.

The Jews (and Christians) who are most discouraging to me, are those conservative Jews and Christians who are fawning all over this president notwithstanding what he is doing and has done to Israel and to her security.

There's no outrage but silence and complicity on the right because as one Jewish conservative web master told me, the Democrats are worse.

Keli Ata said...

"...the final terrorist demand. Israel's existence."

That describes the agenda of Ron Paul, his supporters of neo-Nazis, Muslims and the world as a whole perfectly.

I wonder how many people commemorating International Holocaust Remembrance Day, which the UN desginated as January 27--the liberation of Auschwitz--really care about what is happening in Israel?

Sultan Knish said...

the real difference is that bush 1 faced an uncooperative israeli administration

bush 2 faces a weak and all too compliant israeli administration,

as I said if Sharon was still around, Bush would not be playing pinball with israel

steve klein said...

If Sharon was still around, Bush would not be playing pinball with Israel? Do you really thinks so?

Seems to me, Sharon quickly fell into line after 9/11. There was an initial protest when Bush said we would establish a Palestinian state. Soon thereafter Sharon resigned himself to this inevitability. Little doubt, Sharon was more of an ideologue than is Olmert but a true Zionist would never have given up Gaza. Sharon after all chose Olmert to be his successor.

Sharon should have stood his moral ground and condemned Bush for his perfidy. But he caved.

Sultan Knish said...

sharon developed the gaza for his own reasons, chief among them being a fraudulent demographic survey

under sharon, israel regularly killed terrorists and ignored state department protests

even sharon's gaza plans was in direct contradiction to what the state department wanted, it got bush's approval rather than the other way around

sharon appointed olmert as his lackey, he didn't seriously believe he was going to need a successor

steve klein said...

sharon appointed olmert as his lackey, he didn't seriously believe he was going to need a successor>>>>

Some "mean-spirited" Jews who are far more observant than I, believe Sharon got his reward for breaking our eternal covenant.

Ariel Sharon thought he was clever, disengaging from Gaza. Maybe he thought he would circumvent, avert further U.S. pressure.

Silly Jew. Wasn't he foolish to fall into George W.'s trap? After the Gaza retreat / expulsion, Dr. Rice immediately opined "This is only the beginning."

We Jews are so foolish. Like the prophet said, we are like silly doves.

Sharon should have publicly, yet politely, condemned President Bush for "lack of will" to fight the jihadists. Bush is an "appeaser par excellence!"

Bush's "vision" was nothing more or less than rank appeasement and hypocrisy. Sharon was a foolish leader not to exploit conservative, American and Republican good-will after September 11 atrocities. How could he let Bush get away with this hypocrisy?

Instead he bowed to an immoral and loathsome U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Powell and Rice are both low-life human beings in my opinion. I would not want to socialize with either one of these two friends of America's and Israel's enemies.

Both of them are base human beings. How much have these two been paid by our Saudi enemies?

Too bad Israel's great war hero did not understand the nature of the people he was bowing to. Bush, Powell, Rice et. al., are the lowest of the low.

Louts. Knaves. All of them.

Sultan Knish said...

sharon didn't bow to anyone

sharon decided to create a limited palestinian state on his own terms based on various theories, including the supposed demographic problem

sharon was nearing the end of his life and his mental functioning and he made some very bad decisions but they are not unprecedented in his career... remember that in the 70's sharon created his own party that had a palestinian state as part of its platform

up until disengagement, sharon went his own way as far as america was concerned and he presented disengagement to bush as a fait accompli

as i've said before, a strong israeli government would have been able to resist bush's pressure

olmert made israel into a weak target and desperation drove bush to use israel

Proud goy boy said...

I think I dont gotta support no one but Ron Paul who is like a christ like figur to us who know the constetosion will need fixing up now.
So dont go callng me a anti semantics thats what you will say I know it.

Anonymous said...

All Joooooos is terriors and you know it.

steve klein said...

Sultan, Shlomzion's platform was to give the Palestinians a degree of self-government but for Israel to retain full sovereignty over all the territories. The slogan, I believe was 'Jordan is Palestine'.

In the nineteen seventies a Palestinian state west of the Jordan river was unthinkable. Even Laborites like Meir and Rabin said it was out of the question and an existential threat to Israel's existence. Golda Meir told Richard Nixon to his face as I recall. No Palestinian state in Israel. Period.

Sharon caved into immoral pressure. Admittedly, he had Colin Powell and George W. Bush breathing down his neck to begin implementing the road map in spite of PA violations. Sharon came up with disengagement as a clever end-run around Bush's plan which would likely have meant expelling Jews from Judea and Samaria; whole Jewish communities.

Loss of Gaza was seen as the least of the worst in terms sacrifices. Other than the Gush Katif residents, few Israelis have any attachment to Gaza even though is is part of historic Israel; Eretz Israel.

It was sheer folly, Sharon's decision.

As I said, Sharon should have stood his ground but he had no faith in HaShem. Neither does Mr. Olmert.

Sharon's cabinet should never have accepted this evil road map even with his thirteen or fifteen or whatever reservations attached to it, which Powell rejected out of hand.

Bush is an evil man and so is his road map to Israel's destruction. This is an utterly wicked man we have in the White House, both he and his Secretary of State. George W. Bush has no redeeming qualities in my opinion.

The only reason George W. is in the White House is because he is a Bush.

Sultan Knish said...

oslo began on the same terms with a degree of autonomy as did shlomzion and as did all of these schemes, but everyone understood it would have ended in an independent state

sharon had been flirting with the idea of palestinian independence since the 70's, he did not give in to american pressure, he was the one who originated the idea of unilaterally creating such a state by default

and he likely expected it to fall apart just the way it's doing now, but whatever strategy he had in place to deal with that, died with him

sharon used american pressure as one of his excuses, but that was a joke. Colin Powell was completely impotent and had virtually no power and Bush never listened to him. Sharon in all the time before had casually ignored all the demands that israel stop hitting the terrorists. At that point in time Israel was not a priority for Bush and Powell lacked the ability to apply any pressure, nor was Sharon the type to give in to pressure.

steve klein said...

I once asked Paul Eidelberg what he thought of Ariel Sharon's faith. He answered that Sharon was a "practical atheist," what ever that means. I guess there are degrees of atheism, from weak to strong.

The bottom line is, Sharon, though a great and a talented general and military strategist, did not place his faith and trust in God.

Most Jews that have little to no faith in God believe Israel can not exist apart from America. While I do not believe Israelis should deliberately antagonize the Americans, neither do I believe Israel cannot exist apart from America.

The result of a lack of faith on the part of Jews are "painful concessions" of the kind Sharon made, August 2005. Sharon felt he had no other choice but to conceded strategic land given Bush administration insistence that Israel give way.

This comes from a lack of faith Sultan. We will have to agree to disagree about Sharon. Strong military man but very weak in faith. Do you think King David would have done what Sharon did?

My goodness NO. David, unlike Sharon, put his faith in HaShem. Israel needs a David who has the faith to stand up to to Goliath -- America.

Sultan Knish said...

sharon was likely not even jewish, so expecting much in the way of faith from him is less likely

eidelberg's description is accurate enough, sharon has very much been a pragmatist but he also made crucial mistakes out of arrogance and ego

the israeli precedent for using other nations as crutches goes back to the first kingdom of israel and it's an unhealthy dependency but if you look back at israeli history, even before independence there were american diplomats dictating to israel

Anonymous said...

I take offense to the word paultard used by sultan knish who shows his true self by remaining masked In our country they have a law about being masked Oh I forgot it does not apply to all VOTE RON PAUL and restore our GREAT REPUBLIC before the people rise up and do it themselves POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!

Sultan Knish said...

it's ironic that you object to the term paultard, since you pretty much embody it

beyondrightwing said...

Amen Sultan. Dugg the article at:

Sultan Knish said...

thank you

davidtre said...

I will simply agree with lemon lime mood and her comment on the politicians now seeking office in USA

Post a Comment