Monday, February 18, 2013

Op-ed: As expected...Rand Paul flips on Israel

Op-ed:
As expected...Rand Paul flips on Israel 
By: Diane Sori

We all know that Rand Paul wants to run for president in 2016 as he's been all over the media seeking attention, and he and his advisers have even admitted he is interested. But the last thing America needs when it comes off the Obama years is Rand Paul for he in NO way expounds true conservative values as like his father, Ron Paul, Rand is a libertarian pretending to be both a Republican and TEA Partier.

For starters, Rand Paul opposed the Iraq War, stood by his father in saying that the September 11th attacks were payback for America's foreign policies, does NOT believe Iran to be the threat others know it to be, and has said for years that we need to stop all foreign aid, including to our one true ally in the Middle East...Israel.

In a January trip to Israel, solely taken to try and prove that he is NOT anti-Israel, Rand Paul, in a speech before an Israeli Think Tank, said that Israel could kick start a more piecemeal peace process by easing trade restrictions on Palestinians in Gaza.  Yeah right, ease trade restrictions on those out to kill you, smart real NOT smart. And during the same speech, when pressed on his views on a divided Israel and Jerusalem, Rand Paul would NOT endorse the one-state solution favored by Israel's conservative leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Also, Rand Paul told his audience that while Israel is the number one recipient of US foreign aid, and even though she uses the money to strengthen her defenses against terror and regional enemies, he felt that “reducing aid to Jerusalem would actually be good for Israel, because it would boost its local defense industry and would also enhance the country’s independence and sovereignty.”

Now that is a statement that makes NO sense whatsoever as taking monies away that are used for defense in NO way helps Israel retain her independence, in fact all it does is make it easier for Israel's enemies to wage war against her.  And while Israel does receive about $3 billion in US military aid annually, 74%  of it must be spent in the US, which actually puts money back into the US economy.  And surprise, Israel is the only country that has to do this to such a degree.

This trip Rand Paul's hoped for goal was to make it clear to Israeli leaders that his opposition to foreign aid for Israel was not motivated by antipathy towards the Jewish state.  Saying,“I would start (cutting aid) a little more quickly with those who are enemies of Israel, and enemies of the US”...'start a little more quickly'...like that is supposed to placate Israel.  Adding “with regards to Israel, it could be a gradual phenomenon” and that foreign aid “sometimes clouds the sovereignty of Israel” Rand Paul actually shown himself to be anything but pro-Israel.

But for Rand Paul and his minions all that is in the past as suddenly a light bulb moment must have gone off in his head that made him realize that he needs Jewish votes and Jewish money in his quest for the Republican nomination so he better get with the pro-Israel program and get with it fast.  So what does he do...he flip-flops on his original stances on Israel and attempts to fit his libertarian foreign policy views into the Republican pro-Israel stance by saying, “I’m for an independent, strong Israel that is not a dependent state, not a client state.”

Again, NOT a wise thing to say as Israel is dependent on no one for its survival. Israel and its military do quite nicely on their own...going it alone in the '67 Yom Kippur War, going it alone against the almost daily rocket attacks on its country, going it alone in standing up to Iran, going it alone every time Barack HUSSEIN Obama demands she return to her pre-67 borders...you get my drift.

So Rand Paul's light bulb moment is proving to be anything but. Another case in point is a recent interview on Breitbart.com where he was asked the hypothetical question should and would the United States stand with Israel and provide her foreign aid if the Jewish state were attacked by its enemies and his answer was, and I quote, “If another country launched an all out war with Israel that the United States should and would assist them in some way.” In 'some way'...our ally is attacked and according to Rand Paul we would only help them in 'some way'...an answer only someone NOT truly supporting Israel would give for even when pressed for specifics Rand Paul could and would give none.

“Does the United States stand with Israel, in terms of giving military foreign aid?” was another question asked of Rand Paul. Refusing to answer the question directly his answer was, “Well absolutely we stand with Israel, but what I think we should do is announce to the world – and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.

Oh how nice that sounds except the rest of the world does NOT 'pretty well know' where we stand in regards to Israel as our president (gag), Barack HUSSEIN Obama, has armed Israel's enemies to the hilt, sending a message that we do NOT stand completely stand behind and with Israel.

And just last week when Rand Paul spoke before The Heritage Foundation he said, "As many are quick to note, the war is not with islam but with a radical element of islam..." Rand Paul played right into the Obama rhetoric of appeasing the enemy and betrayed Israel whose very survival as a nation depends on defeating those who adhere to islam, because they have NO intention of allowing the nation of Israel to survive let alone live in peace.

And while Rand Paul spoke of his wanted American foreign policy to be one of containing the enemy, he failed to realize that containment is the very foreign policy Barack HUSSEIN Obama espouses. In fact, Rand Paul said America needs “a foreign policy that finds a middle path...[and] that understands the difference between vital and peripheral interests” the very words Obama has used on many an occasion.

The thing is that Obama is already trying to impose a form of containment on Israel by trying to persuade them not to strike Iran at this point in time out of fear that an Israeli raid might cause a ripple effect in the Middle East, and that such a conflict between Israel and her Arab neighbors might lead to an oil crisis that would further destabilize the Western economy (which by the way he and his misguided domestic and foreign policies have already destabilized).

So if Rand Paul can actually agree with Obama on the issue of containment, what makes anyone think that he does NOT really agree with Obama on Israel in general...as in returning to her pre-'67 borders and dividing Jerusalem among other things. So NO matter how hard he tries to, as they say, suck-up to Israel and American Jews just to win the nomination, the truth is that Rand Paul is NO friend to Israel as he would cut off aid to them in a heartbeat if he had the chance to...all his pretty words notwithstanding.

And with so many 'true' conservative Republican possible candidates out there, people who will stand by, stand with, and support Israel completely we can do better than Rand Paul...after all that person will have one hell of an Obama mess to clean up both in the US and overseas.



If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook here.
Please follow us on Twitter here.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have seen Rand interviewed several times and I came away with the opposite opinion. Paul is very much aware of the dangers of Radical Islam and that is why he fought so hard in opposition to sending F16s and tanks to Egypt unlike the 20 plus GOP senators who rubber stamped the aquisition.

By the way,who do you favor for the GOP nomination......Rick Santorum?

Anonymous said...

I also was opposed to the war in Iraq as well. After we became engaged,however,I did support the surge. Obama's policies have negated any successes we had in Iraq. Look what it has accomplished-Nothing but bad will against the US. Everything is worse now. Saddam and Amadidijen would have battled it out without US involvement.

Anonymous said...

As are other columns by this author, this is quite a shallow op-ed. I have many problems with Libertarian points of view, but philosophically I think Rand Paul is trying to strike a needed balance with true conservatism. We'll see how things evolve, beginning with the 2014 elections.

CRUZ COUNTRY said...

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." ~ January 17, 1961 farewell address to the nation by President Dwight D. Eisenhower( former five-star general and Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during World War II)

Anonymous said...

Yes, in agreement with some of the other people who have made comments, the poster is a bit clueless.

Ohio JOE said...

While young Dr. Paul may not be as Pro-Israel as many of us might like, he is certainly not anti-Israel. Further, he differs at least somewhat from his father on this issue.

Anonymous said...

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Anonymous said...

Will the right call him a flip flopper for this?

I seriously doubt it. That was only reserved as an excuse for people they did not want to win, like Mitt.

Diane Sori said...

For those who want to know, I am a supporter of Marco Rubio or Allen west for POTUS in 2016.

Diane Sori said...

And BTW, I cannot stand Rick Santorum.