The democratic candidates have never been known to help the economy, and the republican candidates are all war-mongering neoconservatives; except one. Congressman Ron Paul is the only non-neoconservative republican running for the white house. In fact he is a libertarian. He sticks out like a soar thumb at every republican debate. He is the only candidate that supports a withdrawal from Iraq, a de-escalation of tensions with Iran, and a non-intervenionist foreign policy. He stresses that the republican party must return to their roots, and respect the constitution and the idea of limited government and civil liberties for all. Ron Paul is fiscally conservative as well, promising to end wasteful spending, and replace the income tax with a flat excise tax.
At the heart of the mainstream of both political parties is strong support for Israel. And, lets face it, Ron Paul is not a real republican, at least not in terms of what the republicans stand for today. The neoconservative movement has taken over the once respectable republican party. The only reason Ron Paul ran as a republican is for the exposure. In his mind he didn't leave the republican party, the republican party left him. Since Ron Paul is so openly hostile to the neoconservative movement (which is generally very pro-Israel) I had automatically assumed (withoud doing the appropriate research) that Ron Paul was a critic of Israel. He indirectly takes jabs at AIPAC when he refers to "special interest groups" so I assumed he wasn't someone that would follow the crowd. I noticed Ron Paul had significant support from some groups and websites which are as anti-Israel as they get, including donations from white supremesists. He is admired by those who are hostile to Israel, and at the same time ostracized by forces which can be considered friendly to Israel. The mainstream media makes every possible effort to hide Ron Paul from their coverage. Many mainstream politicians constantly denounce his posisitions only to be embarassed by Paul's logical responses. In a debate, John McCain stated to Paul in front of the audience that his supposed policy of isolationism is what allowed world war 2 to happen. Paul cleverly rebuked McCain explaining the differences between an "isolationist" policy and a non-interventionist policy. He stated that he wishes to talk to and trade with other nations, but not get involved in their affairs. The whole crowd cheered as Paul made a fool of McCain. By arguing for a non-interventionist policy, Ron Paul easily fits the image of an anti-Israel politician. It would be safe to assume that he would cut all financial, military, moral, and political support for Israel, support Israel so desperately needs right now. I had accepted this. While I prefer a candidate who does support Israel, I would still vote for Ron Paul without a doubt if he ran as a third party. Support for Israel is something I am more than happy to sacrifice at this critical time. Plus, if Paul was going to remain neutral as he says, he wont be pro-Palestinian either, and that was good enough for me. Our country is in trouble and Ron Paul is our only hope. My concern is the rest of the American pro-Israel community may not make the right choice when it comes time to vote.
After making all these "assumptions", I find out Ron Paul will be guest speaker of Honest Questions hosted by Glenn Beck. (Click HERE for transcript) Glenn Beck makes no secret that he is a neoconservative and believes Ron Paul's forein policy is "nuts", but states that he admires Paul for being a libertarian. So out of interest, I made sure to tune in that day. This interview changed my impression of Ron Paul forever. I'm not going to go into the political and libretarian talk, I'll go straight to the subject. About halfway through the interview the wonderful subject of the middle east comes up. Not long after, Israel's name was mentioned. Then my ears went up and I heard something that completely challenged my "assumptions". It all started after this bombshell question:
BECK: Do you actually believe that if we walk away from the Middle East, that the terrorists will leave us alone? That the people in the extremist regime, let`s just say, in Iran is not serious when they call us "The Great Satan," that we`ll burn in the fire of the Islamic fury? That they`ll just leave Israel alone and not -- not destroy and push them into the sea?
I expected Paul to respond with something like this: "it is israel's actions and brutal occupation of the Palestinian people that are causing these threats to Israel. They hate us because we support Israel. And Israel is a foreign power they should not be of our concern" Instead, to my shock he says:
PAUL: Well, yes, I think they will because they`re scared to death of Israel. Israel, it would be more powerful if we weren`t holding them back. I mean, nobody is going to touch Israel. They have 300 nuclear weapons. And we restrain them when they want to settle their disputes when they`re bored and we have restrained them when they want to have peace treaties or deal with the Arab League.
Wow. and it doesn't end there. Keep reading:
BECK: So you`re saying that we actually hurt Israel by being their friend? We should have no foreign aid to Israel at all? If Israel asked for our help, should we be involved?
I expected something like "we could use that $2.5 billion here in the U.S. There is no reason we should give it to a country like Israel, which is occupying Palestinian land and massacring Palestinian children" instead he says:
PAUL: Not unless the Congress authorizes, you know, for war or something. But when you say no foreign aid, you say no foreign aid to Israel. And I say, oh, we give foreign aid to the Arabs three times greater than Israel.
PAUL: So, we are not only neutralizing things -- so, you know, we really neutralize things much better. Israel is in better shape by no foreign aid to anybody.
And it gets even better:
PAUL: And so it`s not anti-Israel. It`s just neutral.
You know, we treat Israel like a second-class citizen. You know, you understand the issue at home when you treat people with Welfare, they become dependent on the state. Israel is dependent on us, you know, for economic means.
We send them these billions of dollars and then they depend on us. They say, well, you know, we don`t like Iran. You go fight our battles. You bomb Iran for us. And they become dependent on us.
And if this is not enough to rally pro-Israel community behind Paul, see what he says next:
PAUL: If Iran wants to do it -- if Iran wants to -- if Israel wants to do it, we hold them back. So they lose their sovereignty to us because they become dependent on us. And just like I don`t like to lose our sovereignty to the United Nations, Israel has become subservient to us, and I think we should protect their sovereignty and respect their sovereignty as much as I want our sovereignty to be respected.
This blew my mind. Now the only question remaining: was Ron Paul being genuine or was he simply trying to score brownie points with AIPAC? I believe he was honest. Paul has never been known to change his opinions to gain favor with special interest groups. He lets his positions on even the most controversial of issues be open, transparent and consistant. This is proven by his voting record, how he has stayed true to his causes, be it anything from taxes to gun ownership.
My assumptions couldn't have been more wrong. Despite the fact that much of Ron Paul's support comes from the anti-Israel community and as much as Ron Paul supports a non-interventionist foreign policy, he is still a supporter of Israel. Despite all the money he gets from neo-nazis, the radical left, and an uncountable number of entities which are hostile to Israel, he still has a favorable view of Israel. Had my assumptions been correct, I still would have voted for him, but now I can do it with having one less policy disagreement. Now if I can only get him to become pro-choice, he would be my dream candidate.
Wheather you have an opinion of Israel or not, Ron Paul is the best candidate for the American people. Now the pro-Israel community who has stayed away from Paul due to his associations with entities hostile to Israel, can now give him another look. The choice does not have to be a pro-Israel warmongering neoconservative or an anti-Israel libertarian. This is a critical time in our nation and Ron Paul is our only hope. He needs all the support he can get.