Ron Paul on Israel's Borders: They should "work it out" with their neighbors

A supporter of Ron Paul has recommended this videotaped interview:

 

  

 

You've gotta love the idea of Israel's borders being "worked out" with their neighbors... except that it's easier said than done.

 

At one point, Paul's interviewer speaks about "the $3 billion we give to Israel annually," a point often raised by Israel's enemies in America and around the world.

I would hope that he, Ron Paul, and everyone else understands that the only "aid" Israel receives from the United States is military aid, 75 pct of which must be spent in the U.S.  This means that American "aid" to Israel has the effect of providing numerous Americans with jobs in the aerospace and defense manufacturing industries. But say you don't care about American jobs... Then we're talking only about the remaining 25 pct  that doesn't get spent in the U.S. -- about $750 million.

For some perspective, Supervalu Inc. lost that much in one quarter (and who's ever even heard of it?). $750 million is what Obama spent to get elected in '08, and the same amount that the U.S. spent to build the American embassy in Baghdad.

I agree with Ron Paul's assertion that Israel itself would be better off if it weren't subject to the foreign policy whim of changing American administrations, but of all things, why is he making this an issue in his campaign, if not to attract the votes of anti-Semites?  If patriotic American libertarians want to see foreign aid reduced, I would respectfully suggest that the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars going to murderous terrorists [in the palistinian terrortories amd the Jew-free Gaza strip, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria] should be of far greater concern.  

I would also urge that you watch another video, the one in which Ron Paul refers to Gaza as a "concentration camp" and the 22-day Gaza War (Operation Cast Lead) as a "massacre" -- when in fact it has been documented elsewhere that:

 "during its operation in Gaza, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare" (Jonathan Sacerdoti at the New Statesman, 12/20/2011).

 

  

 

I like Ron Paul's rhetoric about personal liberty and his plan to cut government spending, but I could never vote for him. And if, Gd forbid, it comes down to a choice of Ron Paul or Barack Obama, I won't be able to vote for either of them.

Comments

[sheldan]

Oh, yes, let's "work it out" with our neighbors--neighbors who still want to reverse the events of 1948. Neighbors who will not agree to anything but Israel's destruction. Don't let the small-government rhetoric fool you. Ron Paul is unacceptable to most of the country. Period. He has the right to express his ideas, but there is plenty to discredit them. Forget Ron Paul. Romney, like him or not, has the background to be successful as president. His "moderation" (remember, this is relative to MASSACHUSETTS, in case the conservatives have forgotten) is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when we are dealing with an EXTREME LEFTIST (beyond liberal) incumbent. We don't need an ultra-conservative who will scare the country; we must make the case that the nominee will be able to reverse the damage that the incumbent has done in one term.