The Old-School Liberal

“Freedom granted only when it is known beforehand that its effects will be beneficial is not freedom” — Friedrich Hayek

Would a Ron Paul Presidency Hurt Israel?

Posted by Poorsummary on January 16, 2008

Israel FlagSome have claimed that a Ron Paul presidency would be bad for Israel. Shimshon Weisman, an orthodox jew who lives in Israel, begs to differ (thanks to Lew Rockwell for the post):

There are a number of issues here. First, aid to Israel. It has been obvious for a long time that Israel does not need this aid. Israel’s GDP per capita is at European levels and rising. The aid itself is a form of corporate welfare in that it must be spent in America. It comes with many strings attached.“It allows the government to avoid sorely needed economic reforms.

“Along with the aid Israel receives, potential or actual enemies receive several times more. That aid doesn’t just allow the recipient nations to avoid reforms, it actually props them up and allows them to continue to maintain a bellicose stance against Israel (this certainly includes Egypt, with whom Israel has a peace treaty in place).

“When the entire world condemned Israel, including President Reagan on down in America, Dr. Paul supported Israel’s right to act in its own self-interest (and preemptively, I might add) in its bombing of the Osirak reactor in Iraq. He had absolutely nothing to gain by taking this position, and nothing to lose by following the herd in its condemnation of Israel.

“America has imposed its will on Israel for decades. President Eisenhower forced Israel to withdraw from the Sinai after the 1956 war turning a military victory into a political defeat. According to Wikipedia, in 1973, the American Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger directly ordered Golda Meir, the Prime Minister of Israel to not strike Egypt and Syria preemptively, despite growing evidence that they planned an attack. Had Israel struck first, it would not have received “so much as a nail” in arms, a serious threat. The first President Bush famously, and insultingly, through his proxy, Secretary of State James Baker, told Premier Shamir to call the public White House phone line when he was serious about peace. In the aftermath of the first Gulf War, America most decidedly imposed its will on Israel by forcing it to participate in the Madrid conference. It influenced the outcome of the Israeli elections by turning down the request for loan guarantees (in principle the loan guarantees are unconstitutional, but Bush declined to reject the request on such lofty terms; it was rank interference in Israel’s internal affairs that drove the decision). In the run-up to the 1996 election between Shimon Peres and Binyamin Netanyahu, President Clinton overtly favored Peres. Clinton also imposed heavily on Netanyahu during the Wye Plantation negotiations. When the government fell as a result, he overtly favored Ehud Barak and even sent in his campaign team, including James Carville, to help. After the second Intifada started in 2000, first Bush, and then Clinton, imposed heavily on Israel to restrain its response until the casualties became so overwhelming that the Israeli government finally had no choice but to respond. Even then, America prevented Israel from achieving an overwhelming victory.

“However, the American relationship with Israel is more dangerous than most people even understand. It wasn’t Clinton, however, who initiated or imposed the Oslo process or Camp David negotiations on Israel. And the current Bush president, despite his many faults, has maintained a relatively hands-off stance regarding Israeli action. What should be a concern is not what a President Paul might do, but what an Israeli government does do now. Since Oslo, governments of Israel, left and right, have adopted dangerous and even suicidal policies detrimental to the security and survival of the state. The government then drafts America, often reluctantly, into supporting these policies, and imposes them on an unwilling public, claiming that if something goes wrong, America will protect Israel.”

Read the rest of the post here.


4 Responses to “Would a Ron Paul Presidency Hurt Israel?”

  1. Cody said

    I’ve been saying for a long time that Israel no longer needs our help. They’ve got things well under control. So, while Ron Paul would probably cut aid to Israel, I don’t think they’d really miss it that badly.

  2. George said

    I am an Arabic Christian born in Beirut Lebanon but raised in the united states. my family left there in 1980 because of the war. I just want to tell you that was the greatest letter that i have read so far, and would wish you the best and keep on writing sir. I just wish people would do more research before they start writing about Dr Paul with out any clues to what they are writing.


  3. ordination, catholic, orthodox, old catholic…

    […]Would a Ron Paul Presidency Hurt Israel? « The Old-School Liberal[…]…

  4. proxy said

    I like what you guys tend to be up too. This kind of clever work and reporting!
    Keep up the excellent works guys I’ve added you guys to my personal blogroll.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: