Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Ron Paul Addresses Israel Issue in Radio Interview

Following the success of Ron Paul's $6 million fundraising day, the good doctor was in Iowa this week for a string of local and national media interviews. On a local talk radio show with Mac McCoy, the subject of Israel came up. Mr. McCoy asked how future President Paul would handle Shmolmert's demand to stay in Iraq lest Iranian influence take over that country and destroy Israel. In truth, Iranian influence has grown in Iraq and the hardline Iranian position strengthened specifically because of the occupation of Iraq and the end to the balance of power between those countries that any realist scholar would advocate and the traditional Republican policy sought to maintain. In response, Paul repeats the Zionists for Ron Paul talking points - our aid finances the Arabs collectively more than Israel despite Israel being the largest single aid receipient and our interventionist policy restrains Israel from defending itself either by military operations or peace initiatives.

Audio of the interview is here:, the relevant portion starts at about 6:10.

In other news:
We previously reported on the congressional candidacy of Michael Moshe Starkman running as a "Ron Paul Republican." Mr. Starkman posted frequently on the Ron Paul facebook group and in my correspondence with him, confirmed his support for Dr. Paul. Now, it has come to our attention that Mr. Starkman has joined the Fred Thompson campaign. Starkman seems like a nice guy and a genuine supporter of limited government, but I apologize to anyone who may have been led to believe that he was a Ron Paul supporter.

This is a bit old, but I'm adding a link to Zionists for Ron Paul founder and leader, Yehuda HaKohen's interview with Ron Paul supporter Shmuel Ben-Gad on Arutz Sheva, Isreal National Radio.
We're still trying to get Ron Paul himself on Arutz Sheva, but he's had bigger outlets to hit lately like CNN, Fox News, Meet the Press, Time magazine and so forth.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Jewish Community Leader Runs for Congress as "Ron Paul Republican"

Through the Ron Paul facebook group (linked on the right) I recently learned about Michael Moshe Starkman. Starkman is running as a Republican in Maryland's 4th Congressional District and openly endorses Ron Paul. Starkman is a 30 year old entreprenuer who leads both his own technology start-up company and a synagogue which serves the local community in conjuction with a private Jewish school. As a man of both Torah and high-tech, he represents two of Israel's greatest strengths - the blessing of Hashem and a dynamic economy. He has spent time studying in Israeli yeshivas and has many family members who have made aliyah. Even with this background, he is firmly focused on the traditions that make America great: our heritage of limited, Constitutional government, including a foreign policy of peace and non-intervention.

Starkman has run for this heavily gerrymandered Democratic seat before, when he was deafeted by a lopsided 82-18%. However, he was largely a "paper candidate" at the time who was devoting most of his political energies to helping a friend in a neighboring district and merely filled the ballot for the undermanned GOP in his own. This time around is different as Starkman is focusing on his own race and his opponent, incumbent Al Wynn is facing a stiff primary challenge likely to divide the Democratic base over Wynn's pro-war stance.

If we can get Ron Paul the Republican nomination - a feat that looks about 100x more likely now than when we started back in February - there is little chance he would lose to the pro-war Hillary Clinton. And when/if that happens, we'll need more "Ron Pauls" in Congress promoting our freedom message. Please join me in helping one of our best candidates - Michael Moshe Starkman.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

This was an op-ed in Friday's Israel National News

Ron Paul Should be the Zionist Choice for US President
by Shmuel Ben-Gad

He opposes US foreign aid to Israel.

Since the Six Day War, US presidents and presidential candidates have
tended to speak of the US and Israel as great friends and allies. They
have also tended to favor the shrinking of Israel's borders. This has
reached a low point under the Bush administration, which is the first
one to explicitly make its policy the establishment of an Arab state
in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Thus, the US alliance with Israel has been
a decidedly mixed blessing.

Israel receives military and financial assistance, and also some
diplomatic support at the United Nations, but the US puts pressure on
Israel to surrender parts of the homeland. Even worse, this
relationship seems to foster a mentality of dependence amongst many
Israelis who, it seems, cannot imagine Israel defying the United
States in any major way.

In the upcoming presidential election, however, there is a chance to
change this dramatically, by electing Congressman Ron Paul, a
candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Dr. Paul favors
a non-interventionist foreign policy. He has written:

"Yet, while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we
send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that
many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many
of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to
destroy the Jewish state. Many average Israelis and American Jews see
America as hypocritically hedging its bets.... It is time to challenge
the notion that it is our job to broker peace in the Middle East and
every other troubled region across the globe.... 'Peace plans' imposed
by outsiders or the UN cause resentment and seldom produce lasting
peace.... The fatal conceit lies in believing America can impose
geopolitical solutions wherever it chooses."

In this, Dr. Paul is hearkening back to what George Washington
counseled in his famous farewell address: "The great rule of conduct
for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial
relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."

The Republican Jewish Coalition (a fervent supporter of the Bush
administration, which it claims is a great friend of Israel) refused
to invite Dr. Paul to its candidates forum because he opposes aid to
Israel. But, as we can see, Dr. Paul's position is based upon a
principled, modest, non-interventionist foreign policy - not upon
anti-Zionism. Indeed, in a way, his foreign policy is mirrored by his
small government domestic policy. Both recognize there are real limits
to what a government can usefully do.

It is true that Israel is a small state in a highly dangerous
neighborhood, but it is an economically and technologically vibrant
country - even more so recently, as the shackles of socialism have
been somewhat loosened. Cutting the apron strings to the US would, I
think, make Israel become more maturely self-confident, because it
would be more self-reliant.

A Ron Paul presidency would be healthy for Israel in yet another way.
Dr. Paul is opposed to organizations like the United Nations and the
International Criminal Court that dilute national sovereignty. If the
United States, in a Paul administration, withdrew from the UN and
similar institutions, imagine what a blow this would deliver to their
power and prestige. I find it a thrilling prospect. Maybe Israel would
have a wise enough government to follow suit.

Now, I do not support Ron Paul only for Zionist reasons, nor do I
think US pressure is the primary cause for the current politically and
culturally debilitated conditions of Israel. The primary cause, in my
opinion, is the self-debasement of the Hebrew nation both in the
homeland and abroad. This manifested itself most severely in the
Israeli government's expulsion of Jews from Gaza and northern Samaria,
and in the almost total lack of opposition that greeted this from the
Jewish Diaspora.

It seems to me a Ron Paul presidency would be good for Israel and for
the United States. Its foreign policy non-interventionism and its
concern to protect national sovereignty would provide Israel with a
greater impetus to increase its own independence and sense of national
honor. I hope American Zionists will resist the immediate,
meretricious attractions of American financial assistance for Israel.
Ron Paul would both end this infantilizing, and even corrupting, aid
and respect Israel's national sovereignty.

Taking the long and deep view, Ron Paul should be the Zionist choice.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Christian Zionists Don't Need Government Middle-man to Support Israel

As Ron Paul's campaign builds momentum, he's beginning to pick up support from the pro-Israel community (welcome to our counterparts at Jews 4 Ron Paul). Yesterday at Daily Paul, a Christian Zionist writing as "Christopher X" weighed in:
I am a Christian who supports Israel. But I also agree with Ron Paul on this
Topic. Just like countries that may need "humanitarian" support, it is not right
for the Federal government to "steal" from us in a tax and support them. Ron
Paul says that if the tax money was left in our hands instead of the federal
government taking it from us and deciding what to do with it, that we could do
with the fruits of our labor as we please. Whether it is helping people of other
countries survive droughts, or if it is supporting Israels right to exist in
it's own land.The Christians that support Israel, like me, can figure out that
we can support Israel without the intrusion of the government. Christians do not
need a middle man (the federal government) to take our money and support Israel.
We can support them by ourselves or in a united fund run by Christians. This
actually is the only way that makes any sense anyway. For we know that the
government would take alot of the money and do hideous things with it, and say
that they are supporting Israel with it, like alot of the candidates are saying
right now. It makes sense in bussiness, and in Charities, that the fewer the
"middle men", the more efficient the bussiness or Charity is and the more
dollars are used for the intended purpose. So I do not know why Ron Paul's
stance on this subject should be of any alarm to Christians who want to support
Israel. Just the opposite in fact, we could do with our money as we want instead
of watching the federal government take our money and do things with it that we
would never approve of.

The point Christopher makes is like many of Paul's positions - its so clear cut and simple that its overlooked. The reality is that the majority of the aid the US gives to Israel comes back to American defense companies, thus not providing any real benefit to Israel and in fact, stunting the potential of its own industry. But what of the rest of that money? Does it go toward advancing the aims of Christian Zionism?

If we do some rough figuring, we can see that the average American "contributes" $10 to the state of Israel. What would you, Christian Zionists, like to do with your $10? Would you give scholarships for students from the periphery to attend one of Israel's fine universities? Strengthen the communities of Judea and Samaria, the heart of the Jewish homeland? Provide comfort to the residents of Sderot and the south suffering the effects of the US government-endorsed Gaza disengagment?

Or maybe you would just trust the notably Arabist State Department to make that choice for you. Because that's what we're doing when we support any kind of foreign aid. As it stands the State Department takes your money and does things like slipping $25 million to "forces loyal to Abbas" (translation: arming anti-Israel terrorist groups) inside a "humanitarian" relief bill like they're trying to do now. I think we'd do better donating that money ourselves, as individuals, like Ron Paul advocates so we can truly support Israel.

Wednesday, November 7, 2007


Back in late 1999, the World Trade Organization convened in Seattle for their Ministerial Conference with the aim of launching a new millennial round of trade negotiations that would expand their global monopolies and further exploit laborers around the world. Deciding to finally take a stand against injustice, I traveled with some friends to Seattle and hooked up with other groups in a youthful attempt to shut down the conference. After years of helplessly spinning our wheels, this was the first time we had managed to properly organize. Anti-globalization activists from all across America were there numbering (according to the most modest estimates) over forty thousand angry protestors. Not only did we shut down the conference but we even shut down downtown Seattle. In order to regain control of the situation, the police were forced to resort to tear gas and rubber bullets. Although delayed, the WTO conference did take place. But the anti-globalization movement was born and through what the press dubbed the “Battle of Seattle” we drew the public’s attention to the immorality of globalization.

Over the next couple of years our opposition gained steam and grew into a potent impediment to the ruling elite and their global agenda. And many of us were quickly discovering that theories previously espoused by only conspiracy weirdoes were in fact partially true and that economic globalization was only one element of a greater political agenda reshaping the entire world. It turns out that within most Western governments today there is a hidden oligarchy directing foreign policy. And all major media outlets have meticulously fed its agenda to the public.

But following the Battle of Seattle, the establishment was faced for the first time with opposition that they couldn’t dismiss as eccentric conspiracy nuts. Although there might have been a few oddballs in the movements that were now cooperating against the global capitalist machine, most of us were young idealists who looked good on camera and spoke articulately when interviewed. And we were drawing serious media attention to the globalization issue all over the world.

I like to think that the establishment panicked a little before thwarting our success. I picture them wearily chain smoking together at wee hours of the morning in fancy hotels trying to figure out how to neutralize our efforts. But neutralize they did.

2002 started out as a good year for our cause. We held large scale demonstrations in New York and followed them up six weeks later in Barcelona. We were gearing up for an April protest against the G8 in Washington. But something happened at that event (or in the planning stages just before) that took the anti-globalization movement off track and completely spoiled everything we had accomplished until then. The demonstration was hijacked by activists I had never seen before and was transformed predominantly into a demonstration against Israel. Instead of targeting the G8 as we had planned, the activists called for a “global intifada” to protest what they called Israeli atrocities. I vainly tried to point out that Israel was not even part of the G8 but was shouted down and accused of supporting Zionist crimes.

The question that has bothered me ever since that April 20th demonstration has been why the anti-globalization movement was redirected against Israel. Was the Jewish state chosen at random as an issue to divert our attention or was the establishment trying to kill two birds with one stone? A major goal of political globalization is to eliminate the existence of small countries and replace them with large continent blocks (such as the European Union) that will eventually grow to connect and engulf the world under a centralized authority. The State of Israel, a small Jewish nation-state, sits uncomfortably and inconsistently amongst hostile Arab regimes bent on her destruction. So long as Israel continues to exist, globalization’s inroads into the Middle East will be limited (not because the Israeli government tries to obstruct the globalist agenda but simply because Israel’s existence prevents the region from becoming homogenized). To make matters worse, many power brokers in Washington DC and New York have lucrative oil interests dependent on placating Arab leaders.

After researching the recent political history of the Middle East I discovered that since the beginning of the 1990s, the international community – led by the United States – has worked to aggressively extract territorial concessions from Israel. While these concessions have been marketed to the world as returning land to a disenfranchised Palestinian Arab nation, any objective researcher can see that no Palestinian nation ever existed and certainly never held sovereignty over territory now controlled by Israel. The global elite simply want to shrink and weaken Israel into a position of either extreme dependency on foreign powers or physical annihilation due to indefensible borders. When former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir stood firm against former US President George H.W. Bush, Bush and his Secretary of State James Baker III successfully exerted themselves to oust Shamir from office and replace him with Yitzhak Rabin (a leader they perceived as weaker and more controllable). Since then every Israeli Prime Minister has behaved as a vassal for foreign powers. At least half of the Israeli public has been convinced by a clever media campaign that territorial concessions to Arab enemies are in the country’s national interest. If Israel were to refuse to capitulate at any point, the West might embargo trade and weapons to the Jewish state. But by submitting to international pressure, Israel has put her very existence at risk.

Contrary to what many would have us believe, the struggle for “greater Israel” is not a neo-conservative or rightist cause but actually the front line today in the battle against globalization. By fanning the flames of animosity and hatred in the Middle East, Western governments have spent decades exacerbating the Arab-Israeli conflict, victimizing both populations as oil and weapons industries increase their profits. As a political organizer who has fought for human justice all my life, I urge my fellow activists to combat globalization by defending the State of Israel’s basic right to live securely in full borders. Grassroots organizations must emerge throughout the United States to exert compelling moral pressure on America’s political leadership that will decelerate the Western capitalist machine and save Israel from destabilization. Globalization today undermines the environment, labor rights, national sovereignty, local businesses, and the cultures of indigenous peoples. The State of Israel has been viciously maligned by the corporate media establishment in order to legitimize Western attempts to shrink its borders and blunt its ability to deter outside aggression. Those of us who truly oppose injustice can kill two birds with one stone by halting globalization in the Middle East through opposing America’s current attempts to shrink Israel.

Friday, August 24, 2007


The blog has been down awhile as I've been in the process of moving back from my favorite country in the world to my other favorite country in the world. From G-d's country to "God's country" you might say. Now that I'm firmly back on US soil its been great to see this Ron Paul Revolution I've followed online up close and in person. I've also got a backlog of topics to comment on and hope to get to all of them as time and situation permits including Iran's financial situation, Gidi Grinstein on the future of US-Israel relations, and more.

For the time being, here's the update. The major event for the campaign has been a number of non-binding preference straw polls conducted around the country. The official campaign summarizes the performance here.

Straw Poll Date Paul's Rank Paul's Percentage
HRCC (Minnesota) 8/22/2007 3 16.0%
Ronald Reagan Club (Washington) 8/21/2007 1 28.0%
West Alabama 8/18/2007 1 81.2%
Strafford County, NH 8/18/2007 1 72.2%
West Lafayette, Indiana 8/18/2007 4 11.7%
Illinois State Fair 8/17/2007 3 18.9%
Students for Life of America 8/16/2007 4 9.0%
Western Montana Fair 8/15/2007 6 4.0%
Gaston County, NC 8/14/2007 1 36.6%
Ames, Iowa 8/11/2007 5 9.1%
National Federation 8/6/2007 3 14.0%
of Republican Assemblies (NFRA)
St. Louis, MO 8/4/2007 3 13.9%
Georgetown County, SC 7/28/2007 2 17.9%
New Hampshire Taxpayers 7/7/2007 1 65.3%
Cobb County, GA 7/4/2007 2 17.0%
California Republican Assembly 7/1/2007 4 12.0%
National Taxpayers Union 6/16/2007 2 16.7%
Utah GOP convention 6/8/2007 2 5.4%

Granted, some of these poll are clearly not a fair fight. None of the big-government world-police Republicans could be expected to compete with the good doctor in a poll sponsored by the New Hampshire Taxpayer's Union (a branch of the national NTU that got so fed up with Dr. Paul sweeping their awards every year they just gave up and named him "Taxpayer's Best Friend EVER") or with the West Alabama Republican Assemblies (a group of the old Goldwater Republicans) or with something called the Ronald Reagan Club. Nonetheless, the picture of the 2008 race on the ground is clearly different from the Rudy McRomney show that CNN is telling you. (Big news media letting their bias come in the way of accurate reporting, have we heard that before, Israel supporters?) The Ames, Iowa straw poll is probably the most indicative as it was the one that attracted all 10 major Republican candidates and generated the most national attention. Despite only having spent a week and some change in Iowa and running ads only in the week leading up to the poll, we were able to turn out 9% of hardcore Republican activists. An even larger band of supporters showed up from out of state to cheer Paul on and help with the organizing. As the campaign picks of steam heading into the fall, check out all the great things coming up at the official site or your local MeetUp group.

Now its Your Turn: Despite Paul's lead by all grassroots measures - supporters organizing online, straw poll votes, cash on hand - some groups still don't consider him a leading contender. One of those groups is the Republican Jewish Coalition. They decided not to invite Dr. Paul to their presidential forum on October 16. Ostensibly they don't consider Paul a "top 6" candidate even though you can see he's never finished worse than 6th in any poll that requires a voter to get out of the house and cast a ballot. Really, I think they'd rather have their ears tickled with bald-faced lies about moving the US embassy to Jerusalem (just like Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush2 did) than hear from a candidate who actually thinks Israeli policy should be made in Jerusalem. Please politely alert them to the error of their ways at They actually responded to my email with a polite invitation to join their group though I think I fail the first requirement for membership, but at least it shows they listen to us. And just for kicks, tell them Zionists for Ron Paul sent you.

Monday, July 30, 2007

"Friends of Israel" Deal Arms to Saudi Arabia

Some of our counterparts among pro-Israel Republican voters like to say that George Bush is the best friend Israel ever had. (An opinion confirmed by the fact that I could research this post solely by Googling the phrase "best friend Israel ever had.") So its interesting to see what our best friend's top subordinates have been up to in the last few days.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have been in Saudi Arabia this week trying to coax the kingdom into doing something to support the flagging occupation of Iraq, presumably by aiding the Sunni minority that ruled Iraq until the US overthrew them and a Shia regime lead by ayatollahs formerly exiled to Iran was voted in.

Now generally when the US needs to rally the troops to whatever its cause in the Middle East happens to be at the moment, the carrot it holds out is pressure on Israel. We can see this most clearly after the 1991 Gulf War when Israel was cajoled into the Madrid Peace Conference which did nothing to benefit Israel and even less to promote peace. This time, however, they're throwing in a new sweetener: $20 billion worth of arms sales, which will look nice on the mantle next to the $13 billion in military aid to Egypt.

Ironically, Israel's "leadership" is unconcerned with this development. Perhaps Israel has been assured that the weapons going to Saudi Arabia are wired to self-destruct in the event of an extremist take over the of Kingdom. Or maybe they are programed only to work on Iranians. Or the reason is simply that Olmert, in a reverse of the trend toward economic independence begun by the Netanyahu administration, secured from President Bush a further promise of $30 billion in aid over the next decade for Israel.

The increased aid to Israel will be critical, Israeli Cabinet members say, to maintain Israel's "qualitative advantage" over any potential opponent. While its certainly a noble end for Israel to be better equipped than any enemy, especially given its disadvantages in wealth, geography, and demographics versus the Arab world, stop and think about this for a second. If there was no American military aid whatsoever to the region - no $20 billion to the Saudis, no $13 billion to Egypt, no $30 billion to Israel - which side would have a qualitative advantage? Obviously the smart money here would be on Israel. While Israel is one of the world's technology leaders (even more so in security technology) Arab technological achievements are like French military victories - there are a lot of them but you have to go back centuries in the history books to find any. So all military aid and arms sales to the region does is undermine what would be a natural qualitative advantage for Israel based on a more developed society necessitating more aid from the US to Israel to reconstruct the advantage that aid to Arab nations undercut. Because of the inherent security dilemma this ratchets up the potential lethality of future Middle Eastern conflict, thus hurting Israel's human security, and sending the message that "Israel's best friend" is, in the words of Ron Paul, "hypocritically hedging its bets."

On an interesting side note to this from the campaign trail, Rudy Giuliani recently named Norman Podhoretz, the noted neo-con as an advisor. Podhoretz claims that Giuliani would take a much stronger approach to Saudi Arabia, basing this on the famous incident when Giuliani returned a donation for relief from 9/11 from a Saudi prince after said prince laced the presentation ceremony with anti-Israel references. That's all well and good, but one does have to question the liklihood of a change in policy from a man who had no qualms about taking money from the Saudis when it enriched himself rather than his constituents. As Fox News reports:

[Giuliani's firm] also is working for Saudi Arabia. In March the firm
filed papers in a Texas courst case on behalf of Saudi Arabia's oil

Clearly the better policy is that of non-intervention, to stay out of local conflicts and stop arming both sides in preparation for a potential regional war. It will cost the US alot less in terms of money and goodwill around the world and leave Israel in a stronger, more secure position to carry out its own policy on peace and security.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Ron Paul in the Sunday New York Times

It's been a while since I've posted, you'll have to forgive me, I've been on vacation for the last week so my body has been out of Israel and my mind off the Paul campaign. Fortunately, Judah and Benjamin have held down the fort for me. But while I was gone, the good doctor got a significant shot in the arm from that old institution every political outsider loves to hate - the mainstream media. Paul was the subject of an extensive profile in July 22 New York Sunday Times magazine.

The story is a feature rather than hard news article about Paul's positions so it meanders in a fairly engaging way through Dr. Paul as the folksy small town Texan who knows about barbecues, grandchildren, and gospel passages but hasn't a clue about Daily Show host Jon Stewart or GQ magazine. It covers all the bases in Paul's background and beliefs from baby doctor to just war theory from policy wonk to internet sensation. Amongst the storytelling are some interesting points for those of us in the pro-Israel community.

To quote:

"Even the fact that you’re asking this question [about the Israel lobby] infers, ‘Oh,
you’re an anti-Semite,’ " he told me in June. Actually, it doesn’t. Paul was in
Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the
United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so. He
says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel’s. His votes
against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all
foreign aid. There is no sign that they reflect any special animus against the
Jewish state.

From Paul's statements and action on Israel the article goes on to a MeetUp of Paul's supporters in California and the curious preoccupation of one of the organizers:
That night, [MeetUp organizer Connie] Ruffley. . . got quickly to Israel,
raising the Israeli attack on the American Naval signals ship Liberty during
the Six-Day War. Some people were pleased. Others walked out. Others sent
angry e-mails that night. Several said they would not return.
The juxtaposition of Ron Paul's principled non-interventionism in the Middle East with the rabid anti-Zionist, anti-Israel positions of one of his supporters gives us a unique insight into why the Paul campaign has (or will have) difficulty gaining traction with the majority of Americans who are either sympathetic or supportive of Israel. Basically, I can see 3 reasons why the charge of anti-Israel or anti-Semite could get slapped on Paul:
1. Paul's opposition to foreign aid - Despite Israel's modern hi-tech driven economy that is rapidly approaching the world's wealthiest nations in standard of living, it remains the largest recipient of US foreign aid. As many have pointed out and we've linked on the side bar, this aid is not purely beneficial for Israel nor is it particularly necessary. But because aid is such a tangible symbol of support, proposals to do away with it get labeled as a cruel and anti-Semitic action. Surely no one would make the same case the the dearth of aid to Britain makes Congress inherently anti-British.

2. Paul's criticism of AIPAC and the Israel Lobby - This criticism, as pointed out by the Times, is based on based on a clash of principles. Ron Paul opposes foreign aid and foreign wars in general while AIPAC advocates specifically for 2 things - increased aid and increased US military involvement. This has nothing to do with AIPAC being a Jewish or Zionist organization. Nor can AIPAC, despite its significant base of support, speak for all Jews, Zionists, or Israel-lovers. In many ways, the things they advocate are not beneficial and potentially hurtful to the country they claim to support.

3. Paul's supporters - The Paul campaign is a true grassroots effort, probably the first any of us young Americans have ever seen. It seems that Paul kind of got talked into running and reluctantly agreed so he could promote his idea in the debates. The official campaign openly admits that it never seriously aimed at the nomination. But what has happened is they underestimated the reservoirs of support among disgruntled Republicans, old right conservatives, libertarians, betrayed liberals, antiwar advocates, and authenticity seeking young people just waiting for a leader they could push into the national spotlight with their online and retail-politicking activism and now Paul sits with more money in the bank than John McCain, increased coverage in the national media, and overflow crowds at rallies from Greenville, South Carolina to Google Headquarters in California. The problem is that some of these people, like Ms. Ruffley, come to promote their agenda and not Dr. Paul's. Because of the grassroots effort, more people encounter the activists before they encounter the official campaign. When some of these people have an openly anti-Israel agenda, Paul gets tarred with guilt by association, turning off many pro-Israel voters before they can even hear Paul's words and an explanation of how they can benefit Israel's sovereignty and security. I have the feeling that this last commenter on a Jewish blog is not alone in his assessment.

The purpose of this blog is exactly to answer these challenges to the Paul campaign and make the case that principled non-interventionism would be more beneficial to Israel than a "special relationship" that keeps the aid money flowing in exchange for interference in Israel's domestic affairs, comparable aid to its opponents and enemies, and destabilizing military adventures in its neighborhood. Thanks for reading us, stick with us as we go into these issues in more detail, and get out there and support Ron Paul.

Monday, July 23, 2007

The Middle East Quartet and Neo-Imperialism

Former British Prime Minister and New Middle East Quartet Envoy Tony Blair is scheduled to arrive in Israel today with the goal of laying political and economic groundwork that will help force the State of Israel to shrink her borders. I find it noteworthy that Blair is expected to set up his headquarters at Jerusalem’s Government House, the same compound in Jerusalem’s Armon Hanatziv neighborhood from where the British ruled when they occupied our country.

According to British press reports Blair has expressed interest in using Government House as his base. I find it very telling that Tony Blair would look to set up shop in the very building that his people used when they ruled over our land and oppressed our people. To me this reeks of subconscious imperialism and should make us all weary of the Quartet’s agenda in the region (as if shrinking Israel weren’t bad enough).

The last Quartet envoy, James Wolfensohn, used the American Colony Hotel as his base of operations. Wolfensohn – a member of the Council on Foreign Relations who has been known to attend meetings of both the Bilderberg Group and Aspen Institute – served as Condoleezza Rice’s Special Envoy for the Gaza Disengagement here in Israel two years ago. Up until then Wolfensohn was president of the World Bank, a position he used to heavily fund the Gaza Disengagement in order to facilitate the expulsion of nearly ten thousand Jews from their homes.

The Quartet is made up of the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia. It was set up to divide the Land of Israel and promote a neo-imperialist (globalist) agenda in the Middle East. But if the United States were to pull out of the Quartet, as Congressman Ron Paul would certainly do if elected president, it is doubtful that the remaining three participants would be able to keep up momentum. If American supporters of Israel wish to save the Jewish state from the globalist agenda of the Middle East Quartet, the best course of action would be support for Congressman Paul.

Saturday, July 21, 2007

Is Israel David or Goliath?

As much as the globalist-controlled world media tries to present Israel as a Western power and the aggressor in the Middle East conflict, Israel is actually the ultimate victim of globalization and Western imperialism.

The British Empire, who ruled Palestine from the end of World War I (when they conquered it from the Turks) until the Jews won our freedom in 1948, did everything in their power to prevent a Jewish state. The British had been given a mandate by the League of Nations to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine but they soon decided it better to stay on in the Middle East as permanent rulers (their Navy had just made the switch from coal to oil). The British began employing their traditional policy of “divide and rule” turning the local Jewish and Arab populations against one another. The empire continuously shrunk the size of Palestine – creating an artificial Arab state called Trans-Jordan in the process – and worked to upset the demographic balance of what was left of Palestine by importing Arab workers from elsewhere in the region (and in some cases importing Muslims from as far as Bosnia) while restricting Jewish immigration. When young Jews finally revolted against the occupiers and succeeded in forcing them out, the British tried to get even by arming and leading Arab armies against the Jews. With British assistance, Trans-Jordan managed to take Judea, Samaria and most of Jerusalem (and then began calling themselves Jordan) while the Egyptians succeeded in conquering the Gaza strip. It took 19 years for Israel to win these lands back and now the international community is mounting heavy pressure for the Jews to relinquish these lands and return to the truncated borders that the Jews miraculously managed to survive in between 1948 and 1967.

When Israel succeeded in expelling the British, the Americans pressured the Jews not to declare a state. When the US administration saw that the Jews would not obey, President Truman imposed an embargo against the region (while the British were arming the Arabs to the teeth), threatening any American wishing to help Israel with 10 years imprisonment and loss of American citizenship. Ironically, it was Joseph Stalin who, in an effort to thwart American foreign policy, supplied weapons to Israel through Czechoslovakia. The arms were not enough to hold onto everything the Jews had freed from British rule but they were enough to survive on a small sliver of land.

As a small Jewish state situated on a mostly Arab continent, Israel is now one of the foremost obstacles to globalization and what many call the new world order. The global elite, who seek to move the world towards a unified government, first need to phase out small nation-states in favor of continent blocks. The European Union, African Union, and North American Union are all stepping stones on the way to a global regime. But the Middle East, an oil rich continent important to Western governments and global corporations, seems impossible to globalize so long as there exists a strong and defensible Israel that the entire region wants to destroy. Enter the peace process. Under the guise of “peace” the international community – led by the US, UN, EU, and Russia – has been placing tremendous pressure on the State of Israel to shrink its borders to the point of irrelevancy.

And the world media is aggressively pushing this agenda by working to portray Israel as the occupier and the aggressor in the conflict. Only a few years ago, I myself bought into the propaganda and believed Israel to be an instrument of globalization and imperialism. I hope others will take the time to learn the history of the Middle East and begin to see what I saw while there is still time for action.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Divide and Rule

Since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, special interest groups have been slowly usurping control of the United States. And as their influence grows and their agenda begins to appear irreversible, it becomes increasingly clear for anyone willing to see that these groups have one ultimate aim – global government. Free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the World Bank, UN, ICC, NAFTA, NATO, WTO, and CAFTA have all been put in place over the decades in order to serve as a bridge to a new world order devoid of independent nation-states. In truth, these initiatives are not only threats to American sovereignty but also to the independence of other nations throughout the world. The European Union and other attempts to unify continents have succeeded in transferring power from local governments to unelected bureaucratic elites loyal to no particular flag.

While American sovereignty and the civil liberties of the American people are perhaps two of the greatest victims of this hidden coup d'├ętat, many who oppose this trend in other parts of the world ironically see the threat as American imperialism or a Pax Americana. It is no wonder that so many peoples throughout the world carry so much animosity towards the United States. In the Middle East, for example, where the globalists have spent the last two decades working to shrink Israel’s borders and weaken her defensive capabilities, many view American foreign policy as a threat to the Jewish state’s survival. Granted Israel is not the only small country on which the US places tremendous diplomatic and economic pressure. But Israel is perhaps the only one of these countries whose very existence is in danger because of this pressure. Since the administration of President George H.W. Bush, the US has consistently forced successive Israeli governments to move in directions that endanger their people, borders, and national sovereignty (while the globalist-controlled media portrays Israel as an aggressor and occupier). And there is a growing feeling among many Israelis that if they do not separate themselves from the American agenda and shake off their economic dependency on the US, Israel might not be able to survive.

The Israeli people must learn that it is not the American people but rather a minority of wealthy and powerful individuals that are threatening Israel’s existence and independence. By the same token, Americans who oppose the dangers of globalism must stop referring to the threat to their liberties and sovereignty as a “Zionist” conspiracy. Nothing can be further from the truth. The same ruling elite (who admittedly include several Jews among their ranks) currently destroying the American dream are the very same conspirators seeking to chop up Israel. The world media has been successful in dividing the opposition to the ruling elite’s new world order. But its time that freedom loving people on both sides of the world stop blaming one another and start uniting behind a leader. I believe that leader is Ron Paul.

Friday, July 13, 2007

Is Israel free?

Are the Jewish people free? Is the State of Israel truly independent? On the surface one might think so. In 1948, Jewish militants succeeded in liberating our country from British rule. A Jewish state was declared and we fought tooth and nail to defend our land from the seven Arab armies who attacked us as the British departed (many British soldiers lagged behind to help Trans-Jordan and Egypt against the Jews). But let’s look at the following:

- Israel has not stopped fighting for our freedom. The War of Independence is still waging as nearly the entire region surrounding the State of Israel are overtly determined to erase it. Every war over the last 59 years has been a battle in the larger war for Israel’s independence.

- After 59 years of statehood, Israel still does not enjoy internationally recognized borders. Not one nation recognizes Israel’s right to the entire territory between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River (1/4 of the land allocated by the League of Nations to be a Jewish homeland).

- In the early 1990s, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir stood strong against international pressure to shrink Israel’s borders, United States President George H.W. Bush and his Secretary of State James Baker III interfered in the Israeli political system to remove Shamir from office and replace him with someone more pliable to Western interests. Since then, every Israeli leader has seen himself as a vassal ruler for foreign powers rather than as the leader of an independent country.

- Many Israelis view their country’s survival as being economically, diplomatically, and militarily dependent on foreign powers.

- Not one nation recognizes Israel’s right to Jerusalem as her capital city. Not one foreign embassy stands in Jerusalem today.

- Israeli leaders frequently justify unpopular and dangerous policies to the public by stating that Israel must acquiesce to the demands of the international community.

The truth is that whatever small degree of sovereignty Israel still exercises is most often used to placate the outside world. The State of Israel has potential independence – a government, army, recognized statehood (without recognized borders) but the Jews lack true freedom so long as we behave like a banana republic while at the same time being in a position of existential danger. The combination is just no good.

Congressman Ron Paul is the only American presidential candidate who opposes dictating policy to any nation – including Israel. Like all decent people, Congressman Paul understands the need for peace in the Middle East. But unlike others, Paul appears to understand that peace will never come through the interference of foreign powers but only when both sides of the conflict genuinely decide to chart a better future together. And therefore Paul is the only candidate that can advance peace in the Middle East and the only candidate that can be trusted to encourage Israel towards true national sovereignty.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

A better world

I have never been excited by an American politician until now. Congressman Ron Paul – as the anti-NAFTA, anti-NATO, anti-UN, anti-IRS, anti-NWO candidate – has captivated my imagination and got me thinking what this world would look like with a man like Paul in the White House.

For Americans it is important that Ron Paul is a constitutionalist and therefore the only presidential candidate true to the vision of the country’s founding fathers. As a congressman he has never voted to raise taxes nor has he ever supported an unbalanced budget. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership and has consistently worked to shrink the size of government. Congressman Paul has consistently fought for civil liberties and opposes the Patriot Act and Homeland Security.

But why should any of these things matter to me? I left America nearly six years ago and have since made my life in the State of Israel. I have a wife and children in Jerusalem and we see our future here. So why should I care about elections across an ocean? And why is it even justified for me to endorse a candidate in some other country’s race? I have always opposed, on moral grounds, people voting in the elections of one nation with the interest of another nation at heart. But there are two reasons why I feel different in this case.

Number one, I genuinely believe that Congressman Paul is the only decent candidate for the American people and the only political figure that can return the United States to the glorious vision of its founders. He is the only presidential candidate that speaks about fixing America's real problems at the root level. Regardless of all else, I genuinely feel that Congressman Paul can provide the best future for the American people.

Second, Ron Paul as president of the United States can make the entire world a better place – not by turning democracy or American values into a crusade like the neo-conservatives have done but by doing exactly the opposite. As a non-interventionist, Paul as president would most likely reduce US involvement in other parts of the world and respect the ancient cultures of indigenous peoples. This would be especially beneficial for Israel and the entire Middle East simply because most of our regional problems are the result of imperialism, globalization and general Western interference in local issues. With Congressman Ron Paul as president, the United States – instead of nation-building overseas – can return to building a truly great nation at home while working to solve its own many problems, thus allowing other nations to develop and advance at their own pace.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007


Welcome to Zionists for Ron Paul. We are the vanguard of a dedicated group of activists supporting the Presidential candidacy of Representative Ron Paul (R-Tx). Using this blog as a base we will present the case that only a candidate who truly believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy can protect Israel's national interests.

As we state in our description, politicians always want to be Israel's friend. But in the name of friendship, politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties have forced Israel into surrendering land to the Hamas terrorist group (, hindered Israel's foreign relations (, intervened in Israel's democratic process (see The Missing Peace by Dennis Ross, especially p. 256-257 and Broken Covenant by Moshe Arens), and may have had a hand in vetoing a peace initiative with Syria.

We believe strongly in the friendship between Israel and America, but that friendship must be one of equals, like the US has with England. A strong Israel requires an Israel that has the final authority over all its decisions on economy, on foreign relations, and on war and peace. We seek an end to a "special relationship" that requires Israel to always be the servant to whoever is in the White House.

Please join us in supporting the one candidate who will uphold America's national interests and give Israel the freedom to uphold its interests as well. As we go on, we'll be exploring these ideas in much more detail.

Thanks for stopping by and get out and vote Ron Paul in the primaries!