Thursday, November 29, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
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
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
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
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
The question that has bothered me ever since that April 20th demonstration has been why the anti-globalization movement was redirected against
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
Contrary to what many would have us believe, the struggle for “greater