Author Topic: * America on Israel’s altar  (Read 358 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
* America on Israel’s altar
« on: January 15, 2012, 10:53:57 AM »
Redress Information & Analysis  Exposing injustice, disinformation and bigotry

“The foreign policy differences between Ron Paul and his adversaries make him an
ideal candidate for those tired of America's war hawks bankrupting the country.”

By Paul J. Balles ~ 11 January 2012 ~ source

Paul J. Balles argues that while US Republican presidential candidates, except for Ron Paul, bend over backward to support anything and everything that Israel has done, does or proposes, the current primary contests may reveal a growing public tiring of blind support for Israel.

The Boston Globe called US presidential candidate Ron Paul a “Republican maverick”.

The label has been attached to Paul primarily because he differs from the other Republican presidential candidates on foreign policy. This is what the Boston Globe said after the presidential debate In Des Moines, Iowa on 10 December 2011:

While most of the Republican candidates are open to military action against Iran, Paul advocates diplomacy. While several of the candidates oppose cutting the defence budget, Paul wants to slash it. Paul was one of the only candidates in the debate to oppose extending the Patriot Act.

For those unfamiliar with the Patriot Act, it was enacted presumably to help fight terrorism after 9/11 while sacrificing individual rights.

According to the Boston Globe, "Dean Spiliotes, an independent political analyst from New Hampshire, said Paul’s foreign policy contradicts core Republican tenets of strong national security and defence. But it appeals to Americans who are tired of war and focused on economic issues."

The foreign policy differences between Ron Paul and his adversaries make him an ideal candidate for those tired of America's war hawks bankrupting the country.

During the Republican candidates’ debate, Paul didn’t believe Israel would actually strike Iran – but if it did, “we need to get out of their way”. he cautioned.

“When they want to have peace treaties, we tell them what they can do because we buy their allegiance and they sacrifice their sovereignty to us,” admonished Paul.

“They decide they want to bomb something?" asked Paul. "That's their business, but they should suffer the consequences. Israel has 200-300 nuclear missiles and they can take care of themselves.”

Remember Vanunu?

For an American politician to make comments like that took courage. The one that followed would certainly upset American Israeli supporters:

“We don't even have a treaty with Israel. Why do we have this automatic commitment that we're going to send our kids and send our money endlessly to Israel?”

In the debate, the other candidates were falling all over themselves, attempting to show their dedication to Israel. The leading candidate, Mitt Romney groaned:

“There's no price which is worth an Iranian nuclear weapon. And the right course is to show that we care about Israel, that they are our friend; we'll stick with them.”

This is the same pre-emptive war hawk rubbish that Bush and Cheney and the Zio-cons fed the public as the way to combat terrorism when, in fact, they were telling Israel and its lobbies that America will eternally fight Israel's wars.

“The Republican candidates, except Ron Paul, all go overboard in their attempts to prove to the supporters in America that they will serve the interests of Israel at any cost.”

Of course, the rest of the world doesn’t need to be shown that the US cares about Israel. The only politician unwilling to sacrifice America for Israel is Ron Paul.

The American Arab Anti-discrimination Committee (ADC) recently illustrated the problem with Republicans’ unabated support for Israel:

Among politicians, Newt Gingrich called the Palestinian people an “invented  people”, Eric Cantor said that Palestinian culture was “infused with hatred and resentment”, and Mitt Romney said that he would consult with Binyamin Netanyahu in making US policy toward Palestinians because, apparently, Israel does not have enough say in US policy toward the Middle East.

If Ron Paul miraculously receives continuing strong support, his voting public will be tired of sacrificing America on Israel’s altar.

(Wishful thinking!) 
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.