Does Ron Paul single out Israel?

1.

I first witnessed the energy and dedication of Ron Paul's supporters at the Republican debate in Durham NH, on which I wrote a while ago (my focus in this article was Mike Huckabee). I was standing outside the hall where the debate was about to take place, and was amazed by the number of Paul supporters, and by the enthusiasm they mastered. Back then, Paul did not yet make waves with the surprising fundraising numbers he presented a couple of weeks later (and even more so this week).

I was following Paul (as I do with all candidates) but wasn't paying too much attention. Once in a while I would get a letter: why isn't Ron Paul of your Israel Factor? I got two-three dozens such letters. I even thought for a short while about adding him to the Factor mix, and called some of the panelists for consultation. "What for," they asked. We all know he will rank last, close to zero. This panel will not be the one to praise an assimilationist - or as the call it in Paul?s camp: A Jeffersonian Republican.

Eventually, I've decided against adding him and my response to the complaining readers was always the same: we do not rank all the candidates. Paul didn't seem to be significant enough as a candidate when we started the Factor. Even now, I don't know many experts (or polls) that give him a chance. So we just don't rank him. But I did think that writing about him (and his attitude toward Israel), at least this one time, is worth the effort.

I recall driving from Durham to Boston late at night after the debate, listening to the after-party broadcast (XML radio). Our viewers think that the winner of the debate ? so said the anchor - is Paul. This happened again in the next Republican debate. Paul's supporters can be blamed for many things, but not for being lazy or careless about the political process.

2.

So, what about Paul and Israel?

A candidate that would like to see all foreign aid taken from Israel, to sit idly by as Iran develops nuclear weapons, to abandon Iraq to its fate. "Israel would be better off" and the Israelis "could take care of themselves" if the United States ended its alliance with Israel, he said.

During the Lebanon war last year, he spoke against a House resolution condemning attacks on Israel and supporting Israel?s right to defend itself. He warned that the resolution could lead to an escalation of the war.

On Iran, Paul is the staunchest critic of talk about military action against Iran which he calls "propaganda". He said that "Iran doesn't have a nuke and is nowhere close to getting one, according to the CIA" and that Iran "is hardly a perfect democracy, its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies about which we never complain."

3.

But he also said that he was not in any way hostile to Israel.

He repeatedly stated that "he did not believe that we do Israel any favors and we actually weaken Israel by our constant meddling and intervention." On the issue of foreign aid, his supporters are right when they say that by no means he would single out Israel. Paul opposes American aid and alignment with Israel, and even blames it for attracting terrorist attacks, but says the same thing about American involvement with the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

When asked by an Arab reporter about America's "blind support" of Israel, Paul responded by saying this was a "good point" but also added that "I could talk about our blind support of Saudi Arabia." In his straight talk column he stated that "It is time to challenge the notion that it is our job to broker peace in the Middle East" (ironically, on this issue the candidate who came closest to express similar view is Rudy Giuliani, the most vocal of Paul?s critics). In regard to Israel and the Iranian threat he said that "nobody's going to touch Israel. Israel would be stronger if Israel had responsibility for themselves. Because I think we hold them back. In the 1980s they went over and took care of a nuclear reactor in Iraq."

No wonder that back in May, a NY Sun writer concluded that "Mr. Paul's approach to foreign policy", is "consistent and betrays no animosity toward Israel or Jews".

4.

And there's the "Lobby" issue. Paul did denounce, more than once, the pro-Israel lobby on Capitol Hill. He said that members of Congress have been "intimidated by the influence of AIPAC" (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee). He also said that "the assumption is that AIPAC is in control of things, and they control the votes, and they get everybody to vote against anything that would diminish the [Iraq] war".

Is this anti-Semitic? Is it biased?

I think it is the obvious price that Israel supporters are paying for being - well - influential. No, AIPAC is not responsible for the war in Iraq. But being a strong lobby comes with a price: the price of being singled out by a libertarian candidate for the Presidency.

5.

Bottom line: as far as I can tell - and spend a long time reading and talking to people about Paul and his positions - the problem with Paul is not his animosity toward Israel. It is his more the general attitude toward the role of America in the world (but this is not an issue I?m going to go into).

So why does it seem as if he deals with Israel more than with many other countries? The reason is simple: Israel's profile in America is high, and the issues of concern to Israel are also those troubling America. One can plausibly suspect that Paul is somewhat more irritated with Israel than with most other countries. But for a candidate opposing foreign aid and any American involvement in the Middle East, this is not an unreasonable annoyance.

Today on Rosner's Domain:

What To Read:
Americans split on military action against Iran

Previous blog:
Should American Jews have a voice in shaping Israel's policies?

Rosner's Guest:
New perspectives on the women characters in the Torah

Updated The Hamas Time Saver:
Features, opinions, interviews, studies