|
Paul and Huckabee supporters: their letters, my responses
Many reactions of people debating my latest comment on candidate Ron Paul can be found at the bottom of the article in the form of talk-backs. Some readers also commented on my story and on the new Israel Factor ranking about candidate Huckabee. I have no intention to respond to all the claim these readers made - some made interesting comments, some were just rude, and as always, some were stupid - as the list is long and life is short.
Some of my readers bothered to send me an actual email, and a couple of those emails I thought I should share with you ? as it will help me clarify some of my points. They also cover most of the topics to which talk-back readers were referring.
So here it is: the reactions and my responses to them.
1.
Hello:
I read your blog about Ron Paul, and thought I'd rebut your evaluation of his appearance. First, I would venture to assume you have Israel's best interest in mind? While I do agree that they have a divine mandate to the land, and much more than what they currently occupy, I certainly don't view the United States as God's enforcer.
In reality, the average American needs to ask him or herself who cares about Israel. I certainly don't. Let the country fend for itself, if God wants them to be there, then God will keep them there.
I'm neither anti-Jewish or Arab/Persian/Palestinian; I'm in apathy towards both. Get the U.S. back into it's own back yard, out of the Middle-East/Southwest Asia, stop sending our prosperity to people who could care less about the United States and remove/eliminate/terminate anyone who has the United States' best interest, to include treasonous offenses, second to a person's homeland or country of origin - get rid of dual citizenship.
Best regards,
Anthony
Dear Anthony: You are right, I do care about Israel. You are also wrong: I do not expect candidate Paul (or you) to care. I do, however, maintain the right to point out any such carelessness, especially in cases when one pretends to care while he does not.
When Paul says that Israel will be better off without American aid I might be less inclined to trust his judgment if I thought he didn't even care. And anyway, the debate American voters should be having is whether America will be better off without aiding Israel. I think I can guess your position on this matter.
Is America God's enforcer? I don't think so, but that's not the question at hand. Here too, the debate that American voters should have is whether America is better off if it does not intervene in the world.
And of course I want as many American candidates to support my country. I would also like the next Iranian president to be more friendly toward Israel. And the Queen of England. And the UN Secretary General. Is that at all surprising?
2.
Dear Shmuel:
You have taken Ron Paul to task for saying that Israel is promoting war on Iran by the US, and crow that he "can't prove it." Of course, just reading Israeli newspapers proves it, as one official after another makes ominous warnings about Iran. Even you say that Iran is a problem not only for Israel but for America (how?). I note too the special intelligence group being sent to the US by Israel to convince my government that Iran is still "a problem" despite the NIE report.
But now you take Huckabee down a few pegs because he is not stern enough on Iran and actually believes --gasp! --in diplomacy and not recklessly sending American young people into harm's way. For what? Dare I say it --only for Israel.
Miriam M. Reik
New York, NY
Dear Miriam
1. I think there might be some confusion here. I never said Israel was not trying to rally the world against Iran. It does try, and for good reason: Iran is threatening to eliminate it.
What I said - and for some reason thought that it was quite clear - is that Paul did not present any proof that Israel is trying to convince the US to bomb Iran. Israel keeps saying that sanctions are the best way forward, and is very careful not to say publicly that it wants America to act militarily. I also admitted that its leaders (and people) probably do want America to act with force in the case that the sanctions fail to stop Iran's nuclear program, but there's a huge difference between wanting something and acting on something. I think Paul's characterization was far from nuanced, and in some ways manipulative.
2. Saying that Iran is a problem to America is stating the obvious. Paul doesn't seem to think so, but all major political candidates seem to disagree with him. Do you think they were all convinced by Israel? (I know, some people do. And my advice to them is to see a shrink soon).
3. All I did with Huckabee is to let the panel of Israeli experts read his article and analyze it. True, they weren't very happy with it. But is it because he was for a more robust diplomatic approach to Iran? I don't think so. Hillary Clinton expresses similar views and the panel seems to be OK with it. My assumption is that the panel was not happy with Huckabbe's contention that containing a nuclear Iran is possible. When one starts with such assumption, there's a reason to suspect that he might not be as energetic in trying to stop Iran before it gets the bomb.
3.
Lew Rockwell, home of Ron Paul supporters ultima extremata have turned up the reference call of Israel for the USA to bomb Iran. It was in the end of 2002, and a published request from Ariel Sharon to Bush. After Iraq was finished America should go as fast as they could after Iran.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1105-02.htm.
Original Newspaper: Times of London, November 5th 2002
Oops, not a mere individual or politician said it, but the then
functioning prime minister.
That's less Kooky than I thought when I first heard it.
With regards,
Hendrik Rood
Dear Hendrik You are one of several readers who sent me this link the Times article. After reading it carefully I don't see any need to change my position. Maybe you ought to read it again too, because it does not contain any mention of an Israeli call to bomb Iran (the headline says it, but the text does not).
4.
Dear Mr. Rosner,
I am a Christian (Baptist) Minister. If Israel would have me I would go there and lay my life down for them. No nation on the earth is as important to me as the great nation of Israel. I say that so that you will understand where I am coming from - at least know my heart is with Israel.
Having said all that, I would like Dr. Paul to be President of the United States and to initiate his ideas. Number one: cutting off all foreign aid for all nations in the world including Israel and the Arab Nations. Number two: Abolishing of the IRS. It would prove to be highly beneficial for Israel.
The reason being the millions of Americans who love and would like to support Israel would have the money to send. Israel would receive much more monetary support from private sources than it now receives from our federal government. With no strings attached.
Sir, you must know percentage wise more Americans stand by Israel than stand for the Arabs. If America continues on its present course of arming both sides of world conflicts and throwing money in every direction we will soon destroy ourselves and will be of absolutely no use in helping Israel.
Thank you for considering what I have to say. One of my greatest hopes is to someday before I die to visit Jerusalem and the city of David.
Your friend, and friend of Israel,
Dan Wingo
Dear Dan I hope you will have the opportunity to visit. This will be even more beneficial to Israel than a check.
5.
One thing you can bet the farm on - as a Southern Baptist, Mike Huckabee will support Israel. Remember, he used the quote "keep your friends close and your enemies closer". Don't be mislead. He talks softly but he means business. He wants peace but he won't sacrifice safety. You can trust Mike Huckabee. He is this generation's Ronald Reagan.
Thanks,
Nancy Crayton
Sammamish, WA
Dear Nancy maybe you?re right. But the panel made a judgment based on Huckabee's Foreign Affairs article that it did not find reassuring.
6.
Shalom Shmuel,
I strongly disagree with the analysis on Huckabee as presented
through the Israeli panelists. Let me first say that I am not
affiliated with his campaign in any way, nor have I endorsed him for
President.
EVANGELICALS ARE OFTEN GENUINE PRO-ISRAEL SUPPORTERS DESPITE THE FACT THAT MANY LIBERAL JEWS FEAR THEIR SUPPORT
In terms of principles, Huckabee is a strong supporter of Israel and
he says so in clear and plain language on his website. He is the
only presidential candidate that I am aware of who has a separate
page expressing his support for Israel. In this way, he seems to be
similar to Pastor John Hagee of Cornerstone Church in Texas, and in
fact, Huckabee had a chance to speak to 10,000 members of the
Cornerstone Church this past week.
So, here we have two strong data points that suggest we not only
don't have a bad one for Israel but possibly one of our strongest
supporters of Israel in the running.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS ARTICLE ISN'T AS BAD AS PUNDITS SAY IT IS AND RECOGNIZES THE THREAT FROM ENERGY DEPENDENCE
Now, let's turn to the language in the Foreign Affairs article. He
does say we need to destroy Al-Qaeda and contain Iran. But the
sense in which he uses the word "contain" does not mean he would not resort to a military option if necessary, and he says as much in his remarks. This part of the article might be more disturbing if his
overall world view failed to recognize and acknowledge the overall
risks in the region and perception of so-called Moderate Arab states
and U.S. allies. For example, Huckabee specifically points out the
cost of being dependent on oil from Saudi Arabia, and has proposed
making America energy independent in 10 years. Hs willingness to
challenge convention and identify Saudi Arabia as a serious problem
in the Middle East is extremely positive (and identical to the effort
being undertaken by SetAmericaFree.com with Cliff May, Gal Luft,
James Woolsey, Frank Gaffney, and others).
So, in balance where is Huckabee on the presidential pro-Israel
continuum? It's hard to keep up with Giuliani who gave the Saudi
Arabian prince his money back after suggesting U.S. policies supporting Israel triggered 9/11. But after Giuliani, there's a
credible case that Huckabee is the next in line. With Ed Rollins
recently joining as his campaign manager --- a legend who previously served as Ronald Reagan's national campaign manager --- it is not impossible that Mike Huckabee will be the GOP nominee and become the next President of the United States. If so, those who are pro-Israel should be assured that we will have someone in the Oval Office who understands the importance of Israel and the special relationship that the U.S. and Israel share.
Cheers,
Michael
Dear Michael Are you sure you don't work for him? He should probably hire your good services.
|
