Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Clarification on Ron Paul post: by Ellen

For the record:
I want to clarify my stance to the posting at,

To some it appeared as if I were endorsing Paul, when in fact I know little about him or his policies and was simply commenting on what I deemed to be an intriguing and promising response. Please know that I no longer vote in U.S. elections – no dual loyalty issues here. But I am aching for a little independence and am anxious for my nation to stand on its own two feet, and to have the liberty of saying “NO!”

But now I know more, and I thank the people who contributed the below feedback, and I regret that I don’t have the time to blog their comments in full…

Jared Israel, the editor at was very concerned that my comments and the tone of the post appeared to endorse Paul. He submitted significant links and excerpts which are a cause for great concern (including Paul’s voting records, associates, and moral equivalency issues). He suggested that I google "Ron Paul" and "Raimondo," and "Israel" for a little insight.

And he feels that, “Supporting Paul violates the biblical injunction against suicide.”

Yehuda Hakohen, Arutz 7 radio personality, and leader of Magshimey Herut’s Zionist Freedom Alliance does support Ron Paul. He feels Paul is the only candidate who will not force Israel to surrender land, nor will he demand a two-state solution or division of Jerusalem – because Paul believes that it is not America's job to do so.

Yehuda supports Paul from an ideological/philosophical perspective – and not for his personality. And he pointed out that Ron Paul’s libertarian position is bound to attract all kinds of characters with varying agendas.

Ricky Geenfield, the publisher The Connecticut Jewish Ledger approved of Ron Paul’s debate response which I posted. Ricky didn’t have a lot of time to elaborate on Paul’s position, but he feels that when it comes to Ron Paul, “Jews don't get it”.” Paul is unabashedly free market and is naively so. Ayn Rand...another where his objectiveness stems from...” Ricky went on to say that “it would be wrong to call him fascist, but right to call him unsympathetic to things Israel (remember too that a true libertarian is more anarchist than fascist--both dangerous things)”.

Well, I hope that clears things up on a long, long-shot of a candidate (or are you more confused?)


Anonymous said...

Yehuda Hakohen is quoted saying that he supports the philosophy of Ron Paul, not the personality, then tells us what Paul (meaning obviously the *person*) would do if elected. That is, frankly, doubletalk. We do not know (as one never knows with U.S. politicians) what Paul would actually do if by miracle he were now elected, but we do know what he has done, which is make statements attacking blacks, immigrants, and Israel, which he equates with Hezbollah - or worse than equates, as in the following statement that Paul the personality made in response to a Congressional motion to condemn Hezbollah during the Lebanon war in 2006:

[Ron Paul quote starts here]
It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians.
[Ron Paul quote ends here]

In the same statement he defended the Lebanese government's then-policy of coddling Hezbollah's terrorist attacks on Israel, saying:

[Ron Paul quote starts here]
"It is very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing more about Hezbollah. I object to terrorism committed by Hezbollah because I am a strong opponent to all violence on all sides. But I also object to the unreasonable accusations that the Government of Lebanon has not done enough, when we realize that Israel occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years and was not able to neutralize Hezbollah."
[Ron Paul quote ends here]

You can read that in an article Paul posted on the website of his advisor, Lew Rockwell, at

Rockwell is on the board of, where, with Justin Raimondo, he has been a top Paul strategist (they are not *associated* with Paul’s campaign, but its creators) since 2000, when I made the innocent mistake of working closely with only to discover it represents the right wing of the Catholic church (led in the U.S. politically by Pat Buchanan). Paul is a Buchananite. His talk of not getting involved in foreign entanglements is talk; given the chance, he would denounce Israel in international bodies and use US power to sabotage Israel worldwide. His Buchananite strategists know he can’t be elected. They are using his campaign to draw disaffected people into an anti-black, anti-Jewish, anti-union, anti-immigrant movement, just like Father Charles Coughlin, from whom they all descend. It must give Justin Raimondo at anti-war com a good laugh to see Jews gaga enough to support Paul. Imagine: selling Jew-baiting to the Jews!

What we need to do is NOT ally with the antisemites who want to end US material support for Israel (Paul's goal), but win Americans - meaning, obviously, first of all, JEWISH Americans - to demand that the US stop trying to force Israel into bed with terrorists.

Judah Mac said...

I wasn't quoted at all. Ellen briefly explained what she understood to be my position. While everyone from Hilary to McCain speak about continuing the status quo in regards to the US-Israel relationship, Dr. Paul is the only candidate saying that Israel should be an independent country rather than a vassal state. Therefore he is the only "Zionist" choice (Zionism being the belief that the Jewish nation should have an independent Jewish state in the Land of Israel). Additionally, as a non-interventionist, Dr. Paul is the candidate least likely to pressure Israel into dangerous and unjust concessions.
That being said, I don't deny Jared's claims that Ron Paul is really part of a Buchanan-led group of neo-Nazis working to manipulate the American public. I'm open to that possibility and would be very interested in seeing more information. While I do agree with Dr. Paul that America should return to the original vision of its founding fathers and their Constitution, my support for him is mainly based on the statements he has made during this campaign - especially in regards to American participation in the Middle East and US foreign aid to nations (including Israel) of that region. I do not claim to know what Dr. Paul thinks of Jews. I don't even think that such a question is relevant (a Jew hater can be good for Israel and even a Jew can be bad for Israel). Whats important is that Ron Paul doesn't see it as America's role to dictate policies to foreign governments.

Anonymous said...

Thanks to Ellen for directing me to this site... I feel compelled to weigh in here regarding Ron Paul.
You have to understand something - first off - I have met the man and spoken to him - he is not an anti-semite. He isn't anti-Israel.
What he is - is a Constitutionalist who believes strongly in what the Founders of the US intended and have provided for in our US Constitution and Declaration of Independemce.

Most of all, and among other things, we should not be meddling in foreign civil wars, arming our friends enemies, and otherwise dictating to other nations how they should run their affairs.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

But may I also remind you that Dr. Paul supported Israel's right to act, and pre-emptively at that, in her own self-interest when she bombed the Osirak reactor in Iraq, while everyone else, including President Reagan, condemned Israel.

He feels very strongly that Israel should not be treated as some sort of step child of the US.

Ron Paul says, “Why make Israel so dependent? Why do they give up their sovereignty? They can't defend their borders without coming to us. If they want a peace treaty, they have to ask us permission. We interfere when the Arab leagues make overtures to them“.

I believe, the US has become the meddlesome relative and has actually weakened Israel in the process. We have put strings on the aid we’ve given her and required her to make countless concessions in land and security – for what? Is she any better off now than she was? No, and now we are even asking her to give up half of Jerusalem. How much more will the United States ask Israel to give up?

No - Ron Paul is not anti-Israel and he is not an anti-semite. He just thinks we would be better off following our Constitution and the advice of our founders. Ron Paul respects the sovereignty of other countries as well as our own. He realizes the importance of treating the state of Israel with the respect and honor it deserves as a sovereign nation, and not like she’s the 51st state of our Union.

It is unfortunate that people have been sold a bit of corporate media propaganda and smear politics put out there by those a Ron Paul presidency threatens, and as an American Jew I have absolutely no reason to believe Dr. Paul is a racist or any other of that nonsense.

Jared - you can certainly pick out phrases here and there from his speeches and even out of context - but what he espouses is that war and violence is counterproductive, and both sides do horrible things, and we need to find solutions so we are not continually involving and killing innocent people. Perhaps if the US stopped giving aid to arab countries (three times that of Israel's) we would stop putting fuel to the fire. Perhaps if we let Israel do what it needs to do to defend herself instead of continually forcing her to make suicidal compromises then she'd be better off.
I don't see that as anti-semitic or anti-Israel at all. Ron Paul is a neo-nazi like I am the Pope. He is a non-interventionist and believes that countries should be respected enough to handle their own affairs.
Senator McCain on the other hand will only serve to cause more strife in the Middle East, and I do not relish ANY of the current crop of candidates as future leaders of the US. We are headed into some very dangerous times indeed.

Anonymous said...

Yehuda Hakohen responds to my charge that the Ron Paul campaign is part of an antisemitic propaganda effort hiding behind babble about constitutional purity and non-intervention - unless and until they want to intervene, of course - by saying:

a) That he doesn't know anything about the man except what he has said in his campaign, to which I say, then don’t endorse this accused antisemite; do your homework, or don’t claim to lead others;

b) That Paul could well be part of a Buchanan-led neo-Nazi cabal, and he would find that most interesting, which leaves me speechless, so I will go on;

c) And, while he doesn't know what Paul thinks about Jews, that even if Paul hates Jews, he still could be good for Israel. To which I say, sure he could. Jew-haters are always good for Israel.

Of course, nobody but Paul knows what Paul thinks about Jews or anything else, but we can observe what he is trying to get OTHER people to think, and that is what counts. I gave a concrete example of what Paul has tried to get people to think - namely (as quoted in my first comment) that Israel is, if anything, worse than Hezbollah, and that Lebanon's policy of helping Hezbollah wage terrorist war on Israel for years (as documented many places, including here ) was perfectly reasonable.

Yehuda asks for evidence of Paul's Israel-baiting and neo-Nazism, but ignores the evidence, regarding Lebanon, that I provided.

Another response comes from Judy Aron, apparently someone working on Paul's campaign, who proves Paul is pro-Israel because a) she met him and b) if he is antisemitic she is the pope and c) Paul supported Israel’s attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981. About which:

a) The fact that Ms. Aron has to go back 27 years to find Paul allegedly taking a pro-Israel stance speaks volumes and;

b) She thereby concedes it is reasonable to judge Paul's attitude on Israel (and any other congressperson’s) by what he says and does in Congress.

Fine. I say his record over the past couple of decades - and especially since 2000 - has been terrible. I quoted him speaking one year ago - not 27 – and viciously attacking Israel as worse than Hezbollah. (The quote is in my first comment.) In response to this evidence that Paul is anti-Israel, Ms. Aron, apparently convinced one may prevail if only one persists in avoiding the issue, avoids the issue.

Since my first example of Paul's violently anti-Israel behavior has been ignored, I will present two more.

The Paul campaign has a few official foreign policy advisors; apparently four. Nobody hires foreign policy advisors with whom he disagrees - obviously. Foreign policy advisors to a presidential campaign are especially important – also obviously.

The Ron Paul website has put out a press release making these advisors available for interviews: they speak for the campaign – once again, obviously.

The press release is posted here

I googled two of the four and here are representative quotes:

1) Philip Giraldi is one of the four foreign policy advisors. Here's Giraldi:

"But all the leading candidates have unflinchingly completed their obligatory obeisance to Israel and its principal lobby AIPAC. All have sworn to defend Israel to the last dead American soldier if that should become necessary though not a single one has bothered to make a coherent argument why that should be so beyond the usual assertions about terrorism, which, incidentally, have themselves been carefully crafted by Israel and its lobby to justify the "special relationship." The rest of the world sees it all somewhat differently. Israel is engaged in a brutal occupation that is clearly visible on satellite television nightly. Its repression of the Palestinians is enabled by the United States. If the candidates actually believe that the United States should go to war for Israel no matter what Israel does, perhaps they should say so unambiguously. Ignorance of the negative consequences of the U.S.'s writing of a blank check for Israel, which fuels much anti-American sentiment and terrorism, should not be acceptable. "

Full text here

If you check out ex-KKK leader David Duke's website, you will find the exact same line. Ditto if you check out Stormfront.

A second Paul foreign policy advisor is Ivan Eland. Here's Eland:

"Adding to this intentional targeting of civilians for political reasons (when Hezbollah and other non-governmental groups do it, it is called “terrorism”) in Lebanon, Israel is currently still conducting a military and economic siege of Gaza. To punish the people of Gaza for electing the wrong party in democratic elections last January, and for Hamas’s capture of an Israeli soldier, Israel slapped a blockade on the area that prohibits almost all goods from being exported and restricts imports, except for limited food supplies. Israel bombed an electricity plant in Gaza, making supplies of power and water intermittent, since water supplies depend on electric pumps. Thus, most factories in Gaza are shut down. Also, the Israeli military routinely bulldozes the homes of relatives of people it believes to be Hamas fighters. Trying to kill a population slowly—by strangling the flow of critical goods and cutting off electricity and water to hospitals, orphanages, schools, and factories producing vitally needed goods—is little better than attempting to exterminate it quickly with explosive bombs.

Full text is here

Paul's non-interventionism is his lure to suck people in. He and his top advisors - like the ones quoted, and Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo, Pat Buchanan, etc. - are the worst Israel baiters, and that is his campaign's significance: to provide a focus for a wide range of anti-israel forces to indoctrinate naive opponents of US policy, teaching them that all bad and supposedly bad things the US does are supposedly caused by - what did that Paul advisor call it? - the special relationship to Israel, or by the so-called neocons, which is in fact a code word for Jews.

None of the candidates are in my opinion any good. But Quack Paul is the worst. Vote Paul, the comatose Jew's choice.

Consent of the Governed said...

Jared Israel - So you approve of America's current foreign policy towards Israel? That would be to fund her enemies threefold and continue to tell her to give up land for peace? To continue to subdivide her up into non-contiguous pieces, as well as to keep Israel on a leash and follow the bidding of Washington DC? And you believe that path not to be somewhat anti-Israel? Fine - then just become the 51st state and be done with the masquerade that you are a sovereign nation.

You can call Dr. Paul an anti-semite and whatever other names. You can even find him guilty by some sort of association to others, but I will tell you again that the Constitutionalist movement here has less to do with some bogus claim of being anti-semitic and much more to do with preserving our own liberty here and to halt the grossly mismanaged interventionism going on.

Sir - we are slowly turning into a police state and I cannot fathom how the loss of American liberties and notions of freedom is anti-Israel or anti-semitic.

Neo-con is not a code word for is a code word for the people who have hi-jacked the Republican party and taken it away from it's original principles of smaller and less intrusive government both home and abroad. Perhaps some of those people are of the Jewish faith - but there are plenty of others who are not. They have made us the policeman of the world at a very great cost - and unfortunately in many instances have made some situations more complicated and untenable than necessary.

Please tell me sir - how our current mismanaged foreign policy has made Israel stronger and more peaceful in the past decade? You should never have given up an inch of land or territories - you should have never bought the lie of land for peace. You all said NEVER AGAIN - and you are producing your own suicide with constant concessions. Then you go and blame it on people like Ron Paul who only seek to extricate you from the teat of dependence on Washington.

You need to know that this movement is NOT about Ron Paul and it is entirely about restoring our Constitution, our sovereignty and our liberty.
The people who have hi-jacked the Republican party, and even some in the Democrat party, have a far bigger agenda. You do not seem to understand that creating a dependent and weakened Israel is part of that agenda and that is not the agenda Dr. Paul supports.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Aron's response illustrates the lack of intellectual integrity, bordering on incoherence, typical of what one might call the Paulies (as in the Moonies.)

1. She claims that, because I reject the Paul campaign's vicious Israel baiting, I therefore must support all US policy. But the choices are not limited to either a) present U.S. policy OR b) Paul's Israel-bashing.

I already said (in my first comment) that we need to win Americans - starting with Jews! - to get the US to stop pushing Israel into bed with terrorists. I have written more than half a dozen articles on Arutz Sheva sharply criticizing US policy. See

The same is true of the website I edit. See for example "The Great ‘Unilateral Disengagement’ Swindle and What it Tells about US-Israeli Relations" at

2. Ms. Aron claims that I am taking Paul's comments out of context. But in what context could the following statement by Paul, explaining why he was voting against a bill to condemn Hezbollah, mean anything but that Israel is worse than Hezbollah:

"It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians."

3. She claims that, and I quote, "You can even find him guilty by some sort of association to others."

But in my last comment, I did not just quote "some others." I quoted two of Ron Paul's four official, campaign-designated foreign policy advisors. I quoted them at length. They portray Israel as a monster state, committing genocide all over the Middle East. Their language is indistinguishable from that of David Duke. Or does Ms. Aron think even David Duke could be good for Israel?

Disregarding the words of Paul's own, hired, and much-promoted campaign advisors, Ms. Aron tells us that Paul just wants to get Israel off the US "teat" (her word.) Apparently she is so used to pushing Paul's anti-Israel line, that Israel is sucking the US dry, that she forgets she shouldn't talk that way on a Jewish blog. In fact a) Israel pays for most of what it gets and b) Israel has made outrageously expensive sacrifices - such as leaving Gaza and giving up the Sinai, worth trillions of dollars and strategically crucial, at US government behest. On the balance sheet it is the US that owes Israel, not vice versa. Period.

Ms. Aron knows that Paul is violently anti-Israel and anti-black. On her own website, in July 2007, someone wrote a comment stating that Paul was taking racist positions and that, regarding Israel: "[Ron] Paul and Kucinich were the only two members of Congress to vote against a resolution condemning Eichmadinejad of Iran for threatening to annihilate Israel."

So Ms. Aron knows. She is, shall we say, not being fully honest. She is engaging in attempted damage control, trying to neutralize Jewish opposition to Paul even as the Paulies try to strengthen hatred of Israel and, obviously, of Jews. (Note that his advisors focus their attack on the so-called Israel lobby, which means Jews.)

I hope anyone thinking of supporting Paul will read this discussion carefully. Please notice that both Yehuda Hakonen and Judy Aron offer NO answer to Paul's openly stated Israel bashing, instead relying on sophistry. And they ignore his anti-black racism. Perhaps for them that is not even an issue.