What? Ron Paul opposes the existence of Israel?

Roger G. writes:

A former Ron Paul congressional aide has disclosed that Paul opposes the existence of Israel. And this is supposed to be a surprise?

Isn’t anyone interested in Paul’s own, and very recent, words on the same subject? Here’s what he wrote in a September 2011 article at lewrockwell.com:

Remember, the UN initiated this persistent conflict with its 1947 Partition Plan.

Why has no one taken note of this monstrous (not to mention historically false) statement?

Not to mention this slice of moral relativism in the same piece:

If asked, I would personally counsel the Palestinians to avoid the United Nations.

If he saw a mugger struggling with his intended victim, would he offer the mugger career counseling?

- end of initial entry -

Daniel S. writes:

I see no reason to take this charge seriously, at least not without documenting evidence. It is one man’s word against another man’s, with the former aide reasonably being dismissed as disgruntled. I say this not to defend Ron Paul, who is certainly not a supporter of Israel, but because on one hand he has always been forthright in offering his opinions and beliefs, no matter how bizarre or irrational, and because I think there are numerous other issues in which to hold against Paul.

Instead of chasing after rumors or violations of political correctness (the newsletter nonsense), there are several documented issues in which to hold against Paul, including, but not limited to his flirtation with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, his desire to extend full constitutional protection to foreign terrorists, his weakness on illegal immigration, and his comments that go beyond criticizing American foreign policy (I would fully agree that America should adopted a much more non-interventionist foreign policy) into providing legitimacy to the proclaimed grievances of America’s enemies, essentially blaming the American government for provoking Islamic terrorism.

LA replies:

You seem not to have read Roger’s post. His whole point was that he was not relying on the word of Paul’s former aide but was quoting recent statements by Paul. You may disagree with Roger’s interpretation of those statements, but that is not the same thing as saying that Roger is relying on mere hearsay.

Daniel S. replies:

Sorry, I was not addressing Roger G. specifically, and I apologize if I gave that impression. I was just speaking generally about the Newsmax article and what I think the appropriate response to the claims reported in the article by conservatives should be. The other night I saw an interview with Dick Morris and he was misrepresenting Paul’s positions in order to make the man irrelevant, and have seen many mainstream Republicans attacking Ron Paul over the “racist” newsletters.

We need not resort to such tactics, becausae the positions that Ron Paul actually holds stand all on their own in demonstrating how irrational and ridiculous the man is. For example, we have no idea if Ron Paul truly opposes the existence of Israel (though he certainly is no friend of Israel), but we do know that he continues to flirt with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, has used rhetoric that gives credibility to America’s enemies, has refused to support strong border control, and wishes to extend full constitutional rights to foreign al-Qaeda terrorists. These are things for which conservatives need hold him accountable for.

LA replies:

I always say to commenters: if you’re criticizing something or someone, make clear whom or what you are criticizing.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 27, 2011 08:15 PM | Send