18 votes

Rand Paul: It's not Our Business Where Israelis Build

I'm glad that Rand is taking such a strong stand for non interventionism. It's great that he doen't support interfering in the internal affairs of other nations.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/165782

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

When she leaves us alone meaning this:

And it's not because they are just that great.

http://youtu.be/asGvjbfIASA

Israel should be paying the

Israel should be paying the USA foreign aid for the protection we provide them. I said this a number of times here on DP. Donald Trump said the same thing on Greta Van Sustern show about NK last night.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/index.html#http:...

Umm...

Israel building on lands that by law and treaty do not belong to them is not Israel's "internal affairs"... :|

Rand's dad called Israel's activities in Gaza and the West bank "genocide", "breaking international law", "concentration camps".

Rand says Israel is our #1 ally. *barf* :\

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

By whose law? Whose treaties

By whose law? Whose treaties are these? The only law that matters to Rand Paul, an American Senator, is the US Constitution.

what's wrong with this

what's wrong with this comment. Many times Ron Paul has said for us to stay out of Israel's business and that what Israel does is none of the US's business.

Show me a link...

where Ron just said "we should stay out of Israel's business" without also commenting on what Israel is doing is wrong and why it is wrong and that we shouldn't be paying for it.

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Go to

Let's see...

Ron Paul has repeatedly over the decades and many times recently characterized Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank as:

1) genocide
2) crimes against humanity
3) apartheid
4) concentration camps
5) violations against international law
6) it is american tax money that is paying for it all

It is one thing to be non-inverventionist and a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING to be silent on the immorality and crimes being committed.

Rand should be ashamed that his balls aren't big enough to speak truth to power about right and wrong! The only sizable balls in Rand's vicinity are the ones he is on his knees licking. And those balls aren't American ones (perhaps Israeli-American dual-citizen gonads).

As long as we are giving them $$$ we have a DUTY to comment on the morality of what they are doing with our wealth...

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

I didn't agree with Ron's

I didn't agree with Ron's statements that were critical of Israel either. That's part of the reason why Rand has had to suck up to the Israel crowd so much, to make up for the statements made by Ron over the years. But, overall I think that Rand's foreign policy views are more non interventionist than anyone else I know. Justin Ramaindo and others like him are just huge supporters of intervention in the Middle East to punish Israel; they don't support non intervention in any way.

Ron doesn't need to..

apologize for his statements. Ron is right! The Israeli govt is a den of gangsters and tyrants. And Rand is being nothing but a WHORE.

I hear Kentucky has an eye doctor shortage...

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

I say you are wrong on that

I say you are wrong on that weebles.

Well...

I hope you feel better for having voiced your opinion. But I still agree with Ron on this issue.

Besides, Israel settling lands that don't belong to them by agreement or treaty is not their "internal affairs" or just "their" business. Israel is engaging in ethnic cleansing on land that doesn't belong to them. And MY tax money is being used to engage in ethnic cleansing, ghettoization, concentration camps and the breaking of international law. It's MY business as long as my tax money is helping fund it.

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

I didn't say that Ron should

I didn't say that Ron should apologize for his statements. I just think that it's smart for Rand to distance himself from those statements, because criticism of Israel has absolutely nothing to do with non intervention. It's a point of view completely separate from non intervention, and sometimes even at odds with non intervention.

:O Arguing in favor of Israel

:O

Arguing in favor of Israel on the DailyPaul?

You're one brave guy. I wouldn't be able to talk the downvotes.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

Criticism of Israel

Has everything to do with non-interventionism.

We've funded Israel.
We've provided Israel weapons.
We've given our military to use at Israels' discretion.

Going to war and providing money/weapons for wars that don't involve us is in direct violation of non-interventionism.

Explain what grievances the ME countries have committed towards us.
Explain what obligations we have to Israel.

Criticism of...

and a verbal recognition that a country's actions are wrong or immoral is not interventionism.

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

The whole point of giving Aid is to Bully and tell them what to

Do. So it follows that if we make it so we can't bully and tell them what to do, the incentive to give them money will dry up

we can stop foreign aid by promoting the idea that telling other countries what to do is immoral and unhealthy for the US.

It is after all an approach that Ron Paul himself has taken

But it's our business to pay for it and protect them?

Not quite non-interventionism.

I agree with him on this

even though I find the plantation tactics in the middle east reprehensible. I think by intervening the USA does more harm than good. There's no point in the cia backing extremist jihadists while at the same time giving Israel billions to defend themselves from the same jihadists. It's a f**ked up situation but america's meddling just makes it worse.

My worry with Rand is he's just saying stuff about foreign aid knowing none of it will ever come to pass - especially the parts about Israel being denied aid.

I can't believe it

A non-interventionist libertarian...

Rand is full of it. We can't

Rand is full of it. We can't be non-interventionist till we stop subsidizing Israel's violations of international law and UN resolutions. Israel is stealing land that does not belong to it, and building Jewish only colonies. Once we end all aid to Israel, and stop giving it diplomatic immunity, then we can let it do as it pleases and let it face the consequences too.

I thought that Rand would get

I thought that Rand would get more support from people here after he voted to confirm the extremely anti Israel Chuck Hagel, but that hasn't seemed to happen.

how to end the tragedy in gaza

"For years now, US financial, military and diplomatic support of Israel has been the central enabling force driving this endless conflict. The bombs Israel drops on Gazans, and the planes they use to drop them, and the weapons they use to occupy the West Bank and protect settlements are paid for, in substantial part, by the US taxpayer…”
-Ron Paul
http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul834.html

It's not our business unless

we're directly or indirectly helping to fund it via foreign aid.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

It still isn't our business

It still isn't our business even then. When the U.S government gives welfare benefits to individuals here in the U.S, that shouldn't be used as a justification to interfere even more in their personal lives. The same principle applies to foreign policy issues. The money that we give to other countries shouldn't be used as an excuse to interfere even further in their internal affairs.

I think you're logic is backwards.

If you want freedom to do what you want, don't accept the money. There is nothing wrong with a grantor offering funds conditionally to ensure that the grantor is not violating his own principles in doing so. The other party has the choice to accept or not. And I believe it does apply to welfare benefits, why for example some benefits are in the form of food stamps vs. blank checks.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

I don't agree with that at

I don't agree with that at all. I'm also opposed to drug testing for welfare recepients, because I just think that's too much intervention into the personal lives of Americans, even though they're receiving tax payer money. In the same way, the money that we give to foreign countries doesn't give us the right to support additional intervention in these countries. I'm in favor of non intervention in the internal affairs of other nations, regardless of whether we give them money or not.

yup

It doesn't give our government Carte Blanche to intervene however they feel like.

I suppose people here would be ok with the invasion of Iraq if we had justified it by saying Iraqi's were building weapons of mass destruction with our money. Or with the Gulf war by saying they were using our money and weapons to invade Kuwait.

The fact is other peoples wars, conflicts, or territorial disputes aren't our business and will never be our business. Even if they are using tax payer funds willfully handed over by our "government." The problem is with our government handing out the money.

Do you blame the poor for taking welfare or food stamps? No, you blame the government for handing it out. I mean seriously do you ever hear a libertarian say "those damn poor always taking government money. we should run their lives now."

It violates the non aggression principle and the idea of non-interventionism to even entertain the idea that because we give someone money it's somehow justified for us to dictate to them.

I agree with you on drug testing

of welfare recipients or any other invasion of one's person. I'm not opposed to food stamps to provide a modicum of control over funds allocated to a family for that purpose.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

People are good.

I'll stand behind the comment that 98% of the people in EVERY country are good, but 2% are infected with the disease of government. Let's not group the 98% together with the 2%, and then demonize the countries who's 2% doesn't get along with our 2%. The problem isn't the country. The problem is the disease. The false authority of statism infects all countries and it is our job to fight that disease, not those countries.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).