Ron Paul Backs Jerusalem As Location Of Israeli Embassy

4

Ron Paul’s dovish position on support for Israel has earned him much scorn from mainstream conservatives. Yet now, in a turn that will bewilder many of those people, Paul has announced support for a position that previously only Newt Gingrich had held on the Israeli state. That is, Paul believes the United States ought to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. And does it for completely consistent reasons, too. Here’s Paul:

“The real issue here is not what America wants, but what does Israel want,” Paul told evangelical leaders, according to a transcript of the meeting obtained by Business Insider. “If Israel wants their capital to be Jerusalem, then the United States should honor that.”

“How would we like it if some other nation said ‘We decided to recognize New York City as your capital instead, so we will build our embassy there?’” he added.
Even Paul’s senior campaign aides were surprised by his response.

“We were floored,” senior advisor Doug Wead told Business Insider. “It sounds like pure Ron Paul, but it still caught us off guard…If someone would have asked him that in a national debate, I suppose it would have popped right out, but nobody did!”

Paul’s position places him closer to the pro-Israel and further away from the pro-Palestinian camp than other observers had previously imagined. It certainly puts him at odds with President Obama’s own State department, which has previously refused to acknowledge that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

(Source: The Blaze)




4 COMMENTS

  1. This is entirely consistent with the position he’s taken all along: that America should not give Israel its money OR its opinions. From Israel’s point of view this makes him the best candidate of all. From America’s point of view, not so much.

  2. Since Mr. Paul strongly believes in the supremacy of the Congress and its right to enact “all laws” (okay, it is in the Constitution, but no modern president has held that way, cf. John Yoo on presidential powers), it is quite consistent for him to believe the president needs to obey the law that said “move embassy to Jerusalem”.

    Mr. Paul is neither a “dove” nor “pro-Palestinian”. He is basically an isolationist who feels that American should focus its energies on its own survival and give up trying to “police” the world. Such policies might hurt Israel (less American aid, not able to rely on American guarantees) or might help Israel (free hand for Israel to protect itself and develop its own defenses without constantly worrying about getting stabbed in the back or sacrifised on behalf of other American interests).

    His views matter since his son (Senator Rand Paul, a “tea party” leader) is a serious contender for Vice-President, and it turns out that their conservative constitutional views, including a libertarian approach and a neo-isolationist (American First) approach are actually quite popular.

  3. Ron Paul has always supported Israel. Netenyahu himself told Congress in May last year (it’s on youtube) that Israel doesn’t need American troops; Israel defends herself. And it’s not as if dozens of US military bases don’t already surround Iran, who would be insane whenever they finally get A nuke, to try to use it when Israel has between 200 and 800 (Israel prefers to keep it vague).

    When Israel bombed Iraq in the 1980s, only Ron Paul stood up – against the Congress and the UN – to defend Israel’s right to do what she sees fit to defend her interests.