Ron Paul’s position on Jerusalem
By Bernie Quigley
For The Hill on 4/17/12
It is easy to (falsely) accuse Ron Paul of anti-Semitism because of his daily rants on the floor of Congress about the war on Iraq being fostered by Jewish lobbyists in America. Widespread suggestions make the connection and the so-called neocon movement clearly advanced the project. Paul opposes foreign aid to everyone in general and to Israel in particular. But Israel is not a product of the initiatives or the imagination of American or Israeli Jewish lobbyists and to assume it is as is widespread today in American academia and globalist pop culture is itself anti-Semitic and virulently nihilistic. And these positions have tragically been fostered and nurtured by the American state department under Secretary Clinton and President Barack Obama. But you won't find that in Ron Paul. Rising political forces in Israel like Moshe Feiglin's "Jewish leadership" faction have long called to a breaking free from American aid to Israel much as Paul does.
Business Insider recently interviewed Dr. Paul claiming he “shocks campaign staff with new position on Israel.” When Paul was asked whether he would sign an Executive Order to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a major policy objective for Israeli hardliners and many leaders in the Christian Right, he said, "The real issue here is not what America wants, but what does Israel want. 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?'"
From the Business Insider essay: “Ironically, Paul and Newt Gingrich are now the only presidential candidates who have said that they are in favor of recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moving the U.S. Embassy there. President Barack Obama has postponed moving the Embassy. Romney ‘would like to see the U.S. Embassy eventually moved to Jerusalem,’ campaign spokesman Andrea Saul said in a statement emailed to Business Insider.”
The New York Sun commented on this report:
“These columns are far more interventionist — more neo-Conservative — than Congressman Paul. But we don’t mind saying that we are enjoying seeing him sketch a more libertarian doctrine. We learned a long time ago, over lunch and dinners with the congressman, that it’s not accurate to set him down as a bigot. His views, however hard to square at first blush with many of our most cherished foreign policy planks, are animated by principles that as often as not lead to policies that confound not us but our adversaries. And that are needed in the presidential campaign that is moving toward the main event.”