By MICHAEL FREUND, JPOST
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s selection of Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate earlier this week has shaken up the race for the White House.
With his youthful demeanor, impressive command of policy, and affable personality, the Wisconsin congressman’s appeal extends far beyond the traditional Republican base. Indeed, initial polls indicate that it has already given Governor Romney a boost, with the Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll released on Tuesday now giving him a 3-point lead over President Obama.
The addition of Mr. Ryan to the ticket has also helped Mr. Romney in some key battleground states such as Ohio, where the race is tight and every advantage, however slight, can ultimately tilt the balance. More importantly, as a leading spokesman for greater fiscal discipline and tackling America’s national debt, Mr. Ryan is well-positioned to highlight to the electorate the Obama administration’s signal failure to tackle these crucial issues.
But for the Jewish state and its supporters, a critical question in evaluating the Republican slate is: where does Paul Ryan stand on Israel? If he is chosen to fill the position of vice president, can he be relied upon to champion the values that we hold dear? Mr. Ryan’s record and statements provide a clear and compelling answer: he is a strong and dependable supporter of Israel, and it behooves American Jews to support him in November.
On Mr. Ryan’s congressional website, Israel features prominently in the section entitled “Homeland Security,” underlining the fact that he views preserving the Jewish state’s well-being as an important component of the American national interest.
And what he has to say about Israel is no less revealing.
“America,” he writes, “has no better friend in the Middle East than the nation of Israel,” which he correctly labels “the region’s only fully functioning democracy.” Mr. Ryan notes that Israel is “a valuable ally against Islamic extremism and terrorism” and stresses the importance of “maintaining a close friendship” with her.
He denounces Hamas in no uncertain terms, calling it “an Islamist terrorist group whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction,” and proclaims that the United States “cannot advocate for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that jeopardizes Israel’s safety or legitimizes terrorism.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Ryan also endorses the so-called two-state solution, which is clearly a non-starter.
But in his defense, that is the official policy of the American government, and it is a position that has sadly come to occupy much of mainstream political thinking on the Middle East these days. So in that sense he is no different from much of the rest of the American political class.
However, Mr. Ryan did co-sponsor an important July 2011 bill that was passed by the House of Representatives which opposed the “unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state” and warned that American aid would be withdrawn if the Palestinians were to go ahead and pursue statehood in a one-sided fashion.
And he also backed the Palestinian Accountability Act, H.R. 2457, that month, which prohibited “the use of the word ‘Palestine’ in United States government documents” and imposed restrictions on aid to the Palestinian Authority.
And in January 2009, during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, Mr. Ryan stood by the Jewish state and co-sponsored a bill “recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza and reaffirming the United States’ strong support for Israel.” The resolution also laid the blame for the violence squarely at Hamas’ doorstep and insisted that its terrorist infrastructure be dismantled.
On the issue of Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, Mr. Ryan has consistently promoted bills imposing tougher sanctions on the ayatollahs and calling on them to desist from their devious aims. He has taken a firm stance against tyranny and intolerance in the Middle East and has shown himself to be an astute defender of liberty.
In an address to the Alexander Hamilton Society last summer, Mr. Ryan cited Jewish Agency Chairman and former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky to underscore the importance of speaking out on behalf of those who are denied their freedom.
“We have a responsibility,” he concluded, “to speak boldly for those whose voices are denied by the jackbooted thugs of the tired tyrants of Syria and Iran.”
The possibility that Paul Ryan might very well be the next vice president of the United States is one that should excite and energize American Jews. He has a deep conceptual understanding of America and its unique role in the world and he appreciates the Jewish state’s vital contribution as an American partner and ally.
For the sake of Israel and its future, it behooves American Jews to cross party lines in this election and cast their ballot for the Republicans. Paul Ryan is a true and trusted friend who has stood by our people again and again.
Now it is time for us to return the favor.
ted, my reply to laura appears to have been lost or blocked
@ Laura:gretings, Laura. Let me begin by repeating my opening words of my last post, “My own view..”. That said, let me gbin:
Laura Said:
I was well aware of this poll statement before this article. The poll measures this moment and cannot be extrapolated as reflecting the election coming later. I dont know the polling criteria of this poll: who polled, questins asked, etc., so it is meaningless to me. I have seen many false polls over 50 years in various countries and there appears to be a tendency to reflect the data desired by the sponsor plus these early polls tend to have other motives.Laura Said:
This is debatable gut is mnot my point. I did not mean the phrase “vote in the middle” to be cneter of the 2 ideologies I mant it to be the vote outside of the 2 ideologies. EG I am for the Jews settling and being sovereign in all of Israel and for transfer of, at least, any 5th column muslims(I have been called a fascist) I am not for handing over an economy, without regulation, to big business(I have been called a communist) I am for free enterprise because it facilitates freedom and it works to encourage production(now I am called a capitalist) I believe in some form of health security so citizens are not bankrupted by illness(a communist again) My experience with “socialism” is that it encourages corruption in politicians and regression in creativity(a capitalist again) I believe that there is not one ounce ofhonesty in the manner in which big business conducts itself and that it is in a perpetual campaign to deceive people(called advt &promo)(a communist again) I do not see a political religionn, or ideology, that matches beliefs gleaned from my experience. I would not call my views wishy washy centrist as I believe the best import from China would be their penchant for executing corrupt politicians and CEO’s.Laura Said:
Both current ideologies declare that they “stand on principles”. This is a common trait on the ideologically driven. Sometimes it is a rationalization to advance once’s own self interest. I
Laura Said:
Both sides declare their “American ideals” I have seen too many politicians running on “principles” and am not convinced by such promotion. I want to first experience in the various positions related to the position sought. I want to see an ability to discern facts from ideology(fantasy)and Iwant to see solutions presented which I can see work. For me I see no one of either party who belives as I do: that the current economic malaise has a long term element and that the main cause is the collusion of business and politicians in exporting jobs, capital and technology to Asia over the last 25 years with no thought given as to the effect. The secondary cause is the unbridled corruption of business and politicians. I see anachronistic solutions postulated by both parties and both have lead us to the abyss. Hence my distaste for solutions emanting from the “ideologically driven”.
Wishy washy centrists don’t win elections as we saw with McCain. What you label “ideologically driven” is simply a man standing on principle. Compromising on basic American ideals is not does not show pragmatism, it shows someone to be without principles. As the beginning of the article states, Romney has been given a boost in the polls with his selection of Ryan. So your premise is flawed anyway.
My own view is that if romney wants to win the election he made a mistake. The selection of vp is primarily symbolic except that a voter will consider what they are left with if the president dies. Romney has no difficulty reaching voters more conservative than himself as they will vote to get out Obama. The vote in the middle is what decides elections and a more strategic move would to have picked someone more attractive to that market which is not as ideologically driven and more pragmatic.
This is a partisan Political Adv…
Who votes for a VP?
Ryan’s voting record could have been G W Bush’s, especially on economics.
He is not a Maverick but has voted the Republican Party Line without any visible deviation.
That’s the yes-man Romeny was seeking.