There was an old joke about Jews and perceived self interest- In a zoology class students are asked to write an essay on the elephant. The Jewish student submits “The Elephant and the Jews”….
The elephant I speak of here is the symbol of the Republican party. Jews in America prefer the asses (the very apposite symbol of the Democratic Party) demonstrating how susceptible they are to group think and real lack of self interest.
The liberals in America do not accept diversity- one must adhere to climate warming baloney, defense of quotas, aversion to war even in self defense, abortion on demand, suspicion of orthodoxy in Judaism and Christianity, appeasement of adversaries, a denial of American exceptionalism, unfettered immigration without any profiling, and worst of all an acceptance of a weakened and libeled Israel. One tarnishes membership in the Democratic/liberal elite by opposing any of the above, to say nothing about ostracism in the dinner parties of the artsy set. And see what has happened to Senator Menendez (D-New Jersey) for breaking from the pack.
Even ostensibly Jewish support groups such as the ADL and Haddassah go along with the whole package. In elections- local and national- Jewish voters mostly vote for the Democrats.They are looking for love in the wrong place in America. Republicans -tea party, conservative, and moderate- are stronger supporters of America and Israel by the widest margin. Perhaps the election in 2016 will bring some real self-interest in Jewish voters.
@ yamit82:
Steaming volcanic vents
ArnoldHarris Said:
I agree he would fuck Israel good and America a hundred fold over Obama…. Good choice Arnold you have chosen the wrong side since you began to vote and haven’t changed since…
If consistancy is to be admired in the face of reality and facts then you are to be admired. Never let the facts or truth interfere with your embedded ideology and inflated ego… Good show!!! Inflexibility has it’s time and place, too bad you have yet to discover when and where it is. 🙂
I make 3 comments in a week and one is moderated.. Only with you Ted none of the other sites do this.
@ ArnoldHarris:
ArnoldHarris Said:
You my have some expertise in town and regional planning but after that I might recommend you stop. The Lavi was initially envisioned to be a close support fighter aircraft to replace the American sub sonic Mustang and upgraded-to replace the F-4 phantom . Israel persuaded America to finance the R&D and prototypes. Initially earmarked as a 240-250 million dollars aid package. The IDF continued to expand the mission requirements and the budget and aid package jumped to well over 1.4 billion dollars biting hard in other no less necessary needs of the IDF. Israel in those days was a much more weaker country than Israel today. Congress kept approving additional funds to keep the project viable, upsetting many in Congress. The cost to Israel began to bite besides other IDF projects many social projects and there began to be political push back by those suffered most in Israel
In any event Israel didn’t manufacture neither the engines nor the wings, two of the most important components and most technically demanding and costly of the planes components.
If America was supplying those two essential components why should they help Israel to produce a competitor to the F-16..
What strategic benefit to Israel over the F-16 a proven aircraft and much cheaper per unit cost than the Lavi had become. Makes little difference if America controls whole plane like F-16 or half the Lavi. Even today Israel does not produce jet engines and would need to purchase from only a handful of current manufactures opening Israel to pressure and embargo by suppliers. Israel wound up selling the Lavie to the Chinese becoming their staple J-9 and pissing off the Americans even more.
Max Said:
You are not Human but a clone of Harvey.
@ honeybee:
Plenty of rattlers, eat rats.
@ Max:
I think what you call your brain is not only a symbolic aberration but a hologram, any semblance of reality and your symbolic view of the world and yourself is purely serendipitous. Recommendation, is take 2 Prozac and go back quietly to your padded locked room.
@ honeybee:
Texas don’t have no rats Sugar, just Prairie Dogs.
@ Max:
@ honeybee:
I think I’ve been around enough Texans and wandered around West Texas aplenty, to figure out that nobody there considers themselves oppressed very long before they do something about it. Also, to their credit, they don’t kvetch much about not having wherewithal to pursue each of their own versions of the American dream. They don’t dream of overthrowing the rich. The ones who have the moxey to do something about it want to become rich themselves. And others, who don’t fit that sort of sociology, vamoose to parts elsewhere.
Right, HoneyBee?
Speaking of which, what’s Kinky Friedman, the original Texas Jewboy, doing these days? Anybody who can play chess against Samuel Reshevsky, start a music band of his own, and place 4th with more than 12 percent of the vote in a Texas gubernatorial election, can drink from my canteen any day.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
@ Max:
Texas don’t have no rats Sugar, just Prairie Dogs and vacationing Socialists from Canada !!!
@ honeybee:
No problem, I like to support the oppressed Texans (98 % of the population) from the Texas rats. After all, no one elected the economic ruling class.
@ Max:
I love you too and ” Bless yore Ltl’ol Heart, Honey childe”.
honeybee Said:
You aren’t Texas, you don’t represent Texas or Texans. You are a stooge for the economic ruling class who exploit and oppress the majority of Texans. Don’t insult Texans by calling yourself a Texan.
Commenting on the Lawrence Solomon Financial Post what it appears as a good idea from Israel point of view, cutting all the aid Israel receives will make Israel not only independent but will make its economy grow not only from the research and development of Israeli industry.
The growth of their manufacturing base and production will create jobs badly needed for the newcomers making their home in Israel.
However, cutting the military aid to all its neighbors will
only result in the production growth of Russia and China. India is also becoming a small player in the international military market.
These countries who are our foes sell cheaper than we do.
It will contribute to the economic growth of their economies to the detriment of the US industry.
I still find Rand Paul not trustworthy. If we go back to the old relationship of the US and Israel definitely will benefit Israel. Without the yoke of the US financial help Israel could sell to many other countries their military equipment. Right now many of the American planes are flying
with Israeli patented components.
Rand Paul’s theories are appealing but how is he going to keep our military manufacturing jobs in the US?
ArnoldHarris Said:
Too late, he messed !!!!!!!!!!!!
Max Said:
I would hate to see what ” thing” is floating around in your ” symbolic thoughts”.
@ Laura:
Lawrence Solomon’s letter is one of the most astute analyses I have seen in recent years. Not only because it tends to support my political preferences in an American presidential election. It also examines in some depth the decay of national capabilities inherent in Israel’s past 40 or 50 years or so in its relationship of both expected and actual subservience to any and all American governments. I am thinking back to the superb Lavi fighter-bomber that could have proven the mainstay of Chai’il HaAvir, and could have captured sales by Israel to numerous other countries.
Well done, Laura.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
@ Max:
Don’t mess with Texas.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
honeybee Said:
No No they wouldn’t. Your mindless dichotomy makes you nothing more than a parrot that repeats whatever is piped into your ears. We humans have this thing called a capacity for symbolic thought.
Senator Rand Paul is the man I have chosen to back for the Republican Party nomination for president. Not necessarily whether or not he makes a public fetish out of liking us Jews.
What interests me about his foreign policy is its inactivism, and his unadulterated focus on returning the USA to it constitutionally-sanctioned roots, and his beliefs that government in this country needs to be shrunken to what the federal tax revenue can sustain without printing worthless money to spend on federal and state programs.
Everybody who reads my comments know that I was and still am a fan of Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin and the way he ran the Russian Empire when it fell under his control. But the sociology of Russia is almost the inverse of that of the USA. And based on that precept, libertarian conservatism fits this country and its various nations in a way that it probably will never successfully work in the Russian Empire.
If Senator Paul is the Republican candidate he stands a rapidly increasing chance of beating his Democratic opponent, who, by the way, may not prove to be Hillary Clinton after all. As any of you who consult the Drudge Report on a daily basis, as I do, know that very recent political polls in some of the key swing states for next year’s presidential election are showing growing numbers of Democrats who describe Mrs Clinton as “untrustworthy” and “dishonest”. And George Soros’s smart money is feeding the campaign coffers of one of her Democratic opponents.
So a President Rand Paul is becoming an increasingly viable possibility. Because as a candidate, he and his program intentions are proving him to be the most interesting main-party presidential candidate in recent memory. That in itself may well bring enthusiastic new multi-millions of voters who typically don’t even both to vote because of the boring sameness of all the other politicians.
So what about Israel’s needs and national interests, if Rand Paul earns a change of address to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC?
First of all, he is one of the few people in Washington who clearly and publicly identify militant Islam as a major enemy of the United States. Next, he has come up with the traditional and constitutionally-sanctioned idea that if we have to fight a war with a foreign enemy, we should declare a real state of war against them, then blast the shit out of them unless and until they raise their hands and surrender, or we keep on killing them until they do just that.
As for Israel directly, I hold it to be a favorable portent for the Jewish nation and Jewish state that a President Paul would not be attempting to micro-manage anything in or about Israel. The Netanyahu government probably would not have to go to Washington to cajole him about the advisability of annexing Area C, putting the rest of the Arabs of Shomron and Yehuda under locally and separately negotiated autonomous rule by the predominant hamula (blood-related extended clans) or prominent families in each of the Arab cities of Yesha.
I am led to believe his concern in all of this would be focused on whether or not US taxpayers had to pay the costs of supporting any of those Arabs, or Jews, for that matter. Wouldn’t it be refreshing, just for once, for Israel to be more or less ignored, and be free at last to define, declare, and annex their way to really defensible borders?
As for the Iran business, Senator Paul already has made it clear that he and the rest of the US Congress will not agree to anything negotiated to date by Kerry and Obama unless there are absolute and no-nonsense verifications of all of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Which the present Iranian government will never agree to. That should not imply that a President Paul would actually ask the US Congress to declare war against Iran. But, unlike their dealings with Kerry and Obama, they would almost certainly be advised that such a man as Rand Paul is not the kind of man you would want to try fucking over.
One more thing. I have long advocated the USA quitting the UNO and stop bankrolling 22 percent of that useless organization’s budgets. I don’t know if a President Paul would go that far, but if any US president had the steadfastness of purpose to do just that, it would be him.
Anyway, I have studied him and his likely program in depth, and so have a lot of other people in this country. And I have seen a candidate that I trust.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2184
To figure out who will win the next election paying attention to the 10 swing states will tell the story unless the race is a one sided affair or the electorate has changed greatly putting other states in play.
I will keep an open mind about Rand Paul. Here’s an article someone sent me.
………………………….
..
freed Israeli military economy would only propel its economy to new heights
To the delight of Israel’s enemies and the dismay of its supporters, libertarian Senator Rand Paul, a potential Republican contender for the United States presidency, argued while in Israel this week that the U.S. should phase out the $3-billion per year in aid that it provides Israel’s military. Ending this aid along with U.S. aid to all foreign countries — call it the Rand Paul Doctrine — would actually leave Israel better off, he claimed to raised eyebrows.
Criticism was quick, especially from Israel’s supporters in the U.S. Said Senator Bill Nelson: “Israel needs the full assistance of the U.S. It’s the only way Israel can remain secure.” Said the National Jewish Democratic Council: “Senator Paul’s misguided views on aid to Israel are plain wrong.”
In fact, the Rand Paul Doctrine is eminently sensible and should be seen as such, including to Israel’s supporters. Paul’s assessment that U.S. “aid hampers Israel’s ability to make its own decisions as it sees fit” is indisputable, as is his assessment that the U.S. gift of military hardware represents lost contracts for Israel’s defence industries. Fresh eyes on Israel’s need for U.S. help would be salutary.
For starters, let’s dispense with the myth that, but for the grace of the U.S. government, Israel could never have survived against its much more populous and better-armed enemies. In the first decades following Israel’s creation in 1948, the U.S was less friend than foe, generally siding with Israel’s Arab neighbours, whom the U.S courted for their oil wealth and to keep them out of the Soviet sphere. The U.S. not only gave Israel little economic and no military aid in the early years — the first military grant wouldn’t come until 1974, a quarter century after Israel’s founding — it refused to even sell arms to help the fledgling state defend itself. Meanwhile, the U.S. not only sold arms to Israel’s enemies, it also lavished them with economic and military aid through a Marshall-type plan for the Middle East.
Worse, the U.S. used the full force of its diplomacy to undermine Israel’s ability to defend itself. In 1956, after Egypt blockaded shipping into Israel and seized the Suez Canal, an international waterway owned by the U.K. and France, the three countries jointly invaded Egypt to restore their rights. Although U.S. president Eisenhower acknowledged that Egypt’s “grave and repeated provocations” had led to the invasion, he decided to curry friendship with the Arab world by forcing the invaders to withdraw. To bring to heel a resistant U.K., which was still destitute after its losses during World War II, Eisenhower threatened to financially cripple it, by selling U.K. bonds to devalue the pound and blocking a $1-billion IMF loan that the U.K. desperately needed. To get Israel to withdraw from territories captured in the war, which it refused to do without guarantees that Egypt would cease attacking its civilians and its ships, Eisenhower threatened Israel with expulsion from the UN, adding gravitas to his demands by making them in a radio and television address to the American people from the White House.
The U.S. attitude toward Israel changed, and the military aid began, only after the U.S. realized that Israel had built a potent military that it could enlist in thwarting Soviet ambitions in the Middle East. Even then, from Israel’s perspective the U.S. aid often amounted to compensation, to persuade Israel to act in what would otherwise have been against its own interests.
For example, after Israel won the Sinai peninsula from Egypt in the 1967 Six Day War, the Sinai became a valuable asset of Israel’s, partly because it served as a buffer to thwart future Egyptian attacks, partly because Israel discovered oil there, a commodity needed by both its military and economy. When Egypt failed to get the Sinai back in its 1973 Yom Kippur War against Israel, it decided to cut a deal with the U.S. — it would switch sides in the Cold War, abandoning the U.S.S.R. for the U.S., if the U.S. could persuade Israel to abandon the Sinai, along with the oil and military bases it had built there. The U.S. agreed to the deal, and obtained Israel’s agreement by providing it with partial compensation. Subsequent large military grants were also tied to Israel’s agreement to serve some U.S. geopolitical interest.
In recent decades the U.S. has been more friend than foe, the two countries having developed a strong alliance, and U.S. military aid to Israel has grown to its current $3-billion per year level (Israel now receives no economic aid). But the common view by Israel’s supporters and haters alike that Israel needs a $3-billion handout for its survival is nonsense. Israel has a powerhouse economy — the best performing in the developed world — that could easily absorb a $3-billion hit, which amounts to about 1% of its GDP. When Israel was poor, its military absorbed a whopping one-third of its GDP. As Israel became affluent and its military more efficient over the decades, the cost steadily dropped to 25% of GDP, then 20%, then 10%, then 7.5% and now approximately 6.5% of GDP. If Israel needed to assume the full cost of its military, the cost would merely revert to 7.5% temporarily before resuming its downward trajectory.
That downward trajectory would likely speed up under a Rand Paul doctrine, which would also deny aid to Israel’s neighbours. With Egypt and the Palestinians shorn of U.S. arms, Israel would be able to shrug off much of its defence burden, which today remains more than three times the Western world’s average. Israel’s defence spending would also drop because it wouldn’t be as reliant on expensive U.S. arms — under terms of its military aid agreement with the U.S., about $2.25-billion of the $3-billion must be spent on U.S. arms suppliers, whose merchandise often needs to be retrofitted to meet Israeli needs.
Paul’s other arguments — that Israel’s military industries would benefit once the Israeli government wasn’t tied to buying American and that “our money sometimes clouds the sovereignty of Israel” — are, if anything, understatements. Although Israel’s arms industry is one of the world’s largest, it has been thwarted on numerous occasions by the U.S., which blocked Israeli arms sales to China and Russia, and stopped Israel from building military jets that could compete with America’s. A freed Israeli military economy, the single biggest factor in Israel’s phenomenal economic growth, would only propel its economy to new heights.
Rand Paul’s motivation in ending all foreign aid, of course, has little to do with Israel’s welfare: He is chiefly concerned with balancing the U.S. budget and establishing a non-interventionist approach to foreign relations. Paul is today viewed as impractical, unrealistic and out of touch with diplomatic realities, but past U.S. presidents, in hindsight, including Eisenhower, often regretted their forays into what is sometimes called chequebook diplomacy. In a future column, I’ll assess how the Rand Paul Doctrine would have fared instead.
Financial Post LawrenceSolomon@…
NEXT: How the Middle East would have evolved under the Rand Paul Doctrine. Clickhere.
For Lawrence Solomon’s first column in this series, about Israel’s dynamo arms industry, click here.
freed Israeli military economy would only propel its economy to new heights
To the delight of Israel’s enemies and the dismay of its supporters, libertarian Senator Rand Paul, a potential Republican contender for the United States presidency, argued while in Israel this week that the U.S. should phase out the $3-billion per year in aid that it provides Israel’s military. Ending this aid along with U.S. aid to all foreign countries — call it the Rand Paul Doctrine — would actually leave Israel better off, he claimed to raised eyebrows.
Criticism was quick, especially from Israel’s supporters in the U.S. Said Senator Bill Nelson: “Israel needs the full assistance of the U.S. It’s the only way Israel can remain secure.” Said the National Jewish Democratic Council: “Senator Paul’s misguided views on aid to Israel are plain wrong.”
In fact, the Rand Paul Doctrine is eminently sensible and should be seen as such, including to Israel’s supporters. Paul’s assessment that U.S. “aid hampers Israel’s ability to make its own decisions as it sees fit” is indisputable, as is his assessment that the U.S. gift of military hardware represents lost contracts for Israel’s defence industries. Fresh eyes on Israel’s need for U.S. help would be salutary.
For starters, let’s dispense with the myth that, but for the grace of the U.S. government, Israel could never have survived against its much more populous and better-armed enemies. In the first decades following Israel’s creation in 1948, the U.S was less friend than foe, generally siding with Israel’s Arab neighbours, whom the U.S courted for their oil wealth and to keep them out of the Soviet sphere. The U.S. not only gave Israel little economic and no military aid in the early years — the first military grant wouldn’t come until 1974, a quarter century after Israel’s founding — it refused to even sell arms to help the fledgling state defend itself. Meanwhile, the U.S. not only sold arms to Israel’s enemies, it also lavished them with economic and military aid through a Marshall-type plan for the Middle East.
Worse, the U.S. used the full force of its diplomacy to undermine Israel’s ability to defend itself. In 1956, after Egypt blockaded shipping into Israel and seized the Suez Canal, an international waterway owned by the U.K. and France, the three countries jointly invaded Egypt to restore their rights. Although U.S. president Eisenhower acknowledged that Egypt’s “grave and repeated provocations” had led to the invasion, he decided to curry friendship with the Arab world by forcing the invaders to withdraw. To bring to heel a resistant U.K., which was still destitute after its losses during World War II, Eisenhower threatened to financially cripple it, by selling U.K. bonds to devalue the pound and blocking a $1-billion IMF loan that the U.K. desperately needed. To get Israel to withdraw from territories captured in the war, which it refused to do without guarantees that Egypt would cease attacking its civilians and its ships, Eisenhower threatened Israel with expulsion from the UN, adding gravitas to his demands by making them in a radio and television address to the American people from the White House.
The U.S. attitude toward Israel changed, and the military aid began, only after the U.S. realized that Israel had built a potent military that it could enlist in thwarting Soviet ambitions in the Middle East. Even then, from Israel’s perspective the U.S. aid often amounted to compensation, to persuade Israel to act in what would otherwise have been against its own interests.
For example, after Israel won the Sinai peninsula from Egypt in the 1967 Six Day War, the Sinai became a valuable asset of Israel’s, partly because it served as a buffer to thwart future Egyptian attacks, partly because Israel discovered oil there, a commodity needed by both its military and economy. When Egypt failed to get the Sinai back in its 1973 Yom Kippur War against Israel, it decided to cut a deal with the U.S. — it would switch sides in the Cold War, abandoning the U.S.S.R. for the U.S., if the U.S. could persuade Israel to abandon the Sinai, along with the oil and military bases it had built there. The U.S. agreed to the deal, and obtained Israel’s agreement by providing it with partial compensation. Subsequent large military grants were also tied to Israel’s agreement to serve some U.S. geopolitical interest.
In recent decades the U.S. has been more friend than foe, the two countries having developed a strong alliance, and U.S. military aid to Israel has grown to its current $3-billion per year level (Israel now receives no economic aid). But the common view by Israel’s supporters and haters alike that Israel needs a $3-billion handout for its survival is nonsense. Israel has a powerhouse economy — the best performing in the developed world — that could easily absorb a $3-billion hit, which amounts to about 1% of its GDP. When Israel was poor, its military absorbed a whopping one-third of its GDP. As Israel became affluent and its military more efficient over the decades, the cost steadily dropped to 25% of GDP, then 20%, then 10%, then 7.5% and now approximately 6.5% of GDP. If Israel needed to assume the full cost of its military, the cost would merely revert to 7.5% temporarily before resuming its downward trajectory.
That downward trajectory would likely speed up under a Rand Paul doctrine, which would also deny aid to Israel’s neighbours. With Egypt and the Palestinians shorn of U.S. arms, Israel would be able to shrug off much of its defence burden, which today remains more than three times the Western world’s average. Israel’s defence spending would also drop because it wouldn’t be as reliant on expensive U.S. arms — under terms of its military aid agreement with the U.S., about $2.25-billion of the $3-billion must be spent on U.S. arms suppliers, whose merchandise often needs to be retrofitted to meet Israeli needs.
Paul’s other arguments — that Israel’s military industries would benefit once the Israeli government wasn’t tied to buying American and that “our money sometimes clouds the sovereignty of Israel” — are, if anything, understatements. Although Israel’s arms industry is one of the world’s largest, it has been thwarted on numerous occasions by the U.S., which blocked Israeli arms sales to China and Russia, and stopped Israel from building military jets that could compete with America’s. A freed Israeli military economy, the single biggest factor in Israel’s phenomenal economic growth, would only propel its economy to new heights.
Rand Paul’s motivation in ending all foreign aid, of course, has little to do with Israel’s welfare: He is chiefly concerned with balancing the U.S. budget and establishing a non-interventionist approach to foreign relations. Paul is today viewed as impractical, unrealistic and out of touch with diplomatic realities, but past U.S. presidents, in hindsight, including Eisenhower, often regretted their forays into what is sometimes called chequebook diplomacy. In a future column, I’ll assess how the Rand Paul Doctrine would have fared instead.
Financial Post LawrenceSolomon@…
NEXT: How the Middle East would have evolved under the Rand Paul Doctrine. Clickhere.
For Lawrence Solomon’s first column in this series, about Israel’s dynamo arms industry, click here.
yamit82 Said:
Rand Paul is a “Conservaterian”.
Max Said:
Then the Repubs would be Democrats, Sugar !!!!!!!!!!
Max Said:
The blog doesn’t accept Russian, Darlin !!!!!!!!!!!
yamit82 Said:
It’s Wisconsin, that all they speak there, Lille !!!!
yamit82 Said:
No Thank you, some of us have our standards !!!!!!!!
The Repubs should try advvocating a little sociial refform, a little sociiallism… it couldn’t huurt… offer the people something rather than promising to muugg them in the work-place.
One word blocked the post – I don’t know which – took six tries changing words to post one sentence.
The GOP should try advocating a little social reform, a little socialism… it couldn’t hurt… offer the people something rather than promising to mug them in the workplace.
ArnoldHarris Said:
Vietnam and Iraq were not military failures.
Some people are more leftist that they know – it is the ability of the victors ie leftists, to re-write history – one must stay above herd thinking.
And Truman refused to follow MacArthur’s advice and nuuuke China (as it was Chinas troops in Korea that were the problem ) so that is not the military’s fault.
MacArthur was certainly vindicated as we can see the situation today with North Korea a rogue nuclear power.
And of course you should pick up on the unfinished, unexamined history of Vietnam with Lewis Sorley, the history the left choose to ignore. And of course we helped to break the USSR in Vietnam. Now today with no more international backing from the commies, Vietnam is just a puddle of coowpooo.
..
So it’s not the military capability of America , it’s the leadership and the infection of the population with self-defeatism and some kind of ADD that goes back 65 years that is the problem.
…
ArnoldHarris Said:
Vietnam and Iraq were not military failures.
Some people are more leftist that they know – it is the ability of the victors ie leftists, to re-write history – one must stay above herd thinking.
Amn Truman refusde to follow McaRthur’s advise adn nuke China (as it was Chains’s troops in Korea that were the problem ) so that is not the military’s fault.
MacArthur was certainly vindicated as we can see the situation today with North Korea a rogue nuclear power.
And of scours you shoudl pick up on the unfinished history of Vietnam with Lewis Sorley, the history the left choose to ignore. And of course we helped to break the USSR in Vietnam. Now today with no more international backing from the commies, Vietnam is just a puddle of cowpoo.
..
So it’s not the military capability of Americas , it’s the leadership and the infection of the population with self-defeatism and some kind of ADD that goes back 65 years that is the problem.
…
The GOP should try advocating a little social reform, a little socialism… it couldn’t hurt… offer the people something rather than promising to mug them in the workplace.
ArnoldHarris Said:
If you google the timeline of the approval of arms delivery you will see that it was not logistically possible for them to hhave arrived and be put in place for the crossing. the US has ALWAYS prevented Israel from tasting the full fruits of victory whenever possible beginning at Israels birth and proceeding to the last leb war. My view is that the US maintained Israel as the stick that would keep the arabs coming to the US for help. Israel winning would not have served their purpose to keep the arabs in the US arms.
yamit82 Said:
official history agrees with you that US arms came too late to matter. I also understand that Kissinger/Nixon pressured Golda into not preempting as in 67 causing the loss of many soldiers lives. Perhaps this began the tradition of trading Jewish lives for diplomatic strategy rather then killing the enemy in a manner based on saving Israeli lives, including soldiers. lets not forget that Israel was also right near the gates of Damascus. Its too bad, because we would be looking at newsreels now showing Jewish troops in Cairo and Damascus. Kissinger should burn in hell if it exists. the same pressures fro foreign and reactions from Israel are in effect today. the only time the paradigm shifted was in the sudden lightning strikes of 67 which were protected by the lack of technology that the arab boasts were empty. As long as the world thought that the Jews were being pushed into the sea they allowed the war but on the 3rd day when news started appearing of Jewish victory the world clamored for cease fires as it always had. I pray for a jewish leader who will slap the world upside their head like Lt. Eisnor rifled butted the danish creep.
The Bush dynasty has the history and the connections but more importantly the influence and money. Knowledge is power and bush goes back to his dads CIA days and probably has the skinny on everyones closet skeletons which might be very effective in gaining party support. Honeybee might recall I predicted his running when the first trial balloons were flown. I think it is the Bush influence which keeps Pollard in Jail.
I think that the Soros crowd who brought forth Obama will bring someone else to the forefront for 2016. Hillary is already a one time loser and is being systematically dismantled by the Soros crowd in the press and elsewhere. Just an opinion 🙂
@ ArnoldHarris: Hillary may not do well with many independents who determine who win US elections in many cases. Depending who the Republican candidate is and how they campaign they will have a chance to beat Hillary Clinton. It will boil down to ten states.
Your like of Paul is curious because he is the opposite of what you profess to admire “Strong Foreign Policy Men”.
Do not get me wrong Paul is smart a great supporter of small government of which I also profess. I am however very suspicious of his wordsmith games on Israel.
I have just learned, from Fox News, that Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are both tied in a presidential preference poll. If that were to hold up, then I was wrong in my assessment that Senator Rand Paul is the only Republican candidate who could beat Mrs Clinton in the election.
Nonetheless, I like Rand Paul for the policies he espouses, even if the rest of you do not.
In any case, however, I will vote for the Republican candidate for president next year.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
@ ArnoldHarris:
Rand Paul is somebody from the establishment. The reason why Republicans keep loosing is their addiction to selecting only people from the establishment. They have not learned from their experiences. A winner must be selected among the few who are not part of the same old guard.
@ yamit82:
Admittedly, I knew nothing about the particular timing of Nixon’s military aid deliveries in October 1973. So you got one on me there. But I specifically remember that the many Israelis I knew and some of whom I studied with trusted Nixon and distrusted Kissinger. They all thought it was Kissinger pushing Israel around and Nixon restraining him. For that matter, what evidence to you have that it wasn’t Kissinger pushing Nixon into blackmailing Golda Meir over Israel’s advance across the Suez Canal? That sounds a lot more likely to me.
But let’s get back to 2015 AND 2016. You didn’t answer my question: If Rand Paul doesn’t win the Republican nomination, then which of the rest of the would-be candidates could pull voters away from Hillary Clinton in the general election? None of us would like to see you dismayed by what follows if she gets to rule the country once again from the White House, this time as president and not just the president’s all but ignored legal bed-mate. I always have thought her political ambitions have strong elements of a grudge match against her own husband.
Also, I fundamentally disagree with your supposition that libertarianism would wreck the US economy. On the contrary. I think unless some serious changes are undertaken here, the economy here will certainly collapse. How long do you imagine the federal government can continue spending schemes with a $17.5 trillion deficit, and no other means in sight to reduce it?
And just for the record. I never ever have voted for a Democrat president, and I have voted in every presidential election since 1956, the first election that came after I turned 21 years of age.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
ArnoldHarris Said:
I suppose they told you all about it in Swedish? I happened to be there myself but on the wrong side of-the canal and I tell you that by the time the first planeload landed in Lod with Nixon’s resupply we were on the road to Cairo and the Egyptian 3rd army was surrounded, defeated and of no use to Egypt or Kissinger/Nixon either. We captured so much useable stuff from Egypt we didn’t need the American supply which had little to no influence on the wars outcome….Israel made billions after the war selling captured Russian hardware just like we did in 67. Half of Africa received those weapons for a neat profit. Don’t accept blindly narratives written for political effect. Nixon is credited with one thing he denied victory to Israel by forcing Golda to cease fire prematurely and protecting Egypt from what we could have and some were prepared to inflict upon her. We later paid the price in the so called war of attrition. Fuck your shit head Republican Nixon and Jew boy kike Kissinger, we won that war by ourselves with one arm tied behind our back and at a cost of 10,000 casualties. We should have nuked the Egyptian army as soon as they crossed the canal…
Rand Paul is not a Republican but a libertarian using the Mechanism of Republican party to try to advance his ideological agenda all the way into the WH. He is a vile bigot and Jew hater just like his father and his nomination will insure Hitlery gets into the WH and not himself. I say this even though at this point he polls best against Hitlery.
His policies if pursued and implemented would drive the last nail into the American coffin. In short a very dangerous leader of a growing cult of personality. That said, I believe The real American interest is to forget about the Middle East. That would incidentally allow Israel to finish off her enemies.
Israel needs no one’s military help if she resorts to first-use of nuclear weapons. Just make it a law that any invasion will be answered by a nuclear strike. That’s it. No need for American guarantees. And just how many times has America reneged on its promises?
The price for US aid is Israel minding US interests. Obviously the US has no interest in Israel’s ownership of Judea or Jerusalem, nor even in her security: Israel’s destruction wouldn’t affect any president’s chances of reelection, as the Holocaust demonstrated. America has no business aiding Israel. The attempts to achieve for Israel closer ties with the US are a disservice to Jewish people. America will never, ever pursue Jewish interests as they are irrelevant to US voters and establishment alike.
Israel pays with real concessions for fictitious American support. Rand Paul would be a disaster for America but paradoxically good for Israel.
I clearly see most Israpundit commenters distrust Senator Rand Paul as the Republican Party nominee for US president in next year’s general election.
So let me turn this discussion 180 degrees and ask all of you which possible Republican candidate could most likely beat Hillary Clinton, and grade them accordingly.
Because if she gets into the White House, this time as president and not as the president’s wife, I think she will prove savagely vindictive to anybody who has ever opposed her. As for her Middle East policies, I am certain she would take the side of Israel’s numerous enemies. And unlike Obama, she would be leading from strength rather than weakness. So if she becomes president, all of you had better hope you can change Israel’s status from client state of the USA to hopefully valuable friend of Russia and China.
Think about all of this as honestly as you can, set aside prejudices based on little more than the bigotry of Senator Paul’s father, and think very carefully about which of these Republican candidates would be most able to pull in Democrats to vote for him. Remember, the Republican Party in this country now can elect majorities in both the US Senate and the US House of Representatives, but because of the constitutionally-defined Electoral College rules, have a much more difficult time getting their presidential candidates elected.
And about the Paul family bigotry, such as it was or perhaps still is. Think back to the days when John F Kennedy’s father, one of the most anti-Semitic bigots in the US banking business and defeatist US ambassador to the Great Britain, prepped his oldest surviving son to make a run for the US presidency.
None of the foolish liberals in this country — all of whom, with few exceptions, backed the Kennedys with votes, frenzied local organizational support, and even money — as if the Joe Kennedy needed any money from liberal Jews. And all this same kind of liberal Jews shed bitter tears when Lyndon Johnson took over after the first Kennedy assassination, and — horror of horrows — Nixon took over after the second Kennedy assassination.
But I remember clearly that it was Lyndon Johnson who actually ended US segregation, and got stuck with Jack Kennedy’s losing Viet Nam war, And it was Nixon — thoroughly hated by all the politically correct Jews — who overrode Heinrich Kissinger’s blackmail of the Israelis in the Yom Kippur war, and saw too it that Zahal and Chai’il HaAvir got the ground and air equipment resupply needed and made it possible for Sharon’s forces to cross the canal and sweep away the Egyptian forces around Suez and the Golan forces to break the Syrian army there.
I was there in Jerusalem all that time, and I knew the details of all that from talking with Zahal officers returning from frontline duty. I never have forgotten what Nixon did for us, and I always have honored his memory for just that. And I don’t really give a damn about whatever he did in the Watergate scandal. Because, all things considered, he was one of America’s better presidents.
So that’s what I’m asking. A lot of people in this country think Rand Paul could beat Hillary Clinton next year. As for those other Republican candidates, highly doubtful unless they can somehow further damage her already-bad reputation. So how would you answer them.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Rand Paul is a politician. So be careful if you can believe all he says. Sounds great on freedom and taxation policies. Sounds completely impractical and dangerous on foreign policy. He will not get nominated as more isolationist than Obama in the Republican party.
Early Early indicators are that the likely nominee will come from the following group: Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio or perhaps Ted Cruz.
@ ebyjeeby:
Infrequently, I learn someone respect’s my opinion. Hopefully, that is based on the efforts that I undertake to sift and examine evidence before offering most opinions. I would not want to be admired for the wrong reasons. But sometimes, like everyone else, I sound off on topics based on whimsy or prejudice. However, I try to let my readers know when I do that.
Back to Rand Paul, and especially about his isolationism. I think a case could be made that an isolationist US president would be less troublesome to the Jewish nation and the Jewish state than a foreign policy activist in the same seat of power. The worst US presidents, from that point of view, thought of themselves as idealists scheming up contrived and unworkable policies such as the current “two-state solution”, which is more a mantra now that it ever was a serious plan for peace in the Middle East.
A true isolationist in the White House would certainly try to protect US overseas interests, and probably not cut short the otherwise-strong US ties to Israel, but would not try to stop Israel from restoring Judea and Samaria to the Jewish nation, and annexing territorial assets such as Area C. Moreover, an isolationist would have fewer illusions about agreements supposedly made with a regime that openly supports jihadist Islamism, as Iran plainly does.
In any case, I think you must recognize that Israel cannot permanently be independent while permanently relying on a faraway empire to cover the costs of its development and national defense, providing coverage against UNO resolutions, and all the rest. Therefore, I support the idea that Israel should continuously strive to make US support less necessary, and should build solid and lasting relations with other world powers.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Rand Paul has changed his mind too often as he started running. I don’t trust him. He was an isolationinst before he changed his mind a while back. I like Cruz also, but he probably won’t get the nomination. I will listen to Paul’s speech, as I respect AH’s opinion.
@ mar55:
Doctor and retired Congressman Ron Paul was and surely still is a bigot and a political crank.
His son, Doctor and Senator Rand Paul is a serious politician, not at all a bigot, and has a strong and actionable plan for turning the United States back to constitutional rule of law and an economy here that will no longer depend on mere printing of paper currency not backed by the equity of annual tax revenues.
None of the other Republicans can get elected to the US presidency, because that party’s platforms mainly are controlled by the fat-cats who, until now, have controlled Republican politics going back more than a century
And as I commented to Laura, I also think Senator Rand Paul is the only Republican candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton in the national election. That can only be achieved by making inroads into the otherwise permanent Democratic Party grip on the bulk of US Electoral College votes, which in this country determines the actual outcome of any presidential election.
How can Senator Paul make those inroads? By choosing policies that have equal pull on the dreams of the more than one hundred million Americans — white, black, Latino, Christian, Jewish, whatever — who no longer trust the encrusted and rigged system that has locked itself into place and dominates our governance.
For example, consider the taxation system. The smartest economists in the country have been preaching for years and possibly decades of the need to simplify the income tax system, and making it infinitely fairer by replacing it with a simple flat tax; no loopholes, no “progressive” taxing rates. Just a simple percentage of earnings, sufficient to cover the costs of governance. Remember: the purpose of the income tax is not to level the society in the name of supposed “fairness”, but just to pay the necessary expenses of governance with least feasible cost to the citizens who must pay for it.
Other ideas that probably would cost the country less to collect those taxes. Instead of the vast bureaucracy of the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Departments of Revenue of the 50 US states, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, etc, could act as the collection agents for the federal government as well as their own state governments. It is far easier for citizens to interact with 50+ state agencies, than with a single federal bureaucracy. As for the IRS, all that would be needed in the federal government would be a relatively small team of accountants and economists reporting to the United States Treasury Department.
And so on. Israpundit is hardly the online venue through which we should be arguing all these points. But all things considered, I do not think Senator Rand Paul should be condemned merely on grounds that his father devoted much of his life to sounding as though he were competing with Lyndon LaRouche for someone’s Screwball of the USA award.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
@ Laura:
Rand Paul as attractive he might be for some conservatives. as his father’s son I do not trust him. Cruz is a bit abrasive, but, I saw him nail down some senator who was trying to avoid answering a question.
I thought he was brilliant as a lawyer. Unless he tones down his abrasiveness I can see him rubbing
some people the wrong way. I definitely will go for Cruz before Rand Paul.
@ Laura
All things considered, I think Senator Rand Paul is the only candidate running for the Republican Party nomination who stands any serious chance of beating Hillary Clinton in the general election in November 2016.
Voters all across this country are looking for something entirely different than those who hew to the hackneyed party lines.
This country is going broke, with a 17-trillion dollar debt that probably never can be paid down without some radical action enforced by desparation. Decreasing numbers of people are gainfully employed. Grown children increasingly are living with aging parents and living off the social security of their own fathers and mothers, a source of support which shall evaporate as these parents die.
America’s overseas military adventures since 1945 all ended either in stalemate (Korea), or outright failure (Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq), regardless of our advantages in space-age hardware of every type. Now, our international bluff is being called simultaneously by Russia, China, and even North Korea and Iran. And the foreign policies of this country, rather than cooling down threats of war and local upheaval, are stirring up chaos.
Little or nothing is being manufactured in this country any more, despite but manufacturing was the aspect of the economic system that spurred this country to wealth, power, and greatness in peace and war; instead, everybody other than Americans have got the manufacturing jobs. The labor unions now mainly are confined to representation of public employees of the federal, state, county, and municipal governments.
The public school systems of America prepare students neither for higher education or provide them with minimal skills in various trades. In America’s cities, schools in African-American neighborhoods prepare their students for little more than gang wars for the young men and unmarried pregnancy and helpless motherhood for the young women.
Tax evasion has become a flourishing industry of the wealthy classes and even among despairing middle class taxpayers. The country in general is beginning to resemble a police state, with the country’s intelligence agencies openly spying on billions of private telephone calls.
This is becoming a country which all but laughs off its heritage as a republic organized and maintained under a binding constitution which was supposed to limit the powers of government that the latter is hampered from turning their own citizens into mere serfs.
Something must radically change here. Otherwise, the America as we have known it shall wither, rot, and die.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
While not as bad as his father, Rand Paul is still an isolationist who doesn’t perceive any threats to America provided we mind our own business on the world stage. This is shortsighted and dangerously mistaken. I prefer Ted Cruze who is more comparable to the above mentioned historical figures.
My wife and I spent 20 minutes while exercising at our fitness center this morning, watching US Senator Rand Paul make his own case regarding his candidacy for the Republican Party nomination for next year’s presidential election. It was one of the most impressive political speeches we ever have heard, and we certainly shall support him. As a matter of fact, we both think Rand Paul is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton in the general election.
Senator Paul belongs to the kinds of high quality American leaders we had during the great days of this republic. Meaning that he minces no words about the problems and the threats this country faces, or what he intends to do about it if he is awarded the temporary power. Something about him reminds me simultaneously of Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan, all of whom I respected as plain-spoken but eloquent men who knew their own minds.
I hope — and expect — that a lot of other Jewish conservatives will support his candidacy. Almost as much so for Israel as for the United States of America.
Bring up his 20-minute speech in his own State of Kentucky, and listen and watch all 20 minutes. See if you don’t agree with me.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Has the article been cut short?
I would not say “suspicion of orthodoxy” but “hatred of orthodoxy.”