Saturday, March 8, 2008

Mr. Ron Paul on the Israeli-Arab conflict



Per Weiss' blog, who must be given credit here for spotting this.

House Resolution 951 as usual, condemned Palestinian terrorists while praising Israel's response - which was bombing the heck out of Gaza, killing 125 Gaza residents.

The resolution in question is in here.

This is a March 5, 2008 Ron Paul's speech in the US House of Representatives about this resolution:

Madam Speaker: I rise in opposition to H. Res. 951. As one who is consistently against war and violence, I obviously do not support the firing of rockets indiscriminately into civilian populations. I believe it is appalling that Palestinians are firing rockets that harm innocent Israelis, just as I believe it is appalling that Israel "fires missiles into Palestinian areas where children and other non-combatants are killed and injured.

Unfortunately, legislation such as this is more likely to perpetuate violence in the Middle East than contribute to its abatement. It is our continued involvement and intervention particularly when it appears to be one-sided that reduces the incentive for opposing sides to reach a lasting peace agreement.

Additionally, this bill will continue the march toward war with Iran and Syria, as it contains provocative language targeting these countries. The legislation oversimplifies the Israel/Palestine conflict and the larger unrest in the Middle East by simply pointing the finger at Iran and Syria . This is another piece in a steady series of legislation passed in the House that intensifies enmity between the United States and Iran and Syria . My colleagues will recall that we saw a similar steady stream of provocative legislation against Iraq in the years before the US attack on that country.

I strongly believe that we must cease making proclamations involving conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States . We incur the wrath of those who feel slighted while doing very little to slow or stop the violence.


Got that America?

"I believe it is appalling that Palestinians are firing rockets that harm innocent Israelis, just as I believe it is appalling that Israel fires missiles into Palestinian areas where children and other non-combatants are killed and injured."
We should not pick sides in the Israeli-Arab conflict. Both sides commit war crimes and excesses and we should condemn them equally. We do not support one side killing civilians and condemn another one for the exact same thing. Or rather, we shouldn't.

"It is our continued involvement and intervention particularly when it appears to be one-sided that reduces the incentive for opposing sides to reach a lasting peace agreement."
It is our support of Israel which makes moslems around the world our enemies. This is not our fight, not our war. Much worse excesses happen in the Sri Lanka civil war, with similar terrorist tactics - suicide bombers, bombing of villages and towns, etc. And yet we, the United States, do not care about the Sri Lanka conflict. Why? It is very similar to Palestine, eerily so.

And of course, our supporting of one side over the other is an obstruction to peace.

"(...)this bill will continue the march toward war with Iran and Syria , as it contains provocative language targeting these countries".
And who exactly is pushing towards war with Syria and Iran?

In 1996, he (Feith -AG) and Richard Perle - now an influential Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe.

This has been the plan all along, with the so called neoons, most of whom just happened to be Jewish Americans, pushing the USA into conflicts with Arab countries to secure Israel's position in the Middle East. We have people in American government - Americans - whose chief concern is Israel's well being and prestige, and the interest of the United States of America comes second best.

I urge you to read (or re-read) and watch the video of Scott Ritter explaining the Israeli lobby in the United States. (the post includes an embedded video and an article from the Guardian explaining how the Iraq war really came about).

"This is another piece in a steady series of legislation passed in the House that intensifies enmity between the United States and Iran and Syria . My colleagues will recall that we saw a similar steady stream of provocative legislation against Iraq in the years before the US attack on that country."
Can Mr. Ron Paul be any clearer here?

May I be so bold as to urge you yet again to watch/read Scott Ritter's talk about the pro-Israel lobby; while you are at it, see also the American Congressman Howard Berman, admit that he became a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee - for Israel. He says it out loud, matter of factly, as if this was an entirely normal thing to say here in America.

The trouble with the pro-Israel lobby in the United States is that it is a taboo subject. You cannot mention it or risk being called an anti-semite, a racist, a Nazi, a Hitler lover, etc etc etc.

The dam was broken, however slightly, by the publication of 'The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy' by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. These two are very well respected academics, who wrote a very well researched, scholarly book about the power and influence of the pro-Israel lobby in the US government.

The book is available in your local bookstore and on Amazon.com.

There are also the two great blogs on this subject, Phillip Weiss' blog and Richard Silverstein's blog.

But these are voices in the wilderness.

Mr Ron Paul was the ONLY one not afraid to criticize this sop toward Israeli interests. The rest of the Congress sheep conveniently fell into line, as dictated by their lobby money and self interest about keeping their congress seat.

Most Americans do not know (nor care) about the fact that their country's foreign policy has been virtually hijacked to serve a foreign master, and so will not see what is truly happening... as we will bomb Iran and place sanctions on Syria...

All in accordance with a plan that was written years ago, to further the interest of a small country in the Middle East.

Iraq war was based on a lie - it is not our war. The people there do not want us there (would you want foreign soldiers on American soil?). I wonder how the bombing on Iran will be spun to Americans - will we see a big provocation, bigger than the botched Hormuz Strait provocation? Perhaps another terrorist attack on the United States, immediately blamed on Iran and Hamas on CNN 1 minute after it occurred?

Bonus Material:
Weiss' blog, again:

Former Cheney adviser David Wurmser spoke on "What's at Stake for the West in Lebanon?"

I was afraid that the subject, Lebanon, and six years in the White House meant that I would see a domesticated Wurmser, there would be no sign of the firebreather who once pushed for the Iraq war by saying that "craven, fawning" western politicians had "appeased" Arabs who had modeled themselves on Nazis.

Not to worry. Speaking to an audience of about 70 gathered by the Middle East Forum, Wurmser said we are on our way to a catastrophic war with Iran whether we like it or not.

His extremism was untempered by the experience of the last six years.

What are the 3 things he would tell John McCain if he were his adviser?

"Let me just bluntly answer that. One, abandon the two-state solution statement that we have right now vis a vis the Palestinians. Two--Well, let me start with number one. Number one is an open, publicly expressed regime-change strategy in Iran. Two, an open expressed regime-change strategy in Syria. 3, abandoning the two-state solution policy we've had frankly since the 9/11 attacks..."

(Yes, Israel is always first for the neocons, then they hide the salami.)

And barely a word about what has happened in Iraq.


I rest my case.

web analytics

2 comments:

arevolutionofone said...

Not a big Ron Paul fan, still have a few questions about him, but here he is right on. The US is guilty of some collateral damage of its own. And there are a few conflicts in Africa where there are far worse atrocities, Darfur and the Congo to name a couple, and we don't feel obliged to intervene.

thepoetryman said...

I suppose I wasn't surprised that many of the uninformed consider Paul to be a whacko. Sad but true.

The US of A- home of the free, the brave and the dangerously ignorant!