International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Rand Paul: Building in Jerusalem none of US's business
Source:
Jerusalem Post
URL Source: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPo ... cs/Article.aspx?ID=299363&R=R1
Published: Jan 13, 2013
Author: HERB KEINON
Post Date: 2013-01-13 10:28:03 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 27357
Comments: 52
As week-long visit to Israel comes to a close, senator says US should not meddle in decisions regarding settlement construction. It is “none of our business” whether Israel builds new neighborhoods in east Jerusalem or withdraws from the Golan Heights, and the US should not tell Israel how to defend itself, US Sen. (RKentucky) said on Saturday night at the end of a week-long visit to the country. Paul, a maverick libertarian senator known for his advocacy of slashing US foreign aid, said at a press briefing that the issue of cutting aid to Israel – something he advocates as part of a gradual process – did not come up during his meetings with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu or President Shimon Peres. Paul said that he was not interested in the message of his trip being that he came here “touting and spouting” cutting aid to Israel. “I came here to show that I am supportive of the relationship between Israel and America,” he said. The first-term senator’s anti-foreign aid approach does concern some pro-Israel advocates in the US, concerned that he wants to significantly trim Washington’s annual $3 billion in military aid to Jerusalem. “The biggest threat to our nation right now is our debt,” said Paul, adding that a bankrupt America would not be a good ally for Israel. “This does mean that we have to reassess who to give aid to, and when we do reassess that, I would begin with countries that are burning our flag and chanting ‘Death to America.’ No one is accusing Israel of that.” Paul said he was not talking about anything different than what Netanyahu said in a 1996 speech to Congress, in which he advocated Israel gradually weaning itself off of American aid dollars. This would benefit Israel and its defense industry, because it would not have to buy all its weaponry from the US, and a curtailment of US foreign aid would also mean less money for arms for Israel’s neighbors, Paul said. Stating that the US gives more foreign aid to Israel’s neighbors than to Israel, Paul said that if the US gives 20 F-16 fighter plans to Egypt, Israel then feels it needs to buy 25; or if the US gives Egypt 200 tanks, Israel feels the need to purchase 300. Paul stressed that he was worried about giving weapons to Egypt at the present time, especially since President Mohamed Morsi is listening to a spiritual leader calling for “the death of Israel and all its friends.” The senator said he was “very disappointed” that after giving Egypt some $60 billion in aid over the past 30 years, rioters there climbed the roof of the embassy last year, took down the US flag and burned it. “That should never have happened and is inexcusable,” he asserted. Paul said the issue of his position regarding aid toward Egypt did come up in the conversation with Netanyahu. Unlike most US senators who visit Israel, Paul had two public appearances during his week here, an indication perhaps that he is indeed – as has been widely speculated – gearing up for a 2016 presidential bid. He also spent a day in Jordan, meeting with King Abdullah II and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Paul, a newly appointed member of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, would not comment on the controversial nomination of former senator Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense, or on how he would vote when the Senate is asked to confirm the appointment. Regarding the overall direction of the US-Israel relationship in a second Obama term, he said that “even with the problems,” America’s ties with Israel are so strong that they will remain that way “even with the Obama administration not seeming to be going out to dinner with Netanyahu, or playing bridge, or whatever you do with your friends.” While Paul said the US should not meddle in Israel’s decisionmaking process regarding settlement construction or the Golan Heights, he added that Iran was a different issue because it had ramifications for the entire Middle East. The senator, who voted for sanctions against Iran, said the sanctions would have a better chance of success if Russia and China were involved, and advocated using trade leverage with those countries to get them on board. As opposed to what he termed “show votes” on sanctions at the UN, where some countries do whatever they can to show their strong opposition to the US, he advocated “quiet diplomacy” with China and Russia on the matter. “We do a lot of trade with Russia, and Iran does some,” he said. “But I think the trade with America is more important to China and Russia, and I think that trade should be used with some leverage to get them to cooperate and help talk Iran down and get them to do the right thing.” Paul was not the only Republican lawmaker in the country over the weekend, and Netanyahu on Friday met another delegation of five Republican senators – led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, also from Kentucky – and the discussion focused on Iran. “My priority, if I’m elected for another term as prime minister, will be first to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told the delegation. “I think that was and remains the highest priority for both our countries. I appreciate the American support and your support for that end.” McConnell, at the meeting, talked about the strong bipartisan support for Israel, even as Republicans and Democrats are at odds on so many other issues. “As everybody in Israel knows, there are a lot of things we disagree on in America,” he said. “We’ve had big battles over deficit and debt, but there’s broad bipartisan support for Israel, and our agenda in this part of the world is the same as your agenda. You’re one of our best friends, and we’re happy to continue that relationship.” •
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
You’re one of our best friends, and we’re happy to continue that relationship.” This again proves that the Israelis believe in global warming. They are going after the high ground.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Don't kid yoursrlf. Israel's broad bi-partisan support has been bought with their worthless FRB greenbacks.
Hey at least you can burn them for fuel, try doing that with gold bars.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Rand looks like Barack Obama with that Jewish yamaka on, or Mitt Romney. He's got a white kippah, like Barry Soetoro! Has Ron Paul ever visited Israel, and worn a yamaka?
Rand Paul 2016
Yes, for PM of Israel.
He's a doofus.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
He's a doofus. What do you disagree with him on?
so Rand is a supporter of the: Jesus:"Synagog of Satan"
Rand Paul is on the right side. You are on the wrong side. Rand Paul 2016
Rand would probably believe the Shoah was private German Nazi business and no concern of the U.S. too were he to have lived during the Holocaust. The point he misses is that human right abuses are indeed an international issue, not private doings of a problematic government of the nation involved in it.
human right abuses are indeed an international issue The PLO and the UN will both welcome you with open arms, no reason for the US to get involved.
The 3 Frogs of Revelation part 1
Hagel has warned against the consequences of war with Iran, but has stated that his position is “fully consistent with the policy of presidents for more than a decade of keeping all options on the table, including the use of military force, thereby increasing pressure on Iran while working toward a political solution.” As a senator, Hagel also voted in favor of several rounds of targeted sanctions against Iran including packages in 1998, 2000, and 2006." This is comedic to watch as the Hagel nomination is anything but a slap at current Israeli policies. Including the schizophrenic housing policy of giving vouchers to displaced Palestinians to replace housing they are evicted from for construction of Jewish settlements which can't be used as replacement housing does not exist. If they were so just in their policies, Israel would not do such a dog and pony propaganda show like promising housing that does not exist for displaced people. And if they were a nation that respected the rule of law, then Israelis that throw rocks at Palestinians would be subject to arrest as the Palestinians surely would be for doing so. Instead, they offer cyclone fencing and other means to ward off the thrown material, and promote policies that make people hostages in their own homes. In any event, what this is all about is NeoCon unhappiness coinciding with the reactinary nature of Israeli lobbying the Congress in a manner that always expects to be catered to. Hagel is actually a good choice, and he is more his own man and independent in his thinking than I expected Obama to allow in such an appointee. And I am enjoying the discomfort of the Neocons and the Israeli Lobby over it. He will be confirmed by the way.
So what you are basically saying is that a pro life leader could target Obama for destruction because Obama is responsible for the murder of millions of American babies. Got ya tard.
You are so intellectually lazy, boobie. No one, not even the POTUS can declare U.S. laws invalid and snap their fingers and make abortion illegal shouls he or she want to. Now, do you have a comment on the thread that actually pertains to the subject matter? As for the name calling, that is a signature mark of your lack of maturity, nothing more.
There you go again bent over for Bathhouse Barry. Abortion is not lawful. I will admit that the world would have been a much better place if your bathouse boy was never born or aborted. I would make an exception for abortion. No abortions unless your child is Obama.
Abortion is legal, and it is up to state legislatures or Congree to pass laws making it illegal. Frankly, I don't want Obama using his executive power to supercede this process on anything at all. I don't trust him enough to want to see him expanding presidential power that way. Read The Woes of Roe And see how much this bad decision by the SCOTUS has been eroded. It will be illegal eventually, and the president has little to do with that process. Now, have anything at all to say about the thread topic even remotely? I bet it is beyond you. So far that seems to be the case.
What is a bathouse by the way, and why are you bringing up baseball or flying rodents too? And what the fuck are you smoking or drinking to be so strange and incoherent by the way?
So all a state has to do is pass a law requiring Obama to be put to death. Got ya tard.
I knew you couldn't address the thread topic. No stupid, a state cannot pass a law to put the POTUS to death. But, you knew that; at least I would hope so.
But, you knew that; at least I would hope so. But they can for babies? You're stupid Mike. They government can let you kill babies. But some nigger from Africa that murders Americans is above the law. Fuck you Mike.
You are the brain dead one -- the one who forgot the thread topic -- as abortion was made legal by a SCOTUS decision. I seriously fucking doubt the SCOTUS will legalize political assassination of the top executive branch office holder in the country. Fuck off, dim.
Hey retard. The Supreme court isn't the legislature. You voted for Obama. Obama was for killing babies. You're an accomplice to murder little Mike.
Government 101: there are many state legislatures, and one Congress. They are the ones who have to remedy a Supreme Court decision like this one. The state legislatures only cover the appropriate state each one is in, Congress the nation. And when they pass laws outlawing it, no doubt the new laws will once more go before the high court, and hopefully will be allowed to stand. I know this is confusing for you, but considering it is you, I am not at all surprised.
So you are for baby murder. Got ya loser.
My last post, like all my posts for years make it plain I am not, wannabe master baiter. But, you knew that.
You are the brain dead one -- the one who forgot the thread topic -- as abortion was made legal by a SCOTUS decision. I seriously fucking doubt the SCOTUS will legalize political assassination of the top executive branch office holder in the country. Fuck off, dim. Of course the Supreme court isn't going to do that. But they did it for babies and you are ok with that. That is just a way to point out your hypocrisy.
No dumb shit; you just like to ignore my views and claim they are diffferent then they actually are. What you are doing here is a pissing contest trying to get the last meaningless word in.
What you are doing here is a pissing contest trying to get the last meaningless word in. I think the problem is the water and air quality around Akron in the years following WWII until the late seventies. Supposedly one of the reasons Nixon insisted on there being an EPA was after a visit to the area. The Cuyahoga River used to be such a toxic dump with the waste from the tire and auto companies that they set it on fire in the late fall to burn off the crud.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
If men gave birth to babies you would be all for it.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Abortion is our only hope. Would you like Babs Streisand to become a baby factory? Jane Fonda? Susan Sarandon, Janeane Garofalo, Joy Behar? C'Mon Man! Flush those little commies before they take root.
They're all dykes! Maybe Stone can explain the birds and the bees to you.
Abortion is our only hope. Would you like Babs Streisand to become a baby factory? Jane Fonda? Susan Sarandon, Janeane Garofalo, Joy Behar? C'Mon Man! Flush those little commies before they take root. That is an evil position. Just like most of the people at the site you frequent think killing all the Jews is the answer. Don't be Evil Tull. Be good. Killing kids makes you as bad as Obama. Wake up.
Your view is you voted for Obama a baby killer. Actions speak louder then the hollow words of a liberal.
You voted for Romney who supported abortion as Govenor of Massachusetts, asshole. You are a flaming hypocrate.
You voted for Romney who supported abortion as Govenor of Massachusetts, asshole. You are a flaming hypocrate. You claimed people can change their view on that. Mitt changed his view. I am a forgiving person. You say you changed your view then went ahead and voted for bathhouse Barry.
You voted for Romney, I didn't vote Obama. So kiss my ass, hypocrate boy.
If you didn't vote for Obama the reason is because he was going to win your commie state anyway. You have voted for him knowing that he was an evil person. I will give you a little credit for not voting for him the second time. If you admit that Obama is an evil man. Mike is Obama evil or good?
This line of baiting by you is of no interest to me. Discussion over.
Comments (41 - 52) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest“We’ve had big battles over deficit and debt, but there’s broad bipartisan support for Israel, and our agenda in this part of the world is the same as your agenda.
#2. To: mininggold (#1)
#3. To: Logsplitter (#2)
Israel's broad bi-partisan support has been bought with their worthless FRB greenbacks.
#4. To: A K A Stone (#0)
(Edited)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#5. To: mininggold (#1)
#6. To: A K A Stone, *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin* (#5)
Rand Paul 2016
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#7. To: A K A Stone (#5)
Rand Paul 2016
#8. To: mininggold (#7)
Rand Paul 2016
#9. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#10. To: whyofcourse (#9)
#11. To: mininggold (#1)
#12. To: Ferret Mike, *Extended Clip Progressives* (#11)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#13. To: A K A Stone (#10)
#14. To: hondo68 (#12)
"On Tuesday, the Iranians responded to the Hagel nomination and used it to take a backhanded slap at the United States, saying, “We hope there will be practical changes in American foreign policy and that Washington becomes respectful of the rights of nations.” Unfortunately, neo-conservatives — desperate to derail Hagel — jumped on the propaganda from Iran’s foreign ministry to make their case.
#15. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
#16. To: A K A Stone (#15)
(Edited)
"So what you are basically saying is that a pro life leader could target Obama for destruction because Obama is responsible for the murder of millions of American babies."
#17. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
#18. To: A K A Stone (#17)
"Abortion is not lawful."
#19. To: A K A Stone (#17)
(Edited)
#20. To: Ferret Mike (#18)
Abortion is legal, and it is up to state legislatures or Congree to pass laws making it illegal.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#20)
#22. To: Ferret Mike (#21)
I knew you couldn't address the thread topic. No stupid, a state cannot pass a law to put the POTUS to death.
#23. To: A K A Stone (#22)
(Edited)
"But they can for babies?"
#24. To: Ferret Mike (#23)
- as abortion was made legal by a SCOTUS decision.
#25. To: A K A Stone (#24)
(Edited)
"The Supreme court isn't the legislature."
#26. To: Ferret Mike (#25)
#27. To: A K A Stone (#26)
#28. To: Ferret Mike (#23)
"But they can for babies?"
#29. To: A K A Stone (#28)
"Of course the Supreme court isn't going to do that. But they did it for babies and you are ok with that. That is just a way to point out your hypocrisy."
#30. To: Ferret Mike (#29)
No dumb shit; you just like to ignore my views and claim they are diffferent then they actually are.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#28)
Of course the Supreme court isn't going to do that. But they did it for babies and you are ok with that. That is just a way to point out your hypocrisy.
#32. To: A K A Stone (#24)
Obama was for killing babies
#33. To: Jethro Tull (#32)
(Edited)
Jane Fonda? Susan Sarandon, Janeane Garofalo, Joy Behar
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#34. To: Jethro Tull (#32)
Obama was for killing babies
#35. To: Ferret Mike (#29)
No dumb shit; you just like to ignore my views and claim they are diffferent then they actually are.
#36. To: A K A Stone (#35)
(Edited)
"Your view is you voted for Obama a baby killer"
#37. To: Ferret Mike (#36)
"Your view is you voted for Obama a baby killer"
#38. To: A K A Stone (#37)
#39. To: Ferret Mike (#38)
You voted for Romney, I didn't vote Obama. So kiss my ass, hypocrate boy.
#40. To: A K A Stone (#39)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]