A key part of the GOP narrative recently so successful in Brooklyn and Queens is that Barack Obama presents a threat to Israel and that one must vote Republican to send a message about where one stands.
Let us ignore the fact that this is unfair, and that even such far right Zionist institutions as The Jewish Press have acknowledged “the impressive military support and cooperation the Obama administration has directed toward Israel…is, as President Obama and others have rightly indicated, unprecedented. Indeed, the recent announcement of a huge joint military exercise between Israel and the U.S. is extraordinary. Nor do we minimize the regular declarations of unshakable support for Israel that have come from the president…”
Let us also ignore Obama's steadfast support of Israel's right to defend itself, in Gaza and elsewhere.
For the moment, let us accept that Obama, who has sold Israel weaponry (bunker busting bombs) refused it even by even the Dubya administration, and implemented unprecedented sanctions against Iran, is weak on Israel’s security.
Let us instead momentarily accept the GOP narrative. “Yes, Democrats can profess to support Israel, but even if they’ve been harshly and sincerely critical of Obama on that score, one must still vote for Republicans to send a message.”
And so it is in the Sixth Congressional District. All three Democratic candidates profess to be pro-Israel. One, Rory Lancman, is so far right in his Zionism that he condemns not only Obama, but the incumbent Democrat, Gary Ackerman, a leading Congressional supporter of Israel, for lacking zeal. Lancman’s positions on matters relating to Israel put him to the right of Bibi Netanyahu.
Naturally though, this is not good enough for the GOP, and they have precedent on their side. David Weprin’s positions on matters affecting Israel were remarkably similar to Lancman’s, and a vote for him was still successfully branded as a vote against Israel. .
And here we go again, as a member of another pre-Christian religion, Republican Councilman Dan Halloran has a natural affinity for the Jews:
“It is time that the people wake up to the fact that this president has been willing to compromise the national security of our friends like Israel, and our own…We need to be consistent in our foreign policy, to stand with our friends and allies, and to make no mistake about it: Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and deserves our full and unwavering support.”
Naturally, being so pro-Israel, Halloran wants Barack Obama out of the White House now!!!
Ron Paul ?!?
Paul favors the end of all aid to Israel.
In his book, “Liberty Defined,” Paul bemoans the influence of the Israeli government on America and the “apartheid conditions” that Palestinians are subjected to. Further, Paul expresses his approval of an anti-Zionist group called the American Council for Judaism.
Paul also defends Iran, saying there is no evidence that it is seeking a nuclear weapon; but even if it is, he’s fine with it. Unlike President Obama, Paul does not believe a nuclear Iran presents any threat to the United States or its interests.
As a point of comparison, Paul has been harshly critical of Israel’s efforts to protect itself from Gaza in the aftermath of Israel having left the area unilaterally.
In January 2009, Paul spoke to Iranian state TV about the “tragedy of Gaza” and said, “To me, I look at it like a concentration camp, and people [in Gaza] are making homemade bombs, like they are the aggressors?” He similar things in an interview on the Imus program, calling the flotilla raid “horrible” and accusing Israel of turning the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip into a “concentration camp.”
Paul seemingly believes all terrorism stems from U.S. support for Israel. In his book “A Foreign Policy of Freedom,” he writes that American “dollars and weapons are being used against the Palestinians as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands.” He also whines that “all recent presidents have reiterated our obligation to bleed for Israel.”
James Kirchick, whose tracked Paul the way I’ve tracked David Storobin, states that “No foreign country was mentioned in the newsletters more often than Israel.” In one issue Paul calls Israel y an “aggressive, national socialist state.” He also warned of the “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of experience.”
After the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Paul’s hate sheet stated “Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.” Elsewhere it said “The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica.”
A former aide, Eric Dondero, says that Paul opposed the war in Afghanistan and any retaliation for 9/11, and “pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of [9/11] memorial expressions,” privately questioning whether 9/11 was an inside job. While Paul has repeatedly denied that he believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories, in an interview last October by some nutcake, when asked why he wouldn’t talk about the “truth” behind 9/11, he answered that he “just can’t handle the controversy.”
In other words, Ron Paul thinks Israel was the cause precedent for 9/11, defends the innocence of Iran and mirrors the statements of Hamas concerning Gaza.
Mitt Romney thinks Ron Paul views on international affairs render him unfit to be President.
But, Dan Halloran thinks Ron Paul should be the Leader of the Free World.
Since the GOP narrative in this part of Queens has essentially been that being a Democrat disqualifies one from calling oneself pro-Israel, even if one is a far right Zionist on such issues (as are Weprin and Lancman), then Halloran's support for Paul (whose position is further aways from right Zionism than Obama by about a mile), would seem to disqualify Halloran from using this narrative.
One cannot say that supporting Obama (or even jsut running on his line) renders one anti-Israel, but supporting Ron Paul does not.