text:
Doug Wead, a senior advisor to the Ron Paul campaign, writes in his blog that Ron Paul was asked by evangelical leaders about moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. "The real issue here is not what America wants but what Israel wants," Dr. Paul told them, according to Wead. "We have no right to choose their capital…. If they say it is Jerusalem, then it is Jerusalem." Wead summarizes Dr. Paul's position as: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Get over it."
Ron Paul's position, as reported by Mr. Wead, is morally and legally wrong, as well as strategically mistaken. Dr. Paul has stood out as a presidential candidate precisely because of his unwavering consistency and incorruptibility, the only one who is not willing to betray his values to win votes or pander to the lobbies. His statement on Jerusalem is extremely damaging to that reputation, and will no doubt give rise to the charge that he has sold his soul to the "Israeli lobby".
If we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume his position is sincere, that he has not said this merely to win some votes, then we must assume that Dr. Paul is just not very well read on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not the first time that he has been wrong in his views regarding Israel. His campaign often touts that he was the only one to defend Israel's bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, which is entirely inconsistent with his correct observation that "Another term for preventive war is aggressive war—starting wars because someday somebody might do something to us."
Israel's attack was not a "preemptive" act of self-defense, but an act of aggression, "the supreme international crime", as defined at Nuremberg. The IAEA had been monitoring Iraq's program, and there was no evidence at that time of any weapons program. Israel was only nation in the Middle East that actually possessed nuclear weapons (which remains true), and its attack was condemned by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 487, which noted that "Iraq has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [NPT] since it came into force in 1970, that in accordance with that Treaty Iraq has accepted IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear activities, and that the Agency has testified that these safeguards have been satisfactorily applied to date". Far from making the world safer from the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, the international community, in strongly condemning Israel's attack as a "clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct", found that Israel's attack constituted "a serious threat to the entire IAEA safeguards regime which is the foundation of the non-proliferation Treaty".
While there's no evidence Israel's attack prevented Iraq from acquiring a nuclear weapon, according to U.S. intelligence, it was likely an important factor that played into Saddam Hussein's subsequent decision to move his nuclear program underground and seek to develop an Iraqi nuclear deterrent to further Israeli aggression. An interagency intelligence assessment on the consequences of Israel's attack stated that it "could be a watershed event in the Middle East" by adding "new strains" to "US-Arab relations" and sparking an "arms race" in which "Arab leaders will intensify their search for alternative ways to boost their security and protect their interests" (much the same observation that Rafsanjani made in 2001). Israel's own possession of nuclear weapons made its actions all the more destabilizing. Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan had "dispelled the ambiguity that surrounded Israel's nuclear program by acknowledging Israel's capability to produce nuclear weapons, and the raid on Iraq has laid Tel Aviv's challenge before the Arab world in clear terms." Saddam Hussein responded "by suggesting that world governments provide the Arabs with a nuclear deterrent to Israel's formidable nuclear capabilities. His message to other Arabs is that they can have no security as long as Israel alone commands the nuclear threat." In line with the view of the international community as reflected in the U.N. resolution, the assessment stated that Israel's attack seriously damaged international efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. "A related consequence of the raid is damage to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to the IAEA safeguards system", which would "probably have a detrimental impact". Contrary to Israeli assertions "that the IAEA safeguards system is a sham", the assessment made a similar observation as the U.N. resolution that "The Iraqis have had the support of most IAEA members because of general acceptance that international and bilateral safeguards over Iraq's program were sufficient to guard against the diversion of fissile material for a nuclear device."
Ron Paul's suggestion that the U.S. should recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is likewise a disappointing defense of lawlessness that would seem to indicate that Dr. Paul is unfamiliar with the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and rather bases his views on the establishment-approved mythical narrative, which is essentially the history as it is presented in Zionist propaganda.
The truth is that following the Zionists' unilateral declaration of the existence of the state of Israel in May 1948, an act prejudicial to the rights of the majority inhabitants and for which there was absolutely no legal basis, Palestine was ethnically cleansed. More than 700,000 Arab Palestinians were expelled or fled from their homes, never allowed to return. The Zionist forces captured Jerusalem, and when an armistice was finally reached in 1949, Israel controlled the west and Jordan the east of the city.
In 1967, Israel invaded and occupied the West Bank and claimed to annex East Jerusalem. Subsequently, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 242, which emphasized "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war", emphasized that member states have a commitment to abide by the U.N. Charter, and called for the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied" during the June 1967 war.
In May 1968, the Security Council passed resolution 252, which declared Israel's annexation of Jerusalem "invalid" and called upon Israel "to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem".
In July 1969, the Security Council passed resolution 267, noting that Israel had since "taken further measures tending to change the status of the City of Jerusalem". It reaffirmed "the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible" and deplored Israel's further violations of U.N. resolutions, censured "in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the City of Jerusalem", and confirmed "that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status", and urgently called on Israel to rescind the measures taken to annex Jerusalem.
Security Council 271 of September 1969 again reaffirmed the principle of the inadmissibility under international law of the acquisition of territory by war, describing Jerusalem as being under "military occupation" by Israel and condemning Israel's continued violation of previous resolutions.
Resolution 298 of September 1971 again reaffirmed the principle, deplored Israel's continued violation of U.N. resolutions, and confirmed that Israel's attempts to annex Jerusalem "are totally invalid".
Resolution 446 of March 1979 affirmed "once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention … is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel, including Jerusalem", determined "that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity" (emphasis added).
Resolution 452 of July 1979 again deplored Israel's continued violation of Security Council resolutions and again emphasized that Israel's annexation of Jerusalem "has no legal validity and constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention". It again also noted that Jerusalem is included in "the occupied Arab territories".
Resolution 465 of March 1980 again condemned Israel's settlement policy, which violates the Fourth Geneva Convention and U.N. Security Council resolutions, and again reaffirmed that Israel's annexation attempts "have no legal validity" and constitutes "a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 471 of June 1980 once again reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention "to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem", and once again called upon Israel to end its illegal occupation of those territories, including Jerusalem.
Resolution 476 of June 1980 again deplored Israel's continued violation of international law and reaffirmed "the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem", and reaffirmed Israel's annexation measures "have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention" and were "null and void".
Resolution 478 of August 1980 again censured Israel's continued violation of international law and again reaffirmed that its annexation attempts were "null and void".
Resolutions 592 of December 1986, 605 of December 1987, 607 of January 1988, 636 of July 1989, 694 of May 1991, 726 of January 1992, 799 of December 1992 all again reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to occupied Arab territory, including Jerusalem.
In July 2004, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel's decision to build a wall in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, which concluded that "all these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and that Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power", that the construction of the wall in those territories is "illegal", and that Israel's settlements in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, similarly "have been established in breach of international law."
Ron Paul's defense of Israel's Osirak attack and his statement on Jerusalem are inconstant with his beliefs in individual liberty and the rule of law, which is unfortunately damaging to his credibility and to his presidential campaign.
One must keep in mind that of the candidates, Ron Paul is also the only one who has said he would cut off all foreign aid, including the $3 billion plus given annually to Israel. This is not trivial, given the fact that without U.S. support, Israel's criminal policies against the Palestinians could not continue. Ron Paul is the only one who has criticized Israel's siege of Gaza and the massacre it carried out there from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009. He is unquestionably a preferable candidate than Newt Gingrich, who has said that Palestinians are an "invented" people. Or Mitt Romney, who has pledged that if elected president, he will "begin discussions with Israel to increase the level of our military assistance and coordination". Or Barack Obama, who told his Israeli audience in Sderot during his presidential campaign in July 2008 of his "unshakeable commitment" to Israel, and who declared that "Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel".
It is a disturbing development in Ron Paul's campaign to see him sounding on this issue more rather than less like his establishment opponents.
Jeremy R. Hammond
- Ali
Everything written seems to be a single side to a single perception, not necessarily that of reality. Bottom line is Ron Paul is an extremely difficult target to find "inconsistencies" or corruption about and I already know what Dr. Paul would say in response if this author asked him about this in person in front of a camera. But I'm sure that won't happen because attacking Paul's credibility has to be done behind a wall because these attacks are extremely weak and not designed to raise real issues that are fundamental and important in reality, but only further failed attempts to say the most honorable and respectful candidate is a farce of some sort. What so many don't see yet is Ron Paul already won. The issues are out; the REAL corruption is more obvious; the establishment is terrified; people are pissed. Win or drop the race, Ron Paul trolled the whole event via facts and reason and the establishment candidates on both sides will never get away with hijacking elections so easily again. The real issues have been injected into the sick body of society. Nice try though. It was adorable, author.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Ali, your comment does not substantively address a single point I made in the article.
- sandymandy
All RP is saying is that it's none of our business…whether the claiming of a capital or the bombing of the reactor.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Ron Paul makes it "our business" when he suggests the U.S. should recognize Israel's illegal annexation of Jersualem.
- Seth
I support the Palestinians in all matters. And I am for Ron Paul. He is the only one willing to cut all foreign aid. I agree with this wholeheartedly. We as Americans have done nothing to prevent the occupation of Palestinian lands. If anything taking away all foreign aid will make Israel think twice. I short I believe dr. Paul is simply saying, do what you want but when you're in trouble, you can't come crying to us. With all the bad we have done to the Palestinians, cutting all foreign aid will be a huge boost to their freedom fight as Israel cannot continue to build settlements without $ from the fed.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
If you support the idea that the US should recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, then you clearly do not support the Palestinians in all matters; you clearly reject their right to self-determination and their sovereignty over East Jerusalem, the Israeli annexation of which is illegal, null, and void under international law.
- Marv N Gardenz
Nice hit piece… This author makes no sense though, he doesn't say anything about sovereignty or mention the U.S. constitution. He ignores both and continues to use "Future Fear Speak" to achieve his end, support of the insane policies of our present un-representative bankrupt government. Only Ron Paul has solutions. Solutions based in the cause of Liberty, not on fiat dollars or special interests. Dr. Paul's remains true to his values and the most consistent voice of reason despite your spin to the contrary.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Marv, you say I didn't "say anything about soveriegnty". You clearly need to reread it, and understand that the Palestinians are sovereign over East Jerusalem. As for the US Constitution, we can discuss the US Constitution. Under the Constition, all treaties entered are the Supreme Law of the Land. Thus, the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions are the Supreme Law of the United States. For the US to recognize Israel's illegal annexation would thus be contrary to both international law and the US Constitution.
- Chris
Time for US to get out the UN! Isreal is a sovereign nation which the US has interfered in its internal and foreign affairs for far to long. Dr. Paul wants ALL foreign aid to stop – We are in a financial crises! Besides we give even more aid to Saudi Arabia. RON PAUL 2012! DESTINY AWAITS!
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
It is fine to say that "Israel is a sovereign nation", but do not the Palestinians have the right to self-determination? Do you not understand that Israel's annexation of Jerusalem is illegal? Do you not get that the Palestinians are sovereign over East Jerusalem?
- Wush Dish
If the US wanted to move it's capital to California the Mexicans wouldn't stop it. The Native Americans don't decide where our capital goes.
The fact is all branches of the Israeli government are located in Jerusalem, including the Knesset (Israel's parliament), the residences of the Prime Minister and President, and the Supreme Court. Jerusalem is home to the Hebrew University and to the Israel Museum with its Shrine of the Book. The Jerusalem Biblical Zoo has ranked consistently as Israel's top tourist attraction for Israelis.
Ron Paul values the sovereignty of Israel and acknowledging their capital is a necessary step to that end. To say that this is a "betrayal of his values" is a poor assessment and reveals the author's complete lack respect for Israel.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
California is not to the US as Jerusalem is to Israel. The Palestinians are sovereign over East Jerusalem, so your analogy falls apart, and your comment shows your lack of respect for the rights of the Palestinians.
- Root_for_Clute!
Reading this article I get the distinct impression that Jeremy R. Hammond's opinion is that the USA taking its marching orders from the UN is in line with Ron Paul's consistent view of foreign affairs.
I don't think that is true.
As far as I know Ron Paul has expressed sympathy for the situation of the Arab population in the state of Israel as well as in Gaza and on the West Bank.
To think that he would stoop to using UN resolutions in order to force the Israeli gov:t to treat their Arab minority better is however far-fetched. Ron Paul doesn't even want the USA to be members of the UN. The membership impedes the neutrality he, like once George Washington, wants the country to declare.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
The conclusion that the US should take its marching orders from the UN does emphatically NOT follow from anything I wrote. This is a non sequitur.
- firefox
You seem to not understand Paul's views on foreign policy and what our relationship should be with other nations. Next time if you want to avoid looking extremely unintelligent and uninformed, I suggest doing a bit of reading before attempting to pass your baseless conclusions as facts. After all, you likely have to actually be familiar with one's values before being able to determine whether they have been betrayed.
Ron Paul's values in regards to foreign policy is very simple–"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none" -Thomas Jefferson. This means Israel is entitled to do whatever the hell it wants, it is none of our business what they are doing. Simple as that. So if Israel declares Jerusalem it's capital, and the capital is where all embassies are located, then the US embassy would be located in Jerusalem. Israel is a sovereign nation, and we are in no position to dictate what they can or cannot do.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Firefox, your comments don't substantively address anything I wrote. And Peace, commerce, and entangling alliances with no nations does not mean other nations are "entitled to do whatever the hell" they want to do. It seems you are the one who needs to do a bit of reading, if you do not understand that the whole principle of Liberty is based on the idea that you are free to do whatever you want so long as you do not infringe on the equal rights of others. Recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital is prejudicial to the rights of the Palestinians.
- Nolan
I disagree with the author and I'm pro-Israel. As an American though, I don't want us to impede upon the sovereignty of foreign powers, we've no business there.
Now there is one thing I do see in the comments and I've heard that Ron Paul has said this, that he would like to see the US out of the UN. This I disagree with, perhaps out of the UNSC, but the UN's General Assembly is simply put, an amazing feat which allows every nation, small and large, to have a voice. This doesn't mean it should dictate policy, but it does allow states to conduct their issues on a public platform rather.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
If you don't think the US should "impede upon the sovereignty" of other peoples, then you clearly must reject Ron Paul's suggestion that the US should recognize Jerusalem, Israel's annexation of which is illegal, as violating the sovereignty of the Palestinians over East Jerusalem.
- David
Let me sum up the author's article:
Wall of text, wall of text, wall of text, I hate Ron Paul, wall of text, I hate Israel, wall of text.
I urge everyone to go onto youtube and watch videos about President Paul. His stances are clear and easy to understand, but not from the mainstream media. Our country is broke and he's the only one with a plan to fix it.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Actually, I support Ron Paul. I voted for him in 2008, and I voted for him in Michigan's primary two months ago. I plan on voting for him this coming November. I wrote a book showing how he correctly predicted the financial crisis and warned against the policies that caused the housing bubble.
So obviously you need to reread the article and take away something accurate and useful from it.
- scott
"If they say it is Jerusalem, then it is Jerusalem." Wead summarizes Dr. Paul's position as: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Get over it."
Ron get's it right this time.
Thank you Ron
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
If Israel annexed Gaza and the West Bank, would you say, "the West Bank is Israel. Get over it"? Would you support such a rejection of the right to self-determination of the Palestinians?
- George
As a Ron Paul supporter and one who is very sympathetic to the Palestinian position in this conflict overall, let me say there is far less significance here than the author appreciates. I also don't think the specific position is being dictated at all by politics, though of course militant zionism is fairly common in the Republican party and among Paul's present and former political rivals. Remember Paul is attempting to articulate a libertarian position on the issue which till now hasn't really part of the discussion. His willingness to recognize Jerusalem as the capital is grounded in his attempt to be a neutral, not interested player in the conflict. It is not a moral or legal endorsement per se of Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, nor would it exclude US recognition of a Palestinian claim to Jerusalem as well. I also would add that Paul hasn't retracted his assessment in his last book that Israel is effectively practicing apartheid against its Arab citizens and Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, nor has he withdrawn his call for the US to withdraw its financial, diplomatic, and military support for the Occupation.
I would also add however that I personally disagree with Paul's overall approach in that ignores the fact that the US has been entangled and enabled the Israel Occupation for decades and this is a "pottery barn" type situation as per our one time Sec of State, Colin Powell, that warrants US efforts to right the situation. Also, if recognition of the capital is against international law as it appears to be, I do think the US should respect that position.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel would be fine if Israel would renounce its illegal annexation of East Jerusalem, which is "occupied Palestinian territory". But since Israel claims all of Jerusalem as its capital, to recognize Jerusalem as its capital is a betrayal of Dr. Pauls belief in Liberty and the rule of law.
- otter
I'm sorry you wasted all that time writing/fact checking. It looks like you are absolutely correct in your analysis.
But you forget that RP's stance isn't for/against isreal/palestine… it is against having INVOLVEMENT.
Follow the money. The US doesn't care about the atrocities, as much as it cares about maintaining it's interests, and keeping the war machine alive.
One side wins… the war ends.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
That is where you are wrong. Suggesting that the US should recognize Israel's illegal annexation of Jerusalem is involvement, it is a stance for Israel and against the rights of the Palestinians.
- Paul
Its quite simple. America. Take care of your own mess, and butt out of everyone elses.
Ron Paul is once again correct and consistent.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
But recognizing an illegal annexation is not consisting with butting out. It is butting in and prejudicing the rights of those whose land is occupied. This is not hard to understand.
- http://ronpaul2012.com jay tea
It saddens me to read this article and to see that people still fail to understand Ron Paul's positions.
His position regarding Israel has always been the same and has not changed .. He only simplified and clarified his position in the most simplest terms.
His position has ALWAYS been that Israel is a Sovereign nation and the United States has no rights dictating terms for them. If Israel wants their capital to be Jerusalam then that is their right and it is not any of our business to tell them other wize…
When Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear facilities Ron Paul was the only one that defended Israel's right to do so , while the US Congress all voted to condemn Israel for it.. And look what happened later , we ended up doing the same thing to Iraq but instead we invaded the whole country and ousted it's dictator.
But what he is against still and always will be is supplying Israel and it's enemy neighbors with more billions in foreign aid ..
But in regards to Israel's soverighnty , that has always bee his position and has never changed..
This entire article is baseless and the writer is absolutely clueless as to what Ron Paul's position regarding Israel has been in the past and still in now.
Shame Shame Shame
What ill intentions people have to discredit Ron Paul is sickening
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
I understand Ron Paul's position perfectly well. You don't get it. Israel is not sovereign over East Jerusalem. You apparently did not read the article, or you wouldn't have raised the issue of Israel's Osirak bombing in the manner that you do here.
- Googly
Google "Ron Paul 60 Minutes"
- Cam
Most American do not believe in the neoconservative ideology of continous, pre-emptive wars and nation building. Ron Paul does not want to give foreign financial aid to Israel but he does not want to give foreign financial aid to any country including Israel's enemies. That is what we are doing now.
- Mike Thompson
Cam, The US gives 30% of it`s foreign aid to Israel who would be in deep do do without it. Stop US foreign aid to Palestine, no problem to them it`s a teeny weeny amount.
- Derek
What a idiotic contrived hit piece! "betrayal on Israel"…..give me a break. Always this implied guilt trip. Since WHEN has some country half a world away become Americas 51st state?! Let's get this straight: WE DON'T OWE ISRAEL ANYTHING !!! In fact, we be better of without them getting us constantly involved in their petty tribal wars and without giving them billions of out tax dollars!
I care about OUR county and THAT is America…..let THEM take care about THEIR county, we have enough to do with ours.
- Joe
the question is since when America is a real Israel's territory, why we are hostage to zionist's, why all US presidents are fear to be assasinated if they dont follow pro Israelis rules…endless list of Q
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Derek, your comments don't have anything to do with what I wrote, so I just assume you didn't actually read it.
- nosense
Where it is the inconsistency???
Paul just supports the factual independence of Israel from US interventionism.
If Israelis want their side of Jerusalem to be their capital, let em DECIDE!!!
Get back to school nutjob…
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Where is there NOT an inconsistency between saying on one hand you believe in Liberty and the rule of law and on the other suggesting that the US should recognize Israel's illegal annexation of Palestinian territory? Please explain how you do not see any inconsistency there.
- Joe
they said Barabas its Barabas,, get over it,, hmm this is the way we all witness end of the Earth,,
- FrankC
So missing the point! How can you write this garbage and still face yourself?
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
I welcome you to explain in what way you think I've missed the point and substantively address anything I've written.
- Matthew S. Harper
Obviously you can't read Jeremy, or like the rest of the Media you are so bought and biased you cant write a decent article on politics any more! here is the Blog you say you read, try reading again(hopefully you realize you are a douche bag a print a retraction and full apology to Doug Weed, Dr. Paul and America as a whole, and then step down as a writer)
Ron Paul to Obama and Romney: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel"
April 14, 2012
Ron Paul to Obama and Romney: "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Get over it."
News is now leaking out about a private meeting between evangelical leaders and presidential candidate Ron Paul which took place last Wednesday night. The leaders asked Dr. Paul about an Executive Order moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. "The real issue here is not what America wants but what Israel wants. We have no right to chose their capital," Dr. Paul said, "If they say it is Jerusalem, then it is Jerusalem."
The Barack Obama administration has consistently rejected this idea and Governor Mitt Romney steadfastly refuses to make a commitment on the issue.
The meeting held last Wednesday night in Ft. Worth, Texas, had two representatives of evangelicals presenting Dr. Paul with a list of questions they had received from denominational leaders, pastors and television evangelists. In the wake of Senator Rick Santorum's departure from the presidential race, many evangelical leaders are turning to Ron Paul.
The question to Dr. Paul was posed by Rev. Brian Jacobs, one of the evangelical participants. Jacobs, a former consultant to the Billy Graham Association and a pastor of the Ft. Worth Metroplex Church asked the question at the beginning of the meeting. According to Jacobs, Dr. Paul asked, "How would we feel if some other nation told us that we would have to make our capital in New York and they refused to build their embassy in Washington, D.C. It is none of our business."
Paul's answer even surprised some of his own staff.
In earlier interviews Dr. Paul has stated that we should stop being Israel's master and start being her friend and trading partner. In 1981, Dr. Paul was the only public figure who defended Israel's military action when she took out the Iraqi nuclear facilities. He, alone, in the U.S. Congress, refused to condemn the action saying that Israel has the right to defend herself without approval of the United States.
Dr. Paul, nevertheless, has been the target of vitriolic attacks from evangelical leader, Gary Bauer, who issued a fund raising letter criticizing the Texas congressman for wanting to "cut off foreign aid to Israel." Bauer's letter failed to mention that Dr. Paul is calling for the end of all foreign aid, which not only includes the $3 billion the United States gives to Israel but also the $12 billion it gives to Israel's avowed enemies, including Palestinians, who publicly proclaim that they will drive her into the sea. Dr. Paul points to America's practice of borrowing money from China to give to Pakistan as foolish.
Ron Paul campaign officials have long complained that their man is so intellectually honest and so committed to a constitutional form of government he is easily tripped up by issues taken out of context by a demagogue.
On December 29, 2011, the Israeli Mossad Chief, Tamir Pardo, told 100 ambassadors gathered in Jerusalem that a "nuclear Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel." When Dr. Paul said something similar in a debate the next week, insisting that we should not go to war with Iran on a presidential executive decision but only by consultation with the congress, he was heavily criticized and ridiculed.
In a GOP debate on January 9, 2012, Ron Paul said that, anyway, Iran was not on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. This statement too, was heavily criticized and called "dangerous" by media pundits. When Secretary of Defense, Leon Paneta said the same thing three days later on the CBS program Face the Nation no one apologized to Dr. Paul.
In the meeting with evangelicals Dr. Paul was asked questions about his personal faith. The Ron Paul campaign issued a statement of faith at the beginning of the campaign with Dr. Paul declaring "I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate." But the congressman admitted that his faith is very much a private matter.
Justin Machacek, an Emmy Award winning Christian television producer, asked Dr. Paul how his faith shaped his worldview.
Dr. Paul said, "I am not big on public displays and marches. I would not want a theocracy." But as to how his faith shaped his character and his worldview? "You know I've been married 55 years," he laughed, "So it is pretty obvious. It is how I live my life."
Mr. Machacek said he was deeply moved by the meeting and wants other Christian leaders to meet with Dr. Paul themselves. "I'm drafting an email for a Christian leader who is a coordinator for a 10 denomination coalition. He will forward the idea about a meeting with church leaders."
196 Comments | Politics and Religion, Presidential History, Republicans | Tagged: Barack Obama, Brian Jacobs, Israel, jerusalem, jerusalem as capital of israel, justin machacek, leon paneta, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul | Permalink
Posted by Doug Wead
P.S.~just wait Jeremy, you are gonna have so many comments you may just take them down like the rest of your non-truth reporting, biased columnists/bloggers!!!
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Matthew, what is it, exactly, you think I should retract? I accurately quoted from Doug Wead's blog.
- Mike Thompson
Garbage Frank! The majority of the worlds population would not agree with you, in fact the worlds population is a bit p!ssed off at the way a tiny percentage (300 million or so) impose their will, by force, on the rest of us. And it`s scary that most of you believe that only your opinions are valid.
- allan
Looks like you painted yourself into a corner there Jeremy C. Hammond. You confused Dr Paul's view that Israel as a sovereign nation can legally do what it wants as being Israel can tell us what to do. A first year politics student would not have made the same mistake.Were I you I would be raving about Dr Paul because should the other mysterious man get a second term it will not just be paid influence guarranteeing his positive profile from commentators but, more likely, an executive order requiring the same.You'll hardly wear the same veneer of sophisticated pseudo-intellectual awareness when they knock on your door at five in the morning and question you about your support for Dr Paul way back in 2012.An eye to the future old matey, an eye to the future.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Allan, Israel is not sovereign over East Jerusalem, which it claims as part of its capital having illegally annexed it, but which remains under international law "occupied Palestinian territory".
- Edward
Ron Paul for president is nothing more than a side-show.
The American establishment does not spend almost two years before an election choosing the next president for nothing. The next president is always well vetted before being given the opportunity to go throught the charade of an election. It seems to me that J.F.K. was the last person given the chance to have some independence and look at what happened to him.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Edward, I don't agree. There is no question that Ron Paul is anti-establishment. His campaign is not "a side-show".
- Edward
Jeremy: What I mean is the Establisment (Democrat & Republican) will make sure that Ron Paul is not elected. I see no chance of Ron Paul being elected President of the United States unless fundamental changes are made to the electoral system.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
The problem isn't the system, it's the people who say, "I like Ron Paul, but he isn't electable, so I'm going to vote for one of the establishment candidates." If everyone who thought that way exercised their conscience and voted for Ron Paul, we'd have a President Paul.
- Edward
Exactly! And why would people believe that Ron Paul is unelectable. Is it because he is too honest?
If we buy something in a shop we become incensed if it doesn't do what it says on the tin but we can be persuaded that our politician should be inveterate liars who will do the exact opposite to what they say they would do. A strange phenomenon!!! But maybe not for I believe that is where the Oligarchs come in for the problem with democracy is that where everyone is responsible no one is responsible and therefore ripe for picking. And that is why I expect Obama to romp home again.
- jsknow
Mr. Hammond:
It's totally irresponsible and proves your unjustified bias against Ron Paul for you to quote a misstatement by Doug Wead and then claim it's Ron Paul's official position. Do you have a quote from Ron Paul HIMSELF saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? I didn't think so! Dr. Paul is BY FAR the most well educated and the most well read candidate in this presidential race, so when you claim he doesn't have his facts straight, you really should prove your point with FACTS (IF you can), otherwise you come off looking like a total idiot in the eyes of everyone that knows the REAL TRUTH, which is a huge number of people, as the comments on this "article" well prove.
REPORT THE TRUTH ABOUT RON PAUL IF YOU'RE GOING TO TRY AND WRITE ABOUT HIM. His supporters are among the most well read voters in the Nation and when you write GARBAGE like this article about him, EXPECT to have your misconceptions and ERRORS pointed out in graphic detail.
Ron Paul supports Israel (and every other nation) being left alone, treated fairly and free to make their own decisions without being bought off by US taxpayers or bombed into submitting to what SOME in our government want them to do.
As far as Ron Paul's position on going to war, he supports ONLY going to war when Congress lawfully declares war, just as the Constitution documents. The president has the authority to defend this Nation against a violent attack but the president does not have the lawful authority to trot around the world starting wars against nations that have not attacked us and which do not present a "clear and present" danger. Make no mistake, Ron Paul complies with the Constitution EVERY time and he is well prepared to defend us. It's the actions of presidents like Bush and Obama that are putting us in the most danger. Ron Paul is exactly who we need as our president!… A man that's strong on defense and who completely rejects unnecessary warmongering.
It's very revealing that you wrote "Dr. Paul has stood out as a presidential candidate precisely because of his unwavering consistency and incorruptibility, the only one who is not willing to betray his values to win votes or pander to the lobbies"… and then you TRY to destroy Dr. Paul's credibility, which YOU just confirmed? Can't you see how totally asinine that makes you look? Who in their right mind would not support a candidate with the atributes YOU just documented?
You don't have to "give him (Ron Paul) the benefit of the doubt and assume his position is sincere", all you have to do is look at his decades long political career / platform and his voting record! He's probably the most consistent, most Constitution respecting and most honest statesman in US history! You'll ALWAYS prove your ignorance when you TRY to discredit Ron Paul. EVERYONE that knows the FACTS about him is laughing at you! Every time I read an article written by some misinformed person trying to twist the facts about Ron Paul I can't help but realize how much you are exposing the fact that YOU are simply too small minded to look at overwhelming evidence and arrive at a logical conclusion. I don't know how Ron Paul could make himself and his political positions any easier to understand, yet you fail to understand them. What does that tell you?
When you assumed "that Dr. Paul is just not very well read on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", you assumed DEAD WRONG. Dr. Paul probably knows more on this subject and all other aspects of foreign and domestic policy than anyone else in our entire Federal government. He's easily considered an expert on foreign policy, domestic policy, economics, the Constitution, US and world history, medicine, law and much more. Read his books, watch his videos, DO SOME RESEARCH! Ron Paul obviously talks above your very limited level of comprehension.
Mr. Hammond you seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that the vast majority of the most powerful nations in the world acquired their land through aggressive wars. Are you so ignorant of the facts that you don't know that sir? Do you think the native Americans gave the USA to us? The Jews had control of the nation of Israel for several thousand years. They were forced out of their land by aggressive wars against them. Now you want to condemn them for reclaiming by force what was taken from them by force? DO SOME RESEARCH and report the honest FACTS (the whole story) instead of trying to re-write history and only including the parts that SEEM to support your narrow minded positions.
There's way to much nonsense in this article to waste my time pointing out all the mistakes and misleading propaganda but I suggest you read the comments and then do some in depth research, then maybe you won't look this bad in public in the future.
To all the open minded people reading this:
Ron Paul DESERVES your support. He earned it by HIS actions, his honesty, his consistency, the fact that he's incorruptible and his 100% Constitutionally compliant platform.
The way to get Ron Paul elected is by EVERY Ron Paul supporter recruiting at least 2 new Ron Paul supporters and then asking them to do the same. Do that and we'll win by a landslide in November.
Here's how to win support for Ron Paul:
If you want to know what Ron Paul really stands for and why, watch this:
Ron Paul Fort Worth Campaign Speech
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
If Doug Wead made a "mistatement", he should say so. As for your discussion of Ron Paul's positions, it is both irrelevant and unnecessary, as I am quite familiar with them. I voted for him in 2008 and two months ago in Michigan's primary.
- Travis
Please keep the hit pieces coming. The more lies that are told on RP,the more people will support him. We are awake!! RP 2012 and 2016!!!
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Travis, there are no lies in this article.
- jsknow
I agree, Doug Wead certainly should correct his statement but a member of Ron Paul's campaign making such a statement should not lead you or anyone else to believe that such a statement is Ron Paul's official position.
As for my discussion of Ron Paul's positions, they are neither irrelevant nor unnecessary. Since you voted for him in 08 and in Michigan's primary, you obviously know enough about him to know he is unjustly attacked and blacked out by the media and the crooked establishment at every opportunity, so if you support him, why would you write something that adds additional unjust negative perception of him? Why not put your writing skills to positive use and point out the overwhelming easily justifiable reasons to support Ron Paul? The man is obviously head and shoulders above every other candidate, in every way and on every issue!
Why not help the man get elected instead of suggesting reasons for people not to support him? This is not a game. If Obama, Romney or Gingrich were to be elected nothing will change, we'll have another constitution ignoring, crooked president pandering to the whims of crooked mega-corporations and special interest groups, instead of basing EVERYTHING they do on the Constitution, Constitutional liberty and rights and what's best for WE THE PEOPLE.
Take a long hard look at the links I posted in my first comment. There's enough positive and completely factual information about Ron Paul and his platform in just those two sources to provide you with enough information to write helpful articles about him all the way to November. We're fighting for the very life of our Nation in this election, at least the life of the Nation documented in the Constitution. The last thing we need is a "supporter" writing reasons for people not to support Ron Paul. There is no just reason not to support Ron Paul, you should know that and you should help get that message out to the voters.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Does supporting Ron Paul mean I should remain silent when I see that a position he has taken is inconsistent with the values he upholds?
I wrote this BECAUSE I support him.
- jsknow
You have a very strange way of showing your support. I don't claim to be a writer but I've been in sales for longer than I care to mention and I've been very successful. Let me give you an example of how to FACTUALLY get Ron Paul's message across and help PROMOTE him at the same time. It's quite simple really, ALL you have to do is report FACTS about what Ron Paul actually says HIMSELF. The safest way to do that is by including direct quotes instead to going of on a witch hunt over what some underling in the campaign (or anyone else) has to say.
Below is a quote from another article, which as usual, can't help but try and make readers believe that Ron Paul is unelectable and that those of us who desire Constitutional government should just be patient and wait until Rand Paul makes a run at the Oval Office. It does however include a direct quote from RON PAUL HIMSELF, which at least allows those with the necessary brain power to get the FACTS about what RON PAUL actually said HIMSELF and where HE stands on the issue:
Paul first made this position known Wednesday night, during a private meeting with evangelical leaders interested in helping the Texas Congressman reach out to the conservative Christian community.
According to a transcript of the meeting obtained by Business Insider, the leaders started off the meeting by asking Paul whether he would sign an Executive Order to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a major policy objective for Israeli hardliners and many leaders in the Christian Right.
"The real issue here is not what America wants, but what does Israel want," Paul told evangelical leaders, according to a transcript of the meeting obtained by Business Insider. "If Israel wants their capital to be Jerusalem, then the United States should honor that."
"How would we like it if some other nation said 'We decided to recognize New York City as your capital instead, so we will build our embassy there?'" he added.
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-13/politics/31336407_1_israel-from-tel-aviv-evangelical-leaders-business-insider#ixzz1s8E9aK1s
The big problem when it comes to articles about Ron Paul is writers OFTEN choose to get sidetracked and report what they think Ron Paul means, or what someone else had to say about Ron Paul and his positions, rather than simply STICKING TO FACTS ABOUT WHAT RON PAUL ACTUALLY SAYS HIMSELF. That's my point. Why would you, a self proclaimed Ron Paul supporter, report on what someone else said and distract from the FACTS THAT PROVE Ron Paul's actual position, instead of sticking to what RON PAUL ACTUALLY SAID HIMSELF, which is 100% contrary to what you reported on? What's the real issue, Ron Paul's actual position on the issue or what Doug Wead (or anyone else) said or thinks? There's no doubt if you stick to reporting FACTS about Ron Paul HIMSELF, you'll do him a lot more good than what you did in this article. I can't see how what you wrote here helps Ron Paul at all, can you?
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
I did report the facts.
- http://Www.newworldradical.com Jason
You're missing the real heart of Ron Paul's position on Israel (and any other nation, for that matter). It doesn't matter if Americans agree with Israel policy, they are a sovereign nation free to make their own decisions. Paul is always outspoken against acts of aggression, but he's also always outspoken on the US practicing a noninterventionist foreign policy – even with israel.
Ron Paul has never defended or opposed the moral rights and wrongs of israel's actions, just that they have a sovereign right to defend their borders as they choose. Of course, the other side of that coin is that Israel must also deal with the repercussions and consequences of these decisions without looking for the US to get involved.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Jason, you're missing the heart of why Ron Paul's statement is wrong. Israel is not sovereign over East Jerusalem, which it annexed illegaly and which remains "occupied Palestinian territory" under international law.
- Rose Mary Abbott
I see it as he is saying Israel's business is not our business to decide. The UN's decisions are not our decisions. We are not the police of the world just because the UN says so. In fact if Ron Paul does get elected we won't even be members of the UN any longer. We are not the UN.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Rose, the US is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and the US is a signatory of the UN Chater, which under Article VI of the US Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land", so its decisions are indeed US decisions.
- Ra
WHY oh WHY does the USA GIVE BILLIONS TO ISRAEL?
WHY do we protect a rogue nation that does not stand by their own agreements?
Israel has become radical – taking someones home and property that do not belong to them.
Always pushing for more WAR.
Always pushing for more $$$ from the USA which we can no long afford, due to the unfunded Cheney/Bush wars for profit for the 1%.
Time for change folks is now.
- John Dillinger
Im calling it. Worst journalist ever.
Listen you obviously don't know anything about Dr. Paul, or any of his stances on foreign policy. You, just like many of the main stream media, pick out half of a story and publish out of context.
Dr. Paul has always been for the sanctity and independence of foreign sovereignty. Dr. Paul says Israel can do what it wants. It isn't (well it shouldn't be) our business to meddle in the affairs of a foreign nation. As he famously uses the China line to say, what if China had military drones in our skies assassinating americans, or as the Doug Wead article says what if they told us to move our capital from washington to new york. It is non of our business!
You can't possibly be a Ron Paul supporter if you know nothing about him. Come on, you might sympathize with some of his views, I've checked out some of your articles. But please don't try to pass yourself as a paulite, Even the basic paul supporters look past the MSM haze, and know his true stances. He can't have sold his soul to the Israel lobby if his stance is exactly the same for all other countries. He said he would discourage Iran from developing nukes, but has also said it is their right to build nukes if they wish to build them. People say Dr. Paul is an isolationist, which doesn't make any sense, the true isolationists are the ones who force others to do their bidding and will only negotiate one way. Obama and Iran, we all know that Iran has been waiting at the diplomacy table for long and has always wanted to talk it out. But Obama has consistently refused any diplomatic talks. Ron Paul believes in tearing down trade barriers and promoting friendship across the world. How can that be isolationist?
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
John, I voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and in Michigan's primary two months ago. I am quite familiar with Dr. Paul. The problem is that Israel is notsovereign over East Jerusalem, which it claims as part of its capital having illegally annexed it, but which remains under international law "occupied Palestinian territory".
- Dknc
It appears from the article that Paul is wrong because of a long string of UN Resolutions, lol. Why should we care about UN Resolutions? It's not as if they are unbiased. Are you suggesting the UN is sovereign?
Paul is right as usual. Israel is a sovereign nation, America is a sovereign nation, the UN wants to establish itself as sovereign over all. Paul has consistently opposed the UN and called for our withdrawal from it. Right again.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Why should the US care about UN resolutions? Because it is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. And because the US has signed the UN Charter, which under Article VI of the US Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the land". Furthermore, Israel is not sovereign over East Jerusalem, which it claims as part of its capital having illegally annexed it, but which remains under international law "occupied Palestinian territory".
- Bob Fletcher
What anti-Israel trash.
Paul's position, on the capitol city, is completely consistent, with his; "mind your own business" policy. However, miss-informed, that policy is; in some cases.
God gave Israel to Abraham, for ever, & ever, & ever. That includes today.
Therefore, the capitol of Israel, is wherever Israel says it is.
Bob Fletcher
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
East Jerusalem is "occupied Palestinian territory" under international law. Israel has no claim to it.
- Mike Thompson
Bob, Abraham was an Arab, as was Moses, David and Solomon, when the Kingdom of Israel disintegrated, the the people of that land were Arabs, no one knows what percent of those Arabs were practising Jews, but those practising Jews were certainly 100% Arab. The State of Israel was created for Jews, those Arab descendants of the people of the Kingdom of Israel, who had mostly converted to Christianity or Islam, were evicted from the land of their ancestors to make room for Europeans. Israel is no different from the Crusaders who tried and failed, to impose a religious based country, to the detriment of the intrinsic population.
- Ben Chase
Jeremy, I think it's not so much about what Paul wants as it is what he's entitled to do about it. He doesn't decide whether Jerusalem is the capital, the Israelis do. And he doesn't decide whether they're right in doing it or not, the Palestinians do. If they disagree with Israel on this, they can war with each other over it. I know that's easy to say, but the thing is, THEY need to make these decisions themselves, not us. Our involvement over there has only fueled the war and supplied it well beyond its means. We haven't brought peace or peaceful resolutions, we've only halted and helped prepare future hostilities.
The people in those territories need to come to an agreement, and if we can help them mediate it, that's good. But we should do more than act as a disinterested third party, least we take away the rights of either of them to do what they feel is just. It's called being impartial and rational.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Ben, officially recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is not butting out. It is butting in in a manner prejudicial towards the rights of the Palestinians. All of East Jerusalem is "occupied Palestinian territory", and Israel's annexation of it is "illegal, null, and void" under international law.
- George
While I am a fan of Ron Paul and generally supportive of a more libertarian approach to foreign policy–less militarism, more trade and diplomacy, I don't agree with his specific position here. I do not believe Paul intends such a move to be viewed as a legal or moral endorsement of the Israel position and that he would equally recognize a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem, but that is the way it would almost certainly be perceived in the region as pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian and the repercussions upon US interests could be very dramatic. There is also an issue of international law which such a move would violate. Paul may disagree with the import of UN-type bodies, but I do believe he respects very much the need for the US to be in compliance with the standards of international law.
I would say in his defense this position reflects an answer to a question in a private meeting with evangelical leaders. It wasn't a formal position paper, nor do I believe he would actually implement it in practice given the all but certain controversy in the region it would engender–it's frankly a hornets nest, and the issues of international law which I do not believe he has considered. Political theory and campaign promises that are advocated on the campaign trail may not work when one enters the White House.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
"Paul may disagree with the import of UN-type bodies, but I do believe he respects very much the need for the US to be in compliance with the standards of international law."
Yes, exactly.
- crawford jennings
This article just goes to show that Dr. Paul's clear, consistent position on interventionism and foreign policy is too clear and straightforward for some. This was not an endorsement of the Government of Israel TO make Jerusalem the capital, but that IF Israel does, America has no right to oppose it. There is really no discussion to be had here; Ron Paul has not sold out, he has merely stated a position of logical fact; it is time for America to stop being the policeman of the world.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Israel already has, Crawford. Israel claims all of Jerusalem as its capital. The problem with this, and the reason US recognizing it as such would be wrong morally and legally, is that all of East Jerusalem is "occupied Palestinian territory" under international law, and Israel's annexation considered "illegal, null, and void". I didn't suggest Ron Paul "sold out". On the contrary, I suggested he is uninformed about the nature of the conflict and its roots. I do not think he would have said that if he understood what I just explained to you.
- goodfite
despite all the UN violations by Israel, does the UN consider Jerusalem a "shared sovereignty" between Israel and Palestinians? Have any significant steps been taken by the UN to end the conflict since resolutions 242 and 338? Did something change with the UN? Is it against international law for Israel to build or occupy anything anywhere in Jerusalem & call it what they want to like an embassy if they share sovereignty? Technically it might not violate international law because of the unprecedented nature of a shared sovereignty city.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Goodfite, there is no "shared sovereignty". The internationally recognized boundary, the 1948 Armistice Lines (the "Green Line") divides Jerusalem. Israel has annexed East Jerusalem, and claims all of Jerusalem as its capital. Under international law, East Jerusalem is "occupied Palestinian territory", and Israel's annexation "illegal, null, and void". This is a violation of international law, period.
- Unclear
There is an internationally recognized border between the two nations. This is the "Law of the land", the 1948 Armistice Lines. This law defines the territory that is Isreal.
Regardless of of any claims, there is an internationally recognized region of Isreal named Jerusalem. There also is an area of Palestinian territory named Jerusalem. International law has defined a border. These two areas are separate nations at this time. If we have an embassy within internationally recognized territory of Isreal that they call Jerusalem, why is this a problem? How does this validate anyone's claim for or against anything on the other side of an internationally recognized border?
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
The problem, Unclear, is that Israel claims undivided Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem, as its capital, and therefore for the US to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital is prejudicial to the rights of the Arabs, since East Jerusalem is "occupied Palestinian territory" under international law and Israel's annexation "illegal, null, and void".
If Israel wants the world to recognize West Jerusalem as its capital, it should comply with international law, withdraw from the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, and recognize the state of Palestine and the equal rights of the Palestinians.
- noah
"Paul believes the United States ought to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. And does it for completely consistent reasons, too."
maybe you could learn a thing or two.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
His suggestion that the US should recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is NOT consistent with his belief in the rule of law.
- noah
"His campaign often touts that he was the only one to defend Israel's bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, which is entirely inconsistent with his correct observation that "Another term for preventive war is aggressive war—starting wars because someday somebody might do something to us."
So you're saying that he supports letting them make their own decisions, even if he disagrees with them, is anti-liberty? He didn't necessarily endorse their action, but endorsed their right to defend THEMSELVES how THEY see fit. What's the problem?
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
So you're saying that he supports letting them make their own decisions, even if he disagrees with them, is anti-liberty?
No, not at all. I am saying his defense of/agreement with Israel's aggression against Iraq in 1981 is inconsistent with his rejection of "preventive war".
- Reefpirate
I do very much appreciate your efforts here to reply to so many and have a spirited discussion about the nuances of Ron Paul's foreign policy.
However, I would have to come down on the side that says although Ron Paul supported Israel's right to attack Iraq, or make their capital Jerusalem, this does not necessarily imply that he would make efforts to aid them in these breaches of international law.
You're right that rhetoric like this can have real repercussions diplomatically, particularly coming from a potential President. But this is the nature of Paul's 'hands-off' approach. If Israel wants to lay claim to Jerusalem, in violation of international law, then let them try. If they want to practice pre-emptive warfare on their enemies, who are we to stop them? Paul is concerned with American foreign policy, not Israeli foreign policy. Ie. It's none of our damn business, really.
Perhaps he would change his mind about such statements if given time and contemplation, but as you mention in your article Paul would take away foreign aid for Israel which would certainly humble them a bit in their foreign policy ambitions. Overall, his position is a net benefit to international justice, no?
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
There's a real disconnect here, Reefpirate. The very act of saying that Israel has a "right" to commit aggression and to steal Palestinian land, particularly if it came from the US President, would ipso facto aid Israel in violating international law. Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem would ipso facto aid Israel in its violation of international law via the "legitimacy" of recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli when under international law, East Jerusalem is "occupied Palestinian territory" and its annexation "illegal, null, and void." Overall, yes, his foreign policy views are right on and his foreign policy would be a benefit to international justice. His views on Israel, though, are unfortunately contrary to his values of Liberty and commitment to the rule of law. We should not be blind in our support for the good doctor. He needs to be made to understand how his statement is prejudicial to the rights of the Palestinians.
- Joe
Netaniahu say Washington DC is a capitol of israel,,it is capitol of israel, get over it.Such dumb's can see world this way, blind goy's..
- Madame Defarge
As a fierce Ron Paul supporter, this latest brouhaha from Ron Paul's remarks to the Evangelical leaders regarding Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, if Israel so desires, has really shaken me to the core.
What is Ron Paul's position on the Palestinians and what has happened to them and their land since the Balfour Declaration and the events since 1948. Surely a lot of what has happened to the Palestinians is the result of an interventionist U.S. foreign policy. Would Ron Paul have us close a blind eye to them now?
- goodfite
Even though Ron Paul stongly opposes our involvement in the UN and has been speaking out in Congress for years to get us out(got legislation passed that UN could't tax us),the truth is that there is NO international law that the US or any other country can't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel if they want to. In 1990 Congress passed a resolution declaring Jerusalem is and should remain the capital of the State of Israel and must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected. The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 declared as a statement of US policy Jerusalem should be recognized as the undivided eternal capital of Israel and required the US establish the US embassy in Jerusalem no later than May 1999.But it included a waiver that the President could ignore the law if in best interests of US.Clinton waivered.In 2000 Bush promised that as President he would immdiately begin the process of moving US ambassador to the city of Israel has chosen as its capital.Bush waivered.All issues of territory related to Jerusalem's status remains to be clarified and resolved between Israel and Palestine.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
You are missing the point. Under international law, East Jerusalem is "occupied Palestinian territory" and Israel's annexation considered "illegal, null, and void". So for the US to recognize an undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel would be absolutely prejudicial to the rights of the Palestinians. Prejudicing the rights of others is contrary to Ron Paul's values.
- goodfite
"Ron Paul's defense of Israel's Osirak attack and his statements on Jerusalem are inconsistant with his beliefs in individual liberty and the rule of law" I was adressing the rule of law part.The only laws you have brought up are are international laws.Ron Paul's rule of law is the Constitution and yes for now we have a treaty with the UN. Resolution 478 which calls upon nations to move their embassy out of Jerusalem was not signed and rejected by the US as a disruptive attempt to dictate to other nations.US considered it not binding and without force.To be binding it would have had to invoke Chapter 7 of the UN Charter which refers to security matters.This is for anyone who like me read this article and thought Ron Paul's suggestions were violating UN resolutions or breaking International laws. You need to google Ron Paul-The United Nations.There is a whole website on his fight against them.We can't remain a sovereign nation with them.We can walk away,cancel our membership and get our money back.They represent the globalists and The New World Order and are not a peace organization and have their own agenda. One sovereign nation picking where their capital is and another sovereign nation accepting it is a normal thing. Regardless of all the UN laws,in this case,it is not breaking the law.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
"The only laws you have brought up are are international laws. Ron Paul's rule of law is the Constitution"
Article VI of the Constitution states that "This Constitution … and all Treaties made … shall be the supreme Law of the Land".
Ron Paul is not free to ignore international law. The US is a signatory to the UN Charter and permanent member of the Security Council. U.N. Resolution 478 was not "rejected by the US". The U.S. abstained from the vote, and the resolution was passed. It has the force of law and your suggestion that it may simply be ignored is wrong. As a U.N. member state, the U.S. would be violating U.N. Resolution 478 to move its embassy to Jerusalem.
I love Ron Paul, and I support him, but he is dead wrong on this issue.
- Shir
Jeremy, there is one thing you failed to mention. Res. 242 and 338 have been historically known for their ambigious language that has been interperted differently by Israel, the Arabs and the U.N. espically known is the sentence you quoted '"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied" the omission of the word "THE" territories (in the English version due to Kissinger) maent that the excat withdrawal should be determined by negotiations.
Also, about the question of belligerent occupation, it is known that the previous status of East-Jerusalem (prior to June 4th 1967) was also not recognized by the international community, thus, Israel had occupied territory that was not under recongnized Jordanian rule. Actualy we all know that Jordan has removed all calims from East-Jersualem. This is a complicated issue, but its very basic.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
There is nothing at all "ambiguous" about the language of resolution 242. The lack of a definite article has absolutely no bearing on the meaning of subclause (i). As for East Jerusalem, it is under international law "occupied Palestinian territory", Israel's annexation being "illegal, null, and void". This is also not complicated, but very basic.
- Shir
You should consult a fact finder. In your personal time I urge you to compare the translations of 242 (English/French/Arabic) its quite embarrasing that you don't know the history behind this specific historical document. The term 'constructive ambiguity' was invented to describe 242. But, why bother with facts?
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
There is nothing "ambiguous" about it at all. It was the clear intent of the Security Council that Israel should withdraw to the positions it occupied prior to June 5, in accordance with the principle that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war.
- goodfite
Shir is right and you are wrong.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Facts be damned, huh, goodfite?
The Israeli interpretation of Resolution 242 is that it should only withdraw its forces from some of the occupied territories, and only after negotiations resulting in a final agreement on borders. This interpretation is maintained primarily by two arguments. First, there is the claim that the absence of the definite article "the" before "territories occupied" in sub-paragraph (i.) of the first operative clause means that the Security Council did not intend for Israel to withdraw from all of the occupied territories. Second, there is the claim that sub-paragraph (i.) is conditional upon sub-paragraph (ii.), meaning that there is to be no withdrawal until "secure and recognized boundaries" are established through negotiations. Thus, the Israeli position is that the Palestinians must negotiate a final settlement while remaining under foreign military occupation, and while Israel continues to prejudice the final outcome of said negotiations with its ongoing colonization of the West Bank.
This interpretation is not sustainable. The call for the withdrawal of Israeli forces must be understood in the context of the cited principle of international law that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. As a basic point of fact with regard to English grammar, the absence of the article "the" before the noun "territories" has no effect on the meaning of the sentence insofar as the extent of withdrawal is concerned. The Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai Peninsula are all "territories", plural, that were occupied during the war, and therefore "territories", plural, from which Israel must withdraw, according to the plain and unambiguous language of Resolution 242.
The Israeli argument absurdly maintains that the text cannot be understood to read "the territories" and so must be understood to read "some of the territories"—patently fallacious and self-defeating logic. To further illustrate the prima facie absurdity of the Israeli interpretation, the second operative clause of Resolution 242 affirms the necessity "For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area", a clear reference to Egypt's closing of the Straits of Tiran and Suez Canal to Israeli vessels. According to the logic of the Israeli argument, since this clause doesn't include the definite article "the" before "international waterways", it must be understood to mean that Egypt could continue to blockade Israeli shipping in some regional waterways, just not all of them—an interpretation Israel would most certainly reject.
The French ambassador to the U.N., Armand Berard, pointed out another reason why this Israeli argument was moot at the time of the vote on the draft resolution, which was that the equally authentic French version of the text does contain the definite article:
We must admit, however, that on the point which the French delegation has always stressed as being essential—the question of withdrawal of the occupation forces—the resolution which has been adopted, if we refer to the French text which is equally authentic with the English, leaves no room for any ambiguity, since it speaks of withdrawal "des territoires occupés", which indisputably corresponds to the expression "occupied territories".
As for the claim that the first sub-clause is conditional upon the second, as a simple point of fact, the extent of the withdrawal called for in sub-clause (i.) is not determined by sub-clause (ii.), but is rather determined independently from it, by the words "from territories occupied", which means the territories beyond the 1948 armistice lines that Israel occupied during the June war. The resolution states that "both" withdrawal and secure and recognized boundaries are a requirement for peace, conditioning neither one upon the other.
To support the Israeli interpretation, its proponents often quote statements by American or British officials made years after the resolution was passed. However, it is not for member nations to individually interpret the meaning of U.N. resolutions. Unilateral interpretations have no legitimacy under international law. Rather, resolutions must be understood and interpreted according to the will of the Security Council as a whole. Furthermore, the relevant documentary record for understanding the will of the Council is not that from years afterward, but that from prior to and until the time of the resolution's passage.
Prior to the vote on the resolution, which was drafted by the U.K., British Foreign Secretary George Brown stated:
The attitude of the British Government is clear…. I should like, if I may, to set out certain principles which I believe should guide is in striving collectively for a lasting settlement. Clearly, such principles must derive from the United Nations Charter. Article 2 of the Charter provides that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State…." Here the words "territorial integrity" have a direct bearing on the question of withdrawal, on which much has been said in previous speeches. I see no two ways about this; and I can state our position very clearly. In my view, it follows from the words in the Charter that war should not lead to territorial aggrandizement.
He reiterated this point prior to the adoption of the resolution by stating, "I should like to repeat what I said when I was here before: Britain does not accept war as a means of settling disputes, nor that a State should be allowed to extend its frontiers as a result of war. This means that Israel must withdraw."
Lord Caradon, the British representative at the U.N. who was principally credited with drafting the resolution, also reiterated his government's position during deliberations by stating, "As to the first operative paragraph, and with due respect for fulfillment of Charter principles, we consider it essential that there should be applied the principles of both withdrawal and security, and we have no doubt that the words set out throughout that paragraph are perfectly clear." Two days before the vote, Lord Caradon stated that if he "had to sum up the policy which has been repeatedly stated by my Government, I would go back to the words used by my Foreign Secretary in the General Assembly less than a month ago." After quoting George Brown's words, he emphasized:
In our resolution we stated the principle of the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and in the preamble we emphasized "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". In our view, the wording of those provisions is clear.
This view was shared at the time by every other member of the Security Council, including the United States. In the emergency special session of the General Assembly that was called following the June war, the U.S. and USSR jointly drafted two resolutions, the second of which affirmed "the principle that conquest of territory by war is inadmissible under the U.N. Charter, and consequently that the withdrawal by the parties to the conflict to the positions they occupied before June 5, 1967 is expected." At the Security Council in August, the U.S. sought to "stick with the formula that Arthur worked out and discussed with the Russians". As a result, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Arthur Goldberg drafted a resolution stating that "a just and lasting peace" could "be achieved within the framework of the Charter of the United Nations", and calling "Without delay" for "withdrawal by the parties to the conflict of their forces from territories occupied by them in keeping with the inadmissibility of the conquest of territory by war".
Prior to the vote on the U.K. draft that would become Resolution 242, the representative of the Soviet Union said, "We understand the decision taken to mean the withdrawal of Israel forces from all, and we repeat, all territories belonging to Arab States and seized by Israel following its attack on those States on 5 June 1967." The Indian representative noted that "there was universal agreement among the membership of the United Nations" that "the principle of non-acquisition of territory by military conquest" meant "the withdrawal of Israel armed forces to the positions they held prior to the outbreak of the recent conflict on 5 June 1967." On that basis, the Indian delegate continued,
It is our understanding that the draft resolution, if approved by the Council, will commit it to the application of the principle of total withdrawal of Israel forces from all the territories—I repeat, all the territories occupied by Israel as a result of the conflict which began on 5 June 1967. In other words, the draft commits the Council to the withdrawal of Israel forces from the whole of Sinai, Gaza, the Old City of Jerusalem, Jordanian territory west of the Jordan River [the West Bank] and the Syrian territory [the Golan Heights]. This being so, Israel cannot use the words "secure and recognized boundaries", contained in sub-paragraph (ii) of operative paragraph 1 of the United Kingdom draft resolution, to retain any territory occupied in the recent conflict. Of course, mutual territorial adjustments are not ruled out, as indeed they are not in the three-Power draft resolution co-sponsored by India. This is our clear understanding of the United Kingdom draft resolution.
The U.S. had known that India was going to make this statement, and also knew that if it was challenged, the resolution might be vetoed by the Soviet Union. The U.S. did not challenge it. That interpretation is the only legitimate and legally valid reading of Resolution 242.
- goodfite
Well if you look up United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 on Wikipedia it contains WAY more information than the narrow selection you have provided. I think the United Nations Security Council must be a bunch of crazy people. They can't even write down anything that anybody can understand.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
It's perfectly unambiguous, and the Council's intent is a matter of public record.
- jautumn
"Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported "authority." Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make "laws" that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not."
— Rep. Ron Paul, M.D., March 20, 2003
Once again 15 seconds of Googling debunks another vicious attack on Dr. Paul's. It's well known in politics that the most effective way to attack an opponent is to attack his strengths, not his weaknesses. Dr. Paul's consistency is his greatest selling point to voters just beginning to look at his candidacy. Your article aims directly at undercutting that initial attractiveness of Dr. Paul's candidacy to new recruits.
You may disagree with Dr. Paul when he asserts that the U.N. Charter "is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution." But his view is backed by the scholarship of Dr. Herb Titus that he cites. He did not pull his point of view out of a hat.
Instead of accurately stating that Dr. Pauls' views on Israel's right to establish Jerusalem as its capital are entirely consistent with his view that the U.N. has zero authority to establish law either for the U.S. or for Israel, or Iraq or Iran for that matter, you fabricate an unfounded attack on Dr. Paul.
If you were being honest, you would simply have taken the 15 seconds to Google, as an earlier posted suggested you do, and which I just now did, "Ron Paul United Nations" and you would have immediately found the article I just found.
I do not believe you did not do that. I mean, literally, I believe you DID do that, and then decided to publish a dishonest article pretending to be a supporter disappointed in your candidate on an issue, when in fact you are simply an Obama operative attacking Dr. Paul in exactly the way that is most politically effective – attack his consistency, his trait of greatest appeal to potential NEW supporters.
I believe, as you have repeatedly stated, that you know FULL WELL what Ron Paul's views on the United Nations are, and that he COMPLETELY DISAGREES with your assertion that the U.N. Charter is "the Supreme Law of the Land" in the U.S. via Article VI. You KNOW Ron Paul vehemently disagrees with that assertion.
You may not like it, but that is his position, which he has publicly promoted for thirty years, and as Doug Wead stated, his stance on Israel making Jerusalem its capital is ENTIRELY consistent with his views on national sovereignty and the Constitutional illegitimacy of U.S. signing and ratification of the U.N. Charter and the illegitimacy of U.N.-defined international law.
If you truly supported Dr. Paul as a candidate then you would stop making these unfounded attacks on his consistency and start directly arguing against his sophisticated stance on the U.N. instead of dumbly re-asserting the simplistic view that the U.N. Charter is binding law in the U.S. because the President signed it and Congress ratified it. Is NDAA's abolishment of due process binding law too, in your view? Your stupid one-line argument for the U.N. Charter and U.N. Resolutions being binding law directly implies that NDAA is too.
As Dr. Paul states, "Philosophical differences are healthy because they lead to the clarification of principles."
So air your philosophical differences with Dr. Paul's position on the U.N., and allow the clarification of principles to proceed, and you can start by studying up on Herb Titus' scholarship on the U.N. Your unfounded attacks, meanwhile, do just the opposite – they prevent in-depth discussion of the underlying philosophical issues and forestall the clarification of principles.
I suspect you know that, too, and you are doing that for crass political reasons, because you know full well that once people engage in substantive debate with Dr. Paul's philosophically consistent approach to Constitutional government, learn more about his principles and evaluate his views against their own most heartfelt personal values and interests, a great many, perhaps a solid majority of Americans, will end up agreeing with him more and more.
- jautumn
Correction: Herb Titus is not "Dr." by which I meant PhD. I was wrong. He was a law professor and has a J.D. from Harvard, but no PhD so not "Dr."
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Yes, genius, I'm an "Obama operative". That's why I voted for Ron Paul in '08 and in Michigan's primary two months ago.
You argue Ron Paul doesn't recognize the authority of the UN to make laws that bind American citizens. Neither do I. Nor did I say Ron Paul said otherwise, and nor did I say otherwise.
This is a strawman. Both the US and Israel are party to the Fourth Geneva Convention. This is, under article VI of the US Constitution, "the Supreme Law of the Land", and it is this law that the UN has upheld in the resolutions cited.
- EyesUnderWater
Jeremy, could it be a simple oversight by Dr. Paul to have said this? I think in the context of his statement he was simply advocating the free will of Israel. However, as you have presented the facts that it is not up to Israel but up to International law I feel like he didn't look at this issue with a broader scope. I think if one were to bring up the fact that East Jerusalem is not recognized by the UN and the reasons why to Paul he would see where he erred. The man isn't above an oversight or two. I would be worried if he added these statements to his speeches on the campaign trail but I don't see that happening. I personally am not too worried about it. (And to everybody here who doubts Hammond's support, he has probably done more for Ron Paul's cause than anybody here.) Just finished your book Paul vs. Krugman and i was very pleased with your approach and abundance of source material.
For liberty!
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
Yes, I think you are right. As I suggested in the article, I think Ron Paul is just not that familiar with the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its roots, and I believe if he understood how his remark prejudiced the rights of the Palestinians he wouldn't have made it. Thanks for checking out the book.
- jautumn
You list only U.N. Resolutions asserting that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to Israel's occupation of Jerusalem and its subsidization of Israeli settlements there. The government of Israel disagrees, specifically in regard to the settlements issue, and the Israeli High Court has yet to consider the question.
When the U.S. became a signatory, it became the Supreme Law of the Land that the U.S. would OBEY the Geneva Convention (insofar as that obedience does not violate the U.S. Constitution), not ADJUDICATE or ENFORCE it on other countries (except insofar as other countries' violations of it encroach on U.S. territory or harm U.S. citizens).
So how, exactly, would the U.S. be violating its Constitutional obligations under the Geneva Convention by building a U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem?
In what sense has the U.S. been the target or victim of any alleged Israeli violations of the Geneva Convention? That would be the only justification for the U.S. to declare Israel in violation of the Geneva Convention.
You seem to be assuming that building an Embassy in Jerusalem and recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital implies that the U.S. considers Jerusalem to be a legitimate territory of Israel. That is not necessarily the case.
A President Paul could simply say:
"We respect Israel's decision to locate its capital in what most nations regard as its illegitimately held territory in Jerusalem, and we will locate our embassy there and recognize it as Israel's capital, but we do not recognize it as legitimate sovereign Israeli territory, nor do we assert that it is illegitimately held. For the U.S. to do either would intrude upon and prescribe the outcome of complex negotiations on the matter by the parties involved. Legitimately held or not, Jerusalem is in fact presently a de facto territory of Israel and will serve the purpose of providing a location for our diplomatic relations with Israel."
I am not sure a President Paul would necessarily agree to build an embassy in East Jerusalem, though. I think he'd want to put it in the safest, least controversial place in Jerusalem he could find. And if only to save expense I think he'd want to put it where it is least likely to have to be moved again. I would guess the West side would make most sense.
I understand you don't believe either side of Jerusalem is a legitimate part of Israel. Ron Paul may very well personally agree with you, and a Paul Administration might, or might not, end up arguing that very point diplomatically with Israel from its new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem if it serves U.S. interests to do so.
I think it would make most sense for you to press the case with Dr. Paul on what stances his Administration would take on the substantive issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict, not on the distractionary bone-chewing issue of where the embassy should be located or on some incendiary nonsense about whether he has "betrayed his values" when clearly he has done no such thing.
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
The fact that Israel "disagrees" with the international consensus is irrelevant.
I did not argue that it was the US's job to enforce the Geneva Conventions.
I have already explained to you how moving its embassy to Jerusalem would be a violation of the US Constitution.
Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital would ipso facto be recognition that Jerusalem is Israeli territory. By definition.
I have been quite specific about East Jerusalem. It is East Jerusalem that is "occupied Palestinian territory", and it is Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem that is the subject of the UN resolutions I cited.
- jautumn
"I have already explained to you how moving its embassy to Jerusalem would be a violation of the US Constitution."
And I've explained to you why Dr. Paul would disagree with you on that point, and why his point of view on the matter is perfectly consistent with his values.
"Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital would ipso facto be recognition that Jerusalem is Israeli territory. By definition."
Yes, and who doesn't recognize that Jerusalem is Israeli territory? By definition, since Israel controls Jerusalem militarily, economically and politically, it is Israeli territory.
The dispute is whether it is legitimately held sovereign Israeli territory or not.
If you mean recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital by definition recognizes the legitimacy of Israel's annexation of Jerusalem, you are wrong. There is nothing in the definition of the terms "recognize" and "capital" in the sentence "Nation X recognizes city Y as Nation Z's capital" that necessarily entails "X acknowledges that Y is legitimately held as part of the sovereign territory of Z."
You forget that just as Dr. Paul's recognition of a person's liberty is robust enough for him to support that person's right to do something he considers idiotic like shoot heroin, a Paul Administration's recognition of national sovereignty is robust enough to defer to other countries' self-determination to do even nonsensical things, like declare their capital to be a city that just about nobody outside their country, and no more than half the people inside their country, believes to be their sovereign territory.
Admittedly, this is a novel interpretation of "recognize as its capital" that departs considerably from its customary diplomatic meaning, but that is because what passes nowadays for customary diplomacy is inherently interventionist, and a President Paul would take pains to demonstrate how a truly non-interventionist foreign policy would operate.
So once again let me explain, you are wrong in your assertion that Dr. Paul would be inconsistent with his values in moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital in a non-interventionist sense of "recognize".
Dr. Paul would not invest the word "recognize" here with any positive support or imprimatur of legitimacy, because he does not believe the U.S. has any business taking sides in a territorial dispute that does not involve sovereign U.S. territory.
He clearly states that he would recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital for no other reason than that Israel has decided Jerusalem is its capital not because he or a Paul Administration concurs with Israel's assumption or presumption that Jerusalem is sovereign Israeli territory.
Dr. Paul apparently believes a sovereign nation has sole and exclusive right to decide where its own capital shall be, even if it decides to make it somewhere wishful, insidious or idiotic, depending on one's point of view on the matter.
It does not mean Dr. Paul endorses Israel's choice of capital. It simply means he believes nations, like people, reap what they sow and neither he nor a Paul Administration would stand in the way of a nation and the bed it makes for itself.
And just as he respects and defers to every idiot out there exercising their right to shoot heroin or buy and clumsily shoot a rifle into their own foot, and he is, barring his own personal safety concerns, willing to visit the idiot in an opium den or the hospital, he respects and defers to any nation that decides to do something equivalently foolish and he is willing to visit and try to talk some sense into them wherever they happen to stupidly be.
This is perfectly consistent with Dr. Paul's values, which are Christian values. Like Christ, Dr. Paul does not judge people by where their chance and choices in life have led them, but is willing to meet them wherever they are, and try to befriend them and talk them into going to a better place for themselves.
Never would Dr. Paul consider stripping anyone of their freedom to make choices by their own lights, even if those choices appear to be completely moronic or, indeed, even if they are evil.
- Mike
This article is quite biased against Israel. Yes, there have been many UN general assembly and security council resolutions calling the settlements, the "occupation," and other actions of Israel "invalid." But that is not because Israel is in the wrong, but because the UN is a farce. The arab and muslim dictatorships of the world have virtually taken it over and it has been those countries (and the countries that want good economic relations with them) that have been behind all of these anti-israel resolutions. Plus, in any event, most of the anti-israel resolutions were non-binding anyway, and mere statements of opinion. I'm surprised that a person who claims to be a Ron Paul supporter would listen to the UN security council which is robbing this country of its sovereignty. I am a strong Ron Paul supporter and I understand that his policy of letting Israel do what it wants, not getting involved overseas, and getting out of the farcical UN is what is best for this country and for Israel. Also, it doesn't matter if you think East Jerusalem is not part of Israel, but West Jerusalem definitively is. That is where Israel's capital is. RON PAUL 2012!
- http://www.jeremyrhammond.com Jeremy R. Hammond
It's not that the article is biased against Israel, it is clearly that you are biased against international law.
Beyond your rejection of U.N. resolutions, you incorrectly assert they are non-binding. That is false. Security Council resolutions are legally binding on Israel as a party to the U.N. Charter.
Finally, for the umpteenth time, Israel does not claim West Jerusalem as its capital, it claims that UNDIVIDED Jerusalem is its capital, so Ron Paul is wrong to say we should recognize that. This is a morally and legally untenable position that I'm sure he would not have if he understood how prejudicial it was to the rights of the Palestinians.
- Paddy
I think everybodies wrong. I wish Mr. Hammond would have talked to Mr. Wead, if not Ron Paul himself, before writing his article. Just to make sure Mr. Paul hadn't mispoke. And I wish RP's supporters could see the problem with the alleged statement. I'm an avid Paul fan, but if he did say what is alleged, it's very disturbing. The international community has not recognized Jerusalem as part of Israel. So the alleged New York City analogy is a bad one. I've got my fingers crossed either that it's a misquote or Ron was having a particularly bad day.
- Marcy Fleming
Mr. Hammond, many thanks for an excellent critique.
As an Irish-American Jew (Mom's side) and one who lived in Tel Aviv for two years you are absolutely right to take Ron Paul to task for his utterly indefensible remarks on Israel, a place that has received hundreds of billions of US tax money over the years.
We have intervened massively in the Arab-Israeli conflict, much blood is on our hands and we can't just pretend to be noninterventionists there.
Some rightist organizations that are isolationist like the Ayn Rand Institute have advocated preventive war on Iran and the possible killing of billions of Muslims and anyone else who gets in the way of Pax Americana.
Walter Block and other irresponsibles on the Lew Rockwell site have promoted a Ron Paul Cult and have encouraged Paul to pander to the Jewish community with the most stupid statements regarding alleged Arab aid, by which they count the US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan !
Most Jews are 95% LibDems and do not mainly vote on Israel issues. So the pandering is racist as well as stupid.
The kind of uninformed verbose hot air abuse that you have received here makes me ashamed to be a Ron Paul supporter.
I'll still probably vote for him in the California Primary on June 5 but with flagging enthusiasm.
As John Foster Dulles noted in 1952 treaties are the absolute law of the land and if you don't like them, then you need to withdraw from them en toto.
I wouldn't be opposed to withdrawing from the UN and NATO and GATT and WTO and NAFTA, etc.
But the UN is not nearly the threat that AIPAC is,
which controls the Congress and Executive Branches.
Thanks again, Mr. Hammond and please keep up the good fight.