Ron Paul and Anti-Semitism
by Ryan Sager
Tue, 22 May 2007 at 5:48 PM
updated Tue, 22 May 2007 at 12:40 PM
Over at Reason's Hit & Run blog, David Weigel got Ron Paul to comment on the quote I took note of a little while ago that "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government." I said that I considered this statement anti-Semitic on its face; I still do. You can read Mr. Paul's full and rather lengthy response at Hit & Run. But let's hit a couple of other related issues:
1) Did Ron Paul actually write the passage of the newsletter in question? As I've already noted, after Ron Paul supporters brought it to my attention, the answer to this question seems likely to be no. His newsletter was being ghostwritten, and the offensive comments about blacks and offensive comments (at least in my interpretation) about Jews were likely written by a staffer. Nonetheless, Mr. Paul waited roughly five years from when the passages came to light to attribute their authorship to someone else in an interview with Texas Monthly; also, he reportedly stood by the comments at the time. His current story about the newsletter passages, as relayed to me by his campaign spokesman, Jesse Benton, is that: "Ron has taken responsibility for them, even though he didn't write them."
2) Now, onto the thornier question of anti-Semitism. Let me begin by saying that as I don't know Mr. Paul personally, I can only assess his public statements and acts.
I consider the statement recounted from the newsletter above objectively anti-Semitic — whether he wrote it or stood by his staffer's words. Again, it was: "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government." Mr. Paul didn't address that statement directly in his response to the question from Mr. Weigel, though he doesn't seem to be backing away from it.
Why is this anti-Semitic? Because any criticism of Israel or America's alliance with Israel is anti-Semitic? Hardly. It's an anti-Semitic statement because it plays directly into classic anti-Semitic tropes, as regards Jews controlling the world and controlling nations through a Jewish conspiracy. Even in his response to Mr. Weigel, Mr. Paul seems to be reiterating this notion of AIPAC controlling Congress, saying, "the assumption is that AIPAC is in control of things, and they control the votes, and they get everybody to vote against anything that would diminish the war."
What's more, while Mr. Paul is quite consistent and criticizes lobbies of all kinds, the statement ascribed to him singles out the Israeli government (not AIPAC) as "by far the most powerful lobby" of the "bad sort." This sort of exaggeration (what about the Saudi government? AARP? the farm lobby? the public-employees unions?), again, plays into anti-Semitic tropes.
3) Then, there are the legislative stands Mr. Paul has taken, particularly as regards resolutions relating to violence in Israel, the Palestinian territories, and the broader Middle East. Most troubling is this statement on the Israel-Lebanon war last summer, when he rose as the only Republican in opposition to a resolution condemning Hezbollah for the violence and supporting Israel's right to defend itself:
I rise in opposition to this resolution, which I sincerely believe will do more harm than good.
I do agree with the resolution's condemnation of violence. But I am convinced that when we get involved in foreign conflicts and send strong messages, such as this resolution will, it ends up expanding the war rather than diminishing the conflict, and that ultimately comes back to haunt us.
Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does.
This statement rather flatly equates Israel's response to terrorist attacks with terrorism itself. This isn't anti-Semitism, but it is moral blindness.
As for Mr. Paul's record on these sorts of issues generally, his congressional spokesman, Tom Lizardo, offers this, by email:
Congressman Paul has voted against several "Sense of Congress" resolutions over the years. Perhaps most famously, he has voted against gold medals for Mother Teresa, Charles Schultz and others. His votes against those resolutions were, however, not a statement of his opposition to the lives and works of the recipients. Rather, they were the result of his opposition to granting such medals to people who are not members of the US military.
Similarly, he has voted against resolutions that have condemned various attacks by foreign governments and non-government groups, particularly when the resolutions pledged further US involvement in regional conflicts around the globe. Again, this is not because he in some way "approves" of attacks (he has taken a pledge of non-violence unless in the instance of self-defense). As you are likely aware, Congressman Paul follows a strict policy of non-intervention, as outlined by the founders of this nation. Thus, Congressman Paul has, for example, stood up to his colleagues and voted against resolutions condemning Israel for actions it has taken to defend itself from terrorists, as well as having voted against a plethora of other condemnatory resolutions aimed at other nations and groups and pledging US involvement in these matters.
He also has, for example, voted for resolutions aimed at halting US funding of nations and entities for their attacks against Israel. Congressman Paul has consistently opposed US foreign aid funding.
The response from the Paul camp here, I believe, is sound. I don't agree with Mr. Paul's approach to foreign policy, but it is consistent and betrays no animosity toward Israel or Jews. Again, I might call it moral blindness to fail to distinguish between — or even to equate — terrorists and their victims. But it is not, in itself, anti-Semitism.
4) So, at the end of the day, do I still believe Ron Paul is "an anti-Semite" as I said in my initial post? I think that was an overly harsh assessment, and I apologize for it. Nonetheless, I have emailed his campaign spokesman to ask if he stands by the main quotation in question here: "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government." That was early in the afternoon, and I have not received an answer (I also asked yesterday on the phone). It remains a troubling statement for all of the reasons I have laid out if he stands by it.
5) And one final note to those who think I have an agenda in delving into Mr. Paul's record: I couldn't care less about Ron Paul's presidential campaign. I think he should be booted from the debates — but only along with Jim Gilmore, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee and the rest of the Seven Dwarfs. Until the rest of them get kicked off the island, and we get down to the serious debates between the serious candidates, Mr. Paul should stick it out.
Related Topics: GOP Primary
Latest Politics Homepage
|
Print
Send
RSS
