Rep. Ron Paul angers Israel Lobby

Rehmat's World

David Horowitz calls Ron Paul a
"vicious Anti-Semite"

The GOP presidential hopeful, Rep. Ron Paul, has angered pro-Israel lobby groups once again by challenging the H.R. 4133. On May 9, 2012, he opposed the bill in the House as it’s in the interest of Israel’s military expansionism rather than the interests of the United States in the Middle East.

“This bill will not help the United States, it will not help Israel, and it will not help the Middle East. It will implicitly authorize much more US interventionism in the region at the time when we cannot afford the foreign committments we already have. It more likely will lead to war against Syria, Iran, or both. I urged my collegues to vote against this bill“.

The H.R. 4133 – ‘United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act ‘- was introduced on May 5, 2012 by three Israel-Firster Jewish lawmakers, Eric Cantor, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Howard Berman and Steny Hoyer. The bill provides Israel with a blank check drawn on the US taxpayer to maintain its “qualitative military superiority” over all of its neighbors combined. The bill was passed on May 9 through on a “suspension of the rules,” which means it was not actually voted on and was approved by consent of Congress. The bill is now waiting for the Senate’s approval and blessed by Israel-Firster, President Barack Obama.

On Monday, in order to show Republican party’s holy alligiance to the Zionist entity, Mormon Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-California) proposed an additional $1 billion aid to Israel to upgrade its missile defense against Hizbullah, Hamas and Iran. Israel already receives $3 billion annual US military aid.

“Israel and its partisan hacks in Congress are utterly shameless. At a time when the country is screaming for some measure of restraint in government spending, Israel is the one budget line that only sees increases,” says Philip Giraldi, executive director of Council for the National Interest.

Last year, Ron Paul’s former senior Jewish aide, Eric Dondero , in a statement claimed that Ron Paul is certainly not a Jew-hater (anti-Semite) or racist or even anti-gay, but just “anti-Israel in general“. Paul’s views on Israel are that the Zionist entity has the strongest military in the region and can protect its existence without American help.

In February 2011, Israel’s Jewish propagandist, David Horowitz, called Rep. Ron Paul vicious anti-Semite for Paul’s calling freeze on US aid to Israel ($3 trillion since 1970s). Another Israeli lobbist, head of ADL, Abraham Foxman, is also on record for saying that Ron Paul is the only presidential hopeful who doesn’t take dictation from Israel lobby groups.

The Islamophobia Excuse

AntiWar
Philip Giraldi

It seems that the Republican presidential aspirants’ fervor to confront Islam has receded a bit with the decline and fall of Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, but one can likely still count on Rick Santorum to come up with some bon mots on the threat posed by Shariah law. Those who fear that hands will soon be lopped off shoplifters caught in Cleveland appear to be making much ado about nothing, but there is a much broader and more insidious agenda that is really playing out behind the scenes. Perry, Gingrich, and Santorum are all smart enough to know that Islamic law is hardly poised to dominate the U.S. legal system, but they are using it as the wedge issue to deny the patriotism of Muslims in general and fuel the demands to exercise a military option against Iran.

Promoting fear of Shariah law is essentially a red herring. There are more than 50 predominantly Muslim countries in the world, and, while most have elements of Shariah in their civil and family law, only two have it as their criminal codes. They are Saudi Arabia and Iran, one a close ally of the United States and the West and the other currently playing the cameo role of a threat to the entire world, to borrow a phrase from the eminent Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel. The countries that do not have Shariah as their criminal codes have modeled their laws on European and American models, some borrowing from Roman law and others from British common law.

Depicting Islam as manifestly medieval, backward, and cruel is not new, as it has been going on in one form or another since the Israelis and Palestinians first locked horns. Recognizing that the propaganda that is being ground out in the mainstream media derives from that conflict, it is easy to understand why Muslims are persistently portrayed in negative terms. And it should be equally unsurprising to learn that those who are denigrating Muslims and Islam are almost invariably among the most uncritical supporters of Likudist Israel and all its works.

The list of those who are passionate about how bad Islam is has a familiar ring to it. It is led by the truly vicious and fanatical like Pamela Geller and includes John Bolton, David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, and Charles Krauthammer. Geller has written that there is “a systematic campaign to impose Shariah on the secular marketplace” and to pervert the justice system in favor of Islamic exemptions, a theme that has been picked up by Gingrich and Santorum, both of whom favor pointless laws banning Shariah in any form. In a milder form, the same viewpoint is reflected in both the news coverage and the editorial pages of newspapers like The New York Post, The Washington Post, and even The New York Times. The arguments being made are not necessarily intended to convince anyone other than those who are already more than half onboard, but they are designed to keep the issue of how Muslims are not quite like the rest of us on the back burner to so that the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians and other Arabs will somehow always seem suspect. It also fuels other narratives that the neoconservatives and their friends support, like perpetual warfare against Islamic countries to bring about regime changes, suggesting that there is something that is not quite right in the way that Muslim countries govern themselves. The real objective is, however, spelled out in the paper that the neocons presented to Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, “A Clean Break,” advocating the breakup of Arab countries into smaller components that would be perpetually at war with themselves, thereby assuring Israeli predominance in the region. As is so often the case, the conversation in the United States is really all about Israel.