Rand Paul is clearly running for president and his trip to Israel was clearly damage control for the radical anti-Israel statements he previously made and in my view still believes.

I notice that you are not providing quotes of these "radical anti-Israel statements he previously made". You are just smearing him with no evidence to back it up.

It is very easy to find sources that before his "evolution" Rand Paul was for cutting off all foreign aid including to Israel, just like his father. Yes, he has changed his tune NOW that he is running for president. Which is the real Rand Paul? I think it's the isolationist radical that said if Israel was directly attacked American would do ... something.

On Friday, shortly after Paul’s appointment to

the committee, the National Jewish Democratic Council blasted the move, issuing

a statement expressing “outrage” over the appointment “given his deeply

disturbing record when it comes to the US-Israel relationship.”

According

to the statement, Paul’s appointment to the committee “should be raising red

flags and provoking severe concern across the pro-Israel community” because he

has “repeatedly called for an end to US aid to Israel.”

“The

overwhelmingly pro-Israel American public deserves much better than a radical

ideologue on the Senate’s primary diplomatic committee who has demonstrated a

singular obsession with slashing aid to the Jewish state,” the statement read.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Rand-Paul-in-Israel-US-foreign-aid-cant-be-one-way

I don't agree with him on cutting off ALL foreign aid to EVERYBODY, but I can certainly understand his position and it does not make him an enemy of Israel.

I don't agree with him on cutting off ALL foreign aid to EVERYBODY, but I can certainly understand his position and it does not make him an enemy of Israel.

What if Obama had a long standing background like that, a record as being for cutting off ALL aid to Israel? Would you ever trust him later on the issue no matter what he said later? If so, isn't there a double standard here?

Bottom line, I like a number of Rand Paul's domestic policy ideas on drugs, immigration, etc. but on economic matters he is basically one of those Ayn Rand cultists who are happy to let the government let poor and sick people just die and on foreign policy he comes from a radical extremist ISOLATIONIST tradition. I hope the democrat who will be winning, Clinton, can be influenced by Paul's good ideas on drugs and immigration. Some of his ideas are worthy of discussion. The man himself ... SCARY.

If Obama was for cutting off ALL foreign aid to EVERYONE, I could understand the position even though I would disagree with him.

I don't agree with him on cutting off ALL foreign aid to EVERYBODY, but I can certainly understand his position and it does not make him an enemy of Israel.

What if Obama had a long standing background like that, a record as being for cutting off ALL aid to Israel? Would you ever trust him later on the issue no matter what he said later? If so, isn't there a double standard here?

Bottom line, I like a number of Rand Paul's domestic policy ideas on drugs, immigration, etc. but on economic matters he is basically one of those Ayn Rand cultists who are happy to let the government let poor and sick people just die and on foreign policy he comes from a radical extremist ISOLATIONIST tradition. I hope the democrat who will be winning, Clinton, can be influenced by Paul's good ideas on drugs and immigration. Some of his ideas are worthy of discussion. The man himself ... SCARY.

You trust Obama, yet...

Same sex marriages which he was for, before he was against, before he was for it yet again.

Closing Guantanamo? Oops!

Energy independence? Double oops!

Sequester? He proposed it and now has to live with it. The Palestinians and Egyptians don't, but the families trying to get a tour of the White House do. The Easter bunny has been sacked but Beyonce will return for an encore performance.

"Obamacare will not add one dime to the national debt"

"This administration will be the most transparent one in history."

Obama had a long standing background on nothing. That's his entire problem. He stood for nothing before he was elected and even less today.

Yep. Obama's peace effort has really calmed down the situation in the Middle East.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Israel fires into Syria after Golan attack on troops

JERUSALEM | Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:45pm EDT

(Reuters) - Israel said it fired into Syria on Sunday and destroyed a machinegun position in the Golan Heights from where shots had been fired at Israeli soldiers in a further spillover of the Syrian civil war along a tense front.

It was not immediately clear whether Israel held Syrian troops or rebels responsible for what a spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said had been a deliberate attack on Israeli patrols in the occupied territory.

Israeli forces "destroyed a Syrian machine gun nest that fired twice in the last 24 hours on Israeli patrols operating to safeguard the border," the spokesman, Ofir Gendelman, said on his Twitter page.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/24/us-syria-israel-idUSBRE92N06020130324

Rand Paul is clearly running for president and his trip to Israel was clearly damage control for the radical anti-Israel statements he previously made and in my view still believes.

I notice that you are not providing quotes of these "radical anti-Israel statements he previously made". You are just smearing him with no evidence to back it up.

It is very easy to find sources that before his "evolution" Rand Paul was for cutting off all foreign aid including to Israel, just like his father. Yes, he has changed his tune NOW that he is running for president. Which is the real Rand Paul? I think it's the isolationist radical that said if Israel was directly attacked American would do ... something.

>>>On Friday, shortly after Paul’s appointment to

the committee, the National Jewish Democratic Council blasted the move, issuing

a statement expressing “outrage” over the appointment “given his deeply

disturbing record when it comes to the US-Israel relationship.”

According

to the statement, Paul’s appointment to the committee “should be raising red

flags and provoking severe concern across the pro-Israel community” because he

has “repeatedly called for an end to US aid to Israel.”

“The

overwhelmingly pro-Israel American public deserves much better than a radical

ideologue on the Senate’s primary diplomatic committee who has demonstrated a

singular obsession with slashing aid to the Jewish state,” the statement read.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Rand-Paul-in-Israel-US-foreign-aid-cant-be-one-way

Israel's is a First World advanced economy. Why on earth would they need foreign aid? Anyway, the money we give them just goes to the US military industrial complex. We should be starving that beast, not feeding them dessert.

Israel's economy is in better shape than the US's in every measure. If they need a few billion per year, let them sell bonds like everyone else does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Israel

Rand Paul is clearly running for president and his trip to Israel was clearly damage control for the radical anti-Israel statements he previously made and in my view still believes.

I notice that you are not providing quotes of these "radical anti-Israel statements he previously made". You are just smearing him with no evidence to back it up.

It is very easy to find sources that before his "evolution" Rand Paul was for cutting off all foreign aid including to Israel, just like his father. Yes, he has changed his tune NOW that he is running for president. Which is the real Rand Paul? I think it's the isolationist radical that said if Israel was directly attacked American would do ... something.

>On Friday, shortly after Paul’s appointment to

the committee, the National Jewish Democratic Council blasted the move, issuing

a statement expressing “outrage” over the appointment “given his deeply

disturbing record when it comes to the US-Israel relationship.”

According

to the statement, Paul’s appointment to the committee “should be raising red

flags and provoking severe concern across the pro-Israel community” because he

has “repeatedly called for an end to US aid to Israel.”

“The

overwhelmingly pro-Israel American public deserves much better than a radical

ideologue on the Senate’s primary diplomatic committee who has demonstrated a

singular obsession with slashing aid to the Jewish state,” the statement read.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Rand-Paul-in-Israel-US-foreign-aid-cant-be-one-way

I don't think we give any aid to Great Britain, and i don't think anyone that says that's a good policy is "anti-British". Israel doesn't need our money and for that matter, neither do Egypt or Pakistan.

Israel DOES need the USA's military support. Very much. It is vital for Israel's military to be vastly superior to all of it's neighbors in the Middle East and yes Israel will continue to need such defense support of the world's most powerful military, America. No, I don't trust any son of Ron Paul to fulfill that promise. It is clear Rand Paul is a Ron Paul ideologue, but now is smart enough to know he has to do a grand snow job in order to have a chance to be president. It's fine for people to agree with the Paul's lack of interest in helping Israel continue to exist, but is not fine for Rand Paul to become president based on a deception about his true ideological agenda. I can imagine the ads now.

Rand Paul is of course trying to have it BOTH ways just for the nomination phase. He wants Ron Paul's base and he also wants the factions that are strong opponents of Ron Paul's fringe radical ideology. He is really going to have to dance. It should be fun to watch. I doubt he is that good a politician to pull that off. Yes he is no doubt a better politician than his Daddy. But good enough to install the radical Paul agenda in the white house? I think not and of course I hope not. It is kind of epic story. Who he is because of his Daddy even that ridiculous name (after Ayn Rand) but (in my view) impossible to meet his ambition fully, again, because of his Daddy.

I am happy to see ALL of his ideology openly discussed (rather than disguised) in the famous marketplace of political ideas as not all of it is crap. But that man, please, no, never.

Israel DOES need the USA's military support. Very much. It is vital for Israel's military to be vastly superior to all of it's neighbors in the Middle East and yes Israel will continue to need such defense support of the world's most powerful military, America. No, I don't trust any son of Ron Paul to fulfill that promise. It is clear Rand Paul is a Ron Paul ideologue, but now is smart enough to know he has to do a grand snow job in order to have a chance to be president. It's fine for people to agree with the Paul's lack of interest in helping Israel continue to exist, but is not fine for Rand Paul to become president based on a deception about his true ideological agenda. I can imagine the ads now.

Rand Paul is of course trying to have it BOTH ways just for the nomination phase. He wants Ron Paul's base and he also wants the factions that are strong opponents of Ron Paul's fringe radical ideology. He is really going to have to dance. It should be fun to watch. I doubt he is that good a politician to pull that off. Yes he is no doubt a better politician than his Daddy. But good enough to install the radical Paul agenda in the white house? I think not and of course I hope not. It is kind of epic story. Who he is because of his Daddy even that ridiculous name (after Ayn Rand) but (in my view) impossible to meet his ambition fully, again, because of his Daddy.

I am happy to see ALL of his ideology openly discussed (rather than disguised) in the famous marketplace of political ideas as not all of it is crap. But that man, please, no, never.

Hey, the only one talking about Rand Paul here is you. You introduced him as a diversion to some post you couldn't address head on and then have been going on and on about him. Enough with the Rand Paul already.

As far as Israel needing our Military Support, that's a different matter than direct foreign financial aid, which is what we were talking about. We have mutual defense treaties with lots of countries and there's no reason Israel shouldn't be one. We give preferences to buy sophisticated military hardware and i think Israel is on that list. What i'm saying is they don't need our money. They've got money and the means to raise more if they need it. They shouldn't be another welfare recipient for the US taxpayer to support.

I didn't actually introduce Rand Paul as a diversion to a post I couldn't address. I addressed that other post fully, and the Rand Paul example was simply a related addition of an example of a candidate that is going to have a real problem getting the American people to believe he's really got Israel's back based on his ideological core, which is something the majority of American voters DEMAND in their president.

Calling Israel a welfare recipient is just a way of demagoguing the issue.

Poor Israel.

First, Obama...Now, this!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fertile locusts swarm into Israel on Passover eve

By AARON KALMAN March 24, 2013, 6:38 pm 20

A day before Passover, farmers in southern Israel were suffering from another plague of locusts, entering the country from Egypt with biblical timing.

The pests hit fields and greenhouses in the south; the Agriculture Ministry was working to prevent heavy damage to crops in the Negev and stop the insects from penetrating deeper into the country.

Unlike previous swarms that have entered Israel in the past month, the locusts that hit Israel Sunday are yellow and fertile and, in this stage of their metamorphosis, pose less risk to crops because they eat significantly less. Once the insects lay eggs and they hatch, however, Israeli farmers will face the threat of this wave’s insatiable brood, who will eat anything green in their path.

The new swarm hit Israel on the eve of the Passover festival, which marks the Israelites redemption from slavery in ancient Egypt, achieved after Egypt’s Pharaoh was hit by 10 divinely ordered plagues — the eighth of which was locusts.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/fertile-locusts-swarm-into-israel-on-passover-eve/

Obama is hardly a plague for Israel. He has been a great friend of Israel. Being a rubber stamp for their right wing factions is not being a great friend. This trip proved Obama's sincerity. He had nothing to gain politically from it.

Obama is hardly a plague for Israel. He has been a great friend of Israel. Being a rubber stamp for their right wing factions is not being a great friend. This trip proved Obama's sincerity. He had nothing to gain politically from it.

Is that why he didn't address the Knesset, but instead spoke to a collection of leftist students, even then excluding those from a university which resides outside the 1949 borders.

In the words of the John Bolton (apologies if this link has been posted before).

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Obamas-grim-message-to-Jerusalem-307098

The White House is contending that Barack Obama’s first visit to Israel as president underlines his administration’s commitment to Israel’s security.

Rarely, however, has the style and symbolism of a political maneuver been more distant from the underlying substance.

Israel to Obama: Thank you for being a friend.

John Bolton? I don't think anyone but right wingers take him seriously. That is one kind of "friend" to Israel, the kind that rubber stamps every far right policy of every far right Israeli government. The truth is a TRUE friend is more critical and caring about the friend's best interest in the long run.

JT:

If you really believe Obama cares about the best interests of Israel, you are farther gone than even I imagined.

He doesn't care about the best interests of the US.

What makes you honestly believe he gives a tinker's dam about Israel?

This trip was merely something he had to do to close the loop and try to look Presidential to the world. That didn't work in most quarters.

I think he's a good president who wants to be a GREAT president. All presidents are obviously highly egotistical and ambitious because it's impossible to become president without that, but I find Obama oddly less egotistical than most modern presidents. This being his second term, and him being a normal human being who is also a president, I think he also cares very much now about his historical legacy. I think his reasons for visiting Israel were quite obvious, problems with Iran, problems with Syria, a change in the Israeli coalition a bit to the left making the chances of a peace negotiations with the Palestinians a little better, and also backing away from his strategic mistake in his first term of demanding stopping settlements as a precondition to negotiations. I never said he was perfect. That was a mistake because it didn't work but it was done with good intentions. Changing your tactics is smart, at least there is a chance the new tactic MIGHT work.

For someone who buys into the John Bolton Obama hates Israel meme, that becomes THEIR reality. In my view, that isn't the REAL reality.

For someone who buys into the John Bolton Obama hates Israel meme, that becomes THEIR reality. In my view, that isn't the REAL reality.

All Obama's actions up tiill a few days ago suggest that Bolton is right, but I am hoping that the specter of Iran about to develop weapons has finally brought him to his senses.

For someone who buys into the John Bolton Obama hates Israel meme, that becomes THEIR reality. In my view, that isn't the REAL reality.

All Obama's actions up tiill a few days ago suggest that Bolton is right, but I am hoping that the specter of Iran about to develop weapons has finally brought him to his senses.

I find you POV extremist as do I find pretty much everything that comes out of Bolton's Fox New's mouth. Obama along with many allies has imposed very harsh sanctions on Iran. Surely all possible tactics need to be exhausted before giving the go ahead to start an actual war with bombs. I get it, you don't believe Obama would do that UNDER any circumstances. I do. Let's hope we don't ever get to find out and that starting a full scale war isn't needed.

Surely, you DO realize there have been strong voices within the Israeli military that are also against jumping the gun on starting a war with Iran?

I'll give you this. If Iran gets to the point of nuclear weaponization and an attack never happened, I would also think it SHOULD have happened because Iran having nukes IS unacceptable. Decisions at this level are very hard. You don't want to go to war when you shouldn't have. Google: George W. Bush Iraq.

Obama has imposed very harsh sanctions on Iran, but he has also issued waivers for many of their best customers for crude oil. They are getting very close to being able to produce a nuclear weappon, so I find that worrying.

Obama has imposed very harsh sanctions on Iran, but he has also issued waivers for many of their best customers for crude oil. They are getting very close to being able to produce a nuclear weappon, so I find that worrying.

Me too.

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect App

Obama has imposed very harsh sanctions on Iran, but he has also issued waivers for many of their best customers for crude oil. They are getting very close to being able to produce a nuclear weappon, so I find that worrying.

Me too.

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect App

Well, I think Iran WILL possess nuclear weapons one day. It would make a lot more sense IMO to expend energy , diplomacy, intelligence and good will towards that eventuality than banging the war drum.

Obama has imposed very harsh sanctions on Iran, but he has also issued waivers for many of their best customers for crude oil. They are getting very close to being able to produce a nuclear weappon, so I find that worrying.

Me too.

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect App

Well, I think Iran WILL possess nuclear weapons one day. It would make a lot more sense IMO to expend energy , diplomacy, intelligence and good will towards that eventuality than banging the war drum.

The Iranian government? The holocaust denying, death to America, death to Israel, murder the gays Iranian government? I like Iranian PEOPLE but the Iranian government, as a Zionist Jew and an American, they are quite simply an ENEMY. They can't have a bomb. Period.

Obama has imposed very harsh sanctions on Iran, but he has also issued waivers for many of their best customers for crude oil. They are getting very close to being able to produce a nuclear weappon, so I find that worrying.

Me too.

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect App

Well, I think Iran WILL possess nuclear weapons one day. It would make a lot more sense IMO to expend energy , diplomacy, intelligence and good will towards that eventuality than banging the war drum.

The Iranian government? The holocaust denying, death to America, death to Israel, murder the gays Iranian government? I like Iranian PEOPLE but the Iranian government, as a Zionist Jew and an American, they are quite simply an ENEMY. They can't have a bomb. Period.

And this make them different from other nuclear club countries, such as North Korea and Pakistan in what way? Governments come and go. It is the peoples that live on. Unless they are inflexible, in which case they fade away as well.

Too late for N.K. and Pakistan. Not too late for Iran. Also Iran getting the bomb means a number of other middle eastern countries will feel the need to get them. Don't bother mentioning that Israel has got them; that's a given.

They can't have a bomb. Period.

Hear, hear!

Obama has imposed very harsh sanctions on Iran, but he has also issued waivers for many of their best customers for crude oil. They are getting very close to being able to produce a nuclear weappon, so I find that worrying.

Me too.

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect App

Well, I think Iran WILL possess nuclear weapons one day. It would make a lot more sense IMO to expend energy , diplomacy, intelligence and good will towards that eventuality than banging the war drum.

The Iranian government? The holocaust denying, death to America, death to Israel, murder the gays Iranian government? I like Iranian PEOPLE but the Iranian government, as a Zionist Jew and an American, they are quite simply an ENEMY. They can't have a bomb. Period.

they can, but they are not allowed. and, like it or not, they will have. it's only a matter of time.

Obama has imposed very harsh sanctions on Iran, but he has also issued waivers for many of their best customers for crude oil. They are getting very close to being able to produce a nuclear weappon, so I find that worrying.

Me too.

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect App

Well, I think Iran WILL possess nuclear weapons one day. It would make a lot more sense IMO to expend energy , diplomacy, intelligence and good will towards that eventuality than banging the war drum.

The Iranian government? The holocaust denying, death to America, death to Israel, murder the gays Iranian government? I like Iranian PEOPLE but the Iranian government, as a Zionist Jew and an American, they are quite simply an ENEMY. They can't have a bomb. Period.

they can, but they are not allowed. and, like it or not, they will have. it's only a matter of time.

We'll see about that!

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect App

I agree with Naam, in order for there to be even the slightest chance of Iran not achieving nuclear weapons capability they have to absolutely believe that the U.S will take military action to stop them. Instead they probably believe that to appear weak and confused in the face of your enemy is a tenet of Zionism.

A negotiated compromise is better.

Sent from my GT-S5360B using Thaivisa Connect App