Ron Paul on Israel: Zionism is Based on Independence and Self-Reliance


This is a rush transcript. If you notice any errors please report them using the “Help improve this post” link at the bottom of this post.

Ron Paul: Believe it or not, like you mentioned, there’s a bit of discussion in Israel on some of these issues than there is here in America, because it’s sort of dictated by one group. Maybe it’s because groups like that won’t invite me to their forums to debate some of these issues.

Jack Hunter: Hi, my name is Jack Hunter, I’m here with Republican presidential contender, Ron Paul. It’s good to be with you today, Ron.

Ron Paul: Thanks, Jack, it’s good to be with you.

Jack Hunter: One of the reasons for sitting here today, a group, “The Republicans Jewish Coalition”, has decided they’re having a forum this evening with all of the presidential candidates, except you. Now, why would that be?

Ron Paul: Well, I guess I can’t really totally answer that since they made the decision, but it does raise some questions. I was disappointed I couldn’t go because I’m on the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Congress and I’m very interested in foreign policy. I’ve spoken out about the policies in the Middle East and the wars going on and the military-industrial complex. So I have views, but they are different than the other candidates, so my guess is that my views weren’t welcome. But what about this whole idea of having a discussion? Why shouldn’t a view that is different not be permissible, why shouldn’t it be welcomed? So I was disappointed, so I welcome this opportunity to further explain my position on foreign policy.

Jack Hunter: There was a time in the 1980s when you strongly disagreed with President Reagan and your party; it was when Israel attacked a nuclear reactor in 1981. Almost the entire U.S. Congress voted to condemn that act, and you were one of the few Republicans who stood up and said, “Israel should not have to answer to America for how she defends herself, why shouldn’t defend be allowed to defend herself in any way she sees fit without listening to the dictates of the United States?”

Ron Paul: I remember that vote very clearly, because I was criticized. The spirit of the moment was, we have to condemn them for doing this because it was a violation of the sovereignty of Iraq and this sort of thing. So to me it was Israel’s business, so I was voting for their independence. And I think this is a big difference in the way I look at Israel. I think Israel should be treated as an independent nation and not a puppet of our state, because right now what they have is they depend on us for military and they depend on us for money; and if they want to have a peace treaty, they have to ask us; if they want to defend their borders, they have to get permission. But I think what some people fail to understand is, Zionism is based on two basic principles: independence and self-reliance. So those are two very important issues. I think it was interesting just a few months ago when Netanyahu was speaking before the Congress, he said, very boldly that Israel can defend themselve and Israel does not need American troops to defend their country. He did not expect American troops. Does that mean we shouldn’t be friends with Israel? No, we should treat them as our best friend, we should be trading with them and going back and forth and facilitate friendship, which we do. But that doesn’t mean that we should take over their country. I think they sacrifice too much, and besides, just think of all the money that we have spent trying to buy friendship. The best example would be Egypt. We’ve given Egypt over the years 40 billion dollars so they won’t attack Israel. And I guess some people say, “Well, that was a good investment”, but how did it end up? It ended up with the people turning against Mubarak, and now they have a government in power that is more Islamic radical and they’re less friendly to Israel.

Jack Hunter: President Obama has talked about Resolution 242 and Israel pretty much telling them they have to go back to their 1967 borders. Your thoughts on President Obama’s dictate?

Ron Paul: Well, being a non-interventionist, I believe that we shouldn’t tell Israel what to do, they should decide where the borders are. And I think it’s wrong, I certainly wouldn’t dictate to Israel where their borders should be, and they should work it out with their neighbors.

Jack Hunter: You supported Israel in 1981 when they attacked an Iraqi nuclear reactor, do you support today the right of Israel to attack Iran, Iraq or any other nation in its defense?

Ron Paul: Yea, I think if conditions are very similar and if they believe it’s in their national security interests, that should be their decision, and not ours.

Jack Hunter: You point out that that the 3 billion dollars we give to Israel annually makes no sense, when we give 6 billion to Israel’s enemies that surround them. The billions, as you pointed out earlier, that we sent to Egypt obviously didn’t help Israel much, much less the United States. And many Israeli leaders really resent having to take dictates from the United States that’s attached to this money.

Ron Paul: It is true. One time I made the statement that their Arab neighbors got twice as much as Israel got. But somebody did a fact check on me, and they said I was wrong, it was 7 times as much. But it depends on how you measure it, I guess. So we do a lot. So if we cut out all the aid to everybody, actually Israel does better than the rest, they actually have more strength because we weaken the others because we send less weapons to the other countries.

Jack Hunter: Let us finish with something that is of the utmost importance to Republicans right now: beating Barack Obama. Now, a lot of Republicans love Ron Paul’s economic message and they have questions about your foreign policy. When it comes to beating Barack Obama – which we all want to do, we need to get that guy out of the White House – poll after poll, the majority of Americans agreed with you on foreign policy more than any of the other presidential candidates. If you’ll permit me, this is Corner Friedersdorf writing for The Atlantic: “Remember when Paul belonged to the minority in Congress that opposed to Iraq war. Now 62% of Americans say fighting the Iraq war was a mistake. The Republicans who criticized Obama for presiding over the end of America’s military presence in Iraq, well, like Paul, and unlike Obama, 78% of Americans support full withdrawal. And in Afghanistan and other countries that Paul wants to leave, two-thirds of Americans want to see troop levels reduced. No other Republican presidential candidate does well with independent voters …” (this is about 20% of the electorate, the people who decide any election) … other than you. And you are the only Republican running for President that agrees with the American majority, apparently, on foreign policy. Does this make you the best Republican presidential contender to beat President Obama in the general election, the fact that you are the most in sync with Americans on foreign policy.

Ron Paul: Well, it looks like that sums up the election, I better go out and look for my cabinet.

Jack Hunter: Good to be with you today, Congressman Paul.

Ron Paul: Thank you, good to see you.

  • DeMonteur

    ‘… 3 billion dollars we give to Israel annually makes no sense, when we give 6 billion to Israel’s enemies that surround them. The billions, as you pointed out earlier, that we sent to Egypt obviously didn’t help
    Israel much, much less the United States. And many Israeli leaders really resent having to take dictates from the United States that’s attached to this money.”

    Maybe a profit that comes out of the middle eastern perpetual conflict and chaos is worth the schizophrenic appearance of this issue. How much money does the corporate defense make on this? Fuel, guns, bullets, steel, electronics and mass media talk. Maybe that is why it must go on. It appears that it does make sense to a small, very small, group of people, but does not make any sense to the rest of normal people. No surprise, today democracy is only on TV.


    Definition of “Semite” : A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians. Jews are not the only “Semites” – and not all Jews are Semites either. A Semite is a person speaking one of a group of related languages, presumably derived from a common language, Semitic. The term includes Arabs, Akkadians, Canaanites, some Ethiopians, and Aramaean tribes including Hebrews. Semitic tribes migrated from the Arabian Peninsula, beginning c. 2500 BC, to the Mediterranean coast, Mesopotamia, and the Nile River delta. InPhoenicia, they became seafarers. In Mesopotamia, they blended with the civilization of Sumer. The Hebrews settled at last with other Semites in Palestine.

  • NewCovenantThinker

    You are right. All of that, and more, was done by a “Christian” nation that has been living by the sword – not just in self defense, but in undeniable militarism. The “might makes right” mentality that still pervades the minds of so many Americans, only leads to further conflicts. How many times did 19th century “big business”, drive the nation into conflict? How many times were peaceful indians driven off their lands, simply to have them immediately stolen? Who bankrolled slavery? There is no way to have a fair and balanced foreign policy while the corporatists are directly cashing in on the conflicts. The withdrawal of a small group of settlers, from Gaza, is a perfect example. The US Congress granted a BILLION US TAX DOLLARS, to aid the withdrawal of a few thousand kicking, and screaming, settlers. In other words, the Zionist government can put their own people in harms way, make sure a few get killed, then cry to the US gov, and CHA-CHING, CHA-CHING, CHA-CHING, a BILLION DOLLARS rolls in from America! It is blood money, Bubba.

  • NewCovenantThinker

    Angry LIbertarian, they buy the people via the leaders. Most ministers are taught to give three to five point sermons. They start out with an idea, find support from the Bible, and make a conclusion. The format precludes any possibility of teaching people what the Bible actually says. Most people could not bear it, since it would involve going through successive chapters of apostolic interpretation. Many ministers are taught in seminaries that people have around a twenty minute attention span. This is why you see so many people, take verses out of context, and mis-apply them. It is a very terrible situation. I don’t think we will see the full ramifications, until after this life. Also, the majority of people are wired to follow like herd animals. They feel safe with the herd. In this case, the ministers, and the seminaries, have the “herds”, in their backpockets. They are called churches – places of utter passivity.

    • heisthelord


      to all, the “support Israel not mattter what Christian position” is not from being bought off..but from bad theology, more specifically dispensationalism that has infilitrated the church the last 100 plus years thru mainly the Schofield study bible…the true Israel biblically is Christ, Jesus is the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham.and those who believe like Abraham are the true descendents of Abraham..see Galatians the real blessing or curse comes based on what someone does w/ Christ Jesus…if you turn to him in faith, you will be blessed…if you refuse him, you will stay cursed for your sin…in short, bad theology, not money, has led to the wrong position on ‘support Israel at any cost for any reason’ policy

  • WallyDow

    A lot of you need to wake up. The Ashkenazi, Idomaean, so-called Jews, are fakes. Read Rev 2:9

    The “Money changers” have been planning this for a long time. The FED is a “Money changer” private corporation. The FED is controlled by the Rothschilds.

    The Rothschilds have been blatant with their agenda to enslave the world.

    Our congress and the White House are puppets of the FED (Rothschild).

    Ron Paul is the ONLY one in the field that CAN do what needs to be done for the good of “WE, the people”.

    Time will illustrate that I am speaking the truth.


  • PplOppsngTyrnny

    @harishvenkat1976 Oh really? What exactly is your interpretation? That he who blesses Palestine G-d will Bless?! Most Christians don’t understand their Jewish roots, but those who do support Israel.

    • NewCovenantThinker

      @[email protected] Who is “you” in these sentences? The LORD had said to Abraham, “Go from YOUR country, YOUR people and YOUR father’s household to the land I will show YOU. “I will make YOU into a great nation, and I will bless YOU; I will make YOUR NAME great, and YOU will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless YOU, and whoever curses YOU I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through YOU.” God is talking to ABRAHAM, not to a modern day Zionist state. Scofield theology twisted this and mis-applied it to a modern day Zionist state, instead of recognizing that God was speaking directly to Abraham. Taking verses out of context, and misapplying them, is generally the devil’s business.

  • harishvenkat1976


    • NewCovenantThinker

      Actually, the Palestinians are the only people who have kept Christianity, in a single place, every generation, since the days of the apostles. I guess they must have invented that, too. Ha ha ha.

    • WallyDow


      Well, I guess that shows what a pure idiot he is, ’cause it is the Israeli Zionist, Idomaean, Ashkenazi, fake Jews (calling them Jews just might be an insult to those who are true descendents of the tribe of Judah).

      I think most of the neo cons are stupid and ignorant. I will support Ron Paul no atter how he runs this year … period.

  • NewCovenantThinker

    To Angry LIbertarian: I just want to point out that the “Israel” of the Bible was destroyed in 70 A.D, by Roman soldiers. Biblical Jews, like Jesus, had a genealogical history. But, in 70 A.D, when the Romans tried the quell the Jewish rebellion, in Judea, the Jewish fighters got the bright idea to lure the Romans into the Temple, and then set it on fire. In doing so, they burned up records that had been kept for centuries, which showed their ancestral lineage to the twelve tribes, and to father Abraham. This was no accident. It was designed by God as one of the last steps in wiping out the Old Covenant elements.

    • Lawmanjed

      @NewCovenantThinker Other than the Levitical priesthood and system of animal sacrifice, which have been forever replaced by a better and perfect sacrifice and priesthood, what “Old Covenant elements” have been wiped out? Has the “Church” totally replaced Israel? What about G-d’s promises to Israel, his “covenants” with them? Jesus was the “King of the Jews”. Is he not still, and forever more, the King of the Jews?

      • NewCovenantThinker

        @Lawmanjed The premise that the church “replaces” Israel is a faulty supposition. When God made the promise to Abraham, and to his descendants, the question is who are Abraham’s descendants, in God’s sight? If you were a Biblical Jew, you could claim Abraham as your father. John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles, said otherwise. The Jews reckoned this descent, by the flesh. But, Jesus, and the apostles, taught that this descent came by faith. Paul wrote, “Not all those who are of Israel, are Israel. And, not all those who are of the flesh, are counted as the seed.” Then he states that Abraham had TWO sons. But, only one of them – Isaac – is counted as the heir. If simply being a son of Abraham is enough, then why was Ishmael rejected? And, why was Isaac’s son, Esau, also rejected? Also, if you remember, in Old Testament times, ten tribes disappeared, in exile. How could the church replace something that is already gone?? In writing to the Romans, Paul wrote, “our father Abraham…” Writing to the Galatians, he wrote, “Know this, only those who are of faith are the children of Abraham.”

      • NewCovenantThinker

        Lawmanjed, You cannot mix the Old Covenant with the New Covenant. If you want to keep the law, you have to keep all of the law. Simply wiping out the priesthood is enough to prevent Old Covenant Judaism from ever being restored. Also, since the geneaologies are gone, there is no way to prove who is the real Biblical Jew. Jesus had a genealogy, showing that he came from King, David, the tribe of Judah, and from Abraham. Benjamin Netanyahu has not such geneaology, because they no longer exist. Your entire claim is based on the premise that modern day Jews are the descendants of Abraham. And, modern day Jews do not even believe this – unless they have been brainwashed by Zionist propaganda. If you want to follow the Bible, then you have to prove, from records that were destroyed in 70 A.D, that each and every Jew is descended from Abraham. Othewise, it is no longer Biblical Judaism, which means that it is not the Israel of the Bible.

      • NewCovenantThinker

        Lawmanjed – You are correct, Jesus is the King of the Jews. “Jew” means “praise”. In Romans, who did Paul explain was the “praise” of God? Was it Jews who were circumcised according to the flesh? Or, was it the “Jews” who are circumsized, in the heart, according to the Spirit? Which Jew is God’s praise? So, if Jesus is King over the people who are God’s praise, then who is He king over? “He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But, to as many as who received Him, to them He gave power to become sons of the living God.” “He shall take the kingdom from you, and give it to another people. And, they shall bear the fruits of it.” Who is Jesus the King over??

        • PplOppsngTyrnny

          @NewCovenantThinker You clearly ARE a replacement theologist despite your claim that you are not, because like it or not, Judaism does still exist. If you claim the “New Covenant” means rejecting all Old Testament practices, holidays, stories & traditions then how & why are the 10 Commandments, & stories of Adam & Eve & Noah’s Ark included in the Christian Bible? And what is with your obsession w/ geneology. As a Messianic Jew who understands the importance of keeping Old Testament commandments, I also understand the point you yourself made about how Yeshua’s “new Covenant” was not about geneology but about faith. The “early church” did not consist of ‘Christians’ since the term did not exist, but of Jews. Yeshua never spoke of ‘the Church’, was a devout Jew & so were all of his followers. Have you never heard of the Torah prophecies of the Messiah? All of this is based upon Jewish traditions, it is not as if there was one Jewish group, but many sects like Christianity today. It was from these Jewish groups that Rome gave rise to modern Christianity. Christ thought his followers would be Messianic Jews.

        • NewCovenantThinker

          @PplOppsngTyrnny There is nothing to replace. God’s dream has always been about faith. In Elijah’s day, God said that he had 7,000 men who would not bow the knee to Baal. The rest of “Israel” was reprobate. In Hosea’s day, God shipped out the Jews, except for a few, and shipped in men from Babylon, to supplant them. They became the Samarians. God’s eye is always on faith. The people of faith are God’s people, under both the Old Covenant, and now the New Covenant. In the case of the New Covenant, the people of faith are called the church – or the ecclessia – which means the “called out” ones. Moses died on Mt. Nebo, and was not allowed to enter the land. Your supposition is that God’s promise was unconditionally given, regarding the land. And, it was not. You are parroting what you heard. You did not read the Bible, and think for yourself.

    • WallyDow


      The Israel of the bible is not a place, but a tribe.

      The war over Jerusalem is something the US should stay out of.

      Biblical Jews refers to the authentic children of Israel in the tribe of Judah.

      Yashuwah (Pagan translation is Jesus by the Romans) never intended for a religion to be in His name. He preached against ritualism and idolatry, both of which the Roman hijacking of His teachings practice.

  • Lawmanjed

    You casually and carelessly quote scripture as if you are some kind of biblical expert.

    Have your read Genesis 12? G-d promises Abraham that he will make of his descendents a great nation, that those who bless him (them) will be blessed and those who curse him (them) will be cursed, and that through him (them) all the nations of the world will be blessed. So what is the proper response to the Jewish people (ie. Israel)? Do we bless them or curse them? What has happened to the nations and empires throughout history that have cursed the Jewish people (Israel)?

    They were cursed, destroyed, gone! The Jewish people, though they have suffered, are still here, stronger than ever. Do you think they have an unbeatable, divine ally? I do! If for no other reason than self interest I think it is wise to bless and not curse G-d’s chosen people. If you curse Israel, you curse G-d! Good luck with that! Why don’t you educate yourself by studying G-d’s word and world history and turn your anger, Angry Libertarian, into love?

    • NewCovenantThinker

      Lawmanjed, You have no way to demonstrate that the Jews living today are the descendants of Abraham. People do change their religion. It is possible that people living today, are the descendants of people who changed their religion. The Jews of the Bible had a genealogy, by which they could base their claim. In 70 A.D. those genealogies were burned up in fire, on the Temple Mount, when the Jews set there own Temple on fire. Today, no Jew on planet earth can produce a geneaology showing that he is descended from Abraham and Sarah. According to your reasoning, if some Eskimos changed their faith, they would automatically have a right to land in the Middle East, regardless of who is already living there.

      • NewCovenantThinker

        Lawmanjed, You are the one who needs to re-read what you are quoting. God said to ABRAHAM, “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth” Who is “you” in this sentence? “You” is Abraham. God was speaking to Abraham. Since 1948, the U.S has poured trillions of dollars into “Israel”. Since 1948, did the US get blessed, or have we went downhill? The claim you make actually reveals that we must have done something wrong.

      • innocent bystander

        @NewCovenantThinker Context will clear up any misunderstanding to whom ‘you’ refers in Gen 12. The phrase ‘I will make you a great nation’ coming prior to the blessing and curses references in Gen 12 indicates that the promises are also to Abraham’s descendants. Further, the same promise was made to Isaac and Jacob later in the text (Gen 17:6-8; 22:16-18 and 26:3,4). However, I think in the long term descendants refers to those who believe in Jesus the messiah. His first believers were Jewish and if it weren’t for the enemy, all believers would fall under the same category as Jews, i.e. believers in Jesus, the only son of the One True God, but perhaps with a different name. I believe that is what Paul was talking about with the in-grafted olive branch illustration. As to whether this means Israel as a nation is divinely protected, I don’t know but history shows the Jewish culture and religion to be tough and I wouldn’t want to bet against them. Also, I don’t think the US ‘blesses’ anybody by bossing them around, holding money over their head to ensure they do our will.

      • NewCovenantThinker

        Yes, God did make Abraham a great nation. And, yes, the promises are to Abraham’s descendants. But, you have to read at least Romans, and Galatians, to find out who Abraham’s descendants are. “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh…FOR THEY ARE NOT ALL ISRAEL WHICH ARE OF ISRAEL. Paul – the greatest Christian minister who ever lived – said that not all of Israel are Israel. Then he gives the pictures of Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob, Moses and Pharoah, the remnant saved in Isaiah’s day, etc. In every case, there are two parties: One believes, and one does not believe. The Israel in God’s mind is the party that believes. Unfortunately, modern ministers fail at teaching the Bible, or we would not have all this confusion.

      • NewCovenantThinker

        AngryLibetarian, it is primarily because of the Scofield Bible translation. It was printed en masse, and handed out to every seminarian, in America, a few decades ago. The footnotes give a literal, possibly Talmudic/Zionistic, translation, of promises that actually had a spiritual fulfillment. But, the earthly interpretation “re-veils” the spiritual interpretation, that was given by the apostles. Originally, the Twelve fell for the very same thing. They fought over who would be the greatest in the kingdom. After the resurrection, they asked when Israel would be restored. They had earthly aspirations. The day of Pentecost changed all that. From then on, they simply prepared for the inevitable destruction of their own nation, as Jesus had promised, in Matt 24. Today, ministers, and seminarians, are duped in to another earthly interpretation. That is why they cannot hear spiritual words.

    • WallyDow


      Again, the Jews in what we know as Israel are the fakes spoken of in Rev 2:9

      The land of Palestine was stolen by conversion from the Palestinians, and named Israel by the Rothschild family.

  • SovereignGlobalist

    I remember reading fifteen or twenty years ago that the US taxpayers gave $500 million annually to both Israel and to Yassir Arafat’s PLO. I thought that was insane. And now it’s $3 billion annually to Israel and $21 billion to Israel’s Arab neighbors ANNUALLY! When the U.S. middle class is struggling more than ever and we have around 9% unemployment, the question is: “Why should we suffer and pay for the well being of foreigners?

  • Publius

    Ron Paul is a respected, intelligent, and admirable individual — however he does not have the requisite temperment or understanding of geopolitical affairs to allow him anywhere close to Pennsylvania Ave. during a crisis.

    My challenge to Paul supporters is:

    If it is none of our business if Iran develops a nuclear weapon capability — is it our business if Iran decides to sell this weaponry to non-state actors or to nations hostile to the USA — like Cuba, Venezuela, et al ?

    • If we listened to Ron Paul, we wouldn’t need to worry about other countries wanting to attack us. He’s taking a note from how the rest of the world feels and wants our troops home, and for the government to stay out of the foreign affairs of other nations. No one appointed America the protector of the world.

    • NewCovenantThinker

      So, are you saying that we base policy on “what if”? What if a black person might commit a crime, next year, then should we put all black people in jail, today, as a preemptive measure? Defense means protecting oneself from a threat – a real threat. You can’t dictate world behavior by preemptive measures against imagined, or contrived threats. Instead of being a bully, the US should focus on taking the reasons away from people who would want to harm us. Acting like the world’s bully does more to inflame anti-US sentiment, than anything else. Also, only an arrogant person would think that a “might makes right” mentality is the way to victory (not that you are arrogant). It will always backfire. McVeigh is a case in point. Anybody can retaliate. No one is untouchable. The “might makes right” behavior is going to be America’s biggest downfall. Paul’s views is that it would be better to stop giving people reasons to want to harm us, by acknowledging that our actions are producing anger, on the part of others. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. It is a vicious cycle. And, there is only one way to break it – and it is not with endless wars.

      • GWH

        @NewCovenantThinker We interred Native Americans in concentration camps (reservations) for fear of a “what if” Indian uprising. We interred Japanese Americans in concentration camps on the “what if” threat of sabotage.

        The United States were established by the sword (Revolutionary War). We took Native American territory by the sword. We took California and the southwest from Mexico by the sword. The existence of the Union was contested by our Civil War.

        The 3 religions of Abraham have been at each others throats with swords for centuries. Jesus was sentenced according to Jewish law. A Pope launched the First Crusade against Muslims. Christian against Christian (Protestants vs Catholics), Muslim against Muslim (Arabs vs the Ottoman empire) are examples of living by the sword.

        Constlitutional law is ultimately enforced by the sword. That’s the presidents job as the nations chief law enforcer.

        Dr. Paul favors defense and opposes militarism. My current understanding of his position on defense is that defense would begin at our national borders or in the event of a direct attack on American soil.

        My question to Dr. Paul would be, would he defend American interests outside its borders. Even President Thomas Jefferson did so in 1805 at the Barbary Coast. My impression is that President Paul would not.