ed note–let’s just contrast this statement against similar ones, and ponder what would take place if it were uttered by ANY American government official, down to and including the county dog catcher in Nowhere, North Dakota–
–’Any attack on Jordan will be treated as an attack on the United States’
–’Any attack on Saudi Arabia will be treated as an attack on the United States’
–’Any attack on Egypt will be treated as an attack on the United States’
–’Any attack on Lebanon will be treated as an attack on the United States’
–’Any attack on Pakistan will be treated as an attack on the United States’
–’Any attack on Germany will be treated as an attack on the United States’
Now, some of the countries listed above are ALLIES of the US while others are considered ‘strategic partners’. NONE of the countries listed above are guilty (at the state level) of having engaged in terrorist attacks on America, such as Israel did in 1954 with the Lavon Affair. NONE of the countries listed above attacked a US ship for 2 hours and killed 34 sailors, as Israel did with the USS LIBERTY. NONE of the countries listed above stole close to a million documents of highly-classified material from the US and then sold them to our enemies at the time, as Israel did with Jonathon Pollard. And yet, were any elected official AT ANY LEVEL to make a similar statement as Paul did about Israel for any of the other countries listed in this small demonstration of compare/contrast, they would be accused of exercising influence of a foreign power.
ISRAEL is guilty of all the above mentioned and more, and yet, we have elected members of Congress saying that if this parasitic, murderous entity is attacked in any way, the US is obligated to consign EVEN MORE of her treasure and blood in ‘protecting’ her.
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul took what very well could be considered his most pro-Israel stance yet, saying in an interview that an attack on Israelshould be treated as an attack on the United States.
Asked whether the United States would stand with Israel and provide it foreign aid if the Jewish state were attacked by its enemies, Paul went a step further.
“Well absolutely we stand with Israel,” he said in an interview with Breitbart News, “but what I think we should do is announce to the world – and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.”
Paul recently returned from a trip to Israel, where many believe he went to bolster his credentials for a 2016 presidential run. The libertarian Kentucky senator is seen as having a bigger burden than other candidates in demonstrating his pro-Israel bona fides because of his opposition to foreign aid and his connection to his father’s ideology.
Paul’s father, former Texas congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul, was widely seen as unfriendly to Israel. For instance, the elder Paul once went on Iranian state-sponsored television and likened Gaza to a concentration camp.
But the younger Paul is trying to demonstrate that he is pro-Israel, even if he opposes foreign aid to the Jewish state. He reiterated in his interview with Breitbart News his opposition to foreign aid, but again noted that he favors cutting aid off first to anti-American countries before ultimately cutting it off to American allies like Israel.
Paul, who has not been coy about his interest in running for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, perked up when the interviewer framed a question by saying, “let’s say you become President Paul at some point in the future.”
“I like the ring of that,” Paul interjected.