In an op-ed at Counterpunch.org last week, former Republican
presidential candidate Ron Paul addressed what he calls “the tragic-comedy of
US foreign policy” and explained “How
to End the Gaza Tragedy.” The real tragicomedy is that Paul continues to
cling to his dangerously naïve foreign policy perspective.
In his article, Paul asserts his usual stance that the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict will never end as long as the United States continues
to support Israel. He quotes journalist Glenn
Greenwald, who wrote that “For years now, US financial, military and
diplomatic support of Israel has been the central enabling force driving this
endless conflict.” Like Greenwald, Paul doesn’t hold Palestinian terrorists
accountable for initiating and perpetuating the violence; he only paints a
picture of American and Israeli collusion to oppress Palestinians in what Paul
calls the “Gaza tragedy.”
Of the most recent Middle East conflagration, Paul writes in
his op-ed that “it feels like 2009 all over again, which is the last time this
kind of violence broke out in Gaza.” Note the convenient passivity of that
phrasing, “violence broke out,” which enables Paul to avoid placing
responsibility where it belongs. That violence wasn’t a nonhuman natural
phenomenon like a thunderstorm; it didn’t just spontaneously “break out.” That
violence, like the more recent one, was the result of relentless rocket attacks
and terrorist activity by Palestinians, which necessitated a too-patient Israel
to move in and put a stop to it. But that doesn’t fit Paul’s anti-Israel
narrative.
When Obama defended Israel’s actions this time around by saying
“No country on Earth… would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from
outside its borders,” Paul found it ironic: “Considering that this president
rains down missiles on Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and numerous other
countries on a daily basis, the
statement was so hypocritical that it didn’t pass the laugh test.” Paul feels
that our “one-sided,” foreign policy hypocrisy “actually results in more loss
of life and of security on both sides”:
Continuing to rain down missiles on
so many increasingly resentful nations, the US is undermining rather than
furthering its security. We are on a collision course with much of the rest of
the world if we do not right our foreign policy.
Actually, the reasons we are on a collision course with
“much of the rest of the world” are that, under the Obama administration, the
United States has spent itself into economic ruin (a domestic topic on which Paul
has more sensible opinions), abrogated its role as the world’s sole remaining
superpower, facilitated the surge of our Islamic fundamentalist enemies, and
alienated our allies like Israel.
Ron Paul’s foreign policy solutions appeal to those Blame
America First (and Last) Chomsky
devotees who believe that if only America would end its jackbooted imperialist
militarism, peace on earth and good will toward men would sweep the globe
faster than Santa’s reindeer. That’s not only a perverse take on America’s
international role historically, it’s also wildly unrealistic.
It takes a stunning degree of self-delusion to believe that the
Middle East conflict would begin to be resolved if only we would stop provoking
the Muslim world and supporting our closest ally. That shows a profound lack of
understanding of the enemy we face in Islamic fundamentalism. In the world of
Ron Paul’s head, the way to get an enemy like, say, the megalomaniacal Iranian
regime to drop its dream of world domination and its oft-stated aim of
destroying the Great Satan America and the Little Satan Israel is to simply offer them friendship.
Let’s end our Middle East interventionism, Paul urges, “replacing it with
friendship and even-handedness.”
In the real world, however, treating everyone the same
doesn’t mean you lose enemies – it means you lose allies. Simply put, foreign
policy cannot be based on treating everyone the same because, contrary to
Paulian fantasy, not all countries are willing to join hands and “sing in
perfect harmony” together like a Coke commercial. Some
countries are hell-bent on erasing others from the map, and treating both sides
the same means you tacitly support the former’s genocidal aim against the
latter.
Paul apparently feels that America should keep its nose out of other countries' business. But if American power is not wielded where it is needed
– and that includes our own military power and military support to our allies –
then you leave a vacuum that will be filled by evil and ruthless forces who
have no qualms about wielding their own power. And one day you will have to
face the consequences of having abandoned your allies and empowered your
enemies by what Mark
Steyn calls “sheer stupid half-witted parochialism.” This is the reality of
Paul’s foreign policy naiveté.
Paul’s supporters claim he’s not anti-Israel; he wants to
end foreign aid to everyone,
including our enemies. Defunding our enemies is a great idea which I fully
support. Let’s stop sending billions to the anti-American Islamic supremacists
in Pakistan and Egypt. Let’s stop funding the ideological extremism of Saudi
Arabia. Let’s stop sending aid to the Palestinians since that money goes, and
has always gone, into the greedy hands of their rabid leadership, who have a
vested interest in refusing to improve the lot of their people. In fact, let’s
demand full refunds.
But cutting off our allies is another matter, especially the
vulnerable Israel. That’s not a solution to violence – it’s an invitation for
more of it.
(This article originally appeared here on FrontPage Mag, 12/3/12)
