By: Wes MessamoreBusiness Insider has the exclusive:
Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul revealed this week that he would support moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, a surprising position that contradicts conventional wisdom about Paul's stance toward the Jewish state.
Paul first made this position known Wednesday night, during a private meeting with evangelical leaders interested in helping the Texas Congressman reach out to the conservative Christian community.
According to a transcript of the meeting obtained by Business Insider, the leaders started off the meeting by asking Paul whether he would sign an Executive Order to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a major policy objective for Israeli hardliners and many leaders in the Christian Right.
"The real issue here is not what America wants, but what does Israel want," Paul told evangelical leaders, according to a transcript of the meeting obtained by Business Insider. "If Israel wants their capital to be Jerusalem, then the United States should honor that."
"How would we like it if some other nation said 'We decided to recognize New York City as your capital instead, so we will build our embassy there?'" he added.
Even Paul's senior campaign aides were surprised by his response.
"We were floored," senior advisor Doug Wead told Business Insider. "It sounds like pure Ron Paul, but it still caught us off guard...If someone would have asked him that in a national debate, I suppose it would have popped right out, but nobody did!"
Wead added that Paul's position "makes sense after the fact," noting that the candidate has frequently emphasized Israel's sovereignty.
This is just one more example of how Ron Paul's political worldview-- his strict constitutionalism, Founding Fathers' wisdom, and his application of "the Golden Rule" to foreign policy-- would actually benefit the state of Israel, not threaten or weaken it.
Another is the fact that Ron Paul is more supportive of Israel's right to defend itself from Iran with military force if it deems necessary than Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, who would rather hold Israel on a leash and require it to come kowtowing to Washington for permission to defend itself.
Let me ask you this: If Iran got close to nuclear capability and Israel unilaterally struck Iran's nuclear facilities and destroyed them (just like it did to Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility in 1981), do you think Obama or Romney would condemn Israel? You bet they would! Guess what? Ron Paul wouldn't and has said so multiple times. Ron Paul stands by Israel's right to defend itself:
Wes Messamore,
Editor in Chief, THL
Articles | Author's Page
