Unfortunately, we often work assiduously to elect an alleged conservative who upon assumption of office, vacillates between the right and the center. Thankfully, that has not been the case with Rand Paul. He has not wasted time being a timid, freshman, do-nothing Senator. In his first few weeks, he has had the temerity to push for private retirement accounts, reform of birthright citizenship, and has formed the Senate tea party caucus. His greatest accomplishment to date is his blockbuster budget plan which calls for $500 billion in cuts per year, not just per decade!
One of components of our budget that would be targeted for elimination is foreign aid. Liberals in the media and "pro-Israel" groups are trying to drive a wedge between fiscal conservatives and foreign policy conservatives by suggesting that Rand Paul is being anti-Israel by cutting their foreign aid.
On the surface, this is obviously a flagrantly disingenuous argument because the plan eliminates all foreign aid, not just Israel's. The reality is that we must prioritize our budgetary needs in order to achieve fiscal solvency before we borrow more money from China to aid other nations.
However, a deeper perspicacity of the issue of foreign policy in general, and the Middle East in particular, illuminates a more salient question that is ignored by the media. What does it mean to be pro-Israel? Let's present two world philosophies vis-à-vis Israel; the conservative and the liberal view, and determine which is more advantageous for our ally.
1. Grant Israel several billion dollars of economic and military aid.
2. Use that aid to coerce, castigate, and threaten them into handing over their territory to Islamo-fascists, for the purpose of creating a 22nd Arab state and 2nd Palestinian state. Every check point, military operation, or act of self defense must be cleared with Washington.
3. While giving foreign aid to Israel, Washington simultaneously grants billions of dollars of economic and military aid to all of their enemies like Fatah Palestinians, Lebanon (ostensibly Hezbollah), Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. In addition, they train the Palestinian military and supply them with all the weapons they need to assail Israel.
1. Limited or no aid to Israel as we must balance our own budget. Israel is thankfully in a stronger position than it was when we began the foreign aid program.
2. As a result, there are no strings attached and no promulgating of the "piss process".
3. Absolutely no weapons, aid, or military training for terrorist entities or Muslim states that threaten Israel or anyone else.
To any true pro-Israel policy thinker, the choice is quite obvious. But, for those liberals at AIPAC, the most important thing is to perpetuate the status quo of funding Israel, while funding their enemies, and mandating a Palestinian state. It often appears that they would be satisfied with a robust; U.S. armed and equipped "Palestinian state", as long as Israel would continue to receive its sacrosanct aid. We must remind them that aid to Israel is not an ends to itself. It is a means to achieve greater security for Israel, and by extension, America. If we continue to implement broader policies that negate and countervail that aid, it should be discontinued. Maybe these hypocritical leftists ought to examine their own views regarding Israel before they slander American conservatives who are Israel's best friends in the world.
Personally, I favor a plan that would cut 90% of foreign aid instead of scuttling it completely. While allies like Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan no longer need economic assistance, it is in our strategic interest to send them military aid. A strong reaffirmation of our military assistance to Taiwan would send a powerful message to China, especially at a time when we are projecting weakness on that front. A further bolstering of South Korea's military would also send a message to....China again! And, the continuation of some military aid to Israel would project a much needed posture towards her enemies that are currently aided by... U.S. taxpayers.
However, when confronted with a choice between the status quo which funds friends and foes of America, or Rand Paul's across the board cut in foreign aid, there should be no ambivalence from conservatives. Let's call out these pseudo pro-Israel organizations on their own hypocritical priorities and deny them the opportunity to drive a wedge between conservatives.