Non-Interventionism: A Litmus Test

Trawling lately between the Leftscum (the PC, dhimmi Marxists) and the Rightscum (the racialists; see previous post), I stumbled upon a post on Israellycool where the endorsement of paleoconservative Ron Paul (a phenomenon all its own; henceforth “Rompaul”, as I write his name out on LGF) on Stormfront is duly noted. The post attracted comments from a few Rompaulians. First:

FatDrunkAndStupid Says:

Stormfront is a National Socialist website. Ron Paul is a libertarian- about as far away from National Socialism as you can get. They support Paul because he believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy, and indirectly, that position has the effect of ending US subsidies to Israel (a key sticking point to the stormfront folks). But Ron also supports ending the handouts to Egypt, The House of Saud, and Jordan too. His position comes from principle, not hate. When Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in the early 80’s, Paul was one of the few US Congressmen who refused to denounce them. I suggest you look a little deeper in to Ron Paul’s positions before writing him off. Ending the War in Iraq, Ending the War on Drugs, Abolishing the Income Tax, Repealing he Patriot Act, Restoring Civil Liberties… are these idiotic positions? [Emphasis mine. —ZY]

And second:

DetainThis Says:

Indeed. The man’s principled voting, writing, and speaking records easily undercut the haters’ fraudulent smears. His positions regarding other Middle Eastern states and the Israel-Osirik vote are especially deflating for those who’d paint him anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, or even un-American.

I don’t know about “FatDrunkAndStupid”, but “DetainThis” doesn’t sound very convincing to me, once I have taken a peek at his blog, which features the worst of both New (Leftist, anti-Zionist) and Classical anti-Semitism in its sidebar links. Rompaul may or may not be just a simple libertarian, but the supporters he attracts are… well… you get the whole lovely spectrum from Stormfronters to 9/11 Troofers.

But this post is about the question of interventionism. The argument is often made that US citizens have the full right to question support of Israel because the US pays for that support, in both real and figurative cash (dollars in foreign aid in the former sense, “the hatred of the Arab and Muslim worlds” in the latter). The fact that Israel itself pays a heavy price for US aid after every time it gets it, in the form of pressure toward negotiations with and land concessions with the Pretendestinians, is rarely mentioned. For all the talk of “unrestrained Israeli aggression”, Israel’s hand has, beginning from 1956, been severely held down by Washington’s orders. So sometimes I just ask myself if non-interventionism might not be a good thing. But then I remember that, before I make a rushed statement, some testing against reality needs to be done. Which is the point of this post.

Non-interventionists must be asked how far they are willing to go in that. Far too many self-styled “non-interventionists” expose their dishonesty by limiting their talk to “stopping all aid to Israel”, while calling for pressing Israel to the negotiations table. In fact, such faux-non-interventionists call for cutting off US aid to Israel as a means of blackmail, as a way of forcing Israel to make concessions to that fictive nation behind which the total Islamic jihad against the very existence of the Jewish State is waged. Those are not non-interventionists by any stretch of imagination; they’re nothing but modern Chamberlains doing a Munich on Israel in order to secure their sitting organs, operating out of the erroneous conception that Islamic terrorism gets all or most of its fuel from the issue of “Palestine”. The future Sanhedrin will no doubt find some of the more high-profile of such “non-interventionists” to be ideal candidates for trial and execution. Speedily in our days, amen.

Now what the commenter “FatDrunkAndStupid” says, that Rompaul refused to denounce Israel’s bombing of Osirak, is more like it. But the blowing up of a nuclear reactor, however much it makes the news, isn’t stretching it as far as non-interventionism goes. The big money challenge should be the following:

In exchange for cutting on aid, would you be willing that the US turn a blind eye when the Jewish State expels all the Muslims within its Biblically-defined borders?

You wanted a litmus test for non-interventionism? Here is a real litmus test for you!

If the answer consists of just one word of the type, “That’d endanger US citizens and interests”, then the prospective non-interventionist has failed the test. Remember, the non-interventionist platform is about giving full focus to the situation at home. A non-interventionist can be as equally keen as an interventionist on tackling the problem of Islam and terrorism on US soil; non-interventionism just means he doesn’t propose any action abroad in order to improve the situation at home. That means no invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, and no aid to any Middle Eastern country—neither Israel nor Egypt nor oil-rich Saudi Arabia—but that also means no stepping into the regional war after it has broken out. It means, then, no calls upon Israel to agree to a UN-brokered ceasefire before Hizbullah has been eradicated, and no threats of sanctions on the Jewish State to prevent it from carrying out the only workable plan for permanent peace, namely the expulsion of all the Muslims from within it.

If the non-interventionist says, “I couldn’t care less what Israel does in its own playground”, then we have a real non-interventionist before us, who should be congratulated for the consistency of his views.

I don’t think Rompaul would ever be presented with that question, and he’s out of the race, anyhow. But this isn’t about Rompaul. It’s about the recurrent theme of Jewish existence today, which is: discerning between friend and foe. As I put it in another form before: To rally support for Israel is deluxe; we can be perfectly content with dissuading support for our enemies. May God and the future Sanhedrin take care soon of all those who oppose the ancient Jewish dream, whether they be the One-State exterminationists or the Two-State appeasers.