There's an interesting back-and-forth over at Commentary magazine between Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Jonathan S. Tobin over whether the libertarian-minded Tea Party senator will (in the formulation of Tobin's original headline) "hijack the pro-Israel GOP." I think Paul gets the better of what is an important argument; you be the judge. First, an excerpt from Tobin:
As Eli Lake writes today in the Daily Beast, the coming civil war among Republicans over foreign policy will putt two traditional rival camps — the neoconservatives and the so-called "realists" — on the same side against what could be a rising tide of Rand Paul supporters who believe their small government credo ought to mandate massive defense cutbacks as well as the withdrawal of America from its place on the world stage.
Up until now, this wasn't much of a contest because although Ron Paul could get throngs of his youthful libertarian crowd to applaud his absurd rationalizations of rogue regimes, such as Iran, or his belief that American imperialism helped generate anti-American terrorism, most Republicans weren't buying it. But with a leader who doesn't come across like everybody's crazy uncle, the libertarian faction has reasonable hopes of doing much better. [...]
Rand Paul will be far more of a force in the Republican Party in the coming years than his father ever was. That's a problem for conservatives who hope the GOP remains a bulwark of common sense about national defense and foreign policy. It will also mean that one of the party's most prominent spokesmen will not be someone who will be viewed as reliably pro-Israel.
Shot back Paul:
Israel is a strong and important ally of the United States, and we share many mutual security interests. I believe we should stand by our ally, but where I think sometimes American commentators get confused is that I do not think Israel should be dictated to by the United States. I think that has happened too often, and it has been to the detriment of Israel. Too often we have coerced Israel into trading land for peace, or other false bargains. When President Obama stood before the world in 2011 to demand that Israel act against her own strategic interest, I denounced this as unnecessary meddling. As I wrote in May of that year: "For President Obama to stand up today and insist that Israel should once again give up land, security and sovereignty for the possibility of peace shows an arrogance that is unmatched even in our rich history of foreign policy." [...]
Mr. Tobin speculates that calls by me and others within the Republican Party for Pentagon cuts somehow would hurt our national defense. It is always sad to see conservatives making liberal arguments. Cutting waste in our military would no more hurt our defense than getting rid of No Child Left Behind would hurt education. Every government agency can withstand a little belt-tightening, especially if we scale back on our overseas presence and focus more on true defense and security. [...]
Portraying me as being against Israel in any fashion, as Mr. Tobin's title implies, is as nonfactual as it is offensive. There are many differing opinions about both foreign and domestic policy within Israel. Any healthy, self-governing people necessarily must have robust debate. This is as true in Israel as it is in the United States. The notion that there is an unassailable consensus concerning Israel's best interests, within the Republican Party, the United States, and even Israel itself, is simple not true and never has been. It assumes too much and asks too little, to the detriment of both countries.
And from Tobin's response:
Though Paul would accompany an end to military aid to Israel with a ban on assistance to any country that is hostile to it, that wouldn't undo the harm that a stoppage from the country's only military ally would cause to a nation that is forced to spend exorbitant amounts on defense in order to cope with foes supported by Iran and even Russia. Nor would it offset the encouragement that such a measure would give Israel's enemies. [...]
[J]ust as troubling are Paul's positions on U.S. defense and foreign policy, irrespective of the warm feelings he says he harbors for Israel.
An essential part of the U.S.-Israel alliance is the assumption that the United States will maintain its military strength as well as be willing to act to defend its interests abroad. Paul's isolationist wing of the party acts as if America can afford to more or less withdraw its forces to its own borders and ignore the rest of the world. Paul pretends that the draconian cuts he advocates will not materially affect America’s defense capabilities, but that is mere rhetoric. Just as it would be impossible for the United States to assert its influence abroad in ways that are important to making Israel safer, so, too, will a diminished U.S. military undermine the strategic balance in the region in a way that will hurt it. [...]
Barring an unexpected change of heart, Rand's higher profile must be considered bad news for Jewish Republicans.
Some related Reason content: