On January 8, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (along with 11 House colleagues) introduced House Resolution 34, whose title reads: "Recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process." Within a day, H. Res. 34 gained 116 cosponsors and was passed by the House on January 9 (House Roll Call 10) by an overwhelming margin of 390 to 5.

On its surface, the resolution sounds reasonable, since there is no doubt that of the two antagonists in the Gaza conflict, Israel is a modern, civilized nation with strong Western ties and values, and Hamas is little more than a renegade terrorist organization shunned even by many moderate Palestinians.

However, when the measure was being debated in the House, Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Texas) rose and addressed Rep. Pelosi in opposition to the measure.  A transcript of the congressman’s remarks can be found at his website
and video footage of similar remarks Rep. Paul made on the floor of the House can be watched on YouTube (below):

 

Congressman Paul began: "Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or U.S. interests."

During the two minutes allowed to him, Rep. Paul articulated his reasons for opposing the resolution, even though he sympathized with the plight of Israelis who had been subjected to rocket attacks by members of Hamas. He stated: "As an opponent of all violence, I am appalled by the practice of lobbing homemade rockets into Israel from Gaza. I am only grateful that, because of the primitive nature of these weapons, there have been so few casualties among innocent Israelis."

Rep. Paul continued: "The resolution in fact will lead the U.S. to become further involved in this conflict, promising 'vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.' Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country? I believe it would be better to focus on the security and survival of the United States, the Constitution of which my colleagues and I swore to defend just this week at the beginning of the 111th Congress."

Yet if Israel is one of the few pro-Western nations in the Middle East and is a partner in securing the integrity of the Holy Land for free access by all persons of Judeo-Christian religious heritage, why shouldn't the U.S. government express at least nominal support for the state of Israel? Why would Rep. Paul oppose the resolution? His history as a congressman provides the answer: Dr. Paul is a strict constitutionalist. His view of the Constitution and how it should be interpreted are virtually indistinguishable from the generation of Americans who created the Constitution.

Our nation's Founding Fathers did not believe that the United States should take sides in foreign disputes. For example, President George Washington, in his Farewell Address, stated: "A passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification."

President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine: "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense." And while he was Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams once said: "Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy."

Those beliefs of our Founding Fathers about what U.S. foreign policy should be were reflected in our Constitution, which does not provide for our nation to officially display favoritism for one nation over another. A strict constructionist view of the Constitution (i.e., that where the Constitution is silent, no power exists) is reinforced by the 10th Amendment, which provides that all powers not delegated to the United States (federal government) by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.

However, many people today (including members of Congress) regard the wisdom of our Founders as being archaic. On October 3, 2002, Rep. Paul — in an attempt to hammer home the point that only Congress has the power to declare war — made a motion to declare war on Iraq. The chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, Henry Hyde, rejected the motion by declaring:

There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don't have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn't done anymore. [Emphasis added.]

With Dr. Paul's track record, one should not conclude from his opposition to H. Res. 34 that he is unsympathetic to the plight of the people of Israel, who must live under the constant threat of attack from much larger, yet technologically inferior, neighbors. Many of those same hostile neighbors, not so incidentally, have also been the recipients of U.S aid, perhaps indicating that strict adherence to our Constitution, in the long run, might benefit Israel, as well.

It is only human nature to sometimes favor one foreign nation over another in our hearts and minds. But Rep. Paul seems to have taken to heart George Washington's advice against allowing "Sympathy for the favorite Nation" to become official U.S. foreign policy.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (6)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

clifford said:

	Nice Good parallels. A thumb up for you!
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 13, 2009
Votes: +4

Quinn said:

USA needs to worry more about the USA I love Ron Paul but I also believe in Israel's right to defend herself...that being said I could live with us not taking either side in this dispute. Let people donate money privately to the LIBI fund if they want to support Israel on their own dime. I'm more worried about the USA's financial situation. What good are we to anyone, including ourselves, if we are broke?

report abuse vote down vote up

January 13, 2009
Votes: +3

David said:

Violating Their Oath Of Office / Our Congressmen Are Political Cowards I have great respect for the late former congressman Henry Hyde. However, regarding the Constitutional requiring a declaration of war, he could not have been more in error. The requirement is not anachronistic or inappropriate. Actually, we have never been more in need of a legislature that actually adheres to the Constitution, and a federal government that cannot easily commit the nation to armed conflict. Maybe if we adhered to the Constitution our nation and the world would be a safer, more prosperous and peaceful world. I am sorely tempted to identify a Congressman who believes a bedrock concept upon which the Constitution was constructed (separation of powers/checks and balances/decalation of war) to be anachronistic and to therefore ignore it, rather than amend the Constitution, a traitor and in violation of their oath of office.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 13, 2009
Votes: +3

RGP said:

	... We are now governed by convenience rather than law.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 13, 2009
Votes: +2

brett said:

Quinn: Ron Paul has your exact same position Paul has consistently said that Israel has a right to defend herself and the US should not interfere with that right. Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel’s. His votes against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all foreign aid. from the NYTimes

report abuse vote down vote up

January 15, 2009
Votes: +1

Suzanne Brownlow said:

	HR 34 The Constitution Party of Oregon agrees with Ron Paul in opposing U.S. intervention in the business of other nations. Individuals can financially support whichever country they choose. But, it is unconstitutional to use public funds to provide weapons and military support for either Israel or Gaza. It is arrogant for the U.S. to [deny?] Israel or any other nation the right to defend itself.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 17, 2009 | url
Votes: +1