The Israel Resolution
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, July 20, 2006
By Ron Paul
07/20/06 -- - I rise in opposition to this resolution, which I
sincerely believe will do more harm than good.
I do agree with the resolution's condemnation of violence. But I am
convinced that when we get involved in foreign conflicts and send
strong messages, such as this resolution will, it ends up expanding
the war rather than diminishing the conflict, and that ultimately
comes back to haunt us.
Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called
non-interventionism. I do not believe we are making the United
States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas.
The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of
the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign
conflicts. It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively,
that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the
innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly
considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties
among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather
than picking sides, which is what this resolution does.
Some would say that there is no room to talk about neutrality, as if
neutrality were a crime. I would suggest there should be room for an
open mind to consider another type of policy that may save American
lives.
I was in Congress in the early 1980s when the US Marines were sent
in to Lebanon, and I came to the Floor before they went, when they
went, and before they were killed, arguing my case against getting
involved in that conflict.
Ronald Reagan, when he sent the troops in, said he would never turn
tail and run. Then, after the Marines were killed, he had a
reassessment of the policy. When he wrote his autobiography a few
years later after leaving the Presidency, he wrote this.
Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred
and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a
jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass
murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own
values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern
for the marines' safety that it should have.
In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing
that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of
Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If
there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we
would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more
of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be
alive today.
It is very easy to criticize the Government of Lebanon for not doing
more about Hezbollah. I object to terrorism committed by Hezbollah
because I am a strong opponent to all violence on all sides. But I
also object to the unreasonable accusations that the Government of
Lebanon has not done enough, when we realize that Israel occupied
southern Lebanon for 18 years and was not able to neutralize
Hezbollah.
Mr. Speaker, There is nothing wrong with considering the fact that
we don't have to be involved in every single fight. That was the
conclusion that Ronald Reagan came to, and he was not an enemy of
Israel. He was a friend of Israel. But he concluded that that is a
mess over there. Let me just repeat those words that he used. He
said, he came to the conclusion, "The irrationality of Middle
Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there.'' I believe
these words are probably more valid now even than when they were
written.
July 21, 2006
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
