Senator Rand Paul has faced criticism for previously trying to block funding for Israel's Iron Dome defense system following Hamas' attack against Israel over the weekend.
Hamas fired rockets at Israel while dozens of fighters infiltrated the border by air, land and sea in areas near the Gaza Strip on Saturday morning. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said during a televised address on Saturday that Israel was now at war, launching its own attacks against Hamas in Gaza.
As of Monday afternoon, 900 people have been killed in Israel and 493 killed in Gaza, according to the Associated Press, with thousands injured on both sides.
United States leaders pledged support for Israel. Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, was one of many lawmakers to share a statement of support.
"My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Israel. These horrific and violent acts of terrorism should be universally condemned," Paul wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
Critics, however, quickly noted that Paul has previously sought to block funding for Israel's Iron Dome defense system. The Iron Dome is Israel's missile defense system that is capable of defending the country against short-range rockets. The U.S., which has provided billions of dollars to Israel, has also provided funding for the defense system.
Paul in 2021 raised concerns about legislation that would allocate $1 billion to Israel for the Iron Dome which was supported by both Democrats and Republicans. He blocked the Senate from casting a quick vote on the funding, instead suggesting the Iron Dome funding should have come from an aid package already approved for Afghanistan, Politico reported at the time.
He ultimately blocked the funding four times, but it later passed in 2022 after months of delays.
Paul has never opposed funding the Iron Dome and has maintained support for Israel. Still, his critics drew attention to his blocking the funding following his statement over the weekend.
Newsweek reached out to Senator Paul's office via email for comment.
"You literally tried your best to withhold aid for the Iron Dome," wrote attorney Bradley P. Moss on X, formerly Twitter.
"Rand Paul may just want to sit this one out. Paul blocked funding for Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile defensive shield for several months. (It was eventually passed in an omnibus bill in March of 2022)," Georgetown University Professor Don Moynihan posted on X.
While some social media users were critical of his record on Iron Dome funding, others defended him, arguing that his concerns about funding for the defense system can coexist with his support for Israel.
Paul, who has embraced a largely libertarian stance on foreign policy, has joined most other U.S. politicians in being a strong supporter of Israel. He sought to block the funding not out of opposition to Iron Dome funding but due to concerns about the price, he said at the time.
"Both of these sentiments can co exist," posted X user Jessica Lubien.
"It's not the USA's business to provide "aid" to other Countries," wrote @mail_american.
Insane it's controversial to expect that other countries pay for their own defense.
It's insane to not call out the hypocrisy of refusing to assist an ally, and then when they get hit turn around and pledge undying support.
Rand Paul is a con artist just like his father.
Literally nobody, even Rand Paul is arguing that we should refuse to monetarily support Israel. Their concerned about the dollar amount. Shits expensive and we've already racked up a national debt so large that default is likely an inevitability.
I'm arguing that we should refuse to monetarily support Israel!
Do I get a prize?
My apologies, I meant to say no one in Congress.
I'm sure the Chinese will be around to Repo an aircraft carrier or two. Or maybe sovereign nation budgets aren't like households? Could be!
That's not how a default will likely look. Objectively we could rework our spending to put us in a position to pay off our national debt over the next Century; but we're not going to. It's going to continue to rise faster than inflation until the realpolitik cost of default is less than the cost of the interest.
Let me guess. Playing defense for the home team? Rand Paul doesn't have a principled bone in his body. He's a hypocrite, deal with it.
Very weird take.
Giving defensive capabilities to your allies is a way of projecting force. It's a way of protecting yourself, by maintaining powerful allies that will stand with you, distract your enemies, and all these things. That kind of spending is not fundamentally different than any other military spending, so unless you're against any kind of military spending -- a totally reasonable stance -- I don't see why this is viewed as such a negative thing.
We've crippled the military capacity of one of the US's major adversaries by giving less than a percent of our military spending to Ukraine over the last year without risking American lives. That's a bargain, any way you cut it.
The question should be return on investment, not just Trump-style "WHY DON'T THEY PAY FOR THEMSELVES?! CURIOUS!". Are we getting defensively beneficial returns from supplying Israel with tech like this or not? I'm very skeptical that a well-armed Israel makes the US safer, but that's a totally, totally, totally different question from 'why don't they pay for themselves'.
This is "Big Picture Thinking" something the GOP Never does...unless its against minorities...
Always enough for war, never enough for the poor.
Russia has a nuclear arsenal that can flatten all US and European cities. Comparing Russia to Hamas is silly. Hamas can not threaten anybody they aren't immediately adjacent to. Hamas is not a threat to US/Europe more than, say, Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka or PKK in Turkey are/were.
So your claim is that the defense projects the US funds in Israel exclusively for their conflict with Hamas and nothing else? That we should somehow de-fund that particular conflict while paying for its defense versus more globally-threatening adversaries like Iran? And somehow that will work?
Or maybe that Israel is a worthless ally to the US in the region so we shouldn't care if they get wiped off the map?
Or is the claim that Israel doesn't need the US's aid, it will be just fine without it and breaking off that defense relationship will have no negative impacts on the US?
Any way you cut it, your sentiment of 'countries should pay for only their own defense' doesn't make sense. Those defensive packages are an investment that is seen as having returns. They are intended to promote security and prosperity both for the one receiving AND the one sending. It's reasonable to debate on whether the juice is worth the squeeze, but you were rejecting the very premise that you should squeeze if you want juice.
If US/Europe withdraw entirely from Middle East, there would be no reason to be afraid of Iran. Iran never carried out hostile actions against Western nationals, companies or forces outside the territory/coastal waters of Iran or its allies. Conversely, Westerners shot down Iranian airliners full of innocent people (Iran Air Flight 655). I dislike theocratic regimes of all kinds, but the West has been constantly belligerent vis-a-vis Iran (most recently by imposing sanctions on Iran after US explicitly said they'd lift them if Iran stopped their nuclear programme, which IAEA said they were compliant with) They are an evil dictatorship, but they are harmful to themselves.
The premise that the strongest military in the Middle East will be wiped off if they don't receive US money is absurd.
US has gained NOTHING from allying with Israel. Israel does not fight any entity or state that threatens the US homeland. Israelis bombed US ships (USS Liberty). Israelis were caught spying on the US government and selling US secrets countless times. Meanwhile US got involved in countless wars in the Middle East for Israel and received zilch back. A worse relationship with Israel would be a huge win for the US.
You aren't responding to the premise.
On the contrary, I addressed the central point. Your argument is that it's cheaper to supply allies than fight a ground war yourself, guess that's true and does apply to Ukraine because the adversary there is a credible threat to the West.
In the case of Israel, I contend that the savings are there only in the sense that you "save" $200 if you go and buy a $1000 TV you don't need that's $200 off, but if you never bought the TV in the first place you'd be $800 better off.
That wasn't my central point. It's something from an example I used as a throwaway in a post that was very crystal clear in its premise.
You're making the argument you want to make. May as well just be talking to yourself.