Infinite Monkeys

Ron Paul says he is "a strong opponent to all violence on all sides." Now that may have played in past Israeli conflicts, but in this situation, it's just silly.

If Israel isn't justified in using violence in the current situation, it doesn't have the right at all. And if that's the case, it has no right to exist.

I haven't taken the time to read the resolution he's opposing. But the use of the proportionality argument doesn't seem reasonable to me. It's a long issue I'm not going to go into here and now.

The context of that phrase was in clarifying his position vis a vis Hezbollah's acts of violence. Without some statement condemning the violence by the terrorists, his overall statement could be misinterpreted as siding AGAINST Israel, rather than advocating neutrality, which is his position.

And he never mentions proportionality at all. I'm not sure where you got that.

Details about the resolution can be found here.

In addition to condemning the attacks by both Hamas and Hezbollah and recognizing Israel's right to defend itself (which is still none of our business, but whatever), the resolution both condemns and makes demands of the governments of Iran and Syria.

At its core, this resolution is a combination of (primarily) empty political posturing and (secondarily) support of interventionist Middle East policy. Either one of these is sufficient reason to vote against it.