I know it will come as a shock, but Philip Klein rejects Ron Paul because he doesn’t endorse hard-line Israeli policies:
But the reality is that on numerous occasions, Paul has crossed the line from merely saying America should stay out of all conflicts, to actively attacking Israel and taking the Palestinians’ side — even when the non-interventionists should theoretically remain silent.
Yes, Rep. Paul criticized Operation Cast Lead, and he has criticized the blockading of Gaza. It’s not hard to understand why a generally antiwar libertarian person would take these positions. Antiwar libertarians are usually going to object to large-scale state uses of force, especially when they result in civilian casualties, and they are going to be even more critical when a government receiving U.S. funds is involved. Because of U.S. support for Israel, the U.S. is and is perceived to be complicit in Israel’s actions, including its excesses and mistakes, so it is understandable that a member of the U.S. Congress is critical of Israeli government actions that can and do reflect badly on the United States. Non-interventionists should no more remain silent about mistakes and errors by U.S.-subsidized governments than we should when our own government makes mistakes.
Paul opposed disproportionate allied use of force that resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths, and he has attacked an allied policy of collective punishment and immiseration of over a million people. If Iowa caucus-goers want to reject him because of that, they are of course free to do so, but I would like to think that there aren’t very many people in Iowa or elsewhere who would want to impose such a morally warped litmus test.