What's going on here is that his dad, Ron, was castigated as an anti-Semetic because of the way he phrased his non-interventionism. Rand is covering his ass and also showing how fake these so-called pro-Israel supporters are by offering this clearly pro-Israel act via a fiscal conservative approach and the establishment on both sides are bombing it down. In fact, Cruz was on Mark Levin's show talking about this but didn't mention it was Rand that was pushing it. Now, Rand has pro-Israel cred now whether he means it or not.
I'm not a supporter of Rand Paul. I readily admit that he is way better on many issues than most, but that is not saying much. At this point I simply don't trust that he has the leadership skills to manage something as complicated and tricky as the executive of the United States. Certain of his positions I simply dislike and always will, but that is natural since I am not a Libertarian and disagree with some of their principles and prescriptions for society.
I am not naive enough to believe that one needs to avoid 'playing politics'. Alas, in this phase of American politics it is just the opposite. That is, one does not stand much of a chance if one is not willing to play such games. Paul aligning himself with religious extremists and paying lip-service to Israel and our 'special relationship' is about as unsightly as anything in politics, but I don't rule out that it is necessary to have a chance of success in either of the two mainstream parties. I, for one, don't feel confident that I know where his heart really is, but I don't dismiss his activities out-of-hand since I am also a bit of a realist. I had some hope that Obama was simply playing that game back in 2008, and those hopes were dashed. I never could get a read on whether Obama was a spineless worm, naive idealist, canny politician, or some combination thereof...but I never tried real hard. I'm currently of the same mindset about Rand Paul. He's playing with fire by dancing around on the tables in Israel, and I have limited confidence that he has the native ability to control the fire once it gets going enough to do him any good.
FWIW, I (as an admitted Liberal/Progressive type) do favor Paul over Clinton due to the many policy positions which do align with my own, and due to the hope that Paul is just disingenuously pandering as a political ploy on these areas which I am against. Clinton is, in my opinion, a straight-up neocon and someone who will abuse state powers irresponsibly and thus highly dangerous to our nation for that reason. I suspect I will hold that opinion until the end. But I also doubt that I'll vote for either Clinton or Paul since I don't care for the general philosophical policy principles of either one.