Replies

... His Israel stance in particular has proven a stumbling block among a Republican electorate that typically considers support for the Jewish state sacrosanct.

Some questions that we conservatives ought to be asking ourselves:

Why should this be? Why should Republicans remain steadfast when they receive so little for their fidelity? If you prefer an analysis on other than partisan grounds, why should the United States risk terrorist strikes because of its support for a nation of 4 million to 8 million people with virtually no oil against hundreds of millions of Arabs with oceans of oil?

Is it thrall to the Israeli lobby? Is it thrall to the evangelicals with an eschatological obsession? Is it a commitment to a capitalist democracy? Is it a commitment to a socialist democracy? What do we get out of it?

Do we remain in support of Israel because we have always been in support of Israel and simply cannot extricate ourselves? Why does the left today reject our commitment to Israel which for decades had been a cornerstone of the Democrat platform?

Have American Jews become so secular they are indifferent to the fate of Israel? If so, does that explain why very few American Jews shift their allegiance to the Republican Party in the wake of the Democrats turning against Israel? Is there a visceral dislike of Christians in the American Jewish community which that community identifies with the Republican Party which is so deep that it overcomes their commitment to support for Israel?

If fidelity to an ally requires us to expend billions of dollars and risk nuclear war, does that mean we should continue to spend billions of dollars and risk nuclear war on behalf of South Korea and Taiwan? Do these commitments make us stronger, weaker, more or less vulnerable? Do we apply the same standards to all of our allies irrespective of the power of their lobbies in Washington?

Can the United States financially afford to continue its support of Israel? Can we afford to compensate the Arabs because of our support for Israel in order to get Middle Eastern oil? Do we even know the extent of the financial cost of our support for Israel? Do we really understand the geopolitical implications of our support for Israel? Can we even discuss those implications in a politically correct environment?

Because Sir, they are steadfast in the wake.

I would argue that we should also support Turkey and Iraq.

Divide the great beast with freedom from the straits of bospherous to the straits of hormuz.

Good questions.

For me, Israel is the only good thing in the M.E. in terms of government and society. Their existence and success is a constant reminder of that.

Second, Israel’s fight is our fight. We have a common enemy. Their successes are ours, their failure would be ours and strengthen our enemy.

Third, they are a bargain. The most they have asked for is material in time of war. Compared with what Iraq cost, Israel is a real value investment.

Fourth, morally, their portion of the Palestinian mandate was given to them for a state, a place to go to get away from the historical constant of oppression and pogrom. It was a piece of mostly desert and they made it bloom and thrive with generations of hard work and determination.

IMHO, of course.

I support Israel because I’m a Christian.

Plain and simple...

Why should this be? Why should Republicans remain steadfast when they receive so little for their fidelity? If you prefer an analysis on other than partisan grounds, why should the United States risk terrorist strikes because of its support for a nation of 4 million to 8 million people with virtually no oil against hundreds of millions of Arabs with oceans of oil?
Because Islamists hate us for a host of reasons unrelated to Israel and showing our weakness by surrending friends invites attack.

Is it thrall to the Israeli lobby? Is it thrall to the evangelicals with an eschatological obsession? Is it a commitment to a capitalist democracy? Is it a commitment to a socialist democracy? What do we get out of it?
If by Israel lobby you mean that vast majority of American cities, um yes.
And Socialists? I suppose, but so are we. And Israel is becomming less socialist every month.

Do we remain in support of Israel because we have always been in support of Israel and simply cannot extricate ourselves? Why does the left today reject our commitment to Israel which for decades had been a cornerstone of the Democrat platform?
Always in what?
In 1948, we recorgnized Israel, then banned arms sales to Israel, while that Arabs had American and British weapons. Some support.
In 1956, we betrayed Britain and France just to screw Israel and protect the Arab Socialists, who still went Soviet, because they were ideological bent on this, regardless of the anticolonialist delusion of the schmuck behind "Atoms for Peace" and operation Keephaul.

We protected the PLO in the 1980s, and the price of getting Syrian support to help liberal Kuwait was forcing Israel to betray Lebanese Christians and put Hizbollah on their borders. Shall I continue with our support, or will you admitt that the claim of always is silly error?

Have American Jews become so secular they are indifferent to the fate of Israel? If so, does that explain why very few American Jews shift their allegiance to the Republican Party in the wake of the Democrats turning against Israel? Is there a visceral dislike of Christians in the American Jewish community which that community identifies with the Republican Party which is so deep that it overcomes their commitment to support for Israel?
25% of Jews don't care of Israel. Of this group 80% are Democrats. Many other Jews care about Israel, but desperately want peace.

If fidelity to an ally requires us to expend billions of dollars and risk nuclear war, does that mean we should continue to spend billions of dollars and risk nuclear war on behalf of South Korea and Taiwan? Do these commitments make us stronger, weaker, more or less vulnerable? Do we apply the same standards to all of our allies irrespective of the power of their lobbies in Washington?
The only time we risked nuclear war for Israel was 1973.
And selling out Israel won't make us any less vulnerable. We are dealing with lunatics. Bin Ladin blame the US for Serbia "atrocities" and Russian atrocities in Chechnya.

I'm more than happy to discuss this in a non-PC manner, so long as we are dealing with facts.

It is probably as simple as “never again”.

The bottom line is Israels right to exist and whether its people can live their lives as they wish or be the victims of a second Holocaust, this time from hate driven Muslims.

Jews have been terrorized and driven out of their native countries ruled by Muslims all over the middle east. To think that these same Muslim rulers would be any more benign to Israel is a pipe dream. Besides the country of Israel is barely larger in size than some counties in the USA, and they have been attacked by Muslim armies several times. They need a strong military to survive.

To think that these same Muslim forces would become friendly to the USA once Israel falls is also a pipe dream.

Dont forget the Israelis already have nuclear weapons and they will use them if pushed to the brink.

So Pauls foreign policy would probably make nuclear war in the Middle East more likely if not inevitable.

Israel has one good advantage that the Arab nations do not: they have their own version of Silicon Valley, high tech wise.