"Paleoconservatism" can be given any of at least three meanings. The first refers to that European conservatism along the "throne and altar" lines outlined by de Maistre. Since Frederick Wilhelmsen and the elder Brent Bozell died, I don't know of anyone who supports this view. Conservative Catholics are in the main not at all of this stripe. They respect the American culture and polity which raised them, though they take issue with some of the Supreme Court's usurpations in recent years. This is hardly a "protective coloration" for some other ideology, as has been said here by some. The second meaning is the one I mentioned and that has to do with going back to the founders. One may differ on just how one interprets the founders. The third meaning is more specialized and has to do with getting back to a "libertarian" and non-interventionist right that was presumed to have existed before William F. Buckley put the conservative movement on more Anti-communist and ultimately statist lines. If you want to talk intelligently about "paleoconservatism" you should not willfully mix up the three strains.
There are real differences between, say Samuel Francis, Lew Rockwell and the late M.E. Bradford. None of them would count as an admirer of Ayn Rand -- though Rockwell might flirt with Randians. None of them would advocate Franco as a serious model for American conservatives -- though given a choice in 1930s Spain between Franco and Stalinism some may have chosen the former, just as the New York Times would have chosen the latter.
To my way of thinking, Rockwellism is a pretty unstable mix of contradictory elements, but the disagreements between various paleo groups are simply a continuation of the disagreements which the previous generation of conservatives had amongst themselves. If you are really interested in answering this question you might look at the histories of the conservative movement, rather than presume that you have discovered something new and damning.
Most of the paleos are as critical of interventions elsewhere as they are in the Middle East. Look, for example, at some of the responses to the Serbian adventure. But they do recognize that we are disengaging from some areas of the world, such as Central America or the Far East, and becoming ever more involved in the Middle East. Also, I suspect that too much talk of "Amalek" and "Esau" turns people off. If you want to create your radically particularist Jewish state, fine, but don't expect Americans to follow you as you become ever more extreme. That is inherent in such radical particularism. Pursue it far enough and those who don't belong to the group can't follow you. Saying that America is a particular state or nation for a particular people doesn't necessarily imply racial or religious homogeneity. It means that one shouldn't overload assimilative processes or force things to the breaking point.
Now perhaps you can explain the bizarre combination under the Zionist banner of people like the Randian Peikoff, the liberal Martin Peretz, and the extremist Kahane. So many groups from socialists, anarchists and communists to fascists and religious totalitarians have gathered under that flag as well. You have some explaining of your own to do. You see, that's a game that any number can play.
Hey--Kahana' was a RIGHT-WING extremist!
Once again--what is the connection between opposing rightwing nationalism and hiearchialism among Jews as a means of restoring it everywhere else? Perhaps you can tell me of how Kahana' supported leftist social policies in the United States?
Second, I agree with what you say about each side having strange (and undesirable) allies. But while I am embarrassed by Dershowitz and the ADL, most anti-Israel conservatives are willing to make a hero out of any liberal who joins them in opposing Israel (Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Fulani, Findlay, Fulbright, etc.). I can explain to you very easily, though, why I do not allow my own undesirable allies to change my views. I idealize the Bible. In the Bible the Jew is permanently frozen in amber as Yehoshua` Bin Nun (Joshua), exterminating G-dless Canaanites as the sun and moon stand still in the sky to assist him. This is a far different picture than that which Joe Sobran sees, or anyone to whom the Jews are primarily the trouble-making dissidents of chr*stendom. Any further questions???
And btw, I am a throne and altar conservative. That's one reason it hurts me to be labelled a "neo" just because the Jews will always be Biblical Israel to me, and not rootless urban cosmopolitan exiles.