I agree with your evaluation of the author. However, Israel is in God's hands, and as He has stated throughout the Bible, He will be the one to "do it" without the help and meddling of man. While I agree that we should support Israel, it should be in the save vein as with everyone else, by seeing everyone get saved and be edified (1Tim. 2:4), which is God's will. The country of Israel as it currently exists could be totally destroyed, yet God will regather the tribes and rebirth the Nation in a day. What goes on today has nothing to do with what God will accomplish, other than possibly hasten the day of wrath.
1. The first principle for all Biblical understanding is that G-d is immutable. That means that He never changes His mind, and He never goes back on His Word. He promised Abraham a Seed and a Land FOR ETERNITY.
Check what the Bible says in Gen. 6:6: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved his heart." In the next verse God says He will destroy man, "for it repenteth me that I have made them." Repent in this context is to change one's mind. So God did change His mind. However, God is true to His Word because "He changeth not" in His essence and character. God also promised Abraham that "thou shalt be a blessing" and in "thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." This is as much a part of the Abrahamic Covenant as the land and the seed. Each of these are expanded on by the New Covenant, the Palestinian Covenant and the Davidic Covenant respectively.
2. Replacement theology has permeated the Evangelical community for over 100 years, and yet even in those denominations where it is the strongest, there is support for Israel (example: Presbyterian and Lutheran) - and those denominations are not strong on eschatology at all, and if they are they trend AGAINST premellinialisim. So much for that part of this specious arguement.
I can't speak for the Presbyterian church but I have seen a position paper by the LCMS that indicates a strong preterist, or realized eschatology, position. I do agree that replacement theology is specious; in fact, it is a result of truly twisting the Scriptures.
Good post, however.