Peace follows victory, e.g. Battle of the Bulge/Dresden, Hiroshima, Appomatox…the enemies of Israel need a huge ass-whooping to concentrate the mind.

Israel should pave them both.

Take Washington’s and Jefferson’s advice and avoid “entangling alliances” and let Israel take care of itself – which it is well capable of doing. As you say, there’s not going to be peace there anytime soon, I fail to see how us getting in the middle of it helps anyone, especially ourselves.

Obama has aquiesced in the PLA/Hamas’ dream of pre-67 borders. Here’s a plausible scenario. As his popularity falls, amd it looks more likely that he will lose in 2012, they may well decide that it’s best to attack Israel now, as Obama probably come to Israel’s aid…their last best chance so to speak..and as Iran moves to a more agressive posture, Israel will feel the need for a pre-emptive strike.

If the likelihood of another war was 50:50 before the speech, it’s now 60:40 in favor, at least

Oh. Unless one side _wins_. I guess, if that could ever happen, the result could be a nation against which the only remotely plausible invasion force is one that consists of flying saucers.

By the way, if you want to be fairly sick to your stomach, follow this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_massacre_of_1622

It is… actually kind of amazing, how deeply twisted that account is. It is one thing to be sympathetic to the ultimate losers of a conflict. Had you merely some sick sympathy for the Indians, you could write “They tried to kill every man, woman, and child among the colonists, and succeeded only in 1/4th of this objective. Too bad.”

The Idiot, and Code Pink endorsed, Ron Paul talks about Israel and the Jews in his latest book. One excerpt:

“All jews do not endorse the violence used to displace the Arabs and Muslims and STEAL their land in the Middle East.” – Ron Paul, Liberty Defined

just a yr ago he condemed Israel in Flotilla incident, demonstrating that he is not at all “Nuetral” and has a very far-left take on the situation.

Keep this in mind as he will claim he’s “Non-Interventionist” in regards to Israel….he is to the point that he wants to empower the Jihadist over them.

nt

n/t

For starters, he can remind Members of Congress of all the religious shrines they will never be able to visit if control of East Jerusalem passes to Muslim authorities.

I, for example, am a Jew.

You, E squared, are a Christian.

The President, whose middle name is Hussein, who was described by the New York Times March 3, 2007 as follows

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

and says that he is a Christian, and it is appropriate to accept that he is a Christian of the Reverend Wright variety.

What is most important to us all, however, is what is best for the nation.

Mr. Obama is President during a period of time in which it appears that all but Muslims are being squeezed from the Middle East. Coptic churches are torched, Lebanese Christians are fleeing for their lives, and Iraqui Christians have fewer rights than their Muslim countrymen.

In Europe, Islamic leaders press forward with demands for themselves, and the countries, to be judged by Sharia (or Islamic) law, not those of the host countries.

In America, too, Muslims and Muslim leaders press for supremacy of Sharia law.

On taking office as leader of our nation, Barack H. Obama swore to the following:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

That we are facing a force which seeks the supremacy of Sharia law over the American Constitution seems more and more the case.

To the extent that anyone fosters the growth of this force to include all of the Levant, and much of Europe, it is fair to question whether that person is doing his or her best job to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That is why Israel, an outpost of Western democracy, is so important to this debate. Not because of access or non access to religious shrines. Not because of Red State or Blue State politics.

But because to weaken a Western oriented democracy in favor of an Islamist thugocracy is to weaken the United States and its core values.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38633

Not to be pedantic, but the only premises that American foreign policy should be based on are the protection of its citizens, its commerce, and its shipping lanes/trade. Insofar as an alliance with Israel furthers those interests more than it hurts them (it does), it is a good thing. We have undertaken many actions that have gone counter to Israeli interests: they have taken several which have gone counter to ours (esp during the Cold War). There’s nothing wrong with that: Israel’s duty is to its citizens, not ours, and vice versa.