"Even Sarah Palin got a once-over-lightly from AIPAC, just to be sure she held no Buchananite tendencies as in cutting off foreign aid."

And if she went along with them on that particular point, I don't really disagree with her very much.

If you actually tried to cut off the foreign aid, it could all too quickly lead to some kind of civil war in the establishment of this country (with all too many foreigners and aliens, both legal and otherwise, trying to intervene on behalf of one side or the other).

It seems to me that the realistic choices are between:

Strategy #1 (Constructive Disengagement):

An American presidential administration says flat out (or as close to flat out as you can in this context), either in public or to the relevant leaders, that they will not use force to intervene in the Middle East to protect either Israel or the Palestinians. However, we will cut off all aid to any nation-state (including Egypt, but also of course including Israel) in the Middle East presently receiving foreign aid if they launch aggression against their enemies that we (the Executive Branch of the American Government) consider unprovoked.

Then whatever we do or don't do on Iran will be considered an entirely separate issue.

Please note that my very strong preference would be for Strategy #1.

Strategy # 2 (Constructive Engagement):

After laying the groundwork as quickly as possible, an American presidential administration calls a regional summit including the United States of America, Russia, Israel, China, France, Great Britain, Iran, the PLO, Hamas, every member of the Arab League, and no one else. Then we announce a time and date and make clear, either in public or to the relevant leaders, that any country that declines to come will have no say in a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian question.

"More insidious is that Soros money went to McCain to resucitate his New Hampshire effort."

I 100% agree.

"The Hungarian had both major parties in his pocket."

With the Republicans he just barely managed to get his favorite in, and then after the primaries he lost control of him on the most important choice he made (VP selection).

"The Hungarian had both major parties in his pocket."

The impression I get is that the vast majority of his American Political Money went to the Democrats this cycle. Therefore it stands to reason that Soros has far more power over the Democrats than over the Republicans.

Now there is a certain way the Republicans could start behaving where I'd conclude they decided to sell out to the Hungarian foreigner who views America as nothing more than a rook in his profoundly and utterly anti-conservative agenda.

I haven't seen that yet, though, thank god.

Some of them are actually Bosnian nazis that moved to that region to kill Jews in 1948. For the truth on the poor pathetic palestinians, google 'British Record on Partition' and read about how their Arab league leaders (lapdogs of the British), the British, and a mix of German and Bosnian nazis all tried to crush Israel in 1948.

Even Sarah Palin got a once-over-lightly from AIPAC, just to be sure she held no Buchananite tendencies as in cutting off foreign aid. As a good little evangelical, I'm sure she dutifully told them, "The Bible says Israel is the apple of God's eye."

More insidious is that Soros money went to McCain to resucitate his New Hampshire effort. The Hungarian had both major parties in his pocket. If you don't think that's true, look at Arabic editorial cartoons.

@41 Michael

My father served in Palestine in 1948, and was aware of Pere Emanuel's fun and games involving bombs in biscuit tins placed on buses that would most often kill arabs, but would be reported as an attack on jews. Irgun was a vicious gang of terrorist criminals equivalent to Detroit's Purple Gang, the Plug Uglies or Murder, Inc. Like father like son, the leopard does not change its spots.

Brzezinski isn't exactly considered a big supporter of Israel.

On a related matter, I suspect that O's nomination of RE was done in part to offset any apprehension among Israel's American supporters (not that this will ever be acknowledged).

Within that grouping, ZB isn't the most liked of foreign policy wonks. Nominating RE serves to tone down the mentioned apprehension.

If he does, and I have a funny feeling he won't dare just based on the basic politics of it, I'll admit you are correct.

I doubt Jerimiah Wright of all people in the World allowed himself to be a patsy for some sell out, but I suppose stranger things have happened.

Since we're not up to 44 yet, I don't know which post you're referring to, it must be on some other thread. But to repeat myself, Obama's cabinet will more likely represent Tel Aviv than America, such as it is. Catholics need not apply for any major cabinet position with this regime. Well, maybe one of the more recent inventions like Veterans Affairs, or Energy.

And look for another Clintonesque Supreme Court nominee like Breyer or Ginsburg. Plus ca change plus ca meme chose.