Diplomacy is not a word that reflects any substance. Saying Obama will engage in diplomacy is like saying that I will use a spoon. To do what? To persuade the Ayatollah to stop building a device that will leave the West no choice but to acknowledge the lunatic as an “equal”? Or maybe the Great Charmer of America will talk Vlad Putin out of doing everything to rebuild Russia’s might and drag a few satellite states along? Unless Obama will somehow charm these types of leaders, say goodbye to the West’s power to do anything. So please, let us not fall into the euphoria that Obama has inspired. Its simply a soap bubble that would have burst early in the campaign had the media not adored this guy.

And oh the Arabs! The only thing that will solve the Israel-Arab conflict is if the entire Jewish population of Israel commits mass suicide. There is nothing short of ending the existence of Israel that will pacify the Arabs. See what happened when Israel ceded Gaza to the Palestinians? Lebanese school children learn that Israel is actually “Occupied Palestine”, to say nothing of their Palestinian counterparts who have never seen a modern map of the Middle East.

1) Obama will actually engage in diplomacy, as opposed to assuming the outcome of it.
2) Therefore nobody will fear the United States.
3) Therefore the Arabs have carte blanche to attack Israel.

Neither of those deductions follow. What ever happened to war being a last resort when diplomacy is exhausted? Sometimes the military is actually more effective when used as a diplomatic threat. Nothing is gained by taking diplomacy off that table completely. In my experience, in fact, giving the silent treatment only serves to make people more angry. There is nothing wrong with aggressive diplomacy. You essentially claim that only a conservative Republican can save America from the onslaught of foreign terrorists. I presume that we had better all leave the American poor to starve and destroy the rights to privacy and habeas corpus, otherwise the illegal immigrants and welfare queens will follow on the heels of all the evil Muslims!

Who is to say that Obama will cause vulnerability? Bill Clinton also protected America from several terrorist attacks. As I remember, George W Bush was in part to blame for the security lapses that led to Sept. 11.

America doesn’t need a leader that operates on the basis of xenophobia and self-righteousness. What we need for Israel, and what America needs as well, is a leader that will come up with real solutions to problems. Which is the more pressing domestic issue, global warming or illegal immigration, abortion or extreme poverty? I think the answer there is clear. Neither will the Arab Israeli conflict be solved by short term security and truces. The conflict is deeper than that. American needs to stay out of Israeli internal politics, where it can do no good. John McCain will refuse to talk to Iran, but he will very likely pressure Israel to talk to the Arabs in Judea and Samaria. Seems a little backwards to me!

In the news, if it bleeds it leads. Knock on wood, we never have another terror attack on US soil (and Israel of course, but unfortunately that’s a long way off), but we haven’t heard of all the attacks that have been thwarted since 9/11 because it wasn’t lead-worthy. I think part of the credit for that has to go to the Bush administration. For the most part, the Republican party understands that we have a military and it can be used. Which is why Obama is not the right choice for America or Israel.