Which candidate do you think will support our only ally, Israel, in the Middle East?

CPT (Join to see) - You replied before my follow on apparently. As I read further into the comments, another poster said something that made me go back and reread. I missed the word only the first time which completely validates your post afterall.

SFC Justin Scott - Thank you.

CPT (Join to see) - When I'm wrong, I'm definitely willing to admit it. I apologize for my first comment, you were not obfuscating but rather pointing out the fallacy of the OP's question. Had he left out the word only, his question would have had merit.

This is the "Perfectly worded question" to show why I don't support a Republican ticket. The tone from Cruz, Trump, or the rest is one that supports a mindset of "Israel is our only ally." It is almost as if they draw comfort and strength from being "Against the World" with Israel propped up on our shoulders. Whatever happened to "Making Friends and Allies." Why can't we look at all of these other countries in the Middle East as "Potential Allies" instead of "Potential Targets."

I'm glad I saw your post because I missed that phraseology (only ally) the first time I read it and was going to come to his defense on other posts (and actually did on one prior to seeing your post).

Actually, given Sander's rhetoric and voting record, it makes a lot of sense!

It all depends on how you define supportive, if supportive means continuing to hand over billions of dollars each year and blocking UN condemnation of Israel while Israel continues to annex Palestinian land... then Obama has been very supportive. If in order to qualify as supportive the president needs to do all that and bend his knee to Netanyahu... then Obama and likely all the other Democrat candidates are not adequately supportive.

If your idea of a U.S. President who supports Israel includes fealty to Netanyahu, you probably want to support Cruz.

Correction...that land has ALWAYS been Israels. The Palestinian state stole by use of force the land that truly is, was and will always belong to the Jews.

How far do you want to go back? There is a pretty fair argument that it ceased to be a Jewish state from the fourth century A.D. until the twentieth century A.D. Post-WWII there were forced relocations of non-Jewish population that had been in place for centuries.

This is what I believe to be true, 1)Jews needed a homeland. 2) The European powers did a really bad job setting it up 3) Everybody is pissed off. 4) If I had been in charge, everybody would be just as pissed off.

Steve, I asked above to define support, you also ask a great question. Also, Israel is not unified, there are many on the Left or Far Left in Israel that are not in support of a Jewish State. They need to decide as a nation what they want...

CPT Jack Durish - We will have to agree to disagree then Sir. We owe them nothing, but we give them everything. The ROI isn't there to me. I do not see equal footing in the races there even though they "live" on the same land. I'm sure if you asked a Native American here, they'd tell you the same thing. If they're leery of having a "friend" like us? Russia is there, Iran would love to have relations, Egypt would love round two maybe (it'd be worse on them than rd 1, but they're there. There is nothing that makes them more of an "ally" than England, or France, or even Germany. In fact in many ways we get more from those three than Israel. So who should be leery? When your politicians "pledge" to another country who's winning? It damn sure isn't us. Are you going to "pledge" allegiance to Nigeria, Cambodia, East Timor, Lybia? I know the answer. Are you going to support a politician who does?
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/resources/briefing-papers/1230-israels-discrimination-against-its-arab-citizens

SSG Warren Swan - Wow! Nothing fair and balanced about that report, is there? Let me bow out at this point as it is pointless to continue. If you're going to cling to propaganda like that, I see no hope of having a "conversation". As for "native Americans", many think that it was a mistake to exclude them from the new nation that grew upon their lands. Sadly, I think they excluded themselves. They were a Stone Age peoples attempting to cope with an Iron Age civilization. (The division is even wider as a Bronze Age civilization - the Islamists - attempt to cope with an Information Age world, and they too are excluding themselves)

CPT Jack Durish - there is nothing fair or balanced. I used a site that fits what I wanted you want to see. I could've used, or referenced, "better" sites I agree, or I could've used Fox or MSNBC and where would the "fair and balanced" be there? I could've used Rand and other think tanks, but using them would mean finding out who paid for the research. Climate Change is a prime example of how fair and balanced isn't really what it seems. On the Native Americans, it wasn't a mistake to exclude them it was a tragedy to do to them what was done, and then in some cases force them into a religion they didn't know. The division? How can you say there was a division? Sure they all had tribal lands before, and didn't always get along, but when their lands were taken in westward expansion the separation was maybe more to survive and keep the traditions intact, than anything else. Having a conversation is an open discussion of ideas, ideals, and possible outcomes. If we censor any of that to suit what we consider reputable, is the conversation really open or is it wasting time being one or the other refuses to be fully open that there are more than what's "accepted"? I know better than to use wikki anything, and normally when I use a site like this, I also post a counter to it....with the intent of being "fair". I didn't but that doesn't just say this is all propaganda. If I use NRA for weapons, would that be a "reputable" site or propaganda? It would depend on the user and the receiver.

SGT Rick Ash - Think you confused me for someone else. I'm asking how they are draining us since Captain Millersats they are.

I think Kamal Ataturk would be VERY disappointed in the current Turkish regime.

That said, I think there is very little difference in any of the current candidates when it comes to support Israel should Israel be attacked. The difference lies in supporting Israel should Israel continue building settlements. Sanders, the lone Jewish candidate (I think he's culturally Jewish but theologically agnostic or even atheistic), would be the only one to rebuke Israel if settlement activity continued or if they didn't negotiate in good faith toward a two state solution.