The once and future quagmire in Afghanistan is what I had intended and should be writing about today, but as often happens I am drawn to another part of the Middle East, namely Israel/Palestine. Lest we forget, that is where our current predicament with modern terrorism and Islamic militancy originated and was fomented. My post of a few days ago entitled, "Another Disgrace. Another Waste", was displayed on the "Booker Rising" site, where I was privileged to receive feedback on my ideas. I attempted to convey what I see as a strange contortion and bizarre denial of reality in American foreign policy in favor of the political entity called the State of Israel. As a political entity, a state, a nation; that is how I view Israel. No more, no less. And that is why it is difficult for me to understand the foolish inconsistency that is the hobgoblin of our foreign policy involving that state and her neighbors. The position taken by the U.S. regarding the Goldstone Report defies any pretense of fairness and borders on absurd. The question is why. As usual the keystone of the specious reasoning lay in religion.

A respondent to my post referred to me as a non-conservative "negro" needing to be reminded that Jesus will not return to earth until Israel owns and occupies the entirety of the region granted to the Hebrew people by God in the Book of Genesis. I can only respond that the United States of America was not a signatory to any contract or agreement between Yahweh and the Hebrew people, and therefore our national foreign policy in the 21st century shouldn't be appropriated in any action of assumpsit not applicable in either secular domestic or international law. I take this position assuming our principle of the separation of church and state extends to matters beyond the display of nativity scenes on town hall courtyards; together with the consideration that cherry picked religious conventions didn't preclude the anti-Commandment theft and murder involved in the acquisition of our national territory. I also wonder if it is meaningful to the respondent that in the five thousand year history of the Hebrew people they have, to my knowledge, only politically or militarily controlled the full territory alluded to in the legal description in Genesis for about 90 years, during the reigns of David and Solomon, and had virtually no significant presence in any part of that land for the two thousand years preceding 1949. It is also peculiar that it devolves upon the United States to help implement this contract which apparently wasn't enforceable upon the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Romans, Muslims, or the British, among others. Since credulity isn't a crime, I can only fault the respondent with irrationality. And as far as I'm concerned foreign policy should be rational and in our best national interests. If it is in our best geo-political interests that there be two sovereign states, Israel and Palestine, and if it is decided that borders based on the pre-1967 boundaries, or some other just and practical arrangement best serve that object, then that is what we should desire our government to use or withdraw our resources to bring to fruition, letting religious and secular agencies render unto God or Caesar as appropriate. I would also remind the respondent that principles of American conservatism are oriented to the relationship of our people with our Constitution and government, and pre-date the modern state of Israel, and therefore wouldn't and shouldn't be influenced by the status of that nation.