In my latest reading of This Is Herman Cain, Herman Cain presents his perspectives on a variety of issues. Cain criticized President Barack Obama's call for Israel to return to her pre-1967 borders, which (I think) was Israel's borders before she got the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. From this article, I gather that President Obama's idea is that the West Bank would be used for a Palestinian state, although Obama also believes that Jewish settlement in the West Bank should be taken into account when determining where the borders should be.
Cain's argument is that
Obama's idea would imperil Israel and "enable Israel's enemies to lob
weapons at them, as they did from Lebanon several years ago" (page
132). Cain also contends that it would embolden Israel's enemies and
"destabilize the whole region" (page 131). Moreover, according to Cain,
we cannot afford to allow our relationship with Israel to erode by
alienating her, for we may need Israel if we were to be involved in a
Middle Eastern conflict (since "we would need its assistance militarily,
in terms of being a conduit for supplies, fuel, and other
combat-related resources"), plus we'd be sending a message that we don't
support our friends.
But doesn't supporting Israel at the expense
of the Palestinians alienate Arab countries that provide us with oil?
Well, Herman Cain says that we should be energy-independent, so that
takes care of that. Still, don't we need Arab support for some of our
Middle Eastern conflicts? In Operation Desert Storm, we had some Arab countries on
I'm not taking a firm stand on Middle
Eastern policy, for I'm sure that I have much to learn about the
situation. I will say, though, that evangelical Zionism tends to upset
me, for it presumes that God takes sides in this whole conflict. Herman
Cain does not go that route, however, for he presents secular arguments
for supporting Israel.
Sedevacantism and atheism
3 hours ago