"The Wars of Israel are not a matter of wrong versus right, but a matter of right versus right."

That's an interesting way of looking at it. There certainly was a profound need that was being met by Israel (as well as some other places). Personally, I don't see any need to use history in order to point fingers at one group or another, but to simply understand the reasons for behaviors that, on the surface, don't seem to make any sense. In order to believe the more widely acknowledged historical narratives about the Middle East, we have to believe things about Arabs (or at least Palestinians) that are not necessarily true. And if we believe those things, we can use them to justify doing things to them that maybe we shouldn't be doing. So I think it's very important to make sure that the historical narrative that we are using as the basis for Middle East policies in the US is as accurate as possible.

What I find interesting right now is the different ways that those who have a vested interest in what happens in and to Israel perceive each candidate in relation to their concerns.