Ugh, I'm not going to even bother with the ad hominem barrage against Christianity (ironic that Christians are supposed to be the narrow-minded ones, yet I wade through all this gunk from the other side).
I'll say flatly that I'm pro-Israel. I think Israel is God's chosen people, and that He will bless those who bless them, curse those who curse them. I'm in sort of disagreement with RP on this topic--but not in ways that most neocons are.
I think people greatly misunderstand what this underlying theology means in a practical sense. It doesn't mean condoning carte blanche Israel's actions against Lebanon, Palestinians. Where past US administrations failed is their implicit approval of Israel's more violent (and fruitless) strategies, such as launching Hellfire missiles into crowded slum neighborhoods to assassinate one (replaceable and expendable) Hamas leader. That generates indignation from the international community against the US. I find Israel's policies in frequent violation of God's commands, to love your neighbor, treat foreigners in your midst with respect (because Jews were foreigners when they were slaves in Egypt), love your enemy (Joel preaching to the Assyrians in spite of their war against Israel).
So for US to be faithful to the bible and to "bless" Israel, it's not to have a blind eye to the wrongs that Israel is committing. I think by and large the Bush admin has been doing this, and isn't exactly a stellar example of what I believe US's obligation to Israel should be. Blessing Israel could also mean telling them how NOT to deal with terrorists (that is, steamrolling over neighborhoods with armored bulldozers), so that they may deal with the situation in a more God-honoring way. And blowing up a car with Fatah fighters in a crowded street is not one of them.
The bible says to love your neighbor. I think that encompasses not only fellow US citizens, but also the international community as a whole. This is where I detract from RP's philosophy. The love is a universal doctrine, and isn't just restricted to national borders, because all are God's creation, regardless of race, gender or creed.
In practice RP's philosophy IS isolationism, because it perceives foreign nations as strictly being economic partners, not military allies. This flatly is NOT how the founding fathers operated. I mean, US allied with France in 1778 with the Treaty of Alliance--how could he of missed that? Spain sided with US as well, albeit for its own strategic purposes. So from the very inception of the nation, the founding fathers have had a dramatically different outlook on foreign policy than Ron Paul. This is where I find Ron Paul the weakest.
Not to mention, does trade go into military equipment trading? Avionics? Selling nukes? Trade inevitably brings conflict into the picture. I think RP is a bit idealistic in thinking that trade itself won't ruffle any feathers (oil, anyone?). Inevitably in the international arena, I think you have to make binding agreements in order to survive. US did that to repel the Royal Navy for the American Revolutionary War, so I hardly think it's a bad thing.
So that's my long-winded answer to the question. In short, I don't support RP's stance on Israel, lol. Nor do I support Bush's stance either, so it's a pick of the lesser evil. Plus, as somebody else said, if Israel is indeed God's people, then God is sufficient for defending Israel. And I believe in that. Israel doesn't "need" US to survive--never has, never will.