"No king is saved by the multitude of an army; A mighty man is not delivered by great strength. A horse is a vain hope for safety; Neither shall it deliver any by its great strength. Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him On those who hope in His mercy...." Psalm 33:16-18

Predictably, Israel has been a primary topic of discussion along the campaign trail. In numerous public debates, all of the Republican candidates with the exception of Representative Ron Paul have expressed strong pro-Israel positions.

Romney has repeatedly criticized Obama for "throwing Israel under the bus" and insists that Israel must be free to decide its own fate, but he has consistently shied away from laying the blame for the lack of peace on Israel's enemies. It can be deduced from Romney's remarks that he would maintain the status quo established by Clinton and Bush; a slow-moving peace process that periodically requires Israel to make dangerous concessions, but that in the short-term leads nowhere. It is possible to suggest the opposite of Gingrich.

Gingrich has spent some time criticizing Obama for his treatment of Israel, but has expended far more effort trying to clarify the purposely muddied Israeli-Arab conflict. Gingrich has slammed the Palestinian Authority as a gang of terrorists and facilitators of terrorism, and is adamant that the starting point of the peace process must be the basic truth that there never was a sovereign Palestinian Arab nation.

A Gingrich presidency could potentially produce a seismic shift in the Middle East peace process, a Romney presidency could potentially produce the same ole, same ole.