Which course of action would be taken ?

doubt that wacko`d do anything

How about both. They are not mutually exclusive.

I don’t think it is a bad idea to ask both sides of any conflict to show restraint. Even the “wronged” party can escalate things unecessarily by making rash knee-jerk responses. I think it shows Obama will use intelligence, compassion and logic in dealing with crises.

Or should he do just like dubya and just rush into war with no attempts at diplomacy?

Who is attacking Israel in your scenario? Considering the Hizb-Allah attacks in the 2006 Lebanon War, and the Israeli response, I would think urging both sides to show restraint is wise. If Israel came under attack by Hizb-Allah, as in that war, an Obama administration would likely express support for Israeli efforts to defend itself, while attempting to broker a peace agreement through the UN and arrange for a multi-national peacekeeping force.

You may view Obama as anti-Israeli candidate, but he has said nothing and done nothing to indicate he would drastically reverse US policy toward Israel. Obama has made clear that where his Mideast policy breaks from the past is in diplomatic engagement of Iran. This is going to be a very difficult task considering Iran’s power structure…but a worthwhile one.

From Israel Today news-

Friday, October 17, 2008 Israel Today Staff

Report: Bush offers Golan Heights to Syria

US President George W. Bush has reportedly offered to force Israel to fully surrender the Golan Heights and conduct a swift withdrawal from the strategic plateau if Syria will agree to sever ties to the regime of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

That according to a report in the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Jareida on Friday.

A senior Palestinian Authority official told the newspaper that Bush made the offer in a handwritten letter that was given to Syrian President Bashar Assad by US officials earlier this week.

The report went on to note that Bush is eager to score some a diplomatic victory in the Middle East before his presidency ends, and with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process somewhat frozen as Israel tries to form a new government, forcing Jerusalem’s hand on the Golan Heights appears the most viable option.

So, should we discuss what amblessed is trying to scare us about, or should we talk about what Bush is actually doing? And let us not forget that McCain has supported (by his own account) Bush 90% of the time.