No, Paleo-Cons like Pat Buchanan.
That’ possible, I wouldn’t know because I wrote off Buchanan as a nut years ago.
You have to admit that the Libertarians out number the Buchanan types though and their foreign policy positions are pretty much the same.
There are also the Realists who are not anti Israel but want to hold Israel's feet to the fire on Palestine because they are strong believers in "linkage", which means there are problems that can't be solved until the Israel-Palistian issue has been solved. For example: sometimes Kissinger is called a self-loathing jew and James Baker has been called an Arabist, and Brent Scowcroft has been called a jew hater. In the past these Realists had been very influential in the GOP on foreign policy, but since the NeoCons rose to power, the realists have been purged.
A couple of academic realists(Mearshimer and Walt) wrote a book a few years ago titled US Foreign Policy and the Israeli Lobby with the primus that sometimes the US makes foreign policy moves really benefit Israel but don't benefit the US. AIPAC is one of the most powerful lobbies.
If you consider that in the GOP there are 3 foreign policy schools: Realists, NeoCons, and Isolationists and in the dem party there are Realists, Liberal Interventionists, and anti-war pacifists.
The Liberal Interventionist dems and NeoCon republicans are the strongest supporters of Israel.
The Realists(R & D) are less supportive of Israel
The antiwar pacifist dems and rightwing isolationists are the least supportive of Israel.