You keep trying to spin this, but you should remember a few other things. In his speech, Barack Obama said that as President he would recognize an undivided Jerusalem as the Capitol of Israel which is something John McCain hasn't done. He has made Dennis Ross (who has worked for both George and George W. as a Presidential envoy) his top foreign policy advisor. Ross says Obama is the strongest supporter of Israel to run for President since Scoop Jackson. Congressman Howard Berman who is probably the strongest supporter of Israel in Congress has said that he has worked closely with Barack Obama on issues of concern in the Middle East and that they see the issues confronting Israel the same way. Obama had the courage to denounce President Carter for meeting with Syria and in his first congressional race when he was an unknown challenging an incumbent from Chicago he criticized other African American's for not building alliances with other ethnic groups including people of the Jewish faith. What you are trying to do with posts like this is play to people's fears. The biggest fear is the hidden doubt that in spite of all of the infighting that goes on between different ethnic groups, it is possible for an African American with an Arab name to look at what is happening in the Middle East and decide that Israel is basically in the right. That's what Barack Obama has done and that is a great thing politically both for America and for Israel.

One problem with AIPAC is that it is so effective in keeping the congressional troops in line through its money and organizational skills that almost every elected leader in Washington has learned to say the right things in regard to Israel, even if they don't mean them.

I simply don't believe Obama, nor do the acquaintances I referenced in that post. Here are a few reasons why:

1) Obama promises to recognize an undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Uh huh. And W, who despite his many flaws has been the most staunch supporter of Israel ever to hold the White House, just delayed yet again the moving of the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which he promised to do when first elected. There will be no shortage of "current political conditions" on the ground to allow Obama to delay (not fail to fulfill, of course) that 'promise' throughout his presidency.

2) To be clear, Obama didn't "denounce President Carter for meeting with Syria," it was for meeting with Hamas in Syria. And you say he "denounced" Carter for it, I'd call it "distancing himself," but no matter. Obama also just stated that he would never negotiate with Hamas or other terrorist groups that failed to recognize the state of Israel. Problem is: those statements DO NOT MAKE ONE DROP OF SENSE since he has promised to meet with those who make Hamas possible: Ahmedinejad and Iran! The statements Obama is now making are pure political cover, not words to be believed have any value.

3) You never addressed his thought process. If Obama believes we'd be safer, that Islamic terrorists would hate us less, if we just abandoned Iraq, why shouldn't he conclude we'd be even safer if we weren't such staunch supporters of Israel?

4) Finally, 4 years is more than enough time for Ahmedinejad to roll this rookie and finish developing his nuclear capability.

With his amazing gift of gab, Obama may be able to fool enough people like you to get elected, but it will be his toughest challenge: convincing critical-thinking adults that he has any business acting as our Commander in Chief.

Calling George W. Bush the most Pro-Israel President in history is ridiculous. He literally forced Israel to commit to a two state solution by threatening to withold military support without getting anything of substance from the other side and his kowtowing to oil producing countries has been an embarrassment as has his inaction in putting pressure on countries that rely on our aid to allow Jewish residents to emigrate to Israel. On the more borderline issue, he has refused to commute any portion of Jonathan Pollard's sentence even though a sentencing board has recommended that he do so.

You are simply taking Bush's incursion into Iraq and changing it into a myth that he is Pro-Israel. Although every country in the Middle East has to worry about what happens in Iraq, support for the war doesn't translate into a litmus test on support for Israel. People that are against the war think we are doing what we did in Viet Nam (and what the Soviets did in Afghanistan) by trying to police the entire world, even when we don't have compelling interests. Those against the war think that by stepping in the way we did, we stopped countries with a lot more at stake from taking on responsibility for fighting terrorism (You may remember John Kerry said that if there was convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, we might have had to fight, but even then he would have made the argument to Europe that he was closer to them than he was to the States and that they better step up). The bottom line is that there are bad guys in the world and they need to be stopped, but if we try and be the worlds cops without building support in the rest of the world, we are also setting ourselves up as targets for everyone with a gripe, anywhere in the world. But Israel is a strategic interest and an ally and Obama has said (even at times it was unpopular politically) that we have to be there to protect it if necessary for our own interests. As for the claim he doesn't mean it, well, he has said that is what he believes in since he first ran for office and he has also made Dennis Ross (a very Pro Israel foreign policy expert) his top advisor on foreign affairs and he has members of Congress like Howard Berman vouching for him, so I think the question should be why someone would doubt his commitment while they don't doubt people like John Kerry or Hillary Clinton. Certainly Obama's record is more substantive than many politicians. As I said in my previous post, you should ask yourself if the reason is that secretly you don't believe that an African American with an Arab name can look at the issue and come down on Israel's side and if you believe that, are you saying you don't think the issue can ever be solved. Israel is much stronger in the world having a Barack Obama supporting them than they are just about any other politician.

Your statements are too silly to continue with this discussion. For example: the two state "solution" was a product of Oslo, negotiated in 1993. If you don't know the basics, I can't debate with you.

Mostly, however, this conversation is over because you resort to the age-old tactic of calling the person you disagree with a bigot. Very high-minded, which is typical of the left.

Wow, talk about playing games with words.

First,the Oslo accords created the possibility of a self governing Palestinian state run by the PLO with a renunciation of violence and that group working vigorously to eliminate terrorism (along with allowing Israeli Army troops in their territory for an undefined period of time to help in the fight if needed).

When the Palestinians refused to live up to their end of the bargain in any meaningful way, large portions of the agreement were negated and Israel was moving towards an open abrogation in 2002 when George W. Bush threatened them with the loss of aid if they didn't back down and also demanded that they slow down the building of new housing in disputed areas and a divided Israeli cabinet went along with his wishes. As a matter of fact, George W. Bush brags about the fact that he is the first American President to have ever called for the creation of a Palestinian state or to have worked in any way to make it a reality. What he doesn't brag about is that he is also the first American President to have ever raised any questions about the right of return.

Bush's actions were shortly after Ariel Sharon had accused President Bush of appeasing (his word) the Palestinians to get Arab support for the war on terror. In response, the White House criticized Israel for assasinating Palestinians engaged in terrorism without giving them the benefit of a trial (which was certainly a contrast to the President asking for Bin Laden "dead or alive") and President Bush made a public speech at the UN (9/23/2003) calling it Israel's responsibility to create the conditions for a Palestinian state to come into existence, a speech which was criticized by Israeli's across the political spectrum.

Shortly afterwards, Colin Powell held several high profile meetings with what government sources called "unofficial peace negotiators" over the objections of Israel's government which considered these people representatives of terrorist organizations who still refused to recognize Israel's right to exist.

We could go on and on with this, but I do want to make the point that saying President Bush is the most Pro Israel President in history (even more than Truman?) is something of a stretch to put it mildly and I think my question about why Barack Obama catches so much questioning about his stand on the Middle East is in part because of not just a hidden bigotry, but also a self doubt that affects too many supporters of the State of Israel.

Let's face it, every Presidential candidate has acquaintance who have made statements like the Reverend Wright's. You may remember some Democrats trying to tie President Bush into Helen Chenoweth. But no previous Democratic Presidential candidate has ever had their support for the State of Israel questioned before they were elected. Not even Carter who clearly had a lot of problems with the issue. There might have been a few partisans that tried to claim something, but you can't find any real questioning about Hillary, John Kerry, John Edwards or anyone else.

So now you have an African American with an Arab name who has supported Israel throughout his political career, even when it wasn't expedient to do so. His top foreign policy advisor who has worked for Presidents in both parties and has been regarded as a Pro-Israel voice in the foreign policy establishment (Dennis Ross) says that not only is he Pro-Israel, but that Barack Obama is the most Pro-Israel Presidential candidate since Scoop Jackson which is pretty high praise to put it mildly. Numerous other Jewish leaders have talked about his sensitivity to their issues and his leadership in the Senate and this is the guy so many media types are raising questions about? There might be some reasons to doubt that he means it, but certainly nothing you couldn't find on any other Presidential candidate. You may take it as a personal attack accusing you of bigotry(it wasn't) but I do think anyone who looks at it honestly has to say that the only reason anyone questions Barack Obama's support for the State of Israel is because of doubts caused by his name and his ethnicity and yes there are still some vestiges of bigotry and prejudgement left in American society.

Chip....Your take on Obama is right on. This guy's positions on various key issues seem to be a work in progress. His "stand" on Iran is a huge red flag for anyone remotely concerned with Israel's security; not to mention our own. Your analysis was echoed on Fox News this evening. They were saying that the Jewish voting block will not be with Obama and it may well cost him the election. Nice to see you have gone completely partisan.
Great Post!

Schmuel Rosner the American Columnist for Haaretz (A conservative newspaper in Israel) wrote yesterday that AIPAC's lobbyist's have predicted in a report to top Israeli Government officials that the first year of Barack Obama's Presidency will wind up being very challenging for Israel, because he is so strongly on their side that it will cause a backlash from people who don't know his record and will be surprised and upset by his views.

Posts like these on Obama's site don't help your argument, my man: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30245_At_the_Official_Obama_Site-_The_Israeli_Connection_to_9-11