 |
Stan Goodenough is an experienced journalist who has written about politics in South Africa and the Middle East for such organizations as The Daily Dispatch of East London, South Africa, the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, The Jerusalem Post, and the Virtual HolyLand website. He has been a South African gentile resident in Israel for 12 years. Stan is editor of and .
|
|
|
|
By Stan Goodenough
June 7, 2008
 Bookmark to del.icio.us
"Hugging Israel" -- Thus was headlined the front page top story in one of the Hebrew-language dailies cluttering the counter of the Arcaffe coffee shop on Jerusalem's Hillel Street Thursday morning.
The words were splashed in large print over a three-quarter-page color photograph of euphoric US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama embracing his wife in front of applauding crowds.
Nor can there be any doubt that the energetic, silver-tongued, ramrod-straight young man made inroads into Israeli public opinion when he addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Convention in Washington DC Wednesday.
By comparison, his Republican rival, John McCain, was something of a damp squib when he spoke at the same event 48 hours before.
Obama wowed the six-thousand-plus-strong crowd -- and Israelis who saw him on TV or the Net -- as he hit button after button he just knew would resonate in the heart of the Jew....
It is worth noting that Obama's address at AIPAC was his very first public appearance since clinching the nomination over his arch-rival Hillary Clinton. Clearly foreign policy is going to play a large part in an Obama administration.
By comparison, US President George W. Bush entered the White House eight years ago determined to eschew foreign issues in favor of focusing on the domestic front.
But 9-11 sucked the still untried Bush and his unsuspecting country right into the Middle East.
While Bush's primary efforts were directed at Afghanistan and Iraq, he was pulled inexorably into dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until, in the last three years of his double term, he homed in on making healing this sore with his two-state solution the cherry he wanted to leave on top of his presidential record.
While Obama stressed that a US led by him would not pressure Israel -- "We must never force Israel to the negotiating table...." -- the hopeful Democrat emphasized that he is ready to dive right in:
"As President, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. And I won't wait until the waning days of my presidency. I will take an active role, and make a personal commitment to do all I can to advance the cause of peace from the start of my Administration."
In an article that appeared in The Jerusalem Post Thursday, two Israelis from the Institute for National Security Studies analyzed the McCain and Obama speeches:
Research Fellow Roni Bart and Research Assistant Limor Simhoni concluded that "those who believe that Israel requires a US administration that does not pressure it into following a path that it does not want to take, and is committed to stopping the Iranian danger through military means, if necessary, will prefer McCain over Obama."
Otherwise, "those who feel that Israel needs a US administration that will impose a direction on it that it might otherwise not pursue, and that the danger of a nuclear empowered Iran does not necessitate the use of military force will prefer Obama over McCain."
Nevertheless, the analysts said, "there is a word of caution for members of the latter group. While Obama allows himself to express relatively balanced positions already at the election campaign stage, it is possible that after he is elected, his policy will reflect his original critical positions."
Bart and Simhoni opined that what develops in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "depends more on what happens between the sides than the extent and nature of the involvement of any US administration."
"On the other hand, the continued presence of the US in Iraq almost entirely depends on the next US administration."
How the US will deal with the Iranian danger -- through more effective diplomacy and/or implementing the military option -- would mainly depend on Washington.
Concluded the writers: "It seems, then, perhaps more than in other elections, that the particular Democrat or Republican who will enter the White House will to a large extent shape the future of the Middle East."
In a Skype chat conversation yesterday I emotionally banged out the following:
"Well, I just listened to Obama -- and I did not get sick, I got scared. Based on what I heard I would vote for him. He has an extra-ordinarily gilded tongue and a powerful, clear message. He was MUCH stronger than McCain on every level -- and he will get the US Jews' vote and Israel's Jews will root for him. He will win the White House, and I fear he will bring a peace agreement into existence between Israel and the Arabs that will drag the US into the darkness of the valley of judgment. All of us who oppose him will be seen to be bigots, enemies of peace, enemies of America. This man, with Hillary at his right hand, is a leader whose time may have come. If so, God help America."
For the record, my interlocutor thought my "prediction" was "a bit thick."
Time will tell.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
