quote:

---

Not a year has passed since Danny Ayalon completed his term as Israel's ambassador in Washington, but he has already seen fit to criticize Barack Obama, who may well be the next U.S. president or vice president. In an article published in The Jerusalem Post, Ayalon wrote that during his two meetings with Obama, he got the impression that the Democratic candidate was "not entirely forthright" regarding Israel. Similar and even worse smears can be found in abundance in American blogs and e-mail chain letters.

While Obama was taking advantage of Martin Luther King Day to speak out against anti-Semitism among blacks, Jewish spokesmen were using racist language against him, solely because his father was Muslim. Since it is hard to find so much as a single anti-Jewish statement in Obama's political record, or even support for anti-Israel policies, his defamers base their arguments on the fact that his positions on the Middle East conflict are "leftist" - solely because he rejects the right's positions, which are more acceptable to some Jewish-American leaders.

Obama, Hillary Clinton and Republican candidate John McCain have very similar views on the Middle East, and their Senate votes confirm this. Obama has been smeared by the right because of his ties with international relations experts Zbigniew Brzezinksi and Robert Malley, as well as his support for a two-state solution and a withdrawal from most of the settlements. Billionaire George Soros, who has contributed to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns, is also seen by the Jewish right as hostile to Israel, because he is too leftist.

---

quote:

---

Racist attacks against a black American candidate could cause Israel and American Jews a great deal of damage - not to mention shame and disgrace. Obama has been forced to defend himself over things such as nonexistent ties with elements hostile to Israel, an appearance at an event at which Edward Said spoke, and praying at one church rather than another.

Great damage has already been caused because Obama announced that an ugly campaign was being waged against him in the Jewish community. That alone ought to be enough at least to make Israel's leaders say something about Jews who preach against anti-Semitism while employing similar tactics against other minorities.

---

quote:

---

"not entirely forthright"

---

quote:

---

Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met him about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker. In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"

But Obama's gradual shift into the AIPAC camp had begun as early as 2002 as he planned his move from small time Illinois politics to the national scene. In 2003, Forward reported on how he had "been courting the pro-Israel constituency." He co-sponsored an amendment to the Illinois Pension Code allowing the state of Illinois to lend money to the Israeli government. Among his early backers was Penny Pritzker -- now his national campaign finance chair -- scion of the liberal but staunchly Zionist family that owns the Hyatt hotel chain. (The Hyatt Regency hotel on Mount Scopus was built on land forcibly expropriated from Palestinian owners after Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967). He has also appointed several prominent pro-Israel advisors.

---

Ha'aretz ranking has been slightly updated since discussed in the cited article below, with McCain now pulling slightly ahead of Clinton.
"...
Israeli interest in the outcome of the election is legitimate, because the billions of dollars in U.S. economic and military aid are seen by most Israelis as crucial to their country's prosperity. For this same reason, it is worthwhile for Americans to note just how the Israeli media evaluates the various candidates' pro-Israel credentials. The Israeli national interest is clearly not identical to that of the United States, except possibly to AIPAC, but it would be difficult to discern the difference based on the comments being made by American presidential candidates. Indeed, many of the candidates sometimes seem as if they are actually running for office in Israel...."on the Ranking

Edited to Add
Note also the deliberate confusion promoted in the Ha'aretz article on Obama which mixes antisemitism with any opposition to the policies of the state of Israel.

[ 30 January 2008: Message edited by: contrarianna ]

quote:

---

This fits in with the Ha'aretz ranking of US candidates acceptable to Israel

---

No, it is an article which gives Ha'aretz' own opinion about which candidates are "best" for Israel.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

No, it is an article which gives Ha'aretz' own opinion about which candidates are "best" for Israel.

They don't speak for Israel, and they don't say any candidate is "unacceptable to Israel".

---

"The Israel Factor: Ranking the presidential candidates"

The actual word "acceptable" is not used in the headline but the headline is immediately followed by a sliding scale indicating:
1= "Worst for Israel"
10="Best for Israel"
This is surely a scale of "acceptability" for Israel as given by a "Ha'aretz ranking".
Ha'aretz Worst and Best for Israel

[ 30 January 2008: Message edited by: contrarianna ]