Will you leave Obama alone already?

Suffering

The level of scrutiny given to each Barack Obama comment on Israel has reached the point of silliness. Now it's the "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people" comment he made in Iowa over the weekend. It is being criticized, analyzed, and repeated with this we-told-you-so tone, as if it was a big secret that Obama is, well, a compassionate Democrat.

And anyways, what's wrong with this statement? Don't the Palestinians suffer? Don't they suffer more than the Israelis? Look at the sentence in its full context and it becomes much clearer: "If we could get some movement among the Palestinian leadership, what I'd like to see is a loosening up of some of the restrictions on providing aid directly to the Palestinian people." See? First - a change in the Palestinian leadership's attitude, then - an easing of the restrictions. The Israeli government would have signed on to this formula (and then, of course, start debating the meaning of "movement" and of "loosening up").

Cynicism

But there's also another Obama comment, made in his AIPAC reception (which I also attended), which made people uncomfortable with his politics on Israel. "One of the enemies we have to fight," he said, "is not just terrorists, it's not just Hezbollah, it's not just Hamas - it's also cynicism."

Why would people be upset about that? Because Obama is talking too much about his hopes for peace, in these days of gloom and despair (and cynicism). Is this a troubling sign for the pro-Israel activist? One can argue that it is. However, it isn't a surprise. A candidate that's building his campaign around the audacity of hope can't just talk about the dangers and troubles ahead without giving some hope.

You think this means trouble for Israel? Maybe so, and that's why it is so good to have a broad field of candidates to choose from. However, asking Obama not to be Obama is not just cynicism - it is foolishness. This is what his campaign is all about.

Approach

The NY Times reported this morning that "as Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama compete for Jewish donors and voters, Mrs. Clinton is following a tried-and-true rule of hers from New York - support Israel to the last - while Mr. Obama is trying a more delicate strategy that hit some bumps this week."

An Obama supporter referred to this story this morning, telling me that "this Clinton rule is part of the cynicism that Obama is talking about." Whether it is or it isn't, the question remains: Whose strategy will provide for more votes and more money?

Here's my guess and some of my readers won't like to hear it: Obama will get more of the Jewish vote (if he doesn't stumble later on in the race), Clinton will get more of the Israel-related Jewish money.

Why is that so? - Because his message is more in tune with the views of the very liberal Jewish masses; because her message is the right one for the established, older and more conservative Jewish donors; because his message is the more attractive for the naive, idealistic, Tikkun-Olam-now, Let's-fix-Darfur-first, we-need-to-engage-Iran-get-the-hell-out-of-Iraq mob - but this crowd is not the one giving money to candidates based on their position on Israel; because her message is tailor-made for a smaller group, but one that's much more dedicated to Israel as their primary issue of concern.