Obama tries to inch closer to Israel

The good news for Hillary Clinton: She won in West Virginia, and by a big margin. The not so good news: No one cares.

A week after the primary elections in Indiana and North Carolina, it seems Clinton is being pushed out of the picture, not by force but by apathy.

The media is barely interested in her gains and Barack Obama is hardly interested in the race against her in states where her victory is guaranteed in advance, such as next week in Kentucky. Obama is too busy with serious matters such as securing the nomination as soon as possible. He is also too busy with less serious matters, such as the recent brawl over his stand on Israel. Yes, once again Obama and Israel. This story is becoming tiring already, but it will be with the candidate until November, and certainly afterward too.

"Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a 'constant sore' as Barack Obama claims," preached John Boehner, the Republican minority leader in the House of Representatives. The attack was expected, even if not exactly necessary. It was preceded by the Republican Jewish Coalition, which stated: "Senator Obama naively believes that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will solve the global scourge of radical Islamic extremism."

The Republicans' anger - whether real or staged for propaganda purposes - flared up in response to an interview Obama gave to Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic. It was an interview Theodor Herzl would have been proud to give, as the Democratic front-leader sounded so Zionist and Israel-loving. True, there were a couple of points that could be debated, though it is doubtful that "constant sore" is worthy of special attention.

Here is what Obama told Goldberg: "What I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions."

Here is the reasonable interpretation of his words: "Constant sore" is the Arab-Israeli conflict, not Israel. "Lack of a resolution" means the lack of progress toward peace. "Provides an excuse" is not Obama claiming the conflict is the source of the Jihad, but just an excuse he wants to prevent.

Jumping on his words was a petty act, of the type common in an election campaign. And it is particularly strange in light of other things Obama said in the interview. "I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience," Obama said.

When asked whether he, like Jimmy Carter, thought Israel resembles an apartheid state, he answered: "I strongly reject the characterization. Israel is a vibrant democracy, the only one in the Middle East, and there's no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn't advance that goal. It's emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it's not what I believe."

Last Friday Obama distanced himself from Rob Malley, who had never been a real adviser, though his campaign people had asked for his opinion on a few occasions. Obama's decision to consult with Malley, a member of Bill Clinton's peace team who chose to place the blame for the collapse of the Camp David talks not only on Yasser Arafat but also on Israel and the U.S., was used against the Democratic frontrunner in the big battle over the question of Obama and Israel.

And Obama will no longer consult Malley. Malley has admitted to talking to members of Hamas, and Obama objects to such talks. His spokesman publicly announced that there is no connection betwen Malley and the campaign and never will be. Obama said that Hamas is a terror organization.

The dispute over Obama's recent interview landed on fertile soil. For two weeks he has been exchanging verbal blows with John McCain, after a senior Hamas official said the organization endorses Obama's candidacy and compared Obama to John F. Kennedy.

McCain pounced on the gift. His campaign issued a letter stating that America needs a change, but not of the type Hamas wants. The Republican candidate also personally attacked Obama.

Obama responded angrily, calling McCain's stance disappointing and saying McCain had promised not to conduct a smear campaign.

There is a big difference between the positions of McCain and Obama, but in the case of Hamas they actually have the same views. True, McCain's supporters will say, but when Obama promises to conduct a dialogue with Iran, which funds and trains Hamas, it should come as no surprise that Hamas supports him.

There is a difference, Obama's side will say. Iran is a state, Hamas is a terrorist organization, and Obama makes a clear distinction between the two.