Obama will take care of it

WASHINGTON - In a predictable outburst of provincialism, the Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, has become the fashionable darling of the Israeli left. Those who, during the years of George W. Bush's presidency, found themselves pushed to the margins of the arena are now pinning hopes on Obama - who, even if he wants to, will probably be unable to deliver the goods. Those who failed to convince the citizens of their own country are now putting their faith in an outsider, in the hope that he will force their agenda on it. In that, they are doubly mistaken: The American leadership was never the source of the problem, and even to the extent that it bore secondary responsibility for the spoke in the wheels of the peace process, it is not certain that Obama is the leader who will provide the solution.

"Israel today requires an American president and administration that understand the urgency of creating a successful peace process," wrote Uri Savir, one of the architects of the Oslo process, in an article supportive of Obama that he published in the Jerusalem Post. "Electing [John] McCain means a continuation of the Bush-Cheney-Rice policy," added Yossi Sarid in an article in Haaretz.

Even if Savir is right, and that is arguable, his statement does not necessarily lead to a vote for Obama: Republican John McCain has promised to make a substantial effort to promote the peace process. And what Sarid wrote is simply incorrect: McCain is similar to Bush in his approach to some issues, but different from him on others. His attitude toward Israel does not rest on a religious foundation like that of Bush; his circle of advisers includes not only dyed-in-the-wool hawks, but also quite a few "realist" statesmen who are more reminiscent of the first George Bush's advisers than those of the current president; and his short fuse will blow quickly in the face of Israeli foot-dragging, for example in the evacuation of settlement outposts. One could even bet that his fuse is shorter than Obama's.

It is true that Obama is an exciting candidate, more interesting than McCain. If elected, he will be our American friend, like most of his predecessors. If he is not elected, McCain will be that friend. Obama's greatest shortcoming when it comes to Israel is a strongly rooted opposition to the use of force - an unavoidable necessity for a country like Israel. His relative advantage is greater credit in Arab countries, at least at the start. Perhaps that credit will translate into trust, accompanied by a willingness to make progress. But there is room for suspicion that it will translate instead into manipulation of a president known for his naivete.

In the deceptive reality of the modern era, one can get confused - but Bush was not the president of Israel, and the same will be true of his successor. Therefore, the desire for a kind of "Obama will take care of it" is nothing more than a flight from reality, or from responsibility.

Reality means a sober, even if frustrating, recognition that with all his shortcomings (and his many advantages), it is not Bush who is to blame for Israel's situation. How convenient for left-wing activists - both American and Israeli - to have such a punching bag, who can be blamed for all the world's defects. But it was not Bush who urged Israel to embark on a flawed peace process, nor he who pushed it into peace conferences whose failures were commensurate with their pretensions. It was not he who convinced Iran to develop a nuclear bomb, nor he who oversaw Hezbollah's establishment. Yes, Bush made controversial decisions. He certainly made mistakes all along the way. But when he began his term in 2001, Israel was already on a slippery slope, with a raging intifada, and with Hezbollah sitting on the northern border.

Therefore, the flight from reality is also a flight from responsibility - in other words, the sober, even if frustrating, recognition that Israel's fate is the responsibility of Israel, its leadership and its public. Israel's leader is not being replaced for now - or if he is, then not with great joy. But there are already some who hope that replacing another leader, in another place, with another agenda (once again it's the economy, stupid), will make the difference. Obama, as talented and smart and friendly as he may be, will not be able to meet those expectations.