It's Obama's good intentions that pro-Israel activists fear

It's easy to be swept away by the flood of rumors and leaks emanating from the campaign headquarters of U.S. presidential hopefuls, cable news and Web sites. Sense and nonsense mix together into flights of fancy and worse. Has Hillary Clinton eyed the vice presidential ticket? After all, she did tell New York lawmakers she would accept the role. Will Barack Obama want her in that position? How does former U.S. president Jimmy Carter's decision to support Obama affect him, and will that support increase the suspicions of Jewish voters in Florida about the Democratic candidate?

Indeed, it is easy to be swept away, but it's worth stopping for an instant and rolling the name of the Democratic Party's apparent presidential candidate on the tongue. Obama is not just a candidate - he's the candidate, a candidate who is the son of a black man and a white woman. He will make his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. No campaign manager could have planned it better, none could have picked a more dramatic day.

Obama's victory is not surprising. The epic duel with Clinton gave everyone, including past and present Israeli officials dealing with the U.S., time to prepare. Until a few months ago, my notebook was full of quotes of Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry officials who five, four and even two months ago promised that Clinton will end up the victor. In recent weeks they've kept quiet and allowed the reality to sink in.

Some American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) members currently convening at its annual conference have already discussed the possibility of a "President Obama" come November. Elections are still far away, but such an outcome is not a wild bet. AIPAC's wily and experienced lobbyists predict the first year of an Obama presidency will be challenging for Israel not because he has bad intentions, but because they might be too good. Until then, Israel will unwillingly be at the heart of the storm of the presidential race. Thus, the AIPAC meeting this week centered on stopping Iran's nuclear program.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who addressed the conference, was the first to strike when he lashed out against Obama's intent to meet Iranian leaders without any stipulations. On Tuesday he was joined by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who detailed Iran's stubbornness and defended the Bush administration's stance which she said was also McCain's. The question isn't why we aren't talking to Iran, Rice said, but why isn't Iran talking to us?

Polls show that Obama's support for holding unconditional talks with Iran, though it may be wrong, is much more popular among U.S. voters. But Obama is much smarter than the electorate, and it is doubtful he will carry out all of his fanciful promises.

There are enough reasons to prefer McCain to Obama, or Clinton to Obama, regarding their intended policy toward Iran. But even those who oppose him should put aside their political preferences, fear of the future and their pros and cons list for just a moment. Now is the time to take in Obama's astounding political victory, if one can still feel awe for anything in this day and age. Against all the odds, the campaign broke down the boundaries of bias and race, and brought out voters to cast their ballots. They may be naive, but they are not indifferent. They may be a little childish, but they aren't cynical.

Once Obama's battle was over, one could only sit at the AIPAC conference on Tuesday night, listen to another speech by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and look on with envy at Americans celebrating Obama's victory in amassing delegates on the streets of St. Paul, Minnesota. As far as we know, Obama has never accepted envelopes filled with wads of money like Olmert allegedly has. Instead, the millions of voters who stand behind Obama have turned his campaign into something without parallel in U.S. history.