Boy this is a brave post. You can't even talk about Israel as a political entity without getting accused of anti-semitism.

But I guess I'll jump in - Israel does not exist in a vacuum and the Israelis' concerns are not the only legitimate concerns in the Middle East.

It's been 60 years since this ancient goddamn feud fired up again and I think most Americans are dead sick of it.

It seems to be unresolvable.

9/11 9/11 9/11!!!

Since AIPAC and Israel relations and foreign policy are the topic, I'd like to introduce you to J Street, for those unacquainted, it is a new progressive pro-Israel organization meant to counter-balance the neoconservative AIPAC. Check it out!:

http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/search?q=J+Street

i understand why Obama can't be more forceful on this issue, but i really wish the greater progressive movement would stop being so chickenshit about discussing it. we've seemed to learn that trying to out-macho Republicans on our greater foreign policy isn't feasible or in the country's interests; so why are we still doing it on Israel?

there needs to be a serious talk about our relationship with Israel in this country's political forum, but thus far the AIPAC has largely managed to prevent that from happening by labeling those who decry some of the more deplorable Israeli offenses antisemitic. i wish Obama was able to go in and take on this problem as honestly as he does nearly everything else, but i know that in his position that isn't possible. yet it's still a missed opportunity and wasted time.

There has to be some sort of rational way to deal with the issues of the Middle East, namely making sure that the Israelis feel secure, and that the Palestinians achieve a viable state. However, given the influence of AIPAC and the Likud wing of the GOP, and adding in Hamas, Hezbollah, ad Al Qaeda, it seems that achieving peace because more and more remote.

Bush's Knesset appearance and statement seems to undercut that. The saber rattling by his administration regarding Iran also seems to undercut that.

Hamas sending in rockets or Ahmadinejad calling Israel a "stinking corpse" doesn't help.

I've come to the conclusion that the "troubles," to borrow a euphemism from our Irish friends, isn't about the War of 1948 or the Palestinians getting justice. No, it has become a race war between two people who are basically cousins, as a semitic people.

And you know how race wars or racial politics are (look at the American people today. It's a zero sum game where if blacks get X that means whites lose Z.)

So, if Obama goes before AIPAC, I expect that he'll engage in suck-up politics to the Israeli lobby, which is very influential in American politics. But he'll probably wind up telling people what they want to hear rather than want they need to know. I suspect that he'll probably undercut any potential to be a president who'll be an honest broker, trying to make both parties sit down and work this thing out.

This is the constant "wound," "sore" that al Qaeda uses to legitimize itself.

The reason why blacks have to prove they are "loyal" to Israel is due to the fallout that happened during the civil rights era when SNCC and other militant orgs. of that era made an alignment between the Palestinian people and blacks. Blacks, so the argument went, were a third world, colonized people in the belly of the beast.

Jews, who have been greater supporters of the civil rights movement, saw that as a stab in the back. This is beginning of neo-conservatism and the reassessment by some Jewish Americans of their relationship blacks, and other issues. Some people have argued this this when Jews, always the "other," became "white."

Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan didn't help matters when the former ran in 1984 and made statements about NYC being "Hymie town" and then Farrakhan's generous and thoughtful remarks about Judaism and Adolf Hilter.

Then throw in the 1968 [?] New York City school strike/issue in Brownsville and the charges and countercharges of racism and antisemitism. Oh, yes, I do believe that Jackson even hugged Arafat (a handshake would have been fine).

When H. Carl McCall, a black man, ran for governor of NY state, he made a trip to Israel and was photographed shooting on an Israeli target range. Talk about pandering...

Oh, it doesn't help that BHO has some muslim lineage.

So, this is what we have to deal with: a mess that just keeps getting nastier and nastier.

The track to push back is to point out that negotiating with your enemies has proven to be in Israel, the region, and the world's best interest. Egypt and Jordan were both enemies of Israel at one time, and sitting down and hammering out differences through negotiation, diplomacy and painful sacrifices on both sides have produced peace agreements which have held fast since they were agreed to.

You cannot agree to anything if you are not willing to talk.

Only fools and cowards are afraid to talk. At the height of the cold war, with tens of thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at us, Presidents of both parties still talked to our adversaries. Why are Bush and McCain afraid of talking to non nuclear adversaries?

The United States, nor Israel should ever be afraid to talk to our adversaries, an Obama presidency will never be too afraid to talk and explore ways to end hostilities and confrontation.

Come on, sweetie.

No one has done more for AIPAC than Barack Obama.

What I don't understand is why, since AIPAC doesn't endorse political candidates, the candidates are addressing AIPAC.

You're right, and isn't it too bad that 60 years ago--instead of rejecting partition and attacking Israel in the first hour of its existence as a State--Jordan had agreed to a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Egypt had agreed to have Gaza incorporated in it.