Barack Obama seemed to be making all the right noices, well, until he clinched the Democratic Party nomination. The speech given  before the AIPAC yesterday came as a huge surprise to me. I did not expect him to break the traditional frienship with Israel, but I did not expect him to sign on to the extreme right wing interpretation of Israeli-US relations. Obama was of course courting the powerful jewish American vote and we are all realistic or cynical enough to understand that the ocassion called for a strident reaffirmation of the traditional US policy. And given Sen John Mccain's carping on this issue, Senator Obama had to rachet up the rhetoric. But his policy statement is really alarming. Let me expalin why.

The road map to which the US is a party envisages a viable Palestenian state living in peace and security with Israel. Israel is one of the few countries that has not published its official boundries. Will Golan Heights be returned to Syria. Will Sheba Farms  be returned to Lebabon> These questions remain to be answered. Further, is Israel willing to withdraw to the 1967 boundry, the only solution that seems acceptable to Arab publoc opinion. Obama did not say a word about the contentious issues: instead he waxed eloquently about "tough diplomay" which he equated with statecraft. I think giving Israel a carte blanhe ibn the region, as Obama has proposed, wiill not help the cause of peace in the Middle East and it certainly will not help Israel. USA maust paly the role the Bismark played in the Congress of Berlin in 1877 in order to achieve peace.

The tough rhrtoric of Barack Obama, much tougher than John Maccain's, means that he is willing to give Israel veto power over its Arab neighnors. The road to peace, like apostle Paul's passes through Damascus. Obama seems to have forgotten that. To quote his own words "somewhre along the road to the nomination he has forgotten his own principles."

Iran and Iraq are different issues altogether. The mistake Bush made in Iraq was that he bought Paul Wolfowitz's line that the Middle East can be restructured with the removal of Saddam Hussein. We all know how foolish that assumption was and Iraq has become the singe most impoertant issue in this election. Barack Obama would be more realistic if he did not make tall claims about doing "everything in his power" to stop  Iran from getting the nuclear weapons. Is he sayinmg that he will nuke tTheran if Iran is close to acquing nuclear weapons. Is this a realistic policy. Rhetoric apart, we have come to expect statemenship from Barack Obama not Rambo like bombast. His "tough diplomacy" is not like Theofre Roosevelt's policy of walikg softly while carrying a big stick. Bluff and bluster have no palce in a post Iraq US foreigh policy.

I do agree with the argument that Israel's legitimate right to existence and security are non negotiable. However, I do not see how backing Israel's aggressive policy of what even the former US president Jimmy Carter has called "apartheid" will help in bringing about peace. Hamas is a foece to reckon with in the region like Hezbollah and it is naive to think that if USA does not negotiate with them, these forces will just disappear: take a long days journey into night.