Barack Obama is preparing to travel to Israel this week.

As the Democrat who would be president does so, guess which campaign is highlighting the details of Obama's over-the-top speech to the American Israeli Political Action Committee, in which the likely Democratic nominee adopted a more hardline stance regarding the Middle East peace process than that of the majority of Israelis?

Here's a hint: It's not Obama camp, nor even that of Republican John McCain.

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader has produced a devastating new analysis of Obama's speech in June to AIPAC's Washington conference.

Campaigners for Nader and his running-mate, former San Francisco Supervisor Matt Gonzalez, are arguing that Obama's acceptence of many of the same extreme positions embraced by McCain confirms the need for another choice.

Argues the Nader camp:

Why is it important to have Ralph Nader on the ballot in November?

Without him, the plight of the Palestinian people will not be an issue in this year's election.

How do we know?

Because Obama/McCain stand with the militaristic right wing AIPAC lobby in the United States.

Nader/Gonzalez stand with the Israeli/Palestinian peace movements.

You will be hearing a lot this weekend about Obama's upcoming trip to the Middle East...

It is... important to keep in mind that Obama is to the right of some Mossad Israeli hawks.

Even these Mossad Israeli hawks -- along with the majority of the Israeli people -- would open talks with Hamas.

Obama/McCain would not.

Nader/Gonzalez would reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Obama/McCain would not.

We stand with the courageous Israeli and Palestinian peace movements.

We stand against the AIPAC militarists.

At the very least, the Nader campaign's focus on the details of where the Democratic and Republican candidates actually stand with regard to the Israel/Palestine peace process argues for inclusion of independent and third-party candidates -- Nader, Green Cynthia McKinney and Libertarian Bob Barr -- in the fall debates.

Middle East peace is an issue. But it will only be honestly and fully debated if a variety of views -- including those of the majority of Israelis and the majority of Palestinians -- are represented by candidates who are willing to speak openly and bluntly about how to advance the process.

Comments (27)

1. While its clearly a shame that Obama is not interested in "change" in the horrible Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the real root cause of this problem in the US does not fall in the lap of any single politician. The problem is exclusively the fault of the Israel Lobby and its American Jewish supporters.

   Posted by Zero at 07/21/2008 @ 5:16pm

2. NADER: We stand with the courageous Israeli and Palestinian peace movements.

   I must have missed a lot! I've been reading this `progressive' (snickering) rag, The Nation, for almost 2 years, and I don't recall posts that highlighted or otherwise, gave moral support, urged petition-signing or whatnot, for some "Palestinian peace movements"? Wait, did such "movements" die with Arafat (even more snikering)?

   Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/21/2008 @ 5:22pm

3. We definitely need balance in the discussion about the conflict, and AIPAC is incapable of providing such balance.

   Obama, unlike McCain, will push Israel to deal honestly with the Palestinians once in office, but he cannot say that on the campaign trail because of AIPAC's continued financial influence over the Democratic party and the mainstream press.

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/21/2008 @ 6:20pm

4. I must have missed a lot! I've been reading this `progressive' (snickering) rag, The Nation, for almost 2 years, and I don't recall posts that highlighted or otherwise, gave moral support, urged petition-signing or whatnot, for some "Palestinian peace movements"? Wait, did such "movements" die with Arafat (even more snikering)? Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/21/2008 @ 5:22pm

   Nah. It's just any "Palestinian peace movement" is regarded as an anti-Israel movement. So you never hear about it because you get so distracted by the term anti-Israel. There are Palestinians who want a two-state solution which is pro-peace. But all of these people are considered by the pro-war crew to be anti-Israel not pro-peace.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/21/2008 @ 7:41pm

5. Glee2 wants 4 more years

   Glee2 is going to pull the lever for this:

   "I think it's serious. . . . It's a serious situation, but there's a lot of things we need to do. We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border."

   And while doing so, he'll exhibit this:

   (even more snikering) (even more snikering)

   Posted by winyahn at 07/21/2008 @ 7:48pm

6. OFF TOPIC.

   I'm just curious if there are alot of preteens that make up a sizable portion of the readership, as the ZWINKY and IMVU adds suggest (constantly). Very strange.

   Posted by Benchrest at 07/21/2008 @ 7:52pm

7. On topic.

   "Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader has produced a devastating new analysis of Obama's speech in June to AIPAC's Washington conference."

   posted by John Nichols on 07/21/2008 @ 5:03pm

   "devastating". That's a fairly strong word. Coming from Nader, a more appropriate word to describe his news analysis would be "negligible".

   Posted by Benchrest at 07/21/2008 @ 8:02pm

8. Posted by Benchrest at 07/21/2008 @ 8:02pm

   Actually, there was not much "analysis" at all - just an utter lack of understanding of the political reality in America and what it takes to get in a position of power to bring about real change.

   But coming from Nader, this should be no surprise.

   Nader's "analysis" comes up empty, in that he assumes without any basis in fact, that having Jerusalem as the an undivided capitol of Israel precludes it from also being the undivided capitol of Palestine.

   What does "undivided" mean? To those with selfish inclinations, it means that it is NOT shared. For those with selfless inclinations, it means UNITED.

   A closer analysis would discover that a "joint-capitol" shared by both Palestinians and Israelis is much more in keeping with the common religious significance of the city, as all of three of these Semitic religions teach that God cannot be owned by anyone or any particular country.

   I guess Nader missed that lesson as well!

   Posted by Metteyya at 07/21/2008 @ 8:14pm

9. I thought the Palestinian Peace movement was the time between the firing of rockets into Israel and the resupply from the peace loving Hellsboola...

   Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/21/2008 @ 8:22pm

10. Posted by Metteyya at 07/21/2008 @ 8:14pm

    no no no. That makes too much sense.

    Let's beat the hell out of the guy BEFORE he get's elected because he isn't doing everything everyone wants RIGHT NOW. That must be the key to success as several posters routinely imply. There IS a prize for second place, right?

    Posted by Benchrest at 07/21/2008 @ 8:25pm

11. Posted by JOMAMMA

    why do you hate your fellow humans so?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/21/2008 @ 8:25pm

12. AIPAC is a strong lobby for Israel, but it does not speak for all American Jews (or Israelis, for that matter). Many powerful politicians spoke at their conference, but many also spoke at Newroots Nation.

    Obama did have a problem with many Jewish voters who were receiving emails saying he was Muslim and anti-Israel and all the other scurrilous (I never used that word before, so if I spelled it wrong please forgive me) rumors that were being circulated. He had to make a strong pro-Israel statement to undo some of that. But I really think he will go back to the fair broker position we have had with Israel and Palestine before this administration.

    As for Nader, I wonder if he understands that we may actually win this time around, and be able to do something besides protest.

    Posted by ramara at 07/21/2008 @ 8:43pm

13. why do you hate your fellow humans so?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/21/2008 @ 8:25pm

    Come on FZ...weak at best. I don't hate fellow humans...I do, however, discriminate between my fellow humans and those who behead my other fellow humans as doing Gods will...I believe martyrdom is a mental disease.

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/21/2008 @ 8:46pm

14. Maaaasch,

    The ol' beheading boogeyman! Yeah, "libs" love beheadings!

    You, Michael Savage and McSame repeat the beheading / ultra evildoer theme over and over.

    Being unconscious of your hate does not = not having hate.

    But "hate radio" and you = SOS

    Posted by winyahn at 07/21/2008 @ 9:00pm

15. Posted by Benchrest at 07/21/2008 @ 8:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by Metteyya at 07/21/2008 @ 8:14pm

    no no no. That makes too much sense.

    Right, because we should trust in the virtue of someone who's being deliberately dishonest about his platform?

    Posted by brunowe at 07/21/2008 @ 9:28pm

16. Posted by brunowe at 07/21/2008 @ 9:28pm

    OK. And your preferred option would be what?

    It will be Obama or it will be McCain.

    You are highly intelligent and already aware of all possible alternatives. Dissent at this point serves no purpose, in my opinion only. The milk is spilled.

    Posted by Benchrest at 07/21/2008 @ 10:02pm

17. "I thought the Palestinian Peace movement was the time between the firing of rockets into Israel and the resupply from the peace loving Hellsboola..."

    Of course, anybody who actually follows the media knows it was considered a time of peace when the ratio of Palestinian deaths to Israeli was 1:22. When it got down to about 1:4, then suddenly the Palestinians were godawful; etc. ...simply because they were Palestinians. Ah, yes, the god loving crowd, getting pissed off when the death ratio narrows to where it is not quite an overt massacre.

    Posted by onthehelm at 07/21/2008 @ 10:25pm

18. Posted by winyahn at 07/21/2008 @ 9:00pm '

    Dismay and condemantion of Palestinian refusal at this point does not = hate my fellow humans

    to suggest so implies a comeplete misunderstanding of "math" and your fellow human.

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/21/2008 @ 11:07pm

19. ..refusal to accept Israel's existance...

    sorry, brain faster than fingers..

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 07/21/2008 @ 11:08pm

20. JOMAMMA, acurrate, truthful,concise, and most of all Leno worthy!

    My favorite moment was Arafat recieving the Nobel Peace Prize sharing headlines with fellow arabs (who call themselves palestinians) while they were busy murdering innocent Israeli civilians based on his commands! A golden moment for sure! I wonder how he is faring now in hell? (you know, muslim heaven)

    Posted by RedRiver_. at 07/22/2008 @ 12:31am

21. You are highly intelligent and already aware of all possible alternatives. Dissent at this point serves no purpose, in my opinion only. The milk is spilled.

    Posted by Benchrest at 07/21/2008 @ 10:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    On the contrary, dissent serves to keep Obama honest. Certainly the performance of the current Democratic congress must indicate that merely electing Democrats is insufficient; they must have their feet held to the fire.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/22/2008 @ 12:52am

22. they must have their feet held to the fire.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/22/2008 @ 12:52am

    withholding their paycheques may also work.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/22/2008 @ 01:11am

23. On the Palestinians or any issue....

    where has Nader been in the last 4 years?

    How many speeches on Israel/Palestine from when he closed up shop in November 2004....

    until his re-opening three months ago?

    Gimme a list.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 07/22/2008 @ 09:22am

24. On the contrary, dissent serves to keep Obama honest. Certainly the performance of the current Democratic congress must indicate that merely electing Democrats is insufficient; they must have their feet held to the fire.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/22/2008 @ 12:52am

    Dissent may also serve by contributing to his narrow defeat.

    Holding his feet to the fire after he is elected provides for a higher probability of a favorable outcome than doing it before he is elected.

    Posted by Benchrest at 07/22/2008 @ 11:04am

25. On the Palestinians or any issue.... where has Nader been in the last 4 years? How many speeches on Israel/Palestine from when he closed up shop in November 2004.... until his re-opening three months ago? Gimme a list. Posted by Maskdelta at 07/22/2008 @ 09:22am

    Nader only cares to speak when he want's to run for Presidency. He's like the naked man running through the room screaming right before you vote for prom king. He knows the stunt won't get him elected. But at least it gets him known.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 12:53pm

26. Holding his feet to the fire after he is elected provides for a higher probability of a favorable outcome than doing it before he is elected. Posted by Benchrest at 07/22/2008 @ 11:04am

    I have been saying this all along. It is the stupidity of Demo's that they always tear down their candidate BEFORE he gets elected. They are so concerned with him getting it right that they never stop to think that even if he gets it wrong he is more likely to get it closer to what you want than the Republican candidate is. So why tear him down before he is in office?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 12:56pm

27. So why tear him down before he is in office?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/22/2008 @ 12:56pm

    Ideological purity requires us to deep think our way to defeat. The KISS rule(keep it simple stupid) is too passe'.

    Posted by Benchrest at 07/23/2008 @ 12:15am