Where I differ from Mr. Rosenberg and his cohorts is that I am firmly behind the Bill Clinton--Dennis Ross realistic approach to a two-state solution, not the George H.W. Bush-James Baker-Jimmy Carter moralizing and naive approach, and I am confident that the course I favor will be the one that President Obama, with the help of Vice President Biden and Ambassador Ross, will adopt. I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of liberal Democrats in both the House and Senate will continue to advocate the approach I favor--no matter how many candidates J Street endorses. And Mr. Rosenberg, before you quote me too widely, keep in mind that is what I meant by my friends and I continuing to control how Congress views Israel.

name

You know and I know that the reason J Street can claim so many Democrats sought its endorsement was because all they had to do was say they supported vigorous diplomacy to achieve a two-state solution and the letter sponsored by Rep. Ackerman--a down the line AIPAC man--calling for targeted economic aid to the Palestinian Authority. AIPAC does not oppose either one. You know and I know--but your devotees here don't-- that if J Street ever adopts a position that the U.S. should suspend aid or reduce diplomatic backing if the Government of Israel does not do what the State Dept. demands, or that the U.S. should declare the military option with Iran is off the table, that not a single one of the Democrats who sought J Street's endorsement this year will be seen within 100 miles of it.

So please try to leaven your exuberance with reality--yes, J Street members support more diplomacy with Palestinians and Iran and Syria than about half of AIPAC members would support, but for the most part J Street is not about to make life very tough for liberal Democrats to accept a few thousand dollars from it. Those liberal Democrats are not going to pressure either Livni or Bibi to do anything, and your readers should know that.

Of course, there will arise tactical disagreements between President Obama and the democratically elected leader of the State of Israel. There were disagreements, believe it or not, between Sharon and later Olmert and George W. Bush. But when those occur, I am confident Barack Obama will know how to resolve those without public scolding and diplomatic ineptness. That's why I supported him.

Dennis Ross will not do what he is told to do unless he agrees with that policy, he will be central to formulating that policy, and there is absolutely no evidence that he told Baker and Bush to threaten the Israelis in 1991. There is plenty of evidence, including his books and his interviews on Charlie Rose, that he does not agree that your brand of diplomacy--i.e. prescribe the terms of a settlement and tell Israel to take it or else-- will be effective in persuading a weak Israeli Government to take calulated risks for peace.

Michelle Obama is an accomplished woman and will make a great First Lady, but she's not going to decide I-P policy. Barack Obama will, aided by former Ambassador Ross who was Bill Clinton's Mideast expert and who did infinitely more than anyone posting here to try to fashion a lasting two-state solution.

I don't support peace-at-any price Meretz or their American enableers like you, Levy, Miller and J Street.

Of course, AIPAC did not get to be the 800 pound gorilla it is by being stupid. It understood that Obama was likely to win and that going all-out for Hillary or McCain would harm the organization."--M.J. Rosenberg

Thank you, Mr. Rosenberg. On that, you are absolutely right.

"With the exception of one or two House members from Brooklyn and Queens, no Democrat is going to oppose Obama should he decide to push hard for peace."

It crucially depends on what you mean by "push hard for peace". Sending Bill Clinton and Obama's key I-P advisor, Dennis Ross, to the region on January 21 with a mandate to renew the Taba offer will receive virtually unanimous support. Leaking anti-Israel jibes, or, even worse, emulating James Baker's or Andrew Young's public scolding of the Israeli government, however, will surely cause erstwhile allies of Obama like Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer to publicly complain.

I supported Barack Obama, in part, because I was impressed with his intelligence. He is far, far too smart--not to mention the important advice he'll get from Joe Biden--to do what you and Levy and Aaron Miller want: i.e. try to impose a settlement or threaten Israel when its Government refuses to make concessions it deems dangerous.

I'm strongly for Obama, but this is really a non-story. Did you ask Americans for Peace Now to comment on this? If so, what did they say? If not, why not?

So I prefer to spend my limited time focusing on dispelling the anti-Israel and anti-AIPAC canards that infect Mr. Rosenberg's and Mr. Levy's and Ms. Mort's blogs.

Oh, of course, they only "get it" because they're abject hypocrites afraid of losing campaign dough. Mr. Rosenberg, for the last time: name ONE liberal Democratic Congressman or Senator whose support for AIPAC's positions is insincere and motivated solely out of fear of losing campaign contributions. You have never done it, and you won't now because you can't

Now what exactly am I deluded about?

Still, I have to be sceptical of that figure from Gallup's recent poll, only because I am not at all certain that Orthodox Jews--from whom McCain gets the most support--respond to polls to the same extent as non-orthodox Jews, especially as to phone surveys on Friday nights and Saturdays. I haven't seen any pieces by professional pollsters on this, but I would be very suprised if Orthodox and Hasidic Jews, who historically have had extremely high rates of voting, participate in polls and surveys in the same proportion as non-Orthodox and non-Hasidic Jews.