USA Today’s editors, no defenders of the Iraq war itself, are frustrated with Barack Obama. They write:

Why then can’t Obama bring himself to acknowledge the surge worked better than he and other skeptics, including this page, thought it would? What does that stubbornness say about the kind of president he’d be? In recent comments, the Democratic presidential candidate has grudgingly conceded that the troops helped lessen the violence, but he has insisted that the surge was a dubious policy because it allowed the situation in Afghanistan to deteriorate and failed to produce political breakthroughs in Iraq. Even knowing the outcome, he told CBS News Tuesday, he still wouldn’t have supported the idea. That’s hard to fathom. Even if you believe that the invasion of Iraq was a grievous error — and it was — the U.S. should still make every effort to leave behind a stable situation. Obama seems stuck in the first part of that thought process, repeatedly proclaiming that he was right to oppose the war and disparaging worthwhile efforts to fix the mess it created. . .The great irony, of course, is that the success of the surge has made Obama’s plan to withdraw combat troops in 16 months far more plausible than when he proposed it. Another irony is that while Obama downplays the effectiveness of the surge in Iraq, he is urging a similar tactic now in Afghanistan. . . . Americans don’t expect their president to be right all the time. They do expect him to change course when he’s proved wrong.

This reminds us that despite the hoopla of this week the results of the trip mya in the end prove disastrous for Obama. Now unlike the 2004 debate in which George W. Bush performed poorly, but John Kerry let slip that America’s actions should pass the “international test.” It proved to be a mistake of significant proportion– confirming Kerry was an international elitist, who viewed himself as responsible to world opinion and unduly enamored of institutions like the U.N. which tend to spout anti-American tripe. The entire MSM missed the substantive point and the potential impact on average voters because they were carried away with Bush’s irritated demeanor and generally underwhelming performance.

The Left can meltdown all they like but that is the state of play and the position their favorite candidate has chosen (for now at least). I find it hard to believe that average voters will like a candidate who picked a losing strategy, won’t admit he’s wrong and is displeased we didn’t follow his advice. Obama has been running against a cartoon version of a president who won’t admit error and won’t change his ways. But Bush did adapt. Obama did not and still is sorry the surge was implemented. It is an unsustainable posture if he sticks with it. The Left is in meltdown because they suspect a coming gaffe of enormous proportions.

This morning, the International Olympic Committee banned Iraq from this year’s Games. A squabble over the composition of the Iraqi Olympic Committee means that seven athletes-two rowers, two sprinters, one archer, one weightlifter, and one judo competitor-will not be going to Beijing next month.

In May, the Iraqi government had dismissed members of the country’s committee over corruption and other charges. As a result, the IOC imposed the ban on the seven athletes because of what it called political interference in sports. Rule 28 of Chapter 4 of the charter of the international organization requires all national Olympic committees to be free from political influence.

I think that’s a great rule. So why hasn’t the IOC applied the same prohibition to China and banned Chinese athletes from the Beijing Games? In a China where everything is considered political-the nation’s collectivized leadership still adheres to Mao’s guiding principle of putting politics “in command” of all aspects of society-it is not possible to have national organizations independent of the will of the Communist Party. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the Party runs the Chinese Olympic Committee and BOCOG, the Beijing Organizing Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad, just as it runs every other official organization in the one-party state.

So please join me in thanking the International Olympic Committee for reminding us that only democracies have real political lives-and only they can be punished for breaking rules.

To add to your point, Jennifer, one of the first lessons the kids are hopefully taught on the first day of Arab World 101 is that you never take the public statements of Middle East leaders at face value. There are things said for western consumption, regional consumption, and domestic consumption. And then there is the the truth, which does occasionally coincide with public statements, but which is far more frequently than in western democracies spoken in private.

These thoughts come to mind after hearing about how King Abdullah of Jordan told Barack Obama that he would like the United States to pursue a more “even-handed” policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is, by Arab standards, a tremendously mild, even helpful, way to put it. But King Abdullah really isn’t interested in American even-handedness. What he actually cares about is the danger that Palestinian radicalism poses to his regime, specifically the threat of a Hamas takeover of the West Bank. Abdullah is all for even-handedness right up until the moment the IDF stops arresting the people who would like to turn Jordan into a recruitment resource, logistics hub, and staging area for attacks on Israel. Then he would panic.

Just when you think the Republican party cannot get more inept, its candidate less exciting and its “brand” any worse along come the Democrats to remind you that politics is graded on a curve. You only have to be better than the other guy. While Barack Obama is whooping it up in Europe, his party’s leaders are taking their troops over the cliff. The Wall Street Journal editors note:

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other liberal leaders on Capitol Hill are gripped by cold-sweat terror. If they permit a vote on offshore drilling, they know they will lose when Blue Dogs and oil-patch Democrats defect to the GOP position of increasing domestic energy production. So the last failsafe is to shut down Congress. . . She and Mr. Reid are cornered by substance. The upward pressure on oil prices is caused by rising world-wide consumption and limited growth in supplies. Yet at least 65% of America’s undiscovered, recoverable oil, and 40% of its natural gas, is hostage to the Congressional drilling moratorium. The Democratic leadership is trying to smother any awareness of their responsibility for high prices. They are also trying to quash a revolt among Democrats who realize that the country is still dependent on fossil fuels, no matter how loudly quasimystical environmentalists like Al Gore claim otherwise.

This is what is known in politics as a gift. The McCain team, if unable to make hay of this, is really beyond hope. This has all the component parts of a winning issue: the topic matters to voters, there is a gulf between the Washington insiders/Gore elites and average voters, McCain already has made headway, Obama has dug in on an unpopular position, and Obama is out of the country being feted by people paying $8 for a gallon of gas. And while McCain is at it he should remember a short, unattractive, gray man who pulled off an historic upset running against a Do-Nothing Congress.

The only downside to Matthew Yglesias’s demotion from his perch at the Atlantic to ThinkProgress, the blog of the Center for American Progress, is that his abject silliness will now be on display to a smaller audience. Take, for instance, this post yesterday, on Robert Novak’s recent car accident:

This isn’t the first time Novak’s gotten in trouble with criminal driving. Fortunately, the 66 year-old man Novak hit has only minor injuries, which means Novak will probably only see a minor penalty. And that’s too bad. The penalties for this stuff ought to be much stiffer. Morally speaking, what Novak was doing here is no better than walking down a crowded street with his handgun, firing off .22 rounds at random. “He’s not dead, that’s the main thing,” says Novak but that’s just a coincidence.

I hate, incidentally, that coverage of this is using the euphemism that Novak is known as an “aggressive” driver. He’s a criminal. Cars are large, heavy, fast-moving objects that share space with delicate flesh-and-blood human beings — piloting them in an illegal manner is serious wrongdoing.

I hold no brief for Robert Novak. But how is reckless “piloting” (put down the thesaurus, Matt) of a vehicle in any way comparable to “walking down a crowded street with [a] handgun, firing off .22 rounds at random?” And if aggressive driving qualifies Novak as a “sociopath,” then what, “morally speaking,” do causing and then leaving the scene of a fatal car accident make Ted Kennedy? I await Yglesias’s condemnation of the senior Senator from Massachusetts.

Eric Trager has returned to the States from a trip to Egypt, where he met with democracy advocates and their opponents, investigated media culture, and examined other aspects of contemporary Egyptian political life. This is the first in a series of posts on his trip there.

Among the plethora of traditional coffee shops throughout Cairo, a number of much more expensive, Starbucks-like chains have arisen in recent years. In addition to providing air-conditioning, cleaner amenities, and a greater variety of food and drink offerings, these chains invariably provide free wireless Internet service. For this reason, upon arriving in Egypt on the evening of July 2nd, my first stop was to the Cilantro location near the American University in Cairo, where I hoped to check my e-mail and call my wife via Skype. When I lived in Cairo during the 2006-2007 academic year, Cilantro had been a common destination for this purpose.

But when I arrived at Cilantro, I noticed a major change. Rather than simply turning on my computer and automatically connecting to the network, I now had to register my computer through MobiNil - one of Egypt’s leading telecommunications companies - by providing my e-mail address, as well as a secret access code from the back of a complimentary scratch-off card. Each access code was good for two hours of Internet use, after which I had to log in again using a new access code. As I made my way to similar coffee shops throughout Cairo during my stay, I found that all of them had adopted identical Internet policies, with their networks requiring users to register with MobiNil for two-hour increments of service.

As I soon found out, however, this was no coincidence. According to a source with a high-ranking contact at MobiNil, these coffee shops are suddenly regulating use of their networks as a consequence of governmental pressures. Apparently, in the aftermath of the regime’s arrest and torture of several dissident bloggers, Egyptian bloggers began using the open networks formerly available at these coffee shops to upload posts anonymously. As a handful of upscale Cairo coffee shops emerged as an unlikely frontline between the Egyptian government and its domestic opponents, the state’s security service located a new mechanism for tracking and stifling its web-based critics.

The takeaway is simple: even while it fails to provide its citizens with adequate health, education, and other key services, the Egyptian government is disturbingly agile when it comes to adapting new strategies for addressing new sources of opposition. Such is the skill set of a truly authoritarian regime.

The Left is in a meltdown over the accusation by the McCain camp that Barack Obama doesn’t care about losing a war. What Ann Althouse (h/t Glenn Reynolds) says is true: it’s fair to conclude Obama would rather lose in Iraq than sacrifice his netroot support since he says he still wishes, even after seeing the success of the surge, that we hadn’t done it. The alternative explanation is that Obama believes we miraculously would have reached the same result without additional American troops. Does anyone believe that?

People pay for it? This is the very same paper which is always outraged to learn that failing companies are still paying mega-salaries to incompetent executives.

Why is it so surprising that MSM outlets don’t carry the news? Heck, they didn’t carry the reversal of our fortunes in a war for months and months.

Spot the similarities between Colombia and Iraq: Improved security gives political institutions time to take root and increases the confidence of democratically elected officials while bold military action pays off. And you risk slipping back into chaos if you lift security-enhancing efforts before the country “has control of its borders, and police departments, municipal governments and other government services are firmly established in all areas.” Engaging in direct talks with the sponsors of the terrorists wasn’t the key, strangely enough.

“Vague” doesn’t begin to describe it.

Really, what reason (other than to kowtow to Big Labor) is there for opposing the Colombia Free Trade Agreement? If ever there was a test as to whether a candidate can shove a special interest group aside in the name of national security and basic fair play, this is it.

Didn’t think it was possible for the MSM to look more immature, unserious, and frenzied than they have been covering the Obama Travels the Globe? Look here.

It’s not a convincing defense of Obama’s pro-Israel bona fides to say he sounds like Condi Rice. Really, people need to keep up.

Imagine if George W. Bush said something this illogical and inarticulate: “So the point that I was making at the time was that the political dynamic was the driving force between that sectarian violence. And we could try to keep a lid on it, but if these underlining dynamic continued to bubble up and explode the way they were, then we would be in a difficult situation. I am glad that in fact those political dynamic shifted at the same time that our troops did outstanding work.” And isn’t it amazing how the “political dynamic” changed at the very same time our troops were doing an outstanding job? Like magic.

McCain’s take is in this must-read interview. The nub: “[T]he point is that we are responsible for our records. I was right; Senator Obama was wrong. So, therefore, I think that I have more credibility on what the future should be, as opposed to Senator Obama, who, if he would’ve had his way, we would be very likely be involved in a wider war today if we’d have done what he wanted to do.” What about this isn’t correct?

The serial resume padder strikes again! For a guy who says Washington experience isn’t important he sure invents a lot of Washington experience.

What in the world gives Barack Obama the sense that the “window of opportunity” is open at all? Wasn’t that the mistake Dennis Ross acknowledged in Bill Clinton’s final push for a peace agreement — misinterpreting the readiness and ability of Israel’s negotiating “partner”? Are we to believe the Palestinians (Abbas? Hamas? Who are we even talking about now?) are more ready now to make a deal?

Ehud Olmert shared tips with Barack Obama about the peace process. Beyond irony. Beyond belief. (”First you manage not to win a war. Then you reward venal behavior with great symbolic steps like a prisoner exchange.”) Come to think of it, I’m sure they got along just fine. Let’s hope Olmert isn’t giving him tips about clean government.

Yeah, it really adds to the credibility of the “we’re not going over the top” argument when he also defends putting the most vociforous Obama fans in “straight news” roles. Puleez.

I think this headline needs updating.

Aside from getting his facts wrong, what is Wesley Clark doing still “surrogating” — hasn’t he done enough damage?

Ross Douthat mulls:

I’d really like to know which genius on the Obama campaign thought it would be a good idea to have their candidate conduct a major campaign rally in Europe with three months to go till the election and their candidate, despite an incredibly favorable climate and a fumbling opponent, still clinging to a 2-4 point lead in the polls?. . . But photo ops are one thing, Beatlemania-style rallies are quite another - and having your candidate appear in front of tens of thousands of adoring European fans when your campaign’s biggest problem, as John Judis puts it today, is that “Obama remains the ‘mysterious stranger’ rather than the ‘American Adam’ to too many voters who are put off rather than attracted by his race and exotic background” strikes me as the height of political folly.

As to the first point, I think it quite obvious after the faux seal, the screaming domestic mob scenes complete with fainting Obama gals, the planned ten-year presidency, and all the other arrogance indicators, that the “genius” is the Great Obama himself. Either that, or he’s a powerless pawn in the greatest scheme ever in American politics to create (without the candidate’s consent) a political cult. America is just too small for Him, and the natural extension of his egomania is to go international.

As to the second, there is always the danger that some voters will be turned off by the love-fest with European throngs: bragging about international popularity didn’t get John Kerry very far. (John McCain is obviously trying to play off this with his domestic “Berlin” radio blitz.) I find it hard to figure out which voters are going to be moved by a massive show of affection by Germans for Obama. Voters who think he’s “not one of us” are going to be irked and the folks who are genuinely concerned about foreign policy smarts and credentials aren’t necessarily going to be wowed by a mass rally.

So who exactly is this supposed to grab? The media’s attention, of course. But I think he already has that constituency sewn up.

Here is a good example of the McCain team’s being not quite certain about how to play an issue. Barack Obama is clearly lying when he said he didn’t previously promise unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad and other state terror sponsors. Ask Hillary Clinton if you doubt it. But the media shrugs and many people say, “Well, he’s not saying that any more.” So why is this important, or why should the McCain team raise it? For many reasons.

#1: He doesn’t tell the truth. His lack of credibility on this and matters small and large (e.g he never heard Wright’s hate speech, he played a major role in immigration, he always thought the surge would work) reveal him to be, at the very least, not offering anything resembling New Politics and, at worst, entirely untrustworthy.

#2: All his bouncing around is evidence of inexperience. He will confound our allies and embolden our foes because he says silly things or doesn’t understand what he is saying or doesn’t realize the import of his words.

#3: It reveals that he is weak and subject to persuasion by whichever group he is in front of at that moment. Before the netroots, unconditional talks sounded good, but no longer. In front of AIPAC “Undivided Jerusalem” sounded good, but not when trying to play the “honest broker” with the Arabs.

#4 (which foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann suggested on the media call today): Obama is stubborn and won’t admit when he makes an error. This is the Bush-redux argument. (The “You don’t want another bullheaded president” argument.)

Maybe it’s all of these things. But rather that simply cry “flip-flopper,” the McCain camp would do better to explain and then hammer home why these examples — and there are lots of them — suggest some deeper reason to believe Obama is unfit for the presidency. (And it likely will have to come in a more promient forum than telephone media calls.)

My op-ed in the Washington Post, “Behind Maliki’s Games,” is causing a predictable tizzy in some corners of the leftist blogosphere. (See, for instance, this and this and this.) I would like to reply briefly to a couple of the points raised.

First, the bloggers ask, how can I possibly claim that “most Iraqis realize that the gains of the surge are fragile and could be undone by a too-rapid departure of U.S. forces”? Aren’t I aware of a March poll by the BBC, ABC, and other Western news organizations which found, as one blogger notes, “Just four percent of Iraqis said they had ‘a great deal of confidence’ in U.S. occupation forces, compared to 46 percent who said they had no confidence at all. 72 percent strongly or somewhat oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq.”

I am well aware of that poll, and I have cited before another of its findings–namely that only 38% of Iraqis think that coalition forces should leave right away. Of those surveyed, fully 62% think that U.S. forces need to stay until security conditions improve. “Moreover,” the poll summary finds, “despite their antipathy, big majorities see a continued role for the United States. From two-thirds to 80 percent of Iraqis support future U.S. efforts conducting security operations against al Qaeda or foreign jihadis in Iraq; providing military training, weapons and reconstruction aid; and assisting in security vis-à-vis Iran and Turkey.”

So, yes, it’s true that Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition forces–in theory. But they don’t want them to leave until the country is more secure than it is at the moment. That is, in essence, the public sentiment to which Prime Minister Maliki is catering with his statements that U.S. combat troops (though not all troops) could leave by 2010. That is far from a hard and fast timetable of the sort that Senator Obama favors. In fact, Maliki’s spokesman has been clear that the prime minister opposes a set schedule for withdrawals because he knows that conditions may not allow it.

This brings me to the other point raised by the bloggers–their claim that by casting doubt on whether U.S. troops can really be pulled out by 2010 I am infringing on Iraqi sovereignty. Really. (See, e.g., this post.) This, in spite of the fact that I actually wrote, “Of course, if the Iraqi government tells us to leave, we will have to leave.” As that sentence should make clear, I am all in favor of respecting the sovereign decisions of the Iraqi government.

But in this case the government hasn’t made any such decision. I stress the word “government” because this whole conversation has been driven by shifting and ambiguous statements from a prime minister who is the leader of a small minority party in a large coalition government. Maliki has been gaining strength with his courageous decision to take on the Shiite militias, but the fact remains that his word is not law. This isn’t, mercifully, the Iraq of Saddam Hussein. This is a parliamentary democracy where, in order to make big decisions, the prime ministers needs to convince his fellow cabinet ministers and parliamentarians.

I see little evidence that Maliki has brought other parties on board to demand a U.S. withdrawal by 2010. In fact, from what I hear other Iraqi parties are displeased with his loose talk. There was a hint of this in an article in the New York Times yesterday which reported the disquiet of one of Iraq’s vice presidents, Tariq Hashimi, leader of the largest Sunni party: “The talk of a strict timetable appeared to worry Mr. Hashimi. Sunni Muslims fear that a rapid withdrawal would leave them vulnerable to Shiite Muslim efforts to further diminish their power. Rather, he said the emphasis should be on the Iraqi army’s readiness.”

Obama heard the same message from tribal leaders of the Awakening council in Anbar Province. According to Reuters, “Obama said that Anbar tribal leaders and the province’s governor had expressed concern about a potential ‘precipitous drawdown’ of U.S. troops.”

So I am all in favor of listening to the voice of a newly democratic Iraq. But don’t oversimplify what that voice-or rather cacophony of voices-is saying.

Despite the NY Times’ best efforts, I’ve finally found a reason to like Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY).

Yes, the overwhelming tone of the media coverage, most especially on TV, is gushingly pro-Obama. But there are rays of reality which poke through. That is especially true in print coverage, but even on TV there are exceptions to Obama-mania. A CNN correspondent reminds viewers that Obama’s scheme for withdrawing a brigade a month is likely a nonstarter. And Joe Scarborough gets Harold Ford to admit that the notion that the Sunni awakening was somehow unrelated to the surge is absurd.

As Scarborough makes clear, what is so maddening about the coverage is that the news anchors and reporters who repeat Obama’s mantras uncritically and who marvel at the lovely photos do know better. (I have no doubt that if a Republican candidate was repeating such gibberish the headlines would be “GOP Candidate Out Of Touch.”) It is downright silly to claim the Anbar awakening happened by magic on its own or that Iraq would be anything other than a chaotic killing zone without the surge.

And what is McCain to do about this? You can only complain and ridicule the press so much. It would seem that a singular focus on Obama’s apparent regret that we invested time, money, and lives in a successful surge is the way to go. There is plenty of material to work with, some incredulous media to cultivate on the topic and a public predisposed to dislike candidates who apologize for America’s success. Whether one considers the before/after surge dichotomy or what Iraq and the Middle East would look like if we hadn’t succeeded (starting with the recognition that all the Iraqi leaders Obama met with would likely be dead or powerless), the question remains why Obama even now prefers the “without surge” scenerio.

After the hoopla subsides, that question will remain. And McCain is not without some receptive outlets through which he can make his case.

At the age of 22, in 1948, Robert F. Kennedy filed dispatches from Israel for the Boston Post, a long-defunct newspaper. Lenny Ben-David has found them and begun a blog featuring them. They are, it must be said, remarkable. Kennedy wrote very well, it turns out, and the pieces offer a vivid portrait of a moment in time. Of the Palestinian Arabs, he writes,, “They are willing to let the Jews remain as peaceful citizens subject to the rule of the Arab majority just as the Arabs are doing in such great number in Egypt and the Levant states, but they are determined that a separate Jewish state will be attacked and attacked until it is finally cut out like an unhealthy abscess.”

And of the Jews of Palestine:

Under the supposition that, at the finish of the mandate, this was to be their national state, [the Jews] went to work. They set up laboratories where world-famous scientists could study and analyze soils and crops. The combination of arduous labor and almost unlimited funds from the United States changed what was once arid desert into flourishing orange groves. Soils had to be washed of salt, day after day, year after year, before crops could be planted. One can see this work going on in lesser or more advanced stages wherever there are Jewish settlements in Palestine. From a small village of a few thousand inhabitants, Tel Aviv has grown into a most impressive modern metropolis of over 200,000. They have truly done much with what all agree was very little.

The Jews point with pride to the fact that over 500,000 Arabs in the 12 years between 1932 and 1944, came into Palestine to take advantage of living conditions existing in no other Arab state. This is the only country in the Near and Middle East where an Arab middle class is in existence.The Jews point out that they have always taken a passive part in the frequent revolutions that have racked the country, because of the understanding that they would eventually be set free from British mandateship. They wished to do nothing to impair this expected action. During the second World War they sent numerous volunteer Jewish brigades which fought commendably with the British in Italy. In addition to that, many Palestinian Jews fought as volunteers with Allied troops throughout the world and still others were dropped by parachute into German-held territory as espionage agents. They were perhaps doing no more than their duty, but they did their duty well.

The Jews feel that promise after promise to them has been broken. They can quote freely, for example, from speech after speech of Labor Party leaders in the election campaign prior to the victory of the Labor Party in England, to attest to the fact that one need not even refer back to the controversial Balfour declaration to learn Britain’s attitude and promises toward a Jews state was to be one of the first acts of the Labor government if it were put into power.

Given the anti-Semitic views of Kennedy’s father Joseph, RFK’s independent cast of thought at so young an age is especially noteworthy.

David Aaronovitch, one of Britain’s most perceptive commentators, had a lucid piece in the Times of London yesterday dispelling several dearly-held notions of the Left commentariat. The first myth is that

on the morning of September 12, 2001, George W. and America enjoyed the sympathy of the world. This comradeship was destroyed, in a uniquely cavalier (or should we say cowboyish) fashion, through the belligerence, the carelessness, the ideological fixity and the rapacity of that amorphous and useful category of American flawed thinker, the neoconservative. They just threw it away.

The corollary to this explanation of global attitudes towards America, of course, is that the junior senator from Illinois will be able to reverse all of the low poll numbers:

But there isn’t anything that can’t be fixed with a sprinkling of genuine fairy dust. What Bush lost, Obama can find. Where the Texan swaggered, the Chicagoan can glide. Emotional literacy will replace flat iteration, persuasion will supplant force as the preferred means of achieving what needs to be achieved, empathy will trump narcissism.

Aaronovitch argues convincingly that anti-Americanism is a persistent force in the world, due to our economic and cultural power, and that a significant segment of the planet’s people will always tell pollsters they disapprove of this or that American policy or this or that American leader. It’s connected to “runaway modernity,” with America at the forefront. Aaronovitch explains: “So Barack Obama, en fête around the world, will one day learn that there is no magical cure for the envy of others.”

Anyways, this is Aaronovitch at his finest, and the entire piece is well worth a read.

Barack Obama has repeatedly expressed puzzlement at how American Jews could be wary of him. At various shuls and before AIPAC he has brought up the email/whispering campaign, his middle name and even the comments of other African-Americans to explain why Jews haven’t all been smitten by the Great Man. The tone, not just from him, but from his blogoshpere friends has often been one of “But how can it be that they doubt him?” Well, now there are plenty of stories explaining why and how Israelis are wary of him. Ah, so maybe this is what’s upsetting all the American Jews?!

As we noted here, the Times writes of Obama’s comments yesterday:

Talking to reporters in Jordan yesterday, Mr Obama made remarks that are likely to unsettle his Israeli hosts. Although he reiterated his unflinching support for Israel, he went out of his way to highlight the economic and political struggle of the Palestinians, saying: “What I think can change is the ability of the United States government and a United States president . . . to be concerned and recognise the legitimate difficulties that the Palestinian people are experiencing right now.” Israelis are particularly suspicious of Mr Obama because of his willingness to talk to Iran’s leadership, and a perception that he is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Unlike a visit to the region by his Republican rival John McCain in May, the Democrat will not only hold meetings in Jerusalem, but will travel to the West Bank city of Ramallah to talk with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, and Salam Fayyad, the Prime Minister. Mr Obama is likely to seek to clarify his declaration last month, made in a speech to a powerful Jewish-American lobby group, that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel . The remark appeared to pre-judge final status talks, and went even further than current policy under the Bush Administration. He then backtracked, calling it “poor phrasing”.

And wouldn’t you know, in Israel they make a connection between Iraq, Iran and their own well-being. The Wall Street Journal explains:

The judgments I’ve made over the past two years matched up with the realities on the ground,” Sen. Obama told reporters in the Jordanian capital. “That’s where U.S. foreign policy has to go.”But Israelis see Iran’s nuclear program as a threat to the existence of their state, especially given the rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And Israelis strongly backed the Bush administration’s campaign to oust former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who was considered the Arab world’s fiercest foe of the Jewish state.”People here have a gut feeling about who is going to be tougher on Israel’s enemies, and the answer is John McCain,” says Uri Dromi, a political analyst and commentator in Israel. . . .The concern doesn’t seem partisan, but rather specific to Sen. Obama. Before she suspended her campaign, fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton was wildly popular with Israelis.

And then there is this, which is simply is too good to be excerpted and explains why so many Israelis are afraid Obama isn’t receiving or understanding the message terrorists are sending even on the occasion of his trip.

The concerns are not easily allayed for those both in Israel and at home because it goes to the heart of how Obama sees the U.S. in the world and how he has responded in war. When a politician doesn’t wish to fulfill our obligations in a war (i.e. Iraq) — in part because of the fear it has made the U.S. unpopular in the world — and when he parrots the myths about poverty creating terror, that is going to make some people nervous. When he tells both sides of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict what he imagines they might want to hear, when he receives advice from those who believe either (or both) that unconditional engagement with Hamas is a good idea or that Israel monopolizes too much of our attention and affections, and when he shushes Hillary Clinton for warning Iran about nuking Israel (and gives as a justification the “sympathy” such comments might engender in the UN, ground zero for world Israel bashing) that makes them even more nervous. And the denials — really base lying — that he never changed his mind on “undivided Israel” and always opposed Palestinian elections with Hamas on the ballot give these wary people all the more reason to suspect that Obama is trying to pull a fast one.

These concerns stem directly from Obama’s world view and a fundamental concern, that in the race for international popularity, Israel will get lost in the shuffle. And more personally, it comes from the perception that Obama is simply not savvy enough to spot, or tough enough to combat, the enemies of Israel and the U.S. Maybe a trip to Yad Vashem and the Kotel can solve all that. (Although it’s best not to duck questions about preventing another Holocaust at Yad Vashem.) But I suspect the very people who have these concerns are the last ones to be swayed by pretty trip pictures.