When we have political campaigns here, each party candidate strives to illustrate himself as the man of the people. One of the common ways to do that is to use the slogan which melts the hearts of the simpler folk: “Such and such is good for the Jews.” The motto originates from mid nineties, when Netaniyahu and Peres opposed each other in general elections, the former eventually taking the upper hand.

I often think that elections in Israel have too small of an effect on what really goes on and will continue to go on in the country. We are just too small of a state in a region torn by political interests of several empires (or ex-empires); we often end up as a US marionette — enjoying the occasional pat on the back in the form of verbal encouragement: “stalwart ally,” committed to security.” Some people go as far as calling Israel “the 51st state.”

Naturally, US presidential elections concern Israelis at least as seriously as local ones, and many categorize the American candidates according to aforementioned principle: is the candidate good for the Jews? It seems that the current trend is to prefer McCain, the representative of a party that proved its willingness to fight in the Middle East — arguably in Israel’s interests.

I disagree. I believe that Obama is good for the Jews — and certainly better than John McCain would appear to be. Republicans always seemed too eager to lend ear to Israeli lobby, a lobby that supports the Palestinian occupation and the illegal settlements. There are many reasons why; for the sake of the argument let’s assume it is the common goal of imperialism and conquest that brings the two together.

Obama, on the other hand, would appear to be more interested in solving the Palestinian conflict rather than perpetuating it. He would appear to realize that this is the just thing to do. And just things are good. They are good for the Jews, too.