That said, I attended a pro-Israel rally on the National Mall a few years ago where several political candidates spoke, including Robert Erlich (then running for a second term as Maryland governor) and Ben Cardin (then running for the Senate seat being vacated by Paul Sarbanes). Another speaker–John Hagee, the head of CUFI. Also someone from B’nei Elim, which is pretty much a reincarnation of Meir Kahane’s Jewish Defense League.

It was an interesting rally.

So in assessing candidates, especially one like Obama who has little track record in foreign policy and doesn’t seem to know a lot about it, it’s worth asking what his instincts are and who is advising him.

His instincts are poor–of all the people who are oppressed in the world, his mind alit first on the Palestinians, for example. And the people advising him are not pro-Israel. On the other hand, I grant that Sarah Palin knows even less than Obama does, but her advisors seem to be pretty good and she has an Israeli flag in her office.

You never know, but if there were a crunch I’d rather have Palin there than Obama, and I think we can agree that McCain has a track record not only on Israel but on foreign policy generally. Not much question about his instincts.

Now, I stand next to few people in my disdain and contempt for that deceitful group, but how interesting…a speaker at Palin’s church is a reason to find her bad for Jews.

Does this mean that it is now legitimate to inquire into who speaks at a candidate’s church? I’m all for that. Let’s find out who has spoken in the last year at McCain’s church, and Biden’s, and Obama’s.

This is really disgraceful.

The rally flap grabbed the headlines, but the bigger policy setback for Jewish groups came in the Senate.

For months, Democrats have been trying to push through two bills passed overwhelmingly last year in the U.S. House of Representatives. One would lock up loopholes that allow foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies to deal with Iran, shut down dealings with any company that conducted substantial business with Iran’s energy sector and cut off Iran’s banking system from any U.S.-controlled markets. The other, authored by Obama, would enable pension plans to disinvest from Iran by protecting them from investor lawsuits and publishing a list of companies that deal with Iran.

Republicans had pushed back against the bills for a variety of reasons. The Bush White House jealously guards its foreign policy prerogatives and saw both bills as undercutting delicate negotiations with European nations, Russia and China to coordinate Iran’s isolation; U.S. business interests see the sanctions as a gift to overseas companies; and, according to pro-Israel insiders, Republicans did not want to hand Obama an election-year legislative victory, especially as they try to depict him as lacking experience.

Pro-Israel lobbyists, led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, wore down the objections, and by this week Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), a close ally of Obama, had wrapped both bills into an amendment to be attached to the Defense Authorization Bill, which must pass this congressional term. Dodd had virtual wall-to-wall backing for the legislation, as well as a Republican co-sponsor, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.).

Bush still threatened a veto.

“The bills would also serve, if enacted, to divide the multilateral coalition that has come together to oppose Iran’s nuclear programs, by requiring the Administration to submit ‘blacklists’ of foreign companies investing in Iran’s energy sector,” said a Sept. 9 statement from the Office of Management and Budget, an arm of the executive branch.

Still, the legislation was guaranteed a veto-proof majority in the Senate and the House – a victory that would have handed Obama a significant boost just weeks before election day.

Then, Wednesday night, Republicans added several more last-minute amendments to the package, which Democrats saw as a delaying tactic and rejected. In retaliation, Republicans blocked all amendments to the bill, including the one on Iran.

Dodd, undeterred, took the Iran sanctions legislation to the Senate floor in a last-minute plea to allow his Iran amendment, if not the 100 or so others to which both sides had agreed.

“This is the one opportunity for this body to embrace an economic sanctions proposal which would give us tremendous leverage in our efforts to bring Iran to “negotiations to end its weapons program, Dodd said. “To lose that opportunity would be a serious loss of opportunity for this country.”

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), who is retiring at year’s end and thus faces no political repercussions, rose to exercise his prerogative to block the amendment. He made sure to say he supported the amendment, leaving unanswered the question of why he killed it.

“I, personally, approved of putting in the amendment,” Warner said in a disavowal of his own action — unusual even under the Senate’s arcane traditions. “It had been my hope, I say it is now no longer my hope, my disappointment, that that could not be achieved.”

The Obama campaign cried foul.

“John McCain had a real opportunity today to stand up for Israel’s security, but he refused to stand up to his own party,” it said within hours of Warner’s block. “Instead of supporting Barack Obama’s legislation to pressure Iran by accelerating state and local divestment initiatives, John McCain ignored the very real threat to Israel and took a pass. We cannot afford four more years of this kind of failed judgment that has left Israel endangered and America less secure.”

When asked about the claim that the GOP was sinking the bill for political purposes, McCain’s campaign said it would not accept criticism on the sanctions front, noting that the GOP nominee long had advocated the strategy, if not the specific legislation in question.

Left unexplained was why McCain, whose indeed has vociferously backed sanctions, did not support Dodd’s amendment.

Dodd blamed politics.

“Clearly, the idea of giving Barack Obama credit for having authored a critical section of the amendment was on the minds of some,” he told JTA. “I guarantee that was part of it.”

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/2008091920080919iransanctionsrally.html