JERUSALEM (Reuters) – U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made a surprise pre-dawn visit to Jerusalem’s Western Wall on Thursday, at the end of a trip aimed at showing his strong support for Israel.

Hoping that something truly interesting would emerge from Senator Obama’s just concluded visit to Israel and the West Bank, I waited until now to comment. But the truth is that not much happened. Nothing the candidate said or did could demonstrate to anybody on any side of the conflict in the Middle East, how an Obama presidency would affect the futures of Israelis, Palestinians or those who support them.
So as he leaves the region, I am left with the same nagging question that I always have in assessing Senator Obama — has he once again managed to create lots of heat without shedding any new light, or has he managed to enter one of the world’s most enduring conflicts in a way that built new confidence with both sides, while positioning himself to play a more constructive role in ending it? I hope it’s the latter, and some of the responses to his trip indicate that it might just be the case.

The Hawks on both sides are already flooding the world with e-mails about the dangers of an Obama Presidency. On the Palestinian side, according to the New York Times,
there have already been cries that he slighted Palestinian President Abbas and his prime minister, Salam Fayyad, by failing to spend as much time with them as he did with Israeli political leaders. Those same individuals are angry with Obama for not demanding an immediate end to the building of all Israeli Settlements.
Then from Paul Eidelberg, President of a Jerusalem-based think tank and a columnist for The Jewish Press, I got the following:

“I am issuing the sternest warning possible to my fellow Jews as well as all
Americans who love their country and their brothers and sisters in Israel.
Never in my lifetime has there been a Presidential candidate so utterly clueless
about the importance of the State of Israel and the need for the U.S. to stand
with her…. (withdrawal from Judea and Samaria) will trigger a flow of arms into these areas that will result in every city and military base in Israel to be within range of even the most rudimentary Arab missiles. When that happens I don’t believe Barack Obama will defend Israel.”

Mr. Eidelberg’s conjectures about a post-withdrawal West Bank may, or may not, be correct. But they are conjectures, not facts, even though he presents them as such. And his belief that Barack Obama would not defend Israel is not even supported by the “facts” he presents! Like the Paelstinians above, he is trading in fear and rhetoric rather than fact.
The fact that the more extreme voices on both sides have been made uncomfortable by Senator Obama is quite promising for everyone else. And we should all take note of two items from a recent opinion piece in the Israeli daily, Ha’aretz if we want to make progress away from those extremes. In the piece, columnist Bradley Burston makes a number of observations some of which are not so helpful. But these two are not to be missed.
First, is that all who hope to influence the situation in a positive way must be guided by: “Compassion, compassion, compassion. Why? Because, the problem here is not that one side is right and the other wrong. The problem here is that both sides are right.”
Second, look upon the unexpected as your only hope. Be open to the last thing they (in the region) expect…The unexpected happens here more often than anyone suspects, and it may be your only opening for creativity and positive mediation.
Whatever one makes of the Obama trip, and whoever becomes the next president, these are good rules to live by anywhere, but especially for anyone hoping for peace in the Middle East.