The U.S. president began his term with high expectations in the Middle East. Even prior to his inauguration, many Arabs and Muslims expected that given President Obama’s quasi-Muslim heritage and Arab middle name he would have a natural affinity for Muslims and this goodwill would translate into a more balanced U.S. approach to Palestine/Israel.

Obama did attempt this at first by applying consistent pressure over months on Israel to cease illegal settlement construction. The far-right Israeli government refused to do something so rudimentary as abide by international law. And instead of threatening a cut in U.S. aid or the end of a U.S. veto at the UN Security Council, President Obama has just given up and given in to Likud intransigence.

By doing so the president has greatly undermined his credibility in the region and in Europe since it is evident that the leader of the most powerful nation could not get a small country that is dependent on America to stop building illegal settlements even for just a few months. If Obama was bluffing then Netanyahu has called it and is not being immodest about it either.

While Obama has been disappointing in his cowardice and contempt for current posture is warranted, for supporters of the Palestinians there should be sympathy for Obama’s position as well.

First, it is clear that Obama has great empathy for Palestinians. While in Chicago he was known for attending pro-Palestinian events and during the campaign he once stated that “no one is suffering more than the Palestinians”. He had to retract that last statement because pro-Israel groups - and here’s the rub - naturally found it “disturbing,” but that was political gamesmanship and does not change the fact is statement in the moment reflected his sincere feelings of concern.

Second, to take on the pro-Israel lobby and apply real pressure - including cuts in aid - on Israel would mean a formidable fight with one of the most powerful - if not the most - lobby groups in America. Such a battle would exhaust incredible resources - with no guarantee of success - even during good times. Bush, Sr. took on the Israel lobby for months by threatening to withhold a $10 billion loan to Israel until it ceases illegal settlement construction. Consider the advantages Bush, Sr. had at the time: Gulf War victory and the sky-high +80 approval rating that resulted with that war, no major domestic agenda, and the economy was fine enough. And yet even with such high public standing after a successful war and no major domestic distractions, Bush, Sr. lost in his fight to tie loans to Israel to the end of illegal settlements. The Israel lobby won and made it known. Obama is attempting to do the same thing by ending Israeli settlements. And consider the disadvantages Obama has: two wars aboard, approval while high is no where near Bush’s, major domestic distraction in terms of health care reform, and the worst economist crisis since the Great Depression, ect.... The point being that even when a president had many advantages to his side it is hard enough fighting the Israel lobby (or any powerful lobby), but why would a president risk a fight when there are too many things he has to attend to. The economy itself consumes so much attention, Obama just isn’t in shape to take on a fight with the lobby now (or ever) and why risk it when victory is not even assured.

Third, why should he? Why should Obama sacrifice health care reform and even his reelection on behalf of the Palestinians? For moral reasons you may say. But since when are politicians actuated by morality. And should Obama become an advocate for the Palestinians at great political costs when Arab leaders themselves have stopped being so at no political cost? Why should U.S. policy change when Arab leaders are so submissive to the United States. Maybe if the Arabs made a lot of noise then Obama would or may feel pressure to change (as they do over Danish cartoons; which irritates me so much. But what standard are Danish cartoons more offensive than the occupation? Of course, Arab government stroked anger to distract from Palestine which always reminders people of the impotency and humiliation that are their governments). But at a time when Arab governments have forgotten the Palestinians, why should the U.S. president remember them?

So while one may be disappointed and angered over Obama, I personally cannot help but understand and feel pity over his circumstances. And the threat of the Israel lobby bringing down his administration is real if Obama ever got in a real fight with Israel. The U.S. Congress is in the pocket of such groups and can hold up the Obama agenda due to his Israel policies.

There are a number of signs that Obama is essentially continuing the failed policies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and other previous presidents. First, most of his appointments have gone to down-the-line supporters of Israeli policies, including Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose future political ambitions make it unlikely that she will want to take on the “pro-Israel” forces…

Obama is rapidly returning to traditional U. S. policies, which amount either to essentially unconditional U. S. support of whatever Israel does or, at most, weak hand-wringing — for example, “the settlements are an obstacle to peace” — unaccompanied by any firm measures and therefore routinely disregarded by Israel. Indeed, Obama already has made it known that U. S. diplomatic and military aid to Israel will not be used as leverage to get the Netanyahu government to agree to end the occupation and allow the creation of a Palestinian state. Therefore, there is no chance that it will.

What accounts for Obama’s reversals? The most obvious explanation is that Obama is giving priority to his ambitious domestic agenda and rightly fears that real pressure on Israel would backfire in Congress, where it is likely that some key members would, in effect, hold their support for Obama’s domestic programs hostage to his Israeli policies.

Yes, Virginia, there is an Israel lobby and some of Israel’s supporters have “dual” loyalty (the dual is in quotes, because there is no dual loyalty between the U.S. and Israel for them, there is only singular loyalty for Zionism)