The moral of the story is that the citizens of the people’s republic of Berkeley, Calif. like Lerner, as well as the anti-Israel/Jimmy Carter wing of the Democratic Party, have irrevocably lost Obama (if indeed they ever had him), because a person who does not embrace Israel cannot represent himself as part of the political mainstream.
In the views of hard-core leftists like Nader, Obama’s pro-Israel apostasy validates the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis about the dark power of the “lobby” conspiracy.
But what it really demonstrates is that the pro-Israel position, far from being limited to a narrow cabal, cuts across most demographic and political lines to form what is truly a bipartisan consensus. Defying it requires not an act of courage but of political suicide.
Given all this, should we cease, as some partisans urge, probing candidates to spell out their positions on Israel and the Middle East?
The answer is no.
Though some fear that even to debate the putative superiority of one candidate over another on Israel is unhelpful, the process by which the would-be presidents are forced to spell out their positions is instructive.
Though many of Obama’s supporters felt questions raised about him on Israel were unfair, the end result helped anchor him even more closely to the pro-Israel consensus.
The moment the Jewish community stops trying to hold candidates accountable in this way is the moment they can no longer count on them. That’s a lesson that Obama supporters, as well as backers of John McCain, should never forget.