A democratic congress and senate doesn't change a thing for the palestinian or israeli cause. The big at the moment happens to be Iraq and what we're going to do about it. as far as the pal-israeli conflict goes, i don't fore-see any changes in the future until the 2008 elections. Heres why:
1. Iraq is the hot button Issue any way we look at it
2. the Situation in the israeli/palestinian region is so complex and deteriorated, it would take the entire focus of the USFG to come up with a solution (an Attention span that our government can't afford to give to the region).
3. with the way its looking now, democrats have the house. Their main goal is to fix what "G Double ya" broke domestically and internationally and get our country and everyone elses back into order.

With me being a palestinian democrat, i have to say a few things on the subject myself. I want to point out that i do not sympothize for either side. I feel picking sides is the wrong way to deal with such a delicate situation and both sides should settle the problem diplomatically. To me it doesn't matter who killed who or who shot who first; the killing of a human is wrong anyway you look at it, whether it is in the name of "Self Defense" or "jihad".
All in all, the democratic party can make things better for the region come the 2008 elections but as long as we have hard headed, lasso-waving, gunslinging George "double ya" Bush as our commander in chief, the region will not improve even the slightest.

Chicago is a long way from Jerusalem, no doubt, so I respect Mr. Freedman's opinion, as he's got a better view of this mess than I do, certainly.

I am simply finding it hard to believe that Hamas' current aims are as broad as you advertise, especially given the concept of the current situation. No doubt Hamas has Islamic inspirations and aspirations. However, what they want first, and what they need before they can advance any broader aim, is the platform of a state from which to launch. In the Westphalian system that has been around for 450 years, the state is the basis for all action on the global stage. So for now, they want a state. They need a state. And that means there's room (however small and painful) to work.

Second, I highly doubt that such an Iranian-backed proxy like Hamas as you claim could perpetuate such rampant Islamic aspirations. Hezbollah I think may be different matter, since they are a Shiite militia. But Hamas is Sunni, is it not? And is it really credible that a Shiite state such as Iran would so forcefully and continually back its rival form of Islam? Wouldn't they much rather advance their own sect's design?

Lastly, I have to ask: doesn't Israeli's generally assumed nuclear arsenal deter overzealous Iranian assault? Iran has to know that if they push Israel too far up against the wall that the Israelis would turn the Iranian plateau into a cinder. Similar fears gripped Egypt and Syria in 1973. Now that didn't stop them from launching an attack, but it did temper their strategy (Benny Morris' "Righteous Victims" documents this well). I mean, Ahmadinejad may be crazy (that's a whole other debate), but he's not stupid.

Mr. Freedman, I refer you to my post earlier.

"Anytime congress balks at giving something to Israel, AIPAC plays the we're being attacked card, and any Congressman worth his salt who wants to be re-elected will cave."

Please stop.

Don't you mean WEST JERUSALEM, ISRAEL?

Neither the Republicans nor Democrats seem to have fully grasped the changed nature of the conflict. The Palestinians have become the virtual servants of Tehran. Hamas is receiving funds from Tehran and has recently vetoed a prisoner- exchange with Israel which the Palestinians had contemplated. The Palestinians themselves have moved more and more into the radical Islamic camp. Once they denied the existence of Israel on national grounds,now they are less concerned with a 'Palestinian Arab entity' and more with the idea of achieving Islamic domination of the Middle East as a whole.
Israel is more endangered than ever before due to the rise of the fundamental Islamic regime in Tehran. Iran has a proxy in Hizbollah and an ally in Syria both of which have missles which cover the territory of Israel, and which Israel has no complete answer to.
What has to be understood is that the Palestinian's have cancelled for a long time to come the two- state roadblock solution offered by Bush. What is at stake now is Israel's survival, and the threat to Israel and the world presented by the radical Iranian regime.
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are up on this threat. The Carter- faction of the Democratic party is a total loss, burdened by the cliches of the past, and a total misreading of the world map.
I see no major change for the good with a Democratic congress, and possibly more delusional readings of a Middle East reality , ugly, dangerous and difficult.

The story re: AIPAC by Thom tells us the real situation. Money from AIPAC; if refused or opposed, name-calling, also known as "anti-Semetic", as a defamation tool. We need to set ourselves free of bought-and-paid-for representatives and free of the name-calling. After all, name-calling is not a gun to someone's head, but it succeeds in letting Israel continue as killers of Palestinians. We are the surrogates who are paying for that!

Mr. Kuttab:

In terms of the Palestinian issue, the Democrats are no different than the Republicans, if not historically worse.

Except for Carter, all presidents who have directly criticized Israeli governments and its proxy AIPAC were republicans.

It suffices to read Hillary Clinton's statements on Israel. One can't be more pro-Israel than Hillary.

The truth that is hard to swallow is that among the 535 members of congress (House and Senate), there are virtually no one, even among elected Arab-Americans (except for 1 or 2) who dare to criticize the Israeli government policies directly.

Considering the current situation however a democratic president will be better but on the ground I am not sure what they will be able to do right now. Maybe you could explain this further?

Put the blame where it belongs.

AIPAC. It owns both sides, and will not permit a solution, because that will severely diminish both its purpose for being, and its bread and butter.

Anytime congress balks at giving something to Israel, AIPAC plays the we're being attacked card, and any Congressman worth his salt who wants to be re-elected will cave.

I have a friend who was considering a run for Congress. The day after he turned in his petition, I mean the very next day, there were representatives from AIPAC at his door, offering money to help the campaign (a whole lot of money, incidentaly) if only he would vote the way they wanted him to. And if he would please sign a pledge to that effect, they could begin campaigning for him right away.

In essence they tried to buy him before he even got started.

He said no, and was so disillusioned that he dropped out of the race right then and there.

Seajay 14's logic escapes me. He calls the Democrats useless because their past attempts at facilitating a solution failed.

First, let's put the blame where it belongs: with those Palestinians and Israelis who are unwilling to bend enough to find a solution.
At present, the situation has deteriorated so badly, that a solution any time soon is impossible.
The Palestinians have to unite enough to enable one voice to speak for them in negotiations. Instead, Hamas and Fatah are having firegights.
The Israelis have to recognize the suffering and resultant animosity they create with heavy handed tactics. They might also consider dropping some of the preconditions for negotiations to get the process going.

Both sides would do well to address the need to stop the bloodshed; maybe aim for a temporary truce before tackling the hot button issues.
The only hope I see is to start by addressing small issues: devise a more efficient manner for transporting goods in and out of Gaza, say.
The US can only help; it can't deliver a solution, no matter which party is in power. The Democrats seem to be more balanced in their views and approaches and more willing to be pragmatic rather than ideological. However, it would take Solomon or God himself to wrap this thing up now.

For those of you who doubt that Democrats can focus on the Middle East with the hope of resolving conflict, I would point to Jimmy Carter and the Camp David Accords in 1978 and the efforts made toward peace between Egypt and Israel. while it is a bumpy road, I would challenge you that Democrats neither care nor would pursue the issue of resolving middle east crisis. The problem in the Middle East has been exacerbated by America's meddling in countries uninvited. It takes all parties involved to make an effort at peace, it cannot be done by one country or even two. We all need to make a committment to respect each other. Take a look at this web page for more information on one democrat's efforts at peace. http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/programs/youth-outreach/peace-heroes/carter-jimmy.htm

In the past the Democrats failed in bringing peace to the Mideast and I see nothing to make me optimistic that that will change. In fact the Democrats have not said a peep of what their plans are about the Mideast . Maybe we will have to wait for the '08 elections. What will happen in the interim I don't know . But I know one thing , it won't be a turn for the better .

K's assertion that democrats are useless is simply baseless. They have been bullied out of office but they do have views of their own.

Remember who is running the republican party now - evangelical christians. In particular a large group of True Believers often referred to as Dominionists. From my perspective they are frighteningly similar to the so called islamic fascists, each is determined to make over the entire world in their god's image. Each believes that until this happens, the messiah or prophet or whatever will not bother to appear.
These people in our country have a vested interest in Israel taking over the entire 'holy land'. I have no idea if they really care about the jewishness of the jews in Israel.
In any case, they have been taking over the republican party since the early 80's, and they will never see the palestinians as anything more than a minor impediment to their world view. Hatred is how these people bring themselves together, despite their claims to the contrary.
The republicans of the past might have been useful, but the republicans of today have become dangerous.

The democrats on the other hand will step up to the plate, to use a baseball term, and strike out. The are simply useless.

Thus our choice is dangerous vs useless. Can the Palestinians and the Israelis solve their own problems if everybody else stayed out of the argument? I think your best hope is the useless democrats.

In general, American policy toward the Middle East may change in the future as first Congress and eventually the executive branch return to considering American interests in the region as paramount, and Israeli interests -- or more particularly the interests of specific factions within Israeli politics -- subordinate to our own. The recent tendency to assume that Israeli policies on such things as settlements on the West Bank must be inseparable from the interests of the United States flies in the face of common sense.

With that said, there is no chance whatever of American policy in the region becoming more sympathetic to the Palestinians. Both American policymakers and the American public are well aware that those Palestinians perhaps entitled to some sympathy have no political influence in Gaza or the West Bank, while those with influence have no claim on American sympathy. If Israeli objectives cannot be assumed a priori to be congruent with ours, Palestinian interests certainly cannot -- especially since Palestinians cannot decide what those interests are or who should speak on their behalf.