During the campaign, Republicans implied that the 2008 presidential elections and Israel would be a theme that could win traditionally democratic American Jews over to McCain.

However, that statement ignored the strong rhetoric espoused by Obama on the campaign trail regarding the need to stand by Israel.

Stumping before Jewish groups, Obama told of his first visit to Israel in 2006 when flying by helicopter he came to see how small the country was and to understand its concerns over national security.

In fact, in March of 2009, it appeared that the new U.S. President was even pandering to the demands of Israel regarding certain appointments.

In mid-March, Chas. W. Freeman, Jr., a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, President of the Middle East Peace Council since 1997, and ex-functionary in varied diplomatic posts under former President Bill Clinton, was named to chair the analytical National Intelligence Council (NIC) in Obama's administration.

Nevertheless, his nomination was subsequently withdrawn under pressure from pro-Israel groups such as the Zionist Organization of America.

Freeman, who had accepted the post prior to the deal being undone, was quick to speak sharply of the turnabout, qualifying it as a cave in to the Israeli lobby by the Obama White House.

Freeman also stated that this move raised serious questions about Obama's ability to make decisions on Middle East policies without being influenced by foreign interests, an obvious reference to the State of Israel.

OBAMA AFFIRMS TWO STATE COMMITMENT

The 2008 presidential elections and Israel influence on that White House appointment indeed began to be questioned less than one month later when Obama addressed the Turkish Parliament in early April of 2009.

Obama referred to the need for Israel to keep within the framework of the Annapolis talks in 2007. The reference was hailed by the Palestinian Authority since it is clearly a reference to a two-state solution to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A spokesman for the hawkish Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded only by stating that Obama is committed to Israeli security.

Obama may only be trying to win the trust of both parties to the conflict in the hopes of contributing to a lasting peace between these two peoples whose security is inexorably linked, but it raised questions about his loyalties nevertheless.

KEEPING RADICAL ISLAMISTS BUSY

Overall, the 2008 presidential elections and Israel's relation to the United States is likely to go unchanged. The division and ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine have always helped justify a U.S. presence in the Middle East.

This high profile conflict has also functioned to help draw the attention of radical Islamists away from domestic issues in their own countries such as Saudi Arabia.

Furthermore, the value of U.S. oil interests in the Arab world are boosted by the continuation of the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

USEFUL PAWNS

The 2008 presidential elections and Israel's role as a diversion in the Middle East that helps allow for friendly dictatorships to maintain themselves will continue to be of significant interest to oil companies.

In the world of U.S. foreign policy, this factor is likely to outweigh anything else for the White House since both Israel and the Palestinians are nothing more than useful pawns to divert attention from the domestic problems and contradictions of the oil-rich Arab allies of U.S. oil companies.