An unannounced latecomer was the beleaguered Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, who is facing criminal charges at home and his days in leading Israel may be numbered.

His alibi for the unscheduled visit was his desire to meet with his good friend, U.S. President George W. Bush, to discuss according to Israeli press reports, "the Iranian nuclear program and upgrading the bilateral defense ties" between the two countries. In other words, he is looking for ways, as Ha'aretz put it, "to foil Iran's nuclear program."

Neither Rice nor any of the other speakers, including Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, who addressed the conference, attended by some 6,000 persons, have voiced any criticism of Israel or its policies in the region.

How can these speakers, for example, overlook the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories (800 new houses are to be built in occupied Arab East Jerusalem), the initial denial of exit visas for a few Gaza students who received Fulbright scholarships to study at U.S. universities, and the siege of the Gaza Strip where 1.5 million Palestinians live an "abomination," in the opinion of Nobel peace laureate Desmond Tutu after his visit there last week.

Senators Barack Obama, hours after he became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, and Hillary Rodham Clinton repeated the pro-Israeli mantra that has become familiar during U.S. election campaigns.

But Obama went a step further when he declared his support for a "united Jerusalem," thus crossing a Palestinian red line.

Unless, of course, he supported the old proposal for "two capitals" in a united Jerusalem as the Palestinians have been always insisting on establishing their capital in Arab East Jerusalem, now under Israeli occupation. Under the U.N. partition plan Jerusalem was to be an international city but after the 1967 war, the U.N. called for an Israeli pullout from the Arab sector of Holy City.

In her address, Rice raised some hopes when she declared that the U.S. has "a vital interest in peace" between Israelis and Palestinians. "We will, though, defend against any action that would compromise Israel's security," she promised and, without going into details, she added: "So Israel can be bold in its pursuit for peace –– for the United States is fully behind her, and fully committed to her security."

The U.S. goal remained that the contours of a Palestinian state can be reached by next January when a new president takes over.

But it is doubtful that the Arab world has any more trust in these belated promises of the Bush administration, especially after the absence of any significant American role in the recent settlement or near settlement of some major conflicts in the region.

These include the Lebanese constitutional crisis, which was on the brink of igniting a second civil war in the country; Hezbollah's giving Israel the unidentified remains of Israeli soldiers in exchange for the release of an Hezbollah operative; Egypt's ongoing mediation between Israel and Hamas for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and an end to the Israeli siege there; and Turkey's role in the resumption of Syrian-Israeli peace talks.

Whether the new American administration will fare better remains to be seen. For a start, the colorless remarks of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee amounted to nothing more than blatant pandering.

His address had contributed little to raise hopes and, in fact, sounded not much different than the stance of the Bush administration, especially with regard to negotiating with adversaries like Iran, much to the delight of the pro-Israel audience.

All three senators pledged to safeguard Israel and again Obama took this additional step: "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear power – everything," he said to a standing ovation..

AIPAC may be pleased with the turnout at its event this week and the lobbying its members had on Capitol Hill, but there is no doubt that this pro-Israel lobby is aware that many, including several key American Jews, are not happy with its policies and tactics.

In fact, AIPAC is now facing new competition from the so-called, "J Street Project,"composed of prominent U.S. Jews who believe that AIPAC "has been dominated for too long by neoconservatives and other Likud-oriented hawks."

The new group plans to help fund political candidates who favor a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a stronger U.S. role in achieving it.

More to the point, professor John Mearsheimer, co-author of, "The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," also pointed out that "the way Congress deals with Israel is not good for America."

He explained to a forum held last week at a Congressional office building, and sponsored by the Council for the National Interest, that this American line "makes for bad foreign policy" because the U.S. is in deep trouble in the Middle East in good part because of its "special relationship with Israel, which enjoys unquestioned support on Capitol Hill."

His point is that it would make much more sense to treat Israel the way the U.S. treats other countries, emphasizing "it makes no sense to back the Jewish state no matter what it does."

--

George S. Hishmeh is a syndicated columnist.