I think you got it wrong on Bush Jr and Obama. Bush Jr was extremely pro-Israel (although probably ended up doing more harm than good but his intentions at least were noble). And Israel did not expect anything good from Obama given his ultra-left views, muslim roots/ties and his pastor's antisemitic and anti-zionist remarks. Unfortunately Israel was not wrong.
AIPAC who although not an official arm of the Israeli state were fairly warm on Obama even early on which is an indication to me that they expected good things. Bush jnr said all the right things at the right time concerning Israel and its place in the region but I really don't think he was all that interested in the country which is not really surprising as he had greater concerns for most of his presidency.
I would think 23 arab states and a number of non-arab muslim states like Iran which have refused to recognize Israel's right to exist and have been threatening (and trying) to wipe Israel off the map for the last 62 years. Then again, there will be no WWIII, Iran and Israel have no common border, Iran and Israel have no allies willing to fight on their side, Israel will quickly destroy Iran's military capabilities, Iran will destroy a few empty buildings and warehouses in Tel Aviv, the UN General Assembly will denounce Israel's attack and that will be the end of it. PS keep in mind that it's Egypt that may dissolve the peace treaty with Israel, not the other way around, it's the Arab street that virtually unanimously demands to wipe Israel off the map, not the other way around. So who is actually going to attack first is a big question although you clearly have already jumped to the conclusion.
AIPAC is not an official or unofficial arm of Israel and AIPAC being a lobby is always nice to all presidents and all candidates. That does not mean that Obama was their first (or even tenth choice), the only candidates that ranked worse than Obama vis-a-vis Israel were Kusinich and Ron Paul.
We could argue that AIPAC is rarely out of step with current Israeli government policy and therefore serves as an unofficial arm of state simply by circumstance. I for one do not believe Obama to be overtly anti-Israel and that his present stance on the Israel and the Middle East is simply one of US national interest and political expediency. Its all about the oil as always.
We could argue that AIPAC is rarely out of step with current Israeli government policy and therefore serves as an unofficial arm of state simply by circumstance. well, the objectives of the Israeli government and AIPAC are indeed identical - free democratic jewish Israel and strong strategic alliance between Israel and the US. Does it make AIPAC an unofficial arm of the state? Not in my book. If tomorrow an Israeli government chooses to pursue a one-state solution or rejects the US/Israel friendship I am sure AIPAC and that government will part ways. The point is AIPAC represents the views of american supporters of Israel, not the state of Israel or its government. I for one do not believe Obama to be overtly anti-Israel and that his present stance on the Israel and the Middle East is simple one of US national interest and political expediency. Its all about the oil as always. Fair enough, Obama started pretty bad but seems to be doing better now. His latest UN veto is a pretty good sign.
I like his last comment.... '' This book is not written for the elite or the scholarly . I think it might do them some good, but its written so its so simple that a MEMBER of CONGRESS could understand it .'' We should not nominate Huckabee to run for office in 2012. He doesn't seem to be a very smart guy.
Let's see... he's a former Governor, possible candidate for POTUS, has his own TV show... and YOU "think he's not very smart". You do see, don't you, how stupid that comment makes YOU sound?