Does that mean that we shouldn’t have any concerns about Senator Obama’s close relationship with an anti-Israel pastor who calls the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan a great truth-teller?

Would you remain a member of a synagogue or church that had its spiritual leader honor such a vicious and notorious bigot as Farrakhan?

If Jewish publications don’t examine concerns about candidates regarding Israel and the Jewish community, who will?

You have successfully proven Mr. Brooks is a political partisan. Yet there are many Americans of all political persuasions who have wondered if a President Obama would support Israel. You are also correct that Ralph Nader mischaracterizes Israeli actions and intentions as do so many other pro-Palestinian activists. Does that mean he can’t tell which side of the Arab-Israeli conflict Mr. Obama used to sympathize with?

Mr. Nader isn’t the first Palestinian advocate to express frustration that Mr. Obama’s stance toward Israel has changed since entering national politics. Ali Abunimah wrote on the anti-Israel website, Electronic Intifada, of an encounter with Senator Obama at a gathering in December 2004:

“[I] went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, ‘Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.’ He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, ‘Keep up the good work!’”

Maybe he was just being a typical politician telling whoever crossed his path what he thought that person wanted to hear. Or, perhaps other Palestinian activists are keeping these stories to themselves hoping the result will be a friend in the White House.

Better yet, from the Arab-Muslim point of view, he would be a friend in the White House who made it there at least in part because of his many major Jewish donors, while Jewish newspaper editors shot down any incoming suggestions of the candidate’s anti-Israel ties or sentiments, taking apart the messenger when it is candidate whose record, statements, and yes, his “true leanings” that need to be dissected.

What I think would be far more valuable to the Jewish community would be to thoroughly examine Senator Obama’s adult life with regards to his positions on Israel, his concern (or lack of concern) with anti-Semitism among colleagues and his attitudes toward the Jewish community.

I hope the answer you find is that Senator Obama is as friendly toward Israel and the Jewish community as Senators Clinton and McCain, both of whom also have had some troubling associations, advisors and positions on Middle Eastern issues. Any concerns raised about those candidates deserve scrutiny as well.

However, unlike Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain have long histories of friendship with the Jewish community, and public records that go back decades. They have been thoroughly vetted by the press in previous national campaigns.

How many of those vouching for Mr. Obama’s pro-Israel credentials had even heard of him prior to the 2004 Democratic National Convention? As advocates for strong American-Israel ties, part of their job is to build relations with all candidates. Thus, they are less likely to be critical of any potential power holder, choosing instead to emphasize areas of cooperation and agreement.

The press–especially the American Jewish press–has a different responsibility. Investigating–rather than dismissing–concerns about a Presidential candidate’s support for Israel and his tolerance for anti-Semitism among colleagues (besides citing a quote or two made in response to said concerns during a campaign) is an important service that Jewish newspapers need to perform, especially given how gently Mr. Obama has been treated by mainstream journalists.