Israel is once again a popular topic in this year’s election campaign, but if you’re looking for any clues about how the next president will shape Middle East policy, forget about it.
Don’t confuse vows of undying love and devotion — even promises to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons — with substantive discussions of foreign policy.
The Republican and Democratic contenders have shown little interest in moving beyond general expressions of support and charges that the opposition can’t be trusted.
A former senior U.S. Mideast diplomat told me, “The candidates will be very careful to wait until after the election before they talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
“I wouldn’t expect anyone to go beyond what they’ve said already. That would only invite criticism. A campaign is no place for a full blown initiative; there will be time for that once the new president takes office.”
M. J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum said presidential candidates “almost never discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” but instead just offer “the usual pieties about standing with Israel.”
He attributes the silence to the “disproportionate influence” of a minority consisting of “fervent supporters of the status quo/single-issue voters and single-issue contributors.”
No details
Sen. John McCain went overseas to burnish his foreign policy credentials as soon as he locked up the Republican nomination in March.
He made a high profile visit to Israel to have his picture taken with the right people and the right backdrops for use in his appeals for votes and contributions from Jews and pro-Israel evangelicals.
His guide and companion was America’s most prominent Jewish politician, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, the erstwhile Democrat who is now McCain’s biggest booster.
Sen. Barack Obama is planning his own pilgrimage later this month, which will include the now mandatory visit to Sderot to show his support in the war against terrorism and the search for peace.
Jews may be just over two percent of the U.S. population, but in some important states they may account for several times their number in terms of voters who actually show up at the polls. Add to that the millions they contribute and raise in campaign contributions, and their critical campaign roles are ignored by politicians at their peril.
The candidates will swear to uphold the special relationship, maintain Israel’s security edge and keep the billions in aid flowing. They will offer no details about their prospective Middle East peace policies because they’re afraid running into the buzz saw of right wing hardliners who brand all who don’t share their views as enemies of Zion.
There is no advantage for candidates in talking details about peace when that will only invite attacks from the right and little backing from the disorganized, demoralized and ineffective peace camp.
To the extent there has been any discussion of the Mideast, it has largely centered on Obama, but it has hardly been illuminating.
Obama has been the target of vicious attacks on the Internet, much of it coming from right wing elements of the Jewish community. The mudslingers are still going after him on such issues as his middle name, a paper his wife wrote as a college student, his religion, his pastor, his lapel pin and what he did in the fourth grade.
Unsaid may be the real issue — his race — but racism is evident in the photos being circulated of Obama’s African relatives with the heading “the next first family.”
Both senators say they want to help bring peace to the Middle East. Obama has said he would take a more active role in diplomacy, something most American Jews say they want.
McCain also said he wants to be more involved than President George W. Bush in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. “I would personally be engaged” and “give it my highest priority.” But in light of his reliance on Lieberman in such matters, expectations are low.
A cornerstone of McCain’s campaign is likely to create major problems for Israel and its supporters. He has vowed to veto all spending bills containing earmarks — language specifying the allocation of funds. This could endanger billions in military and economic assistance the Congress sets aside for Israel every year.
In addition, he is wedded to a war in Iraq that many believe is strengthening Israel’s most dangerous adversary, Iran, and leaving America increasingly unprepared to defend its allies in the region.
The next president will inherit a deteriorating situation, with Hamas in control of Gaza and threatening to extend its power to the West Bank; with Palestinians increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress on negotiations and hearing extremists say the only language Israel understands is force; and Israelis increasingly frustrated and angry with the growing terror threat and the rockets fired from Gaza despite a nominal ceasefire.
The next occupant of the Oval Office will also have to deal with a Syria that offers peace and war almost in the same breath, Hizbullah’s preparations for another war with Israel while moving to take over Lebanon, and Iran’s expanding influence and nuclear ambitions.
Voters should not wait until next year to ask the next president for more details about how he plans to address these problems.
Douglas M. Bloomfield is a Washington, D.C.-based syndicated columnist and a former chief lobbyist for AIPAC.
Should presidential candidates offer detailed plans for the Middle East, even though conditions there are likely to change during the term of office? What do you think? Email your views here.
Loading ...