Polls show that Obama has enough support within his popular base to transform US policy towards Israel and Palestine should he decide to, writes James Zogby* The American electorate is deeply divided on issues related to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, with voters who backed Barack Obama and John McCain holding dramatically divergent views of the conflict, what should be done to solve it, and the role the US ought to play. This is the most startling finding of a Zogby International interactive survey conducted in April 2009 for the Doha Debates, a BBC-TV programme emanating from Doha, Qatar. The survey engaged 4,230 US adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.5 per cent. The survey found that substantial majorities (of all groups) believed: that a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is important; that the conflict negatively impacts US interests in the Middle East; that both Israelis and Palestinians are entitled to equal rights; and that there should be a Palestinian state. Overall, the survey established that, while favourable attitudes towards Israel remain strong, many Americans believe that President Obama should pursue a policy less supportive of Israel than his predecessor. They believe he ought to "get tough" with Israel on settlements, and "steer a middle course between Israel and the Palestinians". These findings, however, mask the deep divide within the electorate. Americans do support Israel, to be sure. But are the interests of the two countries identical, and does its support for Israel strengthen or weaken the US? Three quarters of voters who supported John McCain believe that the interests of the US and Israel are identical. Nearly as many believe that the US is strengthened by its support of Israel. Obama voters, however, strongly disagree with both propositions, with more than one half disagreeing that the interests of the two countries are the same. Similarly, half of Obama voters believe the US is weakened by its support for Israel, with only one in five seeing the US as strengthened. When asked which is more important to the US: relations with Israel, the Arabs, or both -- only seven per cent of Obama voters say Israel, 17 per cent say the Arabs, and 68 per cent say both. On the other hand, 46 per cent of McCain voters say that the US relationship with Israel is most important, only three per cent emphasise relations with the Arabs, while 48 per cent say both. It appears from the results of the survey that the recent war in Gaza served to widen the gap between the two groups of voters. Half of Obama supporters said that war made them less supportive of Israel, while two-thirds of McCain voters actually say that the Gaza war made them more supportive of Israel. Predictably, McCain voters saw Bush as an honest broker (by an 84 per cent to eight per cent margin). Obama voters disagreed by an equally overwhelming margin. But what should President Obama do? When asked, 73 per cent of those who voted for President Obama say he should "steer a middle course", with only 10 per cent saying he should support Israel and six per cent saying support the Palestinians. Wildly different responses come from McCain voters, 60 per cent of whom say the current president should support Israel. Only 22 per cent of McCain supporters say the president should be balanced in his approach to the conflict. Engage with Hamas? By a 67 per cent to 16 per cent margin Obama voters say yes, while 79 per cent of McCain voters say no. And should the US get tough with Israel? Some 80 per cent of Obama voters say it is time to get tough, with 73 per cent of McCain voters disagreeing. Even when it comes to solving critical final status issues, the two camps hold positions that are mirror opposites of one another. Do Palestinians have the right of return? Obama voters agree they do by a margin of 61 per cent to 13 per cent, while McCain voters disagree, 21 per cent to 51 per cent. Should Jerusalem be divided and serve as the capital of two states, or remain under sole Israeli control? Obama voters prefer the "divided" and "two capitals" option with McCain voters overwhelmingly supporting Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. Similarly, a majority of Obama voters believe Israel should be made to remove its settlements from occupied Palestinian lands, while a majority of McCain voters believe the settlements should stay. The depth of this partisan divide is instructive on many levels. First and foremost, it establishes that, despite the claim of hardline supporters of Israel, traditional US policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not have bipartisan backing. In fact, as the two parties have evolved over the past 30 years, and as the issue itself has evolved -- since Oslo -- the two parties have moved in different directions. The dominant role of the religious right, which now comprises up to one- third of the base of the Republican Party, coupled with the degree to which neo-conservativism has come to define the world view of that party, has contributed to a significant reorientation of the party. These two strands of thought were brought together by George W Bush who also embraced Ariel Sharon and, post-9/11, characterised the struggles of Israel and the US as identical. As a result, it now appears that the Republican Party is no longer the party of George Herbert Walker Bush and James Baker, but an entirely new entity. Meanwhile, the base of the Democratic Party has come to be defined by progressives (including a significant number of progressive Jews) and minority communities who have grown weary of Bush's ideological approach to conflict. They have come to reject his policies and recoil from their consequences. Obama's victory, therefore, represents not only the election of a new president but also the victory of a new coalition whose component parts support an anti-war, pro-peace and pro- human rights agenda. This coalition, our poll findings demonstrate, can provide the support the new president needs, should he decide on a dramatically different direction for US policy towards the Israeli-Arab conflict. * The writer is president of the Arab American Institute.
