Israeli observers of the US presidential primaries and nomination processes can be roughly divided into two distinct groups. On one side, there are those who believe that every four years Americans are privileged to cast a vote on the omnipresent question of who will be the best president for Israel. This group actually believes that 305 million Americans are cureless political junkies who insatiably consume news and political analyses and are thus aware that the Middle East is a focal point of crises, turmoil and violence and should be dealt with vigorously and rigorously by the next president. America cannot afford another president who neglects the Middle East as Bush did for seven long years, goes their argument. For them, the Middle East is everything that is of interest to Israel or, put bluntly, every issue that Israel cannot or will not deal with alone, without the active chaperoning presence of the United States. That naturally includes Iran s nuclear program, Syria s mentorship of terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, or what s left of it. This group is made up of two components. A vocal right wing wants an American president who is a true friend , i.e., one that profoundly dislikes and distrusts Arabs, who will look the other way when Israel deceives and cheats on dismantling illegal outposts and who will forever support the only democracy in the Middle East even when that democracy fails to uphold it s own law in the West Bank. That s the definition of a true friend. Then there is an equally vocal left wing that thinks that America should save Israel from itself by exerting pressure, demanding the removal of settlements and forcing a peace process that is designed by that very left wing down Israel s throat, irrespective and in denial of the fact that Gaza and the West Bank are inhabited not by friendly Swedes but by terrorist organizations operating within a totally failed civil society. They are sensitive to America s interests in the Arab world and to the anti-Americanism that is prevalent in the Arab sphere--so much so that they buy into the fallacy that Saudis or Syrians dislike America because it abandoned the Palestinian brothers. On the other side there are the cynics (composed of a majority of Israelis who are neither right nor left wing) who naively think that Americans actually vote for the next president of the United States. For them the Middle East is not only a non-issue, but they find it difficult to understand why a presidential candidate in his or her right mind should expend energy and political capital in talking and pledging about, let alone pursuing, the elusive Israeli-Palestinian deal. This group defines the Middle East in broader geo-political contours: It stretches from Pakistan down to the Gulf, through the Levant and into North Africa. The US has far greater interests than wasting time in another exercise in futility called a peace process . Both groups expect the presidential candidates to signal what they intend to do in the region. Will the next president be a Clinton or a Bush? Or will he/she triangulate and devise a new policy based on both former presidents experiences? Yet the candidates are reluctant. And they are right, though this approach is valid only for the duration of the campaign. One of the truisms of contemporary world politics is that the Middle East has a nasty tendency to impose itself on an agenda that has purposely precluded it. An American benign non-intervention policy is bound to fail when a crisis occurs (or even ominously looms), leaving the US exposed, ill-prepared and in hopeless search of instant policies. This truism is known to at least two candidates: Senator John McCain and Senator Hillary Clinton. The third viable candidate, Senator Barack Obama, may be inexperienced in foreign policy issues, but is well aware of the magnitude of the array of foreign challenges and crises awaiting him in the Oval Office or the White House situation room. All three candidates (Republican McCain and Democrats Clinton and Obama are the only viable contenders) published lengthy and comprehensive essays in Foreign Affairs, a prestigious industry quarterly. Naturally some issues featured prominently: Russia, China, North Korea, the environment, Africa, Latin America, relations with Europe, multilateralism as a sharp departure from the Bush s with or without you gung-ho foreign policy, the free world, balances of power, balances of democracy and so on. All three articles were meticulously crafted to say everything and commit to absolutely nothing, as you would expect from a candidate who must be careful and is under no obligation to offer policy. All three alluded to the Middle East in passing only. The three candidates have written and spoken extensively about Iraq, and all three have warned that a nuclear Iran is an intolerable menace that should be prevented from ever acquiring weapons-grade fissile material. But it is clear they are trying to avoid saying anything of substance on either the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (where they predictably retreat to platitudes and pandering) or Iran, where they are justifiably careful not to upset the American electorate that turned against the Iraq war two years ago, as was evident in the 2006 congressional elections. McCain is the only candidate who went somewhat farther when he stated that the only thing worse than a military strike against Iran would be a nuclear Iran. Yet he, expectedly, fell short of prescribing a policy to prevent that from happening. Hillary Clinton, with several years experience on the Senate Armed Services Committee, remained committed to confront Iran, and mentioned the military option as one that should not be removed from the table . The intriguing odd man out is Senator Obama, who essentially adopted the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report of 2006 and offers to talk to Iran and Syria and then shape a policy. That has already earned him the dubious depiction by some as bad for Israel , an utterly silly characterization. According to that logic, when prime ministers Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu and Barak spoke to Syria, they were bad for Israel . The key issue, though, remains the next president s policy on the Israeli-Palestinian track. Until now all candidates have stated the obvious. They will be helped by Bush s commitment to the two-state solution as a policy tenet that cannot be ignored. At the same time, the political timetable in Israel and the continued disintegration of the Palestinian Authority do not escape the candidates radars. They realize that before late 2009 or even early 2010 they will not be able to foster a real process. Once this is clear it becomes a non-issue, so why should they say anything during the campaign? Alon Pinkas is president of the Jerusalem Post Group and former consul-general of Israel in New York. This commentary is published by DAILY NEWS EGYPT in collaboration with bitterlemons-international.org
