washington | At a time of some of the worst fighting in years, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict wasn’t even mentioned in last week’s presidential debate and has been little discussed during the campaign, although it came up briefly in this week’s vice presidential debate.
The apparent downplaying may not be such a bad thing, some analysts say.
The differences between President Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry on the issue aren’t great, public attention to the conflict has faded and the political talk often has more to do with winning Jewish votes than laying out a serious strategy, they say.
“I think it’s just as well to leave it alone,” said Judith Kipper, a Middle East analyst for the Council on Foreign Relations. “They get trapped in the rhetoric and one of them is going to be president and this issue will hit them probably in the very first day, if not before.”
It’s a marked change from the high priority President Clinton gave the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during his administration. Today, the focus of Americans’ attention in the Middle East has shifted to Iraq and the fight against terrorism.
Both Bush and Kerry mentioned Israel in the debate, but only in the context of Iraq. The Palestinians weren’t mentioned.
The most obvious reason why the candidates didn’t talk about the conflict is that they weren’t asked. In the debate, moderator Jim Lehrer’s questions dealt mostly with Iraq, terrorism and other hot issues.
“They had bigger fish to fry — even though it’s of vital importance,” said Allen Keiswetter of the Middle East Institute think tank.
Still, the candidates could have found a way to bring up the conflict had it been a priority. But it wasn’t, said Shibley Telhami, a Middle East specialist at University of Maryland.
“Neither one of them was anxious to highlight the issue,” he said. “They see it as an unaddressed problem, but they’re not anxious to spend a lot of effort debating it because it’s not on the agenda for the American public.”
It’s also not an area in which the candidates can highlight stark differences. Both candidates stress Israel’s democracy and its deep friendship with the United States. Neither opposes Israel’s plans for a 425-mile-long security barrier in the West Bank that has drawn international condemnation. Both have denounced Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
Their language has been similar in courting Jewish audiences.
Bush has said: “The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state.”
Kerry has said: “The people of Israel should also know that, as president, my commitment to a safe and secure Jewish state will be unwavering.”
Kerry has promised to pay more attention to the Israel-Palestinian conflict than Bush has and do more to cut off funds to terrorist groups that target Israel. The Bush campaign has pointed to Kerry’s reference to Arafat in a 1997 book as a “statesman” and his comments last year critical of the security barrier.
Meanwhile during the vice presidential debate this week, both candidates said Arafat is not a partner for peace. As Vice President Dick Cheney faced off in Cleveland on Tuesday, Oct. 5, against Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), one of their few points of agreement was the need for Israel to continue isolating the Palestinian Authority president. Edwards said Israel has a right to defend itself against rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip.
“They don’t have a partner for peace right now,” Edwards said. “They certainly don’t have a partner in Arafat, and they need a legitimate partner for peace.”
Cheney agreed. “There has to be an interlocutor you can trust and deal with. And we won’t have that, we don’t have it now, in a Yasser Arafat,” he said. “There has to be reform of the Palestinian system.”
Both men also drove home distinctions between the parties on Israel: Edwards said Kerry as president would be tougher on financial support in Saudi Arabia for Palestinian terrorists; Cheney said ousting Saddam Hussein cut off funding for Palestinian suicide bombers.
While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has diminished in prominence in the United States, it receives tremendous attention in the rest of the world. Foreign leaders, especially from Arab nations, say the United States’ strong support for Israel undermines its credibility among Muslims. Many say that makes it harder to win support in fighting terrorism and in the Iraq war.
Yossi Alpher, an Israeli political analyst, said the candidates sidestepped the issue because the U.S. view of the Middle East has changed since the 9/11 attacks.
“Iraq dominates everything, and the way Iraq dominates everything is not in the broader Middle East sense but in how it concerns Americans,” Alpher said. “Israel is a non-issue in this election to a large extent.”
Maryland’s Telhami said some overseas may have been disappointed that it hadn’t come up in the debate, but they might have been more disappointed with the candidates’ responses if it had.
“I think in some ways it’s a no-win situation internationally,” he said.
JTA contributed to this report.