Little Difference in Democratic, Republican Mideast Policies

By Stephen Kaufman

In a presidential election in which candidates are trying to outdo each other in claiming who would bring greater change to Washington, John McCain and Barack Obama have more similarities than differences in their approaches to the Middle East. Those approaches are consistent with many policies of the Bush administration.

The two campaigns' stated views on the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab conflicts and the use of economic sanctions to halt Iran's development of nuclear weapons are nearly interchangeable. One contrast is on Iraq, where Obama's promise to redeploy U.S. troops there within 16 months runs counter to McCain's call for an eventual redeployment based on the advice of U.S. military commanders rather than a timetable set by the civilian leadership.

At their 2008 national conventions, the Democratic and Republican parties both affirmed the alliance and "special relationship" between the United States and Israel. They pledge to ensure Israel retains its "qualitative edge" in military prowess over its enemies, and support having Jerusalem remain Israel's capital as an undivided city under Israeli sovereignty. Both platforms also urge the continued isolation of the Palestinian Hamas movement until it renounces terrorism and recognizes Israel's right to exist.

Obama himself told the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on June 4 that "regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in our commitment to Israel's security."

Either a McCain or an Obama administration would support a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in the establishment of a Palestinian state. The Democrats add the caveat that it is "unrealistic" to expect a return to the 1949 armistice line that separated Israel from the West Bank, and say Palestinian refugees should be resettled in a Palestinian state rather than return to places inside Israel's borders.

The Republicans say that for a Palestinian state to become a reality, "the Palestinian people must support leaders who reject terror, embrace the institutions and ethos of democracy, and respect the rule of law."

MOST AMERICANS SUPPORT ISRAEL

Advocates for an independent Palestinian state are likely to be disappointed with elements of both platforms, and with the omission of any comment on issues where the United States and Israel differ, such as the building or expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Josh Block, a spokesman for AIPAC, which lobbies U.S. leaders on issues concerning the bilateral relationship, says the platforms reflect that 70 percent to 80 percent of Americans "self-identify themselves as 'pro-Israel,'" and more Americans "identify Israel as a close ally of the United States than any country except for Canada and England."

In evaluating candidates, Americans "use the question of being pro-Israel as a matrix to understand whether or not the candidates see the world and see our friends around the world in a way that they do," Block told America.gov.

He said both Obama and McCain have been to Israel "numerous times" and have developed a good understanding of Israel's concerns.

"They have gotten acquainted with the leaders there and that's an important thing to promote the understanding of those issues. But more importantly, even than visiting, is the positions that they have taken."

ARAB AMERICANS PREOCCUPIED WITH THE ECONOMY

On the other hand, the U.S. voting block most likely to advocate for language more supportive of the Palestinians, the Arab-American community, largely places the conflict as a much lower priority than the troubled state of the U.S. economy for the 2008 election, according to James Zogby, the founder and president of the Arab American Institute, which conducts political and policy research on behalf of the community.

Zogby told America.gov that in a recent town meeting of Arab-American voters in Michigan to discuss key election issues, it was difficult to divert the discussion from the economy to other issues, including the Middle East. This is the case despite the fact that the U.S. involvement in Iraq, the 2006 fighting between Israel and Lebanon and the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians have been "quite painful" to Arab-American voters, he said.

Job losses and increased challenges to small business owners have trumped other issues, he said, and the economic situation has made many middle-class voters, including first-generation Americans from the Middle East, "not convinced that their children will have a life as good as theirs," Zogby said.

"Were they happy with the platforms? Those who have read them, and that's not a whole lot I would add, aren't. ... [B]ut overall, I think that's not what's driving the discussion right now," he said.

CAMPAIGNS AGREE ON IRAN SANCTIONS, DIFFER ON DIRECT TALKS

McCain and Obama have argued over whether the United States should enter into direct discussions with Iranian leaders, but both pledge increased pressure on Iran, mainly through tougher economic sanctions to dissuade it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The Democratic platform calls for "tougher sanctions and aggressive, principled, and direct high-level diplomacy, without preconditions." The Republicans "support tighter sanctions" against Iran and its business partners, but "oppose entering into a presidential-level, unconditional dialogue with the regime in Iran until it takes steps to improve its behavior," namely dropping its support of terrorism and halting its uranium enrichment efforts.

Both parties also pledge to "retain all options," which is widely interpreted as a willingness to use military force should diplomatic efforts fail.

Because foreign policy is the main focus of the first presidential debate between McCain and Obama, scheduled for September 26, the two candidates will have the opportunity to differentiate their respective policies toward the Middle East and other areas.

But overall, the "change" theme of the 2008 campaign does not appear applicable to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Source: U.S. Department of State