About halfway through the American vice-presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden the other night, Palin made a statement that literally made me raise my eyebrows. In the middle of a discussion about Israel and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and after Biden had expressed his support for Israel, she said this: "I'm so encouraged to know that we both love Israel, and I think that is a good thing to get to agree on, Senator Biden."
Actually, when she said this, I not only raised my eyebrows, but my mouth dropped open as well. I guess I just couldn't believe what she had just said. She loves Israel? I found this strange, this profession of devotion to another country in the middle of an American vice-presidential debate.
I don't want to leave Biden out, though. What prompted this pronouncement was a similar statement of devotion he had made several minutes earlier. "No one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden," he said. "I would have never, ever joined this ticket were I not absolutely sure Barack Obama shared my passion." So, she loves Israel and he is Israel's best friend. I hope nobody I know here was watching.
As I said, these statements were made in the middle of a discussion about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. What struck me most about this discussion, though, was its complete focus on the Israeli side of the conflict, and the complete absence of the Palestinian aspect. For example, Palin said this: "We will support Israel. A two-state solution, building our embassy, also, in Jerusalem, those things that we look forward to being able to accomplish, with this peace-seeking nation... It's got to be a commitment of the United States of America, though. And I can promise you, in a McCain-Palin administration, that commitment is there to work with our friends in Israel."
Again, though, not to be outdone, Biden took his turn. After calling the Middle East policies of President Bush "an abject failure," he said this: "We will change this policy with thoughtful, real, live diplomacy that understands that you must back Israel in letting them negotiate, support their negotiation, and stand with them, not insist on policies like this administration has."
I added the italics and the bolding above to help point out that this discussion of what we call the Israeli/Palestinian conflict left out the Palestinians. Palin said she and McCain would "work with Israel", and Biden said that he and Obama would "back Israel", but neither took the time to discuss what their policies would be toward, or the place of, the other party in this conflict, the Palestinians. Shouldn't this be part of the discussion? After all, we don't call it the "Israeli conflict"; we call it the "Israeli/Palestinian conflict". There are two groups of people involved.
Maybe I should have heard all of this in the context of what was going on in the debate at the time--the strangely politically necessary affirmation of adoration for the State of Israel. However, I can't help but think that their subsequent statements spotlight everything that is wrong with American policy on this issue--the Palestinians aren't even considered.
These two American politicians love Israel, are best friends with Israel and have a "passion" for Israel. They want to "support Israel", "work with our friends in Israel", "back Israel" and "support their negotiation." But what about the other guys, the Palestinians? And what kind of peace process leaves their needs and even their mention out of the discussion entirely? Surely Palestinians have needs worth backing or supporting. Surely we can work with them and support their negotiation. Perhaps they are even worth loving and befriending too. My point is that there are two sides in this conflict, with real people behind the arguments and ideologies of both sides. Recognizing just one of these sides will never lead to reconciliation, and to true, just and lasting peace. It will instead continue to marginalize and anger the ignored.
3 comments:
This is probably one of the most frustrating points in American politics for me. No one seems to recognize that the Palestinians have a voice, and many of their demands are reasonable. I highly recommend you guys read "The Lemon Tree" by Sandy Tolan if you haven't read it. Great book.
Unfortunately, this is what it boils down to: the Jewish community has a HUGE (and extremely powerful) lobby in DC, and the Palestinians do not.
You are properly concerned about the lack of interest in the Palestinians' position but I would not place too much importance into what is said in a presidential campaign. What you might think (or hope) will be a serious discussion of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is simply a campaign slogan to shape the public's perception of the candidate.
I could go into how political campaigns are not about the issues, but about framing the issues. (Like when the Wall Street bailout bill was being voted on, campaigns had different versions of political ads ready to go to attack the other side. If you vote for it, they will frame it in a way that they can attack you. If you vote the other way, they will frame it a different way so that they can attack you.) Campaigns are also more about defining your opponent while still trying to define yourself to the public.
It would be too simplistic to say supporting Israel is pandering for the Jewish vote--there is more riding on it than that. Support for Palestinians would open yourself to attacks (or being defined by your opponent) saying you support the Palestinian use of violence. They would also say you support Muslim control of the holy land which would loose sizable numbers of votes from US Christians and Jews. Non-religious Americans would also tend to look unfavorably on such a politician for both racial and vaguely religious reasons.
Beyond the Israel/Palestinian conflict is the Israel/Arab conflict. To both of these, Americans would tend to say, "Are those still going on?" Americans don't know much about the Middle East in general. They know we have about two friends there (Israel being one of them) and there might still be a war going on in Iraq. Saying we will be a friend to our friend in the Middle East is like saying we will continue to support the cuteness of puppies. It doesn't mean much but it sounds good.
Biden's statement about the Bush administration's Middle East policy was probably not much about Israel but more likely he was referring to the situation in Iraq. Campaigns tend to paint with a broad brush because specific details may hurt you in several ways. Some viewers may not understand the fine points you are making. You may be depicted as an elitist or "out of touch." You may have those fine points taking out of context or exaggerated by your opponent. For all the dangers involved, specific details will probably not win you many votes.
For me, I like details. When I hear these candidates say they will stand by Israel, I would want them to define what they mean. Support could mean many things:
- Support Israel's continued existence (supporting Israel as a concept)
- Support Israel's side in negotiations with the Palestinians
- Support Israel by selling them US weapons and weapon systems
The good news is that administrations tend to believe in and use diplomacy where campaigns stick to the safe ground of rhetoric.
A question I have is about the views (and perhaps history) of the "2-state solution." My understanding of the different positions would be that radicals on both sides want an all or nothing approach (wiping Israel from the map or pushing the Palestinians into the sea). During the 90s (or was it earlier?) the idea of a two state solution took hold as a compromise that continued from the Clinton administration into the Bush administration. Is it correct that both the Palestinians and Israelis want a two state solution or is calling for a 2-state solution inherently taking one side over the other?
Thanks for your perspective. In all the commentary I heard after the debate, I didn't hear one mention about their stated stances on Israel. Make sure to check out Saturday Night Live at nbc.com if you can for their spoofs from the debates. Not only are they funny, but they have a large influence on the political discourse in the US.
Paul
I think that because Florida is a battleground state and that many retired Jewish folks live there, both candidates were reaching out for their votes with their statements.
Post a Comment