McCain, Clinton committed to work for peace between Israel and the Palestinians

1.

New articles by Senators John McCain, the Republican, and Hillary Clinton, the Democrat, were published today in Foreign Affairs.

This is part of the magazine's effort to have the leading presidential candidates on the record with a more elaborate discussion of their potential foreign policy. I wrote in the past about the first pair of articles, by Obama and Romney (Obama prepares for peace, Romney prepares for war) and about the second, Edwards and Giuliani (Edwards: Iraq was a trap, Giuliani: Vietnam was a victory).

Now it's time for me to write about the third.

2.

Israel is mentioned primarily in the context of the Iranian threat. Clinton writes about the "dangerous situation in the Middle East that threatens Israel and could potentially bring down the global economy by disrupting oil supplies", namely Iran. McCain writes about "the increased threats to Israel - from Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others."

But the formulae they offer for solving the problem are different, in tone more than anything. Clinton prefers to be more vague, McCain more explicit. But on the hottest issue of all ? the possibility of military action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, they both stay within the familiar framework of "all options are on the table."

3.

"The Bush administration", accuses Clinton, "refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it".

As a result, she says, "we have lost precious time". And her solution? "Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations", "all options must remain on the table."

If Iran is in fact "willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq", she says, "the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives."

And if not, then what? She doesn't really say.

4.

McCain is the one willing to go into more details regarding the Iranian question.

"The next president must confront this threat directly, and that effort must begin with tougher political and economic sanctions. If the United Nations is unwilling to act, the United States must lead a group of like-minded countries to impose effective multilateral sanctions, such as restrictions on exports of refined gasoline, outside the UN framework. America and its partners should also privatize the sanctions effort by supporting a disinvestment campaign to isolate and delegitimize the regime in Tehran, whose policies are already opposed by many Iranian citizens. And military action, although not the preferred option, must remain on the table: Tehran must understand that it cannot win a showdown with the world."

5.

One of the most controversial elements of the Foreign Affairs article written by Rudy Giuliani was his contention that too much emphasis "has been placed on brokering negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians - negotiations that bring up the same issues again and again. It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism. Palestinian statehood will have to be earned through sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel. America's commitment to Israel's security is a permanent feature of our foreign policy."

Both McCain and Clinton appear to disagree, however.

6.

McCain writes that, "The long-elusive quest for peace between Israel and the Palestinians must remain a priority. But the goal must be genuine peace, and so Hamas must be isolated even as the United States intensifies its commitment to finding an enduring settlement."

He seems to try to calm Israel's hawkish supporters with the carrot of keeping Hamas at bay, but the language is unmistakable. "Quest", "priority", "intensifies", "commitment". If one is looking for a pro-peace process Republican candidate, McCain seem to be the right choice.


7.

For Clinton, the quest for peace is yet another opportunity to remind people of her husband's record in office:

"The fundamental elements of a final agreement have been clear since 2000: a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank in return for a declaration that the conflict is over, recognition of Israel's right to exist, guarantees of Israeli security, diplomatic recognition of Israel, and normalization of its relations with Arab states."

This is her version of the Clinton post-Camp-David parameters.

She believes that "U.S. diplomacy is critical in helping to resolve this conflict." But makes sure to keep expectations low: "Whether or not the United States makes progress in helping to broker a final agreement, consistent U.S. involvement can lower the level of violence and restore our credibility in the region."

Again, a useful reminder: She has enough of experience as to know that involvement does not necessarily ensure results.

8.

So who's better for Israel?

We dealt with this question in the past in the Israel Factor. We will deal with it again next week based on these articles. Here's a reminder from the previous head to head much:

The four panelists who thought Clinton is better were the same panelists who gave McCain the lowest grades on the question his emotional attachment to Israel. This, evidently, is an important question, and probably the most profound reason why Giuliani keeps getting better marks than McCain (and Clinton - in a two way race he beat her easily with 4.12 to 3). The panelists highlighted the "emotional attachment" as the most distinctive difference between the two, with McCain scoring 2.75 to Giuliani's 4.12.

Today on Rosner's Domain:

Rosner's Guest:
Steven Spiegel: How to deal with Hamas before Annapolis

What To Read:
The future of neoconservatism

Previous blog:
Is it okay for Ann Coulter to want all Jews to become Christian?

The Israel Factor:
A Republican is more likely to attack Iran