Do Iowa and NH voters care about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

I bumped into this new Zogby poll on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the voters of Iowa and NH (to be accurate, it is not the poll, but rather a press release describing its findings) and thought it justifies some commentary.
Here are some of the poll's findings and what I have to say about them:

1.
Almost one-third of likely Iowa caucus goers from both parties said they would be more likely to caucus for a candidate who pledged to actively engage in "promoting peace between Israelis and Palestinians." In New Hampshire, that number holds for Republicans and climbs to 41% of Democrats.

This is misleading, pure and simple. Finding whether a voter considers a topic worthy of serious concern cannot be done in such a way. One has to compare the issue it to other issues; otherwise, anyone can come up with hundreds of topics presumably influencing voters. Global warning is one such example. People will say it is very important to them, but wen compared to other topics it will usually be on the bottom half of the list ("the issue is a relatively low priority for members of both parties," states a PEW analysis). Also, global warming is still much higher than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

2.
Take, for example, this PEW poll from 2004. 28% of respondents listed "solve Israeli/ Palestinian conflict" as a top priority. Sound impressive? Not necessarily. If you look at the full list of topics, this one is only number 17 out of 19 possibilities. The important finding of that PEW poll (regarding the Israeli-Palestinian issue was different: "A growing number of Americans believe the United States is not doing enough to bring about a peace settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians." Again, this is important because you can make the comparison. "In April 2002 a majority of respondents (53%) said they felt America was making its best efforts" to solve the conflict. By 2004, this number was down by 7 points.

3.
So, how important really is the Israeli-Palestinian issue for voters? It is important in the sense that if you ask specifically about it people will say that America should be helping to solve it (another example is this Gallup poll.)
But, when asked about their priorities, voters will hardly mention it if at all. The war in Iraq is still the top issue. Health care is important, education is still important, as is immigration. All "other" issues combined (in the latest Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll) are 4%. Bottom line: You can?t win election by focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even the Zogby poll tells you that 60% of voters see no difference between a candidate who promises to promote the peace process and one who does not.

4.
But can a candidate lose voters by talking about promoting the peace process? Here, the Zogby poll offers some clues, but is still not clear enough:

The poll results do not indicate a political downside to promoting positive U.S. engagement, with only 2% of Democrats and 8% of Republicans in Iowa and 6% of likely primary voters from both parties in New Hampshire saying that such a pledge [to actively engage in promoting peace] would make them less likely to support that candidate.

First the good news: a candidate can promise to be engaged without suffering any political loses.
Now the bad news: pledging to "engage" really means almost nothing. Bill Clinton was engaged, just as Bush claims to be now. The poll does not offer any specifics other than the very vague promise of engagement.

5.
When asked about the priority of Israeli-Palestinian peace to U.S. interests, three-quarters of both Democrats and Republicans in both states agreed that a "two-state solution providing peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinian should be an important goal of U.S. foreign policy."

Again, this is meaningless. It is like asking people if they will support a plan that will provide a nice car and a big house for every man and woman in the world. Of course they will, and similarly they will support a solution that brings about "peace and security" for both people. The questions is whether they believe such peace is possible, and the answer to this question is no (but Zogby will not tell you that).
When asked, "Do you think there will or will not come a time when Israel and the Arab nations will be able to settle their differences and live in peace?" a CBS News/New York Times Poll asked. 70% of respondents said no. In a more recent Gallup poll it was 63% no (to 34% yes).

6.
The poll shows strong support across all subgroups, including gender, race, age, and political ideology.
And you know why? It's because the poll is meaningless. No one will say he opposes peace and security for all (see comment 3).

7.
So what am I saying here?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is worth solving, and the commitment of an American president might be of some assistance. But pretending that this is what the American voters want is actually counterproductive: As things stand now (and this can off course change) a president whose foreign policy will be based on public opinion polls will the one less likely to deal with this conflict - no matter how one spins the outcome of polls.