The Iowa and New Hampshire Democratic presidential primaries are heating up elections in the U.S. and forcing candidates to clearly outline their views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Bush’s unprecedented support for Israel and special relationship with Sharon strengthens and threatens defection among U.S. Jewish voters, Democratic candidates rushed to swear their affinity to Israel, in the hopes of securing the traditional support the American Jewish community gives to the Democratic Party.

The primaries show that Senator John Kerry has become the frontrunner, finally eclipsing the hot streak Governor Howard Dean has been riding. In November, at a synagogue event in Des Moines, Kerry pleased his Jewish audience when he told them that he had shouted “Am Yisrael Chai” from atop Masada. Kerry, who has a solid record of supporting Israel, has said that a resolution to the conflict with the Palestinians depends upon Israeli concessions in the territories. In accordance with this view, Kerry praised the Geneva Accord, despite the Sharon government’s outright disapproval of the virtual agreement.

While stating on Monday that he believes Sharon is interested in peace, he also has said he would like to give more leverage to the Palestinian Authority "to be able to become stronger on the ground in the West Bank than Hamas is." Moreover, Kerry said he would consider appointing either Clinton or Carter as his special envoy to the Middle East.

Howard Dean, while losing his firm grip on the election race, was second in the New Hampshire primary and continues to be a threat to the other candidates. The American Jewish community has been targeting Dean ever since he suggested that the U.S. should employ and “evenhanded” approach to the Middle East conflict. Clumsily, while trying to defend Israel’s assassination of Palestinian militants, by referring to Hamas as “soldiers” and hence fair game, he wound up offending the American Jewish community which viewed his words to be legitimizing the militant group.

Other than continually reneging on his earlier statements, Dean said the U.S. should be deeply involved in the Middle East and should pressure both Israel and the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table. Further, he has stated that more financial aid should be given to the Palestinians as an incentive to give up the ‘right of return’ and that Israel should be willing to return to pre-1967 ceasefire lines with Jordan in order to attain “security.” Like Kerry, Dean would appoint Clinton as his special Middle East envoy.

As for Senator John Edwards, thought to be in third pace in the election race, his views have not been clearly outlined, preferring instead to focus on domestic issues. However, Edwards, who visited Israel with Intelligence Committee colleagues in 2001, said he would increase U.S. engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the appointment of a senior envoy to the region. Disturbingly, he has signaled his support for Israel’s military tactics, including the Separation Wall Israel is erecting in the West Bank. Finally, Senators Lieberman and General (retired) Clark, both of whom have Jewish parents are staunch supporters of Israel. Clark, a converted Catholic, found out at the age 24 that his father, who died in 1948, was Jewish. Last Wednesday, Clark's staff organized a nationwide event aimed at his Jewish supporters. While declining to detail a peace plan, Clark took a hard line towards the Palestinians. "Years ago, I saw that the Palestinians are teaching hate in classrooms…When I am president, I will take action against that," he stated, ignoring the plethora of evidence to the contrary provided by Palestinians and internationals alike.

Clark, who is President Clinton's anointed favorite, envisions a multilateral approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, saying that increased involvement by neighboring Arab states would give them a stake in making the peace process a success. Clark is resolute in his belief that Israel has a right to defend itself and he places blame on the Palestinians for initiating the violence of the past three years. He views the Separation Wall as a justified Israeli “security” mechanism that outweighs the humanitarian and political grievances of the Palestinians, namely that the Wall is establishing de facto borders. Further, he defends Israel’s assassination policy, believing it to be a justified measure despite the civilian casualties. Given his defense of Israel’s military operations, it is a wonder that he is able to realize that “military measures alone will not provide security for Israel." It can be safely said that Clark’s hard line views only get harder with Lieberman.

Subject to their expected affinity to Israel and Dean’s dangerous remarks about buying the Palestinian’s right of return, the top two candidates present a view on the Middle East that is far more reasoned that the Bush administration’s policy over the last three years. That said, it is impossible to ascertain whether they will follow through their words if elected president. Pressure on the Democratic candidates is sure to increase as AIPAC exerts its full influence and their views are likely to become more hard line, particularly if Bush continues to nab the American Jewish vote. The result is that the American Arab community and the Palestinians will be kept guessing who to root for in the elections. Even if they get the presumed best candidate, history dictates that they should not hold their breath for a fairer and more just U.S. policy towards the Palestinian cause.