There is a perception that a Bush-Cheney administration would see Israel as a less significant strategic ally than has been the case in the past. After all, both men have strong oil-industry connections, and Cheney was a key player in Bush Sr.'s administration--back when James Baker and Brent Scowcroft clearly thought Israel was a burden.

"There's no question that in a Bush administration, a lot of attention will be given to what's said by the moderate Arab states," says Spiegel. "And they tend to be cynical about the Arab-Israeli peace process. But Cheney is the big player here. He has the respect of both the Arabs and the Israelis. You could end up with a scenario in which the vice-president is the mediator."

Cohen agrees, and goes one step further. "As unimportant as Cheney has been during the campaign, he'll do a lot of the heavy lifting in a Bush government. His ear will be attuned to the moderate Arab states telling him they can't afford the high risk of a prolonged low-intensity conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians because it's destabilizing in their countries. Now that the Arab summit is over, these leaders want high-level, high-intensity diplomacy and they will expect it, under Bush, to have an Arab-states twist."

In any discussion of policy tilts, of warmer or colder relations with Israel, it's important to remember one thing. Even as the landscape gets more difficult to navigate, American policy in the Middle East has, for three decades, generally been an island of bipartisanship. Each administration has accepted, in broad strokes, a land-for-peace strategy as a way to move forward. The differences are often largely tonal.

It is, in Daniel Pipes's words, the difference between the words and the music. Between the sensibility and the actual policy. Jews will, by and large, embrace those people with whom they believe they have an emotional rapport, which means someone they feel has a deep understanding of their security concerns.

That's why Bill Clinton could have America abstain rather than vote against a U.N. resolution condemning Israel, without a major outcry. "In the end," says Pipes, "establishing that rapport is more important than any specific policy."

Bush Sr. never really understood this. It remains to be seen whether his son has learned from his mistakes.

Related:

• Archive: “The City Politic”
• Articles by Craig Horowitz
• Table of Contents: November 6, 2000 issue of New York | Subscribe!