He would not have been ill-received had he done so. The overriding sentiment on both sides of the presidential debate — indeed, the overriding sentiment of U.S. policy in general — has been unconditional support of Israel. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, during an ostentatious speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s Annual Policy Conference, declared his commitment to “make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, unbreakable tomorrow, unbreakable forever.” Republican presidential nominee John McCain has made numerous statements to the same effect. Our candidates have made it abundantly clear that they are “for” Israel, but there is another country, occupying exactly the same territory, about which they have uttered nary a word.

I am speaking, of course, of Palestine. The term originally referred to the area that now comprises Israel, but “Palestine” and “Palestinian” have now come to refer specifically to Arabic-speaking people with family origins in that region. The area was ruled by the Ottoman Empire before World War I, the British Palestinian Mandate during the inter-war period, and the State of Israel since 1948. It has become something of a taboo to mention the Palestinians during an election cycle, lest one be accused of anti-Semitism, but the point deserves discussion.

The 1948 accords that brought Israel into being were unfair to the native Palestinians. With one stroke of a pen in London they were instantly transformed into Israelis, and they have suffered countless indignities since. Neighboring countries turned away the waves of refugees which followed Israeli expansion, and many found themselves second-class citizens or worse if they stayed. When Prime Minister Golda Meir infamously declared that there was no such thing as a Palestinian people, she said more about Israeli policy than perhaps she intended.

This is not to excuse the methods with which Palestine has fought for its national identity, but to point out that they have legitimate grievances which still have not fully been addressed. The 1993 Oslo Accords were a halting step in that direction: Both sides acknowledged each other’s existence, but very little more. A Palestinian National Authority was established where Palestinians would have autonomy, not sovereignty. They could choose local leaders and police themselves, but the land would formally still belong to Israel. The distinction proved more important than first thought, as the Palestinians whose homes were demolished to make way for Israeli construction later realized.

Both presidential campaigns have unequivocally put their support behind a two-state solution to this quandary — Palin put it most directly when she said: “A two-state solution is the solution” — but very little has been said beyond that. One would like to know precisely how such a scheme would be implemented. The amount of arable land in Israel is shrinking by the day, and there is still no clear plan for sharing it equitably.

There also is the matter of free elections. The U.S. and Israel are prone to disregard electoral outcomes not to their pleasure, as evidenced by their refusal to recognize the Hamas government in 2006. Can Palestinians take two-state promises seriously after that?

These and other matters need serious discussion, but it does not look as though they will get it. Instead we may look forward to more squabbling over who, in fact, is Israel’s best friend.

Pavan Vangipuram is a State News columnist and chemical engineering senior. Reach him at vangipu1@msu.edu.