I have the occasional worry that Herman Cain, having never been elected to office before and with no real work in government in his career, may face a tough learning curve in some complicated areas of federal-government policy.

But the idea that he’s committed some sort of epic gaffe by not being familiar with the phrase “right of return” in the context of the Palestinians strikes me as pretty weak tea as far as campaign stumbles go. Some guy at the Atlanta Journal Constitution goes so far to declare that Cain “forfeit[s] any claim as a legitimate candidate” by not being familiar with the phrase “right of return.” The exchange:

CAIN: Right of return? Right of return?
WALLACE: The Palestinian right of return.
CAIN: That’s something that should be negotiated.
When asked again about whether he believes in the Palestinian right of return, Cain seemed unclear about the Israeli position on the matter, as well as his own.
CAIN: Yes, but under — but not under — Palestinian conditions. Yes. They should have a right to come back if that is a decision that Israel wants to make. . . . I don’t think they have a big problem with people returning.

(Right of return: The argument that Palestinians who departed territory that became part of Israel in 1948 and 1967 will be able to resettle on the land that was theirs or their ancestors’. In other words, should many, many Palestinians (millions) be permitted to settle on land Israel currently believes is its own territory?)

Most Americans don’t pay much attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are many reasons for this, but as a result, the notion that the president of the United States is primarily responsible for creating peace between two peoples who have been in a life-and-death struggle for centuries is held only by a small, but vocal, slice of the elites. According to Gallup, only 30 percent think there will ever be peace in the Middle East.

To the extent Americans think about the conflict, they have a clear favorite: According to Gallup, an entire 15 percent of Americans describe themselves as sympathizing more with the Palestinians than the Israelis; 63 percent describe themselves as sympathizing more with the Israelis. Among Republicans, 85 percent describe themselves as sympathizing with the Israelis more. It’s entirely possible that not knowing “right of return” will not cost Cain a single vote in the GOP presidential-primary process.

Note the reaction on the left — including sites like the spectacularly misnamed “Moderate Voice” — has been to declare that Cain is a “blithering idiot” based on this. (I’m sure “57 states” and “bitter clingers” were no big deals to these folks.) Over at ThinkProgress, commenters sneer that Cain is merely an ignorant pizza delivery guy.

And of course, it didn’t take long for this to crop up in the comments on Alan Colmes’ site:

“Shoeshine boy.” Because he disagrees with you. Why would we expect anything different?

All Cain’s comment did was reveal that he hasn’t given more than a moment’s thought to what the Palestinians — you know, the folks who elected Hamas to run their government and who danced on 9/11 — are demanding. I suppose that if you cling to the idea that only thing holding back peace in our time is a sufficient number of White House all-nighters on creative cartography, then yes, you would want a president familiar with “right of return” and the whole cavalcade of Palestinian demands. If you think the root of the problem is a culture that celebrates suicide bombers more than doctors and entrepreneurs, then this looks like small potatoes; all the presidential familiarity in the world with the “right of return” argument won’t make much difference.

You can have your president who has spent a great deal of time studying how to please the Palestinians. I’d much prefer a president who focused more on what Americans want.