This week's U.S.
presidential election will have major implications for the entire
Western world, but particularly for Israel. It is worth mentioning that
Israel and the Jews have never featured so prominently in a presidential
campaign. In last month's foreign policy debate between President
Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney, both candidates made an effort to
demonstrate their pro-Israel credentials and the Jewish state was
mentioned no less than 34 times.
Until recently, there
was an emerging consensus shared by supporters and opponents alike that
Romney had failed to make an impact and that Obama would be re-elected.
Yet since the first dramatic debate, the upsurge in support for Romney
has been extraordinary and if the polls reflect reality, the outcome
could be a real cliff-hanger.
Of course, opinion
polls can be misleading. The complexity of the Electoral College voting
system does not necessarily grant victory to the candidate who wins the
majority of the votes. Even more critical is whether those who actually
vote will proportionately adhere to the same trends as those initially
polled.
Not surprisingly, many
Israelis will be hoping for a Romney win. Despite Obama’s ongoing
commitment to providing Israel with military aid and his more recent
positive policies toward Israel, it is no secret that he personally
loathes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Most Israelis are
fearful that if re-elected, no longer needing a charm offensive to
garner Jewish support, Obama is likely to repeat the pattern of his
first term when he unashamedly reneged on many of his previous
undertakings with regard to Israel.
They are concerned that
he will revert to his earlier policy of putting "daylight" between
Israel and the U.S. and renew pressure on the Jewish state to make
further unilateral concessions toward the Palestinians. There is the
fear that he will again insist that the indefensible 1949 armistice
lines be considered as the opening benchmark for negotiating borders and
will also press for the division of Jerusalem.
Romney, in contrast,
enjoys a cordial personal relationship with Netanyahu. More importantly,
he also seems to display a far more positive attitude toward the Jewish
state. One of his major criticisms of the current administration's
foreign policy has been Obama’s alleged abandonment and continuous
public chastisement and humiliation of Israel.
While Obama blames
Israeli settlement policies — including construction of homes in east
Jerusalem’s Jewish suburbs — for the impasse with the Palestinians,
Romney says plainly that peace will be unattainable until the
Palestinians genuinely abandon their objective to destroy and eliminate
the Jewish state.
Notwithstanding his
vows to do all that is necessary to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear
power, should sanctions fail to bring about tangible results, there are
grave doubts as to whether Obama would be willing to take the tough
measures required. However, should Romney be elected, while presumably
providing notice of tougher intentions, during his first months in
office he too would be unlikely to immediately initiate drastic military
action.
There is a vast chasm
between the approaches of each candidate in relation to the Arab world,
which is increasingly falling under more extreme Islamic and jihadist
influences. Even the terms Islamic extremism or Islamic terrorism are
banned. Despite having eliminated Osama bin Laden, the Obama
administration has, as a matter of course, appeased Islamists by
initially resisting sanctions and failing to support the Iranian
dissidents seeking regime change.
Shortly after taking
office, Obama infuriated Egypt's Mubarak government by legitimizing the
Muslim Brotherhood when he insisted that their representatives occupy
the front row at his inaugural speech in Cairo. Furthermore, at the
outset of protests in Egypt, he abandoned the authoritarian President
Hosni Mubarak, regarded as one of the strongest U.S. allies in the Arab
world. Since then, his administration has consistently understated the
fanatical extremism of the Muslim Brotherhood and ignored the recent
genocidal exhortations against Israel by their newly elected Egyptian
leader. The groveling response to the terrorist upsurges in Libya and
Egypt is another indicator of the administration’s policy of Islamic
appeasement.
Obama also repeatedly
publicly praised the dictatorial Islamist Turkish leader Recep Erdoğan,
who made himself popular in the Arab world with his anti-Israel tirades
and efforts to impose boycotts and isolate the Jewish state.
Yet, after four years
in office, despite President Obama’s desperate efforts to appease and
“engage” the Islamists, today the U.S. is more reviled in the Arab world
than ever before.
The perception among most Israelis is that a Romney administration would be more realistic and tougher toward the Islamists.
In contrast, most
American Jews, clearly loath to forfeit their liberal DNA, still support
Obama and will continue voting for the Democratic Party. Besides, like
most Americans, economic policies are the principal factors determining
their vote.
This also partially
reflects the depressing reality that a large portion of American Jews,
especially the more assimilated ones, no longer consider Israel a major
priority when casting their votes. Indeed, for many of the less
committed Jews, issues like gay marriage and abortion on demand seem to
outweigh the well-being of the Jewish state.
On the other hand,
there will undoubtedly be a substantial number of Jewish defections from
the Obama camp, with the more committed and Orthodox Jewish segments
voting heavily against the current president.
Netanyahu has
assiduously avoided engaging in the presidential campaign. That has not
prevented his political opponents from accusing him of making Israel a
“wedge” issue. Yet it would be inconceivable that due to the U.S.
presidential election, an Israeli prime minister should remain silent on
the need for the world to stand up and take tough action against a
potentially nuclear power. One that has publicly exhorted the world to
support its objective of wiping Netanyahu's country — “a cancer” — off
the face of the earth. As Netanyahu said to CNN: “I am being guided by
the Iranian nuclear calendar, not the American political calendar."
But Netanyahu would be
less than human if privately he did not yearn for a Romney victory, as
the latter has been both a friend and ally.
If Obama is re-elected,
however, Netanyahu will be obliged to try to overcome the personal
animosity and work with him, without compromising Israel’s security or
long-term strategic interests. This will not be easy but as long as
grass-roots support for Israel remains strong and Congress does not
abandon us, it is possible. From his side, Obama may have learned that
his bullying tactics only strengthened public support for Netanyahu in
Israel.
And if Romney wins,
Israelis should hold off on the euphoria. Although Romney will
undoubtedly have a better chemistry with Israel than his predecessor, we
still face tough challenges. And we should bear in mind that while
Romney is undoubtedly a friend, the track records of Republican
presidents toward Israel have also often been problematic.
Regardless of who becomes the
next U.S. president, American Jewish leaders must seek to reverse the
growing threat from the far Left anti-Israel activists within the
Democratic Party and reinvigorate the bipartisan spirit that has been so
vital to maintain the strong U.S.-Israel relationship.
No comments:
Post a Comment