‘We’re with Israel’ The hopefuls for the Republican presidential nomination have each laid claim to being the best candidate to beat Obama in the fall, and their focus on Israel is a reflection of that contest. Romney, for instance, has accused Obama more than once of “disrespecting” Netanyahu and “throwing Israel under the bus” by endorsing the pre-1967 lines as the starting point for negotiations over a future Palestinian state.“I think [Obama] has time and time again shown distance from Israel, and that has created, in my view, a greater sense of aggression on the part of the Palestinians. I will stand with our friend, Israel,” Romney said in a televised debate on CNN in early January.Romney’s words have a ring of truth to them. On both his demand for an Israeli settlement freeze and then his endorsement of the pre-’67 lines, the Palestinians took Obama’s positions and dug in their heels, setting each as preconditions for any direct talks with the Netanyahu government. In addition, both White House decisions were reportedly taken without any real consultations with Jerusalem.For his part, Netanyahu did take serious political risks in imposing a 10- month settlement moratorium, but the Palestinians frittered the time away. Netanyahu also eventually agreed to open talks with the pre-’67 lines as one source for guidance on future borders, but he has also insisted on Israel retaining the major settlement blocs and maintaining an IDF presence in the Jordan Valley to defend Israel’s eastern border.Santorum also came out against the pre-’67 lines as soon as Obama endorsed the idea last May. In an editorial for National Review, Santorum wrote, “Obama has just put Israel’s very existence in more peril,” adding that his decision came just after the Palestinian Authority agreed to a reconciliation deal with Hamas.“To all but the blind, such a call at this time is nothing less than the rewarding of terrorism,” wrote Santorum. This move “prejudged” negotiations and put Israel “further on the defensive,” he added. Santorum has even gone on record as considering the West Bank to be Israeli land.While Romney and Santorum have been outspoken on Israel for months, Gingrich has begun to come on strong of late. In that same CNN debate in early January, he promised that as president he would order the relocation of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem “the first day… to send the signal we’re with Israel.”More notably, Gingrich stirred controversy by arguing that the Palestinians are an “invented people” who until the 1970s viewed themselves as Syrian and Jordanian Arabs. Many pro-Israel commentators applauded Gingrich’s honest assessment, but the Arab world bristled at his remarks, and his campaign opponents suggested he may have gone too far.In a debate on ABC, Cong. Paul – an avid proponent of reducing American involvement overseas – acknowledged the historical accuracy of Gingrich’s claim but argued it was going to get the US into trouble with its Mideast allies.Romney asserted that Gingrich had made the same mistake as Obama. “The United States of America should not jump ahead of Bibi Netanyahu and say something that makes it more difficult for him to do his job,” he cautioned.But Gingrich stood his ground, declaring that he was simply speaking the truth, just as Ronald Reagan had called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.”“Reagan believed [in] the power of truth… and reframed the world.” Gingrich retorted. “I’m proud to be a Reaganite. I will tell the truth, even if it’s at the risk of causing some confusion sometimes with the timid.”No apologies Obama shot back at all the criticism in his State of the Union address in late January, signaling his intent to defend his record on the Middle East this autumn. Obama trumpeted his “ironclad commitment” to Israel’s security, which he claimed had resulted in “the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history.” He insisted the US is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and will take “no options off the table” to achieve that goal. He added that with the death of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida was now “scrambling” to escape the reach of the US.“America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs – and as long as I’m president, I intend to keep it that way,” Obama decreed.Some analysts viewed his remarks as an implicit recognition of Republican claims that he is more interested in apologizing for America’s mistakes than advancing its interests. They viewed his State of the Union address as more the opening salvo in his 2012 presidential campaign and a clear indication he will not be running away from his foreign policy record.But one Republican Jewish activist said the speech reflected Obama’s awareness that “he’s been taking a hammering” on Israel and Iran.With lots of Jewish votes at stake in the Florida primary just a few days later, the Republican candidates continued to pounce on Obama. At a gathering hosted by an Orthodox Jewish synagogue, Santorum alluded to a recent speech Obama gave at the Pentagon in which he stated that the “tide of war is receding,” referring to direct US engagement in Iran and Afghanistan.“The president… is wrong. The war is on, and its front lines are advancing towards us and our allies, above all toward Israel,” Santorum insisted. “They are outspoken in their desire to weaken us and drive us out of their regions. Some of them – Iran, and the radical Islamists whose rise to power has been facilitated by this president – speak eagerly of destroying us, and our allies, especially Israel.”Santorum had put his finger on perhaps the most important foreign policy issue of this election: the determined radical forces seeking to subvert the US and its allies. “We have no strategy to deal with this gathering storm. Indeed, our leaders act as if things are getting better every day,” he said.Referring to a recent opinion article suggesting Obama led from behind, Santorum assured: “I will lead from the front, which is America’s mission.”Iran options Going forward, the Iranian nuclear threat will continue to be a key focal point of the Republican foreign policy debates. The UN’s atomic watchdog agency has concluded that Tehran has active military components to its nuclear program, and there are mounting concerns in Washington that Israel may soon feel compelled to launch preemptive military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iran is now moving elements of its uranium enrichment program to the fortified underground facility at Fordow, shortening the window for Israeli action.Santorum recently called Iran “the central threat right now” and said that he would be willing, as a last resort, to order a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Santorum believes that such an attack would not automatically start a major war, but, rather, would prevent Iran from escalating its global terror campaign under a nuclear umbrella. Still, he believes the West can do a lot more to assist the Iranian people in bringing about a regime change in Tehran.Gingrich has also called for the US to openly seek regime change as the best way to prevent Iran from going nuclear. In a CNN debate in November, he called for cutting off the supply of gasoline to the Islamic Republic and sabotaging their oil refinery capabilities, steps that he felt “could break the Iranian regime” within a year’s time.Romney has been less committal on Iran, saying in a CNN debate in November that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be indicted for inciting to genocide against Israel. Romney also called for “crippling sanctions that stop their economy. I know it’s going to make gasoline more expensive. There’s no price which is worth an Iranian nuclear weapon.”Not surprisingly, Paul has been the only one firmly opposed to striking Iran. A proponent of the belief that enemies act against the US because America is too interventionist around the world, Paul has said “the biggest threat to our national security is our financial condition,” and more wars and foreign aid are “just aggravating it.”This prompted Israeli strategic analyst Barry Rubin to quip: “Why is Ron Paul so much like Barack Obama on foreign policy? Because both men tend to blame America first.”Indeed, all Israelis are watching the US elections closely, and many are flattered at all the love and attention they are receiving from the candidates in this US election cycle, but becoming the object of a tug-of-war amid a heated presidential race may not be such a positive development, according to some.“We’ve seen many presidents from both parties that, at the end of the day, were all very good on Israel, with some variations,” Israel’s former ambassador to Washington Sallai Meridor recently told The Christian Edition. “But the risk of losing bipartisan support in America and becoming a political football is immense.“The bipartisan support of the people in America is a vital asset for Israel, its security and well-being. And I would make every effort… not to be perceived as playing into American politics in an election year,” he continued.“It’s a very delicate year,” Meridor concluded. “It is highly important for Israel that Democrats and Republicans will feel that the love for Israel, the care for Israel, the relations with Israel are above and beyond politics. But as serious as this issue might be, it is nothing compared to the Iranian issue.”Joshua Spurlock is a veteran reporter on Israel and currently serves as editor of The Mideast Update (www.themideastupdate.com).
Israel becoming ‘political football’ in US
Conservatives have increasingly lambasted Obama for abandoning US allies and appeasing its enemies.
‘We’re with Israel’ The hopefuls for the Republican presidential nomination have each laid claim to being the best candidate to beat Obama in the fall, and their focus on Israel is a reflection of that contest. Romney, for instance, has accused Obama more than once of “disrespecting” Netanyahu and “throwing Israel under the bus” by endorsing the pre-1967 lines as the starting point for negotiations over a future Palestinian state.“I think [Obama] has time and time again shown distance from Israel, and that has created, in my view, a greater sense of aggression on the part of the Palestinians. I will stand with our friend, Israel,” Romney said in a televised debate on CNN in early January.Romney’s words have a ring of truth to them. On both his demand for an Israeli settlement freeze and then his endorsement of the pre-’67 lines, the Palestinians took Obama’s positions and dug in their heels, setting each as preconditions for any direct talks with the Netanyahu government. In addition, both White House decisions were reportedly taken without any real consultations with Jerusalem.For his part, Netanyahu did take serious political risks in imposing a 10- month settlement moratorium, but the Palestinians frittered the time away. Netanyahu also eventually agreed to open talks with the pre-’67 lines as one source for guidance on future borders, but he has also insisted on Israel retaining the major settlement blocs and maintaining an IDF presence in the Jordan Valley to defend Israel’s eastern border.Santorum also came out against the pre-’67 lines as soon as Obama endorsed the idea last May. In an editorial for National Review, Santorum wrote, “Obama has just put Israel’s very existence in more peril,” adding that his decision came just after the Palestinian Authority agreed to a reconciliation deal with Hamas.“To all but the blind, such a call at this time is nothing less than the rewarding of terrorism,” wrote Santorum. This move “prejudged” negotiations and put Israel “further on the defensive,” he added. Santorum has even gone on record as considering the West Bank to be Israeli land.While Romney and Santorum have been outspoken on Israel for months, Gingrich has begun to come on strong of late. In that same CNN debate in early January, he promised that as president he would order the relocation of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem “the first day… to send the signal we’re with Israel.”More notably, Gingrich stirred controversy by arguing that the Palestinians are an “invented people” who until the 1970s viewed themselves as Syrian and Jordanian Arabs. Many pro-Israel commentators applauded Gingrich’s honest assessment, but the Arab world bristled at his remarks, and his campaign opponents suggested he may have gone too far.In a debate on ABC, Cong. Paul – an avid proponent of reducing American involvement overseas – acknowledged the historical accuracy of Gingrich’s claim but argued it was going to get the US into trouble with its Mideast allies.Romney asserted that Gingrich had made the same mistake as Obama. “The United States of America should not jump ahead of Bibi Netanyahu and say something that makes it more difficult for him to do his job,” he cautioned.But Gingrich stood his ground, declaring that he was simply speaking the truth, just as Ronald Reagan had called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.”“Reagan believed [in] the power of truth… and reframed the world.” Gingrich retorted. “I’m proud to be a Reaganite. I will tell the truth, even if it’s at the risk of causing some confusion sometimes with the timid.”No apologies Obama shot back at all the criticism in his State of the Union address in late January, signaling his intent to defend his record on the Middle East this autumn. Obama trumpeted his “ironclad commitment” to Israel’s security, which he claimed had resulted in “the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history.” He insisted the US is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and will take “no options off the table” to achieve that goal. He added that with the death of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida was now “scrambling” to escape the reach of the US.“America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs – and as long as I’m president, I intend to keep it that way,” Obama decreed.Some analysts viewed his remarks as an implicit recognition of Republican claims that he is more interested in apologizing for America’s mistakes than advancing its interests. They viewed his State of the Union address as more the opening salvo in his 2012 presidential campaign and a clear indication he will not be running away from his foreign policy record.But one Republican Jewish activist said the speech reflected Obama’s awareness that “he’s been taking a hammering” on Israel and Iran.With lots of Jewish votes at stake in the Florida primary just a few days later, the Republican candidates continued to pounce on Obama. At a gathering hosted by an Orthodox Jewish synagogue, Santorum alluded to a recent speech Obama gave at the Pentagon in which he stated that the “tide of war is receding,” referring to direct US engagement in Iran and Afghanistan.“The president… is wrong. The war is on, and its front lines are advancing towards us and our allies, above all toward Israel,” Santorum insisted. “They are outspoken in their desire to weaken us and drive us out of their regions. Some of them – Iran, and the radical Islamists whose rise to power has been facilitated by this president – speak eagerly of destroying us, and our allies, especially Israel.”Santorum had put his finger on perhaps the most important foreign policy issue of this election: the determined radical forces seeking to subvert the US and its allies. “We have no strategy to deal with this gathering storm. Indeed, our leaders act as if things are getting better every day,” he said.Referring to a recent opinion article suggesting Obama led from behind, Santorum assured: “I will lead from the front, which is America’s mission.”Iran options Going forward, the Iranian nuclear threat will continue to be a key focal point of the Republican foreign policy debates. The UN’s atomic watchdog agency has concluded that Tehran has active military components to its nuclear program, and there are mounting concerns in Washington that Israel may soon feel compelled to launch preemptive military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iran is now moving elements of its uranium enrichment program to the fortified underground facility at Fordow, shortening the window for Israeli action.Santorum recently called Iran “the central threat right now” and said that he would be willing, as a last resort, to order a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Santorum believes that such an attack would not automatically start a major war, but, rather, would prevent Iran from escalating its global terror campaign under a nuclear umbrella. Still, he believes the West can do a lot more to assist the Iranian people in bringing about a regime change in Tehran.Gingrich has also called for the US to openly seek regime change as the best way to prevent Iran from going nuclear. In a CNN debate in November, he called for cutting off the supply of gasoline to the Islamic Republic and sabotaging their oil refinery capabilities, steps that he felt “could break the Iranian regime” within a year’s time.Romney has been less committal on Iran, saying in a CNN debate in November that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be indicted for inciting to genocide against Israel. Romney also called for “crippling sanctions that stop their economy. I know it’s going to make gasoline more expensive. There’s no price which is worth an Iranian nuclear weapon.”Not surprisingly, Paul has been the only one firmly opposed to striking Iran. A proponent of the belief that enemies act against the US because America is too interventionist around the world, Paul has said “the biggest threat to our national security is our financial condition,” and more wars and foreign aid are “just aggravating it.”This prompted Israeli strategic analyst Barry Rubin to quip: “Why is Ron Paul so much like Barack Obama on foreign policy? Because both men tend to blame America first.”Indeed, all Israelis are watching the US elections closely, and many are flattered at all the love and attention they are receiving from the candidates in this US election cycle, but becoming the object of a tug-of-war amid a heated presidential race may not be such a positive development, according to some.“We’ve seen many presidents from both parties that, at the end of the day, were all very good on Israel, with some variations,” Israel’s former ambassador to Washington Sallai Meridor recently told The Christian Edition. “But the risk of losing bipartisan support in America and becoming a political football is immense.“The bipartisan support of the people in America is a vital asset for Israel, its security and well-being. And I would make every effort… not to be perceived as playing into American politics in an election year,” he continued.“It’s a very delicate year,” Meridor concluded. “It is highly important for Israel that Democrats and Republicans will feel that the love for Israel, the care for Israel, the relations with Israel are above and beyond politics. But as serious as this issue might be, it is nothing compared to the Iranian issue.”Joshua Spurlock is a veteran reporter on Israel and currently serves as editor of The Mideast Update (www.themideastupdate.com).