Another sign that the issue of American support for Israel, unto another war, is going to be politicized this campaign season. Romney says he’ll do “the opposite” to Obama on Israel. And that’s the headline! The Associated Press reports:
Standing in front of his campaign tour bus, Mitt Romney on Saturday told religious conservatives he would do “the opposite” of what President Barack Obama has done on Israel.
…Romney took some time out of his tour to address religious conservatives at the Faith and Freedom Coalition in Washington via video uplink, telling the crowd he believes the president is more concerned about Israel attacking Iran than he is about Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. His hawkish speech was the first time he’s discussed policy toward Israel at length since becoming the likely Republican presidential nominee.
“I think, by and large, you can just look at the things the president has done and do the opposite,” Romney said when asked about Israel. …
Of Iran, Romney said: “He’s almost sounded like he’s more frightened that Israel might take military action than he’s concerned that Iran might become nuclear.”
Obama’s folks promptly rushed in to say that the president has worked for Israel’s security again and again.
Walter Russell Mead says that Americans will dig Romney’s talk because Americans have an ideology of religious exceptionalism. I don’t buy it. But I pray that Romney’s extremism will allow the Democratic Party to begin to fracture over the lobby.
A Zogby opinion poll in 2006 link to storiesinamerica.blogspot.co.uk found that 85% of US troops still believed that the US was in Iraq because of Saddams role in 9/11, I am sorry to say this, but the American public would believe the moon was made of green cheese if enough talking heads on mainstream media told them it was.
First, in 2006, the narrative was still being framed. Second, there’s a strong sense of loyalty in the army. People believe what they believe because they are where they are and for their own sanity, just go with the ‘ignorance is bliss’.
If you’d ask army vets who have come from Iraq what the role was, I doubt you’d get different results from when you’d ask the civilian population. Just the fact that the anti-war Ron Paul had the overwhelmingly most support of all candidates in the Republican primary(and soldiers, at least white soliders, tend to lean heavily towards Republicans).
As for Phil’s question:
“But I pray that Romney’s extremism will allow the Democratic Party to begin to fracture over the lobby. ”
I saw today that Romney made an interview, where the topic was among other things Europe. He flatly stated that he wasn’t going to bail a European bank or two out. But I wonder, if Israel’s banking sector went under and the lobby called, would he resist? Romney’s such a tool.
The widespread suspicion that Israel is behind American policy on Iran is being downplayed by NYTimes in interesting twisting of facts,words,and events. By choice of words ,it is suggesting Iranians are paranoid antisemtie and off base.NY wants the rest to believe that the suspicion of US tilt (actually prostration) to Israel is nothing but imagination of Iranian. Here is the deceptive half-truth- ” Iranian officials blame Israel for the American change of heart, noting that the chief American negotiator, Wendy R. Sherman, stopped in Israel on her way home from Baghdad to brief the government.
“Why do the Americans rush off to Jerusalem after every time they have spoken to us?” said Hamid Sheikholeslami, an adviser to Iran’s former top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani. “The U.S. is clearly under pressure not to seriously negotiate with us.”
Administration officials dispute that, and say they have never recognized Iran’s right to enrich uranium in the talks. While the West is reluctant to delay the broader sanctions, analysts said the major powers would probably be open to suspending a European Union ban on insuring Iranian oil tankers. ” link to nytimes.com.
The world including Iran does not believe Israel is making the American policy based on one ‘s dash to Israel. It is the canard of Iran getting nukes in a year from 1984,it is the canard of Iran killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan,supporting Al quida, using drug dealers in latin America to attack US, forcing wearing of yellow ribbon of Iranain Jewish, and promising “wiping Isarel off” and denying Holocaust and then some more combined with assassinations of iranain scientist,spying through IAEA , Suxtnet and Flame ,and stationing spies in Kurdisatn region and using Baluchis to mount terrorism within Iran with full partnership with the Western media and politicians , in addition to the shameless offering of all kind of “positions” by the prostitute western politicians to please the Jewish patron
God, I hate campaigns. Nearly every ad I see makes me ill. It’s all about implying a great deal while saying as little as possible.
And both the Rs and Ds have been completely compromised in the most significant areas.
I am with you on this prayer…”I don’t buy it. But I pray that Romney’s extremism will allow the Democratic Party to begin to fracture over the lobby.” fracturing is the light at the end of the tunnel, hopefully both parties will fracture over it.
this is great news. i hope romney makes big TVcommercials about how much he looooves israel
AR: fui! Loving Israel is just so 2012 in politics! It’s the “new black”.
OTOH, if Romney talks up attacking Iran, there is a chance for Dems to counter-attack, asking if we really need another Republican-started war (after Iraq, Afghanistan). True, Dems have painted themselves into a corner by pretending that a nuclear Iran is a danger to USA (or world, or Israel) — in my opinion a silly untruth — but they can always say that Iran has no nuclear program leading to weapons.
Joining Phil in prayer, how I pray they will say so.
It’s the “new black”
lol! actually i think the new black has already been taken … “Palestinian is the new black” ;)
The New Black by The Mavrix – Official Music Video
link to youtube.com
pabelmont, loving israel can be the new pink.
This is from Mead “There are two reasons for this. The first is that the public remains largely committed to a pro-Israel foreign policy in the Middle East. Ironically, the Likud government of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and the parts of Jerusalem it annexed after the Six Day War make most American Jews a bit queasy. But among non-Jewish Americans, a candidate who projects a strong and uncompromising support for the Jewish state is standing on the political high ground.”
I think this is itself a distortions with an ulterior motive to exonerate any Israeli-Likudist-Zinost of any responsibility.
When given right information and correct combination of choices, American don’t accept the media-purveyed Israeli position. When the leader does not toe Israeli line , he is called “Wimp” or Chamberlaine by the same media and Israeli supporters and when Americans dont support war in Middle east , media hectors the leader to be steadfast and start leading not following the crowd.When the saner voices mention the pervasive existence of these control ,they are called self-hating Jews or antisemitic .The books are banned,or not published or removed from libraries. The speakers are heckled or invitation gets withdrawn or shunned by establishment and career is rendered over. In not so long ago, these objectives were achieved by bombings and killings carried out within western countries
RE: “Romney gives a thumb-up to Israeli strike on Iran…
…His hawkish speech was the first time he’s discussed policy toward Israel at length since becoming the likely Republican presidential nominee.” ~ Weiss
MY COMMENT: Speaking of
democracy oligarchyfascism, how many days has it been since Sheldon Adelson made his $10,000,000 (ten million dollar) contribution to Romney’s superpac? Four days? Five days?Whatever the case, I think we have the answer to Phil’s question: “What was Sheldon Adelson’s one question to Romney before giving him $10 million?”
ALSO SEE: Sheldon Adelson (‘all we care about is being good citizens of Israel’) vows to spend whatever it takes to knock out Obama. – link to mondoweiss.net
Somewhat off-topic, but in this Asia Times article re the Moscow conference the Indian author makes several references to the influence that the US Israel Lobby supposedly has in respect of India’s international interests.
link to blogs.rediff.com
Can it be possible that the tentacles have spread this far and that this relatively tiny group of American Zionists could possibly influence a country of a billion people?
Exceptionalism is a disease in the U.S. and Israel
Exceptionalism is very hurtful to the rest of us.
American exceptionalism died in Abu ghraib.
‘…Standing in front of his campaign tour bus, Mitt Romney on Saturday told religious conservatives he would do “the opposite” of what President Barack Obama has done on Israel.
…Romney took some time out of his tour to address religious conservatives at the Faith and Freedom Coalition…’
I can’t resist pointing out that this reinforces my thesis that it is not American Jews but American evangelicals that are the real core of American support for an aggressive, expansionist Israel.
“American evangelicals that are the real core of American support for an aggressive, expansionist Israel.”"
The evangelicals don’t funnel money to politicians, AIPAC and their multi dozen unrelated pacs do and that is “the core” support for Israel.
On a day to day and voting-contributing basis the evangelicals are much more concerned with abortion and gays.
This overlooks the fact that you can spend all the money you want on a cause — if no one’s sympathetic to it, you can’t put it over.
Sure, Sheldon Adelson’s millions can have an effect — because people are susceptible to pro-Israel propaganda in the first place. If he was pushing for legalizing child marriage, he could spend all he wanted — he wouldn’t get anywhere.
To decry Sheldon Adelson et al and decide that their influence is pernicious is all well and good — the issue is how to counteract that influence. I suggest you work on propagandizing the same people he’s propagandizing.
” talk because Americans have an ideology of religious exceptionalism. ”
The fringes do is more accurate….unfortunately the fringes are the only ones the politicians pander to.
Opposite? I guess Romney will make Israel pay the US $3 billion/year, have Israel pay an extra $1 billion for America’s anti-missile defense, will take back the bunker busters, will support the Palestinians lock stock and barrel and stand up to AIPAC. I am voting Romney!
‘Opposite? I guess Romney will make Israel pay the US $3 billion/year…’
That was the first thought I had. Sadly, that may not be the correct interpretation.
Sure, unleashing dogs of war every so often is the only way to maintain a good hunting pack. Some care is needed.
For example, before you go bear hunting, check if your dog is up to it. Georgia against Russia did not do well. Then again, if you never loose a dog, you really play it too safe. Go Israel!
Notice how Romney avoided confronting Obama’s decision regarding young undocumented immigrants and instead responded by changing the subject to how much more hawkish he is regarding Israel.
Something remarkable has happened to the American body politic when even the ostensibly conservative, largely white major party defers on illegal immigration while pushing for an interventionist policy on behalf of a foreign entity.
In this regard, note the venue for Romney’s speech on religion – the Faith and Freedom Coalition. Who, if you examine its staff is at least as Zionist as it is Christian: link to ffcoalition.com
‘Who, if you examine its staff is at least as Zionist as it is Christian…’
This actually points up the crux of the problem. A pernicious equation has been established between Zionism and Christianity.
If you want to win a war for hearts and minds, you have to win it in the terms that matter to your audience — not to you. It’s irrelevant what one may think of either Zionism or Christianity personally: that linkage has to be broken.
The ‘Christian’ argument for supporting Israel has as many holes as a block of swiss cheese. So when you meet a ‘Christian’ supporter of Israel, point them out.
The most obvious hole is the fact that Palestinian Christians are every bit as occupied as Muslims are. Strange to say, but Westerners in the 19th century had a greater awareness of Christian minorities in the Ottoman Empire, including in Palestine, than they do today. Again in Syria, whatever you may think of the rebellion there, the fate of Christians has been noticeably absent from American discourse and policy.
Considering that America is a majority Christian nation, at least nominally, I find this blithe ignorance strange when juxtaposed against our interventionist Middle East policy.
‘The most obvious hole is the fact that Palestinian Christians are every bit as occupied as Muslims are. ‘
There you are. If you just bother to talk to them, the support of Evangelicals for Israel is extremely fragile. That there are Palestinian Christians is an excellent point. There are also various awkward passages in the New Testament…
It’s largely a matter of no one competing with Israel when it comes to propagandizing this audience. I have — and if one bothers to cast one’s argument IN THEIR TERMS, their support for Israel can turn out to be easily eroded.
Israel understands that an ally is an ally — whatever his motivation. It’s about time Israel’s opponents grasped the same principle. You needn’t start speaking in tongues yourself — but you should bring yourself to talk to those who do.
Israel does.
Ranjit .You have pointed out the pervasive existence of the distortions ,obfuscations,and digression in the media .There is always points to be scored by talking up the threat of Iran,terrorism,or of neglect of the security of Israel by the opponent. One can never go wrong in US by asking for additional exaggerated bending for Israel, more hysterical antics against Iran or for more vigilance against odd behavior in public places.
George Kennan
link to goodreads.com
Anyone who has ever studied the history of American diplomacy, especially military diplomacy, knows that you might start in a war with certain things on your mind as a purpose of what you are doing, but in the end, you found yourself fighting for entirely different things that you had never thought of before … In other words, war has a momentum of its own and it carries you away from all thoughtful intentions when you get into it.