This is great. Romney is politicizing our foreign policy, in foolish ways, and The Washington Post’s David Ignatius has come out with a reasonable/thoughtful rebuke. I seize two significant statements: The Arabs are writing this chapter of history for themselves. Exactly! This is what the Arab Spring is all about, this is what Pankaj Mishra was saying in the NYT when he said that America should bug out of the Middle East, this was the spirit that the U.S. violated in supporting the establishment of Israel and, later, in not respecting Arab olive branches re the two-state solution on ’67 lines (yes, I’m thinking there was public opinion to support such a compromise). The second statement Ignatius makes is that Netanyahu must not lead our foreign policy, and Romney is abdicating leadership to Netanyahu. Let’s have this out. Excerpts:
What was missing from Romney’s speech was an understanding that there is a revolution rolling across the Middle East. He talked about “America’s great power to shape history” and what he claimed was Obama’s mistake of “leaving our destiny at the mercy of events.” What was lacking was any apparent recognition that the Arab uprising has been an assertion of citizen rights against police-state regimes and that America couldn’t stop this tidal wave of people power even if it wanted to.
Obama has understood the nature of this revolution from the beginning, and though I wish he had been more clear and forceful at various points in articulating America’s interests and values, I’d say he has gotten the big things right. He remembers the limits of American power and the need to let Arabs know they are writing this chapter of their history for themselves….
The biggest difference between these candidates on the Middle East, when you boil down all the other rhetoric, is probably on Israel. Romney said it pretty clearly: “The world must never see any daylight between our two nations.” Taken at face value, that seems to mean the United States shouldn’t take public positions that are different from Israel’s. That’s a formulation that few Republican foreign policy leaders would agree with. Among those GOP luminaries who very deliberately opened “daylight” were Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Brent Scowcroft, James Baker and Condoleezza Rice.
Romney can’t seriously mean that on all major issues affecting Israel, he will defer to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu? No nation hands over policy choices to another, even to its best friend.
Romney doesn’t mean it. It is campaign-money-raising (and maybe vote-getting) rhetoric. On the other hand, what with Congress acting like a wholly-owned subsidiary of AIPAC (hence of the most right-wing of Israeli policies), Romney may also be positioning himself to get a legislative agenda passed through Congress if he is elected.
Imagine the loss of presidential legislative-leadership-power for any president who called for Israel to remove the settlers, settlements, and wall. Which I want Obama and other presidents to do. But — wouldn’t it be rather dramatic and, unless AIPAC self-destructs — a rather spectacular end to presidential legislative leadership (never, BTW, mentioned in the Constitution as a presidential duty or power).
It is great. The Times news story mentioned the same thing, but way inside. And the Obama response: get Madeleine Albright to criticize Romney for having no ideas. It’s so lame. If Obama doesn’t seize this opportunity, he doesn’t deserve re-election.
i thought i recognized that headline. from last year:
Romney promises to abdicate American foreign policy towards Israel . . . to Israel
;)
Which is worse? Believing there must never be any daylight, or saying it when you don’t believe it, in order to get elected?
Obama is weak, in the sense that doesn’t know how to deal with a bully, except to cravenly try to reassure the bully. Romney’s weakness is in instantly adopting the personality he believes his audience wants to see and hear. He seems incapable of doing otherwise, as captured by Doonesbury this morning, perfectly.
Obama will do the same thing, just in a less obvious manner.
I’m certainly not going to vote for him, but it might be helpful to this cause if Romney wins. He might screw up and allow Israel to do something publicly that’s clearly against US interests, with resulting blowback. Also if support for Israel becomes exclusively identified with the Republican “brand” (in the minds of the electorate, if not in reality), that may turn a large part of Democratic base firmly against Israel.