Mitt Romney gave a major foreign-policy speech today in which he declared of Israel: “The world must never see daylight between our two nations.” Some quick responses from experts:
Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada:
Romney said little different than Obama about the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, suggesting that, like Obama, his policy will be one of conflict management rather than any show of trying to resolve it.
George Bisharat, senior fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies:
Mitt Romney wants no daylight between the policies of the United States and Israel, and yet supports “the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel.” How then would he respond, as president, to Israel’s continuing colonization of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, which is widely acknowledged in the international community to have destroyed the prospects of a two-state solution?
Daniel Levy, senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations:
No daylight means very few new friends and many more missed opportunities.
Omar Dajani, Professor of Law at the University of the Pacific’s McGeorge School of Law:
[B]y suggesting that there should never be “daylight” between U.S. and Israel on matters of policy and security, he is advocating not that the US should lead, but that it should be led. A responsible foreign policy in the Middle East, and elsewhere, should start with an effort to understand what American interests are, particularly where they diverge from the interests of our friends and allies.
I pledge allegiance…to the flag… of the Israeli States of America…
Romney has a high pandering coefficient: he will say whatever he believes those listening want to hear. What he will do if elected is another matter, not so easily discerned. The NYT’s David Sanger has a piece on Romney’s “fractious” foreign policy team in the paper today, including neoconservatives, traditional strong defense conservatives, and “realists,” (quotes signal “not to be taken seriously”), all in the dark as to where Romney would head. “Weakness” is Obama’s primary weakness, Romney will call him on that, and his policies for that defect, wherever possible. But he may do a better job of controlling his own foreign policy than W did.
His speech was written by the neocons anyway, Dan Senor is his senior aide and likely chief of staff. Also someone who has a huge impact on foreign policy. You think Kristol and the gang weren’t cleared first?
Romney on foreign policy is a robot stuttering words that have been programmed into him. He needs to say these things because his donors wants him to. He wanted the support of the neocon ‘conservative’ media in the primaries and he knew to get that, he needed to take a hardline position on foreign policy.
Who controls Nat’l Reivew, Weekly Standard, WSJ editorial page? All neocons.
So why do people become surprised when the result is what we see?
I’m with Gore Vidal – I don’t like that sometimes this delves into “who’s actually a better nationalist.”
Looks like Mitts is staging the mother of all comebacks. Does anybody really see any difference between Romney and Obama on Israel(or anything else outside of the top marginal tax rate)? He, Mitt, will have friendlier photo ops with Bibi, but the substance of the US-Israel alliance will continue as before. I think Mitts doesn’t like Bibi any more than Obama, but he, Mitts, is a much better bullshit artist than Obama. But that’s one of many reasons I like Obama. One final point, during Obama initial presidential campaign 4 years ago, he visited Israel, met with Bibi(then in opposition in a friendly photo op) and proclaimed Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.