For generations, historians have lauded the friendship that existed between Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill as being a crucial element that made the wartime alliance between the United States and Great Britain a success. But apparently there are some people who aren’t as happy about the prospect of close relations between a would-be U.S. president and the head of the government of one of America’s closest allies. The New York Times devoted a portion of the cover of its Sunday edition and considerable space inside to a feature that detailed the ties between likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that go back to the 1970’s when both were young men working at the Boston Consulting Group. According to the Times, this has some people worried that too much “deference” on Romney’s part to Netanyahu would “influence decision making” and possibly “subcontract Middle East policy to Israel.”
This potential smear invokes two of the hoary canards of anti-Israel invective: the dual loyalty charge (usually lodged against American Jews) and the notion that a politician is pandering to the pro-Israel community for votes (in this case, evangelical Christians are the more likely candidates for influence than the more liberal Jews). But the idea that Romney is suspect because he has a longstanding friendship with the Israeli prime minister is absurd. Allies are supposed to be friends or at least ought to be able to understand each other and speak frankly about potential conflicts. Given that President Obama spent the first three years of his presidency picking fights with Netanyahu that did nothing to enhance America’s strategic position or the Middle East peace process, wouldn’t Romney’s ability to communicate without rancor with the Israeli be an advantage rather than a cause of suspicion?
Close allies and friends can disagree and often do as did Roosevelt and Churchill. We imagine the same would apply to Romney and Netanyahu. The idea that a Romney administration would “subcontract Middle East policy to Israel” is nonsense. The U.S. is always going to view events through the prism of its own specific interests, as does Israel. But problems arise not so much because of the existence of these different frames of reference but from a failure of leaders to be able to communicate their positions and to understand those of their ally’s. In this case, the ability of Romney and Netanyahu to understand each other’s thinking will enhance not only the security of Israel but of the United States.
With Obama, whose lack of affinity for Israel is obvious and distaste for Netanyahu is a matter of public record, the prime minister has good reason to doubt the word of the president when he asks Israel to forbear from taking certain actions or to defer to America’s wishes. It is possible that Romney would have far more latitude to press the Israelis because, as was the case between George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon, there will be a strong sense of trust. Whether that would work out to Israel’s benefit is an open question, but at a time when both nations are facing a deadly nuclear threat from Iran, more trust and communication between Washington and Jerusalem is certainly to be welcomed.
It is true that some found Romney’s debate line in which disparaged Newt Gingrich’s quip about the Palestinians being an invented people disturbing. Romney said, “Before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: ‘Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?’” But it makes perfect sense that any American president would wish to confer with the prime minister of Israel before launching any barb at the Palestinians, let alone a policy change. That is not the case with Obama, who has frequently sought to ambush the Israeli.
Lest anyone think Romney and Netanyahu are blood brothers, the Times feature ought to make it clear the two have not exactly been in constant contact since they first met in 1976. They knew and admired each other as successful young men working together but only renewed that friendship many years later after Romney was elected governor of Massachusetts. The fact that Romney worked for a time with Netanyahu’s second wife Fleur Cates, something that the Times throws in for ballast, is irrelevant to this discussion as he divorced her almost 30 years ago.
The only way a close knowledge and good relationship with Israel’s prime minister could be considered a drawback in an American president is if you thought there was something questionable about the alliance between the two countries in the first place. Those who promote the Walt-Mearsheimer Israel Lobby canard about U.S. supporters of Israel being disloyal to the United States will, no doubt, regard the Romney-Netanyahu friendship as a reason to vote against the Republican. They will, no doubt prefer a president like Obama who sees an Islamist such as Turkey’s Recey Tayyip Erdoğan as the sort of foreign leader he feels more comfortable with. But for the vast majority of Americans who think of Israel in much the same way as they once thought of Britain — as a wartime ally — it will be one more argument in Romney’s favor.
The NYTIMES is simply trying an innoculation,,or vaccination, of Romney. Putting hi9m on notice that they know of his links to Netanyahu, and will have their eye on him. n nThe other subtext is that the Jews will once again influence American foreign policy in nefarious, unfair ways (like friendships!). To the detriment of the sainted Palestinians. n nBastards. n nI hope Romney comes out swinging, but I doubt he will. n n
I've asked before why anyone who cares about Israel's future buys the NY Times. I have no supporting data but I believe that if every Israel supporter stopped purchasing the Times, it would fold, or exist as a mere shell of its former self.
"According to the Times, this has some people worried…". The key words here are "according to the Times". Any decent sensible person with any knowledge of history will understand that a 'news'paper that virtually ignored the Holocaust in WWII and has changed only for the worse since, has less than zero credibility. Some people say that that paper is only good for toilet uses. I wouldn't think of soiling myself with that rag.
Why don't walt-mearsheimer warn against the Arab Lobby?? [subject of a new book by Mitchell Bard]. Do the Saudis & Kuwaitis have no influence in Washington? Why did Prez George Bush the First go to war against Iraq in 1991 anyway? Was it to help Israel or to protect oil supplies to the West? Or why?
Protect oil. Only reason. No dispute there.
The Times knows it readership. Most of them probably do not like Netanyahu, but I do. So this is a plus for me
With as poorly as the Times is doing lately, they're probably being read secondhand via blogs like this (and by people such as ourselves) exponentially more often than they're being read by their intended audience.
Look, we all know what the Times is, and what it is not. It is one of several Obama house organs. It is not a newspaper of record, and has not been one for many years. n nAs for Mitt Romney, when the long primary slog started last summer, I was not a fan. Not conservative enough on taxes and government, too "flexible," too stiff, too much a professional politician, despite his claims to be a businessman. Then there was Romneycare. n nBut, all that said, I liked the man. I was predisposed to like him, firstly because he is a Mormon, and my (fairly extensive) experience with Mormons has been that they are among the most decent, moral, and patriotic Americans. n nAt this point in the primary, Mitt's message has been honed, and the contrast between he and his campaign and the Obama thugs could not be more stark. And that's without reference to actual policies. On that front, Obama is a social democrat (polite way of writing "socialist"). Mitt Romney is a man who stands up for the free market and American exceptionalism. n nThat Mitt Romney and Bibi Netanyahu might be friends is only a bonus. We Americans need a president who knows the difference between our friends and our enemies. And who is not afraid to act on that knowledge. Obama either does not know that difference, or does yet actively sides with our enemies against our friends. n nNet assessment? Another reason to vote for Romney this fall. n n
It's all political talk to fill the time. Mitt Romney has ZERO chance of defeating Barack Obama, even if various Israelis and Zionists put their support behind Romney. Obama is going to defeat Romney by a bigger margin than he defeated the lame insane John McCain who beat Romney in the Republican presidential primaries.
Nice try West; Obama is going to go down “possibly: worse than Carter did. He is out of his league, and it shows.
I especially found this paragraph laugh-out-loud funny: n n"Mr. Netanyahu insists that he is neutral in the presidential election, but he has at best a fraught relationship with President Obama. For years, the prime minister has skillfully mobilized many Jewish groups and Congressional Republicans to pressure the Obama administration into taking a more confrontational approach against Iran." n nIt's the only mention of Obama in the entire story, and it completely ignores what the U.S. President might have done to cause the Israeli PM to dislike and distrust him. (Hint: Ruthlessly maneuver for Bibi's governing coaltion to crumble, show astonishing disrespect at WH meetings, and that little open-mike loathe-fest with Sarkozy…) Never mind all the Palestinian pandering and selective memory w/ regard to letters of understanding signed by Bush and Sharon. According to the Newspaper of Record, none of that ever happened. It's just Bibi using his Jew-powers to control Washington.
I think Eisenhower may have had more than a nodding acquaintance with the president of France.
It is an open secret that the New York Times has been campaigning against Romney and for Obama on their news as well as editorial pages. The headline article was clearly meant to help Obama. Uninentionally it did quite the opposite, in my opinion. The Times article unintentionally highlighted the parellels between people that hate our own country and hate Israel.
Amen to that! His personal friendship with BIbi is the strongest argument in favor of Romney that I have heard yet.
One nugget in the article is that Romney at Harvard and Netanyahu at MIT both graduated from their respective business schools near the top of their classes. We can only guess what Obama's standing was at Columbia and Harvard, as the records are sealed.
Imagine if a conservative newspaper ran a similar article on Obama's friendship with Putin?
The main point missed by everyone is that the present POTUS and the NYT do not consider Israel an ally but rather an enemy. israel stands for the Nation-State, something the NYT and obama obviously eschew to the very core. Should Israel carry out a pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear program Obama is finished because oil-prices will go through the roof, and Obama will be blamed for his inaction for three years against Iranian nuclear ambitions.