The Left in Israel should not remain apathetic to the U.S. elections in November and expect American policy on Israel to remain basically unchanged. Romney is much less likely to restrain Israel, more specifically a right-wing government.
By Dov Waxman
The general sentiment among many of my left-wing Israeli friends about Romney’s visit to Israel is a mix of cynicism and apathy – cynicism because they see the visit as a transparent attempt to pander to American Jewish voters and donors, and apathy because they feel that whoever wins the U.S. presidential election in November, American policy to Israel will remain basically unchanged. While they’re right to be cynical, they are wrong to be apathetic. A Romney administration will be different for Israel than Obama’s administration has been. From a liberal or left-wing Israeli or Jewish perspective, it will almost certainly be worse.
Let’s face it, Obama has been a disappointment to those of us who hoped that he would be the President to finally broker Israeli-Palestinian peace after so many others had failed. After all, he seemed to possess a much more nuanced understanding of the conflict than his immediate predecessor George W. Bush, he expressed an obvious empathy for both sides, and he clearly recognized that resolving the conflict was an American national interest, not just an Israeli and Palestinian one. His popularity, especially among American Jews, also augured well. In short, not only did Obama “get it,” he could also “do it,” meaning that he was in a strong enough position to persuade and cajole both sides, Israel in particular, to make the necessary concessions for a peace agreement.
Needless to say, things have not turned out the way we hoped. Today, the Israelis and Palestinians are barely even talking to each other, and the prospects for peace seem more distant than ever. The viability of the two-state solution itself is now seriously in doubt, as the population of Israeli settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem continues to inexorably rise (there are now around 350,000 settlers in the West Bank and 300,000 in East Jerusalem). The Obama Administration’s policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has undoubtedly been a dismal failure (although there are many reasons for this, not least Israeli and Palestinian recalcitrance).
But while Israeli leftists, not to mention Palestinians, have every reason to be disappointed with the lack of progress that has been made over the past four years and to be disillusioned with Obama personally, they should not let these feelings prevent them from acknowledging that Obama is still much better, or at least a lot less bad, than Romney when it comes to U.S. policy on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The crucial difference between Obama and Romney when it comes to Israel can be summed up in one word: restraint. While neither man may be willing to apply real pressure on Israel (although Obama initially tried to and may try again in a second term), Romney is much less likely to restrain Israel, more specifically a right-wing Israeli government.
It is, of course, impossible to really know how much the Obama administration has restrained Netanyahu and his government. Would Israel have built more settlements and allowed more outposts? Would it have fired more missiles into Gaza in response to Palestinian rocket attacks? Would it have already bombed Iran by now? We can only speculate about these possibilities. What is clear, however, is that the Netanyahu government knew that it had to deal with a U.S. Administration that opposed Israeli settlement construction and supported the Palestinian right to self-determination in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. To be sure, Prime Minister Netanyahu had a Republican-controlled Congress on his side, but he still could not risk the wrath of the White House. He therefore enjoyed less freedom of action.
Will Netanyahu, Lieberman and company feel the same way if Mitt Romney is sitting in the Oval Office? If Romney wins in November, it will be in no small part due to the largesse of casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a longtime supporter of Netanyahu and a man who finds AIPAC too moderate. Many other extremely wealthy right-wing American Jews are also backing Romney. In addition to donations from right-wing Jews, the votes of staunchly pro-Israel evangelical Christians will also be necessary for Romney to win in November. With this kind of support behind him, it is highly unlikely that as president, Romney will risk any kind of confrontation or dispute with Israel. It would simply be political suicide for him.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that if Romney becomes the next U.S. president, Israel will attack Iran or annex parts of the West Bank, but it does mean that Israel will face less constraint than it does at present. While this is certainly good news for those on the right who want Israel to be completely free to do as it pleases — regardless of Palestinian rights, human rights, or pretty much anything else — it’s bad news for those of us who have yet to give up hope for an end to the occupation, for peace, and for a viable Palestinian state to exist alongside Israel. A Romney Administration could be the last nail in the coffin of the two-state solution.
Dov Waxman is an associate professor of political science at Baruch College and at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY). He is the co-author of Israel’s Palestinians: The Conflict Within (Cambridge University Press, 2011) and the author of The Pursuit of Peace and the Crisis of Israeli Identity: Defending / Defining the Nation (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006). He is currently a visiting scholar at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
Related Articles:
>> Romney’s trip shows us his non-approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict
>> Did Romney snub Labor leader at PM Netanyahu’s request?
>> Romney uses Adelson’s free paper to criticize Obama
>> Jewish Democrats use rightist tactics to attack Romney on Israel
For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.
XYZ
All Presidents of the US, and I MEAN ALL, end up following the same policies….complaining about the settlements but not really doing anything about them, grovelling to the Palestinians and other Arab countries to show some sort of willingness to make peace, then realizing that a compromise peace IS NOT POSSIBLE and then trying to manage the conflict as best as possible. This was Obama’s experience, and it will be Romney’s should he be elected. Stop worrying.
Rechavia Berman
Actually, if we accept the reality that says plainly that Obama isn’t doing anything that’s necessary to make Israel reconsider its policy regarding the Palestinians (mostly re: ’67 Pals, but also ’48), then I dispute the premise. In fact, a verbally incontinent ignoramus like Romney in the WH may help bring things to a head by removing all pretense.
If the US won’t do what’s necessary to rein in the stronger side in this interminable brawl, maybe it’s for the best that it be discredited as hall monitor.
Kolumn9
“Netanyahu had a Republican-controlled Congress on his side”
How is this even remotely true in any objective way? Democrats have had the Senate for the entirety of the Obama presidency. Democrats had the House for the first two years of the Obama presidency. The statement I quote above is plainly a delusional lie probably used to avoid acknowledging the fact that American support for Israel (outside of the current White House) is deep and bipartisan.
.
@Rechavia, credited or discredited, the only superpower in the world isn’t getting excluded regardless of how much the ‘world’ sees it as biased.
.
In any case, XYZ above is right, all presidents eventually realize that the dispute is damn near unsolvable and move on to areas where they actually achieve something.
Engelbert Luitsz
It looks like the one who will do the dirty work for Israel will become president: attacking Iran. Selling his shadow for egotistic glory at the cost of countless lives. It’s not just the left in Israel who should not remain apathetic, it’s every single person with a glimmer of humanity in him/her, or if that’s too complex a concept, everyone wanting to live a life worthy of that name.
Rechavia Berman
“@Rechavia, credited or discredited, the only superpower in the world isn’t getting excluded regardless of how much the ‘world’ sees it as biased.”
Only? Sir is perhaps stuck in the 90′s?
Jack
It doesnt matter who is president the irrational, warmongering, ignorant, corrupt attitude is there no matter who gains power. From what I see Obama is the pseudo-rational guy, the one who is quite of a good rhetorical speaker, manipulative (like netanyahu) while Romney is more frank, up in your face type, a type that are on the level of george bush and also alike when it comes to warmongering.
-
Simply no one will put pressure on Israel to end settlements nor will no one start peace talks nor will anyone pressure israel to accept the solution of a palestinian state. Likewise will no one of them stop the warmongering on Iran if it escalates to war is a real possibility, the difference is if Romney is elected it will probably happen sooner compared to Obama.
Adam
“It looks like the one who will do the dirty work for Israel will become president: attacking Iran. Selling his shadow for egotistic glory at the cost of countless lives.” Are you really saying what I think you’re saying– that the presidential candidate who commits to attacking Iran will be elected?
Kolumn9
@Rechavia, my dear lady, if I am stuck in the 90s, then your view of the world derives from a murky future that has not yet come to pass.
Leila
I support Obama but for different reasons. I hope a second term Obama will sign a peace treaty with Iran and ditch the so-called special relationship with Israel. I have no such beliefs that Romney would do so
Matthew Graber
The Headlines of today’s Democracy Now!:
‘Obama Unveils New Military Aid to Israel
As Mitt Romney headed to Israel, President Obama took new steps to display his support for Israeli government policies. On Friday, Obama announced a new measure to increase military aid to Israel. Speaking to reporters, Obama correctly said the aid was worth $70 million, but then — apparently thinking he had made a mistake — stopped himself to wrongly claim the aid was in fact worth $70 billion.
President Obama: “I have made it a top priority for my administration to deepen cooperation with Israel across the whole spectrum of security issues — intelligence, military, technology. And in many ways what this legislation does is bring together all the outstanding cooperation that we have seen, really at an unprecedented level, between our two countries to underscore our unshakable commitment to Israel’s security. I’m also very pleased that this week we are going to be able to announce $70 million in additional spending — $70 billion, excuse me, in additional spending for Iron Dome.”
Report: U.S. Shares Contingency Iran Bombing Plans with Israel
The White House also took new steps to back the Israeli government’s position on bombing Iran. Citing a U.S. official, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported Sunday that President Obama’s national security adviser, Thomas Donilon, had personally briefed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on contingency plans to bomb Iran should the United States decide to abandon the diplomatic track on Iran’s nuclear program. The Israeli government has denied the report.’
helene
Most in power republans and Democrats have massive investments in wars. it called war profiteering. i notice that we don’t start wars with countries with nuclear power,only weaker countries and countries with OIL