The answer: Not necessarily.
In a side note to my post on Newt Gingrich yesterday, I wrote that as far as the Israeli-Palestinian issue is concerned, I don’t see a big difference between a second Obama term and a Romney presidency. This remark got more attention than my comments on Gingrich, which were at the center of the post, so I’d like to elaborate on them a bit.
If I were an American citizen, I would probably vote for Barack Obama in 2012, mainly due to his positions on domestic issues. While far from being perfect – especially on personal freedoms – Obama is way better than Republican alternatives on abortion, healthcare, gay rights and more – at least as far as I can tell from afar. Plus, future nominations to the Supreme Court alone provide a good reason to prefer him. The sad reality of the two-party system is that the liberal base has very little bargaining power against an incumbent president.
Still, I am not American, and this blog deals mainly with local politics. On that front, Barack Obama wasn’t able to produce better results than George W. Bush. In fact, if you deal only with the Israeli-Palestinian issue, he might have actually been worse. I say “might,” because Bush had to deal with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and Barack Obama with Netanyahu, so it’s very hard to compare the two.
President Obama made at least one critical mistake – the appointment of Dennis Ross as special envoy – and many tactical ones, ending up with the worst of all scenarios: he is perceived as anti-Israeli and pays the political price for it, while in fact his policies are more comfortable for the Israeli right than those of any other president before him. The administration has lost all leverage on Israel, even on consensus issues like opposition to the settlements. Things have gotten so bad, that many fear Israel will soon start settling the E1 area northeast of Jerusalem, a move that was successfully blocked by the Bush administration, while a witch-hunt is carried out in Washington against anyone who dares mutter a feeble condemnation of Jerusalem’s right-wing policies.
For years, the common wisdom in Israeli politics was that a prime minister cannot survive a confrontation with an American president. The Obama White House has handled relations with Netanyahu so poorly that Bibi actually gets a bump in the polls every time he comes back from the States, with the biggest one coming after the historical lecture he gave the president during a photo-op in the White House.
One could say that Obama had no real alternatives, and that in the current political game, applying pressure on Jerusalem costs too much political credit, while the chances of scoring points are very slim. Still, this argument only strengthens my point – that from a local perspective, a “moderate” Republican and a Democrat are pretty much the same.
But will Romney himself be better than Obama? Probably not. What could change is the political dynamic in Washington. Progressives and Democrats in general may find it easier to attack a Republican president from the left than it is to deal with a Democrat with a right-wing (foreign) policy. We should also note the fact that Romney is careful not to box himself in statements on Israel that would limit him later, such as the promise other Republican candidates have made to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Curiously enough, among the people surrounding Romney, one name will be familiar to Israelis: that of Dov Zakheim, the former governor’s Special Adviser on Foreign Policy. Zakheim, an Orthodox Jew and a Zionist, became extremely unpopular in Israel in the 1980s due to his involvement in the termination of the IAI Lavi Project. He probably still remembers the smear campaign the Israeli right, led by then Defense Minister Moshe Arens, launched against him.
Should all that be a reason to prefer Romney over Obama? It depends on what guides one’s vote. I tend to like Obama. My point was that based on past behavior, there is no reason to think that he would be much better than Romney. In both cases, one could assume that the United States will continue to pay lip service to peace while in practice supporting the Israeli occupation with money, arms and the diplomatic cover it provides. If we learned something from the Obama presidency, it’s that these trends can be challenged in one of two ways: either by changing the American conversation on Israel and Palestine to a more fact-based and realistic one, or by diminishing American influence in the Middle East altogether.
Read Also:
Obama’s campaign video is ‘Israel firster’ material
US top envoy leaving, and so should his politics
Republican presidential candidate wants to destroy UN if it recognizes Palestine
Haaretz’s pundit takes on US envoy Ross for aiding Netanyahu
January 23, 2012
6:04 am
@Noam, while I definitely agree with you that Obama has been largely a flop and a disappointment on the Israel-Palestine front during his term, and that the video Mairav just posted about is pretty nauseating, I think that your analysis fails to factor in the American political phenomenon of second-termism. That is to say: the phenomenon in which a given president, during his first term, chooses not to take any dramatic steps (liking rocking the heavily-armored AIPAC-boat) due to the fact that his and his staff’s thoughts are turned towards the next election before he’s even finished half of his first term. Then, once said president is elected a second time, and he no longer has to think or worry about reeelection, he can take the steps that he intended to take from the get-go (I’d argue that you can see something like this in Clinton’s inaction in Rwanda versus his action in Kosovo). Perhaps this is over-optimistic thinking, and I don’t necessarily want to go on record saying that Obama will do a Israel-Palestine 180 after he wins on November 5th (inshallah), but I do think that much of his administration’s most terrible behavior re:Is-Pal recenently (like the video, again) can be explained by his desire to get reelected more than a real allegiance to AIPAC, which Romney has ideologically, not only strategically. Thoughts?
January 23, 2012
6:13 am
@MORIEL ROTHMAN
Maybe I should have mentioned the 2ed term issue in the text, but I believe it to be largely exaggerated, if not a pure myth. take for example Bush 43′s second term, in which he was less active, or Bush 41 willingness to confront PM Shamir on his 1st term. So while I don’t rule out this option completely, I think we overstate the “freedom” of 2ed terms.
Plus, the problem with president Obama wasn’t his middle east policy, but the fact that he didn’t have one – so basically, AIPAC and the GOP lead the conversation. this is a problem the reelection alone won’t solve.
January 23, 2012
6:29 am
@Noam
As for whether the second-termism is exaggerated or mythical: maybe. You could be right. But the theory makes sense to me, simply in that once reelection is taken off the table, Obama’s motives for making horrible things like that horrible video will also be off the table, I think. And then he’ll fire Dennis Ross and stop vetoing UN anti-settlement moves and will speak only at J Street conferences and will tell Netanyahu that every settlement he builds will come out of the US aid package…
kidding, kidding, but I do think there’s a chance that he’ll get better, so while reelection won’t necessarily solve Obama’s lack of policy, at least there’s a chance he’ll decide to actually construct one. If someone from the GOP (even if it is the more moderate Romney) is elected, then the policy will not only de facto be AIPAC and GOP policy…
January 23, 2012
6:48 am
@Moriel – re-election of Obama is indeed taken off the table. But re-election of the Democrat party for the White House is not. Therefore, I see AIPAC having the same strength it has during first terms as it does during seconds.
January 23, 2012
7:26 am
@Ami- you mean mid-term elections for congress? That’s a very good point. Hmm. Nonetheless, I still think Romney will 100% not be good for things here, whereas Obama’s reelection gives us a sort of 88% will-not-be-good.
January 23, 2012
7:31 am
I mean mid-term AND presidential. Obama is expected to be loyal to his party and do all he can to usher in a democrat for another 8 years in the White House.
January 23, 2012
7:48 am
I just want to second everything Moriel is saying. Especially about Romney’s ideology vs. Obama’s AIPAC placating. Generally, it seems to me that just about any american president is always the same for Israel, whether they themselves like it or not. But Obama doesn’t like it; Romney does. And therein lies some percentage of a practical difference, at least in a second term. September was a disaster, and I resent, deeply, that there are so many American Jews who still call Obama weak on Israel despite his being a complete and total AIPAC puppet. What they want, I truly don’t know. Seriously, what do they want?
*
Meanwhile, with all due (and true) respect to Larry Derfner, let’s not completely Derfner this issue: there is a huge difference in their effect on American domestic issues. You’re allowed to focus solely on their affect on Israel, but frankly, my dear, I give a bigger damn about American healthcare. Anyway, Gail Collins is perennially bringing up the fact that Romney once drove cross-country with his dog strapped to the roof of his car. I’m a Dog Firster.
January 23, 2012
8:45 am
I wonder what people would think, had they never known Obama was black. If one would just know about his promises and how he didn’t keep them. Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, the death penalty, torture, the Middle East, etc.
John Pilger calls him “a marketing dream” and I think he has a point there. With a more objective look at US politics, one can only agree with Gore Vidal: “We have one party – we have the party of essentially corporate America. It has two right wings, one called Democratic, one called Republican.”
January 23, 2012
8:45 am
Maybe the 2nd term is exaggerated, but it’s still a factor. While Bush 43 hasn’t gone total-Nero in his second term, he was also preoccupied with attempting to secure a place in history as the not-completely-horrible President historians were ready to label him as. He failed, mostly because of New Orleans, but I do believe he ws trying to be less extremist in his second term BECAUSE it was his 2nd term, so it was still a relevant issue. I don’t believe Obama feels the need to appear more moderate in his second term after the setbacks he suffered from trying to appear bi-partisan in the last three years, so in his case I believe a 2nd term might mean a more sensible approach to the Isaeli-Palestinian conflict. I hope…
January 23, 2012
8:54 am
The definitive issue is not Palestine, it’s Iran. The Republican candidates in 2008 were already positioning themselves as more pro-Israel by stunts like McCain’s “bomb bomb bomb Iran” song. If you followed Shmuel Rosen’s surveys, it was easy to see that “pro-Israel” was being defined in “anti-Iran” terms, and Obama was always perceived as too unwilling to bomb Iran. This perception is worse than tar, it sticks and it won’t wash off, no matter how often Obama crawls on his belly to AIPAC. And the Republicans keep playing that tune to make sure it won’t ever wash off.
January 23, 2012
10:31 am
I think Obama is still working the two-state solution, thankfully, and has continued to govern from the standpoint of realistic responsibility, rather than ideological or sympathetic.
To achieve a two-state approach, requires confidence for Israel and confidence for Palestine.
The guarantee of permanent support for Israel’s security, is meant to remove or relax the obstacle of “no negotiating partner”.
The step to organizing around Palestinian human rights (without coherent form) from organizing around the two-state approach (coherent form), is a devolution, not an evolution.
Obama allied with Israel does push the ball to the Palestinian community. Do you accept Israel as Israel, and permanently?
If so, then you are the US’ ally, if not then you are the US’ opponent.
The state of alliance between Israel and the US, is as pronounced as between the US and Great Britain. Very very very close existentially, and just very close in policy.
The substance of the relationship would be the same if AIPAC were impotent. The politics would likely be different.
Both the left AND Israel know that about politics, that vigilence is needed to preserve the status of relationships, that the reasoning isn’t sufficient, as political force sadly trumps reason and principles.
AIPAC can’t then let up, as for it to let up results in a worse pendulum swing, to active antipathy expressed everywhere.
January 23, 2012
10:49 am
@ARISTEIDES good point. Are you convinced that Romney will bomb Iran – or for that matter, that Obama wouldn’t?
January 23, 2012
11:09 am
I don’t know if you listened to this one.
It’s all about Iran and it’s scary.
Ron Paul tells Mitt Romney to read the Constitution!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3BbIPbLSRw&sns=fb
January 23, 2012
12:23 pm
No one can “produce” better Israel-Palestine results until the Palestinian majority collectively supports one leadership and that one leadership seeks peace with Israel.
Right now the Palestinian majority collectively voted for Hamas, who seek to destroy Israel, while other Palestinians support the Palestinian Authority, who seek to flood millions of Arabs into Israel so it isn’t a Jewish state anymore.
Israel can’t make peace with such groups.
Israel can make peace with people who actually want peace. And until such people exist, Israel will keep protecting itself, building and growing.
January 23, 2012
12:30 pm
Noam – I believe that Romney is more likely to bomb Iran, less likely to resist the pressure to do it. Note that Romney has arch-neocon John Bolton as one of his unofficial advisors, and a whole pack of them on his official list.
.
Obama, definitely, has been resisting this pressure – which has reduced his leverage when it comes to the Palestinian issue, even if you assume, as I do not, that he really wants to take any pro-Palestinian steps.*
.
But there are limits to what a US president can do unilaterally. Romney is beholden to business interests, who don’t want to see the economic collapse that is likely to come with a war against Iran. And the voices of sanity in the Pentagon are against it.
.
If you want to lie awake at night, consider the possibility of a runaway Republican Congress passing a declaration of war against Iran, with a warmongering Republican president in office.
.
*No one cares about the Palestinians. No one will help the Palestinians. Obama certainly won’t, and people who talk about waiting for a 2nd Obama term for this are engaging in foolish self-delusion. It IS possible that a 2nd-term Obama will be in a stronger position to resist the pressure to bomb Iran
January 23, 2012
12:37 pm
@NOAM: There is real, personal hatred in the White House for Netanyahu – something that has never existed before for an Israeli prime minister. Don’t discount the power of hatred and the desire for revenge. While he was a huge disappointment in his first term, I think Obama is itching for a rematch with Bibi. One of the things that he can do quite easily is, rather than downgrade U.S.-Israel relations, upgrade U.S.-P.A. We might very well see a U.S. recognition of Palestine during Obama’s second term, and we know that this is Bibi’s worst nightmare.
January 23, 2012
3:12 pm
Aristeides–interesting points. I don’t know if this makes me more idealistic or more cynical, but I don’t think that Obama’s inaction regarding Palestinians (which is likely to continue in any american president’s any term) shows that he doesn’t care about Palestinians; it shows that he cares more about American Jewish Money. None of those teabaggers care about Palestinians, nor most americans, and the way they care about Israel is obviously creepy.
January 23, 2012
10:53 pm
I’ve seen several commentators place hope in American pressure or action, without result, so far as I can tell. I guess Clinton did pressure Bibi I, and before him Peres, but to no lasting significance–again, so far as I can tell.
.
I think you’re on your own. There are probably extreme acts that American influence prevents but, beyond that, I think “fortress Isreal” is the American norm by far. Bush II did provide jet fuel for the 2nd Lebanese War; perhaps a Democrat would have refused. But the core issues are yours alone. It, whatever “it” turns out to be, has to come from you.
January 24, 2012
5:47 am
only thing more mythical than ’2nd termism’ is Obama’s change you can believe in. I will not be voting to protest the limited choices we are given. If Romney or any other republican wins so be it, the differences between them and Obama are largely about character differences, not policy.
January 24, 2012
1:41 pm
It doesn’t matter who wins…. the President has no real power. The elections here have been so corrupt for so long, our votes don’t really matter. The fix is already in.
O-Bomb-a has been a disaster. He has done nothing except trying to cater to Israel. He has been more of a war hawk than even Bush. We are living in a police state now. If we keep appeasing Israel, we will be in WWIII very soon. I expect a good old false flag attack to get the Iran war started.