Okay, I’m going to tread on some dangerous territory today, although I believe I can avoid any missteps. As you might have heard, recently Mitt Romney got into a bit of hot water over some comments he made in Israel–essentially he credited the difference between the per capita GDP of Israel and Palestine to their respective business and political cultures. I won’t go into the debate about whether or not Romney was correct–you can read plenty about that other places.
What I found interesting, however, is the fact that he made those comments at all. See, American foreign policy vies a vie Israel has basically two priorities, in strict order, which have existed since at least Jimmy Carter:
1) Strict assurance of Israel’s right to exist as a self-determined Jewish country. This includes harsh condemnation of any entity that would attack Israel, generous financial and military aid to Israel, and a standing offer to sell to Israel a wide array of some of the best weaponry that comes out of the American military industrial complex.
2) Strict assurance to the rest of the Muslim world that as long as any Muslim nation is willing to negotiate in good faith with Israel, the United States will serve as an honest and neutral broker of those negotiations. This means that the United States has tried to avoid taking any stance on any contentious issue that is unresolved on the negotiating table (most notably the status of Jerusalem as the capital of either Israel or the Palestinian Authority), and has repeatedly criticized both Israel and various other parties for taking actions that harm the negotiations (including Palestinian terrorist attacks, Syrian and Israeli interference in Lebanon, Israeli settlement activity, etc.) This neutrality has also meant that United States officials try to avoid criticizing Palestinians for the state of their poverty–which the Palestinians blame on the Israeli occupation and trade blockade (and hence, which gets back to the stalled negotiations).
And that’s why I find Mitt Romney’s comment remarkable. Romney’s comment implies that he is willing to jettison–or at the minimum completely rethink–priority #2. It would seem that under a Romney administration, the United States of America would become an ally of Israel. Period, end of story. I don’t know if this means that Romney would have the United States pull out of the peace process entirely, or if he believes that the United States can still play a role within the peace process as an explicit Israeli ally (as opposed to playing a role as a neutral arbiter). Moreover, I have no idea who Romney believes might step into the role of neutral arbiter, or even if he believes that it is an in important role to be filled. I think those are all interesting questions that I would love to see him answer.
I would also like to note that I find the ignorance claim here quite unbelievable. Romney was giving a speech from prepared remarks, in a region that is notorious for picking over and infusing meaning into these kinds of comments. And as the New York Times notes this morning, one of Romney’s top foreign policy advisers is a leading neoconservative hawk on American-Israeli policy, has written at least one book on the subject, and accompanied Romney on the trip to Israel. Romney didn’t accidentally say something he shouldn’t have said–he meant what he said, and said what he meant, as evidenced by the fact that he has made no attempt to take back his comments.
So now I’m just waiting for Romney to flesh out his Israeli policy. Every American president since at least Jimmy Carter–and you can probably go all the way back to LBJ–have had essentially the same two priorities for America’s Israeli policy. Romney’s comments over the weekend imply that he would revolutionize the American-Israeli relationship; I’d love to hear him give a few more details on the matter.
I’m surprised to read your analysis because I’ve always thought that America portrayed itself as a strong ally of Israel. Now, it may be that the U.S. has claimed that it was a neutral arbiter in negotiations, but I think you would be hard pressed to find many people who believe it. That’s true of not only the Arab world, (The “great Satan” anyone?), but also of most Americans, and I’d bet that’s how most of our allies in Europe and the rest of the world see things.
When I saw Romney’s quote, it didn’t signal to me a major change in the state of affairs, but just a clearer statement of the status quo than most politicians are usually willing to provide. It doesn’t seem a revolutionary change in policy to me at all.
I agree with you that the ignorance claim makes little sense.
Two points of clarification before I get to the larger context here. One, “The Great Satan” is a line used by Iranian (mostly Persian, not Arab) radicals, to whip up anti-American sentiment among a crowd. Two, Israel and the United States are not allies in the very real sense that we have signed no military alliance with each other. (I know you don’t say that, but I just wanted to clarify–”ally” is a funny word.)
You are correct that the United States has been perceived in many places as pro-Israel–a sentiment that has become more widespread since Clinton left office. The rest of the world gets American papers and reads about the pro-Israeli pressure placed on politicians of both parties, and pro-Israeli comments made by high-ranking members of Congress from both parties, and it questions what the validity of what the US diplomatic service continues to insist upon.
But it is also true that American actions in the Middle East have been consistent with the two goals I laid out, and that the US diplomatic service continues to stress that they are both still true. This is one of the reasons why the United States has no formal agreement with Israel, it is why the United States continues to pressure Israel to put the brakes on the settler movement, it is why the United States has never recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, it is why the United States has tried repeatedly to talk Israel down from attacking Iran, Syria, and Lebanon (at various times in various circumstances), and it is why we continue to uphold our end of the Camp David Accords by funding Egypt’s military. Yes, we are perceived by many as pro-Israel, and there is some truth there–but in reality, American policy has been much more nuanced.
But that’s ultimately my question. Romney has said we will recognize Jerusalem as Israel (but not the Palestinian Authority’s) capital, has blamed Palestinian poverty exclusively on the Palestinians (ignoring any Palestinian claims that Israel might have anything to do with it) and had an aide say that Israel should be given free reign to attack Iran whenever Israel sees fit.
The aide thing was a gaffe (supposedly), the capital of Jerusalem thing might not be a huge deal in isolation, but the three of them together seem to me to add up to Romney saying that American will, in reality, become as pro-Israel as America’s critics claim that we already are.