Millions of Americans have not voted with regard to the foreign policy of the President Obama. Alon Pincas asserts that they have said, by choice, to the president: Invest all your energy in the creation of work places and not in foreign policy.
The media descriptions of the Democratic Party’s defeat in the House of Representatives are taken from an accelerated seminar of meteorologists and geologists or a “National Geographic” instruction movie about nature disasters: tsunami, hurricane, typhoon, Category 5 storm and earthquake. The Democrats have truly suffered an enormous defeat — the largest since 1948 — in the House of Representatives, and the whole world is busy with the ramifications for the coming two years on the Obama White House.
Here, the terms are taken from the field of motor movement: restricted, paralyzed, free to do as he sees fit, going to run ahead and limited only to the domestic issues? Or, alternatively, will he be open to maneuver in foreign policy? The temptation is huge, winking and based in reality.
The same strong temptation is to rule that the midterm elections to the 112th Congress don’t have anything to do with the Middle East, and their results have minimal implications — if at all — for U.S. foreign policy. The temptation to think, contrary to the accepted thinking in certain circles in Israel, that the House of Representatives does not have a real influence on foreign policy is great. Many are positive that it doesn’t have any influence — only when it comes to budgeting. There is also the temptation to think that the House of Representatives can stand on its back legs and come forward with statements, denunciations and praises to the president, but, as far as this is not about the decision to engage in a war, it doesn’t have the authority or any constitutional mandate to interfere with the administration’s shaping of foreign policy.
The House of Representatives conveys and reflects the support of Israel and the uniqueness of the relations in the broadest and deepest meaning, but very few presidents have changed their foreign policy as a result of the statements originating from the House or made its leaders privy to the consolidation of foreign policy.
The Voting Is Separate From Foreign Policy
But in spite of it all, considering Israel-U.S. relations, U.S. involvement in the Middle East, the danger nuclear Iran is going to pose, the unparalleled policy of President Obama and the confrontations between the administrations in Washington and in Jerusalem, there is a justification to suppress the temptation and examine the possible influences.
One can bet and estimate that among the millions (40 percent is the voting rate across the U.S.) who took the trouble and came to vote for 435 members of the House of Representatives and 37 senators which stood for election, not even one voted for or against a certain candidate in accordance with his position concerning the issue of the building freeze in the settlements. The voters disappointed with the President Obama expressed bitterness, frustration and anger about the economic situation, about the absence of hope and optimism and about legislation on the matter of health reform much too intrusive for their tastes. You promised a change, they claimed, but it didn’t happen.
There is a terrible paradox here. The Americans want the administration to do more and vote for the Republicans who swear to do everything so that the administration will do less. Those who voted for Democratic candidates in House or Senate races exhibited confidence in and patience for Obama’s collection of legislation and reforms, and defiance of the Republican Party and the extremist stream that threatened to take over it.
But one must not be mistaken: Neither those who voted in favor of a Republican candidate nor those who supported a Democrat did so out of a focus on foreign policy. It’s not out of concern and care for the destiny of the Israeli-Palestinian political process that those who voted against or for Obama have done this. Moreover, the U.S. is wallowing in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and yet another war on terror, which requires her investing effort in Pakistan, Iran and all over the world. Nevertheless, these subjects weren’t inside the top 10 matters that occupied the American voter, according to the exit poll surveys.
Is The Republican Victory Good for Netanyahu?
However, a legitimate question is to be asked: Can the election results have any influence on Obama’s policies? Is the Republican victory in the House of Representatives good for Prime Minister Netanyahu and does it make things easier for him?
U.S. foreign policy won’t be affected by the Republican victory that, in its essence, is a protest against the economic situation and employment uncertainty. The voters seemingly told Obama to invest his entire energy, time and power in the creation of jobs and not in foreign policy. From the other side, Obama has completed the law-making and great economic reforms during 2009-2010 and is patiently awaiting the fruits of the measures in the end of 2011 or outset of 2012. He has a whole year to fill the role of the “leader of the free democratic world.”
Americans are interested in the economy and employment, but still they want to be and be perceived as a superpower. Following this logic, the degree of Obama’s involvement in the Middle East will be reinforced both on the Israeli-Palestinian level and with respect to Iran. The Republican House of Representatives won’t be able to really resist such moves. At the most, the House of Representatives may ask Obama “not to press our ally, Israel.” This is nice, but is it the top priority of the voters who sent the Republicans to Washington? No.
As for the second question, the Premier is better to invest an effort in creating relations of trust with President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They are there until 2012. Any attempt to make the issue of Israel a partisan one and to stir Washington turmoil is sentenced to failure and to a long-term damage. Who would know this better than Netanyahu in the light of his experience with a Republican Congress, a Democratic president (Clinton) in 1996-1999 and defeat in the elections?
The author is an Israeli diplomat who served as Consul General of Israel in the U.S. in from 2000 to 2004 and eventually became a foreign affairs analyst and commentator for Fox Television.
Allon Pincas seems terribly mistaken and he is fooling himself and the American people. America was at is pinnacle after the World War-2. Come Israel and he American Jewish lobby and the media dominated by it has led to the isolation of Middle East from its resurgence into the modern democratic world. Around 230 million Arabs are shackled in out dated royalty and autocratic dictatorships as a result of which they are a drain on the socio economic life of this most potential region. Political analysts have discovered that Israel’s founding father Ben-Gurion made a grave mistake when he rejected allegiance to God at the founding ceremony and replaced his name with a symbolic “Rock of Israel.” Little did the Jews and the American independent media realize that it was a profound iniquity in the sight of God. From the start every thing has been going wrong with Israel. This is not how the Jews had envisaged their peaceful arrival in the holy land led by the Messiah and the Messiah would rebuild the Temple through a miracle. What a contrast is seen in the holy land where Netanyahu is quite unmindful of the serious desecrations are going on and on of the sanctity of Jerusalem. The Jews know more than anyone else does what it means an iniquity is. So dear readers say good bye to Israel, which is under a severe threat of retribution from the heavens and there is a possibility of America being dragged in the maelstrom. Neither the GOP nor the Demos are ready to face these impending crises, which should not be treated as an idle matter. Time is running out and the clock is ticking. Jewish history is full of a saga of unending misfortunes as a result of lesser iniquities. Trifling with God is mindnumbig and heart aching. Obama had emerged as a silver lining with an agenda of reaching out to the Muslim world but the media has failed to grasp its significance. Israel’s founding fathers were the greatest terrorists and they became so overbearing that even the British Army finally gave up and Britain ended its mandate prematurely. Think of a way out by bowing down on the knees in devout devotion to the Hebrew God and rescinding the foundation oath taking. Unless God validate Israel, Jews had better stay in America and in the Diasporas.