Israel and the Selection of the US Republican Candidate
Published in al Shorouk
(Egypt) on 3 April 2012
by Udeed Abran (link to original)
This week the primaries for the American presidency in the Republican Party took a new turn with Mitt Romney’s victory in Illinois. In spite of the victory of the conservative candidate Rick Santorum in the state of Louisiana, Romney is expected to become the Republican candidate in the U.S. presidential election. Therefore, we must ask the following question: What lessons will Israel glean from this election campaign?
This was alluded to in the foreign policy debate, in which the electoral battle experienced a change in the mood of the American public from the mood in 2008. In that year, the U.S. military presence in Iraq was subject to fierce debate. Barack Obama had built his presidential campaign around his opposition to the war in Iraq and attacked the Republican candidate John McCain who saw Obama’s position as an expression of weakness and liberal political ideology. This resulted in issues, including the war on terror and the fate of the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, serving an important role in the election battle at the time.
However, the foreign policy issues did not determine the results of the presidential election in 2008, rather the election revolved around the global financial crisis which erupted in the summer of that year. Nevertheless, the differences between foreign policies remained sharply divided between the competing parties. The American electorate had to deal with these differences when reflecting upon the cultural identity of the candidates for the presidency. It was noted at that time that there was a lack of conservative voters for candidates who opted in favor of a militaristic doctrine.
It seems that cultural conservatives have changed their position this spring. In the election campaign, the Republicans were vocal against the business elites, represented by Romney, and did not show support for hawkish foreign policy. It should be also noted that the Republican candidate Ron Paul declared his opposition to waging any war in the Middle East. In spite of his decline in popularity, Paul still enjoys the support of about 20 percent of the electorate and is one of the staunchest opponents against American aid and cooperation with Israel. It is true that his supporters will not support another candidate who adopts such extreme positions on the Middle East, which is rejected by a number of Republicans. But it can be said that the Republican voter’s attitude toward U.S. policy in the Islamic world has changed. In an ABC-Washington Post survey, 47 percent of Republicans oppose the war in Afghanistan while about 47 percent support it. However, the percentage of Republicans who supported the war in 2007 amounted to about 85 percent.
The war in Afghanistan has in the past served as an essential part of the War on Terror declared by President George W. Bush and developed by the Republican Party today. Yet the year 2012 may be the year of the end of the neo-conservative era. So far, the changes in the attitudes toward Israel have not manifested themselves among the Republican electorate, as the candidates compete to show their support for Israel and continue to direct their criticism toward Obama for not providing enough support.
But despite all this, the Republicans’ new attitudes are indicative of a change for the Israelis. Over the past decade, Israel has tried to portray the war on Terror as a common interest between them and the U.S. Israeli leaders usually said something along the lines of what Netanyahu told the AIPAC conference in 2011: “We know the pain of terror and we know the agony of war.” The talk of the War on Terror, however, has today become consuming and tiring, even among Republicans and particularly in light of the atmosphere that currently prevails in American public opinion. As these trends continue within the center of American public opinion, Israel will have to change the message directed toward U.S politicians and the U.S. public, particularly in light of the public’s uneasiness concerning the possibility of the outbreak of war in the Middle East. As luck would have it, the majority of Republican voters found a new basis for their pro-Israel stance from the Evangelical Christians, whose positions favor Israel because it is in accordance with biblical prophecy.
In the short term, Iran will remain the center of attention, particularly the halting of its nuclear program. The success of this, whether through military action or diplomatic efforts or sanctions, would be proof of American-Israeli cooperation.
Based upon this, Israel must transmit a new message to the American public. Israeli efforts have in recent years been focused on minorities and on liberals, in light of the widening gap between the parties regarding U.S. support of Israel. Israel may continue these efforts, but it should not negotiate with Israeli leaders on the issue of supporting the Republicans who have been taken for granted, as evident in the 2012 campaign positions of conservatives regarding U.S. foreign policy. The lesson Israel should learn from this campaign is that it should renew its mission and make it more suitable for the new atmosphere while not proclaiming a war slogan associated with the War on Terror.
This was alluded to in the foreign policy debate, in which the electoral battle experienced a change in the mood of the American public from the mood in 2008. In that year, the U.S. military presence in Iraq was subject to fierce debate. Barack Obama had built his presidential campaign around his opposition to the war in Iraq and attacked the Republican candidate John McCain who saw Obama’s position as an expression of weakness and liberal political ideology. This resulted in issues, including the war on terror and the fate of the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, serving an important role in the election battle at the time.
However, the foreign policy issues did not determine the results of the presidential election in 2008, rather the election revolved around the global financial crisis which erupted in the summer of that year. Nevertheless, the differences between foreign policies remained sharply divided between the competing parties. The American electorate had to deal with these differences when reflecting upon the cultural identity of the candidates for the presidency. It was noted at that time that there was a lack of conservative voters for candidates who opted in favor of a militaristic doctrine.
It seems that cultural conservatives have changed their position this spring. In the election campaign, the Republicans were vocal against the business elites, represented by Romney, and did not show support for hawkish foreign policy. It should be also noted that the Republican candidate Ron Paul declared his opposition to waging any war in the Middle East. In spite of his decline in popularity, Paul still enjoys the support of about 20 percent of the electorate and is one of the staunchest opponents against American aid and cooperation with Israel. It is true that his supporters will not support another candidate who adopts such extreme positions on the Middle East, which is rejected by a number of Republicans. But it can be said that the Republican voter’s attitude toward U.S. policy in the Islamic world has changed. In an ABC-Washington Post survey, 47 percent of Republicans oppose the war in Afghanistan while about 47 percent support it. However, the percentage of Republicans who supported the war in 2007 amounted to about 85 percent.
The war in Afghanistan has in the past served as an essential part of the War on Terror declared by President George W. Bush and developed by the Republican Party today. Yet the year 2012 may be the year of the end of the neo-conservative era. So far, the changes in the attitudes toward Israel have not manifested themselves among the Republican electorate, as the candidates compete to show their support for Israel and continue to direct their criticism toward Obama for not providing enough support.
But despite all this, the Republicans’ new attitudes are indicative of a change for the Israelis. Over the past decade, Israel has tried to portray the war on Terror as a common interest between them and the U.S. Israeli leaders usually said something along the lines of what Netanyahu told the AIPAC conference in 2011: “We know the pain of terror and we know the agony of war.” The talk of the War on Terror, however, has today become consuming and tiring, even among Republicans and particularly in light of the atmosphere that currently prevails in American public opinion. As these trends continue within the center of American public opinion, Israel will have to change the message directed toward U.S politicians and the U.S. public, particularly in light of the public’s uneasiness concerning the possibility of the outbreak of war in the Middle East. As luck would have it, the majority of Republican voters found a new basis for their pro-Israel stance from the Evangelical Christians, whose positions favor Israel because it is in accordance with biblical prophecy.
In the short term, Iran will remain the center of attention, particularly the halting of its nuclear program. The success of this, whether through military action or diplomatic efforts or sanctions, would be proof of American-Israeli cooperation.
Based upon this, Israel must transmit a new message to the American public. Israeli efforts have in recent years been focused on minorities and on liberals, in light of the widening gap between the parties regarding U.S. support of Israel. Israel may continue these efforts, but it should not negotiate with Israeli leaders on the issue of supporting the Republicans who have been taken for granted, as evident in the 2012 campaign positions of conservatives regarding U.S. foreign policy. The lesson Israel should learn from this campaign is that it should renew its mission and make it more suitable for the new atmosphere while not proclaiming a war slogan associated with the War on Terror.
Previous article![]( "More Italian-American Stereotypes?")
