Mitt Romney and Benjamin Netanyahu have been friends and confidantes for many years, since they first met in 1976, according to today's New York Times. Their relationship appears to be on firmer ground than the one that Netanyahu has with our current president. This leads to the exploration of several questions: Will Jewish people be more inclined to vote for Romney because of this? Jews tend to vote Democratic (a Pavlovian response), and habits are hard to break, so I have my doubts.
The Times characterizes the meeting of these two potentially influential minds with the following thoughts:
"The relationship between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Romney — nurtured over meals in Boston, New York and Jerusalem, strengthened by a network of mutual friends and heightened by their conservative ideologies — has resulted in an unusually frank exchange of advice and insights on topics like politics, economics and the Middle East.
"When Mr. Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Netanyahu offered him firsthand pointers on how to shrink the size of government. When Mr. Netanyahu wanted to encourage pension funds to divest from businesses tied to Iran, Mr. Romney counseled him on which American officials to meet with."
I wonder whether non-Jewish voters might be discouraged from pulling the lever for Romney for this very reason. They will view the Romney-Netanyahu liaison as a bad thing. Many explanations will be given for not supporting a presidential candidate who supports Israel: opposition to the Jewish settlements on the West Bank, empathy for the plight of the Palestinian people, not wanting Israel to manage American foreign policy in the Middle East. Who knows which reasons are grounded in anti-semitism and which ones aren't--especially when a significant portion of the Jewish community would agree with these views.
How about it? Are you as enthusiastic to have a pro-Israel candidate running for president as I am?
golden plate
This ^ and the seemingly endless pit of money we keep shoving over to Israel. Obama's not much better, AIPAC has a stranglehold on Congress no matter what presidents in power. Obama can talk badly about Netanyahu or for Israel to restrain itself from starving and killing Palestinian civilians, but in the end nothing changes.
Good news for the Palestinians in a decade or so their population growth with force Israel to have a changing demographic. And Israels "democracy" will be tested.
"Recent report by the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation revealed that the US has provided Israel with more than $103 billion between 1949 and 2008. More than any amount spent on any foreign country not occupied by US forces.
It is even more absurd during economic hardship at home for the US to sign a Memorandum of Understanding granting Israel additional $30 billions between Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 and 2018. This is further to another $24.1 billion paid from FY 2000 to 2009. Bringing the total US tax payer’s tab to more than 54 $billion in less than 20 years."
http://www.eurasiareview.com/04042012-is-israel-putting-us-money-to-goo…
We dont need to be further wasting our money on nations who really dont need are help. This tax season each of us will be giving Israel $21.59 in weapons. #bullshit
Unless you're pro-Israel, you won't be elected.
Truth^
On another note, what's with this new code word "a friend of Israel", I'm hearing all the time? Let me put something in perspective: America doesn't have 'friends' when it comes to international relations....we just have useful associations. We don't ultimately give a shit about Israel or any other nation beyond their utility to us.
Deal with it.
There is a big difference between supporting Israel and Zionism. The only real friend of Israel is Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/wOQbqGolaGA
You are over simplifying and issue that is deeply complex- it makes you sound like you have no idea what you are talking about. American sympathy for palestinians? When was the last time you heard that on the news?
Considering that Steve Schwarzman and the majority of the financial industry are pushing for Romney, this is not a surprise at all. I am sure they do more than have brunch together.
When was the last time I heard about American sympathy for Palestinians in the news? I don't know...today? Yesterday? And what are you implying about "Stephen Schwarzman and the majority of the financial industry?"
Here is what Bloomberg Businessweek had to say back in December of last year about Schwarzman:
"Schwarzman, who gave $4,600 to McCain once the Arizona senator had secured the Republican presidential nomination four years ago, has been critical of President Barack Obama’s stance toward Wall Street. In August 2010, he compared the administration’s efforts to double taxes on the income of private-equity firms such as his to “when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939,” according to a New York Post account of a private meeting. He later apologized for the comparison while maintaining his criticism of the tax proposal."
As the article points out, Schwarzman was a senior advisor to McCain.
So four years ago, he supported McCain. This time around, he's supporting Romney. He tends to support Republican candidates. Maybe that's what he and Romney talk about during brunch.
Why is it notable that Schwarzman is a Romney backer? Just a Wall Street guy endorsing another Wall Street guy.
** Sensible enough. Sounds like pals giving advice, not a bloc alliance.
** None of that is anti-Semitism.
** I would if I were an Israeli and this were the Israeli elections we're talking about, yes, duh. But that's not the case. The American President has a tough enough task getting the American house in order; playing guarantor to a borrower you don't control, while your own balance sheet is bloated, is just insanity.
I guess the answer to my question is no. The readers of this blog seem to have no enthusiasm for a"pro-Israel" candidate. UFOinsider believes that America doesn't have any friends. Other people have written that a presidential candidate must be pro-Israel to be elected. (What about Jimmy Carter?) I feel sad and frustrated.
Think for a minute how the U.S. has accomodated Israel since WWII and ask yourself if this has ever been an issue. Do we have their back, yes. Are we going to cater to every unreasonable and neurotic 'demand' they make, absolutely not.
It's a simple boundary issue. Israel is ultimately insignifigant in global affairs and while I respect their contributions, it's obvious that they're far from perfect. It is not the U.S.'s desire to be the big brother who backs them unconditionally, and realize that when we do that there are strings attached: the U.S. is the global steward at this point in history and has many concerns tha supercede what amounts to a regional conflict.
Israel would do well to turn inward and examine its own policies and mindset, as they have created the situation they are in and it is ultimately up to them to create their way to a better place. This is a bitter pill, but it's not my job to blow smoke up your ass. Realistically look at the current trajectory and start thinking seriously about the future.
I think you mean absolutely YES. Iran and now Syria.
Jeff, that Iran video is excellent, I just bookmarked it. Really sweet find.
Consequuntur quam ratione vel aut fugiat impedit. Eius blanditiis nihil quis. Dolores voluptas nisi eum possimus laudantium autem. Quis magnam dolor iusto eius et. Error consequuntur esse et. Non non adipisci et aliquid temporibus vel.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...