Obama vs. Romney 101: 4 differences on Israel

President Obama's positions on Israeli-Palestinian peace have rankled Israel’s conservative coalition government, while Mitt Romney insists he would be a better friend to Israel. Here are some of the issues on which the candidates differ.

3. Which candidate is a better friend to Israel?

Charles Dharapak/AP/File
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney talks to American businessman Sheldon Adelson after he delivered a speech in Jerusalem July 29.
Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images/POOL/File
Then-Sen. Barack Obama (l.) observes some of the 600 photographs of victims of the Holocaust at the Hall of Names with Yad Vashem Chairman Avner Shalez on July 23, 2008, in Jerusalem.

The question matters in part because Jewish voters could play a decisive role if the contest is tight in a key state like, say, Florida. Another reason is that Romney is using the issue to try to firm up his support among Christian evangelicals.

But Romney is also pounding on the best-friend question as a way to cast wider doubt on Obama’s foreign policy, which is an area where the president scores comparatively high marks with voters. Thus the Republican hopeful, when addressing foreign policy issues, paints Obama as preferring to dialogue with Russia or the Muslim world (as in his 2009 Cairo speech) or even Iran (in international nuclear talks) over deepening America’s close ties with a country like Israel that shares the same values.

To sharpen the differences, Romney says he would make Israel his first overseas destination as president. Not stopping there, he has also made TV ads – one asking, “Who shares your values?” – in which he questions why Obama has not visited Israel as president.

The Obama campaign responds by pointing out that President Reagan never visited Israel, and that George W. Bush visited as president only in the last year of his second term.

But Obama aides also make the case that when it comes to supporting Israel, the president has been more about actions than words or gestures – citing, for example, US funding of the Iron Dome missile-defense system to protect Israel from incoming rockets from Gaza.

And they tell the story of how Obama responded to a frantic phone call in early September 2011 from Netanyahu, who feared for the lives of Israeli guards caught in Israel’s embassy in Cairo as it came under mob attack.

In response, Obama launched contacts with the highest levels of what was then Egypt’s interim military government, and the Israelis were rescued and released unharmed. In a radio address the next day, Netanyahu said that he had requested Obama’s assistance at a “fateful” moment and that the president “said he would do everything possible, and that is what he did.” Israelis, he said, “owe [Obama] a special debt of gratitude.”

In the Romney camp, advisers point out that the warming trend in US-Israel relations occurred over the past year, and they suggest the president’s objectives may be as much political as building what Romney says should be “unbreakable ties” with a best friend.

3 of 4

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.