I don’t even want to discuss U.S.-Israeli relations or what it would mean for us to relocate our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. That’s all beside the point. What’s important is what Mitt Romney had to say when he was asked about whether we should move our embassy to Jerusalem:
ROMNEY: The actions that I will take will be actions recommended and supported by Israeli leaders. I don’t seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel’s leaders thought that a move of that nature would be helpful to their efforts, then that’s something I’ll be inclined to do. But again, that’s a decision which I would look to the Israeli leadership to help guide. I don’t think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process, instead we should stand by our ally. Again, my inclination is to follow the guidance of our ally Israel, as to where our facilities and embassies would exist.
I have to admit that I have never been able to finish the Book of Mormon. I just can’t plod my way through it. Maybe there is something in that book that might explain why Mitt Romney wants to turn over our foreign policy decision making to Israel. It’s completely mystifying to me.
If we were talking about some Soviet satellite state like Romania saying some time in the 1950’s that they would defer to their allies in Moscow, I might understand it. If we were talking about some country like Qatar that is dependent on the U.S. for their security, I’d understand them saying that they’d defer to our judgment.
But why on Earth would the United States of America let a small country like Israel tell us what to do?
Yes, they are our allies and we care a lot about what they want and what they think. But our interests and their interests do not always coincide. We can’t just defer to their judgment in all matters. That’s crazy.
And what’s truly amazing is that Romney wants to abdicate our leadership role in brokering a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. He wants us to just support Israel in that conflict and not to really advise them in any way. We just listen and then support.
What happened to American Exceptionalism?
How long before Romney flip-flops on this and takes the exact opposite position?
“How long before Romney flip-flops on this and takes the exact opposite position?”
I`d say….. by Sunday`s talk shows.
No, this is definitely one issue that makes the US exceptional and it is not open to flip-flopping of any kind, it’s the god honest truth.
Fawn M. Brodie’s life of Joseph Smith—No Man Knows My Name—told me all I’ll ever need to, or want to, know about Mormonism.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! You’re hilarious, Booman! Totally hilarious!!
I don’t even know where to start…
yeah, I wish it were funny.
You know, every now and again one of the puppet politicians accidentally says what his/her backers really think.
So you want the US to continue to lie about being an honest broker in the peace process? Not that I support what Romney is saying, in that he’d make the situation infinitely worse. However, why are you acting like we’re an honest broker at all? I know you’re a Zionist who “supports Israel” — why anyone would support a racist, apartheid state is beyond me — but it seems to me you’re massively upset over us being more honest in our foreign policy rather than lying through our teeth by pretending to be an honest negotiator who’s stuck in the middle of two extremes. You know what the US should do? GTFO the way, and allow an actual negotiator take the reigns. Perhaps now that Egypt is free of Mubarak, and after they’re free from their military coup, they can take the reigns.
Reins.
I support Israel’s existence in roughly the territory that it was allotted under the original United Nations agreement. I think that decision was made and it should not be rescinded. I wouldn’t describe myself as a Zionist because I don’t believe there is any specific right to the land beyond what the international community committed to. Yet, since Western Civilization did a nice job of practically exterminating the Jews, I remain committed to preserving Israel as a sanctuary. It should be obvious from my frequent criticisms of Israel that I do not support their current government or the settlement policy they adopted in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. I did not support their was on Lebanon (either one of them) or their siege of Gaza.
As for Egypt, I hope you are aware that Egypt has been Israel’s main adversary since its creation and that your suggestion that they be the peace broker is the rankest kind of nonsense.
If you want a different peace broker, you need to choose either the EU, Russia, China, or some UN group. Personally, I think the US should just work harder to get Israel to agree to the kind of proposals that have been on the table forever. The solution is known, only the will to implement it is lacking.
Yeah, reading a complaint about the US not being an honest broker, followed by the proposal that Egypt mediate the negotiations, is pretty rich.
Thanks for the spelling correction. Reign like a kingdom, dunno what I was thinking.
Do you support it as a “Jewish” state? You might criticize it some, but you’ve described J Street as an organization that you support; I’ve taken that to mean that their prescriptions are pretty much what you believe.
The solution is not known because the goal posts are continuously moving. I mean, if Obama says “1967 border” he gets attacked for it. The 1967 border will not even be the final solution, and those borders are grotesquely unjust in themselves.
Egypt worked the deal between Hamas and Israel; I don’t see why they can’t broker a peace deal, especially considering there needs to be a counterweight to the favor that Israel gets from both the EU and the US.
You aren’t being serious or you are just woefully ignorant.
From Israel’s point of view, their main concern in long-term military security from coordinated Arab attack, as happened in the 1940’s, 1950’s, 1960’s, and 1970’s. Their settlement policy is intended to provide them with a military buffer. That was also the intent of the occupation of the Sinai Peninsula (which they traded for peace with Egypt) and the Gaza Strip.
Their negotiations with the Palestinians are really about security from attack from Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.
And you think they should have Egypt, the strongest by far of their potential adversaries, act as an impartial broker?
That is ridiculous.
I don’t see how it’s any more ridiculous than pretending the US has been an honest broker since Israel’s inception.
W/e. This is all useless talk anyway, as the US is not going to move out of the way, and there will be no peace settlement with two states. Israel’s citizens have continued to lurch into right-wing territory, and their terrorist settlers will attempt to kill any attempt at a deal. It’s going to be one state, or continued injustice. And judging by the uprisings and recent Tunisian elections, it’s unlikely that the latter will last very long.
It is no surprise that Romney will say whatever he has to say to become president. It is also no surprise that up until now, no president could get elected without saying what Romney is saying. Heck, this is probably the only thing he hasn’t flip flopped on. If you ever want that to change, you’ll have to start supporting a candidate that doesn’t want to defer his key decisions to a foreign government. They don’t come by very often and when they do, they are invariably ridiculed (Ron Paul, Denis Kucinich.)
And I agree with Seabe. I’ll be happy when the US dispenses with the silly honest broker pretense.
.
Of course, Romney will need to replace some top U.S. generals …
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."From “double Guantanamo” to this latest extremism, Romney has always used uber-hawkish, neoconservative foreign policy talk to try to ingratiate himself with the right. Who knows if he really means it or not?
Well that’s a pretty state affairs when we don’t know whether he means what say and says what he means or just spouts rubbish PR.
a long standing promise by politicians to promise this. I believe Clinton and Bush both promised this when they ran, and a Bill was passed in ’95 mandating the move (that Clinton signed).
Why hasn’t it happened? Because the ’95 Law has an opt out provision, which Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all used.
From the Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/06/AR2009120602550.html
He looks like a president. He’s a white guy in a suit who makes president-noises. He’s a Republican.
His floor is 43.5% of the vote.
Welcome to America.
Not too swift at the diplomacy thing, is he? While many presidential candidates, and presidents, have implied this position over the years I don’t think I recall any of them putting it quite so directly. Should we give him a gold star for being truthful? Problem is, by next week he’ll be saying something else.
Just one more reason that when Israel is relegated to the trash heap of history, the world will be a better place. It can’t come soon enough.
Well, if I understand Mormon notions correctly, they suppose themselves to be the lost tribe of Israel. Maybe Romney thinks that gives him the Right of Return or something, and he wants as big a place as possible to return to.
The funny thing is, I think Romney actually gave the right answer to this question. It wouldn’t be Ron Paul’s answer, of course, but it’s still not a bad answer.
The idea of moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is one of those bad ideas that surfaces every four years. Romney is intelligent enough to know it’s a bad idea. But if he just came out and said so, he’d be picking a fight he doesn’t need to fight. And if he said he supported the idea, he’d be making a promise he had no intention of keeping. So, he makes a pro-Israel statement without saying anything specific about moving the embassy. It was the right thing to say