Ideas@TheCentre
No red line likely
It is reasonable to assume that had Mitt Romney won his race to the White House, the world would have seen little change in the broad sweep of US foreign policy. With one exception.
The single area of foreign policy where considerable differences between the two candidates opened up early in the campaign was Israel.
Few were taken in by Obama’s attempt late in the campaign to portray himself as a friend of Israel. His relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu has always been testy and shows little sign of improving.
Not that Obama needs to worry about that. More American Israelis voted for Romney but 70% of American Jews voted for Obama. Securely returned to the Oval Office, Obama will have little reason to change his tone towards Israel now.
Joel Greenberg wrote in the Washington Post that while many Israelis thought Obama might promote better domestic policies in the United States than Romney, there was a more widespread concern that Obama could not be relied upon to support Israel in the event of an attack from Iran.
Neither candidate was prepared to commit to specific ways of dealing with Iran, such as by inking out the famed ‘red line’. But Romney did evince a greater commitment to the protection of Israel.
Faced now with a second-term Obama rather than a first-term Romney, Israelis must be wondering what the future holds for their tiny democracy.
Three major issues currently loom for Israel. First, a general election in January. Second, continuing efforts to reach a settlement with the Palestinians. Third, the threat from Iran’s nuclear program. And Netanyahu, in turn, must deal with a re-elected Obama while recognising that his political opponents at home may seize upon the US result to weaken him.
Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian National Authority president, however, will be cheered by Obama’s victory.
An ongoing issue in the so-called peace talks is Palestinian rejectionism, and Obama is likely to find little to trouble him there. Expect, too, to see the Palestinians to step up their bid for statehood and a seat at the UN General Assembly.
An editorial in The Commentator stated: ‘We have been disappointed and perplexed by President Obama’s flip-flopping over Israel. His “apology tour” in the early part of his presidency did nothing to mollify anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world, and much to embolden those who interpreted it as a sign of weakness.’
Obama appears to believe that reason pulses through the Iranian body politic. He also believes he can use the force of his personality to tap the vein when he finds it. He is likely to be disappointed.
Meanwhile, Israelis must now hope for the best from a second Obama administration. Some are certainly optimistic.
‘I’m happy that Obama is not Bibi’s puppet,’ Dori Mish’ali told Joel Greenberg. ‘If he would say yes to everything, there could be a war. He wants to help Israel in less violent ways, by reaching compromises.’
Let’s hope she’s right.
Peter Kurti is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.
