Romney policy speech in Jerusalem

Compare with Obama’s Cairo Speech

Romney’s Remarkable Speech in Jerusalem

by Daniel Pipes

Mitt Romney speaking before a backdrop of the Old City of Jerusalem.

Mitt Romney, the all-but-official Republican presidential candidate, delivered a stem-winder of a speech to the Jerusalem Foundation today, packing emotional support with frank policy statements. The contrast with Obama could hardly be more dramatic. Indeed, one could go through the speech and note the many refutations of Obama. For example, the opening comment that “To step foot into Israel is to step foot into a nation that began with an ancient promise made in this land” directly contrasts with Obama’s crabbed statement in Cairo about “the aspiration for a Jewish homeland [being] rooted in a tragic history.”

Also, in contrast to the nonsensical Obama administration stance on Jerusalem – sneaking in changes to captions that identified it as such and going through verbal gymnastics to avoid calling it that – Romney came out and plainly called Jerusalem “the capital of Israel.”
Many of his statements are paeans to the Jewish state and its extraordinary ties to the United States. Some quotations, with my additions in italic on the key words in each quotation:

    Our two nations are separated by more than 5,000 miles. But for an American abroad, you can’t get much closer to the ideals and convictions of my own country than you do in Israel.

    It is my firm conviction that the security of Israel is in the vital national security interest of the United States.

    We have seen the horrors of history. We will not stand by. We will not watch them play out again. It would be foolish not to take Iran’s leaders at their word. They are, after all, the product of a radical theocracy. … We have a solemn duty and a moral imperative to deny Iran’s leaders the means to follow through on their malevolent intentions.

    our alliance runs deeper than the designs of strategy or the weighing of interests. The story of how America – a nation still so new to the world by the standards of this ancient region – rose up to become the dear friend of the people of Israel is among the finest and most hopeful in our nation’s history. Different as our paths have been, we see the same qualities in one another. Israel and America are in many respects reflections of one another.

    the enduring alliance between the State of Israel and the United States of America is more than a strategic alliance: it is a force for good in the world. America’s support of Israel should make every American proud. We should not allow the inevitable complexities of modern geopolitics to obscure fundamental touchstones. … A free and strong America will always stand with a free and strong Israel.

    By history and by conviction, our two countries are bound together.

    No individual, no nation, no world organization, will pry us apart. And as long as we stay together and stand together, there is no threat we cannot overcome and very little that we cannot achieve.
    But of the whole speech, it is the final words that most struck me: “May God bless America, and may He bless and protect the Nation of Israel.” When last did a politician ask the Lord to protect another country and not his own?

Comments: (1) Obama and Romney stand as far apart on Israel as they do on the sources of economic growth. (2) Over and over again, Romney returned to the moral bonds between the two countries; yes, there are mutual benefits from our connection, but ultimately it reflects something higher and greater than any of us. (3) Were he elected, it will be fascinating to watch to what extent the outlook expressed today will convey to the workaday policy issues. I expect it will substantially convey.

July 30, 2012 | 34 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

34 Comments / 34 Comments

  1. @ yamit82:

    In my limited understanding, Yamit is right. Announcing the move of the embassy to Jerusalem, while seemingly inconsequential, is actually the one thing that will get Romney elected and, like a swipe of Alexander’s sword on Gordian’s Knot, begin the inescapable denouement of the conflict. Think of the concatenating consequences and the hilarious apoplexy rampant in Arab Governments. Such a move is unequivocal recognition that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of the State —–there is not to be a piece of it reserved as the capital of something else sometime.

    I’m sorry Romney did not say the one thing I would like any President to say. As you know Congress did pass a law to move the embassy to Jerusalem but no president has yet obeyed the law — for good reason I’m sure. Oil is probably the best answer. And Congress stands mute. I can understand that. Doing so would be tantamount to global upheaval on the order of an apocalypse But, aside from the embassy, the very least a president can do is recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Tell me. What’s the big deal? Why not just recognize the capital which is only a matter of diplomatic mutual acceptance and respect between nations. That Romney has done, to his credit. But Obama refuses to recognize the legality of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Why? Obama pretends that issue will wait upon something he calls “final status negotiations.” Final status bullshit — that is simply code words to the Arabs that “If we drag it out long enough we will eventually screw Israel!” Do you not realize just how much the Arabs hate Israel..hate, that is, Jews. So much so that they are dying to kill them


  2. yamit82 Said:

    @ Paul:

    Did you ay that about McCain when he was running for President or only afterwards?

    Before and after.

    Did you support Bush?

    I voted for him. I was not a supporter.

    You think a presidential candidate supported by the Power brokers of the Republican party will bring you security economic prosperity and Peace? If yes you are delusional.

    Your choices are between two mafia families under politically correct names like Republicans and Democrats.

    I don’t think the families or even the candidates themselves are to blame. It is the “two party system” that is to blame.

  3. @ yamit82:thanks, I think Morphy’s law might be appropo to whats lining up. I dont remember your exact words but you mentioned recently something like everyone seems to be getting into positions for changes in the mideast balance of power. I get that feeling that something is definitely going on that seems like more than Iran or leading up to Iran, as if deals have been made for a new situation. My problem is that I would expect Murphy’s law to go into effect regarding US mideast judgement.

  4. @ Bernard Ross:


    Ray Bradbury’s butterfly effect

    Sometimes called the Laws of unintended consequences and Chaos theory.

    In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions, where a small change at one place in a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences to a later state. The name of the effect, coined by Edward Lorenz, is derived from the theoretical example of a hurricane’s formation being contingent on whether or not a distant butterfly had flapped its wings several weeks before.

    Although the butterfly effect may appear to be an esoteric and unlikely behavior, it is exhibited by very simple systems: for example, a ball placed at the crest of a hill may roll into any of several valleys depending on, among other things, slight differences in initial position.
    The butterfly effect is a common trope in fiction when presenting scenarios involving time travel and with hypotheses where one storyline diverges at the moment of a seemingly minor event resulting in two significantly different outcomes

    In a well-known science fiction novel by Ray Bradbury, a butterfly in the pre-historic past is accidentally crushed by time travelers and this seemingly insignificant event radically changes history. We will call this the “Bradbury Butterfly” Effect (BBE). We know that such an effect occurs in Long Josephson Junctions as described by a time-dependent nonlinear sine-Gordon equation. This equation states that any alteration within the initial perturbation fundamentally changes the asymptotic state of the system. The actual manifestation of this effect is proven by a numerical simulation of the time-dependent sine-Gordon equation.

  5. @ yamit82: I agree with you regarding most presidents and dont believe there will be much difference. However, I think the comparison would be between Obama and Romney re Israel. Didn’t Obama breach an agreement Sharon made with Bush in return for the gaza withdrawal? Didn’t Obama try to force further settlement freezes and concessions to get the talks going again? I certainly got the impression that Obama was trying to predicate his veto of a Pal state on Bibi conceeding other issues. It may be that the only reason for Obama’s failure is that Bibi remained strong and that when Obama realized he couldn’t push it was time to reverse engine and woo some jews. Regarding Obama my impression is that he is generally hostile to Israel and being in dire need of success somewhere will seek a Carter “legacy” with a “peace” agreement. The installation of the MB appears to me to be an intentional policy and maybe a deal based on saudi advice. Regarding romney, him being a governor I would not expect much foreign policy of his own or much relations to the Sauds, except he may feel that the Jews helped his election and may decide to continue placating Israel. also, I believe he and bibi had a prior relationship which may help get a sympathetic ear from romney. My biggest question would be how much he relies on his advisors for his Israel foreign policy: who are they and what is there Israel position. If it comes from the usual suspects there may be a negative. I do not feel that romney will seek a pr coup from foreign policy, i feel he will concentrate on domestic issues and this would suit Israel. All of my thoughts are fluid because the opposite can easily be true. Barring reliance on an anti Israel advisor I would say romney is better for Israel to start. I get the impression that no one wants a peace deal at the moment except the euros, israeli left & americans. The sauds appear to be enmeshed in syria and iran, the west bank leaders prefer the status quo rather than be seen to make concessions. Hamas probably wants to get points for being able to bring prosperity as the Israeli card isnt producing. At the moment the enemies appear in disarray. RE Iran its hard to tell if anyone will go to war, lots of sabres, but what next. A strong leader who can demonstrate that Israel will not be pushed can do wonders. It is interesting to see that bib has not actually made any real concessions and has outlasted Obama first term and appears to be moving to another phase with the levy report, but who knows(you better than I) RE the US I think your comment sums it up

    Your choices are between two mafia families under politically correct names like Republicans and Democrats.

    Once this is understood then it can also be understood where everyone stands in relation to these 2 tribes warring over scarcer benefits. Idealogies for consumption may differ but the goals are the same.
    what is:
    yamit82 Said:


  6. Romney has no foreign policy experience and doesn’t seem to have an inclination for it. He would allow other government officials to make decisions for him, which is exactly the mistake Bush made. Dick Cheney, most of all, and DOD Donald Rumsfeld and the Karl Rove ran the show. Who could have guessed that seasoned government officials like Cheney and Rumsfeld could make such a mess of the U.S. government?

    Obama’s goal was to bring peace between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East, so would he go to Cairo to insult Muslims? Obama was trying to lead Muslims to a point where they would accept a peace with the Jews. He didn’t realize the darkness in Muslim hearts to the Jews, which is based on jealousy and the fact that Jews will not give them, and prevent them from taking, everything they want in Israel. Just look at their complaint against Romney for saying there are cultural differences that result in the disparity between the two’s economies. Muslims seem not to be able to think things through and apply logic to their thinking, which resulted in their saying it’s the Jew’s fault for their economy’s dismal performance, evidently blinding themselves to Israel’s reasons: because _these Muslims kill Jews_on a regular basis._

    I don’t believe Mitt has the knowledge to be president. Obama has seen Israel gets the money it needs to defend itself. Follow the money!

  7. @ Paul:

    Did you ay that about McCain when he was running for President or only afterwards?

    Did you support Bush?

    You think a presidential candidate supported by the Power brokers of the Republican party will bring you security economic prosperity and Peace? If yes you are delusional.

    Your choices are between two mafia families under politically correct names like Republicans and Democrats.

  8. @ Jeffrey Grill:

    In his interview on Fox he said re”Embassy”, that he will continue the current policy. He came out four square on the side of a two state solution.

    As far as Israel is concerned with a Romney, expect more of the same but with a happy face and maybe even with a smile. Jews love it when the Gentiles smile at us and pat us on the shoulder with empathetic words of understanding.

    Stupid Jews love it when we are told by the Gentiles that we have the right to defend ourselves, as if we need their consent and permission to do so.

    Maybe BB should be let in on that little secret? 8)

  9. @ Yehuda:

    Bush II tried to change the US policy concept of Israel’s defensive needs and of the legitimacy of Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria.

    What are you talking about?

    Obama created a situation where the Palestinians have no interest in negotiating with Israel at all as long as he is in office.

    And you think that’s Bad?

    Obama tried to develop the message that the only roadblock to peace are some Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria (as if those homes murder Palestinians). Bush created a situation where negotiations could take place, Obama created a situation where they were impossible.
    Anyone who prefers peace, or anyone who prefers a stronger Jewish presence in Israel, must side with Bush in this dichotomy. And Romney can in no way be as bad as Obama.

    Obama should be given the title of Moshiach for a job well done. Negotiations are the worst possible scenario for our survival. So far under Obama we are still intact. if you believe empowering the Plais scum is a positive for Israel and that retreating back to 67 lines is a positive for Israel then Bush is certainly your kind of guy.

    Anyone who prefers peace, or anyone who prefers a stronger Jewish presence in Israel, must side with Bush in this dichotomy. And Romney can in no way be as bad as Obama.

    Facts don’t support you. Sorry 😉

    As to your last comment, no vote is a vote for the incumbent in a close election. Sitting it would would the equivalent of voting for Obama – particularly if you live in a swing state.

    This is my personal opinion. If enough people don’t vote the elections with be deemed illegitimate in the court of Public Opinion and reduce the assumed mandate for the government to act and enact.

    I do agree that Obama will probably be worse for Israel in a second term. I’m not convinced that Romney will be better either for Israel or America. He will have to institute severe austerity on America and doom the Republican party to oblivion in the future. America is toast no matter who is elected and anyone who understands the real problems won’t disagree with me.

    Note: Bush took a 3-4 trillion dollar surplus and created an 8 trillion dollar deficit. Obama made things worse by doubling it in 3 and a half years but part of that doubling was the increase in entitlements and reduction of revenues caused by Bush created depression. The democrat congress did not reduce expenditures but neither has a Teas party influenced Republican congress. Look for a new vote on increasing debt limit before the elections. That should be fun.

    Obama Bowed to the Saudi King But <em>Georgie Bush did worse Here


    There is a lot more like the above. Bush entertained the Saudis in his home while president.

  10. @ Bernard Ross:

    I agree that our problems stem mostly from decisions and actions taken by our leaders. That said ,may I remind the pundits commenting on this site that this is Israpundit and not Americapundit.

    Our concern is primarily with the elections effect on Israel and not America. A president who is generally good for America is not automatically good for Israel and conversely.

    Facts: Obama is Bad for America not necessarily good or bad for Israel. Who cares if he likes us or BB? I don’t like BB either and Obama’s opinions of him are not far removed from the truth.

    Has Israel been forced under Obama to do what she is unwilling to do? Have we entered into bad agreements and treaties under Obama as we did with Bush and Carter? Have we given up territory?

    BB did not have to comply with the freeze in Settlements and Jerusalem. They were mostly in place when he took office and he never changed policy before the American demand which was the same American demand of Bush, Clinton and Reagan. Under Obama we haven’t had Madrid’s, Oslo’s or Road Maps even Wye Plantations. We haven’t had to relinquish control over strategic Borders and crossings, we were not military asset embargoed as under Reagan except for assets that might support an attack against Iran but they were mostly in place since Bush and continued through Obama. Obama kisses up to Arabs and Muslims but so did Both Bushes and Reagan.

    Obama’s Policy re: Iran is little different than that of Bush and if anything more pro Israel position than was Bush and McCain’s stated positions. Anyone who believes Romney will be much different is dreaming. American policy has been to allow Iranian Nukes as leverage for de-nuking Israel. A Tradeoff along with pushing us back diplomatically to the 67 non-defensible borders. To this end America Arms and finances massive military assistance to all our immediate and less immediate neighbors. This has been a consistent American overall aim and policy with regards to Israel since the end of the cold war with Russia and it transcends political parties.

    Of course there are nuances from president to president and admin to admin but conditions on the ground also influence policies and let’s not forget the “BRADBURY BUTTERFLY EFFECT”

    I have long said Israel is bluffing re: attacking Iran and our Policy has always been to try to force encourage and convince America to do the

    In the end Who cares if Obama or Romney likes us or hates us. It’s national interests that determine international relations. I would rather see America refrain from arming our enemies than We receiving military aid. That’s the only way for a peaceful ME which nobody seems to really want. “.. they have seduced My people, saying, ‘Peace!’ when there is no peace—and one builds a wall, and they plaster it with untempered mortar” Ezk 13:10

  11. I don’t think it is necessary to evoke Obama as the only reason to vote for Romney. I think he has a lot going for him. The thing that I am really waiting for is what he intends to do about illegal immigration and who he intends to bring on as a VP. Anything suggesting that he is appeasing the open borders supporters will keep me from voting for him. This guy is not like McCain. McCain is genuinely rotten just like Obama is. I can’t believe that Romney is rotten, a tube maybe, but rotten? I don’t think so.

  12. ABO – Anyone But Obama. We don’t know for sure what Romney will do but if Obama gets in again the United States will cease to exist as we know it, and not for the better.
    If Obama gets in Iran will be stronger and the Muslim Brotherhood will have its tentacles deep within the United States. Not to vote is a vote for Obama.
    Vote for Romney for a Stronger and more free America.

  13. I think it is much more important to Israel,as to who leads Israel. Without Sharon’s duplicity and/or incompetence there could never have been a gaza withdrawal. same for barak from lebanon. The leadership and execution of the state of Israel will be reflected in the international reaction. a strong, unapologetic, self interested state acting with resolve and clarity will determine Israels fate and the number of its detractors. As bin ladin said “the world favors a strong horse”

  14. Romney came out and plainly called Jerusalem “the capital of Israel.”

    Isn’t the official US position that Jerusalem is the capitol(note spelling) of Israel? Former campaigning presidents promised to move their embassy to Jerusalem and after elections “reconsidered”. US politicians, like most, know the difference between talk and action and regularly exploit that difference. It is important not to put much stock in campaign rhetoric. Associations, cabinet choices,detailed promises that are easy to keep, past voting, are more important. Perhaps, for Israel Romney might be better because Obama has already promised, to Israels enemies, to operate more freely after the election and Romney would be more cautious in a first term. Iss there any concrete detailed actions that Romney is promising? MY prognosis: Poor Jews will vote Obama(democrats), rich Jews will vote romney and those in the middle will split. Lets remember that most US Jews, like Israeli Jews, are not fully aware of how Israel was swindled from the Jews and that the Jews have the legal rights: why should we expect more from others?

  15. May G-d make Mitt Romney the next President of the United States, and may his actions back up his words. BY A LANDSLIDE!!!!!!!

  16. @ bahmi:
    Pollard did not sell information to Russia. He sold it to Israel, and his actions saved American (and Israeli) lives. They didn’t result in American losses.

  17. @ yamit82:
    The differences between Bush II and Obama are night and day. And if Romney is the same as Bush II he deserves evry vote he can get. Bush II tried to change the US policy concept of Israel’s defensive needs and of the legitimacy of Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria. Obama created a situation where the Palestinians have no interest in negotiating with Israel at all as long as he is in office. Bush recognized that the only roadblock to peace is Palestinian intransigence and their need to continue the violence. Obama tried to develop the message that the only roadblock to peace are some Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria (as if those homes murder Palestinians). Bush created a situation where negotiations could take place, Obama created a situation where they were impossible.
    Anyone who prefers peace, or anyone who prefers a stronger Jewish presence in Israel, must side with Bush in this dichotomy. And Romney can in no way be as bad as Obama.

    As to your last comment, no vote is a vote for the incumbent in a close election. Sitting it would would the equivalent of voting for Obama – particularly if you live in a swing state.

  18. @ Jeffrey Grill:
    I’m very concerned that Romney could have damning evidence against Israel from incidents like 911. That could be a very dicey situation. There is such a thing as expecting too much of a good thing, is this the time to get a wee bit greedy, eh? Yes, we would like to have Pollard back, but what would the American public do to an American president should he appear to go too far toward the whims of Israel? I am not sure of the exact time to ask such “favors”, we have to be very careful as the American electorate is totally fed up with the election process and other rampant corruption now raging in the US. The US is ripped apart by the very clear notion for the US to cease existence and be absorbed into NWO. Slavery is projected for the US and I deem the American public about at the end of their tether. We can expect riots and bank runs during Romney’s first term. For that to be associated with Israel is not something I want on our conscience. First term for Romney, he has to balance support for us and the dire needs of his country.Personally, he will merely be another neocon traitor to the American cause. America will not prosper under Romney, they are clearly dying under Obama, a very obvious communist. We talk about the American president supporting us “unequivocably”, in times of severe deficit in the US, can we expect more than our fair share? All of these variables assume we have the best hopes and wishes for the US, of course. That our relationships are totally reciprocal and equitable. Otherwise, what have we become?

  19. @ yamit82:
    It’s true that Romney could have pandered for more Jewish votes, but I understand around 1100 agents named by Pollard were killed as a result of Pollard’s selling of the information to Russia. Can someone clarify this and certify as to the truth behind this event,please.

  20. Will Gov. Romney have the courage and temerity to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem for Tel Aviv if he is elected President of 11/6/2012?
    Will Gov. Romney have the vision, temerity, and courage to declare the ‘Oslo Process’ and Two State Solution a ‘FAILED, LETHAL EXPERIMENT?’
    I will, of course vote for Romney. I am concerned, however, that he will not be unequivocal in his support for Israel and back his words with actions.
    I am also concerned that Romney will not unequivocally expose the truth about the Muslim Brotherhood and how the U.S. government has been and continues to be infiltrated – top to bottom – with Islamophilic sycophants and MB supporters, if not outright MB members.
    The truth about Islam, NOT RADICAL ISLAM BUT AUTHENTIC, MUHAMMADEN, NORMATIVE ISLAM, must be told, taught and repeated ad nauseum to a brain dead populace and to those who would rather ‘turn away’ from the truth.

  21. It is unfair to expect Romney to take the lead on Jonathan Pollard or on moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem when Jewish leaders in both the U.S. and Israel have failed to put more public pressure behind these issues. Without Jews taking the lead it would be awkward for Romney to be, as they say, “More Catholic than the Pope”.
    As its is most U.S. Jews are fervent Democrats who support the ‘two state solution’. They actually oppose any politician who is ‘too pro Israel’ without also calling for more support for the poor Palestinians. Romney is already risking a frontal attack from Jewish Democrats such as the leftist National Jewish Democratic Council.
    Romney’s speech is already ahead of the two thirds of U.S. Jews who remain in strong support of Obama despite all his treachery.

  22. @ andrew morris:

    “To get elected Romney would say anything..”

    Obama did. He promised so many things that he never attempted to realize. Such is the nature of politics but In his campaign, Obama went to make a speech in Germany and Romney came to make a speech in Israel.

    When last did a politician ask the Lord to protect another country and not his own? Did Obama pray to Allah to protect Egypt when he was there?

    Obama has an evil streak. A dark side to him. Romney does not seem to possess this. Is it his fault he was born into a wealthy family?

    I am not American but Romney can’t be as weak or duplicit as Bush re: Yamit’s post nor as evil as Obama. Everything Obama has done will weaken the USA.

    But maybe this is theater. The MB has penetrated both political parties.

  23. @ Ted Belman:

    To get elected Romney would say anything including calling his mother a whore. After election the world geopolitical will not change and the promises made will be put aside as they have in the past.

  24. Romney has said things here that he cannot easily turn his back on. I see little to compare in anything I have ever heard from a US president before or after their term. I think it is significant that he did not even indirectly say anything about Palestinian nationalism.

  25. For $100 million of Sheldon Adelson’s money, of course romney would say all these things,

    They are meaningless. Empty words.

    Because once the election is over, the oil money calls the shots.

    At least Obama is honest.

    In any event, I doubt Obama will lose, it’s a second term folks, unless the Republicans get their act together.

    Why doesn’t Sheldon Adelson run for office himself? There is little difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

    Some Jews are so desperate to hear ‘nice’ words, and empty rhetoric that they slavishly pretend Romeny will do anything different. He won’t.

    I don’t like either, but at least Obama is honest. If he wins, which in all likeliness he will, then I dread to think of Bibi’s fate if he is still Israel’s leader. Obama will want revenge.

  26. @ Ted Belman:

    nuanced differences and atmospherics seem to favor Bush. Policy-wise Bush was worse for Israel in both terms but especially his second term, and so will Obama if he remains consistent and wins a second term.

    President George W. Bush declared in his Middle East policy speech his “vision”, as he called it, for a so-called “Palestinian” state which should be created within 3 years. He called on the so-called “Palestinians’ to change their leadership as a pre-condition for this. He also called on Israel to stop the development of settlements in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza and to solve the “problem” of Jerusalem and the borders of the “Palestinian” state. He called Israel’s liberation of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza in 1967 an “occupation”, which is not good for Israel. His White House spokesman stated that Israel can only survive when a “Palestinian” state is created in the land of Israel

    In March 2002. After the massacre at the Park Hotel in Natanya on the Passover holiday, on the night of the seder, the Israeli people wanted to suppress Arab mass murder and terrorism. The army went off on Operation Defensive Wall [Homat Magen] to go into Arab towns like Ramallah, Bethlehem, Jenin, Nablus [Sh’khem], etc., where the Israeli army had not gone into for years. Bush shortly demanded that Israel immediately stop this operation and withdraw all troops from palestinian authority zones right away. Colin Powell went off on a tour of Arab capitals to consider the Israeli problem [the Jewish Problem] and hold hands with distraught Arab leaders. In other words, Bush wanted to allow the Arabs to continue their mass murder attacks. Bush wanted to save arafat from harm. He wanted to protect mass murderers from just retribution.

    Bush appointed Robert Gates, a long-time enemy of Israel and ex-head of the CIA, to secretary of defense to replace Rumsfeld. Then followed with the Baker committe and their recommendations that he accepted in total.

    I could quote Condi which as Bush’s National security adviser and later as Sec of State. Makes for interesting reading.

    I could review all the negatives of the Road Map. I could quote Bush ofter the First Jenin report of Israel massacring Arabs.

    I could cite all the arms and technology transfers including Nuke technology to the Saudis and Gulf states.

    I could cite the money and weapons given to Egypt while denying some like dolphin cruise missiles to Israel. The blocking of Israeli options for attacking Iran began with Bush as well as air refueling tankers.

    General Daytons training an American supplied and funded Pali Army.

    The Pushing for elections in Gaza against opposition by Israel. Relinquishing our control of the Philidelphi corridor and border crossing with Rafiach.

    I could cite pages and pages more of How G W Bush was the president most inimical to Israel surpassing Carter, Bush Sr.,Reagan and till now Obama.

    Bush had 8 years to screw Israel Obama only 3 and a half so it might be an unfair comparison.

    Certainly except for atmospherics on the ground where it counts I can’t say till now Obama has been worse for Israel than most of his predecessors except for the two Bushes who were owned by the Saudis and did their bidding out of commitment and money.

    You believe Obama is worse make your case.

  27. @ Ted Belman:

    You are too influenced by words and not actions.

    As I recall you said similar things about Bush.

    There is no reason to believe that he will act significantly different than Obama or Bush.

    Especially after seeing who he picked for advisers.

  28. He could have really made headlines and earned many more $$$Millions in donations if he had said his first act as President would be to Pardon Pollard. That would have garnered him a lot more Jewish votes and money than the boilerplate tripe he expressed in his speech and put 6 million Jewish Israelis firmly in his corner. While we don;t vote in the elections we do influence them.

    Romney blew it. He could have captured headlines right up to the elections by promoting pardon for Pollard on HUMANITARIAN grounds.

  29. In his Cairo speech, Obama pandered to the Muslims even to the extent of distorting history and reality. I am happy that Romney is “pandering” to the Jews. Just as Obama followed up his speech with actions favouring Muslims and even islamists, I expect that a President Romney will act in our favour.

  30. Political speech reminiscent of Bush before he was elected. Could have had the same speech writers.

    He didn’t say anything about moving the American Embassy to Jerusalem? This omission is more telling than the other BS he was trying to peddle.

    Not that anyone would believe him if he had said it about the Embassy but it’s omission is revealing.

    After previewing the current reported list of Obama foreign policy advisers I see little daylight for believing there will be any significant difference between G W Bush and Romney on foreign policy and Israel.

    Bush echoed the soothing rhetoric but between him, Powell and Condi with Baker advising… If anyone says that Obama is worse for Israel than Bush, I will challenge their perception and or beliefs. Of course a 2nd term Obama can be expected to outperform Bush in Israel negatives.

    I might sit this election out. I think voting for a lesser of to evils is immoral.