JERUSALEM – After a verbal stumble in London that offended his British hosts, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney heads to Israel on Saturday, hoping to present himself to American voters as a candidate more in tune than President Obama with Israel’s concerns and needs.
Although he will likely get a warm reception from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose differences with Obama have been highly publicized, the tricky terrain of Middle East politics mean that Romney — like any White House hopeful — will have to choose his public words carefully.
In an interview published on the front page of the prominent Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Friday, Romney suggested that if elected he would take care to maintain a unified front with Israel, a key U.S. ally.
“I believe that with regards to our allies, we are always wiser to lock arms and to stand as one for the world to see,” Romney said. “There will be, of course, times of disagreement and disparity in our respective interests – but those we are best in keeping to ourselves, in private.”
Romney’s remark touched on a perception here — at the highest levels of government and among many ordinary Israelis — that the Obama administration has put too much distance between its stances and those of its strategic partner in the Middle East. Romney’s goal is to send a reassuring message to voters back home — particularly American Jews and pro-Israeli evangelical conservatives who have been wary of throwing their support behind him — that he will be different.
Along with meetings with Israeli leaders, Romney is planning to hold a fund-raiser, the first such event held in Israel for a U.S. candidate during an American presidential campaign. At $50,000 dollars a couple, the breakfast event at Jerusalem’s King David Hotel is expected to include active American Jewish supporters, some with part-time residences in Israel, as well as local backers.
Obama received only about a quarter of the votes cast by Americans living in Israel in the 2008 election, according to a post-election survey, reflecting the orientation of many of recent immigrants from the United States, who tend to be religiously observant and politically conservative. To these voters, the first-term record of Obama — who visited Israel as a candidate, but not while in office — confirmed suspicions they had when he was elected.
“There is a pretty widespread feeling of deep dissatisfaction,” said Abe Katsman, a Jerusalem attorney who serves as counsel to Republicans Abroad-Israel. “People here feel that [Obama] has not had the level of warmth toward Israel that most presidents have had, and there has been some pretty shabby treatment by this administration.”
The complaints of Romney backers here revolve around positions that have put Washington at odds with Netanyahu: an insistence early in Obama’s term on a freeze on Israeli settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem; a statement that a peace agreement with the Palestinians should be based on Israel’s 1967 boundaries, with “mutually agreed” land swaps; and an approach to Iran that is seen as not tough enough, engaging in protracted diplomacy while warning Israel against a unilateral military strike. “This idea of putting daylight between the U.S. government and Israel — who does that to an ally?” Katsman said. “And why make the disagreement public?”
Although he will likely get a warm reception from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose differences with Obama have been highly publicized, the tricky terrain of Middle East politics mean that Romney — like any White House hopeful — will have to choose his public words carefully.
In an interview published on the front page of the prominent Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Friday, Romney suggested that if elected he would take care to maintain a unified front with Israel, a key U.S. ally.
“I believe that with regards to our allies, we are always wiser to lock arms and to stand as one for the world to see,” Romney said. “There will be, of course, times of disagreement and disparity in our respective interests – but those we are best in keeping to ourselves, in private.”
Romney’s remark touched on a perception here — at the highest levels of government and among many ordinary Israelis — that the Obama administration has put too much distance between its stances and those of its strategic partner in the Middle East. Romney’s goal is to send a reassuring message to voters back home — particularly American Jews and pro-Israeli evangelical conservatives who have been wary of throwing their support behind him — that he will be different.
Along with meetings with Israeli leaders, Romney is planning to hold a fund-raiser, the first such event held in Israel for a U.S. candidate during an American presidential campaign. At $50,000 dollars a couple, the breakfast event at Jerusalem’s King David Hotel is expected to include active American Jewish supporters, some with part-time residences in Israel, as well as local backers.
Obama received only about a quarter of the votes cast by Americans living in Israel in the 2008 election, according to a post-election survey, reflecting the orientation of many of recent immigrants from the United States, who tend to be religiously observant and politically conservative. To these voters, the first-term record of Obama — who visited Israel as a candidate, but not while in office — confirmed suspicions they had when he was elected.
“There is a pretty widespread feeling of deep dissatisfaction,” said Abe Katsman, a Jerusalem attorney who serves as counsel to Republicans Abroad-Israel. “People here feel that [Obama] has not had the level of warmth toward Israel that most presidents have had, and there has been some pretty shabby treatment by this administration.”
The complaints of Romney backers here revolve around positions that have put Washington at odds with Netanyahu: an insistence early in Obama’s term on a freeze on Israeli settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem; a statement that a peace agreement with the Palestinians should be based on Israel’s 1967 boundaries, with “mutually agreed” land swaps; and an approach to Iran that is seen as not tough enough, engaging in protracted diplomacy while warning Israel against a unilateral military strike. “This idea of putting daylight between the U.S. government and Israel — who does that to an ally?” Katsman said. “And why make the disagreement public?”