GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney will arrive in Israel Sunday to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It will be a reunion of two long-time friends. The prime minister and the Republican candidate first met in 1976. The two men formed a friendship that has transcended time and distance.
The conveyance that brought together these two men with dissimilar backgrounds was a new endeavor, Boston Consulting Group. Each had been approached to act as a corporate advisor for the firm. Romney was a recent honors graduate from Harvard with dual degrees in law and business administration; Netanyahu, with an architecture diploma in hand had just enrolled in the Sloan School of Management at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to pursue a masters’ degree.
Should Romney be elected president in November, he will become Israel’s best friend. Why? Relationship! No president of the United States has ever had the relationship potential that these two men have. Obviously, Netanyahu did not have a rapport with Bill Clinton, nor does he with Barack Obama.
It has been almost ten years since President Clinton rebuffed Netanyahu during a trip to the U.S. In 1999, Clinton refused to meet with the Israeli leader, and was in many ways instrumental in bringing about the election of Prime Minister Ehud Barak. At the start of the 1999 election campaign in Israel, Clinton sent a very clear message as to what he wanted: he sent the team that had run both of his successful election campaigns to lead Ehud Barak’s campaign. This team was James Carville, Stanley Greenberg and Bob Shrum. Carville had been Clinton’s campaign manager, and Greenberg had already been involved in the process of figuring ways to win against Netanyahu back in 1998. Rather than remaining neutral in the elections of an ally, Bill Clinton manipulated the outcome.
The same lack of relationship has been evident in the current administration. During his first visit to the White House following President Obama’s election, the White House denied Netanyahu the red carpet treatment generally afforded to visiting heads of state. He was not honored with a state dinner; the two leaders did not pose for pictures as is customary; and when the Israeli prime minister failed to capitulate to Obama’s demands, the president walked out of the meeting with the aside, “Let me know if there is anything new.”
A second issue is economics. Wars of the twenty-first century are vastly different from those fought in the twentieth century. Conflicts today are waged primarily as economic campaigns. Romney understands economics perhaps better than most, and certainly better than his opponent, President Obama. This is significant to Israel because Netanyahu, former Minister of Finance, and Mr. Romney would speak the same fiscal language. The key to Israel’s future is based upon economics and the prime minister’s belief that it must become a totally independent economic state.
There is also the issue of ethics. Mitt Romney’s Mormon background has given him a worldview that embraces moral clarity. Romney believes that US taxpayers should not be required to provide funds to support any country that sanctions jihad and the annihilation of Israel. He backs the security fence, and he believes that Arab states should stop funding terrorists and recognize Israel’s right to exist.
President Obama is a moral relativist, or one who believes in political correctness, fear of offending others, self-justification, and liberalism. This issue contributes to the great divide that seems to exist between the Israeli prime minister and the US president. Moral relativists sympathize with the murderer and blame the victim; point fingers at the rape victim and make excuses for the rapist; blame the innocent for the attacks that kill and maim while the attackers simply become “freedom fighters.” In a culture where wickedness is condoned, the innocent suffer repeatedly. They are victimized by the criminal, the court, and the media. This game is rationalized in order to justify our lack of moral virtue.
Humanists have tossed moral clarity out the window while allowing the virus of pragmatism to infect every segment of society. Pragmatism says one cannot know truth; good is measured only by what works successfully; there is no moral compass. The cult of human goodness, of works without faith has created not a Messianic era in the Middle East; it has created a mess. When humanity is confronted with eternity, the response is either rebellion or repentance. We have seen an escalation of rebellion worldwide.
Lastly, wars fought in this century are proxy wars. Today it is no longer about superpowers and which has the largest arsenal, but about which has the money, which would be willing to use their arsenals at any cost, and which could best manipulate their puppets to get them to do what they want. A case in point is Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the West Bank, both Iran proxies.
In the Middle East, the US has one pillar—Israel—a pillar of support and strength. Obama seemingly rejected Israel as a viable ally when in a speech in Cairo he labeled Israel as part of the “second major source of tension” in the region.
Ben LaBolt, the Romney campaign’s press secretary reiterated the candidate’s position on Israel, “Governor Romney has said he would do the opposite of what President Obama has done in our relations with Israel.” It would be a breath of fresh air to have a president who stood firmly with the state of Israel, on the side of moral clarity. One who upholds Israel’s right to her homeland—all of it—and who will work alongside Prime Minister Netanyahu to provide security for the Jewish people.
by Mike Evans
Dr. Mike Evans is a New York Times bestselling author. His latest book is Seven Days, a new fiction book with the riveting story of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. It will be released July 15. For information, visit www.7DaysByMikeEvans.com.