An American in Jerusalem

After the embarrassing shambles that was the London leg of Romney's foreign excursion, Israel must feel like a breath of fresh air. It's the sort of space Romney inhabits comfortably: the phrases he needs are easy to pre-formulate, and the requisite Zionism is a comfortable ideology for him.

Iran is the most pressing issue for Israel at the moment, so Romney takes the opportunity to express some friendly diplomatic solidarity, saying that as president his "highest national security priority" would be to prevent the Islamic Republic from obtaining nuclear weapons. "We must not delude ourselves into thinking that containment is an option," he told the audience, which included a large contingent of American donors who flew into Jerusalem specifically for the speech.

One of the things that immediately stands out here is that Romney's position is not all that dissimilar to Obama's. (Actually, that's true of all their foreign policy.) Apart from Obama's desire for an eventual end to nuclear weapons, it's just in the rhetoric that distinctions can be made. The material policy differences between the two are non-substantial, despite Romney's insistence that he'll take a firmer stance. Obama, though there is much room for criticism, has for most of his presidency delivered an impressive slew of foreign policy victories for the United States. His performance would suggest that the "style over substance" criticism levelled against him during the campaign was either wrong entirely, or at least premature. What Romney will do when his grandiose promises need to translate into real-world action, however, is a subject of considerable doubt.

And then there's this:

Among those who flew here for the event, were the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who has vowed to spend $100 million this political season to defeat President Obama and who wore a pin that said “Romney” in Hebrew letters.

Adelson's kind of big political money most concerning because it has a tightly structured political agenda as its sole motivation. Charles Koch and others might wield their own dangerous (and entirely bought) influence in American politics, none has quite the same singularity with regard to policy goals. Sheldon Adelson's sole concern is Israel, and even though Romney has repeatedly advocated a middle-line 'two-state' solution for the Israeli occupation of Palestine (a view not consistent with his own), Mitt happens to be his best shot.

The distinguishing characteristic here is of course Adelson's Zionism. His belief in Israel itself is galvanised with zeal, and wholly set upon realising the promise of messianic superstition. When he reflected on his service in the military, one of his more memorable comments was that "unfortunately" it was in an American uniform, not an Israeli one. Adelson said he and his wife "care about is being good Zionists, being good citizens of Israel, because even though I am not Israeli born, Israel is in my heart."

Juan Cole calls the sugardaddy relationship distasteful:

It is distasteful that Romney is clearly holding the event in some large part to please casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who first bankrolled Newt Gingrich and now is talking about giving $100 million to elect Romney. Adelson is a huge supporter of far rightwing Likud Party Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and published a free newspaper in Israel to support all things Bibi all the time. Adelson is under investigation for allegedly bribing Chinese officials in Macau in reference to his casino empire there. Since Adelson is potentially an agent of Chinese influence and is a partisan of one of Israel’s most rightwing parties, Romney’s indebtedness to him is disturbing.

Cole also suggests that Romney might like to visit a Palestinian refugee camp so that he can really grasp the crux of the dispute, rather than hobnobbing with the uber-rich in Jerusalem. Courting Israel is one thing, but Adelson is the problem figure. It seems likely that he will be the top individual donor in this election, and it may have occurred to you that all those monetary favours without some kind of political reciprocation. This is what happens when we have a system which allows billionaires to buy policy: people like Adelson do it on a massive scale.

(Image: Reuters)