5 Ways Romney and Obama Will Shamelessly Pander to Israel Tonight

If there’s one thing for certain heading into tonight’s presidential debate on foreign policy, it’s this: Israel will be mentioned, and mentioned a lot. President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will duke it out over which candidate would be better for Israel, even though their policy differences towards the country are minimal.

Despite that fact, though, Israel has been a major factor during the 2012 election, due to a small sliver of advocates for Israel pumping millions of dollars of cash into the electoral system. The influence of the likes of Sheldon Adelson and other right-wing Zionists has pushed the debate over Israel in this country far to the right--away from any rational discussion of U.S. policy towards a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

So with that in mind, here’s 5 ways the candidates will pander to Israel during tonight’s debate.

1. Who’s Tougher on Iran?

The weekend’s big story was a front-page report in the New York Times that Iran and the United States had agreed to one-on-one talks over the Iranian nuclear program. The administration quickly denied the report, though NBC News followed up with an article claiming that there have been “back-channel talks between the U.S. and Iran about meeting bilaterally on the Iranians’ nuclear program – but that no meeting has been agreed to.”

Regardless of the accuracy of the report, the news will likely prompt moderator Bob Schieffer to ask the candidates first about Iran. And then the pandering will begin.

The Obama administration, with the prodding of a zealous Congress backed by the Israel lobby, has instituted devastating sanctions on Iran over that country’s continued pursuit of a nuclear energy program. The sanctions have wreaked havoc on the Iranian economy and led to increases in food prices, food shortages, high unemployment and medicine shortages.

The credit for the fact that the international community has focused in on harming Iran for its pursuit of nuclear energy--the West suspects it’s to build a nuclear weapon--goes to Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pushed and prodded Western nations to stop Iran from pursuing its civilian nuclear energy program.

So when Schieffer asks about Iran, Obama will point to the sanctions regime that is pushing Iran’s economy to the brink--and likely point out that the Israeli prime minister has praised the sanctions. As for Romney, he too will cite the sanctions, but vow to institute even tougher ones. “I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have,” Romney vowed during a speech on foreign policy at the Virginia Military Institute.

The nub of any disagreement between Obama and Romney will be over a “red line” for the U.S. to draw as a warning to Iran that if they cross it, an attack will come. Obama’s stated “red line” is an actual nuclear weapon, which the CIA and Mossad say Iran has not yet decided to build. Romney’s red line, though he has gone back and forth on this, is nuclear weapons “capability,” a hazy term meant to delineate when a country reaches the capacity to break out and build a weapon if they decide to do so.

Regardless of any disagreement, though, expect to hear a lot of about who would be tougher on Iran. The debate has been effectively narrowed between who can wreak havoc on Iran’s economy and who would be prepared to go to war. And much of that language is meant to please Israel and its ardent advocates in the U.S.

2. Military Aid to Israel

Before Obama’s first term began, Israel was already the largest recipient of U.S. military aid in the world. They still are--but the Obama administration has boosted the aid to record levels. The president will surely tout this record.

“The Obama administration has increased security assistance to Israel every single year since the president took office, providing nearly $10 billion in aid -- covering roughly a fifth of Israel's defense budget -- over the past three years,” according to Colin Kahl, an advisor to the Obama presidential campaign. Kahl also notes that Obama has “championed efforts to provide Israel with $275 million over and above its annual [military aid] to help finance Iron Dome, an anti-rocket system that has already saved Israeli lives.”

Romney will promise even more aid to Israel. In fact, he has already done so. In his foreign policy speech earlier this month, he vowed to “work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination.”

3. Who Will Help Israel as the Arab Spring Rages?

The attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya has put the Arab revolutions and their aftermath front and center in the debate over foreign policy. One of the major issues likely to come up will be how the Arab upheaval affects Israel’s regional security.

Mitt Romney has pointed to the attack in Benghazi as the prime example for the Obama administration’s “failure” to grapple with the Arab Spring. This alleged “failure” may be coupled with an attack by Romney that points to an Islamist wave coming to power across the Middle East, with negative consequences for Israel. Not mentioned, of course, will be the fact that the reason why it is having negative consequences is that Israel continues to occupy Palestinian land--and the newly democratic Arab countries want an end to the occupation.

Obama will point out his record on military aid to Israel, and say that the assistance is helping Israel grapple with the challenges of the Arab uprising.

4. Personal Relationships with Israeli Leaders

Read More Show less
ACLU By ACLUSponsored

Imagine you've forgotten once again the difference between a gorilla and a chimpanzee, so you do a quick Google image search of “gorilla." But instead of finding images of adorable animals, photos of a Black couple pop up.

Is this just a glitch in the algorithm? Or, is Google an ad company, not an information company, that's replicating the discrimination of the world it operates in? How can this discrimination be addressed and who is accountable for it?

“These platforms are encoded with racism," says UCLA professor and best-selling author of Algorithms of Oppression, Dr. Safiya Noble. “The logic is racist and sexist because it would allow for these kinds of false, misleading, kinds of results to come to the fore…There are unfortunately thousands of examples now of harm that comes from algorithmic discrimination."

On At Liberty this week, Dr. Noble joined us to discuss what she calls “algorithmic oppression," and what needs to be done to end this kind of bias and dismantle systemic racism in software, predictive analytics, search platforms, surveillance systems, and other technologies.

What you can do:
Take the pledge: Systemic Equality Agenda
Sign up