Analysis: Romney Spoke American in Jerusalem

Romney in Jerusalem

Romney in Jerusalem

Mitt Romney’s Israel visit will not only be remembered by the outstanding reception, and the personal embrace by none other than Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. It will in particular be remembered for it’s purpose – the foundation of a fresh start, based on the tone and content of his foreign policy speech in Jerusalem.

While Romney was fortunate enough to publicly recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, it’s important to state, that this recognition is the rule of law since it passed the approval of the US congress in 1995. Romney’s harsh stance against Iran is especially important, due to the grave consequences of a possible nuclear Iran and the threat it poses to the entire world.

The personal and intimate relationship with Netanyahu would definitely play a major role in strengthening the US-Israel relationship, if Romney wins the Presidency. Nonetheless, it is upon the two leaders – no matter what their personal ideology or personal character is – to agree on an open, frank, direct and discreet dialogue, that will benefit the interests of both countries.

The tone of the speech, was one that offered a reflection of the American public, strongly supportive of the US-Israel alliance and the existence of Israel as Jewish State.

Based on the speech and public statements during the visit, one cannot argue that Romney came across as a Hawk or as a neo-conservative, but as a responsible leader that fully understands the value of an alliance that is committed to the security of Israel and is willing to take a stand on the challenges we both face as a free and prosperous nation.

This is the American language. This is an expression of a strong and enduring friendship.

In my eyes, Romney can use the speech in Jerusalem to appeal to those Democrats and Republicans who are passionate about a strong US-Israel relationship. Those who have actually examined President Obama’s record over the past 3 1/2 years have seen President Obama taking an unprecedented approach which resulted in throwing Israel under the bus, contributing to a unstable middle east, and the burial of the peace process.

There is a growing concern among Jewish Americans over the future of the diplomatic relationship with Israel. Therefore, without a doubt, Mitt Romney can definitely use the Israel trip to defy the skeptics and build upon a strong showing among Jewish voters – strong enough to win the general election, come November.

Jacob Kornbluh, is a political operative in Brooklyn, New York. He also serves as the political correspondent for the Jewish Voice newspaper in Brooklyn and a contributor for various publications. Kornbluh regularly interviews political analysts, newsmakers and top government officials from Israel, the United States and elsewhere. Jacob also offers his own unique insight regarding the burning issues of the day along with penetrating commentary from well known policy makers, on his Blog (http://jacobkornbluh.com) and weekly online radio show (http://Romneyradio.us).

Twitter 

Tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Analysis: Romney Spoke American in Jerusalem

  1. Alonzo B RIchards says:

    Although the opposition is not in a favorable position of Mitt Romney, myself & my husband would like to out this position.

  2. Alonzo B RIchards says:

    or would I receive less or more? Ask the American people on a down to ear basis what they would expect. Lay a wallet on the counter for a visual experience and see what happens. To us that is exactly what the government does to the people of the US. we had a business & when my husband trained his employees, he literally threw pennies out in the parking lot to show employees the cost of bags in a business (especially when employees chose the wrong size bag to put the groceries in). Steve Bost (an employee who became a Legislature actually chose this demonstration to the Maine Legislature the cost of operating a business). The small cost add up to major costs in the term of a year, etc. P.ease, if I gave you my purse for the year, what would I get back – that’s what these people who go to Washington on our behalf need to hear, how would they like it if I Just plain gave their money to Systems or anything else without asking me. No one likes the idea of taking money out of their wallet & giving it to someone else. My husband & I both don’t like it one. It.

  3. AfricansforRomney says:

    Both the Israel and Poland speech was fanatastic (I like the Poland speech better, though). Well, the turth hurts. The lefty media are so dishonest and they’re twisting Gov Romney’s “culture” comment in Israel to racisit. We don’t have to go in the middle east to see why culutre matters. Why CA cities are expreiancing bankcruptcy, why the lib politicians are committing economical suicide, why many cities in USA are in decline? Of course, the answer is Culture!

    It is a no-brainer to know that the middle east corruption, lack of democracy, lack of economic freedom, sucide bombs culture don’t benefit you for economic devt and growth.

    It’s important to show strong relationship with Isreal b/c of the recent dramatic changes in the middle east, Northern Africa. Yes, the middle east no longer the same as 4 years ago, however, i want Gov Romney to stay strong in principle in his foreign policy, but i want him to tone it down the “cowboy” attitude :-) The American soliders, innocent children are still dying in Afghanistan also the unjustify excessive Obama’s drone attacks. Personally, i’m not ready for “dead or alive” macho talk with Iran dictator.
    Get out of Afghanistan! It is not worth staying.

    Gov Romney=Value Friendship=Strong Military=Strong Defense!

  4. Tom says:

    New York Times – August 1, 2012
    Romney Hasn’t Done His Homework

    By JARED DIAMOND

    Los Angeles
    MITT ROMNEY’S latest controversial remark, about the role of culture in explaining why some countries are rich and powerful while others are poor and weak, has attracted much comment. I was especially interested in his remark because he misrepresented my views and, in contrasting them with another scholar’s arguments, oversimplified the issue.
    It is not true that my book “Guns, Germs and Steel,” as Mr. Romney described it in a speech in Jerusalem, “basically says the physical characteristics of the land account for the differences in the success of the people that live there. There is iron ore on the land and so forth.”
    That is so different from what my book actually says that I have to doubt whether Mr. Romney read it. My focus was mostly on biological features, like plant and animal species, and among physical characteristics, the ones I mentioned were continents’ sizes and shapes and relative isolation. I said nothing about iron ore, which is so widespread that its distribution has had little effect on the different successes of different peoples. (As I learned this week, Mr. Romney also mischaracterized my book in his memoir, “No Apology: Believe in America.”)
    That’s not the worst part. Even scholars who emphasize social rather than geographic explanations — like the Harvard economist David S. Landes, whose book “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations” was mentioned favorably by Mr. Romney — would find Mr. Romney’s statement that “culture makes all the difference” dangerously out of date. In fact, Mr. Landes analyzed multiple factors (including climate) in explaining why the industrial revolution first occurred in Europe and not elsewhere.
    Just as a happy marriage depends on many different factors, so do national wealth and power. That is not to deny culture’s significance. Some countries have political institutions and cultural practices — honest government, rule of law, opportunities to accumulate money — that reward hard work. Others don’t. Familiar examples are the contrasts between neighboring countries sharing similar environments but with very different institutions. (Think of South Korea versus North Korea, or Haiti versus the Dominican Republic.) Rich, powerful countries tend to have good institutions that reward hard work. But institutions and culture aren’t the whole answer, because some countries notorious for bad institutions (like Italy and Argentina) are rich, while some virtuous countries (like Tanzania and Bhutan) are poor.
    A different set of factors involves geography, which embraces many more aspects than the physical characteristics Mr. Romney dismissed. One such geographic factor is latitude, which has big effects on wealth and power today: tropical countries tend to be poorer than temperate-zone countries. Reasons include the debilitating effects of tropical diseases on life span and work, and the average lower productivity of agriculture and soils in the tropics than in the temperate zones.
    A second factor is access to the sea. Countries without a seacoast or big navigable rivers tend to be poor, because transport costs overland or by air are much higher than transport costs by sea.
    A third geographic factor is the history of agriculture. If an extraterrestrial had toured earth in the year 2000 B.C., the visitor would have noticed that centralized government, writing and metal tools were already widespread in Eurasia but hadn’t yet appeared in the New World, sub-Saharan Africa or Australia. That long head start would have let the visitor predict correctly that today, most of the world’s richest and most powerful countries would be Eurasian countries (and their overseas settlements in North America, Australia and New Zealand).
    The reason is the historical effect of geography: 13,000 years ago, all peoples everywhere were hunter-gatherers living in sparse populations without centralized government, armies, writing or metal tools. These four roots of power arose as consequences of the development of agriculture, which generated human population explosions and accumulations of food surpluses capable of feeding full-time leaders, soldiers, scribes and inventors. But agriculture could originate only in those few regions endowed with many wild plant and animal species suitable for domestication, like wild wheat, rice, pigs and cattle.
    In short, geographic explanations and cultural-institutional explanations aren’t independent of each other. Of course, not all agricultural regions developed honest centralized government, but no nonagricultural region ever developed any centralized government, whether honest or dishonest. That’s why institutions promoting wealth today arose first in Eurasia, the area with the oldest and most productive agriculture.
    What does this mean for Americans? Can we assume that the United States, blessed with temperate location and seacoasts and navigable rivers, will remain rich forever, while tropical or landlocked countries are doomed to eternal poverty?
    Of course not. Some tropical and subtropical countries have become richer despite geographic limitations. They’ve invested in public health to overcome their disease burdens (Botswana and the Philippines). They’ve invested in crops adapted to the tropics (Brazil and Malaysia). They’ve focused their economies on sectors other than agriculture (Singapore and Taiwan).
    Conversely, geographic advantages don’t guarantee permanent success, as the growing difficulties in Europe and America show. We Americans fail to provide superior education and economic incentives to much of our population. India, China and other countries that have not been world leaders are investing heavily in education, technology and infrastructure. They’re offering economic opportunities to more and more of their citizens. That’s part of the reason jobs are moving overseas. Our geography won’t keep us rich and powerful if we can’t get a good education, can’t afford health care and can’t count on our hard work’s being rewarded by good jobs and rising incomes.
    Mitt Romney may become our next president. Will he continue to espouse one-factor explanations for multicausal problems, and fail to understand history and the modern world? If so, he will preside over a declining nation squandering its advantages of location and history.

    Jared Diamond, a professor of geography at the University of California, Los Angeles, is the author of the forthcoming book “The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn From Traditional Societies?”