The third and final debate between President Obama and challenger Romney was so lacking in real and relevant substance about foreign affairs that I had to struggle, several times, to resist the temptation to turn it off and go back to bed.
Romney’s message to America’s voters seemed to be something very like, “On foreign policy I’m not the ignorant, belligerent guy I had to pretend to be in order to secure my party’s nomination.”
Obama’s message seemed to be something like, “Just as his sums don’t add up on the domestic front, my opponent really doesn’t know what he’s talking about on foreign policy matters. As for myself, in a second term I’ll try to do better.” (And was there, reading between the lines, an indication that he thinks he is on course in a second term for fixing the nuclear problem with Iran by negotiations?)
A question that would have been put to Obama by a really good moderator who understands how American actions are fuelling the fire of violent Islamic fundamentalism is this: “Mr. President, are you not concerned that the targeted assassinations by drones which you personally authorize are counter-productive because they are killing so many innocents, men, women and children?”
On Romney’s performance in general I thought the editorial in the New York Times was more or less spot on. Its verdict included the following:
“Mitt Romney has nothing really coherent or substantive to say about domestic policy, but at least he can sound energetic and confident about it. On foreign policy, the subject of Monday night’s final presidential debate, he had little coherent to say and often sounded completely lost. That’s because he has no original ideas of substance on most world issues, including Syria, Iran and Afghanistan. During the debate, on issue after issue, Mr. Romney sounded as if he had read the boldfaced headings in a briefing book – or a freshman global history textbook – and had not gone much further than that. Twice during the first half-hour, he mentioned that Al Qaeda-affiliated groups were active in northern Mali. Was that in the morning’s briefing book?” (I would be very surprised if Romney knows where Mali is).
The editorial concluded:
“Mr. Romney’s closing statement summed it all up. He said almost nothing about foreign policy. He moved back to his comfort zone: cheerfully delivered disinformation about domestic policy.”
The truth telling about the most critical and dangerous problem in the Middle East and arguably the whole world (the Israel-Palestine conflict) was left to former President Carter.
While Obama and Romney were making their final preparations for their final debate, Carter was in Israel. (He was there with the former prime minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland, and the former president of Ireland, Mary Robinson, on behalf of the Elders, a group of ten of the “great and good” convened by Nelson Mandela in 2007. It seeks to promote human rights and world peace by, “speaking difficult truths and tackling taboos.”)
Carter dared to say, in Israel, that there could be no doubt that Prime Minister Netanyahu was not interested in a two-state solution. And he described the situation as “worse now than it’s ever been for the Palestinians” because of the expanding settlements and lack of prospects for change. He described himself as “grieved, disgusted and angry,” because the two-state solution “is in its death throes.” That, he added, was “a tragic new development that the world is kind of ignoring.”
I presume he meant the world of leaders not peoples; and by obvious implication President Obama was, in Carter’s view, among those who were ignoring what was happening in Israel-Palestine. He said, “The U.S. government policy the last two to three years has basically been a rapid withdrawal from any kind of controversy.” He added: “Every president has been a very powerful factor here in advocating this two-state solution. That is now not apparent.”
What a tragedy it is that American presidents can only speak the truth when they are out of office.
If you liked this post, then...
- Share it with others using this button:
- Comment on it using the form below.
- Subscribe to my blog via email or RSS to get "new post" alerts.
- Follow me on Twitter (@alanauthor).
I think you got right on Romney; you say little because there is little to say. About Obama, you offer a few more words, but he is a disappointment to many. Once again, it is the lesser of two evils for the American people.
The two state solution was dead the instant Rabin was assassinated. With Netanyahu then, and now, the way forward is Greater Israel, the expropriation of the whole of Palestine and the final solution to the Palestinian problem, the destruction of their homes and culture and their alienation and Diaspora forever. Or so the vicious Zionists think.
They will reap what they sow. The tide has turned in America. Little gestures are accumulating, adding up to real trouble for Israel in the future. I am hoping it will end with reconciliation trials in Israel and Zionists as outcasts in the US. I can hear the neocons testifying that they were never actually Zionists.
Corporate and AIPAC influence showed in all 3 debates, which were largely without substance and did not cover any issues in depth. This is why the moderators were careful not to ask any probing questions about Palestine, drones, Guantanamo, the NDAA and other horrors that are actually beneath the radar of most American consciousness.
I am proud to say that the first time I voted in an election for POTUS, I was 19 years old and voted for Jimmy Carter. Now, for the first time in my life, I'm not voting at all. I just cannot bring myself to take any step whatsoever that will put either of those two monsters, Obama or Romney, into the White House and in the position to continue the murder and hegemony the US is famous for. I abstain, for the sake of my soul and my conscience.
It isn't israel drawing the 'red line'; rather it should be the so-called civilized world drawing a most definite line for israel: this far and no further.
There is not much difference between Obama and Romney when it comes to foreign policy. Both have pledged obedience to Israel. Iranian leaders have said that Obama and Romney are two-faces of the same 'Zionist coin'.
Last week, in debate, Green Party presidential candidate, Jill Stein, Jewish herself - said that both Obama and Romney are "Israeli slaves".
Jimmy Carter, while in the White House - was considered the most pro-Israel US president. He played midwife role to the notorious 'Camp David Peace Deal' between terrorist Begin and Egyptian president Anwar Sadat - which divided the Arab support for PLO. Jimmy Carter is not anti-Israel. He is still a great supporter of Jewish occupation of Palestine within 1967 border.
http://rehmat1.com/2012/10/24/jill-stein-obama-romney-are-israels-slaves/
I agree that Carter is not much opposed to Zionism to the extent of the 67 border: He is bitterly opposed to the Zionist Lobby operating in the US. He is also opposed to the oppression of Palestinians by Israel in general.
I'm not voting this election again because we are faced with that only choice of choosing between one of two evils. Even if one of them seems to be the lesser of the evil, when in that office they will turn out to be as black of soul as the other one that will not be taking the office of president. Since the president is called the 'leader of the free world', should not the entire globe of free nations have a vote in this election and a say about what they truely think about our election standards? Besides, if I did vote for one of these devils, the one the banking cartels/Wall Street really want to run this government into the ditch will get into office, so my vote and yours is already decided for us. If you really believe you do have a say in this then let me look around here for something to sell you. I will tell you it is worth its weight in gold.
I agree with Rehmat.
Anyone pushing the two state solution is a zionist.
Mr Hart, I enjoy your articles, but I have question that no one has ever answered, and I believe you have the satisfactory answers. My question is: why does USA support Isareal whether she is wrong or right? USA vetoes any resolution that sounds unfavourable in Israel's sight. And because of this, Israel now behaves worse than a spoilt pre-school child. They treat thermselves as being more precious than the Palestinians. The fact is, the land of the Palestinians cannot be taken forever. No matter how long it takes, the Palestinians will one day get back their land, anyhow. I find it very hard to facthom why the Israel leadership cannot comprohend such a simple truth.
Well Ngoni Chivizhe; you have not had a response from Mr Hart; which does not surprise me. He seems reticent to comment on his own website. And while you did not ask for my opinion; I will provide you with the answer your seek. First by way of explanation, you should understand that while we might say the USA supports erzats israel, in fact it is just a few leaders of that country. Now to your question. Why do these people support israel no matter what? Answer; for personal profit.
Lets face it, soon there will not be enough palestinian land left to have a sunday picnic much less a Palestinian state. The U.N. voted for membership for Palestine. How dare they go against the master of the world,Israel. we will show them, build 3000 more homes on Palestinian land. Thumb your nose at Israel will you. International law does not apply to Israel. Fuck what the rest of the world think, we have the money to buy the world.