Ron Robin

Ron Robin is a Professor of Culture and Communication and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the NYU Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. Robin taught history at the University of California for more than two decades, and also taught modern American history and communication theory at the University of Haifa (Extended biography here).

Robin is a panel member of Haaretz's The Israel Factor project, ranking the Presidential candidates. He is the third member of the panel to also be a guest in this dialog (for the discussion with Prof. Abraham Ben Tzvi click here; for the discussion with Ambassador Alon Pinkas click here). We will discuss U.S.-Israel relations and the influence of American politics on Israel. Readers can send questions to rosnersdomain@haaretz.co.il.

Dear Prof.

In light of what you say about AIPAC - should more liberal supporters of Israel stop helping it?

Eric Glasser

I would be very reluctant to advise American citizens on how they should be promoting causes close to their heart, in general, and supporting Israel in particular. I do believe, however, that there are many ways of supporting Israel such as: supporting particular causes (hospitals, schools, Jewish-Arab dialogue) directly rather than through intermediaries.

Hello Prof. Robin

Can you explain why you want an American president that will push Israel to do something it doesn't want to do? It seems strange for an Israeli to want that even if he doesn't agree with his government.

Barry

I am writing as a historian and as a political analyst. The relationship between Israel and the United States is entangled in such a manner that pressure points on the United States (re: the involvement in Iraq) sometimes originate in Israel, and vise-versa. All major political initiatives in Israel - from settlements, on the one hand, to peace initiatives, on the other - have a strong American connection. Therefore, to say that Israelis have the sovereign right to decide their fate on their own and without outside influence-is belied by history as well as contemporary events.

Dear Ron Robin,

I understand your position on Giuliani, but can you please share with us what you think about other candidates like Obama, McCain and Clinton - from your Israeli perspective?

George Brady


I believe that Obama has no policy on Israel, and is merely going through the motions offered to him by strategists. McCain harbors a deep and ill-concealed animosity to Israel, as well as a volatile stance on all major issues in the Middle East. He cannot be relied upon to produce any meaningful consistency. Clinton - If you liked her spouse, you are probably going to like her too.

Dear Prof.,

You seem quite liberal from what you say here, but the panel you've joined rank Republicans higher than Democrats, and you're helping it go this (wrong) way by supporting Giuliani like the rest of them. Do we need to conclude that Israelis generally prefer the Republican party? And what will be the implications of such preference over the relations between Israelis and American Jews who are mostly Democrat?

Best Regards

Simon Levy


The trend among American Jews is unmistakable. A significant - and growing portion - have aligned themselves with the Republican party. Moreover, the demographics in United States suggest that in the long run Republicans will continue to rule the roost (barring the election of incompetent executives, of course). Under these circumstances, to treat the Republicans as if we are in 1920s America makes no sense. Giuliani, is then, an attractive candidate given the rest of the Republican field. And no: my votes have not ranked Republicans higher than Democrats.


Dear Prof. Robin,

How do you see the influence of AIPAC and the rest of the Israeli lobby on the American policy in the Middle East?

Thank you,

Jeffrey Hellm

AIPAC is, indeed, a powerful lobby. However recent (poorly researched and politically slanted) publications have transformed this organization into something quite sinister. Personally, I do not share the underlying philosophy of AIPAC, in particular its unreflective support of hard-line, right wing policies in Israel. But this organization is merely playing by the rules governing the American political system. Contrary to popular opinion, AIPAC is by no means the most powerful lobby in Washington; it is however, more visible than most other lobbies. Its strenuous lobbying - for a variety of questionable causes - is nothing out of the ordinary. They are just a bit more skillful than a few of their immediate rivals.


Dear Ron,

The first 3 questions from readers all deal with the same topic: Why does the panel think Giuliani is so good for Israel? Can you explain?

Rosner


The panel members have reached a similar conclusion based on different reasoning. For some members he appears to be the Republican candidate most deeply entrenched in a Jewish constituency; others focus on his record for standing up to the threat of Islamic terrorism (therefore most unlikely to find a silver lining in the Hamas cloud, for example).

In actual fact, Giuliani stands out in the Republican field because the other candidates are extremely pale or just plain marginal. As for my own reasoning: I like him for two main reasons:

1. As a former Republican mayor in a mostly Democratic city, Giuliani
has the makings of a bi-partisan president who will seek to build consensus rather than foist his pipe-dreams on the American public and the rest the world. Caution and bridge building promise to rebuild the nation's credibility, and by association strengthen its clients.

2. Giuliani is at the same time an independently minded person. He is
not beholden to any of the tired narratives guiding American foreign
policy from either left or right. Rethinking American foreign policy
in the Middle East is at this stage imperative, but few can actually
pull it off. Giuliani seems to be among the chosen few.


Dear Ron,

Applying the criteria you just mentioned - and your expertise as a historian - can you please tell me who were the best three or four American presidents for Israel and why? Bush will not be one of them, this much I can tell...

Best,

Rosner

I think few will doubt that Harry Truman would rank as the single most important president in the history of Israeli-U.S. relations. He laid the foundations of this special relationship, and as such he deserves a special place in the pantheon of founding fathers of the Israeli-American matrix.

My second choice, surprisingly enough, would be Dwight Eisenhower, the only president who ever posted a full-blown ultimatum to a short-sighted Israeli government. His importance lies in his ability to sketch a clear divide between global American interests and myopic Israeli objectives. A strong Israel hinges upon the perception of a credible American foreign policy in the Middle East, including the ability to reign in unruly allies when their actions (the building of settlements in occupied territories, for example) are short-sighted or counter-productive. Since then, there has been an erosion of this basically healthy relationship between the superpower and its independently-minded client.

My third choice would be Richard Nixon and his Machiavellian Secretary of State (I don't think the two can be separated). The airlift during the Yom Kippur War saved Israel from a devastating defeat (born out of hubris, more than anything else), and/or the employment of nuclear weapons in the region.

In sum: those presidents who have let the tail wag the dog rank quite low in my eyes.


Dear Ron,

In our last Israel Factor survey I asked you to define what makes one American candidate preferable to another from an Israeli point of view. You answered it briefly, but rightly complained that you needed more space to better make your argument. So here is your chance: What is the main factor that will make the next President good for Israel?

Best,

Rosner


Contrary to popular opinion, the candidate most favorable to Israeli interests will not be the typical knee-jerker who recites the usual construct of events and boilerplate solutions for the Middle East.

As recent events prove, the best candidate is definitely not one who is intent on remaking the Middle East in the American image. Such pipe dreams are dangerous; they ignore the socio-dynamic process of democratization and ignore the complexity of events engulfing our region. As we are mostly a client state of the United States, the best possible candidate will be a patient person who understands the domestic implications of his or her charge. Strength begins at home, and it entails the painstaking task of addressing U.S. internal weaknesses that threaten the functioning of this society: the widening gap between haves and have nots, the health-care crisis, an increasingly uncompetitive economic system and more. Strength abroad cannot be divorced from such structural weaknesses.

While comparisons with empires-past are problematic, I think it is safe to say that most empires have crumbled because of domestic failings. We, as the typical client state should be worried by the plethora of candidates focused on outdate homilies or revolutionary visions of the future, and the troubling fixation on foreign policy issues.