Skip to footer

How the world is reacting to Obama's reelection

8. Israel

In Israel, there's more anxiety about what the future may hold for US-Israel relations.

Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu paid pretty quick tribute to 'rock solid' ties between the US and Israel when he congratulated Obama for his win, but many Israelis expressed concern about how the frosty first-term relationship that Obama had with Israel could affect his second term, reports Monitor Correspondent Joshua Mitnick.

Now that Mr. Obama is free of the constraints of reelection, Israelis worry that he will feel less compelled to mollify Mr. Netanyahu on disputes over the Palestinian peace process and blocking Iran’s nuclear program. Obama has pushed Israel to renew talks with the Palestinians and has refused a request from Netanyahu to publicly set a "red line" for military action against Iran’s nuclear program.

Alluding to the tension with language that seemed lifted from GOP candidate Mitt Romney's talking points, parliament member Danny Danon, a member of Netanyahu's Likud Party, expressed hope the president "resets his course relating to Israel and our region for the next four years. Rather than dictating ill-advised policies that endanger the wellbeing of America's only true ally in the Middle East, now is the time for President Obama to return to the wise and time-honored policy of 'zero daylight' between our respective nations.''

If Obama pushes more diplomatic talks with Iran while allowing it to continue to enrich uranium, sore spots with the US are likely persist like they did late into the election campaign, says one political expert.

"We all know that relations between Obama and Netanyahu have been tense at times," says Ephraim Inbar, a political science professor at Bar Ilan University. "Israel will have difficulty swallowing" policies considered to be "appeasement" of Iran.

8 of 11
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.