er Republikaner verglich das Bruttoinlandsprodukt pro Kopf in den Palästinenser-Gebieten mit dem in Israel und sprach von einem "dramatischen und starken Unterschied in der wirtschaftlichen Dynamik".

Romney sagte, dass diese Differenz unter anderem mit Unterschieden zwischen beiden Völkern zu erklären sei. Die Vitalität Israels sei "der Kultur und einigen anderen Umständen" zu danken – und nicht etwa der Abriegelung der Palästinensergebiete

Zuvor hatte Romney die Palästinenser bereits provoziert, als er Jerusalem als Hauptstadt Israels bezeichnete.

(Aber sicherlich auch nicht über die US-Evangelikalen...)

Mal abgesehen von den linksliberalen deutschen Journalisten,kritisierten auch die Autoren der New York Times diese Positionen.

Die Frage die bleibt,ist das Romneys eigene politische Sicht,die er da äußert,oder die seiner Geldgeber?

Ich stell Sie aber bei Romney,ist die Beantwortung der Frage deswegen uninteressanter?

Es halte daher den direkten Zusammenhang zwischen seinen politischen Äußerungen und den jeweiligen Ansichten seiner Geldgeber recht nachvollziehbar

Natürlich gibt es einen solchen Zusammenhang: Ein Spender gibt sein Geld dem Kandidaten, der seinen eigenen Ansichten am nächsten steht.

...it was Thomas Friedman, the American opinion-maker most highly regarded in Israel, who wrote in a column of December 13 that Netanyahu’s standing ovation in Congress last May “was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.� And five days later, there occurred a remarkable exchange on Fareed Zakaria’s CNN program Global Public Square. The subject was how the Republicans try to outbid each other in submissive postures of unconditional loyalty to Israel; the immediate pretext was Gingrich’s having said on December 9 to an interviewer for the Jewish Channel (a cable station) that the Palestinians are an “invented� people. Zakaria and his guests then passed on to the broader subject of avowals of love for Israel and unquestioning support for Likud policies:

Zakaria: Michele Bachmann trumps them all by saying, “I went to a kibbutz when I was 18 years old.�

David Remnick: A socialist experiment, I might remind her. A socialist experiment. You know, as a Jewish American I find it disgusting. And I know what he’s going after. He’s going after—he’s going after a small slice of Jewish Americans who donate to political funds—to campaigns and also to Christian Evangelicals. It’s—the signaling is obvious. What they’re doing is obvious. But what they’re describing in terms of the, say, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has no bearing on reality whatsoever. It’s ignorance combined with cynical politics and irrelevance. It’s really awful. It’s really awful.

Zakaria: Do you agree?

Peggy Noonan: Yes, I do.

Zakaria: Gillian?

Gillian Tett [of the Financial Times]: I do. And I think that actually given the current moves in Iran at the moment and what’s happening elsewhere in the region, that kind of rhetoric is likely to become more and more relevant going forward.

Zakaria: And then the other place where I noticed that there is some traction is Iran. There’s this feeling, again, I think somewhat unrealistically that we’re going to be tougher on Iran. We’re going to be, so that Gingrich says he wouldn’t bomb Iran, but he would effect regime change. Good luck, you know?

This was a breakthrough. Remnick’s comment is especially notable because it gives up the euphemism “Jewish voters� and refers frankly to Jewish donors. It is millions of dollars and not just a few thousand votes that the pandering Republicans are trawling for.