GOP Candidates: Bibi First, America Second

Bibi lovePhotoillustration by Adam Weinstein

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.


Move over, Ann Romney.

Callista Gingrich, you always knew this time would come.

In Saturday’s Iowa presidential debate, the GOP’s leading men didn’t have their wives on their minds. Instead, they dueled mercilessly for the affections of a different suitor.

The Republican candidates’ latest love is a jowly MIT grad who has a penchant for developing new seaside real estate. It’s Benjamin Netanyahu, the demagogic pro-settlement prime minister whose right-wing coalition clings to power in Israel like John Boehner grips a putter. 

Ladies and gentlemen, it’s Bibi time.

Here’s how this lovers’ triangle came together: on Saturday night, Newt Gingrich delivered a two-minute stemwinder (PDF) that called the Palestinian Authority’s leading statesman a terrorist, warned of US-funded textbooks for Arabs that glorify the killing of Jews, and doubled down on his claim that the Palestinians are a “fictional people.”

Romney, sensing he had new competition for Netanyahu’s graces, attacked that last point: “The United States of America should not jump ahead of Bibi Netanyahu and say something that makes it more difficult for him to do his job…If Bibi Netanyahu wants to say what you said, let him say it.”

His honor challenged, Gingrich parried: “I’ve known Bibi since 1984…”

Romney refused to be out-jockeyed. “I’ve also known Bibi Netanyahu for a long time,” he shot back:

We worked together at Boston Consulting Group. And the last thing Bibi Netanyahu needs to have is not just a person who’s an historian, but somebody who is also running for president of the United States, stand up and say things that create extraordinary tumult in his neighborhood…Before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say, ‘Would it help if I said this? What would you like me to do?’

What to make of this suitors’ spat? Sometimes, love can blind you to a person’s faults. Neither Gingrich nor Romney seemed especially interested in Israel, the raucous, largely secular nation of 8 million people represented by 31 political parties. Instead, they focused on Bibi, whose hawkish coalition government can hardly be said to represent all Israelis. (“The more Israel’s image in the world deteriorates, the more Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is flourishing,” Ha’aretz wrote a few months back.)

Romney was so inflamed by pro-Israel passions Saturday night that he basically promised to dial Bibi’s digits before even saying something about the Mideast. (“Would it help if I said this? What would you like me to do?”) Gingrich, for his part, attacked President Obama. “Every day, rockets are fired into Israel while the United States, the current administration, tries to pressure the Israelis into a peace process,” he said, later adding: “We’re not making life more difficult [for Israel]. The Obama administration’s making life more difficult.”

There’s no word yet on whether the duo impressed Netanyahu, but Mohammed Sobeih, the Arab League’s Palestinian affairs chief, criticized Gingrich’s “irresponsible and dangerous” remarks on Sunday.

“If these comments were made for political gains, then this is an even bigger disaster,” Sobeih said. “But it appears that this is a cheap attempt to get more votes in an election. And to get this small number of votes, this person sold America’s interests by denying international law and democratic principles.”

From the desk of Mother Jones CEO, Monika Bauerlein...

Newsrooms can be funded in many ways. One of the most controversial (and volatile) ways is by a for-profit corporation or a billionaire owner. We see it across the headlines on a weekly basis: the claw backs in public media, the gutting of The Washington Post, the bending over backwards to appeal to Trump and his allies.

But not here.

When Mother Jones first started publishing 50 years ago, our founders made a critical decision: to be a reader-supported nonprofit. They knew that no corporate owner would be interested in a muckraking newsroom; they also knew that no muckraking newsroom would be interested in following the agenda of a corporate owner.

And so, we’ve been reader-funded for half a century. We rely on contributions from our readers—readers like you—whether it’s $50, or $15 a month, or whatever fits your budget. People give what they can, and every donation makes a difference for our newsroom, which has grown tremendously—in size and reach and renown—since its inception in 1976.

You may be wondering: What does it take to publish an investigation? And what does my donation actually fund? The answers are one and the same: It takes people, resources, and time. And that’s what your donation funds directly.

Every donation Mother Jones receives from readers fortifies our newsroom, whether we’re covering underreported scandals out of Washington, DC, or the most important news of the day. And right now, each donation will be doubled because of our $50,000 match. So when you make a donation—$5, $50, any amount—it’ll go twice as far.

Your support keeps us going. If you’re able, donate today.

Thanks for reading.

—Monika

From the desk of Mother Jones CEO, Monika Bauerlein...

Newsrooms can be funded in many ways. One of the most controversial (and volatile) ways is by a for-profit corporation or a billionaire owner. We see it across the headlines on a weekly basis: the claw backs in public media, the gutting of The Washington Post, the bending over backwards to appeal to Trump and his allies.

But not here.

When Mother Jones first started publishing 50 years ago, our founders made a critical decision: to be a reader-supported nonprofit. They knew that no corporate owner would be interested in a muckraking newsroom; they also knew that no muckraking newsroom would be interested in following the agenda of a corporate owner.

And so, we’ve been reader-funded for half a century. We rely on contributions from our readers—readers like you—whether it’s $50, or $15 a month, or whatever fits your budget. People give what they can, and every donation makes a difference for our newsroom, which has grown tremendously—in size and reach and renown—since its inception in 1976.

You may be wondering: What does it take to publish an investigation? And what does my donation actually fund? The answers are one and the same: It takes people, resources, and time. And that’s what your donation funds directly.

Every donation Mother Jones receives from readers fortifies our newsroom, whether we’re covering underreported scandals out of Washington, DC, or the most important news of the day. And right now, each donation will be doubled because of our $50,000 match. So when you make a donation—$5, $50, any amount—it’ll go twice as far.

Your support keeps us going. If you’re able, donate today.

Thanks for reading.

—Monika

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

INDEPENDENT. BECAUSE OF YOU.

Mother Jones has no billionaires calling the shots—just readers like you making fearless reporting possible

Donate