Skip to footer

Obama vs. Romney 101: 4 differences on Israel

President Obama's positions on Israeli-Palestinian peace have rankled Israel’s conservative coalition government, while Mitt Romney insists he would be a better friend to Israel. Here are some of the issues on which the candidates differ.

4. Jerusalem: capital of Israel?

Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images/POOL/File
Then-Sen. Barack Obama (l.) observes some of the 600 photographs of victims of the Holocaust at the Hall of Names with Yad Vashem Chairman Avner Shalez on July 23, 2008, in Jerusalem.

  • By Howard LaFranchi Staff writer

Like Romney, then-Senator Obama said Jerusalem is Israel's capital when he visited the city as a presidential candidate. He even went further, saying that Jerusalem should be the "undivided" capital of Israel, a term that stung Palestinians, who claim Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestine.

But then Obama dialed back to the policy of every president since Ronald Reagan, which is to say that the US will ultimately move its embassy from Tel Aviv but that Jerusalem remains a final-status issue for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Romney also hinted at this as established US policy and that he would "follow the same policy we have had in the past" and "ultimately have our embassy in the nation's capital of Jerusalem," he told CNN while in Jerusalem.

For a full list of stories about how Romney and Obama differ on the issues, click here.

4 of 4
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.