On 17 October 2012, The Korea Herald reported that “Mr Netanyahu [was] foolish to take sides in U.S. election.”

However, allow me to quote from the above-mentioned article:

Benjamin Netanyahu is so eager to see Mitt Romney elected president that he’s making a fool of himself.

For the last couple of weeks, the Israeli prime minister has been the featured player in a Republican-sponsored TV ad playing in Florida. It shows excerpts from Netanyahu’s United Nations speech last month in which he tacitly attacks President Obama for his failure to set a clear red line for Iran’s nuclear program.

“The world tells Israel: ‘Wait, there’s still time,’” he says. “And I say, wait for what? Wait until when?”

No, Netanyahu didn’t plan or buy the campaign ad. Secure America Now, a group run by longtime Republican strategists, put it up. But Florida is filled with Israeli emigres and American Jews. There’s no question that Netanyahu knows all about the ad and has made no effort to criticize or blunt it. An anonymous Israeli official did tell the news media that the prime minister’s office had nothing to do with the ad and did not approve of it. That’s all.

On Tuesday, Netanyahu called for early elections to take place early next year. How would he like it if an opponent began airing TV ads that showed Obama openly criticizing him? And then, when asked about it, an anonymous White House aide managed to say something banal, like: “Oh, we didn’t authorize that.”

If Netanyahu has no interest in taking sides in the American presidential election, then he should issue a strong statement or hold a press conference to declare that he does not support the use of his U.N. remarks in a partisan campaign ad.

But he didn’t say a word. Not one. And the reason is clear: He does not like Obama, and Obama doesn’t like him. Remember the Group of 20 summit in France late last year, when Obama was overheard chatting with Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president? Neither knew the mike was open.

“Netanyahu, I can’t stand him,” Sarkozy leaned over and told Obama. “He’s a liar.”

Obama responded, “You are sick of him, but I have to work with him every day.

In my last post, entitled The Second Debate & the News, 21 October 2012, I quoted a  New York Times article, now dated 21 October 2012:

“Mr. Romney has repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness on Iran and failing to stand firmly with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat.”

I suggested that the above statement be rephrased: “The world must stand firmly in opposing nuclear threat.”   In fact, the original statement (NY Times) is not altogether accurate.  The United States is opposing nuclear threat, but it cannot create the impression that Israel is an American presence in the midst of the Arab world.  (See The Ottawa Citizen).

How does Mr Romney expect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will react?  Moreover, in what capacity did Mr Romney talk with Mr Netanyahu.  Mr Romney is not the President of the United States.  This seems an “I’ll-stoop-to-anything-to-get-votes” scenario, the Machiavellian scenario.

The Diplomatic Way

It would be my opinion that the diplomatic way of dealing with factions in the Middle East is not to take sides.  Under the Bush (R) administration, the US waged two disastrous wars in the Middle East.  That was a mistake, but the 9/11 attacks were destabilizing.  President Bush found himself in a real dilemma.  However, the time has come for the United States to mend fences, which the US has done from the time Mr Obama was elected to the presidency of his country and Hillary Clinton accepted to be his Secretary of State.

Mr Romney adopted a Machiavellian approach during the last debate, the debate that took place on October 16th, acting rather dishonorably.  But given that he may have entered into some alliance with Israel, I believe he may also be a threat to the United States.