[Jerusalem] A sure sign that elections are drawing near is the effort by Democrats and Republicans to register Americans living abroad who are eligible to vote in November. In Israel, where absentee voters were credited with playing a key role in deciding the razor-thin battle between George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000, strategists on both sides of the aisle are preparing for the eventuality of another cliff-hanger and accordingly, are sending high-profile recruiters to offshore locations that have taken on the aura of “battleground-states”; and none more so than Israel, where according to iVoteIsrael, some 150,000 American citizens are eligible to vote for president.

Ari Fleischer, the former press secretary for President George W. Bush, arrived in Israel wearing three hats: one as a GOP strategist eyeing Israel as an unusually strong base of Republican support among Jewish voters; secondly, as a member of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), which rallies support for the GOP among Jewish voters in the US; and third, on behalf of the bipartisan organization iVoteIsrael, which is conducting a voter registration drive among both Democrats and Republicans living in the Jewish state.

Fleischer has been sharing the platform with Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. Both men spoke with Executive Editor Michael Friedson at The Media Line Studios in Jerusalem.

TML:   Gentlemen, is your presence in Israel an effort to convince people to vote for Mitt Romney or to pounce on the widely held perception that President Obama has a problem with Jewish voters?

Fleischer:   Yes.  (Laughter)

TML:  Seriously, guys.  Which came first, the chicken or the political egg?

Fleischer:  They both came at the same time. And what’s so interesting to me is that the Jewish community in Israel – both Israeli and the American Jewish community -- was the first to really see the problems with President Obama. At a time in the United States in 2009 when so many people, Jewish and Gentile, swooned for Obama, the early warning signals were clear in Israel where people didn’t trust him; they didn’t think he’d be strong for Israel. And I think that’s been proven right. President Obama never misses an opportunity to take an opportunity – to take a swipe at Israel.

TML:  Matt (Brooks), you’re the guy on the ground who works with people that claim to be Jewish Republicans. I recall in 1972 after President Nixon was said to have done very  well among Jewish voters -- he won by a landslide -- but it was difficult to find anyone who said they voted for him. What’s the perception today?

Brooks:   I think the perception today is that you’re going to see a lot of people when the dust settles, the day after the election or so, when we start to look at the exit polls, I think you’re going to see that President-elect Romney continued a trend that we’ve been seeing over the last several decades in which the Republican party has continuously been making steady inroads into the Jewish vote. Going back almost 20 years, going back to 1992, George H.W. Bush got 11 per cent of the Jewish vote. We’ve steadily increased that and worked hard so that in ’96 it was 16% of the Jewish vote; George W. Bush in 2000 got 19%; in 2004 he got 24% of the Jewish vote; and in the tsunami that wiped out Republicans in 2008 we gave a little of that back, but John McCain still got 22% of the Jewish vote. So in the last five national elections, with the exception of one, we gained market share in the Jewish community and the Democrats have been losing market share and I’m extremely confident that the day after the election we’ll see that Mitt Romney has been building on those inroads among Jewish voters and I think a lot of it is because, quite frankly, there’s a lot of “buyers’ remorse.” Ari pointed out in 2008, in the aftermath of the election, and predicted accurately that people who voted for Obama bought into the notion of hope and change and false promises that were never realized. And those people who have the buyers’ remorse who want their votes back – Democrats, Independents and even Republicans who voted for President Obama in 2008 – are going to be voting for Mitt Romney in 2012.

TML:   Ari, you said that Israelis were the first to be concerned about the relationship of President Obama to the Jewish state. In Israel, many refer to the Cairo speech as the watershed for this. Is there something Americans now in retrospect think should have tipped them off but didn’t?

Fleischer:  I think there were a lot of warning signals in 2008 when you look at State Senator Obama and who influenced him as a state senator – certainly wasn’t the Jewish community. Even in 2008 as president-elect he went to AIPAC (Israel’s American lobby) and he pledged an eternal and undivided Jerusalem only to switch positions the next day under pressure from Palestinians and said he didn’t realize the implications of saying “undivided” Jerusalem. So on an issue central to the heart of Judaism, the president didn’t understand what he was talking about, he acknowledged himself. And he was willing to change his position because of pressure from the Palestinians. And then it only got worse. You had President Obama that condemned Israel for building houses using the harshest word in diplomatic language -- “condemn” – which is what he said about Israel’s housing policies. When [Palestinian Authority President] Mahmoud Abbas announced that Fatah would have a merger with Hamas, the president said, “That raises questions.” He condemns Israel for building houses and says it only “raises questions” about having a marriage between Fatah and terrorism. His instincts just continually seem to be wrong. Then in 2009, to me what is the gravest, worst, biggest, most far-reaching foreign policy disaster of the Obama years, he sat silently when the Iranian people took to the streets. If only he had done what Ronald Reagan would have done, which is to instantly speak out and say that America is on the side of people who struggle to be free and to get rid of the oppression they suffer from, it could have changed the course of history in Iran. Instead, the president just let it pass. He was afraid to speak out. He thought that it would improperly influence what was going on in Iran if America spoke out. He gave up America’s moral leadership. And in so doing, it’s put Israel in the spot where it is now where the Iranian government continues to move, day-by-day, step closer to nuclear weaponry. So I think we’ve seen a series of vacillations, of weaknesses, of a president who’s willing to, if push comes to shove, exercise them both…against Israel. We need an America president who can stand proudly at Israel’s side and not be willing so happily to push Israel around.

TML:   One of the current issues in Israel now is a commission set up by the Prime Minister to talk about whether what is always referred to in the international community as “illegal building in post-1967 areas” – areas that Israel acquired in the 1967 war – is, indeed, illegal. Where will a “president” Romney come down on this? Will he say that building in post-1967 areas is illegal – will he use that word? Or will he say as President Reagan did that it’s “ill-advised but not illegal?”

Fleischer:   It’s interesting. One of the things I think we can use as a predictor on this is that so far, Governor Romney has said that many of the failed policies on Israel that President Obama has done, he’s going to do the opposite. It’s important to note that not only did the president re-state and re-make policy with his speech calling for return to 1967 borders with land swaps as a pre-condition as US policy to the peace process moving forward, but what he’s done is also change fundamental policy that was outlined by President Bush in the, I think, very historical letters that he sent to Prime Minister Sharon which basically acknowledge the US position that the 1967 borders were untenable in today’s realities given Israel’s population center growth and most importantly, preserving and protecting the strategic advantage so that Israel can have safe and secure strategic borders.  And among other things in those letters that the president codified, this administration has changed policy and turned its back on the essential tenets of those letters.

TML:  There have been no regular negotiations since Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama and President Abbas were in office at the same time. This, even though Netanyahu did freeze building in post-1967 areas for ten months. What would “President” Romney’s position be?

Fleischer:   Well, I think the reason there are no negotiations is that the President of the United States moved the goalposts, and sabotaged the negotiations. When President Obama said that as a precondition for negotiations Israel should freeze settlements, he went beyond even where the Palestinians had been. The Palestinians were willing to discuss peace, to sit down with the Israel, even while Israel was building settlements. They then said, “The President of the United States said this is a precondition, so we won’t sit down until that precondition is met.” So the president blew up the peace talks. He went beyond. And that again is why I think that President Obama does not have his finger on the pulse of how to achieve peace in the Middle East. He has his finger on the pulse of himself – how he can move America to a more neutral position and be heard differently though Arab ears. That seems to be what drives him: how to be perceived differently than previous American presidents who were proud to be pro-Israel.

TML:   Some are saying that the pressure by the pro-Israel community in America to force President Obama to take a more overtly pro-Israel position is opening the door to [Russian President] Vladimir Putin. He wants to be a player in the Middle East, he wants a better role in the Middle East and it seems Mahmoud Abbas is willing to give him that better role. How do you think a President Romney would react to that?

Fleischer:   Well, one, I think Russia’s role is going to be limited. And, actually, Russia has been a pretty strong partner of the United States in being a bulwark against radical Islam. Russia takes that issue rather seriously. And so I’m not very worried about what President Putin will or will not do in the Middle East. I think in Syria he’s been a bit meddlesome, but on the other hand, President Putin has had his own experience with regimes falling and being replaced by radical Islam, and that certainly opens your eyes to another view when it comes to Syria.  What Israel needs is a reliable partner in the United States that will stand at Israel’s side. And I think that when the Arabs see – particularly the Palestinians see – that a President Romney will be unequivocally strong for Israel, they will come to the negotiating table. And that’s how you achieve peace. You achieve peace through the respect of the Arab world, not through acquiescence.

TML:   Matt Brooks, you head the Republican Jewish Coalition. One of the points that’s always made is that the president is a superb campaigner. And some say that neck-and-neck with Romney five months out is exactly the position the president would want to be in. How does this fit in with your calculations?

Brooks:  I can assure you with 100% certainty that the Obama would want to be five or ten points ahead of Romney right now…they don’t want to be to be head-to-head with Governor Romney right now. The fact that they are neck-and-neck underscores and highlights the real problem he’s having connecting with the American voters. Being under 50% as an incumbent running for re-election is a clear warning sign to the viability and electability of the candidate in the fall. I feel very good about Gov. Romney’s chances; I think that if I had to pick where I’d want to be right now, I’d rather be where Gov. Romney is. The argument is that looking at the fact that Barack Obama has spent literally tens of millions of dollars while the Republicans were bashing each other over the heads in a contested primary; and because he’s such a strong campaigner, the fact that he’s tied with Mitt Romney at this point, I think is a real warning sign to the campaign and to the folks in Chicago.

TML:   Some are saying that the visit to Israel by Secretary of State Clinton is more of a political trip than a diplomatic one. Ari, how do you respond to that?

Fleischer:  You know, this close to an election and in this region of the world, there’s always a little bit of both. It’s a delicate dance secretaries of state do because they really don’t cross the line into overt politics; they don’t do fundraisers for candidates. When they’re over here, she’ll of course talk about – she’ll describe – President Obama’s unshakeable commitment to Israel. So I think you’ll hear the usual platitudes. But I think the problems run so much deeper than that and Jewish voters are pretty sensible folks; they see through a lot of these things. There’s a weakness. President Obama has a real weakness in the Jewish community in the United States and Democrats in the United States are working overtime to address that weakness. He has been weak on his support for Israel, it’s been widely perceived, and he’s suffering from it. Democrats, as Matt pointed out earlier, will continue to win the majority of the Jewish vote, but deep inroads are being made by Republicans into the Jewish community and I think that’s going to be advanced even more this cycle with Mitt Romney at the top of the ticket against President Obama.

TML:   Are you going to have more success (in Israel) getting people to vote anti-Democrat or vote pro-Romney?

Fleischer:  I don’t think we’re going to know the real answer to that until the re-election campaign—if it happens – of President Romney in 2016. I really think that what’s driving this cycle, and it’s traditional in American politics, is anti-incumbent. And in this case it’s anti-President Obama because of his weak positions. And then it would really be up to a President Romney if he wins to make his case, to demonstrate, indeed, that he’s a strong supporter of Israel. If he is, then it will be a case like that of President Bush and he will enjoy a bump-up in support among Jewish voters who really care about Israel.

TML:  If I may paraphrase the Democratic position, they argue that eight years of Republican rule did not do much for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process….

Fleischer:  I would say in eight years of Republican leadership Israel is safe and secure.

TML:   …and the second part, Democrats argue that no president --- and they underscore “no” – has the strategic, military, physical support relationship with Israel that President Obama has with Israel now. How do you respond?

Fleischer:   I love that argument the Democrats make. It’s like saying that, “When we came to office we found that water was running down hill. And we let that water run down hill.” Military cooperation is a given. Can you imagine if a president of the United States says, “You know all those programs that are in the pipeline? You know all that technology that keeps getting better and better? We’re going to stop giving it to Israel. We’re going to give it the worst technology.” That’s just not what American presidents do. We continue to advance militarily and share with Israel. And that’s the given. That’s the water that runs down hill and the water that continued to run. It’s the other issues that are so vexing. It’s the things that are directly under the control of the president of the United States. That’s where this president has sent every wrong signal about whose side he’s on. And what he’s prepared to do to stand at Israel’s side. I’m glad the military relationship is good. The Pentagon will keep that going well no matter who the next president is. But there are bigger issues that are up to the White House and on those issues the president has failed.

TML:   Candidate Bush said that as president his first – underscore “first” – move will be to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He signed the waiver every six months as did his predecessor. What’s Romney going to do?

Fleischer:   Yeah, I think that was unfortunate. The President Bush’s precise words were, “begin the process” of moving the Embassy, so he put it in a little bit more of a political wiggle-room phrase. And then he used the wiggle-room. It’s one of those issues that candidates raise on the stumps and then they get into office and then they feel the pressures from Europe, from Arab nations, and then they decide they have other fish to fry. My only hope is that if the candidate says, “I’m going to move the embassy,” they actually do it. I’m tired of hearing about it and the later seeing all the nuanced reasons that come up. We all know the nuances. Don’t say it if you’re not going to do it. If you’re going to do it, follow through.

TML:   For many reasons, it might not have been THE burning issue eight years ago in terms of the mass, public sense, but the issue of Jonathan Pollard now is as important as any other issue. Republicans and Democrats are on record urging the release of Pollard on humanitarian grounds. Even intelligence chiefs are on record. What will Romney do?

Fleischer:   I don’t know because I don’t speak for him and I’ve never heard his speak out on this issue. My sense of it is that on an issue like that, you have to let the president assume power and see what the information is in the files; see what the Justice Department has and what the intelligence agencies have; and then he’ll have to make a considered judgment. I think the biggest issues from the Middle East continue to be the threat from Iran, the lack of a peace process, and that’s where I would expect President Romney to spend most of his time focused on those matters.

TML:   Matt Brooks, who heads the Republican Jewish Coalition and Ari Fleischer, well-known to the world as the spokesperson for President George W. Bush, thanks for taking time on this incredibly hectic tour to speak with us at The Media Line.