As Mitt Romney's ill-fated world tour wound from Britain, where he managed to pique the nation over his Olympic gaffe, prompting a “Mitt the Twit” headline, to Israel, you’d be forgiven for imagining things could only have got better.
 

Alas, you’d have been wrong.

 

The trip, designed to appeal to Jewish and evangelical voters in the U.S. by asserting his “passion and commitment to Israel” and his “respect” of a unilateral attack by Israel on Iran, was always going to be a distasteful affair. So too was the cajoling of his right wing donors, most notably Palestinian-rejectionist casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who has bankrolled Romney’s campaign via Restore Our Future, the Super PAC. The choice of venue – the King David Hotel, which in 1946 was blown up by Irgun, the Zionist terrorist organization, killing dozens of civilians – could not have been in worse taste.

 

But in the meta-world of U.S. right wing politics, none of this was anything out of the ordinary. That was until he came to the Palestinians.
 

Romney said that Jewish culture is the reason that Israel’s economy has been more successful than that of areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which he pointed out had a paltry GDP per capita of $10,000, against Israel’s $21,000 (World Bank figures show the difference to be greater). To drive the point home he compared the "stark difference in economic vitality" between Israel and the occupied territories.

 

Now, even considering Romney’s history of not thinking before he speaks, this was a breathtakingly ignorant thing to say. Is Romney really suggesting in good conscience that Israel and the diminishing occupied territories can be compared economically? And if so, can he attribute the disparity to the superior culture of the Jewish inhabitants of Israel?

 

Perhaps Romney needs to be reminded that the West Bank, one of the areas he was referring to, has been under Israeli military occupation since 1967. The second area, the Gaza Strip, was occupied from 1967 to 2005.

 

Palestinians are not poorer than Israelis because they are culturally inferior to Israelis. They are poor because the vast majority are born refugees; live as second-class entities; have their movements limited by walls, fences and checkpoints; have their land and water resources illegally appropriated with no legal recourse; and have been living under an oppressive state apparatus for two generations.

 

During this occupation, The West Bank’s economy has been exploited for Israel’s benefit and its water resources have channeled to Israel to be channeled back to the 600,000 Israelis that now illegally reside in West Bank settlements. It is well known that Palestinians are excluded politically, but less so that they are included economically, if they benefit Israel.

 

For example, Israel’s economic boom in the mid-1970s is largely attributed to the flood of labor from occupied Palestine into the agriculture and construction sectors of Israel, a phenomenon that postponed mechanization and kept costs low for several years. This Palestinian cheap labor was the by-product of an effective economic blockade of Palestinian goods that compete with Israel products. West Bank produce – predominantly food – that competes in Israel is banned; the remainder is taxed export duty. However, Israeli goods flow unimpeded and untaxed into the markets of Hebron, Nablus and the myriad villages between, often as surplus stock that undercuts Palestinian producers.

 

Meron Benvenisti, an Israeli scientist that served as Jerusalem's Chief Planning Officer in the 1970s, said that the occupied territories were a source of net revenue for Israel, even with its massive military expenditure, until the first Intifada erupted in the late 1980s. During this Intifada, Palestinians went on strike against working in Israel or for Israeli companies. They also boycotted Israeli goods. Israeli authorities responded by arresting Palestinians that grew their own food, a practice that became a symbol of rebellion.

 

Lastly and most importantly, the Palestinian Authority is not the recipient of billions of dollars of annual U.S. aid, which is recycled through the economy boosting Romney’s meaningless GDP figures. It does not have the luxury of a self-determined state that can efficiently enact economic policy or protect the rights of its citizens.

 

In Response to Romney’s electioneering in Jerusalem, top PA official Saeb Erekat, called his statement “racist”, and spelled out the blindingly obvious: “This man doesn’t realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation.”
 

“It seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people. He also lacks knowledge about the Israelis themselves. I have not heard any Israeli official speak about cultural superiority.”

 

Even China waded in to the debate. “Romney's remarks totally neglect historical facts and are actually irresponsible if he just meant to appeal to voters at home,” wrote Xinhua, China’s official state news service. “Any words that favor any party to the conflict regardless of history and reality are irresponsible and unfair for Palestinians who are in a less powerful position in the peace talks.”

 

It is likely that Romney’s comments were disingenuous. It is likely they are merely testament to his unmoored politics and a further example of him telling his target electorate and donors what he thinks they want to hear. Either way, if Romney wins in the November Presidential election, the U.S. will find itself with an insincere president or a dangerous one. Maybe both.

 

MS/RM

END