President Bush gave a speech on Monday, in which sort of put him at odds with PM Benjamin Netanyahu's current positions and view on the Arab-spring and Mideast revolt.
While Israel favors stability over instability and raised concern over America's rush to call for Mubarak's departure overseeing the rise of radical Islamists and the uncertainty in the region, Bush voiced his opinion of spreading freedom as in line with the current Obama administration.
"In the long run, this foreign-policy approach is not realistic," Bush argued, "It is not realistic to presume that so-called stability enhances our national security. Nor is it within the power of America to indefinitely preserve the old order, which is inherently unstable."
AS NBC notes, "Bush's stance puts him at odds with some hard-liners in his party, who have considered Israel's interests in the region first. They have been critical of Hosni Mubarak's ouster and the political process that has followed, including the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood."
The most surprising assessment came from the other side of the aisle too. While the 'Emergency committee for Israel' has run billboard campaigns describing Obama as “not pro-Israel," Bill Kristol told a NYC audience that the president had evolved considerably between his 2009 Cairo speech and his 2012 AIPAC speech, Chemi Shalev reports. “I am happy to agree with Obama to a considerable degree,” said Kristol, one of America’s most well-known conservative commentators.
The Forward’s Gal Beckerman reports, that Kristol also said Obama “moved back to the center,” is “sensible,” and that he was “doing the right thing” on Israel.
Kristol also added that “the difference” between Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney on issues relating to Iran and Israel “is not that great."
All I can say is, that since Romney is mum on his foreign policy positions, refraining from addressing in Public - the peace process, Jerusalem , Pollard and relationship with the Arab world. One can only asses that while the American Jewry is divided in support for the President's vision and treatment of Israel, any US administration, no matter how close the personal relationship may get, would follow the state department's hostile treatment of Israel and continue the policy disagreements with Israel over the key issues, that occurred more sufficiently in the Obama administration.