Former Mossad director Efraim Halevy has an op-ed in the New York Times on American politics and Israel. I'm not going to try to discuss the article in depth, but I do want to make a few observations.
First, it is profoundly unsurprising that there are a plurality of opinions in the Israeli government, as there are in Washington. Undoubtedly there are factions in Jerusalem with sympathies toward one American party or the other. It's my impression that Shimon Peres does not get along well with Netanyahu, for example, and that Peres inclines more toward America's Democrats.
What's striking about this article, though, is its exclusive focus on the past. Virtually all of the leaders named - both Bushes, Baker, Shamir, Sharon, and of course Halevy himself - have left office, died, or become incapacitated. Notice too that the article is absolutely silent on Romney's policies, mentioning his name only once, and that in order to defend Obama from his accusations. In short, the article's main focus is on history, and in particular the history of the respective political parties.
I will not vote for James Baker for President. But he's not running. To me, this article reads like much of the New York Times and the mainstream media in general: Hey, you remember when the bad Republicans did this and that?
What some of us have figured out is that we are facing today's issues, not yesterday's, and our choices are the candidates and parties of today, not of twenty years ago.
And it's all very impressive that this was written by a former Head! Of! The! Mossad!, but I do not think this makes his opinion infallible. Again, there are going to be multiple opinions within any government or security organization, and you can find people with equally impressive credentials on different sides of many issues. (Witness the nuclear Iran issue today.) You know, Bush Sr. used to be the head of the CIA - does that mean that Bush was never wrong?