The case against US President Obama
ISI LEIBLER
IGNORE the soothing denials; the reality is that Israel faces a massive diplomatic crisis. At stake is the crucial Israeli-US relationship.
Over the years, American Jews established sophisticated agencies that effectively advanced the Jewish and Israeli cause. The pro-Israel lobby, The America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), helped to create a bi-partisan pro-Israel environment in Congress.
American Jews, until recently, had no qualms in vigorously criticising their own government when they considered it was behaving unjustly towards the Jewish State. Nor were they intimidated by accusations of dual loyalty. Indeed, they took pride in contrasting their assertiveness to European Jews, who they frequently dismissed as “trembling Israelites”.
Nevertheless, to this day American Jews cringe when they recall the behaviour of their forebears in the 1940s. Fearful of an anti-Semitic backlash and mesmerised by the popularity of President Franklin Roosevelt, the Jewish establishment, to its eternal shame, remained silent when its president refused to take action on behalf of the doomed Jews of Europe.
However, in the postwar era, aside from Eisenhower’s brutal threats in the wake of the 1956 Suez Campaign and a few brushes with presidents Bush Senior and Jimmy Carter, American-Jewish supporters of Israel were usually in sync with the White House. They certainly never encountered anything comparable to the confrontation now looming with the Obama Administration.
The current situation is especially sensitive because it is commonly believed that Obama’s Israel strategy is largely orchestrated by two key Jews in his administration, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod.
Worse still, they may have succeeded in dividing the Jewish leadership. American-Jewish lay leaders are basically unknown to the general public. The three principal agencies promoting Jewish interests are directed by civil servants -— Malcolm Hoenlein of the President’s Conference, Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League and David Harris of the American Jewish Committee.
The Administration is now seeking to exploit the weakness of the lay leadership. In line with established practice, as political tensions intensified, the President’s Conference, which represents 52 major Jewish organisations, requested a meeting with the President.
The White House agreed, but insisted on determining who would participate. Without consultation, they excluded critics like Morton Klein of the Zionist Organisation of America, but invited Israel-bashing groups such as J Street and US Peace Now. In effect, the Administration not only provided respectability and equal status to fringe groups.
It also obliged mainstream organisations making representations to the President to share a platform with groups whose principal raison d’etre was to lobby the White House to force Israel to make additional unilateral concessions. During Operation Cast Lead, J Street had even publicly condemned Israel’s campaign against Hamas.
The reluctance of the President’s Conference to reject this arrangement may prove to be a major strategic blunder. It enables the White House to determine who will represent the Jewish community and apply divide and conquer tactics against them.
It effectively provides a mechanism for the Obama Administration to create an “amen” environment in which representatives of Jewish organisations will be under notice that they could be excluded from future access to the President if they are deemed troublemakers for expressing criticism.
The Obama strategists are also exploiting the fact that although Netanyahu enjoys unprecedented consensual support for his policy at home, the American media has demonised him and eroded his standing in the American-Jewish community. Although he has made major efforts to avert a breakdown with the Administration, there are already ominous whispers of sanctions if Israel refuses to submit to Obama’s diktats.
American Jews face a watershed. Nearly 80 per cent of them voted for Obama. That surely strengthens their right to convey their concerns to the President. However, many of the lay leaders are wealthy philanthropists unaccustomed to tough political confrontations.
Moreover, fearful of jeopardising donations from Obama acolytes, organisations are reluctant to adopt controversial positions. This makes it difficult for Jewish civil servants to personally carry the brunt of initiating opposition to a highly popular President.
That mainstream American-Jewish leaders lack a strategic plan at such a time is disconcerting. At the meeting with Obama, most participants appear to have been overwhelmed in the presence of their charismatic president. Press reports suggest that most lay leaders remained silent, while some even expressed support for Obama’s policies. “It was a wonderful exchange”, said Andrea Weinstein, chair of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
“I felt at ease,” cooed Marla Gilson from Hadassah. “I believe the President got the impression that there is broad support for his policies and some difference on tactical levels … I am willing to give this president an opportunity to try his strategy,” proclaimed Conservative Rabbi Steven Wernick. Reform leader Rabbi Eric Yoffie pointed out “when it came to substance, not a single participant told the President he was wrong”.
Nobody raised concerns about the manner in which Obama has embraced the Arab narrative and expressed moral equivalence between both parties. Nobody responded to Obama’s outrageously patronising remarks about the need for Israelis to “engage in serious self reflection”.
Nobody pointed out that it was especially incongruous for the first African-American President to deny Jews the right to legally take up residence in Jerusalem, the cradle of Jewish civilisation. Nobody spoke about Fatah spokesmen and their commitment to armed struggle.
Nobody suggested that by distancing the US from Israel, Obama was effectively discouraging the Palestinians from making peace.
However, there is a ray of light. The statement recently released by Alan Solow and Malcolm Hoenlein, chairman and executive vice-president of the President’s Conference, condemning the Administration for its heavy-handed treatment of Israel, in relation to Jerusalem, may be significant.
For Solow, until now a dedicated Obama supporter, to publicly express such views may signal that Obama’s attacks on Israel are beginning to affect his Democrat supporters. Similar remarks by David Harris of the American Jewish Committee also reflect rising distress among Democrats as they begin to absorb the hollowness of their president’ s reassurances about his concern for the welfare of Israel.
To avert a confrontation, a public campaign must urgently be launched. It is crucial that promotion of the case for Israel should not rest exclusively with Jewish Republicans or Christian evangelicals. Jewish Democrats must be at the forefront if the bi-partisan approach is to be retained.
Hopefully, Democrat champions for Israel like Alan Dershowitz will respectfully explain to Obama why employing “tough love” against Israel is immoral and counter-productive.
The burden rests on American Jews. They must now stand up and be counted. Hopefully they will succeed in persuading Obama that if he seeks to “engage” with tyrants and enemies of freedom, he can do no less than behave likewise to the only democratic state in the region and stop bombarding them with diktats.
Jewish activists should help Obama to understand that if he continues to appease Arabs by distancing the US from Israel and reneges on prior American commitments, the Jewish community, including many of his most devoted followers, will conclude that he misled and betrayed them.
Isi Leibler is a former head of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and a former senior vice president of the World Jewish Congress. He currently lives in Jerusalem.
comments