Category Archives: Contemporary Life

     Well, “hate” is a strong word, an attention-grabber when used in a headline, but employed here as shorthand for what is a more restrained but still accurate question: why does President Obama seem to have such a visceral antipathy, disregard, disdain, or perhaps just indifference to Israel ? There is no natural empathy on his part for a beleaguered American ally. On the rare occasion when he says the right thing, he mouths the words with little emotion, reading mechanically from a script written by others. In the presence of Israeli leaders, his body language shows him to be uncomfortable and tense. There is little intuitive appreciation for the Jewish narrative, underscored by his much-touted Cairo speech (his outreach to the Muslim world that ultimately failed to achieve any objective) in which he justified Israel’s existence based simply on Jewish suffering in the Holocaust, then adding that this does not give Israel the right to persecute others or build settlements – as if that is the issue.

    Other presidents have evinced stronger personal ties with Israel, even if they were unsympathetic to Jews or some of Israel’s policies. One can dislike an ally and still perceive its value as an ally. It is important to underscore that I (and we all should) recognize that the American president is first and foremost the president of the United States, and it is his sworn obligation to pursue policies that further the interests of the United States. Too often, some Jews assume that the American president has to be a closet-Likudnik to be acceptable (or, considering, the pathetic performance and lack of principle of most recent Likud prime ministers, a closet member of the Ichud Haleumi, the National Union Party). That is untrue and unfair, and we should expect policy differences to arise on occasion, as a superpower like the United States has to balance a greater number of interests that does a small regional power like Israel. Still, something seems to be missing in the Obama-Israel relationship that transcends policy and veers into the personal. What might that be ?

    The American people have long been avid supporters of Israel and the narrative of Israel. That has waned somewhat in recent years, as Americans have tired of the endless Middle East conflict, and especially among self-proclaimed liberals. Yet, in an April 2009 poll by Zogby International, just 10% of Obama voters, but 60% of McCain voters, wanted the president to support Israel. Eighty percent of Obama voters supported getting tougher with Israel, while 73% of McCain voters disagreed with that stance. Two-thirds of Obama voters want America to dialogue with Hamas, while four-fifths of McCain voters oppose that.

     A Gallup survey from last spring revealed that Americans overwhelmingly support Israel over the “Palestinians” – 63%-15%. However, measured another way, only 48% of Democrats supported Israel, as opposed to a whopping 85% of Republicans who supported Israel. Whatever this says about the Jews’ unthinking fealty to the Democratic Party, and it should speak volumes, it is clear that President Obama is not that far removed from his party in his attitude to Israel. What brought this about ?

    Historically, there are three compelling factors that drove the America-Israel relationship, both as friends and as allies. Loosely, they can be defined as the Religious Factor, the Values Factor,  and the Strategic Factor. The three somewhat overlap, sometimes intersect, and, to be sure, various presidents have allocated the weight of the three in differing ways, resulting in slightly different approaches. (The notion shared by some Jews and Jew-haters that America’s support for Israel is based on Jewish votes and political donations is more perception than reality. There are relatively very few Jews in the United States, and most support and vote for the Democratic candidate in any event – regardless of his enthusiasm for Israel. A candidate cannot be perceived as “anti-Israel” – a very amorphous definition, in any event – but he need not be perceived as “pro-Israel.” Sad to say, most Jews would vote for a candidate who was pro-abortion but lukewarm on Israel than for a candidate that is pro-Israel but anti-abortion. Exhibit #110: President Obama, who had other facets that elicited Jewish support as well. And as prosperous as American Jews are – non-Jews have even more money that is lavishly contributed to their preferred candidates.)

      THE RELIGIOUS FACTOR: Americans, a religious people, have long been enamored with the Bible and the story of the Jews. Presidents from the time of John Adams have been avid proponents of the return of Jews to the land of Israel, and that support – with obvious exceptions motivated by antipathy to Jews and the need to scurry favor with Arabs – has animated American policy and been consistently reflected in the attitudes of the American public for the last two centuries. This concept undergirds the passionate support for Israel found today in the tens of millions of Americans who are Christian evangelicals. The realization in our day of the historic vision of the prophets of Israel of the ultimate return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is simply irresistible, and Americans have a keen awareness and appreciation of it.

     THE VALUES FACTOR: Americans have perceived the State of Israel since its re-establishment in 1948 as a beacon of light in a region blighted by darkness. Israel is the only real democracy in the Middle East; the other “democracies” have to make regular allowances for the whims of despots and monarchs and the potential dangers of genuine freedom. Israel is rightly seen as representative of American values and aspirations in terms of individual liberty, personal freedoms, democracy, a free press, an independent judiciary and often a dysfunctional government – all things dear to Americans. So American presidents have routinely referred to the “shared values” of America and Israel – both proud outposts of freedom that are difficult to maintain in a hostile world.

    THE STRATEGIC FACTOR: Concomitant with shared values and engendered by them is Israel’s strategic value to America. Especially during the Cold War, and after PM Ben-Gurion cast Israel’s fate with the West and not the Soviet bloc, Israel was long perceived as America’s only true ally in the Middle East. Its existence prevented the Soviets from complete domination of the region. Israel’s military conflicts regularly served as testing grounds for America’s weapons versus the Soviet’s weapons, not to mention the boon to American security from captured Soviet weapons that were then analyzed and countered (from the first MIG-21 turned over to the US by Israel in 1966, to countless other weapons systems). In the United Nations, useless and harmful though it might be, Israel has the most consistent record of voting with the United States of any country in the world, even when we factor out that most UN resolutions seem to condemn Israel.

     In the war on terror, of course, America has no stronger ally than Israel, and has greatly benefited from Israeli tactics and intelligence. The two countries – the primary targets of Islamic terror – have both endured sudden explosions of terrorist atrocities committed against their civilian populations. Shared suffering has to some extent deepened the bond between the two nations, both an alliance and a friendship.

      Obama’s Israel problem can be traced to the fact that he subscribes to the merits of none of these factors. The media drumbeat that clamored for his election did its best to suppress the implications of the fact that Obama was spiritually reared not in the mode of traditional Christians but in a church that was a unabashed exponent of black liberationist theology – that the Bible was the “white man’s religion” (Malcolm X’s phrase) and needed to be redefined as an instrument that would advocate the overthrow of oppressors of the black man. As they saw it, the Bible justified racism, slavery, segregation, economic discrimination and other societal ills. Such a Bible is not to be used as a proof text for Jewish rights anywhere, and the “real Jews,” according to the hard-core theologians are the oppressed blacks overcoming the persecution of the new “Egyptians,” the Americans. No wonder Obama had to throw Reverend Wright under the bus; the real question is how he could have sat in those pews for 20 years listening to this claptrap, unless he himself believed at least some of it.

   Thus, Obama does not naturally see America as a force for good in the world, the only nation that spreads liberty and freedom to oppressed nations. His default position is that the US is an imperialist nation, a colonizer that has exploited the Third World, and even increased the suffering of millions. That is why Obama has seen fit to go around the globe apologizing for American misdeeds (Africa, Asia, Arabia, South America) without even acknowledging the life-saving, civilizing benefits of American interventions, and why the disdain he feels towards Israel is also directed at allies such as Britain or Canada. No prior president ever ridiculed, as Obama has, the notion of “American exceptionalism,” that the US is different than other nations and uniquely suited to exporting virtues like freedom, liberty, individual rights and democracy. The “shared values” that have always bound America and Israel are perceived by Obama as contrived, hypocritical, phony and arrogant – if anything, they are grounds to downgrade the relationship, as he has done.

   Consequently, it seems clear that President Obama sees Israel as a strategic albatross, not an ally. His outreach to the Muslim world is complicated, if not impaired, by the America-Israel relationship that he inherited and that has been a staple of American foreign policy for decades. The Cold War is long over, and itself was founded on a bi-polar view of the world in which America was the natural leader of the free world, a locution that this president likely finds troublesome and rejects. Israel exists, in Obama’s strategic view of global affairs, only as an irritant – and the alliance is a relic of the past that has to be rolled back.

    Nothing in the Israeli narrative resonates with Obama and so his dislike for Israel is ill-concealed, and reflected in his policies and attitudes. Indeed, Obama’s discomfort with the narrative and foundational principles of Israel mirrors his discomfort with the narrative and foundational principles of the United States. There are several implications of this analysis. First, it would certainly behoove an Israeli prime minister to disabuse himself of the notion that there is some policy or initiative he can undertake that will sweeten a relationship that has gone sour. There is nothing he can do (not that Netanyahu foolishly won’t try anyway), and to blur all Israeli red lines in the hopes of changing Obama’s world view is a pipe dream, if not a fatal allusion. Second, Obama must be removed from office, and the 2012 election is therefore critical – for many reasons that do not all relate to Israel. Sensible Jews will have to overcome their whimsy of blindly supporting Democrats, and this despite the inevitable charm offensive that will include forced smiles, empty rhetoric that employs Yiddish or Hebrew words, accusations of racism, weapons sales, and who knows – perhaps Obama will even hold his nose and briefly visit Israel, which, along with Zimbabwe, seems to be the only country on earth he has not yet visited.

    Third, in the short term, Jews will have to cultivate warmer relations with the new Republican House and friendly Democratic congressmen, and bear in mind that Israel’s base of support in America today is not in the White House, but in the Congress and, more importantly, with the American people. They are the ones who will resurrect and strengthen this relationship that reflects so well on both countries and can yet benefit all of mankind.

     In the early 2000’s, after another secular, nominally right-wing prime minister of Israel let down his constituents by betraying his campaign platform and lifelong values, I suggested to a settler leader that perhaps Binyamin Netanyahu would make a good replacement, having been chastened by his failures in office the first time he served as prime minister. The activist responded: “Usually when the first movie is a failure, they don’t make a sequel.” Behold, the sequel is upon us, and let us count the errors.

     As predicted here, one freeze begets another, and then likely another as well. “Negotiations” are to be conducted, if the PA deigns to do so, over the heartland of Israel after Israel has repeatedly demonstrated by its actions that it has no genuine claim to the land. The existence, substance and pace of these “negotiations” are completely dictated by the enemy. The PA can have the Israelis dancing through hoops and doing back flips while reciting Koranic verses, if they wished.  To negotiate with such an entity is not as much an exercise in futility as in willful suicide. One side, with the appalling agreement of the other, controls whether or not negotiations will take place, and for how long they will take place, and on which terms they will take place. That side reserves the right at any time to walk out on negotiations, and to declare itself unsatisfied, if not unsatisfiable. Israel is like the pathetic soul who has to pay for a meal in his own home, and then does not even get the meal.

      It is astonishing how such an articulate, thoughtful individual as is Binyamin Netanyahu while speaking, writing books, or leading the opposition can completely lose his moral and intellectual moorings when he becomes prime minister. He has claimed that “what you see from here, you don’t see from there.” That is true, but not relevant.  What animates most human beings are their values and principles – the Arabs are certainly guided by their principles, as depraved as they might be. A person without principles is hollow; a person who asserts during a political campaign that he has principles, and then reveals in office that he has none, is shameless.

     The travesty of denying Jews the right to build homes in the heartland of Israel is compounded by the unseemly horse-trading that PM Netanyahu considers statecraft. How about a few planes, which Israel would likely be sold anyway by a friendly American president ? How about a hint that maybe the US will sort-of veto some anti-Israel UN resolutions for a few months, that a friendly American president would veto anyway as an expression of American values and interests ? And what good are American pledges when Obama himself treated President Bush’s pledges (in writing, no less) as non-entities?  Thus the land of Israel promised to the Jewish people by G-d through our forefathers for all eternity is disparaged as a cheap commodity that commands little respect or loyalty. There are dozens of territorial disputes across the globe, and in none of them is either side willing to relinquish any claim or right, however tenuous. From Japan and Russia, to China and Vietnam, to Ecuador and Peru, to Costa Rica and Nicaragua, no country gives any quarter on what it considers its national soil. Just recently the British were apoplectic when President Obama suggested that perhaps the time had come for Britain and Argentina to “begin” negotiations over the Falkland Islands, 6000 miles from the United Kingdom. The suggestion was rejected out of hand. There are territorial disputes on every continent, and the only country actively engaged in surrendering its homeland piecemeal – Israel – is the only country whose territory was promised to it by the Creator.  As a Jew, it is embarrassing, but also quite revealing.

      I wrote in this space (December 2009) something I heard years ago from one of the leading Hesder Roshei Yeshiva in Israel with whom I discussed the persistent betrayal by Likudniks of any principles they might profess. He answered me as follows: Torah Jews and secular right-wing Jews can all love Israel, fight for Israel and even die for Israel. Both groups can demonstrate great self-sacrifice for both the land and the people – but for secular Jews, it must stop at a certain point. “If it were possible,” he said, “to achieve the same love of Israel through Torah and not-through-Torah, then why would you need the Torah?” Therefore, their dedication collapses at a certain point – each person (Netanyahu, Sharon, Livni, Olmert, etc.) at his/her own level.

     What is worse is that this recent collapse comes after Netanyahu’s repeated promises and boasts that the “freeze” was one-time and not-to-be repeated, and after much “Jews have a right to build” rhetoric. Worse than that is the distressing recognition that Israel is the only country in the world that actually feels today it must defer to the American president. Obama just spent ten days in Asia, making requests, demands and suggestions that were summarily rejected by China, Japan, South Korea, India, Britain and possibly the Marshall Islands. On currency, trade and security issues, the American president is perceived as weak, a spent force who speaks softly and carries a wet noodle. Only Israel, perhaps out of nostalgia, somehow feels “pressure,” a reflexive need to be obeisant, and an obligation to kowtow to American demands – without any merit or rationale. Israel, whether it appreciates it or not, is a regional power with a strong, vibrant economy and a robust military. It is only plagued by “leaders” who seem trapped in the 1970s, who perceive themselves as presiding over a nation that is poor, victimized, and decrepit, and that can survive only on the good will of hostile nations and not on faith in G-d who has blessed it with great might and courage. It has maneuvered itself into a situation where it has to beg for scraps of international respect, even as it is begrudged any right of self-defense.

    Israel’s crisis of self-confidence that afflicts its leadership, one pathetic soul after another, is belied by the strength, fearlessness and commitment of many of its citizens. It is defined not by its Sharons, Netanyahus, Olmerts, Baraks, Pereses and Rabins, but the people who continue to believe in the G-d of Israel, the Jewish state and people, who weather all storms (physical and political) and continue to build the Jewish homeland with pride – in Hevron and Bet El and points beyond. I have just returned from attending the annual dinner celebrating the rejuvenated Jewish community of Hevron, in the company of many hundreds of devoted, passionate lovers of Israel (even as two dozen self-hating Jews protested outside). Each new home, each new yeshiva, each new business, and each new oleh is a challenge not only to Israel’s enemies across the globe but also to Israel’s spineless, spiritless leaders who squeak to electoral victories on the basis of empty rhetoric, hollow promises and inane campaigns and then bask in the vacuous applause of American Jews desperate for a photo op with the latest pinup star. The Jewish people deserve better, and will ultimately receive better.

      As always, Netanyahu thinks he is clever-by-half, with another freeze that is designed to win some short term benefit (planes?! How about Pollard ??) at the price of yet another public declaration that the land of Israel does not belong to the people of Israel. He must reason that the right-wing won’t abandon him to Livni’s Kadima, so he further risks alienating the true faithful of the land of Israel. But no one – left, right, center, Israeli, American, European – trusts him. One who thinks that he is securing Yerushalayim by abandoning Judea and Samaria is betraying Yerushalayim as well. Surely he has noticed that opponents of Jewish rights in YESHA oppose Jewish rights in Yerushalayim as well.

     Not to be outdone, the Shas Party – the underwriters of Oslo in the 1990s, if anyone still cares to remember – again demonstrates that its cherished values are for sale to the highest bidder, literally hiding behind “abstentions” so it can claim to its benighted masses that it did not “vote” for another freeze, even though Shas’ abstentions allow the vote to pass. When will Shas voters wake up ?

    Israel should not rely on the obstinacy of the Palestinians, even if they will probably again spurn any negotiations; they are always the ones who look principled, and it is obvious they see no benefit in talks. And why should they, when they have garnered windfalls without negotiations? But it is never too late for Israel to turn back and regain its moral and spiritual high ground – to admit that negotiations are futile, that peace is not on the horizon for decades (if that), to put facts on the ground, to ignore the dire warnings of “intelligence officials” (“the region is a powder keg, and if the conflict is not resolved in five or ten minutes, everything will blow up”), to exercise strength and steadfastness diplomatically, politically and militarily, and to remember the destiny of the Jewish people in its land, when it is faithful, worthy and proud.

     It starts with a simple declaration, known in a different context to every American of a certain age: “this land is our land, given to us by G-d in perpetuity. We have returned, never to be uprooted. If you wish to live here in tranquility, then let us negotiate the conditions of your residence.” Such a statement cannot be made by the stars of this failed sequel, but it eventually will be made by stars of a different order of magnitude altogether.