Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog

For details on my upcoming July 2009 tour

of the Canadian Rockies, see

http://www.keshertours.com/tour-03-canadian-rockies.html

All invited !

At what point do we officially label President Obama “anti-Israel” ?

For many Jews, this will never happen, as Obama is a liberal Democrat, supports all the politically correct social justice causes (read: pro-abortion), and belongs to a favored minority group for whose treatment in America Jews have always felt particularly guilty (having been major slaveholders in the antebellum south, apparently…).

But consider that just in the last few weeks Obama has:

1)      shifted American foreign policy back to the orientation of the Clinton years, expecting all tangible concessions to come from Israel and all unenforceable promises to come from the Arabs;

2)      repudiated President Bush’s understandings with Israel that accepted “natural growth” in settlements in Judea and Samaria, in exchange for Israel’s commitment not to build new settlements outside existing areas;

3)      rejected Israel’s request for the purchase of new Apache helicopters (allegedly because of Obama’s “discomfort” as to how they were deployed during the recent Gaza conflict);

4)      suggested that America will no longer veto anti-Israel UN resolutions if Israel does not completely conform to American foreign policy dictates;

5)      allegedly directed Israel not to launch any military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, and to confer with America before taking any action at all;

6)      displayed very uncomfortable body language in his public sessions with Netanyahu, and declined to have a public session at all with visiting President Peres (who was sneaked in and out of the White House through a back door.

Add to this Obama’s continued efforts to mollify the Arab world, culminating in a trip this week to three Middle Eastern countries (but not Israel), and a disturbing pattern emerges. Undoubtedly, Obama will be able to calm the nerves of his most ardent Jewish supporters through his lofty rhetoric and smooth, teleprompted delivery, and leaked references to Rahm Emanuel’s father’s service in the Irgun – but none of that change the facts on the ground: US policy to Israel might be undergoing its most dramatic, harmful shift since the Carter Administration – including even the hostility of the first President Bush-James Baker years.

President Obama spent more than twenty years absorbing the anti-American and anti-Israel ranting of his pastor. It is no wonder he sat quietly through the anti-American screeds Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega – it was like being back in church all over again. Words do matter, and have an effect – in the short term and the long term.

Will American Jews have the gumption to challenge Obama, rally Congressional and other support against him if necessary, and stand up for Israel’s interests – which, in this case, accord with the interests of the free world in combating Islamic terror ? Will American Jews be blinded by flowery words, a White House seder and other allures, and allow the president to potentially sell out Israel ? Or will American Jews see themselves not as defenders of Obama or Israel – both awkward positions, to many – but as intermediaries trying to bridge the gaps between the parties ? Time – and our true sense of national identity – will tell.

Two points need to be made at the outset: the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the United States Supreme Court was the obvious, and politically clever, selection; and she will be confirmed, barring the equivalent of a political meteorite derailing the proceedings. And based on past standards, she certainly seems fit to serve. Nonetheless, there are two disturbing elements in her nomination – the obsessive focus on her “compelling personal story” and the lamentable resurrection of identity politics.

Her story is no doubt “compelling” – poor daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants, denizen of the Bronx projects who found her way to Princeton, Yale Law School, and years later to a federal judgeship. But “compelling personal stories” are acceptable material for a People magazine article; of what real relevance are they to qualifications for a Supreme Court position ?

Imagine, for a moment, the inverse of her story: a young white man is raised in luxury, the son of two distinguished judges, educated at the finest schools, lauded for his judicial temperament and abilities. Is he to be denied an appointment because his story is not compelling? And what if a candidate with a less “compelling” story is more qualified? Does her poor background render her more capable of interpreting the Constitution ?

Well, the President asserted that her background provides her with a wellspring of “empathy” that will render her a better justice. But consider: what role does empathy play in justice generally? On this matter, it is interesting to note that the Talmud required judges to have several indicia of compassion, particularly that they have children (Masechet Sanhedrin 36b), as those who have no children are presumed to have less compassion than parents have (children presumably force their parents to learn compassion, as well as tolerance and patience). On that score, Sotomayor – who is childless – fails. But must it be true that someone from a poor background will necessarily be more empathetic? One can easily argue the opposite: someone who “made it” by working hard might have less compassion for others, of similar circumstances, who are drifters and slackers.

Of course, the difference between the Talmudic requirement and the current situation (beyond the obvious that Talmudic law does not apply here) is that Sanhedrin judges were trial judges, where empathy is a useful trait in assessing the credibility of witnesses, and even invoking mercy in judgment. Does – should – empathy play any role on an appellate court, especially the Supreme Court which never sits as a trial court? The Supreme Court primarily decides issues of constitutional import – divergent opinions in Circuit Court opinions, passing judgment on the constitutionality of statutes, etc. Should empathy play any role in ascertaining the intent of the Framers of the Constitution ? If one answers “yes,” the question is, why ? Why should empathy figure in those judgments at all ?

Resolving conflicts of laws, antitrust matters, or the intent of Congressional legislation requires many traits, but empathy should be very low on that list. Should the High Court tighten the rules against illegal searches and seizures because it feels “empathy” for the criminal ? Should it provide for government funding for abortions out of empathy – and based, precisel=, on what constitutional provision ? Should it decide the fate of suspected terrorists based on empathy – or based on the Constitution ? That slippery slope – of allowing, and here expecting, justices to insert their subjective frameworks in the deliberations and inform their conclusions with their own biases – is what makes the return of identity politics so pernicious.

Once again, we have taken a U-turn from Martin Luther King’s vision of an America in which he hoped people will be judged “not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” The notion that, for example, a Hispanic is needed because the Court lacks a Hispanic, is patently offensive because it assumes that all Hispanics think alike, and therefore, the President need only select one Hispanic candidate from the list, and all is right.

In truth, identity politics is an old media game, and political ploy. No sophisticated, intelligent voter will support a candidate simply because that candidate nominates people of shared ethnicity. Certainly, the first President Bush gained no political capital from blacks after nominating Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. But this is a media game – keeping the ethnic and racial scorecard, celebrating the liberal choices as “inspired” (Thurgood Marshall, Madeline Albright, Sotomayor, et al) while disparaging the conservative ones as “tokenism”  (Sandra Day O’Conner, Colin Powell, Thomas, Condie Rice, et al). President Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, was forced to resign his post in 1983 when he remarked that a Senate advisory panel consisted of “a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple.” He wasn’t wrong, he was just too honest. Perhaps people were outraged that he dared to point out the simple truth of “identity politics” run amok, of people being judged not based on their talents or abilities but on their membership in a particular group that is especially favored or otherwise entitled – by virtue of some extraneous, irrelevant characteristic – to a seat at the political table.

Obama’s choice then is most clever, as he satisfies the public advocates in both the Hispanic and feminist lobbies. As Justice John Paul Stevens is likely to retire in the next year, Obama will then have an opportunity to appoint another liberal, of course, but preferably one who is handicapped, a homosexual, and from a state that he did not carry in 2008. That would be a political jackpot, but what it says about the current state of American political life or the quality of the judiciary is another matter altogether. Conservatives, Jews (there are two already on the Court), healthy, heterosexual white males need not apply. “Content of one’s character,” indeed.

The Obama-Netanyahu summit, expected by some to be a “steel cage death match,” came and went, and while it is difficult to know what really went on behind the scenes, certain speculations are possible. Many expected the talks to be characterized as “frank and constructive,” diplomatic speech for “chairs were thrown at each other, and a screaming match ensued.” Instead, no such phrases were used, and what was most constructive is that it seems that Israel and the United States can diverge on their interests (or their interpretations of their interests) without the solar system collapsing.

Their post-conference body language indicated that Netanyahu had been eager to make his points and shift the diplomatic focus away from the Palestinian track to the Iranian track, and that Obama did little more than recite his talking points but failed to persuade the Israeli Prime Minister. All in all, Netanyahu appeared to have acquitted himself well, and has internalized and applied the lessons drawn from the mistakes of his first term.

The Old Bibi had good ideas but little staying power. He saw his political survival as rooted in pleasing an American President (then, Clinton) and satisfying Clinton’s and the media’s obsession with signing ceremonies, winners and losers and constant drama. What actually happened when Netanyahu could not say “no” – and signed the Hebron accords, made dramatic concessions at Wye Plantation, and failed to return from Wye with a liberated Jonathan Pollard, as he had been promised by Clinton – was that he alienated his own base, lost his political standing and credibility, and soon thereafter, his office.

“No” has a power all its own, and any self-respecting country has to say it on occasion – even to friends and allies – when its interests are jeopardized. Thus, at the G-20 summit in London in March, President Obama made two requests – for more European troops in Afghanistan and for increased stimulus spending by European countries. All of Europe responded to both American requests with a polite but resounding “no,” and somehow, life went on. The same can happen – did happen ? – here, and life, indeed, does go on.

Of course, the possibility cannot be ruled out that Obama will be tossed the bone of the uprooting of some outposts, as a “sign” of Israeli conciliation and a message to the Arabs that Israel will still play ball. If so, that would be an error on a number of grounds, including the fundamental notion that Israel need not show its conciliatory credentials. Most of the problems of the last 15 years have been caused by that pointless exercise, so it is foolhardy to keep heading down that road to a dead end.

New Bibi is in the strong position of being able to tell the American president that he, too, was elected on a platform of “change,” and he is charged with making a stark and dramatic break with the misguided policies of the past that have led Israel into this political and strategic morass. He is well situated  – together with FM Lieberman – to introduce into Israeli diplomacy a new paradigm, where progress is made not toward peace but towards stability and prosperity, and Israeli surrenders of its territory – that has grievously weakened its strategic standing – are a thing of the past.

Good for him that he refused to publicly endorse a Palestinian state, and that he insists on diplomatic recognition of Israel as a Jewish State. That, coupled with the expansion of Israel’s settlements and a relentless war waged without letup on the terrorist infrastructure, bodes well for the immediate future. It bears a reminder that during Netanyahu’s first term as PM, terror declined dramatically, and less than 30 Jews were murdered by Arab terrorists from 1996-1999. That was the outgrowth of a strong policy, but Old Bibi received no political credit for that (bitter irony, that, in light of the monstrous years of terror that followed) because he betrayed himself and the people who elected him.

If appearances reflect reality, then New Bibi may accomplish great things, and there may finally be a Likud PM who governs from the right and implements the policies and preferences of those who elected him into office. What a novel concept that would be (!), and that would greatly facilitate Israel’s rehabilitation from its recent debacles.