"The US-Israel Relationship is in Tatters" and Other Hyperbole

So, it appears that the US Israel relationship is in tatters.  Harsh words are being spoken between administration officials and the pressis  placing Israel under pressure, making American Jews either very nervous or very angry. (And some, actually relieved).

There certainly is a lot of bluster going around.  The Prime Minister is expressing remorse to the Obama administration, apologizing on one hand, but maintaining that the policy of building in Jerusalem will continue.

What are we to make of this "crisis in US Israel relations?"

This latest kerfuffle indicates that things are different these days, both in Washington and Jerusalem.  While this would appear obvious, many of us in the center maintained for a long time,  that with Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod in Obama's inner circle that the relationship between United States and Israel would continue the way that it always had.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  But not for the reasons that everybody thinks.

The White House is a very busy place these days.  Congress appears to be out of control, Democrats are running scared, they continue to fight 2 wars, and, by the way, there are no jobs and the economy, while improving slowly, is at best in a "hidden" recovery.

So why is the administration focusing so much attention on negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians?  Traditionally, US presidents don't pay attention to"peace process" until the 6th year of their term.  This is because the situation is extraordinarily complicated, and after midterm elections in the 2nd term presidents generally feel that they can do complicated things. 

But the Obama administration is all about taking on complicated things.  Healthcare, jobs,education reform, and changing the way that prisoners are dealt with at Guantanamo Bay have all been high priorities for the president.  It seems that after the Bush years, the administration felt that there was so much to do and no time to waste.

So fulfilling a campaign promise, the president sent George Mitchell to the Middle East and expected some progress. 

What he found was 2 leaders with very tenuous domestic positions, both unable to move a process forward.  For a year Israel indicated it was willing to enter direct negotiations with the Palestinians.  The Palestinians on the other hand, wanted to dely those negotiations until receiving concessions from the Israeli side -- a price to come to the table.  When the Israelis called their bluff, the Palestinians folded.

So what are we to make of Eli Yishai, the new hero of the Israeli right?  Some claim that his pronouncement about building new homes in Jerusalem (East Jerusalem, Sheikh Jarrah, Ramat Shlomo) was designed to provoke the US administration.  Others claim that the Israelis would never do such a thing and that the Netanyahu government is out of control.  (This argument is also being played out regarding the assassination in Dubai -- why would the Israelis get caught even though none of them were actually apprehended?  Etc. etc.)

In truth, it doesn't really matter whether Israel intended to offend the United States or not. What matters is that the impression going forward is that despite their protestations the gulf between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government is widening.  This may be.  We need to remind ourselves that the US Israel relationship goes beyond any particular prime minister or president. What appears to have changed is the calculus among US leaders that Israel now poses a strategic liability for America's needs in the Middle East with regard to its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  No amount of partisan posturing will counter State Department and Defense Department's analysis if they conclude that progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace effort is a prerequisite for reducing threats to American soldiers and the war effort in the Middle East.  And, they may be right.

What really worries me is the "linkage" between progress with the Palestinians and dealing with the question of Iran. I have heard from friends on the left that, at some level,  those issues are connected.  I think it's an obscene connection, but it's very hard for many people to separate out defending Israel from nuclear attack and seeing Israel as a recalcitrant party in the peace process.

Let's hope that our community organizations resist the urge to spin out of control.  The world is not coming to an end, Israel has weathered these kinds of crises before, and perhaps this will be a wake-up call to the Israeli people that they do need to make a choice.  They can continue to support governments, both left and right, that perpetuate the status quo or, as they did in 2005, they can embrace change.  No one knows what that change is or how it should go.  But Israel can no longer have it both ways.  They need to decide what the best possible course of action is, deal with the political consequences and begin to move forward.

Ironically, this is what the Obama administration is doing regarding healthcare.  Like it or not, they are taking a risk.  Whatever they do, they will be ridiculed by a large part of the American people.  From the right, whether they pass the House bill are not, they will be considered to be abject failures -- either "ramming a bill down the American people's throats", or failing to achieve their legislative goals with a large majority in both houses.  From the left, while many will applaud the passage of the health care bill,  there are still many who will be disappointed that it does not embrace the reforms that many wanted.  Particularly on the issue of abortion.

And so the Netanyahu and Obama governments have something in common.  For both it is time to take a serious domestic risk for the betterment of the country.  Obama has already chosen his path, and, for better or worse, he will be remembered for it.   Netanyahu also needs to make a choice -- or history will make it for him.  Whatever he chooses, many Israelis will ridicule him.  But, a true leader needs to step up in the face of ridicule.

I've left the issue of the Palestinians and their leadership side.  To say that Abu Mazen is weak is an understatement.  Unilateral action, as we saw with Gaza, is risky.  But, for Israel, unilateral action that are seen as further concessions without a price is foolish.  The problem is that now, Israel has to make concessions to the Americans and that is a huge game changer.

And so, Israel now needs to negotiate with the United States.  And we have Eli Yishai to thank.

Finally, I want to say a word about another potential fallout from this terrible incident.  While I was initially skeptical, I have come to embrace the rebuilding of the Hurva synagogue in the old city.  When I lived there so many years ago, the memorial to the synagogue, the 51 foot arch above the Ramban synagogue, stood as a record of what had been in that place.  When I heard that it was being rebuilt, I was concerned that the memory of the destruction of the Jewish quarter by the Jordanians would be forgotten.  However, I now believe that it is more important to build a synagogue for the future and move beyond that terrible past.  If that synagogue is held hostage to Palestinian demands, that would truly be an outrage of historic and biblical proportions. We cannot let that happen.

  

Last Swans Dispatch

I took the plunge today, left the house and finally bought a Swans Island sticker for the car.  Not the silly SI that you see about every place from Dorchester (DOT) to USVA.. but a nice unassuming sticker that has the outline of the island.  Nothing flashy; just like it is up here.

There have been some "echo chamber" moments since arriving; little bits of the outside world interfering with our time away.  I have a work dilemma that i need to work through that I won't be discussing here and some troubling thoughts about the discussion about health care going on among my Facebook friends.  I specify Facebook friends because, as you all know, the Facebook friend is a special kind of person.  They can range from your spouse to this guy.

Most of my liberal friends have been posting the silly status update about "Everyone deserves health care..." blah, blah, blah.  Some of my conservative friends are sniping about Obama the socialist and that the space aliens who believe in the death panels couldn't be more right.

Oh well.

What troubled me more this week was the circulation of a symposium published by Commentary magazine about why Jews are liberal.  It could have been easily titles "Why the hell are these idiots still deluding themselves and disobeying the Torah"?

A note of clarification:  I am not a registered Democrat.  I have voted for Republicans over the years (sometimes as protest votes against entrenched incumbent Congressmen in safe districts who I find to be dismissive and downright hostile at times) and other times because I thought that they had it right on an issue that I cared about.  I am not so concerned about the Christian right taking over the country.  I think they had their peak and the evidence shows that they are now moving away from the divisive issues like abortion/choice and on to stuff where their agenda overlaps with the left -- like the environment.  It's about time.  Not to stereotype, but I find those on the Christian right to be mostly earnest, well meaning people.  Most aren't looking to walk over Jewish heads to achieve salvation or lock women in cages.

However, I have to say that I disagree with most of their domestic agenda.

As an old friend Dave Ross from KIRO Radio in Seattle used to say, "I am a radical moderate."

So what bugged me so much about the Commentary piece?  (FYI, for some reason, the article paginates strangely).

Well, first off with the exception of David Wolpe, they only ask conservatives.  Jonathan Sarna, while a great guy, plays his usual role of historian without tipping his hand.  Knowing Jonathan, I am not really sure where he is politically.

The other issue is that the article has a tone of derision and critique about the "other".  It sounds like the reasons given are that American Jews have forgotten what it means to be Jewish... abandoned the Torah.  Now Michael Medved (when I lived in Seattle, at least) was connected to Rabbi Daniel Lapin and Jeff Jacoby goes to the Young Israel in Brookline, MA.  But, I kind of doubt that Bill Kristol is putting on tefillin every day.

As you know, I have a real problem with Orthodox-Centricity.  (Not a word) or Triumphalism.  Liberal Jews embrace the prophetic tradition of building a society that values the downtrodden and tries to help those in need -- however imperfectly.  Orthodoxy claims to be interested in the same tradition -- but if you read me regularly, you know my feelings about that.

But no matter. The conclusion of Podhoretz' piece (that I have not yet read), is that American Jews are hopeless and will continue to vote for socialists like Obama like lemmings.  Others hope that they will do teshuva and return to a rejection of the role of woman as equals in a modern society and a rugged individualism that leaves most people behind.  Maybe that's unfair.  It probably is.  I think that to write off the majority of their people as irredeemably naive, stupid or apostates is the kind of thinking and writing that makes people want to run the other way.

So they have.

On an island with one laptop in the house there is a great deal of need for other family members to make use of its benefits... the checking of fantasy baseball scores, a visit to Facebook, reading of email and an occasional glance at a "People magazine" article of shopping for bicycle parts or shoes.

So, that's it for me.  More when I return to Boston and leave the Island after a week of relative calm.

Shabbat Shalom (or for my conservative friends -- Good Shabbos or Have a Nice Weekend!).

A letter from the Echo Chamber

Dear Mr. President,

Much has been written about your trip to the Middle East and to Buchenwald last week. Across the globe the pundits have weighed in about each phrase and word. I want to add my voice to the chorus and share my thoughts.

All in all, I think the speech was a powerful gesture to the Muslim world at a critical moment in our history as a country. There is no more important task than doing what we can to drive a wedge between the extremists and moderates in the Muslim world.

I hope that your speech will achieve that goal.

However, I have great concerns about your statements about the founding of the State of Israel. The world was paying very close attention to what you said about the relationship between the Jewish state and our country. And, your reaffirmation of the unshakable bond between the two countries was a critical message for the Muslim world to hear.

But, your statement that "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history" is a dangerous mischaracterization that undermines any lasting resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

For the conflict to end, the Arabs of the Middle East, Muslims and Christians alike, must accept that the Jewish people has an historical right to live among them on our ancestral homeland. For over 2000 years, Jews have longed to return to the Land of Israel. A rich archaeological record demonstrates the Jewish connection to the land from time immemorial. Jews have a right to live with self determination in their ancestral land.

Mr. President, I urge you to set the record straight. Please find a way to reaffirm the history and birthright of the Jewish people in our ancient homeland. Our unbreakable relationship between the United States and Israel demands no less.

Sincerely,

Alan Ronkin

Brookline, MA

Netanyahu Comes to Town

One word of clarification before I begin today. I quoted Norman Lamm in the last posting speaking about tolerance and disagreement. Someone brought his recent pronouncement about the Reform and Conservative movements to my attention. A few thoughts. First off, I am no fan of YU. I think it sold its soul to the Orthodox right a long time ago. And, in my experience, most of the guys that I knew in the college were devoid of spirituality and those that did seemed to be the most condescending of the lot.

However, I fear that Rabbi Lamm may be right about the Reform and Conservative movements. At least about the Conservative movement. It seems that they have no centering principle, no real leadership and that the Conservative Jews that are continuing to connect to a traditional Jewish practice are abandoning the synagogues in great numbers and either forming alternative minyanim or winding up in Orthodox shuls where they hold their noses. The movement made a critical error when it transferred the core of the movement from the home to the shul. Enough said about that. I know less about the trajectory of the Reform movement but I have to say that whatever they are doing now to reinvigorate themselves may be "too little, too late." I am not sure what that says about the future of Jewish life in the US. My gut feeling is that its a bad thing. Yitz Greenberg was right when he asked the questions "Will there be two Jewish peoples by 2010?" The answer is yes. Maybe three if you count the "national" Jews of Israel.

That's a good segue to my next point, Bibi's visit with Obama next week. I have serious misgivings about these administrations. Both have to do with "kishkes". I think that Bibi has kishkes -- mostly about himself and staying in power. He is pursuing an unsustainable course in a region where sustainability is measured in centuries, not years. I am concerned that we are moving toward the end of the Zionist century and that we have lost the argument about the viability of Jewish sovereignty. Most of our community -- those out of the echo chamber -- can't answer the question of why we need a "Jewish" state.

Obama, on the other hand, now has the freedom to hold Israel to its word. If Israel is serious about a two-state solution, Obama seems to think, it has to get serious about seizing ostensibly Palestinian land and make some movement. All the talk about moving rockets closer to the airport, empowering Hamas and its acolytes and Palestinian pronouncements about destroying Israel have fallen on deaf ears -- even in Congress where its members pledge support but see a two-state solution as the only hope for peace -- not only in Israel but in the Middle East in general. As naive and ridiculous as it may be, this is now the consensus.

So, what to do? I have no idea. But I do know that staying in our own echo chamber -- sticking to our own narrative at all costs -- is not working. Israel can play for time but, each time that it does it loses more people. Time is not our friend despite facts on the ground.

I know that a simple throwaway paragraph is completely inadequate. If Israel shows "weakness" to the Arab world, it will continue to be pounded. If it shows "strength" to the West it will be depicted as the villain -- an obstacle for peace. And for those who think a purist solution is the way -- (especially those in the diaspora) they risk fighting until the very last Israeli.

Well, it appears that I have gone into the echo chamber this morning. Maybe its because I am going to the AIPAC dinner tonight. I love AIPAC -- I love their clarity and single minded pursuit of their goals. I worry about AIPAC because our song is wearing thin -- even among those members of Congress who pledge their undying loyalty. (Don't even ask me about campaign contributions from wealthy AIPAC donors).

Being right may not be enough anymore -- both for Israelis and Palestinians.

Oh well... maybe if the sun was out this morning I would have more clarity.

Until next time, Go Celtics!