Israel Needs To Replace Its Utterly Inappropriate Ambassador
Check out the latest from Israel ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren. It in a fine piece by Josh Nathan-Kazis in the Forward.
Nathan Kazis writes, "Breaking with his previous restraint, Israel's ambassador to the United States delivered an unprecedented blast against J Street, the new dovish Israel lobby that has made waves in Washington and throughout the Jewish community.... Ambassador Michael Oren described J Street as 'a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of all Israeli governments. It's significantly out of the mainstream," he said.
"This is not a matter of settlements here [or] there. We understand there are differences of opinion," Oren said. "But when it comes to the survival of the Jewish state, there should be no differences of opinion. You are fooling around with the lives of 7 million people. This is no joke."
What a crock. Oren's objections to J Street is that it opposed the horrific Gaza war and opposes the settlement enterprise. That's it. And, for that, Oren essentially accuses J Street of "fooling around with the lives of 7 million people...." I won't characterize that accusation except to say that accusing anyone of trifling with the lives of six or seven million Jews has certain echoes.
Even worse is when Oren says, "when it comes to the survival of the Jewish state, there should be no differences of opinion." But Oren has made clear that he considers Israel's policies on Gaza, the occupation, the Goldstone report and a host of other issues as relating to the "survival of the Jewish state." So he is telling Americans that there simply should be "no differences of opinion" on Israel. Period. We can debate any and all American issues -- including the rightness of wars where Americans are fighting right now -- but when it comes to Israel, it is "my country right or wrong." Except, it's not our country.
It's time for Oren to be recalled. His big problem is that he is not really an Israeli, he is an American who emigrated to Israel as an adult. Accordingly, he speaks as if he is just another Jewish organizational leader trying to keep the Jews in line by interfering in our domestic affairs.
I understand that an Israeli ambassador who was born and bred in Israel might lack Oren's lovely English and all-American style. But an Israeli might be less arrogant about America. He surely would be less prone to offensive blunder as this guy. (And I thought that Avigdor Lieberman would be the Israeli Foreign Ministry's bull in the china shop. Oren makes Lieberman look as deft as Talleyrand.
Maybe Oren should be America's ambassador to Israel rather than the other way around. No doubt, he would be better at it, understanding that glibness in a foreign post is very dangerous for diplomats. Simply put, Oren is just too comfortable here. It is precisely the wrong post for him.
I don't really understand your argument here. By spouting ridiculous hasbara, Oren is exactly fulfilling the role he was chosen for. His job is to represent Israeli government positions--i.e., the positions of a virulent right-ring coalition. That coalition repudiates J Street because J Street is opposed to its Greater Israel ideology. It's a zero-sum game. J Street can't be accommodated, because its goals and the goals of the elected government are fundamentally at odds. Thus, the government has no recourse but to cast aspersions on J Street in the hopes of discrediting it in the eyes of American Jewry. Oren is the most articulate vehicle for such propagandizing, and thus there is absolutely no reason Netanyahu would ever recall him.
December 10, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
This man, Oren, has caused my teeth to itch since I saw him on Charlie Rose....He is not winning friends inside the beltway or any other place.. Obdurate and caustic does not further solutions. He and BiBi are messing with things they should stay out of for the good of all mankind! Diversion no longer works...in the World of instant info!
He should be replaced!
December 10, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
>Oren said. "But when it comes to the survival of the Jewish state, there should be no differences of opinion. You are fooling around with the lives of 7 million people. This is no joke."
In point of fact, it is Oren and the government that employs him to disseminate this propaganda, that is fooling around with not seven million, but seven BILLION lives.
That is no idle comment. Once Israel starts to use its nuclear arsenal to retain its hegemony in the Middle East, the consequences are completely unpredictable, but the entire world will be at risk - not 7 million but one thousand times that number.
December 10, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've long suspected that the next 50 years will be very violent. Mostly because the Western monopoly on force to coerce resource-extraction is coming to an end. The whole "war on terrorism" is just a front for Western Imperialism, 21st Century Edition. The fact that the Iraq War only became a scandal when the project went south--not because of all those innocent Iraqis we murdered--speaks volumes about Western morality.
I used to ask my British sister: "So how many lives is Tony Blair willing to throw away to get an overnight at Camp David?"
December 10, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel's ambassador is the Israelis problem. Americans, whether of Hebrew, Samarian, Philistine, Leftcoastian, Beltbiblical or Couchpotatoan inclination, do not owe him the time of day.
December 10, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rosenberg,
I've not seen Amb. Oren as much of a departure from recent Israeli ambassadors to the US, but I don't watch as closely as you do. But my main purpose in posting in this comment space is to ask you (without knowing if you follow comments to your posts) if you read Hussein Agha and Robert Malley in the Dec 3 issue of the New York Review of Books, where they wrote:
"The most heartfelt hope for peace has been placed in Barack Obama. The young President offers the prospect of a clean break with the past and an early start on a more engaged and sustained policy. Underpinning the faith is a straightforward logic: Israel depends on US support; no Israeli leader will dare jeopardize good relations with Washington; if the administration plays "hard ball" while proffering "tough love," Israel will follow. Obama's first steps have prompted doubts. By initially insisting on a comprehensive Israeli settlement freeze, then negotiating its details, then seemingly backing down and pushing Palestinians to resume their talks with Israel, the administration increased friction with Jerusalem, squandered credibility with the Arab world, and weakened Abbas.
"In this last respect, Obama is only the latest in a string of American presidents who have shown few limits to the harm they can inflict on those Palestinians they purport to strengthen. By twice twisting Abbas's arm, first to attend a meeting with Netanyahu and then to withdraw the Goldstone report, the administration unwittingly hurt him more in the space of two weeks than its predecessor had done in as many terms. The US hope was to tame Netanyahu, empower Abbas, motivate peace advocates, curtail extremists, and energize negotiations. So far, it has accomplished the precise opposite.
"Obama will have opportunities to recover. But for those who remain persuaded that the US has the power to produce a meaningful peace agreement, his record so far is hardly a good omen. It fits into a larger pattern and helps make a broader point: the absence of convincing historical evidence that a sufficient degree of American pressure can be applied to persuade an Israeli government to act against its self-perceived fundamental interests. Israelis and Palestinians have their weaknesses, but they have mastered the art of saying no or at least meaning it, and then of living to wage the next fight. Possibly, this time will be different and Obama will achieve what none of his predecessors could, but nothing in his first nine months suggests he can. To harbor that expectation would be to allow the surrender of experience to hope....
"The Obama administration has been in office for less than a year, but it has been engaged from the first with strategic reviews. US policy toward Iran has been discussed and redefined. Early months witnessed debate on Iraq. Substantive deliberations and questioning of past assumptions appear to have occurred regarding Burma, Sudan, and North Korea. On Afghanistan and Pakistan, the administration had not yet implemented the conclusions of a March interagency appraisal before the President decreed a review of that initial review.
"On the Israeli–Palestinian front, meanwhile, there is no sign of anything resembling thoroughgoing reappraisal. There have been adjustments in tactics. The administration zeroed in on Israeli settlement expansion and steps toward normalization of relations with Arab countries. Relations with Israel are frostier. But when it comes to the fundamentals, apparently it's still business as usual. The goal is to achieve a comprehensive agreement by persuading Israel to concede more land and Palestinians to demand less while trading off Israeli flexibility on Jerusalem against Palestinian compromises on refugees.
"The reluctance of the US to change the way it thinks about the conflict and its possible resolution arguably has several causes. There is a belief embedded in each successive administration that its predecessor either didn't try hard enough or did not try well. And there is the fear that taking a step back will look to critics more like throwing in the towel than engaging in productive thought. But there must be a better way than the flailing and failing to which all have become inured.
"A decade ago, President Clinton set out to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict along what now are familiar lines. At the time, one could have called the venture bold, if mismanaged. When, some years later, President George W. Bush waded into the business of peacemaking by following the same general prescriptions, one could describe his efforts as belated and somewhat unrealistic, though ambitious nonetheless. Should President Obama follow the same trodden path, without first rethinking basics, there would be nothing bold or ambitious about his efforts. They would be futile and thoroughly mystifying. This time, there would be no excuse."
Thoughts?
December 10, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read it and totally agree. One of the administration's biggest mistakes is that it banned Rob Malley from a position in the White House or State at AIPAC's insistence. AIPAC and company wanted Dennis Ross and they got him. And, once again. he's accomplished nothing.
December 10, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, M.J. Rosenberg, for taking a moment to reply. I didn't know that Malley had been passed over for a job in the Administration. I've found his (and Agha) articles very helpful.
December 10, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's time for Josh Marshall to replace his utterly inappropriate and clearly biased commentator on the I-P conflict. He clearly isn't interested in the truth or the facts or in promoting peace. It's sad that Marshall is throwing away years of hard work in developing a reputation for journalism by allowing this uninformed bigot to sully his site's reputation. I'm afraid the damage has already been done though. It just takes one or two rotten apples to spoil the barrel.
Colindale -- I think we all know that Israel's nukes are solely for deterrent purposes, and that there's no possibility whatsoever that Israel would ever consider using them. Rather than promoting war, the deterrent has been very successful in preventing it. Since they were developed after 1973 the Arab nations have stopped launching illegal wars against Israel, thus saving countless lives, both Jewish and Muslim.
Wake up folks. It's the Christian nations that have the overwhelming majority of nukes and other forms of WMDs in the world, that supply the majority of arms throughout the world (at least 90% of them), who are clearly responsible for most of the wars, and who represent the real threat. Please stop spreading lies about Israel as a way of distracting attention from the real criminals. By doing so you endanger all 7 billion people on the planet.
December 10, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if Zion's nukes are for deterrent purposes, then Iranian nukes would be for deterrent purposes too.
BTW, you really are not the person to judge MJ, or anyone else for that matter. You are about 7 standard deviations away from being a human being.
December 10, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your rant would have a slightly greater chance of being taken seriously if you tried to make some connection between MJ's post and your insults. MJ is writing about Oren, so the logical thing to do from your perspective (if I haven't just contradicted myself) is to demonstrate that MJ's criticism of Oren is unfounded. But you make no attempt to do this--all you've managed to show is that you hate MJ. Fascinating, no doubt, to your psychoanalyst, if you have one, but it has nothing to do with MJ's worth as a columnist.
December 11, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see any reason to believe " there's no possibility whatsoever that Israel would ever consider using [its nuclear weapons].
And I see everything wrong in the attempts to blacklist anyone like M. J. Rosenberg who has the courage to criticize present-day Israeli policy and politicians. Every commentator is "biased". All are entitled to be wrong. As Thomas Jefferson wrote:
" [T]ruth is great and will prevail if left to herself,... she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them."
December 10, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thoughts.
The best starting point to try to deconstruct US attitudes vis a vis Israel would be to understand exactly why all consecutive presidents since LBJ have colluded in the dangerous mythology of so-called 'Israeli nuclear ambiguity" thereby enabling the state of Israel, uniquely, to amass a gigantic secret nuclear arsenal estimated at between 200 and 400 warheads and to stand outside of the NPT and to be uninspected by the IAEA.
I am not knowledgeable enough to suggest an answer, but once you have the answer to the above, then you will have the answer to the current situation whereby Israel is now possibly the third most powerful state in the world, and beyond American control.
To me, the situation is completely surreal.
December 10, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Israel didn't exist, the US would have to invent them. "Protecting Israel" sounds a lot better than "protecting imperial control of the oil-producing regions."
December 10, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "Maybe Oren should be America's ambassador to Israel rather than the other way around."
MY COMMENT: Pursuant to Israeli law, Oren was required to give up his U.S. citizenship in order to serve as an Israeli ambassador. I assume U.S. ambassadors must be U.S. citizens. Ergo, Oren is no longer eligible to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Israel.
SOURCE - http://mondoweiss.net/2009/05/a-thought-on-dual-loyalty-and-the-why-that-question-can-not-be-swept-under-the-rug-michael-oren-born-in-the-us-and-a-dual.html
December 10, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "Israel Needs To Replace Its Utterly Inappropriate Ambassador"
SEE - Oren: ‘Settlement issue between US and Israel is largely behind us, MONDOWEISS, 10/30/09
(excerpt) Michael Oren was interviewed by Jerome McDonnell of Chicago Public Radio, WBEZ. Some surprising excerpts: Oren says Palestinians are doing fine on water...
Jerome McDonnell:
It doesn’t probably seem fair to a lot of listeners that Israelis use so much more water and control the water resources of Palestinians. If there’s only one aquifer that Palestinians can draw from and they really have no control over it, it just doesn’t seem fair.
Ambassador Michael Oren:
Well I don’t see anybody parched for water there, I think we have a regional water problem that is not particular to the Palestinians and I can only reassert that Israel leads not only the region but the world in water reclamation, And I think you can find Israeli water saving technology in the fields across the United States in terms of drip irrigation, this was pioneering the field of computer irrigation which puts microscopic sensors into a field and send messages back to a central computer [hasbara....]
MORE EXCERPTS - http://mondoweiss.net/2009/10/oren-settlement-issue-between-us-and-israel-is-largely-behind-us.html
December 10, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amb. Michael Oren’s credibility problem -- http://bit.ly/5DRqM0
January 6, 2010 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink