Before we get to an analysis of the “facts†as presented by Rabbi Avi Shafran concerning both the Obama administration’s behind-the-scenes jousting regarding Israel and its general record on Israel, a short introduction may be in order.
Rabbi Shafran speaks of wisdom—of knowing what one does not know. When exploring wisdom, however, it behooves us to begin with what we do know. And what we do know is that in regard to Israel, the conversation is slowly but surely changing.
Those of us old enough to remember, recall a time when murderers of innocent children and civilians were not welcome in polite circles. No longer. Now they are welcomed with open arms.
Those of us old enough to remember, recall a time when Menachem Begin refused to deal with the Yossi Sarids of the world because they undermined the country and wanted to take a chunk of the heartland of Israel. They wanted to give it to the Palestinian leaders—leaders who were not quite like Ghandi; leaders with blood indelibly stained on their hands.
The shift has most assuredly happened. Now, more and more people argue for the reality of putting Eretz Yisrael on the chopping block. Who cares if the Palestinian leader denies the Holocaust or names streets after murderers of children? The conversation has shifted. Who cares if murderers of children get a hero’s welcome home? What is perhaps worst of all is that we made it happen.
Thomas Friedman is so enamored of the shift that for the first time he felt confident enough to give a vicious tongue-lashing to the head of the Israeli consulate in New York.
In a recent interview with the Washington Post, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren noticed it as well. He said that he used to be asked if the “Israel lobby†existed. Now, he said, “I’m asked what the Israel lobby thinks. And they’re not talking about AIPAC. They are talking about some shadowy group of bankers and people who control the media.†He continued, “I’m not a Middle East media-watch person,†but there were “one or two cases where reputable journals crossed that line.â€
The Washington Post reporter pressed him further: “Can Israel put the genie back in the bottle?†He sighed and paused. “I don’t know.â€
And the shift in conversation is getting more and more dangerous. The terms “two-state solution†and a “right of return†for Palestinian Arabs and their descendants are bandied about more and more. The moratoriums on building and settlements in our own land and the artificial distinction between east Jerusalem and west Jerusalem shift it, too.
And, truth be told, irresponsible articles such as the one penned by the generally well-regarded Rabbi Shafran serve this cause well.
Articles such as R’ Shafran’s shift the conversation in that a “hechsher of approval†has been placed on someone who has a track record of stopping settlements and, in all probability, trying to ultimately cede a good part of Yerushalayim and Har HaBayis to a Palestinian state that he envisions himself having a hand in creating.
What is particularly disturbing is that the Shafran piece appeared on the Cross-Currents.com website (“Our Not-So-Humble Opinions,†December 19) without chance for a response—comments are closed, thank you. It is up for everyone to read, but alas no dissenting voice is permitted. This is not the forum of learned and intellectual discourse; it is more reminiscent of propaganda.
And, to borrow a phrase from the president, “Make no mistake,†Rabbi Shafran’s endowing the Obama administration with a hechsher and seal of approval on all matters of Israel is a colossal error. Primarily this is because the president’s previous attacks on Israel have eroded the bipartisan support that Israel used to enjoy.
As Caroline Glick has previously pointed out, in the midst of the Obama administration’s assault on Israel over construction for Jews in Jerusalem, 327 congressmen signed a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling for an end to the public attacks on the Israeli government. Of the 102 members that refused to sign the letter, 94 were Democrats.
R’ Shafran’s hechsher opens the door for more of this.
Now, let us get to R’ Shafran’s “facts,†point by point.
• “Mr. Obama did not allow our country to participate in the Durban gathering—because he felt Israel would be unfairly targeted for criticism.â€
Sorry. It was because of pressure, and the “pullout†was very last-minute. The whole world knew Durban’s track record. As late as February of 2009, the Obama administration announced that the State Department was sending a delegation to “engage†in preparatory negotiations February 16–19 for Durban II. This was just weeks before the conference.
Everyone was scared as to what was going to happen next. “It is weeks before, and the president still wants to participate?†was the hue and cry throughout activist circles. And now this whitewash?
When Hillary Clinton was running for president, she said that she would “lead a boycott of the conference should current efforts to rein in the forces of hatred fail. We must not accept, condone, or participate in a conference that can be hijacked by an agenda of hatred, and we must work strenuously to ensure that our friends do not do so either.â€
The United States pulled out at the end, thankfully. But a boycott? Hardly.
• “Mr. Lorberbaum also claims that I was mistaken in stating that the Obama administration rejected the Goldstone Report, citing our ambassador to the UN as expecting it to remain before the Human Rights Council. Well, yes. That’s where the report was born.â€
Sorry again. Congress rejected the Goldstone report in a November 3, 2009 vote. It was HR 867 and the vote was 344 to 36. They called on the Obama administration to reject the report. Obama did make clear that he was uncomfortable with the Goldstone Report, but, in the words of Israel Today, “refrained from making any decisive statements on the matter.â€
When Congress calls on you to do something, it is indicative that you didn’t do it yet.
Bottom line is that the president did not reject the report. Congress did. He did not respond when they called him to do the same. R’ Shafran’s use of the “Well, yes†expression is, I am sorry to say, deceptive and propagandistic in nature.
• Is R’ Shafran seriously trying to argue that President Obama didn’t mistreat Netanyahu at that March 23, 2010 meeting? I read it again. And again: “Perhaps he did [mistreat Bibi], but Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren didn’t think so.†That’s right. On May 4, he first explained that it was not a snub—42 days later.
In other words, a full six weeks after every paper and media outlet in the country reports a snub, it takes six weeks to issue a correction? An ambassador’s job is to ensure good relations between the host country and your own country, so what is going on here? It’s called “patching things up.†This is what ambassadors do. Oren claiming that “no photo-ops†is the norm on non-state visits is just posturing. It isn’t true and wasn’t true at last year’s visit either.
R’ Shafran knows that it was a snub and also knows that Oren was laudably trying to patch things up. He is being disingenuous here.
• “Mr. Lorberbaum derides Mr. Obama for opposing settlement construction in Israel and backing the “two state†solution. Whatever any of us may think of either of those positions, they have been part of American policy for long before Mr. Obama appeared on the scene.â€
Not really. Policies change from administration to administration. And realities change too. The rise of Hamas has thrown such a kink into the “two-state solution†that even Egypt and Jordan are reconsidering it as a viable option. The world has enough problems with one Islamist militant state, in Iran. Pursuit of these two agendas in these times is dangerous—both for Israel and for the world. R’ Shafran arguing that “they have been part of American policy†for a long time is another disingenuous way of arguing.
• R’ Shafran raised the possible accusation that religious Jews disagree with the Obama administration not on his track record but possibly because of racism. He writes, “Although I . . . did raise the issue in my essay, it was, pointedly, in the context of stating my hope and belief that prejudice plays no part in the animus for Mr. Obama in some of our circles.â€
I am sorry, but this is Terrible with a capital “T.†This is melamed z’chus on K’lal Yisrael? Readers are at a loss whether to respond with “How dare he?†or “How could he?†To lay aside that Jews are concerned about his track record and to claim that it might be the color of our president’s skin that drives our view of his record is unconscionable and requires an apology.
• R’ Shafran went to pains to point out that this article was his own view and he was not speaking on Agudah’s behalf. Two words: “Thank G-d.â€
• A last thought for now. The point was stressed that the missile defense package was good for Israel. It was also pointed out that right before a mid-term election in which a president can lose a lot of ground in the House and Senate, it is prudent to position oneself wisely. R’ Shafran said, “This was May.â€
Yes, it was May. Six months before the election. That’s when you start positioning yourself wisely according to all political advisors. This was exactly on cue.
As noted by Rabbi Shafran at the beginning of his piece, in a previous article I had described his article as “mind-bogglingly deceptive.â€
Begrudgingly, this description must remain, on account of the shortage and natural limitations of adequate superlatives in the English language to describe the sheer audacity of the smokescreen. So, for the time being, it will have to do.
The author may be reached at maninthemikveh@gmail.com.
Add comment
This Week's Issue
Map of Eruv
Reach thousands of readers.
Advertise Weekly in The 5 Towns Jewish Times. Find out how our sales team can help you reach your advertising goals.
Call: (516) 569-0502
Login
Website Counter
Today
14318
Yesterday
31941
We have: 39 guests, 54 bots online Today: May 16, 2012
5TJT RSS Feed