Home

A few weeks ago I found myself punching away at my keyboard, writing passionately about the extreme negativity by some national columnists regarding the Obama administration's Middle East policies. Essays by these writers have been published widely in many in-print and online forums and circulated in pro-Israel circles. My intent, in writing the column, was to present an alternative view and provoke some thoughtful discussion. The column was printed in mid-June in The Jewish State.

I ended up sparking a very different debate, with some folks whom I respect -- even though I disagree with their political opinions and tactics. I also received a very sarcastic and nasty email from a respectable person with ties to our local community.

To a large degree, the fault is my own. Though the column was mostly written as a critique of a select number of prominent opinion writers, I gave my essay the title "Chicken Little Zionists" and mentioned that the columns were forwarded on communal list-servs and personal email lists. I described the writings of the Obama critics with strong terms such as "panicked reviews" and "sage, self-justifying pronouncements" and "prophets of disaster." I stated that their views were "premature, poorly reasoned, and glaringly partial." The title and the tenor of my essay were unnecessarily derisive. And from the context, my comments appeared to be a broad and cold denouncement of grass-roots level Israel activists and not the national columnists.

This was an error on my part, in tone and approach, which I regret. To any passionate Israel activist, whether a resident of central New Jersey or a former resident now living in Israel, who read my column as a personal indictment, I apologize.

Another reason why my essay strayed from its intended effect was perhaps due to a bit unanticipated editing by The Jewish State.

In the essay I submitted to the newspaper, I included a paragraph that offered a rationale for why the Obama administration may be using some rhetoric or adopting a policy that does not reflect the importance of the U.S./Israel alliance and appears as a rather qualified endorsement of Israel's perspective. I wrote, in part:

"I'm also mindful that I'm not the president of the United States and have the freedom to choose and act on opinions that reflect only my staunch belief in the justice of Israel's cause. As president, Barack Obama must balance support for Israel with efforts to reinforce alliances with a number of moderate Arab/Muslim countries whose support is desperately needed to effectively fight the continuing war against Islamist terror."

This paragraph did not make it into the final version printed by The Jewish State.

Mind you, as an editor in my day job I understand how last-minute space constraints can prompt less-than-optimal editing. So I don't fault the editors of The Jewish State. But I do see why my article came off less well-reasoned than I intended.

Accepting both shortcomings, I believe that there is still a need to discuss what has become "conventional wisdom" in many quarters of our local Jewish community. In considering the intensity of anti-Obama views, I would also point out that I am not the only commentator who suggests that the rush to label Obama an "enemy" of Israel is either premature or ill-founded.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz stated that Holocaust survivor and noted author Elie Wiesel "had no doubt that the U.S. leader bore no anti-Israel sentiments." The paper quoted Wiesel as stating: "I can say with complete certainty that Obama does not hate Israel. It would be foolish to say he is anti-Israel. He is concerned with the suffering of the Jewish people and by what is happening in Israel."

Noted Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz made many similar points in a recent essay in the Wall Street Journal. He received considerable subsequent criticism from other prominent Israel advocates for this column.

Rabbi Avi Safran, director of public affairs at Agudath Israel of America, made a related point in a column posted on the Cross Currents blog. Examining President Obama's Cairo speech, he spends little time lamenting the shortcomings and instead commends the president for publicly calling out the Palestinians for the tendency to wallow in anti-Israel incitement.

Joel Brinkley, a former New York Times writer who covered Israel, noted in a column published first in the San Francisco Chronicle and later reprinted in the Star-Ledger that Obama's criticism of Israeli settlement expansion is not novel. It was amply preceded by strikingly similar criticism voiced in the Reagan administration, the Carter administration, the (first) Bush administration, and the Clinton administration.

There is more evidence to cite, and perspectives to consider, but (as I alluded to above) space is at a premium in a weekly newspaper. I believe that a fair amount of disappointment in the Obama team's departure from the Bush administration's unusually warm and uncritical embrace of Israel is understandable. Additionally, a degree of guardedness with any new president's approach to Israel is certainly warranted.

I would hope, however, that neither perspective deters thoughtful pro-Israel activists from considering all the relevant facts and desired outcomes in current U.S. Middle East policy before pronouncing final judgment.

Harry Glazer invites responses at donlegofzechut@yahoo.com.