Home

In recent months we've seen doom and gloom analyses of the current state of U.S./Israel relations printed in a number of major media publications.

Open your newspaper, or check your favorite Web site, and you're likely to see essays such as: "The Obama administration sacrifices Israel" (Anne Bayefsky, Fortune magazine), "Obama prepares to throw Israel under the bus" (Melanie Philips, London), "Secret U.S.-Israel Nuke accord in jeopardy" (Eli Lake, Washington Times), "The Obama administration double-deals on Israel" (Anne Bayefsky, Forbes.com), "A rapid and harsh turn against Israel" (Daniel Pipes, Jerusalem Post) and countless others.

The impact of these panicked reviews have been magnified by passionate local Israel supporters who forward many of these pessimistic pronouncements over list-servs and personal email lists, post them on blogs, and print out copies to share with their friends. You can almost sense the communal fear level rising.

I say: Give me a break.

The problem with all these sage, self-justifying pronouncements is that they are often premature and glaringly partial in their grasp of all the facts of specific situations.

A case in point was the Obama administration's actions in connection with the UN's Durban II conference against racism in March. For weeks before the conference the opinion writers of doom were raising red alert. They declared that the president was going to ignore Israeli concerns and send delegates to the conference, where anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiments would be codified into UN documents and granted credence by the attendance of Western representatives.

What happened in the end? After initially exploring participating, and taking part in discussions on the initial resolutions, the Obama administration noted the tenor of the talks and wisely decided to stay away from the conference. And -- perhaps in part due to respect for the U.S. approach -- other Western governments either stayed away from the conference as well or their representatives walked out when Iranian President Ahmadinejad started his talk with his usual anti-Israel canards. What was initially predicted to be an abandonment of Israel became, instead, a broad show of support for the Jewish state by the U.S. and numerous other Western governments.

Did the prophets of disaster recognize their folly? Of course not -- they just moved on the next supposed justification for their anxieties.

Over the past few weeks we've seen a deluge of essays decrying one element of the Obama Administration's new approach towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is to state their unqualified opposition to any expansion of settlements in the West Bank. From the tone of the columns, commentaries, and blog posts in reaction to this move you'd think that President Obama has inflicted severe damage on Israel's capability to defend itself, as opposed to merely restating a facet of U.S. policy which has been in place for the past few decades.

Mind you, I stand with Israel on the justice of the "natural growth" of the settlements that are likely to be retained in any prospective peace plan. And I'm convinced that "settlements" are not the real obstacle to peace, as proven by the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and the subsequent rise of Hamas, who've allowed the launching of over 12,000 missiles at Israel from the now-settlement-free territory.

Alarmist commentators might point out that President Bush faced the same challenge and managed to show more public support for Israel. While this may be true, it is also true that by the end of his presidency U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan were losing ground to the Taliban, Pakistan was tilting toward chaos and dangerous instability, Iran was undeterred in its pursuit of nuclear power, and Syria was openly hostile to U.S. interests.

I think that most reasonable people credit President Obama with trying a new approach, to set a different tone in Middle East perceptions of the U.S. I suggest that instead of raising red alert about any perceived or actual linguistic difference between U.S. administration pronouncements and Israeli policy, Zionist activists keep an eye on the issues that truly impact the vital security and political interests of Israel.

I suggest that these critical questions are the ones that matter most: Are the U.S. and the Western world mounting a serious initiative to rein in Iran's progress toward attaining a nuclear bomb and/or freedom to use it? Keep in mind -- for all his talents and intentions, President Bush's administration was not able to seriously slow down Iran's efforts to secure nuclear weapons.

Is the U.S. continuing to provide Israel with the financial support and military aid that Israel's leaders deem necessary to properly defend their country?

Are U.S. policies placing obstacles to or penalties on terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, or are they treating them as respectable actors in the region?

Is the Western world taking serious steps to counter Islamist terror organizations and support more moderate governments in Lebanon, Pakistan, and Afghanistan?

It is on these issues that we can most meaningfully and soberly assess the Obama administration's impact on Israel.

I propose that we reject the manufactured drama of our partisan compatriots and instead keep our collective communal eyes on the issues that truly matter to Israel's safety and standing in the world.

Harry Glazer is a resident of Highland Park. He invites email responses to this essay and can be reached at donlegofzechut@yahoo.com.