Today the situation has changed dramatically. While there is evidence that, overall, Americans have become more pro-Israel, there has been an erosion of support for Israel among far-left elements in the Democratic Party who strongly support Obama. The debates over resolutions relating to Israel at the last Democratic convention highlighted the emergence of intensifying hostility. Over the past few months, the attitude of the president and his administration toward Israel has dramatically deteriorated. Israel was unfairly blamed for the breakdown in the U.S. peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. More recently, Secretary of State John Kerry shocked Israelis by attempting to substitute Egypt with pro-Hamas Qatar and Turkey as mediators of a Gaza cease-fire agreement — a step that could have been disastrous for Israel had it not been thwarted. Obama has not treated Israel as befits an ally. The State Department has condemned Israel for civilian casualties, describing its actions as “disgraceful” and “appalling,” while the president referred to thousands of rockets from Hamas as “extraordinarily irresponsible” and even indicated that Israel is obligated to lift the blockade, with no regard to security requirements. In effect, he related to Israel and Hamas in terms of moral equivalency. Regrettably, Obama’s condemnations encouraged the rest the world to demonize Israel and allowed Hamas to believe that continuing the war and sacrificing civilians would ultimately lead to global action to force Israel to concede to its demands. This week, the U.S. upped the ante by introducing new restrictions on the provision of arms supplies to Israel. Yet not a single criticism of White House policy was heard from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the American Jewish Committee or the Anti-Defamation League. American Jewish leaders are certainly not indifferent to events. Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice president of the Presidents Conference, has a proven record of devoted and passionate commitment to Israel and the Zionist cause and orchestrated large numbers of effective solidarity demonstrations on behalf of Israel. There is also no doubt that Jewish organizations like AIPAC, whose efforts over the years have achieved bipartisan congressional support for Israel, have been striving quietly to promote the case for Israel to the White House. What is difficult to accept is the reluctance to publicly repudiate the offensive statements concerning Israel emanating from Obama and White House spokesmen. In the past, some Jewish leaders have argued that by speaking up, they would be denied access to the White House. Today that argument is no longer relevant because meaningful access to Jewish leaders is probably more limited than it has ever been in the past half-century. It seems that the Jewish leadership has decided that confronting Obama would only further polarize the situation, encouraging him to be even more critical toward Israel. There were also concerns that criticizing the White House could result in some Democratic legislators abandoning them in favor of their president. There are also concerns that after the November congressional elections, Obama will feel free to do whatever he wishes until his term expires. Thus, they have decided that it would be “safer” to concentrate on silent diplomacy and strengthen the relationship with Congress. Admittedly, these issues of where to draw the line between silent diplomacy and public action are complex and frequently confront Jewish leaders in democratic countries. It is noteworthy that even in relation to Soviet Jewry, initially there were major arguments about the potential terrible consequences protests could incur on Soviet Jews. In most cases, a twin-track approach was adopted. But, since those successful campaigns, American Jews have prided themselves on speaking out and have even derided other Diaspora Jewish communities for remaining silent. Today, despite the concerns about further polarization, the leadership of the Jewish community is failing to fulfill its mandate if it remains silent when the White House makes negative statements while Israel is locked in a bitter war with genocidal terrorists. In the wake of the inexplicable silence by the Jewish leadership on the New York Metropolitan Opera’s performance of the anti-Semitic “The Death of Klinghoffer,” questions are being raised as to whether Jewish leaders are unconsciously drifting back to the “trembling Israelites” approach of the 1940s. There is an urgent need for soul-searching by the American Jewish leadership. Failure to respond to such provocative outbursts from the White House sends a message of weakness that the Jewish community is no longer willing to publicly confront hostility, and could lead to a significant erosion of American Jewry’s political influence. American Jewish leaders may be motivated by good intentions, but there are means of expressing dissent and retaining respect and dignity. Their ongoing public silence is likely to be condemned by future historians. Isi Leibler’s
Posted on: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 21:08:41 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015