Today World Jewish Congress President Ron Lauder published an open letter taking President Obama to task over his Middle East policy. Which is his prerogative - everyone is entitled to their opinion. But Lauder goes a step too far when he claims to speak not only for himself but for Jews everywhere. Lauder - as a Republican American Jew - is by definition part of a small minority of American Jews (the vast majority of American Jews are Democrats and voted for Obama), and part of an even smaller number of Jews the world over (who are not invested in American partisan politics).
Lauder all but accuses Obama of being anti-Israel - of acting in ways that have caused the "deterioration of diplomatic relations" between Israel and the US. But that's not all. Lauder, still speaking on behalf of Jews everywhere, demands answers.
What chutzpah!
Lauder all but accuses Obama of being anti-Israel - of acting in ways that have caused the "deterioration of diplomatic relations" between Israel and the US. But that's not all. Lauder, still speaking on behalf of Jews everywhere, demands answers.
What chutzpah!
The man is a hypocrite.
Lauder says he wants to know: what are President Obama's views on final borders? Because, he alleges, Jews are worried. But Lauder didn't raise these concerns when George W. Bush was in office. Bearing in mind that Bush never laid out more than general positions on borders. The most detailed thing Bush said was: "As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes..."
But Lauder apparently objects to similar positions when articulated by the Obama Administration. Like when Secretary of State Clinton said: "Through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements." Or when President Obama said: "The goal is clear: a Jewish state of Israel with true security for all Israelis; a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967."
Lauder also demands (on behalf of all Jews) to know what are the Obama Administration's strategic ambitions in the broader Middle East - but then makes clear that this is a rhetorical question. Lauder goes so far as to make the outrageous suggestion that Obama is deliberately undermining US-Israel relations as part of an "appeasement" strategy to make the Muslim world happy. And then of course there is the cherry on the sundae - Iran. Lauder's point? Apparently he thinks he represents all Jews when he suggests that by trying to pursue Middle East peace, President Obama is actually hurting the chances of stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
This "general" has no soldiers.
Leaving out the question of Jews around the world, let's just focus on American Jews. And here it is evident that Lauder doesn't read polls - or ignores polls that say things he doesn't want to hear.
Like the recent poll conducted by the American Jewish Committee (not a lefty organization by any measure) that found that 73% of American Jews characterize current relations between Israel and the US as positive or somewhat positive. And that 55% approve of the Obama Administration's handling of US-Israel relations. And that 47% approve of the Obama Administration's handling of the Iran nuclear issue.
Or the recent J Street poll that found that 82% of American Jews want the US to play an active role in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict; 73% support this "even if it means that the United States were to publicly state its disagreements with both the Israelis and the Arabs"; and 72% support "the United States 'exerting pressure' on both the Israelis and the Arabs to make the necessary compromises to achieve peace. Indeed, the poll found that 52% "still support an active role even if the United States were to publicly state its disagreements with only Israel."
So where does Lauder get off implying that he is speaking for American Jews, let alone Jews everywhere?
Why doesn't he ask Bibi some questions?
If Lauder is truly worried about the state of US-Israel relations, he should start asking serious questions. Not of Obama, but of his friend Benjamin Netanyahu, who Lauder confirmed approved his letter before it was published.
He should ask Bibi: why does your government seem determined to embarrass and humiliate the Obama Administration at every turn? Why have you decided that it is good for Israel to take on a popular US president? Do you really think that the interests of Israel are served by manufacturing crisis after crisis? Do you think it is good for Israel to create a zero-sum choice for US: either tailor your foreign policy to suit this Israeli government (regardless of what impact this has on the US foreign policy goals or national security) or live with constant friction?
And then there is Iran. Lauder should ask Bibi the obvious question: why does your government seem determined to hand pretext after pretext to extremists in Iran and throughout the region around which they can rally support? And if your government is really worried about Iran, why on earth are you not doing everything you can to cooperate with and support US efforts on this issue?
Lauder speaks only for a frightened few.
Thankfully, Lauder doesn't speak for all or even most Jews. At best he may represent a minority in the American Jewish community - people who no doubt truly care about Israel and talk about peace, but who apparently cannot accept the steps necessary to achieve it.
And while the majority of American Jews desperately hope that Obama is serious about achieving Middle East peace (even if they may believe it is a long shot), Lauder at best speaks for a minority that is terrified that Obama is serious, and in all likelihood is praying he will fail.
Lauder says he wants to know: what are President Obama's views on final borders? Because, he alleges, Jews are worried. But Lauder didn't raise these concerns when George W. Bush was in office. Bearing in mind that Bush never laid out more than general positions on borders. The most detailed thing Bush said was: "As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes..."
But Lauder apparently objects to similar positions when articulated by the Obama Administration. Like when Secretary of State Clinton said: "Through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements." Or when President Obama said: "The goal is clear: a Jewish state of Israel with true security for all Israelis; a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967."
Lauder also demands (on behalf of all Jews) to know what are the Obama Administration's strategic ambitions in the broader Middle East - but then makes clear that this is a rhetorical question. Lauder goes so far as to make the outrageous suggestion that Obama is deliberately undermining US-Israel relations as part of an "appeasement" strategy to make the Muslim world happy. And then of course there is the cherry on the sundae - Iran. Lauder's point? Apparently he thinks he represents all Jews when he suggests that by trying to pursue Middle East peace, President Obama is actually hurting the chances of stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
This "general" has no soldiers.
Leaving out the question of Jews around the world, let's just focus on American Jews. And here it is evident that Lauder doesn't read polls - or ignores polls that say things he doesn't want to hear.
Like the recent poll conducted by the American Jewish Committee (not a lefty organization by any measure) that found that 73% of American Jews characterize current relations between Israel and the US as positive or somewhat positive. And that 55% approve of the Obama Administration's handling of US-Israel relations. And that 47% approve of the Obama Administration's handling of the Iran nuclear issue.
Or the recent J Street poll that found that 82% of American Jews want the US to play an active role in resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict; 73% support this "even if it means that the United States were to publicly state its disagreements with both the Israelis and the Arabs"; and 72% support "the United States 'exerting pressure' on both the Israelis and the Arabs to make the necessary compromises to achieve peace. Indeed, the poll found that 52% "still support an active role even if the United States were to publicly state its disagreements with only Israel."
So where does Lauder get off implying that he is speaking for American Jews, let alone Jews everywhere?
Why doesn't he ask Bibi some questions?
If Lauder is truly worried about the state of US-Israel relations, he should start asking serious questions. Not of Obama, but of his friend Benjamin Netanyahu, who Lauder confirmed approved his letter before it was published.
He should ask Bibi: why does your government seem determined to embarrass and humiliate the Obama Administration at every turn? Why have you decided that it is good for Israel to take on a popular US president? Do you really think that the interests of Israel are served by manufacturing crisis after crisis? Do you think it is good for Israel to create a zero-sum choice for US: either tailor your foreign policy to suit this Israeli government (regardless of what impact this has on the US foreign policy goals or national security) or live with constant friction?
And then there is Iran. Lauder should ask Bibi the obvious question: why does your government seem determined to hand pretext after pretext to extremists in Iran and throughout the region around which they can rally support? And if your government is really worried about Iran, why on earth are you not doing everything you can to cooperate with and support US efforts on this issue?
Lauder speaks only for a frightened few.
Thankfully, Lauder doesn't speak for all or even most Jews. At best he may represent a minority in the American Jewish community - people who no doubt truly care about Israel and talk about peace, but who apparently cannot accept the steps necessary to achieve it.
And while the majority of American Jews desperately hope that Obama is serious about achieving Middle East peace (even if they may believe it is a long shot), Lauder at best speaks for a minority that is terrified that Obama is serious, and in all likelihood is praying he will fail.
Tweet
Email a friend
feed
twitter
facebook
Lara Friedman,
Peace Now does not speak for the Jewish People. In fact, Peace Now is a very small minority of Jews, detested by the majority. Further, in Israel, Peace Now is almost non-existent, since it became clear to all and sundry that the policies of this ideology were bankrupted.
Example:The so-called Oslo Peace accords, the rejection by Arafat of Barak and Clinton's proposals for peace which were almost identical to the Peace Now position at the time.
I am not a member of Peace Now, or the right wing organisations, However, I find it outrageous that this organisation proports to peaks on behalf of the Jewish People. Enough!
Harry
Nowhere in this post did I claim that I or APN speak for the Jewish people. If you have an issue with my analysis or the polling I cited, (including polling by a non-lefty group) feel free to state your case. But please, don't just make stuff up and then rant about it.
I salute Mr. Lauder. This general, Mr. Lauder, did speak for me and he surly has many soldiers. I wish you attended the meeting with Rep. Brad Sherman, a great supporter of Israel (more than you for sure). Rep. Sherman got an earful about BHO from a crowd of some 500 Jews who voiced the same concerns as Mr. Lauder at Temple Aliyah. If you were there, you would have understood how out of touch you are. More power to Mr. Lauder for his courage.
Laura;
I welcome your courage and find it quite refreshing to speak your mind with a voice of intellect and patience. It takes a collective reasoning to understand this is the only way forward to arrive at final out come for Middle East Peace and humanity.As past history tells us this may be what Lauder and Netanyahu may fear the most. And who knows maybe our prayers will finally be answered!
Sam
Lara:
I think that Mr. Lauder as the president of WJC and certainly has standing to write what he wrote, even though I'd personally be far more inclined to give President Obama's tough-love approach a chance. I do want Obama to succeed, desperately so. Respectfully, however, I think it's inaccurate and ultimately not productive to suggest that President Obama and his Administration are not sending new and challenging signals through leaks, etc. (e.g. with ugly innuendo that Dennis Ross has a dual loyalty problem). I also believe that APN, if it really intends to play a constructive and more prominent role, needs to recognize that such signals are likely to cause many Jews who support a peaceful two-state solution to become unsettled and less inclined to stand with the president as he begins to tread the turbulent waters of Middle East peacemaking.
Finally, I also think that the most recent survey on American Jews that I have seen shows a trend that is different than what is reflected in the surveys you cite in your blogost (although I have no idea how credible this polling outfit is).
http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/lib/sitefiles/National_Jewish_Memo_0410.pdf
P.S. Regards to Marty from Mark and Ellen's son-in-law.
Bruce
Madam,
Lauder did not raise these concerns when George Bush was in office because this president supported and loved Israel, UNLIKE YOUR PRESIDENT!
The hypocrite is YOU, Mrs Friedman.
But apart from being hypocrite, you are also very naive and that naivety does not come from misinformation;
Your position derives from a"TRENDY" current liberal left SNOBISM that many "so called educated" american Jews have embraced,
very much following the European trend,
rejecting the essence of their origin out of shame or just out of assimilation,
to the point of not differentiating anymore what is right from wrong, what is just from unjust, what is fair from unfair.
This was this same naivety problem and "snobism" of many German Jews in the years that lead to the Second World War.
Jews like you, Jew with a jewish name ONLY,
ISRAEL DOES NOT NEED
Ms. Lara,
Thank you for this great read. Upon perusing through that letter to President Obama, I found a just few quick points that I also wanted to bring attention to.
The Letter states:
"This diplomatic faux pas was over the fourth stage of a seven stage planning permission process - a plan to build homes years from now in a Jewish area of Jerusalem that under any peace agreement would remain an integral part of Israel."
I dont know from where exactly Mr. Lauder ever found the land for the news 1600 settlements in East Jerusalem to be "Jewish area". The area for this proposed building has been always majority Palestinian and a logical part of the Palestinian area.
"Why does the thrust of this Administration's Middle East rhetoric seem to blame Israel for the lack of movement on peace talks? After all, it is the Palestinians, not Israel, who refuse to negotiate."
I can say the next with almost God-given certainity. Had a neighboring government already occupying & blockading my land suddenly at the onset of our peace talks announce further expansion and claim Jerusalem as just simply the "Jewish" capital; I dont know about Hamas, Fatah or the Palestinians in general but even I, an unassuming and calm man for the most part, would be reluctant to talk.
Lets not also forget that President Mahmoud Abbas was looking forward to direct negotiations with PM Netanyahu but has since withdrawn until the settlement building is halted so as to achieve a fair and just decision for border security for both the Israelis and Palestinians.
"The Administration's desire to improve relations with the Muslim world is well known. But is friction with Israel part of this new strategy? Is it assumed worsening relations with Israel can improve relations with Muslims? History is clear on the matter: appeasement does not work. It can achieve the opposite of what is intended."
There are so many fallacies here that I dont know where to honestly begin. For the first part, the whole point for Obama's mission towards out-reach to the broader Middle East and the Muslim world is ENTIRELY for the sake of Israel and the world at large. Asking whether friction with Israel is part of this policy is to almost say that the US is risking its own security when it chooses diplomacy over war in solving this crisis, which is certainly not the case. Abraham Lincoln once commentated that the basis for good foreign policy has always been "extending a hand rather than clenching our fists", which is precisely what the Obama administration hopes to do with the Muslim world for the safety of Israel as well as the United States. This isn't "appeasement"; its peace, reconciliation and negotiation and Im proud to say that this is also stern mission of APN's as well.
"Israel is not only America's closest ally in the Middle East, it is the one most committed to this Administration's declared aim of ensuring Iran does not get nuclear weapons."
I beg to consider that how does Israel becomes the "most committed to this administration's declared aim..." when it rejected the invitation for the 47 country Nuclear summit that convened to address directly the issue of Nuclear technology going into the wrong hands and to solve it through a joint, global mission towards nuclear nonproliferation.
So these questions must then be asked: If Israel is so "committed", does it disagree on just this portion of the administration's stance when it refused the invitation? Does Israel not hold the common vision for a safer and more peaceful world not just for itself but for all through gradual nonproliferation and disarmament that the two leading nuclear arsenal holders in US and Russia have already agreed upon?
"Our great country and the tiny State of Israel have long shared the core values of freedom and democracy."
Again I beg to differ. The democratic roots of United States hold little in common to what Israel is pushing forward with today. We have virtually an apartheid state with a Palestinian majority in Israel. When we have a government that makes open announcements for settlement expansions without just compensation or a respect of due process to those whose life, liberty and property have been & will be marred in the process, it doesn't go to stand on the side of democracy either.
That is far from democracy and far from what the United States Constitution & Bill of Rights guarantees each of its citizens.
Thanks again for all your work, Ms. Friedman.
There should be no doubt that Israel has the right to live and live peacefully. However that is a goal that can only be fulfilled when each side works towards the needs of each others and rather "extend a hand rather clenching a fist". Netanyahu said it himself at the recent AIPAC convention that "Peace requires reciprocity" and Israel can do more towrads peace than rejecting invitations and making announcements that only go to further incite sentiments against Israel that have led to this crisis.
Look forward towards reading more of your work, Ms. Friedman!
Elie Wiesel has just posted his open letter to BHO (Google it. It's everywhere!) I suppose that Mr. Wiesel does not speak for Jews like you either. Who does speak for you? How about Ahmadinijad?
Dear Lara, you express your personal opinion. My opinion is different: Today is a big international antisemitic attacks on Israel/jews from UN, USA, UK, Sweeden, Turkey,.... A/S is acting direct and indirect (uncover, using another hands). Every jew supporting voice is valueable. President R.Lauder acted realistic and properly to defend Jewish/Israeli positions. I have more idea to involve VERY IMPORTANT President voice in jewish public live. Please contact me. Sincerely, Vlad.
Lara
You're getting a lot of heat for this article.
I thought Mr Dershowitz attested no one gets attacked for critical comments on Israeli policy?
Mr Lauder's Billions obviously qualifies him to take out a full page add with Bibi's blessing and play the wounded lover.
Strange is it not that he wants an end to the public feud and yet so publically states this...(against the norms of diplomatic protocol).
What you have here is a clique of self appointed (wealthy) scoundrels claiming to speak for American Jewry.
In my humble opinion you are not a Jew. I suspect that your last name really is spelled Freidmann.
The steps necessary towards peace is for the Palestinians and the rest of the Jew Hater countries in the Middle East is as follows
1) Stop calling for the eradication of all Jews.
2) Stop murderer bombings
3) Stop supporting terrorism
4) Stop murdering innocent Israeli men, woman and children
5) Stop the rocket attacks against Israel
6) Stop teaching Hate The Jews agenda in Moslem schools.
7) Stop being the uncivilized Arab and Palestinian thugs.
8) Stop the smuggling of Tunisian Nationals and weapons into Gaza and The West Bank.
9) Stop the plans to invade Israel again.
10) Stop the evil rhetoric against Jews and other Nationalities.
11) Stop lying about the past and face the fact that the "Palestinians" that left Israel in 1948 did so because they were told by The Grand Muftee to do so. They turned their back on Israel just as they turned there back to Jerusalem to face Mecca.
12) Stop the lying about Gaza and the West Bank.
Egypt did not want to keep Gaza so it left it to the Israeli'. The West Bank was occupied by the Jordanians in 1948 it was not theirs.
Josephus was a traitor and spy for the Romans. You are the spokesman for murderers of Jews.
Lara,
You are right on here. The stupidity of the Im Tirzu supporters and those who question our loyalty as Jews is despicable. These maniacs are a joke (unfortunately a serious one). But keep up the great work.
You speak for the long term survival of Israel and the Jewish people. That is what these fools fail to see.
wberl
Friedman into Friedmann??
What is this, Mississipi Burning
This is classic nonsense. First you do the usual AIPAC activist line of gutter insults. Second you put causality on it's head. Anyone who doesn't agree with your KKK view of the world
You catalogue the evil Palestinians perpretrate.
If the Palestinians had been Buddists or Hindus you would villify murder and rape them with equal measure and zeal. The propaganda machinery you control would have advanced your narrative and you're alone.
Being self righteous and smug in your ignorance of other cultures is no answer to Moral Superiority. Indeed such "superiority" looks quite foolish in the light of facts on the ground.
I'm sure in your mind these Palestinian "Darkies" are an inconvenient truth.
I wonder if the Mohawk Americans will rise up and reclaim their God given right to NEW YORK?