What happened to the good sense he seemed to exhibit as an ambassador?
Michael Oren, the American-born, former ambassador of Israel to the US — he of skilled tongue, eloquent pen and brilliant mind — made a colossal blunder last week. It is hard to believe how somebody so polished and, on the outside at least, so adroit, could have been so utterly blind to the consequences of his action. It calls into question, in retrospect, his entire service as ambassador and makes one wonder whether a good part of the difficulties between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu originated with, or were exacerbated by, Michael Oren.
Last week Oren published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal detailing how President Obama abandoned Israel. The op-ed is apparently an abstract of Oren’s new book on the severe strains in Israel-US relations, over which Oren, in part, presided.
In Oren’s article, many purely private — or, at the very least, many hitherto, extremely well guarded — details of negotiations and discussions between Israel and the US, and between Obama and Netanyahu, were disclosed. We shall assume for the purposes of this editorial that everything Oren wrote was completely accurate. Some dispute him. Some say he overdrew the picture in saying that Netanyahu’s mistakes were unintentional, and Obama’s mistakes were intentional. We think that Oren has the better part of the argument — which is not the issue. Not the blunder.
The blunder is this:
Breach of confidentiality.
Undermining the process of diplomacy.
Fomenting distrust.
The unequivocal message from Israel to the US presidency delivered by Oren’s op-ed is that, before a presidency is out, while the main actors (President and Prime Minister) are still on the stage, still in charge, Israel’s highest diplomatic personnel cannot be trusted to keep the content of their relationship confidential.
Needless to say, many details of diplomacy are known almost simultaneously with their occurrence. This is in the natural course of bilateral and international relationships. Many details — but not all. Not the most sensitive. Not the ones that really count. Not the ones that end up under the 50-year diplomatic seal. Yes, that’s precisely what Oren unveiled. What was he thinking?
Was he thinking that a newspaper article could heal a relationship that some five years of his own intensive diplomacy could not? Was he thinking that a couple of good ideas on how Israel and the US should move forward — set against an ugly picture of President Obama — would now convince Obama or his own high diplomatic personnel to accept Oren’s ideas and perspectives?
Ideas have their power and their place. Part of that power and place is the name attached to the idea. When it is a former ambassador of Israel speaking in a highly uncomplimentary way about a president of the US still in office, and about the delicacies of a fraught relationship still unfolding, the idea loses its credibility. The only possible Obama administration response to an op-ed such as this is: Why didn’t you tell us your thinking when you were in a position of authority, a position to make a difference?
Some of Oren’s accusations against Obama go back to 2009. Surely Oren had the opportunity then, and long after, to make his ideas known to the Obama administration about how to improve the US-Israel relationship. Maybe he did make them known — and if so, they obviously were not well received. So what does he think now — that a single, short opinion piece in a newspaper article will make the difference?
For the record, Oren is not responsible for the headline over his article —Obama “abandoned” Israel. It makes no difference. Oren’s article was clear; the headline reflected it. As we say, even assuming Oren was right, it boggles the mind how a man of his experience and scholarship could ignore the context of his ideas. Oren’s article was, after all, not a classic case of diplomatic scholarship, written after the main actors are dead or out of the picture. When they’re still alive and in charge, it’s no time for self-kleptomania — stealing from one’s own experience, access and ideas in order to . . . to what? To advance book sales? To undermine the current ambassador? To put the political heat on his former boss and political rival, Benjamin Netanyahu?
Oren’s piece — against which there’s been plenty of backlash from all sides — is beyond figuring out. It is empty of any sense, Oren’s literary and research expertise notwithstanding.
Copyright © 2015 by the Intermountain Jewish News
