---
There is so much to be frustrated about in this latest episode involving Israeli Policy and the conflicting attitudes of the American Jewish community.
Looking at the press coverage and the reactions of conservatives in both this country and in Israel, one would think Consul General Nadav Tamir sold military secrets to Iran.
So before I even mention how much I admire, respect, and commend Nadav Tamir, it must be made clear that his words of advice and counsel to the Foreign Ministry were nothing more than sound, rational analysis.
As one commentator has already mentioned, the fact that so many are out of sorts by what he wrote is a clear indication of how disconnected some conservatives are from reality and rationality of any kind. Let's also be clear about a couple of other things. The current Foreign Minister - and Likud government - did not get to power on anything close to a majority in Israel. That being the case, towing this party's line with some on-the-record reservations is not necessarily the worst career move. They will be out of power very soon, trust me. And when they are, diplomats like Nadav Tamir can still be able to hold their heads high. Next, the critics of Tamir in Boston listed by the Globe - namely the Russian Immigrant community, Tom Mountain, and Mark Solomon are so far to the right, you might as well give credibility to that wacko in New Hampshire who still doesn't recognize the US Government. Tom Mountain and Mark Solomon mean well, but they are not representative of any major portion of the American Jewish community. They are the fringe - without question. In fact they are part of the very problem that Nadav describes - people who never think Israel does anything wrong and thinks anyone who says so - like Tamir and President Obama - are traitors in some way.
For background on the story, please see these two globe articles. One from Monday and one from Tuesday.
(I am including at the end of this blog what is apparently the full text of Nadav Tamir's memo.)
But what we are really in the middle of here, I believe, can be explained by politics and by an ongoing misunderstanding in Israel of how average Americans react to what the Israeli government does and says.
It seems clear that this memo was leaked precisely because someone wants any critique of Israeli policy stifled. It also seems clear that this could open the door for the removal of a centrist Consul General as opposed to the right wing bozos running the show right now.
As Tamir indicated, and as I will echo, the problem has never really been what Israel DOES or HAS THE RIGHT TO DO. The problem has always been HOW they go about doing things and HOW they go about communicating them. American Jewish community leaders who have looked to information coming out of Israel to reflect something called TACT, and DIPLOMACY have routinely been disappointed. Just last year I sat in on a meeting with the Israeli Ambassador to the UN and an interfaith group in Boston and couldn't believe some of the things he said. Its not that he was wrong about anything, but it was just the words he decided to use and the rhetoric he thought would go over well. This is an old story and it is part of the reason there is often a disconnect between what Israel thinks they are saying to the world and what the world hears. That is largely what Tamir was talking about.
Now to be fair, one needs to understand that this is the way of things. The culture of language in the Middle East is less "burdened" with the nuances and niceties of Western language. Their world is harsher and more direct and so is the way they speak about it. If Israel doesn't feel they neeed to explain why a "complete settlement freeze" is actually a straw man in the current situation where Hamas and Fatah are at war, well they won't. That is exactly why Israel needs diplomats like Nadav Tamir. He is an unequivocal supprter of Israel - but knows how to speak to other communities and diverse constituencies about what that means. If any of you have ever heard him speak you would know that. And if you truly understood the complexities of Israel's situation and the challenges of how that situation is distorted around the globe, you would completely understand his memo.
In summary, Nadav Tamir is an astute diplomat who knows the difference between public opinion and the opinion of conservative Jewry in the US. The American public is a diverse group and it is the goal of many in the Jewish community to try and INCREASE their support of Israel. To do this requires strategy, subtlety, and a knowledge of what they need to hear. None of those has ever been high on the list of what Israel has used in the past to communicate with America. And this is not just my opinion. This has been studied by marketing experts, high profile diplomats, and many community leaders. Even people who support Israel completely believe they are horrible at communicating to the American public.
Specifically, if you look at the memo, Tamir compares the public perception in the US of the Gaza ware versus this latest flare up over settlements. He is absolutely right to say that this situation is causing Israel to lose more support. During Gaza - you had the missiles falling into Sderot and AVERAGE Americans could relate to that and support the retaliation. In this situation, like many others, you have misinformation about settlements the prevailing context and Israel is doing nothing to dispel the misinformation. They are seemingly standing their ground on an issue that, to many Americans, brings sympathy to the Palestinians. Tamir was not reinforcing the misperceptions in America, but simply acknowledging it, and saying how difficult they are to overcome.
Then of course you have his VERY accurate assessment of the way in which MANY in America want to accentuate the APPARENT differences between the Obama administration and the current Israeli government simply because of their politics. If you do not believe this is the case, you are the naive ones not Obama. Look the real story is that if you look at a recent CohenSide blog - you will see the way in which Ehud Barak did exactly what Tamir was talking about. He gave an official response that was a way to frame a POSSIBLE settlement freeze with conditions. And instead of THAT being the consistent message of the government, you have ultra conservatives like Lieberman putting out adamant black and white statements. THAT is what Tamir, as a responsible underling, would like to see end.
As I wrote above, diplomacy requires a strategy. Diplomacy with the US requires strategy and tact. Not only has Israel never been great at that in the past (and they will admit this) the current leadership takes this to a new level.
Once again, based on the reaction, you would think Nadav publicly disagreed with the policy on settlements. He did not. But he does see that issue not being handled well - diplomatically - and he also sees that it is beginning to gain traction in the US with AVERAGE Americans who only see Israel as the bad guy in so many of these situations.
All those who don't see that are sadly insulated in their own conservatism and will never understand what it is going to take to improve public opinion of Israel in the United States. As someone who studies that very issue and has seen its deterioration first hand, to question Nadav Tamir's correct analysis of this growing disconnect is both disturbing and unfortunate.
Reports indicate that Tamir will leave Israel with only a slap on the wrist before he comes back to Boston. But stranger things have happened in situations like this - and it would be a terrible shame if in fact he is asked to resign. People like Nadav Tamir are central to any possible future of peace and security for Israel.
___________________________________________
Pondering American-Israeli relations
In Brief:
During a visit to Israel, I became more aware that we have a damaging misunderstanding regarding the intentions and policies of the American administration. I must note that even if I am wrong in my assessment of the American administration, the way in which we manage our relations nowadays is causing strategic damage to two very important aspects that make up our special relationship and they are the level of intimacy in coordinating policies, and the support of US public opinion towards Israel.
Details:
Many who read this telegram have a more extensive perspective than I do regarding the history of these relations. However, at least during the 16 years in which I have been following the relations, the Israeli attitude was characterized and rightly so by emphasizing the partnership of values and interests among both countries. This attitude favored downplaying tactical differences, and dealing with them in private, in order to create an atmosphere of strategic partnership in the administrations and public opinion.
This attitude has resulted in a high level of trust and a willingness of the [US] administration to coordinate various policies with an effort to overcome differences behind closed doors. The Israeli attitude always favored saying Yes to the Americans, rather than a strict No. It was clear to the [Israeli] decision makers that we were dealing with the most important superpower on earth, as well as our closest ally, which meant making sacrifices in favor of strategic relations on various tactical issues. For example, one might mention Prime Minister Sharon's positive answer to the Road Map despite a long list of reservations, in order to preserve the level of intimacy and coordination. One must note that the two countries have always had differences of opinion regarding the settlements, for example, or the issue of Hamas participating in the Palestinian elections, but the level of coordination between administrations and US public perception of the special relationship were maintained.
The damage to US public opinion is already evident from recently held opinion polls, and is expected to worsen. In my estimation, the media coverage, which presents an image of conflict between the Israeli government and the Obama Administration, damages Israeli support in the public eye more than the criticism due to violence and harming civilians during Cast Lead or during the conflict with Hizbullah in 2006.
Throughout the years, opinion polls have shown that the two most significant factors in US public support are the perception of a partnership in values and interests, and the perception that Israel seeks to end the conflict with its neighbors (hence the consistent public support of our right to self defense). These two parameters have suffered greatly recently. In many American circles, there is a feeling these days, that while the Obama administration tries to resolve global conflicts, it must deal with the refusal to cooperate by governments in Iran, North Korea, and Israel. Aaron Miller's words, spoken after the Obama-Netanyahu meeting, clearly show this feeling. He said it was a meeting between Obama yes we can and Netanyahu no you won't.
The sense of conflict between the Israeli government and the Obama administration places the American Jewish community, which we care so much about, in a problematic position, in which they are forced to choose between the two. You must remember that most of the American Jewish community supported Obama (78 percent), and this conflict distances many of them from the State of Israel.
There are, of course, players in American and Israeli politics who oppose Obama ideologically and are willing to sacrifice the special relationship between the countries to further their own political agenda, but we cannot let these players damage the bipartisan attitude that rightly characterized the conduct of Israeli governments toward the US. In this context, we should look at a positive example, like the success of PM Tony Blair, who was an ideological partner of Clinton, and managed to maintain the strategic alliance between the US and the UK despite the change of governments in the US, due to an understanding that this alliance is more important than minor differences between a Labour-led UK and the Conservative Bush administration.
The distance that emerged between us and the American administration has clear consequences regarding Israeli deterrence in our region, and our global status. The astonishing fact that only 8 percent of Israelis see the Obama administration as friendly, while in the rest of the world he enjoys unprecedented popularity, is very disconcerting. This is no doubt a failure by the Obama administration to communicate with the Israeli public, but we at the Foreign Ministry have an interest in changing this situation, which jeopardizes our ability to present ourselves as the US's only true friend in the Middle East.
Some claim it was the Obama administration that preferred to distance itself from us in order to better its relations with the Muslim world. In my estimation, the administration indeed emphasized these differences before the Cairo address in order to get more attention in the Muslim world. However, since then, they have been making an effort to downplay our disagreements, and we have become the source of public displays of disagreement. Even if those who claim that the Obama administration is trying to distance itself from Israel are right, it is unclear to me why we are doing everything in our power to assist it.
As for our suspicions towards the Obama administrations intentions and willingness to supposedly sacrifice Israeli interests in order to appeal to the Muslim world I do not see any indication of this. In my estimation, the Obama administration realizes that the most significant challenge to American interests stems from the Middle East. Their analysis of the Middle East situation matches the one we have heard from our intelligence community in recent years, namely that during the Bush administration, the US lost its influence and levers in the region for various reasons. The intention of the engagement policy is to renew those levers in order to reverse the decline of US influence in the Middle East in the face of a rise in radical influence, led by Iran and Al-Qaeda.
I do not detect any naivte in the attitudes of the Obama administration. On the contrary, I believe they are much more realistic than their Neoconservative predecessors. An example of this is Obama's refusal to fully support the post-election protesters in Iran and speak out against human rights violations, knowing that these statements will only help the [Iranian] regime, and his preference to focus on a response that will preserve American options regarding the Iranian nuclear program.
The Obama administration is determined to take leadership and create influence levers in order to deal with the two most significant strategic challenges to the State of Israel -- the threat posed by Iran and its minions, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The fact that they are unresolved poses a threat to our way of life as a Jewish and Democratic state.
There is no country on earth that has more to benefit from the American move than us, and I am surprised that we would rather emphasize negative tactical issues over the positive strategic move, and that we focus on the trees instead of the forest (evident in the Israeli responses to various utterances in the Cairo address). Despite the fact that it is hard to isolate the influence of various factors in foreign policy, I think that the engagement policy deserves at least partial credit for the sorry state of the Iranian Mullah regime, and the fact that the Lebanese elections were at least a departure from recent negative trends.
Recommendation:
In order to restore the intimacy and coordination between us and the American administration, and in order to restore our status in public opinion, I suggest that we dramatically change our conduct regarding the Obama administration. Even those of us who suspect the administration's intent (as stated, I am not one of those people) must be reminded that we do not have strategic substitutes for the US, at least not in the foreseeable future.
I suggest that we declare publically that we share the Obama administrations world view and that we are interested in helping promote the policies of empowering moderate forces in the Middle East via an honest attempt at engagement, which will restore American hegemony in the Middle East, and deny radical forces the popularity they enjoyed during the Bush administration.
I suggest that we talk of our ambition for peace and our support of the two state solution more convincingly, and not like we are bowing to American pressure, but like those who understand that this is first and foremost an Israeli interest. I recommend we deal with disagreements regarding construction in the [disputed] territories away from the eyes of the media. History proves that when we present a political initiative, we do not have to deal with other problematic or uncoordinated initiatives.
This does not mean surrendering to every American dictate. As you remember, Prime Minister Sharon refused to promise that we would not respond to missile attacks from Iraq, which meant that the Americans favored destroying rocket launchers placed in Western Iraq in the early days of the American invasion. We shouldn't promise that we won't attack Iran if we feel that all other options have run out because it is indeed a strategic matter, but we must save these discussions for intimate meetings, not the media.
We can continue influencing American policies on Iran, Syria, and the Palestinians far better if we restore our status as partners in the administration's moves, and not a country with which to communicate through State Department briefings, as is done with Venezuela and North Korea.
Sincerely,
Nadav Tamir.
---
