by Israel Hayom
After sparking controversy by saying President Barack Obama deliberately damaged U.S.-Israel ties, the former ambassador says he is anxious about Iran, questions the U.S.'s military credibility and can't keep quiet while Israel's future is in jeopardy.
| 
                                            Dr. Michael Oren                                                
                                                 
|Photo credit: Yehoshua Yosef  | 
Dr. Michael Oren, the former Israeli 
ambassador to the U.S. who is currently a member of the Knesset on the 
Kulanu list, published his new book this week and managed to achieve 
every writer's dream: It sparked an international uproar. 
Oren issued a string of articles and lectures 
to coincide with the launch of his book, "Ally: My Journey Across the 
American-Israeli Divide," thus maximizing interest in this memoir from 
his time as ambassador (2009-2013). In his book he distills his views on
 U.S. President Barack Obama and his attitude toward Israel, and 
particularly his attitude toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin 
Netanyahu. 
Oren's article in the Wall Street Journal
 last week accusing Obama of "purposely damaging Israel-U.S. relations" 
drew outrage from the White House and from its representative in Tel 
Aviv, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, who accused Oren of lying 
and catalogued his book as fiction. 
This week, while visiting New York, Oren took 
the time to conduct a telephone interview with Israel Hayom, saying he 
wrote it out of a sense of duty. 
"The book is very balanced, very fair, with a 
lot of subtle nuances highlighted by a process that began in 2009 when I
 assumed the [ambassador's] post," he says. 
"Everything that I wrote in the book is 
firsthand knowledge; things that I heard in intimate conversations 
behind the scenes. It tells what really happened there. I analyze how we
 got to where we are on critical issues, mainly the administration's 
attitude toward Iran.
"The book was meant to inspire conversation, 
and indeed it does. My hope is that the conversation will be to the 
point, not shallow or personal. It wasn't my intention for it to be like
 this. So far a lot of things have been said about me, including 
personal attacks even by American officials.
"But I have yet to see a real debate about the
 book itself. It has 400 pages about issues that are critical to us, to 
our security. I have no problem being attacked, but let's talk about the
 content too." 
Q: What do you think sparked the personal attacks against you?
"I obviously touched a nerve. I presented the 
truth, and the truth is not always easy to digest. It can hurt 
sometimes. But we don't have a choice -- we have to address this truth. 
The decision to take this path was not easy for me, it wasn't 
convenient, but this was the decision that I made. 
"True, it would have been easier to stay 
quiet. I could have avoided all the personal and direct attacks. It took
 me a year and a half to write the book, but the decision to publish it 
now, almost six months earlier than planned, was timed to encourage a 
debate on the eve of the signing of the nuclear agreement with Iran.
"I was labeled as someone who doesn't tell the
 truth. But is it not true that they held secret talks with Iran for 
seven months without notifying us? Come on. There are things that would 
be very difficult to deny." 
Research on Obama
Q: You talk about Obama and you try to analyze
 his personality and figure out what affected his decisions. Perhaps 
that was a mistake?
"No. There is an entire chapter in the book 
where I describe how I, an ambassador with a background as a historian 
and a researcher, approached fulfilling my duty as an ambassador. I 
researched the people I worked with. In 2009, Obama wasn't as well known
 as he is now, and certainly not to us.
"How did I research him? I read everything he 
wrote. I watched every interview he gave. I gathered all the information
 on anything having to do with him. I read everything that he wrote 
about himself, about his personal link to Islam, about his relationships
 with his father and his stepfather, about his time in Indonesia. If I 
had ignored that aspect, I would not have been fulfilling my duty as an 
ambassador.
"In the book I wrote about some of the 
findings in my research. I came to some fundamental conclusions with the
 aim of figuring out how to get to a point where we could not be taken 
off guard. It wasn't easy to relay these conclusions to officials in 
Israel. As a researcher, I had to piece together a sense of his 
worldview, from which I could derive my conclusions. Everything I did 
was motivated by a sense of responsibility and duty." 
Q: What were your conclusions?
"One of the conclusions, back in 2009, was 
that the president would do anything he could to reach an agreement with
 Iran. In addition, he will always revert back to the Palestinian issue.
 This is a core issue for him. In my book I called it a 'kishka' issue,"
 Oren jokes, using to the Yiddish word for guts.
Q: Why did you emphasize Obama's relationship with Islam?
"I mentioned that at the start of his first 
term he remarked on his Muslim connection at almost every appearance, 
including his inauguration speech. He is the one who emphasized it all 
the time. Even then he was already known as Barack Hussein Obama. The 
middle name was dropped when Republicans began using it against him. But
 until then, he mentioned those things everywhere.
"His first interview with the foreign press 
was at a television station in Dubai. The first meetings he held as 
president were with Muslim leaders. The first official visits he made 
were to Turkey and Egypt. He defined himself as a human bridge between 
the U.S. and what he characterized as the Muslim world.
"It was an entirely revolutionary approach, 
unprecedented in American diplomatic history. As an ambassador I had to 
point this thing out and try to understand where it came from. I 
invested a lot of effort into trying to understand it." 
Q: You say that your analysis is just a 
product of the research tools that you are familiar with, but others 
have assigned a psychological and philosophical nature to your analysis,
 not historical. 
"It is my duty to understand what moves him; 
what touches his heart. He wrote a book and talked about his father. The
 book is difficult and painful, he himself cries in it. Even if I was 
researching [former Israeli Prime Minister David] Ben-Gurion I would 
write something about his emotional side, his heart and his character, 
in order to understand him.
"Part of my impression of him was derived from
 conversations and meetings I had with him. He is physically impressive,
 as is the way he talks. He is very sharp. I don't have an ounce of 
contempt. There may be disagreements, but disagreements are legitimate 
and they are critical for us." 
Q: How can this debate, now, prevent a bad deal with Iran? 
"It is possible to encourage a debate on the 
nature of the agreement, on what led to the agreement. The prevalent 
assumption here, for example, is that everything began with the prime 
minister's address to Congress. No, no. There are much deeper roots to 
this situation that we are in today.
"But in order to know how to move forward, we 
have to understand the past. I have a lot of respect for the past as a 
historian, even though in this case the past is not that distant. It is 
important to always go back to the root. 
"In the book I checked back and looked at the 
Cairo speech [Obama's 2009 address at Cairo University]. Even then there
 were signals that he was headed toward an agreement with Iran. In that 
speech he said that Iran had a right to nuclear energy for peaceful 
purposes. A remark like that, made by an American president in 2009, was
 revolutionary." 
Q: So you were the first to see it. But the bottom line is this: Is Obama a bad, problematic president for Israel?
"Everyone in Israel only reads the criticism 
coming from the Left, but not the Right. In the U.S. there are people 
who think that my book is too flattering to Obama. I wrote unequivocally
 that he is not anti-Israel. He helped us at critical times, like during
 the Carmel fire. There is a very touching passage in the book where I 
described how he helped Israel in those hours, but ..."
Q: Yes, but on critical issues, is he aligned with Israel's enemies? 
"Wait, I want to finish my sentence. He is a 
president whose worldview is very different from anything we have 
encountered in years. Perhaps we have never encountered anyone with his 
kind of worldview. This worldview challenges the entire Israeli 
government, even the Center-Left parties, both on the Iranian issue and 
on the Palestinian issue. 
"The current administration does not 
distinguish between someone building an extra room in Gilo and 
construction in a neighborhood of Itamar. It is true that the personal 
chemistry [between Obama and Netanyahu] hasn't helped improve relations,
 but people may not remember that it hasn't always been a honeymoon 
between the leaders of Israel and the U.S. Not between [David] 
Ben-Gurion and [Dwight] Eisenhower and not between [Yitzhak] Shamir and 
[George H.W.] Bush.
"But the bond between the two countries is 
deep, serious and real. It is a bond between nations, not between 
individuals. So what can I say? It is a challenge."
Q: You are avoiding coming out and saying that this administration is bad for Israel.
"It is challenging. What do you mean by 'bad'?
 On the Iranian issue, it is very, very problematic. It is not a 
question of legacy or respect. It is a question of our future and our 
children's future. It is no laughing matter." 
Q: In the book you reflect on things that you saw and analyses that you made.
"I'll tell you one thing: I would not be able 
to live with myself had I not said what I did, at this time. I am very 
anxious. I believe that Israel is facing an existential danger in the 
Iranian threat. As the years have gone by, that feeling has only grown 
stronger for me. There are those who insist that I should have kept my 
mouth shut. I can't even begin to understand that. How can anyone keep 
quiet when this is the situation we are facing?" 
Q: That is why I am asking again: Did Obama 
abandon Israel's security for the sake of getting closer to the 
Iranians? Otherwise how would you explain his conduct?
"You have to ask him. Let's put it this way: 
He insisted throughout the years that he has our backs. He has been 
saying for years that all the options are on the table. One of the 
statements that he kept repeating was, 'I'm not bluffing.' And suddenly,
 in a [recent] interview with [Israeli journalist] Ilana Dayan, he said 
that there is no military option." 
Q: So he was bluffing after all?
"You can draw your own conclusions. I was 
surprised by that remark. For me, it raised some very serious questions 
about the credibility of the American military threat. Now he is saying 
outright that there is no real military option? We as Israelis have to 
take these things seriously, regardless of whether we are on the left or
 right side of the political spectrum.
"Think back to heated debate in 2012 over 
whether Israel could rely on anyone else or had to rely on itself [to 
confront the Iranian threat].
"The same is true for one of the points of 
contention between Israel and the U.S.: the question whether the Iranian
 regime is rational. Obama gave an interview and said that they were 
anti-Semites but not irrational; that they operate on the basis of a 
cost-benefit analysis; that they would not jeopardize their survival 
just for the nuclear program; that they have the potential to become a 
stabilizing power in the Middle East.
"Meanwhile, on our side, we see a regime that 
is capable of taking rational steps but, in its essence, is not at all 
rational. It is jihadi. And when they say that they want to wipe us off 
the map, they are serious. It is not just rhetoric. These issues that we
 disagree on are fateful for us.
"It may be difficult to accept, but it is the 
truth. In my book I point out how honestly this president tends to 
speak. He exposes his true feelings on many occasions. As an ambassador,
 that is an enormous asset. My book has a lot less analysis than people 
think -- it is simply me quoting him." 
'I respect Kahlon's reaction'
Oren, 60, was born in New York but now lives 
in Jerusalem. He has three children. He immigrated to Israel when he was
 24, enlisted in the paratroopers and fought in the First Lebanon War. 
He served as Yitzhak Rabin's adviser and as Israel's liaison with the 
U.S.'s Sixth Fleet during the Gulf War. 
During the course of the Second Lebanon War, 
and again during Operation Cast Lead, he was called up to engage in 
public diplomacy on Israel's behalf. In 2009, Netanyahu asked Oren to 
serve as Israel's ambassador to the U.S. 
Oren relinquished his American citizenship and
 accepted Netanyahu's offer. He is a well-known figure in the U.S. 
thanks to his books and the articles he often pens in the U.S. media. 
Oren has written two best-sellers: "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the 
Making of the Modern Middle East," and "Power, Faith, and Fantasy: 
America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present." 
Before the most recent Israeli election, Oren 
was a commentator on international networks like Fox News and CNN, but 
then he decided to join the Kulanu party and was elected to the Knesset. 
The controversy stirred by his book led the 
chairman of his party, Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon, to write a letter 
to the U.S. ambassador in which Kahlon dissociated himself from Oren and
 said that the former ambassador's views were his own and did not 
reflect the party. The Americans demanded an apology from the prime 
minister. None ever came.
Q: How did you feel about Kahlon's letter?
"Absolutely fine. He coordinated it with me. 
There was a lot of media spin suggesting that Kahlon apologized. Look 
for the word 'apology' in the letter, and you will see that it is not 
there. What it says is just the truth. The book was written before I 
entered politics. It represents my views as ambassador." 
Q: Do you think that Netanyahu, who appointed you ambassador, should have addressed the issue? 
"I spoke only for myself. I respect Kahlon's reaction 
and that of the prime minister. Every person reacts in the way that they
 see fit. But ultimately, it is my name on that book, not anyone else's 
or that of any party." 
      Israel Hayom
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=26463
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
 
1 comment:
we need more people like M. O. I enjoy his honesty and sincerity.
Post a Comment