RON WEISER
THE speech by US President Barack Obama in Cairo presents the Jewish world with a difficult dilemma. How should we respond? It was so obviously a beautifully-crafted speech in tone, content and delivery and one which on the surface seemed to offer hope and a better future.
In many ways it was a brave speech. Obama made some statements in Cairo to an Arab audience which would have been difficult for them to hear and to internalise. Some of his words had me cheering.
And yet much more of what he said worried me greatly. I am sorry, but I am not convinced by the point of view which says that he had to say things that both sides wanted to hear and didn’t want to hear, if some of those things are so obviously off colour or hopelessly unequally balanced.
Is he an idealistic novice who has yet to bump up against the real world? Or is he someone who will move from speech making to the more difficult step of implementation? Does he have a strategic plan with in depth moves, or just slogans?
And most importantly, who will pay the price for the inevitable delays in, or potential ultimate failure of, Obama’s vision? We need to be careful that it is not Israel and the Jewish people.
Therefore the way in which we respond is critical. We must be supportive of the vision, but at the same time we must articulate concerns that go to the very core of some key issues in what is being proposed.
It is the parallel dilemma faced by Bibi Netanyahu when in the US and since, who in reality supports or would readily accept a “Two-state solution” (yet another slogan) under the right circumstances, but who for domestic reasons cannot bring himself to utter the actual words. There is some irony in Bibi, the consummate diplomat, getting caught out here, whilst the supposedly undiplomatic Lieberman handles this situation with ease and with words, if not demeanour, which are very appealing to the Americans. The basic point is that whoever occupies the office of Israeli Prime Minister, he or she has one over-riding priority the US-Israel strategic relationship and how to manage it without damaging it.
Some of the critical issues from Obama’s speech that should trouble all of us include:
* the moral equivalence of Jewish suffering (the Shoah) and Palestinian suffering (the Nakba and occupation).
And without recognition of the causes of each and the responsibilities of the respective victims in their own suffering.
And as an aside the additional equation of the Palestinian cause to the Civil Rights Movement in the US is a further misrepresentation.
* the lack of any acknowledgement of Jewish rights in Israel per se whilst speaking of Palestinian rights to the Land.
These two points above and together by the way, echo a line from Ahmadinejad and others, that the Arab people should not be made to pay the price for a European crime, the Shoah if it occurred at all as they say.
* the tacit approval of nuclear capability for Iran as long as it is for peaceful purposes.
As if once Iran has nuclear ability it will be possible to determine how Iran will use it. Perhaps this represents the most naïve sentiment in his whole speech and the one most damaging to the credibility of the United States’ understanding and will in the eyes of some Arab states including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. That can be truly dangerous, for these Arab States will go with the strong, not the speech makers.
* the repetition of a ban on new settlements is nothing new and in fact is something which has suited every Israeli Prime Minister in its own way.
The point of difference and it is huge is Obama’s strong and continuing stand on what is called “natural growth”.
It is hard to be very critical of Obama personally when he is surrounded by so many Jews whose sentiments and commitment to Israel are beyond question and when it is those Jews who are the architects of this policy. This reminds me of the situation our own community faced during the NSW premiership of Bob Carr and the fiasco around the Peace Prize.
It is always harder to deal with friends of both the community and Israel, and especially so when there are significant Jews from within the fold who support positions that may be harmful to us and when they themselves have to deal with questions, asked or tacit, of dual loyalty. These Jews convince themselves of the virtues of the leader they are supporting and of the damaging positions they seek to implement, on the grounds that they are only doing what is in the best interests of Israel or the Jewish community anyway tough love as it were.
The first signpost is to throw us something we want whilst denying us something we actually need.
And the first of these firsts centres around the Shoah. The Shoah is a “safe” topic. No-one can seriously be in favour of it. Even the deniers do not say it was a good thing, they simply say it never occurred or was exaggerated.
Israel is not a safe topic. Israel is “controversial”.
So fight Holocaust denial, but put pressure on Israel is the general tactic. Some false sense of a quid pro quo.
Carr as NSW Premier was a master at this at those times when he did not approve of the Sharon Government or its behaviour. Just look at his speeches at the annual Yom Ha’atzmaut functions.
Much ado about Primo Levi and either critical or no mention of contemporary Israel even though the occasion was not Yom Hashoah, but Israel’s Independence Day. This week I’ll be going to Israel and it will be interesting to see for myself some reactions on the ground although judging by the uniform reaction across Israel’s press, it seems to be largely negative.
If Obama’s commitment to Israel’s security will manifest itself strategically and not only verbally, then this is a good beginning. However if all that Obama will do is to have everyone acknowledge a past Holocaust whilst allowing the elements of a future one to fall into place, then we are indeed in dangerous times.
Dr Ron Weiser is immediate past president of the Zionist Federation of Australia and a committee member of the board of governors of the Jewish Agency (Sochnut).
