Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren looks older and thinner than he did when he took office in May 2009. That is perhaps understandable, given that the man renown for his historical scholarship and battlefield exploits had never served as a diplomat before and assumed office during one of the most contentious periods in U.S.-Israeli relations. It was a year that included a nasty public spat with the Obama administration over housing in Jerusalem, an ongoing tussle over West Bank settlements, the resumption and then quick break off of direct negotiations with the Palestinians, the flotilla incident, a devastating fire, the persistent threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, growing tension in the Jewish state's relations with Turkey, venom-filled anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations and more.
When I met him in his modest embassy office this week, aides shuffled in and out, trying to keep him on schedule. But Oren waved them off. He is at heart a historian and at ease providing not simply Israel's position on a variety of issues but the historical context for recent events. I asked him about the impression in the region that American influence is on the decline. His answer began 200 years ago. "For roughly two centuries," he explained, "American influence in the Middle East was on the increase." While America was "by no means the predominate power in the Middle East," he said, from the time Thomas Jefferson sent the first overseas fleet to the Middle East through a period of robust trade, America had a presence in the region. During the Cold War, Oren continued, "America was not the sole superpower." It is "only since 1989, with the fall of the Soviet Union, that the U.S. became the sole, predominate power. Now America is being challenge not by external parties but by Iran, Turkey... especially Iran." And "Islamic extremism," he continued, while not a country is "certainly a power." He spoke precisely, careful not to criticize the current administration, but offering a pointed observation: "Middle East governments are extremely attuned to such challenges and are watching very carefully."
He nevertheless cautioned against exaggerating the extent of any American decline: "Having said all that, no one can challenge American military on the land and in the sea. The Chinese may have a growing economic influence, but they don't have two fleets and 280,000 troops in the region. They can't mediate between Israel and the Arabs. Nobody has that influence. And for Israel, America is an ally par excellence."
In a year characterized by public spats and private pressure largely centering on Israeli construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, Oren prefers to focus on the "multi-faceted" nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship -- on trade, intelligence sharing and development of an anti-ballistic missile system.
Moreover, he stresses the unique benefits that Israel brings to the alliance, being the sole nation in the region able to quickly field an immense military that is loyal to a democratic government, and which is unequivocally pro-American. "That's the alliance," he said emphatically. He then digressed, "I have to wonder, when the 'realists' attack. Who is the U.S. supposed to have this type of alliance with -- Yemen? Who do they have in mind to replace us?" He added, "All alliances come with costs."
The so-called peace process ended recently, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton essentially conceded that what the administration has been doing didn't work. What happened, and what's the lesson to be learned? Oren said carefully: "The administration came into office with a great emphasis on mediation and a focus on settlements. Mr. Netanyahu made an unprecedented gesture in freezing settlements for ten months." But as soon as the settlement freeze ended, the Palestinians "left," he said bluntly. "They are reluctant to negotiate if they can get what they want outside of the negotiations, if Latin American countries, for example, will recognize them." But, he cautioned, "There is no alternative to face-to-face negotiations." (I couldn't help but notice that his language, not coincidentally, matched Clinton's comments last Friday.)
So what's next? Again, he began with some historical perspective. "There are two models [of state building] in the Middle East. In the first, you build from the bottom up. Then you are bestowed or declare independence. The second is that you attain independence and figure out what institutions you will have later. This was the model for Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Israel is the first model. We had more than 60 years to build institutions. We already had coinage, stamps, schools, health care. The big problem on the day of independence was finding a check that said 'State of Israel'. Oslo was the classic second model, and Arafat rejected institution building. We saw how that worked out. It's building an edifice over an abyss."
So does the Fayyad plan, which focuses on building up the West Bank economy and helping to create civil Palestinian institutions, offer the way forward? Oren said he understands that there needs to be a "political horizon" for the Palestinians, just as there was the Balfour Declaration and other "milestones on our political horizon." The Palestinians, he said, "Need to know they're not building up institutions for the heck of it." He said of negotiations and institution-building that "optimally, the two should work in tandem." But, he said, the negotiation track and the institution track need not proceed at the same pace. In essence, Oren is advocating that talks in some form continue, but that institution-building may work at a faster clip.
We shifted to Iran. Again, he stressed the close collaboration between Israel and the U.S. on the Iranian threat. But it's clear there is a difference in perception between the U.S. administration, which repeatedly declares that sanctions are "working," and the Israeli government. "The sanctions are very much appreciated," he said. "They got up and running. They are impacting the Iranian economy." But he emphasized, "They have not impacted Iran's nuclear behavior. Now they are talking about 'ratcheting up' the sanctions. That's good but the ultimate test is whether Iran will cease enrichment on its soil." What about the use of force? He said, "The position of both the U.S. and Israel is that all options remain on the table. But it is important for Iran to take that seriously, to lend that credibility." He declined to offer a specific way of enhancing the credibility of a military option, saying only, "There are ways to communicate that [a military option is real] to the Iranians."
I asked him whether democracy and human rights promotion in the region are important to Israel's security. He responded: "For Israel specifically, we have an interest in ensuring that any Palestinian state on the West Bank be a democratic state -- in the sense that all parties would be bound to the democratic system and its values." In other words, elections without rights for everyone -- "women, people of different sexual preferences" -- are insufficient.
In part 2 of my interview, which I'll publish on Sunday, Oren discusses the United Nations, non-governmental organizations, media bias and what the transition from private citizen to ambassador has been like.
----
In the remainder of the interview, Oren discussed the onslaught Israel now faces -- not on the battlefield, but in the court of public opinion and in international bodies. In recent years, efforts to delegitimize the Jewish state, that is, to challenge its legitimacy as a state and ability to act in its own interests, as does every other country, have increased dramatically.
The most visible platform on the international stage for defamation of Israel is the UN Human Rights Council. Oren observed: "Israel has been more frequently condemned by the Human Rights Council than all of the other countries combined. The council is the only UN entity which in its charter -- article 7 -- is specifically committed to condemning and investigating Israel." He cited some of the recent anti-Israel actions of the UNHRC, including the Goldstone Report and the flotilla investigation, as evidence of the body's distorted mission. Should the U.S. leave? Oren declined to offer the U.S. advice, saying only, that "while the [Obama] administration has made robust effort to defend Israel, there has been no change in the Human Rights Council itself."
We then to turned to the subject of non-governmental organizationswith shadowy funding that challenge the legitimacy of Israel. A bill in the Israeli Knesset to require that groups operating in the country disclose their funding set off a firestorm of protest from Israel-bashing groups and some European governments, which have been shown to provide funding (directly or indirectly) to groups seeking to undermine Israel's legitimacy. Oren said, "The question is whether they are operating as foreign agents. We have freedom of expression. Members of the Knesset can be anti-Zionist. Professors can say these things. Public employees can say these things." He contended, however, that it is legitimate for Israel to determine if groups that are acting in ways "inimical not to the politics but to the polity of Israel are being funded by foreign governments."
I asked him if he was frustrated with media coverage of Israel. He responded: "I have been dealing with the press in the Middle East for 30 years." In some ways, there has been improvement, he asserted: "There is a greater level of expertise now. There is also a greater attention to details. That's also because American has been so deeply involved in the Middle East." He observed, "Words that were alien then -- 'jihad,' 'Wahhabi,' 'Sunni,' 'Shi'ite' - are now part of every reporter's vocabulary."
Clearly, however, not all trends are positive. There is, he said, "deepening polarization" in the American media, as in the political environment as a whole, so that "the same incident is reported in two completely different ways." But even that is not the root of his concern.
The real worry, he said, is "the insinuation into journalistic discourse of themes that would have been deemed unacceptable or racist only a few years ago." He said that he used to be asked if the "Israel Lobby" existed. Now, "I'm asked what the Israel lobby thinks. And they're not talking about AIPAC. They are talking about some shadowy group of bankers and people who control the media." He continued, "I'm not a Middle East media watch person," but there were "one or two cases where reputable journals crossed that line" and he felt compelled to pick up the phone to call the outlets. Can Israel put the genie back in the bottle? He sighed and paused. "I don't know," he said quietly.
His aides pressed him to move to his next appointment, but he waved them off. "I'm on my last answer!" he shouted. I ended by asking him about his transition from private citizen to ambassador. Many friendly observers in Israel and the U.S. wonder whether the role has turned out to be more taxing than he could have imagined. He asked playfully, "So you mean not having opinions but positions?" He said he learned in the military that "every time you put on the uniform," you leave your views aside. He did acknowledge, though, that there are "few jobs as complex and multifaceted" as the Israeli ambassador to the U.S.
He pointed across the room, "You see that desk? That's the interface for 535 members of Congress, the State Department, the White House, the intelligence community, commerce and trade -- there is lots of that, the Pentagon, the American Jewish community in all of its diversity, all of the American press, other diplomats and churches. That's just in America. In Israel, there are 120 members of the Knesset, 30 ministries, the IDF, the Israeli press, Arab governments. All of this is happening on this desk. It is infinitely fascinating and monumentally challenging." He added, "And all of that is on an ordinary day. Then there is a forest fire and everything drops. We spend 72 hours getting firefighting equipment there. That's all it was about."
Knowing what he knows now, would he have prepared differently or done things differently? He smiled and paused. "Everyone makes mistakes." But he said that from his scholarship of diplomatic history, "I had a pretty good understanding of the job." He said he made an effort to speak with every former ambassador, but "there was zero prep time. Then you are just thrown in there. There is no time for a learning curve." He conceded that "2010 was a very challenging year."
Oren's aides finally prevailed upon him to move to his next appointment. He nevertheless lingered at the office door, chatting. He is in that respect very much the expansive intellectual and historian whom many Israelis and Americans admired long before he took the ambassadorship. But he has also -- one suspects, painfully -- learned the skills of a diplomat. He has mastered the pose of restraint and caution. He avoids saying anything directly critical of the U.S. administration. He is, after all, charged with keeping relations between the countries on track. And during the Obama administration, that can be very challenging.
