Michael Oren's wildly unconvincing, deeply trivial attack on Obama
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.661654
Orens argument isnt just unconvincing; its trivial. Yes, its preferable to give allies due warning and to keep disputes private if that makes them easier to resolve. But these procedural issues dont lie at the heart of the Obama-Netanyahu conflict. At its core, the conflict is about substance. Obama supports a Palestinian state along the 1967 lines, with land swaps; Netanyahu does not. Obama supports a nuclear deal that allows Iran to maintain some nuclear infrastructure; Netanyahu believes that continued sanctions and the threat of war can make Tehran capitulate completely.
You cant determine whether Obama has abandoned Israel or, by contrast, whether Netanyahu has abandoned his own countrys best interests, without making an argument on these substantive issues. Yet in his op-ed, Oren doesnt even try.
In this regard, Oren resembles the American Jewish leaders who helped him pressure the White House during his time as Israels ambassador. Establishment American Jewish leaders have no real position on the two-state solution. They may support it rhetorically, but they will never criticize an Israeli prime minister for undermining it. Nor do they have a fixed position on Iran. If Netanyahu were to endorse Obamas nuclear negotiations tomorrow, their criticism would cease overnight.
Their real position, like Orens, is simple: The United States should back Israel no matter what. The issues themselves are secondary. The test of whether America is a good ally is whether it gives Israel unstinting support irrespective of what Israel does.
Whats remarkable isnt that Obama failed that test. Its that anyone who claims to care about American interests would want him to pass.
Oren seems to have confused being an ally with being a servant.