Israel’s consul general to Boston, Nadav Tamir, is in hot water over a letter he sent to his superiors in the Foreign Ministry last week.
In a memo addressed to the ministry titled “Melancholy thoughts on Israel-U.S. relations,” Tamir made clear what appears to be obvious to just about everybody else — namely, that the policies and statements of the Netanyahu administration are making it increasingly difficult for Israel to gain support in the U.S., not only among the administration but even among large sectors of the Jewish community who have traditionally supported Israel almost blindly.
He also wrote, “There are American and Israeli political elements who oppose Obama on an ideological basis and who are ready to sacrifice the special relationship between the two countries for the sake of their own political agendas.” The three-page memo was leaked last week by an as yet unidentified source.
For telling the truth, Tamir has been called back home for clarifications.
He is likely to be reprimanded, perhaps even face an early relocation to a less strategic location — back home to the ministry offices in Jerusalem or to a remote diplomatic outpost in Africa or Latin America.
The winds are clearly changing in U.S.-Israel relations. It is unprecedented that Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren has hardly managed to warm his seat in Washington and he has already been officially summoned twice to the State Department for official rebukes of recent government actions in East Jerusalem.
Not only has the Obama administration made it clear that it will no longer turn a blind eye to the actions of its major ally in the Middle East, but it does appear that, finally, the White House intends to exert some serious pressure on Israel to make it freeze all settlement activity, in action, not just in meaningless words.
President Barack Obama has also made it clear that he wants to listen to the vast silent majority of the Jewish community, those progressive pro-peace groups who are strongly supportive of Israel but critical of its government’s policies and whose views are not necessarily represented by lobbyists such as AIPAC.
For its part, Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is doing its best to see just how far it can go before a real crisis point is reached between the two countries. Unlike his previous term in office, Netanyahu is under no obligation to implement policies that will anger his own right-wing constituency at home. This time around, he is not obligated to carry through a Hebron, a Wye or any other agreement.
And despite its oft-repeated support of a two-state solution and further territorial concessions, the outgoing Olmert-Livni government did not leave Netanyahu with any written or signed commitments to be honored.
But this freedom of action does not explain why Netanyahu had to appoint a settler (Avigdor Lieberman) as foreign minister, and a person (Uzi Arad) who was initially persona non grata in the U.S. as his national security adviser — two people whose views do not, to put it mildly, go down well even with the most friendly of U.S. administrations.
The fact that Israel continues to portray itself as the weak and threatened country, subject to continuous terror attacks and, more recently, a potential nuclear attack from Iran, just doesn’t sell well when, at one and the same time, the government continues to undertake policies which negate many basic international standards of human rights for Palestinian civilians who are subject to its control.
Were Israel, as the strong power, to make real meaningful concessions on the issue of Palestinian statehood, the world would much more readily accept the very real security threats that the country faces and it would not be so antagonistic.
But recent policies and statements by Israeli leaders have sent a very different message to the world, and it is now our supporters and allies, not our enemies, who are criticizing us.
Why should we be surprised when a worried diplomat sends a private letter back to his superiors in Jerusalem informing them of the damage being inflicted each and every time Netanyahu, Lieberman or Arad are interviewed or make public statements?
It is not clear why a private message from Tamir, expressing the legitimate concerns of a professional diplomat over recent events, was leaked into the public sphere.
This appears to have been a political act on the part of Lieberman’s new foreign ministry team. With their policies and statements responsible for negative vibes emanating from North America, they would clearly like to pass the blame on elsewhere — and what better target than a well-meaning diplomat concerned about Israel’s worsening public image in North America? Lieberman called on Tamir to resign.
No Israeli diplomat has a problem with representing Israel’s legitimate right to security and its right to defend itself against terror and Katyusha rockets.
But when the government undertakes dubious policies which harms Israel’s reputation even among its allies, it is not only legitimate, but the clear duty of the diplomat to warn their government of the damage which is being done to Israel’s cause.
This is precisely what was done by the consul general in Boston, and he is to be commended, not vilified, for his actions.
He is simply telling it as it is, and we ignore his warning at our peril — the peril of eroding the support of the single most important ally we have in the world.
David Newman is professor in the Department of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University and editor of the International Journal of Geopolitics. JTA contributed to this piece, which first appeared in the Jerusalem Post.