fbpx

September 3, 2015

Portman’s directorial debut is a bitter-sweet Israeli homecoming

Oscar-winning actress Natalie Portman made her directorial debut with a film sympathetic to the Holocaust-haunted refugees who founded her native Israel, but she bristles at the idea that the portrayal might be patriotic.

Instead, she considers “A Tale of Love and Darkness,” her screen adaptation of Israeli novelist Amos Oz's grimy, erotic and bitter-sweet work, a meditation on the shortfalls of national ideals in a land riven by the Palestinians' rival claims.

Asked during the drama's commercial premiere in Jerusalem on Thursday if the project was meant to be pro-Israeli, Portman told Reuters: “Absolutely not … I actually find it surprising to hear it described as a patriotic film because, for me, much of it has to do with the disappointment of the dream.”

She said she sought to convey, as the dovish Oz argued, that Israel's early self-image as “utopia for a land of orphans who came out of the Holocaust (was) maybe blind to some of the realities on the ground – and here we are this many decades later”.

The Hebrew-language film, in which Portman also stars as Oz's suicidal mother, focuses on Jewish hardship in a Jerusalem besieged by Arab forces in the 1948 war of Israel's founding. It also touches on the resulting dispossession of Palestinians.

Though Portman waived payment, the film's slim $4.2 million budget drew on support from the rightist Israeli government, which is keen to promote the country's locations for foreign productions and push back against pro-Palestinian boycott calls.

Portman took these into account in planning the shoots – which, she said, were all on Israeli land and avoided West Bank and East Jerusalem territory occupied in the 1967 war, where world powers would like to see a Palestinian state set up.

Critical reception for “A Tale of Love and Darkness” has been mixed, suggesting limited international reach. Trade publication Variety called it a “drearily empathetic” film that would rely on Portman's star power to market. Britain's Guardian called it “a serious, well-made adaptation” of Oz's book.

In May, the Hollywood Reporter quoted Portman as saying she was “very much against” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He had been re-elected two months earlier after rallying his constituents by warning of the left-wing clout of the country's Arab voters – remarks she condemned as “horrific”.

On Thursday, Portman, who was born in Jerusalem and moved to the United States at age three, was more guarded on Israeli affairs.

“I do obviously love this country and I am also quite critical of it, as I think every engaged citizen should be,” she said. “I believe in this country and I believe in the people – that it can be the best version of itself.”

Portman, now 34, said “A Tale of Love and Darkness” had offered her a form of completion, in requiring that she reclaim her forgotten Hebrew.

“It was very meaningful for me,” she said. “It's weird when your first language, and maybe the language of your emotions, of your childhood, is sort of missing.”

Portman’s directorial debut is a bitter-sweet Israeli homecoming Read More »

To buttress Iran deal, a NATO-like treaty with Israel

When America faced fears of a nuclear attack during the Cuban Missile Crisis more than 50 years ago, President John Kennedy offered a strong statement to the Soviet Union: “It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.”

While President Barack Obama has repeatedly said he stands behind Israel, he should now issue a statement similar to Kennedy’s to make it crystal clear to the Iranians that, whether or not the nuclear accord is ratified by Congress, the United States will consider an attack on Israel as an attack against the U.S. and “a full retaliatory response” will follow. Congress should then endorse that statement.

There is more the president can and should do to deter Iran and allay Israel’s fears concerning the agreement with Iran.

His Aug. 19 letter to Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), published by The New York Times, is a good step. In it, he made further security assurances, pledging, among other guarantees, to increase missile defense systems and boost tunnel detection. Additionally, Obama wrote, “I have proposed to Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu that we begin a process aimed at further strengthening our efforts to confront conventional and asymmetric threats” and is prepared to enhance information sharing.

That Israel is the country most threatened by the agreement with Iran is indeed a realistic assessment, one offered by Israel’s prime minister as the reason for his taking controversial and rare steps to interfere in the domestic American process of foreign policy-making. He spoke intensely on the floor of Congress in March to urge American legislators to oppose the agreement. He is now directly lobbying American Jews to pressure their representatives in Congress to vote against the accord.

Thus, Netanyahu not only publicly and forcefully opposes the president of the world’s greatest power — Israel’s only reliable ally; he asks others to do the same. It is not surprising that Obama answered in kind, noting that if Israel continues to fight against the deal, it will be further isolated and more vulnerable if the agreement is rejected.

This regrettable breach in the Israeli-American relationship need never have occurred. Israel was not a participant in the negotiations, and its defense needs could have been, and still should be, handled by means other than getting mired in bitter arguments over whether Congress should disapprove the accord. This battle served only to seriously erode U.S.-Israeli relations.

There is a far better and more direct way for Netanyahu to ensure Israel’s safety, and the U.S. has other ways to protect Israel: a U.S.-Israel bilateral treaty analogous to the Rio Pact in Latin America, the NATO treaty in Europe, and U.S.-bilateral treaties with such countries as Japan and Australia.

It was Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, who began the move toward a U.S.-Israel defense treaty. Obama has come closer than any other president to implementing these ideas by his comments in the wake of the Iran deal that America will protect Israel.

Now the president must take the next step: a specific treaty. But with or without one, the U.S. needs to put in writing that any weapons of mass destruction threat to Israel will be treated as an attack against the territory of the U.S., perhaps backed by a vote of Congress. This kind of deterrence would offer a far more effective means of ensuring Israel’s security and allaying its fears arising from the nuclear agreement than the Israeli prime minister’s staunch opposition to the Iran nuclear deal or by the U.S. trying to
defend Israel without dramatic, practical
actions.

This is what Netanyahu and Israel’s supporters should have been lobbying for throughout these many months of heated debate over the deal. Unfortunately, they didn’t. Hopefully, their efforts in the U.S. to scuttle the nuclear agreement have not damaged the U.S.-Israel relationship to such an extent that it is too late to ask Obama to unveil an effective deterrent to Iran’s ever attacking Israel: unequivocal statements similar to Kennedy’s and a defense pact. 

Steven L. Spiegel is a professor of political science and the director of the Center for Middle East Development at UCLA and a scholar at the Israel Policy Forum

To buttress Iran deal, a NATO-like treaty with Israel Read More »

#myLAcommute My car made me so angry I sold it

CAMERON RITH

I love taking the bus. There is always a great conversation to be had, and such a variety of people. When I’m on the bus I people watch. I nap. I draw weird cartoons of creatures that live inside my head. I think they are other versions of myself.

I sold my car last year because it made me angry and gave me anxiety. Life is so short—you don’t know what’s going to happen and there’s not enough time to be angry. When I sold my car, I felt very relieved. Now I bike and walk and take the bus. I try to stay out of a car at all cost.

Alvarado Street to Olympic Boulevard

#myLAcommute is a project of Zócalo Public Square.

#myLAcommute My car made me so angry I sold it Read More »

U.S. clerk jailed for gay marriage defiance; dispute goes on

A Kentucky county clerk was jailed on Thursday for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, and a full day of court hearings failed to put an end to her two-month-old legal fight over a U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding same-sex marriage.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning found Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in contempt then elicited a pledge from five of her six deputies to issue the licenses. But attorneys for Davis said she would deny them that authority, raising questions about the validity of any licenses they might issue.

The 49-year-old woman, who has emerged as a darling of social conservatives, has refused to issue licenses to any couples, gay or straight, since the U.S. Supreme Court in June ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry under the U.S. Constitution, citing her beliefs as an Apostolic Christian.

“Marriage is a union between one man and one woman,” the soft-spoken Davis told the court under questioning by her attorney.

Bunning warned the deputies they would be back in court if they refused to resume issuing licenses on Friday. “I would hate to have to come back to Ashland,” he said, referring to the court venue. He said it would be up to same-sex couples to decide whether to test the validity of the licenses.

Davis, who broke down crying earlier in her testimony, was led away by U.S. marshals after the first hearing, where Bunning held her in contempt and ordered her jailed. She did not attend the subsequent hearings, but communicated through her attorneys.

Thursday's proceedings were the culmination of months of legal wrangling and refusals by Davis to abide by a judge's order to do her job, drawing global attention and protests from those both for and against gay marriage rights.

Before and during the hearings, about 200 demonstrators gathered outside the Ashland, Kentucky, courthouse, some chanting slogans and many holding signs. As word of the ruling emerged, supporters of same-sex marriage erupted in cheers.

Davis was being held at the Carter County Detention Center in Grayson, Kentucky. Her son Nathan, the one deputy who would not agree to issue gay marriage licenses, was not jailed.

WHITE HOUSE BACKS JUDGE

White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Thursday said it was “appropriate” for a federal judge to resolve the matter.

“No public official is above the rule of law, certainly not president of the United States, but neither is the Rowan county clerk,” he said.

Davis' jailing drew instant criticism from her supporters with Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee tweeting, “Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubts about the criminalization of Christianity in this country.”

Christian lobbying group Family Research Council said religious freedom in the United States was under attack. It urged Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear to call for a special session of the state legislature to alter the law to accommodate clerks like Davis.

In a statement the governor said a special session was unnecessary and too costly. He said Bunning's decision spoke for itself and the courts were settling the matter, giving access to marriage licenses to Rowan County residents.

He said he had no authority to relieve county clerks of their statutory duties by executive order.

Another Republican presidential candidate, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, told MSNBC before the ruling that Davis had to abide by the Supreme Court ruling.

'THE WORD OF GOD'

Davis told Fox News earlier she was ready to go to jail for her beliefs.

“I've weighed the cost and I'm prepared to go to jail,” she told Fox in an interview published on Thursday. “This has never been a gay or lesbian issue for me. This is about upholding the word of God.”

Apostolic Christian beliefs are rooted in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

A Democrat, Davis earns about $80,000 a year in the elected office, according to state officials. In explaining his decision to jail her, Bunning said he did not think a fine would be effective.

Davis is being legally represented at no cost by Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based Christian religious advocacy organization.

Back in Morehead, Kentucky, phones at the clerk's office rang busy and a sign on the door from Davis said the office was closed for the day as she and her staff appeared in Ashland for the hearing. The sign said the office would reopen on Friday.

U.S. clerk jailed for gay marriage defiance; dispute goes on Read More »

Hebrew word of the week: Haddarat nashim

People ask me whether there is any connection between haddarat nashim (a very common concept in Israel in recent years, mostly among the Orthodox), and the biblical ve-hadarta pne zaqen, “show respect to the elderly” (Leviticus 19:32), implying that secluding women is out of respect, “to protect them.”   

In spite of the similarity of the sounds (of the letters), there is no semantic connection; haddarah (with dagesh in dalet) “exclusion” is from n-d-r, neder, “vow”; hiddir is “forbid by a vow, put a person under a vow, keep away, cut off, keep distance,” whereas hadarah (with no dagesh) “reverence” is from h-d-r (as in nehdar “great, majestic”) and closely related to a-d-r, addir ne’dar “splendid, mighty, great.”

*As with separating women to the back of the bus, behind a screen, or even having them use a separate bus, for modesty or religious reasons, similar to Ezrat Nashim in Orthodox synagogues.

Yona Sabar is a professor of Hebrew and Aramaic in the department of Near Eastern Languages & Cultures at UCLA.

Hebrew word of the week: Haddarat nashim Read More »

Podcast news and reviews – 9/4/15

Highlights from the week of September 4, 2015:

 

Thanks for reading — feel free to e-mail me directly at Darren@Paltrowitz.com if there are any podcast highlights I may have missed.

Podcast news and reviews – 9/4/15 Read More »

Hillary Clinton email trove shows concern with Netanyahu’s psyche

As U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton spent plenty of time in daunting foreign territory.

No, I’m not talking about Myanmar here. I’m speaking of the mind of Benjamin Netanyahu.

A batch of emails released this week as part of the trove related to the controversy over Clinton’s use of a personal email address while serving as secretary of state includes the solicitation of advice on how to deal not just with the Israeli prime minister’s policies, but with his personality.

Some of her interlocutors advise embracing him. Others suggest slapping him down. No one much likes him.

The advice – at least what was solicited on her personal email – comes from associates who were not in government at the time of writing, among them Sidney Blumenthal, Martin Indyk and Sandy Berger.

All three are Jewish. All three worked for President Bill Clinton when he had his own difficult relationship with Netanyahu during his first term as prime minister, from 1996 to 1999. Blumenthal was a political adviser, Berger was national security councilor and Indyk was ambassador to Israel.

All three were in the private sector or the think tank world when they sent their notes to Hillary Clinton (Indyk later returned to the State Department as an Israeli-Palestinian peace broker in 2013-14, after she left office). And all three are likely to play a role in her administration should Clinton be elected president — she is currently polling as the Democratic front-runner.

In a memo dated Sept. 30 2010, when the Obama administration was hoping to extend peace talks with the Palestinians past a period of a settlement freeze, Indyk argues for the importance of assuaging Netanyahu’s insecurities.

“The reason for dwelling on Bibi’s psychology rather than his politics is that the latter all point in favor of making a deal,” Indyk writes. One of the key obstacles to advancing the talks, according to Indyk’s email: Netanyahu “seems to lack a generosity of spirit. This combines with his legendary fear of being a ‘freier’ (sucker) in front of his people.”

His counsel: “Put your arms around Bibi: he still thinks we are out to bring him down. There is no substitute for working with him, even though he makes it such a frustrating process.”

Berger, similarly, describes the difficulties of Netanyahu’s personality and the need to coddle him in a memo dated Aug. 24, 2010, when direct talks between Israelis and Palestinians resumed for a short period.

Arab interlocutors are difficult, Berger says, but at least make clear what they will and will not accept. Netanyahu, he says, “either does not know himself or is not prepared to share.”

Again, while Berger says that Clinton at times will have to be “tough” and push back against Netanyahu’s “most extreme demands,” he sees value in cultivating Netanyahu as a friend and confidante.

“You are ideally suited to begin a series of in-depth conversations aimed at understanding his key concerns, how they can be met, what he would need from us and others,” Berger writes.

Blumenthal peppers Clinton with advice frequently throughout her 2009-13 term as secretary of state, much of it examining polls. One from March 23, 2010 includes two polls of Israelis and American Jews on how each regards Obama.

“The institutional U.S. Jewish position backing Bibi and against the administration does not have majority support among Jews,” he says, referring to a poll by the liberal pro-Israel Middle East lobby group J Street.

Blumenthal plumbs the media for evidence of Netanyahu’s duplicity, sending along a July 15, 2010 Tablet Magazine account of a 2001 video in which Netanyahu boasts to a group of settlers of his first-term maneuvers contra Bill Clinton: “America is a thing you can move very easily.”

In a March 21, 2010 memo, Blumenthal refers Clinton to an article by left-wing journalist Uri Avnery that praises the U.S. administration – Clinton included – for dealing toughly with Netanyahu after the fiasco involving the announcement of new building in eastern Jerusalem during a visit to Israel by Vice President Joe Biden.

Clinton apparently contemplated using some of Avnery’s arguments in a speech she was about to deliver to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual policy conference.

“How – and should – I use this?” she asks Blumenthal, referring to her AIPAC address the next day. He promises her a follow-up memo, and she nudges him as evening approaches: “Are you sending?” He promises yes, in 15 minutes. Whether Blumenthal sent a memo is not clear. Clinton did not directly cite Avnery in her speech. But Netanyahu’s psyche was never far from her mind.

On May 31, 2010, after the Israeli commando raid on a Turkish ship attempting to breach Israel’s Gaza Strip blockade resulted in the deaths of nine Turkish nationals and a severe rupture in Turkey-Israel relations, she forwards Blumenthal’s thoughts to Jake Sullivan, the State Department’s director of policy planning.

“Bibi’s Entebbe in reverse,” Blumenthal muses, referring to the triumphant 1976 Israeli commando raid on a plane held hostage in Uganda that killed Netanyahu’s older brother, Yoni.

“The father, Benzion, 100 years old, secretary to [Revisionist Zionist pioneer Zeev] Jabotinsky, and denounced as too radical by [Jabotinsky heir and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem] Begin, adored his son Yoni, heroically killed at Entebbe,” Blumenthal writes. “Benjamin has never measured up.”

Clinton has two notes to Sullivan: “FYI”– for your information – and “ITYS,” I told you so.

Hillary Clinton email trove shows concern with Netanyahu’s psyche Read More »

A year of learning Torah through food

It’s the end of summer 2014. Rosh Hashanah is approaching, and with it the finale of the seven-year shmita cycle, a time when agricultural land lies fallow in Israel, perennials are harvested, and debts are forgiven. A year ago, I asked myself, could I give myself a shmita-inspired year to change my routine, study Torah and find spiritual sustenance to bring more balance into my life?

I had never consistently studied the weekly Torah portion (parsha hashavua) for a year straight. My quest was to study Torah and, through this process, explore issues that are important to me: ending hunger, advocating farm workers’ rights and growing food with sustainable techniques. 

I needed to create a tool to understand and translate what I was studying. I decided to start a blog, Neesh Noosh (neeshnoosh.net) to share my reflections and insights about the Torah portion. Most important, I wanted to create recipes inspired by the themes of the parsha hashavua. These would not be more recipes for latkes or matzah ball soup, but rather what I call “Jewish Food 2.0.” The creative cooking process would help me to interpret and “translate” ideas and thoughts from the parsha and provide a way for me to share them with others in a delectable way.  I describe my recipes now as midrashic food interpretations of the Torah.

Adhering to my commitment to sustainable agriculture, I committed to purchasing all of the produce for the recipes from local farmers markets. Although it was a shmita year, realistically, I couldn’t live only on perennials. But I wanted to share seasonal produce with my readers and, at the same time, enforce my commitment to supporting local farmers through the blog. I was bringing my Torah studies to the farmers market and to my kitchen. 

Sweet and Spicy Swiss Chard are fitting for a reading of Parsha Balak. 

For me, food becomes holy not only through the blessings we say, but also by how we grow and prepare it. How can we eat things that are certified kosher when their ingredients, one could argue, aren’t even made of actual food, but are unpronounceable manufactured chemical creations? Are such foods really worthy of a blessing, much less of our consumption? Is this sustenance?

An ordinary process — cooking and eating — can be spiritually elevating. We can elevate ourselves and our world through our food choices. “[As] Reb Noson explains, eating facilitates the attainment of man’s spiritual objective in this world: it sustains life, keeping the soul connected to the body. This is especially true of eating with the intention of gaining the strength necessary for the attainment of spirituality, for this type of eating elevates the holy sparks found in the food.” (“Anatomy of the Soul: Rebbe Nachman of Breslov” by Chaim Kramer).

Learning about shmita helped me understand that we can address food and agricultural issues through acts of tzedek (justice). The Baal Shem Tov, the founder of the Chasidic movement, taught that we each can bring lightness to the darkest corners of the world through our mitzvot. How and what we eat can be infused with the light of Torah to counter the darkness of industrial agriculture.

We are God’s partners in protecting Creation. We are each part of a delicate eco-system that sustains us. But our industrial food systems are endangering us by using toxic chemicals, wasteful water management and degrading the soil of our Earth. When 1 billion pounds of pesticides are applied to farms in the United States each year, those pesticides pollute our water sources, air and health, and destroy the soil. Soil that grounds, sustains and gives us life.

Growing foods without pesticides is an important way to grow in harmony with nature. Shmita forces us to relinquish our domination of land and to let it have a Shabbat to rest and rejuvenate rather than degrade until it is dusty fields, devoid of nutrients. 

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks explains: “The guidance of the oral tradition in interpreting ‘do not destroy’ expansively, not restrictively, should inspire us now. We should expand our horizons of environmental responsibility for the sake of generations not yet born, and for the sake of God whose guests on Earth we are.” 

We throw away 133 billion pounds of food annually, even as nearly 46.5 million Americans — including 12 million children — are hungry. Canned-food drives will not solve hunger. Rather, we need to examine our responsibility to those in our society who are in need of food. How can we move beyond Band-Aid measures to empower people through better wages, land access and urban design to have regular, healthy food access? We can also look at our ma’aser (tithing) commitments. We can create more integrated approaches that encourage farmers and city dwellers alike to leave their payot (uncut corners) so that we can morally and physically address the needs of hungry people (parsha Emor). We can apply shmita’s economic values to address debilitating debts and loans. 

“The Talmud states (Sanhedrin 37a), ‘Each person must say, “The world was created for me.” Rebbe Nachman explains this to mean (Likutey Moharan I, 1:5), “I am responsible for making the world a better place.” ’ ” (“Anatomy of the Soul: Rebbe Nachman of Breslov” by Chaim Kramer).

Studying Torah during this shmita year changed how I see and interpret our world. I can choose whether to curse or bless friends and strangers (Parsha Balak; recipe: Sweet and Spicy Swiss Chard); live in harmony with the cycles of the land (holiday: Sukkot; recipe: Perennials Roast); do my part to protect farmland (Parsha Chayei Sarah; recipe: Roasted Beets, Mushrooms and Beet Greens); and help those with fewer resources than me (Parsha Tzav; recipe: Lemon, Lentil, Swiss Chard Soup). It’s about bringing light to dark places (Parsha Vayetzei; recipe: Wild Rice, Citrus and Pomegranate), and channeling blessings and sustenance into the world (Parsha Naso; recipe: Ful). 

We begin a new seven-year cycle this fall.  Fallow lands — after a year of rest — will be plowed and seeded. My experience creating the Neesh Noosh project during a shmita year has deepened my understanding and commitment to the Torah. Whereas before there was often a separation in my life — Judaism versus sustainable agriculture versus cooking — this process has helped me integrate and more deeply guide my life with the wisdom of Torah. While the year ends, my commitment to learning and creating Jewish Food 2.0 continues. My recipes are ingredients for a cookbook. My journey continues with studying and creating recipes for each Rosh Chodesh in 5776.

Sarah Newman is the creator of the blog Neesh Noosh: A Jewish Woman’s Year Long Journey to Discover Faith in Food. She’s now working on a cookbook version. Visit neeshnoosh.net to learn more.

A year of learning Torah through food Read More »

Some Jews have divined the real cause of Jimmy Carter’s cancer

Former President Jimmy Carter, 90, recently announced he has cancer that has spread to his brain.

For some Jews (and evangelical Christians), the cause apparently is obvious. No, it’s not his genetic makeup, or the spread of a mass from his liver to his brain. It’s divine punishment for his behavior toward the Jews.

Not so fast, writes Rabbi Benjamin Blech on Aish.com, the website of Orthodox Jewish outreach organization Aish HaTorah: “Don’t presume to know that his illness is a result of his anti-Semitic views.”

Blech, an Orthodox Jewish author and professor of Talmud of at Yeshiva University, writes:

“There are those already proclaiming with prophetic certainty that Jimmy Carter is being punished by God for his sins against Israel and the Jewish people. Carter’s cancer is the divine edict for his anti-Semitism. And with that smug analysis of heavenly justice these false prophets have unwittingly besmirched millions of righteous and God-fearing people who similarly find themselves suffering from incurable diseases and facing painful deaths.

“Carter is not the only one dying from cancer. People in my own family were victims; pious and holy individuals I knew personally were targets of agonizing final ailments. But the Torah taught us not to dare make judgments based on equating someone’s suffering with sin and be guilty of the crime of the friends of Job.”

One can only guess how those who believe Jimmy Carter’s cancer is divine retribution are explaining the 90-plus years he has lived in relatively good health, trotting around the globe, selling books and maintaining a position of great influence.

Some Jews have divined the real cause of Jimmy Carter’s cancer Read More »

Will Obama and Netanyahu reconcile next year?

Now that enactment of the Iran nuclear deal appears to be a sure thing, the profound and often personal disagreement between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Iran is not about to go away.

In the contemplative spirit of the Days of Awe, we canvassed the experts to recommend a way forward for the two leaders.

Stop the sniping and work out differences behind closed doors

However you come at the U.S.-Israel rupture, pointing a finger at Team Obama or Team Bibi — or blaming both — there’s a consensus: Stop the public sniping.

“Take a timeout,” said Joel Rubin, until recently a deputy assistant secretary of state and now president of the Washington Strategy Group, a foreign policy consultancy. “You maintain the security relationships and you intensify them, so the security officials are made aware of what’s going on and are confident. At the political level, I don’t know what you can do to change the dynamic.”

He added, “The Israeli leadership will have to make a decision to stop attacking Obama.”

Amon Reshef, a retired Israeli major general, said both leaders need to rise to their better selves.

“Both parties, the United States and Israel, should change the course of the direction of diplomatic relationship,” Reshef said. “Both leaders are mature enough to behave not just as politicians but as leaders. They have to get together behind closed doors to come to some kind of agreement to move ahead.”

Jonathan Schanzer, a vice president at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said there is little the Obama administration can do in the near term to assuage Israeli nerves rubbed raw by the perception that Obama officials sidelined Israel during the Iran talks.

“I know the administration has reached out to Israel to work together to combat Iran’s regional influence,” he said. “But the Israelis see the United States as playing the role of arsonist — and firefighter.”

Hey, remember Palestine?

A year ago, the one significant outcome of the failed U.S. effort to broker Israeli-Palestinian peace seemed to be creativity in the epithets that Israeli and American leaders were lobbing at one another.

An unnamed senior Obama administration official called Netanyahu “a chickenshit” in an interview last October with journalist Jeffrey Goldberg. The previous January, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon reportedly described U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as “messianic.”

Working together on peacemaking with the Palestinians as part of a broader regional peace may be a way out of the Iran-centered tensions, said Reshef, who heads Commanders for Israel’s Security, an assembly of former senior Israeli military officers who want Israel to advance a regional peace deal.

“The best thing for Israel, a kind of historical opportunity, is to deal with the mutual relationship with the United States on the one side and with neighboring Arabs on the other side,” he said.

In any case, a return to the Palestinian issue may be inevitable because of volatility in the Gaza Strip, said Tamara Cofman Wittes, director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

“Israeli officials, both in the political establishment and at the security level, are concerned about the potential of another conflict,” said Wittes, who was a senior Middle East policy official in the State Department in Obama’s first term. “And there’s no military answer.”

U.S. and Israeli officials could come together in the twilight of Obama’s presidency and consider a way out.

“Is there a way to address the stagnation in Gaza in a way that can be a springboard toward Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation?” Wittes asked.

Schanzer said the United States could show good will ahead of the U.N. General Assembly in September by making clear that Washington would stop any attempt by the Palestinians to gain statehood recognition in the world body and by intensifying opposition to the movement to boycott Israel.

“That could help shore up support for Israel and let them know the United States is working with them on some key areas,” he said.

Hire new wingmen

A key feature of the U.S.-Israel relationship has been designated buddies: two people who are each as close to their bosses as to one another, and who always pick up when the other’s face pops up on the smartphone.

That’s what Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador to Washington, was supposed to be when he arrived in the United States — Netanyahu’s right-hand man sent to forge close relationships with top Obama administration officials.

It didn’t work out, to put it mildly. Dermer, who without telling the White House worked with Republicans to set up Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in March, is seen by the Obama administration as a partisan. Dan Shapiro, his American counterpart in Tel Aviv, is well regarded by the Israeli political establishment, but is also seen as too closely identified with the Obama administration.

Ilan Goldenberg, until last year a senior member of the State Department team brokering the Israeli-Palestinian talks, suggests hiring wingmen not associated with the current debacle. He suggested national security advisers known to have worked well together in Obama’s first term, America’s Tom Donilon and Israel’s Yaacov Amidror.

“That would be a perfect start, an additional channel to add some sanity,” said Goldenberg, now a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

Stop throwing weapons at the region, start throwing ideas

The Obama administration is pitching weapons upgrades throughout the region as a means of offsetting Iranian mischief, should the Islamic Republic feel empowered by the nuclear deal. Israel is nervous because although it, too, is due to get a bundle of goodies, it fears enhanced military capabilities among neighbors that in the past have been hostile.

“What you have now is an effort to arm the Saudis and other Gulf states,” Schanzer said, “but it erodes Israel’s qualitative military edge” — the U.S. policy of keeping Israel better equipped and prepared than its neighbors.

Goldenberg suggested collaborative regional efforts to combat terrorism and cyber attacks. Additionally, the Obama administration should show Israel it is invested in keeping Iran from arming Israel’s enemies, he said.

“Every couple of years Israel stops ships with Iranian weapons on them, and takes pictures and sends them out to the world,” he said. “What if the U.S. were to send those pictures? It would send a signal to the Israelis and embarrass the Iranians.”

Get over yourselves, there’s more work to do

The ongoing problems of the Middle East ultimately may be what forces back together the hard-heads who have fomented the U.S.-Israel crisis. The United States and Israel have common interests in Lebanon, Syria and across the region.

The U.S.-Israel relationship — one that is between stable democracies with a shared interest in fending off Middle Eastern threats — is larger than any differences between Netanyahu and Obama, said Dennis Ross, Obama’s top Iran adviser in his first term and now a counselor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

“This issue is taking place in a reality where the region is in a place of turmoil and uncertainty, where the state system is under assault,” he said, referring to the Iran deal. “Whether it gets implemented or not, that remains true.”


Ron Kampeas is JTA's Washington bureau chief. Follow him on Twitter at @kampeas

Will Obama and Netanyahu reconcile next year? Read More »