1.
In the big debate about Michael Oren's book, discussants often have a tendency to confuse three different topics that should be talked about separately.
A. Is the book factually accurate?
B. Is Oren's analysis valid?
C. Was it OK for Oren to publish the book?
I do not want to play an attorney for Oren, or be a lobbyist for the book. I interviewed Oren and posted the transcripts of the interviews (part one, part two), in which Oren speaks for himself. I do want to say, though, that one can give different answers to the three questions posed above. Namely, one can think that it was not OK for Oren to publish the book, but to still believe his account. One can think that the account is not accurate, but still think the overall analysis is solid. One can think there is no problem with publishing the book, and still find its conclusions questionable.
2.
Is the book accurate?
Here, too, we have to differentiate between two types of complaints:
A. Oren is not meticulous with the details. For example: Larry Cohller Esses believes that Oren did not accurately describe the nature of his dispute with NYT opinion editor Andy Rosenthal.
B. Oren did not know many of the details because he was “out of the loop”. That is one of the main claims made by the Obama administration and its representatives.
Regarding point A: Oren is a well-known and respected historian. His books thus far – both the one on the Six Days War and the one about US policy in the Middle East – were not challenged on account of being inaccurate. Of course, small inaccuracies are always a possibility in every book, but I would be surprised if Oren did not do his homework. More likely: the book is accurate when it comes to the solid facts, unless someone convincingly proves otherwise.
Regarding point B: The “out of the loop” argument is primarily a tool with which to weaken Oren's credibility. It also has a kernel of truth to it. Oren, as ambassador to the US, had his stronger sides – representing the Israeli case, public speaking, Congressional contacts – and his weaker side – he was not always the point man for PM Netanyahu in talking to the administration about delicate matters. However – and this is important – whether Oren was in the loop or out of the loop doesn't much matter until one is able to demonstrate how being out of the loop makes his factual account missing or faulty. Thus far, I have yet to see such demonstrations.
3.
Is Oren's analysis valid?
That is a key question, since most of the headlines, and most of the anger, and most of the enthusiasm associated with the book, are not about new facts – they are about interpretation.
Example: When Oren says that the Obama administration abandoned two key components of US policy toward Israel – “no daylight” and “no surprises” – he says something that some people would not agree with. Saying that “no daylight” is a principle of US policy is a claim that can be challenged. It is an interpretation whose validity depends on other questions: a US principle since when? What is the meaning of “no daylight”? What amounts to an “abandonment” of a principle? (and of course – there is also the question of whether abandoning such a principle is a problem).
Another example: When Oren writes “I could imagine how a child raised by a Christian mother might see himself as a natural bridge between her two Muslim husbands. I could also speculate how that child’s abandonment by those men could lead him, many years later, to seek acceptance by their co-religionists” – that's analysis. It is analysis based on observations, based on reading, based on encounters – but it is not fact.
So, is the analysis in Oren's book valid? I am always disappointed to discover that, as in most such cases, the analysis is valid in the eyes of those who tend to dislike President Obama's policies, and it is not valid in the eyes of Obama enthusiasts. Changing minds is not easy these days, not even for a well-respected historian.
4.
Was it OK for Oren to publish the book?
Clearly, the publication does not really help make US-Israel relations better. That is why both American and Israeli officials and leaders have attacked Oren in recent days. Pundits raise tough questions about Oren's ability to keep being an effective politician – one that was supposed to help strengthen US-Israel ties – following the publication of his book. Surely, he cannot play any such role when the current administration is still in office.
On the other hand, Oren hints in our interview that he wanted the book to be effective in a different way. When he talks about timing, it seems as if he wants the book to complicate the Obama case when an agreement with Iran is imminent.
I am not sure if a book – any book – can truly affect the chances for a US-Iran agreement. But let’s say it might have an affect: would it still not be OK for Oren to try to have an impact? Is that not an important enough reason to tell the truth, even if this could be considered a breach of good manners?
5.
Why is the administration so angry with Oren? Why is the response so aggressive? Former administration officials (Martin Indyk is the popular example) have lashed out at the Netanyahu government shortly after leaving office and the world kept turning, so why is Oren's case any different?
I suspect that Oren's case is different for two main reasons.
One is timing. The upcoming debate on Iran makes everyone extra-sensitive. And it makes the administration extremely sensitive when it comes to someone challenging the key component of Obama's argument on Israel. Obama says: no matter what differences we have, Israel's security is always a major concern for me – no matter how bitterly we battle, I will never neglect to ensure Israel's security. Oren says (not in these exact words): Obama has already hurt Israel's security – Obama's claim is faulty.
Two is impact. The Obama administration is worried about Oren's ability to hurt its case on Israel and Iran. That is because of three things: A. Oren is relatively well-known, has access to the American media, and can present his case to large audiences; B. Oren is a very good speaker and presenter of his ideas; C. most importantly, Oren is not an easily-dismissed right-wing Likud hack. In fact, he has proved time and again that he is quite good at speaking not just to the natural opponents of Obama's policies but also to audiences that are more centrist and even those on the left (especially when it comes to Jewish audiences).
If you see an administration that is trying to portray Oren as an extremist – that is the reason. Alas, Oren is not an extremist and not a clown. He is a serious person who deserves a fair hearing.
