1.
The booing of Secretary Jack Lew in New York early this week was a disgrace. It was a case in which a crowd consisting of true friends of Israel embarrassed itself, embarrassed its hosts, embarrassed Israel, damaged Israel.
Lew is not an enemy of Israel. The administration he represents is not an enemy of Israel. The need to be respectful toward the administration, toward Lew, and toward all other administration officials should be obvious to everyone. So much so, that I almost understand why the organizers of the Jerusalem Post conference in which the incident occurred did not bother to make sure that the crowd understands the rules.
2.
I was on five or six Israeli radio shows on Monday to talk about this incident (and declined invitations from four different TV shows – just for lack of time). In some of these shows I was disturbed to learn that many Israelis felt somewhat pleased with this incident, that they do not understand that insulting Lew is self-defeating and dumb.
Israelis – as I’ve shown before – are very unhappy with the Obama administration, and by the end of the month, assuming an agreement with Iran is completed, they will be even less happy with it. Israelis have good reasons to question the policies of the Obama administration. They have good reasons to be suspicious of its claims that Israel’s security is its foremost concern.
The Obama administration chose a path that leads to the erosion of Israel’s security. Whether that’s the right path for America – that is for Americans to decide. But Israelis and their friends are right to argue that it is the wrong path from Israel’s viewpoint. They have every right to protest, and every reason to try to sabotage the Obama administration's policy on Iran. They also have every reason to try to do it while keeping in mind that the US is Israel’s most important ally, and that having good relations with the US is also an overwhelming Israeli interest.
3.
Let’s make a wild assumption. Let’s assume that booing Lew makes it ten percent less likely that an agreement with Iran will be reached – would you still think that booing him would be a travesty? I would not. Iran is important enough an issue to make booing worthwhile in such a case.
But how about five precent less likely?
And how about two precent less likely?
When Prime Minister Netanyahu decided to accept an invitation to speak at a joint session of Congress, I thought that he made the wrong decision. I thought that it was the wrong decision not because it was impolite. Not because it angered the Obama administration. Not because it broke some codes of proper behaviour. It was the wrong decision because it did all those things without advancing the policies for which Netanyahu advocates. Damage was done. The benefit was meager at most.
But a case could be made that the Netanyahu speech did make a difference. A case could be made that the speech forced the Obama administration to somewhat toughen its position in negotiations with Iran, fearing Congressional resistance. A case could be made that the speech put the questions about the desirability of the agreement with Iran on the table, made it an issue much more under discussion than it was before the speech.
No such case can be made to defend the booing of Lew. There is not even a one percent chance that the booing will make an agreement with Iran less likely. So in this case – there is damage, there is no benefit, and there is no line of defense that can make the booing justifiable.
4.
JJ Goldberg, writing for The Forward, argued that even “allies of Prime Minister Netanyahu seemed equally rattled, aware of the danger of angering the White House at a moment when Israel is seeking help fighting off foreign boycotts and blocking an upcoming pro-Palestinian United Nations resolution”. He is factually right – they were rattled and displeased. He is conceptually wrong – they were displeased not because of their fear that the White House will get angry. Netanyahu has proved time and again that he is ready to anger the White House when he deems it necessary.
They were rattled because the booing makes no sense. It helps no one, it hurts the wrong person, it makes a strong Israeli case seem less appealing, it makes supporting Israel seem less appealing.
Goldberg’s report was somewhat typical in that it does not appreciate the difference between a dumb, unnecessary, impolite battle – and between defensible battles of merit. It was somewhat typical in hinting that a straight line connects between Netanyahu’s fierce (and at times blunt) objections to the policies of the Obama administration and the booing of Lew. Others were even more direct than Goldberg, blaming Netanyahu for (in Chemi Shalev’s words) “creating the kind of atmosphere that has incited and inflamed right wing opinions” and going as far as reminiscing about the days before Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination .
That is an obvious attempt to discredit Netanyahu and his effort to object to the Iran deal, an attempt that I find to be not quite respectable.
5.
Lew doesn’t work for Israel. He doesn’t work for a Jewish pro-Israel lobby. He works for the President. He supports the policies of the President – and when he doesn’t, he probably conveys it privately to the President.
The crowd at the JP conference doesn’t work for Lew. It doesn’t work for the President. It opposes the policies of the President. And it has the right to publicly convey its displeasure with these policies.
It makes perfect sense for people who oppose the policies of the Obama administration to diligently work against the policies Lew advocates. But this should be done smartly, so as to increase the chances for success.
It makes no sense for people who oppose the policies of the Obama administration to boo Lew at a conference. It will contribute nothing to the battle against the Obama policies and will alienate Americans that Israel has no benefit in alienating.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.