When it comes down to it, I am glad, even relieved, not to be president of the United States. That’s not to say there aren’t not some pretty nifty perks that come with the job — no security lines at the airport, no running out of laundry detergent or pita chips, no traffic jams, first-run movies on demand, and also “Hail to the Chief,” plus lots of ruffles and flourishes.
But there’s a high price to pay for all that. Some significant number of people will pretty much despise you no matter what you do, and most others will cut you only so much slack. Sooner rather than later, you have to deliver. And you have to know that every word you utter will be scrutinized, all the more so if you are known for the care you take with words.
Until last week, basketball, President Obama’s favorite sport, was also a fitting metaphor for his rhetoric. He’s an all-purpose forward, sometimes leaping and dunking, sometimes taking and making a mid-distance jump short, sometimes shooting, as they say, from downtown, and a solid defender to boot. Whether he can be Kobe Bryant or LeBron James, let alone Michael Jordan, necessarily remains to be seen — but no question, even this early, that he’s at the very least a verbal prodigy.
Recently, the metaphor shifted to a different sport. There he stood in Cairo, with the whole world watching, and the challenge — essentially of his own making — was to hit a home run. Which is exactly what he seemed to do.
I say “seemed” because there’s a substantial difference between seeing and hearing the Cairo speech as delivered and, later, reading it carefully. The live event was stunning as theater. The venue, the enthusiasm of audience and commentators, the audacity of its candor, its manifest decency — all to the good. An inside-the-park home run, I thought. Little soaring rhetoric, but much, very much, to chew on. Even upon reflection, with the dispiriting realization that there was no one on base at the time and that, as the president himself acknowledged, one speech was not about to change history, this was an address meant to make room for the new beginning it promised.
But to read the speech is to come away with a rather more restrained response. There was something in it for pretty nearly everyone, and that is a handy warning sign. My own reservations are more than a quibble, even if less than a full-blown critique of a speech so honorable in intention, so impressive in scope and so cleansing in substance.
One reservation: For Israelis, as for Jews in general, there was Obama’s “recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.” And again, the next day, in Buchenwald, where he said that Israel rose “out of the destruction of the Holocaust.”
The sentiment is familiar; we ourselves have for years now used the “from ashes to rebirth” formula to summarize the relationship between the Holocaust and Israel. We take young Jews from around the world on the “March of the Living,” which starts in Auschwitz and ends in Israel. Foreign dignitaries visiting Israel are routinely introduced to our people’s saga by a solemn visit to Yad Vashem. Want to know where we have come from, in what way Israel is an answer to the sorrows of our past? Come stand silently in the Hall of Remembrance. So we can hardly blame others for adopting the theme we have so regularly put forward.
But the formulation essentially starts the story of Israel in 1933, when Hitler came to power, or in 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, or in 1947, when the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The modern unfolding of the story in fact begins much earlier. It begins with Moses Hess’s “Rome and Jerusalem” in 1862, or with Leon Pinsker’s “Auto-Emancipation” in 1882, or with the beginning of the return to the land in that same year, or with Theodore Herzl’s “The Jewish State” in 1896, or with the First Zionist Congress in Basel a year later or with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and most of all there are the waves of Jews who made their way to Palestine “to build it and be rebuilt by it.”
The history of Israel’s renewal and rebirth is rich, dense — and of course, if one wishes, it is a history that goes back not a century or so but millennia. And when the British left Palestine in 1948 (and India in the same year), they did so for their reasons, not for ours. The Holocaust may have accelerated the emergence of the Jewish state; it was not its source. And — here’s the reason it matters — to suggest, in Cairo no less, that it was its source is to reinforce the Arab complaint that it is they who have had to pay Europe’s IOU to the Jews.
It does President Obama neither service nor favor to regard him as flawless. Admiration and praise, yes; idolization, never. Carefully read, the Cairo speech was, in fact, flawed. Carefully read, it also warrants praise. For whatever its errors of commission and omission, it was wise, humane and timely to say, as the president did, that “if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.” That is not, as some have charged, an instance of moral equivalence; it is an assertion of moral imperative.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Claims Conference Chief Knew of $57M Holocaust Fraud Probe Earlier 
Top Dog: Who Makes the Best Kosher Hot Dog in America?
Rama Burshtein Offers Rare Glimpse of Orthodox World
Why Do Jews Intermarry at a Much Higher Rate Than Others?
What We Can Learn From Mel Brooks About Racism
You've successfully signed up!
Obama is well aware of the long and age-old history of oppression that led to the emergence of Israel (not just starting with the Holocaust). Here are his words--from the Cairo speech:
"Now, the second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world. America's strong bonds with Israel are well-known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied. "Around the world the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries. And anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. "Six million Jews were killed, more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless. It is ignorant, and it is hateful. "Threatening Israel with destruction or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews is deeply wrong and only serves to evoke in the minds of the Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve."
It would have been too much to hope that Obama would have hinted that Arabs/Muslims have their own apologies to make: for the way Jerusalem's holy sites were "managed" when Jordan controlled them, e.g., for the cold peace the US pays a lot to maintain between Egypt and Israel, for the lack of welcome to refugees for decades... and for the ways Jewish communities of great richness were pressed to leave the Arab world....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/opinion/09aciman.html?em
I'd say a triple.
Mr Obama's speech in Cairo accepted as a fact the commonly accepted narrative of the Arabic-speaking and Islamic world: "...tension [between the West and Islam] has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims". Moreover, he mentioned the fear that "the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam".
Unfortunately, although Mr Obama found it worthy to describe the world as they see it, he was not willing to present to his very attentive audience our narrative. The Jews, according to Mr Obama, were seeking "a homeland" (the indefinite article, meaning any homeland) because of persecution. The actual point of reference of the Jewish historic drama, "if I forget thee, O Jerusalem", was undeserving of mention. The return to the Land of Israel was a movement of idealists, not refugees. It was the return to "the homeland" of dreamers of dreams who revived the Hebrew language, wishing to continue the future Hebrew creativity in this land of ancient Hebrew creativity.
The State of Israel was not founded because of the Holocaust; rather, it was founded despite the Holocaust. The very population that had always been seen as the future citizenry of the Jewish state, the masses of Eastern European Jewry, was decimated. The youth movements, the Hebrew schools, the summer training camps for pioneers - together with a whole Jewish world living in its own language and culture – all was utterly lost. Only remnants made their way to the Land of Israel. Israel was born out of an historic vision of return and redemption. The dedication and self-sacrifice of those who built the yishuv and its Hebrew culture enabled this renewal of Jewish national life. The Holocaust could have potentially brought the whole dream to its end.
Mr Fein is right in mentioning this major flaw in the Obama speech. President Obama has called upon the Islamic world to accept the legitimacy of Israel. However, just as he has demonstrated awareness of their narrative, so too should he have expressed an awareness of ours. We are an ancient nation that has very deep roots in this land, and here we have claimed the universal right to self-determination. This is the source of legitimacy.
Frank - Mr Fein has presented a very true and accurate description of Israel. He talks of "Israel’s renewal and rebirth" which is how Ben-Gurion describes the founding of Israel. The "renewal" of Jewish independence appears, for example, in the Declaration of Independence which mentions already in the first paragraph ancient Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel. Mr Fein also says: "And when the British left Palestine in 1948 (and India in the same year), they did so for their reasons, not for ours". The word "ours" includes himself in the drama of founding Israel. "We" had "our" reasons for founding the state, referring obviously to the collective Jewish will. This is the point of view of one who identifies with Israel, who sees himself as part of the story. It's quite the opposite of "anti-Israel propaganda".
It's interesting to debate on this forum about topics that are really very dear to us. However, you should quote some point that Mr Fein has made, and then present your differing view. Calling names is actually quite childish. And reality is the exact opposite. A writer who speaks of the renewal and rebirth of Israel - and includes himself in the events - is expressing the central narrative of modern Jewish history.
Frank - Yes, there are anti-Israel Jews who also use the inclusive "we"/"our". Reading this particular article of Mr Fein, it is clear that he has presented a clear understanding of the Jewish narrative. The modern State of Israel is a renewal of our ancient reality. The Jewish connection with the Land of Israel "...is a history that goes back not a century or so but millennia". Therefore, he is in disagreement with President Obama's presentation of Israel as a state that was born out of the Holocaust - and he's absolutely right in protesting this aspect of Cairo speech. Your attack on him this week is, therefore, surprising.
Generally, I don't agree with Mr Fein views about Israel (the conflict in the Middle East). I don't think that one can really have a clear view of the conflict without knowing Arabic. In order to understand the conflict, one has to be able to see the world in the eyes of others.
However, criticizing Israel has a positive aspect that I would like to emphasize: One criticizes things that have real importance. There is no question that Mr Fein sees the drama of modern Israel as the most important aspect of today's Jewish life, or in his words: "...Israel is by far the most important project of the Jewish people in our time" (see http://www.forward.com/articles/13987/ ). Note that he has almost nothing to say about about American Jewish life, even though he has expertise in this field. I would be very eager to discuss Jewish life in America, because there is a lot that we should all be worried about. But his topic is generally Israel - not because he is "anti-Israel", but because he knows that this is the central issue of today's Jewish experience. It really matters. Moreover, in Jewish life in America, there is no one who shoulders any responsibility - so perhaps it's a waste of time even trying to discuss anything. Israel, on the other hand, is a Jewish society that has a decision-making mechanism capable of listening to well-meaning criticism.
The final outcome of events will be determined by those who actually make their lives in Israel. Criticism or advocacy have some impact, but the real essence is the content of our lives and the quality of our Jewish society in this land. It's nice to read good advice on the pages of the Forward - but it would be much more relevant if concerned and committed Jews would stand up to the challenges of Jewish history. Ve-hamevin yavin, Frank.
Frank - You didn't comment on my last paragraph ("The final outcome of events will be determined by those who actually make their lives in Israel..."). Hence, it is even more than obvious that you don't live here. It's nice that a Diaspora Jew is so passionately concerned about Israel; however, it's hard to take the passions too seriously when the true focus of one's life is in another social reality. It's hard to take debating about Israel too seriously (whether it's an opinion of yours or an opinion of the Forward) when someone else will be called upon in the end to shoulder the burdens of Jewish history. You should put your analysis of Mr Fein in its correct proportions.
Yehuda - OK, in fairness, I did allow myself to get drawn into this personal exchange, so one final response:
First, I note that you did not respond to or rebut anything I said.
Secondly, you seem to agree with Fein's previous article, by suggesting that there are two separate Jewish peoples, in Israel and in the Diaspora. (Fein questioned the very existence of "Jewish peoplehood", and could find no "foundation" for it.) I am appalled by that belief.
Yes, you are right, in that after I posted my response I noted that I had not mentioned your comment about, "The final outcome of events will be determined by those who actually make their lives in Israel." I do not believe that to be true. (And it begs the question of the extremist far-left anti-Israel Jews who live in Israel, and the responsibility of every Jew to support Israel.)
But the "outcome of events" concerning the existential issues, including an impending second Holocaust, will be primarily determined by the U.S. It is the U.S. which should bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, and at the very least not threaten or coerce Israel to prevent it from doing so. It is the U.S. which can place tremendous pressure on Israel to make dangerous concessions and damage its security interests. It is the U.S. which will hugely influence, if not control, the "outcome of events".
That is where American Jews can be instrumental in influencing the "final outcome of events". Although the U.S. administration, at the worst possible time, is engaged in a broad based attack on Israel (reflected in part in Obama's Cairo speech which is applauded as a "Home Run" by Fein), there are still possibilities to influence events. American Jews are in a position to do so.
There are virulent anti-Israel/antisemitic groups, like Soros' J Street, whose primary purpose is to undermine American and American Jews' support for Israel. We are in the midst of a political war. It is a fact. American Jewish groups and others are publicly stating their positions on settlements, on Iran, on a "two-state" solution, on the relationship between the U.S. and Israel, in the hope of influencing events. And that is why people like Fein, and the other far-leftist anti-Israel propagandists, as well as the cowardly "liberal" Jewish leaders and "journalists" who propagandize American Jews in the "Jewish" Forward, are dangerous and should be confronted.
I also believe that the possibility of a second Holocaust threatens every Jew in the world, and that we will together "shoulder the burdens of Jewish history".
Yehuda, I assume you are genuinely concerned about the issues facing us, and I hope that you can begin to better discern the players and battle lines in the propaganda wars being waged against the Jewish people. Finally, Yehuda, you are obviously free to respond, but I do not intend to continue this personal exchange.
Frank - I couldn't imagine why you would suggest that I agree that there are two peoples, one in Israel and one in the Diaspora. Jewish peoplehood is one. However, in the Diaspora, there is an ongoing abandonment of Jewish peoplehood (not the creation of an alternative Jewish peoplehood). Generally, an American Jew sees himself as part of the American people - and, therefore, as an American living in America, there is no exile anymore. This wasn't the case when the American Jews still spoke Yiddish. Every peoplehood includes its own language and territory (or, as in the case of Jewishness, exile from a home territory).
It's interesting, and quite strange, that you would think that American Jews will be instrumental in shaping the final outcome of events. The audience at a ballgame has some influence on the outcome of the game, but the talent and motivation of the players on the field seem to be a little more decisive. Just imagine how very uninteresting our Jewish world would be if the "players" would join the "audience" and become merely the enthusiastic spectators. For some strange reason, even committed Jews in America feel that someone else must carry the weight of this struggle, while at the same time expecting to be seen as equal partners in the drama of Jewish history. Well, allow me to be the first to tell you that writing long talkbacks to Mr Fein's articles is not quite as dramatic as guarding the border, or tilling the soil of Israel or teaching the immigrants the Hebrew language.
What home run? I see a bunch of error. Only when President Obama announces that the creation of the zionist entity was a dreadful mistake based upon falsified history and European guilt can a solution occur. When Obama makes the announcement that he will offer large areas of Nevada for settlement of colonial isrealis will I have hope
Raed - I have a feeling that Obama will not be offering Nevada for us, so I suppose that we will just have to stay where we are. Besides, the weather really is nicer in Israel.
There's a storm coming. It will pit a well-organized community ofsubstantial resources but also substantial insecurity - particularly when itcomes to charges of dual loyalty - against a popular president ofconsiderable eloquence but misguided policies that identify Israelisettlements as the main obstacle to Middle East peace. The inevitable clashwill separate sunshine Jewish patriots who back Israel when convenientagainst those who stand with Israel even when it means losing theirinvitation to the White House Hanukka party. The bogus issue of settlements is already being swallowed whole by manywell-meaning Jews. Last week Dan Fleshler, a leader of Americans for PeaceNow, wrote in the New Jersey Jewish Standard that Obama has no choice but topressure Israel because "it is fruitless for a well-armed, occupying powerto negotiate the terms of a viable settlement with an almost defenselessoccupied people unless a third party mediates and presses both sides." In reading Fleshler one wonders whether he has been himself occupied withbuilding a settlement on the moon with no knowledge of events on Earth. Ishe seriously suggesting that the thousands of Katyusha rockets and nonstopsuicide bombers that have killed more than a thousand Israelis (theequivalent of 30,000 dead Americans) have come from a "defenseless" foe? Would Fleshler likewise argue that the US ought to have pressure from, say,Russia or China to make peace with the terrorists in Afghanistan, seeingthat America now represents a "well-armed, occupying power" against thecomparatively defenseless Taliban? Or is it only Israel that is forbiddenfrom defending itself. Sorry Mr. Fleshler, but Jewish values do not dictate that the only moral Jewis a dead one who refuses to fight in the face of a 60-year terroronslaught. Any return to the 1967 borders, which is what Obama's attack on thesettlements represents, is simply suicide for Israel. The borders areutterly indefensible. The Arabs know it, which is why they press for it. Had Israel not dismantled its settlements in Gush Katif, Gaza would not havebecome a terrorist state ruled by Hamas, an organization that kills evenmore Palestinians than it does Israelis. BUT MISGUIDED Jewish apologists aside, are the rest of us prepared to speakup against the policies of the administration? By this I do not mean thedrunken racist rants of the American Jewish hooligans who got attentiondisgracing themselves on YouTube last week; their bigoted drivel against ourdemocratically elected president represents an abomination to Judaism. Ihave already written several columns lamenting how a small minority of thelarge and praiseworthy contingent of Jewish youth who go to Israel from theUS after high school ostensibly to study in yeshivot end up instead hangingout on Rehov Ben Yehuda making asses of themselves. That they have noproper supervision and that they are allowed to go through their year in adrunken stupor is an outrage that must be finally addressed by theinstitutions which host them. Rather, I mean courageous and intelligent criticism that accepts thepresident's praiseworthy efforts in making peace but decries his softposture on tyranny when he bows to an Arab potentate who oppresses women andwarmly embraces the dictator of Venezuela. Asher Lopatin was one of the first students I met at Oxford and theuniversity's first Orthodox Rhodes scholar. Today he is the successful rabbiof one of Chicago's most youthful congregations. He is also Rahm Emanuel'srabbi. But that did not stop him from criticizing the White House chief ofstaff in Newsweek for his unfair pressure on Israel. Lopatin could easilyhave basked in the aura of being rabbi to one of the most influential men inthe world. Instead, he spoke truth to power. In promoting the new translation of his Hebrew prayer book, British ChiefRabbi Jonathan Sacks constantly reminds us that he studies Bible with theprime minister of the United Kingdom. That's nice. But a few years ago Sacksspoke out publicly against Israel, telling London's Guardian newspaper,"There are things that happen on a daily basis which make me feel veryuncomfortable as a Jew." Sacks is a brilliant man but with a long history of pandering to whateveraudience he happens to be addressing. He would do well to remember theadmonishment of Mordechai to Esther on the responsibility of being close topolitical power: "If you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverancewill arise for the Jews from another place." But while Europe and the UK are significant, the main battle lines will behere in the US and now is the time for American Jewry to organize. Fromschools to universities to synagogues and JCCs, we must make it clear thatwhen 78 percent of Jews voted for Obama and filled his campaign coffers withcash it was not in the expectation of biased policies against Israel. We'reupset, disappointed and we won't take it. We'll march in the streets, writeop-eds and blogs, and publish ads making it clear that America should bestanding with the Middle East's only democracy and America's most reliableally. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, our president undermines his moralauthority when he pledges that henceforth America will "forge partnershipsas opposed to simply dictating solutions," but then only applies that pledgeto Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela, but not to Israel. Last year, right after Obama captured the democratic nomination, I receiveda phone call from his campaign asking if I would serve as one of thenational chairs of "Rabbis for Obama." It was a tempting offer. I was movedby the candidate's remarkable personal story, his iron discipline, hissoaring oratory and, most of all, the fact that his victory would be theculmination of my hero Martin Luther King's dream of a man being judged bythe content of his character rather than the color of his skin. In the end Ideclined because I feared that Obama would draw a moral equivalence betweenIsrael and the Palestinians and pressure the former to appease the latter.But even I never suspected that it would happen so quickly and solopsidedly.
For those of you mistified by who Yehuda is talking to ... The Forward has DELETED three of my posts, which for its own far-left anti-Israel reasons, it did not want you to read.
Since they were accurate and well-reasoned, you can all ask yourselves why they were afraid to have you read them. (And why virulent anti-Israel/anti-Semitic posts are always welcome.)
Suffice it to say that Mr. Fein is a far-left anti-Israel virulent anti-Israel propagandist, and reflects the true colors of the "Jewish" Forward.
And good for SHMULEY! Nice post (but if you split it up into paragraphs it will be easier to read).