web analytics
October 20, 2014 / 26 Tishri, 5775
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post
Meir Panim with Soldiers 5774 Roundup: Year of Relief and Service for Israel’s Needy

Meir Panim implements programs that serve Israel’s neediest populations with respect and dignity. Meir Panim also coordinated care packages for families in the South during the Gaza War.



Home » InDepth » Op-Eds »

On Israel, Obama Brings Moynihan To Mind

Those who view American-Israel relations through a dualistic “are you pro-Israel or anti-Israel” lens must be confused.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Those who view American-Israel relations through a dualistic “are you pro-Israel or anti-Israel” lens must be confused. In one week, the United States stands virtually alone with Israel against the Palestinians’ upgrade of their status at the United Nations, then immediately condemns Israel’s settlement expansion.

Similarly, despite Republican warnings that a reelected Barack Obama would “throw Israel under a bus,” the president backed Israel during the recent Gaza War.

Obama’s behavior fits the historical pattern. Arab attacks on Israel’s right to exist trigger America’s protective impulse even as Israeli doggedeness vexes American leaders. Arab attacks have often saved Israeli policymakers from American wrath.

This pattern emerged clearly as the U.S.-Israel friendship solidified following the October 1973 Yom Kippur War. After his indefatigable shuttle diplomacy pieced together a cease-fire, Henry Kissinger tried parlaying the war’s chaos into a lasting peace. Israel refused to relinquish critical strategic assets without “an overall settlement” or at least a non-belligerency pact, which Egypt rejected. As the negotiations dragged, American frustrations mounted.

In March 1975, the Israelis proposed a two-week negotiation break. An “outraged” Kissinger accused Israel and America’s Jewish community of being “irresponsible,” of fomenting anti-Semitism. Oval Office transcripts chronicled Kissinger condemning Israel’s leaders as “a sick bunch” and “the world’s worst [expletives].”

At Kissinger’s insistence, President Gerald Ford announced a “reassessment” that March, temporarily freezing relations with Israel. Six months later, on Sept. 1, 1975, Israel approved the Sinai accords.

During this nadir, an Arab-Soviet assault against Israel suddenly reminded Americans and Israelis of their deep friendship. Soviet and Third World delegates sought to expel Israel from the United Nations. America’s new U.N. ambassador, Daniel Patrick Moynihan – with Kissinger’s backing – said the U.S. would consider expulsion a severe breach.

Backpedaling, the anti-American, anti-Zionist totalitarians chose a strategy that Moynihan realized could threaten Israel’s legitimacy even more – calling Zionism racism.

Moynihan, the iconoclastic Harvard professor and ubiquitous White House adviser, backed Israel to defend democracy and decency. He said Resolution 3379, with its perverse Soviet-orchestrated distortions of language and history, “reeked of the totalitarian mind, stank of the totalitarian state” – and sought to humiliate the U.S. and Israel.

Moynihan’s confrontational strategy initially left him feeling as lonely as Israel. His fury alienated America’s allies and adversaries, along with America’s foreign policy establishment, including Kissinger.

“We are conducting foreign policy,” phone transcripts chronicle Kissinger grumbling behind Moynihan’s back on Nov. 10, 1975, as Moynihan fought Resolution 3379. “This is not a synagogue.”

Yet Moynihan’s attack on the resolution made him an American pop star. At a moment of American despair, six months after Vietnam fell, with crime rising, inflation soaring and depression threatening, Americans found a hero. More than 26,000 letters cascaded into the U.S. mission of the UN cheering Moynihan, denouncing the UN’s anti-Semitic lynch mob and celebrating his politics of patriotic indignation. A year after his heroic stand, grateful New Yorkers sent Moynihan to the U.S. Senate.

This pure, passionate reaction reflected the popular ties and values overlap uniting Israel and America – a deep-seeded, grass-roots expression sprouting naturally, not political Astroturf artificially tended by an “Israel lobby.”

Then as now, U.S.-Israel relations occur on two tracks, with the United States frequently acting like the annoyed older brother who ultimately has his kid brother’s back.

When American leaders try solving the post-1967 disputes and managing the Middle East, relations with Israel are frequently fragile, occasionally explosive. The greatest tensions – after Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, during the James Baker-George H.W. Bush loan-guarantee fight and during the first half of Obama’s first term – reflected American-Israeli disagreements regarding what Israel had to do, or not do, to get along with its neighbors.

But when the Arabs try refighting 1948, assailing Israel’s right to live, American loyalty to Israel shines through. The 1975 Zionism is racism assault returned the discussion to the basics, as did the Hamas rockets and the ugly rhetoric by Mahmoud Abbas accusing Israel of “racism” and “apartheid.” Such assaults shift the focus from whatever tensions the peace process stirs to a more fundamental fight for life.

These two tracks prove how impoverished the current vocabulary is. Few mainstream American leaders are anti-Israel – not Kissinger in the 1970s and not Obama today. Their anger, be it justified or not, is transactional not existential, passing not permanent, reflecting day-to-day tensions, not do-or-die fights.

So let’s reserve the term “anti-Israel” for the fanatics who deserve it, understand that most American leaders are pro-Israel and stop echoing the delegitimizers’ all-or-nothing rhetoric about Israel.

Moreover, this enduring pattern in U.S.-Israel relations further illustrates how self-defeating the ongoing totalitarian Arab strategy of delegitimization has been. Demonizing Israel, attacking Israel’s right to existence and targeting Israeli civilians perpetuates the conflict, escalating it into a zero-sum, 1948-like existential struggle rather than a solvable post-1967 boundary dispute. It strengthens Israel’s peace-through-strength camp while demoralizing its land-for-peace camp. And it keeps reinforcing the genuine, deep but occasionally fraught U.S.-Israel friendship.

(JTA)

About the Author: Gil Troy is a professor of history at McGill University and a Shalom Hartman Engaging Israel Fellow in Jerusalem. His latest book is "Moynihan's Moment: America's Fight Against Zionism as Racism."


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

8 Responses to “On Israel, Obama Brings Moynihan To Mind”

  1. Ken Hagerman says:

    A mixed up confused Administration,One that pretends it for Israel, but secretly they are raving wolfs set on the fall of Israel….some wont agree with this but just think. They think if Israel was out of the way they would have a stable Middle East…After all Obama likes Muslim Brother Hood & all the Muslim country’s.

  2. Ken Hagerman says:

    A mixed up confused Administration,One that pretends it for Israel, but secretly they are raving wolfs set on the fall of Israel….some wont agree with this but just think. They think if Israel was out of the way they would have a stable Middle East…After all Obama likes Muslim Brother Hood & all the Muslim country’s.

  3. Charlie Hall says:

    One can oppose settlements and be pro-Israel. The last nine US Presidents fit that description!

  4. Pushing the Jewish People of any generation to repudiate not just our own but future generations' ties to the one land on Earth that G'd designated for us – is probably not likely to produce tons of blessing, eh?

  5. Oh, my dad is going to LOVE this.

  6. Charlie Hall says:

    Michael, some of the greatest Orthodox rabbis of my lifetime supported Land for Peace.

  7. Yossie Bloch says:

    When did we repudiate our ties to much of Lebanon and Jordan?

  8. Charlie Hall says:

    What ties to Jordan? Reuven and Gad were criticized for not wanting to live in Eretz Yisrael, and there is a rabbinic opinion that that was the reason that they were the first to be exiled.

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
Aerial view of Yemenite Village of HaShiloach, Old City of Jerusalem and Mt. of Olives.
Jews to Double Presence in Old Yemenite Village of Shiloach, Silwan
Latest Indepth Stories
Arab children look at pictures of two of a kind - Arafat and Barghouti.

{Originally posted on author’s site, FirstOne Through} The town of Sayreville, New Jersey is in mourning. The superintendent of the town shut the high school’s football program for the rest of the year due to reports of sexual assaults made by upper classmen of the football team against the junior classmen. According to initial reports, […]

Jordan's King Abdullah

The Arab Spring has challenged Jordan with the task of gradual reform with regard to its monarchy.

The Kinneret/Sea of Galilee

Israel offered Syria the entire Golan Heights, only to find that the Syrians were demanding MORE!

Bibeye doctor

Israeli hasbara too can be described at best as pathetic, at worst non existent.

A ‘good news’ story from the Nepal avalanche disaster to warm your heart. Take out your Kleenex.

Journalists see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as morality play: Israel=evil; Palestine=innocent

Warsaw Ghetto: At its height, the Nazis walled in some 500,000 Jews within the1.3 square mile area.

While police officers face dangers every day on the job, Jews also face danger in their daily lives.

Carter developed a fondness for Arafat believing “they were both ordained to be peacemakers by God”

If Hamas is ISIS, the world asks, why didn’t Israel destroy it given justification and opportunity?

That key is the disarming of Hamas and the demilitarization of Gaza – as the U.S., EU, and others agreed to in principle at the end of Operation Protective Edge.

We have no doubt there are those who deeply desire to present themselves as being of a gender that is not consistent with their anatomy, and we take no joy in the pain and embarrassment they suffer.

Does it not seem ironic that just on the day all of Israel is joyously celebrating another year of having concluded the public reading of the entire Pentateuch, we must mournfully and even tearfully commemorate the death of the individual who imparted to us God’s Torah in the first place?

Why is “Palestine” worthier of “statehood recognition” than ISIS, another terrorist gang seeking it?

More Articles from Gil Troy
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Those who view American-Israel relations through a dualistic “are you pro-Israel or anti-Israel” lens must be confused. In one week, the United States stands virtually alone with Israel against the Palestinians’ upgrade of their status at the United Nations, then immediately condemns Israel’s settlement expansion.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/96478/2012/12/19/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: