Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer has struck again. Apparently buoyed by the recent extravagant reunion at Tel-Aviv University with his fellow Peace Now activists and former boss, Bill Clinton, Mr. Kurtzer has taken the liberty to meddle, yet again, in Israel's internal politics. Calling upon Israeli students to pressure their government toward more "reconciliation" and "reasonable compromise," at a time when even his handlers in the U.S. State Department seem to finally realize what the Palestinian Authority stands for, was way out of line.
A political storm was stirred, just over two weeks ago, when Member of Knesset Zvi Hendel called Mr. Kurtzer a "little Jewboy" from the Knesset podium in response to previous incidents triggered by the Ambassador. Mr. Hendel's protest may not have had its intended effect, as his comments were overly harsh and offensive. Nevertheless, the Ambassador should pay close attention. Mr. Hendel's remarks, as well as remarks made by other MK's, reflect a growing dismay, deep resentment and much frustration, shared by many Israelis, over Mr. Kurtzer's recurring and blatant interference in Israel's internal affairs, with no proper official response on the part of its leadership. Mr. Kurtzer's remarks before the students, his demand over two weeks ago for an explanation from the Israeli Defense Ministry as to "illegal" settlement construction in Judea and Samaria, and his speech some three weeks ago, implying that Israel give more money to the handicapped and less to the settlements, are merely three major recent examples. One can imagine how the U.S. government would have reacted had Israel's ambassador to Washington acted in a similar manner.
The phenomenon of highly ranked Jewish officials in foreign administrations going out of their way to demonstrate their "objectivity" with respect to Israel, while making use of their Jewishness to cover their anti-Israel policies, has plagued us for generations. Recently, former U.S. President Bill Clinton's "peace team" included no less than 9(!) Jews, who played a most critical role in extracting far-reaching concessions from Israel while eroding her political standing and security situation to an almost unprecedented low. Yet, if it seemed as though this syndrome of the "(Jewish) High Commissioner" was fully exhausted during the Clinton era, undoubtedly Mr. Kurtzer's words and deeds have served to prove otherwise."
It should be noted that the writing was on the wall well before Mr. Kurtzer's appointment as an ambassador to Israel. In his op-ed, "Judge Kurtzer on His Words and Deeds" (Jerusalem Post, May 6, 2001), National President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), Morton Klein, highlighted Kurtzer's pro-PLO record over the past 25 years. According to Mr. Klein, as early as the 1970's, when the organization was already deeply engaged in atrocious, wide-spread terror attacks in Israel and abroad, Mr. Kurtzer's doctoral dissertation referred to them as "guerrillas" rather than terrorists and further claimed that Israel's policies "convinced these Palestinians that violence was the only answer to their frustration." During his diplomatic career, Mr. Kurtzer has worked tirelessly on behalf of the PLO and was instrumental in obtaining American recognition of the terror organization in 1988, in spite of Israel's strong opposition. Given Mr. Kurtzer's extremely biased track record vis-?-vis the PLO, it is no wonder that leading figures and columnists, as well as several Jewish organizations and newspapers have opposed his nomination as an ambassador to Israel. It is unfortunate that Israel's government ignored such public appeals and did not insist on an alternative appointment, especially in view of the bad experience with his predecessor, Martin Indyk.
Not only did the Ambassador not regret his recurring, unacceptable intervention, a spokesman at the American embassy ? in an interview with Arutz Sheva ? argued essentially that America's right to interfere stemmed from the fact that it grants Israel generous annual aid. Such a patronizing approach should be rejected outright. Surely the U.S. aid is also an investment, the return of which benefits America greatly in strategic, military and economic terms. Furthermore, attempting to condition the U.S. aid and link it to certain policies, severely undermines Israel's stature as an independent, sovereign state. As MK Michael Kleiner noted, it is doubtful that Mr. Kurtzer ? in his capacity as U.S. Ambassador to Egypt ? had also bothered to prioritize Egypt's national goals, in terms of how American aid to that county was to be allocated.
A government that is willing to look the other way, rather than publicly denounce the foreign ambassador and declare him persona-non-grata, in response to his blunt intervention in Israel's internal affairs, undoubtedly helps create a dangerous perception of a hesitant, weak country. This is merely one symptom of the lack of a coherent, persistent and consistent policy, which has characterized the current government from its very start. It should be of no surprise, therefore, that too often we encounter a double standard in the U.S. Administration's policies and unreasonable difficulties in attempting to explain our position in the U.S. Notwithstanding Mr. Hendel's unfortunate remarks over two weeks ago, this is the main lesson to be drawn from the recent incidents involving the American ambassador.
-------------------------------
Dr. Nathan Netanyahu is a lecturer and researcher of computer science and a member of Professors for a Strong Israel.
A political storm was stirred, just over two weeks ago, when Member of Knesset Zvi Hendel called Mr. Kurtzer a "little Jewboy" from the Knesset podium in response to previous incidents triggered by the Ambassador. Mr. Hendel's protest may not have had its intended effect, as his comments were overly harsh and offensive. Nevertheless, the Ambassador should pay close attention. Mr. Hendel's remarks, as well as remarks made by other MK's, reflect a growing dismay, deep resentment and much frustration, shared by many Israelis, over Mr. Kurtzer's recurring and blatant interference in Israel's internal affairs, with no proper official response on the part of its leadership. Mr. Kurtzer's remarks before the students, his demand over two weeks ago for an explanation from the Israeli Defense Ministry as to "illegal" settlement construction in Judea and Samaria, and his speech some three weeks ago, implying that Israel give more money to the handicapped and less to the settlements, are merely three major recent examples. One can imagine how the U.S. government would have reacted had Israel's ambassador to Washington acted in a similar manner.
The phenomenon of highly ranked Jewish officials in foreign administrations going out of their way to demonstrate their "objectivity" with respect to Israel, while making use of their Jewishness to cover their anti-Israel policies, has plagued us for generations. Recently, former U.S. President Bill Clinton's "peace team" included no less than 9(!) Jews, who played a most critical role in extracting far-reaching concessions from Israel while eroding her political standing and security situation to an almost unprecedented low. Yet, if it seemed as though this syndrome of the "(Jewish) High Commissioner" was fully exhausted during the Clinton era, undoubtedly Mr. Kurtzer's words and deeds have served to prove otherwise."
It should be noted that the writing was on the wall well before Mr. Kurtzer's appointment as an ambassador to Israel. In his op-ed, "Judge Kurtzer on His Words and Deeds" (Jerusalem Post, May 6, 2001), National President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), Morton Klein, highlighted Kurtzer's pro-PLO record over the past 25 years. According to Mr. Klein, as early as the 1970's, when the organization was already deeply engaged in atrocious, wide-spread terror attacks in Israel and abroad, Mr. Kurtzer's doctoral dissertation referred to them as "guerrillas" rather than terrorists and further claimed that Israel's policies "convinced these Palestinians that violence was the only answer to their frustration." During his diplomatic career, Mr. Kurtzer has worked tirelessly on behalf of the PLO and was instrumental in obtaining American recognition of the terror organization in 1988, in spite of Israel's strong opposition. Given Mr. Kurtzer's extremely biased track record vis-?-vis the PLO, it is no wonder that leading figures and columnists, as well as several Jewish organizations and newspapers have opposed his nomination as an ambassador to Israel. It is unfortunate that Israel's government ignored such public appeals and did not insist on an alternative appointment, especially in view of the bad experience with his predecessor, Martin Indyk.
Not only did the Ambassador not regret his recurring, unacceptable intervention, a spokesman at the American embassy ? in an interview with Arutz Sheva ? argued essentially that America's right to interfere stemmed from the fact that it grants Israel generous annual aid. Such a patronizing approach should be rejected outright. Surely the U.S. aid is also an investment, the return of which benefits America greatly in strategic, military and economic terms. Furthermore, attempting to condition the U.S. aid and link it to certain policies, severely undermines Israel's stature as an independent, sovereign state. As MK Michael Kleiner noted, it is doubtful that Mr. Kurtzer ? in his capacity as U.S. Ambassador to Egypt ? had also bothered to prioritize Egypt's national goals, in terms of how American aid to that county was to be allocated.
A government that is willing to look the other way, rather than publicly denounce the foreign ambassador and declare him persona-non-grata, in response to his blunt intervention in Israel's internal affairs, undoubtedly helps create a dangerous perception of a hesitant, weak country. This is merely one symptom of the lack of a coherent, persistent and consistent policy, which has characterized the current government from its very start. It should be of no surprise, therefore, that too often we encounter a double standard in the U.S. Administration's policies and unreasonable difficulties in attempting to explain our position in the U.S. Notwithstanding Mr. Hendel's unfortunate remarks over two weeks ago, this is the main lesson to be drawn from the recent incidents involving the American ambassador.
-------------------------------
Dr. Nathan Netanyahu is a lecturer and researcher of computer science and a member of Professors for a Strong Israel.