A couple months ago, I tried to leave a message for Israeli Amb. Michael Oren through the embassy’s press staff asking him to explain why he was so hostile to J Street — and, it appeared, progressive American Jews. No luck. However, an enterprising student at the University of California-San Diego, Jolene Crixell, tweeted at me that Oren was going to speak on her campus on Wednesday. Kindly, she agreed to write up the ambassador’s remarks, so here’s Jolene’s report, complete with Oren’s response to a question she asked him:
Everyone putting on the event seemed really nervous, probably because of the UC Irvine incident just a few days before. [Ed. Note: That would be when Oren was shouted down when he attempted to speak at Irvine.] The crowd was mostly members of various campus Jewish organizations as well as a lot of old people who were seated up front. After being reminded that we’d be subject to discipline and even arrest if we acted obscenely or interrupted he finally came out.
He told us about how when he was asked to be ambassador everyone kept telling him what a difficult job he’d face. Even Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman — whom he described as “not a squeamish guy” — warned him that he was going to have a hard time. The reason was that the American people had just elected Barack Hussein Obama [Ed. Note: I asked Jolene whether Oren really did use Obama's middle name here, and she said he did indeed. What a disgraceful dog-whistle] and that there were three potential issues of conflict between the Netanyahu government and the American president.
The first was the two-state solution, which the Obama administration was deeply attached to, and wanted to move quickly toward. Oren said that Netanyahu had reservations about it due to previous problems with unilateral withdrawal in Gaza and that he did not believe the Palestinians would recognize Israel. The second problem is the settlements. Oren presented the argument that since Israel is a democracy, it would somehow be wrong for the government to tell people where they could live. The third, and biggest potential point of conflict was over Iran. He said that while Obama had made a diplomatic overture to Iran, Israel was afraid of an open ended negotiation. [Ed. Note: Not that that's a live issue, but whatever, Mr. Ambassador...]
After outlining these issues he said that Netanyahu’s speech in June relieved a lot of tension in regards to the two-state solution. As for the settlements, Oren referenced the ten-month settlement freeze Netanyahu embraced, but averred that the Palestinians are still unconvinced that they will gain more than lose from negotiations. He told the audience that he was present for Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S. last year, and that Obama told them that any talks with Iran would not be open-ended. In those meetings they agreed to disagree about East Jerusalem. Oren was also very pleased that the Obama administration helped Israel fight the Goldstone Report on the Gaza War.
Most of the questions directed at Oren were really hostile and he got visibly angry. He kept asking us what we would do if rockets were being shot into San Diego. This was seriously part of his response to more than one question. They cut questions off after about 10 people but I got to ask the last one! I asked about progressive American Jews being characterized as anti-Israel. He basically said that he hadn’t suggested that, [Ed. Note: Ahem.] and that while there are disagreements on Israeli policies, he understands that J Street’s mission statement is pro-Israel. He also noted that J Street had released a statement condemning the Irvine incident and supporting his right to speak at the UC campuses. He seemed really happy about that.



7 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Thank you for this report, Ms Crixell. You did well.
Interesting stuff. Do you know if anyone has a video of it, or better yet, a transcript of the whole thing?
The dog whistle gives me more hope that Obama isn’t as accommodating to them as he is toward the banks.
I wish you had more question/answers, but Thank you!
Not sure what the big deal is about using Obama’s middle name here. From reading this report, it sounds like Oren’s speech in San Diego was very similar to multiple speeches I’ve heard Oren give to Jewish audiences around Washington, D.C. The gist of his speech is that the relationship between Israel and the U.S., and Israel and Obama, is much better than the audience has maybe been led to believe (one can argue the truth of that claim, but that’s what he’s arguing). And it’s clear that when he uses Hussein in this case(and I don’t remember if he used the middle name or not when I heard him), he’s using the language of those who were skeptical of Obama–as in “Why would you want this job? You’re dealing with a guy named Barack Hussein Obama?” In context, it makes sense, and isn’t some kind of a “dog whistle”–unless you’re just trying to find something to complain about.
okay it’s a schmere job. it’s innuendo, it’s codewords. No one actually uses all three of O’s names unless they want to emphasize his “differentness”, and paint him as part of the enemy group, or at least a agitating outsider.
But you can pretend you don’t get it. I really don’t care.
Yeah, exactly, shekissesfrogs. Oren was saying others were trying to paint Obama as “part of the enemy group” by using “all three names”–and Oren’s point in the speech is that there’s nothing to worry about, Obama and Israel are doing OK. That’s the context I’m referring to.
So it’s OK because he’s attributing this viewpoint to someone else? You have a point but if nothing else its depressing that “everyone” in the circles Oren moves in thinks Obama is kinda sorta a Muslim.