Gary Rosenblatt’s assertion that the key issues in Michael Oren’s new book to be debated are the Iran deal and the West Bank is a nice attempt to rephrase the debate to focus on crucial topics. (“Michael Oren And The Debate That Won’t Die,” July 10).
However it seems that a key issue Oren raises is his feeling that the U.S. was obligated not to allow any daylight between it and Israel, and must preview its Mideast positions with Israel. These may be ideal principles but no country would limit its own freedom of action that way. Notably Israel does not abide by such rules when it comes to its actions in Congress or with the Arabs.
In this way Oren seems like a naive individual rather than the seasoned diplomat and noted historian he once was thought to be. Further, he writes stridently against American Jewish liberal journalists, attributing any criticism by them of Israel to a desire to abet their careers and to curry favor in the gentile world. It therefore seems that — contrary to Rosenblatt’s closing point that the discussion of Oren’s book should focus on the Iran deal (which very few American Jews are embracing) — the reason for the uproar is Oren's rather one-sided view of American Jewish liberal dissent and outrage that Obama has violated Oren's personal beliefs concerning constraints U.S. foreign policy should have with respect to Israel.