Comments on: Mr. Oren Goes to Washington, Maybe

By: ARTH

ARTH — Thu, 07 May 2009 21:11:23 +0000

Oren would be a good ambassador for Israel as a state, rather than in the service of a particular party or ideology. He understands that when speaking about Israel to a non-Israeli and non-Zionist audience, that the ways in which Israelis talk to themselves, and between themselves, about Arab Israeli conflict issues are irrelevant. In other words, the ambassador is not preaching to the already converted and convinced, and the rationale used within Israel are not necessarily found to be convincing by outsiders. Also, his quiet manner is in direct opposition to the typical Israeli style and image which so much resembles classical anti-semitic characateurs of Jews.

By: Alan Schwartz

Alan Schwartz — Fri, 01 May 2009 14:43:35 +0000

Israel needs a handsome ambassador. Dore Gold would destroy Israel’s image.

By: Paul Feldsher

Paul Feldsher — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:22:42 +0000

Oren is a good man and a brilliant scholar. Albeit rather hawkish for my own aspirations, I believe that Oren is a preternatural pragmatist and understands that the very survival of Israel would require a departure from the (current) rhetoric of the Netanyahu/Leiberman cabal . His potential as the Israeli (GG note: not “US”) ambassador to Washington is something I actually find hopeful. I believe his respect for the intelligence and equanimity of the Obama crowd will have him returning to his boss with the sort of counsel that will advance the sort of policies that Gorenbergs and Feldshers of this world believe to be THE only path. Such is my hope in Mike Oren the man (and the extent of my pollyannaism?)

By: Ben Mendelsohn

Ben Mendelsohn — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:55:10 +0000

No one is ever going to elect me prime minister of anything, either, but I’d definitely save a top-level post for Gershom.

By: John Sterns

John Sterns — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:40:48 +0000

I remember meeting Michael Oren for a few, brief minutes at a social function. When I mentioned I was “between positions” in high tech, he immediately suggested I consider Israel’s high tech industry and immigrate. I think that kind of enthusiasm for Israel is one appealing qualification for the job of U.S. ambassador.

On unilateral withdrawal, I think YBD is right, the ambassador can talk about it all he wants, but the Prime Minister will decide. The cynic in me says the purpose isn’t really withdrawal so much as to tell the U.S. something we want to hear (“Israel will be out some day”) so we don’t push too hard for a two state solution.

By: gg

gg — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 12:49:49 +0000

thanks for weighing in on this. i read the haaretz piece yesterday and have been grappling with the possibility of Oren as ambassador. i feel like he could swing either way on this issue and was not sure if i should be too optimistic about his unilateral comment. he also says “most of the settlements,” which i think is vague. will the IDF stay to protect the settlers? will the roads remain ’settler only’ roads? etc. etc.

time will tell i suppose. until then, my fingers are crossed.

By: Marc Gopin

Marc Gopin — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:48:14 +0000

Gershom, I would like to know your opinion of Oren’s latest on unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank. Do you understand its substance and implications? What does it say to you about his current political positions and ability to negotiate the Obama Era?
I personally think that unilateralism was an unmitigated disaster in Gaza, and that moving forward in the Oslo era without confidence building among the majority of Israelis and Palestinians was also a disaster. Multilateralism, comprehensivity, and encouragement of popular participation in peace processes seems to me more apt in the Age of Obama. That is how we elected him, and that is what he is pushing for.
marcgopin.com

By: Y. Ben-David

Y. Ben-David — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:35:35 +0000

In today’s world of instant communications, the old job of an Ambassador, which was to represent his government’s wishes to the country he is posted in has become a lot less important. Whereas in the past, due to the slow speed of travel, ambassadors were often given plenipotentiary powers to negotiate with the host country. Today, the Ambassador is basically a messenger boy, because his leader can contact the leader on the other side directly by phone. Oren is a staunch Zionist which can not be said about many of the people appointed to foreign service jobs during the Left’s period of control (most of the last 15 years and I include Sharon’s tenure as Prime Minister when he pretty much adopted the Labor Party’s positions) regardless of his position on the future of Judea/Samaria and I think this would be a major consideration for Netanyahu.