Lauder’s letter to Obama, and his questions

Ronald Lauder, the president of the World Jewish Congress, is the latest Jewish organizational official to call on President Obama to keep his differences with the Jewish state on the down low. In an open letter dated April 15 he writes:

Our great country and the tiny State of Israel have long shared the core values of freedom and democracy.  It is a bond much treasured by the Jewish people.  In that spirit I submit, most respectfully, that it is time to end our public feud with Israel and to confront the real challenges that we face together.

Lauder — and it must be said in this context that he is a committed Republican — also has some questions for Obama. 

Our concern grows to alarm as we consider some disturbing questions.  Why does the thrust of this Administration’s Middle East rhetoric seem to blame Israel for the lack of movement on peace talks? After all, it is the Palestinians, not Israel, who refuse to negotiate.

(snip)

Another important question is this: What is the Administration’s position on Israel’s borders in any final status agreement? Ambiguity on this matter has provoked a wave of rumors and anxiety.  Can it be true that America is no longer committed to a final status agreement that provides defensible borders for Israel?  Is a new course being charted that would leave Israel with the indefensible borders that invited invasion prior to 1967? 

There are significant moves from the Palestinian side to use those indefensible borders as the basis for a future unilateral declaration of independence. How would the United States respond to such a reckless course of action?

And what are America’s strategic ambitions in the broader Middle East? The Administration’s desire to improve relations with the Muslim world is well known. But is friction with Israel part of this new strategy? Is it assumed worsening relations with Israel can improve relations with Muslims?

These are not difficult questions to answer: The administration consistently says it wants the Palestinians to step up (most recently through Quartet statements). As recently as yesterday, Obama has said that final status is up to the parties, and that includes the borders; the administration backs the Palestinian Authority’s state-building as a means of creating a more positive environment for a deal, but also explicitly rules out any unilateral initiative. And Obama’s famous June speech to the Muslims emphasized U.S. closeness to Israel.

Now you can nuance (yes kids, it’s a verb now!) all of this: Does the administration make as much of its differences with the Palestinians as it does of those with Israel? I’d say, honestly, it was a toss-up until a month ago, but for sure, the last month has been harder on the Israeli side.

Could the administration be a little more aggressive in warning P.A. Prime Minister Salam Fayyad about the perils of unilaterally declaring a unilateral state? Maybe, but it’s also not clear that Fayyad will declare borders, so that undercuts Lauder’s "anxieties" (expressed, by the way, on behalf of  "Jews around the world").

And any doubts that were lingering about Obama’s June speech were — at least this is the Beltway Jewish consensus — cleared away by Joe Biden last month, and this was after the Jerusalem housing start that launched the recent tensions.

UPDATE: The New York Times quotes Lauder as saying that he cleared the letter with Bibi:

Mr. Lauder, who said the letter was scheduled to be published Thursday as an advertisement in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, said he discussed the letter with Mr. Netanyahu and received his support before taking out the advertisement.