they are and not what theyâve done.
âBosnia was a very powerful issue because it didnât affect American national interests directly, and so how people responded to it was very interesting. I found a correlation between Jewish people and caring about Muslims in Bosnia. Thatâs the part of being Jewish that means a lot to me: the values, the significance of helping the underdog, the oppressed, the one who is being discriminated against, more than remembering Rabbi Hillelâs sayings.â
I ask if he ever felt conscious of being a Jew in the State Department. âMy religion, and whether I had one leg or two eyes or one nostril, had no impact whatsoever on my ability to tell the foreign service that, âThis is what the president of the United States wants you to do.â Period.
âNow, I will acknowledge that the Clinton Administration happened to have had a very large number of Jews in the national security area, working especially on the subject of Israel. And that was the subject of a lot of written commentaries in the Arab world, and perhaps here as well . . . Arguably and objectively, the Clinton Administration had a tougher love policy towards Israel than the Bush Administration, which has few prominent Jewish-Americans involved in policy at all. So I donât think oneâs religion had any impact on oneâs policy prescriptions or presumptions or proclivities. And I donât feel in any way that my being Jewish affected how the foreign service responded to the Secretary of State.â
But surely he felt heightened scrutiny when he dealt with Israel and issues surrounding the conflict there. âYeah, I felt the self-hating Jew accusation if we were being tough on Israel, and I felt the Arabs using my being Jewish against me, but I didnât have any guilt about the whole thing. I believed that one could believe strongly in the security of the state of Israel and occasionally disagree with the government there. And could disagree about what was best for Israel, let alone what was best for the United States. And I was also very clear that my priority was what was best for the United States.â In other words, the typical suspicion of dual loyalty was immaterial. âI never felt it, I never experienced it, I never saw it. I mean I was aware of that perception floating around often, but for me, it was always quite clear: I was there to protect, pursue, advance American interests, and ninety-nine percent of the time that was consistent with Israeli interests; and if it wasnât, it wasnât a close call.â
Despite his unsentimental attitude toward Israel, he says its reason for being remains clear. âMy whole life, the Holocaust has colored my understanding of world history. Itâs been high up on the list of things that I understood from a very young age as the ultimate in evil. I did my share of reading and moviegoing about the subject and Iâve been to Yad Vashem half a dozen times. I have complicated views on exactly what one should and shouldnât do between Israelis and the Palestinians; but one thing I do believe is that until Palestinians and Arabs appreciate the magnitude of the suffering of the Holocaust, and
believe
it, that it will be very hard to have peace in the Middle East. So I believe that is extremely important to Jews and to humanity.
âIt came into play for me as a government official when I was in office and Bosnia was happening and I remember saying, âWhat am I doing? Should I leave the State Department if we donât do anything to intervene?â And then, I hope, I played a small role in helping the president and others come to the conclusion that they should do something about it. Because that was the modern-day version of the Holocaust in Europe. Not that it was the same in magnitude, or even in conception, but it was a people being destroyed in the heart of Europe. And we could do something about it.
âBosnia was a very powerful issue because it didnât affect American national interests directly, and so how people responded to it was very interesting. I found a correlation between Jewish people and caring about Muslims in Bosnia. Thatâs the part of being Jewish that means a lot to me: the values, the significance of helping the underdog, the oppressed, the one who is being discriminated against, more than remembering Rabbi Hillelâs sayings.â
I ask if he ever felt conscious of being a Jew in the State Department. âMy religion, and whether I had one leg or two eyes or one nostril, had no impact whatsoever on my ability to tell the foreign service that, âThis is what the president of the United States wants you to do.â Period.
âNow, I will acknowledge that the Clinton Administration happened to have had a very large number of Jews in the national security area, working especially on the subject of Israel. And that was the subject of a lot of written commentaries in the Arab world, and perhaps here as well . . . Arguably and objectively, the Clinton Administration had a tougher love policy towards Israel than the Bush Administration, which has few prominent Jewish-Americans involved in policy at all. So I donât think oneâs religion had any impact on oneâs policy prescriptions or presumptions or proclivities. And I donât feel in any way that my being Jewish affected how the foreign service responded to the Secretary of State.â
But surely he felt heightened scrutiny when he dealt with Israel and issues surrounding the conflict there. âYeah, I felt the self-hating Jew accusation if we were being tough on Israel, and I felt the Arabs using my being Jewish against me, but I didnât have any guilt about the whole thing. I believed that one could believe strongly in the security of the state of Israel and occasionally disagree with the government there. And could disagree about what was best for Israel, let alone what was best for the United States. And I was also very clear that my priority was what was best for the United States.â In other words, the typical suspicion of dual loyalty was immaterial. âI never felt it, I never experienced it, I never saw it. I mean I was aware of that perception floating around often, but for me, it was always quite clear: I was there to protect, pursue, advance American interests, and ninety-nine percent of the time that was consistent with Israeli interests; and if it wasnât, it wasnât a close call.â
Despite his unsentimental attitude toward Israel, he says its reason for being remains clear. âMy whole life, the Holocaust has colored my understanding of world history. Itâs been high up on the list of things that I understood from a very young age as the ultimate in evil. I did my share of reading and moviegoing about the subject and Iâve been to Yad Vashem half a dozen times. I have complicated views on exactly what one should and shouldnât do between Israelis and the Palestinians; but one thing I do believe is that until Palestinians and Arabs appreciate the magnitude of the suffering of the Holocaust, and
believe
it, that it will be very hard to have peace in the Middle East. So I believe that is extremely important to Jews and to humanity.
âIt came into play for me as a government official when I was in office and Bosnia was happening and I remember saying, âWhat am I doing? Should I leave the State Department if we donât do anything to intervene?â And then, I hope, I played a small role in helping the president and others come to the conclusion that they should do something about it. Because that was the modern-day version of the Holocaust in Europe. Not that it was the same in magnitude, or even in conception, but it was a people being destroyed in the heart of Europe. And we could do something about it.
Similar Books
