Ambassador Michael Oren as a Public Intellectual

The emergence of public intellectuals – those academic and philosophically oriented writers who articulate the complexities of the most pressing social and political issues of our time – was fostered by early American democracy which promoted the inalienable right of each citizen to express oneself freely without fear of retribution by the government. That fundamental right which has been weaved into the American fabric bolsters and even guarantees our ability to sustain a government of, by and for its people. Then it becomes the work of the public intellectual to keep the pot boiling so to speak. As Stephen Mack points out in his popular blog “The New Democratic Review”, the true measure of a public intellectual’s work is not “whether the people are listening, but whether they’re hearing things worth talking about”. Critics lament that an invariable degree of prohibitive factors are keeping the intellectual’s work – both public and otherwise – from achieving its inherit goals. One paradox challenges that religion and liberal politics, for example, are competing forces for the same spot in the human psyche and thus they render one another moot in their fight for human attention as there simply is no place for both bases of rationale to effectively achieve the goals of the public intellectual. One modern day public intellectual worth exploring in greater detail, both for the purpose of understanding our definition of the public intellectual and the extent to which those special individuals are still effective, is the Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael B. Oren.

Appointed in June 2009 by President Obama, Ambassador Oren is charged with briefing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the White House on vital issues related to the US-Israel Alliance. Born in the United States and educated at Princeton and Columbia Universities, Dr. Oren’s resume as a visiting professor at Harvard, Yale and Georgetown is not the only factor that gives him credibility as an intellectual. Rather, it is Dr. Oren’s numerous published books, speeches and op-eds on critical issues related to the US-Israel relationship that warrant our attention of him as an expert but more importantly as a public commentator on a millennium year old conflict that has characterized a historical dispute between the only vibrant and truly democratic country in the Middle East and all of her Arab neighbors, many of whom are sworn to Israel’s destruction. Despite his various honorary degrees, notable fellowships and awards for his books such as Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East from 1776 to the Present and Six Days of War, it is Dr. Oren’s critical commentary on issues such as whether Israel should have a red line on Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons or whether its most recent strike against Hamas was warranted that have and should influence public perception.

The Iranian quest for a nuclear weapon cannot be taken lightly as an existential threat to the state of Israel. At the most recent United Nation’s meeting of world leaders in September 2012, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad referred to Israel as a “tumor” and reiterated his stance that she should be wiped off the map. The United States referred to Ahmadinejad’s remarks as “disgusting, offensive and outrageous” but under the Obama administration, they are holding steadfast to the belief that sanctions need more time to work before a military alternative is exercised. On this issue, Ambassador Oren opined in the Boston Globe in October 2012 that “By marking a clear red line now, we will gain time to explore further diplomatic options, intensify sanctions, and reinforce military credibility.”

Aside from the Iranian threat, Ambassador Oren has helped to shape public discourse on a number of other critical issues pertaining to the US-Israel relationship. In discussing the innovative Iron Dome Missile Defense system, Dr. Oren wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal in December 2012 detailing the vast number of lives saved by the technology in response to the hundreds of rockets fired by Hamas at Israeli civilian population centers and schools. With an 85% success rate, the Iron Dome Missile Defense systems intercepts rockets that have already been fired en route to their target destinations and blows them up in the middle of the air. A brief video of the Iron Dome system in action can be viewed here. While the first two batteries were developed and financed by the Israeli government, support from President Obama and the United States Congress was critical in helping to complete the project which now supports thirteen batteries of Iron Dome Missile Defense systems. When Americans read about tangible numbers of lives that have been saved as a direct result of this system, it provides public intellectuals like Michael Oren with an opportunity to influence public discourse on the issue in a positive manner.

In times of war, this type of intellectual discourse can be even more critical to help the public formulate opinions that may be clouded by biased media sources and multiple divergent perspectives on the issue. When the most recent war with Gaza broke out at the conclusion of 2012 in response to over 700 rockets that had been fired directly into Israeli civilian populations, Ambassador Oren wrote another op-ed in The New York Times in November 2012 explaining to the American people why Israel had no choice but to strike back at Hamas. He addressed the critics of Operation Pillar of Defense directly when he stated, “Negotiations leading to peace can be realistic with an adversary who shares that goal. But Hamas, whose covenant calls for the slaughter of Jews worldwide, is striving not to join peace talks, but to prevent them.” In the midst of the fighting, President Obama reiterated his support of Israel’s right to defend herself and make her own decisions about military tactics. As Dr. Oren continually writes in support of the Jewish state, he actively contributes in his capacity as an intellectual to the public discourse related to the Middle East conflict.

Taking a few steps back, it is important to address the paradox between religion and liberal democratic values as competitors for the same narrow spot in the human mind. Intuitively one can understand that both systems attach themselves to the deepest meanings of our individual conscience, whether it is taken in the context of a religious prayer box or alternatively at the voting booth on Election Day (see Stephen Mack’s “Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as a Public Intellectual”). The debate unfolds in a rather challenging context. At first the doctrine of separation of Church and State, which was first written about by Thomas Jefferson and later quoted by the United States Supreme Court in 1878, seems to support the notion that religious ideals should be categorized in an inherently different sphere than those of our secular traditions. Nevertheless, in the pages of any American history textbook, one will find that the product of public intellectuals as liberal, democratic thinkers is in fact an expansion of the religious roots that define the American heritage.

The story begins in 1630, when a prosperous lawyer by the name of John Winthrop and a band of English Puritans left the security of their English homes, migrated to the new American wilderness. There they launched one of the most daring experiments in Christian civil government the old world had ever seen. The Colony at Massachusetts Bay was to be a place where, as Puritan historian Cotton Mather put it many years later, “we would have our posterity settled under the pure and full dispensation of the gospel; defended by rulers who should be ourselves.” Winthrop himself described his theocracy more poetically: “wee shall be as a citty upon a hill. The eies of all people are uppon us.” Winthrop’s phrase has echoed through nearly four centuries of American history—and acquired meanings that transcend even the lofty goals of that early Puritan colony. (see Stephen Mack’s “Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as a Public Intellectual”)

Despite the fact that this view was challenged a short period later by Roger Williams who was disillusioned by the inclusion of religion in civil oaths, the underpinnings of American idealism and the belief in the American dream is grounded in faith. Similarly, as Ambassador Oren illustrates at length in his novel Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East from 1776 to the Present, the story of Israel’s birth in 1948 actually dates back several thousand years as the biblical right of the Jewish people to the land which is now known as modern day Israel. Dr. Oren highlighted this view in a recent campus visit to the University of Southern California where he explained that, “People still read the Bible, still read their biblical promises, [and] conclude that God keeps his promises and that becomes a crucial component in the U.S.-Israel relations: the strong, spiritual tie between the idea of America and the idea of a recreated Jewish state.” During his visit, Dr. Oren deciphered the US-Israel relationship on four key dimensions –

spiritual ties, shared democratic values, a strategic military alliance and commercial connections – all of which he has analyzed in great detail through numerous opinion pieces published in the world’s leading newspapers, journals and magazines.

            An analysis of Ambassador Oren’s role as a public intellectual would be incomplete without recognizing the limits of his contribution to the public discourse. In 2008 as a visiting professor at Georgetown University, Dr. Oren warned that a victory by Barack Obama would lead to friction between America and Israel. Prior to his appointment as the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren was free to express his views on the relationship with candor and transparency. Now, as a government official, Dr. Oren’s speech is limited by the post he holds. He is obliged to carefully choose each word he delivers on the issue, both written and spoken, or else fear that he may be relieved of his duties as ambassador. This limit on Dr. Oren’s speech hinders his ability to contribute to the public discourse on these issues in the same manner he once was able to pre-2009 and will be able to once he has completed his service. Nonetheless, Dr. Oren’s role as a public intellectual is undeniable. His views on the US-Israel relationship and the Middle East conflict in general has educated and shaped the opinions of his peers, Israeli and American citizens and interested individuals around the world. Regardless of whether one agrees with Dr. Oren’s positions, his contribution to the public discourse on the issue and thus, his role as a public intellectual is undeniable.