Local rabbi among those invited to advocate for Israel at White House

Rabbi Danielle Upbin in the Roosevelt Room. Photos were prohibited at the first meeting and while there was no “photo op” at the second meeting, the rabbis improvised afterwards. EDITOR’S NOTE: Rabbi Danielle Upbin of Congregation Beth Shalom in Clearwater (Conservative) was among 15 rabbis from across the country invited to two meetings at the White House. Rabbi Efrem Goldberg of Boca Raton (Orthodox) and Rabbi Aaron Rubinger of Orlando (Conservative) were the only other Florida rabbis invited.

I had the honor of being one of the 15 rabbis who visited the White House twice in the past two months. The first meeting took place on Israel’s Independence Day and the second, on Yom Yerushalayim (Jerusalem Day). As Jews, we say, these were unlikely, coincidences. We were invited to the White House to advocate for the security of Israel as well as to express our communities’ concerns about the Administration’s recent approach to Middle Eastern affairs, not as lobbyists or heads of major organizations, but as rabbis.

The group was composed of Orthodox, Conservative and Reform rabbis from across the country. We each shared our concerns about the present and our hopes for the future. We were all presently surprised to discover that our commitment to the State of Israel and its security transcended boundaries of Movements and religious outlook. I was one of three female rabbis to participate.

In preparation for the meeting, I spoke with members of the Jewish community who had their finger on the pulse of American-Israel relations. Many were outraged by the Administration’s harsh public critique of the Israeli government’s “Settlement” announcement in April as well as by the general negative tone toward Israel. Some wondered whether President Obama was altering the course of the long-standing, seemingly impenetrable American-Israel relationship.

Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Ambassador Dennis Ross, the key negotiator on Iran, were open to our critiques and comments. They invited us to share our impressions, and each of us was extremely honest in what we had to offer.

The organizer of our group, Rabbi Jack Moline, of Alexandria. VA, opened the conversation by stating, “There is something wrong with a President who cares more about a house in Israel, than a bomb in Iran.” And the conversation took off from there.

The Administration’s response helped to cut through a lot of the negativity that we had been seeing in the media. They assured us that while there had been “static” on the top line of U.S. - Israel relations ( i.e. public debate and critique over the settlements), the bottom line, the U.S. commitment to Israel’s national security, had been steadfast.

For example, the U.S. supported Israel’s admission to the European community as well as into the Organization for Economic Cooperation an Development (OECD), condemned the Goldstone Report, and did not participate in the Durban II Conference. Most importantly, the U.S. continues to be vigilant in isolating Iran on matters of defense and cooperation with other nations.

Further, we found that our meeting was only one of several fronts the Administration was instituting to set the US-Israel course back on track. Other efforts included a strong letter of support from President Obama to the Conference of Jewish Presidents, Eli Weisel’s lunch at the White House, a meeting with Jewish members of Congress, and speeches by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Advisor James Jones to primarily Jewish audiences. In all of these talks, the Administration reaffirmed the “unbreakable bond” between the U.S. and Israel.

In our second meeting, Emanuel and Ambassador Ross were joined by National Security Council member Dan Shapiro. We were invited to reflect on the changes we had seen in the past month. Indeed we had seen some positive steps, including the recommitment to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process through proximity talks, and more signifi- cantly, the announcement that the U.S. would grant $205 million dollars to help produce and deploy the “Iron Dome” short range, multi layered missile defense system.

They quoted Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak as having recently said that “The defense relationship between the U.S. and Israel has never been stronger.” They reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to grant Israel the “qualitative military edge.”

One of the concerns that I brought to the table was the psychological gap between the Palestinians and the Israelis as a preventative to lasting peace. I wondered how a peace process could take place with Israelis building on one side and Palestinians naming streets and youth leagues for “martyred” Palestinian terrorists on the other. I wondered to what extent it was possible to broker the peace process, not only through heads of states, but through regular people – teachers, parents, children – to begin a process of dialogue and reconciliation from the ground up.

The Administration responded that a two-state solution would not emerge from unilateral decision making, but rather from an agreement in which both sides take responsibility for the terms of agreement. Ambassador Ross emphasized that each side has an obligation to create the right climate for the peace talks to succeed, which means each side taking on history as well as mythology. A lasting peace, as opposed to a “paper peace”, could only come about through the hard work of bringing each side along in the process and striving to mend the psychological gap that has been wedged between both sides.

While we were grateful for the positive steps in “messaging” and policy, we hoped to see more efforts taken, particularly, with regard to our President, himself, taking the lead in addressing the Israeli people and openly sharing his personal commitment to them and to the peace process.

As a parting message, Emanuel articulated a three-pronged approach to U.S. -Mid East Affairs: To isolate Iran – clearly the force of U.S. foreign policy right now, remove the footprint in Iraq and work on the peace process. Lofty goals, but ones we hope our government will succeed in attaining.

In reflecting upon the two meetings, it is clear that much of the work lies ahead, however, I am grateful to have had an opportunity to “Stand for Israel” and to be a voice for the Jewish community. In what other country would the government openly welcome such sentiment?