Remembering former ambassador Martin Indyk: A legacy of debate and diplomacy - opinion

The news of former ambassador Martin Indyk’s passing arrived in a slew of messages from friends across the world in the moments before I was to address young Jerusalem professionals on Israel’s success in the face of tremendous challenges most nations never need to confront. 

I thought it fitting to hear about former ambassador Indyk’s passing while preparing to speak about Israel’s success. Ambassador Indyk took great pride in Israel’s success but was also greatly concerned with the challenges Israel faced. 

Ambassador Martin Indyk was born in London and raised in Australia and was a naturalized United States citizen. He studied in Jerusalem at the Hebrew University in 1973 and was there when the Yom Kippur War broke out. He spent the rest of the year volunteering on a kibbutz. He considered moving to Israel but instead, after earning a PhD in Australia, he moved to Washington and worked for AIPAC. 

Dismantling bipartisanism 

In 1985, Indyk founded the Washington Institute and aimed at making it a bipartisan think tank. Then-president Bill Clinton hired him for a role on the National Security Council as a Middle East analyst. Indyk worked hard on ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the Oslo peace process. Under Clinton, he became the first Jew to serve as American ambassador to Israel.

President Barack Obama named him special Middle East envoy in 2013, and Indyk worked hard to renew the peace process he had unsuccessfully attempted to broker during the Oslo years. Once again, he did not succeed. Ambassador Indyk served as vice president and director for foreign policy at the Brookings Institute. While at Brookings, Indyk faced controversy for Brookings accepting almost $15 million dollars from Qatar, the funders of Hamas. Ambassador Indyk’s critics accused him of being influenced by the Qatar donation, but he denied the money played any role in his views on Israel or on Arab countries. Ambassador Indyk was a proud Jew and a lover of Israel and the United States. 

I had a particular relationship with ambassador Indyk. We never knew each other well enough in person for me to characterize his feelings about our relationship, so I will never truly know whether he thought of me as a friend, opponent, or nuisance. Based on our interactions, I like to think he enjoyed our back and forth jabbering on Twitter and considered me a “mate” of sorts (to borrow from his native Australian). My first interaction with Indyk came at an AIPAC Policy Conference with my students. I spied him from across a long hallway. I approached him with my students and asked if he would speak to them and take their questions. Allowing my students to get closer to him, I couldn’t hear what he told them, but I always thought it was gracious of him to take the time to talk to them.

I have a special admiration for ambassadors, recognizing the special role they play as senior officials in each government, even while they are not decision-makers, such as elected representatives. They develop an expertise for the country they are posted in. Ambassadors act as representatives of their home countries, but also as advisers to their leaders on how to relate to the destination country. 

Understanding through interaction 

Effective ambassadors become expert advisers, both by analysis of the host nation and by experiencing its country and its people. Indyk understood Israelis not just from a study of Israel, but also from his regular interactions with Israelis. As a teacher who educates his students about Israel, I try to develop relationships with ambassadors and learn from their unique perspectives to better explain the issues of the US-Israel relationship in my lessons. 

My relationship with ambassador Indyk developed over Twitter. Most experts, former government officials, and people with tens of thousands of followers don’t interact with people who leave comments on their tweets, especially those who disagree. Ambassador Indyk was different and frequently responded to my criticism of the viewpoints he would post on Twitter. We would write short missives jabbing at each other’s opinions. We rarely agreed on anything related to Israel and the United States, especially on issues related to the peace process, settlements, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Each time we had a prolonged back-and-forth on Twitter my inbox would fill with messages from friends and strangers encouraging me to keep up the “fight” or explaining why Indyk was correct and I should admit my error. 

At times, people mistook our mutual critiques as animosity, but they couldn’t have been more mistaken. Our interactions were always civil, dignified, and respectful. He never insulted me, and I never insulted him. We stuck to the topic and never made our disagreements personal. I was always careful to address him with the title “ambassador,” respecting his expertise, experience, and service to the American people. When he published a book, I would buy it and read it immediately. I might have disagreed with some of his conclusions, but he was an excellent writer and gave his readers material to think about and information unavailable elsewhere. I made sure to write a positive review and encourage others to purchase the book. 

Our sages discussed the difference between altruistic arguments and those for personal aggrandizement. They taught, “Every argument that is for the sake of God’s honor, it is destined to endure. But if it is not for the sake of God’s honor, it is not destined to endure.” 

The search for truth while debating someone else is the ultimate argument for the sake of God. Ambassador Indyk and I didn’t disagree to best one another, but rather to explain the validity of our position regarding the correct path to take. 

Indyk wanted peace for all, the Palestinians did not

Ambassador Indyk desperately wanted to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by bringing peace between both peoples. He placed most of the blame for the conflict on the Palestinians, especially on former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. He was honest enough to have said, “At the end of my journey I’m reconciled to the idea that I will not see peace in my time.” He had faith that Israel would one day enjoy peace, saying, “The arc of the Arab-Israeli conflict is long but I know from my experience it bends toward peace.”

I found fault in his opinions for what I saw was an all too critical viewpoint on Israel. He rarely gave Israel the benefit of the doubt. When it came to settlements, he mistakenly saw them as an impediment to peace. He assumed the Palestinian narrative that settlements were a major reason for Palestinian violence and never understood the right of Jews to live wherever they wanted, notably in the heartland of their historic homeland – Judea and Samaria. 

I appreciated my relationship with ambassador Indyk and will miss my interactions with him. I pray that his family finds comfort and are always inspired by his service. 

The writer is a Zionist educator at institutions around the world and recently published the book, Zionism Today.