The Blogs: Ronald Lauder has betrayed the trust of Jewish leadership

Ronald Lauder has devoted decades and considerable resources to the Jewish people. His generosity, commitment to Jewish education and efforts to sustain Jewish communities deserve recognition. That record makes his recent interview with Haaretz, published days before Israel’s election, especially disappointing.

A man who has contributed so much should understand the responsibility that accompanies his position, particularly when his words can deepen divisions among the people he represents.

Lauder is entitled to criticize Benjamin Netanyahu. No Israeli prime minister is above scrutiny, and no Jewish leader should be expected to suppress legitimate concerns.

Nevertheless, leadership requires judgment about how criticism is expressed, what purpose it serves and whether personal grievances are being allowed to overshadow institutional responsibilities. In my view, that interview falls seriously short of that standard.

Lauder served as America’s ambassador to Austria, so he understands that a diplomat’s words carry consequences beyond the individual speaking. The same applies to the president of the World Jewish Congress. When he speaks publicly about Israel, audiences inevitably hear the authority of his office alongside his personal opinions.

That makes restraint, fairness and discretion essential obligations.

Instead, readers encountered an account heavily shaped by the deterioration of a personal relationship, extending to Netanyahu’s wife. Whatever disagreements developed between these families, Jewish communal leadership should rise above them.

Personal accusations invite the public to interpret a political intervention through the lens of an old falling-out, weakening the very argument its author wishes to make.

The discussion of secret negotiations with Syria raises another concern. According to Lauder’s account, he undertook sensitive diplomatic work on Netanyahu’s behalf and subsequently respected a request for silence for decades. Choosing an election campaign to disclose his version of those discussions deserves scrutiny.

The passage of time does not automatically erase the obligation to consider the trust attached to a confidential mission.

History can and should be examined, but a former intermediary’s recollections are one account, rather than a definitive verdict on why negotiations failed.

Netanyahu has disputed having agreed to relinquish the Golan Heights. Voters deserve that distinction. They also deserve to know why this account is being advanced now, when its immediate effect is inevitably political.

There is something troubling about presenting the prime minister’s diplomatic decisions as a personal betrayal of the intermediary. An intermediary facilitates discussions; the elected leadership bears responsibility for the consequences.

Time invested in negotiations cannot itself establish that an agreement should have been signed. Decisions affecting Israel’s security must be judged against the country’s interests, including risks that persist after negotiators leave.

Lauder’s declaration that he has no intention of returning to Israel is particularly painful and unwarranted. What message does a prominent Jewish leader send when he professes enduring solidarity with the Jewish people while publicly announcing that he intends to stay away from the Jewish state?

Israel belongs to its people and to the wider Jewish story. Its significance cannot depend on whether a particular prime minister remains in office or whether personal relationships have survived.

Disappointment should strengthen the determination to engage constructively. A leader’s responsibility is to help preserve the connection between Israel and Jewish communities, especially when that connection comes under strain.

Nor can Israel’s international difficulties reasonably be reduced to one man. Governments must answer for their decisions, but hostility toward Israel has many sources, including antisemitism and loud movements and communities that reject Jewish sovereignty altogether. Jewish leaders should confront those forces with clarity.

Making Netanyahu the overriding explanation risks obscuring responsibilities that belong elsewhere and encouraging the illusion that replacing him would resolve everything.

My late father, of blessed memory, used to say: “A man can make money, but money does not make a man.”

Generosity deserves gratitude; it does not confer ownership of the communal voice. Every Jewish institution needs leaders whose authority rests on judgment, accountability and the confidence of those they represent.

I believe Lauder should apologize to the World Jewish Congress’s members for allowing such a personal intervention to become inseparable from his public office, and should step down as president.

That is a judgment about leadership, rather than a denial of his right to speak. He remains free to advocate his political views as forcefully as he wishes.

There comes a point when stepping aside protects a lifetime of achievement. Lauder deserves to have his contributions remembered with appreciation, awards and respect. He should consider whether this interview advances that legacy or diminishes it.

On the eve of an Israeli election, the Jewish people deserve leadership that respects their differences, safeguards trust and keeps communal responsibility above personal resentment. Lauder’s years of service should have culminated in an example of that standard. He still has an opportunity to choose how this chapter ends.