Matters of State

Masada

The Obama Administration has been accused of late of being a touch unfriendly to Israel. I am not sure if it is or if it isn't. The State Department has always been hostile to jewish interests, from the time of Roosevelt and Truman all the way to the present.

The recent revelations of President Nixon's feelings about jews are not exactly earth shattering. Revolting yes, earth shattering no. It has always been a well known fact that the foreign service was pretty well stacked with arabists. But the Israelis are tough cookies themselves and not above either manipulating American opinion or currying favor with the ultra right in this country. An honest assessment would have to point out their penchant for a certain amount of game playing in the wake of the failure of the Oslo agreements. They have a hostile enemy in Gaza that is sworn to their destruction. No easy way forward, especially with a bifurcated Palestinian camp that knows that it can not ultimately deliver any assurances that can be taken credibly.

There has been a kerfuffle of late over the IRS's treatment of a group of pro Israel lobbyists called Z Street. Z Street is a hawkish Israel lobby that has 8,000 members and was formed as a counterweight to the more dovish J-Street lobby. They have been denied a 501 c-3 tax exemption on the grounds that Israel is a terrorist nation. Well let me take that back, that was the first declaration, which was modified into Israel is a country where terrorism takes place, as if they need to assume responsibility for it. Jon Waddell, the manager of the Exempt Organizations Determinations Group said today that Z Street was referred to his TAG (touch and go) group because of a policy in which organizations that could potentially provide services to nations that have a “high risk of terrorism” are subject to further review.

He states in his brief "A referral to the TAG group does not indicate that the organization supports terrorism, only that further development is necessary to ensure that the organization will put procedures in place to prevent resources from being used to support terrorism." He wants to be sure that a pro Israeli group's resources don't support terrorism. Okay.

What rankles supporters of Israel is that real terrorist front groups like the Holy Land Foundation and CAIR, who have been found to have funneled money to actual terrorist groups, had no problem getting the IRS exemption.

They have sued the government and their discovery points out some what may be some troubling goings on inside the governmental agencies as it pertains to Israel. Another pro Israeli applicant was asked the following questions:

Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel? 

          Describe your organization’s religious belief system towards the land of Israel.

As if there is a litmus test in that regard and that an affirmative answer would somehow disallow an application. In a separate affidavit, Diane Gentry, the specialist who communicated with Z Street’s lawyer, denied claiming to the lawyer that there was a special policy for pro-Israel groups or that groups opposed to administration Middle East policy are given special scrutiny.

Lawyers say that Z Street has little hope of winning its suit. I only mention it because the administration does seem to have a bit of hostility to Israel and the entire notion of a jewish homeland. But no democratic administration would ever adopt the Nixonian habit of using the IRS to go after its political enemies, would it?

I was perusing some State Department transcripts and found this gem from the October 12th, 2010 briefing with Philip Crowley, Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of State:

QUESTION: P.J., do you recognize Israel as a Jewish state and will you try to convince the Palestinians to recognize it?

MR. CROWLEY: We will continue our discussions with the parties. I would expect, following up on the Arab League meetings of late last week that George Mitchell will go to the region at some point. I’m not announcing anything, but I – it would be logical for us to follow up directly with the parties, see where they are. We will offer our ideas on – based on our conversations what our assessment is that – of what each side needs to be able to make the political commitment to remain in these direct negotiations.
QUESTION: And do you recognize Israel as a Jewish state?
MR. CROWLEY: We recognize the aspiration of the people of Israel. It has – it’s a democracy. In that democracy, there’s a guarantee of freedom and liberties to all of its citizens. But as the Secretary has said, we understand that – the special character of the state of Israel.
QUESTION: Is that a yes or no?
QUESTION: P.J., it’s – do you want to answer his question or --
QUESTION: Did you say yes or no to that question from Michel?
MR. CROWLEY: Hmm?
QUESTION: Michel’s question was a yes or no sort of question. I was wondering whether that was a yes or no.
MR. CROWLEY: We recognize that Israel is a– as it says itself, is a Jewish state, yes. 


Is it just me or does Mr. Crowley seem a tad uncomfortable with the notion of a jewish state? Anyhow, the Israelis and Palestinians are in a dark dance and seem to deserve each other, twisted in a gordian knot and both trying to come up with the perfect endgame to their minuet. They both vie for the podium, where they compete against each other, tearing their shirts, in a competition over who has undergone the greater victimhood.

Hamas said yesterday that it would never recognize Israel, ever. Will never forsake violent struggle until Israel is vanquished. But hey, why should we believe them for one second? The administration announced last week it planned to intensify Palestinian state-building as a means of making progress on the ground toward a peace agreement for a two-state solution. They have been giving huge amount of money to the Palestinians, a sum that Rep. Ros-Lehtinen today called a blank check.

I have been a frequent critic of the Netanyahu government and Israel's lurch to the religious right. I think that their settlement policy will work against their own best interests in the long run. The Palestinians need a contiguous state that they can prosper in and be proud of, replete with a water source. It does Israel no good to get into a squeezing game with them.

Having said that, I read an interesting editorial by Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Danny Ayalon the other day where he mentions that all of the settlements comprise no more than 1.7% of the land captured in 1967. Palestinians say that the number is actually 6.7 %. In any case, it is smaller than we are led to believe. The question is how much more land Israel would claim for security purposes if a two state solution is ever actualized? What Israel calls defensible borders. We know that Israel has already returned 90% of the land occupied in 1967, principally the Sinai, to no noticeable effect, and with no recognizable concessions from the Palestinians.

I am not sure if this administration is anti Israel or anti-Palestinian, neutral or an honest broker. Many have made the case that they are heavily weighted to the Palestinians. I hope that both sides can find a workable solution that provides peace and security for all of the players in the region. Soon.