The political benefits that Israel would receive as part of the package of understanding with the U.S. are not acceptable to the Palestinians because they ease some of the pressure on Israel and make it impossible for [the Palestinians] to apply their strategy of evading direct talks and of trying to force Israel into an arrangement through UN resolutions.

The US must discourage this kind of thought process. This cannot be an option afforded the Palestinians because if they were to choose it and the US were to back off, the result would be persecution of Israel on a scale never before witnessed and of Jews on a scale witnessed all too often throughout history. The US must stand up for Israel. So, if in fact, this really is the Palestinian strategy, and it appears to be, the Palestinians must be forced to abandon it.

For more on this, you may want to visit the We Are For Israel blog, where Rabbi Micky Boyden and myself have been writing about the various proposals and counter proposals going on.

What is going on? More than likely, a lower level IRS agent did not do a good job of explaining the administration’s position or perhaps does not understand it well enough to do so, but the length of the process and specific attention given this organization is of concern even if her actions are in keeping with proper procedures. It is possible that there is more to this case, but we will see as the suit progresses.

In my view, it is reasonable for the IRS to try to determine whether or not an organization applying for a 501c3, tax exempt status as a not-for-profit organization, actually qualifies. The IRS must investigate thoroughly and that may take no little time. However, it is not remotely legal for the administration to make approval of an organization’s legal status dependent upon its adherence to the policies of the administration, something that Z Street contends is happening, nor to drag on the process indefinitely because of disagreement with its policies. If this accusation against the IRS is true, and Lori assures me that it is, then what is going on is not merely problematic, but illegal.

In the meantime, there are concerns that should be addressed. Is it problematic that the application for 501c3 status for an Israel advocacy organization may involve specific inquiry into the policies advocated by the organization with the assumption that some policies may result in the rejection of an application? It seems to me that the answer is definitely, “Yes.” An obvious policy issue might be advocacy for the maintenance or growth of West Bank settlements. If an organization is going to provide funding for programs or projects in settlements does it risk 501c3 status? If it merely advocates for Israel keeping them as part of Israel and not withdrawing from the West Bank at some future date, does that jeopardize tax exempt status? What if it argues that the policies of the current administration are not good? Does that jeopardize its status?

There are some obvious policies that might jeopardize status for ANY organization seeking tax exempt status, such as support for terrorism or violence against the United States. But barring such an extreme, where are the lines to be drawn? And if the reasoning here is that there is an assumption of an attempt to influence policy on the part of Israel advocacy organizations and therefore all are assumed to be  lobbying organizations, this thought process fails miserably because as much could be said for any social service organization; namely that they are interested in influencing policy through education at some level. Where is the line between educational organization and lobbying organization to be drawn?

We will hear more about this case.

You can find the full legal brief from the Z Street case at this link. There is a brief article in the Forward explaining some of the potential reasoning on the IRS side which you may find here.

That said, the Obama administration seems to have taken a different track lately, one less conducive to this Palestinian goal and at a distance from J Street’s lobbying position. Others have noted this as well: see here and here for example. Yet, one cannot infer too much from the reports of the recent meeting between Netanyahu and Obama because they could be motivated by a desire by both men to hide problems that are occurring behind closed doors. On the other hand, the change in public is important in and of itself.

What is clear from this meeting is that the administration’s position of publicly pressuring Israel to make concessions, as if primarily their lack is preventing the advancement of peace, is no longer American policy. In fact, the Obama administration seems to have abandoned the entire tactic of pressuring Israel in the hope of eliciting movement from the Palestinians and Arab League toward concessions on either the peace process or on Iran sanctions. If anything, the Obama administration’s aim seems to be to promote direct talks which the Palestinians do not desire and unilateral actions against Iran which Israel has sought.

While I have been critical of the Obama administration at times, just as I was critical of the Bush administration at times, it seems to be the case that while differing over some important issues, for certain, the relationship between America and Israel remains very strong and the administration is actively supporting Israel both in the peace process and in regard to Iran. Additionally, where once J Street seemed to have significant influence on the policies of this administration, it no longer appears to have much. This J Post article is essentially a systematic point by point dismantling of J Street’s positions put forth by the Obama administration. The fact that the administration is now not pressuring Israel and seems to be returning to the previous “stand alongside Israel” position of Clinton and Bush is, if it lasts, evidence of a dramatically weakened influence of J Street on the administration and a very AIPAC-like stance. While this could be waffling before the election, one can’t waffle that far many times without casting off supporters in both directions, so I do not expect the administration to suddenly embrace J Street’s positions again in 2011. This is very bad news for J Street.

My guess as to what brought about this change is that the Obama administration has come to see J Street’s advice as having resulted in increasing the distance from success on the peace front and in diminished support for the administration from essential Democratic voters, American Jews, at home. The combination of both of these things is devastating for J Street’s advocacy, but also bodes ill for progressive Jewish policy influence in general going forward. This will be the lasting legacy of J Street, namely weakening the progressive Jewish left, potentially in a massive way and not just on foreign policy.

Enter Obama. Rather than adopting a go-slow, build-on-the-past approach to a fragile situation, he did it his way — with a speech. Inadvertently, he exploded two grenades amid the process.

First, he declared the “aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied” — a reference to the Holocaust. By not combining that with an affirmation of the 3½ millennia of Jewish history in the Holy Land, he fed the Arab fantasy that a guilt-ridden West imposed Israel on the Middle East.

Second, he elevated Israeli settlements into a make-or-break issue for peace talks. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” he said. Yes, past administrations opposed settlement expansion, but it wasn’t a first-tier issue. And every realistic plan for a resolution to the conflict recognizes that Israeli communities comprising 80 percent of the settlers and located near the 1967 borders (actually cease-fire boundaries from the Arabs’ 1948 war of extermination) would be included in Israel in a land swap.

Whereas the Palestinians once conducted talks while settlement construction continued, Obama gave them an excuse to just say no.

This puts a lot of the blame for the currently stalled “peace talks” on President Obama’s miscalculations. Still there’s a more basic miscalculation that all administrations are guilty of. Barry Rubin writes:

The same thing applies to Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas. Even after the United States and Israel announce that Israeli construction will be frozen, Abbas must insist that he canâ€t even talk to Israel unless not a single cinder block is laid atop another one. He also says that he will hold new elections next January but wonâ€t run in them.

First of all, there wonâ€t be new elections because his Fatah movement will never get a deal with Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, and maybe also because Fatahâ€s afraid it wonâ€t win.

Second, Abbas is trying to use this threat as leverage on the United States to get more. Letâ€s remember the situation: President Barack Obama wants direct Israel-PA talks and Abbas refuses. Obama made a deal with Israel on freezing construction on settlements, Abbas rejects it.

Once again, this is the farce played out in which everyone pretends Abbas is serious, while Washington pretends that it can get some real cooperation from the PA

But what is triggering Abbasâ€s action most immediately is the cries of betrayal when he agreed with Obamaâ€s request that the PA not take the lead in pushing the Goldstone report in the UN. Everyone knew that it would pass and that all the Arab and Muslim-majority regimes would support it. Yet Washington wanted to avoid the embarrassment of having one of the two parties it is trying to get to the negotiating table call the other one a bestial war criminal that should be lynched.

Abbas went along for about 48 hours but there was an uproar in Fatah. Why? Because everyone was scoring points by proving they were more militant than Abbas. So Abbas did a turnaround. That wasnâ€t enough so then he helped provoke riots on the Temple Mount and now is doing this resignation farce.

The President’s audacity got him “nope” from Abbas.

This dynamic is independent of who’s in the White House. In the West, we value moderation; but in the Arab world intransigence is valued. So when the U.S. calls someone a moderate it has the effect of enhancing his reputation in the West, but damaging it in the Arab world. Until this changes, there isn’t hope for a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Max Boot writes that the speech was largely inconsequential as a factor in the election. Boot argues (echoing a sentiment expressed by Robert Satloff):

Kudos to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden for visiting Beirut and reaffirming their support for Lebanese independence. The Obama administration, as Michael Totten noted, has made clear that it will not sell out Lebanon to reach a deal with Syria or Hezbollah. The Obama administration deserves credit for that stance, which is a continuation of the previous Bush policy which made possible the 2005 Cedar Revolution that forced Syrian troops out of the country.

American support perhaps emboldened some Christian voters to vote for anti-Syrian, anti-Hezbollah candidates.

If the administration deserves credit, there’s no reason to ignore that it got Lebanon right. Michael Totten in his must-read analysis of the election writes:

I was slightly worried myself about other potential aspects of the presidentâ€s Lebanon policy before it developed, but he deserves support here from conservatives as well as from Democrats who understand that the United States canâ€t support a terrorist army that says, “Death to America is a policy, a strategy, and a vision.”

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.