Is The Clinton Administration Really Pro-Israel — Or Merely Pro-Labor?

Indyk Employment/Defense of Joe Zogby Shows True Colors

(Washington, D.C.): One of the Clinton team’s most cynical deceptions has been its
self-portrayal
as the “most pro-Israel administration in history.” A careful examination of its record, however,
reveals that — while the Clinton Administration is certainly pro-Labor Party —
it is not “pro-Israel” when the people of the Jewish State choose to have
their government led by the
Likud.

The distinction is enormously important. When Labor is in power in Israel, this President and
his
advisors have shown themselves time and again to be strongly supportive of the diplomatic and
disarmament policies they share with the Israeli government. Unfortunately, those policies are
proving to be highly inimical to the present and future security of the Jewish State. As a result, it
is not accurate to describe American officials who subscribe to them as “pro-Israel.”

No less troubling is the Clinton Administration’s practice of injecting itself, time and again,
into
the internal affairs of democratic Israel with the unmistakable purpose of undercutting the policies
and/or political fortunes of Likud figures like Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Enter Martin Indyk

A case in point has been the behavior of Martin Indyk, the Assistant
Secretary of State for Near
East Affairs (NEA). On 17 September 1997, the Center for Security Policy wrote in opposing
Mr. Indyk’s nomination to that post, 1 that — in his previous
capacity as U.S. Ambassador to
Israel — Martin Indyk personally and repeatedly meddled in his host nation’s political life:

As Uzi Landau, chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense
Committee, put it on 15
March 1997, Indyk “has been pressuring members of the government” and “interfering in Israel’s
internal political affairs.” As documented in [a critical analysis of “Martin Indyk’s Record on
Israel” compiled by the Zionist Organization of America], the Ambassador has
helped to block
Israeli Cabinet appointments and lobbied against the enactment of legislation by the Knesset (for
example, 1995 legislation that would have made it more difficult for Israel to surrender the Golan
Heights). Indyk was also one of the U.S. officials who blatantly sought to ensure the
election last year of Shimon Peres, a deplorable and risky intervention in the domestic
processes of a fellow democracy. (Emphasis added.)

Mr. Indyk and the Administration he serves have been no more discreet about their
enthusiasm for
Mr. Peres’ successor, Ehud Barak, who is currently in a close race with Mr.
Netanyahu — the
man whose victory at the polls in 1996 brought down the last Labor government despite the
Clinton team’s best efforts to perpetuate it. The following are recent, illustrative examples of the
current Clinton campaign to secure Labor’s return to power:

• As featured in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, James Carville, President
  Clinton’s former
  campaign manager and political bag man, and Stanley Greenberg, Mr. Clinton’s pollster, have
  been taken on to help Mr. Barak’s election bid.

• At the Congressional Prayer Breakfast in Washington on 3 February 1999 (an event
  besmirched by the invitation to participate extended to the unrepentant terrorist Yasser
  Arafat), 2 President Clinton urged those present to “pray for
  the peacemakers.” He then
  proceeded to list a number of those worthy of such prayers, including prominent Middle
  Eastern leaders, but noticeably omitting Prime Minister Netanyahu.

• One of Netanyahu’s other challengers, former Defense Minister Yitzhak
  Mordechai, has
  been given strikingly preferential treatment. Mr. Clinton sent him a letter recognizing his role
  in the Wye River talks. Mr. Netanyahu received no such letter. Mordechai was also invited to
  an 18 March 1999 White House ceremony in honor of Yitzhak Rabin. Astoundingly, Israel’s
  Prime Minister was not invited.

• Arafat has been welcomed to not one, but two, White House meetings in March
  1999. Prime
  Minister Netanyahu was not invited even once.

• First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (who has made no secret of her
  support for the creation
  of a Palestinian state), 3 Secretary of State
  Madeleine Albright (who has highly publicized
  her disputes with Mr. Netanyahu 4 and invited Arafat to
  dine at her home) and Mr. Indyk have
  all recently paid visits to Arab nations during tours of the Middle East — but pointedly declined
  to go to Israel.

The Zogby Affair

Thanks to the excellent work of the Zionist Organization of America, further evidence of the
Clinton Administration’s hostility to an Israel governed in the fashion preferred by a clear majority
of its Jewish population 5 has recently come to light. Last
Fall, Martin Indyk hired Joseph
Zogby, 6 a lawyer who was — until last week —
still serving as the director of the Palestine Peace
Project, a pro-Arab agitation organization that promotes Palestinian causes from what it calls “the
front lines of the ongoing struggle for Palestinian human rights and self-determination.”

As ZOA has documented, in two articles published at approximately the same time Joe Zogby
joined the State Department staff, he described Israel as “an alien oppressor…like the monster
under the bed.” The Israelis, Zogby claims, are “colonizers and abusers of human rights.” And
Israel is guilty of “gross violations of [the Palestinians] civil, political, economic and social
rights.” 7

In response to an outcry about Joseph Zogby’s writings — not only from Mort Klein, the
ZOA’s
courageous president, but Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League and Malcolm
Hoenlein, executive director of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations —
Mr. Indyk has defended his decision to hire Zogby. He has described him as a “model employee”
whose published hostility towards Israel represents his “personal views” but whose counsel is
valued by the State Department. (Interestingly, however, at a tempestuous meeting with the
Conference of Presidents last week, Secretary Indyk announced that Joseph Zogby would be
leaving State within a month to take up a position in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights
division — an evident effort by Indyk to limit the damage caused to his already much-diminished
reputation as a friend of Israel by this latest evidence to the contrary.)

The Bottom Line

With less than a month to go before the first round of the Israeli election, it behooves the
Clinton
Administration to adhere scrupulously to one of the most fundamental principles of diplomacy
between democratic allies: Refrain from using the American government’s considerable
power in an attempt to influence — either directly or indirectly — the course of a friendly
nation’s political affairs.

While those like Martin Indyk given to violating this principle may believe that the end (i.e.,
“promoting the peace process” in a manner satisfactory to the Palestinians and, therefore, to the
Clinton Administration) justifies the means (i.e., promoting the electoral prospects of the Israeli
Labor Party — or some other alternative to the present Prime Minister of Israel), hard experience
suggests otherwise. The blatant role played by Mr. Indyk and the rest of the Clinton team in
trying to defeat Mr. Netanyahu in 1996 complicated U.S. and Israeli relations and contributed to
the perception among Israel’s enemies that the strategic partnership that underpinned the security
of the Jewish State was significantly weakened. Few actions are more likely to disserve the
interests of peace — if not actually to invite renewed military campaigns against Israel.
This
record, and the associated dangers, must not now be further compounded.

1 See the Center’s Decision Brief entitled
Martin Indyk: Wrong Man, Wrong Job ( href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=97-D_137″>No. 97-D
137, 17 September 1997).

2See Breakfast of Champions: An Unrepentant
Arafat Has No Place at the National Prayer
Breakfast (No. 99-D 14, 1 February 1999).

3 See Bibi’s Choice: Allow The Palestinians to
Acquire a Real — and Threatening — State or
Just a ‘State of Mind’ (No. 98-D 126, 9
July 1998).

4 See Clinton Legacy Watch # 24: An Odious
Ultimatum to Israel (No. 98-D 78, 6 May
1998).

5 Today, as in 1996, Mr. Netanyahu is strongly preferred by his
Jewish constituents. The race is
close — indeed, current polls suggest that Barak is slightly ahead — due to the support he enjoys
among a minority of Jews and the overwhelming majority of Israel’s Arab voters.

6 Joseph Zogby is the son of another prominent Arab activist, James
Zogby, president of the
Arab-American Institute.

7 For more on Zogby’s writings, see the Zionist Organization of
America’s web site
(www.zoa.org).