Archive for April, 2011
Washington Showdown with AIPAC
Prohibited activities again catching up with lobby
Thaddeus Russell defends his piece on Israel’s dangerousness
What’s In It for Us, Mr. Obama?
Posted By Philip Giraldi On April 27, 2011 @ 11:00 pm In Uncategorized | 19 Comments
Apologists for Israel sometimes argue that critics of that nation hold the government in Tel Aviv up to an impossibly high standard, that many condemn Israelis for doing things that other countries in the world also do routinely. That argument has a certain persuasiveness in that Bahrain’s Sunni rulers treat the country’s Shi’a majority just as badly as Israeli Jews treat Palestinian Arabs, but it misses the point. How Israel treats its own minority citizens, Gazans, and residents of the West Bank, and its neighbors might be significant from a humanitarian point of view, but it is not a vital interest of the United States. That Washington has become a victim of the internal politics of the Middle East is largely due to manipulation by Israel and its lobby, which has turned all Americans into enablers of Israeli policies, no matter how short-sighted or ill-conceived. It is the US national interest that has been sacrificed in the process. That is the point.
For those who would argue that such a view of the US interest versus that of Israel is simplistic, I would point out three developments over the past several weeks that together make the case that Israel has extraordinary ability to manipulate Washington. First would be the budget debate, in which Republicans united to call for deep cuts in the proposed federal budget before settling for less than one tenth of one percent. Senator Rand Paul had courageously raised the possibility of ending all foreign aid, including to Israel, but generally speaking any reduction in assistance at the current $3 billion plus level was off the table. Several congressmen, including Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor explicitly stated their opposition to any reduction in aid to Israel. But the real surprise came in the final spending bill. Israel not only was not cut in its assistance level, it received $205 million in additional funding for its Iron Dome defensive missile development, which competes with US defense firm Raytheon’s Patriot system.
That billions of US taxpayer dollars are going to Israel at a time when programs like Medicare and Social Security are facing cuts is absolutely indefensible. That Congress would be so tone deaf as to vote more money for Israel when domestic programs are being slashed is symptomatic of the hold that the Lobby has over the US government. Israel does not need money from the United States. It has a strong economy and in per capita income it ranks at the same level as Great Britain. Its citizens receive free medical care and education through university level. It has received generous trade and co-production concessions from Congress that some claim amount to $10 billion a year in aggregate national income while its own markets are difficult for US companies to penetrate. The only explanation for Israel’s being showered with American taxpayer largesse is that the Lobby wants it to be so, to provide a tangible sign of America’s unflinching support.
A second indication of Israel’s control over Congress even when it is not in the US national interest is the issuance of frequent resolutions by both the House and Senate in support of every move taken by Israel. Ever since the United Nations’ Goldstone Report was released, detailing Israeli war crimes in its Cast Lead invasion of Gaza in January 2009, there have been efforts to delegitimize the report’s findings. Normally, the US is able to block any investigation into Israeli missteps, as it successfully did when Lebanon was bombed and invaded in 2006, an event that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described as “birth pangs of a new Middle East,” but the devastation of UN sponsored relief facilities and schools resulting from Cast Lead was such that an international investigation could not be avoided.
The Obama Administration has persistently questioned the Goldstone Report’s conclusions, the media has largely ignored the crimes against civilians that it describes, and Congress has been working hard to put pressure on the United Nations to rescind the report in its entirety. The objective of Israel’s friends is to protect its government and defense forces from any accountability for the deaths of 1,400 Palestinians, most of whom were civilians and many of whom were children. Israel’s independent investigation into possible war crimes committed by its soldiers has been essentially bogus, with only one soldier receiving seven months in jail for fraudulently using a stolen credit card.
The strenuous efforts by the United States government to shield Israel make all Americans complicit in a cover-up of war crimes, which is precisely how the rest of the world sees it. Senate Resolution 138, which passed by a unanimous consent vote on April 14th, called on the United Nations to rescind the Goldstone Report, demanded that the UN Human Rights Council be reformed so that it will stop criticizing Israel, and urged the White House to take the lead to “limit the damage that this libelous report has caused to our close ally Israel…” But it did not have any teeth in terms of compelling a UN response.
That failure has been addressed by the House of Representatives. The Foreign Affairs Committee of the House is currently considering a bill, HR 1501, “To withhold United States contributions to the United Nations until the United Nations formally retracts” the Goldstone Report. As the committee is headed by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a passionate supporter of Israel, it is certain that the bill will go to the full House for approval, where it will likely pass overwhelmingly. However one feels about the United Nations in general, it is difficult to understate what this bill will do to America’s standing vis-à-vis a number of international bodies. There is no possible explanation for this bill but to protect Israel from any and all legitimate criticism. As is frequently the case, the United States and its citizens will pay the price in terms of America’s approval rating sinking even lower worldwide. Defending Israel from criticism does not appear either in the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights and sacrificing American interests for those of a foreign power is just not acceptable, but Congress has long since abandoned any attempt to mandate minimal standards of accountability, either for itself or for the state of Israel.
Finally, there is the invitation by Congress to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session. Netanyahu will do so during the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual convention at the end of May. The speech is at the invitation of the new Republican leadership of the House of Representatives, but it is sure to have bipartisan support. In a widely reported meeting with Netanyahu in November 2010, Eric Cantor, House majority leader, met privately with Bibi Netanyahu and said the Republican Party would serve “as a check on” the Obama Administration over its policies in the Middle East. Then “He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other.” In other words, Cantor was meeting with the leader of a foreign country and promising to do whatever he could to influence and even subvert the foreign policy of his own country. Cantor apparently is delivering on his pledge because the timing of the Netanyahu visit and speech is clearly designed to preempt any peace plan offered by the White House that Israel might object to, meaning that Congress is again undercutting on behalf of Israel the prerogative of the president to conduct foreign policy.
It has already leaked that Netanyahu will likely reveal what he calls a new peace plan asserting forcefully that Israel’s security must be guaranteed. Which means a Palestinian state with no authority to do anything that states normally do, disarmed and not even controlling its own borders or airspace. It would essentially be the status quo wrapped up as a totally bogus peace agreement and there is no sign that Netanyahu might be willing to abandon his most ardent supporters, 500,000 strong in the settlements built on Palestinian land.
It is difficult to see what the American interest is in offering a congressional bully pulpit to a man like Netanyahu who has clearly condoned war crimes and it would seem pointless to listen to yet another Israeli attempt to prevaricate and, let’s face it, lie. Conservative columnist Joe Sobran once commented on an earlier Netanyahu speech before Congress back in 1996. He likened the response to that given to Josef Stalin when addressing the Supreme Soviet, with everyone standing up and applauding wildly because no one dared to be seen as the first to stop clapping. Hopefully both Ron and Rand Paul and Dennis Kucinich will not bother to applaud at all.
And looking ahead there will be congressional and White House moves to stop the Palestinians from attempting to declare statehood when the UN General Assembly reopens in September, a move that Israel and AIPAC condemn. Stay tuned. If there is a genuine American national interest in any of these shenanigans, it completely escapes me as to what it might be, but one has to conclude that there is nothing good for the United States and its citizens in any of this.
Read more by Philip Giraldi
Article printed from Antiwar.com Original: http://original.antiwar.com
Costs of arming Israel can no longer be ignored
US weaponry was used in the flattening of Gaza during the three weeks of attacks in winter 2008-09. (Wissam Nassar/MaanImages)
Israel may be forgiven for failing to realize the current fiscal woes of the United States. After all, US military aid to Israel not only sailed unscathed through this month’s passage of the 2011 budget, but reached the record level of $3 billion.
The US additionally provided Israel $415 million for procurement, research and development of joint US-Israeli missile defense projects, including $205 million to fund Israel’s newly-deployed Iron Dome system.
This anti-missile battery already has altered significantly the strategic balance in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when Israel successfully shot down incoming rockets fired from the Gaza Strip earlier this month. With the assured diplomatic backing of the US to prevent Israel from being held accountable by the international community for its illegal blockade, Iron Dome will embolden Israel to tighten its siege and escalate its attacks on the occupied Gaza Strip by providing its citizens with additional protection against retaliatory fire.
US funding of Iron Dome is but one example of many of how US weapons transfers to Israel privilege Israeli military dominance over Palestinian freedom and create perverse economic disincentives for Israel to defy US policy goals such as halting Israel’s colonization of Palestinian land, ending its collective punishment of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and negotiating in good faith a lasting peace agreement.
As long as US weapons continue to flow, Israel will feel free to disregard the Obama administration’s mild blandishments and half-hearted attempts to bring Israel to the negotiating table. Unfortunately this disincentive structure is set to be reinforced over the coming years.
Under a Bush-era agreement, US weapons transfers to Israel are scheduled to total $30 billion from 2009-2018, an annual average increase of 25 percent above previous levels. With this 2007 Memorandum of Understanding, the US solidified Israel’s position as the largest recipient of US military aid this decade. In line with increases proposed under this arrangement, President Obama asked for a record-breaking $3.075 billion of weapons for Israel in his 2012 budget request.
A new online database — “How Many Weapons to Israel?”
(http://www.weaponstoisrael.org/) — casts doubt on whether the US can afford, either morally, financially or politically, to continue transferring weapons to Israel at taxpayer expense without examining the ramifications of this policy.
From 2000-2009, the US licensed, paid for and delivered to Israel more than 670 million weapons and related equipment, valued at nearly $19 billion, through three main weapons transfer programs (Foreign Military Sales, Direct Commercial Sales and Excess Defense Articles). These weapons transfer programs accounted for nearly 80 percent of the more than $24 billion in military aid appropriated to Israel during these years. The bulk of the remaining money was spent by Israel on its own domestic arms industry, a unique exemption written into law for Israel. All other countries receiving US military aid are required to spend the whole sum within the US.
Military aid to Israel ran the gamut from the patently absurd — one used food steamer valued at $2,100 — to the lethal — 93 F-16D fighter jets valued at a total of nearly $2.5 billion. With nearly 500 categories of weapons transferred to Israel, the US is pervasively, intricately and comprehensively involved in arming its military.
These weapons transfers also make the US deeply complicit in almost every action the Israeli military takes to entrench its illegal 43-year military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip and the apartheid policies that undergird its government’s stance toward Palestinians.
From September 2000-December 2009, roughly the same period during which the US transferred these 670 million weapons to Israel, the Israeli military killed at least 2,969 Palestinians, of whom 1,128 were children, who took no part in hostilities, according to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem.
For example, Israel killed 446 unarmed Palestinians, including 149 children, with missiles fired from helicopters. The Pentagon classifies the number, types and value of missiles transferred to Israel; however, the US gave Israel nearly 200 AH-64D Apache, Sikorsky CH-53 and Cobra helicopters from which at least some of these lethal missiles were fired. It was likely one such US-supplied missile from a US-supplied helicopter that Israel fired in the Jabalya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip on 29 December 2008, which killed five sisters, Jawaher (age 4), Dina (age 7), Samar (age 12), Ikram (age 14) and Tahrir Baulusha (age 17) during an attack on a nearby mosque.
Israel’s misuse of US weapons to commit human rights abuses like these against Palestinian civilians should trigger sanctions against, rather than increasing amounts of military aid to, Israel. The Arms Export Control Act limits the use of US weapons to “internal security” and “legitimate self-defense.” Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip is defined by the US government as a foreign military occupation, and the killing of thousands of unarmed civilians in support of a military occupation cannot be justified as legitimate without distorting the meaning of self-defense.
In addition, the Foreign Assistance Act strictly prohibits US foreign assistance to any country that “engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally-recognized human rights.” The State Department’s recently released 2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices documents amply, if not comprehensively, Israel’s human rights abuses of Palestinians.
As Washington now considers raising the debt ceiling and making even more substantial cuts to the 2012 budget, the moral, financial and political costs of arming Israel can no longer be ignored.
If the Obama administration is serious in its efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and genuine in its stated commitment to the universality of human rights, then it must utilize the significant leverage the US wields over Israel through its military aid program. By terminating weapons transfers to Israel at least until Israel upholds its obligations under US and international law, ends its illegal military occupation of Palestinian land and negotiates in good faith a just and lasting peace with Palestinians, the US can create an incentive structure to achieve its frustrated policy goals.
Josh Ruebner is the National Advocacy Director of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, a national coalition of more than 350 organizations working to change US policy toward Israel and the Palestinians to support human rights, international law and equality. He is a former Analyst in Middle East Affairs at Congressional Research Service.
Is Israel’s Right Wing in Eric Cantor’s District?
By David Swanson
In May 2009, Congressmen Eric Cantor (R., Va.) and Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) wrote to President Barack Obama about U.S. policy toward Israel. Their staff sent the letter as a PDF but forgot to change the name of the file to something other than “AIPAC Letter Hoyer Cantor May 2009.pdf.”
AIPAC stands for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a group widely recognized as one of the most effective at lobbying Congress, and a group that consistently promotes the positions of the rightwing party of the Israeli government. AIPAC also has the distinction of having lobbied against accountability for an Israeli attack on a U.S. ship and in favor of leniency for a man convicted of selling U.S. secrets to Israel. In a separate case, six years ago, two AIPAC employees were indicted for obtaining U.S. secrets from a U.S. military employee who pled guilty. After powerful Congress members like Jane Harman (D., Calif.) lobbied on their behalf, the charges were dropped.
That’s what it means to be an effective lobby group: having your way. Need sanctions on Iran? You got em. Support at the United Nations for illegal settlements in Palestine or a blockade and bombing of Gaza? Not a problem. In fact, it would be our pleasure to provide the weapons needed, whether it’s for bombing Gaza, bombing Lebanon, or killing Turkish and American peace activists on an aid ship as happened last year. We’d be honored, and don’t let cost be a consideration! That would be an insult in these times of huge budget surpluses in Washington! (Warning, this paragraph contained sarcasm.)
We give $3 billion in “military aid” to Israel every year, more than we give to any other country. This is justified by the need to protect Israel from all the other countries in its region, most of which we also give or sell arms to. Last fall, when pressure was building in Washington to cut off foreign aid spending, Congressman Cantor proposed making an exception for Israel that would help guarantee it $30 billion over the next decade by hiding that funding in the U.S. “defense” budget. That proposal didn’t fly, but neither has any funding of Israeli weapons been cut.
Is there any spending here in Virginia that Congressman Cantor has defended this tenaciously? Would there be if we could afford it?
Cantor is listed on Maplight.org as the top recipient of campaign money from “pro-Israel” groups in the U.S. House of Representatives, having taken in over $200,000. These groups, most of them affiliated with AIPAC, dump tens of millions of dollars into U.S. elections each cycle. And they certainly appear to get what they pay for. In February, continuing a decades-long pattern that has made the United States the leader in U.N. vetoes, President Obama instructed U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to veto and overrule the other 14 Security Council members’ backing of a resolution condemning as illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
The problem here is more specific than the wild-west financing of U.S. elections. The problem is that the interests of the Israeli government, far from always representing the Israeli people, in no way represent those of the American people or the people of Virginia. Our views may align or diverge. But the Israeli government’s hostility toward Iraq or Iran, Lebanon or Palestine, or to independent democratic rule in Egypt and the rest of the region, need not be our own. That should be for us to decide, open to foreign input, but free of foreign financial pressure. AIPAC raises its money in the United States but advances the agenda of a foreign nation, diverging often from the majority views of both Americans at large and Jewish Americans in particular.
Later this month, Congressman Cantor will be a featured speaker at AIPAC’s annual conference in Washington DC, but over 100 peace and justice organizations will be holding a counter-conference called “Move Over AIPAC.” I wonder if Eric Cantor will get the message.
David Swanson is an author and blogger in Charlottesville, Va.
Those Irrepressible Neocons
April 26, 2011 10:54 am ET
Will wonders never cease?
Two neoconservatives are out front urging President Obama to more energetically defend the human rights of Arabs. Jennifer Rubin, who writes for the Washington Post, and her mentor, Rachel Decter Abrams, the godmother of neoconservatism, believe that Obama should step up and defend the Syrian people against the repressive Assad regime.
Abrams, in particular, has stellar neocon credentials. She is married to Elliot Abrams (the Reagan assistant secretary of state who was indicted by a special prosecutor for intentionally deceiving Congress about the Iran-Contra arms deal). She is also the step-daughter of Norman Podhoretz, longtime editor of the neocon flagship Commentary, and the sister of John Podhoretz, its current editor.
Jennifer Rubin, on the other hand, was just one of those plugging along in Kingdom Neocon (she was a contributing editor to Commentary and its blog, Contentions) until recently, when the neocon editor of the Washington Post editorial page, Fred Hiatt, plucked her from obscurity and brought her to the Post.
Beyond their Commentary roots, the two are almost ideologically identical. And that means that they are both driven, above all other considerations, by dedication to the concept of Greater Israel (a concept which is taken more seriously inside the Beltway than it is in Israel itself).
In her first column in the Post, Rubin introduced herself by noting that she is a “harsh critic” of the Middle East peace process, which, in her case, means total devotion to the vision of Binyamin Netanyahu: championing the Gaza war, and attacking anyone (particularly Jews at J Street) who dares to oppose Israeli policy. And, naturally, Rubin despises President Obama, whose “sympathies for the Muslim word,” she complains, “take precedence over those, such as they are, for his fellow citizens.”
Abrams’ views of Israel are even farther to the right. In fact, Abrams has a hard time remembering that she is an American, not an Israeli. For instance, in 2010, she penned a love letter to Israel which included these words: “I know why we cry for this land and fight for this land and love this land. I know why we cannot let go of any part of this land. This is the land of my people, and I know why.” (In the White House, her husband Elliot was known for undercutting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on all matters relating to Israel.)
The bottom line with Abrams and Rubin is that they are all about Israel. Virtually every position either one takes is related, in some way or other, either to Israel or to flattering those who share their “no compromise with Palestinians” worldview. They are right-wingers only because they trust the right on Israel; their views on American issues are “icing” designed to ingratiate themselves with people they consider to be Israel’s staunchest allies. (Jennifer Rubin, for instance, defended Sarah Palin against her Jewish critics, accusing them of not admiring Palin because they are intellectual snobs and are uncomfortable with Track Palin’s service in the U.S. military!)
The one difference between the two is Abrams’ bizarre obsession with gays and lesbians. She despises them and is quick to suggest that any critic of Israel must be gay, which, in her lexicon, is the greatest insult. On this, as on nothing else, Abrams abandons her defense of Israel, which is well-known for being progressive on gay equality issues. (When it comes to gays, she is definitely more Saudi than Israeli.)
All this brings me to Rubin’s piece in which she bashes President Obama for not aggressively championing the anti-Assad demonstrators in Syria. She prefaces that by noting that Obama “shamefully missed a hinge moment in history when he failed to champion the Iranian Green Movement in June 2009. It was both a moral and a geopolitical failing of enormous proportions. And he now seems to be repeating his most egregious foreign policy error.”
She then cites her mentor:
In sum, there is a growing sense that, as blogger Rachel Abrams put it, the administration’s “refusal to distinguish between oppressor and oppressed – ‘we … call on all sides to cease and desist from the use of violence’ – shames us in the world and endangers us.”
Rubin approvingly cites Bill Kristol (another neocon idol) who says that the administration is overly cautious about fighting in Libya. “If you talk off the record with people from the administration, they are terrified of having some American pilot shot down and taken hostage,” he grumbles.
The neocons, who played such a large role in getting this country to invade Iraq (cost in American lives: 4,400) certainly aren’t “terrified” over such things.
The most absurd thing about Rubin’s and Abrams’ sudden concern for Syrians, Iranians, Libyans (or any other Muslim peoples’ rights) is that it is transparently dishonest. Both Abrams and Rubin cheered Israel’s onslaught on Gaza and Lebanon, in which thousands of civilians died. Both favor attacking Iran, an act that might well kill thousands of innocent Iranians and provoke a deadly regional war. Neither has ever expressed any concern over any Israeli action that took Arab lives. For those two, either it never happened or was an unfortunate accident.
In other words, when it comes to Muslims, Rubin and Abrams care about their democratic rights (except those of Palestinians), but not necessarily their right to live.
One of the many differences between the neocons and Obama is that he wants these revolutions to succeed, and he understands that the quickest way to undermine the Arab Spring is to make it appear to be engineered by the United States. That is also why Obama was so cautious about Iran; the revolutionaries did not want to be seen as U.S. pawns. Neocons just like sticking it to Obama, liberals, and anyone who does not share their belief that the Israeli occupation is just fine.
So let’s not hear from this crowd about the poor Iranians or Syrians or Libyans, or whatever other group they suddenly profess to care about. Better they should think about those thousands of Americans, along with the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, who perished as a consequence of the horrific war they enthusiastically agitated for. Don’t they have enough to atone for without adding more deadly U.S. military interventions?
Maybe they should pay a visit to Walter Reed.
Copyright © 2010 Media Matters Action Network. All rights reserved.
Goldstone Recants, Gaza Dies
Goldstone sugarcoats persecution to try to save Israel
The objective of Israel’s friends is to protect its government and defense forces from any accountability for the deaths of 1,400 Palestinians, most of whom were civilians and many of whom were children.
The strenuous efforts by the United States to shield Israel makes America complicit in a cover-up of war crimes—which is precisely how the rest of the world sees it.
Senate Resolution 138, which passed on April 14th, called on the United Nations to annul the Goldstone Report, demanded that the UN Human Rights Council actually be restructured so that it will stop criticizing Israel, and called on the White House to take the lead to “limit the damage that this libelous report has caused to our close ally Israel…”
The Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives is currently considering a bill, House Resolution 1501, “To withhold United Nations contributions to the United Nations until the United Nations formally retracts” the Goldstone report. As the committee is headed by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a passionate supporter of Israel, it is certain that the bill will go to the House for approval.
It’s time to push back against the Israel lobby and prove to Congress and the media that there is another side to the story. Your Council for the National Interest is leading the way in this battle.
Background information on the issue can be found in the statement made by Goldstone’s co-authors and in an article by CNI executive director Phil Giraldi. Also, a fact sheet with additional information on the Gaza invasion can be downloaded or ordered in bulk at If Americans Knew.
However one feels about the United Nations in general, it is difficult to understate the damage this bill will do to America’s standing vis-à-vis a number of international bodies. There is no possible explanation for this legislation but to protect Israel from any legitimate criticism. As is frequently the case, the United States and its citizens will pay the price in terms of America’s approval rating sinking even lower worldwide.
HR 1501 is another opportunity for CNI to educate and motivate Americans on the power of the Israel lobby. And frankly, it’s another reason for you to show your support for our ongoing work—this current fight is only one we are fighting on many fronts. I hope you will be generous with a gift of $25, $50 or even $250.
Contact your Representative now and state your view that this bill does not benefit the United States and will, in fact, do terrible damage to our country’s international standing. Sacrificing American interests for those of a foreign power—i.e., defending Israel from any disapproval—is not a principal enshrined in the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Alison Weir, President
Council for the National Interest
Kristol’s Ode to Arab Spring
William Kristol, director of the neocon Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), is waxing lyrical about the Arab Spring:
BBG: Broadcasting Israel-friendly “democratic values” to the Middle East (with American taxpayers’ money)
Norman J. Pattiz, American radio mogul and chairman of the U.S. government’s Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) Middle East Committee, founded Radio Sawa, which successfully “used music as a tool to attract a younger audience” — it’s listened to by over 42% of youth in a number of Arab countries, including Egypt. But how many of the 75% of Radio Sawa listeners who consider its news “reliable and credible” know this about its “founding father”?