Peace and Justice Post

CounterPunch,

Weekend Edition
August 18 / 19, 2007

US Military Aid to Israel

Tops $30 Billion

By DAVE LINDORFF

According to a new Associated Press report, the US is offering Israel a record $30-billion 10-year military aid package.

Let’s ignore for a moment the AP story’s irony-free comment that “Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said the package was meant to back peace-seeking countries like Israel and moderate Arab states in the region to counter U.S. adversaries such as Iran.” (Israel is a “peace-seeking” country?) We’ll just focus on the amount of money that’s being promised here.

Israel is a land of only 6 million people. That works out to about $5000 in arms aid per man, woman and child, and of course, since nearly a third of the people in Israel are Palestinian, and won’t see a penny’s (or bullet’s) worth of that aid, it’s really closer to $7500 per person. And remember, this is no basket case nation; this is one of the most technologically developed and wealthiest countries on earth we’re talking about here.

Looked at another way, this aid to Israel represents a gift of $100 worth of money and weaponry from every man, woman and child in America to the people of Israel.

Think about that the next time you are scraping together the money to make your next mortgage payment or rent check.

Then think about the additional $20 billion that the U.S. is offering to the so-called “moderate” Arab states around Israel, by which we mean Saudi Arabia (you know, the country that gave us most of the 9-11 bombers and that is the prime country of origin of the foreign fighters we hear so much about in Iraq attacking US troops), Jordan and Egypt. the US has to offer that military aid if it’s going to give weapons to Israel, or risk losing the friendship of those countries.

So that’s $50 billion in weapons aid to a region that is a perpetual powderkeg. It makes about as much sense as giving a gift of matches and lighters to a rehab center full of pyromaniacs and convicted arsonists.

Viewed another way, the new military aid to Israel, which represents a 25 percent increase over last year (a reward for Israel’s brutal and pointless invasion of Lebanon, perhaps?), which comes to about $3 billion per year, is ten times the entire US aid budget to fight AIDS in Africa.

So not only is this aid offer stupid in the extreme, giving Israel no reason whatsoever to work to achieve some kind of just and abiding settlement with its neighbors and with the Palestinians inside and outside its borders, but it’s immoral for the reason that it shortchanges those who really need the aid.

I mean, this military aid to Israel is also equal to or greater than all US aid to Latin America, Africa and the Caribbean region.

But the news isn’t all bad. At least in Latin America and the Caribbean, Venezuela is picking up the slack (and the rewards in terms of public acclaim) by providing the aid that the US is skimping on while it bankrolls Israel’s war machine.

Is this how you want your tax dollars used?

Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His n book of CounterPunch columns titled “This Can’t be Happening!” is published by Common Courage Press. Lindorff’s newest book is “The Case for Impeachment“,
co-authored by Barbara Olshansky.

He can be reached at: dlindorff@yahoo.com

San Francisco Chronicle, August 15, 2007

By George Bisharat

When does a citizen-led boycott of a state become morally justified?

That question is raised by an expanding academic, cultural and economic boycott of Israel. The movement joins churches, unions, professional societies and other groups based in the United States, Canada, Europe and South Africa. It has elicited dramatic reactions from Israel’s supporters. U.S. labor leaders have condemned British unions, representing millions of workers, for supporting the Israel boycott. American academics have been frantically gathering signatures against the boycott, and have mounted a prominent advertising campaign in American newspapers – unwittingly elevating the controversy further in the public eye.

Israel’s defenders have protested that Israel is not the worst human-rights offender in the world, and singling it out is hypocrisy, or even anti-Semitism. Rhetorically, this shifts focus from Israel’s human rights record to the imagined motives of its critics.

But “the worst first” has never been the rule for whom to boycott. Had it been, the Pol Pot regime, not apartheid South Africa, would have been targeted in the past. It was not – Cambodia’s ties to the West were insufficient to make any embargo effective. Boycotting North Korea today would be similarly futile. Should every other quest for justice be put on hold as a result?

In contrast, the boycott of South Africa had grip. The opprobrium suffered by white South Africans unquestionably helped persuade them to yield to the just demands of the black majority. Israel, too, assiduously guards its public image. A dense web of economic and cultural relations also ties it to the West. That – and its irrefutably documented human-rights violations – render it ripe for boycott.

What state actions should trigger a boycott? Expelling or intimidating into flight a country’s majority population, then denying them internationally recognized rights to return to their homes? Israel has done that.

Seizing, without compensation, the properties of hundreds of thousands of refugees? Israel has done that.

Systematically torturing detainees, many held without trial? Israel has done that.

Assassinating its opponents, including those living in territories it occupies? Israel has done that.

Demolishing thousands of homes belonging to one national group, and settling its own people in another nation’s land? Israel has done that. No country with such a record, whether first or 50th worst in the world, can credibly protest a boycott.

Apartheid South Africa provides another useful standard. How does Israel’s behavior toward Palestinians compare to former South Africa’s treatment of blacks? It is similar or worse, say a number of South Africans, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, U.N. special rapporteur in the occupied territories John Dugard, and African National Congress member and government minister Ronnie Kasrils. The latter observed recently that apartheid South Africa never used fighter jets to attack ANC activists, and judged Israel’s violent control of Palestinians as “10 times worse.” Dual laws for Jewish settlers and Palestinians, segregated roads and housing, and restrictions on Palestinians’ freedom of movement strongly recall apartheid South Africa. If boycotting apartheid South Africa was appropriate, it is equally fair to boycott Israel on a similar record.

Israel has been singled out, but not as its defenders complain. Instead, Israel has been enveloped in a cocoon of impunity. Our government has vetoed 41 U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning Israeli actions – half of the total U.S. vetoes since the birth of the United Nations – thus enabling Israel’s continuing abuses. The Bush administration has announced an increase in military aid to Israel to $30 billion for the coming decade.

Other military occupations and human-rights abusers have faced considerably rougher treatment. Just recall Iraq’s 1990 takeover of Kuwait. Perhaps the United Nations should have long ago issued Israel the ultimatum it gave Iraq – and enforced it. Israel’s occupation of Arab lands has now exceeded 40 years.

Iran, Sudan and Syria have all been targeted for federal and state-level sanctions. Even the City of Beverly Hills is contemplating Iran divestment actions, following the lead of Los Angeles, which approved Iran divestment legislation in June. Yet the Islamic Republic of Iran has never attacked its neighbors nor occupied their territories. It is merely suspected of aspiring to the same nuclear weapons Israel already possesses.

Politicians worldwide, and American ones especially, have failed us. Our leaders, from the executive branch to Congress, have dithered, or cheered Israel on, as it devoured the land base for a Palestinian state. Their collective irresponsibility dooms both Palestinians and Israelis to a future of strife and insecurity, and undermines our global stature. If politicians cannot lead the way, then citizens must. That is why boycotting Israel has become both necessary and justified.

George Bisharat is a professor of law at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, and writes frequently on law and politics in the Middle East.

Dissident, August 13th, 2007

The Democrats Are Selling Out the Peace Movement And much of the peace movement is selling out to the Democrats…

by Justin Raimondo

I love going over to DailyKos.com – a site for very partisan Democrats – and reading the passionate antiwar screeds, the outrage at the escalation of the Iraq conflict in the face of rising opposition, the often timely and interesting analysis of our disastrous foreign policy posted by Kossacks with monikers like “antiwarrior” and “Cheneysucks,” but I have to wonder: how in the name of all that’s holy can these people support any of the Democratic “majors” in the race for the White House? After all, the leading Democratic candidates for president support keeping our troops in Iraq – for years, as the New York Times reports:

“Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.

“John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.”

Continue . . .

Yahoo News

Fri Aug 17, 12:51 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Anti-war Democrats on Thursday accused President George W. Bush of plotting to lace a potentially pivotal report on his Iraq troop surge strategy with “White House spin.”

The attack came as senior congressional aides were reported as saying the White House wanted to block public testimony in Congress next month from war commander General David Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker.

Democrats are also angry the assessment on the surge, required under US law, will be written at the White House, not personally by Crocker and Petraeus.

But the White House accused Democrats of playing political games with war strategy, and made clear the two men would appear in public.

Senate Democratic Majority leader Harry Reid accused the White House of launching an attempt to mask candid testimony on the strategy.

“If the president is going to continue to ask American soldiers to fight in this civil war … then those closest to the situation on the ground must give Congress and the American people a frank and honest account of this war free of White House spin,” he said.

But National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe denied there had been an attempt to limit testimony by Petraeus and Crocker, as reported by Thursday’s Washington Post.

“General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will testify to the Congress in both open as well as closed sessions,” he said in Crawford, Texas, where Bush is on vacation.

“It’s unfortunate that anyone would suggest that they would not do that; trying to start a fight where there really isn’t one, because this has always been the plan.”

The law requiring the Iraq war report by September 15 states that “the president shall submit” the assessment to Congress after consulting top military brass, the US ambassador to Baghdad and his national security team.

It does not specify that the report must be the direct work of Crocker and Petraeus.

Just Foreign Policy

Add this to your website

The number is shocking and sobering.

It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on the only scientifically valid study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003.

That study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since then. The graphic above provides a rough daily update of this number based on a rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count. (See the complete explanation.)

This devastating human toll demands greater recognition. It eclipses the Rwandan genocide and our leaders are directly responsible. Little wonder they do not publicly cite it. Here is simple HTML code to post the counter to your website and help spread the word.

Electronic Intifada

Rami Almeghari writing from Al-Faraheen, occupied Gaza Strip, Live from Palestine, Aug 17, 2007

Palestinians inspect the wreckage of what used to be their home after it was destroyed during an Israeli military incursion in the southern Gaza Strip, 14 August 2007. (Wissam Nassar/MaanImages)

Surveillance cameras and watchtowers loom over more than 800 meters away from the scene of destruction left by Israeli army tanks and bulldozers following the latest Israeli invasion of the al-Faraheen area in Abbassan al-Kabeera town, to the east of Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip.

“Fifteen dunums [four acres] of tomatoes along with 400 meters of irrigation pipes were crushed by the Israeli tanks during the invasion into our area, where myself and two other partners make our living,” says Samir al-Naqa, a local farmer in the al-Faraheen area.

Samir affirms that the invasion took place in the middle of the day. “I’d bet whether there was a single resistance fighter in the area; I’d bet the Israeli army whether there is a single tunnel in the area. It’s our land, through which we feed our children. Where to go, we have no other choice, despite the fact they invaded the area about four times this year.”

Israeli media quoted sources who claimed that the invasion was a bid to prevent Palestinian attempts to smuggle weapons through underground tunnels.

When one walks down the arable lands in al-Faraheen, following Tuesday’s invasion, one is struck by the sight of heaps of torn apart olive trees, dead tomato vines and holes in nearby walls thanks to the Israeli tanks that wreaked the destruction ostensibly in pursuit of resistance fighters or in search of underground tunnels.

Almost 800 meters away lies a long barbed-wire fence that separates al-Faraheen from Israel. This fence is equipped with surveillance cameras and watchtowers, in a way that not only prevents infiltrators but also discovers any moving object.

“I hope there was a single tunnel that Israel can destroy; we have been living here for ages. All their allegations are false ones,” says Anwar Abu Daqqa, a 43-year-old landlord.

Anwar gave a tour of the areas where the Israeli army tanks rolled through, including a newly-built graveyard that was damaged by the tanks.

“Look, sir, I am in charge of this small cemetery; how come the tank rolls over graveyards — are they tunnels? Are there resistance fighters hidden inside? I really wonder and I bet whether a single resistance fighter can come to our closed area. Many times I myself prevented resistance fighters from approaching the area, for concern over our children’s lives,” Anwar maintains.

Anwar himself lost 30 cows during an Israeli invasion into al-Faraheen last year when the Israeli army remained in the area for 24 hours, so he decided to sell the rest of his livestock.

Heading deep inside the populated area, there is another scene of destruction created by Israeli tanks and shells — a completely destroyed three-story house, where the Israeli army killed two resistance fighters of Hamas along with the 70-year-old mother of one of them.

Mohammad Qdaih, an eyewitness, recalls the events. “When the army shot dead Omar al-Qarra, Omar’s mother rushed to her son out of her great concern. However, the Israeli soldiers shot her dead over Omar’s body.”

Safa’ Braim, a local woman, described the Israeli invasion. “They were [the Israelis] shooting at the houses heavily and randomly. We could not even look from the windows. This is not the first time that they invade our area; what we need now is that they stop their aggression against us and leave us and our children to live safely at least.”

Tuesday’s Israeli invasion into the al-Faraheen area in southern Gaza claimed the lives of seven Palestinians, including an elderly woman and two resistance fighters, and caused the injury of more than 35 others, including five who are critically wounded.

According to local sources, the area has been invaded five or six times over the past year and a half and each time, tanks have left behind horror, destruction and death.

Rami Almeghari is currently contributor to several media outlets including the Palestine Chronicle, aljazeerah.info, IMEMC, The Electronic Intifada and Free Speech Radio News. Rami is also a former senior English translator at and editor in chief of the international press center of the Gaza-based Palestinian Information Service. He can be contacted at rami_almeghari at hotmail.com.

Related Links

Israeli forces kill four, arrest dozens in ongoing Gaza operation, PCHR (14 August 2007)

Swissinfo, August 16, 2007

By Arshad Mohammed

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States has urged embattled Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to explore ways of cooperating politically with former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, a diplomat said on Thursday.

The effort to encourage a political deal, first reported by The New York Times, appears aimed at shoring up Musharraf’s eroding domestic support and at ensuring Pakistan’s continued cooperation with the United States in the war on terrorism.

The strategy carries risks for Washington, which could be seen as meddling in Pakistan’s internal affairs, and for Bhutto, who could taint herself by allying with Musharraf, who seized power in a bloodless coup eight years ago.

The Pakistani president, who is preparing to seek a second term in office, has seen his popularity plunge since his failed attempt to oust Pakistan’s chief justice this year and he faces a deepening political crisis at home.

Since early July, more than 300 people in Pakistan have been killed in bomb attacks, in clashes with militants and in an army assault on Islamabad’s Red Mosque to crush a Taliban-style movement.

Musharraf has been regarded by the United States as a vital ally since his decision after the September 11 attacks on the United States to cooperate with Washington in combating al Qaeda and the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan.

The diplomat, who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter, said U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad met Bhutto recently and that the United States was encouraging Musharraf and Bhutto to “look at ways to cooperate politically.”

In its report, The New York Times stated the matter more baldly, saying the Bush administration was struggling to find a way to keep Musharraf in power and was quietly prodding him to “share authority” with Bhutto.

MODERATE CENTER

In an interview, Bhutto said that she had met Khalilzad in a private capacity and denied the United States was explicitly pushing her to forge a power-sharing deal with Musharraf.

“They have certainly not come up and said this is what we want you to do,” she told Reuters.

“From my perspective, the issue is not working out a power-sharing arrangement and distributing power,” she added. “From my perspective, this is about saving Pakistan from chaos, it’s about saving Pakistan from dictatorship, and it’s about saving the Pakistani people from the misery that comes when there is conflict and that leads to poverty and unemployment.”

“That’s why we are engaged in these negotiations (with Musharraf). To see whether we can come to an understanding that facilitates democracy in — and the stability of — Pakistan,” she said.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, having met the Pakistani leadership during a two-day visit to Islamabad, declined to respond when asked if the United States was mediating between Musharraf and Bhutto.

He said the Pakistani people should choose their next government in elections and he had been encouraging political leaders to help ensure the vote is fair.

“I’ve also encouraged them to look at what can be done to strengthen the moderate centre of Pakistani politics,” Boucher told reporters in Islamabad. “The more that those tendencies can be brought forward and joined, the more solid base there is to deal with the serious problem of extremism.”

RISKS FOR BHUTTO

Analysts said a power-sharing deal might broaden Musharraf’s political base and improve his popularity but carried risks for Bhutto.

“The biggest risk is that by doing a deal in which she throws her support to a military dictator she will lose her credibility as an independent opposition politician,” said Teresita Schaffer, a Pakistan expert at the CSIS think tank.

The United States has become increasingly frustrated that Musharraf has not done enough to combat Taliban militants on his side of the largely lawless border with Afghanistan as well as worried about his political standing.

In a sign of U.S. concern, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte is likely to visit Pakistan in September in his second trip to the country this year, the U.S. official said.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack declined to comment on whether Khalilzad had met Bhutto but he stressed that the Bush administration had talked to “all parties.”

(Additional reporting by Robert Birsel in Islamabad and JoAnne Allen in Washington)
Reuters (IDS)

Information Clearing House

A year after the Second Lebanon War

By Jonathan Cook

08/16/07 “ICH” — — This week marks a year since the end of hostilities now officially called the Second Lebanon war by Israelis. A month of fighting — mostly Israeli aerial bombardment of Lebanon, and rocket attacks from the Shia militia Hizbullah on northern Israel in response — ended with more than 1,000 Lebanese civilians and a small but unknown number of Hizbullah fighters dead, as well as 119 Israeli soldiers and 43 civilians.

When Israel and the United States realised that Hizbullah could not be bombed into submission, they pushed a resolution, 1701, through the United Nations. It placed an expanded international peacekeeping force, UNIFIL, in south Lebanon to keep Hizbullah in check and try to disarm its few thousand fighters.

But many significant developments since the war have gone unnoticed, including several that seriously put in question Israel’s account of what happened last summer. This is old ground worth revisiting for that reason alone.

Continue . . .

Source: New York Times

Authors of a new book: Stephen Walt, left, of Harvard University, and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago.

By PATRICIA COHEN
Published: August 16, 2007

“The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” is not even in bookstores, but already anxieties have surfaced about the backlash it is stirring, with several institutions backing away from holding events with the authors.

John J. Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, were not totally surprised by the reaction to their work. An article last spring in the London Review of Books outlining their argument — that a powerful pro-Israel lobby has a pernicious influence on American policy — set off a firestorm as charges of anti-Semitism, shoddy scholarship and censorship ricocheted among prominent academics, writers, policymakers and advocates. In the book, published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux and embargoed until Sept. 4, they elaborate on and update their case.

Read the full story