Sabbah Report » Aid

Obama Ad Condemns Israel Aid Opponents

SR Editor — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:28:34 +0000

By Stephen Zunes*

An ad on my Facebook page from barackobama.com reads, "Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich say they would start foreign aid to Israel at zero. Reject their extreme plan now!"

This struck me as odd for two reasons:

First, it is disingenuous and misleading. The actual position taken by these Republican presidential candidates is that all foreign aid should initially start at zero as means of reducing the deficit, to be immediately followed by the resumption of aid on a case-by-case basis. As they themselves have acknowledged, they would immediately resume aid to Israel and perhaps even increase it. Ironically, U.S. "aid for Israel" goes almost exclusively to U.S. arms manufacturers, with which the Republican candidates have a close relationship.

Secondly, millions of Americans-particularly younger voters who are the primary users of Facebook-support zeroing out aid to Israel on human rights grounds. The Obama campaign, therefore, is effectively labeling those of us who oppose the use of our tax dollars to arm the right-wing Netanyahu government, which has repeatedly used U.S. weapons against civilians, as "extreme." Presumably, they feel the same way about those of us who support a cutoff of aid to other governments that violate international humanitarian law as well.

In 2009, Amnesty International, citing war crimes committed by both Israeli forces and the armed wing of Hamas earlier that year, called on nations to suspend arms shipments to both. The Obama administration categorically rejected the proposal. The administration has also rejected calls by human rights groups to condition military aid and arms transfers to other countries that use U.S. weapons against civilians, including Colombia, Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, Azerbaijan, and Morocco. Recently, the Obama administration requested a waiver on human rights restrictions in the forthcoming foreign appropriations bill in order to resume arming the Karimov dictatorship in Uzbekistan, which has massacred hundreds of pro-democracy protesters and has literally boiled its opponents alive.

One can speculate whether, if Obama were seeking re-election in 1984, his campaign would similarly label those who opposed aid to the murderous Salvadoran junta as "extreme." Or, if it were 1996, his campaign would have marginalized opponents of U.S. aid to the genocidal Suharto regime in Indonesia. The president's re-election team for 2012 sure appears to think of us that way.

Republican candidates certainly have taken a number of extreme positions regarding Israel and Palestine. Gingrich, Perry, and Romney, for example, have aligned themselves with the far right of the Israeli political spectrum, opposing Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and opposing a freeze on illegal Israeli settlements. Gingrich has even said the Palestinians are an "invented people" and implied his support for mass population transfers.

I've searched barackobama.com and elsewhere, and nowhere does the Obama campaign appear to label such positions or similarly outrageous statements as "extreme." However, if you oppose sending billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded aid to Israel-whether as a means of cutting the deficit, reducing cuts in social programs, or defending human rights-the Obama campaign considers it an "extreme plan" that should be rejected.

What is so bizarre about the Obama campaign's hostility toward those who oppose aid to Israel is that Israel doesn't need U.S. assistance to begin with. Israel, the region's only nuclear power, has by far the strongest military capability in the greater Middle East, and it possesses the only significant domestic arms industry in the region. Israel also has, by far, the region's highest standard of living, comparable to that of most European countries. Even putting human rights concerns aside, questioning why American taxpayers should be spending over $3 billion annually in aid to Israel at a time of massive cutbacks at home doesn't seem unreasonable.

Furthermore, public opinion polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans believe U.S. military aid should be made conditional to human rights.

Most people for whom providing unconditional support for the Netanyahu government is their top priority are going to support the Republican nominee anyway. Meanwhile, there are millions of Democrats, independents, and even Republicans who question spending billions of taxpayer dollars to prop up that rightist Israeli government every year. Why risk alienating these voters by labeling their position "extreme"? Is it simply a headline thrown together by an overzealous young wonk in the campaign? Or is this part of a larger effort to stifle debate on the Obama administration's policies of aiding governments that violate human rights?

Either way, it sends the message that the Obama campaign does not welcome concerns about human rights. In addition, it serves as a reminder for Americans who do care about human rights that neither party will provide a presidential nominee we can vote for.

* Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus columnist and senior analyst, is a professor of Politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco. He is the author, along with Jacob Mundy, of Western Sahara: War, Nationalism, and Conflict Irresolution (Syracuse University Press, 2010).

Sinking Ship – By John J. Mearsheimer

SR Editor — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:17:54 +0000

Gaza Aid - by Jeff Darcy

The attack on the Gaza relief flotilla jeopardizes Israel itself.

By John J. Mearsheimer* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Israel's botched raid against the Gaza-bound humanitarian flotilla on May 31 is the latest sign that Israel is on a disastrous course that it seems incapable of reversing. The attack also highlights the extent to which Israel has become a strategic liability for the United States. This situation is likely to get worse over time, which will cause major problems for Americans who have a deep attachment to the Jewish state.

The bungled assault on the Mavi Marmara, the lead ship in the flotilla, shows once again that Israel is addicted to using military force yet unable to do so effectively. One would think that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would improve over time from all the practice. Instead, it has become the gang that cannot shoot straight.

The IDF last scored a clear-cut victory in the Six Day War in 1967; the record since then is a litany of unsuccessful campaigns. The War of Attrition (1969-70) was at best a draw, and Israel fell victim to one of the great surprise attacks in military history in the October War of 1973. In 1982, the IDF invaded Lebanon and ended up in a protracted and bloody fight with Hezbollah. Eighteen years later, Israel conceded defeat and pulled out of the Lebanese quagmire. Israel tried to quell the First Intifada by force in the late 1980s, with Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin telling his troops to break the bones of the Palestinian demonstrators. But that strategy failed and Israel was forced to join the Oslo Peace Process instead, which was another failed endeavor.

The IDF has not become more competent in recent years. By almost all accounts-including the Israeli government's own commission of inquiry-it performed abysmally in the 2006 Lebanon war. The IDF then launched a new campaign against the people of Gaza in December 2008, in part to "restore Israel's deterrence" but also to weaken or topple Hamas. Although the mighty IDF was free to pummel Gaza at will, Hamas survived and Israel was widely condemned for the destruction and killing it wrought on Gaza's civilian population. Indeed, the Goldstone Report, written under UN auspices, accused Israel of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity. Earlier this year, the Mossad murdered a Hamas leader in Dubai, but the assassins were seen on multiple security cameras and were found to have used forged passports from Australia and a handful of European countries. The result was an embarrassing diplomatic row, with Australia, Ireland, and Britain each expelling an Israeli diplomat.

Given this history, it is not surprising that the IDF mishandled the operation against the Gaza flotilla, despite having weeks to plan it. The assault forces that landed on the Mavi Marmara were unprepared for serious resistance and responded by shooting nine activists, some at point-blank range. None of the activists had their own guns. The bloody operation was condemned around the world-except in the United States, of course. Even within Israel, the IDF was roundly criticized for this latest failure.

These ill-conceived operations have harmful consequences for Israel. Failures leave adversaries intact and make Israeli leaders worry that their deterrent reputation is being undermined. To rectify that, the IDF is turned loose again, but the result is usually another misadventure, which gives Israel new incentives to do it again, and so on. This spiral logic, coupled with Israel's intoxication with military force, helps explain why the Israeli press routinely carries articles predicting where Israel's next war will be.

Israel's recent debacles have also damaged its international reputation. Respondents to a 2010 worldwide opinion poll done for the BBC said that Israel, Iran, and Pakistan had the most negative influence in the world; even North Korea ranked better. More worrying for Israel is that its once close strategic relationship with Turkey has been badly damaged by the 2008-09 Gaza war and especially by the assault on the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish ship filled with Turkish nationals. But surely the most troubling development for Israel is the growing chorus of voices in the United States who say that Israel's behavior is threatening American interests around the world, to include endangering its soldiers. If that sentiment grows, it could seriously harm Israel's relationship with the United States.

Life as an Apartheid State

The flotilla tragedy highlights another way in which Israel is in deep trouble. Israel's response makes it obvious that its leaders are not interested in allowing the Palestinians to have a viable state in Gaza and the West Bank, but instead are bent on creating a "Greater Israel" in which the Palestinians are confined to a handful of impoverished enclaves.

Israel insists that its blockade is solely intended to keep weapons out of Gaza. Hardly anyone would criticize Israel if this were true, but it is not. The real aim of the blockade is to punish the people of Gaza for supporting Hamas and resisting Israel's efforts to maintain Gaza as a giant open-air prison. Of course, there was much evidence that this was the case before the debacle on the Mavi Marmara. When the blockade began in 2006, Dov Weisglass, a close aide to Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, said, "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger." And the Gaza onslaught 18 months ago was designed to punish the Gazans, not enforce a weapons embargo. The ships in the flotilla were transporting humanitarian aid, not weapons for Hamas, and Israel's willingness to use deadly force to prevent a humanitarian aid convoy from reaching Gaza makes it abundantly clear that Israel wants to humiliate and subdue the Palestinians, not live side-by-side with them in separate states.

Collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza is unlikely to end anytime soon. Israel's leaders have shown little interest in lifting the blockade or negotiating sincerely. The sad truth is that Israel has been brutalizing the Palestinians for so long that it is almost impossible to break the habit. It is hardly surprising that Jimmy Carter said last year, "the citizens of Palestine are treated more like animals than human beings." They are, and they will be for the foreseeable future.

Consequently, there is not going to be a two-state solution. Instead, Gaza and the West Bank will become part of a Greater Israel, which will be an apartheid state bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa. Israelis and their American supporters invariably bristle at this comparison, but that is their future if they create a Greater Israel while denying full political rights to an Arab population that will soon outnumber the Jewish population in the entirety of the land. In fact, two former Israeli prime ministers-Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak-have made this very point. Olmert went so far as to argue, "as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished."

He's right, because Israel will not be able to maintain itself as an apartheid state. Like racist South Africa, it will eventually evolve into a democratic bi-national state whose politics will be dominated by the more numerous Palestinians. But that process will take many years, and during that time, Israel will continue to oppress the Palestinians. Its actions will be seen and condemned by growing numbers of people and more and more governments around the world. Israel is unwittingly destroying its own future as a Jewish state, and doing so with tacit U.S. support.

America's Albatross

The combination of Israel's strategic incompetence and its gradual transformation into an apartheid state creates significant problems for the United States. There is growing recognition in both countries that their interests are diverging; indeed this perspective is even garnering attention inside the American Jewish community. Jewish Week, for example, recently published an article entitled "The Gaza Blockade: What Do You Do When U.S. and Israeli Interests Aren't in Synch?" Leaders in both countries are now saying that Israeli policy toward the Palestinians is undermining U.S. security. Vice President Biden and Gen. David Petraeus, the head of Central Command, both made this point recently, and the head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, told the Knesset in June, "Israel is gradually turning from an asset to the United States to a burden."

It is easy to see why. Because the United States gives Israel so much support and U.S. politicians routinely laud the "special relationship" in the most lavish terms, people around the globe naturally associate the United States with Israel's actions. Unfortunately, this makes huge numbers of people in the Arab and Islamic world furious with the United States for supporting Israel's cruel treatment of the Palestinians. That anger in turn helps fuel terrorism against America. Remember that the 9/11 Commission Report, which describes Khalid Sheik Muhammad as the "principal architect of the 9/11 attacks," concludes that his "animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." Osama bin Laden's hostility toward the United States was fuelled in part by this same concern.

Popular anger toward the United States also threatens the rulers of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, key U.S. allies who are frequently seen as America's lackeys. The collapse of any of these regimes would be a big blow to the U.S. position in the region; however, Washington's unyielding support for Israel makes these governments weaker, not stronger. More importantly, the rupture in Israel's relationship with Turkey will surely damage America's otherwise close relationship with Turkey, a NATO member and a key U.S. ally in Europe and the Middle East.

Finally, there is the danger that Israel might attack Iran's nuclear facilities, which could have terrible consequences for the United States. The last thing America needs is another war with an Islamic country, especially one that could easily interfere in its ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is why the Pentagon opposes striking Iran, whether with Israeli or U.S. forces. But Netanyahu might do it anyway if he thinks it would be good for Israel, even if it were bad for the United States.

Dark Days Ahead for the Lobby

Israel's troubled trajectory is also causing major headaches for its American supporters. First, there is the matter of choosing between Israel and the United States. This is sometimes referred to as the issue of dual loyalty, but that term is a misnomer. Americans are allowed to have dual citizenship-and in effect, dual loyalty-and this is no problem as long as the interests of the other country are in synch with America's interests. For decades, Israel's supporters have striven to shape public discourse in the United States so that most Americans believe the two countries' interests are identical. That situation is changing, however. Not only is there now open talk about clashing interests, but knowledgeable people are openly asking whether Israel's actions are detrimental to U.S. security.

The lobby has been scrambling to discredit this new discourse, either by reasserting the standard argument that Israel's interests are synonymous with America's or by claiming that Israel-to quote a recent statement by Mortimer Zuckerman, a key figure in the lobby-"has been an ally that has paid dividends exceeding its costs." A more sophisticated approach, which is reflected in an AIPAC-sponsored letter that 337 congresspersons sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March, acknowledges that there will be differences between the two countries, but argues that "such differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence." In other words, keep the differences behind closed doors and away from the American public. It is too late, however, to quell the public debate about whether Israel's actions are damaging U.S. interests. In fact, it is likely to grow louder and more contentious with time.

This changing discourse creates a daunting problem for Israel's supporters, because they will have to side either with Israel or the United States when the two countries' interests clash. Thus far, most of the key individuals and institutions in the lobby have sided with Israel when there was a dispute. For example, President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu have had two big public fights over settlements. Both times the lobby sided with Netanyahu and helped him thwart Obama. It seems clear that individuals like Abraham Foxman, who heads the Anti-Defamation League, and organizations like AIPAC are primarily concerned about Israel's interests, not America's.

This situation is very dangerous for the lobby. The real problem is not dual loyalty but choosing between the two loyalties and ultimately putting the interests of Israel ahead of those of America. The lobby's unstinting commitment to defending Israel, which sometimes means shortchanging U.S. interests, is likely to become more apparent to more Americans in the future, and that could lead to a wicked backlash against Israel's supporters as well as Israel.

The lobby faces yet another challenge: defending an apartheid state in the liberal West is not going to be easy. Once it is widely recognized that the two-state solution is dead and Israel has become like white-ruled South Africa-and that day is not far off-support for Israel inside the American Jewish community is likely to diminish significantly. The main reason is that apartheid is a despicable political system that is fundamentally at odds with basic American values as well as core Jewish values. For sure there will be some Jews who will defend Israel no matter what kind of political system it has. But their numbers will shrink over time, in large part because survey data shows that younger American Jews feel less attachment to Israel than their elders, which makes them less inclined to defend Israel blindly.

The bottom line is that Israel will not be able to maintain itself as an apartheid state over the long term because it will not be able to depend on the American Jewish community to defend such a reprehensible political order.

Assisted Suicide

Israel is facing a bleak future, yet there is no reason to think that it will change course anytime soon. The political center of gravity in Israel has shifted sharply to the right and there is no sizable pro-peace political party or movement. Moreover, it remains firmly committed to the belief that what cannot be solved by force can be solved with greater force, and many Israelis view the Palestinians with contempt if not hatred. Neither the Palestinians nor any of Israel's immediate neighbors are powerful enough to deter it, and the lobby will remain influential enough over the next decade to protect Israel from meaningful U.S. pressure.

Remarkably, the lobby is helping Israel commit national suicide while also doing serious damage to American security interests. Voices challenging this tragic situation have grown slightly more numerous in recent years, but the majority of political commentators and virtually all U.S. politicians seem blissfully ignorant of where this is headed, or unwilling to risk their careers by speaking out.

* John J. Mearsheimer is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago and coauthor of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

Thanks, Iran! But NO Thanks! (Even Hamas wonders about the political convenience of the IRG escorts for Aid to Gaza)

Haitham Sabbah — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:20:40 +0000

As you might have heard now, Iran has volunteered to send aid ships to Gaza. As stated in Tehran, "The Iranian Red Crescent has decided to send two aid ships to Gaza this week and has called for volunteers to act as relief workers and accompany the vessels, the state IRNA news agency reported."

On top of this, "Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards are ready to escort aid flotillas to Gaza if the country's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei orders this, a Khamenei aide said on Sunday.

"The Revolutionary Guards' naval forces are fully prepared to escort freedom and peace flotillas carrying humanitarian aid from all over the world to the oppressed people of Gaza," Ali Shirazi, Khamenei's naval representative, told the Mehr news agency.

"If the respected leader of the revolution (Khamenei) gives an order in this regard to the Revolutionary Guards' naval forces, it will take a practical step using its capability and equipment to escort flotillas to Gaza," he said.

As Iran always did in the case of Palestinian conflict, they try to make use of the plight of Palestinians for their benefit. The "liberation of Palestine" was always part of the "Iranian Islamic Revolution" propaganda. But when you look in realities on the ground, they have never done anything good for Palestine or Palestinians except talk and raising Palestinian flags in their in-home demonstrations every now and then. Apart from that, they supported Hamas and still do so with little or no money to keep them alive in front of the other Palestinian parties. Whether this is good or not is debatable, but in general, non-Hamas supporters see no good in this relationship, but on the contrary it was always a reason for those who don’t support Hamas to stay away from it so that they will not be considered as Iran supporters.

Now let's be clear here. We are not against Iran’s legitimate rights. Like all nations on earth, we respect and accept any government that is the voice of its people, that is, a democratically elected government, but this is not the case. On the other hand, we are absolutely not against any help offered to Palestinians, but we should always ask ourselves a question about anything that has to do with our struggle: at what cost?

Iran is at the centre of international pressure on account of its nuclear program issue, so the Gaza Freedom Flotilla issue and all the positive reaction the Palestinians are getting as a result of Israeli stupidity is going to be a goldmine for the Iran propaganda machine at a time when they need it. But who will buy it? Apparently, even Hamas has realised that underneath the surface, it would only exacerbate tensions if they accepted the offer. According to Stratfor sources:

June 7, 2010
Hamas rejected the request of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to escort vessels to break the siege imposed on Gaza, saying they do not want further tensions in the region, Al Sharq Al Awsat reported June 7. Hamas lawmaker Jamal al Khzri said the organization does not want any military intervention that could lead to further tension in the region or involve civil authorities to come to Gaza via military activities.

And this is how it appeared on Al Sharq Al Awsat website:

Translation:

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards offer to escort "Gaza ships" and Hamas rejects

While the Iranian Revolutionary Guards offered to escort "Gaza ships", the Hamas Movement has rejected any military interference regarding the subject of ships that are trying to break the siege on Gaza. Hamas lawmaker Jamal al Khodari told "Al Sharq Al Awsat" that Hamas does not want any military intervention. [...]

Let's look at it, who wants this siege on Gaza to end? Everyone but the Zionists! But if Iran enters this global wave of support to end the siege, who will have a stronger reason to make the siege all that more of a stranglehold and attempt to justify it? Of course, Israel! They always claimed that Iran is supplying Hamas with rockets (which no one has ever seen directly or indirectly), but what better reason can we give to Israel to oppose ending the siege? It would play straight into their propaganda.

Palestine was never of interest to Iran. The conflict has been going on for decades now, how many times did Iran shoot a single bullet towards the Israeli occupation (literally or hypothetically)? Never! All they want is attention for themselves and to provoke so they think they look like heroes.

Unfortunately, it's lack of the Arab states’ positive action that gives Iran a space to play this game. But being late is better than never arriving. We Arabs all hope that our leaders take one positive action for Palestine, just once at least, maybe! But it should be a real, worthy and sustainable positive action, just for a change, not sounds and echoes.

We all should keep in our minds that the global movement isn't about Iran! It's about Palestine. Iran escalation is not needed as long as we have the world behind us. We certainly know that the world is not behind Iranian propaganda to send their Republican Guards to break the siege. In fact deep inside each one of us knows that Iran will never do it. But we also should be clear.

It should be clear that we absolutely do not support war on Iran or interference with their internal affairs, and official Iranians should understand that pro-peace and global support to Iran in this case does not mean that activists will support their cheap and selfish propaganda. Anti-war activists are not ignorant to buy this free media bubble. We support FREE Iranians, the Iranian people as a whole, not any specific Iranian government or the "Islamic Revolutionists" (although they have their own supporters around the world). We are anti-war and will always be because we love and support Iranians, not the "Iranian Islamic Revolution." In fact official Iranians should understand that this game might cost them a lot of support, globally.

So, thank you Iran, but we don't need your humanitarian aid.

ACTION ALERT: Stop US Military Aid to Israel

Haitham Sabbah — Tue, 04 May 2010 16:38:57 +0000

Contact your state congressmen or senators today. The U.S. Congress is considering a bill to vote for it's annual $3 Billion assistance to Israel's IOF.

The US 2011 budget is now in the House Appropriations Committee, and Israel is to be given another $3 Billion in Military Aid! In past years, Israel has been given this "aid" with no discussion, no conditions that must be met, no reporting requirements, and no incremental/quarterly payments as is done with every other country receiving such Aid. These practices clearly must be stopped if the US is to be able to bring Israel to end all building of settlements, open Gaza and enter into good faith negotiations for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace agreement.

It is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that our House Representatives hear from us NOW, before the $'s are approved with no changes, no conditions that Israel must meet! Tell your Rep. by phone, email or fax to insist on placing conditions on the release of more of our tax dollars (see section B - for sample text for you to "paste" into your congressperson's contact "box" - We've tested it and it will fit into those typical "boxes").

In Section C you will find the names, phone numbers and key aide of all 8 Democratic members of the powerful Appropriations Subcommittee for State and Foreign Operations. They make the initial recommendation to the house for these funds. They are key to this process, so PLEASE CONTACT THEM ALSO. We need them to add the necessary conditions on the release of any aid to Israel! We can make a difference!

A - Talking Points for your phone calls:

1- No funds released until all settlement construction is halted in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

2- No funds released until Israel opens up Gaza.

3- No funds released until the Administration fully investigates Israel's possible violations of the US Arms Export Control Act in the recent attack on Gaza - including the preliminary evidence in the Goldstone Report.

4- No funds released until Israel has withdrawn all military checkpoints, barriers, troops, walls/fences, military zones and installations from the West Bank (the pre June 5, 1967 borders).

B - Sample text for your congressperson's "contact me box":

2011 Budget time is here. We must not continue to support the land takeover and brutal occupation of recognized Palestinian land.

The World is watching us and our continued unconditional support is harming the USA, and Israel's continued actions harm them.

Please ensure that certain reasonable, easily achievable, conditions on the release of that Military Aid to Israel is enacted in this budget. All of these conditions may be met with Israel's security insured, in fact, their security will be much improved by these conditions being implemented. Placing conditions on the release of aid will assist the Administrations efforts to bring Israel and the Palestinians to a negotiated agreement and an end to this terrible situation.

2011 Military Aid to Israel be given in quarterly amounts based on:

1st qtr - No funds released until all settlement construction is halted in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
2nd qtr - No funds released until Israel has allowed Gaza: all food, medical aid, water purification and sewer treatment supplies; safe access to farm land and fishing; necessary building materials and supplies; movement and access as agreed upon in the 2005 Agreement.
3rd qtr - No funds released until the Administration presents Congress with a full investigation of Israel's possible violations of the Arms Export Control Act during the Dec. 08 - Jan. 09 attack on Gaza. The investigation is to include relevant portions of the UN's Goldstone Report.
4th qtr - No funds released until Israel, with appropriate security in place, has withdrawn all military checkpoints, barriers, troops, walls/fences, military zones and installations from the West Bank (the pre June5, 1967 borders).

C - This is the Subcommittee that makes the first approval on the proposed Military Aid to Israel: (Swarm them with faxes, it is all about numbers!)

Appropriations Subcommittee for State and Foreign Affairs - Democrats

Nita M. Lowey, New York - Chair NY-18^th Dist. Office in White Plains.
DC Office 202-225-6506, Fax - 0546
Ann.Vaughan@mail.house.gov (Lowey's aide for this subcommittee)
Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., Illinois
DC - 202-225-0773, Fax -0899
Charles.Dujon@mail.house.gov
Adam Schiff, California
DC - 202-225-4176, Fax 5828
Timothy.Bergreen@mail.house.gov
Betty McCollum, Minnesota
DC 202-225-6631, Fax 1968
Peter.Frosch@mail.house.gov
Steven R. Rothman, New Jersey
DC 202-225-5061, Fax 5851
Jonathan.Moore@mail.house.gov
Barbara Lee, California
DC 202-225-2661, Fax 9817
Julie.nickson@mail.house.gov
Scott.Exner@mail.house.gov
Steve Israel, New York
DC 202-225-3335, Fax 4669
Mike.Ryan@mail.house.gov
Ben Chandler, Kentucky
DC 202-225-4706, Fax 2122
Jim.Creevy@mail.house.gov
David R. Obey, Wisconsin, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and Ex-Officio on this Subcommittee
DC 202-225-3365
Anne.Georges@mail.house.gov

The opposition is panicking!

AIPAC'S Call - in support of Aid! http://action.aipac.org/security_aid/

Source: www.14friendsofpalestine.org

The Crisis That Wasn’t

Haitham Sabbah — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 06:30:45 +0000

By Philip Giraldi | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

It might have seemed a no-brainer that the vital security interests of the United States would eventually trump the demands of a small client state that lately has not been much given to rational behavior. But in the latest showdown between the friends of Israel and the Obama Administration the President of the United States blinked first, demonstrating once and for all that no one in the US has the power to say no to Israel. And the truly amazing part was that the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was so confident of the outcome that it didn't even bother to hide very much of what it was doing, hardly deigning to engage in its usual clandestine arm twisting and slipped under the door "position papers." It immediately issued a public statement slamming the White House, asserting that "The Obama Administration's recent statements regarding the US relationship with Israel are a matter of serious concern. AIPAC calls on the Administration to take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish State." It then unleashed its friends in Congress and the media. Its brazen campaign against the American president was executed all out on public view, right up front and recorded on the AIPAC website.

Lest there be any confusion about what happened, the White House said "Thou shalt not" and Bibi Netanyahu responded "I shall" with Bibi left standing at the end. AIPAC managed to get the support of nearly every congressman who mattered, including many leaders from Obama's own party. Half of the entire Congress attended the Monday evening gala dinner where Bibi Netanyahu was the guest speaker and there was what amounted to a bipartisan love fest when the Israeli Prime Minister visited Capitol Hill on the following day. Many legislators wrote statements affirming the US-Israeli relationship, carefully recorded by AIPAC in a 39-page document on its website. House Minority Leader John Boehner weighed in with a comment that might have been composed by a twelve year old, which means that he probably actually wrote it, and was echoed by Republican stalwarts Eric Cantor, John McCain, and Sarah Palin. Other commentary repeated the same themes: a threatening Iran, Palestinian intransigence, and Israel as a staunch ally. It all read as if from a script, suggesting a common source. Israel's apologists never took Tel Aviv to task for anything, not even for being rude to the Vice President of the United States. Meanwhile the media was on board the trashing of the White House right from the start, supporting the perceived interests of a foreign country against those of the US. The Washington Post led the charge, calling on "expert" analysis of the situation from Elliot Abrams, Danielle Pletka, David Makovsky, Aaron David Miller, Daniel Curter, Martin Indyk, and Charles Krauthammer while excoriating the White House with its own lead editorials.

And this was in spite of the fact that opinion polls revealed that two-thirds of Americans were supporting the President, finally aware that far from a strategic asset, Israel is a strategic liability costing billions of dollars annually and has been so for years. And the Pentagon had even weighed in, for once telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth by saying that the fallout from Israel's treatment of the Palestinians directly threatens US troops in the Middle East and Central Asia. But it wasn't enough.

At the AIPAC conference on Monday, Hillary Clinton agreed to the terms of the final surrender by the United States, telling the assembled friends of Israel that American commitment to Tel Aviv is "rock solid, enduring, unwavering and forever." Her entire speech portrayed Israelis and even the despicable Netanyahu in purely positive terms while blaming all violence in the region on the Arabs. She peppered her oration with commentary that is palpably ridiculous, like "The United States has long recognized that a strong and secure Israel is vital to our own strategic interests...And we firmly believe that when we strengthen Israel's security, we strengthen America's security."

And there was little doubt about who the real enemy is, with Hillary Clinton using much of her speech to lambaste Hamas and Iran, calling for sanctions against the latter "that will bite." And that little contretemps about settlements? Well, she delivered a mild rebuke and called for a two-state solution, stating that the status quo is not sustainable largely because of the demographic pressure caused by the Arab birth rate. But she put no teeth into her call for change and instead insisted that the disagreement with Netanyahu's government was little more than a spat between friends that "exposes daylight between Israel and the United States that others in the region could hope to exploit." So you see, it was much ado about nothing and the allegations that the continuing conflict over Palestine is endangering American troops in the region is little more than an excuse for the nasty neighbors (i.e. non-Israelis) to make trouble.

Clinton did make one intriguing comment, perhaps not completely understanding the implications of what she was saying: "We cannot escape the impact of mass communications." She meant that many people have now become concerned about what is going on in Israel and Palestine because of what appears on the internet. But if Israel were truly the cowboy in the white hat upholding truth and justice that would hardly matter, would it? In reality, the narrative of Israeli exceptionalism and entitlement that has been carefully shaped by the Israeli government and its friends in the mainstream media has been thoroughly discredited by alternative sources of information made available through the internet. Once upon a time, only a very narrow audience that could easily be dismissed as "kooks" was aware of the Israeli repression of the Palestinians because the news was carefully filtered, particularly in the US. Today anyone with a computer and interest in the subject can become well-informed very quickly. If there was one hopeful aspect of Hillary's speech, that was it. The rest was depressing, scripted, and did absolutely nothing to address the real issues.

Vice President Biden followed up on Hillary's performance by hosting Netanyahu for dinner Monday evening. The media reported that the gathering was intended "to salve hurt feelings" so one presumes Biden apologized effusively for offending his host two weeks before when he became angry over the 1600 new settlements. A misunderstanding, surely. And for all the groveling, guarantees of eternal friendship and continued largesse what did Bibi Netanyahu agree to in return apart from pledging to build more settlements and to retain all of Greater Jerusalem no matter what? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Now that we have returned to the status quo ante of wag the dog, it is perhaps a good time to consider if anything positive has resulted from the American-Israeli crisis that never was. The disagreement revealed the utter impotence of the American government in dealing with Israel, even when national security issues are raised. For those who care about the future of the United States, it's really past time to get hopping mad. The US government has effectively been held hostage to uncritically support a foreign government that engages in both apartheid and ethnic cleansing, something that few Americans would endorse if they were ever allowed a voice in shaping foreign policy. The presence of half of the US Congress at a dinner paying tribute to a foreign leader who is pursuing policies damaging to the United States is little more than a shameless spectacle, but no less than what we have come to expect from the Quislings on the Potomac. And then there is the fighting and dying in what is fashionably referred to as the "long war." Israel and its lobby were undeniably significant players in contriving the case that led to war with Iraq. The propaganda spewed at the current AIPAC conference makes it equally clear that Israel and its supporters are the leading advocates of an attack on Iran and their victory over Obama will only embolden them. Israel can trigger a war by bombing Iran and provoking retaliation that will draw the United States in and there is nothing Washington can do to stop that. When war happens and the awful consequences become clear Obama and Hillary will wish that they had stood up to Israel and AIPAC this week and stopped the madness. But by then it will be too late.

Source: Antiwar

Israel and Aid

Haitham Sabbah — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:31:31 +0000

By Ralph Nader* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

On July 10, 1996, at a Joint Session of the United States Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received a standing ovation for these words: "With America's help, Israel has grown to be a powerful, modern state. ...But I believe there can be no greater tribute to America's long-standing economic aid to Israel than for us to be able to say: we are going to achieve economic independence. We are going to do it. In the next four years, we will begin the long-term process of gradually reducing the level of your generous economic assistance to Israel."

Since 1996, the American taxpayers are still sending Israel $3 billion a year and providing assorted loan guarantees, waivers, rich technology transfers and other indirect assistance. Before George W. Bush left office a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Israel stipulated an assistance package of $30 billion over the next ten years to be transferred in a lump sum at the beginning of every fiscal year. Israel's wars and colonies still receive U.S. taxpayer monies.

What happened to Mr. Netanyahu's solemn pledge to the Congress? The short answer is that Congress never called in the pledge.

In the intervening years, Israel has become an economic, technological and military juggernaut. Its GDP is larger than Egypt's even though Israel's population is less than one tenth that of the Arab world's most populous nation. The second largest number of listings on America's NASDAQ Exchange after U.S. companies are from Israel, exceeding listings of Japan, Korea, China and India combined. Its venture capital investments exceed those in the U.S., Europe and China on a per capita basis.

Israel is arguably the fifth most powerful military force in the world, and Israel's claims on the U.S.'s latest weapon systems and research/development breakthroughs are unsurpassed. This combination has helped to make Israel a major arms exporter.

The Israeli "economic miracle" and technological innovations have spawned articles and a best-selling book in recent months. The country's average GDP growth rate has exceeded the average rate of most western countries over the past five years. Israel provides universal health insurance, unlike the situation in the U.S., which raises the question of who should be aiding whom?

Keep in mind, the U.S. economy is mired in a recession, with large rates of growing poverty, unemployment, consumer debt and state and federal deficits. In some states, public schools are shutting, public health services are being slashed, and universities are increasing tuition while also cutting programs. Even state government buildings are being sold off.

Under U.S. law, military sales to Israel cannot be used for offensive purposes, only for "legitimate self-defense." Nonetheless, there have been numerous violations of the Arms Export Control Act by Israel. Even the indifferent State Department has found, from time to time, that munitions such as cluster bombs were "likely violations."

Violations would lead to a cut-off in aid but with the completely pro-Israel climate in Washington, the White House has never allowed such findings to be definitive.

The same indifference applies to violations of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act that prohibits aid to countries engaging in consistent international human rights violations. These include the occupation, colonization, blockades and military assaults on civilians in the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza, regularly documented by the highly regarded Israeli human rights group B'Tselem as well as by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

This week, Prime Minister Netanyahu visits President Barack Obama after the recent Israeli announcement of 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem made while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting that country.

The affront infuriated New York Times columnist, Tom Friedman, who wrote that Mr. Biden should have packed his bags and flown away leaving behind a scribbled note saying "You think you can embarrass your only true ally in the world, to satisfy some domestic political need, with no consequences? You have lost total contact with reality."

Friedman, a former Times Middle East correspondent, concluded his rebuke by writing: "Palestinian leaders Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad are as genuine and serious about working toward a solution as any Israel can hope to find."

But until a few days ago, the U.S. government had no levers over the Israeli government. Cutting off aid isn't even whispered in the halls of Congress. Raising the issue would further galvanize Israel's allies, including AIPAC.

The only lever left for the U.S. suddenly erupted into the public media a few days ago. General David Petraeus told the Senate that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has foreign policy and national security ramifications for the United States.

He said that "The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the Area of Responsibility...Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda and other military groups exploit that anger to mobilize support."

A few days earlier, Vice President Joe Biden told Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israel that "what you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan."

What Obama's people are publically starting to say is that regional peace is about U.S. vital interests in that large part of the Middle East and, ultimately, the safety of American soldiers and personnel.

As one retired diplomat commented "This could be a game-changer."

* Ralph Nader is an American attorney, author, lecturer, political activist, and four-time candidate for President of the United States, having run as Green Party candidate in 1996 and 2000, and as independent candidate in 2004 and 2008.

Source: American Pendulum

How Much Military Aid to Israel…Do You Provide?

Haitham Sabbah — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:57:17 +0000

Between 2009-2018, the United States is scheduled to give Israel--the largest recipient of U.S. aid--$30 billion in military aid. Through its illegal 42-year military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip, Israel misuses U.S. weapons in violation of U.S. law to kill and injure Palestinian civilians, destroy Palestinian civilian infrastructure, blockade the Gaza Strip, and build illegal settlements in West Bank and East Jerusalem.

How much of this total will your community provide? Is this a good use of your tax dollars? What else could your taxes be used for in your community? Find out on the interactive map below.

(Click on any state to check the figures)

Source: http://www.aidtoisrael.org/
Get the map code to embed on your blog from here!

GAZA: what are promises of humanitarian aid worth?

Stuart Littlewood — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:44:05 +0000

By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

We keep hearing from the British government that they have spent £millions in humanitarian aid for Gaza. But nobody is saying exactly where the money has gone and who benefited.

Of course, if they had done what they were supposed to and (with the rest of the international community) made sure the Palestinians were left in peace to run their own affairs with their homeland intact, there would be no need to endlessly raid taxpayers' pockets for aid.

Here's the text of a letter to foreign secretary David Miliband...

Some two months ago, on 10 November, Lord Brett announced that the British Government had "pledged £30 million at the Sharm el-Sheikh conference, of which £20 million was allocated for reconstruction and £10 million for early recovery. We are already funding a number of early recovery projects, such as cash for work schemes employing people to clear rubble and repair agricultural roads, and expect to spend the full £10 million allocated for this purpose by March 2010. However, due to restrictions on the entry of building materials into Gaza, the UK has not yet been able to spend any of the funding earmarked for reconstruction. We stand ready to provide support as soon as the situation improves, and continue to press the Israeli Government for improved access to Gaza for aid, aid workers and reconstruction materials.

"The UK has spent £16.9 million in the West Bank and Gaza so far this financial year, including £5.2 million in humanitarian assistance to Gaza, and £10 million in support to the Palestinian Authority to enable it to provide essential public services. We have also provided nearly £20 million to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to provide support to Palestinian refugees, of which around half is allocated to Gaza and the West Bank."

Exactly what have Britain's efforts amounted to so far? How much humanitarian aid has Britain succeeded in bringing to bear on the crisis and human suffering in Gaza? Where has it been spent and by whom?

On 5 January Mr Michael Foster of the Department for International Development said: "The €32 million pledge for Gaza made by the Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy in March 2009 was for humanitarian aid and early recovery activities... Like the DFID the EU has been unable to spend money on formal reconstruction activities in Gaza due to Israeli restrictions on the import of essential materials."

How long is this inaction likely to continue and why are Britain and the EU merely "pressing" Israel to no effect instead of forcing the issue? If the intended reconstruction aid has been blocked for nine months why was the money not reallocated to other critical humanitarian needs such as medical care and public health? What is stopping you, for example, asking Gaza's ministry of health for a list of hospital spares and shipping them direct?

What concerns so many people out here is that there is no sense of urgency or determination within the Foreign Office or Number 10 to actually deliver real help into the living (and dying) hell that our so-called friends in Tel Aviv have created in Gaza, and that consequently Britain is made to appear complicit in prolonging the criminal devastation when our duty is surely clear enough.

Miliband and his chums need to understand that the death toll of Palestinian hospital patients due Israel's blockade of life-saving facilities is nearing 370, itself a scandalous crime against humanity that can be added to the long list of Israel's other atrocities.

Gaza, tell us how much aid has reached you

Perhaps the authorities in Gaza – government and non-government - would please tell the world how much humanitarian aid they were hoping to receive and how much has actually been allowed to reach them?

The siege was inhumanly severe two years ago when, after visiting Gaza, I was sent a list of urgently-required hospital spares by the Ministry of Health, which I forwarded to the British government. To my eternal shame it was ignored. Would our beleaguered healthcare friends in Gaza like to send an up-to-date list to see if that too is rejected? I would suggest they send it to all three UK party leaders, who are in moralizing overdrive with elections looming, and we'll see what each one is really made of.

British prime minister Gordon Brown likes saying that "the only solution is a peace settlement between an Israel that needs security within its borders and a Palestine that needs to be a viable economic state". How long have people like him been saying tosh like that? No, Mr Brown, you simply don't get it. The only solution is compliance with international law and the dispensing of justice, not more shabby peace 'negotiations' dictated by a massively strong side subsidized by powerful friends, armed to the teeth with state-of-the-art weaponry and holding a gun to the head of an impoverished side weakened by 40 years of brutal occupation and equipped only with makeshift weapons and smuggled small arms.

Incidentally, note how western leaders always stick to the Israeli script and never acknowledge that Palestine is equally entitled to "security within its borders".

We have the worst British government in my lifetime, guilty of the most disastrous foreign policy blunder of the last 100 years – Iraq – and happy to blindly make other lethal mistakes. In centuries past, politicians were parted from their heads for treachery or incompetence. Nowadays they are allowed to profit while innocent masses pay with their lives.

Hopefully this perverse government will be kicked out in the coming elections. Before they go, however, let us see if they can do one decent thing.

And with reports coming in of Israel massing its military strength in the western Negev and elsewhere near the Gaza border, presumably for a second Gaza war as if last year's wasn't unforgivable, and the US storing extra ordnance in Israel presumably for the IDF to use against Palestinian civilians, it's time Dogsbody Britain finally snarled a little at the bloodthirsty lunatics in Tel Aviv and Washington instead of sitting at their feet and wagging its tail.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

A Tale of Two Cities…in Palestine

Yousef Munayyer — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:41:12 +0000

Left: Homeless. Right: Stars & Bucks Cafe at Ramallah

By Yousef Munayyer* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

While most would point out the differences between Gaza City, the impoverished and destitute administrative center of the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, and Ramallah, the burgeoning administrative center of the Fateh-run West Bank, there are important commonalities between what seem to be diametrically opposite poles.

A common misconception, which has gained considerable attention as of late, is that management or governing styles of different parties are responsible for the stark differences in the realities on the ground. This certainly plays into the narrative that we often hear emanating from Washington about engaging one Palestinian party and not the other. However, the fact of the matter is that the most important thing both Palestinian locales have in common is the underlying reason for their differences: the role of external factors in their economic conditions.

Gaza City, the largest city in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, is home to about 400,000 Palestinians. The densely populated strip of land that surrounds the city and takes its name, is home to over 1.5 million Palestinians. Eighty percent of the inhabitants of Gaza are refugees and a similar number rely directly on food aid for daily sustenance. While this number has historically been high since the creation of the refugees by the state of Israel in 1948, it has never been that high.

The plight of Palestinians in Gaza has been exacerbated in recent years due to Israeli restrictions on the Strip. This began after the election of a Hamas government in the Palestinian Legislative Elections in 2006 and accelerated in 2007. The immediate Israeli and international response was to cut off funds to the Palestinian Authority (PA). International players dried up aid and the state of Israel froze Palestinian tax revenue, preventing it from reaching the Palestinian governing body.

Imports and exports were likewise severely curtailed because of the siege. The Palestinian National Trade and Development Organization, PalTrade, reported that "imports into and exports from the Gaza Strip before the closure in 2007 reached a monthly average of 10,400 and 1,380 truckloads, respectively. This declined to about 2,834 truckloads of imports and no exports after the recent military operations. Immediately after the operations, there was only one isolated instance in which exports of flowers were allowed from the Gaza Strip in March 2009. Some 134 truckloads of cash crops were exported in total between June 2007 and May 2009."

As the siege tightened, we began to see more dramatic numbers and facts reported by a wide range of international organizations and NGOs. In 2007, the International Committee of the Red Cross called on Israel to "lift the retaliatory measures which are paralyzing life in Gaza". In 2008, Amnesty International reported that "Gaza's fragile economy, already battered by years of restrictions and destruction, has collapsed. â€¦some 90 percent of industry has shut down."

Then the brutal 22-day campaign termed "Cast Lead", which required hearts of cold steel to perpetuate, further decimated Gaza. Along with the significant number of Palestinians killed, over 1,400 most of whom were civilians, the attacks leveled a devastating blow to an economy that was already in tatters. The attacks partially or completely destroyed 700 private sector establishments.

In 2005, for example (PDF), the furniture, garment and processed food industries in Gaza employed 6,500, 25,000 and 2,500 people respectively and included 600, 660, and 100 businesses respectively. After "Cast Lead," the employment figures dropped to 70,110 and 144, while the number of businesses dropped to 26, 10, and 16. Exports from these industries which were all triple-digit numbers in 2005 dropped to zeros across the board after last winter's attacks.

Yet just as Gaza's economic woes can be credited to the Israeli siege and the destruction levied during "Cast Lead," Ramallah is also indebted to external factors for its apparent successes.

Today, Ramallah has become known for its bars, nightclubs and cosmopolitan feel. Internationals and locals, working for outfits funded by hordes of donor dollars (many from the U.S.), are pouring the shekels they earn into nights on the town.

It wasn't always like this in Ramallah. Just a few years ago, after Hamas was elected to the PA, Palestinian civil servants, teachers and bureaucrats in the West Bank and Gaza were equally out of luck and out of money, as Washington-led sanctions prevented the PA from meeting payroll for months on end. Things started to change in mid-2007, however, when the Hamas-led PA dissolved and Fateh took control of the PA's institutions in the West Bank.

In mid-2007, to "avert a serious and immediate financial crisis" (PDF) President Bush wanted to send funds to the now Fatah-led PA, but he needed to assure Congressional hawks that the funds would not end up used for violence or in the hands of Hamas or lining the pockets of officials often blamed for corruption. A trusted caretaker was needed and one with an accounting background was preferred.

Enter Salam Fayyad. The western educated former World Bank and IMF man, with no discernible political experience, took over as the newly appointed Prime Minister of the PA. In Washington, few things say â€œpassivityâ€ like a clean-shaven be-speckled accountant. Presidential waivers began to be issued to circumvent the sanctions levied against the PA by AIPAC-sponsored Congressional legislation . Every 6-months, a waiver; every 6-months an injection of funds to the new PA based in Ramallah, and till today President Obama continues this trend. Every donor dollar coming into the PA goes through Ramallah, and Ramallah, more than any other town in the West Bank, has felt the effects of this.

But despite the growth that donor dollars have produced, one can't help but notice how artificial the growth is. Economic studies on this issue tend to come up with the same conclusions. Yes, there has been growth in the West Bank, but (and this is a big but) that growth is due largely to an economy kept afloat by donor dollars and a relaxation of Israeli closures.

A recent IMF report (PDF) indicates that expenditures in the PA budget for 2010 is $2.9 billion, $1.9 billion of which would not be covered by domestic revenue and would be financed by external support. The report also states that there has been an increase of 6 percent in real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the first quarter of 2009 as compared to the first quarter in 2008.

In the U.S., many have clung to bits and pieces of reports like this, and declared victory for the policy of propping up one Palestinian party and sidelining the other. Headlines of articles on the issue declare unprecedented economic growth. Realistically, however, this would be like declaring unprecedented drops, from the previous year, in the number of homeless in New Orleans two years after Hurricane Katrina. Without controlling for the drastic conditions that existed beforehand, it's hard to call this growth. Years of occupation, restrictions, closure and high unemployment have left Palestinians below zero. But I guess going from negative 20 to negative 15 is still growth.

A finer reading of the economic reports reveals the truth behind the numbers in the West Bank. Assumptions of future growth are based on "a continuation of the process of lifting restrictions on movement in the West Bank and the blockade on Gaza".

Perhaps the bias in reporting on the economic realities is in part based on a western desire to have their 'secular' partner in Palestine succeed. Washington is, after all, more likely to cooperate with the pole where one can make time for happy hour, than the one where the most important time is the call to prayer.

Yet, regardless to the perceptions from Washington, Ramallah, Gaza or elsewhere about the parties involved, the reality is that both administrative centers are not in control of their destinies. Rather, what happens to the people of Palestine today, as in the past, remains in the hands of others.

In sum, the successes or failures of both Gaza and Ramallah, like all occupied Palestinian locales, are overwhelmingly determined by Israeli or American actions and intentions and not the actions of the respective regimes. This is not to absolve Hamas or Fateh of their responsibilities to the people they govern, but rather this puts their apparent successes and failures in the proper context: that is, the context of an ongoing illegal Israeli occupation that ultimately has more control over the daily lives of Palestinians than any of their representatives.

* Yousef Munayyer is Executive Director of the Palestine Center.

Gaza robbed of the most basic human right: the right to health

Stuart Littlewood — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 18:15:11 +0000

Gaza: Al Quds Destroyed Hospital

By Stuart Littlewood* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Britain's prime minister, Gordon Brown, marked the start of the New Year in a way that many campaigners for justice and liberty will find lamentable.

The charity MAP (Medical Aid for Palestinians) had written an open letter to Brown asking him to "urgently use all available diplomatic means to bring an immediate and unconditional end to the blockade of the Gaza Strip".

It reminded Brown that a year after the assault on Gaza, in which almost 1,400 Palestinians were killed and more than 5,300 injured, civilians continued to pay a devastating price. "Across the Gaza Strip, over 3,530 homes were completely destroyed and more than 2,850 severely damaged. Tens of thousands more homes suffered structural damage."

A recent MAP survey of the most vulnerable families shows that only 2% have been able to repair their homes from damage inflicted in last winter's bombardment. Families now face the winter in tents or in the rubble of their destroyed homes.

Furthermore "the blockade is directly compromising one of the people of Gaza's most basic human rights; the right to health. Israeli authorities continue to routinely, and without explanation, block or delay the entry of medical supplies and equipment, leaving hospitals less able to cope. As hospitals falter, patients seeking care outside the Gaza Strip are routinely denied exit for life-saving medical treatment..."

And that's not all. A public health disaster is looming: with no spare parts for maintenance or repair, water and sewage treatment facilities cannot function. "The World Health Organisation reports that over 80% of Gaza's water is no longer safe to drink, while up to 80 million cubic litres of untreated or partially treated sewage is being dumped into the sea daily."

The letter also reminded Mr Brown that the British Government had said Israel's blockade must end, and emphasized the need for fine words to be backed up by meaningful diplomatic action. It was signed by nearly 4,000 people.

And what was Mr Brown's response?

Dear Friends

Your open letter to me of 27 December in The Observer was right to draw attention to the grave humanitarian situation in Gaza, one year after a conflict that cost over a thousand Palestinian lives and those of over ten Israelis.

As I have made clear repeatedly to the Israeli government, it is unacceptable that Israel continues to prevent aid from reaching those who so badly need it in Gaza. EU Foreign Ministers reinforced our call for full humanitarian access earlier this month.

Alongside diplomatic pressure, I pledge that the UK will remain in the forefront of the humanitarian effort. Following the offensive a year ago, we spent Â£20 million on humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza.

And on 28 December, Douglas Alexander announced a total package of Â£53.5 million for Palestine, with a particular focus on Gaza - including Â£5 million of new funding for the United Nations' work with Gazan refugees.

While Hamas' actions can be no justification for preventing aid reaching the people of Gaza, Hamas must remove the menace of rocket attacks against the people of southern Israel, and release Gilad Shalit.

Ultimately, we can only give the people of Gaza real hope when genuine negotiations bring a lasting and just peace settlement. The parameters of such a potential agreement are clear. In the coming year, we must pursue still more vigorously a comprehensive peace based on secure and viable states of Israel and Palestine. For all of our futures, those who oppose justice and peace for the peoples of the region must not be allowed to prevail.

Yours sincerely
Gordon Brown
1 January 2010

He hasn't budged an inch and just gets sillier.

Britain spent Â£20 million on humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza last year? Where and when? Can any of it be accounted for?

"I pledge that the UK will remain in the forefront of the humanitarian effort," says Mr Brown. No, Viva Palestina are at the forefront while Brown and the other loafers twiddle their thumbs.

And what has the release of the Israeli paid killer Gilad Shalit got to do with this? Why isn't Mr Brown evenhanded enough to call for the release of 11,000 Palestinians who are rotting in Israeli jails. Doesn't he know that Israel's troops continue to abduct Palestinians on a daily basis?

And hasn't it dawned on Brown yet that you can make something clear to the Israelis till you're blue in the face but they'll take no notice unless you're prepared to act?

As for "negotiations", is international law suddenly negotiable? Are UN resolutions negotiable?

Is "real hope" only available from Britain at some distant future point in time when non-existent negotiations have brought a lasting and just peace settlement? What gobbledygook is that? Humanitarian action is needed now â€“ today â€“ and surely must leapfrog interminable, bogus peace processes.

If the parameters of a peace settlement are so "clear", why don't the British government and the other western powers stop dithering and implement them? For decades our scheming, conniving western leaders have failed to deliver one jot or tittle of justice to the Holy Land. Instead, they have allowed the enormity of Israel's crimes to escalate, for which the lawless entity continues to be admired and rewarded in the higher echelons of British government to the point where certain ministers plan to change our laws to protect wanted war criminals and let them walk free on the street of our capital city.

And have you looked at the map recently, Mr Brown? What is clear to most people is that your "comprehensive peace based on secure and viable states of Israel and Palestine" is now impossible, especially for Palestine, without forceful action by the international community.

What's needed are "adverse economic consequences for Israel"

While Brown was penning his reply to MAP, the Gaza Freedom Marchers were composing their excellent Cairo Declaration calling for an end to Israeli apartheid. In it they point to our own governments having given Israel direct economic, financial, military and diplomatic support and allowing it to behave with impunity.

They point to the contempt for Palestinian democracy shown by Israel, the US, Canada, the EU and others after the Palestinian elections of 2006.

They point to the war crimes committed by Israel during the invasion of Gaza a year ago and make no bones about the need to end the charitable status enjoyed by the Jewish National Fund (JNF), of which Brown is unwisely a patron.

And while Brown prattles about how unacceptable it is that Israel still prevents aid from reaching those who so badly need it, there is no sign that he's prepared to do anything about it. On the other hand Richard Falk, the Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, is much more positive. He tells UN Radio: "Israel does not respond to language of diplomacy, which has encouraged the lifting of the blockade, and so what I am suggesting is that it has to be reinforced by a threat of adverse economic consequences for Israel."

So let's hear it, Mr Brown. Let's hear the S-word... SANCTIONS.

After all, you're not afraid to deploy sanctions against poor beat-up Palestinians, and against Iraqis, and against Iranians - none of whom have ever posed a threat to Britain.

So you shouldn't flinch from using sanctions against the thugs for whom last year's killing spree wasn't enough and who now threaten a second Gaza onslaught.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart, or visit Stuart's website.

Aid Rots Outside Gaza

Haitham Sabbah — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:37:42 +0000

Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of aid intended for the Gaza Strip is piling up in cities across Egypt's North Sinai region, despite recent calls from the United Nations to ease aid flow restrictions to the embattled territory in the wake of Operation Cast Lead.

Food, medicine, blankets, infant food and other supplies for Gaza's 1.5 million people, coming from governments and non-governmental agencies around the world, are being stored in warehouses, parking lots, stadiums and on airport runways across Egypt's North Sinai governorate.

Egypt shares a 14-kilometre border with Gaza that has been closed more or less permanently since the Islamist movement Hamas took control of the territory in June 2007.

Flour, pasta, sugar, coffee, chocolate, tomato sauce, lentils, date bars, juice, chickpeas, blankets, hospital beds, catheter tubes and other humanitarian- based items are all sitting in at least eight storage points in and around Al- Arish, a city in North Sinai approximately 50 kilometres from Gaza's border.

Three months after the end of the war, much of the aid has either rotted or been irreparably damaged as a result of both rain and sunshine, and Egypt's refusal to open the Rafah crossing.

"To be honest, most of this aid will never make it to Gaza," a local government official told IPS on condition of anonymity. "A lot of the food here will have to be thrown away."

The Gaza Strip was the target of Israel's three-week Operation Cast Lead, where both the enclave's civilian population and an already decrepit infrastructure were pummelled by powerful Israeli weaponry, leaving some 1,400 dead and over 5,000 injured by the time a unilateral ceasefire was called by Israel Jan. 18.

The United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) head in Gaza, John Ging, told IPS last week that the stranglehold on relief efforts in the post-war period was having devastating consequences, both physical and emotional, on the strip's population.

The last Situation Report released by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Mar. 30 stated that the "amounts and types of deliveries reaching Gaza continue being subject to random restrictions and unpredictable clearance procedures, creating major logistical problems for humanitarian agencies."

Food aid and other essential humanitarian supplies for Gaza began pouring into Egypt at the outset of the war, and medical supplies were routed through Rafah - Gaza's only crossing that bypasses Israel - throughout the assault, while food aid was directed through Israel.

All aid meant for Gaza via Egypt must currently pass through either Al-Auja or Kerem Abu Sellem, Egypt's commercial crossings with Israel, and is subject to both Israeli-Egyptian trade specifications and Israeli import law.

Much of what is being stored in North Sinai - including food items like lentils, pasta, chickpeas, and juice - has been deemed by Israel to be "non- essential" to life in the Gaza Strip.

Two thousand "family boxes" - containing essential supplies for Palestinian families and donated by the Italian NGO Music for Peace - were recently rejected at the Al-Auja crossing by Israeli authorities because they each contained a jar of honey, the NGO's President, Stefano Robera, told IPS in Al- Arish.

Representatives from international NGOs currently in both Al-Arish and Rafah say not even a sliver of the aid donated is going through any of Egypt's transit points, despite assurances by the Egyptian government that the Rafah crossing remains open for "humanitarian considerations".

OCHA says Rafah was closed to all cargo for the month of March, and was opened for just two days to send blankets and mattresses into the Gaza Strip.

Since Dec. 27, 2008, the day Israel launched its war, just 43 trucks of what OCHA calls "human food products" were sent into the Gaza Strip via Rafah. The first truckload was sent in Jan. 10, 2009, more than two weeks after the war began.

Some organisations coordinating their aid through Egypt say North Sinai governor Mohamed Abdel Fadil Shousha asked them to simply donate the goods to local NGOs. Other witnesses told IPS that Egyptian security forces tasked with guarding aid supplies have been giving it away to residents of Al-Arish.

The Rafah border crossing opened in November 2005 when Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) signed an Agreement on Movement and Access as part of Israel's "disengagement" from the Gaza Strip.

In coordination with the PA, Egypt allowed passengers, cargo and humanitarian aid to pass under the supervision of both EU monitors and Israeli security. When Hamas, the Islamist movement democratically elected in 2006, seized control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007, Egypt closed its border with the coastal enclave.

The Egyptian government has since refused to open the Rafah crossing to any cargo or non-medical humanitarian aid, leaving the supplies in a state of political limbo and Gaza's population grappling with the after-effects of both deadly war and continued economic siege.

Human rights organisations have recently said that not only Israel but Egypt, the EU and the U.S. could be in violation of international law for failing to adhere to the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access, and consequently violating the basic human rights of Gaza's 1.5 million people - particularly in the post-war period.

Source: IPS

$30 Billion For Israel’s Military

Haitham Sabbah — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:24:35 +0000

Same old story, new president:

U.S. President Barack Obama will not cut the billions of dollars in military aid promised to Israel, a senior U.S. administration official said Wednesday. The $30 billion in aid promised to Israel over the next decade will not be harmed by the world financial crisis, the official told Israel Radio. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

The U.S. military aid to Israel was increased in a decade-long deal agreed to by Bush in 2007. OTOH, U.S. will pay close to $1 billion for rebuilding the wreckage in Gaza mostly caused by armaments paid for by the U.S.! To add insult to injury, there is a condition on that money:

Clinton: Some $900 million pledged by the United States to the Palestinians will be withdrawn if the expected Palestinian Authority coalition government between Fatah and Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist, Western and Israeli diplomats said Wednesday.

Key Facts

Total direct aid to Israel, 1948-2003, $89.9 billion (uncorrected for inflation)
Since 1976 Israel has been the largest annual recipient of US aid. It is the largest cumulative recipient since World War II.
Direct U.S. aid for each Israeli citizen in 2001 (per capita annual income of Israel = $16,710) -- over $500
Direct U.S. Aid for each Ethiopian citizen in 2001 (per capita annual income of Ethiopia = $100) -- about $.45
REGULAR US GRANT AID in FY 2003

$2.76 billion military aid grant
$2.1 billion economic support funds
$600 million refugee resettlement grant

COMMERCIAL LOAN GUARANTEES IN FY 2003, $2 billion
BUSH ADMINISTRATION SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR FY 2003

Military aid grant $1 billion
Commercial loan guarantees $9 billion
Arrow missile development $60 million

TOTAL AID FOR FY 2003 $14.82 billion
Percentage of U.S. foreign aid that goes to Israel -- 30%
Israel's population as a percentage of world population -- .01%
Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) states, "No assistance may be provided under this part to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." 22 U.S.C. 2304(a)
Section 4 of the Arms Export Control Act prohibits selling military equipment to countries that use them for non-self-defense purposes.
The U.S. State Department determined in February 2001 that Israel has committed each of the acts that the law defines as "gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, and other flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, or the security of person." It described Israeli army use of live ammunition against Palestinians when soldiers were not in impending danger as "excessive use of force."

SOURCES: Clyde R. Mark, Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance, Congressional Research Service, updated April 1, 2003; Clyde R. Mark, Middle East: U.S. Foreign Assistance, FY 2001, FY 2002, FY 2003 Congressional Research Service, March 28, 2002

UN says Israel blocks most Gaza aid

Haitham Sabbah — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:03:11 +0000

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says Israel only allows a meager amount of humanitarian aid to enter the impoverished Gaza Strip.

The United Nations strives to provide relief to one million people daily inside a coastal sliver that is home to 1.5 million people, Ban said during a news conference on Tuesday.

Israel, however, is only allowing supplies enough for 30,000 people to get through and only from one crossing, he added.

"We are experiencing serious difficulty in getting all the materials, humanitarian assistance, so it is absolutely necessary that they open the crossings," the secretary general affirmed while announcing plans to launch a probe into Israel's bombing of UN compounds during its war on the Gazan population.

Ban told reporters that although Israel has completely ignored his calls, he "will continue to urge that" Tel Aviv allow more aid into the Palestinian strip.

Human rights watchdog Amnesty International has largely criticized Ban for being too timid on the extent of an inquiry into Israel's attack on its facilities.

"What is needed is a comprehensive international investigation that looks at all alleged violations of international law by all armed groups involved in the conflict," Irene Khan, the secretary general of Amnesty International, said in an announcement.

Khan added that researchers have found clear evidence of war crimes during the operation - in which more than 1300 Gazans have been killed and over 5300 others have been injured.

Source

Tony Benn tells BBC of their pro-israeli ways!!

Haitham Sabbah — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:34:26 +0000

Tony Benn accuses the BBC ON AIR of capitualating to the Israeli Government by refusing to air an appeal for the Gazan people by the Disaster Emergency Commitee (DEC) he then broadcasts the Address himself much to the consternation of the interviewer!

and here is the aid call video the BBC and Sky won't air:

Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC)
Gaza Crisis
PO BOX 999
LONDON
EC3A 3AA

Disasters Emergency Committee Gaza humanitarian appeal launched by UK charities on 22 January to raise money for Gaza aid relief and reconstruction.

Participants: Action Aid, British Red Cross, Cafod, Care International, Christian Aid, Concern Worldwide, Help the Aged, Islamic Relief, Merlin, Oxfam, Save the Children, Tearfund, World Vision.

Information on 0370 60 60 900 or at DEC website

In November 2005, BBC Head Mark Thompson traveled with his Jewish wife to Israel, where he held direct talks with Ariel Sharon, which were intended to let the BBC 'build bridges with Israel'. Thompsons Wife Jane Blumberg is a Zionist, makes you wonder how easy the decision came to the BBC now right! (More)

It’s Time for a Declaration of Independence From Israel

Haitham Sabbah — Sat, 24 May 2008 16:41:19 +0000

The former New York Times Mideast bureau chief warns that America's foreign policy, particularly under the Bush administration, has been subverted by an aggressive and dangerous Israeli agenda that could launch a nightmarish regional war.

Israel, without the United States, would probably not exist. The country came perilously close to extinction during the October 1973 war when Egypt, trained and backed by the Soviet Union, crossed the Suez and the Syrians poured in over the Golan Heights. Huge American military transport planes came to the rescue. They began landing every half-hour to refit the battered Israeli army, which had lost most of its heavy armor. By the time the war was over, the United States had given Israel $2.2 billion in emergency military aid.

The intervention, which enraged the Arab world, triggered the OPEC oil embargo that for a time wreaked havoc on Western economies. This was perhaps the most dramatic example of the sustained life-support system the United States has provided to the Jewish state.

Israel was born at midnight May 14, 1948. The U.S. recognized the new state 11 minutes later. The two countries have been locked in a deadly embrace ever since.

Washington, at the beginning of the relationship, was able to be a moderating influence. An incensed President Eisenhower demanded and got Israel's withdrawal after the Israelis occupied Gaza in 1956. During the Six-Day War in 1967, Israeli warplanes bombed the USS Liberty. The ship, flying the U.S. flag and stationed 15 miles off the Israeli coast, was intercepting tactical and strategic communications from both sides. The Israeli strikes killed 34 U.S. sailors and wounded 171. The deliberate attack froze, for a while, Washington's enthusiasm for Israel. But ruptures like this one proved to be only bumps, soon smoothed out by an increasingly sophisticated and well-financed Israel lobby that set out to merge Israeli and American foreign policy in the Middle East.

Israel has reaped tremendous rewards from this alliance. It has been given more than $140 billion in U.S. direct economic and military assistance. It receives about $3 billion in direct assistance annually, roughly one-fifth of the U.S. foreign aid budget. Although most American foreign aid packages stipulate that related military purchases have to be made in the United States, Israel is allowed to use about 25 percent of the money to subsidize its own growing and profitable defense industry. It is exempt, unlike other nations, from accounting for how it spends the aid money. And funds are routinely siphoned off to build new Jewish settlements, bolster the Israeli occupation in the Palestinian territories and construct the security barrier, which costs an estimated $1 million a mile.

The barrier weaves its way through the West Bank, creating isolated pockets of impoverished Palestinians in ringed ghettos. By the time the barrier is finished it will probably in effect seize up to 40 percent of Palestinian land. This is the largest land grab by Israel since the 1967 war. And although the United States officially opposes settlement expansion and the barrier, it also funds them.

The U.S. has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems and given Israel access to some of the most sophisticated items in its own military arsenal, including Blackhawk attack helicopters and F-16 fighter jets. The United States also gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its NATO allies. And when Israel refused to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, the United States stood by without a word of protest as the Israelis built the region's first nuclear weapons program.

U.S. foreign policy, especially under the current Bush administration, has become little more than an extension of Israeli foreign policy. The United States since 1982 has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It refuses to enforce the Security Council resolutions it claims to support. These resolutions call on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

There is now volcanic anger and revulsion by Arabs at this blatant favoritism. Few in the Middle East see any distinction between Israeli and American policies, nor should they. And when the Islamic radicals speak of U.S. support of Israel as a prime reason for their hatred of the United States, we should listen. The consequences of this one-sided relationship are being played out in the disastrous war in Iraq, growing tension with Iran, and the humanitarian and political crisis in Gaza. It is being played out in Lebanon, where Hezbollah is gearing up for another war with Israel, one most Middle East analysts say is inevitable. The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is unraveling. And it is doing so because of this special relationship. The eruption of a regional conflict would usher in a nightmare of catastrophic proportions.

There were many in the American foreign policy establishment and State Department who saw this situation coming. The decision to throw our lot in with Israel in the Middle East was not initially a popular one with an array of foreign policy experts, including President Harry Truman's secretary of state, Gen. George Marshall. They warned there would be a backlash. They knew the cost the United States would pay in the oil-rich region for this decision, which they feared would be one of the greatest strategic blunders of the postwar era. And they were right. The decision has jeopardized American and Israeli security and created the kindling for a regional conflagration.

The alliance, which makes no sense in geopolitical terms, does makes sense when seen through the lens of domestic politics. The Israel lobby has become a potent force in the American political system. No major candidate, Democrat or Republican, dares to challenge it. The lobby successfully purged the State Department of Arab experts who challenged the notion that Israeli and American interests were identical. Backers of Israel have doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to support U.S. political candidates deemed favorable to Israel. They have brutally punished those who strayed, including the first President Bush, who they said was not vigorous enough in his defense of Israeli interests. This was a lesson the next Bush White House did not forget. George W. Bush did not want to be a one-term president like his father.

Israel advocated removing Saddam Hussein from power and currently advocates striking Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Direct Israeli involvement in American military operations in the Middle East is impossible. It would reignite a war between Arab states and Israel. The United States, which during the Cold War avoided direct military involvement in the region, now does the direct bidding of Israel while Israel watches from the sidelines. During the 1991 Gulf War, Israel was a spectator, just as it is in the war with Iraq.

President Bush, facing dwindling support for the war in Iraq, publicly holds Israel up as a model for what he would like Iraq to become. Imagine how this idea plays out on the Arab street, which views Israel as the Algerians viewed the French colonizers during the war of liberation.

"In Israel," Bush said recently, "terrorists have taken innocent human life for years in suicide attacks. The difference is that Israel is a functioning democracy and it's not prevented from carrying out its responsibilities. And that's a good indicator of success that we're looking for in Iraq."

Americans are increasingly isolated and reviled in the world. They remain blissfully ignorant of their own culpability for this isolation. U.S. "spin" paints the rest of the world as unreasonable, but Israel, Americans are assured, will always be on our side.

Israel is reaping economic as well as political rewards from its lock-down apartheid state. In the "gated community" market it has begun to sell systems and techniques that allow the nation to cope with terrorism. Israel, in 2006, exported $3.4 billion in defense products -- well over a billion dollars more than it received in American military aid. Israel has grown into the fourth largest arms dealer in the world. Most of this growth has come in the so-called homeland security sector.

"The key products and services," as Naomi Klein wrote in The Nation, "are hi-tech fences, unmanned drones, biometric IDs, video and audio surveillance gear, air passenger profiling and prisoner interrogation systems -- precisely the tools and technologies Israel has used to lock in the occupied territories. And that is why the chaos in Gaza and the rest of the region doesn't threaten the bottom line in Tel Aviv, and may actually boost it. Israel has learned to turn endless war into a brand asset, pitching its uprooting, occupation and containment of the Palestinian people as a half-century head start in the 'global war on terror.' "

The United States, at least officially, does not support the occupation and calls for a viable Palestinian state. It is a global player, with interests that stretch well beyond the boundaries of the Middle East, and the equation that Israel's enemies are our enemies is not that simple.

"Terrorism is not a single adversary," John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote in The London Review of Books, "but a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups. The terrorist organizations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or 'the West'; it is largely a response to Israel's prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip. More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around."

Middle Eastern policy is shaped in the United States by those with very close ties to the Israel lobby. Those who attempt to counter the virulent Israeli position, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, are ruthlessly slapped down. This alliance was true also during the Clinton administration, with its array of Israel-first Middle East experts, including special Middle East coordinator Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, one of the most powerful Israel lobbying groups in Washington. But at least people like Indyk and Ross are sane, willing to consider a Palestinian state, however unviable, as long as it is palatable to Israel. The Bush administration turned to the far-right wing of the Israel lobby, those who have not a shred of compassion for the Palestinians or a word of criticism for Israel. These new Middle East experts include Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, the disgraced I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and David Wurmser.

Washington was once willing to stay Israel's hand. It intervened to thwart some of its most extreme violations of human rights. This administration, however, has signed on for every disastrous Israeli blunder, from building the security barrier in the West Bank, to sealing off Gaza and triggering a humanitarian crisis, to the ruinous invasion and saturation bombing of Lebanon.

The few tepid attempts by the Bush White House to criticize Israeli actions have all ended in hasty and humiliating retreats in the face of Israeli pressure. When the Israel Defense Forces in April 2002 reoccupied the West Bank, President Bush called on then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to "halt the incursions and begin withdrawal." It never happened. After a week of heavy pressure from the Israel lobby and Israel's allies in Congress, meaning just about everyone in Congress, the president gave up, calling Sharon "a man of peace." It was a humiliating moment for the United States, a clear sign of who pulled the strings.

There were several reasons for the war in Iraq. The desire for American control of oil, the belief that Washington could build puppet states in the region, and a real, if misplaced, fear of Saddam Hussein played a part in the current disaster. But it was also strongly shaped by the notion that what is good for Israel is good for the United States. Israel wanted Iraq neutralized. Israeli intelligence, in the lead-up to the war, gave faulty information to the U.S. about Iraq's alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And when Baghdad was taken in April 2003, the Israeli government immediately began to push for an attack on Syria. The lust for this attack has waned, in no small part because the Americans don't have enough troops to hang on in Iraq, much less launch a new occupation.

Israel is currently lobbying the United States to launch aerial strikes on Iran, despite the debacle in Lebanon. Israel's iron determination to forcibly prevent a nuclear Iran makes it probable that before the end of the Bush administration an attack on Iran will take place. The efforts to halt nuclear development through diplomatic means have failed. It does not matter that Iran poses no threat to the United States. It does not matter that it does not even pose a threat to Israel, which has several hundred nuclear weapons in its arsenal. It matters only that Israel demands total military domination of the Middle East.

The alliance between Israel and the United States has culminated after 50 years in direct U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. This involvement, which is not furthering American interests, is unleashing a geopolitical nightmare. American soldiers and Marines are dying in droves in a useless war. The impotence of the United States in the face of Israeli pressure is complete. The White House and the Congress have become, for perhaps the first time, a direct extension of Israeli interests. There is no longer any debate within the United States. This is evidenced by the obsequious nods to Israel by all the current presidential candidates with the exception of Dennis Kucinich. The political cost for those who challenge Israel is too high.

This means there will be no peaceful resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It means the incidents of Islamic terrorism against the U.S. and Israel will grow. It means that American power and prestige are on a steep, irreversible decline. And I fear it also means the ultimate end of the Jewish experiment in the Middle East.

The weakening of the United States, economically and militarily, is giving rise to new centers of power. The U.S. economy, mismanaged and drained by the Iraq war, is increasingly dependent on Chinese trade imports and on Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasury securities. China holds dollar reserves worth $825 billion. If Beijing decides to abandon the U.S. bond market, even in part, it would cause a free fall by the dollar. It would lead to the collapse of the $7-trillion U.S. real estate market. There would be a wave of U.S. bank failures and huge unemployment. The growing dependence on China has been accompanied by aggressive work by the Chinese to build alliances with many of the world's major exporters of oil, such as Iran, Nigeria, Sudan and Venezuela. The Chinese are preparing for the looming worldwide clash over dwindling resources.

The future is ominous. Not only do Israel's foreign policy objectives not coincide with American interests, they actively hurt them. The growing belligerence in the Middle East, the calls for an attack against Iran, the collapse of the imperial project in Iraq have all given an opening, where there was none before, to America's rivals. It is not in Israel's interests to ignite a regional conflict. It is not in ours. But those who have their hands on the wheel seem determined, in the name of freedom and democracy, to keep the American ship of state headed at breakneck speed into the cliffs before us.

Chris Hedges is the former Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times and the author of "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning."

Chris Hedges is the former Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times and the author of "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning."