This video demonstrates how the United States is intimidated into silence on appalling human rights violations by AIPAC. Get ready to be embarrassed for your country.
At last the United States is responding to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's refusal to freeze settlements and re-start negotiations with the Palestinians.
Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is today rushing to the House floor with an AIPAC-drafted resolution condemning the Palestinians for publicly suggesting that, in the wake of Netanyahu's refusal to freeze settlements and negotiate, they will consider a unilateral declaration of statehood. (As is usual with Berman, his resolution exclusively blames Palestinians for the collapse of peace talks; not a word of criticism of Israel appears.)
The Berman bill, drafted only yesterday, will be voted on today because when it comes to pleasing AIPAC there are simply no limits. (This remains true even though AIPAC is embroiled in an espionage sex scandal that has it scrambling to find $20 million to pay off a former top employee who is threatening to produce documents exposing the lobby.)
The Berman bill will pass overwhelmingly because that is how things work in a city where policy is driven by campaign contributions — and not just on this issue.
The only difference between how AIPAC lobbyists dictate U.S. Middle East policy and pretty much every other major lobby is that AIPAC works to advance the interests of a foreign country. In other words, comparisons to the National Rifle Association would only be applicable if the gun owners that the NRA claims to represent lived in, say, Greece. Oh, and NRA-backed bills usually take longer than a day to get to the House floor.
And here you have the root of the problem. And it's not just an American problem. It is just as much an Israeli problem, a Palestinian problem, and an international problem.
There is only one reason that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations collapsed. It is the power of the "pro-Israel lobby" (led by AIPAC) which prevents the United States from saying publicly what it says privately: that resolution of a conflict which is so damaging to U.S. interests is consistently being blocked by the intransigence of the Netanyahu government and its determination to maintain the occupation.
This is not a situation where responsibility attaches equally to both sides. The Israelis hold all of the disputed territories. Yes, the Palestinians have administrative control of some parts of the West Bank but its authority — and it is very small — derives from the Israelis.
Gaza is controlled by Hamas but it is a reservation or ghetto, not a free entity. Its borders are entirely blocked by the Israelis (and the Egyptians who do whatever Israel demands on its border with Gaza). It remains under Israeli blockade, lightened only a bit since Prime Minister Netanyahu admitted that the blockade was not necessary for Israel's security. And then there is Arab East Jerusalem, where the Netanyahu government has expanded efforts to push Palestinians out of their homes and replace them with settlers.
The Palestinians have no power at all although they have done everything that Israel and the United States demanded. The PLO fully recognized Israel and pledged itself to fighting terrorism and resorting exclusively to negotiations to achieve a state. They agreed that their state would be limited to the 22% of historic Palestine that is the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem — recognizing that Israel would have the other 78%. Even Hamas, which still insists that Israel has no right to be there, says that if the Palestinian Authority negotiates a deal with Israel that is accepted by the Palestinian people, it too will join in and end its war with Israel.
And what has Israel offered in exchange for these historic concessions? Absolutely nothing.
Yes, it has played at negotiations.
Its advocates argue that, at Camp David in 2000, it offered the Palestinians 94% of the 22% or 98% or whatever. (Netanyahu's current offer is 60% of the 22%.) But the supposed offer came with the standard conditions and caveats when there should be only one condition. In exchange for a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, the Palestinians must agree to absolute security for Israel with ironclad guarantees backed up with surveillance systems to ensure that there are no violations.
In fact, the Palestinians agreed to those terms as far back as the Yasser Arafat era, when, in the late nineties, Israelis and Palestinians adopted a security plan brokered by the CIA to combat terrorism. President Arafat's efforts were so thorough, fighting a virtual civil war with Hamas, that Prime Minister Netanyahu personally told Arafat both in person and by telephone how much he appreciated Arafat's help.
But neither Arafat nor his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, got anything in return.
That nothing is easily defined. During the entire 17-year period since the historic Rabin-Arafat agreement — and the famed handshake on the White House lawn — the Israelis never ceased confiscating land and building settlements in the areas that are supposed to constitute the Palestinian state. That was and is the clearest measure of Israel's intentions. The Israeli government does not intend to give up territory it wants; it gave up Gaza because it decided that it better served Israeli interests to just blockade it.
Why would Palestinians believe that Israel is negotiating seriously when it keeps building inside the future Palestinian state?
All this is obvious to anyone paying attention — especially since Prime Minister Netanyahu absolutely refused to freeze settlements for even 90 days in exchange for the United States doubling the aid package. Really, if he won't freeze for 90 days for $3.5 billion, only a fool would believe that he would ever actually give up any land permanently.
And yet the United States government keeps playing this game. No matter what Israel does, it's fine with us.
It doesn't have to be that way. If the administration and Congress put U.S. interests (and Israel's too) over the craving for campaign contributions, the United States could tell the Israeli government that, from now on, our aid package comes with strings. Like an IMF loan (although aid to Israel is a gift, not a loan), we could say that in exchange for our billions, our UN vetoes of resolutions criticizing Israel, and our silence in the face of war crimes like Gaza, we want Israel to end the occupation within, say, 24 months. And Israel would have to comply because our military assistance is, as AIPAC likes to call it, "Israel's lifeline."
If we did that, many Israelis would be very angry (just as many would appreciate America forcing an end to the occupation). But the lobby would be furious because, above all else, it needs to feel that it controls U.S. policy in the Middle East. Not for America's sake. Not for Israel's. But for its own. As with most Washington lobbies, it is not in business to make the world a better place. It is not pro-Israel; it is pro-AIPAC.
When will all this change? Who knows?
The AIPAC scandals are weakening the group (although not enough to prevent Congress from passing its latest bill condemning Palestinians). And younger American Jews, especially progressives (which is most of them), simply don't buy the AIPAC line. American Jews are, after all, Americans.But, for now, the bottom line is money. The U.S. government dances to Israel's tune because it is afraid to risk campaign contributions from a few dozen fat cats. That is the whole story.
Meanwhile, as General Petraeus told us, U.S. interests — including the lives of our men and women in uniform — are threatened by the belief in the Middle East that United States is Israel's puppet. Petraeus' view is common throughout the military which, unaffected by politics, manages to actually see the obvious. When will the rest of our government allow itself to do the same?
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters
Ben S. Cohen: The PA's Choice: Palestinian State or Palestinian Cause
I checked your linked site.
There is absolutely nothing there that confirms your allegation that AIPAC "drafted" the resolution.
Perhaps you have some real evidence of this other than the site you link to?
I'm wondering how big of a change it is for the press to openly challange the US government's silence regarding Israel being in violation of human rights? Is this the beginning of a trend or is this going to be just an occassional one shot exposure?
"By August 2008 the United States and Israeli governments have initiated development of an upper-tier component to the Israeli Air Defense Network, known as Arrow 3, "with a kill ratio of around 99 percent".[59] The development is based on an architecture definition study conducted in 2006-2007, determining the need for the upper-tier component to be integrated into Israel's ballistic missile defense system. According to Arieh Herzog, the main element of this upper tier will be an exoatmospheric interceptor, to be jointly developed by IAI and Boeing.[60]
Lieutenant General Patrick J. O’Reilly, Director of the Missile Defense Agency, said:
“ The design of Arrow 3 promises to be an extremely capable system, more advanced than what we have ever attempted in the U.S. with our programs. [...] This has to do with the seekers that have greater flexibility and other aspects, such as propulsion systems – it will be an extremely capable system.[60]"
Before it has actually intercepted even one missile...
Similar claims were made by those manufacturing the Patriot missile system, and for the hundreds of billion dollars flushed down the Star Wars defense contracts.
The key to this system, of course: make the US taxpayers pick up the tab- which right now they are saying will be $100 million.
On top of the billions of dollars Israel gets from US taxpayers as an allowance, and the billions of dollars it gets in other gifts- including other boondoogles such as the Iron Drome ($400 million US taxes) which promises to use $75,000 rockets to shoot at $300 Hamas rockets.
Gosh... I wonder how Hamas could get around that?
Surprise!
And this is just ***one*** system Israel is going to allow the US tax payer to pick up the tab for.
THANKS!
PS: This system will never be used in or by the US.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5164700
MOSCOW - "One billion dollars and canceling the sale of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran - that was the deal Russia offered to Israel in order to tap into its sophisticated UAV technology.
Under pressure by the United States, Tel Aviv negotiated a compromise deal that involved the sale of a dozen less-advanced UAVs, according to a Nov. 28 WikiLeaks report that refers to a secret cable from the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv.
Dated Dec. 22, 2009, the cable describes the Dec. 1-2 visit of Ellen Tauscher, the U.S. defense undersecretary for arms control and national security, to Israel and her meetings with senior Israeli officials.
The message shed new light on a quid-pro-quo arrangement that directly involved four countries - Russia, Israel, Iran and Georgia - and the indirect roles played by the United States and China in a deal signed in September between Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov and his Israeli counterpart, Ehud Barak.
The deal began after the August 2008 war with Georgia, when the Russian Defense Ministry began seeking to acquire advanced Israeli UAVs."
q> ISrael should warm up to Russia more
By all means! Imagine if you will Israel stomping off in a huff, and getting Russia to start feeding them billions of dollars a year!
q> it could just cutoff relations with Israel
Marvell plan! save us billions of dollars and trillions in aggravation!
q> Haifa will make a great naval base for the Chinese
Wonderful! Because it doesn't work as a base for the US military, and anyone with *one drop* on military acumen would know it would not work as a military base.
q> Intel, Microsoft, Google and Cisco system
American, American, American and American companies. No loss there.
Q> I also think that either China, India, South Korea or Japan
q> will be happy to fund Israeli antiballistic missile systems
GREAT IDEA- the best one you have had yet (well, not much competition so far).
Since Israel will sell whatever secret missile defense system America gives them anyway- look at the J10 "Chinese" fighter that is an American F15 with a Chinese decal.
This will save America a few more billion dollars.
Anyhow, if US aid to Israel is cutoff, so will nearly the same amount be cutoff to Egypt as well. It will be a wash at worst.
Too bad. Let's say one year from now.
I never EVER said AIPAC represents Jews. It doesn't. It doesn't even represent a majority of the Jews. AIPAC represents Israel. Period.
It is exactly the problem. Israel is sitting on their land, in full occupation.
"In Israel, halting settlement construction means letting it go right on ahead."
"Additionally, and this is the point many observers are forgetting to mention, settlement activity in East Jerusalem was explicitly excluded from the so called freeze."
http://www.kabobfest.com/2010/09/horror-fake-settlement-freeze-to-expire-maybe.html
Who should be blamed for the moratorium that wasn't?
Does anyone really believe Israel wants peace while they're taking all the land?
The Congress has to start to ask itself what can the U.S win from this costly relationship with Israel and what the U.S. lose due to that relationship, not only in warfare but also in economic markets.
If it was for defending Human Rights, one could then say it's still worth it for deontological reasons, despite warfare costs and loss of economic markets for US trade.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg&feature=channel
That is EXACTLY what was offered -- and there were no "conditions and caveats", other than "absolute security for Israel with ironclad guarantees backed up with surveillance systems to ensure that there are no violations". Except you forgot to mention that the parameters set by Bill Clinton (which were accepted by Israel and rejected by the PLO) ALSO included the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, a safe passage corridor linking Gaza with the West Bank, financial help with re-settling the "refugees" and Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount (despite it being MORE sacred to Jews than to Muslims).
When a thief steals your wallet, you don't negotiate for 94 percent of it back to drop charges.
q> Except you forgot to mention that the parameters set by Bill Clinton
Clinton was the president of the United States, not Palestine. Clinton was worried about Clinton, not Palestine.
\
"anti-Critique-ites"? I like it! It is a heck of a lot nicer that most of the labels that get tossed around here.
q> you anit-semitic, but I think that many try
q> to hide their anti-semitism by saying that
q> they are merely anti-israel
Maybe because of the way you hide your antisemitism by pretending antisemitism can only be directed at Jews.
Although I generally agree with Mr. Rosenberg commentary on the reasons of the present stalemate in the negotiations between Israel and the PA, I think he is to harsh on AIPAC. You cannot blame them for doing their utmost in influencing US foreign policies. As Jews they consider unconditional support for Israel of paramount importance. And because they are well organised and well funded they are able to exercise maximum influence.
What indeed should be questioned is why so many American politicians think it wise to identify the national interest of the US with that of Israel. I can understand it of politicians like Congressman Howard Berman, who is a self declared Zionist and thinks like AIPAC thinks, but what about the others.
q> support for Israel of paramount importance
As Israelis, you mean.
More effort needs to be put into the FULL disclosure of EXACTLY where AIPAC gets EVERY dollar and EXACTLY how many dollars are delivered to WHICH US Congressmen- granted, that would be most of them.
Rationally spoken Israel has nothing more to offer to the US than lets say Finland, Costa Rica or Taiwan. Strategically and economically countries in the same region like Turkey, Egypt or Saudi Arabia are of much more importance to the US than Israel. It could be argued that Israel is more a liability than an asset to the US interests in the region. In fact the strong US support for Israel in the past decades has lead to a growing alienating between the US and the Arabs and the wider Muslim world, which in turn gave rise to terror groups like Al Qaida.
So it is in the national interest of the US to improve its relations with the Muslim world by helping to solve the conflict between Israel and the PA. And since Israel holds all the cards in the negotiations with the Palestinians, the US should feel free to exercise some pressure on its ally Israel to come to a peace agreement.
Reading state run media in many of those regimes one would think Israel had the power to make the sun rise in the west and set in the east.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Palestine-recognition-map.png