| By Susan Brannon August 27,2004 | Related links: CPJ report of journalist killed in Iraq(CPJ) report of supporters killed in Iraq (CPJ) |
| Rome - Enzo Baldoni 56, was taken hostage on the road between Baghdad and Najaf in Iraq , the Italian government confirmed Thursday evening after viewing a tape given to Al-Jazeera. He was killed because the Italian government refused to withdraw their troops from Iraq . But a few hours ago on RAI (the Italian national news agency) said that the Italian government thinks that there is a possibility that Baldoni was first kidnapped by a gang of Iraqi's who received money to turn him over to the Islamic Army. The Italian newspapers said that Baldoni was caught in an ambush and his driver was found dead on Saturday. He was captured at the scene of fierce fighting between the US troops and the al-Mahdi Army of Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr. The group identifying itself as the Islamic Army, on Tuesday gave Italy 48 hours to withdraw its 2,700 troops from Iraq or Baldoni would be killed. | |
| The Italian government rejected the demand, saying that it would maintain its “civil and military” presence in Iraq, but earlier on Thursday Rome said it was prepared to pull out its troops if the interim government in Baghdad requested it. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said, “There are no words for an inhuman act which at one swoop wipes out centuries of civilization and returns us to the dark times of barbarism” Baldoni was a reporter for a Milan weekly called the “Diario” (Diary) and was also volunteering for the Red Cross while in Iraq . His son and daughter were interviewed on Rai 2, an Italian television station on Wednesday, saying, “He was trying to save human lives in Najaf by helping a Red Cross convoy in a spirit of solidarity which has always underscored his thinking and actions” Before his murder, the director of the weekly “Diario” said that Baldoni is “motivated by humanitarian feelings for the world's suffering people. He is an independent journalist and is totally autonomous” Another source at the “Diaro” stated , “We are counting on this explanation to show who Baldoni was, someone who had nothing to do with the policies of the Italian government and who found time to carry out humanitarian acts – this should facilitate his release.” The Italians had hope for his release based on his humanitarian instincts and his murder was a surprise to the locals. He was known for his rigor of investigative reporting and his independent tone, Baldoni was generally critical of the administration of Berlusconi and their support for the Iraq war. If it is true that a gang was paid for the kidnapping of Baldoni, then it puts the lives of may journalists in increased danger. The risk of war reporting, changes most likely due to increased poverty in Iraq due to the loss of employment since the start of the war. There has been 13 journalist and 9 supporters of reporters killed in Iraq in 2004 reports Committee for the Protection of Journalists. (CPJ). A day before the murder of Baldoni, CPJ reports that the Iraqi police, masked and firing weapons threatened and detained dozens of journalists Wednesday night at the Bahr Najaf hotel in the southern city of Najaf . Knight Ridder News service, reported that the police fired shots and detained near 60 journalists quoting one of the officers shouting, “All the journalists, out now or we'll kill you!” Knight Ridder says that the journalist were transported in flatbed trucks to a local police station where they were held for an hour. The journalist had international press passes and included the Knight Ridder journalist, Getty photo agency and BBC were among some of those detained. The police also confiscated some satellite phones and computer equipment. In a separate incident on Wednesday, five Al-Arabiyya employees were briefly detained by the Iraqi police after airing a news item that U.S. missiles had landed near the Imam Ali shrine. Also on August 15, the Iraqi authorities in Najaf ordered all journalists to leave the city within two hours, while a plainclothes security officer warned journalist to leave in two hours or they would be “shot”. Al-Jazeera was also barred from working in Iraq for 40 days accusing the station of incitement to violence and hatred. The Iraqi government seems to be taking the position to suppress the rights for the support of press freedom. This position along with the increased “gang activity” in Iraq clearly threatens the security and safety for journalist attempting to report from the ground in Iraq . As it stands, many of the news agencies would rather pay freelance journalist who are willing to enter into the most dangerous places in the world than to hire reporters to enter under their corporate names. This is because of the concern of an increased risk to the agencies reputation, and financial concerns (lawsuits) if one of their own staff were to be kidnapped and murdered. Journalist are increasingly pushed into a position of being freelance in a highly competitive career to remain in the same career job market. They need to purchase extra medical and life insurance, risk the loss of equipment, pay for the cost of satellite telephones, hotels, hiring security guards/translators and drivers. Baldoni was one of those independent freelancers, whose heart was with humanitarian concerns wanting to help those that were in distress. His death may have been due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time, the suppressed economy in Iraq and greedy gang members who have traded the value of life for a few dollars. | |
Saturday, August 28, 2004
Italian Hostage Killed in Iraq for money?
Thursday, August 26, 2004
A letter from Beit Jala
| After the War...? | |
| by: Ben White in Beit Jala Posted Sept. 3,2004 | |
| August 26th, 2004 -- From Nabil Saba's terrace there is a clear view of the Wall snaking its way around Beit Jala. Sitting underneath his family's vineyard, enjoying the protection it offers from the afternoon sun, the peace is sometimes interrupted by the sound of construction work. For Nabil, history has a habit of repeating itself. At the beginning of the 1970s, he was still living with his family in their ancestral home on Ras Beit Jala, the highest point in the town. But in 1972 the Israelis came to the house and offered to buy the land from Nabil's father. “We refused. So almost every day and night they would come to the house, to threaten us, to intimidate us. They would take me and my brothers to jail. They falsely accused us of supporting the guerrillas with 300 dinars, which was a lot of money in those days. They beat my brother in jail.” | |
| The campaign of intimidation continued: “The Israelis would come to our home and put me and my brothers up against a wall. Then they would ask my mother which one of us she wants to see killed first. My mother would cry.” This way of life was endured for a whole year by the family before Nabil's mother finally broke. So we all left the house, taking most of our belongings with us. We thought we would be away just temporarily; we left out of fear.” With the family out of the house, the Israelis were free to occupy the property. First, however, they came and demanded the keys. “They wanted to occupy one room in the house, they said, to stop the guerrillas. After that, they stopped us going back to the house. I've never been back since.” Nabil's family land was required for the Israeli settlement of Har Gilo, created in 1976 as a military outpost before being transformed into a civilian colony with a population of around 350 settlers. Even though Har Gilo is a short distance away, Nabil does not return: “If I were to go back, I would have a heart attack to see Israeli housing there. There were grapes, fig trees; they were all bulldozed, like you see them doing to the olive trees.” Like nearly every Palestinian who has suffered dispossession and loss at the hands of the occupation, Nabil has no truck with crass anti-Semitism. “I used to, I still have, many Jewish friends”, he stressed. “A Jew is a man just like me, we don't hate.” Yet Nabil also has something to say to those in the West who shout “terrorist” at the Palestinians. “Come and see the truth. Who's stealing the land? Who's the terrorist? When a man fights against Israel , it's not in vain. It's because something has happened. Do you think suicide bombers kill themselves for nothing? They go out of hatred. Maybe they have seen their father killed, or their house destroyed.” When the intifada began almost four years ago, Nabil's house was on the front line for Israeli shelling from Gilo. Houses on his street were utterly destroyed, while his home escaped with repairable damage. Now, however, the threat is not so much Israeli bombardment as the Wall. In the last few months, the Israeli Defence Force has issued military confiscation orders to residents of Beit Jala to take land for the Wall amounting to around 400 dunums. Once completed, the Wall will separate the town of Beit Jala from around 40% of its land — much of it among the fertile. “The Wall has taken the land from the people of Beit Jala. They have put us all in a prison. There is no land left for Beit Jala. We are in cantons, ghettoes, now.” Along with the neighbouring towns of Bethlehem and Beit Sahur, Beit Jala will be completely hemmed in by the Wall; expansion of the town will be rendered impossible. Nabil does not believe that his children will see peace. Sitting on the edge of his sofa, he gesticulates with a finger. “My father, before he died, said he wished he could sleep just one more night in his house. I will never forget those words.” http://meionline.com/backcover/264.shtml | |
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Hunger strike final avenue for prisoners
| Hunger strike final avenue for prisoners | |
| by Omar Karmi Palestine Report published at http://www.palestinereport.org | |
| “MY DAUGHTER has only seen her father twice in her life,” said one woman. “It's been two months since I last saw my husband.” A young boy, in a faltering voice, then recited a poem he had written to his father, also a prisoner, to warm applause from the audience. A group of youngsters sang a song, and an elderly woman asked how “we can have peace when our children are being treated like animals.” | |
| They were all speaking at a tent erected in front of the Ramallah Baladna Cultural Center on August 17. Similar tents have gone up all across the Palestinian areas for people to show solidarity with Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails who have gone on a general hunger strike to protest their conditions. August 18 has been declared a national day of solidarity with the prisoners and in a speech on the same day, President Yasser Arafat praised them for their steadfastness and vowed his unstinting support. “They have tried legal means to improve their conditions,” Khalida Jarrar, Director of the Ramallah-based Adameer Prisoners' Support & Human Rights Association, told the Palestine Report. “But nothing has worked. This is their last avenue.” On August 15 it was announced that Palestinian prisoners were commencing a hunger strike until certain demands pertaining to their conditions were met. By August 17, according to numbers from Adameer, 3,500 prisoners were striking. The number is important if only because the Israel Prisons Service, in charge of the prisons that are affected by the hunger strike (as opposed to Israeli military prisons, or administrative detention centers), on August 18 claimed the number was 1,469 after “several dozen terrorists halted their strike.” Jarrar dismissed that claim as “Israeli propaganda.” The prisoners are charging that their basic rights are being systematically violated and accuse Israel of being in transgression of Israeli as well as international law. They are demanding, according to an August 15 press release from the Families of Palestinian Political Prisoners organization, an end to “arbitrary and indiscriminate beatings; arbitrary and indiscriminate firing of tear gas into prison cells; humiliating strip searches in front of other prisoners every time they enter or exit their cells; and arbitrary imposition of financial penalties for minor infractions such as singing or speaking too loud.” Prisoners are also demanding improved medical treatment and more and better food, while six separate demands deal with family visitation rights and procedures. “I think the family visits are especially important,” said Jarrar. “Many prisoners and their families have been telling me how they wish they could go back to the old visitation facilities where, while prisoners and their relatives were separated, the glass partition wall had holes in them so they could at least touch fingers.” Now, explains Jarrar, prisoners are separated from their visitors by two partition walls, and no physical contact is possible. In addition, children are no longer allowed to go and sit with the prisoners, and communication usually takes place over a phone. Both prisoners and visitors are subjected to what Jarrar calls “humiliating searches, not only on their way into the visits, but on their way out.” Finally, there are many restrictions in place as to who can visit, and how many times they go. In order to apply for a permit to visit prisoners, relatives must go through the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) that then applies to the Israeli civil administration on their behalf. Rejections or permits are conveyed back to the families through the same route. According to Jarrar, in many cases people are simply rejected “for security reasons” with no other explanation forthcoming. Appeals must be lodged through the ICRC. Only closest relatives are allowed to go in the first place, and no children or siblings between the ages of 16-45 will get a permit. The ICRC is also in charge, subject to the strictures of the Israeli authorities, of transportation to and from prisons, a process, prisoners charge, that has been needlessly prolonged and complicated. Trips that should only take a few hours are sometimes prolonged to dozens of hours, according to Israeli, Palestinian and international prisoner rights groups. Indeed, none of the prisoners' complaints are new, and most of them are well documented. In February 2003, the International Federation of Human Rights (FDIH), in cooperation with several Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups, released a lengthy report detailing several violations of international law. The report concluded that Israel , despite being signatory to international conventions on the treatment of detainees, was in “flagrant violation” of, among others, the Universal Human Rights Declaration, particularly those articles prohibiting all forms of torture and other abuses (article 5) and which protect the rights of detainees and prisoners (articles 9, 10 and 11); the Fourth (4th) Geneva Convention; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly those articles regarding the prohibition of torture and other forms of abuses (article 7) and the rights of detainees and prisoners (article 9, 10, 14); the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment! of Prisoners; as well as the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners. “I hope,” said Jamal Ali, 40, now a municipal employee with the Palestinian Authority, “that the world will see what is happening here.” Ali spent five years in jail from 1986 to 1991. He recognized all the demands of the prisoners. He said in his five years in jail – 30 months were spent in administrative detention – he received no more than five visits from family. The food, he said, was “not fit for consumption,” and the medical attention was terrible. “Whatever was wrong with me – I had a problem with my knee – the doctor would just point at his head and give me aspirin. It didn't matter what I complained of.” So far, the official Israeli response to the hunger strike has been uncompromising. “They can strike until death,” Israeli Internal Security Minister Tzahi Hanegbi told the Jerusalem Post on August 16. Hanegbi also said he had received support from Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to take a “strong and stiff stand” against the prisoners. Israeli prison authorities have declared they are ready to weigh prisoners every day, and force-feed them if necessary. On August 17, it was reported that prison guards would use “psychological warfare” to break the strike, including holding large barbeques in jailhouses. While Jarrar is not concerned about the BBQs – “it's a silly idea. It's a direct challenge to the prisoners and will only make them more determined” – she's more worried by the threat of force-feeding prisoners. “In 1980,” she recalls, “two prisoners [Ali Ja'fari and Rasem Halawi] in Nafha prison were force-fed after a lengthy hunger strike. When they put the tubes down, they put them in the wrong place, and they ended in their lungs.” Ja'fari and Halawi both died. She's also concerned at reports that prison authorities at the Eshel Prison have confiscated water and salt from prisoners. On August 18, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel charged that prison guards there had taken salt, water, juice and milk from prisoners and on August 15 cut off the water supply until the evening. Salt and water are essential to keep hunger strikers from deteriorating too rapidly. “This can be handled well,” said Jarrar, “or it can be handled badly. If it is handled badly, it can get very dangerous,” she said, adding she felt prisoners were very serious in their demands. Ali concurred. “If any of these prisoners die, it will cause an explosion on the Palestinian street.” At the Baladna Center , meanwhile, there was a break in proceedings. For obvious reasons no refreshments were being provided, and medical staff was on hand to aid anyone feeling weak in the hot afternoon weather. Eleven-year-old Huda Barghouti was sitting with a group of her female relatives. She has only ever seen her two uncles, Fakhri and Issam, in prison where both have so far served. 27 years. Huda has been able to visit twice. She last went in July, and was allowed to stay for 45 minutes. She spoke to Fakhri through a phone. “It was hard to hear what he was saying,” she said, but would otherwise not be drawn on how the procedure had been. “She's shy to talk about it,” explained her mother, Hanan, who said that while Huda had not been strip searched, guards had run a metal detector across her body, including between her legs and it had made her so uncomfortable that she had hardly been able to tell her mother about it. Hanan, 40, has herself not been able to visit her brothers since the early 1990s. “Until Oslo ,” she said, “I could go freely. But after Oslo I have not been allowed to go once.” She had been told she was not allowed for the standard “security reasons.” She speculated, however, that the real reason was because she herself had once spent time in jail. In 1989, she had been detained for four days for attending a demonstration calling for improved prisoners' rights. – Published 18/8/04 ©Palestine Report | |
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
| After the War...? People are still dying | |
| an email from a woman in Baghdad - unedited Sept. 3, 2004 Hi Bagdad 7 August 2004 | Back to Iraq Stuff Back to home |
| I am furious. Ali, one of the boys, just came to visit and have some lunch with us. He is 18 and had problems in the 'Big Boys' House in Adhimaya and left there and ended up back on the streets. When he was back on the streets he used to come and see us most days - sometimes twice a day for some food, a shower etc. He often leaves his sack of cans with us which he collects from off the streets - he gets 500 dinar (20 pence) a kilo. | |
| He leaves them with us so that they do not get stolen when he is sleeping - usually up on Karamana roundabout in Kerrada. He is a really nice boy - shy, mild mannered and polite and totally honest about his use of drugs. We encourage this honesty by telling the boys that we are not judging them or that we are not going to think they are bad just because they sniff some thinner. In this way we can monitor how much they are using - if we do not shout at them or judge, they tell us. Ali was using thinner about twice a week (when he become depressed) and arten tablets about once a week. When he told us, about, 10 days ago that he wanted to move back with his mother and 8 year old little brother to a new home in Shula, Bagdad , we were overjoyed for him. His parents are divorced and were living separately in Sadr City -he found getting on with either side difficult and this is how he originally ended up on the streets. He came to see us the morning he left to go to his mum. He had a shower, some nice new clothes (we washed his old ones so he could take them with him), breakfast and we gave him a package of food items to take to his mum - things like tins of beans, fruit, nuts, bread and crisps for his little brother. And we made sure that he had no thinner on him to take to his mum's. Today Ali came to visit us. He is looking fantastic - clean, happy, off thinner and said he was pleased to be living with his mum and young brother. His brother is going to school, Ali is still collecting cans, but now in Shula, to raise some money and his mother sews for a living. They are renting a small house with one bedroom, a sitting room, kitchen and bathroom. Doesn't this sound like a beautiful success story - well, it is - even if it only lasts for a month or two it is something, a chance for a better life. But all is not well. Ali wanted to leave us before 3 pm . Why? Shula is coming under attack from the Americans. Last night no one slept in Shula as the Mahdi Army resisted an onslaught from American rockets and helicopter gunships. Ali told us how two minibuses and one 25 seater bus (like the ones we have here in Kerrada) were hit yesterday by American rockets - luckily none of the buses had passengers, but all three drivers died - these were separate incidents. Ali reported that there were many casualties - mainly civilian, though there were 5 or 6 definite dead from the Mahdi Army. He said his mum was okay, but his little brother was so scared and cried and cried all night. He knows of three American soldiers being killed. The Mahdi Army have set up checkpoints into Shula and will close down the area at 4 pm . This is when they expect to receive reinforcements and more weapons and it is also the time when the Americans do their 'shift change'. Ali is expecting a big battle, lots of death and destruction and lots of problems. He wanted to get home by 4 pm , otherwise the Mahdi Army won't let him in and he needs to be with his mum and brother to look after them. We asked Ali about the Shula, which is situated past Khadimaya to the north-west of Bagdad . He said it was a big district with a mixture of Shia and Sunni Muslims, but mainly Shia. At first it was just the Shia fighting, but now the Sunni men have joined in. There is staunch support for Moqtada Al Sadr - his photos are everywhere. Have you heard about Shula in the news? No. And here is our poor Ali trying to make a new life, while the Americans terrorise the area - but it is not big enough news for TV - you just need to know the big things that go on. And did you know that the Public Security (secret service) Centre near New Bagdad was bombed - No? And did you know that yesterday, the Ministries of Oil, Sport and Youth came under attack form the Resistance - No. Over the past few days, since the church bombings, there have been many many more bombs in Bagdad . Many of them have been closer and louder than before. We had one a few nights ago at around midnight , followed by a gun battle (we could hear reply fire). Then five mortars were heard, probably towards the Green Zone. Then two mornings running there were huge explosions at around 6.45 am - the 'morning bombs' don't usually go off that early, they are usually between 7.45 am and 9.30 am . Then last night, at about 11 pm , there was a big bomb not far away and this was followed by the definite sound of a rocket attack, also close by - we didn't know what was being hit though. At midnight there were 3 more explosions. One was huge and extremely close. I have told you before how Iraqis don't even look around if there are bombs going off, unless they are close. Well, all of these, initiated a response - people looking and stopping what they were doing. The last one in particular got our whole street up and about. People were on their roofs and balconies looking out. The Baker Boys went to see, one of them went off on his push bike. Wassim, opposite us, went on the roof and told us it was in the next street. And indeed it was. We don't know why, but a bomb hit an air-conditioning unit shop in that street. Maybe it went off there by mistake. Maybe it was just to drive more terror into the mainly Christian community in that street. As so often is the case - we just don't know. The felafel shop in that street lost its glass front in the blast. The brothers who run it are really nice men, Christians, who used to do all the felafel sandwiches for us when we first started to feed the boys when they were on the street, back in November 2003. These bombs were not reported on TV - not on BBC, Al Jazeera or Al Arabia - although Al Jazeera did report that the rocket we heard had hit the Sheraton Hotel - about 800 metres away. Al Jazeera were also the only station to report that the recent upsurge in resistance has also been occurring in Kut (the Ukranian army base was hit by 28 rockets!), Amara, Nasyriah and Samawa. But you have been told about an Irish woman winning $32 million on lottery and the Russian film industry taking off. There seems to be a concerted effort to take Iraq off the news. Indeed, I heard an American Republican Party woman on the radio the other day saying that Iraq was old news, that is it not headlines anymore. Well, while Moqtada and his men make that virtually impossible and churches coming under attack have to be reported, there is still a huge swathe of goings on, deaths, bombs and so on that are not being reported. I know that, to me, Iraq is the centre of the world, but can you imagine a bomb or a gun going off not being reported on if it happened in America or Britain . No - well that's what's going on here. You have all heard that it has been 'kicking off' in Basra , Nagaf and Sadr City . I went to Sadr City on Monday with 3 of my translator's friends - all guards at the Sheraton/ Palestine Hotel complex and all supporters, in name at least, of Moqtada Al Sadr. In the taxi on the way, the driver was playing a music tape of a woman singing for Saddam. In the song she was asking Saddam why he left 'us' and who did he leave 'us' to? She was imploring Bashar Assad, the President of Syria, to help Iraq . And she was detailing the mess that Bagdad and Iraq has beome in the melancholic lyrics. I donned my chadoor for the outing, just to be on the safe side - little wonder, but Westerners are not entirely trusted in Sadr City . I felt safe enough though, after all, I was with 4 young men, 3 of whom lived there. Only one car bothered me a bit as it slowed down and stopped for a better look. Moqtada Al Sadr picures adorned EVERY home. Children played in the streets in a scene of peace and tranquility - in safety and in great numbers. Sadr City is a place of children and little ones at that. There are far far more children than adults living in this poor neighbourhood - I am sure that they beat the Iraqi average of 46% of the population being aged 15 years and younger. Here it seemed as though at least 50% were under 10 years. And it is this scene of peace, tranquility and little children playing in the streets that America is now pulverising. These are the people that welcomed the 'liberation' brought to them by America - these were the people most glad to see the back of Saddam Hussein. And now these are the people that resist the most fiercely - they want an end to the occupation and they want America out of their neighbourhood. There is no question of who is to blame for the recent fighting in these areas - let's face it, if the Americans were not around, who would the Mahdi Army attack and fire their RPGs at? Anyway, in Sadr City , we visited the family home of one of Wejdy's friends, Ali. This home also had plenty of snaps of Moqtada. I met two of Ali's tiny little neices and then I met his new, two month old, nephew - his name was Moqtada. We discussed many things over our meal of rice and beans - from music to the current situation in Iraq . We were talking about how children are being effected by the occupation and we mentioned the 11 year old Mujahdeen fighter we had met in Fallujah. Ali said "That's nothing, a few streets away from here is an 8 year old boy. During the last attack from the Americans, he got an RPG and fired it at a humvee and blew it up, then he was shot at and injured, but he is still alive". Then we left Ali's home and once again walked through the peaceful dusty streets full of children playing to get our taxi home. Incidentally, I heard a report about the 11 year old Mujahdeen fighter in Fallujah from a man who actually witnessed the boy's bravery and skill. there were two American snipers placed one each end of the road on which the hospital/clinic we visited was situated. In the darkness, this child rolled his body across the road from one kerb to the other. He called out to a man on the side of the road, under the cover of a building, to throw something white out into the middle of the road. This was done and the American sniper shot at it revealing his position to the boy who then shot at him and in the same movement he rolled back across the street to the other side, just in case the sniper fired at him. No return fire came and our 11 year old then took night vision binoculars into the middle of the street and could see the American's snipers body slumped over a wall - dead. My friend told me that the boy then left and went down the road - he heard that he used the same procedure there and attacked and shot at another American sniper. What future is there for these poor children, whether fighting or not? I hear, time and time again, how children are frightened now, were frightened in the war and how some are not going to school and how others now have temper tantrums, suffer from nightmares or how they have become withdrawn and silent. This is a country where almost half the popluation are under 16 years of age. I attended a lecture about this at around Christmas time. The lecturer estimated that half of the children in this country are suffering from PTSD, and there are no trained child psychiatrists or counsellors to deal with this enormous problem. Add to this the high levels of unemployment, the continuing security problems, the ongoing violence and the lack of electricity, clean water and petrol and you have a country that is not years, but decades from recovery. And all this goes unreported in the news. What is actually happening here is simply not as important as what MIGHT happen in Britain . Heathrow MIGHT come under attack, but it has not happened yet and no one has been killed by a 'terrorist' there. But people are being killed and people are suffering daily here. But do you need to know about things that are actually happening? No. In the days following the bomb attacks on the churches, I have spoken with many Christians in the neighbourhood. At least 3 families we know, who usually attend church on a Sunday, had had something else to do on this day and, thankfully, they had not gone to church. One shopkeeper told me that the Christians will be too afraid to worship now and that many will want to leave Iraq . We heard how one vicar, on hearing about the attacks, got his congregation out of the church and to safety in great haste - although his church did not then come under attack. And another vicar in another church which was bombed, tried to keep the panicking worshippers inside in relative safety, but away from the glass windows. The day after the bombs, rumours were rife in Kerrada - 5 more bombs had been discovered and diffused in churches in the area, and also a roadside bomb had been found and diffused in Kerrada. And we consider this a safe area!! BAD ATTITUDES I can give you two first hand accounts of why the occupation is detested and why the Coalition Forces and the Western Companies are despised. One day last week, we were returning from Allawi bus station in a taxi when we passed the Ministry of Interior next to Assassins Gate. We ended up behind two white Land Cruisers as we crossed over the Republic Bridge over the beautiful Tigris River . The second Land Cruiser, that is the one in front of us, had its hatchback door open. A pivate security mercenary was sitting in the back pointing his gun out ready for attack. Likewise a mercenary sitting in the passenger seat - pointing his gun sideways. On Saduun Street we came a little too close to them and the gun man in the back indicated to our taxi dirver to slow down and back off. This our taxi driver did and the gun man stuck his thumb up in thanks. I commented on how these people behaved towards the local population when it was not even their country. The taxi dirver said "What can we do, we have no authority?" Mind you,when the Land Cruisers turned off to go down to Abu Newas Street and the Palestine Hotel, he hooted cheekily at them and we made signs to them. The mercenary looked stunned!! Last night my translator and I were walking down Kerrada main street when a humvee passed us going the other way. My translator made his usual cheeky, rude gesture at them and we carried on our way. A minute or so later he was roughly grabbed on his shoulder and pulled around by a mad little jumped-up American soldier who obviously could not control his temper. I intervened and shouted at the soldier to stop and get away right now. He released his grip, but carried on shouting. I explained to him that since America had 'freed' this country, Iraqis were entiltled to make their feelings known towards their occupiers in a peaceful manner. After all, isn't that what democracy and free speech are all about? Well, not according to this idiot. Free speech is only allowed if you are saying nice things! His friend turned up then - the first soldier had literally got the humvee driver to stop and had jumped out in temper and had run over to us. Then along came his sergeant. Now, he was nice. A huge towering, 6'6'' black guy with a very pleasant way about him. He was furious with the crazy soldier, who still could not control himself, and he was also angry with their Iraqi translator. Their translator was busy lip servicing the Americans saying that they got rid of Saddam and Iraqis owe them - no wonder so many translators working with Americans are targetted! Anyway, the nice sergeant explained that they couldn't have Iraqis making cheeky signs at them - if they let one do it, next time there will be ten!! I said that it was better to have rude gestures than bullets and he agreed. He really started on the idiot soldier then, who had still not calmed down and we had a nice chat in all them mayhem!! I said that the actions of this soldier did nothing to win the 'hearts and minds' of the Iraqis and I explained that he had put all of them in great danger by jumping out of the humvee in this way and coming down onto the street where they were now surrounded by Iraqis. I mentioned Abu Gharib and the sergeant tutted and said "Look Americans put up with this shit in our prisons in America all the time". I pointed out that America was supposed to be the shining example of democracy, freedom and fairness - and things like this just showed the USA Army's true colours. He agreed. In fact, he agreed with most of what I said and I with him - in the end I actually took a big risk and shook his hand in front of the assembled onlookers. I wished him safety and I wished the idiot soldier a long stay in Iraq . I think I shook his hand because he admitted to me tht he had not agreed with the war and certainly did not agree with the way things were going in Iraq right now. He had such a kind face and dealt with the situation so well, that I really felt for him. But in the idiot soldier, I could see all the reasons why the American Army are hated here. His was the face of the abusive soldiers in Abu Gharib, his was the face of the lost temper which fires at a car load of civilains and his was the face of the soldier that murdered Shafaq's dad and blew away Abdul Azziz's leg, and his was the face of the murdering snipers that kill 10 year old boys in Fallujah. I saw the hatred and temper in his eyes - the hatred and temper that exists in so many soldiers here. During this exchange a big crowd of onllookers had gathered. AbuWalid (a man I was going to rent an appartment off, but didn't in the end) joined in with us and was shouting at the soldiers' translator. After it was all over, we turned and walked away through the crowd to grins and 'thumbs up' signs - coy and secret signs of appreciation - many Iraqis are as frightened of American soldiers as they were of Saddam's secret police. We all know the reasons why America doesn't pull out of the disaster that is Iraq . But if they did, there would be no roadside bombs, no Mahdi Army Resistance in Nagaf, Sadr City , Basra etc and probably no kidnappings. I wish they would go and give it a try - after all things can't get much worse than they are now. Or can they? | |
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Gush Etzion
Gush Etzion
Susan Brannon
August 2004
"The revised route of the West Bank separation fence in the Gush Etzion region will penetrate deeply into the West Bank in order to encompass 10 Israeli settlements with some 50,000 residents, and four Palestinian villages with some 18,000 residents. A sizable amount of Palestinian land in the Bethlehem area will also end up on the Israeli side of the fence."
New fence route grabs in 50,000 Gush Etzion settlers and 18,000 Palestinian villagers 30.12.2004 | 10:48 Aluf Benn The revised route of the West Bank separation fence in the Gush Etzion region will penetrate deeply into the West Bank in order to encompass 10 Israeli settlements with some 50,000 residents, and four Palestinian villages with some 18,000 residents. A sizable amount of Palestinian land in the Bethlehem area will also end up on the Israeli side of the fence. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will bring the revised route of the separation fence around Gush Etzion and the South Hebron Hills to the cabinet for approval next month, following the January 9 election for a new Palestinian Authority chairman.
The route's approval could spark conflict between Israel and the new Palestinian leadership.The route was revised following a June 30 High Court of Justice ruling that invalidated a different section of the fence, on the grounds that it caused too much harm to local Palestinians. The revisions are designed to reduce the hardship that the fence will cause to Palestinian villagers in the Gush Etzion area, in the hope of enabling it to survive the High Court's scrutiny.
For the same reason, the revised plan also includes more crossing points in the fence and longer opening hours for these crossings. In the South Hebron Hills region, the new route will run along the Green Line, whereas the old route had curved into the West Bank to encompass five Israeli settlements, thereby also swallowing a sizable amount of Palestinian land. It was approved by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz in October, but Sharon did not want to bring it to the cabinet until he could also bring the new Gush Etzion route.
Government sources said that this "package deal" has two purposes: To soften international criticism of the Gush Etzion section by linking it with the concessions in the South Hebron Hills region, and to mute rightist criticism of these concessions by linking it to the enclosure of the Gush Etzion settlements.Work on the Gush Etzion section is slated to start this spring. The new route, the product of intensive discussions between the Defense and Justice ministries, will be presented to Sharon next week.
Susan Brannon
August 2004
"The revised route of the West Bank separation fence in the Gush Etzion region will penetrate deeply into the West Bank in order to encompass 10 Israeli settlements with some 50,000 residents, and four Palestinian villages with some 18,000 residents. A sizable amount of Palestinian land in the Bethlehem area will also end up on the Israeli side of the fence."
New fence route grabs in 50,000 Gush Etzion settlers and 18,000 Palestinian villagers 30.12.2004 | 10:48 Aluf Benn The revised route of the West Bank separation fence in the Gush Etzion region will penetrate deeply into the West Bank in order to encompass 10 Israeli settlements with some 50,000 residents, and four Palestinian villages with some 18,000 residents. A sizable amount of Palestinian land in the Bethlehem area will also end up on the Israeli side of the fence. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will bring the revised route of the separation fence around Gush Etzion and the South Hebron Hills to the cabinet for approval next month, following the January 9 election for a new Palestinian Authority chairman.
The route's approval could spark conflict between Israel and the new Palestinian leadership.The route was revised following a June 30 High Court of Justice ruling that invalidated a different section of the fence, on the grounds that it caused too much harm to local Palestinians. The revisions are designed to reduce the hardship that the fence will cause to Palestinian villagers in the Gush Etzion area, in the hope of enabling it to survive the High Court's scrutiny.
For the same reason, the revised plan also includes more crossing points in the fence and longer opening hours for these crossings. In the South Hebron Hills region, the new route will run along the Green Line, whereas the old route had curved into the West Bank to encompass five Israeli settlements, thereby also swallowing a sizable amount of Palestinian land. It was approved by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz in October, but Sharon did not want to bring it to the cabinet until he could also bring the new Gush Etzion route.
Government sources said that this "package deal" has two purposes: To soften international criticism of the Gush Etzion section by linking it with the concessions in the South Hebron Hills region, and to mute rightist criticism of these concessions by linking it to the enclosure of the Gush Etzion settlements.Work on the Gush Etzion section is slated to start this spring. The new route, the product of intensive discussions between the Defense and Justice ministries, will be presented to Sharon next week.
Saturday, August 14, 2004
The Only Game in Town
| The Only Game in Town | |
| by Sima Kadmon, Yediot Aharonot, August 13 | |
| (...) This week, there was an intensive debate in "The Majority Headquarters", the coalition of political parties and extra parliamentary movements which organized the giant rally at Rabin Square two months ago. The debate mainly concerned the slogan to be used in a projected new publicity campaign. Yariv Oppenheimer, general manager of Peace Now, offered a simple text "The majority decided: get out of Gaza ". But the Geneva Initiative organizers made clear that they will not take part in any campaign which does not explicitly refer to the need for negotiations with the Palestinians. | |
| The problem is far deeper than the drafting of a slogan. In everybody's view, it is vital that the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip takes place. If the withdrawal is blocked, it would be taken as a proof of the impossibility of ever evacuating settlements and ending the occupation: "If even Sharon could not do it, then no prime minister could ever do it". On the other hand, in order for the left wing camp to do such a far-reaching step as supporting a Likud government, much more than a withdrawal from Gaza is needed. It is no secret that the left is unhappy with the Sharon plan, which denies altogether the existence of a Palestinian negotiating partner. On the other hand, everybody understands that this is "the only game in town", at least for the next two years. That is the reason for the debate going on inside the left. The leaders of Peace Now and the Labour Party, and some in Yahad/Meretz, feel that the left should take the lead in supporting the Gaza Disengagements; the Geneva people, to the contrary, tend to stand aside rather then find themselves supporting Sharon . Tzali Rehsef, one of the founders of Peace Now, thinks that the left wing should lead this campaign, and be ready to cooperate with moderate elements who support disengagement, in the political centre and even in the right-wing: "Public support for the Gaza Disengagement must be mobilized, in face of the big anti demonstrations organized by the settlers - and if we don't do it, nobody will". To the contrary, Yossi Beilin is torn between his colleagues in the Israeli left and his Palestinian partners. In the last weekend, some seventy central Israeli and Palestinian activists of the Geneva Initiative held a met at the Moevenpiek Hotel on the Jordanian shore of the Dead Sea - the place where what came to be known as the Geneva Document was worked out a year ago. The conspicuous feature of the recent discussions was the Palestinians' strong reservations about the whole idea of a unilateral Israeli "disengegement". Quite a few of the Israeli initiators of Geneva support the idea of disengagement, among them [former Labour minister] Yuli Tamir, [Yahad/Meretz KM and kibbutz leader] Haim "Jumes" Oron, [maverick Likud member] Nehama Ronen and [former Labour Party leader] Amram Mitzna (who even supports Labour's entry into the government, in marked difference from his previous positions). The Palestinians, however, regard "disengagement" as a Sharon trap. As they see it, Sharon has undertaken this unilateral step out of his apprehension of Geneva becoming the dominant diplomatic initiative, and with the intention of buttressing Israeli hold over the West Bank - just as Menachem Begin gave up Sinai in 1982, in order to get a free hand for the big settlement-creation drive of the 1980's and 1990's. Further, the Palestinians regard Sharon 's move as deliberately promoting a situation of chaos and gang warfare in Gaza , in order to weaken the pragmatic elements in the Palestinian society. For these reasons, the Palestinian participants strongly condemned their Israeli colleagues for accommodating themselves to the Sharon plan instead of fighting it. At the conclusion of the debate, Israelis and Palestinians agreed upon the drafting of a new position paper, entitled "From Gaza to Geneva" - i.e., a paper setting out the possible ways of transforming the unilateral action and making of it a stage in a process leading to a comprehensive agreement. [P.S. from Adam Keller: The Geneva Initiative's own website: http://www.heskem.org.il/DisplayItem.asp?id=98 gives (in Hebrew only) an account of the meeting in which the disagreements between Israelis and Palestinians are not mentioned, and which rather concentrates on the main points needed, in the initiators' view, in order to move "from Gaza to Geneva." These points, now in the process of being elaborated into a detailed document, include: - Giving a greater role to third parties, regionals and international; - Complete ending of the occupation of the Gaza Strip, including evacuation of the Israeli-ruled "Philadelphi Corridor" which separates the Gaza Strip from Egypt; - Opening the air and sea ports to unhindered Palestinian use, while finding security arrangements which do not necessitate Israeli military presence; - Economic agreements regarding both the fate of infrastructure left behind by Israel and the creation of jobs for the chronically-unemployed Palestinian population; - Creating a "judicial-political linkage" between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, so as to prevent a permanent division between them; - Ways to reach cease fire, so as to facilitate the opening of formal negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships. | |
Friday, August 13, 2004
Happenings
| Happenings | |
| This weeks events: click on the links for the full stories Susan Brannon August 13, 2004 | Back to Palestine Back to Home |
| The only game in town by Sima Kadmon, Yediot Aharonot, August 13 This week, there was an intensive debate in "The Majority Headquarters", the coalition of political parties and extra parliamentary movements which organized the giant rally at Rabin Square two months ago. | |
| |
Happenings
| Happenings | |
| This weeks events: click on the links for the full stories | Back to Palestine Back to Home |
| Susan Brannon week of August 13, 2004 The only game in town by Sima Kadmon, Yediot Aharonot, August 13 This week, there was an intensive debate in "The Majority Headquarters", the coalition of political parties and extra parliamentary movements which organized the giant rally at Rabin Square two months ago. | |
| |
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
A Comprehensive Guide to US foreign Aid to Israel
| A Comprehensive Guide to US foreign Aid to Israel | |
| Source: The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April 1996, pgs. 7, 49-52 by Shawn L. Twing | |
| Few aspects of U.S. foreign policy are as elusive as U.S. aid to Israel . Despite severe budgetary constraints and an ongoing battle between congressional Republicans and the White House over the terms of a balanced U.S. budget, there is one thing on which both sides agree: U.S. aid to Israel will not be reduced. | |
| To understand the magnitude of U.S. aid to Israel it is necessary to look past the economic and military components of the U.S. foreign aid budget, of which Israel receives more than one-quarter of the worldwide total ($12.1 billion for fiscal year 1996), to additional amounts disbursed through the budgets of other departments and agencies scattered throughout the U.S. government. It also is important to understand the terms of these aid components, which include preferential treatment for Israel , exemption from certain U.S. laws and also from the oversight applied to every other U.S. aid recipient, and even disregard of Israeli abuses when they are revealed. Finally, Israel 's current economic profile suggests that it no longer needs U.S. financial largess. Nevertheless, a pattern has developed whereby neither Congress nor the White House dares dismantle what Indiana Democratic Representative Lee Hamilton has referred to as Israel 's "aid industry." Economic Aid Since 1949, U.S. taxpayers have provided Israel $23.122 billion in grant Economic Support Funds (ESF) and $1.517 billion in ESF loans. An additional $94 million in economic grants and $588.5 million in loans were given to Israel from 1952 through 1974 under the "Food for Peace" program. Prior to 1971, ESF aid was given for program-specific uses which were intended only to purchase U.S.-made products. After 1971, ESF funds were provided on a direct-transfer basis to be spent at the discretion of the Israeli government without any U.S. government oversight. In each fiscal year since 1994, Israel has used approximately $1 billion of its $1.2 billion in ESF to cover the interest and principal due on its outstanding loans from the United States government. Ever since 1984, the Cranston Amendment, named after its Senate sponsor, California Democrat Alan Cranston, has been attached to every U.S. foreign aid bill. It compels the U.S. government to provide Israel enough ESF funds to meet its debt burden to the United States . The Cranston Amendment reads, in part: "It is the policy and the intention of the United States that the funds provided in annual appropriations for the Economic Support Fund[s]?which are allocated to Israel shall not be less than the annual debt repayment (interest and principal) from Israel to the United States Government in recognition that such a principle serves United States interests in the region." The Cranston Amendment guaranteeing that the amount of Economic Support Funds going to Israel will not fall below the amount of money needed by Israel to repay its loans from the United States government has led to some interesting justifications for continued ESF economic assistance. Lobbyists for Israel and their sympathizers in Washington argue that current ESF grants really don't cost American taxpayers anything. They maintain that providing U.S. taxpayer funds to Israel to pay off debts owed to the U.S. government simply moves money around without actually giving it to Israel . Anyone who has ever borrowed money from a bank or used a credit card knows that this is nonsense. Two decades ago the U.S. government borrowed money to lend to Israel on the assumption that the Israelis would pay it back and the U.S. then could use the repayments to repay its own debts. Now the U.S. government continues to pay interest on the money it originally borrowed to lend to Israel , and also pays the interest on the money Israel borrowed from the U.S. In January 1992, after months of heated debate between the administration of President George Bush and the Israeli government and its supporters in American Jewish groups and in Congress, Congress and the White House agreed to provide Israel with $10 billion in loan guarantees to be distributed at the rate of $2 billion a year over five years. The legislation accompanying the loan guarantees stipulated that Israel could not use the money to settle Jews in the Israeli-occupied territories. It provided that the loan guarantees would be reduced by whatever amount the Israeli government spent on Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. As a result, the $2 billion sum was reduced by $437 million in FY94 and $216.8 million in FY95 based on U.S. government estimates of Israel 's illegal construction in the territories during the previous fiscal year. In each case, however, President Clinton increased the actual amount of aid to Israel for that year to help offset the reductions in the loan guarantees, thus keeping a promise he made to Israel's late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin that he would not allow the total amount of aid to Israel to drop below the level provided to Israel in fiscal year 1993. Israeli officials and lobbyists argue that the $10 billion in loan guarantees will not cost the United States anything because the Israeli government borrows the money from private financial institutions. The U.S. government, however, guarantees the full value of the loans in the event that Israel defaults on repayment, which gives Israel considerable leverage if it asks for U.S. financial assistance to help repay the loans. Israel has achieved a good international credit rating, thanks to the congressional practice of providing Israel with new grants to cover "repayment" of its loans from the United States government. This track record makes it likely that the U.S. government actually will absorb some or all of the costs of repaying both the principal and interest on Israel 's new $10 billion in U.S.-government-guaranteed debts. This would involve a cost to the U.S. taxpayers of far more than the original $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to Israel . Military Aid At present the largest component of U.S. grant aid to Israel is the annual $1.8 billion military aid package. Since the U.S. military aid program to Israel began in 1959, the U.S. government has provided Israel $40.28 billion in military aid. Of this, $29.065 billion has been in grants and $11.213 billion has been in loans which U.S. taxpayers repay each year. Since 1985, however, all of the U.S. military aid component of U.S. foreign aid to Israel has been in the form of grants rather than loans, exactly as has been the case with the economic component of U.S. foreign aid to Israel . U.S. military aid to Israel reached the $1.8 billion annual level in 1987 and, according to pending legislation and congressional and White House promises, it will continue at this level at least through FY97 (which ends on Sept. 30, 1997 ). The purpose of the military aid package, as elaborated by the administration of Ronald Reagan and both of its successors, is to maintain Israel 's "qualitative military superiority" over any combination of its Arab neighbors. Proponents of this massive U.S. military subsidy to Israel argue that it is not a total loss for the United States because much of it subsidizes America 's defense industry, especially in the current post-Cold War period when defense contractors are faced with declining orders for military hardware. The reality, however, is that the $1.8 billion foreign military sales (FMS) grant to Israel could instead be used to procure defense items needed for U.S. forces. Consider this: one year of U.S. military aid to Israel could purchase 18 of the much-needed F-22 next generation fighter aircraft for American pilots, at the staggering price of $100 million apiece. The Pentagon plans to procure for U.S. use more than 400 of the F-22s over the next two decades. Eliminating Israel 's annual aid subsidy during that same time frame would accomplish just that, without the additional cost to U.S. taxpayers. Also ignored by proponents of Israel 's military aid program is the clause written into the grant since 1991 stating that $475 million of that $1.8 billion package "shall be available only for procurement in Israel of defense articles and defense services, including research and development." Normally military aid components of U.S. foreign aid may be used only for purchases of U.S. weapons or training. Exceptions in the case of military aid to Israel began in fiscal year 1977, when Israel asked for a "one-time-only" provision to use $107 million of U.S. FMS assistance for its Merkava main battle tank. Congress approved a similar measure in 1983 for $300 million for the Lavi fighter. Since FY91, the U.S. government has allowed Israel to use $475 million each year for investment or purchases from its own defense industry. Such exceptions, which are not made for other countries receiving U.S. military aid, enable Israel to expand its defense industries, which compete on the international market with U.S. defense firms. The exceptions for Israel are completely contrary to the original intent of the foreign military sales program. Other Budgeted Items Aside from the $3 billion given to Israel each year from the foreign aid budget for economic ($1.2 billion) and military ($1.8 billion) aid, significant amounts of American tax dollars are channeled to Israel through other means. These additional expenditures are included in the budgets of the State, Defense and Commerce departments and other federal agencies, and are not included in official estimates of U.S. foreign aid. In the State Department's budget for FY96 an additional $93.5 million in grants to Israel were allocated as follows: $80 million to resettle in Israel Jewish refugees from the former Soviet Union ; $3.5 million for a regional cooperation agreement with Egypt ; and $10 million to pay for Israel 's own foreign aid program. This brings to $993.4 million the total of additional grants provided to Israel from the State Department's budget since FY73, when the first refugee resettlement payment was given to Israel . None of these grants are included in Economic Support Fund or Foreign Military Sales calculations of U.S. foreign aid totals. The Defense Department also is a major supplier of money, equipment and training to Israel outside the regular foreign aid budget. In FY90, $100 million worth of hardware was added to the existing $100 million U.S. military equipment stockpile in Israel , which is available to Israeli forces in case of a military emergency. During FY95, an additional $200 million worth of equipment was added, for a total of $400 million. Justification for the placement of the equipment in Israel rests on the assertion that Israel is a U.S. "strategic asset" in the Middle East . Few, if any, of the Pentagon's contingency planners and commanders would agree. In fact, the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), the division of the U.S. military charged with protecting U.S. interests in East Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, the Persian/Arabian Gulf, and Southwest Asia, doesn't include Israel within its area of responsibility. Because of the unsettled dispute with the Palestinians, other American allies among the Arab states in the region would refuse to participate in any coalition or regional defense scheme which included Israel . Evidence of the hollow nature of the " Israel as a strategic asset" justification for U.S. foreign aid came during the Gulf war. After Iraqi Scud missiles landed in Tel Aviv, Israel insisted that it would use its own air force to destroy the missile launchers in Iraq . U.S. defense officials feared that Israel 's involvement in the war would rupture the 37-nation coalition aligned against Iraq . The Israelis maintain that they eventually agreed not to attack Iraq because of the damage that would have caused the coalition. In reality, it's an open secret that the United States refused to give Israel the Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) signals that identify friendly aircraft during U.S. military operations. The truth is, had Israeli aircraft attacked the Iraqis without these codes, the Israeli aircraft probably would have been shot down by coalition aircraft. The forced diversion of coalition aircraft from the main attack on Iraqi forces to find and destroy mobile missile launchers targeting Israel, and the danger to the coalition posed by Israel's behavior during the Gulf war exposed the emptiness of the claim by lobbyists for Israel that their client is a U.S. "strategic asset" in the Middle East. Congressional decisions in 1991 to grant Israel $700 million in drawdown authority from U.S. military stocks in Western Europe , followed by an additional $75 million drawdown in FY95, were not well received in the Pentagon. The drawdown authority was used by Israel to obtain used F-16 multi-role aircraft, but their categorization as "excess" was false. The F-16s given to Israel were not collecting dust in Air Force hangers, they were protecting American national security interests in Western Europe . Nor was this the first time that U.S. defenses in Europe were jeopardized to protect Israel . The sharp drawdowns of U.S. equipment in use by American forces in Europe and the U.S. to re-arm Israeli forces during and after the October 1973 war left U.S. components of NATO forces dangerously unprepared for possible Soviet attack for many months. Significant resentment remains among members of the U.S. armed forces who believe Congress twice put their own and the nation's safety at risk on behalf of Israel . Israel 's Arrow anti-tactical ballistic missile is another program of little or no benefit to the United States . It doesn't show up in U.S. foreign aid totals, but it is funded by American taxpayers. Since its inception in 1988, the Arrow program has cost the United States over $653 million, and U.S. officials have promised Israel at least another $711.3 million through FY2001. (For a complete breakdown of U.S. aid to Israel's Arrow program, see the October/November 1995 Washington Report, p. 12.) The money comes from the budgets of the U.S. Air Force and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and, with the exception of $97.9 million of Israel's "share" paid with U.S. FMS aid money, all of the Arrow's costs to the United States are in addition to Israel's portion of the U.S. foreign aid budget. Israel 's lobbyists argue that the Arrow should not be considered "foreign aid" because it is an example of U.S.-Israeli "strategic cooperation" and both sides benefit from the project. That is nonsense. The Pentagon has made it clear that it has no intention of buying the Arrow, a relatively low-technology ATBM unsuited for U.S. defense needs. Further, the transfer of technology in the Arrow program is decidedly one-way: from the United States to Israel . It took significant amounts of U.S.-origin technology and technical guidance to get the Arrow off the ground. Arrow advocates maintain that the technology developed by Israel for use in the Arrow's seeker, the device which tracks ballistic missiles, aided in the development of the U.S. Army's high-technology Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. No one, however, is willing to argue that the money spent in Israel on the Arrow program produced better results for U.S. theater missile defense systems than would have been produced by the same amount of U.S. money spent in the United States . Pentagon funds also go to Israel via U.S. purchases of Israeli-produced or co-produced military hardware. If these American purchases from Israel were used to offset the cost of Israeli military purchases from the U.S. , it might be considered a normal two-way relationship. Instead, Israel uses its FMS appropriations from the U.S. foreign aid budget for its purchases from the U.S. , and the U.S. uses Department of Defense funds for its purchases from Israel . U.S. taxpayers foot the bill for both sides of the two-way trade, but only the Israeli purchases show up in the published totals of U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign aid. Thus U.S. taxpayers fund the export of U.S. jobs to Israel , since all of the military equipment the U.S. government purchases there also could be purchased from U.S. manufacturers. Over the past decade the Pentagon has provided funds for research and development and/or purchase of Israeli-made mortar shells, external fuel tanks for CH-53 helicopters, night-vision equipment, external fuel tanks for F-15 fighter aircraft, rear stabilizers for F-16 multi-role aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), tank armor upgrades, air-to-ground missiles, attack helicopter targeting systems, a television weapons sighting system, communications equipment and two experimental laser programs. The Pentagon's FY96 appropriations bill, for example, authorizes $20 million for the Hunter UAV (co-produced by Israel); $39 million for the AGM-142 HAVE-NAP air-to-ground missile; $14 million for reactive tank armor upgrades; $38 million for AH-1 Cobra attack helicopter night-targeting systems; an unspecified amount for the Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS) and $5 million for the Nautilus laser program. Congress's decision to include these items in the Pentagon's funding authorization earned it praise from Israel 's principal Washington , D.C. lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The Aug. 14, 1995 Near East Report, a biweekly newsletter published by AIPAC, praised individual congressional committee members by name for their role in promoting this Pentagon-funded "U.S.-Israeli Strategic Cooperation." The Immigration and Naturalization Service also purchases equipment from an Israeli company. In November 1995, INS officials announced that the Israeli Elbit firm will supply the U.S. border patrol with 500 long-range infrared surveillance systems over five years for a total cost of $17 million. This contract, which is similar to those arranged by the Pentagon, would have to be placed with American companies if the U.S. "Buy American" act were enforced. Instead, Israeli firms have been exempted by Congress from that piece of U.S. legislation and therefore are allowed to compete with American companies for U.S. government contracts. The Department of Commerce budget also contains funds for Israel 's use which appear nowhere in U.S. foreign aid totals. One example is joint sponsorship of the U.S.-Israeli Science and Technology Commission for which, in FY95, the Department of Commerce provided $5 million. Pending legislation for FY96 requests an additional $2.5 million. This money funds joint technological research by the U.S. and Israeli private sectors. Preferential Treatment for Israel Not only has tiny Israel been the recipient of the largest share of U.S. foreign aid for many years, it also receives its aid from the United States on uniquely friendly terms. Many congressionally mandated benefits to Israel are applicable to no other recipient nation in the world. One example is in the way its ESF funds are disbursed. Unlike all other U.S. foreign aid recipient countries, which receive their funds on a quarterly basis, since 1982 Israel has received its annual foreign aid in one lump sum, usually paid by the end of the first month of the U.S. fiscal year. In order to provide the full amount to Israel in this manner, the United States government pays between $50 and $60 million in additional bank charges, which are not deducted from the money given to Israel . Israel then reinvests the aid money in U.S. Treasury notes, earning between $80 and $90 million in interest paid by U.S. taxpayers. The importance to Israel of this unique advance distribution arrangement was highlighted during the recent dispute over anti-abortion language added to the foreign aid bill by pro-life members of Congress. Because President Clinton refused to sign the bill as it was submitted to him, the impasse held up the distribution of Israel 's aid money. This led Israeli Ambassador to the United States Itamar Rabinovich to complain about the delay. "The longer we have the money the more interest we earn," he explained. No one in the U.S. government dared to point out that "the longer the U.S. delays in providing the money to Israel the less the U.S. taxpayer has to pay in interest." Another benefit Israel receives, along with several other FMS recipients including Egypt , is cash flow financing, which allows Israel to pay only the current-year charges for multi-year FMS contracts. Other countries that purchase defense items over an extended period of time are required to set the total amount of the contract aside in their FMS account. Israel pays only the required installment for that year, which analysts say creates a commitment on the part of the United States government to furnish more aid during the following years to pay for the already agreed-to contracts. Israel also enjoys considerable latitude in its FMS account. In purely commercial contracts it is common for purchasers to negotiate price offsets based on the incorporation of technology from the purchasing country into the foreign item to be purchased. In FMS contracts, however, the intention is to provide customers for U.S. defense companies, and offsets are not allowed in items purchased with FMS funds,except, of course, in the case of Israel . Unlike any other country receiving U.S. FMS credits, Israel can negotiate with U.S. defense companies for offsets from its own (and largely U.S.-subsidized) defense industry, thereby lowering the cost of the items it purchases and providing jobs for Israelis by reducing jobs in the American companies providing military goods and services to Israel. Israeli Violations of U.S. Law Despite the remarkably generous treatment given to Israel by the United States government, Israel consistently has abused its relationship with Washington and has shown blatant disregard for U.S. laws. There are two important conditions for receiving U.S. military aid that Israel has violated repeatedly. Under the Arms Export Control Act, military hardware provided by FMS funds can be used only for defensive purposes or to maintain internal security. Israel violated this agreement during its 1982 invasion of Lebanon when it used U.S.-made cluster bombs against both military and civilian targets in Lebanon . In response, Congress suspended the sale of cluster bombs to Israel , a ban that remains in effect today. In reality, however, Congress suspended only the sale of cluster bomb casings to Israel , not the bomb components themselves. Now Israel manufactures its own casings, and procures the rest of the cluster bomb components from the United States . So far this circumvention of U.S. law has not been challenged. The most egregious allegations of abuse of the U.S.-Israeli relationship by Israel have arisen from illegal transfers of U.S. technology from Israel to third countries. According to the Arms Export Control Act, Israel is forbidden from retransferring U.S.-origin defense items to third parties without the permission of the United States government. However, according to officials in the U.S. intelligence community, the Pentagon and the State Department, Israel has or may have retransferred sensitive U.S. technology to Ethiopia (during the reign of a communist government there), South Africa (during the apartheid era), Chile , Venezuela and communist China . Among the items allegedly transferred were the Patriot theater ballistic missile defense system and the largely U.S.-funded Lavi next generation fighter (see the January 1996 Washington Report, p. 12, for the Lavi; September 1995 Washington Report, p. 8, for Israel 's retransfer of U.S. technology). Israel's retransfer of U.S. defense technology, virtually all of which is provided to Israel by U.S. taxpayers, threatens U.S. national security, creates unfair competition for U.S. defense firms, and has strengthened regimes guilty of serious human rights abuses or actively working against U.S. national interests. Israel 's supporters in Congress, however, do not seem to care. At least nine reports of Israel 's illegal retransfer of U.S. defense items have been given to Congress, including two in January 1995. None has had a discernible impact on Israel 's retransfer policies. Israel continues to receive massive amounts of U.S. aid and then derives additional profits from that aid by breaking the conditions of U.S. aid agreements in ways that export more U.S. jobs and threaten the security interests of the United States . Israel 's Economy Supporters of foreign aid in general and aid to Israel in particular argue that America 's foreign aid program is a necessary component of its foreign policy. In many cases foreign aid can be justified either on the basis of the recipient's need, the benefits to the United States from providing that aid, or both. Israel , however, does not meet either of these criteria. In 1995, Israel 's per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the value of a nation's annual production divided by the number of its citizens, exceeded $14,000, placing it above that of Spain and approaching that of England . Israel , as Israeli minister without portfolio Yossi Beilin recently pointed out, "is not a poor country." Why so much aid then? Since Israel is not a needy country, the secondary justification for aid, that a country or countries are so valuable to the donor that aid is justified, generally is invoked in the case of Israel . Israel 's lobbyists and supporters emphasize Israel 's role as a "strategic asset" and its importance to the United States based on their "special relationship." The former argument was not valid even during the Cold War, when U.S. support of Israel was exploited by the Soviet Union to garner allies throughout the Middle East among countries that had no conflict with the U.S. but were bitterly opposed to Israeli occupation of Arab lands. That Israel remains a strategic liability in the Middle East was vividly demonstrated during the Gulf war. Then and now U.S. government officials privately expressed anger over the economic and military bonuses demanded by Israel for staying out of the war. These included $700 million in military hardware, a $300 million addition to the U.S. military stockpile in Israel and $650 million in extra economic support funds for FY91. The so-called "special relationship" between the United States and Israel is, in fact, a domestic political arrangement whereby lobbying organizations in the United States, directed by the Israeli government, and a network of political action committees established and, to a large extent, directed by that lobby, reward presidential candidates and members of Congress for continuing massive amounts of U.S. aid to Israel while simultaneously ignoring massive violations of U.S. laws. At the same time that Congress and the president are locked in a titanic struggle over the size, shape and direction of the federal budget, they have openly agreed, without debate, that in the 1996 fiscal year alone, Amrican taxpayers will provide Israel $3.5053 billion ($3,505,300,000) in U.S. grants and $2 billion in loan guarantees (see table), and they have quietly pledged continued aid at similar levels in the future. | |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
