THE LIBERAL VOICE

New Jewish lobby hits Washington scene

UN war crimes report is a new threat to Israel - The National Newspaper

UN war crimes report is a new threat to Israel - The National Newspaper Shared via AddThis

Israelis restrict Palestinians' water supply

Homeless in East Jerusalem

On August 2nd, Israeli riot and border police evicted two Palestinian families from their homes in East Jerusalem, claiming the land on which their houses were built belongs to Jews. The court ruling was the result of a Jewish settlers' association claiming there were Jewish inhabitants in the region in the 1930s. The Real News spoke to the evicted families, and to Stephen Lendman, Research Associate at the Center for Research on Globalization about whether the same could happen to Jewish families.

Bio

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization. He writes extensively on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and co-hosts the Global Research Newshour radio show, dealing with various political issues of our times.

Open Thread from The Electronic Intifadah

Electronic Intifada: Obama should visit Gaza

Medea Benjamin, The Electronic Intifada

Gaza
Originally uploaded by NymphoBrainiac

But the administration has said almost nothing about the devastating Israeli invasion of Gaza that left more than 1,400 dead, including some 400 children. To many in the Middle East, this is an unfortunate continuation of past policies that condemn the loss of innocent Israeli lives, but refuse to speak out against the disproportionately greater loss of Palestinian lives at the hands of the Israeli military.

Read full Article

 

Will Obama Break the Law for Israel's Sake?

by Grant F. Smith

Global Research,      www.antiwar.com

 

Since entering office, President Barack Obama has promised sweeping changes in three aspects of governance: transparency, law enforcement, and stewardship of American tax dollars. For a public weary of law enforcement forever prosecuting street but never elite crime, Obama's many statements about holding all individuals accountable under the law have been encouraging.

He also called for government-agency compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in a White House mandate for transparency. Obama swore any bailouts of financial institutions and industries will hereafter avoid secretly funneling taxpayer funds into bloated Wall Street bonuses, executive junkets, and private jets.

But does Obama intend to follow these rules himself? Probably not. Obama's entire facade momentarily crumbled under a single withering question – "Do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?" – launched by veteran reporter Helen Thomas during the president's first evening press conference on Feb. 9, 2008. Obama dodged the substance of the question:

"With respect to nuclear weapons, I don't want to speculate. What I know is this: that if we see a nuclear arms race in a region as volatile as the Middle East, everybody will be in danger. And one of my goals is to prevent nuclear proliferation generally, I think that it's important for the United States in concert with Russia to lead the way on this, and I've mentioned this in conversations with the Russian president, Mr. Medvedev, to let him know that it is important for us to restart the conversations about how we can start reducing our nuclear arsenals in an effective way, so that we then have the standing to go to other countries to start stitching back together the nonproliferation treaties that frankly have been weakened over the last several years."

The evasion inherent in Obama's reply coupled with actions already taken may reveal the new administration's true framework for Middle East policy: deception, wastefulness, and lawlessness.

Fortunately, Americans don't need Barack Obama to "speculate" on what former President Jimmy Carter already confirmed on May 25, 2008: Israel possesses an arsenal of at least 150 nuclear weapons. Why does Obama trot out the discredited policy of "strategic ambiguity" – in which Israeli and U.S. officials officially refuse to confirm or deny the existence Israeli nuclear weapons – at this early moment? For one reason alone: to break the law. The 1976 Symington Amendment prohibits most U.S. foreign aid to any country found trafficking in nuclear enrichment equipment or technology outside international safeguards.

Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). If U.S. presidents complied with the Symington Amendment, they would not deliver yearly aid packages to Israel totaling billions of dollars. Presidents make-believe that Israeli nuclear weapons don't exist so Congress can legally continue shoveling the lion's share of the U.S. foreign aid budget to Israel. But this thin pretense is now over. Since Carter's revelation, press outlets such as Reuters chat openly about how Israel's nukes mean that it does not qualify for U.S. aid.

But like Harry Markopolos incessantly nagging the SEC about Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, fourth-estate and nuclear-activist calls for compliance continue to be rebuffed by government agencies. Denying Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests about Israeli nukes has always been an integral tactic in preserving this hoary old ruse.

The National Security Archive at George Washington University has doggedly pursued public release of key CIA files about Israel's nuclear weapons programs under the FOIA. The Archive has so far obtained "only a small fraction of a large body of documents … that remain classified." Keeping all kinds of damning information bottled up was a special priority during the George W. Bush administration, whose FOIA policy was to find reasons not to release documents.

As Obama backtracks on transparency – as he must if he fully commits to the policy of "strategic ambiguity" – researchers will have to wait at least another eight years for documents already long overdue for public release. That could be very dangerous.

Placing declassified documents about Israeli nuclear capabilities on the table as part of U.S.-Iranian and other regional diplomatic and academic relations is the only way to prepare for good-faith negotiations. Iran is a signatory to the NPT and allows public inspections of its civilian nuclear facilities, though many doggedly insist without hard evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. U.S. policymakers will continue to have a difficult time convincing the public and allies that newer, tougher approaches are needed against Iran if the U.S. continues to avoid discussing Israeli nukes.

Regional and American negotiators must be armed with enough facts to address whether Israel's military belligerence, coupled with a nuclear arsenal, is motivating others to seek the nuclear deterrents. Obama appears to be committing to Israeli regional nuclear hegemony rather than addressing it as a proliferation-driver. If this seems far-fetched, consider that Obama has already reauthorized a quiet blockade of Iran begun during the Bush administration.

George W. Bush responded to Israel lobby pressure to target Iran by creating a new U.S. Treasury Department unit by executive order in 2004. The secretive Office of Terrorist and Financial Intelligence (TFI) delivers most of its public briefings at an AIPAC-sponsored think-tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and even contracts the think-tankers for "consulting." Like other agencies during the Bush presidency, TFI denied FOIA requests [.pdf] for detailed information about its activities, but it is known to be targeting commercial shippers, international banks, and companies that do business with Iran.

Clearly, if this quiet commercial and financial blockade were being waged by some powerful foreign entity against the United States, Americans would consider it a casus belli. But rather than slow or shut the operation down in preparation for promised attempts at U.S.-Iran diplomacy, Obama's new Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner recently announced that Stuart Levey will continue to lead this financial blockade unit at Treasury. This particular clandestine operations component of Obama's Middle East policy may soon spark a senseless military conflict with Iran, but perhaps that's the plan.

Obama's policy, if honestly verbalized, may be the following: As your president, I will continue to deceive you about Israeli nuclear weapons, so that my administration can violate the Symington Amendment and deliver unwarranted amounts of taxpayer dollars to Israel. My administration will negotiate in bad faith with Iran while clandestinely attacking it, in order to preserve Israeli nuclear hegemony in the Middle East.

For Americans impoverished in both reputation and wallet by years of corruption and waning rule of law, such a crass public admission would be refreshing. But is not change we can believe in.

                                         © Copyright Grant F. Smith, antiwar.com, 2009

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12270

Gaza New Siege Mechanism

End the Seige of Gaza, London, England
Originally uploaded by elatawiec62

by Nicola Nasser
Global Research

The rebuilding of Gaza has become the latest siege weapon. The Israeli occupation, the US that had backed its offensive, and the EU which did nothing to stop it are conspiring to turn the reconstruction process into a means to produce a suitable "peace partner" while the Arab summit in Kuwait hopes to use it to bring about Palestinian reconciliation. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority (PA) government is urging all parties and others to look to it as the sole channel for administering the construction process on the grounds that it is the government formed by the Palestine Liberation Organisation that is recognised as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Soon we will see that freezing reconstruction will become the tool of all those parties for extracting from the resistance what they have been unable to gain from three weeks of warfare and the long blockade that preceded it.

Israel, the occupying power, is determined to keep a tight grip on the reconstruction process, which is why it sustained its closure of the border crossing following its "unilateral" ceasefire. Indeed, this is why it declared the ceasefire unilaterally: it did not want to be bound by any agreement -- the Egyptian initiative or any other framework -- that would oblige it to lift the embargo, if only partially, in order to facilitate reconstruction. Tel Aviv has also been seeking to obtain "guarantees" from international agencies such as UNWRA. On 19 January Reuters reported that Western diplomats revealed that Israel had asked the UN and other agencies to submit itemised lists of the goods, equipment and staff that they intend to send into Gaza, whether for urgent relief or for the more long-term reconstruction process. According to these sources, Israel plans to keep close tabs on these processes by insisting that the various agencies obtain its approval in advance for every project. One of the conditions for that approval will be that the project will not benefit Hamas or its government in Gaza. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has appointed Social Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog as coordinator of the Gaza reconstruction drive.

The US not only fully supports Israel on this; it is open about using the reconstruction process to help the PA reassert its authority and influence in Gaza. The EU is equally frank in its approval. EU External Relations Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner made clear that the EU would not contribute to reconstruction unless Gaza produced a viable peace partner and that it would not make aid available to a government led by Hamas. A high-level European diplomat was reported by Reuters as saying that this was "a recipe for failure". "Let's be realistic. If the PA is going to be responsible, its leadership and institutions have to exist on the ground. Right now none of that does," he said.

It is patently clear that to Tel Aviv, Washington and Brussels the assertion of PA rule over Gaza is the strongest argument for holding off reconstruction as a Damocles sword over Gaza, and for the occupying power this condition is its strongest "guarantee" for sustaining its grip on that sword. The fear now is that Israel and the international powers that have helped it to perpetuate its occupation since 1967 will use a Palestinian façade buttressed by official Arab support to stage a repeat in Gaza of the Iraq experience in the wake of the 1991 war when reconstruction and development were perpetually deferred in order to further weaken the country preparatory to toppling the regime through the invasion that took place in 2003. It may or may not be a coincidence that the Israeli invasion of Gaza ended almost on the same date that the war against Iraq started 18 years ago. Nor does it bode well for the aftermath of a "regime change" scenario in Gaza that Iraq's infrastructure today, six days after the Saddam regime was toppled, is worse than it was beforehand.

The attempt to engineer such a scenario can be seen in PA President Mahmoud Abbas's appeal to the Arab summit last week to channel the reconstruction process through the PA and its institutions, an appeal echoed by World Bank President Robert Zoellick who met with Abbas on the fringes of the summit in Kuwait. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and other Western leaders had proposed creating a temporary international committee to oversee the funding and organisation of the reconstruction effort. However, Abbas and his supporters rejected such a mechanism on the grounds that "it presumes that the separation between Gaza and the West Bank will continue," as acting PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad put it, adding that international donors who are eager to reconstruct Gaza "will risk deepening the Palestinian division by ignoring the role of the PA".

The PA's stance, if followed, would condemn Arab pledges made in Kuwait -- as well as any pledges made in a possible international conference on the reconstruction of Gaza called for by Egypt, the PA and the EU president -- to remain pending until such time as a "viable peace partner" secures a steady seat in Gaza.

Although the participants at the Kuwaiti summit stressed the need for the reconstruction of Gaza in principle, they failed to reach an agreement over the mechanism. Differences between leaders obstructed a proposal to create a reconstruction fund and the most participants managed to agree upon was to make reconstruction contingent upon Palestinian reconciliation, a task they designated to Arab foreign ministers without setting a date or place for a ministerial meeting for this purpose, leaving us with the question as to when and how Arab ministers are to succeed where their heads of state failed.

Of course this procrastination through delegating makes the pledge to reconstruct Gaza barely worth the paper it was written on and will probably consign it to the same oblivion fated for so many other Arab summit resolutions. One of those forgotten resolutions was that adopted by the emergency Arab summit in Cairo in October 2000 calling for the creation of an Al-Aqsa and Jerusalem Fund for the purpose of reconstructing Palestinian infrastructure, especially in the sectors of healthcare, education, agriculture and housing. Apparently Arab leaders in Kuwait did not wish to recall that that resolution did not restrict the distribution of funds through the channel of the PA but also provided for other channels such as UNWRA, the Egyptian and Qatari Red Crescents, the Jordanian Royal Philanthropic Organisation, the UN Arab Gulf Programme and other such regional and international humanitarian agencies. Perhaps, too, they did not want to remind anyone that when that earlier resolution was passed there was no "Hamas problem" behind which are hiding those who do not really want to reconstruct the occupied territories, whether in Gaza or in the West Bank.

The underlying reason why the Al-Aqsa and Jerusalem Fund was not adopted by the Kuwaiti summit as a mechanism for the reconstruction of Gaza is that the urgent humanitarian mission has been politicised whereas it should remain above the political fray between Palestinians, Arabs, foreign powers and everyone else whose voices are loud enough to drown out the appeals of those in need. There is nothing to debate about humanitarian relief. The Israeli offensive destroyed all the civil infrastructure of the government in Gaza on the grounds that it served as bases for Hamas whereas in fact it was PA infrastructure paid for by taxpayers in donor countries. Whole residential quarters were flattened, totally destroying 4,000 homes and severely damaging around 16,000 more. There are now some 100,000 civilians in urgent need of shelter, temporarily accommodated in some 12 refuges opened by UNWRA in schools that were also targeted by Israeli guns and therefore need to be repaired as well. In addition, agricultural land ruined by bombardment has to be reclaimed, potable water needs to be supplied to half a million Palestinians, electricity has to be restored to about the same number of people, and about 80 per cent of the inhabitants of Gaza are in urgent need of food relief (these are all UN estimates). Any political argument for postponing such urgent aid is morally outrageous.

The Israeli list of "prohibited materials" even before its offensive includes such items as iron, steel and cement, which are now absolutely vital to reconstruction. UN Commissioner for Humanitarian Affairs John Holmes pointed out this self-evident truth in a statement last Tuesday saying that if Israel refuses to allow in construction materials reconstruction cannot begin.

It is equally obvious that to adopt the PA as the sole channel for reconstruction financing is to effectively allow the occupying power, which destroyed Gaza, to supervise reconstruction. It is hardly possible to expect the PA, which is at Israel's every beck and call, to independently and effectively manage the reconstruction process by remote control from Ramallah, let alone release funding for projects without Israel's prior approval. Remember that President Abbas, himself, pleaded the difficulty of obtaining an Israeli exit permit on short notice as the reason he did not appear at the Doha summit on Gaza, according to Qatari Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Sheikh Hamed Ben Jasem Al Thani. Also, only two months ago, Abbas's government in Ramallah could not disburse salaries to some 70,000 PA government employees who are believed paid to stay home because of the internal Palestinian rift. If, as acting Prime Minister Fayyad repeats on every occasion, the PA is unable to deliver the budgetary allocation to Gaza, which is about half of its total budget, how can that government be relied upon to deliver the funds that have been pledged -- or will be pledged -- for reconstruction?

Kuwait, for one, acted correctly when instead of waiting for the Arab summit to reach an agreement it donated $34 million directly to UNRWA. Similarly, Norway donated 20 million kroner to organisations capable of reaching civilians directly in Gaza, such as the International Red Cross. Such noble examples confirm the existence of practical, serious channels for meeting urgent humanitarian needs. These should not be made pawn to the demand for the arrival of a Palestinian "peace partner" to Gaza, contrary to the insistence of PA Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki in Kuwait that everything had to be coordinated with the PA "in all fields" before beginning the relief and reconstruction process. If that demand is met, nothing could be more guaranteed to subject the reconstruction process to the whims of the occupying power and turn it into another way to besiege Gaza in order to bring it to its knees.

                        © Copyright Nicola Nasser, Global Research, 2009

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12140 

An assault on the peace process:

Donald Macintyre      The Independent UK

Israeli forces forces used aerial bombing, tank shelling and armoured bulldozers to eliminate the productive capacity of some of Gaza's most important manufacturing plants during their 22 days of military action in the Gaza Strip.

The attacks, like those which destroyed an estimated 20,000 homes leaving some residential areas resembling an earthquake zone and more than 50,000 people in temporary shelters, destroyed or severely damaged 219 factories, Palestinian industrialists say. CLICK HERE FOR FULL ARTICLE

Obama's New Middle East Policy: Israel’s Right to “Defend Itself”

gaza strip
Originally uploaded by ๛mitsukai๛

by Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh
Global Research

In naming George Mitchell as special envoy to the Middle East, President Obama unfortunately made statements indicating no departure from the failing policies of previous administrations. In particular Obama emphasized Israel’s right to “defend itself”, never once mentioned things like the occupation or International law, attacked Hamas (a duly elected movement that represents a significant portion of the Palestinian people), supported the strangulation of Gaza, demanded no resistance from an occupied people, and supported the Israeli occupiers in their violence that most recently killed over 400 children. This logic has been tried before including under the “aggressive diplomacy” of Bill Clinton and has yielded only a strengthening of Hamas, weakening of Fatah, continued Israeli colonization on Palestinian lands, and setting the stage for future conflicts. Further, such approach is even more untenable now after the setback of the June 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon and the current war on Gaza.

As articulated well by President Jimmy Carter, it is wrong to frame this conflict simply as “democratic Israel” facing “terrorist groups like Hamas” and it is wrong to continue to fund Israeli wars while claiming to be an “honest broker.” It is analogous to describing the struggles in South Africa in the 1980s as “democratic South Africa” facing off against “terrorist groups like the ANC” (actually that was President Reagan’s framing in his first term in office as he supported Apartheid). Yes, some members of the ANC did use terror (including “necklacing” or burning their rivals alive) but that was miniscule compared to the state terrorism and apartheid they faced. The US cannot be an honest broker so long as the US government continues to:

a) Give billions in military aid to Israel that is used to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity (see human rights reports on the recent Gaza aggression including use of White Phosphorus and DIME weapons).

b) Use its veto power and diplomatic muscle to shield Israel from International Law and Human Rights obligations

c) Demand that Hamas accepts Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence, and abide by previous agreements (that they did not sign) while they US refuses to demand the same from Israel. Why not insist that Israel recognize Palestine’s right to exist (or at least Palestinian right to true independence on the land that Israel has been stealing since 1947 partition resolution). Why not ask Israel to renounce violence and why not demand it abide by the signed agreements (e.g. freezing settlement activities, opening borders, allowing freedom of movement etc.).

Both Palestinians and Israelis have work to do but one cannot equate the nuclear armed 4th strongest army in the world with a dispossessed and occupied people (2/3rds of the 10 million Palestinians in the world are refugees or displaced people). It is ironic that Mr. Obama talks about Israel’s need for security when in three weeks 1300 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces (most of them civilians, over 400 children) while in the same period 13 Israelis (10 of whom soldiers) were killed by Hamas! It is more ironic that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert interrupted President Bush while the latter is giving a lecture and instructed him to stop Condoleeza Rice from going along with the UN resolution (per Olmert testimony) when Bush continued to read a story to schoolchildren when told that America was under attack on 9/11!

If we truly want to advance peace in this area to promote US national interest, President Obama and Secretary Clinton would do well to stop parroting Bush, shift US policy to neutrality instead of always taking the side of Israel, and simply instruct Mitchell to insist that all people and countries comply with International law and human rights. This would mean ending the Israeli occupation that started in 1967 and respecting basic human rights like the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands. We can even start simpler by immediately endorsing the 2002 Arab peace initiative (it won’t be on the table for too long), accept and deal with a unity Palestinian government (which must include Hamas and Fatah), and engage in serious negotiations based on International law. With Obama’s popularity and people’s interest in real change, it is even more doable than when President Eisenhower called the Israeli Prime Minister and successfully demanded that Israel withdraw its occupation forces from the Sinai and the Gaza Strip in 1956. Obama has the power to reclaim that legacy of US independence and leadership and truly change the future of the Middle East. Otherwise, it might be better if George Mitchell not waste any taxpayer money trying the same failed and biased approaches that threaten US national interests in that vital part of the world. 

                                © Copyright Mazin Qumsiyeh, Global Research, 2009

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11966  

Dr. Qumsiyeh is a Palestinian-American Professor at Bethlehem University, Chairman of the Board of the Palestinian Center for Rapprochement Between People, and author of “Sharing the Land of Canaan: Human Rights and the Israeli-Palestinian Struggle” (website http://qumsiyeh.org)