US SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL

"Our difficulty … derives very largely from the fact that the Arabs believe that the United States, when it confronts problems which relate to Israel, is in the last analysis dominated by domestic political considerations"

- John Foster Dulles, Former US Secretary of State,   24th February 1956

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

- Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3rd 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

" 'I truly tell you: we have before us today an opportunity for peace which time will never repeat and we must seize it if we are really serious in struggling for peace. If we weaken or fritter away this opportunity we shall end in a new blood-bath; he who has conspired to lose it will have the curse of humanity and history on his head. '

Mr. Speaker, these are the words Anwar Sadat spoke to the Israeli Knesset in 1977. Sadat, like Yitzak Rabin, paid the highest personal price for peace. Let us remember these words and these brave men, and champion efforts to bring about a just and lasting peace. Let¹s be on the right side of history. Vote down this resolution, and support the Administration¹s efforts to solve this conflict and bring peace to this troubled land."

- Statement of the Honorable John D. Dingell in Opposition to House  Resolution. 392 [Support U.S. Efforts to End Violence and Broker Peace] 2nd May 2002

The Solution Is The Problem
The US presents itself as the peace-broker in the Middle East.  The reality is different
by
Noam Chomsky
The Guardian (UK)
May 11, 2002

A year ago, the Hebrew University sociologist Baruch Kimmerling observed that "what we feared has come true - War appears an unavoidable fate", an "evil colonial" war. His colleague Ze'ev Sternhell noted that the Israeli leadership was now engaged in "colonial policing, which recalls the takeover by the white police of the poor neighbourhoods of the blacks in South Africa during the apartheid era". Both stress the obvious: there is no symmetry between the "ethno-national groups" in this conflict, which is centred in territories that have been under harsh military occupation for 35 years.

The Oslo "peace process", begun in 1993, changed the modalities of the occupation, but not the basic concept. Shortly before joining the Ehud Barak government, historian Shlomo Ben-Ami wrote that "the Oslo agreements were founded on a neo-colonialist basis, on a life of dependence of one on the other forever". He soon became an architect of the US-Israel proposals at Camp David in 2000, which kept to this condition. At the time, West Bank Palestinians were confined to 200 scattered areas. Bill Clinton and Israeli prime minister Barak did propose an improvement: consolidation to three cantons, under Israeli control, virtually separated from one another and from the fourth enclave, a small area of East Jerusalem, the centre of Palestinian communications. The fifth canton was Gaza. It is understandable that maps are not to be found in the US mainstream. Nor is their prototype, the Bantustan "homelands" of apartheid South Africa, ever mentioned.

No one can seriously doubt that the US role will continue to be decisive. It is crucial to understand what that role has been, and how it is internally perceived. The version of the doves is presented by the editors of the New York Times, praising President Bush's "path-breaking speech" and the "emerging vision" he articulated. Its first element is "ending Palestinian terrorism" immediately. Some time later comes "freezing, then rolling back, Jewish settlements and negotiating new borders" to allow the establishment of a Palestinian state. If Palestinian terror ends, Israelis will be encouraged to "take the Arab League's historic offer of full peace and recognition in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal more seriously". But first Palestinian leaders must demonstrate that they are "legitimate diplomatic partners".

The real world has little resemblance to this self-serving portrayal -virtually copied from the 1980s, when the US and Israel were desperately seeking to evade PLO offers of negotiation and political settlement. In the real world, the primary barrier to the "emerging vision" has been, and remains, unilateral US rejectionism. There is little new in the current "Arab League's historic offer".

It repeats the basic terms of a security council resolution of January 1976 which called for a political settlement on the internationally recognised borders "with appropriate arrangements .. to guarantee ... the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of all states in the area". This was backed by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states and the PLO but opposed by Israel and vetoed by the US, thereby vetoing it from history. Similar initiatives have since been blocked by the US and mostly suppressed in public commentary.

Not surprisingly, the guiding principle of the occupation has been incessant humiliation. Israeli plans for Palestinians have followed the guidelines formulated by Moshe Dayan, one of the Labour leaders more sympathetic to the Palestinian plight. Thirty years ago Dayan advised the cabinet that Israel should make it clear to refugees that "we have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave". When challenged, he responded by citing Ben-Gurion, who said that "whoever approaches the Zionist problem from a moral aspect is not a Zionist". He could have also cited Chaim Weizmann, first president of Israel, who held that the fate of the "several hundred thousand negroes" in the Jewish homeland "is a matter of no consequence".

The Palestinians have long suffered torture, terror, destruction of property, displacement and settlement, and takeover of basic resources, crucially water. These policies have relied on decisive US support and European acquiescence. "The Barak government is leaving Sharon's government a surprising legacy," the Israeli press reported as the transition took place: "the highest number of housing starts in the territories since Ariel Sharon was minister of construction and settlement in 1992 before the Oslo agreements" - funding provided by the American taxpayer. It is regularly claimed that all peace proposals have been undermined by Arab refusal to accept the existence of Israel (the facts are quite different), and by terrorists like Arafat who have forfeited "our trust". How that trust may be regained is explained by Edward Walker, a Clinton Middle East adviser: Arafat must announce that "we put our future and fate in the hands of the US" - which has led the campaign to undermine Palestinian rights for 30 years.

The basic problem then, as now, traces back to Washington, which has persistently backed Israel's rejection of a political settlement in terms of the broad international consensus. Current modifications of US rejectionism are tactical. With plans for an attack on Iraq endangered, the US permitted a UN resolution calling for Israeli withdrawal from the newly-invaded territories "without delay" - meaning "as soon as possible", secretary of state Colin Powell explained at once. Powell's arrival in Israel was delayed to allow the Israeli Defence Force to continue its destructive operations, facts hard to miss and confirmed by US officials.

When the current intifada broke out, Israel used US helicopters to attack civilian targets, killing and wounding dozens of Palestinians, hardly in self-defence. Clinton responded by arranging what the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz called "the largest purchase of military helicopters by the Israeli Air Force in a decade", along with spare parts for Apache attack helicopters. A few weeks later, Israel began to use US helicopters for assassinations. These extended last August to the first assassination of a political leader: Abu Ali Mustafa. That passed in silence, but the reaction was quite different when Israeli cabinet minister Rehavam Ze'evi was killed in retaliation. Bush is now praised for arranging the release of Arafat from his dungeon in return for US-UK supervision of the accused assassins of Ze'evi. It is inconceivable that there should be any effort to punish those responsible for the Mustafa assassination.

Further contributions to enhancing terror took place last December, when Washington again vetoed a security council resolution calling for dispatch of international monitors. Ten days earlier, the US boycotted an international conference in Geneva that once again concluded that the fourth Geneva convention applies to the occupied territories, so that many US-Israeli actions there are "grave breaches", hence serious war crimes. As a "high contracting party", the US is obligated by solemn treaty to prosecute those responsible for such crimes, including its own leadership. Accordingly, all of this passes in silence.

But the US has not officially withdrawn its recognition that the conventions apply to the occupied territories, or its censure of Israeli violations as the "occupying power". In October 2000 the security council reaffirmed the consensus, "call[ing] on Israel, the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations..." The vote was 14-0. Clinton abstained.

Until such matters are permitted to enter mainstream discussion in the US, and their implications understood, it is meaningless to call for "US engagement in the peace process", and prospects for constructive action will remain grim.

A longer version of this article appears in Red Pepper: http://www.redpepper.org.uk/

The Israeli Lobby is America's Third Party
by
Ahmed Amr
Palestine Chronicle
June 06 2002

In 1956, as Eisenhower was campaigning for his second term in the White House, his Secretary of State appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to discuss the Arab/Israeli conflict.

Kieth Kyle, the author of 'Suez', records that John Foster Dulles was 'given a sharp reminder of the domestic political dimensions of his problem' and was 'subjected to several hours of questioning. Much of it, from such pro-Zionist Democrats as Wayne Morse of Oregon and Hubert Humphery of Minnesota, was of a hostile and sardonic nature.'

Dulles responded to the Senators with a remark that still rings true today. "Our difficulty … derives very largely from the fact that the Arabs believe that the United States, when it confronts problems which relate to Israel, is in the last analysis dominated by domestic political considerations". According to Kyle's well documented narrative, Dulles expressed the hope that 'in the pending political campaign the discussion will be on such a level as to dissipate the idea'.

These Senate hearings took place on February 24, 1956. Dulles was so irritated with the Zionist lobby that a few days later, on March 2, he took the extraordinary step of taking up the issue with Abba Eban, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States. Kyle narrates that in a 'bitter dressing down' of the Ambassador, the Secretary of State complained of 'the political campaign being waged by the Israelis against the administration … the paid advertisements, the mass meetings, the resolutions, the demands of Zionist organizations, the veiled threats of domestic political reprisals'.

Back in 1956, an American President could actually confront the Israeli Lobby and still win a second term in office. Today, the new political math in Washington allows Netenyahu, an Ex-Prime Minister of Israel, to publicly instruct Bush on how to properly apply the 'Bush doctrine'. And just to make sure the President learns his lessons well, Netenyahu can round up 98 Senators to his 'Amen corner'.

Over the course of the last five decades, the Israeli Lobby has grown in power to the extent that it now amounts to a third major party with a political program that rivals the agendas of both the Republicans and the Democrats. Like the other two contenders for political power, the party of the Israel Firsters has enhanced its stature by shifting alliances and wooing new constituents.

AIPAC, the umbrella group of 'official' pro-Israeli pressure groups, is but a small component of this major third force in the American political process. What the Israel Firsters lack in terms of an actual demographic voting constituency, they make up for by having a major stake in influential media monopolies.

Let us begin with the obvious links between the mass media titans and what is essentially an ethnic lobby. Mortimier Zuckerman, the President of Major American Jewish Organizations, publishes US World and News Report. William Safire of the New York Times publicly acknowledges doing public relations work for Ariel Sharon. Thomas Friedman has spent two decades sanitizing the criminal war record of both Begin and Sharon. Ted Koppel boasts of his personal friendship with Netenyahu. At CNN, Walter Isaccson appears to be coordinating coverage with the IDF. Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post likes to pose to the right of Netenyahu. Conrad Black, the Canadian media tycoon, publishes the Jerusalem Post, which reads like a semi-official publication of the IDF.

During the Clinton years, the keys at the State Department were handed over to operatives straight from the Israeli Lobby. Martin Indyk, former head of AIPAC was made ambassador to Israel. Dennis Ross, the 'mediator', also had ideological roots in the lobby. Eagleburger, Holbrooke and Albright are all dedicated Israel Firsters.

With the change in administration, a new batch of pro-Israeli activists moved into key positions. Ideologically, they pose as 'neo-conservatives'; a movement that even the New York Times reports is mostly Jewish. In fact, the proper definition of neo-conservative is an Israel Firster who wanted to be politically viable after the Reagan 'revolution'. To a large extent, the difference between 'neo' and the 'oldo' conservatives is the country they aspire to serve. The 'oldos' are America Fisters, while the 'neos' worship the 'old country', a mystical Yiddish supremacist apartheid state built on the ruins of Palestine on the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean.

In the last two decades, the Israeli Lobby has expanded its constituency to include a major new base among right wing Evangelicals who believe that Israel is always right. According to this very new and very American branch of Protestant Christianity, the bible says Israelis can kill and maim Palestinians, steal their land and place them under a constant stage of siege. Among the followers of this 'new religion' is one Richard Armey, the House Majority Leader, who has publicly advocated the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the West Bank. This new 'constituency for repression' believes that Israel has biblical sanction to administer collective punishment and torture, destroy personal and public property and generally make life miserable for the native people of the Holy Land.

It makes little difference to these 'Zionist Christians' that the community they seek to 'cleanse' includes the oldest Christian community in the world. And it matters even less to the Israel Firsters that their doctrines also predict the mass conversion of Jews and the end of times.

Today, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, ten million people are locked in a bitter struggle over land and destiny. Nearly half of the population between the river and the sea are native Palestinians. Their desperate cry for liberty is not only ignored by America, but tens of billions in United States tax revenues are spent to assist their tormentors. We have an American policy in the Middle East that serves the constituency of a third party that no American has ever voted for. It is an ethnic constituency that includes lunatic elements with visions of an apocalyptic end to our one common planet.

In the aftermath of the criminal assaults on America, we are long due for an investigation of the real cause of all our troubles with radicalized elements in the Middle East. Why is our Congress investigating the CIA, the FBI and the INS, when the real focus should be on the State Department and a catastrophic foreign policy that amounted to the appeasement of a belligerent foreign state run by war criminals? Why do we have an Israeli Lobby so powerful that it acts like a major political party and constantly tampers with our foreign policy to align it with the dictates of the Likudniks in Tel Aviv? What vital American national interest is served by the continued repression of the Palestinian people?

The deadly assaults against our shores on 911 could certainly have been avoided. But the notion that any American government would have sanctioned such an assault or been lax in attempting to stop it is a bit off the wall.

Yet, the fact remains that both the Clinton and Bush administrations were arrogant enough to take foreign policy risks to appease the constituency of the Israeli Lobby, the phantom third party that has come to dominate public discourse on foreign policy. It was common knowledge that there would be a price to pay for the Gulf War, the Saudi military bases, the murderous economic blockade of Iraq and the humiliating occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan. If there was an intelligence failure, it was a failure to properly assess the potential cost of our errant foreign policies.

Congress is now interrogating the intelligence community. I would rather that the intelligence community started interrogating Congress. Perhaps the INS should be called upon to sort out our governors and find out which ones deserve ID cards to properly identify them as members of the third party. But since Congress is the designated investigator, perhaps they should call for the State department to come clean with the American people.

How did so many members of the Israeli Lobby end up in such prominent positions at Foggy Bottom during the Clinton years? How many have found new homes in the Bush administration? Did they serve American interests or align themselves with Sharon's agenda? What measures can be taken to protect the State Department from the fundamentalist theology of the third party? Do certain ethnic publishers have an inordinate say in tailoring our policies in the Middle East and beyond? If Safire works for Sharon, should he still get a fair hearing with Colin Powell? I am certain that John Foster Dulles would have given a very candid response to all questions regarding the third party.

We are at a critical point in the history of the Republic and the world. It is essential that men of honor insist that proper scrutiny be paid to the third party. No rational discourse of the 911 disaster is possible without taking account of the ruthless nature of the operatives of the Israeli Lobby. Do not expect the New York Times, CNN or the Washington Post to instigate such a probe.

They are very much part of the problem. It will be left to the brave voices of the alternative press to lead the charge and uncover some very basic truths about 911. The good news is that none of this is rocket science and the public record will eventually be set straight. Congress can investigate now or be investigated later.

Mr. Amr is the Editor of NileMedia.com

Jerri Bird, President Partners for Peace
202-863-2951 W
202-554-2751 H
202-215-9057 Cell
pfp@igc.org

Foreign Service Article Documents Torture of American Citizens & State Department’s "Special Relationship" With Israel
By Israeli Authorities

June 7, Washington, DC - A stinging critique of Israel’s use of torture against American citizens of Palestinian descent and the State Department’s 30 year policy described as a "special relationship"with Israeli is documented in a lengthy article by Jerri Bird, President of Partners for Peace in the June issue of the Foreign Service Journal due to be released the week of June 10. Editors at the FSJ contacted the State Department and offered them the opportunity to write a rebuttal. They declined.

According to Ms. Bird, "Israel has repeatedly detained, tortured and incarcerated Americans of Arab origin, without suffering any sanctions or even a public reprimand from Washington."

Responding to a question in a April 2, 2002, press briefing, a State Department spokesman confirmed that Israel was holding at least 18 American citizens on "security" charges, and had detained at least 22 more since "the current violence began last fall." He also noted that "we have no way of knowing for certain the numbers of American citizens who may have been detained for short periods and released."

In addition, Israeli and international human rights organizations have gathered evidence that such prisoners are routinely denied family visits for long periods and deprived of access to legal counsel. Their interrogations routinely include torture. The Department of State Human Rights report has detailed these abuses for years.

Ms. Bird first learned of the detention and torture of American citizens in 1998, when the case of Hashem Mufleh was brought to her attention. He was an 18-year-old, third-generation American born in Albuquerque, New Mexico. After attending high school in the West Bank village where his grandmother lives, he went to Ben Gurion Airport together with his mother and brother to return to Albuquerque to attend university. Israeli authorities seized him at the airport.

Partners for Peace launched a nationwide effort to bring the facts of his situation to public attention. He was severely tortured and was jailed for more than a year before he was expelled from the country.

The article describes a number of cases of torture of American citizens including the case of Anwar Mohammed. CNN produced a 17-minute documentary about Anwar’s experience and aired it worldwide. Other cases were soon referred to her and she has been able to document a total of 13, two of whom remain in prison today.

"For the sake of peace, our ‘special relationship’ with Israel must change" says Jerri Bird

The Foreign Service Journal is a leading magazine on foreign affairs. Published since 1924, the Journal is the only magazine written specifically for members of the U.S. Foreign Service. The Journal has a circulation of 13,000, including active and retired diplomats, congresspersons and other foreign affairs professionals.

Jerri Bird, the wife of retired Foreign Service Officer, Eugene Bird, has lived in Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and traveled in all of the other Arab countries except Iraq and Sudan. She is president and founder of Partners for Peace, a Washington, D.C.-based NGO whose mission is to educate the public about the issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Partners for Peace sponsors an annual 10-city tour of the United States called "Jerusalem Women Speak Three Women, Three Faiths, One Shared City," that brings women from Israel and Palestine together to share their views of the conflict with ordinary Americans.

Ms. Bird is also the author of numerous articles on the role of women in the Muslim world and on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She wrote the chapter "Revolution for Children in Saudi Arabia" in the book Children in the Muslim Middle East, edited by Elizabeth Warnock Fernea and published by the University of Texas Press in 1995.

For detailed information see the Partners for Peace website at: www.partnersforpeace.org

For interviews and talk show appearances Jerri Bird can be reached at 202-863-2951 W and 202-554-2751 H. E-mail pfp@igc.org

This "For the Record" may be used without permission but with proper attribution to CPAP.

For The Record No. 113
17 May 2002

Americans Pay a High Price for Israel's Friendship

The American people do not know the extent of domestic economic losses resulting from U.S. policy in the Middle East, particularly the losses which are "directly or consequentially" linked to U.S. support for Israel, according to Thomas Stauffer, an international oil and finance consultant. Speaking at a 14 May 2002 Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine (CPAP) briefing, Stauffer blamed the public's naïveté on the U.S. government, adding that the magnitude of U.S. aid to Israel and the hefty tab the American people are picking up is a well kept government secret.

Stauffer describes U.S. aid to Israel in terms of categories, most of which are kept off the government's budget balance sheet and conventional U.S aid records. Putting a price tag on the total amount of U.S. aid to Israel is difficult because most costs are consequential, or indirect. "It would be interesting to know how the public would react if the public knew how much it [aid to Israel] costs them," Stauffer said.

Stauffer pointed out that Israel enjoys a "remarkable" spectrum of ad hoc and special forms of aid, which for years has cost the American people billions of dollars in lost trade, contracts, jobs, and business ventures in the Middle East. Stauffer broke down U.S economic losses into six broad categories, one being the publicly known and traceable form of direct aid that the United States also provides to Egypt and Jordan. The total price tag for U.S. taxpayers is roughly $5.5 billion per year. Stauffer calls this the "simplest and smallest'' category of U.S. aid.

Other forms of aid to Israel come as a result of "consequential" aid that the majority of Americans know nothing about. This adds up to approximately $8 billion annually over a roughly ten-year period. U.S aid to Turkey, which amounts to billions of dollars annually, is linked to Turkey's relationship with Israel, which in turn is linked to U.S. policy toward Israel. Billions of dollars in U.S. aid to Central Asian countries, under the pretext of promoting emerging democracies, are part of U.S. efforts to confine Iran, which again is tied to U.S. policy toward Israel. The same applies to the countries of the Caucasus. Aid to Turkey, Central Asia, and the Caucasus should be thrown into the "pot" of aid to Israel, Stauffer stressed. Contributions by Jewish organizations and individuals are another element of consequential aid to Israel. These contributions, averaging from $1-1.5 billion are tax-deductible.

But the real losses to Americans, Stauffer argued, come from the harder to track forms of aid because there is no government overview. One example comes from the Central Bank of Israel's statistics which show that in the 1980s the United States bailed out the Israeli banking system at a cost of $10-12 billion. Americans probably never knew this because there is no trace of the money in American records. Israel has never returned the money and is unlikely to be asked to return it. Furthermore, the United States has undertaken loan guarantees from various sources totaling about $10 billion, of which $7 billion have been initialed. Stauffer calls this a "contingent liability" on the United States, and asserts that Israel has no prospect of repayment. Jewish immigration from Russia to Israel, also a hidden cost, is subsided by the United States with some $60-100,000 million annually.

And then there are the losses to U.S. military institutions. According to Stauffer, the United States has poured billions of dollars into Israeli military technology, technology that is in direct competition with that of the U.S., citing the Israeli Lavi fighter program and Arrow missile system as examples. Israel enjoys large discounts on what are considered "surplus" U.S. arms, and Israeli military firms have the upper hand in relationships with U.S. military firms. U.S. contractors, Stauffer asserted, are required to subcontract Israeli firms for military components, subcontracts that would otherwise have gone to American firms. Furthermore, for every dollar of military equipment the United States gives Israel, the United States buys 60 cents worth of Israeli equipment. The difference here is that while the United States pays with real money, Israel does not.

Another "consequential" cost to the U.S. economy with a potential price tag of $20-30 billion a day is the oil supplies guarantee. Should Israel's oil supply be cut off, Stauffer explained, the United States guarantees to provide Israel with oil regardless of U.S. oil supply levels.

Another hidden cost to the U.S. economy with a direct effect on the American people is trade losses with Israel and with those countries Israel perceives as hostile. Stauffer's data reveal that the United States' trade deficit with Israel is about $5-5.5 billion. One reason for this is that Israel, for example, can buy textile from China, re-label it, and sell it to the United States duty-free. But the real reason behind the losses, said Stauffer, is the trade imbalance between the United States and Israel. While the United States pays real money for its imports from Israel, Israel does not pay real money for its imports from the United States. The result is an annual trade imbalance of just under $10 billion. In terms of jobs, that comes to about a quarter of a million American jobs lost.
U.S. sanctions on Libya, Syria, Iran, and Iraq-sanctions linked to U.S. policy toward Israel-are costing the U.S. economy about $14 billion annually in potential trade, Stauffer argued, basing his calculations on trade and economic studies. The sanctions, which only affect U.S. companies and not their competitors, translate into 500,000 to 600,000 in lost U.S. jobs. U.S. policy toward Iraq, presented to the American people in terms of protecting Gulf oil supplies, is really meant to weaken Iraq, seen by Israel as a potential threat. The Israeli lobby in the United States has foiled major U.S trade contracts with Arab and Muslim countries, like the 1980s aircraft sales contract with Saudi Arabia that cost the U.S. economy between $20-25 billion annually.

So, who is benefiting from this costly U.S. policy toward Israel? Congress and presidential candidates, Stauffer claimed, have benefited "handsomely" from contributions made by the Jewish community. About 20 to 40 percent of the total political campaign contributions-tens of billions of dollars-from the Jewish community in the United States, go into the pockets of U.S. leaders. As for the benefit to the United States, that, Stauffer said, is hard to find.

Fact Sheet: US foreign aid to Israel
April 14th, 2002

Contents:
A) The nature of US foreign aid to Israel Constitutes 30% of the total US foreign aid budget, which renders Israel to be the largest recipient of US aid in the world Started in 1948 and gradually increased over the years Promotes American interests in the Middle East Proposed by Israel in 1998 to be reduced in an effort to establish an economically independent country

B) The controversy for US foreign aid to Israel Granted in disproportion to Israel's size and needs Promotes the illegal occupation of Palestinian land in order to establish settlements for Jewish immigrants Transforms Palestine into a military test ground Violates US Law and abuses human rights

SOURCES

A1.
The nature of US foreign aid to Israel A1. Constitutes 30% of the total US foreign aid budget, which renders Israel to be the largest recipient of US aid in the world Since 1987, the US congress has annually been approving a foreign aid bill totaling an average of $3 billion to Israel, $1.2 billion in economical aid, and $1.8 billion in military aid. After the gulf war in 1991, the US has additionally been offering Israel $2 billion annually in federal loan guarantees, which brings the total US foreign aid to Israel to about $5 billion, or $13.7 million per day. This amount excludes the approximate $1.5 billion in total tax-deductible private donations from numerous Jewish charities and individual donors. All in all, this is the largest amount of foreign aid given to a country, and constitutes 30% of the total amount of US foreign aid budget.

A2.
Started in 1948 and gradually increased over the years Soon after the Truman decision in 1948 to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, the US Congress approved an aid package in the form of a $135 million Export-Import Bank loan in order to take in holocaust survivors and provide them with homes. Until 1973, aid was mainly made up of military, economic and export-import bank loans, although annual economic grants ranging between $0.1 and $74 million were also offered between the years 1951 and 1962. After the 1973 war, the US aid to Israel constituted largely of military and economic grants to help strengthen the Israeli defense forces. This included $12-80 million, which was annually granted towards the establishment of Jewish refugee camps. This TABLE shows the history of US financial assistance to Israel, as documented by the Jewish Virtual Library. Notice the pattern of increased assistance over the years for economic, military and Jewish refugee grants, especi ally after 1973. This pattern reflects the US interests (section A3) in empowering Israel as the only democratic, close ally in the region, and not for the pure intent to assist a developing country.

A3.
Promotes American interests in the Middle East The US funding to Israel acts as the backbone for the strategic partnership between both countries. By advancing Israel's technological and military powers, the US is able to share intelligence information regarding Arab militant groups, like Hizbullah, as well as information regarding the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in countries such as Iran, Iraq and Syria. Three quarters of the military aid to Israel goes for importing US-made military equipment such as F-16 and Apache attack helicopters. This creates a job market for US citizens and transforms Palestine into a test ground for US made weaponry, used daily against Palestinians. Israel has cooperated with the US arms industry to develop more effective military equipment at affordable costs to the US. About one quarter of the military aid to Israel is contributed towards military research and development, where several innovative jet fighters, missiles and navigating and targeting devices have been manufactured and sold back to the US. Examples are the ITALD, Litening, Popeye and the UAV.

A4.
Proposed by Israel in 1998 to be reduced in an effort to establish an economically independent country In 1998, according to an agreement with the Clinton Administration and Congress, Israel voluntarily requested to decrease its financial dependence on US economic aid by phasing it out over a period of 10 years. The $1.2 billion in economic aid will be reduced by $120 million each year until it is down to zero in the year 2008. This will help Israel to become an economically independent country. However, 50% of the savings (i.e. $60 million) each year will be added to an emergency military aid fund to Israel. This demonstrates the US's persistence and commitment to help Israel gain control of the region.


B1.
The controversy for US foreign aid to Israel B1. Granted in disproportion to Israel's size and needs Israel is an economically, technologically, and militarily advanced country, with a per capita rate of $14,000, which is higher that that of all neighboring Arab countries, including the oil-rich Saudi Arabia. It is ranked as the world's sixteenth wealthiest country, yet the US aid to Israel constitutes 30% of the total US foreign aid budget. Israeli population is 5.8 million, which only constitutes one thousandth of the world's total population. Between the years 1949 and 1998, the US has provided a total of $84 billion in aid to Israel, which exceeds that given to all countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean combined, with a total population of about 1.054 billion people.

B2.
Promotes the illegal occupation of Palestinian land in order to establish settlements for Jewish immigrants A portion of US foreign aid to Israel, which has increased in the past decade to $80 million annually, goes into building settlements for Jewish immigrants. This occurs by the illegal confiscation of Palestinian land and home demolition to allow for space. Jewish settlements surround every single Palestinian city in the West Bank, and their rapid construction since 1973 has prevented the creation of a feasible Palestinian State. Jewish settlements are built on confiscated Palestinian land to accommodate Jewish immigrants from all over the world, based on the Israeli Law of Return. These immigrants are guaranteed the right to Israeli citizenship, free Hebrew learning, and immediate employment. On the other hand, Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee their homes in 1948 and 1967 are forbidden from returning to their towns of origin.

B3.
Transforms Palestine into a military test ground Seventy five percent of US military aid to Israel goes into purchasing US-made military equipment, such as tanks, machine guns, bullets, helicopter gunships, and more. The US depends on Israel to test new military technologies in war conditions. For example, uranium-depleted ammunition has been fired at civilians in Palestine.

B4.
Violates US Law and abuses human rights The Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of the United States, which provides guidelines for the eligibility of certain countries to purchase US-made weapons and military equipment, states in section 116 that "No assistance may be provided under this part to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." However, Israeli army engages daily in degrading and inhumane treatments towards Palestinians, such as prolonged detention without charges, strip searches at checkpoints, beatings, torture, and home demolitions. According to Amnesty International, Israel is the only country that legalizes torture. Similarly, section 4 of the Arms Export control Act prevents the US government from selling defense articles to countries that abuse their use for non-self-defense purposes. In 2001, the US State Department described the actions of Israeli army agains t Palestinians as an "excessive use of force," referring to the use of live ammunition when soldiers were not in a pending danger. This clearly shows that the US does not agree with the way these weapons are being used against Palestinians, yet the US military aid to Israel continues consistently as agreed between both countries.

SOURCES
Al-Awda, http://al-awda.org
Global Exchange, http://www.globalexchange.org
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, http://www.aipac.org
The Jewish Virtual Library, http://www.us-israel.org/jsource
The Palestine monitor, http://www.palestinemonitor.org
USAID, http://www.usaid.gov
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, http://www.wrmea.com http://www.miftah.org

ISRAEL - PALESTINE CONFLICT 2002 INDEX      

FIRE THIS TIME INDEX     THE WORLD AFTER 9-11 INDEX