While the US goes Bankrupt...
US Senate moves to fully fund Israel aid
The US Senate included a measure to restore full funding for foreign aid to the budget it approved late Thursday, increasing chances that the pool of money including assistance for Israel wouldn't be cut.
The $3.5 trillion document passed by the Senate includes a $4 billion boost to the foreign operations appropriation, bringing it up to the $53.8b. sought by President Barack Obama.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and co-sponsor of the amendment, defended the move as important to advancing moderation in the Middle East.
"The reality is that we are just not doing enough today to invest in the vital components of both diplomacy and development," Kerry said on the Senate floor, referencing his recent trip to Israel, Egypt, Syria and other regional countries. "I saw firsthand the degree to which people we support in many ways are struggling to push back against enormous spending by Iran and other actors who seek to destabilize the region."
The US House of Representatives, however, only approved $48.5b. for international assistance in its version of the Fiscal Year 2010 budget earlier this week, so the differences will have to be addressed in conference between the two committees, negotiations of which are expected to pick up in earnest when Congress returns from its recess later in the month.
The Senate move makes it much more likely Obama's foreign aid request will be fully funded. In the event that it isn't, it is yet to be determined which foreign aid programs would be affected, meaning Israel could still receive the total $2.77b. it is due under a long-term agreement worked out under the Bush administration
Click here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1238562906554&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to read more.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
It's a Lieberman Government
By Uri Avnery – Israel
April 04, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- -On the first day of the new Israeli government, the fog cleared: it's a Lieberman government.
The day started with a celebration at the President’s office. All the members of this bloated government – 30 ministers and 8 deputy ministers – were dressed up in their best finery and posed for a group photo. Binyamin Netanyahu read an uninspired speech, which included the worn-out clichés that are necessary to set the world at ease: the government is committed to peace, it will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority, bla-bla-bla.
Avigdor Lieberman hurried from there to the foreign Office, for the ceremonial change of ministers. He, too, made a speech – but it was not a routine speech at all.
“Si vis pacem, para bellum – if you want peace, prepare for war,” declared the new Foreign Minister. When a diplomat quotes this ancient Roman saying, the world pays no attention to the first part, but only to the second. Coming from the mouth of the already infamous Lieberman, it was a clear threat: the new government is entering upon a path of war, not of peace.
With this sentence, Lieberman negated Netanyahu’s speech and made headlines around the world. He confirmed the worst apprehensions connected with the creation of this government.
Not content with quoting the Romans, he explained specifically why he used this motto. Concessions, he said, do not bring peace, but quite the reverse. The world respected and admired Israel when it won the Six-day war.
Two fallacies in one sentence. Returning occupied territory is not a “concession”. When a thief is compelled to return stolen property, or when a squatter vacates an apartment that does not belong to him, that is not a “concession”. And the admiration for Israel in 1967 came from a world that saw us as a little, valiant country that had stood up to mighty armies out to destroy us. But today’s Israel looks like a brutal Goliath, while the occupied Palestinians are now viewed as a David with his slingshot, fighting for his life.
With this speech, Lieberman succeeded in stirring the world, but even more in humiliating Netanyahu. He exposed the peace declarations of the new Prime Minister as nothing but soap bubbles.
Click here: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22353.htm to read more.
By Uri Avnery – Israel
April 04, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- -On the first day of the new Israeli government, the fog cleared: it's a Lieberman government.
The day started with a celebration at the President’s office. All the members of this bloated government – 30 ministers and 8 deputy ministers – were dressed up in their best finery and posed for a group photo. Binyamin Netanyahu read an uninspired speech, which included the worn-out clichés that are necessary to set the world at ease: the government is committed to peace, it will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority, bla-bla-bla.
Avigdor Lieberman hurried from there to the foreign Office, for the ceremonial change of ministers. He, too, made a speech – but it was not a routine speech at all.
“Si vis pacem, para bellum – if you want peace, prepare for war,” declared the new Foreign Minister. When a diplomat quotes this ancient Roman saying, the world pays no attention to the first part, but only to the second. Coming from the mouth of the already infamous Lieberman, it was a clear threat: the new government is entering upon a path of war, not of peace.
With this sentence, Lieberman negated Netanyahu’s speech and made headlines around the world. He confirmed the worst apprehensions connected with the creation of this government.
Not content with quoting the Romans, he explained specifically why he used this motto. Concessions, he said, do not bring peace, but quite the reverse. The world respected and admired Israel when it won the Six-day war.
Two fallacies in one sentence. Returning occupied territory is not a “concession”. When a thief is compelled to return stolen property, or when a squatter vacates an apartment that does not belong to him, that is not a “concession”. And the admiration for Israel in 1967 came from a world that saw us as a little, valiant country that had stood up to mighty armies out to destroy us. But today’s Israel looks like a brutal Goliath, while the occupied Palestinians are now viewed as a David with his slingshot, fighting for his life.
With this speech, Lieberman succeeded in stirring the world, but even more in humiliating Netanyahu. He exposed the peace declarations of the new Prime Minister as nothing but soap bubbles.
Click here: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22353.htm to read more.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Falk: The Palestinian people have the right to resistance
NEW JERSEY, (PIC)-- Richard Falk, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Palestine, stressed that the Palestinian people have the right to resistance, self-determination and the establishment of their independent state.
In a press statement, Falk stated that the last war on the Gaza Strip revealed the huge disparity between the Israeli army which is equipped with all kinds of weapons and the unarmed Palestinians who live under an unjust siege, reiterating that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza.
The UN official underscored that Israel has a colonial, violent and criminal nature, adding that Israel waged a war on Gaza because the Palestinians hold one of its soldiers while there are more than 11,000 Palestinian prisoners in its jails.
As for trying Israeli leaders on charges of war crimes, the UN official said the UN General Assembly according to its charter has the right to form an international court to try Israeli leaders, pointing out that he will submit recommendations urging the UN to move from investigation into Israeli war crimes to the stage of leveling charges.
From: http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/En/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bcOd87MDI46m9rUxJEpMO%2bi1s7U2O5W6xF%2f%2fwUtNqtg0yG2bg91fqyQLG1Dz%2bBpnF%2f3mdVgTfy9SK1KVEK6NvY7PSMXk1uqjXrPkRKskME5KW9o9yBdpWW6%2f%2fcdx2xY1T7CGE%3d
NEW JERSEY, (PIC)-- Richard Falk, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Palestine, stressed that the Palestinian people have the right to resistance, self-determination and the establishment of their independent state.
In a press statement, Falk stated that the last war on the Gaza Strip revealed the huge disparity between the Israeli army which is equipped with all kinds of weapons and the unarmed Palestinians who live under an unjust siege, reiterating that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza.
The UN official underscored that Israel has a colonial, violent and criminal nature, adding that Israel waged a war on Gaza because the Palestinians hold one of its soldiers while there are more than 11,000 Palestinian prisoners in its jails.
As for trying Israeli leaders on charges of war crimes, the UN official said the UN General Assembly according to its charter has the right to form an international court to try Israeli leaders, pointing out that he will submit recommendations urging the UN to move from investigation into Israeli war crimes to the stage of leveling charges.
From: http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/En/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bcOd87MDI46m9rUxJEpMO%2bi1s7U2O5W6xF%2f%2fwUtNqtg0yG2bg91fqyQLG1Dz%2bBpnF%2f3mdVgTfy9SK1KVEK6NvY7PSMXk1uqjXrPkRKskME5KW9o9yBdpWW6%2f%2fcdx2xY1T7CGE%3d
Avigdor and Netanyahu: an Evil Marriage
By Mohamed El Mokhtar Sidi Haiba
Taking office as Israel's new leader Tuesday, Benjamin Netanyahu promised to supposedly seek 'full peace' with the Arab and Muslim world while deliberately avoiding to even mention the only word that really matters here. The word that matters the most to the Arab and Muslim world .The word without which Israel will never, ever, live in peace. The word whose continuous negations will ultimately be dearly costly to Israel's very existence: “Palestinian state."
"Under the permanent status agreement, the Palestinians will have all the authority to rule themselves, “Netanyahu said in comments echoing an old mantra of negationism and deep-seated racism at the core of the Likud political philosophy: There is no such thing as Palestine or Palestinian people.
Netanyahu's hysterical obsession to carry on his father’s racist fascisto-zionist phantasms could put him at odds with his indispensable benefactor and much of the rest of the world. His refusal to embrace the idea of Palestinian statehood and decision to appoint ultranationalist politician Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister don’t bode well for a hopeful time for peace in the Middle-East or the world for that matter.
From the outset, he announced the true nature of his colors when he painted a grim picture of the future in the region by putting the onus exclusively on radical Islam and Iran which he describes in his acceptance speech as “the gravest threat to our existence since the war of independence.” A danger therefore that needs to be dealt with, swiftly and militarily, before it is too late for a nuclear weapon is a critical threshold.
That will be the focal point of his agenda. Not peace. In other words a settlement with the Palestinians based on the two-state solution which, not so long ago, he compared to a danger akin to the Nazis will be the last preoccupation of Bibi.
But Netanyahu’s "basic" extremism is somewhat overshadowed these days by the Nazi-like fascism of his foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberma, the leader of the ultranationalist party, Yisrael Beiteinu.
The political ascension of this hawkish racist, ex-nightclub bouncer from Russia and former member of the party Kach who espoused overtly the idea of forced mass expulsion of Palestinian citizens of Israel and has even recently suggested, as final solution, that Gaza be nuked, constitutes an eloquent expression of the moral decay and suicidal irrationalism infecting the Israeli society at large. It is a wake-up call, a warning sign. It is an invitation for reflection on the reality of Israel and the pervasive nature of Zionism. Better, a clear indication of the direction the country is hurriedly taking. A trend so visible in the upwardly shift toward the right of Israel entire political spectrum.
Click here: http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14977 to read more.
By Mohamed El Mokhtar Sidi Haiba
Taking office as Israel's new leader Tuesday, Benjamin Netanyahu promised to supposedly seek 'full peace' with the Arab and Muslim world while deliberately avoiding to even mention the only word that really matters here. The word that matters the most to the Arab and Muslim world .The word without which Israel will never, ever, live in peace. The word whose continuous negations will ultimately be dearly costly to Israel's very existence: “Palestinian state."
"Under the permanent status agreement, the Palestinians will have all the authority to rule themselves, “Netanyahu said in comments echoing an old mantra of negationism and deep-seated racism at the core of the Likud political philosophy: There is no such thing as Palestine or Palestinian people.
Netanyahu's hysterical obsession to carry on his father’s racist fascisto-zionist phantasms could put him at odds with his indispensable benefactor and much of the rest of the world. His refusal to embrace the idea of Palestinian statehood and decision to appoint ultranationalist politician Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister don’t bode well for a hopeful time for peace in the Middle-East or the world for that matter.
From the outset, he announced the true nature of his colors when he painted a grim picture of the future in the region by putting the onus exclusively on radical Islam and Iran which he describes in his acceptance speech as “the gravest threat to our existence since the war of independence.” A danger therefore that needs to be dealt with, swiftly and militarily, before it is too late for a nuclear weapon is a critical threshold.
That will be the focal point of his agenda. Not peace. In other words a settlement with the Palestinians based on the two-state solution which, not so long ago, he compared to a danger akin to the Nazis will be the last preoccupation of Bibi.
But Netanyahu’s "basic" extremism is somewhat overshadowed these days by the Nazi-like fascism of his foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberma, the leader of the ultranationalist party, Yisrael Beiteinu.
The political ascension of this hawkish racist, ex-nightclub bouncer from Russia and former member of the party Kach who espoused overtly the idea of forced mass expulsion of Palestinian citizens of Israel and has even recently suggested, as final solution, that Gaza be nuked, constitutes an eloquent expression of the moral decay and suicidal irrationalism infecting the Israeli society at large. It is a wake-up call, a warning sign. It is an invitation for reflection on the reality of Israel and the pervasive nature of Zionism. Better, a clear indication of the direction the country is hurriedly taking. A trend so visible in the upwardly shift toward the right of Israel entire political spectrum.
Click here: http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14977 to read more.
Changing the rules of war
George Bisharat, The Electronic Intifada, 2 April 2009
The extent of Israel's brutality against Palestinian civilians in its 22-day pounding of the Gaza Strip is gradually surfacing. Israeli soldiers are testifying to lax rules of engagement tantamount to a license to kill. One soldier commented: "That's what is so nice, supposedly, about Gaza: You see a person on a road, walking along a path. He doesn't have to be with a weapon, you don't have to identify him with anything and you can just shoot him."What is less appreciated is how Israel is also brutalizing international law, in ways that may long outlast the demolition of Gaza.Since 2001, Israeli military lawyers have pushed to reclassify military operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip from the law enforcement model mandated by the law of occupation to one of armed conflict. Under the former, soldiers of an occupying army must arrest, rather than kill, opponents, and generally must use the minimum force necessary to quell disturbances.While in armed conflict, a military is still constrained by the laws of war -- including the duty to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and the duty to avoid attacks causing disproportionate harm to civilian persons or objects -- the standard permits far greater uses of force.Israel pressed the shift to justify its assassinations of Palestinians in the occupied territories, which clearly violated settled international law. Israel had practiced "targeted killings" since the 1970s -- always denying that it did so -- but had recently stepped up their frequency, by spectacular means (such as air strikes) that rendered denial futile.Former US President Bill Clinton charged the 2001 Mitchell Committee with investigating the causes of the second Palestinian uprising and recommending how to restore calm in the region. Israeli lawyers pleaded their case to the committee for armed conflict. The committee responded by criticizing the blanket application of the model to the uprising, but did not repudiate it altogether.Today, most observers -- including Amnesty International -- tacitly accept Israel's framing of the conflict in Gaza as an armed conflict, as their criticism of Israel's actions in terms of the duties of distinction and the principle of proportionality betrays. This shift, if accepted, would encourage occupiers to follow Israel's lead, externalizing military control while shedding all responsibilities to occupied populations.
Click here: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10442.shtml to read more.
George Bisharat, The Electronic Intifada, 2 April 2009
The extent of Israel's brutality against Palestinian civilians in its 22-day pounding of the Gaza Strip is gradually surfacing. Israeli soldiers are testifying to lax rules of engagement tantamount to a license to kill. One soldier commented: "That's what is so nice, supposedly, about Gaza: You see a person on a road, walking along a path. He doesn't have to be with a weapon, you don't have to identify him with anything and you can just shoot him."What is less appreciated is how Israel is also brutalizing international law, in ways that may long outlast the demolition of Gaza.Since 2001, Israeli military lawyers have pushed to reclassify military operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip from the law enforcement model mandated by the law of occupation to one of armed conflict. Under the former, soldiers of an occupying army must arrest, rather than kill, opponents, and generally must use the minimum force necessary to quell disturbances.While in armed conflict, a military is still constrained by the laws of war -- including the duty to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and the duty to avoid attacks causing disproportionate harm to civilian persons or objects -- the standard permits far greater uses of force.Israel pressed the shift to justify its assassinations of Palestinians in the occupied territories, which clearly violated settled international law. Israel had practiced "targeted killings" since the 1970s -- always denying that it did so -- but had recently stepped up their frequency, by spectacular means (such as air strikes) that rendered denial futile.Former US President Bill Clinton charged the 2001 Mitchell Committee with investigating the causes of the second Palestinian uprising and recommending how to restore calm in the region. Israeli lawyers pleaded their case to the committee for armed conflict. The committee responded by criticizing the blanket application of the model to the uprising, but did not repudiate it altogether.Today, most observers -- including Amnesty International -- tacitly accept Israel's framing of the conflict in Gaza as an armed conflict, as their criticism of Israel's actions in terms of the duties of distinction and the principle of proportionality betrays. This shift, if accepted, would encourage occupiers to follow Israel's lead, externalizing military control while shedding all responsibilities to occupied populations.
Click here: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10442.shtml to read more.
Report excoriates Israel's use of white phosphorous in Gaza
Marian Houk, The Electronic Intifada, 1 April 2009
Israel's recent use of white phosphorus bombs in densely populated areas of Gaza violated the rules of war, according to report issued by a leading human rights organization last week. The 71-pages-long Human Rights Watch (HRW) report, entitled "Rain of Fire: Israel's Unlawful Use of White Phosphorous in Gaza," states that even before the group's researchers were able to enter Gaza, they had watched from adjacent perimeter areas in Israel as white phosphorus bombs exploded in the air over densely-packed residential areas in the Gaza Strip.Israeli troops began using white phosphorus in Gaza after the ground phase of the military offensive started on 3 January, a week into the invasion of the Strip, and continued until the ceasefire two weeks later, according to HRW. The report notes that it was the first time that the Israeli military had ever used white phosphorus in the densely-populated coastal Strip, despite numerous previous ground incursions. The report also notes that Israel used white phosphorus twice in Lebanon, in 1982 and in 2006.The Israeli military was well aware of the effects of white phosphorus and the extreme danger it poses to civilians, HRW says in the report. According to the group, if the Israeli army actually intended to use white phosphorus for its obscurant effect, it could only have done so lawfully in open areas, and not in downtown Gaza City, or downtown Beit Lahiya.The report states that far safer alternatives are available -- such as the very effective smoke artillery manufactured by Israel Military Industries, that does not burn.Ground-exploded white phosphorous creates a much thicker and more effective smokescreen than shells detonated in the air, HRW says, but that was not the tactic Israeli troops employed.
Click here: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10436.shtml to read more.
Marian Houk, The Electronic Intifada, 1 April 2009
Israel's recent use of white phosphorus bombs in densely populated areas of Gaza violated the rules of war, according to report issued by a leading human rights organization last week. The 71-pages-long Human Rights Watch (HRW) report, entitled "Rain of Fire: Israel's Unlawful Use of White Phosphorous in Gaza," states that even before the group's researchers were able to enter Gaza, they had watched from adjacent perimeter areas in Israel as white phosphorus bombs exploded in the air over densely-packed residential areas in the Gaza Strip.Israeli troops began using white phosphorus in Gaza after the ground phase of the military offensive started on 3 January, a week into the invasion of the Strip, and continued until the ceasefire two weeks later, according to HRW. The report notes that it was the first time that the Israeli military had ever used white phosphorus in the densely-populated coastal Strip, despite numerous previous ground incursions. The report also notes that Israel used white phosphorus twice in Lebanon, in 1982 and in 2006.The Israeli military was well aware of the effects of white phosphorus and the extreme danger it poses to civilians, HRW says in the report. According to the group, if the Israeli army actually intended to use white phosphorus for its obscurant effect, it could only have done so lawfully in open areas, and not in downtown Gaza City, or downtown Beit Lahiya.The report states that far safer alternatives are available -- such as the very effective smoke artillery manufactured by Israel Military Industries, that does not burn.Ground-exploded white phosphorous creates a much thicker and more effective smokescreen than shells detonated in the air, HRW says, but that was not the tactic Israeli troops employed.
Click here: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10436.shtml to read more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
