US Offers Bibi 20 F-35 Fighters, etc., and A 90-Day Bet on Mideast Talks follows this article by Stephen Zunes, a professor of politics and chair of Middle Eastern studies at the University of San Francisco.

Wednesday 10 November 2010

By Stephen Zunes

The recently announced deal for the United States to provide Israel with 20 new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets marks yet another blow for arms control advocates and those who had hoped the Obama administration would resist continuing with the Bush administration's policy of further militarizing the Middle East. Once again rejecting calls from the peace and human rights community to link arms transfers to adherence to human rights and international law, the $2.75 billion deal is one of the largest arms procurements by the state of Israel. This is the first part of a series of US taxpayer-funded arms transfers to Israel that is expected to total more than $30 billion over the next decade.

In the wake of Israel's massive assault on heavily populated civilian areas of the Gaza Strip last year, Amnesty International called for the United States to suspend military aid to Israel on human rights grounds. Amnesty has also called for the United Nations to impose a mandatory arms embargo on both Hamas and the Israeli government. Unfortunately, President Barack Obama refused to heed Amnesty's call.

During the fighting just prior to Obama assuming office, Amnesty documented Israeli forces engaging in "direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects in Gaza, and attacks which were disproportionate or indiscriminate." The leader of Amnesty International's fact-finding mission to the Gaza Strip and southern Israel noted  how "Israeli forces used white phosphorus and other weapons supplied by the USA to carry out serious violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes." Amnesty also reported finding fragments of US-made munitions "littering school playgrounds, in hospitals and in people's homes."

Malcolm Smart, who serves as Amnesty International's director for the Middle East, observed  in a press release, "to a large extent, Israel's military offensive in Gaza was carried out with weapons, munitions and military equipment supplied by the USA and paid for with US taxpayers' money." The release also noted how before the conflict, which raged for three weeks from late December into January, the United States had "been aware of the pattern of repeated misuse of [its] weapons."

Amnesty has similarly condemned Hamas rocket attacks into civilian-populated areas of southern Israel as war crimes. And while acknowledging that aid to Hamas was substantially smaller, far less sophisticated and far less lethal - and appeared to have been procured through clandestine sources - Amnesty called on Iran and other countries to take concrete steps to insure that weapons and weapon components not get into the hands of Palestinian militias.

During the fighting, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning organization initially called for a suspension of US military aid until there was no longer a substantial risk of additional human rights violations. The Bush administration summarily rejected this proposal. Amnesty subsequently appealed to the Obama administration. "As the major supplier of weapons to Israel, the USA has a particular obligation to stop any supply that contributes to gross violations of the laws of war and of human rights," said Smart. "The Obama administration should immediately suspend US military aid to Israel."

Obama's refusal to accept Amnesty's call for the suspension of military assistance was a blow to human rights activists. There was initially some hope that Obama might express his displeasure toward controversial Israeli policies like the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories by rejecting the planned increase in military aid for this fiscal year, but not only did he refuse to do so, this announcement amid Netanyahu's brazen defiance of calls to suspend further Israeli colonization in the occupied West Bank makes it apparent that Obama has no intention of linking military aid to rightist governments to adherence to their international legal obligations.

Obama Tilts Right

Obama has thus far failed to realize that the problem in the Middle East is that there are too many deadly weapons in the region, not too few. Indeed, the Obama administration announced a $60 billion arms sale  to the repressive regime in Saudi Arabia, the largest in history. Such arms sales to Arab governments can then be used for increased taxpayer-funded arms transfers to Israel, such as this recently announced one, which will be highly profitable to the politically influential maker of the F-35s, Lockheed Martin.

Instead of simply wanting Israel to have an adequate deterrent against potential military threats, Obama insists the United States should guarantee that Israel maintain a qualitative military advantage. Thanks to this overwhelming advantage over its neighbors, Israeli forces were able to launch devastating wars against Israel's Palestinian and Lebanese neighbors in recent years.

If Israel were in a strategically vulnerable situation, Obama's hard-line position might be understandable. But Israel already has vastly superior conventional military capabilities relative to any combination of armed forces in the region, not to mention a nuclear deterrent.

However, Obama has failed to even acknowledge Israel's nuclear arsenal of at least 200-300 weapons, which has been documented for decades. When a reporter asked at his first press conference last year if he could name any Middle Eastern countries that possess nuclear weapons, he didn't even try to answer the question. Presumably, Obama knows Israel has these weapons and that the country is located in the Middle East. However, acknowledging Israel's arsenal could complicate his planned arms transfers since it would place Israel in violation of the 1976 Symington Amendment, which restricts US military support for governments which develop nuclear weapons.

Another major obstacle to Amnesty's calls for suspending military assistance is Congress. Republican leaders like Reps. John Boehner (Ohio) and Eric Cantor (Virginia) have long rejected calls by human rights groups to link US military aid to adherence to internationally recognized human rights standards. But so have such Democratic leaders, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who are outspoken supporters of unconditional military aid to Israel. Even progressive Democratic Rep. Barney Frank (Massachusetts), at a press conference last year in which he put forward a proposal to reduce military spending by 25 percent, dismissed a question regarding conditioning Israel's military aid package to human rights concerns.

Indeed, in an apparent effort to support their militaristic agenda and to discredit reputable human rights groups that documented systematic Israeli attacks against nonmilitary targets, these Congressional leaders and an overwhelming bipartisan majority of their colleagues have gone on record praising "Israel's longstanding commitment to minimizing civilian loss and ... efforts to prevent civilian casualties."

Although Obama remained silent while Israel was engaged in war crimes against the civilian population of Gaza, Pelosi and other Congressional leaders rushed  to Israel's defense in the face of international condemnation.

Obama's Defense of Israeli Attacks on Civilians

Following the 2006 conflict between Israeli armed forces and the Hezbollah militia, in which both sides committed war crimes by engaging in attacks against populated civilian areas, then-Senator Obama defended Israel's actions and criticized Hezbollah, even though Israel - primarily through the use of US-supplied weapons - was actually responsible for far more civilian deaths. In an apparent attempt to justify Israeli bombing of civilian population centers, Obama claimed Hezbollah had used "innocent people as shields."

This charge directly challenged a series of reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. These reports found that, while Hezbollah did have some military equipment close to some civilian areas, the Lebanese Islamist militia had not forced civilians to remain in or around military targets in order to deter Israel from attacking those targets. I sent Obama spokesperson Ben LaBolt a copy of an exhaustive 249-page Human Rights Watch report that didn't find a single case - out of 600 civilian deaths investigated - of Hezbollah using human shields. I asked him if Obama had any empirical evidence that countered these findings.

In response, LaBolt provided me with a copy of a short report from a right-wing Israeli think tank with close ties to the Israeli government headed by the former head of the Israeli intelligence service. The report appeared to use exclusively Israeli government sources, in contrast to the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reports, which were based upon forensic evidence as well as multiple verified eyewitness accounts by both Lebanese living in the areas under attack as well as experienced monitors (unaffiliated with any government or political organization) on the ground. Despite several follow-up emails asking for more credible sources, LaBolt never got back to me.

Not Good for Israel

The militaristic stance by Congress and the Obama administration is hardly doing Israel a favor. Indeed, US military assistance to Israel has nothing to do with Israel's legitimate security needs. Rather than commencing during the country's first 20 years of existence, when Israel was most vulnerable strategically, major US military and economic aid didn't even begin until after the 1967 War, when Israel proved itself to be far stronger than any combination of Arab armies and after Israeli occupation forces became the rulers of a large Palestinian population.

If all US aid to Israel were immediately halted, Israel wouldn't be under a significantly greater military threat than it is today for many years. Israel has both a major domestic arms industry and an existing military force far more capable and powerful than any conceivable combination of opposing forces.

Under Obama, US military aid to Israel will likely continue be higher than it was back in the 1970s, when Egypt's massive and well-equipped armed forces threatened war, Syria's military rapidly expanded with advanced Soviet weaponry, armed factions of the PLO launched terrorist attacks into Israel, Jordan still claimed the West Bank and stationed large numbers of troops along its border and demarcation line with Israel and Iraq embarked on a vast program of militarization. Why does the Obama administration believe that Israel needs more military aid today than it did back then? Since that time, Israel has maintained a longstanding peace treaty with Egypt and a large demilitarized and internationally monitored buffer zone. Syria's armed forces were weakened by the collapse of their former Soviet patron and its government has been calling for a resumption of peace talks. The PLO is cooperating closely with Israeli security. Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel with full normalized relations. And two major wars and a decade of strict international sanctions have devastated Iraq's armed forces, which is in any case now under close US supervision.

Obama has pledged continued military aid to Israel a full decade into the future not in terms of how that country's strategic situation may evolve, but in terms of a fixed-dollar amount. If his real interest were to provide adequate support for Israeli defense, he wouldn't promise $30 billion in additional military aid. He would simply pledge to maintain adequate military assistance to maintain Israel's security needs, which would presumably decline if the peace process moves forward. However, Israel's actual defense needs don't appear to be the issue.

According to late Israeli Maj. Gen. and Knesset member Matti Peled, - who once served as the Israel Defense Forces' chief procurement officer, such fixed amounts are arrived at "out of thin air." In addition, every major arms transfer to Israel creates a new demand by Arab states - most of which can pay hard currency through petrodollars - for additional US weapons to challenge Israel. Indeed, Israel announced its acceptance of a proposed Middle Eastern arms freeze in 1991, but the US government, eager to defend the profits of US arms merchants, effectively blocked it. Prior to the breakdown in the peace process in 2001, 78 senators wrote President Bill Clinton insisting that the United States send additional military aid to Israel on the grounds of massive arms procurement by Arab states, neglecting to note that 80 percent of those arms transfers were of US origin. Were they really concerned about Israeli security, they would have voted to block these arms transfers to the Gulf monarchies and other Arab dictatorships.

The resulting arms race has been a bonanza for US arms manufacturers. The right-wing "pro-Israel" political action committees certainly wield substantial clout with their contributions to Congressional candidates supportive of large-scale military and economic aid to Israel. But the Aerospace Industry Association and other influential military interests that promote massive arms transfers to the Middle East and elsewhere are even more influential, contributing several times what the "pro-Israel" PACs contribute.

The huge amount of US aid to the Israeli government hasn't been as beneficial to Israel as many would suspect. US military aid to Israel is, in fact, simply a credit line to American arms manufacturers, and actually ends up costing Israel two to three times that amount in operator training, staffing, maintenance, and other related costs. The overall impact is to increase Israeli military dependency on the United States - and amass record profits for US arms merchants.

The US Arms Export Control Act requires a cutoff of military aid to recipient countries if they're found to be using American weapons for purposes other than internal security or legitimate self-defense and/or their use could "increase the possibility of an outbreak or escalation of conflict." This might explain Obama's refusal to acknowledge Israel's disproportionate use of force and high number of civilian casualties.

Betraying His Constituency

Neither the recently-announced $2.75 arms deal nor even the $30 billion total over the next decade to support Israeli militarism is a huge amount of money compared with what has already been wasted in the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, and various Pentagon boondoggles. Still, this money could more profitably go toward needs at home, such as health care, education, housing, the environment and public transportation.

It's, therefore, profoundly disappointing that there has been so little public opposition to Obama's dismissal of Amnesty International's calls to suspend aid to Israel. Some activists I contacted appear to have fallen into a fatalistic view that the "Zionist lobby" is too powerful to challenge and that Obama is nothing but a helpless pawn of powerful Jewish interests. Not only does this simplistic perspective border on anti-Semitism, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any right-wing militaristic lobby will appear all-powerful if there isn't a concerted effort from the left to challenge it.

Obama's supporters must demand that he live up to his promise to change the mindset in Washington that has contributed to such death and destruction in the Middle East. The administration must heed calls by Amnesty International and other human rights groups to condition military aid to Israel and all other countries that don't adhere to basic principles of international humanitarian law.

http://www.truth-out.org/new-arms-deal-israel-stokes-militarism64971?print

US Offers Bibi 20 F-35 Fighters, The Jordan Valley and a Free UN Pass

A 90-Day Bet on Mideast Talks

By Ethan Bronner and Mark Landler  

JERUSALEM — The pledge by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to push for a new, one-time-only freeze of 90 days on settlement construction in the West Bank represents a bet by the Israelis and the Americans that enough can be accomplished so that the Palestinians will not abandon peace talks even after the freeze ends.

But the freeze proposal, which was reached in intensive negotiations with the United States and still needs Israeli government approval — Mr. Netanyahu presented it to his cabinet on Sunday — carries huge risks for all sides. Even before the cabinet began to consider it, both the Israeli right and the Palestinian leadership raised strong objections.

And for the Obama administration, which promised not to seek any further construction freezes as a precondition for securing this one, it is unclear what will happen to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process if this freeze, like the last one, comes and goes without a Palestinian commitment to remain in negotiations with Israel on creation of a Palestinian state.

Under the proposed freeze, negotiated by Mr. Netanyahu and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton during nearly eight hours of talks in New York last Thursday, the Israelis would stop most construction on settlements in the West Bank for 90 days to break an impasse in the peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

Those negotiations began in Washington in early September, but soon faltered over Palestinian anger at resumed settlement construction, when a previous 10-month freeze ended.

In return, the Israelis would receive 20 advanced American fighter jets and other unspecified military aid, as well as American promises to oppose any Palestinian attempt to obtain international recognition of statehood in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza without Israeli agreement.

The United States would veto a United Nations Security Council resolution along those lines and actively work against similar resolutions in forums where it does not have a veto.

Both Israeli and American officials said that final borders could not be negotiated in three months, but they hoped enough progress could be made on exchanging settlement blocks for other land, as well as other significant issues, so that a settlement freeze would no longer be a Palestinian demand for moving forward.

The vote by Mr. Netanyahu’s cabinet on the proposal is expected to be very close but it was likely to pass by at least one vote, analysts said. Likewise, while the Palestinians have objected partly because the proposed construction freeze does not include East Jerusalem, which they want as the capital of their future state, that is not considered an issue likely to dissuade them from rejoining the talks.

President Obama, returning from his Asia trip, praised the tentative deal worked out by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Netanyahu. “I think it is promising,” Mr. Obama told reporters aboard Air Force One.

“I commend Prime Minister Netanyahu for taking, I think, a very constructive step. It’s not easy for him to do, but I think it’s a signal that he is serious.”

Obama administration officials said they believed that the Israelis and Palestinians could make enough progress on the contours of a Palestinian state to largely set aside the dispute over settlements.

Under the most likely outcome, said a person close to the negotiations, the two sides would agree that several large West Bank settlement blocks would be kept in Israeli territory, and Israel would exchange a commensurate amount of land to compensate the Palestinians for that territory.

Drawing the exact border lines could be left for later in the negotiations, but a general agreement on the shape of a state would make the settlements recede in importance, this person said. The two sides would not have to settle delicate issues like the status of Jerusalem in the first 90 days. The point of the extension, the official said, is to allow the negotiations to gain enough traction to continue without further disruption.

Mr. Netanyahu continues to negotiate with the Obama administration about details of the American offer — for example, over the terms on which the American fighter planes would be delivered to Israel. Some of the elements of the offer, including the military hardware and a security pact between Israel and the United States, are things that the administration would most likely have offered later, when Israel was close to signing a final agreement, according to officials and analysts.

“The fact that this is front loaded, visible, and that Jerusalem by agreement is left out of the moratorium — not to mention all the political stuff related to the U.N. — is a sweet deal” for Mr. Netanyahu, said Aaron David Miller, a veteran of peace negotiations who is now a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.

The initial reaction by conservative Israeli politicians was to oppose the deal, saying that the previous 10-month settlement freeze was a one-time gesture and ought not to be extended. They emphasized that for the first nine of those 10 months, the Palestinians did not negotiate. They also argued that if the aim of the 90 days was to establish future borders, too much would be given away by Israel before a comprehensive agreement was reached.

“Here we are going with a process in which we give up all the land of Israel but the other issues still exist,” Silvan Shalom, minister of regional cooperation and a member of Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud party, told Israel Radio.

“If Israel has a three-month freeze, the pressure to establish borders will be unbearable.”

The West Bank, although inhabited by millions of Palestinians, is the heartland of much ancient Jewish history, so for many Israelis, giving it up is a painful prospect and should come only as part of a comprehensive deal including Palestinian recognition of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Mr. Netanyahu is still hoping to obtain that statement from the Palestinians as part of these talks. The Israeli argument all along has been that making peace talks contingent on a settlement freeze is a mistake, but once the Obama administration did so, it was impossible for the Palestinians to ask for less.

The proposed freeze would include any construction started since the last freeze ended on Sept. 26. That would stem the building units already going up, although once the 90-day period ended, they would probably begin again.

Ethan Bronner reported from Jerusalem, and Mark Landler from Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/world/middleeast/15mideast.html?_r=2&ref=world