If Americans Knew : موقع لوعرف الأميركيون ينشر ما لا تريد الأردن نشره دفاعا عن جرائم إسرائيل والأنظمة
What will Obama do?
 |
President Obama's actions are unlikely to stray outside the
parameters the Israel lobby is willing to accept. But there is growing movement
that is challenging the lobby's stronghold on U.S. politics.
By Alison Weir
Palestine
News, London
Spring 2013
|
Alison Weir is the President of the Council
for the National Interest (CNI) and Executive Director of If Americans
Knew.
|
Whenever a US president begins a term of office many people round
the world are curious about what policies he may pursue on Israel-Palestine.
They wonder if he will once again call on Israel to reduce its settlement
activities as almost every president has done at least once.
Will he condemn Israeli aggression, or only Palestinian rockets? Will he push
a "peace process" in which virtually all the American mediators are Israel
partisans[1] or will a few
non-Zionists be permitted to play a role?
As Barack Obama began his second term as president, these questions came up
again. But these are the wrong questions. Instead, to predict what he will do,
one only needs to ask what the Israel lobby is likely to require.
The president won't always do what the lobby demands – on rare occasions he
may deviate a bit from its dictates– but a large percentage of the time he will
dutifully do what the lobbyists command.
In other words, in order accurately to analyse American policies in the
Middle East, to predict how they will change or not and to develop effective
ways to revamp them in the directions that are so urgently needed for
humanitarian relief and real peace, it is essential to understand the decisive
role the Israel lobby plays in the United States.
Presidents and politicians from both major parties have long been extremely
aware of this lobby. It may greatly improve or impede their chances of winning
an election, of passing legislation, of receiving positive press coverage, of,
quite simply, going on to bigger and better things.
Through the years the lobby for Israel has been a decisive factor in the
defeat of Republicans Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey (at one time a Presidential
contender) and Charles Percy (another Presidential contender) and Democrats
Adlai Stevenson, William Fulbright, Earl Hilliard, Cynthia McKinney and quite
likely many more.[2]
Politicians from both parties attend the annual convention of its major
lobbying arm, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and pledge
their loyalty to this foreign country. President Barack Obama, whose early and
major backing came from members of the Israel lobby[3], gave his first post-nomination speech at the AIPAC
convention.
Yet, despite the lobby's inordinate power, most Americans are only minimally
aware of it. For decades surveys have shown that the large majority of Americans
don't wish to take sides on Israel-Palestine, a reflection of a public that is
uninformed about how much of our tax money goes to Israel and how decisively our
government is, indeed, taking a side.
This widespread lack of awareness about the role of the Israel lobby in
determining American policies is particularly startling given that the movement
on behalf of Israel has been active in the United States for over 100 years and
that it played a significant role in Israel's creation.[4]
By the 1920s it was able successfully to promote its policies over those
recommended by the US State Department; by the 1940s it had added Pentagon
policies to those it could overrule and both presidential candidates Harry
Truman and Thomas Dewey were currying its favour[5]; by 1967 it was able to push its cover story on Israel's
lethal attack on the US naval ship Liberty over opposition by high ranking
admirals, the director of the CIA and the Secretary of State[6]; and by 1977 the head of AIPAC could state
with accuracy: "We have never lost on a major issue."[7]
Half a century ago the Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigating
lobbying activities found an illicit cycle in which the Israel lobby succeeded
in procuring money for Israel, some of this was then secretly funneled back into
these groups, which then used this money to lobby for still more American tax
dollars to Israel.
The hearings concluded that Israel operated "one of the most effective
networks of foreign influence" in the United States.[8] Yet, since the media reported on this so little, most
Americans are unaware of these extremely grave findings.
The term "Israel lobby" fails to do justice to the extraordinary scope and
composition of this special interest group. Below is a small sampling of the
American organisations that work on behalf of Israel. Virtually all have
multi-million dollar budgets; a few have endowments in the hundreds of million
dollars and most of them are funded by tax-deductible donations:
- The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC): $100 million endowment, [9] $60 million annual revenues.[10]
- The American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF): $26 million annual revenues.[11]
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP): $23.5 million net assets. $9.4 million annual revenues.
- International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (aka Stand for Israel): $100 million annual revenues.[14]
- The Israel Project: $11 million annual budget.[15]
- Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces (FIDF): $80 million net assets,[16] $60 million annual revenues.[17]
- Hadassah (Women's Zionist Organization of America): $400 million net assets, $100 million annual revenues.
- The Jim Joseph Foundation: $837 million net assets.[20]
- The Avi Chai Foundation: $615 million total assets.[21]
- Jewish Federations: $3 billion annual revenues.[22]
- Jewish Community Relations Councils, in cities all over U.S.: Boston annual revenues $2.5 million; Louisville annual revenues $7-10 million; Detroit $734,000, New York $4.5 million, etc.[23]
- Hillel: Over $26 million.[24]
- JINSA Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs: $3 million annual revenues.
- Center for Security Policy: $4 million annual revenues.[25]
- Foreign Policy Initiative (PNAC 2.0): $1.5 million annual revenues.[26]
- MEMRI Middle East Media Research Institute: $5.2 million.[27]
- Birthright: $55 million.[28]
- David Project: $4.4 million.[29]
- CAMERA Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America: $3.5 million.[30]
In addition to these nonprofit organisations, there are dozens of political
action committees (PACs) that donate to political candidates on the basis of
their positions on Israel. Most of these disguise their purpose by using such
deceptive names as "Northern Californians for Good Government," "National Action
Committee," "American Principles," etc.
While other issue-based PACs almost always announce their focus publicly[31], in 2012 only two of the
pro-Israel PACs made any reference to Israel in their names.[32] While US media frequently discuss the gun
rights lobby, the largely uncovered pro-Israel PACs gave almost twice as much
money to candidates – and the donations went to both parties.[33]
In addition, there are numerous individuals who play an extremely important
role in the Israel lobbying effort. Two examples are political campaign
mega-donors Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson. Saban donated $12.3 million to the
Democratic Party in 2002 alone and has contributed millions more to pro-Israel
organisations.
Adelson, a billionaire casino magnate, set a new record in political
donations by giving $70 million in the 2012 elections, nearly triple the
previous highest amount. He also funds such pro-Israel organisations as
Birthright Israel which takes thousands of young Jewish Americans on recruiting
visits to Israel.
In other cases, it is individuals with a different kind of power – the power
to affect which information reaches the American public and which does not. One
example is Eric Weider, whose Weider History Group publishes eleven history
magazines in the United States, the largest history magazine publisher in
America (and, according to its website, the world).[34]
Given this reality, President Obama's actions are unlikely to stray outside
the parameters the Israel lobby is willing to accept. While the media are making
a great deal over the very mild apology Israel made to Turkey for having
murdered nine of its citizens, crediting Obama with this alleged break-through,
none of the news reports seem to mention that Israel has largely failed to
apologise to the US for the death of 19-year-old dual American Turkish citizen,
Furgan Dogan, who was killed with five bullets, one to his face at point blank
range.[35]
It is also relevant to note that an AIPAC-drafted letter signed by 76 out of
100 Senators was sent to President Obama on the eve of his visit to Israel in
March.[36]
Congressional actions can also be expected to remain within what the Israel
lobby directs, though here, too, there may be rare occasions where the lobby
seems to have lost – such as the confirmation of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of
Defence.
However, the alleged triumph that some pro-Palestinian writers are
proclaiming for Hagel's appointment is a bit overblown. Before he was allowed to
take his position, he was made to grovel humiliatingly before his Congressional
interrogators, retract acceptable statements he had made earlier in his life and
all but swear devotion to Israel (like all top government officials seemingly
must do).
This degrading spectacle surely made it clear to Hagel that he better watch
his step in the future and made it even clearer to ambitious Americans of all
ages that they must be extremely careful about any statements they make about
Israel and its lobby if they are to achieve their political ambitions.
Despite the power of the lobby, however, the situation is not as bleak as the
above may suggest. There is a highly diverse movement in the US that opposes
this lobby and it is steadily growing.
The Left, which for decades was largely silent on Israeli abuses of human
rights, has finally become active on the issue. Similarly, both traditional
conservatives and libertarians frequently oppose aid to Israel and this
opposition is becoming more outspoken. While this stance is often motivated by
fiscal considerations, in many cases it is also fuelled by outrage at Israeli
cruelty and by genuine empathy with Palestinians.
The money being mobilised on this side is only a small fraction of the other
and some of the groups within this movement could arguably be considered simply
a more reasonable and compassionate arm of the Israel lobby in that their
advocacy is often framed according to what "is good for Israel" while failing to
address the inherent injustice of an ethnic state imposed on a multicultural
region.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the opposition to current US policies is
growing increasingly important. The tide may not yet have turned but it is
certainly in the slowing phase that must come first.
To use another oft-quoted and particularly apt metaphor, lobbies thrive in
the dark. More and more people in the US and elsewhere are shining light on this
one, steadily reducing its power.
While there are numerous deeply significant issues, an increasing number of
individuals are deciding to focus on this one, the core issue of the Middle East
and the cause of war after war, including the current "war on terror" and
demonisation of Muslims.
To use the framing posed by journalist Glenn Greenwald, an expanding number
of people are refusing to prioritise domestic issues over the killing of Arab
and Muslim children on the other side of the world.
Therefore, despite the enormous power of the Israel lobby in the US, this
growing movement is quite likely to overcome the obstacles confronting it and to
join history's other successful movements against oppression.
The main question is how long this will take, and how many more massacres,
and possibly wars, will occur in the interim.
[1] Even Aaron David Miller
admitted they acted as "Israel's lawyer" – Miller, Aaron David. "Israel's
Lawyer." Washington Post 23 May 2005, posted by Matt Miller Opinion
Writer. Online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/22/AR2005052200883.html
[2] Findley, Paul.
They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby.
Westport, CT: Lawrence Hill, 1985. Online at http://archive.org/stream/They-Dare-To-Speak-Out-Paul-Findley/They_Dare_to_Speak_Out_Paul_Findley_djvu.txt
and Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. The Israel Lobby and U.S.
Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007.
[3] Yearwood,
Pauline Dubkin. "Obama and the Jews." Chicago Jewish News 24 Oct.
2008.
[4] Weir, Alison.
"Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the United States Was
Used to Create Israel." IfAmericansKnew.org. 2012. Web. http://ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/history.html
[5] Weir, "Against
Our Better Judgment"
[7] The Power
Peddlers, by Russell Warren Howe and Sarah Hays Trott, Doubleday, p. 292.
[8] Smith, Grant.
"Where Did AIPAC Come From?" Antiwar.com. N.p., 09 Oct. 2007. Web. http://antiwar.com/orig/gsmith.php?articleid=11727
and Neff, Donald. "Ulbright Called for U.S. Defense Pact With Israel But Was
Labeled Anti-Semite." Washington Report on Middle East Affairs
August-September (1997): 96. Online at http://www.wrmea.org/wrmea-archives/188-washington-report-archives-1994-1999/august-september-1997/2677-middle-east-history-it-happened-in-august-.html
In 2009, the Economist reported: "AIPAC has an annual budget of around $60m,
more than 275 employees, an endowment of over $130m and a new $80m headquarters
building on Capitol Hill." http://www.economist.com/node/14753768
[34] Weir, Alison.
"The Empire Behind World's Largest History Magazine Chain: How American History
Magazine Censored Palestine." CounterPunch Dec. 6, 2012. Online at http://ifamericansknew.org/media/weider.html
[35] Lynch, Colum.
"U.N. Panel Endorses Report Accusing Israel of Executions aboard Aid Flotilla."
Washington Post 30 Sept. 2010, A Section. Online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/29/AR2010092907110.html?wprss=rss_print/asection
[36] "Did Your
Favorite Progressive Senator Sign AIPAC Letter To Obama Telling Him To Stand Up
For Occupation? Here Is The List." MJ Rosenberg, Mar. 2013. Online at http://mjayrosenberg.com/2013/03/19/did-your-favorite-progressive-senator-sign-aipac-letter-to-obama-telling-him-to-stand-up-for-occupation-here-is-the-list/
Alison Weir is the President of the Council for the National Interest (CNI) and Executive Director of If AmericansKnew.
The New York Times reports that an Israeli diplomat turned U.S. citizen – and now president of the war crimes tribunal at the Hague – has been pressuring the court to acquit officials accused of war crimes.
The Times says that the Israeli-American judge, Theodor Meron, "... has led a push for raising the bar for conviction in such cases, prosecutors say, to the point where a conviction has become nearly impossible."
Some analysts feel that Meron's motivation may be to protect Israeli political and military leaders from prosecutions that could place them in legal jeopardy.
International attorney and analyst John Whitbeck comments that both Israel and the United States are "world leaders in the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace," and that their officials "would prefer to see the bar for criminal convictions raised to a level which offers them continued impunity."
However, Whitbeck points out that the risk to American leaders is relatively insignificant, since the U.S. government would be able to use its UN Security Council veto to protect its leaders.
The situation for Israeli officials, on the other hand, is quite different. According to Whitbeck: "The threat of accountability is potentially imminent and urgent for Israel and Israelis."
Before immigrating to the U.S., Meron was a member of the Israeli Foreign Service and served as Israeli Ambassador to Canada and to the United Nations in Geneva. He also served as Legal Counsel to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In 1967 Meron wrote a secret memorandum of law to Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol stating that creating Israeli settlements on occupied territory would be a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, contrary to international law and, hence, a war crime.
The Israeli government ignored this memo (which neither the government nor Meron made public), and have been creating illegal settlements ever since. In January a UN panel stated that the settlements "contravened the Fourth Geneva Convention forbidding the transfer of civilian populations into occupied territory and could amount to war crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC)."
Below is the New York Times article about the discomfort felt by Meron's fellow judges about his actions as head of the international tribunal and their efforts to replace him:
By MARLISE SIMONS
Published: June 14, 2013
PARIS – A judge at the United Nations war crimes tribunal in The Hague has exposed a deep rift at the highest levels of the court in a blistering letter suggesting that the court's president, an American, pressured other judges into approving the recent acquittals of top Serb and Croat commanders.The letter from the judge, Frederik Harhoff of Denmark, raised serious questions about the credibility of the court, which was created in 1993 to address the atrocities committed in the wars in the former Yugoslavia.Even before Judge Harhoff's letter was made public Thursday, in the Danish newspaper Berlingske, the recent acquittals had provoked a storm of complaints from international lawyers, human rights groups and other judges at the court, who claimed in private that the rulings had abruptly rewritten legal standards that had been applied in earlier cases.Experts say they see a shift in the court toward protecting the interests of the military. "A decade ago, there was a very strong humanitarian message coming out of the tribunal, very concerned with the protection of civilians," said William Schabas, who teaches law at Middlesex University in London. "It was not concerned with the prerogatives of the military and the police. This message has now been weakened, there is less protection for civilians and human rights."Other lawyers agreed that the tribunal, which has pioneered new laws, is sending a new message to other armies: they do not need to be as frightened of international justice as they might have been four or five years ago.But until now, no judge at the tribunal had openly attributed the apparent change to the court's current president, Theodor Meron, 83, a longtime legal scholar and judge.Judge Harhoff's letter, dated June 6, was e-mailed to 56 lawyers, friends and associates; the newspaper did not say how it obtained a copy. In his letter, Judge Harhoff, 64, who has been on the tribunal since 2007, said that in two cases Judge Meron, a United States citizen who was formerly an Israeli diplomat, applied "tenacious pressure" on his fellow judges in such a way that it "makes you think he was determined to achieve an acquittal.""Have any American or Israeli officials ever exerted pressure on the American presiding judge (the presiding judge for the court that is) to ensure a change of direction?" Judge Harhoff asked. "We will probably never know."A spokesman at the court declined to comment on the letter. Other judges and lawyers were willing to speak, provided that their names were not used.By their accounts, a mini-rebellion has been brewing against Judge Meron, prompting some of the 18 judges of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to group around an alternative candidate for the scheduled election for tribunal president this fall. Until now, Judge Meron had been expected to be re-elected."I'd say about half the judges are feeling very uncomfortable and prefer to turn to a different candidate," said a senior court official. The official said he did not believe that American officials had pressured Judge Meron to rule a certain way in any case, "But I believe he wants to cooperate with his government," the official said. "He's putting on a lot of pressure and imposing internal deadlines that do not exist."The legal dispute that is the focus of Judge Harhoff's letter and that has led to sharp language in dissents is the degree of responsibility that senior military leaders should bear for war crimes committed by their subordinates.In earlier cases before the tribunal, a number of military or police officers and politicians were convicted of massacres and other war crimes committed by followers or subordinates on the principle that they had been members of a "joint criminal enterprise."In contrast, three Serbian leaders and two Croatian generals who played key roles during the war were acquitted recently because judges argued that the men had not specifically ordered or approved war crimes committed by subordinates.Judge Meron has led a push for raising the bar for conviction in such cases, prosecutors say, to the point where a conviction has become nearly impossible. Critics say he misjudged the crucial roles played by the high-level accused and has set legal precedents that will protect military commanders in the future.The United Nations Security Council created the tribunal, a costly endeavor, and has been pressing it for years to speed up work and wind down, with the United States and Russia at the forefront of those efforts.By early this year, 68 suspects had been sentenced and 18 had been acquitted. But some of the highest ranking wartime leaders have been judged at a time when the tribunal is short-staffed and under continuing pressure to close down.Today, as the tribunal winds down it work, pressure over time is among the complaints heard from judges' chambers. Several senior court officials, while declining to discuss individual cases, said judges had been perturbed by unacceptable pressures from Judge Meron to deliver judgments before they were ready.After the only session to deliberate the acquittal that Judge Meron had drafted in the case of the two Croatian generals, one official said, the judge abruptly declined a request by two dissenting judges for further debate.In his letter, Judge Harhoff also said that Judge Michele Picard of France was recently rushed unduly and given only four days to write her dissent against the majority decision to acquit two Serbian police chiefs, Jovica Stanisic and Frank Simatovic."She was very taken aback by the acquittal and deeply upset about the fast way it had to be handled," said an official close to the case.Judge Harhoff's letter, which echoes protests by many international experts, seems likely to add a fresh bruise to the tribunal's reputation."The latest judgments here have brought before me a deep professional and moral dilemma not previously faced," he wrote in conclusion. "The worst is the suspicion that some of my colleagues have been behind a shortsighted political pressure that completely changes the premises of my work in my service to wisdom and the law."
-----
RELATED ARTICLES:
ICTY:"Meronization" of our future – Theodor Meron has become the gravedigger of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. With the acquittal of Momčilo Perišić he has established the mechanisms for protecting political and war leaders from eventual criminal prosecution for grave violations of international humanitarian law.
عن موقع (ماذا لو عرف الأميركيون ) أو بترجمة أخرى (لو عرف الأميركيون )
تعليقات