Israel Violates Economic Sanctions Against Iran
- Details
- Written by Grant Smith at AntiWar.com Grant Smith at AntiWar.com
- Published: 11 February 2010 11 February 2010
- Hits: 3226 3226
The Obama administration is escalating economic sanctions against Iran. Administered by a secretive unit within the US Treasury Department, they will freeze the assets of Revolutionary Guard Gen. Rostam Qasemi as well as four subsidiaries of a construction firm that he leads. These sanctions build upon existing U.S. unilateral sanctions targeting shippers, financial institutions, and elements of the Guard Corps some believe are promoting Iran’s missile and nuclear programs.
Economic warfare expert R. Thomas Naylor extensively documents that such sanctions create black markets and spread corruption while doing relatively little to deter rogue regimes. Obvious economic dynamics create vast margins for smugglers and traders willing to bust embargoes. Unless the economy of a target country is particularly dependent upon the influence or volume of goods from any single international partner, profiteers quickly step into the breach. Sanctions typically punish legitimate traders while favoring corruption around the world.
That corrupting nature of sanctions reaches far into the US. One example is Marc Rich, indicted in the United States on federal charges of illegal oil deals with Iran during the Iran hostage crisis. Rich broke US embargoes by purchasing Iranian crude under special deals with Ayatollah Khomeini. Rich then sold them at healthy margins to legitimate traders locked out of the market by US sanctions. Forbes ranked the intrepid Rich as the 242nd richest American in 2006 with a net worth of US $1.5 billion.
Rich stayed outside the U.S. until he arranged for an unprecedented pardon from President Bill Clinton on January 20, 2001. Eric Holder, then acting as deputy attorney general, gave Clinton his “neutral, leaning towards favorable” recommendation to pardon the Switzerland-based fugitive financier after a quiet and intense campaign by the Israeli government’s Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres and the US Israel lobby.
But the temptations of sanctions busting aren’t an “elites only” affair. Under the highly problematic US-Israel Free Trade Agreement, US growers should have an advantage in supplying the $20 million Israeli pistachio market. But grower complaints meticulously documented in 2007 to the US Trade Representative reveal that Israel prefers to avoid importing American nuts while violating its own “Trading with the Enemy Act” by purchasing Iranian pistachios through Turkey. Although US growers supplied scientific test data to the US Trade Representative validating these claims, no punitive measures have been taken by Israel or the USTR (an office of the President).
History suggests that Israelis and their US lobby’s financial backers will be first in line to violate so-called “crippling sanctions” against Iran, a country over which the US has relatively little direct economic leverage. This adds insult to injury, since a real US economic sanctions regime — likely to have been highly successful in averting conditions underlying any potential Middle East nuclear arms race — has been suppressed since it was signed into law over three decades ago.
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended by the Symington Amendment of 1976 and the Glenn Amendment of 1977 prohibited US military assistance to countries that acquire or transfer nuclear reprocessing technology outside of international nonproliferation regimes. Israel, unlike Iran, is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The declassified US Army report titled The Joint Operating Environment 2008identifies Israel as a nuclear weapons power in "a growing arc of nuclear powers running from Israel in the west through an emerging Iran to Pakistan, India, and on to China, North Korea, and Russia in the east." Jimmy Carter became the first former President to confirm in 2008 that Israel had secretly financed, developed, and deployed an undeclared arsenal of nuclear weapons. Israeli Mordecai Vanunu long ago released his damning photos of Israeli nuclear weapons and facilities for which he served 18 years in prison.
If the President wishes to disburse US taxpayer-funded foreign aid to Israel in compliance with US law, he may do so only by issuing a special waiver, available for public review, as is currently the case with US aid for Pakistan. Yet every president from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama has violated their oath of office — all refused to either withhold aid or sign the short presidential waiver that would make delivering taxpayer funded US foreign aid to Israel legal under Symington and Glenn.
If US presidents had faithfully executed this US law in order to reign in the Israeli nuclear weapons program since in the 1970s, there can be little doubt that the Middle East would be a vastly better place. Israel is fully dependent on access to the US market, diplomatic cover, and vast military aid. Israel would have been motivated to negotiate in good faith a comprehensive peaceful settlement with its near and distant neighbors, none of which would feel pressure to establish a deterrent to Israel’s nuclear weapons. But in terms of political coercion, Israel’s arsenal is pointed squarely at the US. Back in 1960 the CIA estimated [PDF] that "Possession of a nuclear weapon capability, or even the prospect of achieving it, would clearly give Israel a greater sense of security, self-confidence, and assertiveness…Israel would be less inclined than ever to make concessions…"
The presidential history of capitulation to Israeli violators unmasks these new economic sanctions for what they truly are: corrupt “box checking exercises” as Israel’s lobby eagerly drives the US toward yet another needless — but long planned — military conflict which serves no legitimate American interest.
Article printed from Antiwar.com Original: http://original.antiwar.com
Getting rid of Palestinians: Expulsion without trucks
- Details
- Written by Amira Hass Amira Hass
- Published: 10 February 2010 10 February 2010
- Hits: 3166 3166
Neither could they bear the other restrictions and prohibitions that the fence and its planners have imposed on them: They were forbidden to have relatives and friends visit; forbidden to get ill or have babies at night, when the gate is closed; forbidden to bring large quantities of food home, as big families require; forbidden to link their homes up with the electricity grid; and they were forbidden to build a clinic - restrictions and prohibitions to the point of suffocation.
Dhaher al-Maleh does not appear on Israeli maps. The maps are crowded with the settlements that have been positioned and expanded on and between the northwestern West Bank villages of Barta'a and Umm Reihan. The "Barta'a enclave" is one of the largest pockets created by the fence as it winds its way east of Umm al-Fahm. It contains 18,000 dunams that by any standards of justice, ethics and logic should have provided space for developing Palestinian society. But instead these lands were plundered under cover of security pretexts.
The fence was built some five kilometers from the Green Line, which now anyway exists only for the 5,000 or so Palestinians living in seven communities who are trapped between the line and the fence. As far as the maps and the authorities are concerned, this is all already Israel. The occupation authorities have taken land that was not theirs for the 1,500 settlers already there and the many more they hope will come to live there. An industrial zone is for Israelis only, as is the beautiful scenery. As for the indigenous Palestinians, if they want to stay there, let them suffer.
The Barta'a enclave reflects the entire Palestinian condition, or more correctly, Israeli policy toward the Palestinians and its repercussions. It is a matter of regional planning policy that expropriates vacant lands and restricts Palestinian development, and of the denial of the indigenous people's natural rights: the right of inheritance and cultivation, the right to freedom of movement, the right to work, the right to family life, and the right to housing and education by choice.
This pernicious combination sums up the history of the occupation from 1967 to today. It is the government's guiding policy in East Jerusalem and lies at the foundation of the treatment of Palestinian citizens of Israel. The hands that do the work are different: In one area it's the army, its civil administration and the defense ministry, in the other it's the municipality and the government ministries. Different hands, the same head.
It is from this combination that we deduce Israeli intentions that are usually not pronounced out loud. Instead we hear the old mantra: Preserve the country's Jewish majority. One way of doing this, especially now that the reservoirs of mass Jewish migration have dried up, is to thin out the Palestinian population.
A popular Palestinian response to the Israeli intentions is a high birth rate. This does prevent a thinning out, but in the absence of space for development the result is intolerable overcrowding, poverty, dependence on social welfare and a lack of sources of livelihood.
Guided by an innate impulse and inbuilt knowledge, Israel constantly creates intolerable conditions that drive the Palestinians to leave against their inclinations and plans. They migrate from the forbidden Area C to Area A, and from Qalqilyah, Jenin and Jerusalem to Ramallah. Meanwhile, people from Ramallah and Jerusalem - especially the young, educated and propertied - go abroad.
Expulsion, drop by drop, is happening all the time, even though there are no trucks.
New Site Details Budgetary Trade-Offs of Military Aid to Israel
- Details
- Written by US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
- Published: 09 February 2010 09 February 2010
- Hits: 3624 3624
Multnomah County, Oregon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This money could have been spent instead to:
Oregon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This money could have been spent instead to:
Read more: New Site Details Budgetary Trade-Offs of Military Aid to Israel
Human Rights Groups Say Israel and Hamas Fail in Investigations
- Details
- Written by Alex Kane Alex Kane
- Published: 08 February 2010 08 February 2010
- Hits: 3243 3243
A chorus of statements from human rights organizations has determined that both Israel and Palestinian authorities have failed to conduct independent, impartial investigations into alleged war crimes committed during last year’s Israeli assault on Gaza.
The United Nations’ Goldstone report called on both sides to conduct independent investigations in accordance with international standards over the war crimes allegations. A U.N. resolution that was adopted in November implored Israel and Hamas to undertake these investigations within three months—and that time frame is up now.
Both the Israeli and Palestinian reports were given to the United Nations in late January, and they both denied wrongdoing. Much of the Israeli report focuses on the capacity of the military to investigate itself.
Below are excerpts from some of the human rights organizations’ statements concerning Israel’s and the Palestinians’ investigations.
From Human Rights Watch:
Israel has failed to demonstrate that it will conduct thorough and impartial investigations into alleged laws-of-war violations by its forces during last year’s Gaza conflict. An independent investigation is needed if perpetrators of abuse, including senior military and political officials who set policies that violated the laws of war, are to be held accountable.
From B’Tselem:
No system can investigate itself. The [Israeli] report emphasizes the independence of the military justice system in interpreting the law. However in all other matters, it is an integral part of the military… B’Tselem again urges Israel to immediately establish an independent investigative apparatus composed of persons from outside the military. The investigation must examine not only the conduct of the soldiers in the field but also the orders given them and the policy that was set by the senior military echelon and the political echelon.
The Palestinian Center for Human Rights, in addition to criticizing the Israeli undertakings, has said that the investigations carried out by Hamas and by officials in Ramallah are not credible, as has Human Rights Watch.
Human Rights Watch called the Hamas claim that their rocket attacks into Israel are not war crimes “factually and legally wrong.”
In addition, a coalition of Israeli human rights groups sent an open letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 4 days before the Israeli response was released to the U.N., calling on Israel to "establish, without delay, an independent and impartial investigation mechanism to thoroughly examine the allegations raised regarding violations of international law during Operation Cast Lead."
Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon’s only statement on the responses has been to say that, “no determination can be made on the implementation of the (UN) resolution by the parties concerned.”
The Palestinian Center for Human Rights said they were “shocked and appalled by this lack of responsibility,” by Ban, saying that Israel has not conducted credible investigations and that the United Nations has a responsibility to ensure accountability for war crimes.
Bronner story keeps on ticking
- Details
- Written by Philip Weiss Philip Weiss
- Published: 08 February 2010 08 February 2010
- Hits: 3234 3234
[One of the New York Time's main journalists covering Israel is Ethan Bronner who is under fire because his son has joined the IDF ("Israeli Defense Forces"). In a surprising development, the Time's own Public Editor has concluded the Bronner should be re-assigned from his position to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.]
Gray lady has a thorn in her side. Bernard Avishai says (and I tend to agree) that Ethan Bronner shouldn’t be moved from Jerusalem just because his son joined the IDF. But Avishai then quotes Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn in a highminded (and dual-nationalized) struggle to overlook the real problem: his friend Bronner is in the tank. The Merhava Tank. Lysandra Ohrstrom at Huffpo gets this. Swonderful, smarvelous:
You don’t have to be a journalist, editor, or Middle Eastern scholar to find signs of biases in Bronner’s coverage. Nor does one have to examine it microscopically. Just type in his byline in the search box of the Times’ website and glance at the first twenty headlines that appear and it’s obvious where Bronner’s sympathies lie. Almost every substantial story is told from the perspective of Israelis: "Israel Nears Membership in Economic Club," from January 19; "For Israel, Mixed Feelings on Aid Effort," published on January 22; "Israel Prepares Rebuttal to the Goldstone Report," from January 23.
Note to young journalists: This is concrete and precise.
Bronner himself told Hoyt that he "would rather be judged by his work than his biography," so a signs of bias take a look at the latter story on what he characterizes as Israel’s campaign to "dispel the [Goldstone] report’s harsh conclusion — that the death of noncombatants and destruction of civilian infrastructure were part of an official plan to terrorize the Palestinian population."…
Rubble and destruction were the most minor consequences of the war, but you’d never know that from reading Bronner’s account. The Times in general, and Bronner in particular, have a long history of burying the plight of individual Palestinians under the rubble in service of furthering a one-sided narrative of the conflict.
Bronner’s objectivity deserves to be questioned and If his son’s military service is the impetus for readers to look deeper into the news they consumer and the interests driving it, so be it. By pretending to engage in a discussion about journalistic objectivity,[executive editor Bill] Keller and [public editor Clark] Hoyt made it blatantly obvious that readers cannot rely on editors for a balanced news diet.
Beautifully done. The great thing about the Bronner story is that it has opened the door on the Times’ biased coverage. And opened the door on Jewish identity construction in the American Establishment. Oh I love this stuff. Avishai, attacking Times public editor Clark Hoyt for saying that Bronner should leave Jerusalem, writes:
Hoyt is valorizing crude behaviorist ideas masquerading as liberal ones, that we are, really, nothing but bundles of "socialized preferences." What we think is the product of our "demographic." Our claims of fact (about history, society, etc.) are, by extension, an expression of our material "interests," or if we are deeply socialized, "values."
Those are good questions, they are about consciousness/and a writer’s self-awareness; and they touch on the central issues of Jewish identity and Zionism. If I were Bronner’s friend, I’d urge him to write about it, to use the crisis to grow as a writer.