The 2016 elections are more than two years away, so anything might happen between now and then. As of today, though, Democrats are giving overwhelming support for a Hillary Clinton run and she is ahead of presumptive Republican candidates by 6 or 7 points. As a one-term Secretary of State, she accomplished nothing of note. Today, her rhetoric on foreign policy as she gears up for the 2016 campaign is becoming hawkish to the point of stupidity. She is distancing herself from Obama's more moderate policies, getting in line with AIPAC's support of Likud policies, and, just may be, endangering the last chance for a two-state solution and a just settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.
Andy Kroll in an August 15 Mother Jones post writes: "In a recent interview with The Atlantic, Hillary Clinton went to great lengths to separate herself from her former boss, President Obama, in the realm of foreign policy. She unabashedly defended Israel's actions in the ongoing war in Gaza, chalked up civilian casualties in that conflict to 'the fog of war,' drew a hard line on Iran, and argued that the 'failure' of the Obama administration to arm Syrian rebel forces led to the rise of the Islamic State." Her comments are decidedly not those of a future President - at least not anyone that I'd like to support. We've already had the Bush-era neocons lead us into unjustifiable wars and drain the Treasury of at least $4 trillion.
How any fair-minded person can defend Israel's actions against Gaza - killing at least 1400 civilians including more than 400 children, destroying more than 10,000 homes and the enclave's only power plant, shelling six UN shelters for persons displaced by the assault, to name a few - is beyond imagination. These actions are war crimes - not something to be sloughed off as consequences of "the fog of war." She's signaling AIPAC that they should not abandon the Democrats because of Obama's policies and comments - tepid as they are in light of the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis brought about by the Israeli assault. Hell, the Israelis don't really believe anyone will prosecute the war crimes committed in Gaza - they never have been held accountable in the past. By the time the war crimes inquiry has recommendations to make, Hillary, with her bizarre take on the destruction in Gaza, will be on the horizon as potentially the next President.
And you can bet that Netanyahu and the right-wing thugs that are in power in Israel today are also taking note. Clinton's statements are basically saying to Bibi and his crowd, "Don't worry. I won't be as tough on you as Obama." (Not that Obama was in any sense tough but at least when Kerry became Secretary of State the US made an attempt to bring about a just peace in the region.) The Israelis stonewalled the Kerry negotiations for nine months and then sabotaged them by escalating settlement construction. Seeing the handwriting on the wall, the Palestinian Authority formed a unity government with Hamas. Netanyahu and his crowd then had the gall to blame that unity government for the breakdown of the peace talks. If they can drag their feet and be counterproductive for nine months while the world's eyes were focused on them, how easy it will be for them to delay any serious talks to produce a two-state solution for the next two years. Rebuilding Gaza and ending the seven-year blockade that has devastated that region will (or should) take up much of the world community's attention. Compared to what the IDF did to Gaza, the general oppression of the Palestinians seems "benign" - as some of the more ludicrous Israeli commentators and politicians describe the 47 year Occupation.
As for Clinton's comments blaming the rise of ISIS on Obama's failure to arm the Syrian rebels, one can only wonder if she has any comprehension at all at what is happening there. The Syrian civil war is a sectarian one. Assad and the Syrian government are primarily Shia. The rebel forces and ISIS are primarily Sunni. I'm trying to understand the logic of how arming the Sunni rebel forces would stop the rise of Sunni ISIS forces. That's right - there is no logic to the argument.
The Mother Jones article has an amusing "Who Said It, Clinton or McCain?" quiz. If I wanted John McCain to be President, I'd have voted for him in 2008. There's no groundswell of American support for a more belligerent foreign policy. Other than currying AIPAC support, I'm not sure why Clinton is making these comments.
It's difficult to support someone with these views and the Democratic Party needs a serious wake up call. It has been drifting rightward since the 1980's and its policies are centrist at best. Just saying "we're not as bad as the Republicans" is not good enough. Let's hope that Hillary gets a bit wiser on foreign policy in the next 2 years. Let's hope she gets to be more of a twenty-first century leader and less of a twentieth-century hawk.
Showing posts with label Israel lobby. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel lobby. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
The Midterms - the Polls and What's at Stake
It's three months until the midterm elections. Besides the 435 House seats and 36 Senate seats to be decided on November 4, voters will go to the polls to elect 46 state legislatures, 36 state governors, and numerous local officials. The last midterms in 2010 swept Republicans into control of the House of Representatives and state governments and broke the filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. In 2010, Democrats lost 6 Senate seats and 63 House seats. The crushing defeats for Democrats were a primary motivator for writing this blog - my first post was "Anger and Lies in the Mid-terms." The 2010 midterms were a game changer. They led directly to the governmental paralysis at the national level that continues to this day. Just as importantly, increased Republican control of state governments resulted in gerrymandered districts and voter suppression laws geared to ensure Republican control of the House and to make more probable their takeover of the Senate. Supreme Court decisions on campaign finance laws and the Voting Rights Act also aid the Republican cause.
The midterms have historically led to losses for the President's political party. In the twenty-six midterm elections held since 1910, the President's party has lost, on average, 32 House seats and 4 Senate seats. Money and turnout determine elections. Money favors Republicans and turnout favors Democrats.
Thanks to the Roberts Supreme Court, the 2014 midterms will be the most expensive in history. The Open Secrets.org website tallies the financial activity for House and Senate races in 2013-2014. House races have generated $424 million for Republicans and $316 million for Democrats. Senate races have generated $207 million for Republicans and $197 million for Democrats.
Anyone doubting the influence of money on policy decisions will find it hard to explain policies that are opposed by the vast majority or that are morally bankrupt. We need only to look at the contributions to political campaigns and the amount spent on lobbying by, respectively, the pro-gun lobby ($4.3 million in political contributions in the 2012 election cycle; $22.2 million in lobbying for 2013-2014) and the pro-Israel lobby (Sheldon Adelson doled out $92.8 million to Republican super PACs in 2012; other pro-Israel groups contributed $16.1 million to the federal campaigns of both parties in the 2012 election cycle.) Anyone hoping for a change in policies that contribute to the income and wealth gap in the United States need only reflect on the contributions to political campaigns by the finance/insurance/real estate sectors ($228 million in campaign contributions to candidates and parties so far in the 2013-2014 election cycle).
Congressional disapproval ratings and the voter suppression laws increase the probability of low voter turnout. As of 2011, there were 42 million registered Democrats, 30 million registered GOPers, and 24 million independents. According to census figures, there are over 200 million people in the voting eligible population. About half the US voting population have not registered with a party or as independents. Turnout in midterm elections is even worse than that - the 2010 elections saw just 41% of the voting eligible population show up at the polls.
Both the money figures and the expected low turnout promise continued Republican control of the House and a loss of Democratic seats in the Senate. But where do the polls say we stand three months before the mid-term elections? Here's a look at the latest poll results for some specific races. (Data are from the Real Clear Politics website)
Governors
Florida - Charlie Crist (D) 43.8% v. Rick Scott (R) 42.5%
Wisconsin - Scott Walker (R) 47.0% v. Mary Burke(D) 46.3%
Texas - Greg Abbott (R) 50.5% v. Wendy Davis (D) 36.8%
Ohio - Jim Kasich (R) 47.0% v. Ed FitzGerald (D) 38.8%
Pennsylvania - Tom Wolf (D) 52.0% v. Tom Corbett (R) 39.0%
Two toss-ups, two Republican likely's and one Democratic likely in some of the most important Republican held states - some small gains in state governments but not a lot to cheer about here.
Senators
This is the key group. There are 21 Democratic seats and 15 Republican seats to be decided. Loss of the Senate majority would ensure an end to what's left of Obama's agenda and to any hope for progressive or even moderate appointments to the judiciary. These are the key seats in play in red or swing states currently with a Democratic incumbent Senator and/or with a retiring Democratic Senator:
Louisiana - Cassidy (R) 46.8% v. Landrieu (D) 45.8%
Alaska - Begich (D) 44.0% v. Sullivan (R) 41.0%
Arkansas - Cotton 47.4% (R) v. Pryor (D) 43.8%
North Carolina - Hagan (D) 45.8% v. Tillis (R) 44.0%
Virginia - Warner (D) 51.0% v. Gillespie 33.7%
Montana - Daines (R) 51.7% v. Walsh (D) 38.0%
South Dakota - Rounds(R) 44% v. Weiland (D) 29.5%
Iowa - Ernst (R) 44.8% v. Braley (D) 44.0%
Michigan - Peters (D) 43.8% v. Land (R) 39.2%
It's still early and many of the key races are toss-ups. But, if the vote were held tomorrow and the current poll figures held, Democrats would lose 5 Senate seats, making for a 50-50 split. Democrats would technically retain the majority only because of the Vice President's tie-breaking role in votes brought to the Senate floor.
Representatives
The composition of the current House of Representatives is 233 Republicans, 199 Democrats, and 3 vacancies. The most recent RealClearPolitics polling analysis shows 230 seats going to Republicans, 188 going to Democrats and 17 tossups. Splitting the tossups roughly in half makes for a Republican majority of 239 to 196 Democrats. In the best of all possible worlds - all tossups going to Democrats - the Republican majority would still be 25 seats - 230 to 205.
Finishing James Brady's fight for gun background checks [Newark Star Ledger editorial, Aug 4]
James Brady, Ronald Reagan's press secretary, died Monday at the age of 73. Brady was shot in the head during the attempted assassination of Reagan in 1981. He was permanently disabled and lived with constant pain but remained, until his death, "a tireless fighter for gun safety laws -- particularly the most common sense reform of all, universal background checks." The "Brady Law" passed in 1993 made background checks "a requirement for gun purchases from licensed dealers." It is credited with stopping the sale of "more than 2 million illegal firearms sales -- half of them attempted purchases by convicted felons." But Brady knew the job wasn't finished. The loopholes that allow 40 percent of gun purchases without background checks have never been closed. "Universal background checks are now supported by 90 percent of Americans, 84 percent of gun owners and 74 percent of NRA members. They don't march in line with industry lobbyists. We can only hope that eventually, the political class will yield to a public opinion that James Brady started to shift."
The midterms have historically led to losses for the President's political party. In the twenty-six midterm elections held since 1910, the President's party has lost, on average, 32 House seats and 4 Senate seats. Money and turnout determine elections. Money favors Republicans and turnout favors Democrats.
Thanks to the Roberts Supreme Court, the 2014 midterms will be the most expensive in history. The Open Secrets.org website tallies the financial activity for House and Senate races in 2013-2014. House races have generated $424 million for Republicans and $316 million for Democrats. Senate races have generated $207 million for Republicans and $197 million for Democrats.
Anyone doubting the influence of money on policy decisions will find it hard to explain policies that are opposed by the vast majority or that are morally bankrupt. We need only to look at the contributions to political campaigns and the amount spent on lobbying by, respectively, the pro-gun lobby ($4.3 million in political contributions in the 2012 election cycle; $22.2 million in lobbying for 2013-2014) and the pro-Israel lobby (Sheldon Adelson doled out $92.8 million to Republican super PACs in 2012; other pro-Israel groups contributed $16.1 million to the federal campaigns of both parties in the 2012 election cycle.) Anyone hoping for a change in policies that contribute to the income and wealth gap in the United States need only reflect on the contributions to political campaigns by the finance/insurance/real estate sectors ($228 million in campaign contributions to candidates and parties so far in the 2013-2014 election cycle).
Congressional disapproval ratings and the voter suppression laws increase the probability of low voter turnout. As of 2011, there were 42 million registered Democrats, 30 million registered GOPers, and 24 million independents. According to census figures, there are over 200 million people in the voting eligible population. About half the US voting population have not registered with a party or as independents. Turnout in midterm elections is even worse than that - the 2010 elections saw just 41% of the voting eligible population show up at the polls.
Both the money figures and the expected low turnout promise continued Republican control of the House and a loss of Democratic seats in the Senate. But where do the polls say we stand three months before the mid-term elections? Here's a look at the latest poll results for some specific races. (Data are from the Real Clear Politics website)
Governors
Florida - Charlie Crist (D) 43.8% v. Rick Scott (R) 42.5%
Wisconsin - Scott Walker (R) 47.0% v. Mary Burke(D) 46.3%
Texas - Greg Abbott (R) 50.5% v. Wendy Davis (D) 36.8%
Ohio - Jim Kasich (R) 47.0% v. Ed FitzGerald (D) 38.8%
Pennsylvania - Tom Wolf (D) 52.0% v. Tom Corbett (R) 39.0%
Two toss-ups, two Republican likely's and one Democratic likely in some of the most important Republican held states - some small gains in state governments but not a lot to cheer about here.
Senators
This is the key group. There are 21 Democratic seats and 15 Republican seats to be decided. Loss of the Senate majority would ensure an end to what's left of Obama's agenda and to any hope for progressive or even moderate appointments to the judiciary. These are the key seats in play in red or swing states currently with a Democratic incumbent Senator and/or with a retiring Democratic Senator:
Louisiana - Cassidy (R) 46.8% v. Landrieu (D) 45.8%
Alaska - Begich (D) 44.0% v. Sullivan (R) 41.0%
Arkansas - Cotton 47.4% (R) v. Pryor (D) 43.8%
North Carolina - Hagan (D) 45.8% v. Tillis (R) 44.0%
Virginia - Warner (D) 51.0% v. Gillespie 33.7%
Montana - Daines (R) 51.7% v. Walsh (D) 38.0%
South Dakota - Rounds(R) 44% v. Weiland (D) 29.5%
Iowa - Ernst (R) 44.8% v. Braley (D) 44.0%
Michigan - Peters (D) 43.8% v. Land (R) 39.2%
It's still early and many of the key races are toss-ups. But, if the vote were held tomorrow and the current poll figures held, Democrats would lose 5 Senate seats, making for a 50-50 split. Democrats would technically retain the majority only because of the Vice President's tie-breaking role in votes brought to the Senate floor.
Representatives
The composition of the current House of Representatives is 233 Republicans, 199 Democrats, and 3 vacancies. The most recent RealClearPolitics polling analysis shows 230 seats going to Republicans, 188 going to Democrats and 17 tossups. Splitting the tossups roughly in half makes for a Republican majority of 239 to 196 Democrats. In the best of all possible worlds - all tossups going to Democrats - the Republican majority would still be 25 seats - 230 to 205.
Finishing James Brady's fight for gun background checks [Newark Star Ledger editorial, Aug 4]
James Brady, Ronald Reagan's press secretary, died Monday at the age of 73. Brady was shot in the head during the attempted assassination of Reagan in 1981. He was permanently disabled and lived with constant pain but remained, until his death, "a tireless fighter for gun safety laws -- particularly the most common sense reform of all, universal background checks." The "Brady Law" passed in 1993 made background checks "a requirement for gun purchases from licensed dealers." It is credited with stopping the sale of "more than 2 million illegal firearms sales -- half of them attempted purchases by convicted felons." But Brady knew the job wasn't finished. The loopholes that allow 40 percent of gun purchases without background checks have never been closed. "Universal background checks are now supported by 90 percent of Americans, 84 percent of gun owners and 74 percent of NRA members. They don't march in line with industry lobbyists. We can only hope that eventually, the political class will yield to a public opinion that James Brady started to shift."
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Sunday Roundup - July 27, 2014
This is the weekly selection of news and opinion from sources outside the US mainstream corporate media. Today we look at Gaza, the US's Israel policy, and, in brief, Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine and Russia.
Gaza
The Israeli assault against Gaza continued unabated until Saturday morning. A 12-hour ceasefire went into effect July 26 after Israel and Hamas agreed to a temporary pause in the fighting. Israel had come under widespread criticism for its rejection of a seven-day humanitarian ceasefire brokered by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with Hamas' regional proxies. The Palestinian death toll in Gaza is now over 1000, the great majority of whom are civilians. More than 5000 have been wounded. One can only pray that the horrific slaughter taking place in Gaza will be ended permanently, that the devastating blockade that has crippled Gaza for the past seven years will be ended, and that the world community will send the necessary humanitarian aid to the beleaguered enclave to help it rebuild from this and past Israeli attacks.
Gaza Ceasefire Reveals Full Extent of Israeli Destruction [The Guardian, July 26]
Thousands of people in Gaza have ventured out from homes and shelters during a 12-hour ceasefire to find that whole streets and neighbourhoods have been destroyed in the last week. Shortly before the ceasefire took effect, at least 18 members of the al-Najar family, including many children, were killed in an air strike on Khan Younis, in the south of the Gaza Strip. The family had recently gone there to escape fighting in a nearby village, a Palestinian health official said. As the Palestinian death toll in the 19-day-long conflict topped 1,000, diplomatic efforts to forge a longer ceasefire continued in Paris. Foreign ministers from seven nations – the US, France, Britain, Italy, Germany, Turkey and Qatar – called for an extension of the truce.
Statement of UN High Commissioner on Human Rights
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said on Wednesday that Israel’s military actions are responsible for the death of a child every hour in recent days and observed, “Respect for the right to life of civilians, including children, should be a foremost consideration. Not abiding by these principles may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.” That is, in international law, Israel’s pretext for indiscriminate bombing– that Hamas hides out among non-combatants– is unacceptable. Israel is the occupying power in Gaza and has a duty to minimize non-combatant death, which it clearly is not doing... [Informed Comment, July 24]
Massacre at UN School/Refugee Shelter
As noted by Al Jazeera: More than 140,000 Palestinians have been displaced in Gaza by the fighting, many of them seeking shelter in buildings run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Juan Cole in his Informed Comment blog on July 25 wrote: A new element entered the current Gaza war on Thursday, as Israel shelled a UN school full of displaced persons taking refuge there and large protests broke out in the Palestinian West Bank. The shelling of the UNRWA school, which killed 15 and injured 200, was a war crime. The UN had given the school’s coordinates to the Israelis, so they knew it was a school and was holding displaced persons. The UN, when informed it would be shelled, asked for more time to evacuate people but were denied it. The attack occurred hours after the UN had warned that Israel's actions in the Palestinian enclave could constitute war crimes. For more on the Israeli shelling of the refugee shelter, see The Guardian July 24 article.
Israel Rejects Seven-Day Humanitarian Ceasefire Proposal
World reaction to the humanitarian disaster is growing - especially after the Israeli shelling of the UN school serving as a center for displaced persons and after Israel rejected a seven-day humanitarian cease-fire brokered by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with Hamas' regional proxies. Kerry is remaining in the Middle East for a few more days to attempt to narrow the differences between Hamas and the Israeli government for achieving a cease-fire. For more see the Al Jazeera, July 25 article.
Palestinian West Bank Protests and Friday Israeli strikes in Gaza
On Friday, Israeli strikes on 30 houses [in Gaza] killed another 19 people, including the head of media operations for Hamas ally Islamic Jihad and his son. [Al Jazeera, July 25]
Demonstrations in the West Bank against the Israeli assault has resulted in the killing of 6 Palestinians. In the occupied West Bank, where U.S.-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas governs in uneasy coordination with Israel, some 10,000 demonstrators marched in solidarity with Gaza overnight Thursday – a scale recalling mass revolts of the past. Protesters surged against an Israeli army checkpoint, throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails, and Palestinian medics said one was shot dead and 200 wounded when troops opened fire. The next day, medics said five Palestinians were killed in separate incidents near the West Bank cities of Nablus and Hebron, including one shooting that witnesses blamed on an apparent Jewish settler. [Al Jazeera, July 25]
The United States' Morally Bankrupt Israel Policy
Stephen Walt, Professor of International Affairs at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, writes in a July 22 article at the Huffington Post: Israel is [again] using weapons provided by U.S. taxpayers to bombard the captive and impoverished Palestinians in Gaza...As usual, the U.S. government is siding with Israel, even though most American leaders understand Israel instigated the latest round of violence, is not acting with restraint, and that its actions make Washington look callous and hypocritical in the eyes of most of the world...This Orwellian situation is eloquent testimony to the continued political clout of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the other hardline elements of the Israel lobby. There is no other plausible explanation for the supine behavior of the U.S. Congress...or the shallow hypocrisy of the Obama administration...The explanation for America's impotent and morally bankrupt policy is the political clout of the Israel lobby. Barack Obama knows that if he were to side with the Palestinians in Gaza or criticize Israel's actions in any way, he would face a firestorm of criticism from the lobby and his chances of getting Congressional approval for a deal with Iran would evaporate.
Walt notes that the Israeli hard-line lobby isn't as powerful as it once was. Nevertheless, it is still able to keep roughly $3 billion in U.S. aid to Israel flowing each year; it can still prevent U.S. presidents from putting meaningful pressure on Israel; and it can still get the U.S. to wield its veto whenever a resolution criticizing Israel's actions is floated in the U.N. Security Council. This situation explains why the Obama administration made zero progress toward "two states for two peoples": if Israel gets generous U.S. support no matter what it does, why should its leaders pay any attention to Washington's requests?
Iraq
Iraq's most influential Shi'ite cleric urged political leaders on Friday to refrain from clinging to their posts - an apparent reference to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who has defied demands that he step aside...Maliki has come under mounting pressure since Sunni militants led by the hardline Islamic State swept across northern Iraq last month and seized vast swathes of territory, posing the biggest challenge to Maliki's Shi'ite-led government since U.S. forces withdrew in 2011. Critics say Maliki is a divisive figure whose alienation of Sunnis has fueled sectarian hatred and played into the hands of the insurgents, who have reached to within 70 km of the capital Baghdad. [Reuters, July 25]
Syria
Fighters from al Qaeda offshoot Islamic State killed at least 50 Syrian army soldiers...on Friday outside the northern city of Raqqa, as the radicals escalated their attacks on government forces, a monitoring group said...Islamic State...has advanced in Syria and taken over swaths of territory in neighboring Iraq in what it has described as a bid to establish an Islamic caliphate...Since its lightning advance in Iraq last month, the group has confronted government forces in Syria more frequently whilst continuing to attack rival rebel groups fighting to oust President Bashar al-Assad. [Reuters, July 25]
Ukraine and Russia
Russia reacted angrily on Saturday [July 26]to additional sanctions imposed by the European Union over Moscow's role in the Ukraine crisis, saying they would hamper cooperation on security issues and undermine the fight against terrorism and organized crime. The 28-nation EU reached an outline agreement on Friday to impose economic sanctions on Russia...The EU also imposed travel bans and asset freezes on the chiefs of Russia's FSB security service and foreign intelligence service and a number of other top Russian officials. [Reuters, July 26]
"Today's attack underscores the imperative for the killing to stop and to stop now."
- Ban Ki Moon after the Israeli shelling of a UN refugee shelter on Thursday.
Gaza
The Israeli assault against Gaza continued unabated until Saturday morning. A 12-hour ceasefire went into effect July 26 after Israel and Hamas agreed to a temporary pause in the fighting. Israel had come under widespread criticism for its rejection of a seven-day humanitarian ceasefire brokered by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with Hamas' regional proxies. The Palestinian death toll in Gaza is now over 1000, the great majority of whom are civilians. More than 5000 have been wounded. One can only pray that the horrific slaughter taking place in Gaza will be ended permanently, that the devastating blockade that has crippled Gaza for the past seven years will be ended, and that the world community will send the necessary humanitarian aid to the beleaguered enclave to help it rebuild from this and past Israeli attacks.
Gaza Ceasefire Reveals Full Extent of Israeli Destruction [The Guardian, July 26]
 |
| Palestinian women react to the destruction in Beit Hanuon, northern Gaza Strip, during the ceasefire. Photograph: Marco Longari/AFP/Getty Images [Image appeared in The Guardian] |
Statement of UN High Commissioner on Human Rights
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said on Wednesday that Israel’s military actions are responsible for the death of a child every hour in recent days and observed, “Respect for the right to life of civilians, including children, should be a foremost consideration. Not abiding by these principles may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.” That is, in international law, Israel’s pretext for indiscriminate bombing– that Hamas hides out among non-combatants– is unacceptable. Israel is the occupying power in Gaza and has a duty to minimize non-combatant death, which it clearly is not doing... [Informed Comment, July 24]
 |
| The majority of those injured in the attack on the school were women and children. Photograph: Lefteris Pitarakis/AP Image appeared in The Guardian |
Israel Rejects Seven-Day Humanitarian Ceasefire Proposal
World reaction to the humanitarian disaster is growing - especially after the Israeli shelling of the UN school serving as a center for displaced persons and after Israel rejected a seven-day humanitarian cease-fire brokered by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with Hamas' regional proxies. Kerry is remaining in the Middle East for a few more days to attempt to narrow the differences between Hamas and the Israeli government for achieving a cease-fire. For more see the Al Jazeera, July 25 article.
Palestinian West Bank Protests and Friday Israeli strikes in Gaza
On Friday, Israeli strikes on 30 houses [in Gaza] killed another 19 people, including the head of media operations for Hamas ally Islamic Jihad and his son. [Al Jazeera, July 25]
Demonstrations in the West Bank against the Israeli assault has resulted in the killing of 6 Palestinians. In the occupied West Bank, where U.S.-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas governs in uneasy coordination with Israel, some 10,000 demonstrators marched in solidarity with Gaza overnight Thursday – a scale recalling mass revolts of the past. Protesters surged against an Israeli army checkpoint, throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails, and Palestinian medics said one was shot dead and 200 wounded when troops opened fire. The next day, medics said five Palestinians were killed in separate incidents near the West Bank cities of Nablus and Hebron, including one shooting that witnesses blamed on an apparent Jewish settler. [Al Jazeera, July 25]
The United States' Morally Bankrupt Israel Policy
Stephen Walt, Professor of International Affairs at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, writes in a July 22 article at the Huffington Post: Israel is [again] using weapons provided by U.S. taxpayers to bombard the captive and impoverished Palestinians in Gaza...As usual, the U.S. government is siding with Israel, even though most American leaders understand Israel instigated the latest round of violence, is not acting with restraint, and that its actions make Washington look callous and hypocritical in the eyes of most of the world...This Orwellian situation is eloquent testimony to the continued political clout of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the other hardline elements of the Israel lobby. There is no other plausible explanation for the supine behavior of the U.S. Congress...or the shallow hypocrisy of the Obama administration...The explanation for America's impotent and morally bankrupt policy is the political clout of the Israel lobby. Barack Obama knows that if he were to side with the Palestinians in Gaza or criticize Israel's actions in any way, he would face a firestorm of criticism from the lobby and his chances of getting Congressional approval for a deal with Iran would evaporate.
Walt notes that the Israeli hard-line lobby isn't as powerful as it once was. Nevertheless, it is still able to keep roughly $3 billion in U.S. aid to Israel flowing each year; it can still prevent U.S. presidents from putting meaningful pressure on Israel; and it can still get the U.S. to wield its veto whenever a resolution criticizing Israel's actions is floated in the U.N. Security Council. This situation explains why the Obama administration made zero progress toward "two states for two peoples": if Israel gets generous U.S. support no matter what it does, why should its leaders pay any attention to Washington's requests?
Iraq
Iraq's most influential Shi'ite cleric urged political leaders on Friday to refrain from clinging to their posts - an apparent reference to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who has defied demands that he step aside...Maliki has come under mounting pressure since Sunni militants led by the hardline Islamic State swept across northern Iraq last month and seized vast swathes of territory, posing the biggest challenge to Maliki's Shi'ite-led government since U.S. forces withdrew in 2011. Critics say Maliki is a divisive figure whose alienation of Sunnis has fueled sectarian hatred and played into the hands of the insurgents, who have reached to within 70 km of the capital Baghdad. [Reuters, July 25]
Syria
Fighters from al Qaeda offshoot Islamic State killed at least 50 Syrian army soldiers...on Friday outside the northern city of Raqqa, as the radicals escalated their attacks on government forces, a monitoring group said...Islamic State...has advanced in Syria and taken over swaths of territory in neighboring Iraq in what it has described as a bid to establish an Islamic caliphate...Since its lightning advance in Iraq last month, the group has confronted government forces in Syria more frequently whilst continuing to attack rival rebel groups fighting to oust President Bashar al-Assad. [Reuters, July 25]
Ukraine and Russia
Russia reacted angrily on Saturday [July 26]to additional sanctions imposed by the European Union over Moscow's role in the Ukraine crisis, saying they would hamper cooperation on security issues and undermine the fight against terrorism and organized crime. The 28-nation EU reached an outline agreement on Friday to impose economic sanctions on Russia...The EU also imposed travel bans and asset freezes on the chiefs of Russia's FSB security service and foreign intelligence service and a number of other top Russian officials. [Reuters, July 26]
Friday, December 20, 2013
Sabotaging diplomacy? What are they thinking?
Yesterday, thirteen Senate Democrats joined thirteen Republicans and began circulating a new Iran sanctions bill with the potential to derail the Iran nuclear talks. This action came in spite of requests from the White House that Senators hold off on any new Iran legislation while the nuclear talks are in progress. I'm ashamed to say that New Jersey's own senior senator. Robert Menendez, is one of the leading supporters of the proposal and introduced it with Republican Mark Kirk.
These thirteen Democrats should know better. They have put themselves in the camp of conservative hardliners in Iran and the Netanyahu government in Israel - about the only other people on the planet against the historic interim agreement achieved by the G3+3 with Iran just last month.
The influence of the lobbying group AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), strong supporters of the right-wing Netanyahu, is all over this. Many, if not most, of the Senators pushing the legislation have received significant contributions from pro-Israel groups, who are heavily influenced by AIPAC. Menendez received more than $340,000 in campaign contributions in the six-year period ending December 31, 2012. Mark Kirk, the leading Republican proponent of the current legislation, received more than $925,000. All told, the 26 Senators received nearly $5,000,000 from pro- Israel groups. [maplight.org]
The proposed bill sets strong, and, likely illegal, conditions for a final agreement. "Among those conditions is a provision that only allows Obama to waive new sanctions, even after a final deal has been struck, if that deal bars Iran from enriching any new uranium whatsoever." [Daily Kos quoting Foreignpolicy.com, Dec.19] As a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes such as energy and medicine. Denying them this right to the peaceful use of nuclear power is a clear violation of the meaning of the treaty. This is especially specious when we consider that Israel is a non-signatory to the NNPT and has 80 nuclear weapons sitting 1000 km or so from Iran's borders. This condition all but guarantees that no lasting détente will ever be reached with Iran.
But that isn't the worst part of this bill. The bill includes a non-binding provision that states that if Israel takes "military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program", the United States should support it. Since when does the United States outsource its military and foreign policy to a foreign power?
As Andrew Sullivan writes on The Dish website:
As usual, English is the first casualty in propaganda. Any act of “self-defense” against a mere “program” is not an act of legitimate self-defense. In international law, you are allowed to defend yourself if attacked; you do not have a right to attack another country just because you don’t like one of their military programs (which the Iranian regime has, in any case, sworn it would never use). That would be a license to shred international law and any concept of just warfare. For the US Senate to proactively bless future aggressive military action by a foreign government when it is not justified by self-defense is an appalling new low in the Israeli government’s grip on the US Congress.
If the Senate goes ahead and approves the bill when it comes to the floor next year, President Obama will have no choice but to veto it. If he does not, he should hand back his Nobel Peace Prize. And the Senate should congratulate themselves for caving in to AIPAC and taking us all a step closer to war.
Other Notes
Being pro-Israel does not mean being anti-Iran diplomacy. Americans for Peace Now is a Jewish-American organization that supports the two-state solution and works for peace between Palestinians and Israelis. They recently circulated a petition asking Congress to allow time for the nuclear talks with Iran to succeed. It's a shame that this group of peace activists doesn't have the influence of AIPAC on potential donors.
Update
This afternoon, Americans for Peace Now updated its petition. You can sign the petition here and send it to your Senators.
Links
Link to Wikipedia entry on Americans for Peace Now
Link to Wikipedia entry on AIPAC
Correction
An earlier version of this post indicated that Charles Schumer of New York introduced the bill with Mark Kirk of Illinois. While Schumer was one of the 26 co-sponsors, it was Sen. Menendez, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair, that led the Democrats supporting the bill.
These thirteen Democrats should know better. They have put themselves in the camp of conservative hardliners in Iran and the Netanyahu government in Israel - about the only other people on the planet against the historic interim agreement achieved by the G3+3 with Iran just last month.
The influence of the lobbying group AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), strong supporters of the right-wing Netanyahu, is all over this. Many, if not most, of the Senators pushing the legislation have received significant contributions from pro-Israel groups, who are heavily influenced by AIPAC. Menendez received more than $340,000 in campaign contributions in the six-year period ending December 31, 2012. Mark Kirk, the leading Republican proponent of the current legislation, received more than $925,000. All told, the 26 Senators received nearly $5,000,000 from pro- Israel groups. [maplight.org]
The proposed bill sets strong, and, likely illegal, conditions for a final agreement. "Among those conditions is a provision that only allows Obama to waive new sanctions, even after a final deal has been struck, if that deal bars Iran from enriching any new uranium whatsoever." [Daily Kos quoting Foreignpolicy.com, Dec.19] As a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes such as energy and medicine. Denying them this right to the peaceful use of nuclear power is a clear violation of the meaning of the treaty. This is especially specious when we consider that Israel is a non-signatory to the NNPT and has 80 nuclear weapons sitting 1000 km or so from Iran's borders. This condition all but guarantees that no lasting détente will ever be reached with Iran.
But that isn't the worst part of this bill. The bill includes a non-binding provision that states that if Israel takes "military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program", the United States should support it. Since when does the United States outsource its military and foreign policy to a foreign power?
As Andrew Sullivan writes on The Dish website:
As usual, English is the first casualty in propaganda. Any act of “self-defense” against a mere “program” is not an act of legitimate self-defense. In international law, you are allowed to defend yourself if attacked; you do not have a right to attack another country just because you don’t like one of their military programs (which the Iranian regime has, in any case, sworn it would never use). That would be a license to shred international law and any concept of just warfare. For the US Senate to proactively bless future aggressive military action by a foreign government when it is not justified by self-defense is an appalling new low in the Israeli government’s grip on the US Congress.
If the Senate goes ahead and approves the bill when it comes to the floor next year, President Obama will have no choice but to veto it. If he does not, he should hand back his Nobel Peace Prize. And the Senate should congratulate themselves for caving in to AIPAC and taking us all a step closer to war.
Other Notes
Being pro-Israel does not mean being anti-Iran diplomacy. Americans for Peace Now is a Jewish-American organization that supports the two-state solution and works for peace between Palestinians and Israelis. They recently circulated a petition asking Congress to allow time for the nuclear talks with Iran to succeed. It's a shame that this group of peace activists doesn't have the influence of AIPAC on potential donors.
Update
This afternoon, Americans for Peace Now updated its petition. You can sign the petition here and send it to your Senators.
Links
Link to Wikipedia entry on Americans for Peace Now
Link to Wikipedia entry on AIPAC
Correction
An earlier version of this post indicated that Charles Schumer of New York introduced the bill with Mark Kirk of Illinois. While Schumer was one of the 26 co-sponsors, it was Sen. Menendez, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair, that led the Democrats supporting the bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)