جي وڃڻ ۾ اسرائيل‘s massive assault on heavily populated civilian areas of the Gaza Strip earlier this year, Amnesty International called for the گڏيل رياستون to suspend military aid to اسرائيل 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, it appears that President Barack Obama won’t be heeding Amnesty’s call.
During the fighting in January, Amnesty documented Israeli forces engaging in "direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects in غزه, and attacks which were disproportionate or indiscriminate." The leader of Amnesty International’s fact-finding mission to the Gaza Strip and southern اسرائيل نوٽ ڪيو how "Israeli forces used white phosphorus and other weapons supplied by the آمريڪا to carry out serious violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes." Amnesty also reported finding fragments of U.S.-made munitions "littering school playgrounds, in hospitals and in people’s homes."
مالڪم سمارٽ، جيڪو وچ اوڀر لاء ايمنسٽي انٽرنيشنل جي ڊائريڪٽر طور ڪم ڪري ٿو، مينهن in a press release that "to a large extent, اسرائيل‘s military offensive in غزه was carried out with weapons, munitions and military equipment supplied by the آمريڪا and paid for with آمريڪا taxpayers’ money." The release also noted how before the conflict, which raged for three weeks from late December into January, the گڏيل رياستون 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 اسرائيل 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 in early January, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning organization initially called for a suspension of آمريڪا 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 اسرائيل، ته آمريڪا has a particular obligation to stop any supply that contributes to gross violations of the laws of war and of human rights," said Malcolm Smart. "The Obama administration should immediately suspend آمريڪا فوجي امداد اسرائيل."
Obama’s refusal to accept Amnesty’s call for the suspension of military assistance was a blow to human rights activists. The most Obama might do to express his displeasure toward controversial Israeli policies like the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories would be to reject a planned increase in military aid for the next fiscal year and slightly reduce economic aid and/or loan guarantees. However, in a notable departure from previous administrations, Obama made no mention of any military aid to اسرائيل هن جي خاڪو of the FY 2010 budget, announced last week. This notable absence may indicate that pressure from human rights activists and others concerned about massive آمريڪا فوجي امداد اسرائيل is now strong enough that the White House feels a need to downplay the assistance rather than emphasize it.
اوباما ساڄي طرف جھڪي ٿو
Currently, Obama is on record supporting sending up to $30 billion in unconditional military aid to اسرائيل over the next 10 years. Such a total would represent a 25% increase in the already large-scale arms shipments to Israeli forces under the Bush administration.
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. Instead of simply wanting اسرائيل to have an adequate deterrent against potential military threats, Obama insists the گڏيل رياستون should guarantee that اسرائيل maintain a qualitative military advantage. Thanks to this overwhelming advantage over its neighbors, Israeli forces were able to launch devastating wars against اسرائيل‘s Palestinian and Lebanese neighbors in recent years.
If اسرائيل were in a strategically vulnerable situation, Obama’s hard-line position might be understandable. But اسرائيل 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 اسرائيل‘s nuclear arsenal of at least 200-300 weapons, which has been documented for decades. When Hearst reporter Helen Thomas asked at his first press conference if he could name any Middle Eastern countries that possess nuclear weapons, he didn’t even try to answer the question. Presumably, Obama knows اسرائيل has these weapons and is located in the وچ اوڀر. However, acknowledging اسرائيل‘s arsenal could complicate his planned arms transfers since it would place اسرائيل in violation of the 1976 سمنگٽن ترميم, which restricts آمريڪا military support for governments which develop nuclear weapons.
Another major obstacle to Amnesty’s calls for suspending military assistance is Congress. Republican leaders like Representatives John Boehner (OH) and Eric Cantor (VA) have long rejected calls by human rights groups to link آمريڪا 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 اسرائيل. Even progressive Democratic Representative Barney Frank (MA), at a press conference on February 24 pushing his proposal to reduce military spending by 25%, برطرف ڪيو ويو a question regarding conditioning اسرائيل‘s military aid package to human rights concerns.
درحقيقت، انهن جي فوجي ايجنڊا جي حمايت ڪرڻ ۽ معزز انساني حقن جي گروهن کي بدنام ڪرڻ جي ظاهري ڪوشش ۾ جيڪي غير فوجي مقصدن جي خلاف منظم اسرائيلي حملن کي دستاويز ڪن ٿا، اهي ڪانگريسي اڳواڻن ۽ انهن جي ساٿين جي هڪ وڏي اڪثريت جي اڪثريت رڪارڊ تي هليا ويا آهن. تعريف ڪيو "Israel’s longstanding commitment to minimizing civilian loss and…efforts to prevent civilian casualties." Although Obama remained silent while اسرائيل was engaged in war crimes against the civilian population of غزه, Pelosi and other congressional leaders پهچايو جي طرف اسرائيل‘s defense in the face of international condemnation.
اوباما جي شهرين تي اسرائيلي حملن جو دفاع
اسرائيلي هٿياربند فوجن ۽ حزب الله مليشيا جي وچ ۾ 2006 جي تڪرار جي پٺيان، جنهن ۾ ٻنهي طرفن آبادي شهرين جي خلاف حملن ۾ ملوث ٿي جنگي ڏوهن جو ارتکاب ڪيو، ان وقت جي سينيٽر اوباما اسرائيل جي ڪارناما جو دفاع ڪيو ۽ حزب الله تي تنقيد ڪئي، جيتوڻيڪ اسرائيل اصل ۾ وڌيڪ عام شهرين جي ذميواري هئي. موت هڪ ظاهري ڪوشش ۾ اسرائيلي بمباري کي جواز ڏيڻ جي ڪوشش ۾ شهري آبادي جي مرڪز، اوباما دعوي حزب الله ”معصوم ماڻهن کي ڍال طور استعمال ڪيو“.
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 اسرائيل from attacking those targets. I sent Obama spokesperson Ben LaBolt a copy of an exhaustive 249-page انساني حقن جي واچ رپورٽ جنهن ۾ هڪ به ڪيس نه مليو - 600 شهرين جي موت جي تحقيق ڪئي وئي - حزب الله جو انساني ڍال استعمال ڪندي. مون هن کان پڇيو ته ڇا اوباما وٽ ڪو تجرباتي ثبوت آهي جيڪو انهن نتيجن کي رد ڪري ٿو.
جواب ۾، لا بولٽ مون کي هڪ مختصر رپورٽ جي ڪاپي فراهم ڪئي ساڄي ڌر جي اسرائيلي ٿنڪ ٽينڪ جي اسرائيلي حڪومت سان ويجهن لاڳاپن سان جيڪو اسرائيلي انٽيليجنس سروس جي اڳوڻي سربراهه جي سربراهي ۾ آهي. ايمنسٽي انٽرنيشنل ۽ هيومن رائٽس واچ جي رپورٽن جي ابتڙ اها رپورٽ خاص طور تي اسرائيلي حڪومتي ذريعن کي استعمال ڪندي نظر آئي، جيڪي فارنزڪ ثبوتن تي مبني هيون ۽ ڪيترن ئي تصديق ٿيل اکين ڏٺن شاهدن جي اڪائونٽن تي ٻڌل هيون ٻنهي لبنانين طرفان حملن هيٺ آيل علائقن ۾ رهندڙ ۽ تجربيڪار مانيٽر ( ڪنهن به حڪومت يا سياسي تنظيم سان غير لاڳاپيل) زمين تي. ڪيترن ئي فالو اپ اي ميلن جي باوجود وڌيڪ معتبر ذريعن کان پڇڻ جي باوجود، LaBolt ڪڏهن به مون ڏانهن واپس نه آيو.
Not Good for اسرائيل
The militaristic stance by Congress and the Obama administration is hardly doing اسرائيل a favor. Indeed, آمريڪا military assistance to اسرائيل سان ڪو به واسطو ناهي اسرائيل‘s legitimate security needs. Rather than commencing during the country’s first 20 years of existence, when Israel was most vulnerable strategically, major U.S. 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.
جيڪڏھن سڀ آمريڪا مدد ڪرڻ اسرائيل were immediately halted, اسرائيل wouldn’t be under a significantly greater military threat than it is today for many years. اسرائيل 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, U.S. 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 اسرائيل needs more military aid today than it did back then? Since that time, اسرائيل has maintained a longstanding peace treaty with مصر and a large demilitarized and internationally monitored buffer zone. شام‘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. اردن signed a peace treaty with اسرائيل with full normalized relations. And two major wars and a decade of strict international sanctions have devastated عراق‘s armed forces, which is in any case now under close آمريڪا نگراني.
Obama has pledged continued military aid to اسرائيل 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 اسرائيل‘s security needs, which would presumably decline if the peace process moves forward. However, اسرائيل‘s actual defense needs don’t appear to be the issue.
According to late Israeli major general and Knesset member Matti Peled, — who once served as the IDF’s chief procurement officer, such fixed amounts are arrived at "out of thin air." In addition, every major arms transfer to اسرائيل creates a new demand by Arab states — most of which can pay hard currency through petrodollars — for additional آمريڪا weapons to challenge اسرائيل. در حقيقت، اسرائيل announced its acceptance of a proposed Middle Eastern arms freeze in 1991, but the آمريڪا government, eager to defend the profits of آمريڪا 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% of those arms transfers were of U.S. 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 آمريڪا 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 اسرائيل. But the Aerospace Industry Association and other influential military interests that promote massive arms transfers to the وچ اوڀر and elsewhere are even more influential, contributing several times what the "pro-Israel" PACs contribute.
The huge amount of آمريڪا aid to the Israeli government hasn’t been as beneficial to اسرائيل as many would suspect. آمريڪا فوجي امداد اسرائيل is, in fact, simply a credit line to American arms manufacturers, and actually ends up costing اسرائيل 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 گڏيل رياستون — and amass record profits for آمريڪا arms merchants.
The U.S. 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 اسرائيل‘s disproportionate use of force and high number of civilian casualties.
پنهنجي تڪ سان خيانت
30 بلين ڊالر ٽيڪس ادا ڪندڙ فنڊن ۾ اسرائيلي ملٽريزم کي سپورٽ ڪرڻ لاءِ وڏي رقم نه آهي ان جي مقابلي ۾ جيڪا اڳ ۾ ئي عراق جنگ ۾ ضايع ٿي چڪي آهي ، وڏن بينڪن لاءِ بيل آئوٽ ، ۽ مختلف پينٽاگون بونڊگلس. اڃا تائين، اهو پئسا وڌيڪ فائدي سان گهر جي ضرورتن ڏانهن وڃي سگهي ٿو، جهڙوڪ صحت جي سنڀال، تعليم، هائوس، ۽ عوامي نقل و حمل.
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 اسرائيل. 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 واشنگٽن that has contributed to such death and destruction in the وچ اوڀر. The new administration must heed calls by Amnesty International and other human rights groups to condition military aid to اسرائيل and all other countries that don’t adhere to basic principles of international humanitarian law.
اسٽيفن زينس، اي فوکس ۾ خارجي پاليسي senior analyst, is a professor of politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the يونيورسٽي of سين.
ZNetwork صرف پنهنجي پڙهندڙن جي سخاوت جي ذريعي فنڊ آهي.
موڪليندڙ