Di hudang Israél‘s massive assault on heavily populated civilian areas of the Gaza Strip earlier this year, Amnesty International called for the Amérika Sarikat to suspend military aid to Israél 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 Gaza, and attacks which were disproportionate or indiscriminate." The leader of Amnesty International’s fact-finding mission to the Gaza Strip and southern Israél nyatet how "Israeli forces used white phosphorus and other weapons supplied by the AS 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."
Malcolm Smart, who serves as Amnesty International’s director for the Middle East, observasi in a press release that "to a large extent, Israél‘s military offensive in Gaza was carried out with weapons, munitions and military equipment supplied by the AS and paid for with US taxpayers’ money." The release also noted how before the conflict, which raged for three weeks from late December into January, the Amérika Sarikat 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 Israél 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 US military aid until there was no longer a substantial risk of additional human rights violations. The Bush administration summarily rejected this proposal. Amnesty subsequently appealed to the Obama administration. "As the major supplier of weapons to Israél, nu AS 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 US bantuan militér ka Israél."
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 Israél di na outline of the FY 2010 budget, announced last week. This notable absence may indicate that pressure from human rights activists and others concerned about massive US bantuan militér ka Israél is now strong enough that the White House feels a need to downplay the assistance rather than emphasize it.
Obama Tilts Right
Currently, Obama is on record supporting sending up to $30 billion in unconditional military aid to Israél 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 Israél to have an adequate deterrent against potential military threats, Obama insists the Amérika Sarikat should guarantee that Israél maintain a qualitative military advantage. Thanks to this overwhelming advantage over its neighbors, Israeli forces were able to launch devastating wars against Israél‘s Palestinian and Lebanese neighbors in recent years.
If Israél were in a strategically vulnerable situation, Obama’s hard-line position might be understandable. But Israél 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 Israél‘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 Israél has these weapons and is located in the Timur tengah. However, acknowledging Israél‘s arsenal could complicate his planned arms transfers since it would place Israél dina palanggaran éta 1976 Symington Amendment, which restricts US military support for governments which develop nuclear weapons.
Another major obstacle to Amnesty’s calls for suspending military assistance is Congress. Republican leaders like Representatives John Boehner (OH) and Eric Cantor (VA) have long rejected calls by human rights groups to link US military aid to adherence to internationally recognized human rights standards. But so have such Democratic leaders, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who are outspoken supporters of unconditional military aid to Israél. Even progressive Democratic Representative Barney Frank (MA), at a press conference on February 24 pushing his proposal to reduce military spending by 25%, mecat a question regarding conditioning Israél‘s military aid package to human rights concerns.
Indeed, in an apparent effort to support their militaristic agenda and to discredit reputable human rights groups that documented systematic Israeli attacks against non-military targets, these congressional leaders and an overwhelming bipartisan majority of their colleagues have gone on record muji "Israel’s longstanding commitment to minimizing civilian loss and…efforts to prevent civilian casualties." Although Obama remained silent while Israél was engaged in war crimes against the civilian population of Gaza, Pelosi and other congressional leaders buru-buru ka Israél‘s defense in the face of international condemnation.
Obama’s Defense of Israeli Attacks on Civilians
Following the 2006 conflict between Israeli armed forces and the Hezbollah militia, in which both sides committed war crimes by engaging in attacks against populated civilian areas, then-Senator Obama defended Israel’s actions and criticized Hezbollah, even though Israel was actually responsible for far more civilian deaths. In an apparent attempt to justify Israeli bombing of civilian population centers, Obama ngaku Hezbollah had used "innocent people as shields."
This charge directly challenged a series of reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. These reports found that while Hezbollah did have some military equipment close to some civilian areas, the Lebanese Islamist militia had not forced civilians to remain in or around military targets in order to deter Israél from attacking those targets. I sent Obama spokesperson Ben LaBolt a copy of an exhaustive 249-page Laporan Hak Asasi Manusia Hak Asasi that didn’t find a single case — out of 600 civilian deaths investigated — of Hezbollah using human shields. I asked him if Obama had any empirical evidence that countered these findings.
In response, LaBolt provided me with a copy of a short report from a right-wing Israeli think tank with close ties to the Israeli government headed by the former head of the Israeli intelligence service. The report appeared to use exclusively Israeli government sources, in contrast to the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reports, which were based upon forensic evidence as well as multiple verified eyewitness accounts by both Lebanese living in the areas under attack as well as experienced monitors (unaffiliated with any government or political organization) on the ground. Despite several follow-up emails asking for more credible sources, LaBolt never got back to me.
Not Good for Israél
The militaristic stance by Congress and the Obama administration is hardly doing Israél a favor. Indeed, US military assistance to Israél teu aya hubunganana sareng Israél‘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.
Upami sadayana US bantuan ka Israél were immediately halted, Israél wouldn’t be under a significantly greater military threat than it is today for many years. Israél 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 Israél needs more military aid today than it did back then? Since that time, Israél has maintained a longstanding peace treaty with Mesir and a large demilitarized and internationally monitored buffer zone. Suriah‘s armed forces were weakened by the collapse of their former Soviet patron and its government has been calling for a resumption of peace talks. The PLO is cooperating closely with Israeli security. Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israél with full normalized relations. And two major wars and a decade of strict international sanctions have devastated Iraq‘s armed forces, which is in any case now under close US pangawasan.
Obama has pledged continued military aid to Israél 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 Israél‘s security needs, which would presumably decline if the peace process moves forward. However, Israél‘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 Israél creates a new demand by Arab states — most of which can pay hard currency through petrodollars — for additional US weapons to challenge Israél. Leres pisan, Israél announced its acceptance of a proposed Middle Eastern arms freeze in 1991, but the US government, eager to defend the profits of US arms merchants, effectively blocked it. Prior to the breakdown in the peace process in 2001, 78 senators wrote President Bill Clinton insisting that the United States send additional military aid to Israel on the grounds of massive arms procurement by Arab states, neglecting to note that 80% 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 US arms manufacturers. The right-wing "pro-Israel" political action committees certainly wield substantial clout with their contributions to congressional candidates supportive of large-scale military and economic aid to Israél. But the Aerospace Industry Association and other influential military interests that promote massive arms transfers to the Timur tengah and elsewhere are even more influential, contributing several times what the "pro-Israel" PACs contribute.
The huge amount of US aid to the Israeli government hasn’t been as beneficial to Israél as many would suspect. US bantuan militér ka Israél is, in fact, simply a credit line to American arms manufacturers, and actually ends up costing Israél 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 Amérika Sarikat — and amass record profits for US 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 Israél‘s disproportionate use of force and high number of civilian casualties.
Betraying His Constituency
The $30 billion in taxpayer funds to support Israeli militarism isn’t a huge amount of money compared with what has already been wasted in the Iraq War, bailouts for big banks, and various Pentagon boondoggles. Still, this money could more profitably go toward needs at home, such as health care, education, housing, and public transportation.
It’s therefore profoundly disappointing that there has been so little public opposition to Obama’s dismissal of Amnesty International’s calls to suspend aid to Israél. Some activists I contacted appear to have fallen into a fatalistic view that the "Zionist lobby" is too powerful to challenge and that Obama is nothing but a helpless pawn of powerful Jewish interests. Not only does this simplistic perspective border on anti-Semitism, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any right-wing militaristic lobby will appear all-powerful if there isn’t a concerted effort from the left to challenge it.
Obama’s supporters must demand that he live up to his promise to change the mindset in Washington that has contributed to such death and destruction in the Timur tengah. The new administration must heed calls by Amnesty International and other human rights groups to condition military aid to Israél and all other countries that don’t adhere to basic principles of international humanitarian law.
Stephen Zunes, a Kawijakan luar nagri dina Pokus senior analyst, is a professor of politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the unipersitas of San Francisco.
ZNetwork dibiayaan ngan ukur ku kabébasan pamiarsana.
nulungan