The domestic media often paints the United States government as a peaceful mediator between Israel and
Palestine. Presidents are seen as peacemakers, completely impartial and "working towards peace" between two
nations in a conflict that is thousands of years old. However, the records of arms transfers and defense assistance to Israel paints a far different picture. In fact, Israel's high- tech military arsenal is almost completely U. S. supplied. (Facts from U.S. Arms Transfers and Security Assistance to Israel. ATRC Fact Sheet. by Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung, footnotes indicate their sources)
U.S. assistance to Israel in the last half- century has been estimated as totaling 81.3 billion , according to a November 2001 Congressional Research Service report, Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance.1 Israel is the top recipient of U.S. military aid, recieving about $3 billion a year, with about $1.8 billion in grants from the FMF (Foriegn Military Financing), part of the Department of Defense, and the remaining $1.2 bilion coming from ESF (Economic Support Funds) from the Department of State (While ESF grants are ostensibly for the purpose of "economic and political stability" and are not intended for military usage, the grants allow the recipient government to free up other money, therefore providing indirect military aid.2 17 percent of all U.S. foreign aid goes to Israel. The U.S. has sold approximaltely $7.2 billion in weaponry and military equipment to Isreal, making Isreal one of the largest U.S. arms importers.3 Isreal also has the largest fleet of F-16s outside of the U.S., possessing some 200 jets, with another 120 on the way from Lockheed Martin.4
From the Same Factsheet:
The United States has also underwritten Israel's domestic armaments industry, by giving:
· $1.3 billion to develop the Lavi aircraft (cancelled)
· $625 million to develop and deploy the Arrow anti-missile missile (an ongoing project)
· $200 million to develop the Merkava tank (operative); the latest version, the Merkava 4, uses a
German V-12 diesel engine produced under license in the U.S. by General Dynamics
· $130 million to develop the high-energy laser anti-missile system (ongoing). 5
While overall aid to Israel is slated to decrease over the next five years, military aid will increase
significantly. One of President Clinton's last acts was to sign an agreement with Israel, phasing out the
ESF by 2008. At the same time, FMF funds to Israel will increase $60 million each year, reaching $2.4
billion by 2008.6
The U.S. also gives many weapons to Israel free of charge through the Excess Defense Articles
(EDA) program. I would like to ask why we (the American people, through our elected representatives)
spend so much on our military if they are able to give away free "excess defense articles."
Table from same factsheet:
According to British Reporter Mark Fisk, the U.S. mainly gives support to Palestine in the form of aid for
security stations which in effect help protect Israel. 7
In 1998, President Clinton approved $400 million a year in aid to Palestine.8 This is in addition to the 100
million dollars a year that the U.S. had been giving Palestine since 1993.9
This funding was approved during a U.S. led international Donor's conference which approved a total of
3 billion in intrernational funding for Palestine.10 If you notice, that is how much the U.S. alone is giving to
Israel.
While this conference was seen as a huge victory for the Palestinian people, the U.S. is far from giving
equal assistance to Palestine, and even farther from being impartial, nearly completely funding and building the
Israeli military. In 2003, President Bush is proposing that Israel recieve $2.76 billion in foreign aid with $2.1
billion coming from FMF grants and and $600 million in ESF.
1. Clyde R. Mark, "Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance." Congressional Research Service, November 2001.
2. "U.S. Military Aid Deliveries to Israel 1990-2001." Foreign Military Sales, Foreign Military Construction Sales
and Military Assistance Facts: As of September 30, 2000.
3. "U.S. Arms Deliveries to Israel 1990-2001."
4. "United States Aid to Israel, Snapshot of the state of Israel." Palestine Monitor.
5. Mark, Congressional Research Service, November 2001.
6. "US Aid to Israel to be Phased Out." Associated Press, January 19, 2001.
7. "BRITISH JOURNALIST ROBERT FISK ON THE POLITICS OF LANGUAGE AND THE MEDIA IN THE
MIDDLE EAST" Democracy Now! 5/21/02
8. "Donors Pledge More Funds to Palestine." Pacifica News 12/01/98
http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/pnn/pac981201.html
9. "Arafat and Albright discuss closer US-Palestinian ties" 12/2/1998 Arabic News.com
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/981202/1998120264.html
10. "Donors Pledge More Funds to Palestine" Pacifica News 12/01/98
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) voted to oust Brazilian Director General Jose
Bustani at a crisis meeting after the U.S. forced a vote challenging his leadership.1 The vote came after Bustani
had urged Iraq to join the OPCW. The United States then criticized his management , accusing him of
"ill-considered initiatives." It should be noted that OPCW members must provide information on their chemical
and biological weapon systems and submit to inspections by other member states. It would be very hard for the
U.S. to gain support for a war against Iraq if Iraq was a member of OPCW and submitted itself to inspections.
Britain, Germany, Japan and Italy, who along with the U.S. provide the lion's share of the OPCW's $55 million
budget had indicated support for the U.S. move. Of the 115 members at the meeting, only 48 voted for the
initiative. 43 countries abstained, and only 6 opposed the move. Some countries did not vote.
Bustani, who was unanimously re-elected for another 4 year term last May accused the U.S. of bullying an international organization for its own national interests. He told delegates in a speech that "The choices that you make during this session...will determine whether genuine multilateralism will survive or whether it will be replaced by unilateralism in a multilateral disguise."
The U. S. drive to oust Bustani is the second such action taken by the U.S. lately. A week before, the U.S. secured the removal of Robert Watson as chairman of a United Nations climate control body. Watson had pushed for a shift away from fossil fuels and towards cleaner, more renewable forms of energy.
1. UN Chemical Arms Chief Ousted in U.S.-Led Vote.” Wendel Broere and Paul Gallagher. Reuters.com
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml;jsessionid=KFTG1FAOWNTXQCRBAEKSFFAKEEATIIWD?type=
worldnews&StoryID=859568
Bush quietly appointed a top Republican Crony, Michael Toner to replace one of the GOP's positions on the FEC, which oversees the campaign finance system. Toner is probably best known as the Republican National Committee's chief counsel. Before that, he was counsel to the Bush Presidential campaign, and the Bush/Cheney transition team.
The FEC is composed of six commissioners, three from each major party. As you would expect, these commissioners often find themselves deadlocked, making it hard to actually take any actions. About the only time that they ever agree and cooperate is to protect both of the major parties from outsiders (those notorious third party candidates), like when they upheld corporate funding for the two- party sponsored "presidential debates" (and left third party candidates like Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan out). Or protecting either of the major parties from embarrassing exposure of illegal campaign financing, like they did when they ignored recomendations from their own staff to punish the1996 Clinton and Dole campaigns for serious violations of the law.1
The scary thing about Toner's appointment is that the new campaign finance law will go into effect directly after November's election, at which time the FEC will have to decide how to implement and inforce this new law. That is how loopholes are created. By placing Toner on the FEC (through a recess appointment, sidestepping Senate approval), the Bush administration has guaranteed themselves a close friend in the FEC when the new rules are written.
Oh, did I mention that Toner has been a staunch critic of eliminating soft money? Back when he was the Chief Coiunsel of the RNC (Republican National Committee), he argued heavily against similar finance reforms, most notably an Alaskan ban on soft money controbutions. Now, with a post on the FEC, he will be in an excellent position to destroy campaign finance reform from the inside out. It is important to mention that the soft money loophole was created by the FEC in 1979.1
Toner, of course denies that he would use his post to weaken the new rules, but last July, he was quoted by the Assosiated Press as saying that this new legislation would "put a stake through the heart of grass-roots and voter education initiatives." 1
According to E. Joshua Rosenkranz, founder of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University and a member of Wertheimer's group, right now the FEC is "like putting three foxes and three wolves in charge of guarding the chicken coop. There needs to be a single head that is publicly accountable, like we have for the FBI." How can we have fair campaign finance enforcement when those that are doing the enforcing are controlled by those they are supposed to monitor?
1. "A Fox in the Electoral Henhouse?" by Micah L. Sifry. Mother Jones.com http://www.mojones.com/web_exclusives/commentary/opinion/toner.html
Mr. Reynolds has been a longtime opponent of Affirmative action and the Americans with Disabilities act. Last September, when Bush told the senate that he intended to appoint Reynolds to the position, more that two dozen civil rights, womens, and disabled groups came out against him. Sen. Ted Kennedy has said that he had "serious doubts about (Reynolds') qualifications for this important position that affects the civil rights of millions of Americans." 1
Reynolds will oversee the Education unit responsible for making sure that school districts, colleges and universities that recieve federal funds comply with civil rights laws (including those protecting minorities and the disabled. Reynolds has said that his opponents are misrepresenting him, and that he supports affirmative action as long as it is "constitutional fair to all." However, in a 1997 Washington Post Op- Ed piece he called affirmative action "a corrupt system of preferences, set-asides and quotas." He has also called the Americans with Disabilities Act a bad law that "would retard economic development in urban centers across the country."1
Reynolds is also a former president of the hard right Center for New Black Leadership, which claims that personal responsibility and the free market are the solution to discrimination, and has blasted civil right leaders for promoting "racial victimization". He has also served as a legal anylist for the Center for Equal Opportunity, which opposes affirmative action, bi-lingual education, and immigration reform. The CEO has also heavily lobbied congress to narrow the definitions of people covered under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). Reynolds will serve at his new post until the current Senate ends its term in 2003.1
"Behind Congress' Back" by Earl Ofari Hutchinson Mother Jones.com http://www.mojones.com/web_exclusives/commentary/opinion/reynolds.html
