ZIONIST AND INDONESIA

> In December 1975, after receiving a green light from U.S. President Gerald > and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Indonesian President Suharto > launched an invasion of East Timor. The weapons for the attack came from the > United States. "Of course there were US weapons used," commented one > high-ranking Indonesian general. "These are the only weapons that we have."

> > U.S. law, however, prohibited Jakarta from using its U.S.-supplied weapons > for purposes other than self-defense. When the State Department Legal > Advisor Monroe Leigh raised this point in a cable to Kissinger, the > Secretary of State exploded: "The Israelis when they go into Lebanon -- when > was the last time we protested that?" -- an accurate observation that would > soon become prophetic. Kissinger went on: "And we can't construe a Communist > government in the middle of Indonesia as self defense?" (Nation, 29 Oct. > 1990, p. 492). Kissinger fans will recall his similar comment on authorizing > the overthrow of Chile's democratically elected government: "I don't see why > we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the > irresponsibility of its own people." Of course, Communism was a red herring > in both cases.

> > In response to the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, the U.S. publicly > announced that it was suspending arms supplies to Jakarta, but, there was > actually no interruption in weapons deliveries and, under Kissinger's > orders, the "suspension" was quietly lifted the next month.

> > In 1977, the Indonesians were beginning to run low on weapons, so the United > States -- now under the administration of President Jimmy Carter -- > accelerated the arms flow. And when Congressional restrictions prevented > Carter from providing jets to Jakarta in 1978, he used Israel as a conduit: > Israel sent U.S. warplanes to Indonesia while the United States re-supplied > Israel. In the late 1970s, some 200,000 East Timorese -- more than a quarter > of the population -- died under the ferocious Indonesian assault, made > possible by U.S. weapons.

> > In 1982, the United States gave another green light, this time for a > full-scale Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Two days after the Israeli armed > forces, the IDF, rolled over the border, Secretary of State Alexander Haig > told a news conference that President Reagan had "deferred judgment" on > whether Israel's use of U.S. weapons in Lebanon violated U.S. law. Over the > ensuing weeks, Israel conquered half the country, killed thousands of > civilians, destroyed countless homes, attacked Syrian forces in the Bekka > Valley, and broke numerous truces. The Israeli army sat poised outside > Beirut, alternately shelling the city, making tank forays, and cutting off > its water and electric supply. The Reagan administration did hold up one > shipment to Israel of cluster bombs (anti-personnel weapons being used by > the IDF on Beirut), but pointedly declared that it would not make a legal > determination about whether Israel had violated U.S. law. At the same time, > Reagan assured Jewish leaders that his administration would not impose > sanctions against Israel. On August 5, Reagan told Israeli Foreign Minister > Yitzhak Shamir -- in what might hold the record for understatement: "Should > these Israeli practices continue, it will become increasingly difficult to > defend the proposition that Israeli use of U.S. arms is for defensive > purposes." These Israeli practices did continue, and U.S. arms continued to > flow.

> > Israel justified its invasion by claiming PLO terrorism on the border (in > fact the border had been quiet for eleven months except when there were > Israeli provocations), that the Israeli ambassador to Britain had been shot > in London (yes, but by a virulently anti-PLO organization), and that they > were countering the Syrians (who were in Lebanon under an Arab League > mandate, having been invited into the country in 1976, with encouragement > from Washington and Tel Aviv, to combat a Palestinian-leftist coalition). In > short, more red herrings.

> > Unfortunately, U.S. arming of foreign aggressors is not just a thing of the > past. Consider an article in the New York Times of Feb. 3, 2000, by William > A. Orme Jr. The thrust of Orme's report is that a planned Israeli purchase > of new "Apache" helicopters from the U.S. has been held up because > Washington does not want to share secret military software with Israel for > fear that the latter might transfer these secrets to China and India, > customers for its own arms industry. But the article also mentions -- in > passing, and without further comment -- how Israel's current U.S. > helicopters are being used and how the new ones will be used:

> > "Israel's decade-old fleet of 42 Apaches is in almost daily combat use, > flying three-hour round-trip sorties to southern Lebanon from carefully > camouflaged hangars here. Air Force officers say their bombing raids > against Hezbollah guerrilla targets would be more effective and pose less > risk to crews if they could use the newer Longbow Apaches."

> > In other words, U.S. weapons are being used on a regular basis for military > actions in a neighboring country without any objection from Washington, and > a new sale of weapons for the specific purpose of further acts of aggression > is being considered.

> > Of course, the Israelis claim -- as they did in 1982 and as the Indonesians > claimed in 1975 -- that their actions are totally defensive. But when Israel > first moved into southern Lebanon in a big way in 1978, the UN Security > Council unanimously passed Resolution 425 which called "upon Israel > immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial > integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory" -- > a resolution Israel has been defying for more than two decades. For many > years the pattern has been that when Lebanese guerrillas strike at IDF > soldiers occupying southern Lebanon, Israel responds with what can only be > called terrorism. For example, when 3 Israeli soldiers were killed in April > 1993, "Israeli helicopters fired at least 15 missiles into three houses, a > bakery and a valley outside the zone, as tanks and artillery slammed 200 > shells around a string of villages in the region," wounding eight civilians > and a UN soldier (NYT, 14 Apr. 1993, A13).

> > Israel's new Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, has promised to withdraw Israeli > troops from Lebanon by the summer. So why the need for the helicopters? A > report by Deborah Sontag in the New York Times on Oct. 7, 1999, suggested an > answer, noting that in order to minimize its own casualties the new IDF > strategy is to emphasize airborne attacks: "What we are really doing is > introducing technologies that partially substitute for the physical presence > of soldiers," said Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh.

> > So it seems that once again U.S. weaponry will be facilitating international > aggression. Washington provides the green light and endorses the red > herrings. And it will continue to do so until we can exert the public > pressure to stop it.

> > By Stephen R. Shalom teacher of political science at William Paterson > University > in NJ.