Just Foreign Policy News
July 6, 2010
3/5 of House Dems ‘Obsessed’ With Afghan Withdrawal Timetable
Less than a week after President Obama complained that there’s "a lot of obsession" about the withdrawal date for U.S. troops from Afghanistan, three in five House Democrats voted for the McGovern-Obey amendment that would have required President Obama to establish a timetable for withdrawal; in an usual move – the Speaker usually doesn’t vote on the floor – Speaker Pelosi voted for it too.
http://www.truth-out.org/35-house-dems-obsessed-with-afghan-withdrawal-timetable61031
South of the Border, scheduled screenings:
Oliver Stone’s documentary shows you the South America the New York Times doesn’t want you to see.
http://southoftheborderdoc.com/in-theatres/
Support the Work of Just Foreign Policy
Your financial support allows us to educate Americans about U.S. foreign policy and to create opportunities for Americans to advocate for U.S. policies that are more just.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate.html
Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) The White House "startled" Democratic lawmakers and "stunned" teachers’ unions by threatening to veto the war supplemental because it included money to save 140,000 teachers’ jobs that was partially offset by a cut to a White House education initiative of which the teachers’ unions are skeptical, the New York Times reports. Administration officials said the House bill had little chance in the Senate.
2) House Republican Leader Boehner’s apparent suggestion that we cut Social Security to pay for the war in Afghanistan ought to have every Democratic politician demanding to know if Boehner speaks for all Republicans, Dean Baker writes. [The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review now says that Boehner did not link the two issues directly, but even the edited version of the interview that now appears on their site still has Boehner calling for Social Security cuts because "we’re broke," while saying that we have to continue funding the war in Afghanistan – JFP.]
3) Many groups in the U.S. use tax-exempt donations to help Jews establish permanence in the Israeli-occupied territories, effectively obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state, the New York Times reports. Some of the activities appear to be illegal under U.S. tax law. The Times notes that some of the supported settlements are illegal under Israeli law; that a decade ago, Israel ended tax breaks for contributions to groups devoted exclusively to settlement-building in the West Bank; and that some U.S. diplomats and Israeli security officials have criticized the tax-exempt funding.
4) Turkey’s foreign minister said Turkey would sever diplomatic relations with Israel unless it either apologizes for its deadly raid on a Turkish aid ship or accepts an international inquiry into the incident, the Washington Post reports. A Western diplomat said President Obama plans to press the Israeli leader to apologize to defuse tensions.
5) U.S. efforts to legitimize the post-coup government in Honduras have created a rift with South America, writes Mark Weisbrot in the Guardian. The repression in Honduras has continued and perhaps worsened since the November election, with dozens of opposition activists and nine journalists murdered.
Israel/Palestine
6) Israel has created a list of items not permitted to enter Gaza for security reasons, the New York Times reports. Among the items Israel has prohibited are "dual use" items that it says have military or terrorist purposes alongside civilian purposes. That list goes beyond an internationally recognized roster of such items. Materials banned specifically include a range of chemicals and certain fertilizers that Israel says can be used to produce explosives, and other items like hunting knives, optical equipment, diving equipment, parachutes and gliders. Gisha, an Israeli advocacy group that focuses on freedom of movement for Palestinians, said that raw materials vital for local factory owners were still not being allowed in.
7) Hamas and Hezbollah have begun to embrace civil disobedience, protest marches, lawsuits and boycotts – tactics they once dismissed, the Wall Street Journal reports. "When we use violence, we help Israel win international support," said Aziz Dweik, a leading Hamas lawmaker in the West Bank. "The Gaza flotilla has done more for Gaza than 10,000 rockets." Hamas now denounces suicide bombings as counterproductive and has halted rocket attacks into Israel, the Journal notes.
Iran
8) Iranian officials have threatened to retaliate militarily in the Persian Gulf if the U.S. or other countries demand to inspect Iranian ships on the high seas, the Washington Post reports.
9) Olli Heinonen, who recently resigned as deputy director for safeguards at the IAEA, was instrumental in making suspect documents the basis for IAEA allegations against Iran, Gareth Porter writes for Inter Press Service. Some IAEA officials believed the documents were fraudulent, but the Bush Administration pressured the IAEA to use the documents as evidence for referring Iran to the Security Council.
Afghanistan
10) The re-investigation of a Special Operations raid that killed two pregnant Afghan women in February failed to interview key witnesses who had alleged a Special Operations cover-up, Inter Press Service reports.
Honduras
11) Mainstream leaders throughout Latin America see the post-coup government in Honduras as illegitimate, writes Rep. Mike Honda in Huffington Post. Holding Honduras accountable to a host of reform measures should be a stated prerequisite for OAS readmission, Honda argues. The US should call for the return of President Zelaya; ensure international oversight of any investigative and reconciliatory initiatives; must not let arbitrary arrests, beating and killings of government opponents and journalists and the sacking of judges continue unabated and unaddressed; and make its own investigation and assessment of what is occurring in Honduras with regards to human and political rights.
Cuba
12) A House floor vote on the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act could take place by the end of July, Inter Press Service reports. The bill would lift restrictions on travel by U.S. citizens to Cuba and ease restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba.
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) Budget Deficit And Wars’ Cost Draw Fire On The Home Front
David M. Herszenhorn, New York Times, July 2, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/us/politics/03cong.html
Washington – The debate in Congress over an $82 billion war spending bill has opened up a war of a different sort – a fierce clash between House Democrats and the Obama White House over two highly sensitive issues: the nation’s huge budget deficit and the lingering wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To help entice liberal Democrats to approve $33 billion for military operations overseas that they do not support, House leaders added more than $20 billion in new domestic spending to the bill, including $10 billion to save teachers’ jobs. In the process, the House also voted to cut $800 million from President Obama’s marquee education initiatives.
House Democrats, led by Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the departing chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said redirecting the education money, including about $500 million from the competitive grant program called Race to the Top, was a small price to pay to avert as many as 140,000 teacher layoffs this year.
But with the bill about to hit the floor, the White House threatened a veto, startling some Democratic lawmakers who said the administration had been slow to engage on the teacher job cuts. Administration officials said Mr. Obey had opposed Race to the Top from the outset and wanted to undermine the program before he retires.
The battle illustrates a jam that the White House finds itself in four months before the midterm elections as it tries to show that it has the backbone to reduce the deficit, while trying to avoid getting bogged down in a protracted debate about the wars and simultaneously maneuvering to protect one of Mr. Obama’s signature programs.
At a time when Congressional Democrats are bracing for a possible Republican onslaught in November and high unemployment is a major political liability, it was the cantankerous Mr. Obey whom the White House seemed to view as a more immediate threat on Thursday.
"We will be spending, in this fiscal year, $167 billion on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan," Mr. Obey declared on the House floor. "It is obvious to any but the most obtuse that that expenditure is killing our ability to finance a recovery of our own economy."
He also rejected the administration’s complaints about cuts. "People need to ask themselves one question: Are they interested in simply standing by and allowing teachers to be fired day after day for the next three months all around the country or are they willing to do something about it?" he said. House Democrat leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, lined up behind Mr. Obey’s plan.
[…] Administration officials also noted that the House bill had little chance in the Senate – a point reinforced by a dozen Democratic senators who criticized Mr. Obey’s cuts in a letter on Friday to Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii and chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
[…] Senior White House officials have made clear that they want the House to approve the Senate version of the war spending bill, without adding new domestic initiatives, and to pursue separate legislation to prevent the teacher layoffs.
Teachers’ unions, which have long been skeptical of the Race to the Top program, said they were stunned by the White House veto threat, which they said showed the administration favoring programs that benefit a few states over saving teacher jobs nationwide. "The issue here is the immediate need to avert draconian cuts," said Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, "versus saving and preserving and insulating every single cent of a new discretionary program."
Joel I. Klein, the chancellor of the New York City school system, which is competing for Race to the Top money, said Congress should save the $800 million elsewhere, even if it meant cutting federal aid for schools with high-poverty students. "Here’s a chance with Race to the Top to really change the game," he said. "Why would you take the money out of that?" Mr. Obey, however, said the cut approved by the House would leave $3.2 billion for the favored programs. "To suggest we are being unduly harsh is a joke," he said.
2) Boehner Puts Democrats On The Spot
Dean Baker, TPM Cafe, June 30, 2010
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/30/boehner_puts_democrats_on_the_spot/
In a remarkable interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, House Republican Leader John Boehner explicitly called for cutting Social Security in order to pay for the war in Afghanistan. The article reports:
"Ensuring there’s enough money to pay for the war will require reforming the country’s entitlement system, Boehner said. He said he’d favor increasing the Social Security retirement age to 70 for people who have at least 20 years until retirement, tying cost-of-living increases to the consumer price index rather than wage inflation and limiting payments to those who need them."
In principle Boehner gave the Democrats as much ammunition as a serious political party could want. After all, raising the retirement age and cutting Social Security benefits to pay for the war in Afghanistan is an idea that consistently polls in the high single decimals. We should expect every Democratic politician in the country to be jumping up and down demanding to know whether the Republican leader speaks for all Republicans.
That would be the case, unless of course the Democrats actually hold similar views. After all, several prominent Democrats have been saying in public recently that we will have to cut Social Security benefits (benefits workers have already paid for). These prominent Democrats also support the war in Afghanistan. So, they may not use the same words as Mr. Boehner, but it seems that many Democrats may effectively agree that we have to cut Social Security to pay for the war in Afghanistan. It would be nice if they would insist that this is not true.
[The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article is here: http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_688102.html. It now carries an editorial note saying that the story has been edited from its original version and that Bohner " did not link … directly" the issues of the war and Social Security. But even in the edited version, Bohner still says he supports raising the Social Security retirement age to 70, cutting cost-of-living increases, and means-testing benefits, because "we’re broke," and yet "we don’t have a choice" about continuing to fund the war in Afghanistan, because our security is at stake – in practical effect, not a substantial difference from the original – JFP.]
3) Tax-Exempt Funds Aid Settlements in West Bank
Jim Rutenberg, Mike McIntire and Ethan Bronner, New York Times, July 5, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/world/middleeast/06settle.html
Har Bracha, West Bank – Twice a year, American evangelicals show up at a winery in this Jewish settlement in the hills of ancient Samaria to play a direct role in biblical prophecy, picking grapes and pruning vines.
Believing that Christian help for Jewish winemakers here in the occupied West Bank foretells Christ’s second coming, they are recruited by a Tennessee-based charity called HaYovel that invites volunteers "to labor side by side with the people of Israel" and "to share with them a passion for the soon coming jubilee in Yeshua, messiah."
But during their visit in February the volunteers found themselves in the middle of the fight for land that defines daily life here. When the evangelicals headed into the vineyards, they were pelted with rocks by Palestinians who say the settlers have planted creeping grape vines on their land to claim it as their own. Two volunteers were hurt. In the ensuing scuffle, a settler guard shot a 17-year-old Palestinian shepherd in the leg.
"These people are filled with ideas that this is the Promised Land and their duty is to help the Jews," said Izdat Said Qadoos of the neighboring Palestinian village. "It is not the Promised Land. It is our land."
HaYovel is one of many groups in the United States using tax-exempt donations to help Jews establish permanence in the Israeli-occupied territories – effectively obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state, widely seen as a necessary condition for Middle East peace.
The result is a surprising juxtaposition: As the American government seeks to end the four-decade Jewish settlement enterprise and foster a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the American Treasury helps sustain the settlements through tax breaks on donations to support them.
A New York Times examination of public records in the United States and Israel identified at least 40 American groups that have collected more than $200 million in tax-deductible gifts for Jewish settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem over the last decade. The money goes mostly to schools, synagogues, recreation centers and the like, legitimate expenditures under the tax law. But it has also paid for more legally questionable commodities: housing as well as guard dogs, bulletproof vests, rifle scopes and vehicles to secure outposts deep in occupied areas.
In some ways, American tax law is more lenient than Israel’s. The outposts receiving tax-deductible donations – distinct from established settlements financed by Israel’s government – are illegal under Israeli law. And a decade ago, Israel ended tax breaks for contributions to groups devoted exclusively to settlement-building in the West Bank.
[…] While a succession of American administrations have opposed the settlements here, Mr. Obama has particularly focused on them as obstacles to peace. A two-state solution in the Middle East, he says, is vital to defusing Muslim anger at the West. Under American pressure, Mr. Netanyahu has temporarily frozen new construction to get peace talks going. The freeze and negotiations, in turn, have injected new urgency into the settlers’ cause – and into fund-raising for it.
The use of charities to promote a foreign policy goal is neither new nor unique – Americans also take tax breaks in giving to pro-Palestinian groups. But the donations to the settler movement stand out because of the centrality of the settlement issue in the current talks and the fact that Washington has consistently refused to allow Israel to spend American government aid in the settlements. Tax breaks for the donations remain largely unchallenged, and unexamined by the American government. The Internal Revenue Service declined to discuss donations for West Bank settlements. State Department officials would comment only generally, and on condition of anonymity. "It’s a problem," a senior State Department official said, adding, "It’s unhelpful to the efforts that we’re trying to make."
Daniel C. Kurtzer, the United States ambassador to Israel from 2001 to 2005, called the issue politically delicate. "It drove us crazy," he said. But "it was a thing you didn’t talk about in polite company." He added that while the private donations could not sustain the settler enterprise on their own, "a couple of hundred million dollars makes a huge difference," and if carefully focused, "creates a new reality on the ground."
Most contributions go to large, established settlements close to the boundary with Israel that would very likely be annexed in any peace deal, in exchange for land elsewhere. So those donations produce less concern than money for struggling outposts and isolated settlements inhabited by militant settlers. Even small donations add to their permanence.
For example, when Israeli authorities suspended plans for permanent homes in Maskiot, a tiny settlement near Jordan, in 2007, two American nonprofits – the One Israel Fund and Christian Friends of Israeli Communities -raised tens of thousands of dollars to help erect temporary structures, keeping the community going until officials lifted the building ban.
Israeli security officials express frustration over donations to the illegal or more defiant communities. "I am not happy about it," a senior military commander in the West Bank responded when asked about contributions to a radical religious academy whose director has urged soldiers to defy orders to evict settlers. He spoke under normal Israeli military rules of anonymity.
Palestinian officials expressed outrage at the tax breaks"Settlements violate international law, and the United States is supposed to be sponsoring a two-state solution, yet it gives deductions for donation to the settlements?" said Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator. The settlements are a sensitive issue among American Jews themselves. Some major Jewish philanthropies, like the Jewish Federations of North America, generally do not support building activities in the West Bank.
The donors to settlement charities represent a broad mix of Americans – from wealthy people like the hospital magnate Dr. Irving I. Moskowitz and the family behind Haagen-Dazs ice cream to bidders at kosher pizza auctions in Brooklyn and evangelicals at a recent Bible meeting in a Long Island basement. But they are unified in their belief that returning the West Bank – site of the ancient Jewish kingdoms – to full Jewish control is critical to Israeli security and fulfillment of biblical prophecies.
[…] Israel, too, used to offer its residents tax breaks for donations to settlement building, starting in 1984 under a Likud government. But those donations were ended by the Labor Party, first in 1995 and then, after reversal, again in 2000. The finance minister in both cases, Avraham Shohat, said that while he only vaguely recalled the decision-making process, as a matter of principle he believed in deductions for gifts to education and welfare for the poor, not to settlement building per se.
In theory, the same is true for the United States, where the tax code encourages citizens to support nonprofit groups that may diverge from official policy, as long as their missions are educational, religious or charitable. The challenge is defining those terms and enforcing them.
[…] The Times’s review of pro-settler groups suggests that most generally live within the rules of the American tax code. Some, though, risk violating them by using the money for political campaigning and residential property purchases, by failing to file tax returns, by setting up boards of trustees in name only and by improperly funneling donations directly to foreign organizations.
One group that at least skates close to the line is Friends of Zo Artzeinu/Manhigut Yehudit, based in Cedarhurst, N.Y., and co-founded by Shmuel Sackett, a former executive director of the banned Israeli political party Kahane Chai. Records from the group say a portion of the $5.2 million it has collected over the last few years has gone to the Israeli "community facilities" of Manhigut Yehudit, a hard-right faction of Mr. Netanyahu’s governing Likud Party, which Mr. Sackett helps run with the politician Moshe Feiglin.
American tax rules prohibit the use of charitable funds for political purposes at home or abroad.
[…] The [Israeli]government supports privately financed archaeological projects that focus on Jewish roots in Arab areas of Jerusalem. The Obama administration and the United Nations have recently criticized a plan to raze 22 Palestinian homes to make room for a history park in a neighborhood where a nonprofit group called El’Ad finances digs and buys up Arab-owned properties.
To raise money, groups like El’Ad seek to bring alive a narrative of Jewish nationalism in living rooms and banquet halls across America.
In May, a crowd of mostly Jewish professionals – who paid $300 a plate to benefit the American Friends of Ateret Cohanim – gathered in a catering hall high above Flushing Meadows-Corona Park in Queens to dine and hear John R. Bolton, United Nations ambassador under President George W. Bush, warn of the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran.
A few days earlier, the group’s executive vice president, Susan Hikind, had gone on a Jewish radio program in New York to proclaim her group’s resistance to American policy in the Middle East. The Obama administration, she said, did not want donors to attend the banquet because it believed Jerusalem should "be part of some future capital of a Palestinian state."
"And who’s standing in the way of that?" Ms. Hikind said. "People who support Ateret Cohanim’s work in Jerusalem to ensure that Jerusalem remains united."
[…] Hoenig said that Ateret Cohanim bought a couple of buildings years ago, but that mostly it helps arrange purchases by other Jewish investors. That is not mentioned, however, on its American affiliate’s tax returns. Rather, they describe its primary charitable purpose as financing "higher educational institutions in Israel," as well as children’s camps, help for needy families and security for Jews living in East Jerusalem.
Indeed, it does all those things. It houses yeshiva students and teachers in properties it helps acquire and places kindergartens and study institutes into other buildings, all of which helps its activities qualify as educational or religious for tax purposes.
The American affiliate provides roughly 60 percent of Ateret Cohanim’s funding, according to representatives of the group. But Mr. Hoenig said none of the American money went toward the land deals, since they would not qualify for tax-deductible donations. Still, acquiring property has been an integral part of Ateret Cohanim’s fund-raising appeals.
Archived pages from a Web site registered to the American affiliate – taken down in the last year or so – described in detail how Ateret Cohanim "quietly and discreetly" arranged the acquisition of buildings in Palestinian areas. And it sought donations for "the expected left-wing Arab legal battle," building costs and "other expenses (organizational, planning, Arab middlemen, etc.)"
[…] David Ha’Ivri, the public liaison for the local government, the Shomron Regional Council, has positioned himself as a fierce yet amiable advocate. As a leader of an American-based nonprofit, he also brings a militant legacy to the charitable enterprise.
Mr. Ha’Ivri, formerly David Axelrod, was born in Far Rockaway, Queens, and was a student of the virulently anti-Arab Rabbi Meir David Kahane and a top lieutenant and brother-in-law to the rabbi’s son, Binyamin Kahane. Both Kahanes, who were assassinated 10 years apart, ran organizations banned in Israel for instigating, if not participating in, attacks against Arabs. The United States Treasury Department later added both groups, Kach and Kahane Chai, to its terrorism watch list.
[…] [Ha’Ivri] posed for pictures with the Republican National Committee chairman, Michael Steele, and distributed fliers about the "501 c3 I.R.S. tax deductible status" of his charity, Shuva Israel, which has raised more than $2.6 million since 2004 for the Shomron communities.
Although I.R.S. rules require that American charities exhibit "full control of the donated funds and discretion as to their use," Shuva Israel appears to be dominated by Israeli settlers.
Mr. Ha’Ivri, who lives in the settlement of Kfar Tapuach, was listed as the group’s executive director in its most recent tax filing; Gershon Mesika, the Shomron council’s leader, is the board’s chairman; and Shuva Israel’s accountant is based in the settlement of Tekoa. Its American presence is through a post office box in Austin, Tex., where, according to its tax filings, it has two volunteers who double as board members. "I’ve never been to the board," said one of them, Jeff Luftig.
When asked about his dual status as leader of the charity and an official with the council it supports, Mr. Ha’Ivri said he was no longer executive director, though he could not recall who was. He said he was confident the charity was following the law, adding that the money it raises goes strictly toward improving the lives of settlers.
If Mr. Ha’Ivri has changed tactics, a new generation has picked up his aggressive approach. These activists also receive American support.
Their campaign has been named "Price Tag": For every move by Israeli authorities to curtail settlement construction, the price will be an attack on an Arab mosque, vineyard or olive grove.
The results were on display during a recent tour through the Arab village of Hawara, where the wall of a mosque had been desecrated with graffiti of a Jewish star and the first letters of the Prophet Muhammad’s name in Hebrew. In the nearby Palestinian village of Mikhmas, the deputy mayor, Mohamed Damim, said settlers had come in the dark of night and uprooted or cut down hundreds of olive and fig trees.
"The army has done nothing to protect us," he said. Though the attacks are small by nature, Israeli commanders fear they threaten to scuttle the uneasy peace they and their Palestinian Authority partners have forged in the West Bank. "It can bring the entire West Bank to light up again in terror and violence," a senior commander said in an interview.
Israeli law enforcement officials say that in investigating settler violence in the north, they often turn to people connected to the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva in the Yitzhar settlement. After the arson of a mosque in Yasuf in December, authorities arrested the yeshiva’s head rabbi, Yitzhak Shapira, and several students but released them for lack of evidence. Rabbi Shapira denied involvement. He is known in Israel for his strong views. He was co-author of a book released last year that offered religious justification for killing non-Jews who pose a threat to Jews or, in the case of young children, could in the future.
A plaque inside the recently built yeshiva thanks Dr. Moskowitz, the hospitals entrepreneur, and his wife, Cherna, for their "continuous and generous support." Another recognizes Benjamin Landa of Brooklyn, a nursing home operator who gave through his foundation, Ohel Harav Yehoshua Boruch. Mr. Landa said he donated to the yeshiva after its old building was destroyed in an Arab ransacking. None of the American donations have been linked to the campaign of attacks.
The Israeli military has activated outstanding permit violations that have set the stage for the yeshiva’s threatened demolition. And officials have barred some of the yeshiva’s students from the West Bank for months on end.
Od Yosef Chai’s director, Itamar Posen, said in an interview that the military was unfairly singling out the yeshiva because "the things that we publish are things that are against their ideas, and they are frightened." Mr. Ha’Ivri and Mr. Mesika have charged the military with jeopardizing the men’s livelihoods without due process.
A settler legal defense fund, Honenu, with its own American charitable arm, has sought to provide a safety net. An online appeal for tax-deductible donations to be sent to Honenu’s Queens-based post office read, "If the 3 men can have their families supported it will cause others at the Hilltops to brave military and government threats against them."
Reached last month, one of the men, Akiva HaCohen, declined to say how much support he had received from American donors; Honenu officials in Israel declined to comment as well. There is no way to tell from Honenu’s American tax returns; none was available through Guidestar, a service that tracks tax filings by nonprofits. Groups that raise less than $25,000 a year are not required to file. But a review of tax returns filed by other charities showed that one American family foundation gave it $33,000 in a single year, enough to have required filing.
[…] Mr. Hagee’s aides say he makes a large majority of his donations within Israel’s 1967 boundaries and seeks to avoid disputed areas. Yet a sports complex in the large settlement of Ariel – whose future is in dispute – bears his name. And a few years ago, according to officials at the yeshiva at Har Bracha, Mr. Hagee donated $250,000 to expand a dormitory.
The yeshiva is the main growth engine of the settlement, attracting students who put down roots. (Some are soldiers, and the head rabbi there has called upon them to refuse orders to evict settlers.) After the yeshiva was started in 1992, "the place just took off," growing to more than 200 families from 3, said the yeshiva’s spokesman, Yonaton Behar. "The goal," he added, "is to grow to the point where there is no question of uprooting Har Bracha."
[…]
4) Turkey threatens to sever ties unless Israel apologizes for deadly raid on ship
Janine Zacharia, Washington Post, Tuesday, July 6, 2010; A08
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502889.html
Jerusalem – Tensions between Turkey and Israel escalated Monday as Turkey’s foreign minister said his country would sever diplomatic relations with Israel unless it either apologizes for its deadly raid on a Turkish aid ship or accepts an international inquiry into the incident.
The threat came as Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu prepares to meet Tuesday in Washington with President Obama. A Western diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity before the foreign minister made his comments, said Obama plans to press the Israeli leader to apologize to defuse tensions.
"The president is very concerned about the breakdown in Turkish-Israeli relations," the diplomat said. Asked if he thought Obama could persuade Netanyahu to apologize, the diplomat added: "I’m sure he’ll give it the college try."
[…] Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review that "Israelis have three options: They will either apologize or acknowledge an international-impartial inquiry and its conclusion. Otherwise, our diplomatic ties will be cut off." Israel has appointed its own investigative commission, but critics say it is not sufficiently independent.
It was not clear if Davutoglu’s remarks meant that Turkey was considering a full severing of ties or, as some Turkish observers said was more likely, a cut only in diplomatic contacts that would still allow trade, travel and other cooperation to continue. The raid led Turkey to recall its ambassador from Israel, cancel three sets of joint military exercises and prevent Israeli military planes from crossing its airspace.
[…]
5) One year on, Honduras rift persists
It is time for the US to stand with its Latin American neighbours and stop fighting to legitimise a repressive regime
Mark Weisbrot, Guardian, Wednesday 30 June 2010 18.30 BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jun/30/honduras-usforeignpolicy
At dawn, on 28 June 2009, soldiers invaded the home of the Honduran president, Mel Zelaya, and flew him to Costa Rica. It was a frightening throwback to the days when military men, backed by a local oligarchy and often the United States, could overturn the results of democratic elections.
It would also turn out to be a pivotal moment for relations between the United States and Latin America – especially South America, where a new generation of left-of-centre governments in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela were all hoping for a new relationship with Washington following Barack Obama’s election. The new American president, a former community organiser, had come to Trinidad just a few months earlier and shook hands with President Chávez of Venezuela, and actually listened to his southern neighbours. He was more like us, they thought – former trade unionists, two women, an indigenous leader, a progressive Catholic bishop, political outsiders for the most part.
But it was not to be. The first signal came when, on the day of the coup, the White House did not condemn it, merely calling on "all social and political actors" to respect democracy. The White House later joined other countries in condemning the coup, but there was a noticeable difference: while the OAS, the UN, and other international organisations called for the "immediate and unconditional" reinstatement of President Zelaya, no US official would ever utter those words over the next five months.
Nor would US officials join human rights organisations from throughout the hemisphere and the world in condemning the violence and repression of the Honduran dictatorship. Its security forces raided and shut down independent radio and TV stations, and beat and arrested thousands of peaceful demonstrators. There were reports of torture and some opposition activists were killed in circumstances that implicated the government. Since this took place during the official campaign period for the fall elections, it made free elections impossible. The Obama administration’s silence was deafening.
President Zelaya traveled to Washington six times during his exile, but President Obama refused to meet with him. Meanwhile, Washington blocked the Organisation of American States from taking stronger actions against the Honduran dictatorship.
The US then supported elections under the dictatorship. The OAS and European Union refused to send observers. The vast majority of the hemisphere, including Brazil, Argentina, and Chile, were vehemently opposed to the elections. The Rio Group, which includes all of Latin America, signed a statement saying Zelaya’s immediate restitution to the presidency was "indispensable" to the recognition of elections. Even the rightwing governments of Panama and Colombia, and Peru – Washington’s closest allies in the region – felt obliged to sign on to the statement.
This created a rift that remains today: US secretary of state Hillary Clinton has recently been campaigning for recognition of the Honduran government, but has so far found few takers. In South America, it is only Peru and Colombia that recognise the Lobo government – the official position of UNASUR is still non-recognition.
[…] Washington’s campaign to legitimise the government that was elected under a dictatorship accelerated with the inauguration of Lobo in January. A few days after the inauguration Hillary Clinton announced that the Honduran "crisis" had been "managed to a successful conclusion" and this "was done without violence". Two days later Clinton announced that the US was restoring all assistance to Honduras despite a letter sent to her the day before by Democratic members of Congress asking her to "send a strong unambiguous message that the human rights situation in Honduras will be a critical component of upcoming decisions regarding the further normalisations of relations, as well as the resumption of financial assistance".
The repression in Honduras has continued and perhaps worsened since the November election, with dozens of opposition activists and nine journalists murdered. On 24 June, 27 members of the US Congress, including some of the Democratic leadership, wrote a letter to US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton: "Members of social movements who oppose or criticise the government have been victims of violence and subject to ongoing intimidation … Violations of human rights and democratic order persist in Honduras on [President Lobo’s] watch."
[…]
Israel/Palestine
6) Israel Details Easing of Its Gaza Blockade
Isabel Kershner, New York Times, July 5, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/world/middleeast/06mideast.html
Jerusalem – Israel on Monday announced details of the easing of its blockade of Gaza, and the Israeli defense minister held a rare face-to-face meeting here with the Palestinian prime minister in a flurry of activity apparently intended to show diplomatic momentum ahead of the Israeli prime minister’s meeting with President Obama, scheduled for Tuesday in Washington.
[…] At the Israeli Foreign Ministry on Monday, Mr. Gal, the director general, and Maj. Gen. Eitan Dangot, a senior military official, detailed the new guidelines for the entry of goods into Gaza, in line with an Israeli security cabinet decision on June 20.
In what amounts to a reversal of the system of the past three years, since Hamas took full control of Gaza, Israel has created a list of items not permitted to enter Gaza for security reasons. Before, it allowed only those items that were specifically approved.
Among the items Israel has prohibited are all weapons and munitions and "dual use" items that it says have military or terrorist purposes alongside civilian purposes. That list goes beyond an internationally recognized roster of such items.
Materials banned specifically by Israel include a range of chemicals and certain fertilizers that Israel says can be used to produce explosives, and other items like hunting knives, optical equipment, diving equipment, parachutes and gliders.
In a second list, Israel has itemized construction materials whose entry into Gaza will be allowed only for projects authorized by Hamas’s rival, the Palestinian Authority, and carried out under international supervision.
The Obama administration reacted positively to the news.
[…] Israel has pledged to expand economic activity in Gaza, where local industry has been decimated by the blockade. But Sari Bashi of Gisha, an Israeli advocacy group that focuses on freedom of movement for Palestinians, said that raw materials vital for local factory owners were still not being allowed in on Monday.
[…]
7) Israel’s Foes Embrace New Resistance Tactics
Hamas and Hezbollah Find Inspiration In Flotilla, Support Protest Movements
Charles Levinson, Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704638504575318390063707222.html
Jerusalem – Hamas and Hezbollah, groups that have long battled Israel with violent tactics, have begun to embrace civil disobedience, protest marches, lawsuits and boycotts-tactics they once dismissed.
For decades, Palestinian statehood aspirations seemed to lurch between negotiations and armed resistance against Israel. But a small cadre of Palestinian activists has long argued that nonviolence, in the tradition of the American civil rights movement, would be far more effective.
Officials from Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip, point to the recent Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla, in which Israeli troops killed nine activists, as evidence there is more to gain by getting Israel to draw international condemnation through its own use of force, rather than by attacking the country.
"When we use violence, we help Israel win international support," said Aziz Dweik, a leading Hamas lawmaker in the West Bank. "The Gaza flotilla has done more for Gaza than 10,000 rockets."
Hamas and Hezbollah, the Islamist movement in Lebanon that has been fighting Israel since the early 1980s, haven’t renounced violence and both groups continue to amass arms. Hamas still abides by a charter that calls for Israel’s destruction; Palestinian youths still hurl rocks at Israeli soldiers across the West Bank separation barrier. And the flotilla incident didn’t fall into conventional standards of peaceful protest: While most activists passively resisted Israeli soldiers, some on the boat where protesters were killed attacked commandos as they boarded, according to video footage released by Israel and soldiers’ accounts.
The incident triggered international condemnation and plunged Israel into one of its worst diplomatic crises in years. In response, Israel said it would take some steps to ease its blockade on the Gaza Strip.
After the incident, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah called on supporters to participate in the next flotilla bound for Gaza. Ghaleb Abu Zeinab, a member of the Hezbollah politburo in Beirut, said it was the first time Mr. Nasrallah had forcefully and publicly embraced such tactics against Israel.
"We saw that this kind of resistance has driven the Israelis into a big plight," he said. Organizers in Lebanon say they have two ships ready to sail, but no departure date has been set.
[…] The absence of peace talks for much of the past two years has pushed the Palestinian Authority leadership to embrace the movement as well. Dominated by members of Hamas’s more moderate rival Fatah, they long advocated a negotiated settlement with Israel and dismissed popular protest campaigns.
But in January, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad launched a campaign to boycott products produced in Israeli settlements and to plant trees in areas declared off limits by Israel. In April, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas outlawed settlement products in Palestinian Authority-controlled areas.
Hamas’s turnaround has been more striking, said Mustapha Barghouti, a prominent Palestinian advocate for nonviolent resistance. "When we used to call for protests, and marches, and boycotts and anything called nonviolence, Hamas used these sexist insults against us. They described it as women’s struggle," Mr. Barghouti said. That changed in 2008, he said, after the first aid ship successfully ran the Israeli blockade of Gaza.
[…] Hamas has started organizing its own peaceful marches into the Israeli-controlled buffer zone along the Gaza border and supported lawsuits against Israeli officials in European courts. Hamas says it has ramped up support for a committee dedicated to sponsoring similar protests in Gaza.
Mr. Dweik, the Hamas lawmaker, recently began turning up at weekly protests against Israel’s West Bank barrier.
Salah Bardawil, a Hamas lawmaker in Gaza City, says Hamas has come to appreciate the importance of international support for its legitimacy as a representative of the Palestinian people and its fight against Israeli occupation, and has adapted its tactics. Hamas hasn’t claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in years and now denounces the tactic as counterproductive. Since an Israeli military incursion into the territory in December 2008-January 2009, it has also halted rocket attacks into Israel.
[…]
Iran
8) In responding to West, Iran stresses its naval abilities in Persian Gulf
Thomas Erdbrink, Washington Post, Tuesday, July 6, 2010; A09
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502578.html
Tehran – Inspections of Iranian vessels by the United States and its allies in accordance with a new U.N. sanctions regime could worsen tensions in the Persian Gulf, Iranian leaders and commanders have warned in recent days.
"Anybody who insists on implementing [searches] will regret them very harshly," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said June 28, echoing avowals by other senior Iranian officials that inspections would not go unanswered.
The resolution adopted last month by the U.N. Security Council calls on states to allow inspections of ships on the high seas if there "are reasonable grounds" to believe they are carrying weapons or other banned materials, a request Iran would reject as a violation of its sovereignty, analysts said. A similar U.N. provision that was passed last year to encourage the boarding of North Korean vessels has not led to a single interdiction of banned cargo on the high seas. But it has led to the seizure of North Korean weapons at foreign ports, according to a U.N. monitoring panel.
The prospect of inspections has led several key Iranian officials to emphasize their country’s growing clout in the Persian Gulf – the likeliest theater for countermeasures, Iranian commanders say.
"The Guard’s navy has the capacity to respond appropriately and adequately to actions against Iranian ships," Revolutionary Guard Corps Rear Adm. Ali Fadavi said June 26, according to the government newspaper Iran. "The Persian Gulf is the center and most sensitive point of the world. . . . At any time, we can exert as much pressure in this strait as we may wish to."
Iran has threatened for years to choke off the Hormuz Strait, the narrow passage at the entrance to the gulf through which a daily caravan of tankers transports nearly 30 percent of the world’s oil and gas. Recently, though, current and retired military officers have been touting what they call an overhaul of military doctrine with respect to the Persian Gulf: preparing the naval arm of the Revolutionary Guard to carry out the kind of unconventional attacks known as asymmetrical warfare.
[…]
10) Heinonen Pushed Dubious Iran Nuclear Weapons Intel
Gareth Porter, Inter Press Service, July 2
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52043
Washington – Olli Heinonen, the Finnish nuclear engineer who resigned Thursday after five years as deputy director for safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was the driving force in turning that agency into a mechanism to support U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran.
Heinonen was instrumental in making a collection of intelligence documents showing a purported Iranian nuclear weapons research programme the central focus of the IAEA’s work on Iran. The result was to shift opinion among Western publics to the view that Iran had been pursuing a covert nuclear weapons programme.
But his embrace of the intelligence documents provoked a fierce political struggle within the Secretariat of the IAEA, because other officials believed the documents were fraudulent.
Heinonen took over the Safeguards Department in July 2005 – the same month that the George W. Bush administration first briefed top IAEA officials on the intelligence collection.
The documents portrayed a purported nuclear weapons research programme, originally called the "Green Salt" project, that included efforts to redesign the nosecone of the Shahab-3 missile, high explosives apparently for the purpose of triggering a nuclear weapon and designs for a uranium conversion facility. Later the IAEA referred to the purported Iranian activities simply as the "alleged studies".
The Bush administration was pushing the IAEA to use the documents to accuse Iran of having had a covert nuclear weapons programme. The administration was determined to ensure that the IAEA Governing Board would support referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council for action on sanctions, as part of a larger strategy to force Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment programme.
Long-time IAEA Director-General Mohammed ElBaradei and other officials involved in investigating and reporting on Iran’s nuclear programme were immediately sceptical about the authenticity of the documents. According to two Israeli authors, Yossi Melman and Meir Javadanfar, several IAEA officials told them in interviews in 2005 and 2006 that senior officials of the agency believed the documents had been "fabricated by a Western intelligence organisation".
Heinonen, on the other hand, supported the strategy of exploiting the collection of intelligence documents to put Iran on the defensive. His approach was not to claim that the documents’ authenticity had been proven but to shift the burden of proof to Iran, demanding that it provide concrete evidence that it had not carried out the activities portrayed in the documents.
From the beginning, Iran’s permanent representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, denounced the documents as fabrications. In Governing Board meetings and interviews, Soltanieh pointed to several indicators, including the absence of official stamps showing receipt of the document by a government office and the absence of any security markings.
[…] Heinonen suggested in his presentation that the agency did not yet have sufficient information to come to any firm conclusions about those documents. In the May 2008 IAEA report, however, there was no mention of any such caveats about the documents.
Instead, the report used language that was clearly intended to indicate that the agency had confidence in the intelligence documents: "The documentation presented to Iran appears to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, is detailed in content and appears to be generally consistent."
That language, on which Heinoen evidently insisted, did not represent a consensus among senior IAEA officials. One senior official suggested to IPS in September 2009 that the idea that documents came from different sources was not completely honest.
"There are intelligence-sharing networks," said the official. It was possible that one intelligence organisation could have shared the documents with others, he explained. "That gives us multiple sources consistent over time," said the official. The same official said of the collection of intelligence documents, "It’s not difficult to cook up."
Nevertheless, Heinonen’s position had clearly prevailed. And in the final year of ElBaradei’s leadership of the agency, the Safeguards Department became an instrument for member states – especially France, Britain, Germany and Israel – to put pressure on ElBaradei to publish summaries of intelligence reports portraying Iran as actively pursuing a nuclear weapons programme.
The active pressure of the United States and its allies on behalf of the hard line toward Iran was the main source of Heinonen’s power on the issue. Those states have been feeding intelligence on alleged covert Iranian nuclear activities to the Safeguards Division for years, and Heinonen knew that ElBaradei could not afford to confront the U.S.-led coalition openly over the issue.
The Bush administration had threatened to replace ElBaradei in 2004 and had reluctantly accepted his reelection as director-general in 2005. ElBaradei was not strong enough to threaten to fire the main antagonist over the issue of alleged studies.
ElBaradei’s successor Yukio Amano is even less capable of adopting an independent position on the issues surrounding the documents. The political dynamics of the IAEA ensure that Heinonen’s successor is certain to continue the same line on the Iran nuclear issue and intelligence documents as Heinonen’s.
Afghanistan
10) McChrystal Probe of SOF Killings Excluded Key Eyewitnesses
Gareth Porter and Ahmad Walid Fazly, Inter Press Service, July 6
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52063
Washington – The follow-up investigation of a botched Special Operations Forces (SOF) raid in Gardez Feb. 12 that killed two government officials and three women, ordered by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal Apr. 5, was ostensibly aimed at reconciling divergent Afghan and U.S. accounts of what happened during and after the raid.
That implied that the U.S. investigators would finally do what they had failed to do in the original investigation – interview the eyewitnesses. But three eyewitnesses who had claimed to see U.S. troops digging bullets of the bodies of three women told IPS they were never contacted by U.S. investigators.
The failure to interview key eyewitnesses, along with the refusal to make public any of the investigation’s findings, continued a pattern of behaviour by McChrystal’s command of denying that the SOF unit had begun a cover-up of the killings immediately after the raid.
Both the original report of the U.S. investigation and initial NATO report on the Feb. 12 night raid in Gardez remain classified, according to Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, the officer who was spokesman for McChrystal on the issue before the general was relieved of his command Jun. 23.
[…] Breasseale had said in an e-mail to IPS before McChrystal was relieved of command that "many" survivors of the raid were interviewed, "depending on whether they were available to speak to the investigating officer".
But the father and mother of an 18-year-old girl who died from wounds inflicted by the raiders and the brother of the police officer and the prosecutor killed in the raid all said in interviews with IPS last week that they had never been contacted by U.S. investigators about what they had seen that night. All three gave testimony to the Afghan investigators.
In an interview with IPS, Mohammed Tahir, the father of Gulalai, the 18-year old girl who was killed in the raid, said, "I saw them taking out the bullets from bodies of my daughter and others."
Tahir said that he and as many as seven other eyewitnesses had told interior ministry investigators about the attempted cover-up they had seen. But he insisted, "We have never been interviewed by the U.S. military."
Mohammed Saber, the brother of the two men killed in the raid – Commander Dawood, the head of intelligence for a district in Paktia province, and Saranwal Zahir, a prosecutor – said he had not been interviewed by any U.S. investigator either. Saber told IPS, "The Americans were taking out the bullets from the bodies of the dead with knives and with other equipment that they always have."
Saber said the U.S. soldiers refused to let relatives of the victims go to help them as they lay bleeding to death. Saber said he and other eyewitnesses were taken to a U.S. base and detained for three nights and four days.
Sabz Paree, the 18-year-old woman’s mother, also denied being interviewed by U.S. investigators. "I saw everything," she told IPS. "The Americans had knives and were taking out the bullets from her."
[…]
Honduras
12) Honduran Coup: One Year Anniversary Beckons Better US Policy Towards Latin America
Rep. Mike Honda, Huffington Post, June 29, 2010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-mike-honda/honduran-coup-1-year-anni_b_629027.html
[…] The residue left in Honduras from last year’s coup – a coup that ousted democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya and installed interim President Roberto Micheletti, a favorite of the Honduran political establishment – remains ever-present in the minds of many mainstream leaders in and throughout Latin America. Protests by Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina and others within the Union of South American Nations persist at a vehement pitch as Honduras marked the one-year anniversary of the coup on Monday.
The claim, furthermore, that Honduras’ current president, Porfirio Lobo, was elected into power via free and fair elections is questioned by many of the leaders in the region, who believe that Lobo’s rule remains illegitimate. Anti-Lobo sentiment inspired a recent boycott threat by several South American countries of the European Union-Latin American summit meeting in Madrid last month. The invited Lobo backed out, abstaining from the summit.
Here’s the real rub for the U.S. in all of this: Given Washington’s subsequent silence on the coup, on Zelaya’s exile and on the call for investigations, we are not only losing an opportunity to enhance democracy for the people of Honduras, but simultaneously endangering allegiances throughout South America and undermining our multilateral efforts elsewhere.
Before the gulf widens further, and without changing course too dramatically, the U.S. can still restore relations with Latin America. The foundational framework is already there. President Barack Obama’s original outreach – his Summit of the Americas’ pro-engagement speech in Trinidad and Tobago, his ending of travel restrictions to Cuba, and his extension of a diplomatic hand to Venezuela – began to rebuild the damage done by President George W. Bush-era policies. Latin America first reacted favorably, but floundered soon after, wanting more walk, less talk.
We now have an opportunity to walk the talk. This month, the Organization of American States announced at its annual meeting that it plans to send a high-level delegation to Honduras to "study the political process," a first step in a series of confidence-building mechanisms aimed ultimately at readmitting Honduras to the OAS. So too must the U.S. thoughtfully assess Honduran polity before encouraging a full return to the intercontinental body.
Holding Honduras accountable to a host of reform measures should be a stated prerequisite for OAS readmission. First, one of the best ways to build confidence among South American leaders, the OAS and the people of Honduras is for the U.S. to call for the rightful and responsible return of Zelaya calmly and quickly. This demonstrates the Honduran government’s commitment to a sometimes painful part of any democracy – the willingness to countenance criticism and civic concern.
Second, the U.S. must ensure international oversight of any investigative and reconciliatory initiatives, including the Honduran government’s truth commission and the alternative truth body established by human rights groups (which are doubtful of government intent and neutrality).
Third, the U.S. must not let arbitrary arrests, beating and killings of government opponents and journalists and the sacking of judges continue unabated and unaddressed – it sends the wrong signal to Honduras’ democracy and the wrong sign to the rest of Latin America.
Finally, I have joined my colleagues in Congress on a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton requesting that the State Department direct Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner to visit Honduras and make a prompt assessment of what is occurring there with regards to human and political rights. Without an early and accurate report, we would be reluctant to see U.S. support for Honduras continue without significant restrictions.
[…]
Cuba
12) Key Congressional Committee Votes to Lift Travel Ban
Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service, June 30
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52011
Washington – In a major victory for anti-embargo forces, a key Congressional committee voted here Wednesday to lift restrictions on travel by U.S. citizens to Cuba.
If passed by both houses of Congress, the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act will also ease restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to the Caribbean island that were imposed by former President George W. Bush.
"I am proud to say that today, the House Agriculture Committee took a courageous vote to end the short-sighted and failed policy that limits American agriculture’s access to the Cuban market," said Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee of the House of Representatives who, along with a Republican colleague, Rep. Jerry Moran, was the bill’s chief sponsor.
"An unprecedented coalition of agriculture, business, religious and social organisations have endorsed (the bill), and today’s vote demonstrates that Congress is ready to change our nation’s approach on this issue," he added. "We have tried to isolate Cuba for more than 50 years, and it has not worked. As it has in other countries, perhaps increasing trade with Cuba will encourage democratic progress."
The bill, which was approved on a 25-20 vote that broke mainly along party lines, will now go to the House Democratic leadership which will decide whether to send it to the House floor.
Sources on Capitol Hill told IPS they believe the decision is likely to be affirmative and that a floor vote could take place by the end of July.
[…]
–
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
Just Foreign Policy is a membership organization devoted to reforming US foreign policy so it reflects the values and interests of the majority of Americans.