The evidence of US government support for Israeli policies that it publicly opposes continues to mount. While we throw people in jail for collecting money to assist organizations deemed terrorist, we give tax deductions to those who donate to fund illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel. See the article below from Der Spiegel.

Separately, if you want to learn about how we got to the present situation and to see beyond the myths that populate the public discussion, I highly recommend Palestine, Israel, and the US Empire, by Richard Becker. I heard an hour radio talk by Mr. Becker, and I learned more than I could have believed about the history of the Middle East and the various nefarious political deals that led to the current situation. Mr. Becker must have devoted his life to learning about this history and spreading the truth to counter all of the lies that many of us have accepted as truth.

Making a Mockery of the Moratorium

US Cash for Israeli Settlements

By Gregor Peter Schmitz and Christoph Schult

Der Spiegel
07/23/2010

Photo Gallery: 6 Photos

AFP

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have declared a freeze on new settlements, but construction is continuing in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Settlers are receiving contributions from American foundations that enjoy tax breaks, including Christian groups that see Biblical prophecies being fulfilled.

A gray pick-up truck speeds up to the metal gate at the entrance to Shilo, a Jewish settlement halfway between the Palestinian cities of Ramallah and Nablus and which is home to 2,500 people.

Dror Etkes, 41, puts on sunglasses and a blue cap. He is hoping not to be recognized. Settlers in the West Bank consider Etkes, who has spent more than nine years making note of every new house built in the more than 120 Israeli settlements here, their number one enemy. A settlers’ newspaper once printed his picture with the caption "Dror Etkes, head of the peace movement’s intelligence service."

So Etkes employs various tricks to gain admittance to the settlements. Nearly every one of them, for example, contains a minimarket. When the guard at the Shilo gate asks where he’s headed, Etkes replies, looking bored, "To the minimarket." The guard believes him and opens the metal gate.

‘A Bad Joke’

Just a couple hundred meters on, Etkes finds what he’s looking for — a "For Sale" sign advertising "10 family homes." From the top of a hill, Etkes watches Palestinian workers who are using wooden slats to prepare a framework for concrete. "The foundations are from December," Etkes states knowledgeably and clicks his camera shutter button.

Now Etkes has further proof that there has not in fact been a "freeze" on settlement building since November, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would have the world believe. In any case, the Israeli cabinet also made exceptions in the moratorium for public buildings such as synagogues and preschools, as well as allowing private homes already under construction to be completed.

The settlers’ administration of Samaria in the northern part of the West Bank thus issued permits for 1,600 housing units — nearly 10 times as many as in the previous year — before the moratorium began. Etkes’ latest research shows that settlers have also begun new construction projects since the moratorium took effect. At least 46 of the 120 official settlements are currently carrying out construction, the left-wing activist says. "Talking about a moratorium is just a bad joke."

Praising Netanyahu’s Restraint

US President Barack Obama, on the other hand, praised Netanyahu for his "restraint" on the settlement question during the Israeli prime minister’s visit to Washington two weeks ago. That comment struck Palestinian leaders in Ramallah as mockery, especially as it emerged around the same time that many of the settlements have the American tax system to thank for their development.

According to research by the New York Times, pro-settler groups have raised over $200 million (€155 million) in the last 10 years. Such foundations in the United States can be exempted from taxes as long as they benefit "educational, religious or charitable" causes.

This raises some important questions. Do foundations deserve tax breaks even while pursuing clear foreign policy aims? And what happens when their aims run contrary to those of the US government?

Representatives of the foundations in question offer placating words. Sondra Baras from Christian Friends of Israel Communities (CFOIC), for example, says that her organization "does not have a political agenda." The organization, which is based in Colorado Springs, is tax exempt. "CFOIC does not advocate any particular political solution to the problems in the Middle East," she told SPIEGEL. "The support is ideological and Biblical in nature, not political."

‘Humanitarian in Nature’

Steven Orlow, president of the One Israel Fund, another tax-exempted pro-settler group based in Hewlett, New York, makes similar comments.

"The activities of the One Israel Fund are exclusively limited to affecting ‘quality of life’ issues, the primary stress being on preventing the loss of Jewish life," he says. "The perception from our side of the Atlantic is that Europeans may well find the effort to save Jewish lives as political. From the American perspective, this is generally considered humanitarian in nature."

In reality, though, these foundations are unwilling to condone a separate state for Palestinians. "CFOIC does not have a political agenda, but it does support the right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel," Baras says. "For thousands of years, this land has been called the Land of Israel and the Jewish people are the only people on this earth who have prayed and yearned for centuries to return to this land."

Part 2: ‘Irresponsible and Provocative’

This is noteworthy on two counts: 1) that the NYT would give a high profile to a piece critical of Israeli hardline policies and US support, and 2) that a prominent American Jew has the courage to make these criticisms so publicly.

Mr Judt’s piece is well reasoned and worth reading on its own merits.

Below is  the beginning, and a link to the full article.

If you are moved to help support those working to change US and Israeli policies, you can find information in this earlier Roylat post.

Op-Ed Contributor

Israel Without Clichés

By TONY JUDT

Published: June 9, 2010

THE Israeli raid on the Free Gaza flotilla has generated an outpouring of clichés from the usual suspects. It is almost impossible to discuss the Middle East without resorting to tired accusations and ritual defenses: perhaps a little house cleaning is in order.

No. 1: Israel is being/should be delegitimized

Israel is a state like any other, long-established and internationally recognized. The bad behavior of its governments does not “delegitimize” it, any more than the bad behavior of the rulers of North Korea, Sudan — or, indeed, the United States — “delegitimizes” them. When Israel breaks international law, it should be pressed to desist; but it is precisely because it is a state under international law that we have that leverage.

Some critics of Israel are motivated by a wish that it did not exist — that it would just somehow go away. But this is the politics of the ostrich: Flemish nationalists feel the same way about Belgium, Basque separatists about Spain. Israel is not going away, nor should it. As for the official Israeli public relations campaign to discredit any criticism as an exercise in “de-legitimization,” it is uniquely self-defeating. Every time Jerusalem responds this way, it highlights its own isolation.

No. 2: Israel is/is not a democracy

Perhaps the most common defense of Israel outside the country is that it is “the only democracy in the Middle East.” This is largely true: the country has an independent judiciary and free elections, though it also discriminates against non-Jews in ways that distinguish it from most other democracies today. The expression of strong dissent from official policy is increasingly discouraged.

But the point is irrelevant. “Democracy” is no guarantee of good behavior: most countries today are formally democratic — remember Eastern Europe’s “popular democracies.” Israel belies the comfortable American cliché that “democracies don’t make war.” It is a democracy dominated and often governed by former professional soldiers: this alone distinguishes it from other advanced countries. And we should not forget that Gaza is another “democracy” in the Middle East: it was precisely because Hamas won free elections there in 2005 that both the Palestinian Authority and Israel reacted with such vehemence.

No. 3: Israel is/is not to blame

Israel is not responsible for the fact that many of its near neighbors long denied its right to exist. The sense of siege should not be underestimated when we try to understand the delusional quality of many Israeli pronouncements.

Unsurprisingly, the state has acquired pathological habits. Of these, the most damaging is its habitual resort to force. Because this worked for so long — the easy victories of the country’s early years are ingrained in folk memory — Israel finds it difficult to conceive of other ways to respond. And the failure of the negotiations of 2000 at Camp David reinforced the belief that “there is no one to talk to.”

But there is. As American officials privately acknowledge, sooner or later Israel (or someone) will have to talk to Hamas. From French Algeria through South Africa to the Provisional I.R.A., the story repeats itself: the dominant power denies the legitimacy of the “terrorists,” thereby strengthening their hand; then it secretly negotiates with them; finally, it concedes power, independence or a place at the table. Israel will negotiate with Hamas: the only question is why not now.

No. 4: The Palestinians are/are not to blame

Abba Eban, the former Israeli foreign minister, claimed that Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss any …

Full Article

What I find more appalling than the Israeli rogue-state actions is the deafening silence from my elected President and his administration. While every other major country in the world condemned Israel for its blatant disregard for human values, the U.S. tacitly supported Israel. The US was the lone country to support Israel’s position at the United Nations.

I know the situation is complex, but there seems to be no complexity about  US policy towards Israel. Instead it is controlled by a radically militant faction of US Jews who hold that US duty is to give unquestioning support to every Israeli policy and action, no matter how the action is contrary to broad US interests and universal human values.

Until now, US policy makers seem to have been successfully held hostage by the militant Jews – afraid of their power to defeat any politician who dares to ask whether unquestioning support of Israel is in the US interest.

The worldwide outcry against Israel’s action on the flotilla has created an opening for change.

I am supporting the groups in the US that working to push for sensible change. I am signing their petitions and calling the State Department, the White House, and the Israeli Embassy, letting them know I strongly support a saner and more humane policy towards Gaza and sincere pursuit of a peaceful resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict. These groups believe these actions are in the best interests of Israeli security. So do I.

Below is information on two groups where you can learn more and add your voices. Please take the time to look at this information and follow their guidance. By acting together, we can make a difference.

First, I received this today from J Street, a group that works to provide a voice for Jews, especially, and others who want a change in U.S. policy:

The United States, Israel and Egypt actually seem to be grasping – in the wake of last week’s flotilla tragedy – just how counterproductive the present blockade of Gaza has been.

Hamas is stronger, Gilad Shalit remains captive and rockets still fall on Israel.  Of course that hasn’t stopped Glenn Beck, Liz Cheney, and the American "Israel-right-or-wrong" chorus from circling the wagons to defend the blockade in its current form.

It’s time for the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement to say clearly: the present blockade has been wrong – strategically and morally – and it’s time to change course in Gaza.

Join us in pressing the United States, Israel and Egypt to pursue a saner policy towards Gaza.

We’re encouraged that the U.S. and Israel appear to be re-examining policy toward Gaza and that Egypt is opening up the border to allow greater movement of people in and out of Gaza.
Just yesterday, Vice President Joe Biden said, "We are consulting closely with Egypt, as well as our other partners, on new ways to address the humanitarian, economic, security and political aspects of the situation in Gaza."  [1]  And even Israeli officials say they’re willing to look at better ways to prevent Hamas and other militants from obtaining weapons without denying Gaza’s civilians basic humanitarian goods and construction supplies.

The Obama administration, Israel and Egypt seem to finally recognize that the present approach isn’t working. They need our encouragement to adopt a sensible policy that allows the free flow of basic supplies to reach the people of Gaza while preventing rockets, missiles and arms from reaching Hamas.

Join us in urging an end to the present policy in Gaza.

The blockade of Gaza hasn’t simply failed, it’s undercut the goals it was meant to achieve. Hamas remains heavily armed and its hold on the Strip is as strong as ever, while the people of Gaza suffer and they and the world blame not Hamas but Israel and the United States.
The facts are clear: 4 out of 5 Gazans rely on food aid. Anemia for children under the age of 5 is estimated at 48%. Clean water is scarce (95% of Gaza’s water fails World Health Organization standards) because spare parts to fix the sewage system aren’t allowed in.

Today, Gaza’s population relies on less than a quarter of the imported supplies it received before the blockade. [2] Israel and the cause of peace are not served by 1.5 million increasingly hungry, dispirited, and angry people – Hamas is.

And the likelihood that Gazans might be open to the kind of compromise that would finally secure Israel’s future as a Jewish, democratic home (a two-state solution) shrinks by the day.

Click here to tell Secretary Clinton, Ambassador Oren, and Ambassador Shoukry to fix the Gaza blockade.

Today’s action follows on the heels of our movement sending tens of thousands of messages to President Obama - asking him to turn this moment of crisis into an opportunity to take bold action towards a two-state solution.

It’s time to take the important next step – and with your help, we can really make an impact.

- Isaac
Isaac Luria
Vice President of Communications and New Media
J Street
June 8, 2010

[1] "Biden: US seeks new ways to deal with Gaza." YNET News. 6/7/2010.
[2] "Guide: Gaza under Blockade," by Heather Sharp. BBC. 5/31/2010.

A friend recommended Rabbi Arthur Waskow and his Shalom Center as another avenue to put pressure for change. He is more proactive in his stance, urging that the US place half of its aid to Israel ($3 billion/year) in an escrow account to be paid to Israeli settlers in Palestinian territory when they relocate. You can see the proposal in full and add your name in support here.

Rabbi Waskow urges us to directly express our desire for a major change in Israel policy toward Gaza. Here is contact information:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Phone  (Office of Public Affairs): 202/647-5171.  

Embassy of Israel  to US    
Phone: (202) 364-5500
Fax: (202)364-5429
Email: info@israelemb.org

THE WORLD FROM BERLIN
3/17/2009

‘Netanyahu and Lieberman Are the Gravediggers of the Peace Process’

With Likud and Yisrael Beitenu having signed a coalition agreement, it looks increasingly likely that far-right politician Avigdor Lieberman will be the next Israeli foreign minister. German newspapers are concerned that such an appointment would signal the end of the peace process.

With far-right politician Avigdor Lieberman looking likely to become Israel’s next foreign minister, leading figures in Europe have said that it may no longer be "business as usual" with Israel.

AFP

Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the far-right Yisrael Beitenu party.

Prime Minister designate Benjamin Netanyahu is still in the process of building a coalition government and on Tuesday his spokeswoman said he had a "strong desire" to bring in more moderate parties. However, with Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party having sealed a deal with Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu on Monday, it is highly unlikely that Kadima or the center-left Labour Party will join the government. On Monday Kadima leader Tzipi Livni, the current Israeli foreign minister, said that she was not prepared to join a coalition that did not share her party’s commitment to a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Lieberman, whose party represents many immigrants to Israel from the former Soviet Union, has drawn accusations of racism for a proposal that would require Arab citizens of Israel to sign loyalty oaths or lose their citizenship. On Monday, the Israeli Arab lawmaker Ahmed Tibi called for an international boycott of Lieberman if he is appointed foreign minister. "No minister should meet him, especially no Arab minister," he told Reuters…

Netanyahu still needs other coalition partners to form a majority government. His Likud party won 27 seats in the Feb. 10 election, while Yisrael Beitenu won 15. Netanyahu is due to continue talks with the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, which won 11 seats, on Tuesday in his bid to reach a majority in the 120-member parliament.

On Tuesday, German commentators are gloomy about the prospects for peace in the Middle East, arguing that Netanyahu and Lieberman represent a step backwards.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"Netanyahu does not have the courage to pursue a new path in the relationship with the Palestinians. He has his election campaign of fear to thank for the fact that he will become prime minister for the second time. Netanyahu associates politics with fear, not hope. In that he differs fundamentally from the new administration in Washington. He foments fear of Iran’s nuclear program, fear of the rockets from Hamas and Hezbollah. Most of all, he demonizes the Palestinians, which is why he is rejecting a two-state solution and the continuation of peace talks."

"Under Netanyahu and his vassals from the right-wing and the ultra-Orthodox camps, there will be no new political departures, rather steps backward and newly whipped-up enmities. Netanyahu is only going to administer the conflict, not solve it. He and Lieberman are the gravediggers of the Middle East peace process. They want to maintain the occupation and expand the settlements. This is all very convenient for the radical Islamist movement Hamas. They don’t need any peacemakers in Jerusalem, but rather someone like Netanyahu who wants to end their control of the Gaza Strip through force. Hamas needs Netanyahu, because the confrontation with Israel legitimizes its very existence."…

More press opinions on Israel in the full article

RELATED SPIEGEL ONLINE LINKS

• New Government in Israel: ‘The World Will Get to Know the Real Avigdor Lieberman’ (03/16/2009)

• Interview with former Knesset Leader: ‘We Are Such an Angry People’ (02/23/2009)

• Interview with Mideast Expert David Pollock: ‘Netanyahu Could be Useful to Obama’ (02/12/2009)

• Israeli Elections: Netanyahu Poised to Return to Power (02/06/2009)

Two articles in Der Spiegel show that in Germany, at least, the consensus is that our anti-Hamas policy is boneheaded. The beginnings of the articles, with links to the full articles, are below.

03/03/2009

THE WORLD FROM BERLIN

‘Reconstruction Without Hamas Is Absurd’

International donors pledged almost $5 billion in aid on Monday to help rebuild the Gaza Strip. German commentators warn that the attempt to bypass Hamas and boost political rival Fatah will do little to revive the peace process.

An international conference in Egypt on Monday resulted in $4.48 billion (€3.5 billion) in new pledges to help rebuild the Gaza Strip and fund the Palestinian government. The donors who gathered in the resort of Sharm el-Sheik gave a powerful boost to the moderate Palestinian Authority led by President Mahmoud Abbas while seeking to isolate the militant Hamas movement, which controls Gaza.

REUTERS

Palestinians stand on the balcony of their damaged house in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip.

At her first major international meeting since taking office, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters that the pledges underscored the international community’s confidence in the moderate Palestinian Authority. The US promised $900 million on condition that the money be channelled to Palestinians via Abbas’ government and aid agencies while avoiding Hamas, which is regarded as a terrorist group in the West. "We have worked with the Palestinian Authority to install safeguards and to ensure that our funding is only used where and for whom it is intended and does not end up in the wrong hands," Clinton said.

…

Although attendees at the conference tried to show their support for President Abbas and Prime Minister Salman Fayyad, it remained unclear exactly how reconstruction work can begin in Gaza. Israel and Egypt have kept the borders sealed ever since Hamas took over. Although humanitarian supplies can enter, essential rebuilding supplies including cement and other materials cannot.

Many of the delegates from 45 nations at Monday’s conference called for the creation of a Palestinian unity government which would include both Hamas and Fatah. "There will be only limited physical reconstruction without political reconstruction," British Foreign Minister David Milliband told the gathering. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the Palestinians would have to acknowledge that there is "no other road to the creation of a Palestinian state but to engage resolutely in searching for a political solution and engage in a dialogue with Israel."

German newspaper editorials on Tuesday are pretty pessimistic about the effectiveness of the pledged aid, with many wondering how Gaza can be rebuilt without the inclusion of Hamas in the process.

[Excerpts from the editorials follow in the full article]

_______________________________________________________________________-

02/26/2009

OPEN LETTER

Former Peace Negotiators Call for End to Hamas Boycott

By Yassin Musharbash

In an open letter obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE, 14 former peace negotiators call on the Mideast Quartet to include Hamas in talks. The signatories include former Israeli Foreign Minister Ben-Ami and the UN’s former envoy to the Middle East Quartet. All agree a peace settlement "without Hamas will not be possible."

They were part of the peace settlements in Cambodia, Somalia and Bosnia, they negotiated with militant groups like the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka or the IRA in Northern Ireland and a few of them were also engaged in the Middle East peace process. Fourteen elder statesmen from Europe, Australia, South America, Africa and Asia are calling in an open letter for the Mideast Quartet, comprised of the European Union, United Nations, Russia and the United States, to end their diplomatic boycott against Hamas.

The signatories of the letter, which is being published exclusively by SPIEGEL ONLINE in Germany and the Times of London on Thursday, include former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami; Alvaro de Soto, who served as the UN envoy for the Middle East Quartet from 2005 to 2007; Lord Chris Patten, the former British governor of Hong Kong and European Commissioner; and Lord Paddy Ashdown, who served as the High Representative for Bosnia-Herzegovina and oversaw the implementation of the Dayton Accords.

[Full article, including a link to the letter.]

How al-Arabiya Got the Obama Interview

By Scott MacLeod / Cairo Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2009

President Barack Obama is interviewed in Washington by al-Arabiya on Jan. 26

Al-Arabiya / AP

How did a journalist for an Arab-language broadcaster score the first television interview granted by President Barack Obama? Well, at first, Hisham Melhem, the Washington bureau chief for al-Arabiya, a Saudi-backed news channel headquartered in Dubai, thought he was getting someone else. Not that he hadn’t tried — like everyone else in Washington — to snag the historic first.

When Melhem’s bosses in Dubai got a feeler from the White House on Sunday, it seemed that al-Arabiya was about to get an exclusive interview not with Obama but with new Middle East envoy George Mitchell. The previous Friday, Melhem had begun pressing for an interview with Mitchell after learning from sources that the former U.S. Senator and Northern Ireland peace negotiator was heading to the Middle East almost immediately. The White House told al-Arabiya execs to be ready for a major interview on Monday. (See pictures of Obama’s campaign behind the scenes.)

Shortly before 9 a.m. on Monday, Melhem knew from the caller ID on his BlackBerry that the White House was phoning him. As Melhem remembers it, "This man says, ‘My name is so-and-so, and I’m either going to make your day or ruin your day. Would you like to chat with the President about 5 p.m. today?’ I joked, ‘I guess I can accommodate the President.’ "

Melhem says there apparently was an internal debate at the White House about whether it was the right time for Obama to grant an interview to the Arab media, but that when the decision was made, several advisers recommended it be granted to al-Arabiya. The channel is seen as a prominent voice of moderation in the Middle East, preferring calm analysis to what many see as rival al-Jazeera’s more sensational coverage. The Obama scoop came at a good moment for al-Arabiya, which had seen ratings falter as al-Jazeera provided blanket coverage of Palestinian suffering during the recent Israeli war in Gaza. (See pictures of heartbreak in the Middle East.)

Melhem arrived at the White House at 3 p.m., but Obama did not appear for the taping until nearly three hours later. Melhem says Obama put him at ease and that they schmoozed for a while before getting down to the questions. After Melhem told the President that his wife and daughter were enthusiastic supporters of Obama’s campaign, the President jotted nice notes to them on White House stationery. When Melhem mentioned that he shared Obama’s love of Chicago’s blues music, the President beamed with satisfaction while White House aides tapped their feet impatiently. "There we were, two blues fanatics, sitting there talking about Muddy Waters," Melhem says.

Whether it was because of the chemistry between the men or Obama’s scripted intention, Melhem came away with an interview that amounted to an unprecedented reach-out to the Muslim world by a U.S. President. Unprompted, Obama spoke about his own Islamic connections, noting that some of his family members are Muslim and that he had lived in the largest Muslim country, Indonesia. "My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect," Obama said. (See Obama’s family tree.)

Melhem had come close to an Obama interview before. He nearly snared a Q&A during then candidate Obama’s visit to the Middle East last summer. Disappointed but hardly deterred, he pressed his source network again after Obama’s November election victory. "I began pushing hard when I realized that he was going to be serious about the Muslim world in the first part of his Administration," Melhem told TIME. The White House certainly knew who they were dealing with.

Melhem, long a vocal critic of U.S. Middle East policy, says he was touched by Obama’s conciliatory tone and references to his Muslim roots. "You can feel the authenticity about him," he says. "The interview was his way of saying, ‘There is a new wind coming from Washington.’ Barack Obama definitely sees the world differently from a man named George W. Bush."

Obama’s aides cut Melhem off before he could finish all his questions, explaining that the President had a dinner date with his wife. But it seems that in the Obama White House, Arab reporters stand a good chance of getting more scoops. As they concluded the interview and shook hands, Melhem recalls, Obama told him, "There will be more."

Source: Time.com

It is truly a new day. Blessed be!

Click on above to view TV interview

President’s first interview since taking office

Obama tells Al Arabiya peace talks should resume

DUBAI (AlArabiya.net)

In his first interview since taking office, President Barack Obama told Arab satellite station Al Arabiya that Americans are not the enemy of the Muslim world and said Israel and the Palestinians should resume peace negotiations.

“My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy,” Obama told Al Arabiya’s Hisham Melhem in an interview broadcast Tuesday morning.

During the presidential election campaign last year, Obama vowed to improve U.S. ties with the Muslim world and after he won promised to give a speech in a Muslim capital in his first 100 days in office. The President repeated this pledge in the interview but did not give a time or specify the venue.

Remainder of Interview and Transcript