World Freedom Day ( To the Tune of 'Annie Get Your Gun' )

IsIsrael's Wall in the West Bank
http://www.vtjp.org/background/Separation_Wall_Report.htm

Why we call it a 'wall'
    
    

Most of Israel's barrier is being constructed of fortified fencing. Near populated areas, however, it typically becomes a 26- foot high concrete wall. So most Palestinians know the "fence" as The Wall.

This monument to exclusion and intolerance has been give many names, including security fence, separation fence, security barrier, separation barrier, separation wall, apartheid wall, Sharon's Wall, and annexation wall.

The World Court calls it a gross violation of international law and basic human rights. Yet Israel is continuing to build the wall in several regions of the West Bank. - VTJP, May 2005

Photos of Israel Palestine security fence, separation wall - photo essay

 U.S. Financial Aid To Israel: Figures, Facts, and Impact 

Summary Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997) Foreign Aid Grants and Loans $74,157,600,000 Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid) $9,047,227,200 Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments $1,650,000,000 Grand Total $84,854,827,200 Total Benefits per Israeli $14,630 Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S. Aid to Israel Grand Total $84,854,827,200 Interest Costs Borne by U.S. $49,936,680,000 Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers $134,791,507,200 Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli $23,240 Special Reports: Congress Watch: A Conservative Total for U.S. Aid to Israel: $91 Billion—and Counting Congressional Research Report on Israel: US Foreign Assistance by Clyde Mark (213K pdf file) U.S. Aid To Israel: The Strategic Functions U.S. Aid to Israel: What U.S. Taxpayer Should Know U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship' The Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers: True Lies About U.S. Aid to Israel THE STRATEGIC FUNCTIONS OF U.S. AID TO ISRAEL By Stephen Zunes Dr. Zunes is an assistant professor in the Department of Politics at the University of San Francisco Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan. U.S. policy since 1984 has been that economic assistance to Israel must equal or exceed Israel's annual debt repayment to the United States. Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest. In addition, there is the more than $1.5 billion in private U.S. funds that go to Israel annually in the form of $1 billion in private tax-deductible donations and $500 million in Israeli bonds. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax-deductible contributions to a foreign government, made possible through a number of Jewish charities, does not exist with any other country. Nor do these figures include short- and long-term commercial loans from U.S. banks, which have been as high as $1 billion annually in recent years. Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes. Indeed, Israel's GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. With a per capita income of about $14,000, Israel ranks as the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world; Israelis enjoy a higher per capita income than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and are only slightly less well-off than most Western European countries. AID does not term economic aid to Israel as development assistance, but instead uses the term "economic support funding." Given Israel's relative prosperity, U.S. aid to Israel is becoming increasingly controversial. In 1994, Yossi Beilen, deputy foreign minister of Israel and a Knesset member, told the Women's International Zionist organization, "If our economic situation is better than in many of your countries, how can we go on asking for your charity?" U.S. Aid to Israel: What U.S. Taxpayer Should Know by Tom Malthaner This morning as I was walking down Shuhada Street in Hebron, I saw graffiti marking the newly painted storefronts and awnings. Although three months past schedule and 100 percent over budget, the renovation of Shuhada Street was finally completed this week. The project manager said the reason for the delay and cost overruns was the sabotage of the project by the Israeli settlers of the Beit Hadassah settlement complex in Hebron. They broke the street lights, stoned project workers, shot out the windows of bulldozers and other heavy equipment with pellet guns, broke paving stones before they were laid and now have defaced again the homes and shops of Palestinians with graffiti. The settlers did not want Shuhada St. opened to Palestinian traffic as was agreed to under Oslo 2. This renovation project is paid for by USAID funds and it makes me angry that my tax dollars have paid for improvements that have been destroyed by the settlers. Most Americans are not aware how much of their tax revenue our government sends to Israel. For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.) When grant, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion. Since 1949 the U.S. has given Israel a total of $83.205 billion. The interest costs borne by U.S. tax payers on behalf of Israel are $49.937 billion, thus making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 $133.132 billion. This may mean that U.S. government has given more federal aid to the average Israeli citizen in a given year than it has given to the average American citizen. I am angry when I see Israeli settlers from Hebron destroy improvements made to Shuhada Street with my tax money. Also, it angers me that my government is giving over $10 billion to a country that is more prosperous than most of the other countries in the world and uses much of its money for strengthening its military and the oppression of the Palestinian people. "U.S. Aid to Israel: Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship"' by Stephen Zunes "The U.S. aid relationship with Israel is unlike any other in the world," said Stephen Zunes during a January 26 CPAP presentation. "In sheer volume, the amount is the most generous foreign aid program ever between any two countries," added Zunes, associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He explored the strategic reasoning behind the aid, asserting that it parallels the "needs of American arms exporters" and the role "Israel could play in advancing U.S. strategic interests in the region." Although Israel is an "advanced, industrialized, technologically sophisticated country," it "receives more U.S. aid per capita annually than the total annual [Gross Domestic Product] per capita of several Arab states." Approximately a third of the entire U.S. foreign aid budget goes to Israel, "even though Israel comprises just…one-thousandth of the world's total population, and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes." U.S. government officials argue that this money is necessary for "moral" reasons-some even say that Israel is a "democracy battling for its very survival." If that were the real reason, however, aid should have been highest during Israel's early years, and would have declined as Israel grew stronger. Yet "the pattern…has been just the opposite." According to Zunes, "99 percent of all U.S. aid to Israel took place after the June 1967 war, when Israel found itself more powerful than any combination of Arab armies…." The U.S. supports Israel's dominance so it can serve as "a surrogate for American interests in this vital strategic region." "Israel has helped defeat radical nationalist movements" and has been a "testing ground for U.S. made weaponry." Moreover, the intelligence agencies of both countries have "collaborated," and "Israel has funneled U.S. arms to third countries that the U.S. [could] not send arms to directly,…Iike South Africa, like the Contras, Guatemala under the military junta, [and] Iran." Zunes cited an Israeli analyst who said: "'It's like Israel has just become another federal agency when it's convenient to use and you want something done quietly."' Although the strategic relationship between the United States and the Gulf Arab states in the region has been strengthening in recent years, these states "do not have the political stability, the technological sophistication, [or] the number of higher-trained armed forces personnel" as does Israel. Matti Peled, former Israeli major general and Knesset member, told Zunes that he and most Israeli generals believe this aid is "little more than an American subsidy to U.S. arms manufacturers," considering that the majority of military aid to Israel is used to buy weapons from the U.S. Moreover, arms to Israel create more demand for weaponry in Arab states. According to Zunes, "the Israelis announced back in 1991 that they supported the idea of a freeze in Middle East arms transfers, yet it was the United States that rejected it." In the fall of 1993-when many had high hopes for peace-78 senators wrote to former President Bill Clinton insisting that aid to Israel remain "at current levels." Their "only reason" was the "massive procurement of sophisticated arms by Arab states." The letter neglected to mention that 80 percent of those arms to Arab countries came from the U.S. "I'm not denying for a moment the power of AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], the pro-Israel lobby," and other similar groups, Zunes said. Yet the "Aerospace Industry Association which promotes these massive arms shipments…is even more influential." This association has given two times more money to campaigns than all of the pro-Israel groups combined. Its "force on Capitol Hill, in terms of lobbying, surpasses that of even AIPAC." Zunes asserted that the "general thrust of U.S. policy would be pretty much the same even if AIPAC didn't exist. We didn't need a pro-Indonesia lobby to support Indonesia in its savage repression of East Timor all these years." This is a complex issue, and Zunes said that he did not want to be "conspiratorial," but he asked the audience to imagine what "Palestinian industriousness, Israeli technology, and Arabian oil money…would do to transform the Middle East…. [W]hat would that mean to American arms manufacturers? Oil companies? Pentagon planners?" "An increasing number of Israelis are pointing out" that these funds are not in Israel's best interest. Quoting Peled, Zunes said, "this aid pushes Israel 'toward a posture of callous intransigence' in terms of the peace process." Moreover, for every dollar the U.S. sends in arms aid, Israel must spend two to three dollars to train people to use the weaponry, to buy parts, and in other ways make use of the aid. Even "main-stream Israeli economists are saying [it] is very harmful to the country's future." The Israeli paper Yediot Aharonot described Israel as "'the godfather's messenger' since [Israel] undertake[s] the 'dirty work' of a godfather who 'always tries to appear to be the owner of some large, respectable business."' Israeli satirist B. Michael refers to U.S. aid this way: "'My master gives me food to eat and I bite those whom he tells me to bite. It's called strategic cooperation." 'To challenge this strategic relationship, one cannot focus solely on the Israeli lobby but must also examine these "broader forces as well." "Until we tackle this issue head-on," it will be "very difficult to win" in other areas relating to Palestine. "The results" of the short-term thinking behind U.S. policy "are tragic," not just for the "immediate victims" but "eventually [for] Israel itself" and "American interests in the region." The U.S. is sending enormous amounts of aid to the Middle East, and yet "we are less secure than ever"-both in terms of U.S. interests abroad and for individual Americans. Zunes referred to a "growing and increasing hostility [of] the average Arab toward the United States." In the long term, said Zunes, "peace and stability and cooperation with the vast Arab world is far more important for U.S. interests than this alliance with Israel." This is not only an issue for those who are working for Palestinian rights, but it also "jeopardizes the entire agenda of those of us concerned about human rights, concerned about arms control, concerned about international law." Zunes sees significant potential in "building a broad-based movement around it." The above text is based on remarks, delivered on. 26 January, 2001 by Stephen Zunes - Associate Professor of Politics and Chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at San Francisco University. The Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers: True Lies About U.S. Aid to Israel By Richard H. Curtiss For many years the American media said that "Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid" or that "Israel receives $1.2 billion in economic aid." Both statements were true, but since they were never combined to give us the complete total of annual U.S. aid to Israel, they also were lies—true lies. Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that "Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid." That's true. But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000. One can truthfully blame the mainstream media for never digging out these figures for themselves, because none ever have. They were compiled by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. But the mainstream media certainly are not alone. Although Congress authorizes America's foreign aid total, the fact that more than a third of it goes to a country smaller in both area and population than Hong Kong probably never has been mentioned on the floor of the Senate or House. Yet it's been going on for more than a generation. Probably the only members of Congress who even suspect the full total of U.S. funds received by Israel each year are the privileged few committee members who actually mark it up. And almost all members of the concerned committees are Jewish, have taken huge campaign donations orchestrated by Israel's Washington, DC lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or both. These congressional committee members are paid to act, not talk. So they do and they don't. The same applies to the president, the secretary of state, and the foreign aid administrator. They all submit a budget that includes aid for Israel, which Congress approves, or increases, but never cuts. But no one in the executive branch mentions that of the few remaining U.S. aid recipients worldwide, all of the others are developing nations which either make their military bases available to the U.S., are key members of international alliances in which the U.S. participates, or have suffered some crippling blow of nature to their abilities to feed their people such as earthquakes, floods or droughts. Israel, whose troubles arise solely from its unwillingness to give back land it seized in the 1967 war in return for peace with its neighbors, does not fit those criteria. In fact, Israel's 1995 per capita gross domestic product was $15,800. That put it below Britain at $19,500 and Italy at $18,700 and just above Ireland at $15,400 and Spain at $14,300. All four of those European countries have contributed a very large share of immigrants to the U.S., yet none has organized an ethnic group to lobby for U.S. foreign aid. Instead, all four send funds and volunteers to do economic development and emergency relief work in other less fortunate parts of the world. The lobby that Israel and its supporters have built in the United States to make all this aid happen, and to ban discussion of it from the national dialogue, goes far beyond AIPAC, with its $15 million budget, its 150 employees, and its five or six registered lobbyists who manage to visit every member of Congress individually once or twice a year. AIPAC, in turn, can draw upon the resources of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a roof group set up solely to coordinate the efforts of some 52 national Jewish organizations on behalf of Israel. Among them are Hadassah, the Zionist women's organization, which organizes a steady stream of American Jewish visitors to Israel; the American Jewish Congress, which mobilizes support for Israel among members of the traditionally left-of-center Jewish mainstream; and the American Jewish Committee, which plays the same role within the growing middle-of-the-road and right-of-center Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee also publishes Commentary,one of the Israel lobby's principal national publications. Perhaps the most controversial of these groups is B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League. Its original highly commendable purpose was to protect the civil rights of American Jews. Over the past generation, however, the ADL has regressed into a conspiratorial and, with a $45 million budget, extremely well-funded hate group. In the 1980s, during the tenure of chairman Seymour Reich, who went on to become chairman of the Conference of Presidents, ADL was found to have circulated two annual fund-raising letters warning Jewish parents against allegedly negative influences on their children arising from the increasing Arab presence on American university campuses. More recently, FBI raids on ADL's Los Angeles and San Francisco offices revealed that an ADL operative had purchased files stolen from the San Francisco police department that a court had ordered destroyed because they violated the civil rights of the individuals on whom they had been compiled. ADL, it was shown, had added the illegally prepared and illegally obtained material to its own secret files, compiled by planting informants among Arab-American, African-American, anti-Apartheid and peace and justice groups. The ADL infiltrators took notes of the names and remarks of speakers and members of audiences at programs organized by such groups. ADL agents even recorded the license plates of persons attending such programs and then suborned corrupt motor vehicles department employees or renegade police officers to identify the owners. Although one of the principal offenders fled the United States to escape prosecution, no significant penalties were assessed. ADL's Northern California office was ordered to comply with requests by persons upon whom dossiers had been prepared to see their own files, but no one went to jail and as yet no one has paid fines. Not surprisingly, a defecting employee revealed in an article he published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that AIPAC, too, has such "enemies" files. They are compiled for use by pro-Israel journalists like Steven Emerson and other so-called "terrorism experts," and also by professional, academic or journalistic rivals of the persons described for use in black-listing, defaming, or denouncing them. What is never revealed is that AIPAC's "opposition research" department, under the supervision of Michael Lewis, son of famed Princeton University Orientalist Bernard Lewis, is the source of this defamatory material. But this is not AIPAC's most controversial activity. In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers' fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC's most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC's national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs). Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation. An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That's enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country. Even candidates who don't need this kind of money certainly don't want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy. There is something else very special about AIPAC's network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover? Hiding AIPAC's Tracks In fact, the congressmembers know it when they list the contributions they receive on the campaign statements they have to prepare for the Federal Election Commission. But their constituents don't know this when they read these statements. So just as no other special interest can put so much "hard money" into any candidate's election campaign as can the Israel lobby, no other special interest has gone to such elaborate lengths to hide its tracks. Although AIPAC, Washington's most feared special-interest lobby, can hide how it uses both carrots and sticks to bribe or intimidate members of Congress, it can't hide all of the results. Anyone can ask one of their representatives in Congress for a chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, that shows Israel received $62.5 billion in foreign aid from fiscal year 1949 through fiscal year 1996. People in the national capital area also can visit the library of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Rosslyn, Virginia, and obtain the same information, plus charts showing how much foreign aid the U.S. has given other countries as well. Visitors will learn that in precisely the same 1949-1996 time frame, the total of U.S. foreign aid to all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined was $62,497,800,000--almost exactly the amount given to tiny Israel. According to the Population Reference Bureau of Washington, DC, in mid-1995 the sub-Saharan countries had a combined population of 568 million. The $24,415,700,000 in foreign aid they had received by then amounted to $42.99 per sub-Saharan African. Similarly, with a combined population of 486 million, all of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean together had received $38,254,400,000. This amounted to $79 per person. The per capita U.S. foreign aid to Israel's 5.8 million people during the same period was $10,775.48. This meant that for every dollar the U.S. spent on an African, it spent $250.65 on an Israeli, and for every dollar it spent on someone from the Western Hemisphere outside the United States, it spent $214 on an Israeli. Shocking Comparisons These comparisons already seem shocking, but they are far from the whole truth. Using reports compiled by Clyde Mark of the Congressional Research Service and other sources, freelance writer Frank Collins tallied for theWashington Report all of the extra items for Israel buried in the budgets of the Pentagon and other federal agencies in fiscal year 1993.Washington Report news editor Shawn Twing did the same thing for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. They uncovered $1.271 billion in extras in FY 1993, $355.3 million in FY 1996 and $525.8 million in FY 1997. These represent an average increase of 12.2 percent over the officially recorded foreign aid totals for the same fiscal years, and they probably are not complete. It's reasonable to assume, therefore, that a similar 12.2 percent hidden increase has prevailed over all of the years Israel has received aid. As of Oct. 31, 1997 Israel will have received $3.05 billion in U.S. foreign aid for fiscal year 1997 and $3.08 billion in foreign aid for fiscal year 1998. Adding the 1997 and 1998 totals to those of previous years since 1949 yields a total of $74,157,600,000 in foreign aid grants and loans. Assuming that the actual totals from other budgets average 12.2 percent of that amount, that brings the grand total to $83,204,827,200. But that's not quite all. Receiving its annual foreign aid appropriation during the first month of the fiscal year, instead of in quarterly installments as do other recipients, is just another special privilege Congress has voted for Israel. It enables Israel to invest the money in U.S. Treasury notes. That means that the U.S., which has to borrow the money it gives to Israel, pays interest on the money it has granted to Israel in advance, while at the same time Israel is collecting interest on the money. That interest to Israel from advance payments adds another $1.650 billion to the total, making it $84,854,827,200.That's the number you should write down for total aid to Israel. And that's $14,346 each for each man, woman and child in Israel. It's worth noting that that figure does not include U.S. government loan guarantees to Israel, of which Israel has drawn $9.8 billion to date. They greatly reduce the interest rate the Israeli government pays on commercial loans, and they place additional burdens on U.S. taxpayers, especially if the Israeli government should default on any of them. But since neither the savings to Israel nor the costs to U.S. taxpayers can be accurately quantified, they are excluded from consideration here. Further, friends of Israel never tire of saying that Israel has never defaulted on repayment of a U.S. government loan. It would be equally accurate to say Israel has never been required to repay a U.S. government loan. The truth of the matter is complex, and designed to be so by those who seek to conceal it from the U.S. taxpayer. Most U.S. loans to Israel are forgiven, and many were made with the explicit understanding that they would be forgiven before Israel was required to repay them. By disguising as loans what in fact were grants, cooperating members of Congress exempted Israel from the U.S. oversight that would have accompanied grants. On other loans, Israel was expected to pay the interest and eventually to begin repaying the principal. But the so-called Cranston Amendment, which has been attached by Congress to every foreign aid appropriation since 1983, provides that economic aid to Israel will never dip below the amount Israel is required to pay on its outstanding loans. In short, whether U.S. aid is extended as grants or loans to Israel, it never returns to the Treasury. Israel enjoys other privileges. While most countries receiving U.S. military aid funds are expected to use them for U.S. arms, ammunition and training, Israel can spend part of these funds on weapons made by Israeli manufacturers. Also, when it spends its U.S. military aid money on U.S. products, Israel frequently requires the U.S. vendor to buy components or materials from Israeli manufacturers. Thus, though Israeli politicians say that their own manufacturers and exporters are making them progressively less dependent upon U.S. aid, in fact those Israeli manufacturers and exporters are heavily subsidized by U.S. aid. Although it's beyond the parameters of this study, it's worth mentioning that Israel also receives foreign aid from some other countries. After the United States, the principal donor of both economic and military aid to Israel is Germany. By far the largest component of German aid has been in the form of restitution payments to victims of Nazi attrocities. But there also has been extensive German military assistance to Israel during and since the Gulf war, and a variety of German educational and research grants go to Israeli institutions. The total of German assistance in all of these categories to the Israeli government, Israeli individuals and Israeli private institutions has been some $31 billion or $5,345 per capita, bringing the per capita total of U.S. and German assistance combined to almost $20,000 per Israeli. Since very little public money is spent on the more than 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Christian, the actual per capita benefits received by Israel's Jewish citizens would be considerably higher. True Cost to U.S. Taxpayers Generous as it is, what Israelis actually got in U.S. aid is considerably less than what it has cost U.S. taxpayers to provide it. The principal difference is that so long as the U.S. runs an annual budget deficit, every dollar of aid the U.S. gives Israel has to be raised through U.S. government borrowing. In an article in the Washington Report for December 1991/January 1992, Frank Collins estimated the costs of this interest, based upon prevailing interest rates for every year since 1949. I have updated this by applying a very conservative 5 percent interest rate for subsequent years, and confined the amount upon which the interest is calculated to grants, not loans or loan guarantees. On this basis the $84.8 billion in grants, loans and commodities Israel has received from the U.S. since 1949 cost the U.S. an additional $49,936,880,000 in interest. There are many other costs of Israel to U.S. taxpayers, such as most or all of the $45.6 billion in U.S. foreign aid to Egypt since Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979 (compared to $4.2 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt for the preceding 26 years). U.S. foreign aid to Egypt, which is pegged at two-thirds of U.S. foreign aid to Israel, averages $2.2 billion per year. There also have been immense political and military costs to the U.S. for its consistent support of Israel during Israel's half-century of disputes with the Palestinians and all of its Arab neighbors. In addition, there have been the approximately $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and perhaps $20 billion in tax-exempt contributions made to Israel by American Jews in the nearly half-century since Israel was created. Even excluding all of these extra costs, America's $84.8 billion in aid to Israel from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U.S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U.S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation. Or, put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis received from the U.S. government by Oct. 31, 1997 has cost American taxpayers $23,240 per Israeli. It would be interesting to know how many of those American taxpayers believe they and their families have received as much from the U.S. Treasury as has everyone who has chosen to become a citizen of Israel. But it's a question that will never occur to the American public because, so long as America's mainstream media, Congress and president maintain their pact of silence, few Americans will ever know the true cost of Israel to U.S. taxpayers. Richard Curtiss, a retired U.S. foreign service officer, is the executive editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

 

el's Wall in the West Bank

WORLD FREEDOM DAY, 2009

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION



Twenty years ago today, the Wall came down in Berlin and both a country and a continent came together. After thousands of East Berliners flooded through checkpoints into West Berlin, border restrictions dissolved across Eastern Bloc countries. The Iron Curtain that divided Europe for decades finally fell, ushering in a new era of freedom and cooperation. On this anniversary, we are reminded that no challenge is too great for a world united in common purpose.
After the Berlin Wall fell, oppressive regimes across the globe gave way. From Kiev to Cape Town, prison camps closed and democracy's doors were unlocked for millions who had known only tyranny. Markets opened too, spreading information and technology that empowered once-insolvent nations to achieve prosperity. Twenty years later, our world is more interconnected than at any time in human history, giving rise to new opportunities for shared progress.
Today, the barriers that challenge our world are not walls of cement and iron, but ones of fear, irresponsibility, and indifference. History reminds us that such walls can be torn down, but where they still exist we must work with all nations to strengthen civil societies, support democratic institutions and the rule of law, and promote free and fair electoral processes. Upholding these principles into the 21st century will require America's enduring commitment and steady leadership.
From our first days as a Nation, Americans have felt a sense of urgency and determination to promote liberty and release the potential within each individual to contribute to the common good. On World Freedom Day, we celebrate the thriving democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, and we honor their citizens' right to choose their own destinies and contribute to their nations' future success.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 9, 2009, as World Freedom Day. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day in fellowship with other nations and people of the world with appropriate ceremonies and activities, reaffirming our dedication to freedom and democracy.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ninth day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.
BARACK OBAMA

David Hasselhoff Sings at the Fall of the Berlin Wall

 

Cory Doctorow

POSTED AT 2:22 AM February 17, 2009

Civlib

Anti-terror laws are creating "police-state" -- former head of MI5

Dame Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5, has made a blistering public condemnation of the British government's "exploitation" of the threat of terrorism to create a "police state" where the terrorist objective of taking away Britons' liberty is achieved by government, and where crackdowns serve to inspire new terrorists.

In an interview with the Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia, Dame Stella said: "Since I have retired I feel more at liberty to be against certain decisions of the Government, especially the attempt to pass laws which interfere with people's privacy." In the interview, published in the Daily Telegraph, she continued: "It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state..."
"Furthermore it has achieved the opposite effect: there are more and more suicide terrorists finding a greater justification."

Government accused of exploiting terrorism fear

Sanctions, genocide, and war crimes
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/irgen.htm

This paper explores the legality or otherwise of the sanctions and blockade regime put in place against Iraq in August and September 1990 by the Security Council of the United Nations ("UNSC"). While a range of international laws may be applicable to the situation, it is intended to analyse the situation in terms only of three conventions; the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions 1977 ("the Geneva Protocol"), the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ("the Genocide Convention") and the Nuremberg Principles ("the Nuremberg Principles") as adopted by the United Nations ("UN").

Before turning to the analysis of these specific conventions, it is apposite to cite UN General Assembly Resolution 44/215 (22 December 1989) entitled "Economic Measures as a means of Political and Economic Coercion against Developing Countries". That resolution:

"Calls upon the developed countries to refrain from exercising political coercion through the application of economic instruments with the purpose of inducing changes in the economic or social systems, as well as in the domestic or foreign policies, of other countries;

Reaffirms that developed countries should refrain from threatening or applying trade and financial restrictions, blockades, embargoes, and other economic sanctions, incompatible with the provisions of the charter of the United Nations ..."

Military Blockade is an Alternative to Economic Sanctions Against Iraq

By Burhan Chalabi

Mideast Mirror
May 31, 2000

As is commonly known, the relationship between Iraq and the UN Security Council -- where the sanctions regime is concerned -- doesn't require any new resolutions. Iraq's legal rights are all provided for by Article 22 of Resolution 687 that obliges the UN to lift the economic blockade when Iraq satisfies certain requirements, which it has.

Moreover, Resolution 1284 in particular is singularly unqualified in its present form to satisfy Iraq's interests in any way. Its text doesn't contain any elements conducive to the creation of a positive and sincere atmosphere in which the static relationship between Baghdad and the UN can move forward.

This is because the main purpose of this resolution was and remains to draw world public opinion away from the illegality of Operation Desert Fox (of December 1998), and give the impression that Britain is sincere in finding ways to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people -- suffering which is essentially the result of London's continuing support of Washington's aggressive policies against Iraq and its people primarily aimed at containing the country through the use of sanctions.

According to hardline official British political opinions, sanctions against Iraq must continue, because to lift them now would be seen as rewarding the Iraqi government for standing up to American domination of the Middle East. British hardliners believe such a challenge must be punished and not rewarded.

Of course, such opinions are sadly lacking both in logic and in rationality, and in any case have lost their political effectiveness long ago. The continuation or otherwise of the sanctions regime against Iraq should in any case be a UN prerogative, and not subject to U.S. and British whim. Otherwise, the UN would lose its legal competence and its moral authority.

Saving the sick and hungry children of Iraq should moreover be a humanitarian duty that rises above any political objectives.

Effects of Iraq Sanctions

Author and Page information

• by Anup Shah
• This Page Last Updated Sunday, October 02, 2005

• This page: http://www.globalissues.org/article/105/effects-of-sanctions.
• To print all information e.g. expanded side notes, shows alternative links, use the print version:
  
  • http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/105
  
  

When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.”

— John Pilger, Squeezed to Death, Guardian, March 4, 2000

Amy Goodman:


... many say that, although president Bush led this invasion, that president Clinton laid the groundwork with the sanctions and with the previous bombing of Iraq. You were president Clinton’s U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.... the U.N. sanctions, for example ... led to the deaths of more than a half a million children, not to mention more than a million Iraqis.
Governor Richardson:


Well, I stand behind the sanctions. I believe that they successfully contained Saddam Hussein. I believe that the sanctions were an instrument of our policy.

The World Embargo on Food Exports to Iraq, by Susan B. Epstein. Washington, Sep 25, 1990. 9 p. (Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service)
Doc. call no.: M-U 42953-1 no.90-462 ENR
 
http://www.globalissues.org/article/105/effects-of-sanctions

Cuba vs. Blockade

History has shown time and time again that driving the Cuban people deeper into poverty won't make them violently "rise up" against Fidel Castro. U.S. policy on Cuba has taken business and cultural opportunities away from both nations, stoked world animosity toward the United States, and most unfortunately, made life very difficult for Cubans. The Cuban people have been subjected to economic warfare by the world's largest economy for more than 40 years. The effects cannot be underestimated.



The war began with the hysteria-driven Cold War politics of McCarthyism. In March 1960, President Eisenhower approved a plan to end Cuban sugar purchases, halt oil deliveries to the island, and organize an invasion. Castro's government was unaffected by the economic measures, and the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, while quite expensive for Cuba, was an unmitigated failure for the United States.



In February 1962, President Kennedy extended Eisenhower's trade restrictions to include everything other than non-subsidized food and medicine. A month later, he included in the embargo all goods made with or containing Cuban materials--even those produced outside Cuba. The result? The Cuban economy, and thus its people, suffered. Castro remained in power. The next year, travel to Cuba was banned and financial transactions with the country were outlawed. Can you guess the result? Economic migrants left Cuba in waves, but the Cuban government remained in power. There were no serious "uprisings."

UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 28, 2009

U.N. Vote Condemns U.S. Embargo on Cuba

19th Year in a Row that General Assembly has Condemned U.S. Cuba Policy

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/28/world/main5436488.shtml

 CRIMES OF WAR

Blockade as Act of War
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/blockade-act-war.html

An effective blockade allowed a belligerent to cut off all maritime commerce between its enemy and the rest of the world. The purpose was not only to prevent goods from reaching the enemy (to a large extent that could be done without a blockade in any event) but also to prevent the enemy from exporting to the outside world and thereby sustaining its war economy.

 

 Excerpt from Wikipedia entry

The US Chamber of Commerce estimates that the embargo costs the US economy $1.2 billion per year in lost sales and exports, while the Cuban government estimates that the embargo only costs the island itself $685 million annually.[23] The US has spent over $500 million broadcasting Radio Marti and TV Marti, even though the transmission signals of the latter are effectively blocked by the Cuban government.[24] The non-partisan Cuba Policy Foundation estimates that the embargo costs the US economy $3.6 billion per year in economic output.[25]

New US Blockade Sanctions on Cuba Friday, 28 August 2009 00:00 Havana, (Prensa Latina) The powerful Australia & New Zealand Bank Group (ANZ) paid a $5.7 million fine for alleged transactions that were beneficial to Cuba and Sudan, through US bank accounts. Granma newspaper published on Thursday a US Treasury Department report, published by El Nuevo Herald and mentioned by Cubadebate news, entitled "El bloqueo está igualito: multa millonaria al banco ANZ" (The blockade remains the same, fines of millions to ANZ bank), which revealed the new action taken by the US government, as part of the blocakde against Cuba. The Office of Foreign Assets Control reported that those violations were practiced "on international trade operations and exchange of foreign currency between 2004 and 2006, involving ANZ in processing transactions and using accounts of US affiliate banks. The newspaper from Miami stated that this sanction has been the greatest amount fined, in relation to the US economic blockade imposed on Cuba, since June 2004, when the Swiss Bank Union was fined $100 million, the Cubadebate article said. Such sanction was imposed for allegedly allowing the Cuban government using an US Federal Reserve international program to replace dollar bills in a bad state, the text said. The economic blockade on Cuba was imposed by the US government in 1962, due to its policy of interference towards the island.

http://www.adelante.cu/english/index.php/politics/41-blockade/479-new-us-blockade-sanctions-on-cuba-

On Oct. 14, the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a resolution to impose sanctions on North Korea, including ship searches for banned weapons, an assets freeze and a travel ban on people related to the nuclear arms program.
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=21618

U.S. Treasury Sanctions Program Summaries - Iran

In 1979, at the time of the Islamic revolution and the hostage crisis, the United States imposed broad economic sanctions against Iran. Since then, Washington has imposed various additional sanctions against Tehran, accusing the Iranian government of developing nuclear weapons and sponsoring or funding terrorism abroad. The sanctions block US-based oil companies from operating in Iran, giving the US a strong incentive to generalize the sanctions and block US firms' foreign competitors from operating there as well.

In February 2003, Iran revealed its uranium enrichment program at Natanz, claiming it was using the technology for peaceful purposes and inviting the UN nuclear monitoring body, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to visit. The US, however, alleged that the program is part of a drive to develop nuclear weapons and sought to refer the Iranian case to the Security Council. However in November 2004, Tehran signed a temporary agreement with Germany, France and Britain to cease uranium enrichment and the IAEA issued Iran a clean bill of health, effectively avoiding Security Council intervention. Nevertheless, the IAEA said it could not confirm that Iran is not pursuing undeclared nuclear activities and referred the case to the UN Security Council.

In May 2006, the Security Council adopted a resolution endorsing the P5 and Germany offer of diplomatic and economic incentives and demanding that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment programs by August 31. In December 2006, after Tehran's failure to comply, the Council imposed sanctions on Iran's trade in sensitive nuclear materials and technology. Following the IAEA's offer to Tehran of a 60 day grace period where halting of the country's uranium enrichment would be exchanged for suspension of UN sanctions which Iran did not take up, the Security Council passed Resolution 1747 in March 2007, intensifying the previous sanctions package. Iran has vowed to continue with its nuclear energy program, but informal talks continue.

 Giuliani Keynotes Jewish Anti-Ahmadinejad UN Rally
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/tag/progressive-american-iranian-committee

 

Rudy Giuliani, potential future Republican candidate for governor of New York, keynoted the Stand for Freedom in Iran rally earlier today at the UN.  Like a similar rally last year during the presidential campaign, when the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations invited Sarah Palin to keynote an anti-Iran UN rally, Giuliani confirms that tomorrow’s event, sponsored by the New York Jewish community, represents a hardline neocon agenda.  By announcing Giuliani’s participation less than 24 hours before the event, the rally organizers avoid the cries of political partisanship that would build (which is precisely what happened in Palin’s case) if his invovlement had been announced earlier.
The Stand for Freedom website doesn’t acknowledge that this coalition of New York ethnic, religious and labor groups was organized by the Jewish community (it’s website is registered by the Jewish Community Relations Council).  I wonder whether the non-Jewish groups know that it has been hijacked by a partisan political agenda?  The website doesn’t mention Israel, in whose interests all these events are being planned.  It doesn’t mention that the sole Iranian-American sponsoring group has ties to the Mujahadeen al Khalq, listed as a terror group by the U.S. government.  The People’s Mujahadeen also favors the violent overthrow of the Iranian regime.
Instead, the rally’s stated political agenda appears relatively innocuous, indicating its support for the Iranian reform movement.  The truth is, involvement of hawks like Rudy Giuliani and the Progressive American Iranian Committee will damage the reputation of the reform movement and drive Iranians into the arms of hardliners like Ahmadinejad.
So why would the Jewish community do such a thing?  I believe they not only don’t really care about Iranian reformers, they in fact seek a hardening of U.S. policy toward Iran, leading up to a possible Israeli attack.  So what the Netanyahu government, American neocons, and the Israel lobby ultimately want is regime change by any means necessary.

  http://www.globalpolicy.org/security-council/index-of-countries-on-the-security-council-agenda/iran.html

Does Iran Have a Right to Develop Nuclear Technology?

by Julian Ku

I have to admit I really don’t know for sure, but this WSJ op-ed makes me think this issue is likely to be an important one as the crisis over Iran’s compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty comes to a head.  According to the author, the U.S./E.U. concession that Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear technology is both wrong as a matter of law (and wrong-headed as a matter of policy.)  I can see the policy argument, but I have no idea what the author’s legal argument is.  Basically, it appears to be that because Iran’s constitution commits it to develop comprehensive military weapon systems, the author argues that the NPT’s guarantee of a right to develop peaceful nuclear technology shouldn’t apply?

An Islamist state like Iran can by definition not be considered a bona fide signatory to the NPT. The mullahs, although opposed to the treaty’s overall purpose, never withdrew from the NPT to take advantage of the privileges the document grants its signatories.

Huh?  I don’t buy this one. Either they are in the treaty or they are not, and if they are in, they have to comply with the treaty’s inspection provisions while at the same time getting the treaty’s benefits.  Iran’s leaders may be corrupt, genocidal, lunatics of whom we should be very afraid, but I think they can still sign treaties. Can’t they?

http://opiniojuris.org/2009/09/30/does-iran-have-a-right-to-develop-nuclear-technology 

( I'm no lawyer : but I submit contract law would declare that if Iran is deprived of its privileges under an agreement..WTF should it honour any purported obligations ? No 'quid pro quo'  invalidates the agreement....which is why there is a clear duty on signatory states to follow it to the letter !  It's also a clear call to Iran to Resist changes 'after the fact'  to protect the agreement by following it ! )

NATO: 130 Militants Killed in Afghanistan

Clinton Urges 'Compassion' for Americans Detained in Iran  

United Nations Convention Against Torture

The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is an international human rights instrument, under the review of the United Nations, that aims to prevent torture around the world.

The Convention requires states to take effective measures to prevent torture within their borders, and forbids states to return people to their home country if there is reason to believe they will be tortured.

The text of the Convention was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1984^[1] and, following ratification by the 20th state party,^[2] it came into force on 26 June 1987.^[1] 26 June is now recognised as the International Day in Support of Torture Victims, in honour of the Convention. As of December 2008, 146 nations are parties to the treaty, and another ten countries have signed but not ratified it.^[1]

Part I (Articles 1-16) defines torture (Article 1), and commits parties to taking effective measures to prevent any act of torture in any territory under their jurisdiction (Article 2). These include ensuring that torture is a criminal offence (Article 4), establishing jurisdiction over acts of torture committed by or against a party's citizens (Article 5), ensuring that torture is an extraditable offence (Article 8), and establishing universal jurisdiction to try cases of torture where an alleged torturer cannot be extradited (Article 5). Parties must promptly investigate any allegation of torture (Articles 12 & 13), and victims of torture must have an enforceable right to compensation (Article 14). Parties must also ban the use of evidence produced by torture in their courts (Article 15), and are barred from deporting, extraditing or refouling people where there are substantial grounds for believing they will be tortured (Article 3).
Parties are also obliged to prevent other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and to investigate any allegation of such treatment within their jurisdiction (Article 16).
 Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable.

Official text of the Convention

• Official UN site with list of countries participating in the Convention
• Optional Protocol
• U.N. Committee against Torture
• Human Rights Watch summary of the Convention
• List of links to other related documents

 NATO officials, Afghans claim 130 Taliban fighters killed in Kunduz
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/11/09/2009-11-09_nato_officials_afghans_claim_130_taliban_fighters_killed_in_kunduz.html

Beyond Counterinsurgency Or Counterterrorism: Meet Admirals Harward & McRaven

By: Spencer Ackerman Monday November 9, 2009 7:44 pm

 

How’d you spend your day? Here’s how I spent mine: reporting on the two most influential players in Obama’s Afghanistan debate you’ve never read about. They’re two Special Operations leaders, JSOC commander Vice Adm. William McRaven and Vice Adm. Robert Harward, who was a deputy to McChrystal back when McChrystal ran JSOC. Exclusive from the Washington Independent:

Navy Vice Adm. William H. McRaven, the commander of the Joint Special Operations Command or JSOC at Ft. Bragg, N.C., and Vice Adm. Robert S. Harward, the deputy leader of the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., are attending and informing the strategy meetings that the White House began in September to refine its approach in Afghanistan. Both men have deep ties to Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in the war. They are said to favor large infusions of U.S. troops to Afghanistan for performing counterinsurgency operations in select population centers, but they also advocate marshalling forces to pursue terrorists across Afghanistan’s rugged, mountainous terrain — a task in which McRaven plays a key role.

Debate about a “purely counterterrorism strategy” advocated by Vice President Joseph Biden was “bounced around at one point, but that has been cast aside,” said a National Security Council staffer who attends the meetings and who asked for anonymity because the debate is still ongoing, “mostly because JSOC has said ‘We’re going to do this anyway.’ And it’s not like they’re going to be in a supporting role.” Biden’s advice, which had practically no support from the armed services, was that the military should shy away from protecting the Afghan people and helping build Afghan governing institutions, and instead focus on the JSOC specialties of going after terrorists directly.

There’s a ton of additional reporting in there and I worked really hard on this, so if you don’t click through and read the whole thing I’m going to take it personally. It’s hard to break news about the Obama Afghanistan strategy review and it’s really hard to break news about anyone related to JSOC so, you know, please read this.

McRaven and Harward share a professional fraternity with McChrystal. Before McRaven took over JSOC — an entity that operates almost entirely in secret — McChrystal ran it for five years, supervising stealthy teams in Afghanistan and Iraq that tracked down and killed senior terrorists like al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. One of McChrystal’s deputies during that period was Harward, and the bonds between the officers remain strong. “General McChrystal and Vice Admirals McRaven and Harward have established relationships through the special operations community,” said McChrystal’s spokesman, Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis.
In his Afghanistan review, McChrystal said that a key goal for him would be to increase coordination between his NATO command and the independent command of JSOC, which suggested that the dichotomy between using Special Operations Forces for counterterrorism and conventional forces for counterinsurgency was eroding. “One of General McChrystal’s priorities is seeking greater unity of effort across all military activities in Afghanistan, which includes regular interaction with ISAF Joint Command, regional, and task force commanders,” Sholtis said, using the acronym for NATO’s military command in Afghanistan.
As a result, McChrystal is turning to McRaven and Harward for critical tasks in Afghanistan. McRaven runs a secretive detachment of Special Forces known as Task Force 714 — once commanded by McChrystal himself — that the NSC staffer described as “direct-action” units conducting “high-intensity hits.” In an email, Sholtis said that because Task Force 714 was a “special ops organization” he “can’t go into much detail on authorities, etc.” But the NSC staffer — who called McRaven “McChrystal Squared” — said Task Force 714 was organized into “small groups of Rangers going wherever the hell they want to go” in Afghanistan and operating under legal authority granted at the end of the Bush administration that President Obama has not revoked.


How the police have spent years quashing the rights of assembly and free speech
Southern Poverty Law Center
Police State.net
Israel-Palestine security fence
Indicted : former VP Cheney and former Attorney General Gonzales - Private prison profiteers
Torture in American prisons
Torture mentally ill - 9 months solitary confinement naked in filth

• Tasers,torture and terror tactics : America becomes a Police State
• RNC Police State Tactics
• Naomi Wolf warns of police state tactics used against American citizens
• Police State Tactics - 2003 - detaining foreign journalists entering U.S.
• Arrests and Anger : Election 08
• Stark Raving Viking
• Gaza deaths dog Israeli military
• Some influential Muslim groups question FBI's actions
• Prison Murder
• Concerns after 7/7 trial about depth of experience in counter-terror policing
• Congressional Taser hearings
• Incarceration rates : Charts
• Every car journey logged by police
• Photography is not a crime : It's a First Amendment Right
• Obama's support for the new Graham-Liebermann Secrecy Law
• The U.S. Threat to Journalists
• You're on a Battlefield Right Now
• Criminal Justice
• KUBARK: The CIA’s 1963 Torture Manual 

• Propaganda-Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy
• Commentary -Dr. Peter Neumann
• Blockades : Acts of War
  
• War is a Racket
• The Turning Point ( Torture )
• Worldwide network of military bases
• U.S. military interventions since 1890
• U.S. military bases
• USA Uber Alles
• US Military Expansion and Intervention
• Ancient Warfare Atlas
• Michigan War Studies Group
• ABCA Armies
• Intelligence sharing between Great Britain and the United States dates back to First World War
• Israel – United States military relations
• Iraq's new Death Squads
• CIA Assassin Program was entering new phase
• The sad, unlamented end of UN peacekeeping
• Understanding the Long War
• How an 1845 British Cavalry memo explains Afghanistan
• Khyber Pass : British Army disaster in Afghanistan
• Iraqi and Afghan vets testify
• The Betrayal of the American Soldier
• More George C. Marshall
• Military Religious Freedom
• Burning toxic waste is making soldiers and Iraqis sick
• The Nuclear War on Iraq
• Strategy Page-History
• Military History Online
• Military Quotes
• Murphy's Laws of Combat
• Campaign Against the Arms Trade
• Intel Dump-Phil Carter
• Danger Room
• The Bivouac
• Small Wars Journal
• Global Research-Major Resource
• Wounded Warriors-News
• Milblogs
• David Pugliese's Defence Watch
• Medill Reports
• Military.com
• Iraq Veterans Against the War
• Milblogging
• Veterans Today
• Vet Voice
• War by video conference : how al Qaeda fought us to a draw in the biggest battle in Afghanistan
• Walking it off : a Veteran's chronicle of war and wilderness

Related articles by Zemanta

• "Recovered History: The Berlin Wall Myth" and related posts (prorev.com)