Reports, Reports, Reports
(1) DSCA Releases FY2010 Sales Figures
US military sales overseen by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) topped $30 billion for the third consecutive year. Total sales for fiscal year 2010 were $31.6 billion. Sales under the government-to-government sales program called Foreign Military Sales (FMS) were $25.2 billion. Non-FMS security cooperation cases managed by DSCA under various security cooperation authorities were $6.4 billion.
The DoD program for support of Afghanistan’s security forces using the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) made up the majority of non-FMS security cooperation cases in fiscal year 2010 and totaled some $4.7 billion. This reflected continued support to the Government of Afghanistan in its fight against the Taliban and other insurgent forces. This ASFF-funded support was for training and equipping of the
Afghanistan National Security Forces. Non-FMS security cooperation cases also provided support to other foreign governments, including Iraq and Pakistan.The Government of Israel at $4.0 billion led the FMS customer list with the highest value in sales followed by the Government of Egypt at $2.6 billion. Israel and Egypt are also the largest recipients of Foreign Military Financing (FMF) funds appropriated by Congress through the State Department to be used to pay for purchases of U.S. defense articles and services. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at $2.5 billion and the Government of the United Kingdom at $1.8 billion rounded out the top four FMS customers in terms of the value of sales.
(2) 2009 Human Rights Report: Israel and the occupied territories
The 1967 Protection of Holy Sites Law protects all holy sites, but the government implemented regulations only for 137 Jewish sites, leaving Muslim and Christian sites neglected, inaccessible, or threatened by property development. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre and other well-known sites have de facto protection as a result of their international importance; however, community mosques, churches, and shrines faced threats from developers and municipalities that Jewish sites did not face. Christian pilgrimage sites around the Sea of Galilee faced regular threats of encroachment from government planners who wanted to use parts of the properties for recreational areas. The law provides for a hearing of objections to any plan or construction, including submissions by representative bodies such as the NGO Arab Center for Alternative Planning.
On March 16, the Supreme Court rejected Adalah’s 2004 petition requesting that the government promulgate regulations for the protection of Islamic holy sites. The government maintained that the promulgation of specific regulations, including determining how to expand the list of holy sites, was not necessary to preserve and protect the holy sites of any religion since the law provided for the protection of all holy sites of all religions.
(3) The 2010 Israeli Democracy Index: Democratic Values in Practice
Some of the findings:
- Israel’s high incarceration rate, combined with inadequacies in the rule of law, cause it to fall short of the accepted standard in Western countries.
- 60% of the population in Israel thinks that a few strong leaders would be better for Israel than all the democratic debates and legislation. 59% of that same group would prefer a government of experts who make decisions based on professional rather than political considerations.
- 86% of the Jewish public (76% of the total population) thinks that critical decisions for the state should be made by the Jewish majority.
- 53% of the Jewish public also believe that the State is entitled to encourage the emigration of Arabs.
- 70% of Israel’s population thinks that there is no justification whatsoever for using violence in order to achieve political goals.
- 81% of the population agrees with the assertion that “democracy is not a perfect regime, but it is better than any other form of government.” However, 55% of the public believes that Israel should put observing the law and public order before the ideals of democracy. Of the Jewish respondents, 60% of those on the political right supported this idea compared with 50% of those in the center and 49% of those on the left.
- 54%, slightly more than half the general population in Israel today, state that they have full or partial confidence in the Supreme Court, compared with 44% who claim that they have no confidence in it at all.
- Only 41% of respondents said that they have full or partial confidence in the police force.
- 72% of the population say that they do not trust the political parties, although a 63% majority oppose the view that parties are no longer needed and should therefore be abolished.
- Compared with 45% of Arab respondents, 69% of the Jewish population claims that the constitution is important to them.
- 43% of the general population feels that it is equally important for Israel to be a Jewish and democratic country, while 31% regards the Jewish component as being more important, and only 20% defines the democratic element as being more important.
- 41% of the population believes that freedom of religion and speech are implemented adequately; however, 39% believe that human rights are not sufficiently implemented.
- 72% of the general public thinks that Israel’s democracy is adversely affected by the increase in socio-economic gaps.
- 54% of the Jewish public opposes the view that legislation should be passed penalizing anyone who speaks out against Zionism.
- 50% of the Jewish respondents agree that it is important to allow non-Zionist political parties to participate in elections.
- 56% of veteran Israelis agree that people who have refused to serve in the IDF should not be allowed to vote or stand in elections. 62% of immigrants from the FSU disagree with this, while 76% of the ultra-Orthodox public rejects the idea.
- 51% of the general public approves of equality of rights between Jews and Arabs. The more Orthodox the group, the greater the opposition to equal rights between Jews and Arabs: only 33.5% of secular Jews oppose this, compared with 51% of traditional Jews, 65% of Orthodox Jews and 72% of ultra-Orthodox Jews.
- 67% of the Jewish public believe that close relatives of Arabs should not be permitted to enter Israel under of the rubric of family unification.
- Almost two-thirds (62%) of Jews believe that as long as Israel is in conflict with the Palestinians, the views of Arab citizens of Israel on foreign policy and security matters should not be taken into consideration.
- 51.5% of the Jewish sample agrees that only immigrants who are Jewish as defined by Halakha should be entitled to receive Israeli citizenship automatically, while only 34.5% of immigrants from the FSU agree with it. By segmentation, 41% of secular Jews and 88% of ultra-Orthodox agree, while traditional Jews and Orthodox Jews fall in the middle, with 63% and 79% respectively.
- 55% of the general public thinks that more resources should be allocated to Jewish municipalities than to Arab municipalities, while a 42% minority disagrees with this statement.
- Within the Jewish public, 71% of right-wing supporters agree that more resources should be allocated to Jewish municipalities than to Arab municipalities, as compared to 46% of centrists and 38% of leftists. When segmented by degree of religious observance, 51% of ultra-Orthodox Jews agree with the statement, while 45% of Orthodox Jews, 28% of traditional Jews, and 18% of secular Jews agree with it.
- 39% of the general population supports equal funding of religious services while 35% oppose it. Taking only the Jewish population into account, 41% support equal funding of religious services, while 33% oppose it.
- 54% of the general population supports equal funding of schools, while 26% oppose it.
- 46% of the Jewish public admitted to being most bothered by the possibility of having Arabs as neighbors. This was followed equally by people with mental illness being treated in the community and foreign workers (39% each). 25% would be bothered by same-sex couples, 23% by ultra-Orthodox Jews, 17% by Ethiopian immigrants, 10% by non-Sabbath observers, and 8% by immigrants from the Former Soviet Union.
- The Arab public is less tolerant than Jews of neighbors who are “Other.” 70% thought the least desirable neighbors would be same-sex couples and 67% were opposed to having ultra-Orthodox Jews as neighbors, followed closely by 65% who would be opposed to former settlers. 48% answered that the most “tolerable” neighbors would be foreign workers.
NGO Monitor – Watching the Watchers Redux
The Israeli hasbara organisation, NGO Monitor, has taken foul, unsubstantiated swipes at Electronic Intifada and its co-founder Ali Abunimah.
NGO Monitor’s International Advisory Board consists of:
Elie Wiesel
Professor Alan Dershowitz
Fiamma Nirenstein
Elliott Abrams
Amb. Yehuda Avner
Tom Gross
Col. Richard Kemp
Douglas Murray
Judea Pearl
Judge Abraham Sofaer
Ruth Wisse
R. James Woolsey
Several of these individuals have cross-over links with US neocon and pro-Israel establishments. Click on highlighted names to find out these people’s associations and in which organisations they are involved. Some of these include the Committee on the Present Danger, Avi Chai Foundation, JINSA, Koret Foundation and the Hoover Institution. The Koret Foundation is also a major donor to NGO Monitor.
As noted in October 09, one of NGO Monitor’s co-sponsors is the Wechsler Foundation, a non-profit [sic], tax-exempt US organisation, which, along with other US-based sponsors, pad NGO Monitor with US taxpayer funds to undermine the work of peace organisations in Israel and Palestine, and the independent journalism represented by Electronic Intifada, in the interests of the Israeli and US economic elite.
Another of NGO Monitor’s major funders is the United Jewish Communities, which was formed from the 1999 merger of United Jewish Appeal (UJA), Council of Jewish Federations and United Israel Appeal, Inc and the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA), which partners with the Jewish Agency in Israel.
From the JFNA site:
United Israel Appeal (UIA), as part of The Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA), is a principal link between the American Jewish community and the people of Israel. An independent legal entity, UIA is responsible for the distribution and oversight of funds raised by U.S. Federation campaigns on behalf of Israel for use by its operating agent, the Jewish Agency for Israel, and for securing and monitoring funds for the immigration and absorption of Jewish refugees and humanitarian migrants to Israel from countries of distress. It is with the Jewish Agency as our partner, that UIA assists American Jews to fulfill their ongoing collective commitment to contribute to and participate in the upbuilding of the Jewish State of Israel.
UIA allocates and monitors funds raised by Federation campaigns in the U.S. for UIA’s operating agent JAFI, Israeli NGO’s and the over 1000 physical projects constructed in Israel with funds from U.S. donors.
As recounted on this blog several days ago, the Israel-based parent body of the United Israel Appeal, Keren Hayesod, sealed a deal with the Israeli government in October 2010.
‘Leading the projects that Keren Hayesod will support is Prime Minister’s Office project regarding national heritage sites. Keren Hayesod has taken it upon itself to raise funds in order to supplement the Government budget and expand the scope of the project.’.
On February 21, 2010, Netanyahu presented a Cabinet Communique outlining earmark funding of the ‘national’ heritage project.
The list of sites submitted here is neither closed nor final. It can and will certainly include other sites. I also intend to include Rachel’s Tomb, to the rehabilitation of which the Jewish Agency has allocated NIS 20 million, and the Tomb of the Patriarchs. Since I was asked, I would like to make my intentions clear, and this is what will be.
UNESCO recently insisted that Israel remove the Cave of the Patriachs and Rachel’s Tomb, both located in the Palestinian West Bank, from its list of national heritage sites as they are sites of mosques. Abbas and Haniyeh have also requested the sites be removed from Netanyahu’s proposed national heritage trail. Netanyahu has refused to do so.
In essence, US taxpayer money is diverted through Israeli front organisations in the US, which also fund NGO Monitor, to illegal Israeli government projects in the Occupied Territories.
You can donate to worthy online journalism at Electronic Intifada here.
UPDATE
Haaretz journalist doubles as anti-“delegitimization” operative
Haaretz has an international reputation as Israel’s most liberal and reliable newspaper. But The Electronic Intifada has discovered that one of the newspaper’s regularly-featured reporters, Cnaan Liphshiz, used his news reports for the publication to promote the agenda of an extreme pro-Israel group with which he was also employed.
At the same time, Liphshiz appears to have made efforts to conceal his work with the Dutch Zionist group CIDI (Centre for Documentation and Information on Israel), an undisclosed conflict of interest which calls into question the reliability of his reports and the editorial standards of Haaretz.
From 2007 until the present, Liphshiz has written about 50 articles in Haaretz which quote information provided by CIDI or its executive director Ronny Naftaniel, usually without offering any countervailing opinion or sources. Many of Liphshiz’s stories are based entirely on information provided by CIDI.
CIDI has confirmed to The Electronic Intifada that Lipshiz worked for the organization, and is likely to work for them again in the future.
CIDI has earned a reputation as one of the staunchest advocates for Israel in the Netherlands, launching stinging personal attacks and smears on public figures and groups who dare to call on Israel to respect human rights. In an article for The Electronic Intifada, Stan van Houcke, a Dutch journalist and author, described CIDI as an organization whose main goal is to cover up Israel’s violations of international law (“Dutch ‘research’ group covers for Israeli crimes,” violations, 5 November 2007).
UPDATE 10/2/12
What can public records tell us about NGO Monitor’s funding sources?
Why Israel ‘Peace’ Negotiations Are Always Fake
These are the truths a twitter friend in Gaza told me during the Cast Lead massacre: 8/1/09
@rafahkid: ‘Israel can’t survive w/out resources on Palestinian land. This is why there’s no peace. If Palestine was allowed Israel would choke’.
@rafahkid: ‘Binational state? Not a chance because #Israel has to be Jewish. Two states? Not a chance because Palestine has the resources. So, we die.’
@rafahkid: ‘#Gaza truth. #Israel has to destroy Palestine if it is to survive. The world has chosen Israel. Excuse us while we die without surrender’
@rafahkid: ‘Palestine will accept #Israel but Israel can never accept Palestine. If we gave up ROR & had ’67 borders then Israel would cease to be viable.’
@rafahkid: ‘Wouldn’t mind if people acknowledged these truths but instead they pretend it’s the fault of Palestinian people…and call Hamas terrorists.’
@rafahkid: ‘Hello Israel. We actually want peace but your masters are lying to you. Pls visit #Gaza yourselves (now is not a good time) & you will see’
Jinjirrie: So, folks, now you know why ‘peace’ talks are a cover for accelerated Israeli land theft, and a means to obscure ongoing genocide by Israel
Jinjirrie: For #Israel Palestinians are surplus sub-humans, inconvenient impediments. & the US colludes with Israel in its sick deceptions. #imperialism
Paul Howes, the Histadrut and Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions of Israel
In 2005, Palestinian civil society called for solidarity from the international community and people within Israel for the institution of boycotts, divestments and sanctions against Israel similar to those instituted against apartheid South Africa until Israel recognises the right of Palestinian people for self-determination and conforms with international law. The call is supported by Palestinian political parties, unions, associations, coalitions and organizations representing the three integral parts of the people of Palestine: Palestinian refugees, Palestinians under occupation and Palestinian citizens of Israel.
These non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:
1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall;
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.
As Australian trade unions prepare to take a motion for BDS to the ACTU, it is important for Australian workers to understand why it is essential to support boycotts, divestments and sanctions against Israel in solidarity with Palestinian trade unions, including the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU) .
The trade union boycott works very like the consumer boycott or divestment campaign at an institutional level. It means that trade unions cut economic, social and political ties with Israel and build ties with Palestinian unions. Much the same as the huge role they took on in fighting against Apartheid South Africa, their emphasis on international workers solidarity can be a real rallying cry against Israeli Apartheid.
Trade unions need to be informed about the discriminatory nature of Israel’s Histadrut, which from its inception aimed to replace Arab workers with Jewish ones under a “conquest of labour” policy. Israel’s occupation aims to further conquer Palestinian labour through a series of joint industrial zones wherein Palestinians will essentially work as migrant workers on their own land for low wages in poor conditions without the option to organise. The Histadrut is the only trade union in Israel and continues to work on a racist framework that leaves Palestinian workers facing apartheid labour conditions in Israel itself.
To support BDS, trade unions can pass motions, measures and resolutions condemning Israeli occupation and apartheid; promote a consumer boycott among their members and citizens; change purchasing
and investment policy to ensure that trade unions are not contributing financially to the occupation; and partner with Palestinian unions.
Australians for Palestine have prepared an excellent BDS Manual for download.
The Israeli labour organisation, the Histadrut, is first and foremost a state-allied endeavour rather than a worker organisation. As Zureik says:
It is a mistake to equate the Histadrut with other, secular and universalist, trade union movements of this century. While one of the aims was to improve the conditions of the Jewish working class in Palestine, its raison d’etre was to ensure the creation of a jewish state, with Arab-Jewish working-class solidarity a secondary factor. After all, it was under the auspices of the Histadrut that the underground Zionist military force, the Haganah, was established.
…
Yago:“However, the evolving labour bureaucracy is not to be confused with those of Western Europe or the US [or Australia]. It was not the product of a mass workers movement; rather it was always an integral part of an expressedly nationalist movement. Its task was not solely to divert working class struggles, but to eliminate part of the working class (the Palestinian Arabs) from labour market competition in order to accomplish the two-pronged state building programme of the Zionist movement – ‘conquest of labour/conquest of land’.”
The Histadrut, which approved of the outrageous Israeli Cast Lead massacre of the Gazan people in 2009, also actively supported the South African apartheidists.
Iskoor steel company, 51 percent owned by Histadrut’s Koor Industries and 49 percent by the South African Steel Corporation, manufactured steel for South Africa’s armed forces. Partly finished steel was shipped from Israel to South Africa, enabling the apartheid state to escape tariffs. [7]
Other Histadrut companies such as Tadiran and Soltam were equally complicit in supplying South Africa with weaponry. [8] Histadrut also helped build the electronic wall between South Africa/Namibia and neighboring African states in order to keep the guerrillas out. [9] It was a precursor of Israel’s wall in the West Bank.
Pinhas Lavon, secretary-general of Histadrut in 1960 described it as “a general organization to its core. It is not a trade union …”
The Histadrut has also exploited Palestinian workers and their union movement.
The exploitation of Palestinian workers from the occupied territories was institutionalized by an Israeli cabinet decision of October 1970. It provided that the military administration should supervise their employment. Their wages would be distributed by the payments department of the National Employment Service. Histadrut was a partner in this arrangement. National Insurance coverage was permitted in only three areas: work accidents, employer bankruptcy and a grant on the birth of a child in an Israeli hospital. Ten percent of the wages of Palestinian workers went to a special “Equalization Fund,” which was supposed to supply the population in the occupied territories with social and cultural services. In fact, this money was used to finance the occupation. The workers did not receive unemployment and disability benefits, old-age pensions, a monthly child allowance or vocational training.
In addition, each Palestinian worker had to pay one percent of his or her wages as dues to Histadrut. Workers saw nothing in return and now a fraction of this money has been returned, as a propaganda ploy, to the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions. When the Shin Bet intelligence service used work permits as a means to coerce Palestinian workers to collaborate, with those who refused being placed on a blacklist and their work permits cancelled, Histadrut again did nothing. [39]
Although many Australian unions already support BDS, AWU union boss Paul Howes seems to be under a false impression that the Histadrut is a union like any other.
“We don’t believe that it’s in the interests of Palestinian or Israeli workers to seek to divide them in the peace process,” Mr Howes said.
In a recent address to the Zionist Federation of Australia, Howes stated:
I think I am upholding that union tradition when I support the trust-building co-operative projects that the Israeli trade union movement – led by the Histadrut – and the Palestinian trade union movement – led by the PGFTU – are promoting.
If you truly believe that a-worker-is-a-worker-is-a-worker then the function of any trade union is to ensure fair pay for a fair day’s work and a safe and healthy workplace.
This applies to an Israeli worker , this applies to a Palestinian worker.
I can’t see how you can discriminate between an Israeli worker and a Palestinian worker. (Let alone a foreign worker from Asia or Africa working in Israel)
Paul appears oblivious to historical and current exploitation of and discrimination against Palestinian workers by the Histadrut as much as he is ignorant of the fact that the main Palestinian union, the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions’ (PGFTU), supports BDS.
In September 2009, the Histadrut claimed to have rectified some of its malfeasance.
In 1995 our two organisations signed an unprecedented agreement in which fifty percent of all dues from Palestinians employed by Israeli employers would be remitted to the PGFTU. Unfortunately, the
agreement was not fully implemented due to security conditions. However, under the auspices of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), headed by Guy Ryder, we successfully finalised and
implemented the agreement in June 2008. As a result, US$3.6 million has been transferred to the PGFTU, both in arrears and in ongoing payments.
Yet according to Kav LaOved and The Alternative Information Centre (AIC), “The Economy of the Occupation”, the Histadrut has returned but a pittance of the monies extracted from exploited Palestinian workers:
“The calculated amount of debt without interest is NIS 3.082 billion, and with interest the amount reaches NIS 8.350 billion. It is important to note that this calculation is accurate to 2009, in 2008 prices, and does not include central elements for which information is not available. The calculation is therefore lacking.”
And further skullduggery:
“Addititionally, the Department deducted an additional 2.74% for a Provident Fund and health tax, which were included in the same package of deductions as organising fees for the Histadrut. The health tax covered health insurance of the workers in the OPT. It is unknown to us where the money deducted for the Provident Fund went and on what authority it was deducted.
“On the basis of a circular of the Department of Payments, we know that for the Provident Fund, NIS 0.54 were taken from every worker in the construction sector for each day of work at least until 1993, ie. 3.1% of their salary. From here we calculated that from 1970 to 1993, NIS 152 million (in 2008 prices) were taken from them for the Provident Fund. We do not know if this deduction continued after 1993, but we do know that the workers did not receive a Provident Fund.
“Under the false definition of Palestinians as ‘daily’ or ‘temporary’ workers, a majority of the benefits determined in the collective bargaining agreements of the Histadrut with the employers were stolen from Palestinian workers, including increments for security, family upkeep, grants for not missing work, a 13th salary in the agricultural sector and more.
The Histradut has expressed its support for removing “security checkpoints in the context of the renewed security situation” and called upon “the Israeli government to dismantle all illegal outposts.” It also supports the abandoned Roadmap and collapsed two state solution, yet does not expressedly support the end to Israeli colonialism in the Occupied Territories. Nor does the Histadrut protect Palestinian workers in the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
“The settlement factories are manned primarily by Palestinian labourers, who work in miserable conditions”, says Fathi Nasser, legal advisor with the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU). “The employers of these factories disregard labour laws and should the worker complain, he will be dismissed”. According to Nasser, as it is so difficult to obtain authorisation to take a case before an Israeli court, providing real legal protection to these workers is very complicated.
…
The Democracy and Workers Rights Centre (DWRC) tries to protect workers by educating workers on how to use their rights. “Officially, Palestinian workers in the West Bank’s industrial zones are entitled to the protection of Israeli labour laws but employers find many ways to avoid giving Palestinians their rights”, DWRC’s coordinator of the Legal Aid and Human Rights Project, Hwayda told us. The organisation was created in response to the failure of Israel’s major labour union, Histadrut, to represent Palestinian workers.
No excuses, Paul Howes, it’s time for you to move to the right side of history. Do not put a cold-blooded thirst for the political approval of the duplicitous Australian zionist lobby before the call of Palestinian workers. You’ve shown you can stand up for justice for Australian workers. Let’s see your real mettle – can you change your mind when faced with the facts? Support BDS and help Palestinian people achieve freedom and justice.
As Palestinian Rifat Odeh Kassis from Kairos says:
If you reject BDS as a valid way to call for change, and as a right in and of itself – a right that should be defended by any true democracy – then what other means do you propose for creating peace in our region? In a time when bloodshed has been the primary tactic, negotiations are an exercise in humiliation, and voices like yours continue to suggest that Palestinians have no rights to defend in the first place, BDS is an effective, nonviolent tool that strengthens – and unites – Israeli and Palestinian peacemakers alike.