BRING THE WAR HOME (THE DAY THEIR WAR STARTS)

The several thousand people who have died in Afghanistan were killed by people who are defending your right to host this protest. The goal of the Taliban and Al Queda is to deny you the right to practice your faith and to protest the faith of others.

Be careful what you wish for.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/02/1571901_comment.php#1572181

slave.jpeg, 2, 345x504

More fine political art.

homepage.mac.com/leperous/PhotoAlbum1.html

The US created Hussein. The US propped him up during the Iran/Iraq war from the time he first took over in 1979, giving him money, arms, and help with military intelligence, until he became a truly entrenched dictator who killed thousands of Iranians, Kurds, and Iraqis. Some liberal democracy the US is - do you think the US people voted upon these actions of the government?

Israel has given the U.N. the finger for five decades.

How did this become about racism?

I have two sons in the Army. One is in Afghanistan, the other will be going to an unknown location within days. While I don't consider myself an authority on the matter, I do feel that my view would be more valid than yours, as you seem to think that you are actually contributing to all of this simply by expressing your views.

To call for a protest against a war is fine. That is the right given to us, as Americans, when soldiers died on the battefield earning/defending those rights.

This is not about oil. This is about Saddam's unwillingness to follow the edicts of the UN. Though it still hasn't really been admitted, Saddam DID use biological warfare during the last Gulf War. There are many Gulf War Vets that now have children with disabilities. Biological Warfare was outlawed by the Geneva Convention.

You've heard of the Geneva Convention, haven't you? That's the piece of paper that says that Saddam is a war criminal.

For you to make this war about things as simple as racism and oil, well, that is so much stuff and nonsense. That is a simplistic answer to a complicated problem.

Your rhetoric has no basis in fact and if you aren't careful, more people might believe you and MCain's point will be the norm. Saddam's wish is to rule the world and people like you are helping him.

I agree with MCain. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

to busch up there.

Is the name John Poindexter familiar? He is the person appointed by Bush to run the Total Information Awareness project.

Why is that name familiar??? Iran-contra hearings.

Hey, why do you suppose that John Poindexter and Ollie North and friends sold arms to Iran. The main idea we are presented with is that they needed to have a fund raiser for the Contras in central america, but are we supposed to think they couldn't find any means other than giving weapons to Iran??? Especially when US congress voted money for the contras anyway. Have you ever heard of 'October surprise'? Basically, they promised to secretly fund both sides so that neither side really lost big, because they realized that if either country totally creamed the other one, then the region would be destabilized because either Iran or Iraq would have too much power.
If you disagree with this historically documented version, please in some way show some evidence why North and Poindexter etc. were merely holding a large scale garage sale to raise some extra cash, and why we should believe this.

Thanks for contributing to IndyMedia. A couple of points though:

"To call for a protest against a war is fine. That is the right given to us, as Americans, when soldiers died on the battefield earning/defending those rights."

Those rights were not given to us. They are ours, and every time we demonstrate we take them back and we defend them against a state that constantly wishes to limit our freedom.

"Saddam DID use biological warfare during the last Gulf War. There are many Gulf War Vets that now have children with disabilities."

Perhaps Saddam did use biological weapons, but I doubt it since if the US could have found a way to blame Gulf War illnesses on that they would have loved to. More likely DU and other weapons from the US side are to blame for the health problems of US veterans and Iraqis.

"You've heard of the Geneva Convention, haven't you? That's the piece of paper that says that Saddam is a war criminal."

It doesn't actually say that, it lays out actions that are prohibited during war, some of which Saddam *has* engaged in. The US has repeatedly violated many of the rules. For example: fire-bombing Dresden and Tokyo (civilian areas), dropping nukes on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, attacking the water treatment systems of Iraq, attacking civilian infrastructure in Serbia, etc.

This push for war is very complicated. Oil is part of it. Racism is part of it. Israel is part of it. Limiting civil liberties at home is part of it. World domination in general is part of it.

It specifically prohibits what is being done to the "detainees" in Gitmo. Ergo, the US is committing a war crime.

I humbly suggest that, given the overwhelmingly peaceful (and non-destructive) protests of F15, which appear to have been successful in many respects, not least softening the US/UK line in the Security Council, not the Black Bloc tactics not be used during F16 except as self-defense if the police get nasty (which they are unlikely to do).

I'm not a pacifist, I'm not categorically against property destruction and graffiti, but I do think that we ought to act within the amazing spirit of this weekend's demonstrations. There may be a time for some window-breaking - especially if a war does start - but it would be better, I think, to give our opponents less to attack us with, not to let them hang us with the label of terrorists as they are itching to do.

The war with Iraq started twelve years ago, and has continued unabated.

What's going to start is not "a war," but a massive ground offensive.

"It specifically prohibits what is being done to the "detainees" in Gitmo. Ergo, the US is committing a war crime."

This is simply not true. Gitmo detention is perfectly lawful. Any attempt to prove the above satatement will be met with failure. Just throwing that out there.

Cite the clause in the Geneva Convention that authorizes it.

Are you seriuos? There is no clause that authorizes that situation. There's no clause in the geneva convention that authorizes baseball, or school lunches or tv either. The onus is on YOU to cite where the Gitmo situation IS NOT allowed in the gc.

yo, where will the black bloc meet tomarrow? I need to know! thanks!

i dont think there is a black bloc tomorrow. meet polk and grove, 2 pm but dont bother to bloc up.

Hey whoever you are, Israel may be giving the finger to the U.N., but at least israel hasn't mass exterminated their own people by testing biological weapons on the citizens. SADDAM MUST DIE!! Sadam doesn't care about his people, he cares about the money he can make from his oil fields in Kuwait. If that oil means to kill his own citizens he will. He needs to be punished for his ruthlesness.

TO J BUSCH:

at the risk of coming off as attacking, let me say:

you dumb shitheaded motherfucker. you have no clue about the notions behind all of the propagandistic u.s.-spawned spin that you spew. turn off the stupid tv, dipshit. stop believing the associated press. you are being lied to. and stop mimicking the inane ass swab dictatorial schmuck that's running this country like a fuckin ranchhand playing cowboys and indians. damn, man, you make me want to vomit. get a goddamn clue. surely, this will only entrench you further in your backward notions of patriotism and freedom and right and wrong, but i had to get it off my chest...

symbolism. the protest is all symbolic. we bring our grievences to our leaders through symbolism. this is representative democracy "Democracy is a beautiful thing, and that people are allowed to express their opinion," Bush said. but later added. "I respectfully disagree." so basicaly, we can express ourselves but it doesnt really matter in the end because they know whats best for us. this is the esscence of all representation. it doesnt work. but finally we have a president that is too stupid and un-articulate to phrase things in a less obscene manner that even the less aware of us cannot swollow the shit pie he serves. who would sanely say that George knows whats best for them???? well, he says as much for us, but appealing to power through symbols is tell tale, we need to move past protest and symbolism. without action that induces change, hope is a con. and this is one of the most obscene and intelligent head trips to their credit. letting us express ourselves and us feeling like somethings different but nothing really changing.this is the genius of our political system.the spectacular exchange economy. appropriating potientially revolutionary ideas ,people and symbols and thereby stripping them of their power. MLK has a holiday and a boulvard in every city. . this is pacification.
quite often these token gestures are all it takes for us to be bedazzled in confusion just long enough for the riot to subside. but our faith is long gone and tokens bore us


less symbolism - more life

as much as the black bloc like to differentiate themselves with the normal protest. tactic it seems to me to be from the same vein. almost. economic sabotage?? yes you are decreasing the profit margin of a corporation by smashing their windowns but in the scope of things. it is less than pocket change, right. old navy, aberchrombe and fitch?? no ones about to break a sweat are they, except for their factory slaves in south america. if you want to do enough damage to make change in that respect, during the day time and with hundreds of cops in the area is not the apt situation. and youll need more than rocks. so. property damage in this sense, is also a symbol. a more powerful one than walking to the civic center, but a symbol at that. and yea throwing rocks is fun and all but id rather be skipping them in a stream.and even symbolically, it is always mediated by the media. your symbols are turned into spectacular sound bytes, for the evening news. which sucks, unless they were spectacular sound bytes in your head in the first place and your revolution is won, right there on the 6'oclock news. if econimic sabotage is what you want, or symbolism at that, cant we have a bit more fun with it, and also not alienate everyone but ourselves?

what about a tea party in the middle of the street at powell and market. an all day event. well bring tables and chairs, put them everywhere,brunch would be nice too. blocked storefromts from commerce would cost them more im economic terms than smashed windows, if thats what you want. we should have a fundraiser against capitalism but everything will be free, in the bussiest shopping areas. the gift economy in action. we will all come to share art food music books life with each other. consumers will see first hand how sterile their mode of existence is, well if our existance is superior, as we say it is. besides, do you really want to frighten someone into not consuming something from a specific store on a specific day? fear is the reason they are there in the first place........

we could have illegal dance parties in the middle of market st. and if they are "our streets" id much rather dance or a million other things for that matter, than chant any slogan.

So you think the US violated the Geneva Convention by fire bombing Dresdin/Tokyo and dropping the Nukes on Japan.

Just when was the Geneva Convention that prohibited these acts go into effect? When did the USA sign and agree to that convention?

You need to study history before getting histarical.

ok, so lh brings up some good points.

black bloc tactics for protest are almost purely symbolic. but the ongoing effects of pushing the limits of protest should be explored more fully:

one thing that these breakaways have done is to simply put the question in peoples minds about what is legitimate. doing llegal actions out in the open shows that a) people are willing to do it, b) more than just marching should be explored, c) what else can be done?

the implications of these three things can be far reaching if there is good discussion and propaganda that accompanies these things. the fact that the actions simply shows that people are ready and willing to do more than march is an open, yet still nascent, threat to power... the question must be in peoples minds "they're not just marching anymore. what will they do next?"

so, what will the anti-war / anti-capitalist movement do next? there have been many open proposals on indymedia. lh wrote about an anti-capitalist fair above. yet indymedia is not in of itself an organizing tool. it is a nice place to float ideas, but the people with these ideas should take the responsibility for trying to organize these things. it is far more effective to say, "i think black bloc is not entirely effective, which is why we're doing THIS! you should all come along and see what you think or come here if you want to help organize it" simply saying "you should do this instead" plays into our socialized understand of the world with its specialists and lack of personal and collective responsibility.

if you are opposed to the so-called "violence" organize an effective non-violent direct action and get the word out.

if you are opposed to pure symbolism, organize something that will reflect what you would like to see and try to get others involved.

from the events of the past few months, it looks like the black bloc is here to stay for a while, but this does not exclude other things from happening. if people actually SEE more effective things taking place or about to take place, they are more likely to act on it.

act for yourselves and complement your words and propaganda with propaganda by deed. don't exonerate yourself from responsibility to determine the future of the world. that's what creates monsters like states and capitalism. while we work to remove these monsters that DO exist, we should not be creating new ones, actively or passively

Click here:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/02/1575289.php

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/02/1575280.php

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/02/1575682.php

first, this is written to myself just as much as any one else.so the criticizism is should be taken in that respect.

"black bloc tactics for protest are almost purely symbolic. but the ongoing effects of pushing the limits of protest should be explored more fully:" i agree fully,


"i think black bloc is not entirely effective, which is why we're doing THIS! you should all come along and see what you think or come here if you want to help organize it" simply saying "you should do this instead" plays into our socialized understand of the world with its specialists and lack of personal and collective responsibility. " i agree fully, i write these things to create a dialoge or help me figure things out in my own head with the purpose of action, not to just throw out an empty negative critique,

""if you are opposed to the so-called "violence" organize an effective non-violent direct action and get the word out. "" im not oposed to violence. instead of smashing starbucks windows, maybe we should loot them, then have the tea party in the street.

""""act for yourselves and complement your words and propaganda with propaganda by deed. """"" i by no means meant to sound like i want to be a spectator. i realize the necessity of action, and the absurdity of jargon.

Okay, I know I'm replying to some ancient posts here, but I didn't see these before. Please bear with me.

jbusch:
". If you think Saddam should be allowed to ..., acquire nuclear weapons, and give military and financial support to Hamas and Al Queda- then you are an enemy of the U.S. and of western civilization."

What makes you think Saddam would give money to Al-Queda? Your TV? Al-Queda has worked long and hard to rid the Arab world of secular governments such as Saddam's Ba'ath party, which it calls a group of "pagans" and "infidels". While the US might be giving them a common enemy, the thought that they would work together or support eachother is laughed at by everyone who knows squat about the situation (including the CIA). Bin Laden's recent audio tape (which was in support of the Iraqi PEOPLE, not Saddam), urged the people of Iraq to defend themselves againt a US invasion, but reminded them not to do so under ther "Pagan" flag of Iraq, but under the universal flag of "Allah." He also said that they should use the current heated situation to rise up and rid themselves of this government once and for all. Powell took this to mean Bin Laden and Saddam are working together. He's either a moron (which I doubt), or he's confident that the American public is full of more morons who would believe him than people who would question him. If you blindly believe the lies of warmongers such as Bush or Powell, then you are an enemy to ALL civilization.

"Once the dictators are dead, the Middle east will have a real chance to develop in peace and freedom. "

This could be a direct quote from Osama Bin Laden himself.

Black block is funded by both Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein, the dude who tried to execute a Holocaust on the soevereign Kurdish peoples. Black Block was also responsible for trashing the Oakland businesses after the Superbowl.

f*ck sheep, worship the devil and pull the wings off of kittens.

They're hiding under your bed at this very moment. As soon as you fall asleep, they are going to crawl up your butt and sprinkle your inside with cooties.

>>Yup, and they also eat babies, f*ck sheep, worship the devil and pull the wings off of kittens.

Oh, were it that the black bloc were that polite. If the above was all they did, they would be saints in comparison to what they really are. They are indeed evil.

just wanted to say, i wasn't accusing you of being a mere spectator, lh. but my comments were for everyone else too.

i think violence is sometimes necessary as well. but i think that folks who don't believe this yet should be organizing *effective* nonviolent actions. if they're effective, people who want to take part in that manner will have a better idea of how much support there is for it and how effective it would be.

i think the indymedia dialogue can be very useful for our internal critique of tactics. and i am happy to see new things materialize like the recruitment center lockdown today. the more people who get out there and take it upon themselves and their friends to shake up the system the better, no matter what tactics they choose to use.

so it's the horses fault for the eruption of window breaking et al during the "protest for peace"... or it is the police's fault for losing control of their horses because the horses were freaked out by the tension in the air caused by _____ ???? who are we going to blame next for the continuation of the cycle of violence? the media because the can't get their figures straight? the protesters who were more conservative looking because they normally don't attend these affairs? mom and dad because they were horrible parents and gave you a less than perfect childhood? twinkies for lunch?

violence begets violence. this is what MLK (Martin Luther King for those who obviously aren't acquainted with his words) admonished. the way of peace takes courage and goes against society's teachings. now that's truly radical.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE take responsibility for your actions. when you throw a brick at a horse or a policeman or a window, you throw a brick at your brother and sister. there is nothing radical about harming and destroying the property or bodies of others, just because you disagree with their philosophy and practices.

the world does not need another window broken

on march 1st show us what a truly creative rampage is

the world does not need another bruise, broken bone, moment of fear

i urge you to be strong of spirit.

love: now there's a truly radical idea.

tell the world what's in your heart, without using fear as a tool.

Aside from being ineffective b/c it hands all the power to authority on a silver platter, pacifism is racist, sexist, and otherwise fucked up. Pacifists refuse to put themselves on the line, and get angry at others like them who do, while silmutaneously supporting third world movements, and often moevements by opressed peoples here, such as the black panthers. That is so fucking racist! So, all of you rich white liberals can go out and stand around doing jack shit while people of color put their bodies and their lives on the line?? Violence (and property destruction, since the two are extremely different) is an effective means of combatting oppression, and, although it should be considered carefully, should not be discounted as a tactic.

Is there a call for a black bloc the day after the bombing officially starts? What if people can't make it by 5, or even by 9? Or what if the bombing starts late? And aren't all the other calls for action the next day? Why is the black bloc call made for a different time? It seems like it could be stronger with thousands of other people on the streets shutting down businesses as well.

dear Alex:

i wonder what made you jump to the conclusion that i'm a rich white liberal. surprise! i am a "woman of color"!

( who's called everything in the book, except for "rich white liberal". gee, that's a new one.)

labels are tossed around like cheap frisbees. pacifist, activist, nigger, jap, shithead, limey, geezer, fucker, asshole, bitch, cunt, gook, beaner, wetback, etc. sadly enough, even in a place for justice, equality, empowerment, yadda yadda yadda, such as sfindymedia proclaims to be, labels and hateful language and attitudes are rampant.

is the message of "no war" reinforced through violent means? is it made more effective? who does it really serve when a brick is thrown through the window? the person who threw it, as a way to vent frustration with the system? or the people s/he is trying to enlighten?

peace necessitates activism. burying one's head in the sand or other methods of denial contributes to the ills of the world. my question is who does it really benefit when violence is used as expression against war?

people who sit on the fence on war on Iraq, or even take a pro-war stance, need to hear a more intelligent argument on why we should not bomb Iraq. bullying and destroying property ain't gonna convince them. it throws the whole argument for peace out the door.

black bloc seems to have great intentions, but not all members are making wise choices in their effort to wage peace, not war.

perhaps these members have another agenda. if so, LA's the place. (Hollywood is a great place for people who crave attention and dress in black. and there's plenty of LA gangs that are real scary too-- my sister and brother gave blood to some. my cousin got kidnapped, gangraped and left for dead by another.)

violence sucks in all forms. that is why we protest for peace.

sincerely,

Laurie

"you are clever, but not wise
by jbusch Friday February 14, 2003 at 04:03 PM

Every sane person is against War- but we did not start this one. We are in it, whether we want to be or not. The only question is will we prevail, or will we be defeated. The lines are drawn, and you must stand on one side or the other. No nation is perfect, but if you do not see the clear difference between the U.S.A. and the Islamofascists or Saddam Hussein, then there are no words that can reach you. If you side with Saddam, then you may rot in hell with him. I will side with liberal, western democracy, and the rule of law. We are only a free people because we defend our freedoms. It is too late to be generically "against war". You either side with the terrorists, or against them. Your choice. If you think Saddam should be allowed to give the U.N. the finger for a decade, acquire nuclear weapons, and give military and financial support to Hamas and Al Queda- then you are an enemy of the U.S. and of western civilization. So F. you."

Israel has defied the UN for more than a decade, acquired nuclear weapons, and has supported Hamas financially to combat secular nationalism in Palestine. If we are going to be bombing countries in the Mideast that begin with the letter I, have acquired weapons of mass destruction and have threatened to use them, and have funded Hamas, why don't we bomb Israel?

the last resort is not war. the last resort is to let a madman obtain or keep weapons of mass destruction. oh, what a fine day it is today. both osama bin laden and saddam hussein are in the crosshairs!!

I am against the war on Iraq. As a former South African black I ask where were the bombs from the US when an oppressive regime (Aparthied) controllled a valuable international resource (Gold) and possesed Weapons of Mass Destruction (Nuclear and Chemical) and invaded it's neighbours (Botswana, Lesotho, etc)

I'll tell you, George W Bush's dad was the vice president, Dick Cheney was in the Department of Defense and Ronald Regan supported the regime! Fuck America Hypocrisy! If war was wrong THEN to solve a much more pressing problem of a rogue regime then it is JUST AS WRONG now.

16 May, 1918
The U.S. Sedition Act


United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553 ff. A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917.SECTION 3.


Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....

See:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/02/1577485_comment.php#1579197

The US will not be at war. So there will be no case for sedition.

The Congress COULD declare war but won't

IDIOT.

Click here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_031003_sedition.html

to all of you that are just making ad hominim remarks about the black bloc,(they are more evil than [eating babies]), come on! what are you scared of, actual change? difference? really, now, i can respect those of you who politely or reasonably ask us to be more 'complacent' or 'pacifist,' but those of you who are rude and have nothing better to do but *attack* us, really......we are anti-war. if you are anti-war, we are on your side. we utilize different tactics, but we are at the events to support you and our collective cause., we need every kind of tactics and groups to fight this war and this facsist gov't. we need the marchers, unhions, kids, middle aged, seniors, the direct action, the puppetistas, the black bloc. no one can do this alone, we have to do it together. if you oppose war, we are with you.

also, lh--we did have a dance party outside the federal building last week(m5) at the student walk-out!!it was rad! and i agree, we need to create new communities(while we *destroy* the old...) and make lif positive and fun again.

what are you scared of, actual change? difference?
-----------

You won't make a difference or cause change, other than your vandalism causing the city to waste money to clean up your mess and to cause small businesses to pay higher insurance premiums after you vandalize their shops.

causing small businesses to pay higher insurance? read up son, black blocs don't target small businesses, they target the large corporate thieves . . .

causing small businesses to pay higher insurance? read up son, black blocs don't target small businesses, they target the large corporate thieves . . .
---------------

You don't think zipcode (and sub-zipcode factors like the street your shop is on) has any influence on determining insurance premiums? Even if your Honda Accord isn't stolen, your insurance premium still increases because other Honda Accords in your zipcode are stolen.

That's how insurance works. Crude statistics and risk analysis.

"""You don't think zipcode (and sub-zipcode factors like the street your shop is on) has any influence on determining insurance premiums? Even if your Honda Accord isn't stolen, your insurance premium still increases because other Honda Accords in your zipcode are stolen.

That's how insurance works. Crude statistics and risk analysis. """"


fucking idiot. i dont have a Honda or a car at that. your woried about the insurance premiums. while people stave, universally. but your starvitation is imaginative. reality is infinite. so techinally, your reality is simply dead , because you cant imagine it different than its presented to you. static feces.
ive seen the gift economy exist since age 12. or since birth at that.
i have seen universes that dont abide by the rules of empire honda or ford or predictibility and security the most bastard of all.

economics????? cynical fuck.

Fu,
You are obviously too smart for me to understand. I don't know even know what "starvitation" or "gift economy " is supposed to mean. But anybody who has seen other universes is out of my league.

PS - I think you missed the point -- it was a response to a previous post about insurance premiums...

The question i heard was..."so then , why don't we bomb israel?"
Hey, speak for yourself, jbush , some of us already are bombing israel. Why don't you help us?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An open letter of congratulations and constructive criticism to the organizers of this morning's financial district action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/14/03

Comrades in Peace,

I was lucky and happy to be at this momentous event this morning. I had mixed feelings about what happened. I am new to direct action and did not risk arrest with the brave people who blocked the doors of the stock exchange and the intersections. I did meet some of them and they were very cool folks. I don't want to discredit their heroism in any way by saying what comes next.

Blocking intersections indiscriminately wastes everyone's time. It targets the financial district as a whole, so you're going to get to some business exec types, but there are were ordinary working people who were resentful of us. I don't believe that helps our cause.

"No more business as usual," is the new motto, but guess what? We didn't keep anyone out of the stock exchange. We didn't prevent one stock trade from happening (though perhaps the fear we gave them effected trading). Only one of the exchange's eight entrances was blocked while the dozens of arrestees were in the streets blocking access to every kind of vehicle, including a fire truck and an ambulance with sirens on trying to get to an accidents across town. Blocking ambulance paths is what the IDF does in Palestine and I'll have no part of it. It is true that there are many crosstreets in the city for them to drive on, but it isn't right for us to risk delaying rescue workers. We as peace activists should all understand and support the necessity of help getting to those who need it.

It's not right to block intersections which are needed by everyone. I personally am still 100% in favor of direct action before a war starts, but direct action against military, financial/corporate, and governmental targets, not to block traffic and get arrested just to make a scene. Though it is a scene which must be made, it must be made in the right ways. Traffic is an indiscriminate civilian target with no direct connection to the war makers.

I came to shut down the exchange, not the intersections. Though I have to admit it was kind of cool that it was Bush St that got shut down.

To end, I am still very glad I went. I learned a lot and met some amazing people. The movement is young yet and has much room for improvement, but we are strong. We are so so strong and we're getting stronger.

Thanks to All,
And Special Thanks to St Boniface Church and Father Louie for letting us sleep there,

Earl Berg
Santa Cruz, CA
earlb [at] realityfusion.com

US Financial Aid To Israel -
Figures, Facts And Impact
Washington Report On Middle East Affairs
RMEA.com
11-9-2

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 Cost per Israeli
$23,240

Special Reports:

U.S. Aid To Israel: <http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#STRATEGIC>The Strategic Functions
U.S. Aid to Israel: <http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Taxpayer>What U.S. Taxpayer Should Know
U.S. Aid to Israel: <http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Israel>Interpreting the 'Strategic Relationship'
The Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers:
<http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Lies>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?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

US 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

US 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

"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 US Taxpayers:
True Lies About US 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.

There are only two ways for warprisoners "combatants" or "civilians",now america is trying to make up a new name so they can deny the prisoners their rights,wich is against the convention.

TONS OF HILLBILLIES FROM SACRAMENTO, CONCORD, REDWOOD CITY WILL BE IN THE 3/15 MARCH TAKING PHOTOS, FOLLOWING PEOPLE TO THEIR CARS, TAKING LICENSE PLATE #S, AND WHO KNOWS WHAT ELSE. I FIGGER BLACK BLOC PEOPLE GONNA WATCH THEIR OWN BACKS NOW.

Make it sporting. Wear a vest.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/05/126521_comment.php#126891

I think it would be a good idea for Police to arrest anyone who tries to block traffic with their "civil stupidity" protests and hold them in case anyone dies on the way to the hospital in an ambulance due to the blocked traffic caused by you fools!

I hope you enjoy becoming an ACCESSORY TO MURDER if you block traffic that keeps someone from reaching a hospital in time!!

America - Love it OR LEAVE IT

The French Government (i.e. "The Ship of Fools") NOW say that if Saddam Hussein uses Bio-weapons or Chem-weapons against Coalition forces, that it would "drastically change" the situation for France, and that they would have to re-evaluate their stance against military action in Iraq and would have to figure out how best to assist American and Coalition military forces. WHAT A BUNCH OF SNIVELING PANZIES!!!

Support OUR PRESIDENT and OUR GOVERNMENT in our WAR AGAINST TERRORISM

Support OUR PRESIDENT and OUR GOVERNMENT in our WAR AGAINST THE MAJOR SUPPORTER OF TERRORISM - IRAQ!!

Saddam Hussein is a THUG, a MURDERER OF HIS OWN PEOPLE, and runs his "government" like the MAFIA, killing those who oppose him. He killed 5000 via VX Nerve Gas. He had his own government leaders pull the trigger in a FIRING SQUAD to eliminate those who worked against his vicious rise to power.

Take Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot - mix them together and you get SADDAM HUSSEIN!!

Terrorism and those who support it are a CANCER in this world - and the quickest way to REMOVE a CANCER is TO CUT IT OUT OF THE BODY AND CAUTERIZE THE WOUND!!!!

Queeaagg

Your argument has no credibility. You are uttering words that have been fed to you by the extremely far right. You are in the minority of war supporters anyway. The whole world is against this war and it has not even started yet. Just think about when the war actually starts.

Just look at the pro war demonstrations in contrast to the anti war demonstrations. Although the media pays very little attention to the anti war protestors and leans more to the pro war protestors the speed of anti war growth goes gets faster every day.

To let you in on a piece of forbidden information, the U.S government actually instigated Sept.11th. Look at the occupation of Palestine by Israel supported by the U.S government. The U.S gives $2.2 billion in aid to Israel. Their government is using American tax dollars to kill innocent Arabs in Palestine who live under a constant occupation.

The media might focus more on Israeli death than Palestinian death but, for every Israeli death four Palestinians have already been shot or ran over by bulldozers.

Look at the occupation of the Persian Gulf by U.S military troops. This is a slap in the face to the Islamic world.

Look at the US/UN sanctions that have worsened the cancer epidemic in Iraq from the first U.S Iraq war when the U.S. used depleted uranium bombs.

Look at the U.S interest in the Middle East period. The Arabs are not that stupid you know. Do you really think that the U.S would want to have any thing to do with their region if wasn’t for their oil resources.

Iraq is number 2 supplier in petroleum. South America Number 1. The American economy needs that oil. Especially to fix it's recession. Go figure man.

Do you know that regime change goes against the UN charter?
Do you now who is going to take over when they remove Saddam? Gen. Tommy Franks.
Do you think that when Exxon or Chevron want to take over the oil the U.S will say no because then it would be all about the oil?

When Iraqi suicide bombers attack the U.S are you going to think that it was unprovoked act? Do you think that when you slap a dog in the face and that it will not attack you back?

Give it up man. Your solutions to oppression only intensify the current oppression which is putting others lives at risk who just want to live in peace and not have to deal with all this crap.

Drop out of the conservative side and take a look at your self. Think critically about this war and what it really means. Put the pieces together and you will get the picture.

The global movement for peace and justice want to impose real political and economic solutions, not war.

It started twelve years ago and has continued, unabated, ever since.