War Budget Includes Yet More Money for Israel

War Budget Includes Yet More Money for Israel

By Shirl McArthur

On March 25 Bush finally presented his $74.7 billion supplemental “war budget” to Congress.The spending requestincludes the hush-hush military aid and loan guarantees to Israel, as well as military and economic aid to other Middle Eastern countries.For Israel the amounts are $1 billion in military grants and $9 billion in loan guarantees, to be available over four years.Israel had requested $4 billion in military grants and $8 billion in loan guarantees.Reportedly, the loan guarantees have the same conditions as the 1991 guarantees, that none of the money may be used in the West Bank and Gaza.The 1991 conditions did nothing to stop Israeli colony expansion, however, and money is still “fungible,” that is, interchangeable.The amounts requested for other Middle East countries are $300 million in economic aid for Egypt; $700 million in economic aid and $406 million in military aid for Jordan; $90 million in military aid for Bahrain; $61 million in military aid for Oman; $1 billion for Turkey; and $50 million for the West Bank and Gaza to “reduce terrorism and support the peace process.”

Congress Fiddles During Inexorable March to Invade Iraq

Throughout February and early March most members of Congress appeared oblivious to the fact that the administration of President George W. Bush, in lockstep behind the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Perle/Feith cabal, was leading the country into uncharted waters with unknown consequences that threatened to undo America’s foreign policy successes since World War II and magnify its failures.Congress did pass the FY 2003 appropriations bill, as described in the previous issue of this magazine, but then seemed either to not care or be too timid to try to head off the looming disaster.There were a few voices in the wilderness, especially Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). The Republican leadership, however, appeared either to agree with the rush to war or fear challenging the White House.

Except for House Minority leader Pelosi, the Democratic leadership was equally frozen into inaction.Some, such as Senate Minority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-SD), Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), and former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO), seemed to genuinely support Bush’s position, while criticizing him for failing to get international support for the war effort.For the most part, however, Democrats seemed more afraid that opposing Bush would somehow hurt them in the 2004 elections than they were concerned about the country’s welfare. But, reported Arab American Institute president James Zogby, a member of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), at the DNC’s winter meeting, attended by some 400 party leaders, the most vigorous applause was given to those who spoke out against the war effort.Presidential candidate former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was quoted as questioning, “why in the world the Democratic leadership is supporting the president’s unilateral attack on Iraq.”

There are certain truths one does not utter in Washington.

Among those who spoke out during late February and March against the rush to war were, in addition to those mentioned above, Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Richard Durbin (D-IL), and Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), John Duncan (R-TN), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Jay Inslee (D-WA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), John Lewis (D-GA), Jim Moran (D-VA), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), David Obey (D-WI), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Janice Schakowsky (D-IL), and Mark Udall (D-CO).Duncan, the only Republican on the list, described at length why this war would be contrary to such traditional conservative positions as being against huge deficit spending, against being the policeman of the world, against world government, and believing it “unfair to U.S. taxpayers and our military to put almost the entire burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on the U.S.”He pointed out that “other nations have violated U.N. resolutions; yet we have not threatened war against them.”

Moran created something of a firestorm, at least in the Washington, DC area, when he said to a Northern Virginia anti-war group, “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this.The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going.”Moran was responding to a question from a woman who identified herself as Jewish and was wondering why she didn’t see more Jewish people in attendance.Moran later said he was trying to make the point that “if more organizations in this country, including religious groups, were more outspoken against a war, then I do not think we would be pursuing war as an option.”

Never mind.There are certain truths one does not utter in Washington.Immediately, politicians from both parties, Jewish organizations—who have been after Moran for some time because he refuses to blindly support Israel—and The Washington Post leaped all over Moran, calling his remarks “reprehensible and anti-Semitic.”Predictably, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Israel’s errand boy in the House, called upon House Democratic leaders to strip Moran of his most influential committee assignments.In an effort at balance, The Post did quote Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies as saying, “acknowledging that the Jewish community is one of several influential communities in the U.S. is not anti-Semitic.”Bennis, who is Jewish and opposes the war, also said that it is Bush administration officials who advocate strengthening Israel’s power in the region “as a surrogate for U.S. interests” that are driving U.S. policy, not American Jews.

Iraq-related legislation languished in the weeks before the March 18 attack on Iraq.In the Senate, S.Res. 28, introduced Jan. 29 by Senator Byrd, had gained only Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) as co-sponsor, in addition to those named in the previous issue of this magazine.The bill says U.N. inspectors should be given time to finish their work, and the U.S. should seek specific authorization from the Security Council before initiating offensive military action.S.Res. 32, also introduced on Jan. 29, by Senator Kennedy, had gained no co-sponsors.It says that Bush should provide full support to the inspectors and should get additional, specific congressional legislation before initiating military action against Iraq.

On Feb. 13, Senator Lieberman introduced S.J. Res. 6, which says the president should develop in advance plans for the financial, security, humanitarian, military, and political reconstruction of Iraq.It also says he should develop plans for diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East following a conflict in Iraq, including “pressing for a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”There are no co-sponsors.Also in the Senate, Durbin introduced on March 5 S. Res. 76, which says “the policy of preemption, combined with a policy of first use of nuclear weapons, creates an incentive for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, and is inconsistent with the long-term security of the U.S.”

House Efforts

In the House, H.J. Res. 20,aimed at repealing last fall’s resolution authorizing the use of force, and introduced Feb. 5 by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), has gained five new co-sponsors in addition to those named in the previous issue of the Washington Report. They are Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and Michael Honda (D-CA).On Feb. 25, Rep. Sherrod Brown introduced H.J. Res. 24, which is similar to the Lieberman resolution and would require the president to submit to Congress a detailed report on possible consequences of the use of U.S. armed forces against Iraq, prior to using those forces.In addition to Brown, it has 28 co-sponsors, all Democrats: Reps. Neil Abercrombie (HI), Tom Allen (ME), Clay, DeFazio, Anna Eshoo (CA), Eni Faleomavega (AS), Sam Farr (CA), Fattah, Joe Hoeffel (PA), Holt, Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX), Ron Kind (WI), Dennis Kucinich (OH), Barbara Lee (CA), Zoe Lofgren (CA), James McGovern (MA), Gregory Meeks (NY), George Miller (CA), John Olver (MA), Major Owens (NY), Charles Rangel (NY), Tim Ryan (OH), Martin Sabo (MN), Loretta Sanchez (CA), Ellen Tauscher (CA), John Tierney (MA), Tom Udall (NM), and Lynn Woolsey (CA).

On March 11 Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), along with Reps. Sherrod Brown, John Conyers (D-MI), Kucinich, Lee, George Miller, Norton, Olver, Owens, and Donald Payne (D-NJ), introduced H.Con.Res. 89, which would express the sense of Congress that the U.S. should respect the sovereign equality of member states of the U.N. Security Council with respect to each state’s position concerning Iraq’s compliance with U.N. Res. 1441.

Palestinian Bashing Continues

Cantor continued to demonstrate his unswerving devotion to Israel with his sponsorship of H.Res. 61, commending Israel for conducting free and fair elections.However, the resolution also accuses Palestinian leaders of supporting terrorism in Israel, suggests that those leaders should be replaced, and restates the U.S. commitment to “a secure peace for Israel,” saying nothing of peace and security for the Palestinians.As Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) said in speaking against the resolution, what should have been “a nice innocuous resolution congratulating a key ally for running their recent election more fairly than we can, was instead hijacked by anti-Palestinian groups in Congress and turned into another diatribe against the Palestinians. …If our role as a nation is to play peace broker in the Middle East, we must stop choosing sides.”Reps. Ron Paul (R-TX) and John Dingell (D-MI) also spoke against the resolution.On the other hand, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) showed how even-handed she will be as chairwoman of the Middle East subcommittee by moving that it be passed immediately under “suspension of the rules.”In the end it passed by a vote of 411 to 2 (Reps. Paul and Nick Rahall (D-WV), with Conyers, Stark, and David Wu (D-OR) voting “present.”

H.R. 167, the bill introduced in early January by Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) that contains the three provisions that essentially amount to recognition of Jerusalem, continues to gain co-sponsors.New co-sponsors in addition to those named in the previous issue of this magazine are Reps. Eliot Engel (D-NY), Phil English (R-PA), Vito Fossella (R-NY), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Martin Frost (D-TX), William Janklow (R-SD), Mark Kennedy (R-MN), Steve King (R-IA), Mark Kirk (R-IL), John Kline (R-MN), John Linder (R-GA), Donald Manzullo (R-IL), Michael Michaud (D-ME), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Ros-Lehtinen, Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Chris Shays (R-CT), and Cliff Stearns (R-FL).

Shirl McArthur, a retired foreign service officer, is a consultant in the Washington, DC area.