Last year, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus said the US must reevaluate aid to Israel in light of our country's economic woes. Yesterday he revisited the issue and is aghast at the largess being thrown Israel's way while the US economy continues to struggle.
Pincus:
Should the United States put solving Israel’s budget problems ahead of its own?
When it comes to defense spending, it appears that the United States already is.
Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister, will meet Thursday in Washington with Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta to finalize a deal in which the United States will provide an additional $680 million to Israel over three years. The money is meant to help pay for procuring three or four new batteries and interceptors for Israel’s Iron Dome short-range rocket defense program. The funds may also be used for the systems after their deployment, according to the report of the House Armed Services Committee on the fiscal 2013 Defense Authorization bill.
The Iron Dome funds, already in legislation before Congress, will be on top of the $3.1 billion in military aid grants being provided to Israel in 2013 and every year thereafter through 2017. That deal is part of a 10-year memorandum of understanding agreed to in 2007 during the George W. Bush presidency.
“Those funds are already committed to existing large-ticket purchases, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, C-130J transport planes and other items,” according to George Little, spokesman for Panetta. He also said the Israelis had increased their own spending on Iron Dome this year and the U.S. funds are to “augment” their funding.
And there’s more money involved. The House committee version of the defense authorization bill, up for debate on the House floor this week, includes another $168 million “requested by [the] Government of Israel to meet its security requirements,” according to the panel’s report. This money is to be added to three other missile defense systems that have been under joint development by the United States and Israel. The $168 million is in addition to another $99.9 million requested by the Obama administration for those programs.
Pincus goes on to outline how Israel's own economic troubles have led it to cut defense spending and raise taxes while our government continues to pump money in. Pretty sweet deal for Israel. In addition, he is upset the US is underwriting technology that it won't even have access to. He finishes:
So here is the United States, having added to its own deficit by spending funds that it must borrow, helping to procure a missile defense system for Israel, which faces the threat but supposedly can’t pay for it alone.
To add insult to injury, Pentagon officials must ask the Israeli government-owned company that is profiting from the weapons sales — including Iron Dome — if the United States can have a piece of the action.
RE: “WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond for Israel’”
ALSO SEE: US Charity Secretly Funds Israeli Nukes, by Grant Smith, Antiwar.com, 5/18/12
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to original.antiwar.com
This column is particularly interesting because, as Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair
put it, “Connections between Walter Pincus and the intelligence sector are longstanding and well-known,” starting from his work in the 1950s for Army Counterintelligence and including various foreign missions he has admitted the CIA paid him to do. The Washington Times once wrote that people in the CIA refer to him as the agency’s “house reporter.”
One conclusion I think it’s fair to draw from this piece: Behind the universal groveling to Israel, there are some real differences within U.S. ruling circles about policy toward Israel.
Now that substantial cuts in our military (and intelligence?) budget appear imminent, our national security establishment is more willing to see cuts in aid to Israel than it has been in the past. Pincus reflects their thinking.
@ Henry Norr,
Q: …there are some real differences within U.S. ruling circles about policy toward Israel.
R: Really? How does that translate into any definable group of individuals standing up for what’s right [unless you believe millionaires can be and truly are democratic]?
@Daniel Rich,
My assertion that “there are some real differences within U.S. ruling circles about policy toward Israel” does not imply that there’s a “definable group of individuals standing up for what’s right” – or for that matter an undefinable group of such individuals, although I suppose there are few individuals here and there within the ruling elite who happen to have decent positions on I/P. What this Pincus article suggests is simply that there are differences about how far the U.S. should go in funding the Israeli military at a time when even the U.S. military’s budget faces some modest squeezing (not to mention social services, etc.).
A few other recent examples of disagreements related to Israel: the apparently adamant resistance of the FBI, etc., to the release of Jonathan Pollard; the indictment of Weissman and Rosen from AIPAC; Obama’s attempt (however brief and half-hearted) to push Netanyahu into freezing settlement construction; and currently the refusal of the intelligence agencies, Leon Panetta, the Joint Chiefs, etc., to endorse Israel’s claims about Iranian nuclear-weapons development.
None of this has much to do with “standing up for what’s right” – it just means that various segments of the American elite may have views of what’s in their own interest, and that of the U.S. empire and even of Israel, that don’t correspond 100-percent to those of Netanyahu and the purest Israel-firsters.
@ Henry Norr,
I agree with you on the agencies and Army. It’s that I still can hear the thunderous rounds of applause Bibi received when all those congress critters were beating their soft hands black and blue.
I have an idea, how about if we cut the 3 billion we give to Israel, and since we are trying to save money, cut the billion we give to the Palestinians, and the money we give to the UN that funds UNRWA.
No, just cut the money we give to the deadbeat israelis will be enough.
“I have an idea, how about if we cut the 3 billion we give to Israel, and since we are trying to save money, cut the billion we give to the Palestinians, and the money we give to the UN that funds UNRWA”
Your lips to congress’ ears my friend…
How about stopping aid to Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iraq and Jordan as well?
What current aid to Jordan, or Syria, or Libya? Here’s a summary of all foreign aid by country for the first decade of the 21st Century. Note that Israel and Egypt get 1/3 or ALL foreign aid, though they are not developing countries. link to vaughns-1-pagers.com
Also, while aid to Israel is unconditional, aid to Egypt is very much conditional that they keep making nice with Israel. With Egypt, it’s a bribe; with Israel, it’s an imperative duty of the USA, a duty that must be met before US citizens needs are met. Very few Americans have any clue at all, and certainly no details, on US foreign aid. They’d be in shock if they knew that Israel alone gets unconditional free aid, a bigger chunk than any other state, and that Israel is the biggest recipient of US foreign aid in US History–especially if you gave them a map and pointed to Israel.
“What current aid to Jordan, or Syria, or Libya?”
I’m thinking more about the covert monies used to support “rebels” and other anti-government factions.
My main point is that I feel we should not dole out ANY foreign aid to anyone, whether it’s cash, weapons or supplies. We’re flat broke, deep in debt, and our infrastructure is crumbling.
Do we give Syrian rebels 10 million, or fix a 100+ year old sewer system here in the states?
I realize Fredblogs’ motives. It’s to punish. He’ll have to deal with that when he meets his maker. I have to deal with questions from my child wondering why we send billions outside our country when there’s so many poor disadvantaged people in our own country.
That is an excellent idea. The US and EU should terminate all funding to the PA. Of course, as the occupying power Israel would then be responsible for providing support to the occupied people — this according to some Geneva convention on war and occupation.
Isn’t US funding for PA dedicated to maintenance and control of quisling security forces? Somehow anytime cut in that funding is proposed it is restored due to quiet lobbying of Israel and AIPAC.
Basically, we pay for Israeli Janisaries.
Fred it’s not just $3 billion when all is said and done and Palestine was totally self sufficient pre-Zionist invasion and occupation. They can do it again without impostors controlling their every move.
That is a stupid idea Fred. UNRWA keeps the Gaza refugees alive. It is israel’s responsibility as occupying power. UNRWA saves Israel money. . If you take away UNRWA you take away one of the biggest things that keeps Israel propped up.
“That is a stupid idea Fred. UNRWA keeps the Gaza refugees alive.”
To people like Fredo, that would be a positive, not a negative.
Israel blockades Gaza, it doesn’t occupy it. It has no responsibility to provide for Gaza, just to allow food shipments in when they come. Which it does. If you can provide some support for the notion that a blockader is responsible for providing food (as opposed to just allowing it through) then post it.
eee gads, talk about clueless.
And yet somehow, I doubt you are going to be able to come up with anything that proves me wrong. Cite the treaty or piece of international law that says a blockader has to provide for the blockaded.
do your own homework. it was your stupid assertion, so go track down the report claiming collective punishment is aok. there are laws about refugees and i am not interested in engaging you in your hasbara games. cough it up. w/links.
The blockade is a security measure, not a punishment. You are the one making a positive assertion. To prove something is legal, someone would have to cut and paste every international treaty in the world and say, “see it doesn’t say it is illegal”. To prove that something is illegal, all you have to do is cite one part of one treaty where it says it is illegal.
The blockade is a security measure, not a punishment.
I’ve already responded to you and others in a number of lengthy threads and provided a semester’s worth of eduction on the subject of blockades in international law, e.g.
link to mondoweiss.net
link to mondoweiss.net
So let’s discuss the subject of the rules of international organization. In the “Reparations” case the ICJ noted that the UN had its own international legal personality and that it was not merely a gathering of states:
–http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/4/1835.pdf
UN Security Council resolution 1860 called for both the “unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza” of “humanitarian assistance”, “including of food, fuel, and medical treatment;” link to un.org
So Israel, and every other UN member state, has a binding treaty obligation under the terms of the UN Charter to render the UN and its organs, like the UNRWA, “every assistance” in fulfilling its functions and purposes in connection with that very specific undertaking. The Security Council press release and Presidential Statement on the aid flotilla massacre contained comments from several member states which indicated that Israel: had violated its obligations under international law and the Charter; failed to implement resolution 1860; and was now operating an illegal blockade. link to un.org
The UN Yearbook for 1967 catalogs a series of Israeli provocations and acts of war, i.e. invasions and cultivation of the territory of Jordan, the downing of a Syrian MIG over Damascus; creeping annexation and occupation of the DMZs; and etc. Prime Minister Eshkol did not object to the Egyptian blockade on the ground that it was an act of war, he complained that the blockade was “illegal”. See the page on the telegram from Israeli PM Eshkol to President Johnson
The ICRC official commentary on the San Remo Manual, noted that only 26 countries, including Israel, had participated. Several countries stated that the customary prohibitions against collective punishment contained in Article 33 of the Geneva Convention or the use of starvation as a method of warfare contained in the 1st Additional Protocol had rendered any blockade unlawful. See for example the official explanation of the San Remo Manual for article 102
Judge Schwebel noted that when the General Assembly adopted the consensus Definition of Aggression it was concluding more than fifty years of sporadic discussions among the members of the international community of states on that subject. The definition included military occupations and blockades as specific examples of constituent acts of the crime of aggression. Shortly after the attack on the first flotilla, the ICC review conference voted to incorporate that definition into the Rome Statute. The right of a state to defend itself does not imply the right to commit crimes against others.
Fredblog, Whenever someone does you the courtesy of a comprehensive, sourced reply you just ignore it as it doesn’t suit your lame statements (like the other hasbrats). And then you repeat the same generalisations, vague claims and outright rubbish in another thread. So why should anyone engage with your childish attempts at defending apartheid and occupation, when you don’t listen or learn a thing? Why do ziobrats never have comprehensive arguments or facts at their disposal, or demonstrate any genuine interest in the history of their benighted country, but stick to the same old cliches and myths? That was a rhetorical question.
@ Fredblogs
“Israel blockades Gaza, it doesn’t occupy it.”
Again, if Israel was occupied and the occupying troops were camping outside of Tel-Aviv and not inside; would you consider Tel Aviv not to be part of an occupied territory and not occupied?
Many commenters on Mondoweiss have tried to explain to you why Gaza is still occupied or a part of an occupied territory. ( SEC RES 1860: “Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 …”) After some debate you drop the conversation and then repeat your same nonsense somewhere else like a true hasbara autist. I’m sure you’re going to do the same this time.
“The blockade is a security measure, not a punishment.”
The “security measures” prevent Gazans from getting half of the aid they got before the blockade. So it is a collective punishment.
Fredblogs: They have no autonomy. Not forgetting you impostors control their land, sea and airspace as well as their borders. That makes them occupied. Longest occupation in history I may add. It beggars belief how you delude yourself. It’s actually very sinister.
@Hostage
Yeah, except that what you think you know about law just shows that you aren’t worth listening to on the subject. You don’t even know how to read a statute.
As for the U.N., when the rest of the world starts obeying them when it isn’t in their own best interests to do it, then what they make will be law. Until then it is just suggestions, particularly since it “calls for” humanitarian assistance but does not mandate anything. But even taking what you say as correct (which I don’t), Israel has no more obligation to provide for the Palestinians than Micronesia does.
So in other words Freddy, you can’t actually debate anything Hostage said.
Your response is both infantile and sociopathic. Yes, the UN does not have the force to rape, murder, pillage, ethnically cleanse, commit genocide, make war, carry out assassinations, etc etc etc (for more see the entire history of empires you simple-minded cultist).
FREBLOGS- “Israel has no more obligation to provide for the Palestinians than Micronesia does.”
This is equivalent to saying that the US has no more obligation to provide for the Indians that we forced into miserable reservations having slaughtered most of them in the process of acquiring their land than Micronesia does. This is a profoundly immoral position and you should be ashamed of yourself.
@ Fredblogs
“As for the U.N., when the rest of the world starts obeying them when it isn’t in their own best interests to do it, then what they make will be law. Until then it is just suggestions …”
What I’ve learned from Zionists like Fredblogs today:
The Holocaust was not illegal, because not all the countries obeyed to international law or the League of Nations. Germany for example didn’t.
“Israel has no more obligation to provide for the Palestinians than Micronesia does.”
It has according to the Geneva Conventions it ratified.
@Blake
Sea and airspace, not land. And sorry to keep harping on this, but for territory to be occupied the occupier has to occupy it, not just blockade it.
Even during Cast Lead the Israelis weren’t acting as a de facto government of Gaza, so that was an invasion, not an occupation.
ziobrats! i like your terminology jwp
big shout out to hostage. i was exhausted, pissed just not in the mood to go on a hunting exhibition (but i sure knew where to look!). no excuse, i should have this all memorized by now.
The “security measures” prevent Gazans from getting half of the aid they got before the blockade. So it is a collective punishment.
israel likes knowing gazans have to crawl thru dangerous deathly tunnels to get their supplies, it turns them on. then for sport they bomb the tunnels on occasion, to keep their captives in fear. it’s part of the sadistic nature of the blockade.
hostage..what you think you know about law just shows that you aren’t worth listening to on the subject
LOL says the hasbrat w/zero references and oodles of myth assertions.
for territory to be occupied the occupier has to occupy it, not just blockade it
do you have any source documents to back that up..besides the weekly standrd of frontpagemag? i didn’t think so.
link to imeu.net
Sea and airspace, not land. And sorry to keep harping on this, but for territory to be occupied the occupier has to occupy it, not just blockade it.
Wrong! The territory is considered occupied on the basis of the exercise of authority, either directly or indirectly by the IDF. link to avalon.law.yale.edu
Under customary international law, as reflected in Article 42 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention, territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
The rules contained in Articles 6, 7, & 8 of the Fourth Geneva Convention establish the terms and duration of the application of the Conventions to the occupied territory. After an invasion and occupation, the Convention remains fully applicable for a period of “one year after the close of hostilities”. Blockades are an act of war, so the Convention still applies.
In addition, Articles 7 & 8 allow the Occupying Power to establish and exercise its authority indirectly via “special agreements” with the local officials of the occupied territory, under arrangements like those contained in the Jericho and Gaza agreements. Those Articles also govern the duration of the special agreements. Under the terms of the interim agreements, Israel agreed to withdraw its armed forces from the areas and delegate certain security responsibilities, while retaining overall control of the population registry, coastal territorial waters, radio spectrum, air space, & certain rights of economic decision making. The Convention makes it quite clear that the special agreements cannot derogate from the protections afforded by the Convention; that any more favorable terms offered by special agreements remain in effect and cannot lapse until one year after the hostilities cease; or while protected persons remain prisoners in the custody of the Occupying power; or while protected persons remain displaced and in need of repatriation or resettlement.
You possibly need reminding ALL of Israel is actually occupied Palestine
As for the U.N., when the rest of the world starts obeying them when it isn’t in their own best interests to do it, then what they make will be law. Until then it is just suggestions, particularly since it “calls for” humanitarian assistance but does not mandate anything.
When one of the organs of the United Nations “calls for” its members to do something, like provide food, fuel, and medical supplies during an armed conflict and/or a humanitarian crisis, that is a mandate for action under the terms of Articles 24 and 25 of the UN Charter.
The rest of the world is waiting on Israel to honor its UN Charter and other international humanitarian treaty obligations without being tasked to do so, not vice versa. I supplied you with the press release from the Security Council in which all of the members made statements that disagree with your interpretation of the situation. Most of the members said the blockade is illegal. So opinio juris among the Council members themselves is that Israel is not fulfilling its international obligations and is violating resolution 1860 and international law in the process.
This is hardly the first time that Israel has failed to provide the UN with every assistance. FYI, the defendant state in the Reparations case that I cited above was Israel. The ICJ ruled that the members had created an Organization that demanded attention, cooperation, and respect – even from a non-member state. With regard to the prohibition on the threat of use of force, Article 2(6) provides that
In the Reparations case, the Court ruled that:
UNRWA is certainly entitled to pursue claims against Israel for perishable items of permitted medical and food aid which have expired due to the excessive time taken to get permission to pass through an illegal blockade or closed border crossings.
Even during Cast Lead the Israelis weren’t acting as a de facto government of Gaza, so that was an invasion, not an occupation.
Let’s read the official commentary on Article 6 of the 4th Geneva Convention paying attention to the travaux préparatoires, in particular the work of the Rapporteur of the Committee III of plenipotentiary diplomats to the 1949 Geneva Conference:
link to icrc.org
“Israel has no more obligation to provide for the Palestinians than Micronesia does.” It has according to the Geneva Conventions it ratified.
Security Council Resolution 1860 cited the need for Member States to intensify efforts to provide arrangements and guarantees in Gaza to ensure the sustained reopening of the crossing points on the basis of the Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA) between the Palestinian Authority and Israel dated 15 November 2005.
The parties agreed that the passages would operate continuously. On an urgent basis. The agreement also contained commitments from the parties that construction of a sea port could commence; that Israel would not interfere in the operation of the port; and that a U.S.-led tripartite committee would develop security and other relevant arrangements for the operation of the port prior to its opening. So Israel has explicit obligations in addition to those shared by all of the Members States to provide arrangements and guarantees in Gaza for the continuous provision of humanitarian aid, including food, fuel, and medical treatment.
@Hostage
Interesting. If your statements about “no delay between invasion and occupation” are accurate, then I stand corrected on that point. In that case, during Cast Lead, Gaza (or at least the parts of it with Israeli troops) was once again occupied. However, since there are no Israeli troops in Gaza now, it isn’t occupied now.
Also, you are wrong about no loopholes. “Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.” 4th Geneva Article 4.
@Annie Robbins
According to your link about the US “recognizing” that Gaza is currently occupied.
“Residents of the Gaza Strip under Hamas had no right to political participation or to choose their government. Other human rights problems in the Gaza Strip included reports that Hamas security forces continued to kill, torture, kidnap, arbitrarily detain, and harass Fatah members and other Palestinians with impunity. There were reports of abuse of prisoners and failure to provide fair trials to those accused. Hamas also strictly restricted the freedom of speech, religion, and movement of the Gaza Strip residents. Corruption reportedly was a problem. Hamas promoted gender discrimination against women. Domestic violence against women also remained a problem. Hamas and other Palestinian factions in the Gaza Strip launched rockets and mortars against civilian targets in Israel.”
Looks like the U.S. has some notion that Hamas is in charge in Gaza. Since Hamas isn’t a branch of the IDF, I guess that shows that the U.S. doesn’t consider Gaza occupied. It says it was occupied in 1967, but nothing about whether it is occupied now. It just seems to be lumped into the section on occupied territories because it was occupied back then. Still in that section for convenience, not a policy statement.
I guess that shows that the U.S. doesn’t consider Gaza occupied.
i saw your text at the link fred. whether the U.S. has some notion that Hamas is in charge in Gaza is really not the point. did you see the heading of the section of the report? here’s what it says:
guess that shows the U.S. considers Gaza occupied.
the U.S. probably has some notion the PA is in charge of areas inside the WB too. it’s still occupied territory.
@Annie Robbins
Of course I saw it. Saw it and mentioned it. I dismiss it as merely a label of convenience rather than a policy statement. They probably have similar reports going back well before Gaza was de-occupied and just copy the format from them without bothering to update them. I guess Arafat and Sharon must be alive and in charge too, since a leftover reference in a new letter said so.
Also, you are wrong about no loopholes. “Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.” 4th Geneva Article 4.
If Palestine is a State, which Israel denies, then it is a High Contracting Party bound by the Convention. If Palestine is not a State, then your so-called loophole is inapplicable. The official commentary stipulates that:
– link to icrc.org
– See Palestinian Statehood: Economy Not Stable Enough, Israeli Government Report Finds link to huffingtonpost.com
BTW the Security Council, General Assembly, the ICJ, and the Government of Switzerland acting in its role as depositary have all stated that they consider Palestine to be bound by the terms of the Geneva Conventions.
A paper presented to the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva in 1999 noted that:
link to unispal.un.org
The issue became so contentious that the Diplomatic Conference of the High Contracting Parties was reconvened once again to answer the question. On 5 December 2001, a conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention concerning the application of international humanitarian law in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, took place in Geneva. It reached a consensus decision that the 4th Geneva Convention applies in the Palestinian territories on a de jure basis. The ICRC issued its own statement which explained that it had always affirmed the de jure applicability of the convention in the OPT and the fact that Israel is bound by the customary rules of occupation.
link to icrc.org
FYI The ICJ noted that Palestine gave a unilateral undertaking, by declaration of 7 June 1982, to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention and that Switzerland, as depositary State, considered that unilateral undertaking valid. See para 91 of the Wall advisory opinion. link to icj-cij.org
In 1989 when the State of Palestine applied for membership in UNESCO, it supplied a list of 93 other member states that had already recognized its 1988 Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI).
link to unesdoc.unesco.org
link to unesdoc.unesco.org
The Palestine national delegation was admitted as a full member of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Organization in 2006.
By 2011 when it renewed its efforts, it applied for membership in the UN and UNESCO on the basis of that same 1988 UDI, about 130 countries had formally recognized it. The Geneva Convention is open to accession by any state and it has been universally ratified. So all of those countries are under a treaty obligation to treat Palestine as another High Contracting Party,
If your statements about “no delay between invasion and occupation” are accurate, then I stand corrected on that point.
The official commentary speaks for itself. The legal analysis contained in paragraph 125 et. seq of the 2004 Wall case also addressed that very same point.
However, since there are no Israeli troops in Gaza now, it isn’t occupied now.
Once applied, the Occupying Power remains bound by the rules of occupation for a term of one year after hostile military operations have ceased. The blockade and the patrols of restricted coastal zones and air space outlined in the Oslo II, and retained by the Disengagement Plan are, by definition, government security measures; acts of war; and hostile military operations as reflected by the terms of the agreements and by the customary jus in bellum rules contained the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.
i should have this all memorized by now.
No his arguments are meant to bog you down in irrelevant details and distract attention away from the simple facts and the applicable laws and customs of war (jus in bello) contained in the 4th Geneva Convention and the 1st Additional Protocol.
Fred’s latest posts demonstrate just how clueless he really is. He claims that Palestinians are nationals of a State, while the MFA has been working overtime since 1988 trying to establish that they are not! If Palestine is a State the objections to its 1982 accession to the Geneva Conventions and Protocols are moot.
*Under the terms of Article 6(3) and 7(2) of the 4th Geneva Convention, the Convention and any Special Agreements between the Occupying Power and local officials shall only cease to apply one year after the general close of military operations.
*Blockades and naval patrols in coastal territorial waters are, by definition, on-going hostile military operations according to the laws and customs of war reflected in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.
*Israel published “The Disengagement Plan” for Gaza and Northern Samaria, dated April 18, 2004. link to mfa.gov.il
*The Plan explicitly stated that the existing Israeli-Palestinian special agreements were not affected by the plan. The Israeli-Palestinian agreements in-turn stipulated that the coastal waters are part of the Territorial jurisdiction of Gaza and that Israel would retain through its military government, the necessary legislative, judicial and executive powers and responsibilities, in accordance with international law and Israeli legislation, including exercise of authority with regard to the electromagnetic sphere, air space, air traffic control and standards. Israel also retained the right to exercise security activity in the maritime zones in the sea off the coast of the Gaza Strip. link to mfa.gov.il
*In September of 2004 the ICJ rejected Israel’s arguments that the Geneva Conventions do not apply on a de jure basis throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Israeli-Palestinian Agreements are without any doubt “special agreements” in accordance with the rules of occupation contained in Article 6 & 7 of the 4th Geneva Convention. The Convention will remain in force until at least one year after hostile military operations, like the blockade, have ceased. These agreements establish and allow Israel to exercise authority and effective control as defined in Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Convention rules.
The withdrawal or redeployment of forces under the Disengagement Plan or the Israeli-Palestinian Agreements does not alter the legal situation:
The Plan announced Israel’s determination that Gaza would remain demilitarized and devoid of weaponry in accordance with “the Israeli-Palestinian agreements.” Israel also stated that it would control aspects of Gaza’s foreign relations. For example, it said no foreign security presence may enter the Gaza Strip without being coordinated with and approved by Israel.
* Finally the Israeli-Palestinian Agreement provided for the transfer of some functions of government to an elected Palestinian Council, but it was dismantled by the IDF and its members were imprisoned. Fred forgot to mention that.
I dismiss it as merely a label of convenience rather than a policy statement.
Fred the ICJ has handled cases where the parties were disputing the limits of their territorial jurisdiction over the uninhabited Continental shelf. See North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark/Netherlands). link to icj-cij.org
*Chapter 4 Legal Affairs para. 2 of the Israeli-Palestinian Agreement referenced in the Disengagement Plan explained that “Territorial jurisdiction” includes land, subsoil and territorial waters. The same agreement says that Israel has retained through its military government, the necessary legislative, judicial and executive powers and responsibilities to exercise authority with regard to the electromagnetic sphere, air space, air traffic control and exercise security in the coastal maritime zones located in the territorial waters of the Gaza Strip.
*. . . [I]nternational law defines “territory” not by adopting private law
analogies of real property, but by reference to the extent of government
power exercised, or capable of being exercised with respect to some area and population.” See James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, 1979, page 42
That “area” can be an uninhabited continental shelf, coastal or territorial waters, or air space over which the population and its government have jurisdiction.
*”The manifestation of sovereignty in tangible form is jurisdiction.” See the discussion on the meaning of sovereignty on page 73 in the Yearbook of the International Law Commission for 1949 link to untreaty.un.org
*Para 89 of the ICJ Wall case advisory opinion said: “The Court also observes that, pursuant to Article 154 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that Convention is supplementary to Sections II and III of the Hague Regulations. Section III of those Regulations, which concerns “Military authority over the territory of the hostile State”, is particularly pertinent in the present case.”
*That means the supplementary rules in Article 6, “Beginning and end of application” and Article 7 “Special Agreements” must be read in conjunction with the Hague Rules.
*Neither Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Convention rules nor Articles 6 & 7 of the 4th Geneva Convention require the military to remain in the area or govern it directly. Territory is “considered occupied” from the outset as invading troops or naval forces advance into the area and encounter civilians. Once the responsibilities of the military as an Occupying Power have been engaged, several of the rules of occupation will remain in effect for one year after any hostile military operations have ceased. link to icrc.org
*The State of Israel has reserved its right to exercise many powers and functions of government and has agreed to supply fuel, water, and electricity under existing special agreements. It is still launches incursions and is physically occupying areas subject to Gaza’s territorial jurisdiction in accordance with the Israeli-Palestinian Agreements. So the territory must be considered occupied and treated accordingly.
To be a high contracting party, the Palestinians have to join the treaty, they haven’t. As for the U.N. Security Council, assuming they even said that, since you sometimes distort what they say, I’m just assuming for the sake of argument, they can say that black is white, that doesn’t make it so.
The way I know the Palestinians aren’t bound by the GCs is that they never follow them. Where was Gilad Shalit’s GC rights? Red cross visits? Nope. Contact with family through letters? Nope. Nowhere. Because the Palestinians don’t follow the GCs. So they can live with the consequences.
The GCs also say you aren’t allowed to bomb civilian targets, the Palestinians prefer civilian targets. The attempt to apply the GCs to the Palestinians when they neither signed them nor obey them is a violation of the GCs themselves and is purely an attempt to tie Israel’s hands while leaving the Palestinians free to murder Israelis.
To be a high contracting party, the Palestinians have to join the treaty, they haven’t
Wrong, unlike the United Nations Organization, the Geneva Convention has no membership or rules regarding the subject of membership. The Convention says that “any Power” can file an accession to the treaty. Palestine did that in 1989 (more below).
The ICJ noted the clauses on non-renunciation; the fact that Jordan and Israel had both been High Contracting Parties when the War started; and the fact that the Convention is applicable to any territory subject to the jurisdiction of one of the parties to a conflict. Israel raised objections about the de jure applicability of the Geneva Conventions. See for example Annex 1, Summary legal position of the Government of Israel: link to unispal.un.org
The Legal Consequences flowing from the Geneva Conventions were the subject of the request for an Advisory Opinion. The Court mentioned the fact that Israel disputed the de jure applicability of the Convention, but rejected its arguments because they did not represent a good-faith interpretation of the Convention, as required by the customary law on interpretation reflected in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Court also noted that the States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention approved it’s own interpretation at their Conference on 15 July 1995. They issued a statement in which they “reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”. See paras 90-96 of the Advisory Opinion.
Israel has never used the enquiry procedures in Article 149 to challenge those findings, despite the fact that each one contained allegations concerning alleged violations from the UN Security Council, General Assembly, ICJ, UN HRC treaty bodies, the ICRC, and the other state parties.
Article 155 says that:
Article 157 says that:
So if there is any doubt about an accession before or after the beginning of hostilities or occupation, the accession is given the benefit of the doubt and takes immediate effect.
On 21 June 1989, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs received a letter from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Office at Geneva informing the Swiss Federal Council “that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto”.
On 13 September 1989, the Swiss Federal Council informed the States that it was not in a position to decide on their behalf whether the letter constituted an instrument of accession, “due to the uncertainty within the international community as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine”.
link to icrc.org
The ICJ reported in 2004, that the Government of Switzerland considered it a valid legal undertaking for its own part. The UNESCO links that I supplied establish that the State of Palestine was recognized by the numerical majority of the other High Contracting Parties to the Convention in 1989. That fact was affirmed in 1999 and again in 2001 when the representative of the PLO introduced resolutions that were adopted by the General Assembly calling for the Diplomatic Conference of the High Contracting Parties to be reconvened to answer the question about the applicability of the Convention. The ICRC issued a formal statement which said the Convention had always been applicable and that the inhabitants were protected persons. Palestine was subsequently admitted as a full member state to the International Federation of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent Societies in 2006.
P.S. Fred you originally asked where it said that Israel was supposed to “provide” for the inhabitants of Gaza?
I’ve shown you where UN Security Council resolutions and its own Disengagement Plan say that its supposed to provide water, food, fuel, medical treatment, and electricity in accordance with existing agreements or the terms of the resolution. I’ve shown you where the Geneva Conventions say that those special agreements remain in force for at least a year after the end of hostile military operations like the blockade, incursions, bombing, and shelling of a territory once it has been occupied.
I’ve also given you links to the Israeli-Palestinian agreements which say that Israel has retained and exercises many functions of government in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
All you’ve manged to do is raise a bunch of bad faith objections. Some of those, like your arguments about statehood vs statelessness, don’t even represent the government of Israel’s official positions. Annie has asked, and now I’m asking for you to provide the links to the governments or organizations which support your positions.
The ICJ had no jurisdiction in the case you’re are referring to. They didn’t go into any reasoning for why the GCs should apply, they just assumed it should. Also as you said. the Palestinians were turned down for membership in the GCs in 1989 (ironically, since they weren’t a state). But at the end of it all, dress it up in any pompous quasi-legal obfuscation and the fact remains that the Palestinians do not obey the GCs. So any complaints about Israel breaking them from the Palestinians are like someone whining that someone stole something from him that he stole from someone else.
Similar to the clean hands doctrine.
The ICJ had no jurisdiction in the case you’re are referring to.
Article 96 of the UN Charter says:
The Statute of the International Court of Justice is annexed to the Charter of the United Nations, of which it forms an integral part. Article 65 says:
They didn’t go into any reasoning for why the GCs should apply, they just assumed it should.
In fact the Courts legal analysis is contained in paragraphs 89-101, on printed pages 172-177 – that’s five pages of reasoning. You should try reading it.
Also as you said. the Palestinians were turned down for membership in the GCs in 1989 (ironically, since they weren’t a state).
I explained that there is no such thing as membership in the Geneva Conventions and that during hostilities or occupations an accession has immediate force and effect. In 1989 the depositary sent all of the High Contracting Parties the notice about the accession as required by the Convention and simply noted the uncertainty over the existence of a State of Palestine. A controversy over a matter of fact pertaining to the interpretation of the term “any Power” in the text of the treaty would have to be decided by the ICJ or the Diplomatic Conference of the Geneva Conventions. Both of those bodies have agreed that the Conventions have always applied to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that the Palestinians are protected persons.
Recognition by other states and the existence of foreign relations, as evidenced by treaties, is normally considered evidence of statehood. International Courts are capable of determining the existence of statehood based upon those sort of material facts. See for example, “The Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic – Case No. IT-02-54-T (Rule 98 bis test – Deportation, forcible transfer and cross border transfer – Definition of a State)”.
Israel has signed agreements with the PLO to establish borders and which grant the PA territorial jurisdiction over coastal waters. Only States can establish borders and only States can exercise jurisdiction over territorial waters. So Israel has been acknowledging PLO and PA powers that are reserved only for States. During a June 12, 2007 meeting with the US Ambassador, IDI Director MG Amos Yadlin said Israel would be “happy” if Hamas took over Gaza because the IDF could then deal with Gaza as a hostile state. The U.S. State Department explains that blockades have historically resulted in belligerent recognition of statehood, because they are “a weapon of war between sovereign states.” link to future.state.gov
So there’s some pretty good evidence that might lead a Court to conclude that Israel has already implicitly recognized Palestine as a state.
any complaints about Israel breaking them from the Palestinians are like someone whining that someone stole something from him that he stole from someone else. . . . Similar to the clean hands doctrine.
Yet another example of bad faith. In criminal law, two wrongs do not make a right. Despite the fact that the ICC is a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples, Article 31 of the Rome Statute, “Grounds for excluding criminal responsibility” does NOT include tu quoque arguments or the clean hands doctrine. So, the fact that an enemy is committing similar crimes or that everyone else is doing it would not be a valid defense. Here are some references that help explain that principle:
The accused cannot rely on the fact that allegedly there were also atrocities committed by the opposing force. In international law there is no justification for attacks on civilians carried out either by virtue of the tu quoque principle (i.e. the argument whereby the fact that the adversary is committing similar crimes offers a valid defence to a belligerent’s crimes) or on the strength of the principle of reprisals.
*Judgment of the Trial Chamber in Case Kupreškić et al., (January 2000), para. 765;
As the Defence was reminded many times during the trial, the fact that the Muslim side may have committed similar atrocities against Serb civilians, an argument brought up mutatis mutandis by almost every Serb accused and Defence counsel before the Tribunal, is irrelevant in the context of this case.
*Judgment of the Trial Chamber in Case Kunarac et al., (February 2001), para. 580;
As noted by the Trial Chamber, when establishing whether there was an attack upon a particular civilian population, it is not relevant that the other side also committed atrocities against its opponent’s civilian population. The existence of an attack from one side against the other side’s civilian population would neither justify the attack by that other side against the civilian population of its opponent nor displace the conclusion that the other side’s forces were in fact targeting a civilian population as such. Each attack against the other’s civilian population would be equally illegitimate and crimes committed as part of this attack could, all other conditions being met, amount to crimes against humanity.
*Judgment of the Appeals Chamber in Case Kunarac et al., (January 2002), para. 87;
Before turning to consider the KLA’s conduct, the Chamber would emphasise at the outset that the existence of an attack from one side involved in an armed conflict against the other side’s civilian population does not justify an attack by that other side against the civilian population of its opponent. The tu quoque principle has no application. Nevertheless, the Chamber is conscious of the operations of the Serbian forces in Kosovo, which deployed tactics that included the razing of villages and the expulsion of civilians from villages, and which caused considerable and widespread civilian suffering.
*Judgment of the Trial Chamber in Case Limaj et al., (November 2005), para. 193.
For an exhaustive overview of the subject of tu quoque arguments in the proceedings of international criminal tribunals See:
*Sienho Yee, “The Tu Quoque Argument as a Defence to International Crimes, Prosecution or Punishment”, Chinese Journal of International Law (2004) 3(1): 87-134;
Fred, ask yourself why the money for the Palestinians is desperately needed, in contrast to the bloated, over indulged Israeli addiction to US citizens’ wallets. Without the Israelis’ vindictive siege, Palestinians wouldn’t need funds to survive on the most basic poverty level.
Without the siege and the donations they get as a result, the Palestinians would probably be in about the same situation as Egypt, instead of much better off financially.
What a ridiculous assertion. Palestine has all the conditions necessary for an economic boom, including a highly educated workforce and firm ties to international organisations. Yet you say they’re much better off living with the malnutrition caused by the blockade. Any proof?
I suppose the Palestinians should be grateful for all the infrastructure Israel has destroyed, from farmland to solar panels, right? It’s ‘creative’ destruction! Those damn uppity Arabs need to be more grateful to their colonial overlords!
@ Fredblogs,
Q: I have an idea…
R: It’s not nice to fart in a spacesuit…
Could work if Israel would follow international law, stop the occupation, abandon the settlements let the refugees return to their homeland. (This also counts for 1/4 of Israel Arabs which Israel doesn’t allow to return to their property.)
the money we give to the UN that funds UNRWA.
The UNRWA has always been funded by voluntary contributions from the member states. It’s not funded by assessments levied on the members in the form of dues.
The fact that the UN stepped-in and provided food and tents for the refugees of 48-49 was the only thing that kept the situation from becoming a case of genocide. FYI, the travaux préparatoires for the 1950 Refugee Convention are available online. They document the brave efforts of Israel and its allies to define the term “refugee” so that it only applied to victims of the war in Europe (and excluded the millions that had been displaced or made homeless by their wars in Asia). link to unhcr.org
They document the brave efforts of Israel and its allies to define the term “refugee” so that it only applied to victims of the war in Europe (and excluded the millions that had been displaced or made homeless by their wars in Asia)
that’s a rather long document. are you referencing Dr Weis? i noticed it read
what does that mean?
that’s a rather long document. are you referencing Dr Weis?
No I was talking about the verbatim minutes of the various sessions. Article 1 contains the definition of the term refugee, so it isn’t too surprising that it was passed over without much comment.
In the past I thought Pincus played a role in keeping roadblocks against reporting honestly about the I/P issue up in which ever media outlets he was working for.
Henry Norr,
You are absolutely right when you say that Walter Pincus represents a significant current within the ruling class that is unhappy with the wholehearted US embrace of Israel. (Not your exact words).
The same can be said for Jimmy Carter’s book, Peace not Apartheid. Carter knew perfectly well that he would receive a smear attempt by the Israel Lobby. Retired Presidents don’t normally run these risks. Carter must have believed the US to be on the wrong track.
And for that matter, Walt and Mearshimer are card-carrying members of the foreign policy Establishment, who normally do not court public controversy.
So that’s three public criticisms of the excessive US dependence on Israel, and I think it’s fair to say that they represent a significant current within ruling-class opinion.
Some in congress are trying:
[1]JStreet – The political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans
Just hours ago, those banging the drums of war with Iran were dealt a
major blow.
The House of Representatives declared unequivocally that nothing in the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorizes the use of force
against Iran. This declaration is the direct result of a bipartisan J
Street-supported amendment led by Representatives John Conyers (D-MI),
Keith Ellison (D-MN), Walter Jones (R-NC) and Ron Paul (R-TX).
Additionally, scores of Members of Congress — including your
Representative, Walter Jones – expressed their belief in diplomacy as the
best means of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by supporting
an amendment offered by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and John Conyers. This
amendment would authorize the appointment of a high-level representative
for diplomacy with Iran, and eliminate the U.S. Government’s “no
contact” policy with Iranian officials. J Street also lobbied in support
of this important legislation, which garnered 77 votes.
awesome!!!! what a relief.
I read Rand Paul had a lot to do with it, from MJRosenberg tweet If memory serves. Oh, that was the Senate. Gotta love that Paul family, not many left…
Yeah – last of the American patriots.
I have a horrible feeling that one day Israel will reap the terrible whirlwind it has so brazenly sown.
Beware the wrath of the United States – it can be very cruel to small client nations.
We have to get zionist money out of politics, first.
Woody, how to do that? What US political leader in our government will get on the nightly news and explain to the masses who gets the biggest chunk of foreign aid, and who is the largest recipient in US history, and why? And tell them nothing will change unless our campaign finance system is changed to one financed solely by tax dollars?
Ron Paul will – if we let him.
That’s not true. Ron Paul is in the same Zionst party that Obama is in – and Obama went completely opposite his campaign promises. Don’t waste your vote on the Dem/Repub rubbish. There’s only one outcome – more of the same…
What is the basis of your claim about Ron Paul?
I’m not ready to agree with Stevieb that “Ron Paul is in the same Zionst party that Obama is in” (nor am I a Paul fan), but the following item from Business Insider is pertinent:
Woody- I agree that Aipac money and Israel support money has distorted the American government’s decision making regarding Israel.
There are two possible solutions: 1. General rules to limit campaign contributions. or 2. Specific rules targeting campaign contributions by those who favor Zionism.
both seem to be long shots.
I get the feeling most of this is forced and Americans are supposed never to find out about it.
If you take a look at the list of non-NATO countries the US government has gone “above and beyond” for – it’s a real indictment of Israel. From Suharto to Saddam – if your government is relying on American largesse for its political survival, you are living in a military dictatorship. I often wonder why this doesnt get remarked on more.
Maybe because some dont want to think it was always going to be this way – perhaps its better to think somewhere along the line things changed.
@ Dan Crowther,
Team-USA-think doesn’t allow for a broader perception of the world or a widening horizon. That’s why 94% of the populace doesn’t have a passport. Home’s good. Home’s sweet. Home is my land…
I think that you overly generalize. There are also absolute monarchies on that list. Plus, usually the aid is modest. For example, when Suharto massacred ca. 500,000 alleged Communist, CIA provided him with a list of targets that were presumably added to already identified targets, but it is hard to believe that Suharto’s survival depended on that.
The same WaPo that permitted hundreds of comments about Tiger Woods’s latest temper tantrum a few weeks ago closed comments after 9 had been posted to this important piece. Is there something wrong with this picture? BTW, Congrats, Mr. Pincus, for speaking truth to power!
Walter Pincus has more insight into the Israel Lobby than any other American journalist. That is because, as a special investigator on Sen JW Fulbright’s staff during the investigation of foreign agents in the United States, he could see how the Israeli government, through the Jewish Agency and AIPAC’s parent organization the AZC, were basically writing legislation for Congress, or as he said,
“I think this is a good example of a foreign principal — the Israeli Government– using the U.S. Senate to promote its aims.”
His best investigative work is still classified at the National Archives where it may be fully released in 2013. The investigation was launched because the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was worried about “Lavon style” overseas Israeli provocations influencing US policy.
Since leaving Fulbright’s staff in the 1960′s, Pincus has mostly avoided this issue, when he wasn’t writing inaccurate coverage of the AIPAC espionage case. That he’s taking it up again is probably a sign that he’s getting ready to retire.
“Since leaving Fulbright’s staff in the 1960′s, Pincus has mostly avoided this issue, when he wasn’t writing inaccurate coverage of the AIPAC espionage case. That he’s taking it up again is probably a sign that he’s getting ready to retire.”
Interesting that there is a note in Pincus’s notes that allege Fulbright asked him not to report about the investigation. And then he wrote “inaccurate coverage of the Aipac expionage case”
Can it be verified through other sources that Fulbright allegedly asked him not to write about the investigations? Pincus writing inaccurately about the Aipac espionage case would sure bring that claim into question.
And what a convenient way out to claim such a thing
This is interesting about Walter Pincus if trueZionists and the Foreign Agents Investigation
Leonard R. Sussman
Issues
Fall 1997
“When Fulbright returned to Arkansas to take part in a state-wide political campaign he was harassed at his fund-raiser. Zionists badgered him over his “anti-Israel” views. The decision to expose the Israeli lobby, according to Fulbright’s biographer Randall Bennett Woods, “was not Fulbright’s but [staffer Walter] Pincus’s, who was himself Jewish.” His investigation, writes Woods, “had revealed clearly that agents of the Jewish Agency and other American Zionists had violated provisions of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.”
Pincus did incredible work on the investigation. But there were many Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee who wondered where Isaiah Kenen was getting his funding for massive lobbying and PR campaigns.
When they started tracing it back to the Jewish Agency, Kenen promptly fled the country for a year.
There is a note in the Archives of Pincus promising Fulbright not to write about the Foreign Agents investigation. Maybe he still feels bound by that.
Why would Fulbright ask that of Pincus? And why would that hold Pincus back about writing about facts on the ground in the I/P conflict over his career? Has he written about this issue? Can not find anything.
What do you think about his role in the Plame outing?
Thanks for all you do
1. Why promise not to write about it? There are plenty of reasons. During the Foreign Agents investigation, which covered many countries, investigators like Judge Sifton and Walter Pincus were aggressively obtaining records under subpoena, making lawyers mad, getting tax returns from the IRS, and keeping lines of communication open with the Justice Department for potential prosecutions. They also stumbled across CIA front companies operating out of SE Asian and had to wind back their investigation of those after run-ins. One of the reasons Pincus landed the job with Fulbright, which is evident in the documentary record, was for his in-depth news reporting about corrupt foreign agents working out of the Caribbean. I think there was a mutual (Fulbright/Pincus) concern that a reporter brought in to investigate not leak privileged information, particularly with so many white shoe law firms representing foreign agents and making attorney client privilege claims involved.
2. Why would Pincus hold back about writing facts about I/P? Pincus knows how the lobby really operates and what its capable of. I think he judged (accurately) that it was better for his reporting career to work around them, and he’s far from alone in doing that. The claim isn’t that he made a promise never to write about the Israel lobby, leveraging his inside knowledge. The claim is that he probably found it in his interest not to. If you look around establishment media for an elite and informed reporter covering the lobby with the warranted scrutiny it merits, you’ll find there aren’t any.
3. Pincus wrote inaccurate AIPAC espionage case coverage? Yes, but in 2006. Pincus, who had relatively recently received a law degree, wrote that the standard of evidence needed to convict Rosen and Weissman was much higher than it actually was, misleading readers. When called on it, it took a month of fighting with the WAPO ombudsman to get him to correct his flawed story.
link to irmep.org
4. “Can it be verified through other sources that Fulbright allegedly asked him not to write about the investigations? Pincus writing inaccurately about the Aipac espionage case would sure bring that claim into question.” Apples and oranges. The Pincus note in the National Archives is about not talking about the *1960s* foreign agents investigation, not the 2005 AIPAC espionage investigations. Two different things. Can the Pincus note currently be verified through other sources? No. But anyone who wants to can go crack the boxes that have been declassified at the National Archives.
From wikipedia “After his discharge from the Army, Pincus worked at the copy desk of the Wall Street Journal’s Washington edition, leaving in 1959 to become Washington correspondent for three North Carolina newspapers. In a 18-month sabbatical he took in 1962, he directed his first of two investigations for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under J. William Fulbright. The investigations into foreign government lobbying led to a revision of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. In 1963, he joined the Washington Star, and in 1966 he moved to the Washington Post, where he worked till 1969. In 1969 till 1970 he directed another investigation for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, looking into U.S. military and security commitments abroad and their effect on U.S. foreign policy, which eventually led to the McGovern-Hatfield amendment to end the Vietnam War.[2]”
#If Pincus was such an intricate part of Fulbright’s investigative team into “foreign government lobbying” why is it that he has not written much about the I lobby and Israel’s influence over US foreign policy over the years. Can’t find anything by him from years ago about this issue.
Known role Pincus played in the Plame outing:
“I think it got turned into a crime by the press, by Joe” — Wilson — “by the Democrats. The New York Times kept running editorials saying that it’s got to be investigated — never thinking that it was going to turn around and bite them.”
Interesting read on Pincus role in the Plame outing
Why Isn’t Walter Pincus Being Called as a Witness?
Why isn’t Patrick Fitzgerald calling WaPo reporter Walter Pincus as a witness in the Scooter Libby trial?
We now know from the grand jury testimony and briefs (pdf) that Scooter Libby was a source for Walter Pincus’s June 12, 2003 article on Wilson’s trip to Africa. On October 12, 2003, Pincus wrote:
On July 12, two days before Novak’s column, a Post reporter was told by an administration official that the White House had not paid attention to the former ambassador’s CIA-sponsored trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction. Plame’s name was never mentioned and the purpose of the disclosure did not appear to be to generate an article, but rather to undermine Wilson’s report.
Fitz writes in a footnote to his brief filed Sunday,
Defendant testified before the grand jury that he could have been a source for Walter Pincus’s June 12, 2003 article, and that it was during preparation for providing information to Mr. Pincus that the Vice President informed him that former Ambassador Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. 3/5/04 GJ Tr. at 60-63.
And this young fella seems to have gone “above and beyond” for Israel
May 15, 2012 9:28amIran Hangs ‘Israeli Spy’ for Nuclear Scientist Assassination: Iranian state media reported today the man convicted of assassinating an Iranian nuclear scientist on behalf of the Israeli spy agency Mossad has been executed by hanging in an Iranian prison.
The Iranian government claims Majid Jamali Fashi, 24, was recruited and trained by Mossad to be a spy and was paid $120,000 to kill Iranian nuclear physicist Massoud Ali-Mohammadi in January 2010. Mohammadi died after a motorcycle packed with explosives was detonated by remote control as he walked past. Fashi also confessed to receiving forged travel documents in Azerbaijan to travel to Israel, Iran’s Press TV reported
It’s hard to take Pincus seriously when an entirely new settlement pops up every six months or so somewhere in the occupied West Bank. “Settlement,” meaning housing units, paved roads, shopping centers, utilities, water, parks, public swimming pools and more.
It’s also hard to take Pincus seriously when Israel builds an entire tunnel for vehicle traffic or an entire interchange in a matter of a few months. Visit Israel today, and then return for another visit next year and you are bound to find yourself astounded at the amount of money that the state pours into public works, infrastructure and landscaping.
Entire mountains are sliced in mere months, removed to make way for a new road or a new settlement.
It doesn’t seem like Pincus fully understands what he is writing about.
How ’bout we march the entire racist Israeli Knesset and genocidal IDF corps to the ICC and take several changes of under wear for them to enjoy their visit at the home of Lady Justice. (Not that I think ‘stooge’ Luis O’Campo knows much about how to administer justice [Unless your Serbian or African, of course] without instructions from the Great Satan and the bankrupt NATO oil thieves.