This so-called “pro-Israel” letter suggests that the U.S., Israel, and the international community prohibit contact with ALL members of the Palestinian Authority if it does not meet the Quartet requirements: recognize Israel, renounce violence, and abide by previous agreements. This would prevent diplomatic engagement with moderate Palestinians who seek peace with Israel, such as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who remains the key Palestinian negotiator in any unity government, and other Fatah and independent members of the Palestinian Authority.

At a time when the U.S. should be supporting forces of moderation among the Palestinians, this letter weakens those forces and demonstrates to the Palestinian people that moderation brings them nothing.

Moreover, this letter is in direct opposition to the wait-and-see approach taken by Israel and the United States. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert met with President Abbas on Sunday and plans to meet him again , and Secretary Rice is actively trying to reinvigorate the peace process. This is not the time to shut down critically needed diplomatic engagement.

Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz’ Chief U.S. Correspondent has a write up of Obama’s speech as well that offers interesting perspective, but what’s far more interesting on that page are all the zany/scary wingnut comments at bottom. You’d think they just read about Jesus bones turning up in a box somewhere in Jerusalem. — Link

From the site creators:

In its first week, it received thousands of visitors from around the world; was featured by the editors at Buzzfeed, one of the web’s top blog aggregators; and was mentioned in 2 different media stories. More importantly, we broke our first story about Joel Beinin’s talk (see post below) getting cancelled at the Harker School, which was subsequently picked up by the San Jose Mercury News, directly from our blog. In addition to emails from many readers, we’ve heard from reporters who read the blog and have requested tips in the future.

Keep an eye on this group. You know AIPAC is.

Perhaps many of you have already seen this advertisement. It is a full page ad in today’s NY Times. It was paid for by an organization called CAMERA, which many are familiar with. (CAMERA as an acronym is a genius piece of ironic DoubleSpeak, standing for “Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America”). People have been attempting to call the publishing company to offer support to CEO Jack Romanos (who is named in the ad by CAMERA as the person to call and lodge complaint against), but the voice mail for him was full.

I’m passing this along from others who have been emailing people to show support for Simon & Schuster and offer gratitude for the publishing of this book. While not everyone will
agree with everything Carter writes writes in the book, it’s still exists as a powerful call for engagment and a just resolution to a conflict that’s gone on far too long. Call Simon & Shuster’s CEO, Jack Romanos, to offer your support at 212-698-7000, or better yet, buy a copy of Carter’s book. It deserves to get a reading and contains some information that the pro-occupation lobby doesn’t want you to see.

In the last 25 years, many Palestinians and other Arabs, in the United States and in the Arab world, have been so awed by the power of the US pro-Israel lobby that any study, book, or journalistic article that exposes the inner workings, the substantial influence, and the financial and political power of this lobby have been greeted with ecstatic sighs of relief that Americans finally can see the “truth” and the “error” of their ways.

The underlying argument has been simple and has been told time and again by Washington’s regime allies in the Arab world, pro-US liberal and Arab intellectuals, conservative and liberal US intellectuals and former politicians, and even leftist Arab and American activists who support Palestinian rights, namely, that absent the pro- Israel lobby, America would at worst no longer contribute to the oppression of Arabs and Palestinians and at best it would be the Arabs’ and the Palestinians’ best ally and friend. What makes this argument persuasive and effective to Arabs? Indeed, why are its claims constantly brandished by Washington’s Arab friends to Arab and American audiences as a persuasive argument? I contend that the attraction of this argument is that it exonerates the United States’ government from all the responsibility and guilt that it deserves for its policies in the Arab world and gives false hope to many Arabs and Palestinians who wish America would be on their side instead of on the side of their enemies.

Let me start with the premise of the argument, namely its effect of shifting the blame for US policies from the United States onto Israel and its US lobby. According to this logic, it is not the United States that should be held directly responsible for all its imperial policies in the Arab world and the Middle East at large since World War II, rather it is Israel and its lobby who have pushed it to launch policies that are detrimental to its own national interest and are only beneficial to Israel. Establishing and supporting Arab and other Middle East dictatorships, arming and training their militaries, setting up their secret police apparatuses and training them in effective torture methods and counter-insurgency to be used against their own citizens should be blamed, according to the logic of these studies, on Israel and its US lobby. Blocking all international and UN support for Palestinian rights, arming and financing Israel in its war against a civilian population, protecting Israel from the wrath of the international community should also be blamed not on the United States, the studies insist, but on Israel and its lobby. Additionally, and in line with this logic, controlling Arab economies and finances, dominating key investments in the Middle East, and imposing structural adjustment policies by the IMF and the World Bank which impoverish the Arab peoples should also be blamed on Israel, and not the United States. Finally, starving and then invading Iraq, threatening to invade Syria, raiding and then sanctioning Libya and Iran, besieging the Palestinians and their leaders must also be blamed on the Israeli lobby and not the US government. Indeed, over the years, many pro-US Arab dictators let it leak officially and unofficially that their US diplomat friends have told them time and again how much they and “America” support the Arab world and the Palestinians were it not for the influence of the pro- Israel lobby (sometimes identified by the American diplomats in more explicit “ethnic” terms).

While many of the studies of the pro-Israel lobby are sound and full of awe-inspiring well- documented details about the formidable power commanded by groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its allies, the problem with most of them is what remains unarticulated. For example, when and in what context has the United States government ever supported national liberation in the Third World? The record of the United States is one of being the implacable enemy of all Third World national liberation groups, including European ones, from Greece to Latin America to Africa and Asia, except in the celebrated cases of the Afghan fundamentalists’ war against the USSR and supporting apartheid South Africa’s main terrorist allies in Angola and Mozambique (UNITA and RENAMO) against their respective anti-colonial national governments. Why then would the US support national liberation in the Arab world absent the pro-Israel lobby is something these studies never explain.

The United States has had a consistent policy since World War II of fighting all regimes across the Third World who insist on controlling their national resources, whether it be land, oil, or other valuable minerals. This extends from Iran in 1953 to Guatemala in 1954 to the rest of Latin America all the way to present-day Venezuela. Africa has fared much worse in the last four decades, as have many countries in Asia. Why would the United States support nationalist regimes in the Arab world who would nationalise natural resources and stop their pillage by American capital absent the pro-Israel lobby also remains a mystery unexplained by these studies. Finally, the United States government has opposed and overthrown or tried to overthrow any regime that seeks real and tangible independence in the Third World and is especially galled by those regimes that pursue such policies through democratic elections. The overthrow of regimes from Arbenz to Goulart to Mossadegh and Allende and the ongoing attempts to overthrow Chavez are prominent examples, as is the overthrow of nationalist regimes like Sukarno’s and Nkrumah’s. The terror unleashed on populations who challenged the US-installed friendly regimes from El Salvador and Nicaragua to Zaire to Chile and Indonesia resulted in the killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions by repressive police and militaries trained for these important tasks by the US. This is aside from direct US invasions of South East Asian and Central American countries that killed untold millions for decades. Why would the US and its repressive agencies stop invading Arab countries, or stop supporting the repressive police forces of dictatorial Arab regimes and why would the US stop setting up shadow governments inside its embassies in Arab capitals to run these countries’ affairs (in some cases the US shadow government runs the Arab country in question down to the smallest detail with the Arab government in question reduced to executing orders) if the pro-Israel lobby did not exist is never broached by these studies let alone explained.

The arguments put forth by these studies would have been more convincing if the Israel lobby was forcing the United States government to pursue policies in the Middle East that are inconsistent with its global policies elsewhere. This, however, is far from what happens. While US policies in the Middle East may often be an exaggerated form of its repressive and anti- democratic policies elsewhere in the world, they are not inconsistent with them. One could easily make the case that the strength of the pro-Israel lobby is what accounts for this exaggeration, but even this contention is not entirely persuasive. One could argue (and I have argued elsewhere) that it is in fact the very centrality of Israel to US strategy in the Middle East that accounts, in part, for the strength of the pro-Israel lobby and not the other way around. Indeed, many of the recent studies highlight the role of pro-Likud members of the Bush administration (or even of the Clinton administration) as evidence of the lobby’s awesome power, when, i t could be easily argued that it is these American politicians who had pushed Likud and Labour into more intransigence in the 1990s and are pushing them towards more conquest now that they are at the helm of the US government. This is not to say, however, that the leaders of the pro-Israel lobby do not regularly brag about their crucial influence on US policy in Congress and in the White House. That they have done regularly since the late 1970s. But the lobby is powerful in the United States because its major claims are about advancing US interests and its support for Israel is contextualised in its support for the overall US strategy in the Middle East. The pro- Israel lobby plays the same role that the China lobby played in the 1950s and the Cuba lobby still plays to this day. The fact that it is more powerful than any other foreign lobby on Capitol Hill testifies to the importance of Israel in US strategy and not to some fantastical power that the lobby commands independent of and extraneous to the US “national interest.” The pro-Israel lobby could not sell its message and would not have any influence if Israel was a communist or anti-imperialist country or if Israel opposed US policy elsewhere in the world.

Some would argue that even though Israel attempts to overlap its interests with those of the US, that its lobby is misleading American policy- makers and shifting their position from one of objective assessment of what is truly in America’s best interest and that of Israel’s. The argument runs as follows: US support for Israel causes groups who oppose Israel to hate the US and target it for attacks. It also costs the US friendly media coverage in the Arab world, affects its investment potential in Arab countries, and loses its important allies in the region, or at least weakens these allies. But none of this is true. The United States has been able to be Israel’s biggest backer and financier, its staunchest defender and weapon-supplier while maintaining strategic alliances with most if not all Arab dictatorships, including the Palestinian Authority under both Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas. Moreover, US companies and American investments have the largest presence across the Arab world, most prominently but not exclusively in the oil sector. Also, even without the pathetic and ineffective efforts at US propaganda in the guise of the television station Al-Hurra, or Radio Sawa and the now-defunct Hi magazine, not to mention US-paid journalists and newspapers in Iraq and elsewhere, a whole army of Arabic newspapers and state-television stations, not to mention myriad satellite television stations celebrate the US and its culture, broadcast American programmes, and attempt to sell the US point of view as effectively as possible encumbered only by the limitations that actual US policies in the region place on common sense. Even the offending Al-Jazeera has bent over backwards to accommodate the US point of view but is constantly undercut by actual US policies in the region. Al-Jazeera, under tremendous pressure and threats of bombing from the United States, has for example stopped referring to the US occupation forces in Iraq as “occupation forces” and now refers to them as “coalition forces”. Moreover, since when has the US sought to win a popularity contest among the peoples of the world? Arabs no more hate or love the United States than do Latin Americans, Africans, Asians, or even and especially Europeans.

Finally we come to the financial argument, namely that the US gives an inordinate amount of money to Israel — too exorbitant a cost that is out of proportion to what the US gets in return. In fact, the United States spends much more on its military bases in the Arab world, not to mention on those in Europe or Asia, than it does on Israel. Israel has indeed been very effective in rendering services to its US master for a good price, whether in channelling illegal arms to central American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s, helping pariah regimes like Taiwan and apartheid South Africa in the same period, supporting pro-US, including Fascist, groups inside the Arab world to undermine nationalist Arab regimes, from Lebanon to Iraq to Sudan, coming to the aid of conservative pro- US Arab regimes when threatened as it did in Jordan in 1970, and attacking Arab nationalist regimes outright as it did in 1967 with Egypt and Syria and in 1981 with Iraq when it destroyed that country’s nuclear reactor. While the US had been able to overthrow Sukarno and Nkrumah in bloody coups, Nasser remained entrenched until Israel effectively neutralised him in the 1967 War. It is thanks to this major service that the United States increased its support to Israel exponentially. Moreover, Israel neutralised the PLO in 1982, no small service to many Arab regimes and their US patron who could not fully control the organisation until then. None of the American military bases on which many more billions are spent can claim such a stellar record. Critics argue that when the US had to intervene in the Gulf, it could not rely on Israel to do the job because of the sensitivity of including it in such a coalition which would embarrass Arab allies, hence the need for direct US intervention and the uselessness of Israel as a strategic ally. While this may be true, the US also could not rely on any of its military bases to launch the invasions on their own and had to ship in its army. American bases in the Gulf did provide important and needed support but so did Israel.

AIPAC is indeed powerful insofar as it pushes for policies that accord with US interests and that are resonant with the reigning US imperial ideology. The power of the pro-Israel lobby, whether in Congress or on campuses among university administrators, or policy-makers is not based solely on their organisational skills or ideological uniformity. In no small measure, anti- Semitic attitudes in Congress (and among university administrators) play a role in believing the lobby’s (and its enemies’) exaggerated claims about its actual power, resulting in their towing the line. But even if this were true, one could argue, it would not matter whether the lobby has real or imagined power. For as long as Congress and policy-makers (and university administrators) believe it does, it will remain effective and powerful. I of course concede this point.

What then would have been different in US policy in the Middle East absent Israel and its powerful lobby? The answer in short is: the details and intensity but not the direction, content, or impact of such policies. Is the pro- Israel lobby extremely powerful in the United States? As someone who has been facing the full brunt of their power for the last three years through their formidable influence on my own university and their attempts to get me fired, I answer with a resounding yes. Are they primarily responsible for US policies towards the Palestinians and the Arab world? Absolutely not. The United States is opposed in the Arab world as elsewhere because it has pursued and continues to pursue policies that are inimical to the interests of most people in these countries and are only beneficial to its own interests and to the minority regimes in the region that serve those interests, including Israel. Absent these policies, and not the pro-Israel lobby which supports them, the United States should expect a change in its standing among Arabs. Short of that, the United States will have to continue its policies in the region that have wreaked, and continue to wreak, havoc on the majority of Arabs and not expect that the Arab people will like it in return.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chair of the Middle East and Central Asia Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee (HIRC), has called a hearing for Wednesday on “Palestinian Authority Elections: Implications for Peace, Regional Security, and U.S. Assistance”.

This biased hearing will include as witnesses an Israeli brigadier general, a researcher who claims that the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics over-counted Palestinians by 1.3 million people, and a researcher who claims that the European Union funds a Palestinian Authority war against Israel.

This absurd witness list shows that Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, who aspires to become Chair of HIRC upon the retirement of the current Chair, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), is not capable of exercising her duties as Chair of the House Middle East Subcommittee in a responsible way.

Rep. Ros-Lehtinen’s anti-Palestinian agenda is clear: she is also the sponsor of HR4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which seeks to punish and isolate the Palestinian people for voting by imposing draconian economic and diplomatic measures against them. The US Campaign has organized a letter to Members of Congress, signed by nearly 240 US-based organizations, opposing this resolution. Click here to add your organization’s endorsement to this letter.

TAKE ACTION: Pick up the phone and call Rep. Ros-Lehtinen today at 202-225-3931 and demand that she add to the witness list a representative of an organization that does not think the United States should punish and isolate the Palestinian people for voting.

Also, take a minute to contact your Member of Congress about HR4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, by clicking here.

Your phone calls and emails make a difference! In February 2004, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen called for a biased hearing on Israel’s illegal West Bank wall in which the only witnesses were from the same pro-Israel think tank. Your emails and phone calls forced Rep. Ros-Lehtinen to state publicly at this hearing that the witness list was not balanced and another hearing needed to be called to hear other opinions. Unfortunately Rep. Ros-Lehtinen never lived up to her word to call another hearing despite pressure from the US Campaign to do so.

Don’t let her get away with another biased hearing. Take action today!

Call Rep. Ros-Lehtinen’s office today at 202-225-3931 and contact your Members of Congress by clicking here.

From Mazin Qumsiyeh…

Take action on the two alerts below from Citizens for Fair Legislation and the Council for National Interest. Also please consider signing the petition supporting an Israel Accountability Act to President Bush and your Representative: HOLD ISRAEL ACCOUNTABLE.

For those not in the US, you can write to your elected officials and media and ask them to resist the dictats of the US government whose foreign policy is hijacked by special interests.

SEND PREWRITTEN LETTER TODAY:

Citizens for Fair Legislation

URGENT CFL ALERT: TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES THAT YOU OPPOSE THE DRACONIAN MEASURES AGAINST PALESTINIANS IN THE ROSS-LEHTINEN AND LANTOS RESOLUTION.

• Representatives Ros-Lehtinen and Lantos have sponsored a resolution calling for devastating and extreme measures against the Palestinians to punish them for electing a Hamas led Palestinian Authority. This resolution calls for a ban to all financial aid to the PA; a travel ban on all representatives of the PA; ending all financial support for UN programs linked to the PA (including food and education programs); closing PLO offices in Washington; and restricting the movements of the Palestinian representative to the UN.

• Take a moment and send our prewritten letter to your representatives asking them to both oppose and denounce this resolution. Tell your representatives that it is unreasonable and cruel to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority merely because the U.S. does not like who the Palestinians voted for. Remind them that the U.S. demanded that Palestinians hold democratic elections and for the U.S. to now say that they will accept Palestinian choices and that instead they will collectively punish Palestinians for their choices is ridiculous.
• Tell your representative that cutting off aid to Palestinians, in particular the assistance that Palestinians receive from the United Nations vis-à-vis education and food programs, will only serve to militarize Palestinian society and in no way advances the prospect of peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Tell them that it is not in the best interests of Israeli security or American interests in the region to isolate and starve the Palestinian people. Tell your representatives that you think supporting this resolution would be disastrous for U.S. foreign policy and that it would be unethical and immoral to take these draconian measures against Palestinians that would result in the starvation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian nation. For the text of the Ross-Lehtinen-Lantos draft please visit our website. Please take action today.

EMAIL AND OR CALL THE WHITE HOUSE
WHITE HOUSE COMMENTS LINE: 202-456-1111
WHITE HOUSE SWITCHBOARD: 202-456-1414
WHITE HOUSE FAX: 202-456-2461

===============================
Congressional Resolutions Threaten Aid to Palestinians
Now is Not the Time to Shut the Door
February ?Washington Wednesday? Action Alert

START DATE: Immediately
END DATE: To be determined

The decisive victory of Hamas at the polls on January 25 in Palestine has prompted an international effort, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, members of the European Union, the prime minister of Israel, and now members of Congress to isolate the Palestinian Authority by cutting off all aid to the Palestinians. A non-binding resolution has been introduced in the Senate by John Thune (R-SD) (partial text currently available on his website) supporting the ending of assistance to the Palestinians if Hamas forms a government, and even more draconian measures are being put forward by Tom Lantos ((D-CA) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) threatening not only to end aid but also to withhold US dues to the UN proportional to the percentage of the UN budget spent on protecting and advocating for Palestinian human rights; it also seeks to deny visas and place restrictions on Palestinian Authority diplomats.

ACTION REQUESTED
Email your Members of Congress (senators and representatives) to tell them that reevaluating relations with the PA and threatening to cut off aid is not the proper response to Hamas? victory. Tell them that at this stage, it is best to recognize that the Palestinian people have peacefully exercised their democratic rights and that cool heads should be given time to prevail. This is not the time to cut off aid to the Palestinians, who have endured three years of cruel and heartless military occupation that has impoverished their country.

If you would prefer to call or fax your Member of Congress, contact information can be found at www.congress.org.

TALKING POINTS

1. Palestinians should be congratulated, not admonished and threatened with diplomatic isolation and a cut off of aid, for conducting a free and fair, competitive, multi-party legislative election under harsh conditions of Israeli military occupation and besiegement, restrictions on their freedom of movement and ability to campaign freely, and other human rights violations.

2. The United States professes to promote democracy abroad. Supporting democracy means supporting the results of free and fair elections as an expression of the self-determination of the people who cast ballots, even when the United States and its allies are not pleased with the outcome.
3. There are indications that Hamas? participation in the political process is having a moderating influence on its policies. Recently, Hamas has floated the idea of accepting a two-state solution, observed a PA-brokered cease-fire and pledged to maintain it as long as Israel does likewise, and removed calls for the destruction of Israel from its election platform. If the United States were to boycott, sanction, or cut off aid to a Hamas-led PA, it could reverse this trend and exacerbate tensions.
4. The United States provides virtually no direct assistance to the PA; almost all US aid projects to Palestinians are implemented by non-governmental organizations through contracts awarded and overseen by the US Agency for International Development. These humanitarian programs are important to the social and economic well-being of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories whose ability to earn a livelihood is drastically curtailed by the human rights violations Israel commits through its US-backed military occupation of these areas. Cutting off this humanitarian aid would only cruelly punish people for exercising their right to vote.
5. Calm heads should prevail at this juncture, and no one’s interests are served by rushing to judgment. Allow the Palestinians time for a cabinet to be formed, for the President of the PA to mediate the situation, and to let pragmatic voices to be heard.

BACKGROUND
Prior to the Palestinian legislative election, both Houses of Congress threatened to reevaluate relations with the Palestinian Authority (PA) if Hamas were to participate in the next Palestinian government.

The House of Representatives passed a resolution (H.Res.575) on Dec. 16 in which it stated that Hamas? participation in the PA government ?will inevitably raise serious questions for the United States about the commitment of the Palestinian Authority and its leadership to making peace with Israel and will potentially undermine the ability of the United States to have a constructive relationship with, or provide further assistance to, the Palestinian Authority.?

On Dec. 21, 73 Senators sent a ?Dear Colleague? letter to President Bush stating that ?if terrorist groups gain a substantial foothold in the Palestinian legislature, it will make it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for there to be any progress on the roadmap or on the road to achieving a two state solution. There would be even more severe policy implications if any such groups were then brought into the Palestinian Authority. The United States?and no doubt other countries as well?would have little choice but to reevaluate all aspects of our relations with the Palestinian Authority.”

Now that Hamas has won the Palestinian legislative election and will be asked to form the next PA government, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Members of Congress have issued statements in an attempt to isolate the Palestinians. In this, they seem to be acting in tandem with the Israeli government, which has adopted the same stance. Sen. John Thune (R-SD) introduced a concurrent resolution on Jan. 26 stating that ?no United States assistance should be provided to the Palestinian Authority if any representative political party holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the Palestinian Authority maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel.?

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), the lead sponsor of H.Res.575, went further than Sen. Thune, threatening to cut of all aid to the Palestinians. According to Rep. Cantor, “If Hamas does not join the peaceful nations of the world at the table of cooperation and peace, the consequences will be the loss of America’s support and funding for the Palestinians” (AP, January 27, 2006).

START DATE: Immediately
END DATE: To be determined
BACKGROUND: Prior to the Palestinian legislative election, both Houses of Congress threatened to reevaluate relations with the Palestinian Authority (PA) if Hamas were to participate in the next Palestinian government.

The House of Representatives passed a resolution (H.Res.575) on Dec. 16 in which it stated that Hamas’ participation in the PA government “will inevitably raise serious questions for the United States about the commitment of the Palestinian Authority and its leadership to making peace with Israel and will potentially undermine the ability of the United States to have a constructive relationship with, or provide further assistance to, the Palestinian Authority.” [Emphasis added]

On Dec. 21, 73 Senators sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to President Bush stating that “if terrorist groups gain a substantial foothold in the Palestinian legislature, it will make it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for there to be any progress on the roadmap or on the road to achieving a two state solution. There would be even more severe policy implications if any such groups were then brought into the Palestinian Authority. The United States—and no doubt other countries as well—would have little choice but to reevaluate all aspects of our relations with the Palestinian Authority.” [Emphasis added]

Now that Hamas has won the Palestinian legislative election and will be asked to form the next PA government, Members of Congress have started to make good on these threats. Sen. John Thune (R-SD) introduced a concurrent resolution on Jan. 26 stating that “no United States assistance should be provided to the Palestinian Authority if any representative political party holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the Palestinian Authority maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel.”

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), the lead sponsor of H.Res.575, went further than Sen. Thune, threatening to cut of all aid to the Palestinians. According to Rep. Cantor, “If Hamas does not join the peaceful nations of the world at the table of cooperation and peace, the consequences will be the loss of America’s support and funding for the Palestinians.” (Source)

ACTION REQUESTED: Click here to email your Members of Congress and tell them that reevaluating relations with the PA and threatening to cut off aid is not the proper response to Hamas’ victory.

If you would prefer to call or fax your Member of Congress, contact information can be found at our Congressional Report Card.

TALKING POINTS:

1. Palestinians should be congratulated, not admonished and threatened with diplomatic isolation and a cut off of aid, for conducting a free and fair, competitive, multi-party legislative election under harsh conditions of Israeli military occupation and besiegement, restrictions on their freedom of movement and ability to campaign freely, and other human rights violations.

2. The United States professes to promote democracy abroad. Supporting democracy means supporting the results of free and fair elections as an expression of the self-determination of the people who cast ballots, even when the United States and its allies are not pleased with the outcome.
3. There are indications that Hamas’ participation in the political process is having a moderating influence on its policies. Recently, Hamas has observed a PA-brokered cease-fire and pledged to maintain it as long as Israel does likewise, raised the possibility of accepting a two-state solution, and removed calls for the destruction of Israel from its election platform. If the United States were to boycott, sanction, or cut off aid to a Hamas-led PA, it could reverse this trend and exacerbate tensions.
4. The United States provides virtually no direct assistance to the PA; almost all US aid projects to Palestinians are implemented by non-governmental organizations through contracts awarded and overseen by the US Agency for International Development. These humanitarian programs are important to the social and economic well-being of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories whose ability to earn a livelihood is drastically curtailed by Israel’s confiscation of Palestinian lands and water resources for illegal settlements, curtailment of freedom of movement by constructing a wall intended to annex Palestinian land to Israel, and other human rights violations. Cutting off this humanitarian aid would only cruelly punish people for exercising their right to vote.

Click here to email your Members of Congress and tell them that reevaluating relations with the PA and threatening to cut off aid is not the proper response to Hamas’ victory.

Make a tax-deductible contribution to the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.

(via the BBC)

European Union Aid

• 1: World Bank $85m
• 2: Isr/Pal integration $12m
• 3: UN relief (UNRWA) $77m
• 4: Food aid $35m
• 5: Humanitarian aid $33m
• 6: Special projects $24m
• 7: Infrastructure $72m
• 8: Member states $262m
• EU TOTAL: $600m

United States Aid

• 1: 2003/04 rollover $175m
• 2: PA debts $20m
• 3: Gaza infrastructure $50m
• 4: USAID projects $155m
• US TOTAL: $400m

This came in an emailed report from Mazin Qumsiyeh:

Lobby for Justice in Palestine
It’s in the American National Interest !

Year after year, Congress passes pro-Israel legislation by large margins–few oppose it. There is virtually no debate about whether such uncritical support for Israel is even in America’s best interests. Some Congress people support Israel because they’re Zionists and believe in the Jewish state, some understand what is going on in Palestine and vote against their consciences because they fear for their political lives. Most, however, are grossly misinformed about the facts because they hear ONLY from the Zionist community and its supporters. The case for Palestinian human rights has never been presented to them, and they are unaware that there are voters in their districts who support Palestinian rights. The American Council on Middle East Policy (ACME) has been formed to change that. We want to recruit teams across America to visit their Congressmen in their home offices, district by district, to talk about Palestinian rights, ask for achievable goals, and build a relationship. ACME will help by providing materials and guidance on setting up a meeting, approach, and follow up. Meeting with your Congressional representative is an extremely interesting experience. If you would like to become an anti-AIPAC lobbyist or simply want to learn more, please email OBSCURED EMAIL ADDRESS.

Steering Committee
Basem Khader
Kathy and Bill Christison
Hassan Fouda
Mike Odetalla
Miriam Reik

Advisory Board
Kate Daher
Stephen Green
Janice Hayden
Christopher Leadbeater
Mazin Qumsiyeh
Alison Weir