Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumReconsidering the two-state solution
It is the snappy shorthand for a final settlement that would see the creation of an independent state of Palestine on pre-1967 borders in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem living peacefully alongside Israel.
The United Nations, the Arab League, the European Union, Russia and the United States routinely restate their commitment to the concept, and US President Barack Obama is sure to do so once again as he visits Jerusalem and Ramallah this week.
But many experts, as well as ordinary Israelis and Palestinians, now believe the two-state option should be abandoned or at least reconsidered.
Twenty years after the breakthrough Oslo Accords there is no sign of a final agreement.
<snip>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21850739
leveymg
(36,418 posts)We would see a remarkable transformation in the prospects for a final agreement and full implementation of the Oslo Accords.
shira
(30,109 posts)...weapons, then sell them to China, and make more $$ than they would from US aid. You don't seem to understand that when the Jewish state is under constant attack - as it has been since even before 1948 - you can't just surrender.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)By the way, Israel is already in the weapons export to China business.
henank
(800 posts)I don't know where you get your information from unless you simply invent out of whole cloth.
The J10 fighter is similar to the Lavi but is made in China. Not Israeli at all.
The Lavi project was cancelled due to American pressure way back in the 80s before it ever got properly off the ground.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)As cited in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-10
15^ David Isenberg (2002-12-04). "Israel's role in China's new warplane".
16^ "Chinese J-10 'benefited from the Lavi project' Jane's Defence News". Janes.com. 2008-05-19. Retrieved 2011-05-23. http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?id=1065926403
This from Jane's, considered the most authoritative open source:
By Robert Hewson
5/19/2008
Russian aerospace engineers have confirmed to Jane's that China's Chengdu J-10 fighter aircraft benefited from significant, direct input from Israel's Lavi programme - including access to the Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) Lavi aircraft itself.
In a number of interviews Jane's has talked at length with several engineers, designers and technical specialists - some of whom have been working with their Chinese counterparts for decades and have had first-hand experience on Chinese military projects. They have provided detailed accounts of the assistance given to various Chinese manufacturers and their military aircraft projects. This has included extensive design and performance modelling, wind-tunnel testing and advanced aerodynamic design input.
Senior Russian engineers who spoke to Jane's recalled their many visits to Chengdu, and elsewhere in China, some of which began in the 1980s. Jane's was told how Chengdu officials of the highest level stated how they had one of the IAI Lavi prototypes in their facilities. Describing his conversations with Chengdu concerning possession of a Lavi aircraft, one Jane's source commented: "I did not consider that to be a revelation ... doesn't everyone know that already?"
It is not possible to independently verify the Russian comments. The charge of Lavi technology transfer has been made before, but this time the claims come from individuals with sustained personal experience of the programme. Both Chinese and Israeli officials have long refuted any purported links between the J-10 and the Lavi.
henank
(800 posts)But let's say it's all true. Israel did not sell the whole Lavi project to China as you are making out.
Furthermore, this took place nearly 30 years ago. From your previous comment that "Israel is in the export business to China" one could get the erroneous impression that Israel is busily selling billions of dollars of arms to China. Your headline and your comment were deliberately misleading to put Israel in a bad light.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)I gave you sources. Do you have any in response that refute my basic point?
There are a number of other, more recent Israeli arms deals with China. Google is your friend:
Search Results
Israel Set to End China Arms Deal Under U.S. Pressure
www.washingtonpost.com World Middle East
Jun 27, 2005 JERUSALEM, June 26 -- Under pressure from the Bush administration, Israel has agreed to cancel an arms deal with China and allow U.S. ...
Israel Second Only To Russia In Providing Arms To China
rense.com/general28/iisj.htm
"Israel ranks second only to Russia as a weapons system provider to China and as a ... and this made Israel even more cautious about future deals with China.
Israel scraps arms deal with China | World news | The Guardian
www.guardian.co.uk World news Israel
Jun 27, 2005 Israel has cancelled a major arms deal with China after US allegations that it misled Washington on the export of shared technology, it was ...
Israel-China Arms Trade: Unfreezing Times | Middle East Institute
www.mideasti.org/.../israel-china-arms-trade-unfreezing-times
Jul 16, 2012 Israel-China Arms Trade: Unfreezing Times ... take up his position towards the end of this year after incumbent Amos Nadai completes his term. ... forced Prime Minister Barak to cancel the Phalcon AWACS deal in July 2000.
I gave you my sources. Do you have any in response?
cali
(114,904 posts)at this time, nor do I think it would make much of a difference. And honestly and sadly, I believe that the two state solution has been rendered unworkable, chiefly by the settlements.
I have no idea what happens next or when it will happen, but I don't see it being a happy event.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Something like what is outlined in the Geneva Accord.
cali
(114,904 posts)in the last 21 years and the plans to build more?
shira
(30,109 posts)...need to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, renounce RoR, and accept a package along the lines of the Clinton Parameters, Olmert, or the Geneva Accord.
As it is, they're holding out for total victory and all Israel.
They believe they have time on their side and the entire Arab/Muslim world behind them vs. tiny Israel. Seriously Cali, what more can Israel offer the Palestinians? All the Palestinians have to do is keep saying NO and Israel will continue to receive the majority of the blame...
cali
(114,904 posts)in the government?
Seriously Shira, you're bias is so ridiculous that it's nothing but naked and ugly......
I have nothing to say to people like you.
shira
(30,109 posts)....beyond the Clinton Parameters, Olmert, or Geneva?
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Seeing how Israel is only offering about 60% you should not be asking that question, silly.
shira
(30,109 posts)...and Geneva Accord.
Clinton's was close to 100% while the others actually were 100% with land swaps accounted for. Why don't you do some research and then come back and answer the question (as to what more Israel needs to offer).
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 23, 2013, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)
On edit: is an answer really that hard, Shira?
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)<snip from original post>
Briefly, because we dont have time, there were four key issues at Camp David and at Taba. Number one, settlements. Number two, borders. Number three, Jerusalem. Number four, refugees. Lets start with settlements. Under international law, there is no dispute, no controversy. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, its illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories. All of the settlements, all of the settlements are illegal under international law. No dispute. The World Court in July 2004 ruled that all the settlements are illegal. The Palestinians were willing to concede 50% 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That was a monumental concession, going well beyond anything that was demanded of them under international law.
Borders. The principle is clear. I dont want to get into it now, because I was very glad to see that Dr. Ben-Ami quoted it three times in his book. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Under international law, Israel had to withdraw from all of the West Bank and all of Gaza. As the World Court put it in July 2004, those are, quote, "occupied Palestinian territories." Now, however you want to argue over percentages, there is no question, and I know Dr. Ben-Ami wont dispute it, the Palestinians were willing to make concessions on the borders. What percentage? Theres differences. But there is no question they were willing to make concessions.
Jerusalem. Jerusalem is an interesting case, because if you read Dr. Ben-Ami or the standard mainstream accounts in the United States, everyone talks about the huge concessions that Barak was willing to make on Jerusalem. But under international law Israel has not one atom of sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. Read the World Court decision. The World Court decision said Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Now, the Palestinians were willing, the exact lines Im not going to get into now they are complicated, but Im sure Dr. Ben-Ami will not dispute they were willing to divide Jerusalem roughly in half, the Jewish side to Israel, the Arab side to the Palestinians.
And number four, refugees. On the question of refugees, its not a dispute under international law. Remarkably, even fairly conservative human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, in 2000, during the Camp David talks, they issued statements on the question of the right of return. And they stated categorically, under international law every Palestinian, roughly five to six million, has the right to return, not to some little parcels, 1% of Israel, which Israel is about which Israel would swap, return to their homes or the environs of their homes in Israel. Thats the law. Now, Dr. Ben-Ami will surely agree that the Palestinians were not demanding and never demanded the full return of six million refugees. He gives a figure of 4-800,000. In fact Im not going to get into the numbers, because its very hard to pin it down other authors have given figures of the tens of thousands to 200,000 refugees returning. Thats well short of six million.
On every single issue, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. The problem is, everyone, including Dr. Ben-Ami in his book he begins with what Israel wants and how much of its wants its willing to give up. But thats not the relevant framework. The only relevant framework is under international law what you are entitled to, and when you use that framework its a very, very different picture.
My previous comment:
Now, I'm sure you and any reader here will understand is that Dr. Ben-Ami, himself the lead negotiator at Camp David, said that he wouldn't have accepted what was offered if he were a Palestinian. This is quite damning. Why? Finkelstein and Ben-Ami are pretty much on the same side, but they quibble a bit, but when it comes down to spades, ultimately, the Palestinians have a very legitimate grievance - and beyond that, they are offering concessions!!!
But, yes, we shall call them "disputed." We can call them "fried chicken (I'm hungry now)" for all I care. I'm interested in the historical record. I'm interested in facts. I'm interested in a peaceful approach to this conflict, not forwarding more propaganda.
Apparently the international community, when not bullied by my government, is interested in the same.
For those who are "pro", "anti" or "anything" in between, please visit:
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_shlomo_ben
shira
(30,109 posts)...not the Clinton Initiatives which followed a few months later.
And if you think Israel should allow full RoR of 5 million Palestinians into Israel, you don't want a peaceful settlement.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)You're beyond even trying to get through to.
shira
(30,109 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)So there.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The Clinton Parameters proposed a Palestinians state comprising between 9496% of the West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip.
The Parameters received wide support in the Israeli cabinet, which voted to accept them.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)What a weird question.
Curious where you got the 60 percent number and what you think of the 96-98 percent figure that I provided.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)would they now? Of course you can attempt to say yes but we can then take a look at some other factors such as
Looking at the nine steps we can see the underlying Jewish Home strategy during the coalition talks. Additionally we can start to make sense of some of the other Knesset moves and statements by members of the settler community on the national stage.
http://972mag.com/the-one-state-plan-according-to-israels-top-settlement-council/68088/
oberliner
(58,724 posts)They would also still not get any support from the Palestinian side.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)That's what you do when you recognize Israel, period.
And there's no reason that the Palestinians should have to recognize it using any different words than Egypt or Jordan did.
Netanyahu was being petty when he insisted on that formulation.
Also, you can't expect the Palestinians to TOTALLY renounce RoR. They have to get RoR for the elders of '48.
shira
(30,109 posts)....and you would still find excuses for the PA leadership to reject it.
You'd go on blaming Israel.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Netanyahu is not "Israel" incarnate...he's simply another politician, the leader of a slate that received barely 25% of the vote in the last election. The prime minister is not the state, and the state is not the people.
And you're wrong. The only things I reject are the things that are unnecessary and unjust.
shira
(30,109 posts)...about peaceful relations with Israel. After 70 years of vowing to destroy Israel, replace it, annhilate its population, guarantee full RoR, then yeah...it's necessary.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Asking for more than that, for more than was asked of Jordan and Egypt, is an insult to the Palestinians...it implies that the Palestinians can't be given the same level of trust as those other nations were, that they must always be held at a special level of skepticism and doubt. It means that they must take extra steps, jump through extra hoops, that aren't going to be demanded of anyone else involved in this conflict. It means treating them, in effect, as the vanquished party, as the losers, rather than being mature and accepting that this can't end with anyone claiming "victory", but only as an statement that the war is over and both sides survived.
What matters is getting Palestinians to accept Israel's existence...getting that, and getting a permanent end of hostilities, is peace...and it's enough. They're not going to recognize Israel and then STILL try to destroy it...they aren't political schizophrenics, nor is there any reason to consider them any more intrinsically dishonest or dishonorable than any other party to this situation.
There's no reason that more should be asked of Palestinians than of Egypt and Jordan, BOTH of which used far deadlier force against Israel than Palestine has ever utilized or ever will.
And Israel isn't going to get peace if it assumes that the Palestinian struggle has never been about real grievances and real injustices but merely(as the demand for the special terms of recognition)simply about ethnic and religious prejudice. Peace requires an admission that, even if Palestinian fighters used tactics at times that weren't acceptable, that they were fighting because the Palestinian people really have been subjected to unjustifiable suffering and repression from the Israeli side. To demand that Palestinians use a phrase that implies that their actions were driven solely by bigotry(which is what the insistence on Netanyahu's phraseology implies) is to demand that they take sole responsibility for the war and that they admit(in defiance of reality)that they were fighting for no valid reason.
Peace can't be made that way. Peace requires an acknowledgment that both sides made mistakes, horrible mistakes, and that neither side can claim particular virtue in the prosecution of the war.
It means admitting the war was never SOLELY the Palestinians fault, but equally the fault of both sides. The Israeli government loses nothing in admitting that...it's perfectly possible to admit that your country's founders did wrong and still defend the validity of your country's existence(Americans of the Left do this all the time)...Netanyahu or whoever succeeds him, at some point, as prime minister, needs to step up to the plate and make that admission...accept that truth...because only then, only when there's an acknowledgment that there is validity in the anger that Palestinians have felt, even if you reject the tactics(just as there's validity in the preservation of Israel while acknowledging that the country's leaders have done wrong at times, as every other country's leaders have done)can REAL peace be made.
shira
(30,109 posts)Obviously, it wasn't truly recognized. Otherwise there wouldn't still be ongoing threats to annihilate its population.
They need to recognize 2 states for 2 people. The reason they won't is because they simply do not believe in it.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)It's about there being a Jewish state. So recognizing a Jewish state is about ending the war. It's huge, not petty.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why ask it ONLY of Palestinians?
And why did nobody ask it of the Palestinians BEFORE Netanyahu did?
It's not as if Rabin, Sharon, Olmert or Livni didn't want Israel to survive as "a Jewish state".
oberliner
(58,724 posts)But, as you say, it doesn't look all that promising.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The principal obstacle to a negotiated settlement is domestic special interest support -- unquestioning, unalterable, inflexible support -- for anything that Netanyahu and Israeli Right does. So, the US has no leverage, and there is no peace. In the long run, AIPAC is Israel's own worst enemy.
First step forward is for the Administration to designate AIPAC as what it really is, a foreign lobbying shop.
cali
(114,904 posts)It was set up by U.S. citizens and its membership consists of U.S. citizens. I may not like that, but that's simply factual. You can't pretend otherwise and it's dangerous in a myriad of ways to do so. Furthermore, that is not going to happen. Seriously, what on earth makes you believe that that is even the remotest bit possible?
And like so many people you invest AIPAC with more power than it has. That is not to say that it isn't powerful, but if you think AIPAC is the fulcrum upon which everything depends re Israel and U.S. relations, you're missing other very real factors.
Even supposing that someone magically waved a wand and poof, made AIPAC disappear, I don't think the entrenched interests within Israel would suddenly back down from settlement building. And I don't believe that U.S. support for Israel would vanish.
I believe that it's become intractable; that there is no solution on the horizon.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Okay, if you insist on asserting an obvious falsity, here's another fact - AIPAC is a foreign espionage shop. Please see, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/540
According to the indictments, in 2002-03, FBI wiretaps picked up communications from Israeli intelligence officers working out of the Embassy in Washington, DC with Rosen and Weissman at AIPAC. Operating under the direction of the Mossad Chief of Station, Naor Gilon, these AIPAC employees received U.S. classified documents without authorization.
In the prosecution that followed, only the U.S. military officer, Lt. Col. Larry Franklin, who released the classified documents was fully prosecuted, sentenced and imprisoned - as, indeed, he should have been. The other indicted defendants were allowed to walk last May after DOJ concluded there is no Official Secrets Act under which they might be successfully convicted in the U.S.
cali
(114,904 posts)and how does your link, which I read, prove that AIPAC is a foreign lobby? It doesn't, dear.
I realize you look at this in a very simple manner; that AIPAC is the evil entity preventing all progress, but it's so much more complex than that. Truly Manichean thinking on your part.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)What makes AIPAC different? It's an obvious falsity to claim otherwise. The link (and its sources cited) establishes AIPAC, in addition to being essentially a foreign lobby (almost all such groups have US supporters and funders, in addition to foreign backing), it has also acted for years as a conduit for espionage. Genuine, indicted espionage and deception activities run by a foreign intelligence officer.
Deny it if you like, but that doesn't make any of this untrue.
Do I think everything AIPAC or Israel does is evil? No. Please don't raise red-herrings by making false statements and attributing them to me.
Are some AIPAC activities stuff I (or the US Attorney) consider criminal, misguided, or just bad policy? That is undeniable. How does that make my thinking Manichean? If I were a constant, unqualified supporter of AIPAC, that would make my thinking Manichean.
I would not characterize you that way. Back at you.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)is too hard for you to understand. They are not foreign lobbyists.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)principals (powers). AIPAC has long been under under heightened scrutiny by the FBI for espionage and suspicions of violation of laws requiring registration of foreign agents. AIPAC's predecessor organization, the American Zionist Council, was reorganized after it was forced to register during the Kennedy Administration pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA). See below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act
Scope of the Act
The act requires people and organizations that are under foreign control ("agents of a foreign principal" to register with the Department of Justice when acting in any capacity, even if only indirectly controlled, on behalf of a foreign principal. It also requires periodic disclosure of all activities and finances. The Act covers political activities, public relations counsel, publicity agents, information-service employees, political consultants, fundraisers or those who represent the foreign power before any agency or official of the United States government. It does not include news or press services not owned by the foreign principal.[9]
Examples of organizations lobbying on behalf of foreign governments are DLA Piper, Dickens & Madson Canada, Invest Northern Ireland, Japan National Tourism Organization and Netherlands Board of Tourism and Conventions.[10]
FARA is one of several federal statutes aimed at individuals called foreign agents (see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 951; Public Law 893, 50 U.S.C. §§ 851-857; and 18 U.S.C. § 2386.) There are federal statutes authorizing the exemption of otherwise covered agents (See, e.g., the Taiwan Relations Act and the Compact of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands.) Others target specific agents, such as federal legislation shutting down the Palestine Liberation Organization office in Washington, DC, in 1981 and Executive Order 12947 (1995) which prohibits fundraising within the United States on behalf of groups opposed to the peace process in the IsraeliPalestinian conflict. The Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995 prohibits, among other things, fundraising which is done to benefit foreign organizations designated by the United States as terrorist.[3]
[ . . .]
Selective enforcement
Although the act was designed to apply to any foreign agent, in practice FARA frequently is used to target countries out of favor with an administration.[26] This was stated by the Irish Northern Aid Committee in legal filings[27] and described in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in the case of associates of the Kashmiri American Council as compared to earlier treatment of the American Zionist Council.[28] The 1980s Federal Bureau of Investigations operations against the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador also allegedly was based on selective enforcement of FARA.[29] It has been noted that during the same period it investigated CISPES, the FBI ignored possible FARA violations like Soldier of Fortune Magazine running back cover advertisement to help the Rhodesian national army recruit fighters.[30]
In the 1950s President Eisenhower's administration repeatedly demanded the leaders of the American Zionist Council register as "agents of a foreign government."[31] In November 1962 Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's Department of Justice ordered the American Zionist Council to register as a foreign agent because of FARA violations alleging it was being funded by the Jewish Agency for Israel and acting on behalf of Israel. Under pressure from the Israel lobby and the President Lyndon B. Johnson administration, the Department of Justice later withdrew its demand.[23][32]
The American Zionist Council was reorganized as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In 1988 former Senator William Fulbright in the 1970s and former senior CIA official Victor Marchetti, both enemies of AIPAC, unsuccessfully petitioned the Department of Justice to register the lobby under the Act.[33]
The 2005 case of United States v. Franklin, Rosen, and Weissman against United States Department of Defense employee Larry Franklin and American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy director Steven Rosen and AIPAC senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman[34][35] raised the possibility that AIPAC would come under greater scrutiny by the Department of Justice. While Franklin plead guilty to passing government secrets to Rosen and Weissman, as well as to an Israeli government official,[36][37] the cases against Rosen and Weissman were dismissed and no actions against AIPAC were instituted.[33]
http://www.fara.gov/fara-faq.html
FARA Frequently-Asked Questions
What is FARA?
FARA is short for the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, 22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq
Back to Top
What is the purpose of FARA?
The purpose of FARA is to insure that the U.S. Government and the people of the United States are informed of the source of information (propaganda) and the identity of persons attempting to influence U.S. public opinion, policy, and laws. In 1938, FARA was Congress' response to the large number of German propaganda agents in the pre-WWII U.S..
Back to Top
Are foreign governments the only foreign principals?
No. The term also includes foreign political parties, a person or organization outside the United States, except U.S. citizens, and any entity organized under the laws of a foreign country or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.
Back to Top
How does the Act work?
The Act requires every agent of a foreign principal, not otherwise exempt, to register with the Department of Justice and file forms outlining its agreements with, income from, and expenditures on behalf of the foreign principal. These forms are public records and must be supplemented every six months.
The Act also requires that informational materials (formerly propaganda) be labeled with a conspicuous statement that the information is disseminated by the agents on behalf of the foreign principal. The agent must provide copies of such materials to the Attorney General.
Any agent testifying before a committee of Congress must furnish the committee with a copy of his most recent registration statement.
The agent must keep records of all his activities and permit the Attorney General to inspect them.
Back to Top
When does one register?
One must register within ten days of agreeing to become an agent and before performing any activities for the foreign principal.
Back to Top
Does the Act limit an agent's lobbying and publishing informational materials (propaganda) for a foreign principal?
No, the Act requires only registration.
Back to Top
Are there criminal penalties for violating the Act?
Yes, failure to register, keep accounts, mark informational materials, provide a congressional committee with a copy of the agent's most recent registration, and agreeing to a contingent fee based on the success of political activity are violations of the Act. The FARA Unit seeks to obtain voluntary compliance with the statute.
See our enforcement page for details.
Back to Top
Does everyone who acts as an agent of a foreign principal have to register?
No, there are a number of exemptions. For example, diplomats and officials of foreign governments, and their staffs, are exempt if properly recognized by the U.S. State Department. Persons whose activities are of a purely commercial nature or solely of a religious, scholastic, academic, scientific or fine arts nature are exempt. Certain soliciting or collecting of funds to be used for medical aid, or for food and clothing to relieve human suffering are also exempt. Lawyers engaged in legal representation of foreign principals in the courts or similar type proceedings, so long as the attorney does not try to influence policy at the behest of his client, are exempt. Any agent who is engaged in lobbying activities and is registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act is exempt from registration under FARA if the representation is not on behalf of a foreign government or foreign political party.
Back to Top
Is FARA the only statute relating to the registration of agents?
No. The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA), 2 U.S.C. § 1601, removed from FARA a class of agents who are engaged in lobbying activities and who register under the LDA. This Act is administered by Congress.
18 U.S.C. § 951 provides criminal penalties for anyone, other than a diplomat, to operate as an agent of a foreign government without first notifying the Attorney General, unless the agent is engaged in legal commercial transaction. This statute is aimed at foreign government controlled agents engaged in non-political activities.
Also, 18 U.S.C. § 2386 requires registration by certain organizations which engage in political activity, civilian military activity, is under foreign control, or has as its purpose the overthrow the government by force.
Finally, 50 U.S.C. § 851, requires registration of persons who have knowledge of or have received instruction or assignment in espionage, counterespionage or sabotage service or tactics of a foreign country or political party.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)The fact that I went to the AIPAC conference a couple of weeks ago means I have to register with the government even though that loooong cut and paste has this is the first sentence:
The act requires people and organizations that are under foreign control ("agents of a foreign principal" to register with the Department of Justice when acting in any capacity, even if only indirectly controlled, on behalf of a foreign principal.
Do you consider me, an American Democrat who is a strong supporter of Israel and occasionally am invited and attend AIPAC conferences as under foreign control? Seriously?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)There's no bright-line test, really, and it's all relative to the amount of political influence the foreign country has -- and the current state of its relations with the US -- as to how strictly this law is enforced.
Believe it or not, I also am "an American Democrat who is a strong supporter of Israel and occasionally am invited and attend" J-Street conferences. We just see different ways out of this morass.
I think it's unlikely either of us would be personally prosecuted under the Act.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)who can be prosecuted to be honest. First, how would the govt go about proving anyone was "under foreign control"? AIPAC, J Street, OPEC, they're all lobbyists but so are thousands of other entities that are not strictly American.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 21, 2013, 04:26 PM - Edit history (1)
That's how they got Weissman, Rosen, and Franklin. Jane Harman "waddled into it", as well. (On edit: The AIPAC wiretaps were follow ons to ongoing taps of the Israeli Embassy, from which Mossad operates in the US under diplomatic cover).
The Feds aren't really interested in lesser stuff than the espionage and out-and-out influence-peddling, but all those conversations going back to the 1960s are stored away in some huge NSA server farm somewhere. Not just what people say into phones and type on their emails. Threat of release of portions of it would be enough, in most cases. . . if the public actually heard or read some of it, they wouldn't think of Israel (and a number of American supporters) the same way again.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Pollard should only be released when he's a corpse. So, the law really only covers those in government and has nothing to do with your average Joe/Jane who belongs and contributes to an organization.
So according to this Israel doesn't qualify at all. The key requirement seems to be that the group is foreign or run by foreigners for foreign benefit. AIPAC is not in any way controlled by Israel nor does it ever represent Israel in any capacity.
The act requires people and organizations that are under foreign control ("agents of a foreign principal" to register with the Department of Justice when acting in any capacity, even if only indirectly controlled, on behalf of a foreign principal.
The term also includes foreign political parties, a person or organization outside the United States, except U.S. citizens, and any entity organized under the laws of a foreign country or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.
AIPAC's predecessor organization, the American Zionist Council, was reorganized after it was forced to register during the Kennedy Administration pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA).
So they reorganized, right? Ensuring that the new organization would not meet the standard required by FARA to have to register. In other words, AIPAC was designed to avoid this very registration, right? And following said restructuring it was deemed to fall outside FARA's purview, right? So then, logically, Israel should NOT have to register under FARA, as deduced from your own statements.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)and its employees have, in fact, been used as a conduit for espionage, illegal trafficking of influence and trading in classified information, and other unlawful activities.
The Attorney General would have been fully justified in not only ordering AIPAC and its employees to register under FARA, but initiating the revocation of its tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code, and other enforcement actions against AIPAC.
Major AIPAC donors continued to financially support the OSP-AIPAC defendants after they were indicted. The Washington Post reported: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/ex-aipac_official_got_670000_from_private_donors.html
Indeed, many of the dozen benefactors Rosen named, including entertainment mogul Haim Saban and Slim-Fast billionaire Daniel Abraham, are also major donors to AIPAC, which fired him after the Justice Department charged him with illegally giving classified information to Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler and an Israeli Embassy official.
During his Sept. 22 deposition, AIPAC's lawyer alleged that Rosen had received "over $1 million in gifts or severance or payments of benefits between '05 and '09." Rosen detailed gifts that amounted to $670,000.
One philanthropist bundled about $200,000 for him, Rosen said. Saban gave $100,000 to him, his wife and children. Another supporter, philanthropist Lynn Schusterman, paid off Rosens daughters $18,000 college loan, he said. In all, about a dozen supporters gave him $670,000, according to his testimony, which AIPAC released last week.
After Rosen was dismissed by AIPAC, he sued. Documents filed in that case include recently declassified State Department reports that show illegal trading in classified materials by AIPAC's Director,Morris Amitay, goes back to the 1970s. http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2012/02/aipac-is-attempting-to-block-a-brief-filed-by-director-of-the-institute-for-research-middle-eastern-.html
IRmep has previously filed formal complaints seeking the revocation of AIPAC's tax exempt status and registration under the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act. In filing the appellate court brief, IRmep's director seeks to protect and advance growing popular demands that AIPAC be properly regulated. Major briefs filed in the Rosen v AIPAC et. al. court case may be viewed online at: http://www.IRmep.org/ila/rosen
SOURCE Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy
Full IRmep Filing: http://irmep.org/ILA/rosen/02032012amicus.pdf
Full AIPAC Filing: http://irmep.org/ILA/rosen/02082012opposition.pdf
News Release: http://tinyurl.com/IRmep-brief Releted Court Filings: http://www.IRmep.org/ila/rosen/
no_hypocrisy
(46,191 posts)political franchising of all residents which include non-Jews, Palestinians, Arabs, etc. They aren't leaving.
TexasProgresive
(12,158 posts)aranthus
(3,385 posts)Second, Israel doesn't "have to" give the Palestinians citizenship if it annexes the entire West Bank. It should, but it doesn't have to. given the current state of Israeli politics, it's likely that Israel wold create some other arrangement. So people shouldn't be in such a hurry to wish for a single state. You might just get it.
LeftishBrit
(41,212 posts)A one-state solution would end up, at best, like Lebanon at its worst. A three-state solution wouldn't work at all.
But if nothing is done, they WILL end up with a one-state non-solution. The RW settlers and their backers are a big threat to Israel's long-term survival as a democracy.
cali
(114,904 posts)As you note, Israel with its "settlements on steroids" policy, is a reality. And that makes a 2 state solution impossible unless there's a radical change in Israel's policies concerning both halting the settlement expansion and giving up a lot of the settlements. Do you see that in the offing?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)And, how is that to happen if we don't even fully prosecute espionage inside the US being conducted by Israeli intelligence with the assistance of AIPAC? Please see comment above.
cali
(114,904 posts)Look, it doesn't take anyone with more than a modicum of information, who's even vaguely grounded to reality and has a few functional brain cells, to realize that the U.S. is not going to threaten to cut off aid.
I don't have any answers. I don't see any realistic positive outcome on the horizon. At this point I think the 2 state solution is pretty much dead.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)See, pp. 22-25, http://aidtoisrael.org/downloads/Policy_Paper_print.pdf
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of as a family member.
The American political class is devoted to Israel, emotionally, spiritually, fiscally. Our foreign policy in that area is more concerned with what is good for Israel than what is good for the United States.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I agree that nothing but the two state solution has any realistic chance in the forseeable future.
But that doesn't mean that the two state solution does.
What is going to happen is that Israel will continue to expand, continue to prosper, continue to receive US backing and continue to call itself a democracy, and grant its Jewish citizens all the rights citizens of most Western democracies receive, while the Palestinians get more and more squeezed and oppressed.
Challenger1
(14 posts)The current status quo is unworkable, it condemns Palestinians to perpetual often brutal military occupation and Israelis to be a pariah regime at constant risk of terrorism and ultimate destruction. The solution is incredibly simple, one state for all, with civil, political, religious and basic human rights enumerated and guaranteed by a written constitution supported by an independent judiciary; an all inclusive secular state where Jew, Christian and Muslim have equal rights and a stake in the future prosperity of their nation state. All that's needed is the vision and political will. It's not impossible, it's not too complex and one day it WILL happen.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)As a matter of physics and politics, physically impossible.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It is not just a "talking point." It may have ceased being a meaningful goal for rejectionist Right-wing elements in Israel and their American supporters. But, it is still meaningful as official US policy and remains a commitment binding on Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)US Israel/Palestine policy has been a complete failure.
Official US policy is two-state solution. Actual US policy is to unconditionally support Israel and to only pretend to give a crap about the Palestinians.
This obligation is words on a 20-year old piece of paper, and is treated as such by all involved--as something to pretend to care about, but irrelevant to policy-making.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)By the standards of wars in the region before the Oslo and Camp David Accords, they have been a resounding success.
US support for Israel is less unconditional than it may appear. The relationship today is probably more strained than at any time since the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations. If the current Israeli government persists in its outright rejection of Oslo and persists in its expansion of settlements, we will see much greater conditionality on US aid and possible withdrawal of support for certain cooperative programs.
Netanyahu is pegging his hopes on drawing the US into direct intervention in Syria and Iran. But, I am not so sure that gambit is going to work.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)than Obama has ever been.
James Baker told the Israelis and Palestinians "Everybody over there should know that the telephone number ((of the White House)) is 1-202-456-1414. When you're serious about peace, call us."
The Bush White House actually cut off aid to the Israelis over setttlements--Obama spoke a few harsh words he was forced to eat by members of his own party.
Our political class is devoted to Israel. Devoted. Undyingly loyal.
Congress cares more about Israel's well-being than our own. Look at the Hagel hearings.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)has taken a number of steps in recent months that signal a big U-turn in the Mideast away from destabilization, regime change, and mounting militarization of U.S. involvement in the Sunni-Shi'ia conflict. That entails a distancing from the strategy of confrontation being pushed by Netanyahu. That has been a difficult disengagement, given the political head-lock AIPAC has on Capitol Hill.
I think more rational people in DC and Tel Aviv are beginning to recognize that they have unleashed a whirlwind across Sunni MENA that they cannot control, and that an explosion of civil war in Egypt threatens Israeli and American interests far more than Iran ever did or could.
The President's trip to Israel is an effort to calm and reassure the Israeli public, rather than a display of support for the current ruling coalition that might not survive very long.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)a conscious decision to take the past of least resistance.
But, non-interventionism also means not getting in the middle of the I/P dispute. So, we give lip service to both sides, even though both sides know our game (and our interests) are to stay on the sidelines.
Bibi had US quiescence to I/P in the bag a long time ago. What he was looking to add was carte blanche to bomb Iran. Hopefully he failed.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)which we're told is the same as advocating for the destruction of Israel
but FWiW the only way a one state solution could possibly work is if the regular folks on both sides here meaning Palestinians and those among the settlers who are not fanatics, they do exist there are over 350,000 settler living in the WB not counting EJ and by far not all of them are extremists some, most I would reckon just need affordable housing, came to the point where they see the extremists on both sides as mutual enemies of all of them as a community
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)From your link: