Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (233661)	6/14/2007 8:59:25 PM
From: SARMAN	Respond to of 281500

I will not disappoint you micheal zip code. "If it was an accident, it was the best planned accident I've ever heard of" whatreallyhappened.com

To: michael97123 who wrote (233661)	6/14/2007 9:01:12 PM
From: SARMAN	Respond to of 281500

If this doesn't prove that the US Government is controlled by Israel, nothing will... What follows is the original article I wrote when the news story first broke regarding the existence of a system to tap into any phone in America built into the surveillance system used by law enforcement authorities. Several cases were cited where investigations ranging from drug running and money laundering to the events of 9/11 had been compromised by leaks from the company that operated the phone taps as well as phone data from an associated company that handles billing services for almost every phone in America. The focus of the article was a single question. Could Israel be blackmailing the entire US Government and media. The answer is now obvious. Fox News, the so-called "We report, you decide" all news network, has removed the four part story from their website. No explanation is given except for the single Orwellian sentence at the end of one of the links, "This story no longer exists". Israel, purportedly our friend, has been spying on us all. And we're not talking about individual spooks like Jonathan Pollard, or small-time networks such as the 140 Israelis arrested by the FBI prior to 9/11, or the 60 arrested since (including 5 arrested who were cheering and celebrating as the World Trade Towers collapsed). It turns out that Israel has had a potential wiretap on every phone in America for years, along with the ability to monitor and record who any person is calling, anywhere in America; information of great value even if one does not listen to the calls themselves. Amdocs, Inc. the company which sub contracts billing and directory services for phone companies around the world, including 90 percent of American phone companies, is owned by Israeli interests. Yet another company, Comverse Infosys, is suspected of having built a "back door" into the equipment permanently installed into the phone system that allows instant eavesdropping by law enforcement agencies on any phone in America. This includes yours. Concerns about allowing an Israeli company such intimate access to the infrastructure go back many years. As reported by Fox News, the Israeli company Amdocs was implicated in the leaking of police phone data that resulted in the collapse of on investigation into a massive drug and credit card fraud operation with Israeli connections. In a telling repeat of the Los Angeles drug case, investigators looking into the attacks on the World Trade Towers are again reporting that confidential telephone information is again being leaked in a manner that is interfering with the investigations. Again, Amdocs was implicated. Not content with the phones of ordinary citizens in the United States, evidence has surfaced that Israel compromised the telephone systems at the highest levels of the US Government. Now, I want you all to stop and think for a minute of the full ramifications of this. Israeli interests have the ability to listen in on ANY phone in America connected to any of the systems used by Amdocs or Comverse Infosys. They have had this ability for several years. They can listen in and track the phone calls made by anyone's phone, whether police officer, elected official, media talking head, editor, policy setter, news mogul, even the President of the United States. The Ken Starr report on Whitewater describes how Bill Clinton warned Monica Lewinsky that a foreign government was tapping their phone calls. Few indeed are the people in America who do not have something to hide. That insider trade, the brief but torrid affair, the stolen votes, the deliberate smear, the role one played in an assassination, the acceptance of money from drug runners to look the other way. Be honest. Is there a skeleton in your closet you hope will stay there? Something nobody knows about? Well, if that skeleton involved a phone call, someone may know about it. Amdocs and Comverse Infosys. And their Israeli owners. Just think about it for a moment. Everyone's private phone traffic, right up to the President, potentially visible to Israeli interests. And you cannot find the phone taps or bugs because they are built right into the phone system! Suddenly, a lot of events which have puzzled observers start to make sense. Like the way the US vetoed the UN resolution calling for peace in Palestine, despite being the only 1 out of 15 voting nations to have voted against the measure. The USA gained nothing by this veto. But Israel did. Over the last few weeks, the people of the United States have seen a great deal of evidence pointing the finger of blame for 9/11 at Osama bin Laden and Arabs in general, evidence which is circumstantial, often self-contradictory, and in some cases faked. Yet as was reported in the news, evidence also exists linking many of the arrested Israeli spies (some of whom worked for the Israeli telecom companies above) with the events of 9/11. Yet this evidence is NOT being broadcast endlessly on the news. In fact, this evidence is CLASSIFIED. Someone has "persuaded" the US Government and the media that the American people are ONLY supposed to see the evidence that points a certain direction, and must never see any evidence that points someplace else. Likewise, the media has been "persuaded" not to report evidence that Israel knew of the 9/11 attacks ahead of time. The foreign press has outright accused the Mossad of taking part in the 9/11 attacks but the American media have been "persuaded" not to cover these accusations. It was well known that there was an Israeli spy inside the Clinton White House. But Clinton ordered the FBI to cease searching for the mole, code-named "Mega". It is now known that "Mega" was not just Mossad spy but top Mossad agent in America. The cancellation of the hunt for "Mega" occurred at the same time Clinton warned Monica Lewinsky that their phone conversations were being recorded. This strongly suggests that Clinton was "persuaded" to call off the FBI's hunt for "Mega" with the threat of a recorded phone sex session being made public. Because of the purported links between Muslims and the attacks on the World Trade Towers, the US Government has been shutting down all Muslin linked charities in the USA. But the Chairman of the Jewish Defense League, a group with a violent history, was arrested recently in a plot to bomb a US congressman. But the US Government has been "persuaded" not to take actions against Jewish charities, while the media has been "persuaded" to allow the story of hard evidence of JDL terrorism to fade away as quickly as possible. Two Mossad agents were arrested with dynamite inside the Mexican Congress. Mexican newspaper front page with story of the arrested Mossad agents. The Mexican government was persuaded to release the two men without trial. Meanwhile, the American media has been "persuaded" not to report on the Mexican arrests. Israel receives a hugely disproportionate share of foreign aid from the United States, about $5 billion a year. A large segment of the US population questions the sending so much money to such a small population while so many people remain homeless on our own streets. But somehow, Congress is "persuaded" to keep sending more cash each and every year. Sharon faces war crimes trial. The American media is "persuaded" not to make a big deal of the story. Israel is in violation of the Geneva Accords. The American media is "persuaded" not to make a big deal of this story. The United Nations accuses Israel of using torture on children. The American media is "persuaded" not to make a big deal of this story, either. How is such persuasion possible? Blackmail. The revelation of an Israeli-linked system for monitoring and potentially listening in to the phone calls of every single person in the nation at will opens up the possibility that a massive blackmail operation, unprecedented in scale, is the real force shaping media bias and United States policy. The reality is that this nation's politicians and media leaders all have secrets to hide. Mistresses, drug habits, links to that airfield in Mena, Arkansas, BCCI cash sitting in that bank in Barbados, loot from ADFA in the Cayman's; in a corrupted society only the corrupt can reach the heights of power, and they all have secrets to hide. They are all vulnerable to blackmail. And being the kind of people who were willing to, and usually did, anything to get power, they are also the people willing to do anything to keep it. Look the other way when the drugs come in, spike an embarrassing news story or plant a fake one that embarrasses your enemy, alter the books, destroy a report, falsify data, destroy evidence, maybe even allow the military might of the United States and the blood of her children to be tricked into fighting someone else's war. History has shown that if a crime is possible, it is also inevitable. The cold hard reality is that Amdocs and Comverse Infosys are the most powerful tools a blackmailer could ever hope for, opening up the private lives of everyone in the nation, including the secrets of targets able to control the media and US policy. Dare we ignore this potential threat? Or will the media be "persuaded" that all this fuss about Israeli-owned companies with wires into the phone system is just a lot of nonsense? There is one more aspect to this issue that needs to be looked at. If indeed Israel is blackmailing our officials and media icons, it is because those who are being blackmailed ARE blackmailable. If we elect a government of criminals, we elect a government subject to blackmail. Finally, given the fact that blackmail may be assumed to be as widespread as the collection system itself is, those who persist in trying to defend Israel may no longer be assumed to be operating from the purest of motives. After all, who will defend a blackmailer more staunchly than those who are the blackmailer's victims? whatreallyhappened.com

To: michael97123 who wrote (233661)	6/14/2007 9:02:18 PM
From: SARMAN	Respond to of 281500

Oh that one you will love. Take the time to read. whatreallyhappened.com

To: michael97123 who wrote (233661)	6/14/2007 9:03:53 PM
From: SARMAN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

HEAD OF AIPAC BOASTED ABOUT HIS CONTROL OF POLITICIANS IN 1992 Newspaper clip sent in by a reader: Click for larger scan In 1992, Harry Katz phoned the President of AIPAC, David Steiner, to offer contributions. Steiner proceeded to make several claims, including negotiating with then-candidate Bill Clinton over who would be Secretary of State, and had already "cut a deal" with Baker for more aid to Israel. Unknown to Steiner, Katz taped the phone call and gave the recording to the media, worried that AIPAC's influence had grown to dangerous levels. Following the release of transcripts of the phone conversation, David Steiner was forced to resign the Presidency of AIPAC. The following is a transcript of the Oct. 22, 1992 conversation with President David Steiner of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) recorded without his knowledge by New York businessman Haim (Harry) Katz. Its existence was first revealed to the Washington Times and its release triggered Steiner's resignation. Scans of the original article David Steiner AIPAC: Haim. Haim Katz: Hello, how are you? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Where are you located? HAIM KATZ: I'm located in Queens, New York. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Queens.. .Far Rockaway? HAIM KATZ: Belle Harbor. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Belle Harbor. I'm trying to get this list together. Would you ever get into the city? HAIM KATZ: Sure, I do. Sure, you come frequently? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Well I come in from time to time. I have an office there, at AIPAC in the city. You know, I want you to understand . . . where did you get my name and phone number? HAIM KATZ: Oh, I, um, I called AIPAC. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah. HAIM KATZ: And ahh. . .I know you're the president of AIPAC... DAVID STEINER AIPAC: You should understand that, the political information that I gave you, those are personal choices . . . HAIM KATZ: Sure, I understand. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: AIPAC does not rate or endorse candidates, does not solicit money. . . HAIM KATZ: Yeah, look. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I want you to understand that the choices I would give you are personal choices. HAIM KATZ: I understand. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I wonder if before . . . I want to get together with you next week. HAIM KATZ: Next week would be fine. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: But in the meantime, I wonder if I can have one of my people get together with you and talk to you about it . . . They'll want to meet you and know who you are and all this. I have a.. . maybe if I can have Seth Buchwald call you, my New York director. HAIM KATZ: That would be terrific. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: And we have a guy out there, Joel Schnur. And, are you orthodox? HAIM KATZ: Ah, yes. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Okay, Joel is orthodox too. I am not. HAIM KATZ: You're reform or? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I'm reform. HAIM KATZ: Okay, let me just say. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I was raised orthodox but I'm reform. HAIM KATZ: Okay, let me just tell you that, I'll just hold you a minute. I'll be happy to meet with them, I know, I've heard the names, I'd be happy to meet with them, as a matter of fact I could, when I'm in Manhattan...Are you ever in Manhattan? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Sure, today I'm going to be there, but I can't. I'm meeting with the ambassador. HAIM KATZ: Okay, I'll just ask you very very quickly. You know, like, in New York, you know, this is your own personal opinion, like in New York we have Abrams against D'Amato. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Well, let me tell you what my personal position is. Okay? HAIM KATZ: Yeah. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: From a Jewish point of view, I believe in political loyalty. HAIM KATZ: Right. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: And if someone has been good for Israel, no matter who, if my brother would run against them, I would support them because they'd been good to Israel because that's an important message to people. HAIM KATZ: Right. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: What I'm going to be doing for you. . . HAIM KATZ: Now D'Amato, has he been good for Israel? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: You couldn't have a better . . . listen I think Abrams would be good too, but that's not the message. HAIM KATZ: Yeah. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Ah... HAIM KATZ: So the message, so the message is that ah...I agree with you all the way, that if somebody's been good for Israel, I'll take D'Amato. But you have no complaints with D'Amato? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I have no complaints with D'Amato. HAIM KATZ: Uh huh, so and ah, you know, let me tell you, Abrams might be, might be too liberal. I don't know if Abrams supported, let's say the ah, the war against Iraq. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah, I don't know, and ah, I don't know. But all I know is if I have a guy who is there and he's doing it, then I don't want to change, you know? HAIM KATZ: Right. Let me ask you this very quickly and then I will. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I'm going to have Seth call you because in the meantime I'm going to be preparing this list, what I'm doing is, I've asked my frienDavid Steiner AIPAC in the various campaigns, I've made about 30 calls, what I'm trying to put together who neeDavid Steiner AIPAC it the most, you know? Because you could dissipate a million dollars, but the point is to put it where it's going to do the most, I know Bob Kasten, who's been an outstanding friend and neeDavid Steiner AIPAC it I know. . . HAIM KATZ: Excuse my ignorance. Bob Kasten is what state? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: From Wisconsin. . . HAIM KATZ: Okay, is he Jewish? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: . . .He's for loan guarantees, he happens to be a Republican. HAIM KATZ: Okay, and but, he's good? He's. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: You couldn't have better. HAIM KATZ: Is Kasten, Kasten's been very, very good and he's in trouble? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: He's in big trouble. Les Aspin, who's the Chairman of the Military Appropriations, a Democrat also from Wisconsin is really [unintelligible]. HAIM KATZ: You mean, Les Aspin is in trouble? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: In big trouble. HAIM KATZ: I can't believe it. I mean, I don't, I don't follow . . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Well see, what happened was, you know ah, when you get to know me, I'll put you on my list and I'll be sending all these things. A wealthy businessman decided to run, using all his own money. Aspin, 'cause they sit on the finance committee for Aspin. . . HAIM KATZ: Right. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: . ..programmed the last two weeks of, well the last month of the campaign, for TV. This guy came in two months early and we didn't have the money budgeted, so we're out scratching around to raise money for him. So we, heck, I told him, I said that I'd go, I'll sign on the bank on a loan for you, you know, that's how important it is. HAIM KATZ: Unbelievable. You know I read, I won't hold you long, but I'd just tell you this. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: That's okay. HAIM KATZ: . . .I'll just tell you this, I read the New York Post, and I don't even read the papers too much, I don't follow politics . . . are you ready for this? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah. HAIM KATZ: Get ready for this. I read in the papers this morning, I think it was the (NY) Post, Barbara Boxer, in California. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah. HAIM KATZ: . ..do you know who she is? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I know who... HAIM KATZ: She's originally from, ah. . . New York I think. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: A friend of yours? HAIM KATZ: No, no, no. She's not a friend of mine, but she, ah, I think she's in trouble. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yean, that's ah, in that race we're okay either way, 'cause Bruce Herschensohn, who she's running against, is Jewish, and he's very strong on our issues. HAIM KATZ: Okay, but Herschensohn.. . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Herschensohn's a very conservative Republican. HAIM KATZ: You know, he's come out of nowhere. He was like 30 points behind.. . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Right. HAIM KATZ: He's come out of nowhere with it. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Because the truth of the matter is, she didn't always vote for foreign aid. We had a big meeting, I had a program in L.A. I had all four senatorial candidates there, and he ripped her apart. She has always voted against foreign and. HAIM KATZ: What about the one, in ah, the one in. . . um, what's his name? I read it in the paper, it's just a shocker, politics is a crazy game. The black woman in Chicago. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Carol Moseley Braun? HAIM KATZ: She was going to win by 50 points. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Oh it's down, she took the money, it's a big problem. HAIM KATZ: It's a big problem with her. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: And we have a problem with another good friend. You know Daniel Inouye, from Hawaii he's one of our best frienDavid Steiner AIPAC. It was Kasten-Inouye on the loan guarantees, Kasten-Inouye and Leahy.. . HAIM KATZ: I heard, I saw it on, I know Inouye's in trouble because of, he sexually harassed his hairdresser. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We commissioned a poll and got some people, and I've got to raise $27,000 to pay for the poll . . . so I have, so what I'm trying to do is make a priority list, because I don't know how far you want to go. . . how old are your kiDavid Steiner AIPAC by the way? . . . You had three children that could write checks, do they have their own checking accounts? HAIM KATZ: Yes. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Oh, so that's not going to be. . . HAIM KATZ: How old do they have to be? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: They can't be one year old. HAIM KATZ: I mean, could they be 18, 17? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Sure, no problem, so they could make, nobody's going to bother you, but if you had infants, a four-year-old, let's say, it's not a contest. HAIM KATZ: Let me tell you, I was planning, I was planning to, to . . . Inouye, by the way, is in real trouble? He's been there forever. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah! Well, we might lose him. There's been such a sea change, such trouble this year, I can't believe all our frienDavid Steiner AIPAC that are in trouble. Because there's an anti-incumbency mood, and foreign aid has not been popular. You know what I got for, I met with [U.S. Secretary of State] Jim Baker and I cut a deal with him. I got, besides the $3 billion, you know they're looking for the Jewish votes, and I'll tell him whatever he wants to hear. . . HAIM KATZ: Right. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don't even know about. HAIM KATZ: Such as? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: $700 million in military draw-down, from equipment that the United States Army's going to give to Israel; $200 million the U.S. government is going to preposition materials in Israel, which Israel can draw upon; put them in the global warning protection system; so when if there's a missile fired, they'll get the same advanced notification that the U.S., is notified, joint military exercises—I've got a whole shopping list of things. HAIM KATZ: So this is from Baker? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: From Baker and from the Pentagon. HAIM KATZ: So, not so, not.. . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Why did he do it, you know, why did he do it? Last year I was a bum. This year I said look Jim, we're going to fight on the F-l5s. Israel doesn't want to fight, I said, but some people on it are going to come up on the floor of the Senate and the House and they're going to fight. If you'll do this, I think I can hold them back. But you've got to do it right away. They didn't want to fight. I said, "You don't want a fight before the election. It's going to hurt Bush. We don't want a fight before the election. We don't want to fight at all. Why can't we work something out?" So we cut a deal. You can't repeat this. HAIM KATZ: You're right. But you met with Baker. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Personally. HAIM KATZ: Personally. Because you know, he's the one who cursed, who cursed the Jews. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Of course, do you think I'm ever going to forgive him for that? HAIM KATZ: Unbelievable. I said... DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Do you think I could ever forgive Bush for what he did September 12th a year ago? What he said about the Jews for lobbying in Washington? HAIM KATZ: Do you think that Baker has a legitimate concern for the Jews? From what I hear, do you think he's anti-Semitic? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I wouldn't go so far as to say that. He's a pragmatic businessman, he's a very tough lawyer. He does whatever it takes. HAIM KATZ: And that's why.. . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: If we didn't have an election this year, you would get [unintelligible] from him. HAIM KATZ: Let me ask you a quick question. Just a quick question here. You know Perot, you know, I'm telling you this is scary. I don't know what you think of Perot, but if Perot hadn't backed out, I watched the debates. I thought Perot did marvelous in the debates. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: He doesn't know how to govern. He's not going to make it. And there was an incident where his daughter was going out with a Jewish professor at school and he said, "I wouldn't have my daughter marry a Jew." HAIM KATZ: So Perot, they say that if Perot hadn't backed out in July, and if he would have gotten himself a good running mate, you know . . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: He wouldn't win, but it would go to the House of Representatives. The Democrats would win in the House of Representatives. HAIM KATZ: So if it goes to the House, the Democrats would win for sure. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: For sure. HAIM KATZ: Okay let me ask you, last question and then I'll be happy to meet with your New York people. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: You know, you sound like my kind of guy. How old are you? HAIM KATZ: Forty-two. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: You're a kid. HAIM KATZ: I'm not a kid, I'm 42. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I'm 63, you're a kid. HAIM KATZ: I wish I was... DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We'll have to get you involved. I like you, we have a lot to talk about, about real estate, you know, I have so many great activities going on at AIPAC, you ought to think about coming to some of these things. I'll have a dinner this fall. I'll have 18-20 senators there. I run programs in Washington. We just had a, I had at Ted Kennedy's house last month kosher dinner. I brought foremost caterers down. I had 60 people on the couch for dinner. Last year, I did it in Al Gore's house. HAIM KATZ: Right. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Those are the things you should be getting involved in and knowing what's going on. . . HAIM KATZ: Let me just ask you about Clinton. I want to tell you, you may not believe this, but I think that if Perot. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah, he would've given us a hard time. What's the name of your company, what do you do business as? HAIM KATZ: We do business as HAIM KATZ, Inc. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: HAIM KATZ, Inc.? HAIM KATZ: Right. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Do you have a street address? HAIM KATZ: Sure. 621 Beach 129th Street, Belle Harbor, Queens, New York, 11694. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah, because on my computer you only show a post office box. This is your house? You work out of your house? HAIM KATZ: Yeah, out of an office in the house. . . Look, Mr. Steiner... DAVID STEINER AIPAC: David. My father's Mr. Steiner. HAIM KATZ: David, let me just ask you about Clinton. Honestly, what do you feel about Clinton? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Well, I've known Bill Clinton for seven eight years. I think he's got to be a lot better than George Bush. . . we have a lot of people in there. But he doesn't need money, he really doesn't need money. I'm a trustee of the Democratic National Committee. We collected $63 million for him so far. HAIM KATZ: Who's collected $63 million? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign have raised $63 million. HAIM KATZ: So they've already raised $63 million, so they don't need money. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: No, we need money, like we got a guy, Byron Dorgan, in North Dakota, who's going to be very good for us and we need money to make sure that he gets in. We've got people like that, because [unintelligible], whatever you give them would be a tickle on the elephant's behind. But when you give $5,000 or $10,000 to Bob Kasten, that's very meaningful. HAIM KATZ: Let me ask you, I understand what you're saying. Clinton, when Clinton first started running a year ago, did he need money at that time? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yes he did. HAIM KATZ: I mean, did you help him out, 'cause that's the time. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I personally am not allowed, as president of AIPAC, to get involved in the presidential campaign, because I have to deal with whoever wins. You know, I've got to go see Bush if he's there, but I helped him, we raised over a million dollars for him in New Jersey. HAIM KATZ: For Clinton? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: For Clinton. HAIM KATZ: And this was when, in the beginning? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: In the beginning, yes. After he won, before the convention. HAIM KATZ: This is before the convention? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Oh sure. HAIM KATZ: Okay, let me ask you, you know, T DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We've also raised for other guys who are running too, because they're frienDavid Steiner AIPAC. Harkin, the senator, you know you have to be with everybody. HAIM KATZ: Let me ask you, [talks about getting cheated in business by Gentiles]. Let me ask you, Clinton, if he becomes, I mean what will he do for Israel, better than Bush, if he becomes, I know Bush gave you a hard time, this and that. .. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I'II tell you, I have frienDavid Steiner AIPAC on the Clinton campaign, close associates. Gore is very committed to us. HAIM KATZ: Right. Clinton if he, have you spoken to him? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I've known Bill for seven, eight years from the National Governors Association. I know him on a personal basis. I have frienDavid Steiner AIPAC. One of my frienDavid Steiner AIPAC is Hillary Clinton's scheduler, one of my officer's daughters works there. We gave two employees from AIPAC leave of absences to work on the campaign. I mean, we have a dozen people in that campaign, in the headquarters. HAIM KATZ: You mean in Little Rock? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: In Little Rock, and they're all going to get big jobs. We have frienDavid Steiner AIPAC. I also work with a think tank, the Washington Institute. I have Michael Mandelbaum and Martin Indyk being foreign policy advisers. Steve Speigel—we've got frienDavid Steiner AIPAC—this is my business. HAIM KATZ: I understand, David. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: It's very complicated and the more you get into it, you'll love it. You sound like a smart guy. HAIM KATZ: I'm a smart guy, but I have a, maybe because I'm more orthodox than you are, I've had bad experiences with Gentiles. Let me ask you, you know what "tachlis" means? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah, sure. HAIM KATZ: From a practical point of view, if Clinton wins the presidency, and I'm sure he will, I hope so at least, what will be the benefits to Israel better than Bush? From a very practical point . . . I mean, you just told me that Bush gave you everything you wanted. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Only, not everything, at the end, when we didn't want the F-l5s, that's a terrible thing. HAIM KATZ: Selling the F-l5s? If Clinton is elected. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Let me tell you the problem with the $10 billion in loan guarantees, right? We only have the first year. We have authorization from Congress, but it's at the discretion of the president every year thereafter, so if Bush is there, he could say, you know, use it as a club, you know. 'If you don't give up Syria, I won't give you the money. If you don't give up the Golan Heights.' It's at the discretion of the president. And that's why we need a friendly president and we have Bill Clinton's ear. I talked to Bill Clinton. HAIM KATZ: And Bill Clinton has made a commitment that if he's elected . . . ? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: He's going to be very good for us. HAIM KATZ: And he'll go ahead with the loan guarantees? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We didn't talk about that specifically, listen, I didn't ask him that, but I have full confidence that we're going to have a much better situation. He's got Jewish frienDavid Steiner AIPAC. A girl who worked for me at AIPAC stood up for them at their wedding. Hillary lived with her. I mean we have those relationships. We have never had that with Bush. Susan Thomases, who's in there, worked with me on the Bradley campaign. We worked together for 13 years. She's In there with the family. They stay with her when they come to New York. One of my officers, Monte Friedkin, is one of the biggest fund-raisers for them. I mean, I have people like that all over the country. HAIM KATZ: So, I mean from a practical point of view. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: He's going to be with us. HAIM KATZ: I don't say, this business, you say, Bush only went ahead with the loan guarantees for one year. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We only have. It's mandatory they give us the $2 billion for one year. After that it's subject to the discretion of the president. HAIM KATZ: You mean the other $8 billion? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: That's correct. On an annualized basis. HAIM KATZ: Also, I heard that. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: They don't have to give it to us. HAIM KATZ: But if Clinton is elected. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC:... feel reasonably certain we're gonna get It. HAIM KATZ: He's made that commitment? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Well, he said he's going to help us. He's got something in his heart for the Jews, he has Jewish frienDavid Steiner AIPAC. Bush has no Jewish frienDavid Steiner AIPAC. HAIM KATZ: Right. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Reagan had something . . . meshuga, but at least he had a commitment. He knew Jews from the film industry, he was one of the best guys for us. He had an emotional thing for the Jews. Bush doesn't have it. That's what it is really, if you have a feeling for our people, for what we believe in. Bush is, there's a man with no principles. Absolutely no principles. HAIM KATZ: I heard something about, but I never really understood it, with the scoring. One of my frienDavid Steiner AIPAC told me there's a difference in the scoring, but I don't understand. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Scoring is like points that you pay. HAIM KATZ: So let's say, if Bush is elected on the loans . . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: No, we've got the scoring arranged, it's four and a half percent. It's all done. HAIM KATZ: That's all done, even with Bush? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Even with Bush. I've got that worked out. HAIM KATZ: So that's all done. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: It's in the bill. It's all passed. He signed the bill. It's a matter of law. HAIM KATZ: So it's already four and a half percent? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We could've had it less, but then we couldn't. . . HAIM KATZ: And Clinton, if he was president, he would give...? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: He could not change it, you cannot change it. HAIM KATZ: No, but I'm saying, if he was president now, before the bill was signed, he would've given you the four and a half percent. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I would've gotten less. HAIM KATZ: I'm sorry? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I would've gotten it cheaper. HAIM KATZ: How much? Even two percent? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah, we thought we were going to get two percent. But Rabin gave it away. HAIM KATZ: You mean Rabin didn't bargain as good as he could have? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: That's right. HAIM KATZ: Unbelievable. So, if Clinton is elected, that will be the best. .. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I think that will be the best we could do. HAIM KATZ: You know, I just want to tell you one last thing. Do you have parents that come from Europe? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Yeah, of course, from Glolitzano, near Krakow. , HAIM KATZ: You're kidding, your parents are from Krakow? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Near Krakow. HAIM KATZ: Guess what? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: You too? HAIM KATZ: My parents are from Krakow. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Well, we're not from Krakow, but from near Krakow. My mother's from Rudnick, my father from Gruns, near Tano. Do you know where Tano is? HAIM KATZ: Yes. Let me tell you. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC .. don't have many left. Everybody got HAIM KATZ: Let me tell you. The same with me. Let me tell you, my parents were the only ones who came out. Let me tell you, my. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: You're a Holocaust survivor? HAIM KATZ: Yeah, no, not me, my parents. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: That's some experience, I've got two cousins, I've got one in Israel and one in France that came out of Mauthausen, I'll tell you, and everybody else dead on my father's side, in Russia. I just brought six of them from KosHaim Katzent to Israel last year. HAIM KATZ: Right. Let me tell you that, you know what my father always says? My father was a rich man in Poland, and he says, he says, "Economic power is very good. You have to have money, but if you just have economic power and you don't have political power. . ." DAVID STEINER AIPAC: "You've got nothing." HAIM KATZ: You've got nothing. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: If we had AIPAC in the '30s and '40s, we would have saved millions of Jews. We would have the political power. But Jews were afraid to open their mouths. They didn't know how. HAIM KATZ: AIPAC started after WWII? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Oh, sure. HAIM KATZ And if you would have had AIPAC in the DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I feel we would've saved a lot of Jews. HAIM KATZ: And Franklin Roosevelt, he could've done a lot better? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Sure, he could. The Jews never opened their mouths. They were afraid. We're not afraid. They can curse me out, I don't care if they hate me, just as long as I get what we need for our people. HAIM KATZ: So if you had a little lamp, a wishing lamp and you could wish for either Bush, Clinton or Perot. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Clinton. HAIM KATZ: Clinton all the way? And in terms of Israel having political power, between the three candidates, the one who will give us the most political power? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Clinton is the best guy for us. HAIM KATZ: He's the best one. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I hope you're serious about what you told me. HAIM KATZ: I am, I'll tell you this [tells a long anecdote about David Souter promising to oppose abortion as a nominee and then reversing himself on the Supreme Court]. So I wish we had a Jewish candidate for president. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I don't think the country's ready. HAIM KATZ: If the country was ready, is there any Jewish candidate...? DAVID STEINER AIPAC:I wouldn't venture to say anything. HAIM KATZ: You know who? I don't know him, I've never met him, Joe Lieberman. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Oh, I'm very friendly with Joe. I'm having dinner with him Monday night. HAIM KATZ: Let me tell you, I think Joe Lieberman would have, uh, would have, if he wasn't Jewish, that's the only problem he has. He's highly respected. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I'd like to see him on the Supreme Court. HAIM KATZ: If Clinton is elected, has he told you who he's going to put on the Supreme Court? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We're talking now. We don't have no commitments yet. We're just negotiating. We're more interested right now, in the secretary of state and the secretary of National Security Agency. That's more important to us. HAIM KATZ: If Clinton is elected, who do you think will be secretary of state? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We don't know yet, we're negotiating. HAIM KATZ: Who are you hoping for? DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I've got a list. But I really can't go through it. I'm not allowed to talk about it. HAIM KATZ: But you figure, God willing, if Clinton's elected . . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: We'll have access. HAIM KATZ: You'll have access and you'll have a good input into who's secretary of state. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: I do believe so. HAIM KATZ: And the other position is. . . DAVID STEINER AIPAC: National security adviser. HAIM KATZ: Those are the two critical positions. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Right. HAIM KATZ: Gotcha. Well, David, thanks for talking with me. W: And we're going to get together next week. I hope you'll have your checkbook ready. HAIM KATZ: Will do. DAVID STEINER AIPAC: Okay, thanks. HAIM KATZ: And let me ask you about the real estate. . . [more talk about irrelevant issues].

To: michael97123 who wrote (233661)	6/14/2007 9:04:56 PM
From: SARMAN	Respond to of 281500

A SHORT HISTORY OF US VETOES OF UN PEACE RESOLUTIONS The United States has vetoed 35 UN resolutions related to the middle east. (Palestine; 24, Lebanon; 8, Syria; 1, Libya; 2) Shortly after the 1967 war, the US asserted that Israel had to comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Territories, but it was only four years later, in 1971, that the US declared Israel’s actions there to be contrary to the Convention. It took another four years for the US to declare the building of settlements in the occupied territories as being illegal and an obstacle to peace. Yet, two days after declaring its position to the UN (1976), the US vetoed a resolution calling on Israel to stop changing the status of Jerusalem and put an end to settlement building on Arab land. It was only in March 1979 that the US allowed the Security Council to address the situation by abstaining on the UNSCR 446, which stated that the Fourth Geneva Convention applied to the Arab territories occupied by Israel, including Jerusalem[1]. However, at this point, the Resolution was more or less meaningless and it was certainly not going to change Israel’s plans for yet more settlements. Despite the fact that US President Jimmy Carter kept on declaring settlements to be illegal, only three out of seven Security Council Resolutions (during his four years in office) on the issue of settlements were supported by the US. In 1979, a UN commission reported the existence of 133 Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories, and almost 100,000 settlers. The number of settlements began rising substantially once the ultra-nationalist Menachem Begin became Israeli Prime Minister in 1977. By the end of his term (1983), there were almost 200 settlements. By the end of Yitzhak Shamir’s term, a further fifty settlements had been built; there were now around 245 000 settlers in the Occupied Territories[2]. In 1981, less than a month after he took office, President Ronald Reagan expressed his opinion that the expansion of the settlements was not a constructive move, but they were ‘not illegal’… ‘maybe unnecessarily provocative’[3]. President Reagan was a strong admirer and supporter of Israel and showed no sympathy for Palestinians, which obviously meant that there was no chance of his Middle East policy-making being even-handed. Israeli supporters filled almost every portfolio in his foreign policy team, and no regional experts in the State Department had any influence on his policies whatsoever. His term in office also coincided with AIPAC’s membership rising dramatically, and saw the launch of the Hasbara Project, which was set up by Israeli supporters and media commentators as an information campaign to try to regain a positive image of Israel. This came after it had been damaged following Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982[4]. The first Bush Administration offered some hope for change when Secretary of State, James Baker, addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 1989, stating that Israeli settlement expansion had to end. This new Administration also referred to East Jerusalem as Occupied Territory and declared that the settlement issue was one of the main obstacles for peace and one of the first concerns to Palestinians[5]. However this coincided with Jews from the Soviet Union flooding into Israel by their thousands. Shamir, then Israeli Prime Minister, declared that Israel needed to expand its settlement building to be able to house all these immigrants, even if this meant building in the Occupied Territories[6]. James Baker later declared that the U.S. would guarantee a loan for building housing for the Soviet immigrants, but on the condition that the loan was not used to build settlements in the Occupied Territories. Shamir gave Baker assurances about the use of these funds; however, in October he declared that the agreement did not cover Arab East Jerusalem[7]. The Clinton Administration expressed its position on the issue by defending the policy supporting the “natural growth” of settlements. As the Oslo accords began to take shape, the U.S. re-iterated that settlements had been a cause of tension, but both sides were now working together to resolve this. However during the Rabin-Peres Administration, the number of settlers increased by almost fifty percent[8], but these facts were often overlooked, Didi Remez, the spokesman for Peace Now, explained, ‘most Israelis were and are fundamentally unaware of the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. For them, 1993-2000 were years of Peace’[9]. A report published by B’tselem explains that the Oslo Accords had not dealt with the issue of settlements and thus enables Israel to continue with its policies of land expropriation. According to the report, Israel established 30 new settlements in the Occupied Territories, of which 17 during the signing of the Wye Memorandum[10]. When Netanyahu came to power in 1996, Warren Christopher, then Secretary of State, was asked what the US’s policy was on the issue of settlements. He declared, “I think we’ll have to adapt our policy to the current situation. That is our policy.”[11] In December 1996, Netanyahu spoke out firmly in support of continued settlement expansion, saying that he wanted to match the previous Government’s rate of settlement growth. The hypocrisy of his Government went even further when in 1998, during the Wye Plantation agreement, his Foreign Minister, Ariel Sharon, met with settlement leaders and urged them to ‘grab the hilltops’. This resulted in the establishment of 42 new settlement sites[12]. Under Ehud Barak, settlements prospered, marginally less than during Netanyahu, but tenders for public housing were issued at an unprecedented rate. Of the 42 outposts that had been established between 1996-99, only four were dismantled. Barak maintained that most of the settlements were areas of highest national priority[13]. When Ariel Sharon was elected in February 2001, he immediately violated Israel’s commitment made in the guidelines of its own coalition, under which ‘no new settlements will be built’. Shimon Peres is misleading the Israeli public and the rest of the world when he speaks of natural growth and pledges no new expansion. In fact, 39 new settlement sites were established between February and March and ten between June and September of this year[14]. It is pretty obvious to most people that these new settlements are not being built to cater for housing needs, as Professor Amira Goldblum, head of Peace Now’s Settlement Watch team explains; ‘Construction in the settlements has always been an act of provocation, which contributes to the growth of violence and the use of force in the territories. There are thousands of housing units in the territories now standing empty, which could easily fill the settlers’ demographic needs for the coming years’. Consistently, the international community has viewed the settlement issue as a major obstacle to peace. However very few Security Council Resolutions have in fact dealt with it directly. Only two Resolutions dealing with the settlement issue were adopted, both in 1979, and out of twenty one Resolutions that were vetoed by the U.S., only four included the settlement problem. The Status of Jerusalem The issue of the status of Jerusalem has always been at the centre of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and one of the most difficult issues to resolve. During the British Mandate period, from 1922 to 1948, Jerusalem was Britain’s administrative centre for control of Palestine and Transjordan. It was towards the end of the 1930s that the concept of Jerusalem as an international city became the main recommendation for various groups seeking a solution in Palestine. In 1937, the Peel Commission made recommendations for the partition of Jerusalem. Palestine would be divided into two separate states, a Jewish State and an Arab State, and the city of Jerusalem would be under a Special International Regime[15]. In 1946, the Jewish Agency also submitted plans for the partition of city. In 1947, the UN General Assembly put forth a partition plan (Resolution 181[16]), backed by the US, which would divide Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish States with Jerusalem under a Special International Regime. The Resolution designated Jerusalem a corpus separatum with its own Government under the United Nations, which would appoint a Governor who would exercise wide powers over all aspects of life in the city[17]. The Resolution also clearly stated that the Governor of Jerusalem could under no circumstances be a citizen from either State. However, neither Israel, nor Jordan accepted this status for Jerusalem as they both believed their control over the city was effective. On 14th May 1948, Israel was established and the Jewish forces captured the Western part of the city, driving out thousands of Palestinians[18]. The US’s policy was supportive of the internationalization of Jerusalem until 1967, when it then threw the problem back at the Israelis and Arabs saying that it was up to them to establish the status of Jerusalem. From 1947, the US did not recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli or Arab capital. In fact, it strongly rejected Jordan’s and Israel’s claims to the annexation of Jerusalem[19]. In the beginning of 1950, Israel declared Jerusalem as its capital and moved some of their government offices, including the Prime Minister’s, to West Jerusalem. This infuriated the US, who then decided to ban all US officials from doing business in Jerusalem. The ban lasted almost thirteen months, after which the US realized that they could not avoid dealing with Israeli officials in the city. A few months after Israel annexed Jerusalem, Jordan decided to annex East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Jordan River territories that were not occupied by Israel[20]. At this point, the UN and the US were not willing to reverse the situation by force. Furthermore, the Corpus Separatum concept suffered a severe blow when the Soviet Union decided not to back it anymore. After 1952, the international community and the UN General Assembly were disillusioned and did not discuss the status of Jerusalem until 1967. In the US, there was a tendency to ignore the subject, mainly because it was a difficult subject in domestic political terms and until East Jerusalem was annexed by Israel in the 1967 war, no measures had been taken[21]. It is important to note that the American public did not really know much about the Palestinians, and ‘no one in the State Department or at higher levels of government thought of them in a political context, with national aspirations or political grievances’[22]. After the Six Day War in 1967, the US no longer supported the internationalization of Jerusalem, or even considered it as a separate entity. The US now believed Jerusalem should remain undivided and its future was up to the two parties to negotiate. President Johnson is believed to have been influenced by Arthur Goldberg, US Ambassador to the UN, to drop the issue of Jerusalem. Johnson realized that by ignoring the issue of Jerusalem, he would win much needed support from the Jewish community, as he had been under a lot of criticism because of his policies in Vietnam[23]. Public opinion in the US was very much pro-Israeli, as they saw Israel as a nation that had just escaped a second holocaust. Polls showed that support for Israel was up to 55 per cent, while support for the Arabs hardly existed at all[24]. Israel continued to expand its control of Jerusalem, and eventually annexed the whole city. The US publicly condemned Israel. The UN General Assembly warned Israel not to change the status of the city with a Resolution in July, but neither of them made any reference to the Corpus Separatum. Israel ignored all criticism. In November 1967, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 242, which, although it made no reference to Jerusalem, stated that the Israeli armed forces should withdraw from territories occupied in the recent conflict [25]. In May 1968, the Security Council adopted Resolution 252, stating that the ‘acquisition of territory by military conquest was inadmissible’ and in July 1969, SCR 267 condemned Israel for failing to comply[26]. Again, in September 1969, a Resolution condemned failure of Israel to comply with the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation. Still, Israel ignored all criticism and refused to comply. In 1971, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution, supported by the US, declaring that both parties should negotiate the status of the city. The Israeli Cabinet rejected the resolution and said that their government would not negotiate[27]. Up until 1976, there had been very little mention of Jerusalem in the US foreign policy, even though it was quietly maintained that Jerusalem was part of the Occupied Territories and should be referred to as such[28]. When Gerald Ford became President, however, he openly declared that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem were void. This was followed by an official protest from Israel, which claimed that the US’s position was now tilting towards the Arabs. Two days later, the US vetoed a Security Council Resolution, which condemned Israel’s alterations to the city. Ford was in fact fighting for his own elections and needed support and contribution from the Jewish community. After his re-election, he reversed the US’s position in the Security Council Resolution, which declared Israel’s absorption of Jerusalem as invalid[29]. In March 1980, the US voted for resolution 465, which referred to Jerusalem as part of the Occupied Territories and stated that Israel’s claims to the sovereignty of the city were void. Two days later, however, the US declared that they had in fact intended to abstain, but a failure in communications resulted in them voting in favour. This indicated the first change in the US position on Jerusalem, which had always been very clear about referring to Jerusalem as Occupied Territory.[30] In the summer of 1980, after the Knesset enacted a law declaring Jerusalem as the permanent capital of Israel, the US, under President Jimmy Carter, abstained on Security Council Resolution 478, which censured Israel for its annexation of East Jerusalem and called on those countries maintaining diplomatic missions in Jerusalem to move elsewhere. Even though this did not directly affect the US, Secretary of State, Edmund Sixtus Muskie, denounced the demand from the UNSC to move embassies out of Jerusalem stating that it was ‘a disruptive attempt to dictate to other nations’[31]. The reason for the US abstaining on this resolution was also linked to domestic issues; presidential elections were coming up and it was also two days prior to the Egypt-Israel peace agreement[32], which was to be a personal achievement for Carter. President Ronald Reagan, in the 1980s, was more pro-Israeli than Carter, but still did not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, thus the US embassy remained in Tel Aviv. Since then, several presidential candidates have used the issue of Jerusalem in their campaign at home; Gary Hart and Walter Mondale in 1984, Michael Dukakis in 1988, Bill Clinton in 1992, Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000, all claiming that they would move the embassy to Jerusalem if elected[33]. When George Bush Senior was elected, he referred to East Jerusalem as ‘Occupied Territory’, but the uproar was so strong that the White House Chief of Staff declared that despite these remarks, the US would not change its policy. Israel in the meantime, kept on ignoring criticism and continued expanding and expropriating Arab land. The UN General Assembly, Security Council, the European Union and the Vatican, all refused to accept Israel’s claims to a unified Jerusalem and repeatedly referred to the Fourth Geneva Convention and the laws of belligerent occupation to East Jerusalem[34]. Until President Clinton came to power, the US had also refused to accept Israel’s claims to sovereignty over Jerusalem. Clinton, however, was the first US President to declare that the fate of Jerusalem was a matter for the two parties involved to negotiate. Pressure had been mounting on the US to move their embassy to Jerusalem and in 1994, during Congressional elections, Newt Gingrich, House Speaker, said that the US embassy was to be moved to Jerusalem[35]. In May 1995, Senator Robert Dole announced at an AIPAC meeting that a Bill was going to be introduced to provide for the relocation of the US embassy. Jerusalem was recognized by the Public Law 104-45 as the ‘undivided’, ‘united’ and ‘reunited’ capital of Israel, and the new embassy was ordained to be open no later than May 1999[36]. However, the US President was given the authority to postpone the move for a six-months period on the grounds of national security. Bill Clinton postponed the move of the embassy, but the US ambassador to Israel established a second residence in Jerusalem, where he could entertain US Jewish groups. This move was designed to diminish pressure from the Congress to officially move the embassy[37]. Shortly after his election, George W. Bush declared that he would allow the relocation of the embassy to take place because Jerusalem was the city that Israel had chosen as its capital. However, in June 2001, with the new Intifada being far from resolved, Bush chose to postpone the move for reasons of national security and ‘notified Secretary of State Colin Powell that he was extending an administrative ban on the move for another six months’[38]. On Jerusalem, the US remains at odds with the international consensus and law, unwilling to accept East Jerusalem as occupied. The US’s use of veto is also in opposition to the international community’s position, which undermines the US’s claim to be a role model in peace negotiations. Annex 1: American Vetoes 1. 10/09/1972: Lebanon (and Syria) The Council called on parties to cease military operations. Votes[40]: 13 (members voting to adopt the resolution) – 1 (member using their veto) – 1; Panama (member that abstained from the vote) 2. 24/07/1973: Palestine /…supported initiatives of special representatives and Secretary General, and deplored Israel’s continuing occupation of territories seized in the 1967 conflict and expressed conviction that a just solution could be achieved only on the basis of respect for the rights of all states in the area and the rights and legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians. Votes: 13 – 1- China did not participate in the vote 3. 05/12/1975: Lebanon /… condemned Israel for air attacks upon Lebanon Votes: 13 – 1 – 1; Costa Rica 4. 23/01/1976: Palestine Israel should withdraw from the Occupied Territories and the Palestinians right to establish an independent state in Palestine Votes: 9 – 1 – 3; Italy, Sweden, UK. China and Libya did not participate in the vote 5. 24/03/1976: Palestine /… called on Israel to respect and uphold the inviolability of Holy places and desist from actions designed to change the legal status of the city of Jerusalem and desist from establishing settlements in occupied Arab territories. Votes: 14 - 1 6. 29/06/1976: Palestine /…affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination including the right to return and national independence and sovereignty in Palestine. Votes: 10 – 1 – 4; France, Italy, Sweden, UK 7. 28/04/1980: Palestine /… reaffirmed that Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories including Jerusalem and affirmed that the Palestinian’s right to self-determination included the right to establish an independent sate in Palestine. Votes: 10 – 1 – 4; France, Norway, Portugal, UK 8. 20/01/1982: Syria (Golan Heights) /… decided that all Member States should consider applying concrete and effective measures in order to nullify the Israeli annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights. Votes: 9 – 1 – 5; France, Ireland, Japan, Panama, UK 9. 01/04/1982: Palestine /… called on Israel as occupying power, to rescind decisions disbanding municipal of El Bireh and removing Mayors of Nablus and Ramallah and to cease contravening Fourth Geneva Convention. Votes: 13 – 1 – 1; Zaire 10. 02/04/1982: Palestine /… called on Israel to observe and apply the Fourth Geneva Convention and deplored acts of destruction or profanation in Jerusalem. Votes: 14 - 1 11. 08/06/1982: Palestine /… condemned Israel for not complying with resolutions on withdrawal and reiterated demand for unconditional Israeli withdrawal Votes: 14 - 1 12. 25/06/1982: Palestine (refugee camps in Lebanon) /… demanded immediate cessation of hostilities and immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces to ten kilometers from Beirut and simultaneous withdrawal of Palestinian forces to existing camps and requested UN Secretary-General to station military observers. Votes: 14 - 1 13. 06/08/1982: Palestine /… decided that Member States should withhold supplying military aid until Israel withdrew and strongly condemned Israel for not implementing SCRs 516 and 517 (1982)[41]. Votes: 11 – 1 – 3; Togo, UK, Zaire 14. 01/08/1983: Palestine /… determined that Israeli practices and policies in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem, had no legal validity and condemned recent attacks against Arab civilian population. Votes: 13 – 1 – 1; Zaire 15. 28/02/1984: Lebanon /… called on Israel to respect the rights of the civilian population in the areas under its occupation in Lebanon and demanded that Israel lift all restrictions in violation of Fourth Geneva Convention. Votes: 14 - 1 16. 11/03/1985: Lebanon /… condemned Israeli measures against the civilian population in Southern Lebanon […] and demanded immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces and the implementation of SCR 425 (1978) and SCRs 508 and 509 (1982)[42]. Votes: 11 – 1 – 3; Australia, Denmark, UK 17. 13/09/1985: Palestine /… deplored repressive measures taken by Israel against Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories […] called on Israel to immediately stop all repressive measures including curfews, administrative detainees and refrain from further deportations. Votes: 10 – 1 – 4; Australia, Denmark, France, UK 18. 17/01/1986: Lebanon /… deplored Israeli acts of violence and measures against the civilian population in Southern Lebanon and reaffirmed the need to implement SCR 425 (1978) and SCRs 508 and 509 (1982) on Israeli military withdrawal to Lebanon’s internationally recognized boundaries. Votes: 11 – 1 – 3; Australia, Denmark, UK 19. 30/01/1986: Palestine /… strongly deplores provocative acts which violated the sanctity of the sanctuary Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem. Votes: 13 – 1 – 1; Thailand 20. 06/02/1986: Libya /… condemned Israel for its forcible interception and diversion of the Libyan civilian aircraft in international airspace, and its subsequent detention. Votes: 10 – 1 – 4; Australia, Denmark, UK 21. 15/01/1988: Lebanon /… strongly deplored the reported Israeli attacks, against Lebanese territory and civilian population and requested Israel to cease attempts to occupy or change the status of Lebanese territory and reaffirmed the need to implement SCRs 425 and 426[43] (1978) and SCR 509 (1982) on Israeli military withdrawal to internationally recognised boundaries. Votes: 13- 1 – 1; UK 22. 29/01/1988: Palestine /… calls on Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention to territories occupied since 1967 and comply with obligations under the Convention, and requested continued monitoring by the UN Secretary-General. Votes: 14 - 1 23. 14/04/1988: Palestine /… urged Israel to abide by the Geneva Convention, to rescind orders to deport Palestinians, condemned policies and practices of Israel which violate the human rights of the Palestinians and affirmed the need for a settlement. Votes: 14 - 1 24. 06/05/1988: Lebanon /… condemned the recent invasion by Israeli forces of southern Lebanon, reaffirmed the urgent need to implement SCRs 425 and 426 (1978) and SCR 509 (1982) and requested the Secretary-General to continue consultations. Votes: 14 - 1 25. 14/12/1988: Lebanon /… strongly deplored the attack by Israeli forces on 9 December 1988 against Lebanese territory, and reaffirmed urgent need to implement SCRs 425 and 426 (1978) and SCR 509 (1982) and requested the Secretary-General to continue consultations. Votes: 14 - 1 26. 11/01/1989: Libya /… deplored the downing of two Libyan reconnaissance planes by the United States and called on the US to suspend its military maneuvers off the Libyan coast and on all parties to refrain from resorting to force. Votes: 9 – 3 (France, US, UK) – 3; Brazil, Canada, Finland 27. 17/02/1989: Palestine /… strongly deplored Israel's persistent policies and practices against the Palestinian people in the Palestinian territories; called on Israel to abide by Security Council resolutions and comply with its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention; and requested the UN Secretary-General to report to the Security Council. Votes: 14 - 1 28. 08/06/1989: Palestine /… strongly deplored Israel's policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territories; demanded that Israel desist from deporting Palestinians from the occupied territories; expressed concern about the prolonged closure of schools in parts of the occupied territory and requested the Secretary-General to report no later than 23 June. Votes: 14 - 1 29. 07/11/1989: Palestine /… strongly deplored Israel's policies and practices against the Palestinian people in the occupied territories; called upon Israel to end such practices; requested Secretary-General to conduct on-site monitoring of the situation and to submit periodic reports, the first such report as soon as possible. Votes: 14 - 1 30. 31/05/1990: Palestine /… established a Commission of three members of the Security Council to examine the situation relating to Israel's policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory; and requested the Commission to report to the Security Council by 20 June 1990. Votes: 14 - 1 31. 17/05/1995: Palestine /… confirmed that the expropriation of land by Israel, the occupying power, in East Jerusalem was invalid, and called upon the Government of Israel to rescind the expropriation orders and refrain from such action in the future. Votes: 14 - 1 32. 07/03/1997: Palestine /… called on the Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities, which alter facts on the ground pre-empting final status negotiations, and have negative implications for the Middle East Peace Process; and to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the 1949 Geneva Convention Votes: 14 - 1 33. 21/03/1997: Palestine /… demanded that Israel immediately cease construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem as well as other Israeli settlement activities in the occupied territories, and requests a report on developments from the Secretary-General. Votes: 13 – 1 – 1; Costa Rica 34. 27/03/2001: Palestine /… Sending of an unarmed UN Observer force to the West Bank Votes: 9 – 1 – 5; France, Ireland, Norway, UK, Ukraine 35. 15/12/2001: Palestine /… Sending of a human rights monitoring force to the Occupied Territories and condemning all acts of terror, extra-judiciary killing, excessive use of force and house demolitions. Also expressed it determination to contribute to ending the violence and to prompting dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian sides. Votes: 12 –1-2; Britain and Norway abstained Annexe 2: Security Council Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967) The Security Council, Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East, Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security, Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter. 1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force; 2. Affirms further the necessity: (a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; (b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; (c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones; 3. Requests the SecretaryGeneral to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution; 4. Requests the SecretaryGeneral to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible. [1] ‘Settlements in U.S. Policy’, Neff, Donald. Journal of Palestine Studies XXIII, no. 3 (Spring 94), pp. 56-57 [2] Neff, Donald, pp 57-59 [3] ‘Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories’, The Foundation for Middle East Peace. Volume 7, Number 1, January-February 1997. pp 7. [4] Christison, Kathleen. ‘Bound by a frame if Reference, Part II: U.S. Policy and the Palestinians, 1948-88’. Journal of Palestine Studies XXVII, no. 3 (Spring 1998), pp 29-30. [5] Ibid. [6] Neff, Donald, Journal of Palestine Studies. Pp 61. [7] Ibid. Pp 61. [8] Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre, ‘Isreali Settlement and the Peace Process: Signed, Sealed, Delivered’ January 97. [9] Remez, Didi. ‘Facts on the Ground since the Oslo Agreement’, 12/2000. Spokesperson for Peace Now [10] Sovich, Nina. ‘May 4 statehood threat fizzles out’, Jerusalem File, June 1999. Vol II, Issue 6. p. 8. [11] ‘Report in Israeli Settlements’. Pp 7. [12] Peace Now [13] Peace Now [14] Peace Now [15] Neff, Donald. ‘Jerusalem in U.S. Policy’, Journal of Palestine Studies, vol xxiii, nb 1, Aut 93. pp 22. [16] UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), Future Government of Palestine, November 29 1947. [17] Ibid. [18] Ibid, pp 23. [19] Neff, Donald. Fallen Pillars. 1995. Pp 129 [20] Ibid. Pp 135-6 [21] Ibid. Pp 138. [22] Christison, Kathleen. ‘U.S. Policy and the Palestinians, 1948-88’, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol 27, Nr 3, Spring 98. Pp 21. [23] Neff, Donald. Pp 139. [24] Christison, Kathleen. Pp 22. [25] See annex 2. [26] Zaki Nuseibeh, Hazem. Pp 89 [27] Ibid. Pp 143. [28] Al Madfai, Mahida Rashid. ‘Jordan, the United States and the Middle East peace process 1974-1991. Pp 111. [29] Neff, Donald. Pp 143. [30] Al Madfai, pp 112. [31] Tillman, Seth P. ‘The United States in the Middle East, Interests and Obstacles’. 1982. Pp 169. [32] Ibid. Pp 144. [33] Ibid. Pp 145. [34] Khalidi, Walid. ‘The Ownership of the U.S. Embassy Site in Jerusalem’ Journal of Palestine Studies XXIX, no. 4 (Summer 2000), pp 82. [35] Neff, Donald. Pp 148-49. [36] Khalidi, Walid. Pp83 [37] Makovsky, David. ‘US Ambassador’s ‘second home’ in Jerusalem’. Jerusalem File, June 1999, pp 11. [38] Al Ahram. ‘US Embassy Move Delay’. www.palestinecampaign.org. [39] Statement by the British Foreign Office, fco.gov.uk [40] Members who voted in favor – Veto – Members who abstained [41] Security Council Resolution 516 (01/08/82): The Security Council, […] Alarmed by the continuation and intensification of military activities in and around Beirut, 1.Confirms its previous resolutions and demands an immediate cease-fire, and cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese- Israeli border; 2. Authorizes the Secretary-General to deploy immediately, on the request of the Government of Lebanon, United Nations observers to monitor the situation in and around Beirut; […]. SCR 517 (04/08/82): The Security Council, deeply shocked and alarmed by the deplorable consequences of the Israeli invasion of Beirut on 3 August 1982, 1. Reconfirms its (previous) resolutions, 2. Confirms once again its demand for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon; 3. Censures Israel for its failure to comply with above resolutions; 4. Calls for the prompt return of Israeli troops which have moved forward subsequent to 1325 hours Eastern daylight time, on 1 August 1982; 5. Takes note of the decision of the Palestine Liberation Organization to move the Palestinian armed forces from Beirut; […]. [42] Security Council Resolution 425 (19/03/1978): The Security Council, […] Gravely concerned at the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East […]; 1. Calls for strict respect for the territorial integrity. sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries; 2. Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanon […]; 3. Decides […] to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations interim force for Southern Lebanon for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces […]. SCR 508 (05/06/1982): The Security Council […] Calls upon all parties to the conflict to cease immediately and simultaneously all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border […]. SCR 509 (6/06/1982): The Security Council […] 1. Demands that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon; 2. Demands that all parties observe strictly the terms of paragraph 1 of resolution 508 […]; 3. Calls on all parties to communicate to the Secretary-General their acceptance of the present resolution within twenty-four hours; […]. [43] SCR 426 (19/03/1978): The Security Council: 1. Approves the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of SCR 425 […]; 2. Decides that the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon shall be established in accordance with the above-mentioned report