Take Action: Oppose $30 Billion in Military Aid Package to Israel

End Occupation

I’ve just sent letters to the Bush Administration and Congress opposing additional military aid to Israel.

On August 16, the United States and Israel signed an agreement for $30 billion in military aid over the next ten years. Israel routinely violates the U.S. Arms Export Control Act and Foreign Assistance Act by using U.S. weapons to commit human rights violations against Palestinians. Congress still needs to appropriate money yearly in order to give this agreement effect. Join me in taking action to oppose more military aid going to Israel.

Please take a moment to contact your elected representatives today and urge them to oppose an increase in military aid to Israel and to sanction Israel by cutting off military aid for its prior violations of U.S. law:


Israel is a funded state. Despite its own relatively healthy economy, it continues to receive aid from the US, in disproportion to both the country’s population and needs.

The financial aid alone that Israel receives from the US allows it to purchase tanks, helicopter gunships, F-16 war planes, machine guns and bullets – all of which it uses to commit human rights violations against the Palestinian people on a daily basis. When it is not possible for the Israeli government to use the funds directly on military expenditure, their use elsewhere frees up other Israeli government funds to pay for military salaries, services and facilities.

Military power is required for Israel to maintain its occupation of the Palestinian territories, implemented through a system of expanding settlements, checkpoints and closure. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that the US is funding and supplying the Israeli government’s occupation of the Palestinian territories, as without financial subsidies from the US, the Israeli government would have found it considerably more difficult to sustain its military occupation of the Palestinian territories for the past thirty-four years.


US to Designate Iran’s Military “terrorists”

Our policy makers are high on something. What have they been smoking? This is so retarded:



“The Bush Administration is moving towards declaring that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps is a foreign terrorist organisation.

If imposed, the declaration would signal a more confrontational turn in the Administration’s approach to Iran and would be the first time that the US has added the armed forces of any sovereign government to its list of terrorist organisations.

The Revolutionary Guard is thought to be the largest branch of Iran’s military.”

The same US government that punishes via “shock and awe” (check out the Shock and Awe Gallery: http://www.marchforjustice.com/shock&awe.php) nations that pose no threat to it, calls a sovereign country’s national defense forces “terrorists” while the US government has stationed 737 military bases around the world (Source: http://www.alternet.org/story/47998).

What kind of a cruel joke is it that the US military (Guardians of Abu Ghraib) is bombing Afghani weddings and schools, starved with sanctions and bombed Iraq for 12 years then, pre-emptively (after ensuring it was totally helpless), attacks Iraq and occupies the country where there have been over 1 million have been killed so far (Source: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html – this is the only valid scientific study ever done) and yet the Bush government call’s Iran’s Revolutionary Guards “terrorists”?

Israel: An Apartheid State? Part 2

The Apartheid Wall
Immediately south of Jerusalem, construction of the Apartheid Wall around Bethlehem is almost complete. The Wall cuts the city from its surrounding lands, annexing land into the Occupation municipal boundaries in Jerusalem and sealing Bethlehem into a tiny ghetto.

Most of the critics of Carter’s book have been Americans – saying he shouldn’t have used the term “apartheid”. But I’ve not heard or read a single argument that refutes the “apartheid” accusation. But maybe it should not come as a surprise – because the Israeli and US governments were amongst the closest supporters of the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Israel was South Africa’s biggest weapons provider and the US and Israel were the top trading partners of the Apartheid regime.

Would America today tolerate such policies in the United States?

If any other nation occupied territories in violation of international law, issued ID cards for people that designated them as “Palestinians” differentiating them from Jews, denied them voting rights, forbid them from buying or leasing land, and banned any political party that called for equal rights for all, searched Arabs at checkpoints but allowed Jews from Europe, Russia, Asia and Africa to freely roam around in the land and supported their illegal settlements – would these critics support that nation and its policies?

And just because America oppressed the Native Americans (“Red Indians” is a term I find offensive) and practically committed what is widely regarded as genocide towards them, it does not justify Israel’s apartheid policies towards Palestinians hundreds of years later. They are wrong and should be condemned. Most Arab countries are run by tyrants and dictators who do not represent the people. If Israel is a democracy as it claims to be, it cannot afford to carry out such a brutal occupation and ethnic cleansing of a land.

Israelis are not as bothered by his book as are Americans. Many Israelis see the occupation for what it is and work hard to abolish such treatment. But American supporters of Israel apparently are less tolerant than Israelis when it comes to Carter’s book.

The best defense for Carter comes from an Israeli Knesset member and former Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel – Yossi Beilin:


Beilin is mentioned in the book several times. He’s been an active proponent in peace talks in general but best known for his involvement in the Oslo Accords and the Geneva Initiative.

And here’s an interesting opinion of the book from Saree Makdisi (Professor of English Literature at UCLA):


Ron Paul Wins Iowa Debate

This poll says it all:


During the Republican debates on Sunday August 5, 2007, the best moment of the debates came from my favorite candidate Dr. Ron Paul as he denounced the continued, failed practice of the United States to involve ourselves in unconstitutional, undeclared wars.

Dr. Paul is also the Internet’s favorite candidate for President 2008. Mitt Romney tries to rudely interrupt but Dr. Paul doesn’t give in and continues to a thundering applause from the audience. Here are the answers to the questions he was posed at the debates in Iowa:

Ron Paul answers questions during the debate at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.

Brief History of Ron Paul:

He has Never voted to raise taxes.
He has Never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has Never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has Never taken a government-paid junket.
He has Never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
LESS government, MORE freedom. NO IRS!!
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

Please help raise recognition and don’t forget to Donate! Visit: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Also, the media has been largely censoring Ron Paul but this time even the rabid Fox News had him on and despite attempts to portray him as a conspiracy nut – Ron Paul shined throughout: