Published on

Wednesday, December 06, 2017

by

Common Dreams

No "Peace Process" Exists to Destroy, But Trump's Jerusalem Decision Dangerous as Hell

Direct violations of international law are nothing new when it comes to U.S. policy towards Israel. What is new, however, is the deliberately provocative, reckless nature of Trump's decision despite the various and far-reaching risks

by

Phyllis Bennis

 8 Comments

An Ultra Orthodox Jewish man walks next to a poster blessing U.S President Donald Trump in downtown on December 6, 2017 in Jerusalem, Israel. U.S. President Donald Trump will announce his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital on Wednesday. (Photo by Lior Mizrahi/Getty Images)

Trump's plan to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and potentially to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is not going to undermine peace efforts—because there are no peace efforts underway. Protests have already begun, and anger is rising not only among Palestinians but across the Arab and Muslim worlds, among numerous governments including key U.S. allies, and among people across the globe.  Understanding what this move represents means viewing it from two different perspectives.

Taken at face value, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital reflects Trump's need to placate his key Israel-backing donors, particularly the casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, and the Christian Zionist component of his rightwing evangelical base. Pro-Israel partisans in Congress orchestrated a law in 1995 mandating the embassy move, but giving the president a way out—the president could waive the requirement if national security might be at stake. Every president since has taken advantage of that waiver—including Donald Trump six months ago. Congressional Israel-backers could blame the president, the White House could lament that security threats prevented the move... everyone was happy.  But Trump's campaign commitment to move the embassy is more important to more influential supporters than was true of earlier presidents.  Plus Trump's failure to win legislative victories (until the recent potential disaster known as the "GOP Tax Scam") meant he had more incentive to make good on his Jerusalem promise.

 "Understanding what this move represents means viewing it from two different perspectives."

Trump called this move "the recognition of reality." It should be noted that it has been U.S. policy itself—support for Israel, billions of U.S. tax dollars sent to the Israeli military every year, acceptance of Jewish settlements in occupied Arab Jerusalem, protection of Israel in the United Nations—that is largely responsible for that reality.  The UN resolution partitioning Palestine into what were supposed to be [thoroughly unfairly apportioned] Jewish and Palestinian Arab states, also recognized a special status for Jerusalem—it was to belong to neither "state," but rather be a corpus separatum, a separate body to remain under international control. Israel claimed West Jerusalem as its capital, and in 1967 when it illegally occupied the eastern half of the city after the Six-Day War, it announced the annexation of Arab Jerusalem and forcibly unified the city as its capital. No country in the world recognized the annexation, and since that time legally-binding UN Security Council resolutions continue to reaffirm that East Jerusalem remains occupied Palestinian territory. Trump's decision stands in direct violation of international law.

But U.S. violations of international law regarding Israel is an old story.  Decades of U.S. actions accepting, acknowledging, allowing (even if sometimes rhetorically criticizing) the expansion of illegal Jews-only colonial settlements in occupied Arab Jerusalem and across the West Bank set the stage. Decades of rewarding Israeli violations of UN resolutions and international law concerning Jerusalem with billions of dollars in economic and military support set the stage. Vetoing Security Council resolutions condemning illegal Israeli settlement building in Jerusalem set the stage.  What's new this time around is the deliberately provocative, reckless nature of the decision to placate donors whatever the risk -- the risk of violent responses across the world, let alone the risk of further violation of Palestinian rights.

"U.S. violations of international law regarding Israel is an old story... What's new this time around is the deliberately provocative, reckless nature of the decision to placate donors whatever the risk."

What is not at risk is the role of the United States as an honest broker in sponsoring peace talks. Why?  Because the U.S. never was an honest broker in Israel-Palestinian talks, it was always, as at least one longtime U.S. negotiator admitted, playing the role of Israel's lawyer.  That hasn't changed either. There are no negotiations underway to be threatened with cancellation.

Sowing Chaos and Threatening More War Across the Region

The second perspective has far more to do with the regional situation, and the war-driven anti-diplomacy foreign policy of the Trump administration.  Aside from donor pressure, U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the threat to move the embassy, have to be seen in the context of the effort led by Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner to consolidate a powerful anti-Iran coalition across the Middle East with ostensible enemies Israel and Saudi Arabia at its core.

Trump has anointed Kushner his point man on reaching the "ultimate deal" on Israel-Palestine.  It's less about any claimed interest in peace than about the collaborative regional plans being hatched by Kushner and his new BFF, Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman, known as MBS. Together the two crown princes, as it were, are trying to bring Israel and Saudi Arabia together in a newly overt alliance against Tehran. To pull off that kind of normalization of relations between these ostensible enemies and not risk losing power or worse, requires changing the rhetoric, if not the actual circumstances. Enter the so-called "new Israeli-Palestinian talks." If the ambitious young Saudi prince can convince the majority of the royal family and at least a majority of Saudi citizens that somehow new talks mean the end of the conflict and we can all stop worrying about the Palestinians, then normalization of relations with Israel suddenly looks more acceptable.  Such a partnership portends a serious rise in the threat of war—with not only the United States but Israel and Saudi Arabia, plus Jordan, the UAE, Egypt and more, openly unified against Iran.

Just a week or so before the announcement about Jerusalem, the Trump administration threatened to close the PLO office in Washington unless the Palestinians accepted Washington's terms for new negotiations. Those U.S.-brokered talks would be based on pro-settlement, human rights-violating conditions that no Palestinian leader could ordinarily accept. If some Palestinian leader—the current head of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas, or some other leader if the Saudis force Abbas to quit as they reportedly threatened—accepts a deal legitimizing permanent Israeli control of Palestinian land, Saudi Arabia can easily slip into a cozy partnership with their erstwhile enemy.

"It turns out that many 'unthinkable' developments in the volatile Middle East are actually quite thinkable—although it usually means there's a price to be paid."

The timing remains a question. Why would Kushner and his father-in-law make the goal of an Israeli-Saudi alliance against Iran more difficult by such a provocative move regarding Jerusalem?  Part of the answer has to do with the primacy of Israel over Saudi Arabia in Kushner's world—regardless of his recent bromance with MSB.  Kushner has been a supporter of illegal Israeli settlements for years; in his role in one of his family's foundations he helped orchestrate tens of thousands of dollars donated to Israeli settlements. According to Newsweek, "The foundation donated at least $38,000 between 2011 and 2013 to a fundraising group building a Jewish seminary in a West Bank settlement known as Beit El. During that period, Kushner’s foundation also donated an additional $20,000 to Jewish and educational institutions in settlements throughout the region, the Associated Press reported."

Somehow the Trump son-in-law forgot to mention those transactions when he filed financial reports required for his top-level security clearance. But it fits a pattern. In late 2016 Kushner ordered Michael Flynn, then the Trump campaign's top foreign policy adviser, to persuade Russia to delay the imminent UN Security Council vote criticizing Israeli settlements. President Obama had decided to abstain and allow the resolution to pass; Trump wanted the Russians to delay the vote so the new administration could veto it. But Moscow refused to play along.

If you just listened to the official rhetoric from both governments, something like a Saudi-Israeli alliance appears unthinkable.  But it turns out that many "unthinkable" developments in the volatile Middle East are actually quite thinkable—although it usually means there's a price to be paid. Washington's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital has been bandied about as a threat for years despite international law. The fundamentalist Saudi government has all but publicly pined for open relations with Israel despite Tel Aviv's continuing violations of Palestinian rights. National leaders may pay a political price for those moves. But the real price—potentially in destroyed lives, devastated cities and more—will be paid by the people of Iran, who will likely face even more crippling sanctions and a growing threat of war; by the people of Yemen, where the U.S.-backed Saudi war continues to escalate with horrific humanitarian consequences; potentially by Lebanon, where Saudi interference is again on the rise; and as always by the Palestinians, who have paid the price for U.S. support of Israeli occupation and apartheid for more than 70 years, and have just been sold out again.

There are no Israeli-Palestinian peace talks underway that might be threatened by U.S. recognition of Jerusalem. But the move certainly makes peace—or justice—anywhere in the war-torn region far less likely.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Phyllis Bennis directs the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.  Her most recent book is Understanding ISIS and the New Global War on Terror. Other books include Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, Understanding the U.S.-Iran Crisis: A Primer, Ending the Iraq War: A Primer, and Ending the Us War in Afghanistan: A Primer. If you want to receive her talking points and articles on a regular basis, click here and choose "New Internationalism." You can find her on Facebook here: http://www.facebook.com/PhyllisBennis

Share This Article

• 651
• 39
• 3

More in:

War & Peace, U.S.

,

Israel, Palestine, Middle East, Donald Trump, Gaza, Human Rights, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iran, Yemen

Top Comments

(Click to see more comments or to join the conversation)

Published on

Monday, December 04, 2017

by

Washington Post

Two Top Republican Tax Writers Reveal Their Prejudice and Their Strategy

Because they have used the deficit to pay for a tax cut that blatantly favors the rich over the rest, Republicans have forfeited their ability to tell us what we can and can’t afford.

by

Jared Bernstein

 22 Comments

Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) (L) and Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) during a hearing on Capitol Hill April 3, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

On Saturday, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, a Republican from Iowa and member of the Senate’s tax writing committee, said this about repealing the estate tax:

“I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”

A few days before that, the chair of the committee, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), said the following regarding Congress’s failure to reauthorize the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides Medicaid coverage to 9 million kids in low-income families.

“The reason CHIP’s having trouble is because we don’t have money anymore, and to just add more and more spending and more and more spending, and you can look at the rest of the bill for the more and more spending,” Hatch said.

Let us examine these statements in turn.

The pure meanness and inaccuracy of Grassley’s prejudicial, ignorant statement lit up the Twitterverse, as it should. There’s no correlation between the estate tax and investment. Its repeal is nothing more than a gift to a tiny sliver of rich heirs (only the richest 0.2 percent of estates are hit by the tax). But what I want to stress here is that his abhorrent words are clearly embedded in the tax policy he and his fellow Republicans are busy rushing to legislate.

The tax plan is written in such a way as to favor asset-based incomes, passive business investments and inherited wealth, and to penalize, once it’s fully phased in, those foolish enough to depend on their paychecks. If your income derives from your stock portfolio or your rich parent, this plan loves you. Otherwise, tough luck.

The mechanisms that push this tilt are the aforementioned repeal (House plan) or doubled exemption level (Senate plan) of the estate tax; the large cut in the corporate tax, as most of those benefits accrue to shareholders and corporate chief executives; the tax decrease on profits from high-end “pass-through” businesses such as hedge funds and real estate trusts (about 70 percent of pass-through income accrues to the top 1 percent of taxpayers); the elimination of domestic taxation on foreign earnings; and the ability of U.S. multinational companies to take years of deferred foreign earnings at a much reduced rate, a change that would save these companies an estimated $500 billion. All of the above significantly raise the value of nonlabor income.

Meanwhile, the phasing out of the individual tax cuts and the Senate’s repeal of the individual health-care mandate end up costing low-income households — who, of course, disproportionately depend on their paychecks — as shown in the figure below.

It’s awful enough for Grassley to spout such ignorance. But the worse crime was to embed it in tax policy.

Turning to Hatch’s statement, I cannot state the following adamantly enough:

Because they have used the deficit to pay for a tax cut that blatantly favors the rich over the rest, Republicans have forfeited their ability to tell us what we can and can’t afford.

Of course, they will continue to make that argument, as Hatch himself has, along with many of his colleagues. But do not forget this: They could have made their tax plan revenue-neutral. They decided not to, and they further decided, based on their revealed preferences, that the parts that help middle- and low-income families should expire, while those that help the rich should live on forever (see figure above).

Supporters of the plan say they’ll never let that happen. They claim future policymakers will extend those cuts scheduled to expire. Maybe they will; maybe they won’t. But if they do, that will add another $500 billion to the federal debt, which will only amplify their calls for more spending cuts.

For decades, the Republicans have employed deficit-induced fearmongering as a reason to oppose any ideas from Democrats. They never stop caterwauling about the unsustainability of our social insurance and safety-net programs. But their deficit-financed gift to wealthy asset holders belies such posturing. Affordability is a choice, and they’ve shown whose side they’re choosing.

All of which leaves us with a terrible, and terribly revealing, tax plan.

© 2017 Washington Post

Jared Bernstein is a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and previously served as an economic advisor to the Obama administration.

Tax Plans Pave Way for Massive Cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security Tuesday, December 05, 2017

Tax Plans Pave Way for Massive Cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security

Tuesday, December 05, 2017By Lindsay Koshgarian, Truthout | News Analysis

• font size   
• Print 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell speaks with the media after a news conference in Dirksen Building on the tax reform bill on November 30, 2017. (Photo: Tom Williams / CQ Roll Call)

This story wasn't funded by corporate advertising, but by readers like you. Can you help sustain our work with a tax-deductible donation?

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has a plan: To get rid of nasty deficits, he says, all we need to do is "grow the economy, cut spending." Under this tax plan, only one of those is likely to become a reality.

Republicans say that the tax plan currently working its way through the House and Senate is supposed to accomplish that first goal: growing the economy. It won't succeed. Evidence suggests that the tax plan is highly unlikely to create more than a trickle of growth, and that that growth will stay snugly right where the tax plan is putting it: with corporations and billionaires.

The next step, according to Ryan, is cutting spending. And while Congress hasn't gotten that far yet, the agenda is clear. If a version of the tax plan passes, the next major item of business in Congress will likely include major cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Read My Lips: No New Jobs

The entire tax plan is built around one premise: that cutting taxes causes the economy to grow and creates jobs. The problem is, this doesn't appear to be true.

This time, "welfare reform" won't just target low-income mothers; it will mean drastic cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

A study from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business found that additional economic growth due to the tax plan would be miniscule -- less than a tenth of a percent per year in the near term. That's not the kind of growth the economy needs to produce more, or better-paying jobs.

Meanwhile, a study from the Institute for Policy Studies found that corporations that paid lower tax rates actually cut jobs -- while passing the gains on in the form of higher CEO pay.

Stuck with more or less regular economic growth, the massive tax cuts will just add to the nation's debt. The nonpartisan Joint Committee for Taxation found last week that under the original Senate tax plan, the United States will be left with an additional $1 trillion in debt. By some estimates, that debt would be even higher.

This is not a particularly partisan assessment for those who aren't currently in Congress. As the bipartisan duo Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles recently wrote in the Washington Post, "Economic growth isn't going to wash away this debt."

Welfare Reform Redux: Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security at Risk

As President Trump told supporters at a rally in Missouri, "We're going to go into welfare reform." What he didn't say was that this time, "welfare reform" won't just target low-income mothers; it will mean drastic cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The increased national debt gives the perfect political cover for cutting social programs.

The president has support among his party in the Senate and House: former presidential candidate and Sen. Marco Rubio, Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patrick Toomey have all spoken about -- or refused to deny -- the intention to bring about massive spending cuts as Act II of their agenda.

The tax plan is an important key to this momentum toward bringing back "welfare reform," which, of course, wasn't a good idea the first time, either (and which still seems to bring out many of the ugliest stereotypes about poverty). The House and Senate versions of the tax bill have one big thing in common: adding significantly to the national debt.  

It may seem counterintuitive at first, but to "small-government" types, this is a dream come true. The increased national debt gives the perfect political cover for cutting social programs. And this reform won't be limited to traditional welfare programs for struggling parents, which in 2016 amounted to less than half a percent of the total federal budget. Instead, lawmakers will take direct aim at the social programs where the most money is spent, and upon which the most Americans rely: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

For starters, there are cuts that will take place to these programs even if Congress takes the rest of the year off after they pass this tax plan. These are the result of deficit-reducing mechanisms enacted under a 2010 law that would kick in to the tune of a $25 billion cut to Medicare this fiscal year, even without congressional action. Sen. Mitch McConnell has said that Congress won't let that happen, but it's not clear that he can deliver on that promise.

Even if Congress doesn't permit automatic cuts to Medicare as a result of its tax plan, members have openly said that they'll be back to cut programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Cuts to these programs are highly unpopular among both Republican and Democratic voters, and as a candidate, Trump campaigned on promises to keep them intact. However, current signals from congressional leaders, and Trump himself, are that he will break those promises.

The House and Senate bills amount to a tax cut for the rich that will be paid for by the poor.

The Non-Repeal Repeal of the Affordable Care Act

The Senate version of the tax plan has a provision that repeals a foundation of the Affordable Care Act: the individual insurance mandate.

Insurance markets only work if some healthy people pay into the system to cover the costs for those who get sick. By getting rid of the individual mandate, the Senate tax plan will encourage some currently healthy people to skip health insurance -- making the costs go up for everyone who chooses to stay insured.

According to a nonpartisan estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, this one change would result in 13 million Americans losing health insurance over the next decade -- and those who have insurance can expect their premiums to go up by 10 percent.

The House version of the bill doesn't include the individual mandate repeal. Thus, one of the biggest questions about any final legislation is whether it will include this attack on the Affordable Care Act.

Don't Look Behind the Curtain: It's Not About the Money

While congressional leaders bemoan the expense of Social Security and Medicare -- which do cost a lot, at $982 billion and $604 billion respectively in 2016 -- don't expect them to mention in the same breath that they have voted to increase the military budget to $700 billion.

Each of the differences between the House and Senate versions represents an opportunity to limit the damage this tax plan can do, or possibly to derail it entirely.

Apparently, some things are worth paying for. Those things would include the F-35 jet fighter, an ill-fated and never-used jet that pro-military Sen. John McCain has called "a tragedy and a scandal," and slated to cost nearly $11 billion this year. They'd also include a $20 billion annual bill for nuclear weapons, as well as total payments to for-profit corporations likely to be in the neighborhood of $300 billion.

This should clear up any confusion about what supporters of the tax plan and spending cuts are after. It's not about the money; it's about priorities.

House vs. Senate: It's Not Over Until It's Over

The House and Senate still need to bridge their differences. Here are a few high-stakes differences:

• The Senate version includes the repeal of the individual health insurance mandate under the Affordable Care Act, which would result in 13 million Americans losing health insurance. The House version does not currently include this provision.

• The House version treats graduate student tuition as regular income -- even though graduate students never actually receive this money, and can't use it to buy housing, food or anything except an education. The Senate version does not include this provision.

• The House version gets rid of the estate tax -- which is paid by , with values over $10 million for couples. The Senate version raises the limit on which estate taxes must be paid, but keeps the tax.

Each of these differences -- among others -- represents an opportunity to limit the damage this tax plan can do, or possibly to derail it entirely.

The tax plan is astoundingly unpopular: just 25 percent of voters approve of it. Activists are working around the clock to defeat this legislation, with feet on the ground and nonstop calls to House and Senate offices. These efforts will continue until the last vote is cast.

Even if one of these tax plans does pass both the House and Senate, this activist work will continue. Efforts to reverse the damage will, and must, grow. A bill this unpopular, that benefits only corporations and billionaires, is not built to last. 

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

LINDSAY KOSHGARIAN

Lindsay Koshgarian is program director of the National Priorities Project, working for a federal budget that prioritizes peace, shared prosperity and economic opportunity for all.

RELATED STORIES

The Tax Cuts Hidden in Congress' Tax Reform, Explained

By Alexandra Thornton, TalkPoverty.org | Report

The Tax-Cut Weapon in the GOP's One-Sided Class War

By Nicole Colson, Socialist Worker | News Analysis

The GOP's Tax Cut Bonanza Is a Major Attack on Medicare

By Nancy Altman, Linda Benesch, AlterNet | News Analysis

Massachusetts Peace Action’s Holiday Party with Hassan El-Tayyab Saturday December 23 @ 7:00 pm - Roslindale - $15

Massachusetts Peace Action’s Holiday Party with Hassan El-Tayyab

Saturday December 23 @ 7:00 pm - Roslindale - 

 $15

Reserve: https://holiday-2017.brownpapertickets.com/

Help Massachusetts Peace Action celebrate the holidays with a house party concert presented by Hassan El-Tayyab.   Help us raise money to support our work for peace and justice, and enjoy some great music while you’re doing it! 

Hassan El-Tayyab is a native of Plymouth, Mass. and is the Policy and Organizing Director with our sister organization, Chicago Area Peace Action. Read about Hassan and listen to his tunes at the American Nomad website.

Max of 50 people can be accommodated in this private home.  Contact the Mass. Peace Action office or pre-reserve for event address.   Wine, beer and snacks will be served – potluck dishes are also welcomed.

Hassan El-Tayyab is front man of the band American Nomad and an award winning singer songwriter. He was honored as a finalist in the 2017 Telluride Troubadour Song Competition, for best vocal performance in the 2013 Berkeley Old Time Music Competition, as a finalist in the 2011 Internationl songwriting competition, and was recognized in the 2013 and 2011 Rocky Mountain Folk Festival Songwriter Competition. Rooted in Americana and folk/swing traditions, his carefully crafted original music maintains a modern relevance. Smart songwriting, catchy lyrics, tight rhythms, rich harmonies, and strong musicianship have already earned Hassan a reputation as a musician that can intrigue listeners from a wide variety of musical tastes and backgrounds. Keeping in line with the ancient troubadour tradition, his music draws from the spirit of travel and authentic life experience.

Hassan El-Tayyab and his group American Nomad has performed at some of the country’s finest acoustic venues and festivals including the Telluride Bluegrass Festival, Strawberry Music Festival, the Grass Valley Bluegrass Festival, the Independent, The Chapel, Freight & Salvage Coffeehouse, Slim’s and Ashkenaz. In addition, American Nomad has appeared on the radio several times including interviews with Dave Iverson from KQED Forum, KPFA’s America’s Back 40 with Mary Tilson, and KPFA’s Music of the World with Joanna Manqueros. The have also been featured in the San Francisco Chronicle, American Songwriter Magazine, Acoustic Guitar Magazine, and were featured on NPR’s Folk Alley. Last but not least, American Nomad’s critically acclaimed album Country Mile was produced by Grammy nominated producer and IBMA winner Laurie Lewis.

Reserve: https://holiday-2017.brownpapertickets.com/

Download a Printable Flyer

--

"Not one step back"

Cole Harrison

Executive Director

Massachusetts Peace Action - the Commonwealth's largest grassroots peace organization

11 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138

617-354-2169 w

617-466-9274 m

www.masspeaceaction.org

Facebook: facebook.com/masspeaceaction

Twitter: masspeaceaction

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MAPA Nuclear Disarmament" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mapa-nuclear-disarmament+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to mapa-nuclear-disarmament@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mapa-nuclear-disarmament/CAKfC%2B3vp7tnZTuHj1jHawi-dGGe-eKZYzMjX2NuRpWAi6S_fKA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.