This page is also from Jewish Voice for Peace. It's a form people in the US can fill out and send to their elected representatives to tell them that the tax dollars we give to the government of Israel come with strings attached...

http://withstringsattached.org/


Here's their frequently asked questions page...


http://withstringsattached.org/frequently-asked-questions/#more-47


What is the size of the US military aid to Israel?

Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. military aid. In August 2007, the United States and Israel signed an agreement to increase arms transfers to Israel to $30 billion over the next decade. In the proposed 2010 budget almost $3 billion in completely unrestricted military aid. The money seems to come with no strings attached, and without any thorough and open investigation about how our money has been used to cause horrendous injuries and death on the captive civilian population in Gaza.

Are there any restrictions on this money?

All U.S. aid programs, whether military or economic, have built-in mechanisms to prevent that aid from being used by countries to commit human rights abuses. The money should come with strings attached. And yet, military aid to Israel is given unconditionally.

What do US laws say?

The Arms Export Control Act restricts the use of U.S. weapons and services to foreign countries for legitimate self-defense, internal security, development projects, and/or United Nations peacekeeping efforts.

According to the Foreign Assistance Act "No assistance may be provided under this part [of the law] to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."

Does our military aid to Israel comply with these laws?

No. Recent human rights reports document how in its recent offensive against Gaza, Israel's military used such weapons for purposes other than those defined in the Arms Export Control Act. You can find copies of the reports here:

Armed and Dangerous: Weapons Transfers to Israel during the Bush Administration
Fuelling conflict: Foreign arms supplies to Israel/Gaza
Onslaught: Israel's Attack on Gaza & the Rule of Law (pdf)
Operation Cast Lead and the Distortion of International Law (pdf)
Rain of Fire: Israel's Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza
Remote Control Death
Report of Independent Fact Finding Mission Into Violations of Human Rights in the Gaza Strip (pdf)

But wasn't Israel forced to attack Hamas?

No. Israel and Hamas had a ceasefire that was remarkably effective: after it began in June 2008, the rate of rocket and mortar fire from Gaza dropped to almost zero, and stayed there for four straight months. The ceasefire unraveled on November 4th, when Israel killed a Palestinian, an event that was followed by a volley of mortars fired from Gaza. Immediately after that, an Israeli air strike killed six more Palestinians. Then a massive barrage of rockets was unleashed, leading to the end of the ceasefire.

Doesn't Israel have the right to defend itself?

Israel, like every other country in the world, has the right to use military force to defend itself and its population. However, that right does not permit Israel to violate U.S. laws that govern the use of U.S. military assistance as well as well-established international laws that regulate the conduct of warfare and protect civilians. And various legal and human rights investigative reports have concluded that Israel did, in fact, contravene those laws in its offensive against Gaza.

Didn't Hamas violate the laws of war during Israel's offensive against Gaza?

Based on its investigation, Amnesty International concluded that Hamas committed violations of the laws of war during Israel's recent offensive against Gaza by firing crude, mostly locally- produced and largely inaccurate rockets in the direction of Southern Israel. However, unlike Israel, Hamas does not receive military assistance from the United States; as such, U.S. weapons were not used in Hamas' possible violations. Moreover, Hamas' possible violations do not exempt Israel from adhering to U.S. laws governing the use of U.S. military assistance as well as well-established international laws that regulate the conduct of warfare.

What would the United States do if Canada had fired rockets into the United States?

The United States has neither occupied Canada for more than 40 years nor has it prevented Canadians from entering and exiting Canada by land, water and air, maintaining and developing their own economy, engaging with other Canadians, pursuing their educational pursuits and exercising their basic rights. As a result, the analogy does not hold.