As of today, the world owes the private sector in Israel USD 22.7 billion. The Bank of Israel explained that the Israeli market has attracted investments from abroad during the last year, mainly due to the profitability of the private sector, the reduction in the government's deficit and the acceleration of privatization processes in the economy.

The improvement in the security situation in the country has also contributed to this rise.

Meanwhile, the public sector in Israel, mainly the government, continues to borrow money in foreign markets, in order to reprocess existing debts and fund the deficit in the national budget.

According to the Bank's data, Israel's external debt has reduced by a mere USD 250 million in 2005, and totaled USD 75.5 billion.

Israel's financial obligations abroad, after a deduction of the country's assets overseas, totaled USD 35 billion in December 2005.

With the turmoil surrounding the presidential election essentially freezing Congress into inaction, this is probably a good time to take another look at aid to Israel. The common figure given for U.S. aid to Israel is $3 billion per year-$1.2 billion in economic aid and $1.8 billion in military aid. As impressive as this figure is, however, since it represents about one-sixth of total U.S. foreign aid, the true figure is even more remarkable. It is difficult, however, to arrive at an exact number. Much of the money the U.S. gives Israel is buried in the budgets of other government agencies, primarily the Defense Department (DOD). Other subsidies come in a form that isn't easily quantifiable, such as the early disbursement of aid, which allows Israel to gain (and the U.S. taxpayer to lose) the interest on the unspent money.

This year's appropriations bills for FY 2001, which began Oct. 1, 2000, include, in addition to the $2.82 billion in economic and military foreign aid to Israel, an additional $60 million in so-called refugee resettlement and $250 million in the DOD budget, plus $85 million imputed interest, for a total of at least $3.215 billion. In addition, on Nov. 14, 2000, President William Clinton sent a special request to Congress for an additional $450 million in military aid to Israel in FY 2001, plus $350 million for FY 2002.

The package also included $225 million in military aid for Egypt and $75 million in security assistance for Jordan. The $450 million for Israel is not included in these calculations, because it is unclear at this writing whether Congress will approve the package in the current political climate.

Calculating Total U.S. Aid

Unquestionably, Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. aid since World War II. Estimates for total U.S. aid to Israel vary, however, because of the uncertainties and ambiguities described above. An Oct. 27, 2000 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, using available and verifiable numbers, gives cumulative aid to Israel from 1949 through FY 2000 (which ended Sept. 30, 2000) at $81.38 billion. On the other hand, last year the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs estimated total aid to Israel through FY 2000 at $91.82 billion.

The CRS number surely is too low, because, although it does include such things as the old food-for-peace program, the $1.2 billion from the Wye agreement, and the current subsidy for "refugee resettlement," it does not include money from the DOD budget, on the grounds that those funds are for joint research and development projects. Nor does the CRS figure include estimated interest on the early disbursement of aid funds. Last year's Washington Report estimate imputes an amount for "other aid" (including the DOD) that may no longer be valid, based as it is on a thorough study of three representative years. While this year's estimate is more conservative, the results are still shockingly high.

To the CRS number of $81.38 billion through FY 2000 can be added (with details to follow):

• $4.28 billion from the DOD; and

• $1.72 billion in interest from early disbursement of aid, for a total of $87.38 billion through Sept. 30, 2000. To that can be added the $3.22 billion detailed above, giving a grand total of $90.6 billion total aid to Israel through FY 2001. Approval of Clinton's special request for $450 million more in military aid would push the number over $91 billion.

Defense Department Funds

A search going back several years was able to identify $3.423 billion in specific DOD line items appropriated to Israel. Since that figure includes only the programs that were uncovered, it is reasonable to add 25 percent, or $856 million, to account for what was not found. The largest items in the DOD budget were $1.3 billion for the cancelled Lavi attack fighter project; $628 million for the ongoing Arrow anti-missile missile project; and $200 million for the completed Merkava tank. The fact that the U.S. military was not interested in the Lavi or the Merkava for its own use and has said the same thing about the Arrow would seem to invalidate the argument that these are "joint defense projects."

Interest

Israel began receiving early disbursement of U.S. economic aid in 1982, and of military aid in 1991. It would be inaccurate to simply apply the rate of interest to the amount of aid, because it has to be assumed that the aid monies were drawn down over the course of the year. In 1991 it was reported that Israel earned $86 million in interest on the economic aid money deposited in the U.S. Treasury. Since the period from 1982 to 1991 was a time of relatively high interest rates, the figure of $860 million (86 x 10) seems a reasonably conservative estimate for those 10 years. For the nine years since 1991, a 6 percent rate was applied to one-half of the economic aid, for a total of $324 million over the past decade.

On the military aid, the 6 percent rate was applied to one-half of the military aid for the 10 years it has been disbursed early, for a total of $540 million.

Some Comparisons

The impressive numbers for U.S. aid to Israel become even more so when they, and the attached conditions, are compared with other Middle East countries. The roughly $3.3 billion in annual aid compares with some $2 billion for Egypt, $225 million for Jordan, and $35 million for Lebanon. Aid for the Palestinian Authority (PA) is not earmarked, but has been running at about $100 million. Furthermore, aid to the PA is strictly controlled by the U.S. Agency for International Development, and goes for specific projects, mostly civil infrastructure projects such as water and sewers.

On the other hand, the U.S. gives Israel all of its economic aid directly in cash, with no accounting of how the funds are used. The military aid from the DOD budget is mostly for specific projects. Significantly however, considering current events, one of those projects was the development of the Merkava tank, which has been encircling and firing on Palestinian towns in the West Bank and Gaza.

The only condition the congressional foreign aid bill places on military aid to Israel is that about 75 percent of it has to be spent in the U.S. In contrast with other countries receiving military aid, however, who purchase through the DOD, Israel deals directly with U.S. companies, with no DOD review.

Special mention should also be made of the details of the Wye agreement. All of the $400 million going to the PA under the agreement is economic aid, whereas all of the $1.2 billion for Israel is for military projects and programs. These include $40 million for armored personnel carriers and $360 million for Apache helicopters, again significant considering current events.

Loans, The "Cranston Amendment," and Loan Guarantees

Currently, Israel owes the U.S. government almost $3 billion in economic and military loans. Direct government-to-government loans are included in the above numbers for total aid, because repayment of several loans has been "waived" by the U.S. Israeli officials are fond of saying that Israel has never defaulted on a loan from the U.S. Technically, this is true. The CRS report, however, notes that from FY 1994 through FY 1998 $29 billion in U.S. loans have been waived for Israel. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider all loans to Israel the same as grants.

There seems to be much confusion about the so-called "Cranston Amendment," named after the California senator who sponsored it in 1984. The amendment said, simply, that it is "the policy and intention" of the U.S. to give Israel economic aid "not less than" the amount Israel owes the U.S. in annual debt interest and principal payments.

Since official economic aid to Israel has always been considerably higher than the annual debt repayments, this is something of a non-issue. Furthermore, since the amendment is simply a statement of policy and intent, it may not be legally binding. In any event, although the amendment was included in every aid appropriations bill through FY 1998, it has not been repeated in the FY 1999, 2000, and 2001 appropriations bills.

The amount of U.S. government loan guarantees to Israel was not included in the above numbers, because they have not cost the U.S. any money (yet), although they are listed as "contingent liabilities" (that is, they would become liabilities to the U.S. should Israel default). Nevertheless, they unquestionably have been of tangible financial benefit to Israel. The major loan guarantees issued by Washington have been $600 million for housing between 1972 and 1990; the much publicized $10 billion for Soviet Jewish resettlement between 1992 and 1997; and some $5 billion for refinancing military loans commercially. Currently, the total U.S. contingent liability for Israeli loans is about $10 billion.

The Neeman Agreement

After Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told Congress in 1996 that he wanted to reduce the level of U.S. economic aid to Israel, Israeli Finance Minister Yaacov Neeman met with members of Congress in January 1998 to negotiate the details. After much backing and forthing, they reached agreement that Israel's then-$1.2 billion in economic aid would be decreased annually, beginning FY 1999, by $120 million, and the $1.8 billion in military aid would be increased by half that, or $60 million.

As a little-reported part of the deal, the amount of military aid that Israel was allowed to spend in Israel would be increased by $15 million per year. From FY 1988 through 1990 Israel was allowed to use $400 million of its $1.8 billion U.S. military aid in Israel. Beginning in FY 1991 that was increased to $475 million. As a result of the Neeman agreement, beginning in FY 1999 the aid appropriations bill gave the amount to be spent in Israel as a percentage of the total, rather than a stated amount. This maneuver helped hide from U.S. defense contractors the fact that the U.S. direct subsidy to their Israeli competitors was being increased by $15 million per year. For FY 2001 the stated percentage works out to $520 million. None of this is included in the above figures, because it does not represent a direct cost to the U.S. taxpayers. It is clearly an indirect cost, however, in terms of lost tax revenue and lost business for American companies. X

Shirl McArthur, a retired foreign service officer, is a consultant in the Washington, DC area.

SIDEBAR #1

Arab Americans Lose Ground in Congress

While Arab-American candidates broke even in the 2000 elections for the House of Representatives, a major loss was suffered in the Senate, where the only Arab-American senator, Michigan Republican Spencer Abraham, was narrowly and unexpectedly defeated by former Rep. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). Stabenow had a neutral score in this magazine's Congressional Report Card (August/September issue), with one positive and one negative mark, although she did sign the letter to President Clinton urging the delinking of the economic sanctions against Iraq from the military sanctions.

In the House, Arab-American Reps. John Baldacci (D-ME), Chris John (D-LA), Ray LaHood (R-IL), Nick Rahall (D-WV), and John Sununu (R-NH) all were re-elected. In addition, Republican newcomer Darrell Issa was easily elected in California. Issa's victory offset the narrow defeat of Democrat Steve Danner in Missouri for the seat previously held by retiring Rep. Pat Danner (D-MO).

Other re-elected representatives sympathetic to issues important to Arab Americans include Reps. David Bonior (D-MI), John Conyers (D-MI), Tom Davis (R-VA), John Dingell (D-MI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Bob Ney (R-OH), and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). Unfortunately, a champion of Arab-American issues was lost when Rep. Tom Campbell (R-CA) failed in his bid to unseat Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

Other congressional election news included the surprise defeat of Rep. Sam Gejdenson (D-CT), who was the ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee. Although he was widely considered a good friend of Israel, Gejdenson's report card was only slightly negative, with no positive and one negative mark. He is expected to be replaced as ranking Democrat on the committee by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), also considered a strong friend of Israel. A Holocaust survivor, Lantos might be expected to be sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians living under the heel of a brutal occupying power, but his report card showed one positive and two negative marks. Lantos also signed the letter to Clinton urging the president to "stand firm" in keeping the economic sanctions on Iraq.

Copyright: Congress Watch

Submarines may be used for hitting strategic targets outside Israel's territory, chief commander of the IDF's submarine fleet, Colonel Yoni, stated. "The submarine task force is preparing for any scenario the State of Israel has defined as plausible for the army," he added.

In an interview with Ynet, Colonel Yoni revealed some of the capabilities of the Israeli army's most hi-tech and secret war machine, and hinted to the possible role of subs in future military disputes.

According to him, "hitting strategic targets is not always a task the Air Force or the infantry can carry out… a submarine can perform the mission, and it can also be used only for collecting intelligence and securing the forces about to carry out such a mission."

Dozens of security operations, maybe even more, were made possible due to the IDF's sub fleet. However, these offensive and defensive missions will remain in the shadow for years to come, in order to enable the force to carry out similar actions in the future.

Nuclear capabilities?

While Colonel Yoni's statements are shrouded in mystery, publications in the foreign press have already hinted Israel's Dolphin submarines have the ability to carry and launch nuclear weapons, a capability that will be put to use should the country's nuclear ground bases are hit in a surprise attack.

The fleet commander naturally refused to comment on the subject, but said such publications abroad in themselves contribute to Israel's deterrence capacity.

"The fact that foreign reports refer to the submarines as a deterring factor says something. In matters having to do with existential threats we must remain vague," he said, adding the IDF has recently avoided holding joint drills with foreign armies, in a bid to maintain the secrecy of its weapons.

No girls allowed

Colonel Yoni, who is personally involved in selecting each and every soldier in his unit, speaks of the people under his command with admiration and appreciation. Nevertheless, when it comes to the service of women on submarines, he is not a bearer of news.

"The submarine was not built to accommodate both men and women. We are unable to allocate a special zone on the vessel for women dormitories. Why should we venture into something that has failed in a large part of the fleets in the world, where there is even more lenience on these issues?" he asked.

"Is it worth breaking the fabric created between combatants on the submarine? They are under a lot of pressure as it is," he concluded.

The Adjudication Panel for England has agreed to review the case, which Livingstone says has constitutional implications. If he loses, Livingstone plans to take the case to the Court of Appeal and the Law Lords, the BBC reported.

Livingstone has no plans to apologize for the remark, which was directed to Evening Standard reporter Oliver Finegold.

A disciplinary hearing found Livingstone had brought his office into disrepute.

Detect a note of sarcasm, even anger? You aren't wrong. Failing to see the world from the point of view of the other is a major factor in most quarrels, and religious leaders get caught out more than most.

Sir Jonathan Sacks, leader of Britain's orthodox Jewish community, and Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, have found themselves at the centre of what is, I hope, only a minor hiccup in the normally calm relationship between Britain's Jews and Christians.

The problem is the determination of the Church of England to invest ethically. From which, it is inferred, investing in Caterpillar, the makers of bulldozers used by Israelis to demolish Palestinian houses, is a bad thing. Disinvesting in Caterpillar has been on the agenda for some time, but when a resolution was passed by the Synod recently, Sir Jonathan went as ballistic as an urbane Oxbridge Jew ever goes.

If the two men had been able to sit down quietly over a cup of Earl Grey, I think the conversation might have gone something like this.

"Look Rowan, this is how it looks to the Jewish community. Ariel Sharon did a Charles de Gaulle and withdrew from Gaza. It was the best bit of news from the Middle East for a long time. Almost immediately Sharon was removed from the scene. Then the Palestinians elected Hamas, the party of the suicide bombers. But, unbelievably, polls still suggest that Israel is going to elect Sharon's new party - on a ticket of further withdrawals and the creation of a Palestinian state. Why on earth would anyone with honorable intentions want to pass a disinvestment motion at this particular time?"

The archbishop would, I think, reply as follows: "You need to understand how important it is to us to be seen to be using our wealth ethically. You don't know how strongly we've been accused of abusing power instead of siding with the powerless. The Anglican community in Israel lives among the Palestinian Arabs and experiences the deprivations they experience. Many of them, I'm sorry to say, hate Israel as the oppressor. There are a lot of people in the church who won't be convinced that our ethical stance should be trimmed because British Jewry is obsessed with Israel, defends the indefensible and - I have to say it - shouts anti-semitism and Holocaust at everyone who suggests that some of the acts of an occupying power are contrary to international law, not to mention Judeo-Christian values."

"I understand," Sir Jonathan would reply. "But I need to say two more things. First, 70 years ago, somebody said he would try to wipe out the Jewish people. He kept his word. Today the president of Iran says he's intent on wiping out the state of Israel (where nearly half the Jews left in the world live), and is developing nuclear weapons. Seventy years ago there were Jewish leaders who didn't take the threat seriously. I don't want to go down in history as a major Jewish leader who didn't take Iran and Hamas seriously.

"Let me go back to the people pushing for disinvestment. I'm not saying this applies to all of them, but there are still people who equivocate over Israel's right to exist; who think that we should have outgrown the need for a land of our own; who look at the world and cannot see the clash that is going on, the replaying of the Crusades, the crushing of the Jewish people between two mighty tectonic plates. They see Israel only as the cause of all the troubles. Yes, we are paranoid, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people out to dump us. Not you, Rowan, but in your church. That's how it feels to us."

I'm a Jewish religious leader and my ability to step into someone else's shoes is limited. Maybe Christian readers could construct Dr Williams's sensitive but frank response. How does the conversation continue? How do we move from mutual frustration to empathetic and honest dialogue?

· Rabbi Tony Bayfield is the head of the Movement for Reform Judaism in Britain and a co-president of the Council of Christians and Jews

www.reformjudaism.org.uk

Allow for an initial grace period and refrain from making Palestinians pay for a political agenda yet-to-be outlined by the fledgling Hamas government. This essentially is the message that was addressed to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, during her tour of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, from February 22-23.

Besides leaders of the Emirates, Mrs. Rice met with her counterparts from the Gulf Cooperation Council's six monarchies in Abu Dhabi. Her tour of the region also included a brief, unexpected stopover in Lebanon on Thursday, meant to demonstrate American "support" for the country's current political majority.

Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, declared during a joint press conference with Ms. Rice that Saudi Arabia would continue to give financial aid to the Palestinian Authority, even under a Hamas government. The Secretary pled for a continuation to the Palestinians of humanitarian assistance only.

"How do you distinguish between humanitarian and non-humanitarian aid?" asked Prince Saud, before adding that, "The Palestinians need both infrastructure and humanitarian aid, and we will continue to help them." In Cairo the previous day, Ms. Rice had been told that Hamas must be given enough time to assess the situation and outline a political program.

In addition to the grave repercussions for the Palestinian people that a drying up of international aid would engender, the Arab countries fear that isolating the Palestinian government would work in favor of the most radical groups, even those operating outside the occupied territories.

Arab nations also dread pushing Hamas definitively into the arms of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has announced that it would compensate any loss of international aid and called for all Muslims to accord yearly financial assistance to the Hamas-led government. Iran's nuclear program was also on everyone's mind. For the Arab countries, this program is problematic if it conceals militarization plans; however, for these same countries, Israel poses no less of a threat, as it already possesses nuclear weapons.

DISARMING THE MILITIAS

Mrs. Rice conducted her visit to underscore her country's "support" for Lebanon. Rather than meeting with President Emile Lahoud, who clearly lacks popular support, she met with Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir, patriarch of the Maronite community, who effectively presides over the Republic. In addition to the prime minister, Fouad Siniora, and the speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri, Mrs. Rice spoke with the two main majority figures, Saad Hariri and Walid Joumblatt, at the latter's home in Beirut. A few hours after her departure, all lawmakers from the majority boycotted the Assembly meeting because it was held in the presidential palace. This decision was made as part of the majority's program of attempting to force Mr. Lahoud's resignation.

The U.S. Secretary of State also reminded her interlocutors of the need to apply UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which stipulates the disarmament of militias: in other words of Hezbollah and the Palestinians. In response, the general secretary of Hezbollah, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah [SEE VIDEO BELOW], exclaimed during a rally, "Rather than exploiting Lebanon's governmental institutions and differences of opinion to the benefit of Israel ... the United States should instead send its soldiers to disarm us."

TEHRAN: The terrible crime committed by the terrorists who bombed the holy shrines of the tenth and eleventh Shia Imams, Imam Hadi and Imam Hassan Askari, north of Baghdad in Samara on Wednesday, are intended to foment religious war amongst the Iraqi people.

Mohammad Khatami, former Iranian president and head of the Institute for Dialogue among Civilizations, expressed regret over the bombings and said that regardless of who committed these crimes, the blasts will serve to increase Muslim unity. He also agreed that the Samara bombings were designed to target the unity and sovereignty of the innocent Iraqi nation.

The speaker of the Iranian Majlis [Parliament], Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, said that during recent years, the awareness of the Iraqi nation has neutralized a great number of conspiracies of this kind, and he expressed the hope that Iraqis will once again prevent a division between Shiites and Sunnis.

Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi said the blasts were an organized crime against Muslims. Shirazi told a gathering of people in the city of Qom on Thursday that the main policy of the global arrogance [America] was to weaken the roots of Islam and trigger civil war in Muslim countries. He added that in the correct circumstances, all Islamic sects should maintain their unity.

Ayatollah Mohammad Imami Kashani, who leads Friday prayers in Tehran, said that insulting the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and destroying the holy shrines of Imams Hadi and Hassan Askari fit right in with the conspiracies of the enemies of Islam.

He also said that the main purpose of these incidents is to create division between Sunnis and Shiites, adding that the Mossad and the CIA were the real organizers of the Samara blasts.

Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, in a speech in the central city of Shahr-e Kord on Thursday, said "These desperate acts have been committed by a bunch of Zionists and failed occupiers."

Prosecutor General Ghorban-ali Dorri Najaf Abadi noted that the perpetrators of the recent blasts in Samara intend to trigger a psychological war against Islamic nations and create division among them. Abadi added that it is hard to know who conducted the bombings, but one cannot absolve the Zionists and the United States of the charges.

Issuing a statement on Thursday, the Supreme Leader's representative in Khorasan Razavi Province, Ayatollah Va'ez Tabasi, also condemned the attack. He said that these blasts were organized to create division.

But the bombing cannot hinder the formation of an Islamic government in Iraq.

Deputy Interior Minister Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr said that the blasts were a sign of the weakness of the enemies of Islam, also agreeing that these terrorist attacks will not hinder the formation of an Islamic government in Iraq.

Dozens of governmental and non-governmental organizations have also issued statements condemning the terrorist attacks in Samara, and are calling on the Iraqi nation to maintain its unity and to frustrate their enemies.

The Iraqi government, meanwhile, announced stepped-up security measures, including a ban on entering or leaving Baghdad and the deployment of armed forces into tense areas.

Iraqi Shiite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim said on Friday that the Sunni Arabs of Iraq were not responsible for the bombing of holy shrine.

"I stress that the bombing of the shrine was not an act of the Sunnis of Iraq, but the Zarqawists and the Saddamists," said Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the leading party in the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance.

He was referring to supporters of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq, and of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

In the December elections, the alliance won 128 of the 275 seats in the Iraqi Parliament and is currently holding talks with other political factions to form a coalition government.

Hakim also called for unity between the Shiites and the Sunnis.

"The bombing of the shrine hurts us and provokes powerful feelings, but the burning of mosques and attacks on innocents afterwards have also hurt us tremendously," he said in a statement.

"We strongly denounce the attacks on Sunni mosques, and these incidents further emphasize the need for unity to get rid of the terrorists."

Dhafer al-Ani, spokesman for the biggest Sunni Arab bloc in Parliament, praised al-Hakim's statement, calling it "a step on the road to healing the wounds."

Several joint Sunni-Shiite prayer services were announced for Friday, including one at the Askariya Shrine [the Samarra Mosque]. But security forces turned away about 700 people, virtually all of them Sunni, who showed up for the service.

Avi Lipkin is perhaps better known by his pen name, Victor Mordecai. The American-born Israeli author and lecturer has been back in the U.S. recently, telling American Christians about his desire to create the "Bible Bloc Party."

Christians have historically had no voice in Israel's primary legislative body, Lipkin points out. His "Bible Bloc" will be a party that "will have Christian activists and Christian candidates running for the Knesset ... because the Christian population in Israel has grown in the last 15 years from two percent to eight percent of Israel's voting population."

The author says he would have been able to get the Bible Bloc Party on the ballot for this year's elections, had it not been for certain political upheavals. "Because of the overthrow of Shimon Peres in the Labor Party, Amir Peretz took over the party [and] demanded ... the elections be moved up to March 28th of this year," he explains.

"That only gave me four months to get organized," Lipkin adds. "You cannot put together a political party in three or four months. This is something that requires many years." As a result of the elections being moved up, he says, the Bible Bloc Party will not be able to take part in next month's elections, but he hopes to see the party on the ballot in time for the following Knesset Assembly elections.

Right now, the Israeli conservative notes, Muslims represent 15 percent of Israel's population and have 12 members on the Knesset, while Christians are not represented in that government body at all. "The reason I'm forming this party is because Israel is a multi-party system," he says, and none of the parties in Israel have any kind of Christian representation."

Lipkin is working to correct this disparity. "Christians are serving the army, risking their lives on the battlefield alongside their Jewish brethren," he says. "It cannot be that eight percent of the population is not represented in the Knesset."

The Jerusalem Post notes that “US law bars firms from complying with such requests or cooperating with attempts by Arab governments to boycott Israel.” Once upon a time, opposing such boycotts was important to the Bush Administration.

From the BBC, 5/11/02:

“The US government is strongly opposed to restrictive trade practices or boycotts targeted at Israel,” said Undersecretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Kenneth Juster.

“The Commerce Department is closely monitoring efforts that appear to be made to reinvigorate the Arab boycott of Israel and will use all of its resources to vigorously enforce US anti-boycott regulations.”

…The Department of Commerce has issued more than $26m in fines and turned down export licenses to those found violating the law.

The boycott against Israel is an important distinction between P&O, the British company that currently operates 21 U.S. ports, and Dubai Ports World.