Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse — Senate Republicans and their friends in the Greater Israel Lobby are using classic McCarthyite smear tactics to try to derail the confirmation of former Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham dug up an unsubstantiated report that Hagel once voiced concern over Israel “becoming an apartheid state”, and now the Lobby is making hay of the charge.
Unless we act now—we have until Tuesday when the Senate reconvenes—the Lobby could succeed in smearing a public servant for saying what many high-ranking Israelis, including former prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, have been saying for years.  
Join us and our partners at Jewish Voice for Peace now.
Sign our petition to Senator Lindsey Graham telling him that he can't smear Chuck Hagel for having a mainstream Israeli view.
[More quotes from prominent Israelis using "the A word" can be found here.]
Graham and friends fail to understand that a responsible United States’ Middle East policy must include recognition of millions of Palestinians living under Israeli military rule without their basic rights, or inside of Israel as second-class citizens. Only then can we hope to reach a lasting peace for both peoples.
Israel’s many public officials who have talked about apartheid recognize this, but most Senate Republicans are acting as if full support of Israel’s settlement policies is required for the position of US Secretary of Defense.
Already, Christians United for Israel has called for President Obama to remove Hagel’s candidacy. And the American Jewish Committee has called for “further deliberation” on Hagel’s candidacy. Now 15 Senate Republicans have written to President Obama, demanding that he withdraw Hagel's nomination. 
During his second inaugural address, President Obama promised to move the US forward on addressing climate change. So you'd think that rejecting the TransCanada Corporation's proposal to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have a significant carbon impact if implemented, would be a no-brainer, right?
Not according to a recent New York Times report. After tens of thousands of activists descended on Washington this past Sunday to press the president to fulfill his promise on climate and reject the Keystone XL application,  the New York Times report claimed that the President faced a difficult decision: if Obama rejects the pipeline project as those concerned about climate change demand, he would provoke the Canadian conservative government to retaliate.  How? By not supporting bad US foreign policies!
Policies that are in the best interest of the American public ought not to be traded for policies that most Americans have no stake in. Tell President Obama to reject the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.
So why does the New York Times think Obama should be afraid of the Conservative Canadian government? One claim was that a rejection of the Keystone XL project would end up
causing a deep and perhaps lasting rift with Canada… a close ally on Iran and Afghanistan… Its leaders have made it clear that an American rejection … could bring retaliation.
But Canada has already withdrawn the bulk of its troops from Afghanistan—a war most Americans want to end anyway.  There are only about 950 Canadian soldiers left in Afghanistan, almost all of whom are there solely to train the Afghan army and all of whom will be withdrawn at the end of 2014.  And retaliation concerning Iran would take the form of—what, exactly? Less support for further sanctions on Iran, which are already keeping Iranian civilians from getting lifesaving medicines? 
If you live in California, Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Maine, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Indiana, or Idaho, you have a Senator on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Please call one of your Senator's local offices on Monday—or anytime during the Senate recess this week when you can—and urge them to support a public hearing on CIA drone strikes in the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Local offices and phone numbers are listed below.
Our goal in this campaign is to get the Senate Intelligence Committee to publicly commit to holding a public hearing on CIA drone strikes before the Senate confirms John Brennan to head the CIA. (Not necessarily to hold a public hearing before then, but to get the Committee to publicly commit to holding a public hearing in the future.)
After you're done, report your call here.
If you don't live in one of the above listed states, please forward a link to this page to folks you know who do who might be willing to call.
Also, you can sign our petition to Senator Feinstein: Hold a Public Hearing on CIA Drone Strikes
Dianne Feinstein, California, Chair
San Francisco Office: (415) 393-0707
Fresno Office: (559) 485-7430
Los Angeles Office: (310) 914-7300
San Diego Office: (619) 231-9712
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Portland Office: (503) 326-7525
Eugene Office: (541) 431-0229
Bend Office: (541) 330-9142
LaGrande Office: (541) 962-7691
Medford Office: (541) 858-5122
Salem Office: (503) 589-4555
Martin Heinrich, New Mexico
Santa Fe Office: (505) 988-6647
Alburquerque Office: (505) 346-6601
Farmington Office: (505) 325-5030
Las Cruces Office: (575) 523-6561
Roswell Office: (575) 622-7113
Mark Udall, Colorado
Denver Office: (303) 650-7820
California Senator Dianne Feinstein said something recently that's making our heads spin.
Following John Brennan's confirmation hearing last Thursday in which the Senate Intelligence Committee questioned him on US drone policy, Politico reported Sen. Feinstein as saying that
she was unaware of reports that in some instances U.S. officials assumed any male of fighting age killed in a strike was a combatant - a method that could undercount the number of civilian deaths. 
Apparently, Sen. Feinstein doesn't have a subscription to the New York Times. Last May, the Times ran a major expose on US drone policy that featured the revelation that the CIA was counting all “military-aged males in a strike zone” as “combatants” in their drone strike kill counts. 
What makes this situation even more outrageous is that Sen. Feinstein is the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is responsible for overseeing the CIA and US drone policy. How is it possible that she was unaware of a widely-noted New York Times article on a policy she is responsible for overseeing?
We think "oversight" of drone strike policy includes the responsibility to know what's being reported about it in the press and to ask government officials about these concerns. That means someone needs to get a subscription to the New York Times ASAP. Don't you agree?
Join us in telling Sen. Feinstein and her staff to get subscriptions to the New York Times and to read the articles related to drone strikes.
Thank you for all you do to help bring about a more just foreign policy,
Robert Naiman, Chelsea Mozen, Sarah Burns and Megan Iorio
Just Foreign Policy
Help support Just Foreign Policy! With our small staff and minimal overhead, you know your contribution will go a long way.
Early this morning, a group of Palestinian and international nonviolent activists made two attempts to establish a new village in the South Hebron Hills to protest the Netanyahu government's plans to confiscate Palestinian land in the area. "We are establishing Canaan on our land after our homes and water wells were demolished, and our people displaced," Yatta popular committee spokesman Ibrahim Rabee told Ma'an News Agency.
According to AFP, the activists gathered at the first site, near a road that serves the settlement of Carmel, were evicted before they could erect any structures. The activists then moved to a second site, near the Palestinian village of al-Tuwani, where they were able to erect at least one tent before Israeli forces arrived. "We began building the tents and were surprised when a large force of the Israeli army began attacking us and destroying tents and hitting us,” Younis Arar, coordinator of the popular committee in the southern West Bank, told Ma'an news. AFP reported the use of water cannon to disperse the activists. According to Haaretz, the water sprayed at the protesters was “foul water”, also known as “skunk water”, which has a putrid smell that can linger on clothing for years.
No one is reported to have been arrested at the first site, but Al Jazeera says six people were arrested at the second site, including two journalists, one of whom is with the AP. A Hebron human rights activist told Al Jazeera, "The Israeli army does not distinguish the journalists from activists, or from the people living there - they just attacked everyone. They were very aggressive today."
Canaan was the fifth attempt to establish a protest village in the West Bank in as many weeks, and the Israeli army's response has become more aggressive with each attempt. The world needs to know about these nonviolent acts of resistance, and now is the time to spread the word. Here's what you can do:
At long last, the Administration has released a "white paper" explaining its legal rationale for conducting drone strikes on Americans. Why did this happen? Because of pressure.
What might more pressure accomplish?
John Brennan is appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday for his confirmation hearing as director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Urge your Senators to press John Brennan on US drone strike policy.
The New York Times reports that the Justice Department "white paper" closely tracks a classified memorandum in which the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel signed off on the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who died in U.S. drone strike in September 2011.  Members of Congress, the press, and human rights groups have been pressing the Administration for disclosure of this memo (which still has not been disclosed).
In January, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden sent a letter demanding to see the memo.  On February 4, a bipartisan group of Senators made the same demand. 
This shows that the Administration's policy can move under the pressure of Senators' questions. More questions will generate more movement.
There are many other questions Senators should ask Brennan:
- How many civilians do you believe have been killed by drone strikes?
- Is it true that the CIA counts all "military-aged males" as "militants" when they are killed by a drone strike?
- Do you agree with those who say that drone strikes should not be conducted by the CIA?
- Is it true that the CIA has conducted "secondary strikes" where they hit the same target twice, after rescuers have come to the scene of a strike?
- Is it true that the CIA has targeted funerals and weddings with drone strikes?
- Is it true that the CIA has targeted unknown persons with "signature strikes," simply on the basis that they were carrying weapons?
Earlier today, Palestinian nonviolent activists established a new tent village called al-Manatir in the West Bank village of Burin, near Nablus, to protest Israeli plans to confiscate village land for settlement development. Soon after, Israeli soldiers and settlers from two nearby settlements, Yitzhar and Bracha, entered the village. As the Associated Press reports, Burin has frequently been the target of settler violence from the nearby settlements. After the soldiers and settlers arrived at the scene, clashes subsequently broke out. The AFP reports that the Israeli soldiers “used tear gas and violence” to remove the protesters and settlers from the encampment. Haaretz reports that live ammunition was fired into the air, though the IDF denies this. In the end, five Palestinians and one settler were arrested.
The IDF has closed off the area and is preventing anyone from re-entering al-Manatir, but news is still coming in via Twitter. Now is the time to spread the word. Here's what you can do:
1. If you're on Twitter, retweet news coming in from #AlManatir
2. Share these articles:
- “Clashes in West Bank village after Palestinians erect protest camp,” Jack Khoury, Gili Cohen and the Associated Press, February 2, 2013, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/clashes-in-west-bank-villa...
- “Palestinians evicted from West Bank protest camp,” AFP, February 2, 2013, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hBA5zNgSOF1HeGVXbjgQW...
- “Israeli forces dismantle Palestinian encampment, clash with activists,” Associated Press, February 2, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israeli-forces-dismantle...
A key reason many in Congress haven't spoken up against the drone strike policy is that many believe the public overwhelmingly supports the policy. A key reason many believe the public overwhelmingly supports the drone strike policy is that the Washington Post said so in February 2012.
But the question the Washington Post asked in its February 2012 poll, and the way the Post reported it, were highly misleading. And in the last year, a lot of criticism of the drone strike policy has appeared in mainstream press that hadn't appeared before.
As the Senate considers the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA, where he will oversee CIA drone strikes, urge the Washington Post to ask the public an unbiased question on drone strikes.
In February 2012, under the headline, "Poll finds broad support for Obama's counterterrorism policies," the Washington Post reported that "The Post-ABC News poll found that 83 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s drone policy."  This Post report had the effect of convincing many people that the drone strike policy was overwhelmingly popular. But here is the question that was actually asked: 
… thinking about the following decisions of the Obama administration, please tell me whether you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove ... c. The use of unmanned, "drone" aircraft against terrorist suspects overseas
The Post assumed there was no meaningful distinction between current policy and targeting "terrorist suspects." That was the "official story" the Administration had just put out.
France has undertaken a major military campaign in Mali. U.S. officials are talking about the possibility of supporting the French military campaign with U.S. drone strikes.
Congress hasn't authorized US military intervention in Mali. In particular, Congress hasn't authorized U.S. drone strikes in Mali.
Urge your Representative and Senators to publicly insist that the Administration obtain explicit Congressional authorization before conducting drone strikes in Mali.
The Washington Post reports: 
[A senior U.S.] official said contingency plans for the use of armed drones were already in place and are being reevaluated.
Without explicit Congressional authorization, the only U.S. legal authority the Administration could claim for conducting drone strikes in Mali is the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed after the September 11 attacks. This is the legal authority the Administration has invoked for conducting drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The invocation of the 2001 AUMF to justify drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia is already very controversial. The invocation of the 2001 AUMF to justify drone strikes in Mali should be even more controversial.
Indeed, on November 1, the Washington Post editorial board, which supports the drone strike policy overall, and believes that US drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen are legal overall, wrote: 
President Obama has announced his new national security team: Chuck Hagel at Defense, John Kerry at State, John Brennan at the CIA. Each of these officials will have a say in whether U.S. drone strike policy will be further entrenched than it is today, or whether U.S. drone strike policy will become more transparent and accountable, and be brought into full compliance with U.S. and international law.
Each of these nominees must face a confirmation hearing in the Senate. When the President's nominees appear before the Senate, they should answer questions from Senators about current drone strike policy, and that should happen in open session, so the questions and answers can be reported in the media, and the public can exercise its right to know.
Sign our petition to the President and the Senate here:
In an editorial, the Washington Post called for the CIA's removal from the drone strike program.  Human Rights Watch has been calling for the CIA to be removed from the drone strike program for a year, noting that the CIA is less transparent than the U.S. military and less accountable to U.S. and international law, and that there is no program to compensate civilian victims of CIA paramilitary actions. 
The Post has also reported that the Administration has made moves to institutionalize the current program, suggesting the program could be at its midpoint—in other words, the program could go on for another ten years.