The announcement last week by the United
States of the largest military aid
package in its history – to Israel – was
a win for both sides. Israeli prime
minister Benjamin Netanyahu could boast
that his lobbying had boosted aid from
$3.1 billion a year to $3.8bn – a 22 per
cent increase – for a decade starting in
2019.
Mr Netanyahu has presented this as a
rebuff to those who accuse him of
jeopardising Israeli security interests
with his government’s repeated affronts
to the White House.
In the past weeks alone, defence
minister Avigdor Lieberman has compared
last year’s nuclear deal between
Washington and Iran with the 1938 Munich
pact, which bolstered Hitler; and Mr
Netanyahu has implied that US opposition
to settlement expansion is the same as
support for the “ethnic cleansing” of
Jews.
American president Barack Obama,
meanwhile, hopes to stifle his own
critics who insinuate that he is
anti-Israel. The deal should serve as a
fillip too for Hillary Clinton, the
Democratic party’s candidate to succeed
Mr Obama in November’s election.
In reality, however, the Obama
administration has quietly punished Mr
Netanyahu for his misbehaviour. Israeli
expectations of a $4.5bn-a-year deal
were whittled down after Mr Netanyahu
stalled negotiations last year as he
sought to recruit Congress to his battle
against the Iran deal.
In fact, Israel already receives
roughly $3.8bn – if Congress’s
assistance on developing missile defence
programmes is factored in. Notably,
Israel has been forced to promise not to
approach Congress for extra funds.
The deal takes into account neither
inflation nor the dollar’s depreciation
against the shekel.
A bigger blow still is the White
House’s demand to phase out a special
exemption that allowed Israel to spend
nearly 40 per cent of aid locally on
weapon and fuel purchases. Israel will
soon have to buy all its armaments from
the US, ending what amounted to a
subsidy to its own arms industry.
Nonetheless, Washington’s renewed
military largesse – in the face of
almost continual insults – inevitably
fuels claims that the Israeli tail is
wagging the US dog. Even The New York
Times has described the aid package as
“too big”.
Since the 1973 war, Israel has
received at least $100bn in military
aid, with more assistance hidden from
view. Back in the 1970s, Washington paid
half of Israel’s military budget. Today
it still foots a fifth of the bill,
despite Israel’s economic success.
But the US expects a return on its
massive investment. As the late Israeli
politician-general Ariel Sharon once
observed, Israel has been a US
“aircraft carrier” in the Middle East,
acting as the regional bully and
carrying out operations that benefit
Washington.
Almost no one blames the US for
Israeli attacks that wiped out Iraq’s
and Syria’s nuclear programmes. A
nuclear-armed Iraq or Syria would have
deterred later US-backed moves at regime
overthrow, as well as countering the
strategic advantage Israel derives from
its own nuclear arsenal.
In addition, Israel’s US-sponsored
military prowess is a triple boon to the
US weapons industry, the country’s most
powerful lobby. Public funds are
siphoned off to let Israel buy goodies
from American arms makers. That, in
turn, serves as a shop window for other
customers and spurs an endless and
lucrative game of catch-up in the rest
of the Middle East.
The first F-35 fighter jets to arrive
in Israel in December – their various
components produced in 46 US states –
will increase the clamour for the
cutting-edge warplane.
Israel is also a “front-line
laboratory”, as former Israeli army
negotiator Eival Gilady admitted at the
weekend, that develops and field-tests
new technology Washington can later use
itself.
The US is planning to buy back the
missile interception system Iron Dome –
which neutralises battlefield threats of
retaliation – it largely paid for.
Israel works closely too with the US in
developing cyberwarfare, such as the
Stuxnet worm that damaged Iran’s
civilian nuclear programme.
But the clearest message from
Israel’s new aid package is one
delivered to the Palestinians:
Washington sees no pressing strategic
interest in ending the occupation. It
stood up to Mr Netanyahu over the Iran
deal but will not risk a damaging clash
over Palestinian statehood.
Some believe that Mr Obama signed the
aid package to win the credibility
necessary to overcome his domestic
Israel lobby and pull a rabbit from the
hat: an initiative, unveiled shortly
before he leaves office, that corners Mr
Netanyahu into making peace.
Hopes have been raised by an expected
meeting at the United Nations in New
York on Wednesday. But their first talks
in 10 months are planned only to
demonstrate unity to confound critics of
the aid deal.
If Mr Obama really wanted to pressure
Mr Netanyahu, he would have used the aid
agreement as leverage. Now Mr Netanyahu
need not fear US financial retaliation,
even as he intensifies effective
annexation of the West Bank.
Mr Netanyahu has drawn the right
lesson from the aid deal – he can act
against the Palestinians with continuing
US impunity.
- See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2016-09-19/palestinians-lose-in-us-military-aid-deal-with-israel/#sthash.fL4Eq28N.dpuf
Burkin And Lack Of Freedom In Europe
By Andre Vltchek
Jonathan Cook is a Nazareth- based
journalist and winner of the Martha
Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism -
See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2016-09-19/palestinians-lose-in-us-military-aid-deal-with-israel/#sthash.H1NbQCac.dpuf
September 21, 2016 "Information
Clearing House"
-
In
Europe, oppression is never really called by
its true ugly name. It is constantly
concealed by lofty slogans such as culture,
even tolerance. Repression, discrimination
and harassment are administered in order for
the ‘entire society to be free’.
Or
so at least the official narrative goes.
In
France, recent and ugly row over so-called burkinis,
a swimsuit used by many Muslim women all
over the world, has demonstrated how little
tolerance there really is in today’s Europe
for other cultures and for different ways of
life.
Recently, France’s highest administrative
court has ruled that “burkini bans” being
enforced on the country’s beaches are
illegal and a violation of fundamental
liberties. Still, more than 90 percent of
French people are supporting the ban, which
is thoroughly illogical and philosophically
as well as ethically indefensible.
*
What is suddenly so shocking about a woman
wearing a wetsuit on some French beach? And
let’s face it: burkinis are nothing
else but a wetsuit, which is commonly used
on countless beaches of California,
Australia, and Europe, in fact all over the
world, by surfers and other water sport
enthusiasts.
Just compare these
images and these.
Can you really tell much of a difference?
According to Wikipedia, a wetsuit is:
…
A garment, usually made of foamed
neoprene, which is worn by surfers,
divers, windsurfers, canoeists, and
others engaged in water sports,
providing thermal insulation, abrasion
resistance and buoyancy.
If
courts manage to resurrect the ban (and
actually some municipalities have already
declared that they will uphold it no matter
what), are the French police going to
interrogate women on public beaches, while
trying to determine whether they are wearing
these plastic garments simply because they
are planning to go surfing, or because of
their religious beliefs? Would the first
reason be allowed, while the other one
forbidden?
Are
we heading towards an era when people will
be forced to confess to the authorities, why
they are choosing to cover their bellies and
shoulders? And is this going to re-define
the meaning of ‘freedom’?
*
Who
would be free to cover and who would not?
Would the French state be permitted to
decide what is the legitimate menace from
which a woman should be allowed to protect
herself from?
For
instance, would the cold be ok? Imagine
Paris, in January or February; 100 degrees
Celsius below zero… Most of the women you
pass on the streets (Christian, Muslim and
atheist) are “fully covered”, aren’t they?
What can you see of them? Nothing, almost
nothing! Their entire bodies are covered;
their heads are covered, even their feet and
hands are covered (unlike the hands and feet
of women wearing burkinis). You
travel to Grenoble in the winter, and the
chances are that women will even be covering
their faces with scarves. You know why,
right? Because they are cold! Is
this reason OK, or should the French
authorities demand that they expose their
bellybuttons or shoulders or legs, in order
to prove how “European”, how “French” they
are?
Fine, so covering yourself up from the cold
is most likely admissible; it is not
‘un-European’.
But
what about the heat; is it OK to protect
yourself from sun? In almost the entire
Southeast Asia, but also in some parts of
Latin America and the Sub-Continent, women
want to be as white as possible. Unlike
Western women, they hate suntan. I used to
live in Vietnam and in Indonesia, as well as
in many parts of Latin America, so I know…
In the summer in Hanoi, you spot those
(mainly secular, I emphasize it here!)
elegant ladies on designer scooters, covered
from head to toe: their feet are covered;
they wear gloves, long dresses (áo dài) or
pants, most likely a helmet and underneath
one more layer of headwear, plus sun
glasses. Sometimes their mouth and nose is
‘protected’ by some fabric as well. While
French women are fighting against the cold
during the cold winters, hundreds of
millions of women all over the world are
covering themselves up because they are
fighting against the sun. Could that be
tolerated in France? Or is it unacceptable;
just more evidence of how badly foreigners
are ‘integrating’?
But
back to the beach… Would wetsuits or
burkinis or whatever they are called by, be
out-rightly banned, or only when a woman
decides to go into the water? And as we
know, when we go diving, we all, men and
women, have to ‘cover ourselves up’ fully.
So even if a woman would not be allowed to
enter the water unless she exposes herself,
could she still be covered if she would
intend to go diving, surfing, or kayaking?
Would there be some ‘benevolent set of
exceptions’?
And
one more question: ‘If all women were to be
required to expose themselves (by the new
French law), then how much has to be
actually shown?’ Could 60% of their skin be
covered, or would only 40% be tolerated? Is
there going to be some new and precise
measuring device supplied to the police,
calculating whether the law has actually
been broken?
And
what about the punishment? Should women be
fined? Should they be arrested, or even
deported? Should they be forced to show
their legs? Should police simply kick them
out of the beaches? I really want to know.
Does it all sound absurd? But of course! But
sadly, it is also real. To ban or not to ban
burkini is one of the most passionately
debated topics in Europe today!
*
That Europe is a ‘beacon of freedom’ is
something that only Europeans (and far from
all of them) truly believe. While
anti-immigrant bigots are protesting against
those relatively few migrants arriving at
the EU doors every year, Europe annually
literally regurgitates millions of its
citizens, those who cannot stand living in
what they see as a sad, oppressive and
deteriorating continent. Legal and illegal
European migrants are heading for North and
South America, for Southeast Asia, China,
even Sub-Continent and parts of Africa.
Annually, they are entering millions of
arranged marriages in order to secure local
residency permits; others are crisscrossing
Asia during their ‘visa runs’.
Many of the European migrants living abroad
are very far from being ‘culturally
sensitive’. Those who have plenty of money
are buying off entire coastal areas of Asia
and Africa. Entire nations like Thailand,
Cambodia or Kenya are getting culturally
ruined.
It
is hardly ever debated in Europe: what is
actually more damaging to local cultures –
those Muslim women covering their bodies and
hair on the streets and the beaches of
Europe, or those literally millions of
European potbellied, drunk, and half naked
men in their sixties and seventies,
promenading themselves publicly with their
local teen female or male ‘acquisitions’ all
over the Asian and African cities, villages
and beaches?
And
what about the European women, with their
exposed breasts, wearing hardly detectable
bikinis on the beaches of the once
conservative Muslim communities of
Indonesian Lombok or Southern Thailand?
I
hate to write about this topic fleetingly,
in such a short essay. I have lived, for
many years, in Asia, Africa, Latin America
and the Middle East. The destruction of
local cultures and entire communities by
European migrants amounts to an extremely
disturbing and painful topic, worthy of
in-depth analyses. I mainly address these
issues in my novels.
But
this absurd anti-burkini outburst in France
suddenly forced me to react, as it is
thoroughly one-sided and hypocritical.
*
My
ability to cope with today’s Europe is
quickly evaporating. I still go there,
perhaps 4 times a year, to meet my
translators and publishers, to show my
films, to give a speech here and there, or
to see my mother who married a German around
a quarter of century ago. I plan to stay for
a week, but mostly I escape after 2-3 days.
The
continent rubs me up the wrong way. I feel
terribly un-free there. I’m forced to eat
lunches and dinners at particular designated
hours (as if Europe does not have tens of
millions of doctors, pilots, writers, sex
workers, firefighters, train operators and
others who are on totally different
schedules). In September I cannot buy a
windbreaker that I forgot to pack, as only
clothes for cold weather are now available
in all department stores. I stopped renting
cars in Europe, as even passing the speed
limits by 5km/h kept getting me endless
(electronically processed) fines. Unlike in
China or in Cuba, I am not allowed to film
or photograph at European train stations or
at some ‘sensitive areas’. I was even
stopped and chased away when I filmed the
ice skating ring in front of the
Municipality building in Paris! Surveillance
cameras keep watching me from almost every
corner, and the mainstream media feels
ridiculously censored and submissive to the
regime. A few months ago, when I travelled
from Lebanon to Germany on Air France via
Paris, both my suitcases were cut open by a
saw, and then delivered to the final
destination in plastic bags. “For security
reasons they were ‘checked’ at Charles de
Gaulle Airport in Paris, as your bags were
travelling from the Middle East,” I was
told.
Of
course I have a choice to stay for a while
or to leave. And mostly, I leave. I frankly
dislike 21st Century Europe, so why should I
stay for longer than is necessary.
But
many foreigners do not have this luxury.
Their countries were raped, plundered and
destabilized by the West, by NATO, by the US
and by Europe. They are trying to survive,
somehow. Surprisingly, only very few come to
Europe! Very, very few compared to the
millions of Europeans who are annually
shutting the door behind their backs and
leaving – leaving permanently, for distant
shores.
Other ‘foreigners’ were born in Europe, but
were never accepted. Were they to be born in
Brazil or modern day South Africa, no one
would even blink. They are Muslims, so what?
They want to cover themselves on the public
beaches? Well, it is hot and unusual, but
illegal! How could it be illegal?
Europe is not at peace with itself. It
robbed all over the world, it became rich
because of colonialist and neo-colonialist
plunder, but there is no joy behind its
walls. Whenever I speak to Greeks, French,
Germans, Italians, Czechs or Danes, I
clearly feel it. Most Europeans do realize
that their continent is in decline.
When one does not like his or her home, why
not to re-think its concept, and rebuild it?
Why not bring in totally new, even foreign
ideas? Why stick to what makes it so
oppressive?
But
again, European ‘logic’ is quite different!
The more dissatisfied people become, the
more conservative and inward looking they
get. Foreigners irritate them, or they even
horrify and infuriate them. Unless they
totally ‘adopt’ (abandon their culture), the
majority of Europeans want them out.
In
reality, Muslim women wearing burkinis is
not about burkinis at all. At the beginning
of this essay, we already illustrated how
absurd the anti-burkini laws and regulations
really are.
It
is about something else. It is about the
globally disliked culture of colonialist
oppression and exceptionalism, flexing its
muscles once again, at home and abroad. It
is actually much more terrible than it
looks. The movement to ban burkinis has its
roots in a horrible past, when entire
nations and cultures were annihilated by
European barbaric expansionism.
So
read between the lines:
You can wear any wetsuit, but not a
burkini. It is exactly the same thing,
but the wetsuit is our own invention
(and therefore it is right), while the
‘burkini’ was designed by and for ‘the
others’ (therefore it is clearly wrong).
Remember, only our definitions are
allowed on this Planet.
We
are not religious or cultural
fundamentalists (because only ‘the
others’ can be), but we will protect our
right and freedom to tell the world what
can be believed, thought or even worn.
Amen!
This is the iron, unapologetic logic of the
imperialism.
Therefore, poor burkinis should be defended!
Let’s all buy them, even us, men. After all,
when you look at those old black and white
photos depicting European swimming pools and
beaches, many dudes were wearing almost
identical all-covering stuff, and so were
the women. Just see it here!
Andre
Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist,
filmmaker and investigative journalist. He
covered wars and conflicts in dozens of
countries. His latest books are: “Exposing
Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against
Western Imperialism”. Discussion with Noam
Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. Point of No
Return is his critically acclaimed political
novel. Oceania - a book on Western
imperialism in the South Pacific. His
provocative book about Indonesia: “Indonesia
– The Archipelago of Fear”. Andre is making
films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living
for many years in Latin America and Oceania,
Vltchek presently resides and works in East
Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached
through his website or his Twitter.
First
published by NEO (New Eastern Outlook |