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
Wards of the Nanny State
Protecting America’s Children from Police
State Goons, Bureaucratic Idiots and
Mercenary Creeps
By John W. Whitehead
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
When an opponent declares, ‘I will
not come over to your side,’ [Hitler]
said in a speech on November 6, 1933, “I
calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us
already… What are you? You will pass on.
Your descendants, however, now stand in
the new camp. In a short time they will
know nothing else but this new
community.’”—As reported by
historian William L. Shirer
September 22, 2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- "Rutherford
Institute"
-
It’s
not easy being a parent in the American
police state.
Danger lurks around every corner and comes
at you from every direction, especially when
Big Brother is involved.
Out
on the streets, you’ve got the menace posed
by
police officers who shoot first and ask
questions later. In the schools, parents
have to worry about
school resource officers who taser teenagers
and
handcuff kindergartners, school
officials who have
criminalized childhood behavior, school
lockdowns and
terror drills that teach your children
to fear and comply, and a police state
mindset that has transformed the schools
into
quasi-prisons.
In
your neighborhoods, you’ve got to worry
about the Nanny State and its network of
busybodies turning parents in for allowing
their children to
walk to school alone,
walk to the park alone,
play at the beach alone, or even
play in their own yard alone.
And
now in the last refuge for privacy—one’s
home—parents are being put through the
grinder, their actions scrutinized and
judged by government goon squads armed with
outrageous, overreaching, egregious laws
that subject families to the hyped-up,
easily offended judgment of the Nanny State.
The
latest slap in the face comes from the
Arizona Supreme Court whose 3-2 ruling in
Arizona v. Holle paves the way
for
parents to be charged as child molesters or
sexual abusers for such innocent acts as
changing their children’s diapers or taking
baths with their kids.
I
kid you not. This is really happening.
As
Chief Justice Bales wrote in his
dissent:
Parents and other caregivers who have
changed an infant’s soiled diaper or
bathed a toddler will be surprised to
learn that they have committed a class 2
or 3 felony. They also will likely find
little solace from the majority’s
conclusion that although they are child
molesters or sex abusers under Arizona
law, they are afforded an “affirmative
defense” if they can prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that their
touching “was not motivated by a sexual
interest.” Such a defense, as the
majority notes, does not mean that a
crime has not occurred, but instead that
the miscreant may avoid “culpability” by
persuading the factfinder that the
“criminal conduct” should be excused.
Now
the court is not fully to blame for this
idiotic ruling.
That prize goes to the well-meaning idiots
in the Arizona legislature who drafted
legislation that criminalizes any
contact between an adult and a child’s
genitals, whether or not improper sexual
intent was involved.
By
allowing this legislation to go
unchallenged, however, the Arizona Supreme
Court has created a paradigm in which
parents are de facto sexual
predators who, if formally charged, have the
burden of proving their innocence “after
a lengthy, expensive, and
reputation-tarnishing trial.” As legal
reporter Mark Joseph Stern
writes for Slate: “Arizona’s
Supreme Court had an opportunity to remedy
this glaring problem… But by a 3-2 vote, the
court refused and declared that the law
criminalized the completely innocent
touching of a child.”
Not
only would a parent accused under this law
have to prove his or her innocence to the
jury “by a preponderance of the evidence,”
but they could be forced to spend
an undetermined amount of time in jail
just waiting to prove their innocence.
The
message is chillingly clear: your children
are not your own but are, in fact, wards of
the state who have been temporarily
entrusted to your care. Should you fail to
carry out your duties to the government’s
satisfaction, the children in your care will
be re-assigned elsewhere.
In
other words, the government believes it
knows better than you—the parent—what is
best for your child.
This criminalization of parenthood has run
the gamut in recent years from parents being
arrested for attempting to walk their kids
home from school to
parents being fined and threatened with jail
time for their kids’ bad behavior or
tardiness at school.
For
example, working mom Debra Harrell was
arrested, spent 17 days in jail,
lost custody of her daughter and faced up to
10 years in jail all because she let her
9-year-old daughter
play alone at a nearby park. A
Connecticut mother was arrested after her
7-year-old, who wasn’t wearing a helmet,
fell off his scooter and allegedly
injured himself. Patricia Juarez was
arrested after letting her
7-year-old son play at a Legoland store
in the mall while she did her shopping.
Tammy Cooper was arrested, jailed overnight
and charged with child endangerment for
letting her
kids ride their scooters alone in the
cul-de-sac outside her suburban home.
Jeffrey Williamson was arrested after his
8-year-old
son skipped church to play with neighborhood
children. The experience left scars on
the household. “Every time that we leave in
our car or drive down the street or
something like that, every time they see a
cop in Blanchester, they freak out and say,
‘Daddy, Daddy, Daddy, are they going to
arrest you?’” Williamson said.
Then there was the father who was arrested,
charged with child cruelty, and banished
from his family home after he
spanked his 3-year-old daughter once for
talking back to her mother, pushing the
screen out of her window, refusing to pick
up her toys and throwing a belt at him. The
father was also ordered to
undergo 52 weeks of parenting classes
and two monitored visits with his daughter
each week.
Parents in Florida can be charged with a
second-degree misdemeanor and face up to two
months in jail if their kids have 15 or
more unexcused absences from school over the
course of three months. Truancy laws in
Alabama, Texas, and North Carolina, among
other states, have also resulted in
parents doing jail time for their kids’
absenteeism.
This doesn’t even touch on what happens to
your kids when they’re at school—especially
the public schools—where parents have little
to no control over what their kids are
taught, how they are taught, how and why
they are disciplined, and the extent to
which they are being indoctrinated into
marching in lockstep with the government’s
authoritarian playbook.
The
harm caused by attitudes and policies that
treat America’s young people as government
property is not merely a short-term
deprivation of individual rights. It is also
a long-term effort to brainwash our young
people into believing that civil liberties
are luxuries that can and will be discarded
at the whim and caprice of government
officials if they deem doing so is for the
so-called “greater good” (in other words,
that which perpetuates the aims and goals of
the police state).
Clearly, the schools should be educating
children about their duties as citizens and
how to protect their constitutional rights.
Instead, government officials are molding
our young people into compliant citizens
with no rights and subjecting them to
invasive questioning, searches of their
persons and property, and random drug
testing, often without their parents’
knowledge or consent.
What we’re dealing with is a draconian
mindset that sees young people as wards of
the state—and the source of potential
income—to do with as they will in defiance
of the children’s constitutional rights and
those of their parents. However, this is in
keeping with the government’s approach
towards individual freedoms in general.
Surveillance cameras, government agents
listening in on your phone calls, reading
your emails and text messages and monitoring
your spending, mandatory health care, sugary
soda bans, anti-bullying laws, zero
tolerance policies, political correctness:
these are all outward signs of a
government—i.e., a monied elite—that
believes it knows what is best for you and
can do a better job of managing your life
than you can.
This is tyranny disguised as “the better
good.”
Indeed, this is the tyranny of the Nanny
State: marketed as benevolence, enforced
with armed police, and inflicted on all
those who do not belong to the elite ruling
class that gets to call the shots. This is
what the world looks like when bureaucrats
not only think they know better than the
average citizen but are empowered to inflict
their viewpoints on the rest of the populace
on penalty of fines, arrest or death.
Unfortunately, even in the face of outright
corruption and incompetency on the part of
elected officials, Americans in general
remain relatively gullible, eager to be
persuaded that the government can solve the
problems that plague us—whether it be
terrorism, an economic depression, an
environmental disaster, how or what we eat
or even keeping our children safe.
We
have relinquished control over the most
intimate aspects of our lives to government
officials who, while they may occupy seats
of authority, are neither wiser, smarter,
more in tune with our needs, more
knowledgeable about our problems, nor more
aware of what is really in our best
interests. Yet having bought into the false
notion that the government does indeed know
what’s best for us and can ensure not only
our safety but our happiness and will take
care of us from cradle to grave—that is,
from daycare centers to nursing homes—we
have in actuality allowed ourselves to be
bridled and turned into slaves at the
bidding of a government that could care less
about our freedoms or our happiness.
The
lesson is this: once a free people allows
the government inroads into their freedoms
or uses those same freedoms as bargaining
chips for security, it quickly becomes a
slippery slope to outright tyranny.
Nor
does it seem to matter whether it’s a
Democrat or a Republican at the helm
anymore, because the bureaucratic mindset on
both sides of the aisle now seems to embody
the same philosophy of authoritarian
government, whose priorities are to remain
in control and in power.
Having allowed the government to expand and
exceed our reach, we find ourselves on the
losing end of a tug-of-war over control of
our country and our lives. And as long as we
let them, government officials will continue
to trample on our rights, always justifying
their actions as being for the good of the
people.
Yet
the government can only go as far as “we the
people” allow. Therein lies the problem.
We
have suspended our moral consciences in
favor of the police state. As
Chris Hedges told me years ago, “Not
having to make moral choice frees you from a
great deal of anxiety. It frees you from
responsibility. And it assures that you will
always be wrapped in the embrace of the
powerful as long as, of course, you will do
or dance to the tune the powers play… when
you do what is right, you often have to
understand that you are not going to be
lauded and praised for it. Making a moral
decision always entails risks, certainly to
one’s career and to one’s standing in the
community.”
The
choice before us is clear, and it is
a moral choice.
It
is the choice between tyranny and freedom,
dictatorship and autonomy, peaceful slavery
and dangerous freedom, and manufactured
pipedreams of what America used to be versus
the gritty reality of what she is today.
Most of all, perhaps, as I point out in my
book
Battlefield America: The War on the
American People, the choice before
us is that of blindly obeying, never
questioning, and marching in lockstep with
the police state OR asking hard questions,
challenging injustice, standing up to
tyranny, and owning up to our
responsibilities as citizens, no matter how
painful, risky or uncomfortable.
As
Franklin D. Roosevelt
observed, “We cannot always build the
future for our youth, but we can build our
youth for the future.”
Constitutional attorney and author John W.
Whitehead is founder and president of The
Rutherford Institute. His book
Battlefield America: The War on the American
People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available
online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be
contacted at
johnw@rutherford.org. Information
about The Rutherford Institute is available
at
www.rutherford.org . |