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
Top US General Warns Syrian “No-fly” Zone
Means War With Russia
By Bill Van Auken
September 24, 2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- "WSWS"
-
The
enforcement of a “no-fly” zone in Syria
would mean a US war with both Syria and
Russia, the top US uniformed commander told
the Senate Armed Services Committee
Thursday.
Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spelled out the
grave implications of the policy advocated
by both predominant sections within the
Republican Party as well as Democratic
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton amid
rising violence in Syria and increasing
pressure by Washington on the Russian
government to unilaterally agree to
grounding its own aircraft as well as those
of the Syrian government.
Secretary of State John Kerry has repeatedly
demanded that Russia adhere to what would
essentially be a one-sided “no-fly” zone
under conditions in which US warplanes would
continue carrying out airstrikes.
Kerry presented his proposal as a means of
reviving and restoring “credibility” to a
ceasefire agreement that he and the Russian
Foreign Minister negotiated on September 9.
This cessation of hostilities collapsed less
than a week after its implementation in the
face of hundreds of violations by US-backed
Islamist “rebels” who have refuse to accept
its terms, as well as two major back-to-back
attacks.
The
first was carried out by US and allied
warplanes one week ago against a Syrian army
position, killing as many as 90 Syrian
soldiers and wounding another 100.
Washington claimed that the bombing was a
mistake, but Syrian officials have pointed
to what appeared to be a coordination of the
airstrike with a ground offensive by Islamic
State (also known as ISIS) fighters who
briefly overran the bombed position.
This was followed on September 19 by an
attack on a humanitarian aid convoy in
Aleppo that killed at least 20 and destroyed
18 trucks. The US immediately blamed Russia
for the attack, without providing any
evidence to support the charge. Russia and
the Syrian government have denied
responsibility and suggested that the
so-called “rebels” shelled the convoy.
The
US position was reflected in the testimony
of both Dunford and Defense Secretary Ashton
Carter before the Senate panel Thursday. The
general admitted to the committee, “I don’t
have the facts,” as to what planes carried
out the attack, but quickly added, “There is
no doubt in my mind that the Russians are
responsible.” Similarly, Carter declared,
“The Russians are responsible for this
strike whether they conducted it or not.”
The
collapse of the ceasefire under the weight
of these incidents abrogated an agreement
that had been bitterly opposed by both
Carter and the Pentagon’s uniformed command.
The latter have publicly declared their
opposition—in terms bordering on
insubordination—to the deal’s provision for
coordinated actions and intelligence sharing
with Russia, which America’s top generals
see as the main enemy.
This view was reiterated Thursday by General
Dunford, who declared that based on the
“combination of their behavior and their
military capability, Russia is the most
significant threat to our national
interests.” Asked if he supported the
proposal for intelligence sharing, Dunford
responded, “We don’t have any intention of
having an intelligence-sharing arrangement
with the Russians.”
Speaking in New York Thursday night after
the so-called International Syria Support
Group ended a meeting with no progress
toward restoring the US-Russian ceasefire
agreement, Secretary of State Kerry
declared: “The only way to achieve that
[cessation of hostilities and violence] is
if the ones who have the air power in this
part of the conflict simply stop using
it—not for one day or two, but for as long
as possible so that everyone can see that
they are serious.”
After leaving the same meeting, Russian
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rejected the
demand that the Syrian government take
“unilateral steps” under conditions in which
the US-backed “rebels” reject the ceasefire.
“We insist and find support for steps being
taken by the opposition as well, so as not
to let Jabhat al-Nusra take advantage of
this situation,” he said.
This, however, is precisely the aim of
Washington. The US military and intelligence
complex is increasingly concerned that with
the backing of Russia and Iran, the Syrian
government is on the brink of breaking the
five-year-old siege waged by the Islamist
militias armed and paid by the CIA and
Washington’s principal US allies, Saudi
Arabia, Turkey and Qatar. Syrian and Russian
planes began intense bombardment of
“rebel”-held eastern Aleppo Friday in what
has been reported as preparation for a major
ground offensive to retake this area of the
city. If the offensive proves successful,
the US war for regime change will have
suffered a strategic reversal.
Al
Nusra, the Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda,
which is formally designated by both the US
and the UN as a terrorist organization,
constitutes the backbone of the proxy forces
employed by US imperialism to effect regime
change in Syria. One of the major
controversies surrounding the US-Russian
truce agreement was its call for the US to
persuade the “rebels” on its payroll to
separate themselves from Al Nusra. This
Washington was unable and unwilling to do,
both because they are so closely integrated
with the Al Qaeda elements and because they
could not survive as a fighting force
without them.
The
imposition of a no-fly zone over Aleppo and
other Al Nusra-controlled areas is
increasingly seen as a life and death matter
for the US-backed Islamists. As Thursday’s
Senate hearing indicated, while Kerry is
appealing to Russia to voluntarily stand
down, there are significant elements within
the US state that are calling for the
imposition of the no-fly zone by force.
Gen. Dunford was asked by Mississippi
Republican Senator Roger Wicker if the US
could take “decisive action” in imposing a
no-fly zone. Wicker indicated that he had
discussed the matter with Democrats, who
indicated that they would support such a
venture if the US intervention were given
another name.
“For now, for us to control all the airspace
in Syria would require us to go to war with
Syria and Russia,” Dunford replied to the
Senator. “That’s a pretty fundamental
decision that certainly I’m not going to
make.”
Dunford’s remark provoked an intervention by
the committee chairman, Republican Senator
John McCain of Arizona, who pushed him to
clarify that total control of the Syrian
airspace would require war with Russia and
Syria, while a no-fly zone could potentially
be imposed short of that.
The
hearing provided a chilling exposure of the
discussions going on within the US state and
its military over actions that could quickly
spiral into an all-out confrontation with
nuclear-armed Russia, bringing humanity to
the brink of catastrophe.
In
separate remarks the day before the Senate
hearing, both Carter and Dunford stressed
that the US will maintain its military
deployment in the Middle East long after the
defeat of ISIS, the pretext for the current
interventions in Iraq and Syria.
Speaking to the Air Force Association
conference, Dunford declared, “If you
assume, like I do, that we’re going to be in
that region, if not Iraq, for many, many
years to come,” decisions would have to be
taken on the establishment of permanent
military headquarters and
command-and-control infrastructure.
“What is obvious and very clear is that
we’re going to be in that region for a
while,” Carter declared in a “troop talk”
streamed live on social media. He added:
“ISIL is a big problem, but one we’re going
to take care of through defeat. But we have
Iran over there, we have other issues in the
Middle East.”
In
other words, Washington is planning the
continuation of its unending wars in the
Middle East, including military action
directed against Iran, with the aim of
imposing American hegemony over the region’s
vast energy resources and strategically
weakening the principal targets of US
imperialist aggression, Russia and China.
Copyright © 1998-2016 World Socialist Web
Site - All rights reserved |
