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
Bombs, domestic and foreign, are
defining the nature of politics in
the United States, the European
Union and among radical Islamist
groups and individuals. The scale
and scope of bomb-politics varies
with the practioner.
September 29, 2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- ‘Wholesale bombers’ are state actors,
who engage in large-scale, long-term
bombing designed to destroy adversary
governments or movements. ‘Retail
bombers’ are groups or individuals
engaging in small-scale, sporadic
bombings, designed to provoked fear and
secure symbolic outcomes.
Apart from planned bombings, there are
improvised bombings committed by
deranged individuals who engage in
suicide attacks without any political
backing or coherent purpose.
In
this paper we will focus on the nature
of ‘wholesale’ and ‘retail’ bombings,
their frequency, political consequences
and long-term impact on global political
power.
Bombing as Everyday Events
The US and EU are the world’s foremost
practitioners of ‘wholesale bombing’.
They engage in serial attacks against
multiple countries without declaring war
or introducing their own citizen ground
troops. They specialize in
indiscriminant attacks on civilian
populations - unarmed women, children,
elders and non-combatant males. In other
words, for the ‘wholesale bombers’,
unleashing terror on societies is an
everyday event.
The US and EU practice ‘total war’ from
the skies, not sparing a single sphere
of everyday, civilian life. They bomb
neighborhoods, markets, vital
infrastructure, factories, schools and
health facilities. The result of their
daily, ‘ordinary’ bombing is the total
erasure of the very structures necessary
for civilized existence, leading to mass
dispossession and the forced migration
of millions in search of safety.
It
is not surprising that the refugees seek
safety in the countries that have
destroyed their means of normal
existence. The wholesale bombers of the
US-EU do not bomb their own cities and
citizens - and so millions of the
dispossessed are desperate to get in.
Wholesale bomb policies have emerged
because prolonged ground wars in the
targeted countries evoke strong domestic
opposition from their citizens unwilling
to accept casualties among US and EU
soldiers. Wholesale bombing draws less
domestic opposition because the bombers
suffer few losses.
At
the same time, while mass aerial bombing
reduces the political risks of
casualties at home, it expands and
deepens violent hostility abroad. The
mass flight of refugees to US-EU
population centers allows the entry of
violent combatants who will bring their
own version of the total war strategies
to the homes of their invaders.
Secular resistance has generally
targeted enemy soldiers, whether they
are imperial invaders or jihadi
mercenaries. Their targets are more
focused on the military. But faced with
the politics of long-distance, wholesale
bombing, the secular opposition becomes
ineffective. When the ’secular
opposition’ diminishes, ethno-religious
combatants troops emerge.
The Islamists have taken command of the
resistance, adopting their tactics to
the imperial policy of total serial
wars.
Retail Bomb-Warfare
Lacking an air force, Islamist
terrorists engage in ground wars to
counter imperial air wars. Their
response to drone warfare, is hand-made
improvised bombs, killing hundreds of
civilians. Their victims may be
decapitated with hand-held swords,
rather than computer-controlled
missiles. They capture hostile
population, committing pillage, torture
and rapine, rather than bomb from a
distance, to dispossess and drive into
exile.
‘Retail bomb’ terrorists are generally
decentralized and may be recruited
overseas. Their bombs are crude and
indiscriminant. But like the wholesale
bombers, they target population centers
and seek to provoke panic and despair
among the civilian population.
Islamist ‘retail bombers’ seek to expand
their range by attacking the home
countries of ‘wholesale bombers’ - the
US and Europe. These attacks are
exclusively for propaganda and do not
constitute any threat to strategic
imperial military targets. They expose
the vulnerability of their enemies’
civilian population.
While imperial bombers and Islamists
bombers have been at war against each
other, they have also served as allies
of convenience. Several recent examples
come to mind.
US-EU ‘wholesale bombing’ campaigns
against Libya, Syria and Yemen worked in
tandem with Islamist mercenary ground
fighters. ‘Wholesale bombers’ devastated
the infrastructure and military
installations of the governments of
Syria and Libya in support of advancing
Islamist ground troops. In other words,
‘wholesale bombings’ are not sufficient
to achieve targeted ‘regime change’,
thus the resort to terrorist ‘retail
bombers’ and jihadi ‘head choppers’ to
advance on regional and local targets.
The most blatant recent example of the
convergence of imperial wholesale
bombers in support of Islamist retail
bombers and terrorists was the September
17, 2016 US-EU attack on a Syrian
military installation, killing and
wounding almost two hundred Syrian
soldiers who had been engaged in combat
against ISIS terrorists. While
Washington claimed that the hours-long
aerial bombardment of Syrian government
soldiers was a ‘mistake’, it allowed the
jihadi ‘retail bombers’ to take the
offensive and overrun the base. Acting
as air-support for ISIS, the US Pentagon
effective shut down any possibility for
peace negotiations and sabotaged a
fragile ceasefire. This was a major
victory for Washington’s politics of
permanent wholesale bombing and ‘regime
change’.
Just as the US launched its propaganda
and wholesale bombing attack against the
Syrian government, an improvised ‘retail
bombing campaign’ was launched in the US
- in Manhattan and New Jersey! The
latest series of retail bombing attacks
in the US led to three dozen, mostly
minor, injuries, while the brutal US
wholesale bombing of Syrian troops
killed over 62 government soldiers and
wounded many more. The political impact
and consequences of wholesale and retail
terror bombings in both regions was
highly significant. The US had no more
right to launch an air attack on Syrian
government troops engaged in defending
their country, than the US-based retail
terrorist (an Afghan-American) had in
planting improvised bombs in US cities.
Both actions are illegal.
Political Consequences of Bombing
Warfare
The US-ISIS coordinated bombing of
Syrian soldiers has set the stage for
all-out warfare. Peace talks were
violently sabotaged by the Obama
Administration. Syria and Russia now
face the combined forces of ISIS, Turkey
and the US with no hope for a negotiated
solution. The battle for control of
Aleppo will intensify. Russian
negotiators have failed to check their
cynical American ‘allies’ in their
much-ballyhooed ‘war on terror’. They
have no choice but to continue to supply
air cover for their Syrian government
allies.
The US has embraced the Turkish invasion
of Syria, betraying both their Kurdish
allies and some element among their ISIS
partners. Bombing continues to be
Washington’s main option in the Middle
East.
The recent retail terror bombing in the
US has the predicted consequence - a
mass media whipped into a frenzy of fear
mongering. New York City is further
militarized. The face of the ‘enemy’ (a
young Afghan-American, whose own father
had tried to turn over to the FBI for
his jihadi connections) is on a hundred
million TV screens continuously. The
electoral campaign salivates in
anticipation of a terror war for whoever
wins the presidency. Blind fear rather
than concrete economic demands take the
place of political debate.
Immigrants, Muslims and terrorists
replace Wall Street tax evaders,
profiteers and speculators as the
villains in a country mired in economic
and social crises. Economic policies,
which have created mass insecurity and
misery, are obscured by the militarist
rhetoric.
Militarism, war and wholesale bombing
replace the incremental advances in
improving peaceful productive relations
with Cuba and Iran.
The politics of bombing, as a strategy
and way-of-life affects domestic and
foreign policy . . . even as the vast
majority of American voters look for
alternatives, for jobs, housing, and
education and seek to live without fear
and threats.
Wholesale wars lead to retail wars.
Overseas bombs lead to bombs at home.
Invasions and occupations provoke
outrage and retaliation. The answer is
not to do unto others what you don’t
want done on yourself.