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
Is
Fighting Al-Qaeda In Aleppo Good Or Bad? -
U.S. Unable To Decide
By
Moon Of Alabama
October 07, 2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- "Moon
Of Alabama"
-
There
is currently a barrage of propaganda in the
"western" media in support of "rebels" in
east-Aleppo. It is all about "hospitals" and
"children" but the aim is to stop a Syrian
army assault on the "rebel" held quarters of
the city. U.S. officials are again talking
about "intervention", meaning open war, to
prevent the Syrian army and its allies from
storming the "rebel" held eastern parts. It
would not work but that is not the only
reason why it is a strange idea.
"It
is primarily al-Qaeda that holds Aleppo,"
said (vid) the spokesperson of the U.S.
led 'Operation Inherent Resolve', Colonel
Warren. That was back in April and al-Qaeda
(aka Jabat al-Nusra) has since strengthen
its capacities in the city. The French Syria
expert Fabrice Balanche
tells
Le Monde Le Figaro (translate from
French):
[Al-Qaeda's] grip on
Aleppo's east has only increased since
the spring of 2016,
when it sent 700 reinforcement fighters
while moderate brigades fighters began
to leave the area before the final exit
was closed. The provisional opening of a
breach of the siege of Aleppo in August
2016 (Battle of Ramousseh) has
further increased its prestige and
influence on the rebels.
The
UN Special Envoy for Syria DeMistura
told (vid, 27:43) the UN Security
Council:
We
have seen information from other sources
that tell us more than half of
the fighters present in eastern Aleppo
are al-Nusra. We have also seen
reports alleging the intentional
placement of firing positions close to
social infrastructure, inside and aside
civilian quarters.
So
why does the U.S. want to stop the Syrian
government forces in their attempt to free
the parts of the city which are undoubtedly
held by al-Qaeda?
The
U.S. voted "Yes" on several UN Security
Council resolutions that
demand to fight al-Qaeda and "to
eradicate the safe haven they have
established over significant parts of
Syria."
Following the UNSC demand, Syria and its
allies have surrounded the al-Qaeda held
parts of east-Aleppo. They currently bomb
targets of opportunity, take starting
positions all around it and prepare to
eventually storm and capture it. Measures
have been taken to
allow civilians to escape from the area.
This whole operation is primarily in defense
of west-Aleppo where 1.5 million civilians
live under the protection of the government.
Daily artillery strikes from al-Qaeda held
east-Aleppo have killed and wounded many
people in the government help parts.
But
some U.S. officials
believe that defeating al-Qaeda in
east-Aleppo will be useful for al-Qaeda:
A
U.S. official says Jabhat al-Nusra has
been the “main beneficiary” (other than
the Assad regime) of Russia’s onslaught.
“Until Moscow stops bombing hospitals
and aid workers, Nusra will continue to
exploit the situation . . . and portray
itself as the defender of the Syrian
people,” the official explained.
"Hospitals and aid workers," are often
unfortunate collateral damage in urban
fighting. That will not surprise the U.S.
military, especially after its bombing of
several hospitals in Afghanistan and after
it recently practically destroyed Kobani in
Syria and Fallujah in Iraq to eradicate the
Islamic State from those cities.
The
claim that fighting al-Qaeda in Aleppo
strengthens al-Qaeda seems dubious to me.
But even if that is the case what is the
alternative to fighting it in the city areas
it holds?
U.S. Secretary of State Kerry is urging a
new ceasefire with a pause in fighting and
aerial bombing of at least seven days. State
Department spokesperson Toner explained that
yesterday. But he also
admitted (vid @14:50) that al-Qaeda and
other militant groups use such ceasefire
periods to regroup and to resupply:
... we can talk about that some rebel
groups or opposition groups may have
used the pause to resupply...
It
is even more than that. Al-Qaeda wins in
every ceasefire (even if those generally do
not apply to it) in many other ways. A
new study, specifically about al-Qaeda
and ceasefire, details that and concludes:
While the establishment of the truces
was supposed to help to weaken the most
radical factions of the insurgency,
Jabhat al-Nusra emerged
indisputably strengthened ...
Another ceasefire would help al-Qaeda to
resupply and regroup and to regain strength
in east-Aleppo and elsewhere.
Despite that and despite agreeing to the
UNSC resolution the U.S. does not want the
Syrian government and its allies to fight
al-Qaeda in east-Aleppo because it believes
that would strengthen al-Qaeda. It wants a
new ceasefire. But any ceasefire or truce
strengthens al-Qaeda.
Somehow the U.S. position does not compute.
It
gets even more
confusing:
"..,” one senior administration official
said. “The CIA and the Joint Staff have
said that the fall of Aleppo would
undermine America’s counterterrorism
goals in Syria.”
Fighting al-Qaeda in east-Aleppo and
"eradicating" it from the area it holds, as
the UNSC demands, would undermine U.S.
counterterrorism goals?
That is strange. The alternative in
east-Aleppo is to keep al-Qaeda well and
alive and to let it hold the area it
currently holds. Would that further U.S.
counterterrorism goals? How?
What then are the actually goals?
|
