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
Mainstream Media’s Propaganda War on Syria
and Russia: What You Really Need to Know.
By Joe
Clifford
Contemplate a war with a nation that has
7000 thermonuclear weapons.
October 12, 2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- If you rely on mainstream corporate media
(MSM) as your news source, you are totally
in the dark on issues such as Syria and
Russia, because MSM has lost its way, and
now serves as a mouthpiece for government
positions. It is a neocon controlled
propaganda machine, and its role has been
reduced to that of a parrot.
That
said, if you dig deeper and use reputable
sources, you get a dramatically different
perspective. Do you know why the Syrian
cease fire between Russia and the US failed?
It failed for two reasons: First, the deal
required the US to separate the jihadists
from the “moderates”, and tell the Russians
who the “moderates” are, and where are they
are, so Russia could continue to pound ISIS
and not bomb “moderates”. The Russians, as
well as everyone else, save for MSM know
full well, there are no “moderates”, and
ultimately the US refused to separate the
moderates from the jihadists because it is
impossible. MSM does not tell you the main
objective of the US and its neocon drivers,
has, all along, been the overthrow of Assad
by any means, including using jihadist child
beheaders to further their goal. We have
not conducted a serious war on the
“terrorists”, but in many cases we have
armed them and assisted them in different
ways, such as “accidentally” dropping them
arms and supplies. The second reason for the
failure of the cease fire was the US attack
on the Syrian military base which killed 83
Syrian soldiers allowing Jihadist terrorists
to immediately overrun that base. This, in
the eyes of many, was no “accident”, for the
battle lines at that camp had been unchanged
for over one year. US drones circled the
area daily, and the US uses sophisticated
guidance assisted bombs that can be
exactingly precise. This was not another of
the many “accidental “bombings. An excuse
the US has hidden behind on many occasions.
It appears this was intentional. Either
Obama knew of this, or he was defied and
overruled by someone who gave the order to
bomb the base, as a way of sabotaging the
“cease fire”. It is common knowledge, not
in MSM, but in informed circles, that there
are those pushing hard to create an
escalation of events with Russia, and using
any means possible to overthrow Assad.
The
neocons, and war party leaders like Clinton,
are calling for a no fly zone. But MSM did
not report the ominous warnings of General
Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, who appeared before Congress and was
asked about the possibility of a no fly
zone. His tone was ominous as he said: “For
now, for us to control all the airspace in
Syria would require us to go to war with
Syria and Russia,” “That’s a pretty
fundamental decision that certainly I’m not
going to make.”
Contemplate a war with a nation that has
7000 thermonuclear weapons. No one in their
right mind would want this, yet if you read
reliable sources, you see just how close we
are to this holocaust. MSM, is of course,
completely silent on the impending
catastrophe while discussing the latest in
the Kardashian family and name calling
between Clinton and Trump.
Basic
questions never asked by MSM, need answers.
What gives the US the right to decide who
should rule or not rule Syria? (Hint -None.)
What legal right does the US have to bomb
Syria? (Hint-None.) Russia, on the other
hand, was the only power invited by the
government of Syria to help fight ISIS.
Dr Nabil Antaki, a doctor based in the
Syrian government held western sectors of
Aleppo said in a recent interview: “From
our perspective the Russian intervention was
extremely beneficial and they have the full
support of the Syrian people which
contradicts the western narrative. The west
accuses Russia of targeting not only the
terrorist groups but also the “moderate
rebels”. Russia has been very successful in
bombing the Islamic State groups so the West
is trying to slow their progress by claiming
they are targeting the non-terrorist groups
and accusing Russia of aiding Bashar instead
of targeting DAESH.”
If
Assad is the devil incarnate, as preached by
MSM, how does MSM or the US government, now
one in the same, justify the following?
A
British poll, done by ORB International,
finds that 82% of Syrians blame the U.S. for
ISIS.
Early
2012, a poll showed 55 percent of Syrians
wanted their President to stay.
Internal NATO study (dated June 2013), shows
70% of Syrians support President Bashar
al-Assad
In
2014, Assad won a landslide victory (88%) in
the country’s first multi-party Presidential
election.
A poll
in July 2015, showed 47% of Syrians thought
Assad had a positive influence on matters in
Syria.
And
only 9% of the US public has any confidence
in our own US Congress, and both Clinton and
Trump are more distrusted by the US public,
than Assad is by Syrians.
If the
neocon effort to overthrow Assad is
successful, then what? Does Syria become
another Iraq or Libya, another land of
anarchy? Is it coincidental that anarchy
follows US interference?
You
have not been told Aleppo is divided into
two parts, western Aleppo, (1.75 million) is
controlled by the Syrian government, but
East Aleppo (250,000) is controlled by
“terrorists”? Thousands of East Aleppo
residents fled to West Aleppo seeking
protection of the Syrian government. Russia
is bombing East Aleppo. If the Syrian
government can take East Aleppo it will
pretty much signal the end of the terrorist
invasion of Syria, and Assad will remain in
power, which is anathema to the neocons. So
a Syrian and Russian victory over the
terrorists and jihadists would be a defeat
for those in the US who want the end of
Assad. Since East Aleppo is the stronghold
of Al Nusra, formerly called Al-Qaida, why
would the US introduce a resolution to
prevent Russians and Syrians from bombing
the terrorist stronghold? Russia vetoed the
UN resolution and argued the US is trying to
protect the terrorist stronghold from
Russian and Syrian bombs.
What
is the US doing in Syria anyway? What legal
right does the US have to be in Syria? What
did we do in Iraq? What did we do in Libya?
One might suspect we are the instrument of
anarchy in the world.
Joe Clifford lives in Rhode Island. His
articles deal almost exclusively with
American Foreign policy |
