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
Our Bombs, Not Trump's
Comments, Fuel Hatred Towards the United
States
Clinton's rhetoric on Muslims is more
palatable, she has been an enthusiastic
supporter of 'bombing our way to peace' in
the Middle East
SHARMINI PERIES, TRNN: Welcome to the Real
News Network. Im Sharmini Peries coming to
you from Baltimore.
One of the questions during Sundays second
presidential debate had to do with how the
US deals with Islamic countries in the
Middle East and islamophobia, right here in
this country.
Joining us now to talk about this and much
more is Chris Hedges. Chris is Pulitzer
Prize winning journalist, a columnist at
Truth Dig and Alternate. He was the Middle
East Bureau Chief for the New York Times,
and has reported extensively from the Middle
East. Chris so good to have you with us.
CHRIS HEDGES: Thank you.
PERIES: So Chris before we get into this,
lets have a look at what the different
responses were to the question of how the
candidates would deal with Islamic countries
and islamophobia right here in the US.
DONALD TRUMP: Muslims have to report the
problems when they see them. And, you know
there's always a reason for everything. And
if they don't do that it's a very difficult
situation for our country. Because you look
at Orlando and you look at San Bernardino
and you look at the World Trade Center. Go
outside, you look at Paris, look at that
horrible -- these are radical Islamic
terrorists and she won't even mention the
word, and nor will President Obama, he won't
use the term radical Islamic terrorism. Now
to solve a problem you have to be able to
state what the problems is or at least say
the name.
HILLARY CLINTON: This is a gift to ISIS and
the terrorists, violent jihadist terrorists.
We are not at war with Islam, and it is a
mistake and it plays into the hands of the
terrorists to act as though we are. So I
want a country where citizens like you and
your family are just as welcome as anyone
else.
PERIES: Alright Chris, let me get your
initial take on what Donald Trump said about
how he would plan on dealing with
islamophobia and what the Islamic community
should be doing here.
HEDGES: Well he argues that the Islamic
community should essentially act as the eyes
and ears of the security and surveillance
state and to illustrate that point he refers
to this story that is not true that many
people saw bombs all over the apartment of
the couple who killed 14 people in San
Bernardino, California last year. So once
again its an attempt to demonize an entire
community as somehow not loyal or not
sufficiently loyal and it is about enacting
a ban on immigrants and of course is the two
main groups that Trump has gone after much
to the delight of his white working class or
lower working class base has been Mexicans
and Muslims. But I have to fault the wider
society, especially in terms of islamophobia
since 9/11 for carrying out all sorts of
activities and caricatures I think feed that
in the name of the war on terror and the
state has been quite complicate in
ratcheting up fear to justify internal
security and expansion of home security. The
war on terror has essentially replaced the
war on drugs. So Trump isnt the only
problem.
PERIES: What about Clinton's response? She
argues that Trump's call for naming "radical
Islamic terrorism" is a gift to ISIS,
implying that his approach encourages
terrorism and islamophobia right here. Your
thoughts on that?
HEDGES: Well what feeds the hatred toward
the west has nothing to do with Donald
Trump. It has to do with the
one-thousand-pound iron fragmentation bombs
and cruise missiles and 155 artillery shells
that are being dropped all over areas that
ISIS controls. That is a far more potent
engine of rage than anything Trump says and
I think sometimes we forget what were doing
and the state terror that is delivered day
in and day out on Muslims in areas that have
been opened up by these failed states
because of our military adventurism in
countries like Libya and Iraq.
PERIES: So connect those two for us. Give us
some examples of how the war on terror in
the Middle East, Syria in particular, is
causing this kind of islamophobia here and
our hesitancy about doing humanitarian work
by accepting refugees that are fleeing these
wars and how it manifests itself in the form
of islamophobia here.
HEDGES: Well, islamophobia here is a
doctrine that plays quite conveniently into
the goals of the corporate state in the same
way that anti-communism once played into the
goals of our capitalist democracy. So the
caricature of threats from the Muslim world
independent of the actual possibility of
those threats has especially since 9/11, one
of the corner stones of the argument that
has been used by the security and
surveillance state to strip us of basic
civil liberties, including for instance,
under the Obama administration,
misinterpreting the 2001 authorization to
use military force act as giving the
executive branch to right to assassinate
American citizens. Of course Im talking
about Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old
son.
So the rise of islamophobia has been largely
independent of anything Muslims have done
other than perhaps initially the attacks of
9/11. The continued over 15 years of
indiscriminate violence, industrial
violence, delivered on whole swaps of the
Muslim world has stirred up the kind of
hornets nest that were seeing enraged not
only among Muslims in the Muslim world but
Muslims in Europe and many other parts of
the globe who despite Clintons rhetoric see
this as a war against Muslims. I think that
although she speaks in kind of a softer and
more tolerate tone, Clinton has been one of
the main architects of the attacks for
instance in Libya that have given or
empowered or given rise to groups like ISIS.
While Clintons rhetoric is certainly more
palatable, she has been an enthusiastic
supporter that we are going to bomb our way
into peace in the Muslim world.
PERIES: Chris give us a sense of the climate
created by what both candidates eluded to
that Muslims in this country has to help us
in terms of identifying potential terrorists
and any kind of activities in the community
that might feed terrorists attacks here.
What does this do to a society?
HEDGES: Well it turns us into a society of
informers. I think we have to acknowledge
how pervasive the harassment is of Muslim
Americans when they go through the airport,
intrusive invasions of their privacy by
Homeland Security, the FBI, and others. We
have to acknowledge that almost all of the
homegrown terrorist attacks that the FBI
have broken have been orchestrated by the
FBI usually with people of marginal means
and sometimes marginal intelligence being
prodded and often provided supposed
equipment to carry out terrorist attacks.
The racial profiling that has gone on
coupled with the rhetoric and this is very
dangerous because if you take already an
alienated youth and subject it to this kind
of unrelenting harassment, then you provide
a recipe for homegrown radicalism.
So yes its once again an effort in this case
on part of the Trump rhetoric to blame the
Muslims for not only their own victimhood
but for terrorist attacks that are being
driven by jihadist whom the vast majority,
99 plus percent of the Muslim world has no
contact with and probably very little
empathy for, I mean theres 4 to 5 million
Muslims, I think I have that right, in the
United States. Most of them have integrated
quite successfully into American. Unlike in
Britain because Muslim immigrants in the
United States whereas in Europe, France,
they came over as laborers, we largely
absorbed Muslim professional classes,
doctors, engineers, and others and the
Muslim community in the United States is
pretty solidly middle class and
professional.
PERIES: Now one thing that Trump did in his
call for naming radical Islamic terrorism,
he said that President Obama nor Hillary
Clinton would actually name whats going on
right now which is the ISIS and the radical
Islamic terrorist. What did he mean by that
and is he implying that this sort of a
approach is helpful in terms of dealing with
terrorism?
HEDGES: Well its race baiting. I mean seeks
to demonize Islam, he seeks to demonize
Muslims in the same way that hes demonized
Latino immigrants. Thats just part of his
modus operandi, he cites his base which is
largely white disenfranchised white lower
working class or poor base and that is
rhetoric which is not palatable to the base
of the democratic party. But again I think
we have to realize that under Trump or under
Clinton, none of these wars are going to
cease. None of these disastrous, none of
these disastrous policies of attempting to
bomb our way or use violence as a way to
quell the unrest that we created are going
to work. The arms companies that are making
money hand over fist by perpetuating these
failed wars will continue to perpetuate
these wars and this will only stoke and
increase the numbers of domestic terrorist
attacks both within the United States and
Europe which will feed the right wing as it
does in Europe and as it has here.
PERIES: Chris the recently released
WikiLeaks indicate that Hillary Clinton is
involved in conspiring in maintaining
Israels nuclear dominance in the region and
containing Irans nuclear development
program. Your comments on those WikiLeaks.
HEDGES: Yea, I mean shes quite upfront. I
have to give her credit on that in terms of
her militantly pro-Israel stance. She of
course has courted quite successfully
wealthy pro-Israeli donors attacking the
Boycott Divestment Sanctions Movement. And
she has and will continue what are
considered Israeli interests in the region
which are not our interest. Israel pushed
very heavily for an invasion of Iraq as a
way to destroy a powerful state within the
region. That did not serve our interests at
all. In fact, it elevated to the dominant
position within the region, Iran and out of
these vacuums gave birth to these jihadist
groups and got us embroiled in wars that we
can never win.
So one of the dangers of Clinton and shes
called for a no fly zone over Syria. Well,
people forget that when you institute a no
fly zone, that is patrolled and that
requires very heavy presence of US forces.
Not just air forces but ground stations,
radar stations, anti-aircraft missile
batteries. Shes quite openly calling for a
further escalation for American involvement
in the Syrian quagmire which of course again
we did so much to create by along with our
allies, the Saudis and Qataris and others
pumping so many arms in them. I think we
gave a billion dollars worth of arms to
Syrian rebels as if you can control where
those arms go, just in the last year.
PERIES: Alright Chris, much more to talk
about but were out of time. I hope you join
us again real soon.
HEDGES: Great. Thank you very much.
PERIES: And thank you for joining us on the
Real News Network.
It is unacceptable to slander, smear or engage in personal attacks on authors of articles posted on ICH.
Those engaging in that behavior will be banned from the comment section.
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)