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
It’s Worse Than Pussy Grabbing
By Missy Comley Beattie
October 15, 2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- "Counterpunch"-
Repelled by Donald Trump’s pussy
grabbing, Republican politicians are
scattering like roaches exposed to
strobe lights. (This just in: Many of
the roaches are crawling back.)
Paul Ryan is “sickened” by Trump.
Sickened by the image of pussy grabbing.
So
is John McCain who pronounced Trump’s
behavior demeaning to women and said, “…
impossible to continue to offer even
conditional support for his candidacy.”
Recall that McCain returned from
captivity in Viet Nam and abandoned his
first wife Carol, after a
disfiguring accident left her five
inches shorter. According to friends,
McCain was appalled by Carol’s changed
appearance. In other words, McCain left
the wife who held the family together
when he was a war prisoner, the wife who
endured 23 operations. Yet pussy
grabbing is “demeaning” to women. Also
recall John McCain’s singing, “Bomb,
bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune
of “Barbara Ann.” Yet pussy grabbing is
“demeaning” to women.
There’s nothing lower than a pussy
grabber. Right.
Trump’s reaction to the Republican
revolt: a call for war on the GOP, and
speaking of war, Hillary Clinton is
coaxing one with Russia.
Isn’t it eminently wiser to wage war on
Republicans (and Democrats—in fact, the
System itself) than on Russia?
Few days ago, I was driving, noticed
police cruisers blocking entry to the
I-40 ramp. Obama was in route to rally
for his legacy by supporting Clinton.
Later, I read about the event. Of
course, the president repudiated Trump:
“You don’t have to be a husband or
father to say, ‘That’s not right. You
just have to be a decent human being.’”
Let’s hear it for Obama’s decency. For
example, when he gloated, during a 2012
meeting with aides discussing drone
policy: “Turns out I’m really good at
killing people. Didn’t know that was a
strong suit of mine.”
Which brings to mind his performing
during a 2010 White House Correspondents
Dinner. Obama said:
The Jonas Brothers are here; they’re
out there somewhere. Sasha and Malia
are huge fans. But boys, don’t get
any ideas. I have two words for you,
‘predator drones.’ You will never
see it coming. You think I’m joking.
Yes, he was criticized. No laughing
matter. Just imagine how much heavier
that criticism would have been if Obama
had said, “Don’t get any ideas about
grabbing pussy.” Because grabbing pussy
is even worse than being incinerated by
a drone.
Last week, a friend called. Said, “I
can’t vote for Clinton.”
“Then don’t.”
“I
don’t want to waste my vote.”
“WTF? You’re wasting your vote
regardless.”
Another wrote, “I’m afraid Trump will
ruin this country.”
“This country was ruined long ago.”
Long before Donald Trump bragged about
the benefits of stardom, about grabbing
pussy, wanting to grab pussy, admitting
failure to grab pussy, rationalizing
grabbing pussy. Long before John
Kennedy’s womanizing. Long before Lyndon
Johnson woke a female White House
employee in a bedroom at his Texas ranch
during the night and demanded, “Move
over, this is your president.” (She
did.) Long before Johnson as a college
student named his wiener Jumbo.
Okay, I’m going to meander now from the
sexism even though I empathize with
anyone who’s been groped, pushed past a
“no, no, don’t do that.” I understand
the assault; both physical and psychic
and acknowledge that women don’t have
equal status. Abuse of authority is
epidemic, and not gender or age
specific. It’s just that when I think of
injustice, I see men and women murdered
for being Black or I stare at the
photographs of Syria’s youngest victims,
see the eyes and blood-and-tear-stained
faces, the small bodies washed ashore.
If this isn’t horrendous enough, there’s
that other huge: the poisoning of our
planet. Radiation leaks into our oceans.
Toxins invade our atmosphere, our
rivers, the soil, our pipes, our food,
our children. Scientists disagree on
whether we’ve passed the brink, yet even
if there were time, even if there were a
viable strategy, a global consensus
would be essential. Few people are or
would be willing to make the necessary
sacrifices.
Trump’s fingerprints are on crotches.
Clinton’s are on Haiti, Honduras, Libya,
Syria, Iraq, anywhere U.S. Empire lurks.
What a choice. It’s worse than pussy
grabbing. We’re fucked.