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
Why is the Truth on Syria Difficult to
Decipher?
By
Ramzy Baroud
“The United States has the power to decree
the death of nations,” wrote Stephen Kinzer
in the Boston Globe.
Kinzer’s article was entitled: “The
media are misleading the public on Syria.”
In his piece, the scholar at a Brown
University Institute contested that his
country’s media misinformation on Syria is
leading to the kind of ignorance which is
enabling the American government to pursue
any policy, however imprudent, in the
war-torn Arab country.
The
US government can ‘decree the death of
nations’ with “popular support because many
Americans — and many journalists — are
content with the official story,” he wrote.
Kinzer, in principle makes a strong point.
His article, however, was particularly
popular among those who sees the
Syrian government entirely innocent of
any culpability in the ongoing war, and that
Iran and Russia are at no fault whatsoever;
better yet, their intervention in Syria is
entirely morally-guided and altruistic.
That said, Kinzer’s assertion regarding the
US government’s dangerous meddling in
Syria’s affairs, renewed Cold War with
Russia and ill-defined military mission in
that country, is all true.
Neither is the US, nor its western and other
allies, following rules of war nor adhering
to a particularly noble set of principles
aimed at ending that most devastating war,
which
has killed well over 300,000 people,
rendered millions displaced and destroyed
the country’s wealth and infrastructure.
So
what is the truth on Syria?
In
the last five and a half years, since a
regional uprising turned into an armed
rebellion – turned into civil, regional and
international war – ‘the truth on Syria’,
has been segmented into many self-tailored
‘truths,’ each promoted by one of the
warring party to be the one and only,
absolute and uncontested reality. But since
there are many parties to the conflict, the
versions of the ‘truth’ communicated to us
via copious media, are numerous and, most
often, unverifiable.
The
only truth that all parties seem to agree
upon is that hundreds of thousands are dead
and Syria is shattered. But, of course, each
points to the other side for culpability of
the ongoing genocide.
An
oddly refreshing, although disturbing
‘truth’ was articulated by Alon Ben-David in
the Israeli Jerusalem Post last year.
The
title of his article speaks volumes: “May
it never end: The uncomfortable truth about
the war in Syria.”
“If
Israel’s interest in the war in Syria can be
summarized in brief, it would be: That it
should never end,” Ben-David wrote.
“No one will say this publicly, but the
continuation of the fighting in Syria,
as long as there is a recognized
authority in Damascus, allows Israel to
stay out of the swamp and distance
itself from the swarms of mosquitoes
that are buzzing in it.”
Of
course,
Israel never truly ‘stayed out of the swamp’,
but that is for a separate discussion.
Aside from the egotistical, unsympathetic
language, Israel’s ‘truth’, according to the
writer, is predicated on two premises: the
need for an official authority in Damascus,
and that the war must continue, at least,
until the fire burns the whole country down,
which is, in fact, the case.
Russia’s supporters, of course, refuse to
accept the fact that Moscow is also fighting
a turf war and that it is entirely fair to
question the legality of Russia’s actions in
the context of US-Russian regional and
global rivalry while, at the same time,
attempting to underscore Moscow’s own
self-seeking motives.
The
other side, who are calling for greater
American firepower, commit an even greater
sin. Not least, since the invasion of Iraq
in 2003, the US has not only scarred, but
truly devastated the Middle East – killing,
wounding and displacing millions – and has
no intention of preserving Syria’s
territorial integrity or the human rights of
its people.
That group’s plausible hatred for the Bashar
al-Assad regime has blinded them to numerous
facts, including the fact that the only
country in the region that Washington is
truly and fully committed to in terms of
security is Israel, which has recently
received a generous aid package of 38
billion dollars.
Keeping in mind Ben-David’s reasoning, it is
no surprise that the US is in no rush to end
the war in Syria, if not intentionally
prolong it.
The
American ‘truth’ on Syria – reiterated by
its European cheerleaders, of course – is
largely centered around demonizing Russia –
never about saving lives, nor even – at
least not yet – about regime change.
For
the US, the war is largely pertinent to
American regional interests. After
suffering major military and political
setbacks in the Middle East, and considering
its ongoing economic misfortunes, the US
military capabilities have been greatly
eclipsed. It is now, more or less, another
powerful western country, but no longer the
only dominant one, able to ‘decree the death
of nations’ on its own.
So,
when Secretary of State
John Kerry called recently for a war crime
investigation into Russian bombings in
Syria, we can be certain that he was not
sincere, and his impassioned appeal was
tailored to win only political capital.
Expectedly, his accusations were parroted in
predictable tandem by the French, the
British and others. Then, soon after, they
evaporated into the augmenting, but useless
discourse, in which words are only words,
while the war grinds on, unabated.
So why
is the truth on Syria so difficult to
decipher?
Despite the proliferation of massive
platforms for propaganda, there are still
many good journalists who recognize that, no
matter what one’s personal opinion is, facts
must be checked and that honest reporting
and analysis should not be part of the
burgeoning propaganda war.
Yes, these journalists exist, but they fight
against many odds. One is that much of the
existing, well-funded media infrastructure
is part of the information war in the Middle
East. And good journalists, are either
forced to, albeit begrudgingly, toe the line
or to stay out of the discussion altogether.
But
the problem is not entirely that of
media manipulation of facts, videos and
images. The war in Syria has polarized the
discourse like never before, and most of
those who are invested in that conflict find
themselves forced to take sides, thus, at
times abandoning any reason or common sense.
It
is rather sad that years after the war in
Syria ends, and the last of the mass graves
is dug and covered, many unpleasant truths
will be revealed. But would it matter, then?
Only recently, we discovered that the
Pentagon had spent over 500 million dollars
in manufacturing propaganda war videos on
Iraq. The money was largely spent on
developing fake al-Qaeda videos.
Unsurprisingly, much of the US media either
did not report on the news, or quickly
glossed over it, as if the most revealing
piece of information of the US invasion of
Iraq – which destabilized the Middle East
until today- is the least relevant.
What will we end up learning about Syria in
the future? And will it make any difference,
aside from a sense of moral gratification by
those who have argued all along that the war
in Syria is never about Syrians?
The
truth on Syria is that, regardless of how
the war ends, Syria has been destroyed and
its future is bloody and bleak; and that,
regardless of the regional and global
‘winners’ of the conflict, the Syrian people
have already lost.
– Dr.
Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the
Middle East for over 20 years. He is an
internationally-syndicated columnist, a
media consultant, an author of several books
and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com.
His books include “Searching Jenin”, “The
Second Palestinian Intifada” and his latest
“My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s
Untold Story”. His website is
www.ramzybaroud.net.
|