Home   Bookmark and Share

 Print Friendly and PDF
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

Cyber War - From Trifle to Catastrophe

By Ernest Partridge

November 06, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - Hillary Clinton tells us that all seventeen intelligence agencies agree that the Wikileaks hack comes from the Kremlin. Those agencies proclaim this with a rock-solid conviction that I have not heard since Vice President DIck Cheney told us all that "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." Add to that, the rock-solid evidence of Saddam's treachery that Colin Powell presented to the UN Security Council. The mainstream corporate media bought it whole.

However, as all know today, these were lies. Saddam had no WMDs, and there were no Iraqi chemical weapons "Winebagos of Death" vividly described by Colin Powell.

Now we are told, "with high confidence," that Vladimir Putin's Kremlin has launched a cyber attack to disrupt our presidential election. Never mind that, as MIT expert Theodore Postol has written that there is, "no technical way that the US intelligence community could know who did the hacking if it was done by sophisticated nation-state actors."

The lies that launched the disastrous Iraq war have had lasting consequences to the credibility of the United States Government. The last time that government cried "wolf," there was no wolf. Why should we believe it now?

So no, I am not convinced. There is good reason not to believe the "Kremlin hack" story.

A crucial distinction is in order: First, there is the actual content of the hacked emails. Second, there are the consequences of the general media assumption and public belief that the emails were a Kremlin plot to disrupt the presidential election.

As for the content, it was trivial and still worse, not credible. There is nothing remarkable in the disclosed content of the hacked emails. They might, if believed, cause John Podesta some embarrassment. In addition, they might reveal that the Democratic National Committee is controlled by a political elite. But we already know that.

But why should we believe any of that content? If, as claimed, the leaks came from the Kremlin, there is not, and cannot be, any authentication of the hacked emails unless the original sources (e.g, John Podesta) produce the originals. And why would they? Accordingly, the leakers (whoever they might be) are free to concoct forgeries at will. And of course, it follows that we, the intended audience, are advised to ignore all of them.

Furthermore, , why would Putin want to use these emails to "rig" our election? To tilt the election toward Trump? If that is his motive, it has backfired spectacularly. That alleged "disclosure" of the hacking has benefited Clinton far more than Trump. It is one of her favorite talking points, as we discovered in the final debate.

So we are left with two alternate conclusions: The Russian government likely had no part in the leaking. Or if they did, the leaks will have little or no effect on the election, except to provide Hillary Clinton with a talking point and to embarrass John Podesta.

In short, the Wikileaks hacks, whatever the source, appear to be a just a prank: A trifle, blown hugely out of proportion by a scandal-hungry media.

However, even though the content of the hacked emails may be trivial and not credible, the consequences of the accusation of Kremlin connivance could be catastrophic.

First of all, as we are finding out, the neo-cons and the media are using the hacks to intensify the demonization of Putin and to heat up the renewed Cold War.

Still worse, as Joe Biden stated recently on Meet the Press, the accusation that Putin is behind the hacks and their release might provoke a cyber retaliation from the United States.

A Kremlin spokesman has called Biden's threat a a "virtual American declaration of war on Russia."

If, as Biden warns, the United States retaliates, then the Russian response might, unlike the present alleged leaks, be devastating to the US economy.

Be assured that a "cyber-war" entails infinitely more than leaked emails. It might include the shutdown of the internet and emails. Also, the disruption of business and financial communications and utility grids. The world today runs on silicon and microprocessors. Imagine returning home to no electric power, phone service or access to the internet. Add to that, no restocking of the local supermarket or gas stations. And no capability of the government to make prompt repairs. The result: Total economic shutdown.

We can do this to Russia, and be assured that Russia can do this to us.

The reality of cyber attacks is no mere speculation, we have seen them at work. The Iranian nuclear weapons program was severely damaged and set back by a CIA implanted computer virus. And this past month, large regions of the United States temporarily lost internet service. The cause remains unknown.

Has Joe Biden thought through the implications of his threat? Is this the horror that Biden wants to unleash on us and the world in response to an essentially harmless prank? To what purpose? Some kind of capitulation by the Russians? No chance of that.

A far more likely result would be an escalation from cyber to military combat. And then what?

Where are the cool-headed grownups, now that we need them?

Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He has taught Philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes the website, "The Online Gadfly" (www.igc.org/gadfly) and co-edits the progressive website, "The Crisis Papers" (www.crisispapers.org). His book in progress, "Conscience of a Progressive," can be seen at www.igc.org/gadfly/progressive/^toc.htm. Send comments to: gadfly@igc.org . Ernest Partridge's blog

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

What's your response? -  Scroll down to add / read comments 

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for our FREE Daily Email Newsletter

For Email Marketing you can trust

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 Please read our  Comment Policy before posting - 
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.)

Privacy Statement