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

Riots in Portland on Third Night of Protests

Trump returns to Twitter to complain about "unfair" protests "incited" by media.

By Ed Krayewski

November 11, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "Reason" -  There were more protests around the country against the election of Donald Trump last night, with police in Portland declaring the protest there a riot due to deteriorating conditions. Rioters there threw objects at cops, attacked newspaper stands, and smashed windows. Earlier, police said protesters were trying to stop "anarchist groups" from destroying property, and tweeted that it encouraged others to leave the area, before declaring the situation a riot and issuing orders to disperse the "unlawful assembly." Police say they made 26 arrests and dispersed the crowd using pepper spray, "rubber ball distraction devices" and rubber baton rounds.

Trump returned to Twitter for the first time since being elected on Tuesday night after spending the day in Washington, tweeting that "professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting," calling it "very unfair!" NBC News described the tweet as "putting an end to a brief stretch of conciliatory behavior since Tuesday," although one salty tweet in a 72 hour period doesn't seem like enough data to come to that conclusion. Trump had "returned to pre-election form," as NBC News put it, also pointing out Trump himself had tweeted in favor of a march on Washington after Mitt Romney's 2012 loss, and suggested if he lost riots could ensue.

At least two other prominent Trump supporters, Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke and former Rep. Joe Walsh, had also tweeted supportively of protests and civil disobedience before the election but called for a tough response after. They did not expect Trump to win, so the calculus changed. Things are different now that he's president-elect—though not for Trump's tendency to make loose statements and the media's tendency to botch interpretations of those statements.

Trump's tweet was characterized as "unpresidential." I'm not sure what was expected at this point, particularly since such protests have, until now, worked in Trump's favor. The Trump campaign cancelled a rally in Chicago after massive protests there. Trump said the protests would "energize" his voters—he clinched the nomination in May. By June, I noted how attacks on Trump supporters by anti-Trump protesters were an apparent effort to help get Trump elected. In late September, when protests and riots erupted in Charlotte after a fatal police shooting there, I suggested the city was working hard to get North Carolina in the Trump column.

On Wednesday night, when there were protests and "vigils" around the country, I suggested this trend to could end up helping Trump by earning him political capital and helping drive never-Trump conservatives back into the fold. Protesters say they are demonstrating because Donald Trump has created a climate of fear for minorities. Riots also have that tendency. If the mostly white rioters in Portland last night provide police in the city to ramp up enforcement, that endangers marginalized people the most. Protests last month over a police contract the outgoing mayor pushed through before leaving office failed to stop the contract, and it's not unreasonable to fear tonight's riots will increase tensions in altogether different neighborhoods.

And for all the talk pre-election of "voter intimidation," what else could violent protests over the result of an election be other than voter intimidation? Hillary Clinton won Portland overwhelmingly, but that still leaves a minority of Trump voters watching their fellow citizens destroy property over the way they voted. And it leaves a slew of residents who didn't vote, but will probably eventually be blamed for Trump's win as well. Blame anyone but Clinton and the Democratic Party.

Some Anti-Trump protesters like to compare Trump to Hitler, yet it doesn't seem they understand their own comparison. Hitler used civil unrest—specifically the Reichstag fire—to greatly expand his powers after he had already been elected. At the Republican convention, Trump called America a "divided crime scene" and said "only" he could solve the country's problems. Anti-Trump protesters are setting the stage for him. It's hard to imagine what continued violent protests (the Portland group has organized as a Resistance) can accomplish other than creating a climate of fear Trump could exploit to make it easier to get what he wants, whatever that turns out to be.

A write-up of a mostly white riot in Portland would perhaps be incomplete with a note about the occupation of a remote outpost in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon in protest of federal prosecutors reneging on a plea deal with two ranchers who had set a fire on their property that spread onto federal land, appealing the sentences handed down in favor for longer ones. Those protesters were called "terrorists" by many left-wing commentators because they were armed. The hashtag #OregonUnderAttack went viral. No one has suggested Oregon, or Portland, have been under attack tonight, nor has anyone called the protesters or rioters terrorists. But as usual, one side has created a precedent when it was convenient rhetorically in the short term that can be used by the other side with as much, if not more, effect.

If anti-Trump protesters are concerned about the powers Trump will inherit, President Obama and the Congress have two and a half months to try to get something accomplished in terms of limiting executive power. The prospect is unlikely already. Directionless protests make the prospect less likely, and also place efforts at reducing government power after Trump is in office at a disadvantage. Although protesters may be more interesting in expressing their feelings, including by rioting, than reducing government power and constraining the office of the president.

Vandalized cars, smashed windows: Anti-Trump protest in Portland proclaimed ‘riot’ (PHOTOS, VIDEO): Some 4,000 people started their protest at Pioneer Courthouse Square and moved to northeast Portland, according to The Oregonian daily.

Insanity: ‘About time for an assassination’: Trump death threats swamp Twitter; Numerous disgruntled Americans have taken to Twitter to encourage the murder of Donald Trump, echoing the reaction to Barack Obama’s 2008 election victory, albeit from a different side of the political spectrum.

Middle School students chant 'Build that wall': "Tears were running down my face," said Josie, who is Mexican-American. "I was so upset. A friend went to the bathroom crying.

Obama’s post-presidential $5.3 mn Washington mansion: Photos: Realtors estimated that the residence would cost about $22,000 a month. It’s not known if Obama, who has a net worth of up to $7 million, and is entitled to a presidential pension of $203,700 a year, is paying the going rate.

Donald Trump May Select an Architect of Bush’s Torture Program to Run CIA: The suggestion that Rodriguez may head the CIA was made in a post-election prediction document published by Dentons, a law and lobbying firm where Trump confidant Newt Gingrich serves as a senior advisor.

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