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
than Cook is a Nazareth- based
journalist and winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism -
See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2016-09-19/palestinians-lose-in-us-military-aid-deal-with-israel/#sthash.H1NbQCac.dpuf
Jimmy Carter: A First Step for Syria? Stop
the Killing
By Jimmy Carter
September 22, 2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- "NYT"
- The announcement this month of
a new cease-fire agreement in Syria is
good news. But a lack of trust among the
Syrian belligerents and their foreign
supporters means this agreement, like the
one that came before it, is vulnerable to
collapse.
It is
already showing severe signs of strain. Over
the weekend, the United States accidentally
bombed Syrian government troops. On Monday,
the Syrian military declared it would no
longer respect the deal, resumed airstrikes
on Aleppo, and even a humanitarian aid
convoy was bombed.
Still,
there is reason for hope. If Russia and the
United States were willing to come far
enough in their negotiations to reach this
deal, these setbacks can be overcome. The
targeting of the humanitarian convoy, a war
crime, should serve as an added impetus for
the United States and Russia to recommit to
the cease-fire. The two parties were well
aware of the difficulties as they spent a
month negotiating the cease-fire’s terms.
The
agreement can be salvaged if all sides
unite, for now, around a simple and
undeniably important goal: Stop the killing.
It may be more likely than it sounds.
Reliable sources estimate the number of
Syrians killed to date at
almost half a million, with some two
million more people wounded. Well over half
of the country’s 22 million prewar
population has been displaced. These
shocking numbers alone should convince all
concerned that war itself is the greatest
violation of human rights and the ultimate
enemy of Syria.
If
this cease-fire is to last, the United
States and Russia must find ways to work
beyond the lack of trust that undermined the
previous cease-fire, in February. The
countrywide cessation of hostilities that
began then started to crumble within two
months, with battles in much of the
countryside around Damascus, central and
northern Syria, and Aleppo. The resumption
of the conflict led in April to the
suspension of United Nations-sponsored peace
talks in Geneva.
However, a strong effort was made earlier in
the year when the United States and Russia
pressed their respective allies to pause the
fighting and give the negotiations a chance.
But the
American and Russian expectation that
they reach an agreement on issues of
transitional governance by Aug. 1 was
unrealistic. After five years of killing,
and before any semblance of trust could be
established, pushing the Syrian parties and
their supporters to agree on power-sharing
was seen as too threatening by some and too
inadequate by others. Unsurprisingly, they
reverted to violence.
When
talks resume in Geneva later this month, the
primary focus should be stopping the
killing. Discussions about the core
questions of governance — when President
Bashar al-Assad should step down, or what
mechanisms might be used to replace him, for
example — should be deferred.
The
new effort could temporarily freeze the
existing territorial control — without the
government, the opposition or the Kurds
giving up their arms. Additionally, measures
could be agreed upon to stabilize conditions
in territories controlled by these
belligerents, with guarantees of
unrestricted access to humanitarian aid, a
particularly important demand given the
strike on an aid convoy near Aleppo.
This
approach is not without significant
challenges. Foreign players, less concerned
about the destruction of Syria than about
their own interests, will not necessarily be
happy to see the front lines stay where they
are. Russia is interested in a Mediterranean
port; Iran wants a linkage with Hezbollah in
Lebanon; Turkey’s primary goal is
undermining Kurdish ambitions; and Saudi
Arabia cares most about preventing another
Iranian foothold in the Arab world. These
interests are already threatening the
tenuous cease-fire.
Still,
stopping the killing and freezing the status
quo changes the game from win-lose to
no-lose. The belligerents would not have to
concede their vital interests, nor would
they be rushed into collaboration and
compromise at a time when their confidence
in one another and in the international
community is low.
Under
current conditions, the Syrian government
and the rebels both would perceive any
concession or compromise as a sellout.
However, not losing and stopping the killing
may be an attractive proposition. At the
least, it would certainly be harder to
reject.
Clearly, these measures could not apply to
parts of Syria held by the Islamic State and
other United Nations-designated terrorist
organizations. But if the killing is stopped
in parts of the country not under the
control of these groups, fighters in their
ranks are likely to be tempted to abandon
them and move to areas that offer better
living conditions. This could mark a
significant turning point in the effort to
defeat the terrorists.
American-Russian leadership is critical for
this approach to work. Each side must
persuade its regional allies to cooperate.
But that alone won’t be enough. The Syrians
who have been the cannon fodder in this war
must make their voices heard, with a loud
and clear statement: “Stop the killing.” In
the past five years, Syrians have mobilized
around civil society organizations working
on humanitarian, human rights and
peace-building initiatives. They, too, must
stand up and shout: “Stop the killing!”
International institutions must support this
rallying cry, too.
A
groundswell of public calls to stop the
killing may compel the Syrian belligerents,
and regional and international stakeholders,
to take notice — and to take action. When
the killing stops, Syrians can work on
recovering their lost dignity, which will be
essential for addressing the issues that set
off the war in the first place.
Jimmy Carter Just Single-Handedly Ended the
War in Syria
In an eye-opening New York Times op-ed,
Jimmy Carter explains how to stop the
killing in Syria, in two easy steps: 1.
Believe everything the Pentagon says 2.
Assad must go! Jimmy Carter is a certified
genius.
By Rudy Panko
September 22, 2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- "RI"
- It's amazing how effective a good
marketing campaign can be.
Take, for example, your favorite variety of
artificial cheese crackers. They now contain
"10x more cheese!", which is true of course
because they never contained cheese to begin
with and zero multiplied by ten still equals
zero. It's the same high-fructose corn syrup
garbage, but sales are up, up up.
The
same holds true when selling the American
public unappetizing wars in far-away lands
that they cannot find, not even on their
smartphone apps. When the initial claptrap
justifications for war lose their appeal,
simply dress up the old claptrap in a dainty
new outfit. We're not trying to be
condescending — marketing and re-branding
garbage is a true art form worthy of your
admiration and respect.
This is why we tip our proverbial hat to
Jimmy Carter, who has ingeniously repackaged
tired Pentagon talking points used to
rationalize our unconditional support for
the "moderate rebels" fighting gloriously
for "democracy" in Syria.
Using his dubious credentials as a man of
peace and understanding, Carter writes in
the New York Times that the new
cease-fire agreement in Syria
is in grave danger:
Over the weekend, the United
States accidentally bombed Syrian
government troops. On Monday,
the Syrian military declared it would no
longer respect the deal, resumed
airstrikes on Aleppo, and even a
humanitarian aid convoy was bombed.
The targeting of the
humanitarian convoy, a war crime,
should serve as an added impetus for the
United States and Russia to recommit to
the cease-fire. The two parties were
well aware of the difficulties as they
spent a month negotiating the
cease-fire’s terms.
The agreement can be salvaged if all
sides unite, for now, around a simple
and undeniably important goal: Stop the
killing. It may be more likely than it
sounds.
To
summarize Carter's brilliant observations:
Peace in Syria cannot be achieved until
everyone agrees to stop questioning the
Pentagon's narrative. Yes,
bombing Syrian troops under siege from
ISIS for the last two years is a
regrettable "accident"; let's not forget
Assad's bloodthirsty air strikes against aid
convoys, though.
Nevermind that despite allegations of
Russian involvement (that's the narrative,
Carter: Russia did it! Get with the
program), the White House cannot confirm who
is responsible for the attack. Nevermind
that the U.N.
won't even use the word "air
strike" when describing the event.
In
Carter's thoughtful, peace-loving opinion,
the first step to ending the killing in
Syria is to acknowledge that while the U.S.
has caused a few minor "accidents", the real
culprit here is Assad.
Which
brings Carter to his next Pentagon talking
point: Assad is a war criminal. He must
go:
When talks resume in Geneva later this
month, the primary focus should be
stopping the killing. Discussions about
the core questions of governance —
when President Bashar
al-Assad should step down, or what
mechanisms might be used to replace him,
for example — should be deferred.
This
is re-branding garbage at its finest.
According to Carter, political disputes
should be "deferred" in order to prioritize
the most pressing matter: Peace. But, uh,
once that "peace" stuff in taken care of, of
course it's just a question of "when" Assad
must go. Not "if". If is not acceptable.
See
what Jimmy did here? It's brilliant. It's
the same "Assad must go!" garble that the
U.S. has been screaming for years — just
rephrased in a nice, easily digestible "give
peace a chance" op-ed, authored by none
other than Jimmy Peace Prize Carter.
"Peace
come first. But the U.S. should still get
everything it wants, even though it is
actively attempting to topple the legitimate
government of a sovereign nation located on
the other side of the world. Also, never
question Pentagon press releases."
There
you go. We just re-wrote Carter's op-ed in
three sentences.
Give
this guy another peace prize.
|
