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

Regime Change In The Philippines

By Paul Craig Roberts

October 14, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - When will the neoconservative chant begin: “Duterte must go”? Or will the CIA assassinate him?

President Rodrigo Duterte has indicated that he intends a more independent foreign policy. He has announced upcoming visits to China and Russia, and his foreign minister has declared that it is time for the Philippines to end its subservience to Washington. In this sense, regime change has already occurred.

Duterte has suspended military maneuvers with the US. His defense minister said that the Philippines can get along without US military aid and prefers cooperation over conflict with China.

Duterte might simply be trying to extract a larger pay-off from Washington, but he had better be careful. Washington will not let Duterte move the Philippines into the Chinese camp.

Unless, of course, Washington has bitten off more than it can chew in the Middle East, Africa, South America, Ukraine, Russia and China and is too occupied elsewhere to deal with the Philippines. Still, Duterte would do well to request a praetorian guard from China.

The view is spreading in Asia that the American era is over, wrecked by disastrous US economic and foreign policies. The rise of Russia and China has birthed what William Engdahl calls the Eurasian Century. http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/10/11/eurasian-century-now-unstoppable.html

China’s One Belt One Road approach to Eurasian development is cooperative. The operating principle is that everyone works together to build a future for everyone. This is far more attractive than Washington’s arrogance of organizing the world in the interest of US corporations.

As Michael Hudson, James Galbraith, and I have explained, Western economic organization has deteriorated into a system of financial looting. For example, the economy of Greece has been destroyed in order that private banks that over-lent to the Greek government did not have to write down any of the bad debt. Instead, the debt was paid by reducing Greek pensions, cutting education, healthcare and public employment, and by privatizing public companies, such as municipal water companies, with the result being a higher price of water to people whose incomes are falling.

The cost of participating in the Western system is imposed austerity and loss of national sovereignty. Economic cooperation with China does not result in such costs.

Most likely, Duterte has decided to switch the Philippines’ bet from the US to China. When Japan and South Korea also realign, the “pivot to Asia” is over.

Then perhaps even Europe will awaken and the conflict that the neoconservatives are brewing between the West and Russia will be stillborn.

Otherwise, mushroom clouds will prevail.

Whether there is time for these changes before mushroom clouds make their appearance depends on the outcome of the US presidential election. Americans are an insouciant people and do not understand the stakes. Hillary has promised conflict with Russia. Trump says he sees no point in conflict with Russia. This difference is the only important issue in the election.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts editor of was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are Dissolution of The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

'I'll humiliate you': Duterte challenges West to probe Philippines drugs war: Philippine leader Rodrigo Duterte called U.S. President Barack Obama, the European Union and United Nations "fools" on Thursday, and warned they would end up humiliated and outsmarted if they accepted an invitation to investigate his war on drugs.

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