23 sept 2016
Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas announced on Thursday his intents to submit a UN Security Council resolution against Israeli terrorism and illegal settlements.
Speaking during the 71st session of the United Nations General Assembly, Abbas said: “The settlements are illegal in every aspect and any manifestation.
Therefore, we will continue to exert all efforts for a Security Council resolution on the settlements and the terror of the settlers.” “We hope no one will cast a veto,” said Abbas as he hinted at the United States, which vetoed a resolution condemning settlements in 2011.
Abbas added that the Palestinian leadership remains committed to all signed agreements with Israel, including the Oslo Accords, but said that the onus is on Israel “to recognize the state of Palestine.”
“We remain committed to the agreements reached with Israel since 1993. However, Israel must reciprocate this commitment and must act forthwith to resolve all of the final-status issues,” he said.
Abbas also lashed out at Israel for undertaking hostile action against Islamic and Christian holy sites in Occupied Jerusalem.
“Israel continues to illegally alter the identity and status of occupied east Jerusalem, and to commit aggressions and provocations against our Christian and Muslim holy sites, especially the al-Aqsa Mosque,” he stated.
“The continuation of the Israeli aggressions against our Muslim and Christian holy sites is playing with fire.” Moreover, Abbas asked Israel to recognize the Nakba, in reference to the tragedy of the Palestinian people following the colonization, by Israel, of Palestine.
“Realization of a historic reconciliation between the Palestinian and Israeli peoples requires that Israel acknowledge its responsibility for the Nakba inflicted on our people to this very day,” Abbas said, suggesting that such a recognition “will open a new era of coexistence, and will serve to build bridges rather than walls.”
Concluding his speech, he stated that he hopes the international community will assume responsibility for ending Israel’s military occupation of the Palestinian territories in 2017.
“There is a collective responsibility upon you to ensure that 2017 is the year of ending the occupation. Will you uphold this responsibility? It is my hope,” he said.
Speaking during the 71st session of the United Nations General Assembly, Abbas said: “The settlements are illegal in every aspect and any manifestation.
Therefore, we will continue to exert all efforts for a Security Council resolution on the settlements and the terror of the settlers.” “We hope no one will cast a veto,” said Abbas as he hinted at the United States, which vetoed a resolution condemning settlements in 2011.
Abbas added that the Palestinian leadership remains committed to all signed agreements with Israel, including the Oslo Accords, but said that the onus is on Israel “to recognize the state of Palestine.”
“We remain committed to the agreements reached with Israel since 1993. However, Israel must reciprocate this commitment and must act forthwith to resolve all of the final-status issues,” he said.
Abbas also lashed out at Israel for undertaking hostile action against Islamic and Christian holy sites in Occupied Jerusalem.
“Israel continues to illegally alter the identity and status of occupied east Jerusalem, and to commit aggressions and provocations against our Christian and Muslim holy sites, especially the al-Aqsa Mosque,” he stated.
“The continuation of the Israeli aggressions against our Muslim and Christian holy sites is playing with fire.” Moreover, Abbas asked Israel to recognize the Nakba, in reference to the tragedy of the Palestinian people following the colonization, by Israel, of Palestine.
“Realization of a historic reconciliation between the Palestinian and Israeli peoples requires that Israel acknowledge its responsibility for the Nakba inflicted on our people to this very day,” Abbas said, suggesting that such a recognition “will open a new era of coexistence, and will serve to build bridges rather than walls.”
Concluding his speech, he stated that he hopes the international community will assume responsibility for ending Israel’s military occupation of the Palestinian territories in 2017.
“There is a collective responsibility upon you to ensure that 2017 is the year of ending the occupation. Will you uphold this responsibility? It is my hope,” he said.
22 sept 2016
US President Obama told Netanyahu in what is presumably their final meeting in office that he is concerned about the viability of a two-state solution and about continued settlement building; Netanyahu stressed that the settlements are not the root of the conflict, suggesting that building a closer relationship with other Arab entities might lead Israel to a stable peace with the Palestinians.
US President Barack Obama met for an hour with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in private on Wednesday, following a sit-down in front of members of the press, in what is likely to be their last meeting as Obama approaches the conclusion of his two-term presidency.
An American source said that during their closed doors encounter, Obama expressed his apprehension over the continued expansion of the settlement projects, a point which he has already strongly intimated erodes any chance of a two-state solution. Netanyahu rebuffed, as he has repeatedly done so in the past, replying that the settlements do not constitute the core of the conflict. According to the American source, Obama and Netanyahu made no attempts to conceal their difference of opinions during their meeting.
Another official from Netanyahu's staff responded to Obama's concerns: "Are 20–30 settlements really at the heart of the conflict?," he rhetorically asked. "The real issue here is that they (the Palestinians) fill their children with poison and hate against us. We're not running from this problem, they're running from this problem. They need to recognize Israel and relinquish the Right of Return. If they don't want ISIS or Hamas to eat them alive, they're better off (with us). It won't take long before the international community will accept it."
Sitting in front of the camera, Obama began by wishing the ailing former Israeli president Shimon Peres, who was rushed to hospital last week after suffering a stroke, a full recovery. "I want to start by just sending a message that all of the American people, my entire administration, and me, personally, are thinking about Shimon Peres—a great friend, a hero and giant in the history of Israel. And we are hopeful that he will have a speedy recovery," the president said.
"I’ve always joked whenever I’ve seen Shimon that I wanted to see what he ate and what he did, because he’s always looked so good," added Obama. "I know this has been a challenging time for him and his family, but I wanted to make sure that I relay my gratitude to him for his friendship and his leadership, and helping to forge a strong US-Israeli bond."
Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama voiced his concerns over acts of terrorism and the continued development of the Israeli settlements. "Obviously, our hearts go out to those who have been injured, both Israeli and Palestinian. Clearly, there is great danger of not just terrorism, but also flare-ups of violence. We do have concerns around settlement activity, as well. And our hope is that we can continue to be an effective partner with Israel in finding a path to peace."
Obama also reiterated the timeless connection between the two countries and people. "The bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable. It is based on common values, family ties, a recognition that a Jewish state of Israel is one of our most important allies, and a guiding principle throughout my presidency—one that I’ve expressed often to the prime minister—is, is that it is important for America’s national security to ensure that we have a safe and secure Israel, one that can defend itself."
For his part, Netanyahu expressed appreciation for the cooperation and support that the US has shown Israel, specifically mentioning the recently signed $38 billion aid deal, the largest in US history.
"First, I want to thank you for the Memorandum of Understanding that we signed last week," said Netanyahu. "It greatly enhances Israel’s security. It fortifies the principle that you’ve enunciated many times that Israel should be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat."
"Secondly, I want to thank you for the extensive security and intelligence cooperation between our two countries. I don’t think people at large understand the breadth and depth of this cooperation, but I know it. And I want to thank you on behalf of all the people of Israel."
"Third, I want to thank you for the many meetings we’ve had in which we discussed how to confront common challenges and how to seize common opportunities. The greatest challenge is, of course, the unremitting fanaticism. The greatest opportunity is to advance a durable peace. That’s a goal that I and the people of Israel will never give up on."
Netanyahu ended his farewell on a warm note to Obama by complimenting him for his influence, thanking him for his stalwart defense of Israel and reiterating that he will forever be welcome in Israel.
"As you conclude your presidency, I know you’re going to be busy with many, many things, much more than improving what I hear is a terrific golf game. Your voice, your influential voice will be heard for many decades. And I know you’ll continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself and its right to thrive as a Jewish state. So I want you to know, Barack, that you’ll always be a welcome guest in Israel."
Netanyahu jokingly added that "I don’t play golf, but right next to my home in Caesarea, in Israel, is a terrific golf course," to which Obama responded in jest, "We’ll set up a tee time."
An official on Netanyahu's team summarized the PM's closed doors meeting with Obama as a positive one. "We're in sync on almost everything, much more than people think," he said, adding, "We spoke a lot about matters of security and intelligence, where our cooperation is deep and goes both ways."
The source claimed that Netanyahu offered Obama a new perception regarding the conflict, saying that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be solved by improving Israel's relationships with other entities within the Arab world. Referring to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi's call for peace, reiterated in his UN speech on Wednesday, the source said that "Until now, there hasn't been such a clear Arab interest to reach agreements, and al-Sisi's comments prove that. No one has spoken like this since (former Egyptian president Anwar) Sadat."
Prior to their meeting, top Obama aid Ben Rhodes stated that the Obama administration will not be seeking to promote another peace initiative between Israel and the Palestinians. Seven years ago, Obama spoke in front of the UN General Assembly, saying he will not give up on an Israeli-Palestinian peace. In his speech on Wednesday, though, Obama only briefly mentioned the conflict. "Surely Israelis and Palestinians will be better off if Palestinians reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of Israel but Israel recognizes that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land," he told his listeners.
The City of Jerusalem also prepared for the Obama-Netanyahu meeting, with the municipality's Planning and Building Committee halting all building permits in the city. This was done to avoid approving a building permit in the Gilo neighborhood, which lies beyond the Green Line in East Jerusalem. Such a move would have likely created a great deal of tension with the Obama administration.
US President Barack Obama met for an hour with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in private on Wednesday, following a sit-down in front of members of the press, in what is likely to be their last meeting as Obama approaches the conclusion of his two-term presidency.
An American source said that during their closed doors encounter, Obama expressed his apprehension over the continued expansion of the settlement projects, a point which he has already strongly intimated erodes any chance of a two-state solution. Netanyahu rebuffed, as he has repeatedly done so in the past, replying that the settlements do not constitute the core of the conflict. According to the American source, Obama and Netanyahu made no attempts to conceal their difference of opinions during their meeting.
Another official from Netanyahu's staff responded to Obama's concerns: "Are 20–30 settlements really at the heart of the conflict?," he rhetorically asked. "The real issue here is that they (the Palestinians) fill their children with poison and hate against us. We're not running from this problem, they're running from this problem. They need to recognize Israel and relinquish the Right of Return. If they don't want ISIS or Hamas to eat them alive, they're better off (with us). It won't take long before the international community will accept it."
Sitting in front of the camera, Obama began by wishing the ailing former Israeli president Shimon Peres, who was rushed to hospital last week after suffering a stroke, a full recovery. "I want to start by just sending a message that all of the American people, my entire administration, and me, personally, are thinking about Shimon Peres—a great friend, a hero and giant in the history of Israel. And we are hopeful that he will have a speedy recovery," the president said.
"I’ve always joked whenever I’ve seen Shimon that I wanted to see what he ate and what he did, because he’s always looked so good," added Obama. "I know this has been a challenging time for him and his family, but I wanted to make sure that I relay my gratitude to him for his friendship and his leadership, and helping to forge a strong US-Israeli bond."
Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama voiced his concerns over acts of terrorism and the continued development of the Israeli settlements. "Obviously, our hearts go out to those who have been injured, both Israeli and Palestinian. Clearly, there is great danger of not just terrorism, but also flare-ups of violence. We do have concerns around settlement activity, as well. And our hope is that we can continue to be an effective partner with Israel in finding a path to peace."
Obama also reiterated the timeless connection between the two countries and people. "The bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable. It is based on common values, family ties, a recognition that a Jewish state of Israel is one of our most important allies, and a guiding principle throughout my presidency—one that I’ve expressed often to the prime minister—is, is that it is important for America’s national security to ensure that we have a safe and secure Israel, one that can defend itself."
For his part, Netanyahu expressed appreciation for the cooperation and support that the US has shown Israel, specifically mentioning the recently signed $38 billion aid deal, the largest in US history.
"First, I want to thank you for the Memorandum of Understanding that we signed last week," said Netanyahu. "It greatly enhances Israel’s security. It fortifies the principle that you’ve enunciated many times that Israel should be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat."
"Secondly, I want to thank you for the extensive security and intelligence cooperation between our two countries. I don’t think people at large understand the breadth and depth of this cooperation, but I know it. And I want to thank you on behalf of all the people of Israel."
"Third, I want to thank you for the many meetings we’ve had in which we discussed how to confront common challenges and how to seize common opportunities. The greatest challenge is, of course, the unremitting fanaticism. The greatest opportunity is to advance a durable peace. That’s a goal that I and the people of Israel will never give up on."
Netanyahu ended his farewell on a warm note to Obama by complimenting him for his influence, thanking him for his stalwart defense of Israel and reiterating that he will forever be welcome in Israel.
"As you conclude your presidency, I know you’re going to be busy with many, many things, much more than improving what I hear is a terrific golf game. Your voice, your influential voice will be heard for many decades. And I know you’ll continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself and its right to thrive as a Jewish state. So I want you to know, Barack, that you’ll always be a welcome guest in Israel."
Netanyahu jokingly added that "I don’t play golf, but right next to my home in Caesarea, in Israel, is a terrific golf course," to which Obama responded in jest, "We’ll set up a tee time."
An official on Netanyahu's team summarized the PM's closed doors meeting with Obama as a positive one. "We're in sync on almost everything, much more than people think," he said, adding, "We spoke a lot about matters of security and intelligence, where our cooperation is deep and goes both ways."
The source claimed that Netanyahu offered Obama a new perception regarding the conflict, saying that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be solved by improving Israel's relationships with other entities within the Arab world. Referring to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi's call for peace, reiterated in his UN speech on Wednesday, the source said that "Until now, there hasn't been such a clear Arab interest to reach agreements, and al-Sisi's comments prove that. No one has spoken like this since (former Egyptian president Anwar) Sadat."
Prior to their meeting, top Obama aid Ben Rhodes stated that the Obama administration will not be seeking to promote another peace initiative between Israel and the Palestinians. Seven years ago, Obama spoke in front of the UN General Assembly, saying he will not give up on an Israeli-Palestinian peace. In his speech on Wednesday, though, Obama only briefly mentioned the conflict. "Surely Israelis and Palestinians will be better off if Palestinians reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of Israel but Israel recognizes that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land," he told his listeners.
The City of Jerusalem also prepared for the Obama-Netanyahu meeting, with the municipality's Planning and Building Committee halting all building permits in the city. This was done to avoid approving a building permit in the Gilo neighborhood, which lies beyond the Green Line in East Jerusalem. Such a move would have likely created a great deal of tension with the Obama administration.
20 sept 2016
By Jonathan Cook
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 to $3.8bn a year – a 22 per cent increase – for a decade starting in 2019.
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 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 Obama in November’s election.
In reality, however, the Obama administration has quietly punished Netanyahu for his misbehaviour. Israeli expectations of a $4.5bn-a-year deal were whittled down after 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.
Netanyahu’s agreement to such terms has incensed Israeli loyalists in Congress such as Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who had been fighting Netanyahu’s corner to win an even larger aid handout from US taxpayers. He accused the Israeli prime minister on Friday of having “pulled the rug from under us”.
As Ehud Barak, Netanyahu’s former defence minister, also pointed out in a series of TV interviews in Israel, the deal fails to take into account either inflation or 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.
Netanyahu preferred to sign the deal now rather than wait till the next president is installed, even though Clinton and her Republican challenger, Donald Trump, are expected to be even more craven towards Israel. That appears to reflect Netanyahu’s fear that the US political environment will be more uncertain after the election and could lead to long delays in an agreement, and apprehension about the implications for Israel of Trump’s general opposition to foreign aid.
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 implicates the US in Israeli attacks that wiped out Iraq and Syria’s nuclear programmes. A nuclear-armed Iraq or Syria, however, would have deterred later US-backed moves at regime overthrow, as well as countering the strategic advantage Israel derives from its own large 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 Netanyahu over the Iran deal but will not risk a damaging clash with Israel and its loyalists in Congress over Palestinian statehood.
Some believe that Obama signed the aid agreement 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 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 the unity necessary to confound critics of the aid deal.
If Obama really wanted to pressure Netanyahu, he would have used the aid agreement as leverage. Now Netanyahu need not fear US financial retaliation, even as he intensifies effective annexation of the West Bank.
Netanyahu has drawn the right lesson from the aid deal – he can act again the Palestinians with continuing impunity and lots of US military hardware.
A version of this article first appeared in the National Abu Dhabi.
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 to $3.8bn a year – a 22 per cent increase – for a decade starting in 2019.
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 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 Obama in November’s election.
In reality, however, the Obama administration has quietly punished Netanyahu for his misbehaviour. Israeli expectations of a $4.5bn-a-year deal were whittled down after 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.
Netanyahu’s agreement to such terms has incensed Israeli loyalists in Congress such as Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who had been fighting Netanyahu’s corner to win an even larger aid handout from US taxpayers. He accused the Israeli prime minister on Friday of having “pulled the rug from under us”.
As Ehud Barak, Netanyahu’s former defence minister, also pointed out in a series of TV interviews in Israel, the deal fails to take into account either inflation or 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.
Netanyahu preferred to sign the deal now rather than wait till the next president is installed, even though Clinton and her Republican challenger, Donald Trump, are expected to be even more craven towards Israel. That appears to reflect Netanyahu’s fear that the US political environment will be more uncertain after the election and could lead to long delays in an agreement, and apprehension about the implications for Israel of Trump’s general opposition to foreign aid.
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 implicates the US in Israeli attacks that wiped out Iraq and Syria’s nuclear programmes. A nuclear-armed Iraq or Syria, however, would have deterred later US-backed moves at regime overthrow, as well as countering the strategic advantage Israel derives from its own large 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 Netanyahu over the Iran deal but will not risk a damaging clash with Israel and its loyalists in Congress over Palestinian statehood.
Some believe that Obama signed the aid agreement 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 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 the unity necessary to confound critics of the aid deal.
If Obama really wanted to pressure Netanyahu, he would have used the aid agreement as leverage. Now Netanyahu need not fear US financial retaliation, even as he intensifies effective annexation of the West Bank.
Netanyahu has drawn the right lesson from the aid deal – he can act again the Palestinians with continuing impunity and lots of US military hardware.
A version of this article first appeared in the National Abu Dhabi.
17 sept 2016
By CJ Werleman
For the past eight years, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has metaphorically spat directly into the face of US President Barack Obama. Not only has the Israeli leader tried to undermine Obama’s foreign policy agenda, he has also scuttled US led efforts to reenergise the Israel-Palestine peace process.
During the 2012 US election, Netanyahu broke the longstanding tradition that holds allied states should not interfere in the democratic processes of a democratic ally when he openly supporting the candidacy of Obama’s direct opponent – Mitt Romney.
During Obama’s eight years, Israel has ignored US pleas to halt settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and ignored pleas for restraint when Israel slaughtered 1,600 civilians over the course of 51 bloody days during 2014.
Time and time again, Netanyahu has taken every opportunity to not only defy Obama, but also to humiliate the US president. No one example is more defining than the 2010 visit to Israel by US Vice President Joe Biden – in which Israel announced its intention to construct 1,600 new housing units for Israeli Jews in occupied East Jerusalem.
I mean, Israel didn’t even have the good grace to hold off this international law-violating announcement until Biden’s plane had lifted off.
Absurd, the new normal
If Israel were any other country, or if Israel were aligned with, let’s say, Russia’s strategic sphere of influence, it’s safe to presume that, at the very least, the US would have long ago imposed economic sanctions on Israel. At the very most, the US might have already bombed selected high-value Israeli military installations.
But this is Israel we are talking about. America’s most strategic ally in the Middle East, allegedly, despite no US official offering a good reason for why the alliance is strategic for the US. Ever! In fact, prominent international relations scholars argue the very opposite.
But I digress. So no sanctions, no bombing – and not even a disciplinary smack across the backside for good measure. It appears punitive measures are reserved only for those states that have too many Muslims.
Instead, and despite Israel’s blatant refusal to abide by US demands, and demands of the international community, the apartheid state of Israel has been rewarded with a record $38bn pledge in military aid – courtesy of, well, you guessed it, Barack Obama.
Peter Beinhart, a Jewish American journalist, writing for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz makes the following trenchant observation: Country A believes that its ally, Country B, is pursuing policies that endanger both nations. Country A repeatedly asks Country B to change course. Country B refuses.
Meanwhile, Country B asks Country A to send it a vast supply of weapons. Country A agrees. Then, after the agreement is signed, Country A asks Country B to change course again, this time in a particularly dramatic and high profile way.
Ask a diplomat to analyze the previous scenario and she will tell you that Country A’s behavior is absurd. Why give Country B what it wants unconditionally, thus forfeiting your leverage?
Why ask for something after you’ve thrown away the bargaining chip that gives you a chance of actually getting it? But, as Beinhart rightly remarks, the absurd is normal when it comes to the manner in which the United States manages its relationship with its client state – Israel.
New dawn?
While absurdity best defines the nearly seven-decades-long US-Israel alliance, Obama’s inauguration in 2009 promised to herald a new dawn. Given the Muslim faith of Obama’s father and that a portion of Obama’s childhood was spent in Indonesia, the Palestinians and the broader Middle East were hopeful an Obama presidency would reverse many of the policy positions favored by his predecessor – George Bush.
Hope was elevated further when it was reported that Obama agreed with his Joint Chiefs’ assessment of the Middle East – that Muslim grievances against the US were fueled by the United States’ biased and uncritical support of Israeli policies. As such, resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict became one of the Obama administration’s highest priorities.
Obama’s prioritisation of the conflict was reflected in his speech delivered at Cairo University on 4 June 2009 when he promised “a new beginning". But illegal Israeli settlement construction has not only continued, but also expanded during the eight years of Obama’s presidency.
A report compiled by the anti-settlement group Peace Now shows that Israeli government-issued bids have grown “steadily” since 2009 to reach nearly 4,500 units in 2015.
More significantly, at least from a peace process perspective, there was a 40 percent increase in construction starts during 2014, with more than two-thirds of new construction taking place in settlements “east of the outline proposed by the Geneva Initiative, the areas most challenging for the two-state solution,” according to Peace Now.
For a US president who promised the Israeli-Palestinian peace process so much, Obama has achieved so very little. In fact, as observed by International Crisis Group senior analyst Nathan Thrall, Obama, unlike his recent predecessors, will leave office without a “single achievement to his name”.
So given Obama’s willingness to give Israel greater tools to further deepen and enforce its occupation, and given Obama authorised Israel’s request for access to the $1bn stockpile of weapons during Israel’s 2014 siege of Gaza, one might observe his legacy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to read like this: he was down with Israel’s international law and human rights violations – including the killing of Palestinian children.
He has less than five more months to change this historical footnote. Let’s hope he’s listening.
CJ Werleman is the author of Crucifying America, God Hates You. Hate Him Back, Koran Curious, and is the host of Foreign Object. His article was published in the Middle East Eye website.
For the past eight years, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has metaphorically spat directly into the face of US President Barack Obama. Not only has the Israeli leader tried to undermine Obama’s foreign policy agenda, he has also scuttled US led efforts to reenergise the Israel-Palestine peace process.
During the 2012 US election, Netanyahu broke the longstanding tradition that holds allied states should not interfere in the democratic processes of a democratic ally when he openly supporting the candidacy of Obama’s direct opponent – Mitt Romney.
During Obama’s eight years, Israel has ignored US pleas to halt settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and ignored pleas for restraint when Israel slaughtered 1,600 civilians over the course of 51 bloody days during 2014.
Time and time again, Netanyahu has taken every opportunity to not only defy Obama, but also to humiliate the US president. No one example is more defining than the 2010 visit to Israel by US Vice President Joe Biden – in which Israel announced its intention to construct 1,600 new housing units for Israeli Jews in occupied East Jerusalem.
I mean, Israel didn’t even have the good grace to hold off this international law-violating announcement until Biden’s plane had lifted off.
Absurd, the new normal
If Israel were any other country, or if Israel were aligned with, let’s say, Russia’s strategic sphere of influence, it’s safe to presume that, at the very least, the US would have long ago imposed economic sanctions on Israel. At the very most, the US might have already bombed selected high-value Israeli military installations.
But this is Israel we are talking about. America’s most strategic ally in the Middle East, allegedly, despite no US official offering a good reason for why the alliance is strategic for the US. Ever! In fact, prominent international relations scholars argue the very opposite.
But I digress. So no sanctions, no bombing – and not even a disciplinary smack across the backside for good measure. It appears punitive measures are reserved only for those states that have too many Muslims.
Instead, and despite Israel’s blatant refusal to abide by US demands, and demands of the international community, the apartheid state of Israel has been rewarded with a record $38bn pledge in military aid – courtesy of, well, you guessed it, Barack Obama.
Peter Beinhart, a Jewish American journalist, writing for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz makes the following trenchant observation: Country A believes that its ally, Country B, is pursuing policies that endanger both nations. Country A repeatedly asks Country B to change course. Country B refuses.
Meanwhile, Country B asks Country A to send it a vast supply of weapons. Country A agrees. Then, after the agreement is signed, Country A asks Country B to change course again, this time in a particularly dramatic and high profile way.
Ask a diplomat to analyze the previous scenario and she will tell you that Country A’s behavior is absurd. Why give Country B what it wants unconditionally, thus forfeiting your leverage?
Why ask for something after you’ve thrown away the bargaining chip that gives you a chance of actually getting it? But, as Beinhart rightly remarks, the absurd is normal when it comes to the manner in which the United States manages its relationship with its client state – Israel.
New dawn?
While absurdity best defines the nearly seven-decades-long US-Israel alliance, Obama’s inauguration in 2009 promised to herald a new dawn. Given the Muslim faith of Obama’s father and that a portion of Obama’s childhood was spent in Indonesia, the Palestinians and the broader Middle East were hopeful an Obama presidency would reverse many of the policy positions favored by his predecessor – George Bush.
Hope was elevated further when it was reported that Obama agreed with his Joint Chiefs’ assessment of the Middle East – that Muslim grievances against the US were fueled by the United States’ biased and uncritical support of Israeli policies. As such, resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict became one of the Obama administration’s highest priorities.
Obama’s prioritisation of the conflict was reflected in his speech delivered at Cairo University on 4 June 2009 when he promised “a new beginning". But illegal Israeli settlement construction has not only continued, but also expanded during the eight years of Obama’s presidency.
A report compiled by the anti-settlement group Peace Now shows that Israeli government-issued bids have grown “steadily” since 2009 to reach nearly 4,500 units in 2015.
More significantly, at least from a peace process perspective, there was a 40 percent increase in construction starts during 2014, with more than two-thirds of new construction taking place in settlements “east of the outline proposed by the Geneva Initiative, the areas most challenging for the two-state solution,” according to Peace Now.
For a US president who promised the Israeli-Palestinian peace process so much, Obama has achieved so very little. In fact, as observed by International Crisis Group senior analyst Nathan Thrall, Obama, unlike his recent predecessors, will leave office without a “single achievement to his name”.
So given Obama’s willingness to give Israel greater tools to further deepen and enforce its occupation, and given Obama authorised Israel’s request for access to the $1bn stockpile of weapons during Israel’s 2014 siege of Gaza, one might observe his legacy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to read like this: he was down with Israel’s international law and human rights violations – including the killing of Palestinian children.
He has less than five more months to change this historical footnote. Let’s hope he’s listening.
CJ Werleman is the author of Crucifying America, God Hates You. Hate Him Back, Koran Curious, and is the host of Foreign Object. His article was published in the Middle East Eye website.
The deal guarantees Israel $10 million a day in U.S. military aid for the next decade. (Photo: Israeli Minister of Defence, Avigdor Lieberman)
The United States and Israel have agreed upon a new military aid package of $38 billion over 10 years.
A total of $5 billion are earmarked for Israel’s missile defense system, while the remaining $33 billion are for what the White House calls “military financing funds.”
The deal, called the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is the single largest pledge of military assistance to any country in U.S. history.
When the agreement comes into affect in 2018, each year for the next ten years, the U.S. will disperse $3.3 billion a year to Israel in foreign military financing, as well as another $500 million in missile defense funding.
Under the previous 10-year military aid agreement between the two, which expires in 2018, the U.S. provided Israel with $3 billion a year, or $8.5 million a day, in military funds. On top of funds from the previous 10-year agreement, the U.S. gave Israel an extra $3 billion in missile defense funding over the course of U.S. President Barak Obama’s time in office.
The new agreement will support the Israeli military and its illegal occupation to the tune of $10 million per day. The fact that this sum includes a budget for missile defense spending has led some to argue that it does not represent a significant increase in U.S. military aid to Israel.
According to a fact sheet released by the Office of the Press Secretary of the White House, the MoU “in practical terms” will update “the lion’s share” of Israel’s fighter aircraft fleet, “increase” its missile defense, and allow Israel to “acquire other defense capabilities.”
The agreement also includes emergency provisions allowing Israel to request additional military aid for wartime expenses.
Obama discussed the agreement in a statement released by the Office of the Press of the White House: “The new 10 year Memorandum of Understanding on security assistance… is just the most recent reflection of my steadfast commitment to the security of the State of Israel.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initially lobbied for receiving as much as $4.5 billion a year from the U.S. in military aid before agreeing to several small “concessions” — most of which scratch the back of the U.S. arms industry.
But, upon the agreement’s passing, Netanyahu ultimately “thanked” the U.S. for its support and told Israeli citizens that they “can be rightly proud of” the deal.
“Many in the U.S. understand that investment in the security of Israel strengthens the stability of the unstable Middle East and serves not only our security interests but those of the United States as well,” he added.
According to the new agreement, Israel must stop using 26.3% of U.S. military funding to buy Israeli arms. It must also stop directing 14% of U.S. funds to purchase fuel for its military.
These changes mean that Israel “will spend more funding, as much as $1.2 billion per year, on the advanced military capacities that only the United States can provide,” said the Office of the Press Secretary of the White House.
Congress must still formally approve the funding’s dispersal to Israel every year, but, it has done so enthusiastically, in the past. Israel is already the largest recipient of U.S. military aid, which regularly represents over 50% of all U.S. foreign military financing.
Yousef Munayyer, the executive director of the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation, told the New York Times that, with this agreement, “we are helping the Israelis sustain the costs of occupation we claim is unsustainable.”
In a statement, Rebecca Vilkomerson, the executive director of Jewish Voices for Peace, said:
“The United States is once again committing to a decade of increased military aid to Israel, despite that country’s deplorable human rights record. The main beneficiaries of this unprecedented amount of aid will be not just the Israeli military, but also the U.S. arms industry… increasing the military aid package is rewarding destructive Israeli behavior that violates longstanding official U.S. policy and international law.
As a result, the U.S. is effectively underwriting Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies towards the Palestinians.”
The United States and Israel have agreed upon a new military aid package of $38 billion over 10 years.
A total of $5 billion are earmarked for Israel’s missile defense system, while the remaining $33 billion are for what the White House calls “military financing funds.”
The deal, called the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is the single largest pledge of military assistance to any country in U.S. history.
When the agreement comes into affect in 2018, each year for the next ten years, the U.S. will disperse $3.3 billion a year to Israel in foreign military financing, as well as another $500 million in missile defense funding.
Under the previous 10-year military aid agreement between the two, which expires in 2018, the U.S. provided Israel with $3 billion a year, or $8.5 million a day, in military funds. On top of funds from the previous 10-year agreement, the U.S. gave Israel an extra $3 billion in missile defense funding over the course of U.S. President Barak Obama’s time in office.
The new agreement will support the Israeli military and its illegal occupation to the tune of $10 million per day. The fact that this sum includes a budget for missile defense spending has led some to argue that it does not represent a significant increase in U.S. military aid to Israel.
According to a fact sheet released by the Office of the Press Secretary of the White House, the MoU “in practical terms” will update “the lion’s share” of Israel’s fighter aircraft fleet, “increase” its missile defense, and allow Israel to “acquire other defense capabilities.”
The agreement also includes emergency provisions allowing Israel to request additional military aid for wartime expenses.
Obama discussed the agreement in a statement released by the Office of the Press of the White House: “The new 10 year Memorandum of Understanding on security assistance… is just the most recent reflection of my steadfast commitment to the security of the State of Israel.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initially lobbied for receiving as much as $4.5 billion a year from the U.S. in military aid before agreeing to several small “concessions” — most of which scratch the back of the U.S. arms industry.
But, upon the agreement’s passing, Netanyahu ultimately “thanked” the U.S. for its support and told Israeli citizens that they “can be rightly proud of” the deal.
“Many in the U.S. understand that investment in the security of Israel strengthens the stability of the unstable Middle East and serves not only our security interests but those of the United States as well,” he added.
According to the new agreement, Israel must stop using 26.3% of U.S. military funding to buy Israeli arms. It must also stop directing 14% of U.S. funds to purchase fuel for its military.
These changes mean that Israel “will spend more funding, as much as $1.2 billion per year, on the advanced military capacities that only the United States can provide,” said the Office of the Press Secretary of the White House.
Congress must still formally approve the funding’s dispersal to Israel every year, but, it has done so enthusiastically, in the past. Israel is already the largest recipient of U.S. military aid, which regularly represents over 50% of all U.S. foreign military financing.
Yousef Munayyer, the executive director of the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation, told the New York Times that, with this agreement, “we are helping the Israelis sustain the costs of occupation we claim is unsustainable.”
In a statement, Rebecca Vilkomerson, the executive director of Jewish Voices for Peace, said:
“The United States is once again committing to a decade of increased military aid to Israel, despite that country’s deplorable human rights record. The main beneficiaries of this unprecedented amount of aid will be not just the Israeli military, but also the U.S. arms industry… increasing the military aid package is rewarding destructive Israeli behavior that violates longstanding official U.S. policy and international law.
As a result, the U.S. is effectively underwriting Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies towards the Palestinians.”
The Hamas Movement has strongly denounced the US state department for its unjust decision to add Fathi Hammad, one of its prominent officials in Gaza, to its list of global terrorists.
In a brief press release on Friday, Hamas condemned the decision as a "serious development reflecting the US administration's absolute bias in favor of the Israeli occupation state."
It also said that this decision would provide further cover for Israel's continued crimes against the Palestinian people.
The Movement urged the US administration to backtrack on its decision to blacklist Hammad and refrain from taking any step offending the feelings of the entire Arab nation.
For his part, Fathi Hammad deplored the decision, describing the successive US administrations as the biggest supporter of the Zionist terrorism.
Hammad also described his designation as a terrorist as "another black page in the US administration's infamous book and a blatant bias in favor of Israel's terrorism and killing machine."
"Such decisions will never terrorize us or dissuade us from serving our people and defending their just rights, whatever the price," he said.
In a brief press release on Friday, Hamas condemned the decision as a "serious development reflecting the US administration's absolute bias in favor of the Israeli occupation state."
It also said that this decision would provide further cover for Israel's continued crimes against the Palestinian people.
The Movement urged the US administration to backtrack on its decision to blacklist Hammad and refrain from taking any step offending the feelings of the entire Arab nation.
For his part, Fathi Hammad deplored the decision, describing the successive US administrations as the biggest supporter of the Zionist terrorism.
Hammad also described his designation as a terrorist as "another black page in the US administration's infamous book and a blatant bias in favor of Israel's terrorism and killing machine."
"Such decisions will never terrorize us or dissuade us from serving our people and defending their just rights, whatever the price," he said.