FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

US Encourages Israel’s War Aims

by SHELDON RICHMAN

While Israel—cheered on by its American boosters led by AIPAC and Mitt Romney—beats the drums ever louder for a war of aggression against Iran, President Obama in late July signed the United States-Israel Enhanced Cooperation Act. This was hardly a signal that Obama would like to defuse the explosive situation building in the Middle East. The Rose Garden signing, attended by AIPCA representatives, came on top of the latest in a series of harsh economic sanctions approved by AIPAC-dominated Congress and Obama against the Iranian people. This intensifying economic warfare is predictably creating hardship for average Iranians, including shortages of life-saving medicines. (Sanctions come on top of covert warfare and assassination of Iranian scientists by Israel and cyber warfare by the United States, and an increasing U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf and surrounding area. Iran is nearly ringed by U.S. military installations.) Signing the Act, Obama said:

[W]hat this legislation does is bring together all the outstanding cooperation that we have seen, really, at an unprecedented level between our two countries that underscore our unshakeable commitment to Israel security.

The Enhanced Cooperation Act passed the Senate (voice vote) and House in June and July, respectively, with Reps. Ron Paul and John Dingell as the only opponents.

The Act pledges “To help the Government of Israel preserve its qualitative military edge amid rapid and uncertain regional political transformation.” Bear in the mind the context. Israel already possesses by far unparalleled military power in the region, although we live in an era where victory is not guaranteed to the militarily superior. Israel did not prevail when it attacked and devastated Lebanon in 2006. We must bear in mind, also, that Israel has a nuclear arsenal estimated at 200-300 warheads, some of them submarine mounted. This puts the faux alarm over Iran’salleged nuclear-weapons program in perspective. (Both U.S. and Israeli intelligence say that Iran is not building a weapon and has not even decided to do so. Since 2007, the U.S. intelligence complex has concluded that whatever program Iran might have had was scrapped in 2003, when the U.S. military invaded Iranian nemesis Iraq and topped its president, Saddam Hussein.)

The Act details the ways in which the U.S. government will “assist in the defense of Israel.” One should note that there has never been a treaty of alliance between the United States and Israel.

For example, the Act mandates that the U.S government “Provide the Government of Israel defense articles and defense services through such mechanisms as appropriate, to include air refueling tankers, missile defense capabilities, and specialized munitions.” Some of this equipment has never been provided to Israel before.Ynet, the Israeli news service, reported, “The legislation, which provides for special aerial armament, is also likely to allow Israel to acquire bunker buster bombs, a privilege previously denied by the Bush Administration.” (Obama provided bunker buster bombs last year.)

The word defense is repeated often Act–rather defensively–but it should be noted that no weapons system is purely defensive; or to put it another way, defensive systems are just as useful for offensive operations as they are for pure defense. A shield can protect the one who is attacking. Given Israel’s aggression against the Palestinians and Arab neighbors since 1948, there is no reason to be confident that defensive systems will be use exclusively for defense.

Keep in mind that the U.S. government already gives Israel $3 billion a year in military aid under the most favorable terms. Obama also announced a $70 billion grant for the Iron Dome rocket defense system. Now Israel will have less reason to turn to a peaceful resolution of the horrendous situation in the Gaza Strip.
As Ynet states, “It must be noted that the Obama Administration has been unprecedentedly responsive to Israel’s acquisition requests across the board, even prior to the latest legislation.”

One provision of the Act in particular is rather curious: “Work to encourage an expanded role for Israel with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including an enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and exercises.” NATO was created in 1949 ostensibly to discourage a Soviet invasion of western Europe. Even if one regards the coalition as having been legitimate then, it should have disbanded in 1991 when the Soviet Union dissolved. Instead it found new missions never even alluded to in the treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate, meaning that the American people have been victims of a monumental bait and switch. NATO has become the U.S.-led police force available to enter civil wars and other conflicts anywhere in the world. Libya and and now Syria are the latest locations. Moreover, NATO has been used provocatively against Russia, paving the way for the admission of states on the Russian doorstep.

What possible role could Israel have in NATO? This is clearly a bid to expand U.S. policing of the world, which makes other powers, such as Russian and China, apprehensive—justifiably so.

Another provision of the Act pledges “To veto any one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security Council.” Of course, U.S. presidents have done this right along. Apparently AIPAC sought specific assurance in writing that this one-sided policy will continue. In U.S.-Israeli parlance, an “anti-Israeli resolution” is one that in any way implies that the Palestinians have rights in what was once Palestine.
The biggest howler in the Act is this:

To assist the Government of Israel with its ongoing efforts to forge a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two states living side-by-side in peace and security, and to encourage Israel’s neighbors to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

Israel is not, and never has been, interested in such efforts. and the U.S government has not been an honest broker for peace. Israel claims to want a two-state solution with the Palestinians, but all the while it seizes land owned by Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem for the exclusive use of Jews. It has built a wall that surrounds Palestinian towns and separates Palestinian homes from farmland. The situation has been likened to two people “negotiating” to divide a pizza while one of them eats it.

Perhaps most egregious of all, the Act’s first provision is to “To reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state” (emphasis added). Thus Congress, speaking for the American people, has put in writing its commitment to a state based on ethno-racial considerations. Would we tolerate that here? As pointed out before, Israel is the only country in the world that even in theory does not belong to all its citizens. It is said to belong to The Jewish People, no matter where individuals Jews lives. Jews from around the world can move to Israel and quickly become citizens and be provided subsidized housing. Yet a Palestinian born in Palestine and driven out by Zionist militias may not return. Since “Jew” is clearly not a religious category (most Israelis are nonreligious and even atheist), it must instead be ethno-racial. (Though this does not mean that Jews actually belong to a single race or ethnic group.)

This insistence on Israel’s remaining forever a Jewish state gives the lie to Israeli claims to being a democratic country. Palestinian “citizens” of Israel are third-class citizens who would never be permitted to become the majority and change the country’s basic, ethno-racial law. (In Israel citizenship is not as important as nationality, the two major categories of which are “Jew” and “Arab.”) In this light, look more closely at Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s repeated statements that Israel and the United States are a partnership of “shared values.”

To this commitment, Rep. Paul objected that the U.S. government should “not guarantee the religious ethnic, or cultural composition of a foreign country.”

The day after Obama signed this Act, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney visited Israel, where he declared:

It is my firm conviction that the security of Israel is in the vital national security interest of the United States. And ours is an alliance [what alliance?] based not only on shared interests but also on enduring shared values.

Thus no matter who wins the election, the American people are joined at the hip with Israel, which means they are at the mercy of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is either itching for war with Iran–a war that would have disastrous consequences for the people of the region, as well as most Americans–or is blackmailing Obama to get additional favors between now and election day.

Sheldon Richman keeps the blog “Free Association” at www.sheldonrichman.com. 

Sheldon Richman, author of the forthcoming America’s Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited, keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society, and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
May 27, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
Silencing America as It Prepares for War
Rob Urie
By the Numbers: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are Fringe Candidates
Paul Street
Feel the Hate
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
Basic Income Gathers Steam Across Europe
Andrew Levine
Hillary’s Gun Gambit
Jeffrey St. Clair
Hand Jobs: Heidegger, Hitler and Trump
S. Brian Willson
Remembering All the Deaths From All of Our Wars
Dave Lindorff
With Clinton’s Nixonian Email Scandal Deepening, Sanders Must Demand Answers
Pete Dolack
Millions for the Boss, Cuts for You!
Gunnar Westberg
Close Calls: We Were Much Closer to Nuclear Annihilation Than We Ever Knew
Peter Lee
To Hell and Back: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Karl Grossman
Long Island as a Nuclear Park
Binoy Kampmark
Sweden’s Assange Problem: The District Court Ruling
Robert Fisk
Why the US Dropped Its Demand That Assad Must Go
Martha Rosenberg – Ronnie Cummins
Bayer and Monsanto: a Marriage Made in Hell
Brian Cloughley
Pivoting to War
Stavros Mavroudeas
Blatant Hypocrisy: the Latest Late-Night Bailout of Greece
Arun Gupta
A War of All Against All
Dan Kovalik
NPR, Yemen & the Downplaying of U.S. War Crimes
Randy Blazak
Thugs, Bullies, and Donald J. Trump: The Perils of Wounded Masculinity
Murray Dobbin
Are We Witnessing the Beginning of the End of Globalization?
Daniel Falcone
Urban Injustice: How Ghettos Happen, an Interview with David Hilfiker
Gloria Jimenez
In Honduras, USAID Was in Bed with Berta Cáceres’ Accused Killers
Kent Paterson
The Old Braceros Fight On
Lawrence Reichard
The Seemingly Endless Indignities of Air Travel: Report from the Losing Side of Class Warfare
Peter Berllios
Bernie and Utopia
Stan Cox – Paul Cox
Indonesia’s Unnatural Mud Disaster Turns Ten
Linda Pentz Gunter
Obama in Hiroshima: Time to Say “Sorry” and “Ban the Bomb”
George Souvlis
How the West Came to Rule: an Interview with Alexander Anievas
Julian Vigo
The Government and Your i-Phone: the Latest Threat to Privacy
Stratos Ramoglou
Why the Greek Economic Crisis Won’t be Ending Anytime Soon
David Price
The 2016 Tour of California: Notes on a Big Pharma Bike Race
Dmitry Mickiewicz
Barbarous Deforestation in Western Ukraine
Rev. William Alberts
The United Methodist Church Up to Its Old Trick: Kicking the Can of Real Inclusion Down the Road
Patrick Bond
Imperialism’s Junior Partners
Mark Hand
The Trouble with Fracking Fiction
Priti Gulati Cox
Broken Green: Two Years of Modi
Marc Levy
Sitrep: Hometown Unwelcomes Vietnam Vets
Lorenzo Raymond
Why Nonviolent Civil Resistance Doesn’t Work (Unless You Have Lots of Bombs)
Ed Kemmick
New Book Full of Amazing Montana Women
Michael Dickinson
Bye Bye Legal High in Backwards Britain
Missy Comley Beattie
Wanted: Daddy or Mommy in Chief
Ed Meek
The Republic of Fear
Charles R. Larson
Russian Women, Then and Now
David Yearsley
Elgar’s Hegemony: the Pomp of Empire
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail