The US Money Tree: The Untold Story of American Aid to Israel

by Ramzy Baroud Posted on December 31, 2020

https://original.antiwar.com/ramzy-baroud/2020/12/30/the-us-money-tree-the-untold-story-of-american-aid-to-israel/

On December 21, the United States Congress passed the COVID-19 Relief Package, as part of a larger $2.3 trillion bill meant to cover spending for the rest of the fiscal year. As usual, US representatives allocated a massive sum of money for Israel.

While unemployment, thus poverty, in the US is skyrocketing as a result of repeated lockdowns, the US found it essential to provide Israel with $3.3 billion in "security assistance" and $500 million for US-Israel missile defense cooperation.

Although a meager $600 dollar payment to help struggling American families was the subject of several months of intense debate, there was little discussion among American politicians over the large funds handed out to Israel, for which there are no returns.

Support for Israel is considered a bipartisan priority and has, for decades, been perceived as the most stable item in the US foreign policy agenda. The mere questioning of how Israel uses the funds – whether the military aid is being actively used to sustain Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, finance Jewish settlements, fund annexation of Palestinian land or violate Palestinian human rights – is a major taboo.

One of the few members of Congress to demand that aid to Israel be conditioned on the latter’s respect for human rights is Democratic Senator, Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, who was also a leading presidential nominee for the Democratic Party. "We cannot give it carte blanche to the Israeli government … We have the right to demand respect for human rights and democracy", Sanders had said in October 2019.

His Democratic rival, now President-elect, Joe Biden soon countered: "The idea that I’d withdraw military aid, like others have suggested, from Israel, is bizarre," he said.

It is no secret that Israel is the world’s leading recipient of US aid since World War II. According to data provided by the US Congressional Research Service, Israel has received $146 billion of US taxpayers’ money as of November 2020.

From 1971 up to 2007, a bulk of these funds proved fundamental in helping Israel establish a strong economic base. Since then, most of the money has been allotted for military purposes, including the security of Israel’s illegal Jewish settlement enterprise.

Despite the US financial crisis of 2008, American money continued to be channeled to Israel, whose economy survived the global recession, largely unscathed.

In 2016, the US promised even more money. The Democratic Barack Obama Administration, which is often – although mistakenly – seen as hostile to Israel, increased US funding to Israel by a significant margin. In a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding, Washington and Tel Aviv reached a deal whereby the US agreed to give Israel $38 billion in military aid covering the financial years 2019-2028. This is a whopping increase of $8 billion compared with the previous 10-year agreement, which concluded at the end of 2018.

The new American funds are divided into two categories: $33 billion in foreign military grants and an additional $5 billion in missile defense.

American generosity has long been attributed to the unmatched influence of pro-Israeli groups, lead among them American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The last four years, however, required little lobbying by these groups, as powerful agents within the administration itself, became Israel’s top advocates.

Aside from the seemingly endless "political freebies" that the Donald Trump Administration has given Israel in recent years, it is now considering ways to accelerate the timetable of delivering the remainder of US funds as determined by the last MOU, an amount that currently stands at $26.4 billion. According to official congressional documents, the US "also may approve additional sales of the F-35 to Israel and accelerate the delivery of KC-46A refueling and transport aircraft to Israel."

These are not all the funds and perks that Israel receives. Much more goes unreported, as it is channeled either indirectly or simply promoted under the flexible title of "cooperation".

For example, between 1973 and 1991, a massive sum of $460 million of US funds was allocated to resettling Jews in Israel. Many of these new immigrants are now the very Israeli militants that occupy the West Bank illegal settlements. In this particular case, the money is paid to a private charity known as the United Israel Appeal which, in turn, gives the money to the Jewish Agency. The latter has played a central role in the founding of Israel on top of the ruins of Palestinian towns and villages in 1948.

Under the guise of charitable donations, tens of millions of dollars are regularly sent to Israel in the form of "tax-deductible gifts for Jewish settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem," the New York Times reported. Much of the money, falsely promoted as donations for educational and religious purposes, often finds its way to funding and purchasing housing for illegal settlers, "as well as guard dogs, bulletproof vests, rifle scopes, and vehicles to secure (illegal Jewish) outposts deep in occupied (Palestinian) areas."

Quite often, US money ends up in the Israeli government’s coffers under deceptive pretenses. For example, the latest Stimulus Package includes $50 million to fund the Nita M. Lowey Middle East Partnership for Peace Funds, supposedly to provide investments in "people-to-people exchanges and economic cooperation … between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of supporting a negotiated and a sustainable two-state solution."

Actually, such money serves no particular purpose, since Washington and Tel Aviv endeavor to ensure the demise of a negotiated peace agreement and work hand-in-hand to kill the now-defunct two-state solution.

The list is endless, though most of this money is not included in the official US aid packages to Israel, therefore receives little scrutiny, let alone media coverage.

As of February 2019, the US has withheld all funds to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, in addition to cutting aid to the UN Palestinian Refugees agency (UNRWA), the last lifeline of support needed to provide basic education and health services to millions of Palestinian refugees.

Judging by its legacy of continued support of the Israeli military machine and the ongoing colonial expansion in the West Bank, Washington insists on serving as Israel’s main benefactor – if not direct partner – while shunning Palestinians altogether. Expecting the US to play a constructive role in achieving a just peace in Palestine does not only reflect indefensible naivety but willful ignorance as well.

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books. His latest is "These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons" (Clarity Press). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA) and also at the Afro-Middle East Center (AMEC). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net

 

 

China is not the reason why the US’ ‘luck’ is running out

By Wang Wenwen Published: Dec 29, 2020 

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202012/1211385.shtml

In a recent column in the US magazine Foreign Policy, Professor Stephen Walt at Harvard University asserted that America's history of luck is running out. The article is a rare reflection of the US' problems that we have seen since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, it noted "the deliberately manufactured polarization and the resulting gridlock" and "the fetishizing of 'liberty'" that the Americans pride themselves on but cost American lives in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The article also recalled how the US gained its international status in history with its "luck." Indeed, from the US War of Independence to the Cold War, luck stood by the side of the US. Nonetheless, American exceptionalism to a large degree should be attributed to its exceptional luck, which breeds the US characteristics of being bellicose, arrogant and addicted to meddling in the affairs of other countries. 

Like many other US thinkers, Walt believes China, a far more formidable rival than the Soviet Union ever was, is among the reasons why the luck of the US might be running out. This is typical rhetoric among the US elites. Walt admitted that "having no serious enemies nearby" is a considerable benefit for US security. As the US attaches the utmost importance to its own security, it imagines China as an ideological rival despite China posing no actual threat to the US. As the global hegemon, the US is the thirstiest for a sense of security and its guard against other countries has always been aggressive. 

China's characteristics, including the socialist path it takes and the one-party rule it adopts, fit China's actual conditions no matter how the US feels about them. China does not have the "luck" the US has ever enjoyed. 

The forceful imperialist invasions by the UK in the mid-19th century and by Japan in the 1930s and 1940s saw China's territory being ceded and people having lived in disgrace and poverty. The US troops were also among the "Eight-Nation Alliance" that looted and pillaged Beijing and other Chinese cities at the very beginning of the 20th century. 

In the 240-year-plus history of the US, it has never experienced such miseries. It does not respect other countries' right to choose an independent developing path in this new era.

China is only safeguarding its right to rise peacefully and ensures that its economic development is not jeopardized and suppressed. In the eyes of the US, China has the potential to challenge US hegemony, and this is enough for China to fit in the US definition of a foe. 

The luck the US has been blessed with made the US a rich country, which paved the way for the US to become an important contributor to the world.

The US has played an indispensable role in shaping world trade and investment and its economy has driven global entrepreneurship and prosperity. It helped establish the postwar international liberal order, though some scholars believe this order has never been perfectly liberal. Some hail the US as "a beacon of freedom," but the label looks only sarcastic throughout this year that has been marked by the ravaging epidemic in the US. During the year of the pandemic, the US' arrogance and bossiness are clear to all.

The US role does not match its status as a global superpower which is supposed to act in a responsible and graceful manner. Some believe the US is an empire going downhill. Is it really the case?

 

¿El fin de Morena?

Pedro Salmerón Sanginés / I

https://www.jornada.com.mx/2020/12/29/opinion/013a1pol

“Yo quiero ser ministro, de lo que sea, pero ministro”, le dijo el general Guadalupe Arroyo a sus amigotes, en la genial novela de Jorge Ibargüengoitia que muestra descarnadamente el talante de la clase política posrevolucionaria. Pululan quienes comulgan con esa moral. Veamos:

Corría el año 2010 con la nación bañada en sangre. Se acercaban las elecciones locales en Guerrero. El PRI, que preparaba toda su artillería para recuperar una entidad que debajo de un gobernador-empresario dizque de izquierda, seguían controlando los violentos caciques (o sus hijos) que empujaron a Genaro Vázquez y Lucio Cabañas a tomar las armas.

Un distinguido priísta, que había sido gobernador (sustituyó a Rubén Figueroa tras la matanza de Aguas Blancas), de larga carrera de la mano de viejos y nuevos caciques, perdió la contienda interna del PRI, pero logró (no sé cómo ni voy a especular) que el presidente del PRD, Chucho Ortega, decidiera impulsarlo al mismo cargo, pero por el PRD. En el Consejo Nacional del PRD mi amigo Juan y el Chucho mantuvieron este diálogo o uno muy parecido:

–¿Por qué Ángel Aguirre?

–Porque con él ganamos –respondió el Chucho.

–¿¡Ganamos qué!?

Los argumentos del Chiuchi es que era un candidato competitivo y ganador. Los Chuchos repetirían el argumento con personajes como Miguel Ángel Yunes cuando ya habían abandonado (desde 2012) toda apariencia de principios, honestidad o decencia para mostrarse tal cual son: meros ambiciosos, vulgares vividores de la política.

Juan renunció al PRD. Desde 2012 trabajó por hacer de Morena una alternativa real (sin cobrar un peso, porque lo hizo sin dejar su brillante carrera en otros ámbitos) y hoy desempeña un cargo de responsabilidad en el gobierno (por eso me reservo su nombre). El Chucho y Ángel Aguirre están en el basurero de la historia.

Hace unas semanas, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas me contó que ahora que puede verlo en retrospectiva, la clave del desastre del PRD fue enfocarse en lo meramente electoral, en la victoria, en la eficacia de los candidatos. Añadió algo así como: en Morena deben cuidarse de repetir esa ruta (la entrevista se verá en Nuestras Conquistas del canal digital Capital 21).

Quizá ya es tarde. Sobre las candidaturas de Morena a gobernadores de Nuevo León y Guerrero, he escuchado exactamente esos mismos argumentos de quienes defienden la ya candidata en el primero y dos que amenazan serlo en el segundo (Beatriz Mojica y Luis Walton, quienes levantaron la mano de Ángel Aguirre y en 2018, de Ricardo Anaya). Igual en Zacatecas, donde quedó el hermano de quien creó el neologismo monrealazo para definir el berrinche y el chantaje cuando los mecanismos previamente afectados no te favorecen (y sólo mencionaré, como de paso, que en 2010 David Monreal declinó en favor del PRI y que en 2016 fue candidato por segunda vez, sin satisfacer la cacareada eficacia).

Eficacia, popularidad, competitividad, encuestas de reconocimiento como elemento definitorio… y si falla, lo que sea, como el menú a la carta que el INE-Trife le sirvieron a Mario Delgado para asaltar la presidencia de Morena: si el congreso del partido no te sirve, lo echamos abajo. Si la encuesta no te gusta, la modificamos. Si no confías en el Comité de Encuestas de Morena, le encargamos la encuesta al INE. Si no estás en el padrón del partido, te metemos. Si no eres consejero nacional, quitamos el requisito. Si no eres conocido te dejamos gastar una fortuna en publicidad. Si no te gusta el resultado de la encuesta, hacemos otra (Martí Bátres: https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/opinion/ marti-batres/morena-la-carta).

Quedaba una parte de un Consejo Nacional muy menguado; un Comité Ejecutivo Nacional mal remendado (https://www.jornada.com.mx/2020/09/ 08/opinion/016a1pol); una Comisión Nacional de Honestidad y Justicia (CNHJ) cuyas resoluciones eran echadas abajo por los mismos enemigos externos que diseñaron el menú a la carta, y un Instituto Nacional de Formación Política (INFP) que no pudo, no quiso o no supo estar a la altura y por tanto, entre otras cosas, no fue capaz de poner los mínimos filtros autorizados desde 2018, para impedir que personas como Clara Luz Flores, Beatriz Mojica o Luis Walton contendieran por una candidatura (por razones de espacio, me reservo mis opiniones sobre otros estados)… aunque en el caso del INFP, su incapacidad se debió, en buena medida, al sabotaje de Yeidckol (https://www.jornada.com.mx/2020/ 01/14/opinion/014a2pol).

El asalto a los órganos del partido resulta pasmoso y recuerda otra vez al general Guadalupe Arroyo: en menos de tres meses vimos a Donají Alba utilizar su posición en el INFP para postularse a la secretaría general del partido, en fórmula con el candidato del menú a la carta, actual presidente. Al fracasar, se postuló para la CNHJ, que tenía que renovarse por órdenes de los mismos que impusieron el menú a la carta. Ahí la tenemos: ministra, de lo que sea, pero ministra.

¿Ya somos el PRD versión recargada?

Twitter: @HistoriaPedro

 

 

Turkey pivots to the center of The New Great Game

December 28, 2020

https://thesaker.is/turkey-pivots-to-the-center-of-the-new-great-game/

by Pepe Escobar with permission and first posted at Asia Times

When it comes to sowing – and profiting – from division, Erdogan’s Turkey is quite the superstar.

Under the delightfully named Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), the Trump administration duly slapped sanctions on Ankara for daring to buy Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile defense systems. The sanctions focused on Turkey’s defense procurement agency, the SSB.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu’s response was swift: Ankara won’t back down – and it is in fact mulling how to respond.

The European poodles inevitably had to provide the follow-up. So after the proverbial, interminable debate in Brussels, they settled for “limited” sanctions – adding a further list for a summit in March 2021. Yet these sanctions actually focus on as-yet-unidentified individuals involved in offshore drilling in Cyprus and Greece. They have nothing to do with S-400s.

What the EU has come up with is in fact a very ambitious, global human-rights sanctions regime modeled after the US’s Magnitsky Act. That implies travel bans and asset freezes of people unilaterally considered responsible for genocide, torture, extrajudicial killings, and crimes against humanity.

Turkey, in this case is just a guinea pig. The EU always hesitates mightily when it comes to sanctioning a NATO member. What the Eurocrats in Brussels really want is an extra, powerful tool to harass mostly China and Russia.

Our jihadis, sorry, “moderate rebels”

What’s fascinating is that Ankara under Erdogan always seems to be exhibiting a sort of “devil may care” attitude.

Take the seemingly insoluble situation in the Idlib cauldron in northwest Syria. Jabhat al-Nusra – a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria – honchos are now involved in “secret” negotiations with Turkish-backed armed gangs, such as Ahrar al-Sharqiya, right in front of Turkish officials. The objective: to boost the number of jihadis concentrated in certain key areas. The bottom line: a large number of these will come from Jabhat al-Nusra.

So Ankara for all practical purposes remains fully behind hardcore jihadis in northwest Syria – disguised under the “innocent” brand Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. Ankara has absolutely no interest in letting these people disappear. Moscow, of course, is fully aware of these shenanigans, but wily Kremlin and Defence Ministry strategists prefer to let it roll, for the time being, assuming the Astana process shared by Russia, Iran, and Turkey can be somewhat fruitful.

Erdogan, at the same time, masterfully plays the impression that he’s totally involved in pivoting towards Moscow. He’s effusive that “his Russian colleague Vladimir Putin” supports the idea – initially tabled by Azerbaijan – of a regional security platform uniting Russia, Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia. Erdogan even said that if Yerevan is part of this mechanism, “a new page may be opened” in so far intractable Turkey-Armenia relations.

It will help, of course, that even under Putin's pre-eminence, Erdogan will have a very important seat at the table of this putative security organization.

The Big Picture is even more fascinating – because it lays out various aspects of Putin’s Eurasia balancing strategy, which involves as main players Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, and Pakistan.

On the eve of the first anniversary of the assassination of Gen Soleimani, Tehran is far from cowed and “isolated”. For all practical purposes, it is slowly but surely forcing the US out of Iraq. Iran’s diplomatic and military links to Iraq, Syria and Lebanon remains solid.

And with fewer US troops in Afghanistan, the fact is Iran for the first time since the “axis of evil” era will be less surrounded by the Pentagon. Both Russia and China – the key nodes of Eurasia integration – fully approve it.

Of course the Iranian rial has collapsed against the US dollar, and oil income has fallen from over $100 billion a year to something like $7 billion. But non-oil exports are going well over $30 billion a year.

All is about to change for the better. Iran is building an ultra-strategic pipeline from the eastern part of the Persian Gulf to the port of Jask in the Gulf of Oman – bypassing the Strait of Hormuz, and ready to export up to 1 million barrels of oil a day. China will be the top customer.

President Rouhani said the pipeline will be ready by the summer of 2021, adding that Iran plans to be selling over 2.3 million barrels of oil a day next year – with or without the US sanctions alleviated by Biden-Harris.

Watch the Golden Ring

Iran is well linked to Turkey to the West and Central Asia to the east. An extra important element in the chessboard is the entrance of freight trains directly linking Turkey to China via Central Asia -bypassing Russia.

Earlier this month, the first freight train left Istanbul for an 8,693 km, 12-day trip, crossing below the Bosphorus via the brand new Marmary tunnel, inaugurated a year ago, then along the East-West Middle Corridor via the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars (BTK) railway, across Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan.

In Turkey, this is known as the Silk Railway. It was the BTK that reduced freight transport from Turkey to China from one month to only 12 days. The whole route from East Asia to Western Europe can now be traveled in only 18 days. BTK is the key node of the so-called Middle Corridor from Beijing to London and the Iron Silk Road from Kazakhstan to Turkey.

All of the above totally fits the EU’s agenda – especially Germany’s: implementing a strategic trade corridor linking the EU to China, bypassing Russia.

This would eventually, lead to one of the key alliances to be consolidated in the Raging Twenties: Berlin-Beijing.

To speed up this putative alliance, the talk in Brussels is that Eurocrats would profit from Turkmen nationalism, pan-Turkism, and the recent entente cordiale between Erdogan and Xi when it comes to the Uighurs. But there’s a problem: many a turcophone tribe prefers an alliance with Russia.

Moreover, Russia is inescapable when it comes to other corridors. Take, for instance, a flow of Japanese goods going to Vladivostok and then via the Trans-Siberian to Moscow and onwards to the EU.

The bypass-Russia EU strategy was not exactly a hit in Armenia-Azerbaijan: what we had was a relative Turkey retreat and a de facto Russian victory, with Moscow reinforcing its military position in the Caucasus.

Enter an even more interesting gambit: the Azerbaijan-Pakistan strategic partnership, now on overdrive in trade, defense, energy, science and technology, and agriculture. Islamabad, incidentally, supported Baku on Nagorno-Karabakh.

Both Azerbaijan and Pakistan has very good relations with Turkey: a matter of very complex, interlocking Turk-Persian cultural heritage.

And they may get even closer, with the International North-South Transportation Corridor (INTSC) increasingly connecting not only Islamabad to Baku but also both to Moscow.

Thus the extra dimension of the new security mechanism proposed by Baku uniting Russia, Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia: all the Top Four here want closer ties with Pakistan.

Analyst Andrew Korybko has neatly dubbed it the “Golden Ring” – a new dimension to Central Eurasian integration featuring Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Azerbaijan and the central Asian “stans”. So this all goes way beyond a possible Triple Entente: Berlin-Ankara-Beijing.

What’s certain as it stands is that the all-important Berlin-Moscow relationship is bound to remain as cold as ice. Norwegian analyst Glenn Diesen summed it all up: “The German-Russian partnership for Greater Europe was replaced with the Chinese-Russian partnership for Greater Eurasia”.

What’s also certain is that Erdogan, a master of pivoting, will find ways to simultaneously profit from both Germany and Russia.

 

RECALIBRANDO LA DECADENTE HEGEMONÍA DE ESTADOS UNIDOS

Como lo hemos venido analizando desde 2013 en este blog, la hegemonía de Estados Unidos se ha visto retada y desgastada, por varios factores que han obligado al establecimiento político-militar de Washington a entrar en una etapa de redefiniciones sobre la mejor manera de mantener dicha hegemonía, evitar en lo posible su erosión y detener el desarrollo de la multipolaridad en el sistema internacional.

Por un lado, el “momento unipolar” de Estados Unidos, entre la desaparición de la URSS en 1991-92 y el inicio de la “Guerra contra el Terrorismo” en 2001, fue tan breve, que no dio tiempo a las élites de Washington y Nueva York a conformar un Nuevo Orden Mundial, basado en la supremacía militar estadounidense, el dominio financiero de Wall Street y la ventaja tecnológica de Silicon Valley, con la determinante influencia de los avasalladores medios de comunicación anglosajones y de Hollywood.

Dos procesos fracturaron el “momento unipolar”. Por un lado, el desarrollo del capitalismo chino, vinculado al de Occidente, durante 30 años ininterrumpidos (décadas 80, 90 y primera del siglo XXI), conformó a una potencia económica casi del tamaño de la de Estados Unidos, con una plataforma manufacturera y tecnológica propia, un enorme mercado interno, una masiva acumulación de capital gracias a las exportaciones y a la inversión extranjera, y un sistema político centralizado, que minimizó las interferencias extranjeras y las divisiones internas.

En paralelo, el surgimiento de un liderazgo nacionalista y autónomo en Rusia, que derrotó a los oligarcas, aliados de Occidente, vinculados a la especulación y a la explotación salvaje de las riquezas naturales y financieras rusas, dio inicio a un resurgimiento de este país en lo económico y especialmente en lo político-diplomático, con el respaldo del mayor arsenal nuclear del mundo, lo que planteó de nuevo el reto a la primacía militar de los Estados Unidos.

Este inicio de un nuevo sistema multipolar se combinó con la subordinación de las élites estadounidenses a los designios y prioridades de sus “aliados” en Medio Oriente (Israel, Arabia Saudita, Emiratos Árabes Unidos, Egipto, Turquía), que detuvo el intento de la administración Obama por reorientar las prioridades de la superpotencia hacia el continente asiático, en detrimento de sus compromisos en el Levante.

Simplemente no pudieron hacerlo, en vista del poder que, especialmente el lobby pro-Israel tiene en Estados Unidos (y en general en Occidente), lo que llevó a que los recursos militares, financieros y la atención político-diplomática de Estados Unidos siguieran desgastándose en los varios conflictos del Medio Oriente, mientras China y Rusia seguían fortaleciendo sus economías, su posición político-diplomática en diversas regiones del mundo y afianzando su dominio del escenario político interno.

Los propios excesos del capitalismo occidental y el de pequeños grupos de especuladores en Nueva York llevaron a la mega crisis económica del 2008-9, que debilitó aún más la hegemonía estadounidense y comparativamente, China salió mejor posicionada de dicho suceso, lo que fortaleció la visión en las élites estadounidenses de que era necesario reformular los objetivos y la forma de enfrentar ese reto a su hegemonía.

Sin embargo, las propias contradicciones internas del capitalismo estadounidense estallaron en las elecciones presidenciales del 2016, cuando una parte del establecimiento político-económico del país puso en duda la forma de ejercer la hegemonía, pues la globalización y los compromisos internacionales de Estados Unidos estaban pasando una enorme factura a los sectores menos competitivos e integrados al sistema global, de la sociedad estadounidense, que reclamaron en las urnas un compromiso mayor con su bienestar económico y social, con lo que la presidencia de Donald Trump significó una derrota para la estrategia de hegemonía global, propugnada desde el fin de la Guerra Fría.

Pero la realidad es que la presidencia de Trump no pudo, no supo y finalmente no quiso reconfigurar realmente la estrategia, y quedó atrapada entre su deseo de responder a sus bases nacionalistas en lo interior, y mantener una hegemonía indiscutida en lo exterior. No logró ni una, ni la otra, y para colmo, quedó todavía más atrapada en las exigencias y órdenes de su “aliado” en Medio Oriente, Israel, que acabó acaparando toda la atención y los recursos de la superpotencia, para lograr sus objetivos, en detrimento de una visión más holística sobre el Medio Oriente.

Así también, al no saber lidiar con la multipolaridad, la administración Trump se enganchó en una guerra híbrida en contra de China, Rusia e Irán, con objeto de minar la influencia de estas potencias en sus respectivas regiones (y en el caso de China y Rusia, más allá incluso), propiciando un peligroso acercamiento a la posibilidad de una Tercera Guerra Mundial, sin que a la par, se haya logrado restablecer la hegemonía estadounidense, como era el objetivo.

La pandemia del coronavirus y su secuela económica, han golpeado aún más duramente a Estados Unidos y a sus aliados de Occidente, que a China (donde surgió el virus) y a Rusia, lo que está exacerbando la desesperación de las élites occidentales por evitar el continuo desgaste de su hegemonía, detener el fortalecimiento de China y Rusia (que ante la oposición concertada de Occidente y de sus aliados asiáticos, ahora han conformado una asociación estratégica cada vez más sólida), e intentar regresar a un idílico pasado en el que estos países dictaron las normas y los objetivos mundiales, sin oposición alguna.

La administración Biden buscará conformar nuevamente alianzas fuertes con Europa, para enfrentar estratégicamente e Rusia; con la Liga Arabe, para contener tanto a Irán como a Rusia en el Levante; con Japón, India y Australia en la propuesta realizada desde la administración Trump de crear una barrera para contener a China en Asia, conocida como Indo-Pacífico; y en América Latina con Brasil, Colombia y Chile, para lograr el tan ansiado cambio de régimen en Venezuela y acabar de aislar a Nicaragua (aunque se espera que regrese la estrategia de acercamiento con Cuba, pues ello puede socavar más rápidamente al régimen socialista de la isla).

Es decir, Biden intentará regresar a los “buenos viejos tiempos” de los años 90, cuando la hegemonía de Estados Unidos era indiscutible, pero con un concurso mayor de parte de sus aliados en las distintas regiones del mundo.

Ello sólo llevará a una unión aún mayor entre China-Rusia e Irán (junto con Corea del Norte, Venezuela, Siria, Cuba y Nicaragua), y en vez de generarse puentes que puedan ir des-escalando el conflicto o los conflictos en diversas partes del mundo y llegando a algunos acuerdos con China y Rusia y eventualmente con Irán; así como buscar soluciones globales, a problemas globales, tales como el cambio climático, las pandemias, la desigualdad y la pobreza, sólo se va a recrudecer la competencia entre las grandes potencias y se van a seguir cerrando los caminos de la cooperación internacional. Y la necedad de querer imponer la visión occidental a como dé lugar a todo el mundo, va a profundizar las divisiones en él sistema internacional y por lo mismo crecerá el espectro de la guerra mundial, que pondrá en riesgo al mundo entero.

La ceguera, la arrogancia y la falta de auto crítica de las élites estadounidenses y de Occidente, pondrán a la humanidad nuevamente al borde de la destrucción en los próximos años.

 

US spending bill: Five gifts to Israel

An enormous US spending bill that accompanied the Covid-19 relief package contains many financial and political perks for the Israeli government

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-spending-bill-five-gifts-israel

By 

Ali Harb

 in 

Washington

Published date: 22 December 2020

 

The US Congress has passed an enormous $2.3 trillion spending bill containing a Covid-19 relief package to individuals and businesses as well as funds allocated for other areas of government spending in 2021, including foreign aid in the billions to Israel.

Late on Monday, social media posts stating that Israel was receiving coronavirus stimulus money sparked outrage, especially since average Americans will only be getting a modest sum of $600.

In reality, while assistance to Israel is included in the legislation, it's part of the so-called omnibus spending bill, which covers Pentagon funds; it is not Covid-19 related.

Still, the bill bestows a slew of political and financial gifts on Israel at a time of increased domestic and international scrutiny over Israel's human rights record.

Moreover, Israel's critics highlighted the juxtaposition of military aid to Israel in the same legislation as the Covid-19 stimulus, which has been slammed as "woefully inadequate" by some progressives.

"The $500,000,000 to Israel is not technically part of the COVID bill, but a separate bill passed with foreign aid - still at the same time Congress said they can't afford more than $600 in a one-time payment to Americans," journalist Glenn Greenwald said in a tweet.

Senator Bernie Sanders also pointed to the overall Pentagon budget at a time when his push for $1,200 stimulus checks had failed.

"Republicans & some conservative Democrats thought that a $1,200 survival check for the working class was too costly. But they had no problem giving the bloated Pentagon $740 billion for weapons & war," Sanders wrote on Twitter on Tuesday.

"Maybe, just maybe, it's time to fundamentally rethink our national priorities."

While some of the pro-Israel provisions in the 2021 spending legislation have appeared in previous bills, the fact that they passed again unamended signals the uncompromising support the Israeli government still enjoys in Congress ahead of the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden next month.

Below are five rewards for Israel in the spending bill.

Military aid

Authorizing the usual annual aid with no strings attached, the bill allocates $3.3bn in military assistance to Israel, to be dispensed in the next 30 days. The law specifies that funds must be spent to purchase weapons and defense systems sold by the US government.

An additional $500m is allocated to Israeli cooperative programs, a Pentagon-funded initiative to bolster Israel's missile defense systems' capabilities, including the Iron Dome. 

The approval of the assistance comes despite more than a dozen US lawmakers threatening to impose conditions on aid to Israel over its plans to annex large parts of the West Bank and its ongoing occupation and settlement expansion in the Palestinian territories.

"Members of Congress should not be expected to support an undemocratic system in which Israel would permanently rule over a Palestinian people denied self-determination or equal rights," the letter, led by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez read at the time.

Defunding UN Human Rights Council

The legislation calls for withholding US funds from the UN Human Rights Council "unless the Secretary of State determines... that participation in the Council is important to the national interest of the United States and that such Council is taking significant steps to remove Israel as a permanent agenda item".

This particular provision has consistently appeared in omnibus spending bills. But President Donald Trump already pulled Washington out of the UN Human Rights Council in 2018, citing what his administration called "bias against Israel".

President-elect Joe Biden has pledged to re-engage in multilateral agreements and international bodies that Trump abandoned; at the same time, his designated Secretary of State Tony Blinken said earlier this year that the administration would oppose "singling out" Israel at the UN.

 

Encouraging normalization

The legislation instructs the president and secretary of state to work to ensure normalization between Israel and Arab countries. 

"All Arab League states should normalize relations with their neighbor Israel," it says.

It also condemns the Arab League's boycott of Israel, calling on the administration to take "concrete steps" to demonstrate its rejection of the boycott. 

The President and the Secretary of State should continue to vigorously oppose the Arab League boycott of Israel and find concrete steps to demonstrate that opposition by, for example, taking into consideration the participation of any recipient country in the boycott when determining to sell weapons to said country," the legislation says. 

The bill comes at a time when the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan have agreed to establish diplomatic ties with Israel. 

Abu Dhabi was rewarded for normalization with a mammoth weapons deal, including killer drones and F-35 fighter jets, despite growing concerns over its human rights record and military involvement in Yemen and Libya.

Legislators also take a page out of Trump's "peace to prosperity" framework that focuses on the economic benefits of normalization between Israelis and Palestinians.

"Congress encourages cooperation between Palestinian, American, and Israeli business sectors in order to benefit the Palestinian, American, and Israeli peoples and economies."

Conditions on Palestinians

The same legislation that hands Israel billions of dollars without any mention of Israeli policy imposes stern conditions on assistance to the Palestinian Authority.

The bill prohibits aid to Palestinians if they unilaterally seek member-state status in UN agencies unilaterally or pursue International Criminal Court charges against Israeli war crimes.

Moreover, the bill instructs the administration to work to prevent so-called Palestinian "incitement" against Israel. 

"Not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees detailing steps taken by the Palestinian Authority to counter incitement of violence against Israelis and to promote peace and coexistence with Israel," it said.

Conditions on UNRWA funding

Although Trump halted US funding for UNRWA more than two years ago, the 2021 spending bill included a recurring passage from previous years calling for imposing conditions on funding to the UN agency for Palestinian refugees.

The bill calls for a report from the secretary of state ensuring that the agency and its employees, most of whom are Palestinians, adhere to "policies on neutrality and impartiality".

The report must also certify that the agency is "taking steps to ensure the content of all educational materials currently taught in UNRWA administered schools and summer camps are consistent with the values of human rights, dignity, and tolerance and does not induce incitement."

Biden has vowed to restore US assistance to Palestinians, including the aid to UNRWA. 

The incoming president can issue waivers to bypass the provisions of the spending bill, which had appeared in previous legislation when the assistance was ongoing. But the language in the law highlights the political challenges that Biden may face in undoing some of Trump's policies towards Israel.