A Genocidal Alliance between United States’ neo-cons and Israel’s Likud Party

A Genocidal Alliance: United States’ neo-cons and Israel’s Likud Party
By Philippa Jane Winkler
Dec 22, 2023

1996 paper A Clean Break called for war on Iraq, Syria, set the stage for evisceration of Gaza in 2023

Jerusalem projects US and Israeli flags onto Old City Walls, 2017

What lies behind the United States’ unconditional, illegal and immoral support of Israel as it flattens Gaza mercilessly? An estimated 20,000 civilians have been killed, and a further 8000 lie buried under the rubble.

To understand, you have to go back to a highly influential 1996 policy paper written by American policymakers for the incoming Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud Party.

The authors of the paper A Clean Break:  A New Strategy for Securing the Realm were neo-conservative US policymakers Richard Perle, then-Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith, and then-Vice President Dick Cheney’s adviser for Middle East Affairs, David Wurmser.

In a nutshell, the neo-cons’  foreign policy goals are to:

1.     Ensure survival of the Zionist state of Israel as a goal inextricably linked to US national security.
2.    Establish, by force if necessary, a ‘new Middle East’ based on American-style democracy and privatised market economy
3.     Launch and wage unilateral, pre-emptive military and nuclear strikes at a time of US’ own choosing
4.     Implement an ‘America First’ policy,  which precludes multilateral agreements.

Neo-conservatives continue to influence US foreign policy today via policies and opinions of John Bolton, Senator Lindsey Graham, Nikky Haley, Victoria Newland and Elliott Abrams.

The  goals of A Clean Break in 1996, most of which have come to fruition, lay the groundwork for the current war in Gaza. I outline the goals here:

1. Right-Wing Zionism: Reviving the idea of ‘Greater Israel’

    From A Clean Break: ‘Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea, which can only come through replacing Israel’s socialist foundations with a more sound footing…’

The authors reject the left-leaning ‘land for peace’ idea, and endorse the  ‘national idea’ which translates as no land under Palestinian control. In the early 21st century the Likud Party adopted a policy opposing the establishment of a Palestinian state under any conditions. The Likud Party turn a blind eye to Israeli settlements in the West Bank, want to annex ‘Area C’ in the West Bank and the Jordan Valley.

The Likud Party’s ultimate objective is a Greater Israel. One definition is the area from the Red Sea to the Jordan River.

A Greater Israel map and the gun form the emblem of the Irgun, precursor of the Likud Party, which fought the British Mandate for control of Palestine in 1947.

The Irgun symbol is shown on the podium behind which stands far-right Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich. He told his audience last March: ‘the Palestinian people are an invention that is less than 100 years old.’ The borders of the map on display appear to define Israel’s borders as being inside parts of Syria and Jordan, in addition to the West Bank and Gaza.

2. A clean break from the 1993 Oslo Accords

    From A Clean Break: ‘Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO does not fulfill its obligations.’ …“land for peace” will not secure “peace now…”

In keeping with its ‘national idea,’ the Likud Party has no interest in any land for peace deal and holds out for a Greater Israel by refusing to define borders.

The US authors of A Clean Break advocated dumping the Oslo Accords into the dustbin of history.

At the 1999 Camp David meeting to finalize the Accords, Israel again refused to define its borders. The US acted like a lawyer for Israel and the peace deal collapsed.

    From A Clean Break: ‘Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension… is a solid basis for the future.’

Today, most Arab countries accept Israel’s 1967 territorial conquests and its nuclear hegemony in the region. Iran has been prevented from achieving nuclear parity with Israel. In 2020, many Arab states signed the Abraham Accords to normalize relations with Israel. In September 2023, a proposed India, Middle East and European trading corridor (oil/gas pipelines, sea and land transport) was announced, hinged around the Israeli port of Haifa.

The Palestinian right of self-determination based on pre-1967 borders (UN Security Council Resolution 242) was put on hold indefinitely.

Bereft of allies, the Palestinian people have continued to resist with civil nonviolent protest and armed combat.

3. The right of ‘Israeli self defence’ into all Palestinian areas

    From A Clean Break: ‘First and foremost, Israel’s efforts to secure its streets may require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable practice with which Americans can sympathize… Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self-defence into all Palestinian areas…’

The argument that Israel has the right of self-defence in all Palestinian areas, is used to justify Israel’s ongoing slaughter in Gaza and the West Bank. The International Court of Justice has opined that Israel does NOT have the right of defence when threats emanate from occupied territories (2004.) United Nations General Assembly Res 37/43 (1982) ‘Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity,  national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.’ Inhabitants of the occupied territories have the right to peaceful protest, instead, civilians are shot at, detained without charge and tortured from ‘all Palestinian areas,’ with the tacit compliance of the US.

4.Creating an alternative to the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

    The authors of A Clean Break urged the incoming Prime Minister Netenyahu to: ‘Change the nature of [Israel’s] relations with the Palestinians, including …nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.’

This introduces the strategy of divide and rule, to weaken the unity of the Palestine Authority (PA.)  Hamas fought the PA’s armed wing, the Fatah, and was elected to govern the Gaza Strip. Former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert describes Israel’s role in the split within the PA:

    ‘When he [Netanyahu] took over from me in 2009 he said the first priority was to destroy Hamas and actually what he did was the opposite. He tried to destroy Abu Mazen [Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas] and the Palestinian Authority because that…would have required political concessions from Israel. And he moved to promote Hamas because they never would be partners for negotiation, so you could kick them.’

5. Overthrow of Saddam Hussein of Iraq, containment of Syria and Iran.

    From A Clean Break: ‘Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions…’

The US removed Saddam Hussein from power, and occupied Iraq from 2003 to 2011. The lead author of A Clean Break, Richard Perle, was an architect of the Iraq War. He claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. None were ever found.

The US invasion and occupation, justified on false pretexts, led to hundreds and thousands of deaths.

    From A Clean Break:‘Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan “comprehensive peace” and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting “land for peace” deals on the Golan Heights.

    ‘An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon.’

In 2014, Israel’s ally US gave military assistance to a Syrian rebel army in a failed effort to overthrow President Assad.  A US military base remains in the American-occupied part of Homs Governorate in Syria. Iran continues to labour under Western sanctions which have weakened its economy.  Violence is escalating between Israel and Hezbollah, the militia formed to resist Israel’s occupation of Lebanon in the 1980s.

6.Israel as key strategic partner in promoting US hegemony in the Middle East.

    From A Clean Break: ‘Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense… Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel’s survival, but it would broaden Israel’s base of support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense.’

In 1999, President Bill Clinton signed the first of three 10-year memorandum committed to providing billions in military aid to Israel annually. Israel is now the largest recipient of US foreign military financing. By February 2022, the United States had provided Israel, a country the size of the state of New Jersey, US $150 billion in assistance. The US cooperates with Israel in military exercises and developing weapons and defence systems, such as the Iron Dome. Between 1991 and 2011, out of the 24 vetoes invoked by the United States, 15 were used to protect Israel.

The oil factor is not mentioned in A Clean Break, yet historically it forms the backbone of US strategic interests in the Middle East since World War 2. A new pressing reason to retain US hegemony in the region is the discovery of oil and natural gas in 2000 and 2010 off the coast of Lebanon, Gaza and Israel estimated to be worth $500 billion.

    From A Clean Break: ‘Such broad support could be helpful in the effort to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem’

In May 2018, the US officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and opened a new US embassy there, a break with official US policy. Meanwhile, Israeli soldiers were firing on Palestinian protesters calling for the right of return to territory now part of Israel.

    From A Clean Break: ‘Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel.’

‘Tapping’ into a Cold War theme was taken directly from the neo-conservative playbook, which focusses on maintaining a war footing against Russia and China.  Neoconservatives ‘war hawks’ in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer.

AIPAC, the Israeli Lobby, advocates for Benjamin Netenyahu’s policies. Under the motto, ‘keeping Israel and the United States strong,’ AIPAC makes campaign contributions to Congressional members, to the tune of millions of dollars. The 10-million strong evangelical movement in the US votes for pro-Israeli policies. In 2008, Congress turned America’s longstanding commitment to Israel’s military superiority (Quality Military Edge) into law.

    From  A Clean Break:‘…adequate arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter supply problems in the means to defend itself… Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.’

The US no longer uses Israel’s dependency on US aid, as a ‘lever of pressure’ or to give financial incentives– for peace initiatives.

Conclusion: A different world today

The Clean Break goal of strategic co-dependence, specifically between the right-wing Likud Party in Israel and the US, explains why the Biden Administration backs the genocide being carried out in Gaza today.

But the geopolitical landscape has moved on from 1996.

The Clean Break was written in a unipolar world.  Today the balance of power is more multipolar.  In 2015, Russian troops entered the Middle East to aid President Assad defeat the militant Islamic State (ISIS.) Russia has demonstrated military strength against US-supported Ukraine.

In 2023, China brokered an agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which will affect the future of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC.) It is urging a ceasefire.

The US failure to stop the genocide in Gaza begun October 2023, has left it isolated on the world stage.  For the first time, Jewish groups in the US are leading large protests against Israel.  The Jewish and Arab vote in the US could change the outcome of the 2024 Presidential elections. Younger voters sensitive to racial justice, support the self-determination of Palestinians.

The final say is with the Middle East. Arab States are swing votes in the region’s geopolitical balance of power. Will they keep abandoning the Palestinian cause of independence, the goal set out by the authors of A Clean Break? Or will they align with China, which has always supported Palestine internationally? Or will a coalition of the willing intervene militarily, as Yemen is doing?

This post first appeared in Geopolitics: It’s Not Rocket Science a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Geopolitics: It’s not Rocket Science | Philippa Jane Winkler | Substack

References:

The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies Jerusalem, Washington (archive.org)

Smotrich gives speech next to Israel map featuring parts of Jordan and Syria – Jewish News

EX-ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER SAYS NETANYAHU ‘PROMOTED’ HAMAS (subs

Philippa Jane Winkler is a professor of International Relations, with a PhD from the University of Bristol and a BA from the London School of Economics and Political Science. But not just an academic, Philippa is an international activist and music artist as well, having engaged at the United Nations and with governments.   She draws from both left and right critical perspectives.

Her published works include;

•     (2021) Dear Comrade Inessa, Yours, Lenin: A Story of Love and Politics
•     (2018)  The Theft of Adjunct Faculty Labor Time:  Theorizing Exchange Value and Resistance from a Marxist Perspective,’ in Munene, Ishmael, Ed, Contextualizing and Organizing Contingency Faculty, Lexington Books.
•     (2014). Country Studies Iran and Iraq. In: M. Seikaly, R. Roodsaz & C. Van Egten (eds.). The Situation of Women in the Gulf States. Policy Department, Citizens’ Rights, and Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament, pp 97-pp 129.
•     (2013) Confronting the International Patriarchy: Iran, Iraq and the United States, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishers. In 382 university libraries, including Harvard, and Yale.
•     (2009) Sanctions on Iraq 1990-2003, Feminist Activism VS. Patriarchal Policy, a political-psychological analysis, Verlag, Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing
•     (2004) Whose Ends, Whose Means? The US Occupation of Iraq. Nexus, Journal of Opinion. Vol 9, pages 163-171.
•     (1994)  Hidden Casualties: The Environmental, Health and Political Consequences of the Persian Gulf War, Arc Ecology, Berkeley: North Atlantic Books, London: Earthscan Ltd, 1994. In 400-plus university libraries worldwide.