Hillary Clinton hopes Egyptian protests aren't hijacked by 'extremists'
Hillary Clinton hopes that the new Egyptian protests aren't hijacked by 'extremists,' and that we don't see the return of dictatorial rule, because after all the Muslim Brotherhood is oh, so 'moderate' and 'democratic.'
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Shy Guy via Jawa Report).
Keep this one in case she tries to come back in four years and run for President....
Earlier on Thursday, the United Nations 'human rights council' continued its war on Israel by releasing a report that threatened to take the Jewish state to the International Criminal Court due to its 'settlement policies.' The response was not long in coming.
This evening, Leftist Defense Minister Ehud Barak (who may yet be the ambassador to the United States in a few months) announced the approval of 346 new housing units in Nokdim and Tekoa. Although both towns are part of the Etzion bloc, they also fall outside the 'security fence,' which many believed would be Israel's bottom line position in any permanent status arrangement with the 'Palestinians.' Now, it appears we're going to allow towns and villages outside the fence to build new houses.
The plans for 200 new homes in Tekoa and 146 in Nokdim were pushed
forward a few weeks ago, but he and the council only publicized the
information on Thursday, he said.
The news broke at the same time that the UN Human Rights Council lifted its embargo on a report condemning Israeli settlement building and calling on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank.
Israel
considers Gush Etzion to be a settlement bloc that will remain part of
the country in any final-status agreement with the Palestinians for a
two-state solution.
But the Nokdim and Tekoa settlements are
located in the eastern part of that region, outside the boundaries of
the security barrier.
Somewhere in Heaven, Yitzchak Shamir (whom the Americans complained would unveil a new 'settlement' every time James Baker came to visit) is cheering.
It seems that there's a Chuck Roast going on at the Senate Armed Services Committee.Leftists on Twitter are calling the hearing a disaster.
hagel’s making biden look rhetorically sure-footed
— Peter Beinart (@PeterBeinart) January 31, 2013
this hearing is beginning to remind me of the 1st Obama-Romney debate
— Peter Beinart (@PeterBeinart) January 31, 2013
This Hagel hearing is a disaster.
— Andrew Kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) January 31, 2013
Certainly seems like it on twitter RT @buzzfeedandrew This Hagel hearing is a disaster.
— AdamSerwer (@AdamSerwer) January 31, 2013
I think Hagel is engaged now in Jewsplaining.
— Jeffrey Goldberg (@JeffreyGoldberg) January 31, 2013
Hagel has written chapters on Iraq and on the Middle East. So we’re cool.
— Jeffrey Goldberg (@JeffreyGoldberg) January 31, 2013
Did Hagel just call Iran’s government “elected and legitimate”?
— Jeffrey Goldberg (@JeffreyGoldberg) January 31, 2013
Hagel is floundering through one policy answer after another. IRGC terrorism, Iraq surge, nukes.
— attackerman (@attackerman) January 31, 2013
“I support the president’s strong position on containment. I think that’s right.” Um, you meant prevention, right #Hagel?
— attackerman (@attackerman) January 31, 2013
#Hagel just stumbled over whether Iran govt is “legitimate” or “elected.” Fodder for oppo
— Ron Kampeas (@kampeas) January 31, 2013
Yikes, now he said he “supports the president’s position on containment.” #Hagel
— Ron Kampeas (@kampeas) January 31, 2013
1) The ICC can only act when the home state refuses to investigate
crimes; that is not the case for any Israeli acts in Gaza or the
territories.
2) ICC has never prosecuted a case referred by a country against
nationals of a non-member state. Such an action would terrify US
officials and permanently sour American relations with the Court, as it
would expose U.S. military and civilian officials to liability for U.S.
armed action anywhere in the world, and particularly for the
controversial drone strikes program of President Obama.
3) The ICC has never even considered taking a case that does not involve
killing and personal violence; a settlements suit would be far outside
the kind of things they've dealt with in the past.
4) The relevant actions would have to be on the territory of Palestine,
which is a problem since they do not have defined territory, and most of
what the op-ed talks about precedes their nominal statehood, so that
would be out of bounds.
5) The ICC would also have jurisdiction over all Palestinian war crimes.
Bisharat, who is a professor of law, is very much an activist in service
of a cause. Another professor of law, William Jacobson, showed that Bisharat is a poseur, who uses a false family history to justify his campaign against Israel.
Yet much of Bisharat’s family narrative is exaggerated, at a minimum.
I previously documented Bisharat’s claim that his father was forced to
abandon an art show at a Jewish-owned art gallery due to his father
having spoken up for Palestinian rights. That claim, made by Bisharat
long after both his father and the gallery owner had died, leaving no
witnesses, was disputed by people affiliated with the gallery.
Bisharat regularly and for decades has played upon his family history as
forming his narrative of Israel’s lack of legitimacy, and his call for a
single state encompassing what now is Israel, the West Bank and Gaza
...
Jacobson has critiqued Bisharat and his views othertimes too.
Today, the Times takes another angle to use international law as a cudgel with which to beat Israel, an editorial, titled Israel Ducks on Human Rights.
In May, Israel said it planned to stop participating because the
council was a “political tool” for those who wanted to “bash and
demonize” Israel. The council, whose 47 members are elected by the
United Nations General Assembly, is clearly not without faults. More
than half of the resolutions passed by the council since it started work
in 2006 have focused on Israel and its treatment of Palestinians, and
Israel is the only country that is a standing item on the agenda for the
council’s biannual meetings.
But two paragraphs later, the editors tells that "universal standards" in human rights are important!
Human rights reviews are an important tool for judging all countries
by universal standards and nudging them to make positive changes. By
opting out, Israel shows not only an unwillingness to undergo the same
scrutiny as all other countries, but it deprives itself of an
opportunity to defend against abuse charges. The decision could also
undermine the entire review process by providing an excuse for states
with terrible human rights records — like North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe
— to withdraw as well. It certainly will make it harder for Washington
to argue for reviews when an ally rejects the process.
It would be one thing for the New York Times to acknowledge that the
Human Rights Council is flawed and that Israel should submit to its
authority, if the flaws were not relevant to Israel's standing. But one
of the flaws that the Times itself acknowledged is the council's
obsession with Israel, meaning that Israel will not be judged by the
"universal standards" it claims to champion.
Israel Matzav outlines the degree to which the editorial downplays the rather substantial flaws of the Human Rights Council.
The Times' willful blindness to what the 'council' is and what it
represents is beyond appalling. The 'council' has nothing to do with the
protection of human rights (note - without the scare quotes this time)
and everything to do with promoting the use of 'human rights' as a means
of bashing Israel as was decided at the Durban I conference in 2001.
That is why the 'council' has had nothing to say while 60,000 Syrians
have been murdered by the Assad regime in the last two years, and that
is why the 'council' had nothing to say about the green revolution in
Iran in 2009 (behavior in which the Obama administration was
unfortunately and shamefully complicit).
There is no reason for countries like North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe to
skip their universal periodic reviews because, unlike Israel, which is
the only democracy in the Middle East and the only place in the world in
which Arab Christians and Muslims have human rights, countries like
North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe will benefit from the automatic pass of
the Organization of Islamic Countries at the Council.
So here’s how the UPR rubber hit the road of crimes against humanity
in Syria. On October 7, 2011, the Syrian vice-minister of foreign
affairs and his entourage took their places in the Council chamber. And
then the Cubans said: “the Syrian government is working for the human
rights of its people.” The North Koreans said: “we commend Syria on its
efforts taken to maintain security and stability.” The Iranians said:
“we appreciate the efforts of the government of Syria to promote and
protect human rights.” Ditto Sudan, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Algeria,
Lebanon, China, Zimbabwe, Burma/Myanmar, and so on.
Four days later, on behalf of the three countries charged with compiling
recommendations, Mexico reported to the Council: “Syria received a
total of 179 recommendations…It is a pleasure to inform you that 98
recommendations were accepted and 26 shall be considered.” Among the
recommendations that "did not enjoy the support" of Syria were
“immediately end attacks on peaceful protesters and bring violators to
account,” “put an end to secret detentions” and “allow journalists to
freely exercise their profession.” At the end of this stage of the UPR,
the President of the Council turned to Syria and signed off with “I
thank both you and your delegation for your participation in the UPR.”
At the time, there were 2,600 dead Syrian citizens at the hands of their
own government. And Assad got the message about the human rights bona
fides of the UN.
In fact, just using the name "human rights" in an organization's title
does nothing to ensure that it supports human rights. That appears to be
the operating assumption of the New York Times.
Of course it's entirely possible that there's no reason to assume that
the editors of the Times are naive. On successive days they've published
an op-ed filled with bogus legal jargon written by a known anti-Israel
activist and an editorial lacking in logical coherence. The only reason
to publish both, short of editorial malfeasance, is that the New York
Times is leading a campaign to "bash and demonize" Israel.
My friend Ed Morrissey reports that Chuck Hagel, President Hussein Obama's nominee to be Secretary of Defense, has a resume that's a little thin... (Hat Tip: Shy Guy).
Hegseth says that Hagel’s status as a veteran and experience in working
with veterans’ groups would make Hagel a good choice for Secretary of
Veteran Affairs, but not to run the Pentagon. Nor, for that matter,
does his two terms in the Senate. When Hagel belonged to the club, he
wasn’t exactly its most clubby member. Hagel wasn’t known for his
ability to network and build coalitions; he was more known for his
predilection for going his own way. That quality has its uses in
politics, but not in bureaucracies, and certainly not at the top of
one. Successful executives build teams and reach out for broad support
for initiatives.
...
As late as 2009, Hagel opposed sanctions, and opposed a military
option on Iran. Obama’s selection of Hagel sends a deeply and
dangerously unserious message to Tehran. Hagel’s views on Israel are a
sideshow; Iran should be the focus of today’s hearing.
I doubt that Hagel will have much trouble getting confirmed today.
Chuck Schumer’s support for Hagel on a floor vote probably cinched the
confirmation, and unless Hagel foams at the mouth or eats an American
flag in the middle of the hearing, there is zero chance that the
committee won’t recommend confirmation to the full Senate. That doesn’t
mean that Hagel should be allowed to avoid the question of Iran and his
past positions that put him well to the left of the administration
he’ll soon be joining.
Read the whole thing. I would amend Ed's penultimate paragraph to say "As late as two weeks ago, Hagel opposed sanctions, and opposed a military
option on Iran. Until he met with Chuck Schumer, I never heard Hagel come out for either of those things, including when he was under discussion to replace Bob Gates in 2010.
But with only one Republican having come out in favor of Hagel's nomination, Foreign Policy's Josh Rogin believes that it could still be filibustered.
For Hagel's opposition, the best-case scenario is
that only a few Republicans break ranks and a couple of Democrats do break
ranks, giving the Hagel opposition the 40 votes needed to filibuster the vote
on the nomination. They recognize that is unlikely and a filibuster of a
cabinet nominee is extremely rare, but they plan to continue their effort well
past Hagel's confirmation hearing, hoping that more embarrassing quotes from Hagel's
past surface or a new scandal comes to light.
"There's a lot of White House spin about Hagel's
clear path to confirmation, but they have a real fight on their hands -- and
they know it," one GOP source close to the committee said.
For the team of officials, staffers, and outsiders
working to bolster the Hagel nomination, they believe that Hagel's Thursday
testimony will take the wind out of the sails of the opposition and set the
record straight on the former senator's views.
"It's unfortunate that you have a number of senators
that decided to take a very public very aggressive position weeks ahead of the
confirmation hearing without actually speaking to the nominee," one Hagel
supporter close to the process told The
Cable. "This hearing is the first honest opportunity for Hagel to explain
his positions, defend his record out in the open, and he will forcefully
address much of the misinformation about his record that has been advanced by a
small minority of folks on the Hill."
"We think we are in a good, strong position going forward, but nobody
takes anything for granted in this business," an official working on
behalf of the confirmation effort added.
There's a very good reason to have taken a public stance against Hagel weeks ahead of the confirmation hearing: His record. For the last three weeks, Hagel has said all the right things and the White House has done a good job of spinning his record. But that doesn't change the fact that Hagel is probably the most anti-Israel Senator to serve since Charles Percy and JW Fulbright (both Senators in my youth). Can a leopard change its spots? No, but apparently Chuck Hagel can hide them for a few weeks.
Hamas terrorist released in Shalit deal directing terror activities in Israel from Qatar
The IDF and the General Security Service have broken up an attempt to establish a Hamas terror cell in Hebron. But here's the most curious part: The cell was being run by a terrorist in Qatar who was released as part of the terrorists for Gilad trade in October 2011.
The investigation concluded that the terrorists were assisted by
Hamas operatives abroad, who provided them with guidance and funding.
Their primary contact person abroad was Husam Badran, one of the
prisoners released in the exchange that secured the return of kidnapped
IDF soldier Gilad Shalit.
In 2004, Badran was sentenced to 17 years of imprisonment for his
involvement in the execution of terror attacks during the Second
Intifada. Upon his release in October 2011, he was exiled to Qatar.
As noted by Shy Guy in the comments, Israel's Channel 2 is now confirming that the IAF did not hit a 'military research facility' outside of Damascus. If that facility was hit, it was by Syrian rebels and not by the IAF.
However, Israel has confirmed that it hit a convoy carrying SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles near the Syrian-Lebanese border on its way to Hezbullah.
The Assad regime lied about the hit because they believe that the Russians will be very upset with them for shipping weapons out of Syria to Hezbullah.
My guess is that Israel chose to go public with the story because of the condemnation issued by the Russians earlier on Thursday. This disclosure takes the steam out of that condemnation.
UPDATE 6:14 PM
Israel Radio carried the same story in its 6:00 pm newscast and said it was based on this report in the Miami Herald.
As with much of what takes place in Syria, there were few sources of
independent information to help explain the events. Rami Abdurrahman,
the head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a London-based
group that tracks violence in Syria, said he’d confirmed that an
airstrike had taken place in the Jamraya area, about 20 miles west of
Damascus on the road to Beirut, but that he hadn’t yet determined what
the target had been.
What was certain, however, was that Israel,
whose officials have expressed concern for months that Syrian weapons
would fall into the hands of either Lebanon’s Hezbollah militant group
or al Qaida-linked Islamists among Syria’s rebel groups, had felt
compelled to act.
Indeed, Israel’s action was considered serious
enough that the country’s military intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Aviv
Kochavi, traveled to Washington earlier this week to discuss the move in
advance, according to an Israeli intelligence officer who spoke to
McClatchy only on the condition that he not be identified.
"Kochavi directly relayed our concerns to the Americans,” the officer said.
Another
Israeli intelligence officer, based on the country’s northern border,
told McClatchy that the target of the attack had been Russian-made SA-17
anti-aircraft missiles and other weapons systems that were being taken
from Syria into Lebanon. He said that the weapons, which included
advanced electronic systems that could disable a variety of Israeli
aircraft, would have been a “game changer” had they fallen under
Hezbollah’s control.
"Israel relies heavily on the
strength of our air force, and its strategic deterrence," the officer
said. "Weapons systems that make our air force vulnerable will not be
allowed to fall into the hands of terrorist groups."
Hmmm.
Read
more here:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/30/3208972/israeli-aircraft-strike-syrian.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy
Iran has sent a letter to the IAEA informing it that it plans to use more modern, faster centrifuges to enrich uranium (but 'only' to 5%) at its Natanz facility outside Tehran.
The letter said that Iran would use the new
centrifuges - a model called IR2m - at a unit in the Natanz plant where Iran is
enriching uranium to a fissile concentration of up to five percent, according to
an IAEA communication to member states seen by Reuters.
"The Secretariat
of the Agency received a letter from the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran
(AEOI) dated 23 January 2013 informing the Agency that 'centrifuge machines type
IR2m will be used in Unit A-22' at the Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) at Natanz,"
the IAEA communication said.
Iran says it refines uranium to power a
planned network of nuclear power stations. But the West fears that the material,
if enriched much further to 90 percent, could be used for weapons. Iran says its
nuclear program has only peaceful goals.
The Islamic republic has for
years been trying to develop more centrifuges that are more efficient than the
breakdown-prone 1970s IR-1 models it now uses for production.
The sanctions are really having an effect on Iran's desire to pursue a nuclear weapon, aren't they? What could go wrong?
Syria, Iran, Hezbullah and Russia all threaten Israel
Back in the real world (outside the surreality of the 'human rights council'), Syria and Iran have threatened to retaliate against 'Tel Aviv' (which they refer to as our capital), while Hezbullah and Russia have condemned what they have all decided to call an Israeli strike on a 'military research facility' in Syria.
Syria's ambassador to Lebanon said on Thursday that Damascus had the
option of a "surprise decision" to respond to what it said was an
Israeli air strike on a research center on the outskirts of the Syrian
capital on Wednesday.
Syria could take "a surprise decision to
respond to the aggression of the Israeli warplanes," Ali Abdul Karim Ali
was quoted as telling a Hezbollah-run news website.
"Syria is engaged in defending its sovereignty and its land," he
added, without spelling out what the response might entail. Syria and
Israel have fought several wars and in 2007 Israeli jets bombed a
suspected Syrian nuclear site, without retaliation.
In the wake of reported Israeli air strike on a Syrian weapons center, Iran also issued a threat to Israel on Thursday.
The
Iranian regime's English language mouthpiece, Press TV, quoted a deputy
foreign minister as saying that the "strike on Syria will have serious
consequences for Tel Aviv." The official did not elaborate.
...
Meanwhile, Lebanon's militant group Hezbollah condemned on Thursday an Israeli attack which it said targeted a Syrian research center, saying it was an attempt to thwart Arab military capabilities and pledging to stand by its ally President Bashar Assad.
"Hezbollah
strongly condemns this new Zionist aggression on Syria,” the group said
in a statement, calling for "wide-scale condemnation from the
international community," the group said in a statement.
...
Russia said on Thursday it was very concerned about reports of an
Israeli air attack deep inside Syria near Damascus and that any such
action, if confirmed, would amount to unacceptable military interference
in the war-ravaged country.
"If this information is confirmed,
then we are dealing with unprovoked attacks on targets on the territory
of a sovereign country, which blatantly violates the UN Charter and is
unacceptable, no matter the motives to justify it," the Russian Foreign
Ministry said in a statement.
I don't see anything coming from any of these threats... except maybe a UN condemnation. But if the IAF ever admits to this, I would love to see the surveillance video (I'm sure one was made).
'human rights council' threatens to send Israel to International Criminal Court for 'settlement activity'
They have nothing to say about 60,000 Syrians being murdered by the Assad regime. They have nothing to say about thousands of Iranians being tortured and murdered by the Khameni/Ahmadinejad regime.They have nothing to say about thousands of Egyptians and Sudanese being murdered by their respective governments. And they have nothing to say about thousands of North Koreans being starved to death in their little gulag off the Sea of Japan.
But the United Nations' 'human rights council' is threatening to refer little Israel to the International Criminal Court for something called 'settlement activity.'
In
the probe's conclusions, the mission’s report stated that Israel had an
obligation under international law not to transfer its population into the
Palestinian territories.
“The Rome Statute establishes the International
Criminal Court's jurisdiction over the deportation or transfer, directly or
indirectly, by the occupying Power of parts of its own population into the
territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the
population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory,” the
report stated.
It added, “ratification of the Statute by Palestine may
lead to accountability for gross violations of human rights law and serious
violations of international humanitarian law and justice for victims.”
For this to happen. the imaginary state of 'Palestine' would first have to ratify the Rome Statute (how would they do that? Via the 'legislature' whose term expired four years ago?) so that they would become a 'state party' to the International Criminal Court treaty.
The full report may be found here. Did I mention that it includes 'east' Jerusalem?
This entire sordid tale can be traced back to the Obama administration's insistence of treating the 'human rights council' as something other than a kangaroo court.
Here's a video that was tweeted to me by Ronen Feiner, 3rd year Leeds Uni student studying Theology and Religious Studies. Ex uni chair of leeds JSoc. As you will soon see, Ronen was likely involved in making the video.
Let's go to the videotape. I'll have some comments after the video.
Just my humble opinion, but I would let the videos go on longer with all the names - I think the effect is much greater when people realize how many people that is.
But this is a great idea, and I assume (unfortunately) that we will have 11 more to post - God willing without any new victims.
Satellite images show no sign of emergency response at Fordow
The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) has published the satellite image above, which shows the Fordow uranium enrichment plant in Iran on January 22, 2013, the day after there was allegedly an explosion at the same plant.
On January 25, 2013, news website WND published a report
claiming that on January 21, the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant near the
Iranian city of Qom was the target of a major explosion, thought to be
an act of sabotage. The website claimed the explosion partially
destroyed the site and trapped 240 people underground. ISIS obtained
from Astrium commercial satellite imagery of the site taken the day
after the explosion (figure 1). The imagery shows no exterior signs of
an explosion or major damage. Although an underground explosion may not
leave visible exterior signs of damage, ISIS observed no intensified
activity in the form of emergency or cleanup vehicles that one would
expect to see around the site in the wake of an incident of this
magnitude (figure 1). The lack of clarity at very high magnification
does leave some doubt on whether a set of three white marks near one of
the entrances of the southernmost tunnel could indeed be three vehicles.
However, an emergency response would be expected to have been prompt
and to have involved many more vehicles, particularly given the national
importance of the gas centrifuge site and especially of the personnel
working underground.
During the last few days, Iranian, Israeli, and U.S. officials denied that sabotage or a major incident occurred and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concurred.
Well, if it didn't happen, that would definitely be a disappointment.
And again: Israel under attack at 'human rights council' and in the New York Times
A special commission of the United Nations' 'human rights council' - the 6th in the last 6.5 years to deal with Israel - is to release a report late Thursday morning regarding the effects of the Jewish villages in Judea and Samaria on the 'human rights' of the 'Palestinians' who also live in Judea and Samaria. Because Israel did not cooperate with the commission (and does notcooperate with the 'council'), and did not allow its members to enter 'Area C,' which is where the Jewish population of Judea and Samaria lives, or anyplace within the 1949 armistice lines, I am violating one of my own blogging rules by doing a post regarding the fact that the report is being released rather than waiting for the report itself. Of course, the question that needs to be asked is why the Government of Israel chose to let the commission into Areas A and B (where 'Palestinians' live) given that we control their borders....
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said that the best way to
address the issue of settlements was through a negotiated peace process,
but that the Palestinians have refused to talk directly with Israel.
“The
question of settlements, as everyone knows, is one of the core issues
between Israel and the Palestinians. It will not find any solution
outside the framework of negotiations,” he said.
If the council wants to contribute to human rights, it should do its utmost to enable the resumption of peace talk, he said.
“Publishing a one-sided and biased report will only add insult to injury, and confusion to the distortion,” he said.
The
three-member panel on the fact-finding mission, Christine Chanet of
France, Asma Jahangir of Pakistan and Unity Dow of Botswana, plan to
hold a press conference in Geneva on Thursday to discuss their report.
The Human Rights Council is set to debate the report on March 18.
The council hasn’t always been an effective human rights champion. But
its record, including naming human rights rapporteurs for Iran and Sudan
and supporting gay and lesbian rights, has improved since President
Obama, reversing policy of the George W. Bush administration, had the
United States join the council in 2009.
Human rights reviews are an important tool for judging all countries by
universal standards and nudging them to make positive changes. By opting
out, Israel shows not only an unwillingness to undergo the same
scrutiny as all other countries, but it deprives itself of an
opportunity to defend against abuse charges. The decision could also
undermine the entire review process by providing an excuse for states
with terrible human rights records — like North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe
— to withdraw as well. It certainly will make it harder for Washington
to argue for reviews when an ally rejects the process.
If the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hoped to avoid
criticism by this move, it failed. Fortunately, there is still a chance
to make the right decision. In an extraordinary move, the council agreed
to give Israel until November to reverse course. Any new governing
coalition that emerges from Israel’s recent elections should realize
that there’s a cost to standing apart.
The Times' willful blindness to what the 'council' is and what it represents is beyond appalling. The 'council' has nothing to do with the protection of human rights (note - without the scare quotes this time) and everything to do with promoting the use of 'human rights' as a means of bashing Israel as was decided at the Durban I conference in 2001. That is why the 'council' has had nothing to say while 60,000 Syrians have been murdered by the Assad regime in the last two years, and that is why the 'council' had nothing to say about the green revolution in Iran in 2009 (behavior in which the Obama administration was unfortunately and shamefully complicit). .
There is no reason for countries like North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe to skip their universal periodic reviews because, unlike Israel, which is the only democracy in the Middle East and the only place in the world in which Arab Christians and Muslims have human rights, countries like North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe will benefit from the automatic pass of the Organization of Islamic Countries at the Council. For example, look at this description of Syria's last universal periodic review by Anne Bayefsky:
So here’s how the UPR rubber hit the road of crimes against
humanity in Syria. On October 7, 2011, the Syrian vice-minister of
foreign affairs and his entourage took their places in the Council
chamber. And then the Cubans said: “the Syrian government is working
for the human rights of its people.” The North Koreans said: “we
commend Syria on its efforts taken to maintain security and stability.”
The Iranians said: “we appreciate the efforts of the government of Syria
to promote and protect human rights.” Ditto Sudan, Nicaragua,
Venezuela, Algeria, Lebanon, China, Zimbabwe, Burma/Myanmar, and so on.
Four
days later, on behalf of the three countries charged with compiling
recommendations, Mexico reported to the Council: “Syria received a
total of 179 recommendations…It is a pleasure to inform you that 98
recommendations were accepted and 26 shall be considered.” Among the
recommendations that "did not enjoy the support" of Syria were
“immediately end attacks on peaceful protesters and bring violators to
account,” “put an end to secret detentions” and “allow journalists to
freely exercise their profession.” At the end of this stage of the UPR,
the President of the Council turned to Syria and signed off with “I
thank both you and your delegation for your participation in the UPR.”
At
the time, there were 2,600 dead Syrian citizens at the hands of their
own government. And Assad got the message about the human rights bona
fides of the UN.
The next and final stage of
the UPR took place in Geneva on March 15, 2012 – by which time there
were 11,000 dead. On that occasion, the Council formally adopted the
so-called “outcome” of the UPR – a report containing no findings and no
decision to take action. It was gaveled through without comment from
the President with these words: “May I now propose that the Council
adopts the decision on the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of
Syria?” I see no objection.”
There are now over 60,000 dead in Syria.
And the Times is 'worried' that Israel not showing up will lead North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe not to show up? Why?
The Torah warns us that the Jewish people are not counted among the nations of the world (Numbers 23:9). Historically the Jewish people have been willing to be isolated, and have been willing to stand apart when it was the right and moral thing to do, but we have never been willing to do the wrong thing just because the world wants us to do the wrong thing. Having our 'human rights' record reviewed by a hostile 'council' in which our friends are automatically outvoted is destructive and not constructive. Contrary to the Times' claim, the standards applied are not universal, as can be seen from Ms. Bayefsky's summary of the Syrian review above.
Taking a moral stand against the outrageous behavior of the 'human rights council' is the right and moral thing to do, even if the self-proclaimed protectors of morality at the New York Times cannot see it. We can only hope and pray that any new government that takes charge in Israel between now and November will not see fit to debase itself or the Jewish people in the immoral slime of the 'human rights council.'
Report: Assad has transferred chemcial weapons to Hezbullah
Israel Radio is reporting (9:00 am) that Kuwaiti daily al-Watan reported in Thursday's editions that Syria has already transferred chemical weapons to Syria, including more than two tons of mustard gas. According to the report, Syria has also transferred missiles with a 300-kilometer range that are capable of delivering the chemical weapons. The use of the weapons is being supervised by high-ranking Syrian officers stationed in Lebanon.
There is no confirmation of the report from other sources.
US officials say Israel notified them of Syrian attack, target was sophisticated SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles
Although, Israel has not confirmed it, American officials have told the New York Times that Israel notified the US that it attacked a convoy of weapons headed for Hezbullah in Lebanon. The weapons in question were sophisticated SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles (Hat Tip: Herb G).
The American officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Israel
had notified the United States about the attack, which the Syrian
government condemned as an act of “arrogance and aggression.” Israel’s
move demonstrated its determination to ensure that Hezbollah — its arch
foe in the north — is unable to take advantage of the chaos in Syria to bolster its arsenal significantly.
The predawn strike was the first time in more than five years that
Israel’s air force had attacked a target in Syria. While there was no
expectation that the beleaguered Assad government had an interest in
retaliating, the strike raised concerns that the Syrian civil war had
continued to spread beyond its border.
In a statement, the Syrian military denied that a convoy had been
struck. It said the attack had hit a scientific research facility in the
Damascus suburbs that was used to improve Syria’s defenses, and called
the attack “a flagrant breach of Syrian sovereignty and airspace.”
Israeli officials would not confirm the airstrike, a common tactic here.
But it came after days of intense security consultations with Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding the possible movement of chemical
and other weapons around Syria, and warnings that Jerusalem would take
action to thwart any possible transfers to Hezbollah.
Thousands of Israelis have crowded gas-mask distribution centers over
the last two days. On Sunday, Israel deployed its Iron Dome missile
defense system in the north, near Haifa, which was heavily bombed during
the 2006 war with Lebanon.
But a full scale war does not look likely.
“It is necessary and correct to prepare for deterioration — that
scenario exists,” Danny Yatom, a former chief of the Mossad, Israel’s
intelligence agency, told Ynet, a news Web site. “But in my assessment,
there will not be a reaction, because neither Hezbollah nor the Syrians
have an interest in retaliating.”
Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, “is deep in his own troubles,” Mr.
Yatom said, “and Hezbollah is making a great effort to assist him, in
parallel with its efforts to obtain weapons, so they won’t want to
broaden the circle of fighting.”
Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy explains why the SA-17's matter.
“Israel is able to fly reconnaissance flights over Lebanon with impunity
right now,” Mr. Levitt said. “This could cut into its ability to
conduct aerial intelligence. The passing along of weapons to Hezbollah
by the regime is a real concern.”
The
SA-17 is an advanced antiaircraft missile with a low radar signature,
which makes it difficult to target it. It possesses a range of
approximately 25 kilometers, and the IAF considers them a danger to its
freedom of operation in the region.
Assad regime claims Israel attacked 'military research center,' rebels deny it
The Syrian government is now claiming that the IAF attacked a 'military research center' in the town of Jamarya along Syria's border with Lebanon.Syria claims that two people were killed and five were wounded in the strike. But Syrian rebel forces - who have no more love for Israel than the Syrian government - are denying the story, claiming that the facility came under mortar fire from rebels and nothing more.
Israeli warplanes attacked a military research center in Damascus
province at dawn on Wednesday, Syria's military command said, denying
reports that the planes had struck a convoy carrying weapons from Syria
to Lebanon.
Two people were killed and five wounded in the attack
on the site in Jamraya, which it described as one of a number of
"scientific research centers aimed at raising the level of resistance
and self-defense."
The building was destroyed, the military command said in a statement carried by state media.
It said the planes crossed into Syria below the radar level, just north of Mount Hermon, and returned the same way.
It did not mention specific retaliation but said "these criminal
acts" would not weaken Syria's support for Palestinians and other groups
engaged in "resistance" to Israel.
Several rebel sources,
however, including a commander in the Damascus area, accused the
authorities of lying and said the only attacks at Jamraya had been
mortar attacks by insurgents.
Is Syria trying to provoke Iran - which last week said that an attack on Syria is an attack on it - into attacking Israel? Hmmm.
The logic at work here — the longer the Assad regime holds on, the worse
the consequences — was acknowledged by senior Obama administration
officials nearly a year ago. The incoming secretary of state, John F.
Kerry, repeated it at his confirmation hearing last week: “Every day that goes by, it gets worse.” From that follows a logical conclusion, stated Monday by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius: “If we don’t give the means to the Syrian people to go achieve their freedom, there is a risk . . . that massacres and antagonisms amplify, and that extremism and terrorism prevail.”
The Obama administration nevertheless appears stuck on Syria,
unable to decide even on simple measures to help the opposition. Not
only does it refuse to provide weapons to moderate rebel fighting units —
which complain of shortages even as materiel pours in to jihadist
groups — but it claims it is legally barred from giving even non-lethal
aid directly to the Syrian National Coalition. U.S. humanitarian aid
goes to private groups such as the Red Crescent or, worse, the United
Nations, which passes much of it along to the regime.
In speaking
about Syria in recent days, Mr. Kerry and President Obama described not
a strategy for stopping a bloodbath that threatens vital U.S. interests
but rather a series of excuses for inaction. In an interview with the New Republic
published over the weekend, Mr. Obama wondered how to “weigh” the
thousands dying in Syria against the thousands being killed in the
Congo, as if all wars are of equal importance to the United States or
the inability to solve every problem means America should not help even
where it can.
Not for the first time, Mr. Obama also asked
whether U.S. intervention could “trigger even worse violence or the use
of chemical weapons.” The president asked the same question a year ago,
and the answer is now known: In the absence of U.S. action, the violence grew far worse and the Assad regime moved dangerously close to using chemical arms.
The
United States could do much to shape the course of events in Syria
without using American troops. It could begin providing aid directly to
Syrian refugee organizations and civilian councils inside the country,
as France has done for months. It could provide arms to moderate rebel
factions, so that they can compete with the jihadists and so that they
will look to the United States when the war is over. Continued passivity
will ensure that the crisis in Syria continues to worsen — along with
the consequences for the United States.
The picture here is of a President who is too timid to pull the trigger. I disagree. I think what we have here is a President who is purposely degrading American power in a way that will castrate the United States for decades, if not longer. You asked for it America. We warned you and you voted with your eyes wide closed. You have no one but yourself to blame.
In an earlier post, I noted Chuck Hagel's admiration for the 34th President of the United States, Dwight Eisenhower, specifically for Eisenhower's handling of what's known in Israel as the Sinai campaign (the 1956 war between Israel, Britain and France on one side and Egypt on the other). I also reported that Hagel had it all wrong, because Eisenhower later believed that making Israel withdraw from Sinai was the biggest mistake of his Presidency.
Lee Smith has a lot more details about Eisenhower's regrets over the Sinai campaign.
In fact, Eisenhower came to believe
that Suez had been the “biggest foreign-policy blunder of his
administration.” In hindsight, it’s not hard to see why. He ruined the
position of two longtime allies, effectively driving Britain out of the
Middle East once and for all, and without any benefit to American
interests. If Eisenhower expected Nasser to be grateful, he was sorely
mistaken.
“From Nasser’s perspective, he played the superpowers against each
other and came out the winner,” says Michael Doran, a senior fellow at
the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy. “What
Ike thought he was doing was laying the groundwork for a new order in
the Middle East, a third course between the re-imposition of European
colonialism and the Soviet Union. But all Eisenhower did was strengthen
Nasser and destabilize the region.”
Doran, a former George W. Bush Administration National Security
Council staffer in charge of the Middle East, is finishing a book about
Eisenhower and the Middle East that looks at how Eisenhower’s
understanding of the region changed over time. “Eisenhower slammed his
allies and aided his enemies at Suez,” Doran explains, “because his
policy was based on certain key assumptions of how the Arab world
worked. The most important of these was the notion of Arab unity. He
believed they would respond as a bloc to certain stimuli.”
Chief among them, Eisenhower and his Secretary of State John Foster
Dulles believed, was the Arab-Israeli conflict. They saw the role of the
United States then as playing the honest broker, mediating between
Israel on one side and the Arab world on the other. If this conceit is
still popular today with American policymakers, says Doran, “it’s partly
because some Arab officials continue to talk this way. The idea is, to
win over the Arabs we have to stop being so sympathetic to Israel.”
But in the wake of Suez, Eisenhower came to see the region through a
different lens. He paid more attention to what Arab leaders actually
did, rather than what they said. “Between March 1957 and July 1958,
Eisenhower got the equivalent of the Arab spring,” says Doran. “It was a
revolutionary wave around the region and for Ike a tutorial on Arab
politics. There was upheaval after upheaval, in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan,
Saudi Arabia, and then the Iraqi revolution of 1958 that toppled an
American ally. All of them were internal conflicts, tantamount to Arab
civil wars, and had nothing to do with Israel. With this, Eisenhower
recognized that the image he had of the Arab world had nothing to do
with the political realities of the Middle East.”
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Obama has the same mistaken conception of the Middle East that Eisenhower had in 1956. Today's it's known as linkage.By 1958, Eisenhower had dismissed it as a policy strategy. Don't bet on Obama doing the same.
Israeli strike on Syrian side of border destroyed anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles
IAF warplanes destroyed a convoy of anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles that were heading for Hezbullah in Lebanon during the early hours of Wednesday morning. There were no chemical weapons involved. The attack took place just inside the Syrian side of the border in an area where the border is not well delineated.
"The target was a truck loaded with weapons, heading from Syria to
Lebanon," said one Western diplomat, adding that the consignment seemed
unlikely to have included chemical weapons.
A source among rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar Assad said an
air strike around dawn (0430 GMT) blasted a convoy on a mountain track
about 5 kilometers (3 miles) south of where the main Damascus-Beirut
highway crosses the border. Its load probably included high-tech
anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles.
"It attacked trucks carrying
sophisticated weapons from the regime to Hezbollah," the source said,
adding that it took place inside Syria, though the border is poorly
defined in the area.
A security official in the region also placed
the attack on the Syrian side. A Lebanese security official denied any
strike in Lebanon. It was not clear whether special forces took part.
The Israeli government declined comment on the issue.
Such
a strike would fit its existing policy of pre-emptive covert and overt
action to curb Iranian-backed Hezbollah and does not necessarily
indicate a major escalation of the war in Syria. It does, however,
indicate how the erosion of Assad's family rule after 42 years is seen
by Israel as posing a threat.
Some analysts suggested Hezbollah was moving its own arms caches from stores in Syria, fearing rebels would overrun them.
Those of you who have been longtime readers might recall that during the 2006 Second Lebanon War, Israel attacked supply convoys being sent from Bashar al-Assad to Hezbullah just inside the Lebanese side of the border. At the time, the Bush administration was encouraging Israel to attack Syria, but then-Prime Minister Ehud K. Olmert was afraid to do it. Olmert could have saved a lot of Syrian lives by deposing Assad then.
Now, the situation is different. The IDF would rather attack in a weakened Syria than run the risk of giving Hebzullah an excuse for a distraction from the ongoing Syrian civil war. But our government still seems determined to stand firm and not allow Hezbullah to obtain advanced weapons or weapons of mass destruction.
Caroline Glick on why the Obama administration is putting women in combat units
Caroline Glick has a different perspective on the Obama administration's plan to put women in combat units than do most prominent women in the media. She spent five and a half years as an officer in the IDF, and she was an embedded reporter with an all-male American infantry unit during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. So what does she think about putting American women in combat units?
As to the US military, as David Horowitz wrote back in 1992,
the movement to assign women to frontline combat unit is not about
advancing women. It is about destroying the US military. The fact that
Obama didn't even need for Hagel to enter office before taking his first
swipe at the military shows just how grandiose his plans for gutting US
military capabilities in his second term are.
To
be clear, as a woman who served as an officer in the IDF for 5 and a
half years, and worked as an embedded reporter with an all male US
infantry unit in Iraq, I have to say that I don't think there is
anything inherently wrong with women serving in combat. But the purpose
of last week's decision wasn't about permitting women to fight on the
battlefield. They already do. It was about social engineering and
weakening the esprit d'corps of the US military. As Saul Alinsky taught
his followers the goal is never what you say it is. The goal is always
the revolution.
Delegitimizing and weakening
Israel is only one part of the "revolution." Israel will survive Obama
and Hagel and Kerry and Brennan.
But that
doesn't mean we and our supporters in the US should keep silent about
their hostility just because we know we can't block their appointments.
By pointing out their radicalism, we are at a minimum sending out the
necessary warning about what their future plans will likely involve. And
that is important, because the more they are criticized the weaker they
will feel.
In a piece that was mercifully rescued from behind the Times of London's paywall by the World Jewish Congress, former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar and former first minister of Northern Ireland Lord Trimble, who are co-founders of the Friends of Israel Initiative, explain why Europe ought to designate Hezbullah as a terror organization.
In July last year a bus full of Israeli tourists was blown to pieces by a young suicide bomber in Burgas,
Bulgaria — five Israelis and the Bulgarian bus driver were killed. All
the evidence points to it being a plot conceived and executed by
Hezbollah.
Yet despite this atrocity some European governments are not willing
to declare Hezbollah a security threat and put it on the EU terrorist
list. This refusal is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the
group. Hezbollah is not just a Lebanese militia group and political
party. It is the long arm of Iran. From its conception by Tehran in
1982, it has been committed to the revolutionary goals of the
international expansion of Shia Islam, as dreamt of by the Ayatollah Khomeini.
The fact that it holds seats in the Lebanese Parliament and posts in
the Cabinet does not mean that its leaders see themselves as just
another Lebanese faction — albeit one that murders its political
opponents (a UN tribunal found that the assassination of Rafiqal-Hariri, the Lebanese prime minister was a Hezbollah plot).
On the contrary Hezbollah has a global vision and reach. It has
perpetrated attacks in places as distant as Argentina, Georgia, Israel,
Thailand, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, as well as Lebanon. It has been
involved in illegal but very lucrative activities in Latin America and
West Africa. For instance, it has run drug-trafficking and
money-laundering operations in the jungle of Colombia under the control
of the FARC. According to US officials, Hezbollah is heavily involved in smuggling drugs into Europe.
Some argue that there is a difference between Hezbollah’s military
wing, its political wing and its charitable activities. They are wrong —
it is one single body and every part plays a role in the overall
strategy. The leaders in charge of its hospitals and schools, the
military leader and the political representatives all sit together under
the secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah. His deputy, NaimQassem,
was quoted as recently as October, saying: “We don’t have a military
wing and a political wing. We don’t have the Party of Allah and the
Party of Resistance. These differences do not exist and are rejected.”
Hezbollah is committed to violent revolution. It sees itself as being
in total confrontation with our way of life. The idea that engaging
Hezbollah through the Lebanese political process and institutions would
moderate it has proved to be a dangerous illusion. And today it is
actively intervening in Syria on behalf of Basharal-Assad; we will know soon about the atrocities conducted by its militants there.
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Wednesday, January 30.
1) Defining terror down; defining occupation up
In a New York Times op-ed nearly two years ago, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas wrote:
Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the
internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a
political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims
against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the
International Court of Justice.
The Palestinians’ first attempt to join the I.C.C. was thwarted last
April when the court’s chief prosecutor at the time, Luis Moreno-Ocampo,
declined the request on the grounds that Palestine was not a state.
That ambiguity has since diminished with the United Nations’ conferral
of nonmember state status on Palestine in November. Israel’s frantic
opposition to the elevation of Palestine’s status at the United Nations
was motivated precisely by the fear that it would soon lead to I.C.C.
jurisdiction over Palestinian claims of war crimes.
Israeli leaders are unnerved for good reason. The I.C.C. could prosecute
major international crimes committed on Palestinian soil anytime after
the court’s founding on July 1, 2002.
Bisharat then cites Col. Daniel Reisner, the one time head of the IDF's legal department:
The former head of the Israeli military’s international law division, Daniel Reisner, asserted
in 2009: “International law progresses through violations. We invented
the targeted assassination thesis and we had to push it. At first there
were protrusions that made it hard to insert easily into the legal
molds. Eight years later it is in the center of the bounds of
legitimacy.”
From the complete context, it's pretty clear that Reisner didn't mean
violations as much as ill defined areas of the law. (Bisharat's
implication is clear: the United States should be subject to ICC
prosecution for targeted killings in Pakistan and Yemen.)
Bisharat makes a dubious claim here:
And it has treated civilian employees of Hamas — including police
officers, judges, clerks, journalists and others — as combatants because
they allegedly support a “terrorist infrastructure.” Never mind that
contemporary international law deems civilians “combatants” only when
they actually take up arms.
Elder of Ziyon has addressed the issue of the police officers in some detail.
This is a critical paragraph, and it highlights Goldstone's
credulity. There is a clear statement from the police spokesman saying
that the police were instructed to face the enemy, which is not a very
ambiguous statement. Months later, when he is reached by commission
members to explain this problematic statement, he seizes the opportunity
to "clarify" that he only meant that they should be doing normal police
duties.
And Goldstone believes him.
Not only that, his "proof" is an absurd statement that no policemen were
killed in combat (presumably during the ground invasion.) This is a
lie. According to PCHR and my research, 16 policemen were killed from
January 4th and on, 34 policemen were killed, and my research indicates
that at least 16 of them were members of terror organizations.
What international law "deems" can be fluid.
Even the concept of "occupation," on which Bisharat rests much of his
case isn't as clear cut as he presumes. Eugene Kontorovich wrote recently:
I recently came across a discussion in the U.N.’s International Law
Commission from 1950, as part of the drafting of the Draft Declaration
on Rights and Duties of States. There were quibbles from countries such
as France about whether annexation is always banned, or whether there
might be various exceptions. In response, the Secretary observed: “It might be suggested that in
order to constitute a crime under international law an annexation must
be carried out through the use of armed force, with a view to destroying
the territorial integrity of another State.” [See I Yearbook of Int. Law Comm. 137 (1950).] Indeed, it was not surprising that there was some confusion and
concern about the extent of an annexation norm, since as the delegates
admitted, there were some “frontier adjustments” made by the Allies
after WWII.
The larger problem is that the New York Times continues to promote the
Palestinian effort to avoid negotiations and have a settlement imposed
on Israel internationally, with no editorial objections.
Wars in the Middle East are caused not by oil or water but by
overconfidence. In 1988, an Iranian mine damaged a US guided missile
cruiser. In retaliation, President Ronald Reagan ordered Operation
Praying Mantis to destroy Iranian oil terminals. The US Navy decimated
its Iranian challengers in the ensuing battle, the largest US naval
surface engagement since World War II. The red line Reagan established
created a tacit understanding that governed US-Iranian relations for
another 15 years.
As the Iranian leadership has concluded that it could—literally—get away
with murder in Iraq and Afghanistan, that American red lines were
ephemeral, and that the United States was not prepared to stop its
nuclear program, Tehran has grown bolder. Iranian diplomats might talk,
but the powers that be will not abide by any deal. The IRGC and its
proxies will continue to test American red lines until the United States
forcibly pushes back.
This is not calling for America declaring war on Iran, though, I
suppose, some would consider it such. But if red lines are necessary for
limiting the spread of Iranian influence, what does it mean that
President Obama has nominated Sen. Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of
Defense?
They would travel to Iraq together, where Hagel was dismissive and
suspicious of the military’s top brass. Obama would take office and do
the same. Hagel would speak out against tough Iran sanctions, and Obama
would work against them from the White House, opposing several
iterations of them and finally watering them down when he couldn’t
prevent sanctions from passing Congress. Hagel would loudly criticize
even the contemplation of military action against Iran, and Obama would
have his secretary of defense deliver a similar message to Israel. It is
this pattern that has led Hagel’s critics to express concern about his
nomination to be secretary of defense. Many worry Obama shares Hagel’s
views; Obama’s defenders assure us he does not. The Washington Post’s
Bob Woodward says the critics are right, and relays a conversation Obama
and Hagel had at the beginning of Obama’s first term:
Mandel quotes a recent op-ed by Bob Woodward answering the question in the affirmative.
Iran's elite Quds Force and Hezbollah militants are learning from a
series of botched terror attacks over the past two years and pose a
growing threat to the U.S. and other Western targets as well as Israel, a
prominent counterterrorism expert says.
Operating both independently and together, the militant groups are
escalating their activities around the world, fueling worries in the
U.S. that they increasingly have the ability and the willingness to
attack the U.S., according to a report by Matthew Levitt of the
Washington Institute for Near East Studies. His report points to two
attacks last year -- one successful and one foiled by U.S. authorities
-- as indications that the militants are adapting and are determined to
take revenge on the West for efforts to disrupt Tehran's nuclear program
and other perceived offenses.
The report's conclusions expand on comments late last year from U.S.
terrorism officials who told Congress that the Quds Force and Hezbollah,
which often coordinate efforts, have become "a significant source of
concern" for the U.S. The Quds Force is an elite wing of Iran's powerful
Revolutionary Guard, the defenders of Iran's ruling clerics and their
hold on power.
At a time where it appears that Iran will be more aggressive, President
Obama has nominated someone who will be hesitant to fight back or
establish red lines.
It starts: Israel strikes convoy on Lebanon-Syria border
Israel is quite serious about keeping chemical weapons out of the hands of the al-Qaeda dominated Free Syrian Army and Hezbullah. JPost is reporting based on a 'western diplomat' and 'three regional security sources' that Israel struck a convoy on the Lebanese-Syrian border overnight.
The sources, who declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the
issue, had no further information about what might have been hit or
where precisely the attack happened, but the news website Al-Monitor
quoted unnamed sources as saying that the target had been an arms convoy
in Syria, close to the Lebanon border.
A Western diplomat in the region who asked about the strike said "something has happened", without elaborating.
An
unnamed security source told AFP: "The Israeli air force blew up a
convoy which had just crossed the border from Syria into Lebanon."
An
activist in Syria who works with a network of opposition groups around
the country said that she had heard of a strike in southern Syria from
her colleagues but could not confirm.
The IDF has declined to
comment on reports of a strike on the Syrian-Lebanese border. "We do not
comment on reports of this kind," an IDF spokeswoman said.
Reports
of incursions into Lebanese air space and the alleged strike follow a
flurry of international visits by Israel's top brass.
According to the
report, the jets flew over the En Nakura area for several hours, leaving
Lebanese airspace at around 2 am. The report, citing military sources,
said that the first incursion took place at around 4:30 pm, when two
jets flew over the village of Ramish,
leaving at 9:05 pm.
As the duo was leaving – according to the Lebanese report – two other
IAF jets entered Beirut's airspace, towards En Nakura, leaving at 2 am.
A Lebanese Army
statement said that "Four Israeli planes entered Lebanese air space at
4:30 pm on Tuesday. They were replaced four hours later by another
group of planes which overflew southern Lebanon until 2 am and a third
mission took over, finally leaving at 7:55 am on Wednesday morning."
The statement made no mention of planes entering Syrian airspace.
A western diplomat and a security source said Wednesday that "Israeli
forces have attacked a target on the Syrian-Lebanese border overnight."
Despite the ambiguity of Lebanon's reports, the diplomat – who
declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue – insisted
that "There was definitely a hit in the border area."
The US-based
Al-Monitor website reported Tuesday that IDF Intelligence Chief Maj-Gen.
Aviv Kochavi traveled to Washington for closed-door consultations with
American officials. Israeli officials would not comment on the matter.
Among those Kochavi met with at the Pentagon was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, the report said.
According to Al-Monitor The IDF declined comment on the MI
chief's visit, saying that "Israel does not comment on the working
visits of IDF officers."
However, the website qouted an anonymous Israeli official as saying
that "Some people say (the) IDF wouldn’t object to (the) opportunity to
set the record straight vis-à-vis Hizballah... Also, there's the idea of
putting them out of play, as done with Hamas recently."
Better this than a full scale war. If it's enough to keep Hezbullah in line, that's great. But I suspect it won't be....
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
