Priorities! State Department ignores Syria, blasts Israel for giving Jews in Samaria a place to live
The self-proclaimed 'most pro-Israel administration evah' has blasted the Government of Israel for attempting to resettle the Jews of Amona, a neighborhood in Ofra (Samaria), in an alternate location in Samaria.
The statement, signed by Mark Toner, deputy spokesman for the State Department, drew an unusual linkage between the signing of the defense aid agreement with Israel and criticism of settlement building.
Toner stressed that the U.S. views advancement of the plan as a violation of a commitment by Netanyahu's government not to establish any new settlements in the West Bank.
The White House later further escalated the criticism, as Josh Ernest said that the decision constitutes a violation of a commitment undertaken by the Israeli government to the U.S. administration, adding that this isn't how friends behave.
"We had public assurances from the Israeli government that contradict this new announcement – so when you talk about how friends treat each other – this is also a source of concern. There is a lot of disappointment and great concern here at the White House," he said.
The criticism comes against the backdrop of the Civil Administration Planning Commission's decision last Wednesday to approve a plan for the construction of 98 housing units in the new settlement to be established next to the Shvut Rachel settlement.
According to the plan, it will be possible to build up to 300 housing units and an industrial zone. The NRG web site and Channel 2 were the first to publish the decision. The new settlement, which settlers say is only a neighborhood of the existing settlement of Shvut Rachel, can provide housing for residents of the illegal outposts of Amona, who are expected to be evicted by the end of December.
A senior U.S. official said that the White House boiled with anger at the advancement of the plan and even more at the timing of the decision – just a week after the signing of the military aid agreement by which the U.S. will give Israel $38 billion for a decade, and the day of the death of former president Shimon Peres, whose funeral was attended by President Barack Obama.
A large part of American anger was due to the administration seeing the step as a violation of a commitment Netanyahu gave Obama in 2009 that Israel would not build any new settlements. In his speech at Bar-Ilan that year, Netanyahu said he agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state and added: "The territorial issues will be discussed in a permanent agreement. Till then we have no intention to build new settlements or set aside land for new settlements."
And in the seven years since the Bar Ilan speech, there have effectively been NO negotiations. At some point, life has to move on.
Ironically, the best thing that could happen for the 'peace process' would be for the 'Palestinians' to actually feel they are losing something by not coming to the table. Nothing else has even a remote chance of bringing them to the table.
The statement was unusual both in its length of more than 300 words, and in content, using strong language to express U.S. objections to advancement of the plan.
"We strongly condemn the Israeli government's recent decision to advance a plan that would create a significant new settlement deep in the West Bank, State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner said.
Still waiting to hear Obama 'strongly condemn' Assad, let alone do something about him. But priorities man, priorities.
And then the State Department dug deeper.
One of the statement's clauses referred to the defense aid agreement. Its wording was most extraordinary, for through the years the U.S. has avoided creating any linkage between defense aid to Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the settlement construction issue.
"It is deeply troubling, in the wake of Israel and the U.S. concluding an unprecedented agreement on military assistance designed to further strengthen Israel's security, that Israel would take a decision so contrary to its long term security interest in a peaceful resolution of its conflict with the Palestinians," Toner added.
The State Department's statement also referred to the timing of the decision – the day of former President Shimon Peres' death, saying:
"Furthermore, it is disheartening that while Israel and the world mourned the passing of President Shimon Peres, and leaders from the U.S. and other nations prepared to honor one of the great champions of peace, plans were advanced that would seriously undermine the prospects for the two state solution that he so passionately supported."
So we owe it to Peres' 'legacy' to create his virtual state on an island and jump into the sea? How absurd!
Iran's weapons ferrying service about to expand big time
For at least five years, Iran has been using commercial airliners from Mahan Air (an IranAir subsidiary from what I can gather) to ferry terrorists and weapons from Tehran to Damascus. Now, thanks to the Obama-Kerry sellout and the lifting of sanctions Iran (having been blocked by Congress from purchasing from Boeing) is about to buy 500 new jets from Airbus, the European consortium. Iran currently has 50(!) commercial jets. Imagine how much more trouble they can make with 500.
A report published by Forbes said Iranian commercial aircraft
routinely violate international aviation rules by transporting arms and
military personnel to Syria, and therefore, “selling aircraft to Iran
will expose manufacturers to the risk of becoming complicit in such
activities.”
Forbes said Iran was trying to ink a deal to buy up to 500 aircraft over the next decade.
The magazine said: “Iran remains the foremost state sponsor of
terrorism in the world and is still number one on the recently-released
Basel Anti-Money Laundering Index Report of 2016, which assesses the
risk of money laundering and terrorist financing in 149 countries.”
The report coincides with the comments of U.S. Secretary of State
John Kerry, who expressed his country’s worries regarding Iran’s
transfer of weapons to Yemen.
Also, the international community is worried from an Iranian activity
towards refueling conflicts in Arab countries, which Tehran says was
protecting its security and national interests.
Last Thursday, Iran announced that a deal with Airbus was in its last
phases,” according to Fars news agency, quoting Iranian Minister of
Transportation Minister Abbas Akhoundi.
Forbes warned the Airbus Company to think twice before inking such a deal.
The report said: “The problem with the Islamic Republic’s aircraft
shopping spree is that Iran’s state-owned airline, Iran Air, will be the
sole company purchasing these aircraft.”
It said Iran’s current fleet
stands at 36 aircraft while its subsidiary, Iran Air Tours, has 14.
Mahan Air is considered the first Iranian company, which conducted flights to Syria for transferring weapons in 2011.
Yet another frightening installment in the Obama legacy. What could go wrong?
United Nations has awarded tens of millions in 'aid' contracts to Assad cronies
The United Nations has awarded tens of millions of dollars in aid contracts to people associated with the Assad regime, including the dictator's wife Asma, and close Assad associate Rami Makhlouf. According to Britain's Guardian, many of the persons who received the contracts are subject to United States and European Union sanctions.
The UN says it can only work with a small number of partners approved
by President Assad and that it does all it can to ensure the money is
spent properly.
“Of paramount importance is reaching as many vulnerable civilians as possible,” a spokesman said. “Our choices in Syria
are limited by a highly insecure context where finding companies and
partners who operate in besieged and hard to reach areas is extremely
challenging.”
However, critics believe the UN mission is in danger of being compromised.
They believe aid is being prioritised in government-held areas and
argue UN money is effectively helping to prop up a regime responsible
for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of its own citizens.
UN insiders admit the relief mission in Syria is the most expensive, challenging and complex it has ever undertaken.
But the contentious decisions it has had to make are now exposed for
the first time by a Guardian analysis of hundreds of contracts it has
awarded since the operation began in 2011.
This shows that:
The UN has paid more than $13m to the Syrian government to boost
farming and agriculture, yet the EU has banned trade with the
departments in question for fear of how the money will be used.
The UN has paid at least $4m to the state-owned fuel supplier, which is also on the EU sanctions list.
The World Health Organisation has spent more than $5m to support
Syria’s national blood bank – but this is being controlled by Assad’s
defence department. Documents seen by the Guardian show funds spent on
blood supplies came directly from donors who have economic sanctions
against the Syrian government, including the UK. They also show the WHO
had “concrete concerns” about whether blood supplies would reach those
in need, or be directed to the military first.
Two UN agencies have partnered with the Syria Trust charity, an
organisation started and chaired by President Assad’s wife, Asma,
spending a total of $8.5m. The first lady is under both US and EU
sanctions.
Unicef has paid $267,933 to the Al-Bustan Association, owned and run
by Rami Makhlouf, Syria’s wealthiest man. He is a friend and cousin of
Assad, and his charity has been linked to several pro-regime militia
groups.
Contracts have been awarded across UN departments with companies run by or linked to individuals under sanctions.
These contracts show how the United Nations operation has quietly secured deals with individuals and companies that have been designated off-limits by Europe and the US.
On top of this, analysis of the United Nations own procurement
documents show its agencies have done business with at least another 258
Syrian companies, paying sums as high as $54m and £36m, down to
$30,000. Many are likely to have links to Assad, or those close to him.
If the Obama administration and the Europeans had expended even half the effort on Syria that they have expended on the 'poor' 'oppressed' 'Palestinians' over the past five years, it is hard to believe that the situation would be this bad. But they don't. Unfortunately for Syrians, "No Jews = No News" and the news that Jews have actually been saving Syrians almost isn't being reported anywhere outside of Israel.
Iran deploys S-300 to protect Fordo nuke plant, forms Shiite army to eradicate Israel
Here's Barack Obama's legacy. After allowing Iran's nuclear program to survive and thrive and giving the Mullahcracy $1.7 billion in spending money, Iran is using the money exactly how it promised to use it. It has deployed an S-300 missile system to protect its Fordo nuclear plant, and it has formed a Shiite army whose goal is to eradicate Israel. This is from the first link.
A video showed an S-300 carrier truck in Fordo, raising its missile launchers toward the sky, next to other counter-strike weaponry.
The images were aired hours after supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave a speech to air force commanders, including Esmaili, in which he stressed that Iranian military power was for defensive purposes only.
"Continued opposition and hype on the S-300 or the Fordo site are examples of the viciousness of the enemy," Khamenei said.
"The S-300 system is a defence system not an assault one, but the Americans did their best for Iran not to get hold of it."
The Fordo site, built into a mountain near the city of Qom has stopped enriching uranium since the January implementation of a nuclear deal with world powers.
Under the historic accord, Iran dismantled most of its estimated 19,000 centrifuges -- giant spinning machines that enrich uranium, keeping only 5,000 active for research purposes.
Retired General Mohammad Ali Falaki, who is currently one of the Iranian
forces leaders in Syria, has recently revealed that Iran has formed a
“Shiite Liberation Army” led by Quds Force commander, General Qassem
Soleimani.
The Quds Force also known as Pasdaran in Persian is
a special forces unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and
is responsible for the Islamic Republic’s extraterritorial operation.
“The Shiite Liberation Army is currently fighting on three fronts -
Iraq, Syria and Yemen,” he told Mashregh news agency, which is close to
the IRGC, in an interview published on Thursday.
The retired
general said “This army is not only composed of Iranians but it recruits
locally from the regions witnessing fighting.”
Falaki, who is
leading part of the IRGC fight in Syria to give support to Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, advised that it was “not wise to
directly involve Iranian forces into the Syrian conflict.”
“The
role of our personnel should be limited to training, preparing and
equipping the Syrians to fight in their areas, ” he added.
Falaki said that the main objective behind the formation of the first
nucleus of the ‘Shiite Liberation Army’ is to “eradicate Israel after 23
years, especially that these battalions are now on Israeli borders.”
#ThanksObama
And you were still wondering why he hasn't taken the fight to Assad?
Report: Assad tried to cut a deal with Netanyahu, used Putin as emissary
A Lebanese and a Kuwaiti report indicate that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad asked Russian President Putin to deliver a message to Prime Minister Netanyahu when Assad and Netanyahu visited Moscow a few days apart last month.
Putin and Assad reportedly discussed the crisis in Syria as well as
the possibility of a comprehensive peace agreement with Israel,
including the Golan Heights, Al-Joumhouria reported, however the Kremlin denied the report.
According to Johnny Munir, Al-Joumhouria newspaper reporter , the Assad Putin meeting focused on the US Russia plan which will be revealed in early August. In
addition they reportedly discussed the Bill Clinton Israeli Syrian
peace plan which will reportedly form the basis of the future Israeli
Syrian comprehensive peace plan.
Meanwhile Kuwait Newspaper “Al Jareeda ” reported that Assad sent a
letter to Netanyahu ahead of his meeting with Putin in which he vowed to
keep the Golan heights free of any arms and to continue to honor the
ceasefire between the 2 countries ”
“Help me to succeed in controlling my areas and I will guarantee
security and peace for Israel in Golan on condition you don’t side with
any party that wants to topple my regime ” , the daily quoted Assad as
saying.
I'm sure the Kremlin denied it because Netanyahu told Putin that this just isn't happening. You might recall that the Bill Clinton plan for an Israeli - Syrian peace agreement called for Israel to come down from the Golan Heights to within a few feet of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). That wasn't good enough for Assad who wanted to be on the eastern shores of the Kinneret.
Today, no one in Israel regrets that deal did not happen.
Assad's assurances are worthless, both because he cannot be trusted and because his government is and will remain forever unstable.
Assad offered nothing new. There will be no deal in any of our lifetimes.
By the way, note who is missing from this story: The Americans.
Israel attacked two military targets in Syria in response to what the army described as "unusual" cross-border spillover from the conflict ravaging the country in recent years.
The army said the original fire hit near the Golan Heights security fence, but did not threaten Israelis living near the Syrian-Israeli border. It said that the Israel Defense Forces do not intervene in the war in Syria but would respond to any incursion.
In April, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admitted for the first time that Israel had conducted strikes against its northern neighbor. "We act when we need to act, including here across the border, with dozens of strikes meant to prevent Hezbollah [from obtaining] game-changing weaponry," Netanyahu said during a visit to an IDF military exercise in the Golan Heights.
This sounds like it was a warning to the combatants not to let things spill over, and not a strike against Hezbullah receiving advanced weaponry as has been the case in the past. If there's more, I will let you know.
UPDATE 2:10 PM
Syria has now confirmed.
#Damascus confirmed: #Israel launched two shells against a hill in the Golan, close to #SAA position. No casualties.
'Palestinians' whine to pollsters over Sunni Arabs preferring their own interests
There's a very detailed poll of 'Palestinian' public opinion out ('Palestinian' public opinion tends to be more measurable than in other places in the Arab Islamic world - they learned from Israel). While I may come back to this poll eventually, I'd like to focus on this part for a minute. Keep in mind that this is 'Palestinian' public opinion and not Sunni Arab or other Arabs or Muslims.
(7) The Arab World, war in Syria, ISIS, and US elections:
78% say the Arab World is too preoccupied with its own concerns, internal
conflicts, and the conflict with Iran and that Palestine is no longer the
Arab’s principal or primary issue or cause. Only 20% think Palestine remains
the Arab’s principle cause.
They finally are starting to understand that the Arab world is tired of them. It's the anti-Semitic Europeans who have been carrying the ball for the 'Palestinians' for many years now. While the Arab world has not made peace with us, there is a de facto detente, and this a result of shared interests and not love. But the bottom line is that the Arab world has abandoned the 'Palestinians' even more so than it did previously.
59% believe that there is an Arab Sunni alliance with Israel against Iran
despite the continued Israeli occupation of Arab land while 30% believe that
the Arabs would not ally themselves with Israel until it ends its occupation
and allows the creation of a Palestinian state.
I'm with the majority. Just from what we know, there is an alliance, and I'd estimate that it's even stronger behind the scenes. The 30% who think that the Arabs wouldn't ally themselves with Israel to save their own necks is simply unrealistic.
In light of the escalating conflict in Syria and the emergence of three main
parties to the conflict, we asked the public for its view on the party it
views as the more preferable or the one it views as the least harmful. The
largest percentage (40%) chose the Free Syrian army, 18% chose Bashar Asad
and his army, and 5% chose the extreme religious opposition, such as ISIS.
23% said they do not like any of the three parties.
The Syrian Free Army will go down in history as one of the biggest (of many) foreign policy mistakes by the Obama administration. The FSA could have become a 'moderate' (in relative terms) group had Obama and Clinton chosen to aid it in 2011-12. They did not. Now, it's nearly as Islamist as ISIS. Why Trump isn't pounding Clinton on this....
An overwhelming majority of 88% believes that ISIS is a radical group that
does not represent true Islam and 8% believe it does represent true Islam.
4% are not sure or do not know. In the Gaza Strip, 16% (compared to 3% in
the West Bank) say ISIS represents true Islam.
79% support and 18% oppose the war waged by Arab and Western countries
against ISIS.
This is actually a pleasant surprise.
We asked the public about the US elections and which presidential candidate,
Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump, it viewed best for the Palestinians. A large
majority (70%) said there is no difference between the two candidates, while
12% said Clinton is better and 7% said Trump is better.
I'd love to see a survey of what US citizens in Israel think of the US elections.... I don't like either of them, and am tempted to 'stay home.'
I don't know whether my friends at @Free_Media_Hub and @Paradoxy13 noticed, but the @rhodes44 story is a devastating indictment of Obama administration policy in Syria.
There is nothing at all remarkable about 'John Q. Citizen' looking back
on invasion, occupation, and insurgency in Iraq and saying, in effect,
"Don't touch it with a ten-foot pole; let the natives have at it and
sort it out on their own." It is something else, however, for an
official channeling the president of the United States to say, "I
profoundly do not believe that the United States could make things
better in Syria by being there. And we have an evidentiary record of
what happens when we're there—nearly a decade in Iraq." This is the
official alibi for not having protected, over the course of five years,
one single Syrian civilian from the murderous assaults of Bashar
al-Assad.
Yet the official alibi lacks one critical ingredient:
the truth. A "decade in Iraq" did not dissuade the Obama administration
from protecting Syrian Kurds from a massacre by the Islamic State (ISIS,
ISIL, Daesh) in Kobani. Disaster in Iraq did not deter American
military forces from protecting Yazidis in Iraq itself. The Iraqi fiasco
has not stopped the Obama administration from establishing an anti-ISIS
American military presence in both Iraq and Syria: yes, boots on the
ground. No: the Rhodes-Obama fear and dismissal of making things better
in Syria "by being there" applies only to those parts of Syria
experiencing mass murder and massive displacement at the hands of Bashar
al-Assad. Why? Iran.
For an American president and his
principal subordinates to avert their gazes from mass homicide and from
doing anything at all to mitigate or complicate it is far from
unprecedented. In this day and age, however, knowing what we know about
twentieth century failures to protect civilians thanks to the research
and writings of Samantha Power and others, it is stunningly remarkable
and regrettable. For a man of Barack Obama's evident humanity and
values, surely there has been something of transcendent importance that
has stayed his hand from protecting Syrian civilians; something of
paramount national security significance that has stopped him from
acting in support of American friends and allies trying desperately to
deal with the hemorrhage of humanity from Syria. Thanks to Ben Rhodes
and his chronicler we know now what it has been: pursuit of a nuclear
agreement with Assad's premier long-term enabler and partner in mass
murder: Iran.
The following passage from the Samuels piece clarifies why it was
important for President Obama to protect no one in Syria, to risk his
own reputation in the red-line climb down, and even to assure Iran's
Supreme Leader in writing that the Ayatollah's murderous Syrian
subordinate would not be touched by (anti-ISIS) American military
intervention in Syria:
"By eliminating the fuss about Iran's nuclear program, the
administration hoped to eliminate a source of structural tension between
the two countries, which would create the space for America to
disentangle itself from its established system of alliances with
countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, and Turkey. With one bold
move, the administration would effectively begin the process of
large-scale disentanglement from the Middle East."
To complicate the ability of Iran's man in Syria to commit war
crimes and crimes against humanity would have placed at risk nuclear
negotiations aimed ultimately at dissolving American relationships of
trust and confidence with key regional powers. Yes, the Blob—the foreign
policy establishment—would have had a problem with this. Hence an
information operation headed by Rhodes aimed at avoiding head-on debates
with the Blob or, for that matter, the representatives of the American
people in Congress.
Were it not for their enormous suffering, millions of Syrian civilians
might find humor in the reason for their abandonment: a desire by the
American president to disentangle the United States from long-term
cooperative regional relationships. Were it not for the tens of
thousands of rockets and missiles pointed at them by Iran's Lebanese
militia, Israelis might enjoy the irony of it all. The only players in
this drama who need neither humor nor irony to appreciate the importance
and value of what is being undertaken are Iran and Russia.
One cannot help but hope that this is not what 60% of the American people have in mind when they demand an "America First" foreign policy.
Lebanese political analyst Nadim Koteich has spoken the truth about Aleppo: Its residents would be better off living under Israeli annexation like residents of the Golan Heights rather than living under the ruins of Assad's bombardment of Aleppo.
In a comment he wrote on his Twitter page, Koteich expressed dismay over the absence of an Israeli move to annex Aleppo.
"If
Israel would have annexed Aleppo, it would have been safe today, like
the Golan. Aleppo's citizens would have been better off living under
occupation than living under ruins," Koteich wrote.
Israel took the Golan Heights during the 1967 Six Day War, and
in 1981 extended Israeli law to the region, thereby de facto annexing
it.
Koteich's comment came shortly after Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu declared that Israel would never renounce the Golan,
infuriating Syrian politicians. Thus, many Syrian social media activists
began wrangling with Koteich for voicing pro-Israel opinion.
A
Twitter user affiliated with the Syrian opposition said: "the carnage in
Aleppo increases our hatred for Zionists, because without Israel, Assad
would have gone."
Moron. Whom does he think has been treating the Syrianwounded?
Koteich anchors DNA, a daily show broadcast on the Lebanese Future
Television Network. On his show, he tends to criticize Iran and its
involvement in Lebanon, calling Lebanon "a mafia state" controlled by
Hezbollah.
The northern Syrian city of Aleppo has been witnessing
endless bombardments by the Syrian air force in the last week, in a bid
to oust rebel factions from the city's outskirts. Since the city was
excluded from the truce forged by the American administration and Russia
on Friday, airstrikes continue hitting the city, causing hundreds of
civilian causalities.
All of Syria would have been better off annexed to Israel. But it's too late for that now.
Emergency Committee for Israel: 'Why is Donald Trump always kissing up to dictators?'
The Emergency Committee for Israel has released its first online advertisement in a while. It's directed at Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Here's the press release:
Today the Emergency Committee for Israel released "Trump Loves
Dictators," a 30-second ad highlighting Donald Trump's disturbing
affection for anti-American dictators. The ad will appear online and on
television in primary states this week.
In recent months, Trump has praised or apologized for Saddam Hussein,
Bashar Assad, Vladimir Putin, and Benito Mussolini, and previously he
praised the Chinese government for carrying out the Tiananmen Square
massacre.
William Kristol, Chairman of the Emergency Committee for Israel, said:
"If you're pro-Israel, you shouldn't be pro-Trump. Apologists for
dictators aren't reliable friends of the Jewish state."
Let's go to the videotape.
Hmmm.
If you follow me on Twitter, you know already that I'm not very keen on Donald Trump....
Bashar al-Assad's strange definition of a cease fire
If there's anyone out there who still wonders why Israel has never been able to reach a 'peace agreement' with the Assad's, please consider Bashar al-Assad's definition of a cease fire.
"Regarding a ceasefire, a halt to operations, if it happened, it
doesn't mean that each party will stop using weapons," Assad said in
Damascus in televised comments.
"A ceasefire means in the first place halting the terrorists from
strengthening their positions. Movement of weapons, equipment or
terrorists, or fortification of positions, will not be allowed," he
said.
Oh, of course. Why would I think otherwise? Silly me....
Barack Obama’s
repeated insistence that Bashar al-Assad must leave office – and that
there are ‘moderate’ rebel groups in Syria capable of defeating him –
has in recent years provoked quiet dissent, and even overt opposition,
among some of the most senior officers on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff.
Their criticism has focused on what they see as the administration’s
fixation on Assad’s primary ally, Vladimir Putin. In their view, Obama
is captive to Cold War thinking about Russia and China, and hasn’t
adjusted his stance on Syria to the fact both countries share
Washington’s anxiety about the spread of terrorism in and beyond Syria;
like Washington, they believe that Islamic State must be stopped.
The military’s resistance dates back to the summer of 2013, when a
highly classified assessment, put together by the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then led by General Martin
Dempsey, forecast that the fall of the Assad regime would lead to chaos
and, potentially, to Syria’s takeover by jihadi extremists, much as was
then happening in Libya. A former senior adviser to the Joint Chiefs
told me that the document was an ‘all-source’ appraisal, drawing on
information from signals, satellite and human intelligence, and took a
dim view of the Obama administration’s insistence on continuing to
finance and arm the so-called moderate rebel groups. By then, the CIA
had been conspiring for more than a year with allies in the UK, Saudi
Arabia and Qatar to ship guns and goods – to be used for the overthrow
of Assad – from Libya, via Turkey, into Syria. The new intelligence
estimate singled out Turkey as a major impediment to Obama’s Syria
policy. The document showed, the adviser said, ‘that what was started as
a covert US programme to arm and support the moderate rebels fighting
Assad had been co-opted by Turkey, and had morphed into an
across-the-board technical, arms and logistical programme for all of the
opposition, including Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State. The so-called
moderates had evaporated and the Free Syrian Army was a rump group
stationed at an airbase in Turkey.’ The assessment was bleak: there was
no viable ‘moderate’ opposition to Assad, and the US was arming
extremists.
Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA
between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant
stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire
consequences of toppling Assad. The jihadists, he said, were in control
of the opposition. Turkey wasn’t doing enough to stop the smuggling of
foreign fighters and weapons across the border. ‘If the American public
saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive
level, they would go ballistic,’ Flynn told me. ‘We understood Isis’s
long-term strategy and its campaign plans, and we also discussed the
fact that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of
the Islamic State inside Syria.’ The DIA’s reporting, he said, ‘got
enormous pushback’ from the Obama administration. ‘I felt that they did
not want to hear the truth.’
‘Our policy of arming the opposition
to Assad was unsuccessful and actually having a negative impact,’ the
former JCS adviser said. ‘The Joint Chiefs believed that Assad should
not be replaced by fundamentalists. The administration’s policy was
contradictory. They wanted Assad to go but the opposition was dominated
by extremists. So who was going to replace him? To say Assad’s got to go
is fine, but if you follow that through – therefore anyone is better.
It’s the “anybody else is better” issue that the JCS had with Obama’s
policy.’
But what's more shocking is what the Joint Chiefs decided to do about it.
The Joint Chiefs felt that a direct challenge to Obama’s policy would
have ‘had a zero chance of success’. So in the autumn of 2013 they
decided to take steps against the extremists without going through
political channels, by providing US intelligence to the militaries of
other nations, on the understanding that it would be passed on to the
Syrian army and used against the common enemy, Jabhat al-Nusra and
Islamic State.
Germany, Israel and Russia were in contact with the
Syrian army, and able to exercise some influence over Assad’s decisions
– it was through them that US intelligence would be shared. Each had
its reasons for co-operating with Assad: Germany feared what might
happen among its own population of six million Muslims if Islamic State
expanded; Israel was concerned with border security; Russia had an
alliance of very long standing with Syria, and was worried by the threat
to its only naval base on the Mediterranean, at Tartus. ‘We weren’t
intent on deviating from Obama’s stated policies,’ the adviser said.
‘But sharing our assessments via the military-to-military relationships
with other countries could prove productive. It was clear that Assad
needed better tactical intelligence and operational advice. The JCS
concluded that if those needs were met, the overall fight against
Islamist terrorism would be enhanced. Obama didn’t know, but Obama
doesn’t know what the JCS does in every circumstance and that’s true of
all presidents.’
Once the flow of US intelligence began, Germany,
Israel and Russia started passing on information about the whereabouts
and intent of radical jihadist groups to the Syrian army; in return,
Syria provided information about its own capabilities and intentions.
There was no direct contact between the US and the Syrian military;
instead, the adviser said, ‘we provided the information – including
long-range analyses on Syria’s future put together by contractors or one
of our war colleges – and these countries could do with it what they
chose, including sharing it with Assad. We were saying to the Germans
and the others: “Here’s some information that’s pretty interesting and
our interest is mutual.” End of conversation. The JCS could conclude
that something beneficial would arise from it – but it was a military to
military thing, and not some sort of a sinister Joint Chiefs’ plot to
go around Obama and support Assad. It was a lot cleverer than that. If
Assad remains in power, it will not be because we did it. It’s because
he was smart enough to use the intelligence and sound tactical advice we
provided to others.’
Hmmm: Russian special envoy on Syria secretly visited Israel last week
Russia’s special envoy on Syria, Alexander Lavrentiev, secretly visited Israel last week to discuss UN-backed negotiations to reach a diplomatic solution in Syria.
The Russian visit with members of the Foreign Ministry and the Prime Minister’s Office was shrouded in great secrecy in Israel. The Foreign Ministry declined to respond to questions from Haaretz about the meeting, and Netanyahu’s bureau declined to say whether the premier was going to meet Lavrentiev.
Lavrentiev was personally appointed by Putin and only took office a few weeks ago. He arrived in Israel in a special Russian Air Force aircraft at the head of a large delegation, which included Sergey Vershinin, the head of the Middle East desk in the Russian Foreign Ministry, and representatives of Russian intelligence.
The delegation was hosted by National Security Adviser Yossi Cohen, who is set to take up the post of Mossad chief in a few weeks.
A senior Israeli official said Cohen and the other Israeli officials presented Israel’s interests to the Russians. Their key points included maintaining the freedom to thwart terror attacks from over the border in Syria, and preventing advanced weaponry from moving from Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The Israelis made clear that in any future diplomatic agreement formulated by the world powers involving Syria, the latter would have to stop using its territory for direct or indirect attacks on Israel.
And let's just hope that the Golan was not part of the conversation because it's not even on the table.
Most of the ministers in Netanyahu’s cabinet are on the record opposing a
two-state solution. American officials speak of Netanyahu as myopic,
entitled, untrustworthy, routinely disrespectful toward the President,
and focussed solely on short-term political tactics to keep his
right-wing constituency in line. Netanyahu seems not to care if he
insults the Administration. Ron Dermer, his ambassador to the U.S.,
secretly arranged with John Boehner for Netanyahu to speak before
Congress without alerting the White House; Danny Danon, his envoy to the
U.N., blamed Obama’s “lack of leadership” for Turkish and Iranian
aggression; and Ran Baratz, whom Netanyahu appointed last month as his
media chief, wrote on his Facebook page that the President was
anti-Semitic and that Kerry had the mental abilities of a
twelve-year-old.
Well, at least Danon and Baratz are honest.... But really, is this any way to treat a friend?
Our 'friend' also tried really hard to give the Golan Heights to Syria. Thank God Netanyahu didn't listen.
Assad told Kerry that, in order to make
peace with Israel, he had to get back the Golan Heights, territory lost
in the 1967 war. For that to be considered, Kerry replied, Syria would
have to cease the transit of arms through Syria to Hezbollah, in
Lebanon, and to Hamas, in Gaza.
“We
basically delivered him a pretty strong message of, ‘You better stop
this or else,’ ” Kerry told me. “But I also engaged with him, because he
wanted to talk about another subject—a relationship with Israel in the
future. I don’t think I’ve ever talked about this publicly, but he was
ready to make a deal with Israel. And the proof of that is a letter I
still have that he wrote and signed proposing a structure by which he
was willing to recognize Israel, have an embassy there, make peace, deal
with the Golan, et cetera.” (A representative of the Syrian government
denied that Assad ever wrote such a letter; he also denied that Assad
took any oppressive measures in 2011.) Syria asked Kerry for economic
assistance, including a pipeline to Iraq and aid for technology and
health care. When Netanyahu was told of the discussions, he was
reluctant. “Bibi came to Washington, and one of the first things out of
his mouth in the Oval Office was ‘I can’t do this. I’m not going to—I
just can’t.’ ”
...
The issue was rendered moot in March,
2011, when the revolution began in Syria. As the Syrian regime increased
its level of cruelty from month to month—beginning with the police
torturing young protesters and moving on to the indiscriminate killing
of many thousands, using barrel bombs—all talk of the “soft-spoken
British-educated ophthalmologist,” of Assad as the reformist hope of
Syria, was eclipsed.
Kerry shook his
head at the memory of it. At dinner in Damascus, Assad had told Kerry
and Heinz about how his mother could no longer go to a local mosque
dressed in a skirt. He talked about how female college classmates,
professional women, were now in hijab. “We want to be a secular
country,” Assad said, according to Kerry. “We don’t want to be inundated
by this.”
Kerry went on, “I had an
impression that this guy had serious business plans, growth plans,
development plans, wanted to change.” When I pressed him to describe
Assad in terms of his crimes, he backed off. “You know what? I want to
try to talk common sense to him through this process, and I do not want
to get into any—it’s just the inappropriate moment for me to . . .”
Kerry doesn't get Assad, he doesn't get Israel and he doesn't get the Middle East. But he's trying diplomatically to manipulate all of them and with Obama a lame duck they have nothing to lose. What could go wrong?
Russia - not Israel - is touting strategic cooperation
It is Russia - and not Israel - that has gone public about the strategic coordination between the two countries. The Israelis, while realistic about the decline in American activity in the region due to the Obama administration's tendency toward isolationism and Islamophilic behavior, nevertheless do not wish to stick it in the United States' face, probably in the hope that some day a different administration will take charge. The Russians, on the other hand, have no reason to hedge their bets and are proud that Israel is cooperating with their camp.
"We don't interfere with
them and they don't interfere with us," Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon
said in a radio interview, tersely summing up Israel's accommodation
with Russia.
Another reason Israel is holding back could be because it does
not know the full extent of Russia's plans for Syria or what effect they
could have on Assad's allies – Iran and the Lebanese guerrilla group
Hezbollah.
A de-facto axis between Moscow and Israel's two most powerful
regional enemies could seem an unsettling scenario for Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu's government, but it might also be seen as providing a
moderating influence.
"The new order in the Middle East is loose coalitions for
specific purposes, so a Russian partnership with Iran and Hezbollah to
save Assad is not necessarily bad for us," a Netanyahu confidant told
Reuters on condition of anonymity.
Russian President Vladimir Putin "is not looking to mess with
Israel, and it's unlikely he would look kindly on Iran or Hezbollah
messing with Israel now, either," the confidant said.
The assurance has been echoed by Russia, which hosted Netanyahu for Syria "deconfliction" talks on Sept. 21.
It took until this week for the United States, whose forces have long
been in sync with Israel on Syria, to agree on similar coordination
with Russia.
...
Shein said Russia was
familiar with the reasoning behind past Israeli air strikes in Syria,
including against alleged arms transfers by Iran or Assad's army to
Hezbollah, and "fully aware of Israel's strategic importance in the
Middle East."
But he said Syria's neighbors and overall regional stability were
threatened by the conflict, suggesting Israeli security might be best
served by an Assad victory.
Israel called for Assad to be ousted after the civil war began but
the Netanyahu government has recently preferred neutral rhetoric even
though Western powers continue to demand an eventual change of
leadership in Syria.
...
Moscow, meanwhile, has made no secret of seeing vindication for its Syria strategy in the Netanyahu government's posture.
"Israel’s prudence from the outbreak of the conflict in Syria has
become apparent in the fact that Israel did not consider the overthrow
of President Assad as an indispensable condition to avoid foreign
intervention and impediment for the beginning of a national
reconciliation," Shein said.
He linked this to what he described as Israel's "wisdom" in not
taking sides when Russia seized the Crimea region from Ukraine last year
following the removal of a Ukrainian president who was sympathetic to
Moscow.
"I hope it reflects concern for the development of Russian-Israeli
relations in a true, friendly and cooperative manner," Shein said.
Israeli officials have spoken respectfully, but not lavishly, about their evolving relationship with Russia.
A diplomatic dividend such as Russian recognition of Israel's
ownership of the Golan Heights is nowhere on the horizon, and Moscow's
growing relationship with Iran worries the Netanyahu government.
Images captured earlier this month from the Eros-B, a dual-use
imaging satellite owned and operated by ImageSat International, reveal
high operational tempo at Latakia International Airport, where Moscow
has based some 12 Su-25 fighters, a similar amount of Su-24 bombers, 16
Mi-35 attack helicopters and a small amount of Su-30 and Su-34 aircraft.
Outsized
Antonov 124 and Ilyushin Il-76 cargo aircraft are seen offloading
additional cargo, all of which is protected by at least one SAM-22
surface-to-air missile system.
In an image dated Oct. 10, support
vehicles and open cockpit canopies indicate high levels of alert while
another image taken on the same day shows a foursome of Su-30 attack
fighters in so-called fast launch positions at the end of the runway.
Such
imagery taken by the relatively low end of Israel’s satellite force
represents a mere snapshot of the Jewish state’s persistent ability to
monitor areas of interest throughout Syria and beyond.
With more
than a handful of satellites orbiting the Earth at 90-minute intervals,
Israel has multiple opportunities every day to revisit suspected sites.
...
IDF officers and their Russian counterparts plan to hold their second
round of so-called deconfliction talks in Moscow later next month, with
an eye toward establishing a mechanism to prevent unintended
consequences in the event that Russian and Israeli aircraft are flying
in the same airspace.
Report: Netanyahu was ready to cede Golan to Assad in 2011
Frederick Hof, who had the Syria portfolio in the Obama administration in 2011 and 2012, reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu was ready to cede the Golan to Bashar al-Assad in 2011 in return for 'peace.'
Although the regime’s corruption, incompetence and brutal intolerance
of dissent were hardly state secrets, Assad was not universally
associated by Syrians with the system’s worst aspects: “If only the
president knew” was a phrase one heard often. Some Syria watchers
believed that the Arab Spring would visit the country in the form of
political cyclone. I did not. I did not think it inevitable that Assad—a
computer-savvy individual who knew mass murder could not remain hidden
from view in the 21st century—would react to peaceful protest as
violently as he did, with no accompanying political outreach.
And as
Syria began to descend into the hell to which Assad was leading it, I
did not realize that the White House would see the problem as
essentially a communications challenge: getting Obama on “the right side
of history” in terms of his public pronouncements. What the United
States would do to try to influence Syria’s direction never enjoyed the same policy priority as what the United States would say.
Back in early 2011, it seemed possible not only to avoid violent
upheaval in Syria but to alter the country’s strategic orientation in a
way that would counter Iran’s penetration of the Arab world and erase
Tehran’s land link to its murderous Hezbollah militia in Lebanon. Much
of my State Department time during the two years preceding Syria’s
undoing was thus spent shuttling back and forth between Damascus and
Jerusalem, trying to build a foundation for a treaty of peace that would
separate Syria from Iran and Hezbollah on the issue of Israel.
...
Assad, told me in late February 2011 that he would sever all
anti-Israel relationships with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas and abstain
from all behavior posing threats to the State of Israel, provided all
land lost by Syria to Israel in the 1967 war—all of it—was returned.
My
conversation with him was detailed in terms of the relationships to be
broken and the behavior to be changed. He did not equivocate. He said he
had told the Iranians that the recovery of lost territory—the Golan
Heights and pieces of the Jordan River Valley—was a matter of paramount
Syrian national interest. He knew the price that would have to be paid
to retrieve the real estate. He implied that Iran was OK with it. He
said very directly he would pay the price in return for a treaty
recovering everything.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was interested. He was not
at all eager to return real estate to Syria, but he found the idea of
prying Syria out of Iran’s grip fascinating. And the negative
implications for Hezbollah of Lebanon following Syria’s peace accord
with Israel were not lost on him in the least. Although there were still
details to define about the meaning of “all” in the context of the real
estate to be returned, Netanyahu, too, knew the price that would
ultimately have to be paid to achieve what he wanted.
But by mid-April 2011 the emerging deal that had looked promising a
month earlier was off the table. By firing on peaceful demonstrators
protesting police brutality in the southern Syrian city of Deraa, gunmen
of the Syrian security services shredded any claim Assad had to
governing legitimately. Indeed, Assad himself—as president of the Syrian
Arab Republic and commander in chief of the armed forces—was fully
responsible for the shoot-to-kill atrocities. Even so, he told Barbara
Walters in a December 2011 ABC TV interview, “They are not my forces,
they are military forces belong[ing] to the government . . . I don’t own
them, I am the president. I don’t own the country, so they are not my
forces.”
Before the shooting began the United States and Israel were willing to
assume Assad had sufficient standing within Syria to sign a peace treaty
and—with American-Israeli safeguards in place—make good on his security
commitments before taking title to demilitarized territories. But when
he decided to try to shoot his way out of a challenge that he and his
first lady could have resolved personally, peacefully and honorably, it
was clear he could no longer speak for Syria on matters of war and
peace.
Knowing what 'everything' means (all the way up to the shores of the Kinneret), I find it astounding that Netanyahu would make such a deal. Sometimes fools are saved from themselves. Read the whole thing.
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
