Greetings from an airline lounge in Paris, where the caterer is Jewish but the food isn't Kosher :-(
Yes, it's a travel day again.
Tomorrow Britain may vote to secede from the European Union in a process known as Brexit. If you're an Israeli, you should be rooting for that to happen. Here's why.
Should supporters of the ‘Leave’ campaign win the day this Thursday there’ll be aftershocks aplenty — and Israel too will feel the pain. Yet paying a short-term price will be worth the long-term gain: a victory for Britain’s exit from the EU is a preferable outcome both for Israel and Europe.
Diplomatically, Israel is better off negotiating separately with 28 foreign offices than with the European foreign service — the EEAS. As Michel Gurfienkel, the founder and president of the Jean Jacques Rousseau Institute, perceptively wrote: "the EU’s decision-making process, at French insistence but with British acquiescence, is based on the principle of unanimity or near-unanimity rather than on majority opinion."
Once France adopted a pro-Arab policy, for reasons of grandeur and later due to the increasing weight of its Muslim minority, it could use its position as part of the bloc's traditional motor to accentuate the EU's anti-Israel diplomatic tilt. The current French-inspired international conference to which the EU foreign ministers have subscribed is a case in point. After an anti-Israel vote, some of Israel's friends within the EU rush to explain that they disagreed but had to go along with the resolution to be good Europeans. For Israel it would be beneficial to rob them of this excuse.
The EU foreign service with pretensions to represent a great power status unflaggingly pummels Israel to compensate for Europe's prostrate behavior towards the likes of Turkey and Iran. The EU intervenes in our politics by engaging and empowering NGOs from one side of the political spectrum and thumbs its nose at our sovereignty by illegally building houses and roads in disputed areas whose ultimate disposition can only be decided by direct negotiations.
It is hard to feel benevolence towards a body whose representatives at UNESCO voted for a resolution that denied a Jewish connection to Jerusalem. It is difficult to take their condemnations of anti-Semitism at face value when Jews in Europe are compelled to take off their kippot and pull out their mezuzahs to disguise their identity and protect their safety.
The music that emanates from the corridors of Berlaymont is that the nation state is an anachronism. Israel, by providing a counter-example, angers the mandarins of Brussels.
June 5 was the anniversary of the outbreak of the Six Day War. This year, it coincided with the 28th day of the Jewish month of Iyyar, which is the date on the Jewish calendar on which the Old City of Jerusalem was liberated.
At the time, the Arabs were lying, telling their people that they were winning the war.
But here's a cable from the British Ambassador to Jordan to Britain's Foreign Office that tells a very different story. It was sent 49 years ago today, June 6, 1967.
More than 150 British artists, including Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, have signed a public letter opposing boycott campaigns against Israel.
The group, which also includes Booker Prize-winning author Hilary
Mantel and noted historian and BBC presenter Simon Schama, wrote an op-ed in The Guardian
criticizing an earlier effort by British artists to refuse to perform
in Israel in protest of the country’s treatment of Palestinians.
“Cultural boycotts singling out Israel are divisive and discriminatory
and will not further peace,” the letter said.
The letter announced the creation of Culture for Coexistence, a group
that “will be seeking to inform and encourage dialogue about Israel and
the Palestinians in the wider cultural and creative community. While we
may not all share the same views on the policies of the Israeli
government, we all share a desire for peaceful coexistence.”
Here's the best part:
Culture for Coexistence wants to be “a tiny part of the jigsaw that can
work towards breaking down barriers,” Loraine da Costa, the chair of the
group, told The Guardian in an interview. The
group also hopes to “take people to Israel and the Palestinian
territories to have a dialogue with cultural counterparts there.”
Video: Anti-Semitic gang attacks Stamford Hill (London) yeshiva
An anti-Semitic gang stormed a Stamford Hill yeshiva on Saturday night, but was beaten off by Jews inside the synagogue. Stamford Hill is a heavily Jewish neighborhood of London.
According to the YouTube posting, the attack by a gang of 20 men took place at Yeshivas Ahavas Torah in Stamford Hill.
There were armed police CO19 units on scene, and a MPS helicopter above (but you won't see them in this video).
A group of approximately 20 youths attacked a local synagogue in the
London suburb of Stamford Hill over the weekend, yelling threats,
beating worshipers and vandalizing property, according to
IsraelHatzolah's official twitter account.
One witness belonging
to the "Ahavat Torah" congregation described the mob as shouting "we
will kill you" as they proceeded to physically assault the worshipers
inside the synagogue and tear apart prayer books.
Another Jewish
local who had passed by the scene rushed inside, grabbing one of the
suspects with the intention of bringing him to the police, but was
quickly overwhelmed by the other attackers and suffered strikes to the
face, losing a tooth.
A spokesmen for local law enforcement said
that the police views the assault on the heavily Jewish populated
Stamford Hill community gravely and that they have already detained
four suspects who say they were involved in the incident.
The
assault on the north London synagogue comes days before the opening of a
hotline dedicated to providing advice and support to victims of
anti-Semitism.
They came for the Jews. Will you speak out even if you are not a Jew?
One of the things that was driven home by the terror attack on the Paris Hyper Cacher supermarket is that they are still coming for us Jews, long after 'they' have stopped coming for most others. In England, they are feeling that lesson from up close. But is anyone non-Jewish feeling it?
A couple of days after the Charlie Hebdo attack, I did a debate with the
Guardian’s Simon Jenkins on the PM programme, about the appropriate UK
security response. In the course of conversation Simon came out with an
illuminating statement. “Britain is a robust country”, he said. “We’re not
vulnerable to these people. Accidents will happen, terrorist incidents will
happen. But we mustn’t dance to their tune”.
I think I know what Simon meant. That for all the harm they do, terrorists do
not represent an existential threat to our society or way of life. Indeed,
this has been a common response amongst the liberal commentariat. Polly
Toynbee wrote a similar piece last week: “In everyday life, Britain
has become remarkably safe – relatively crime-free, children rarely die,
most people live to a ripe old age. Life is so dull we invent fears”. And
Simon and Polly are right. You are not all that vulnerable. Many of your
fears about becoming a victim of terrorism are invented. So long as you are
not Jewish.
Whenever Martin Niemöller’s warning is quoted, it is always used in the past
tense. But as the Paris attacks proved, they are still coming for the Jews.
In reality, they have never stopped coming for the Jews.
Attend a wedding, or other social function hosted by a prominent member of the
Jewish community. You will be met by smart young men with name badges and
ear pieces, who will politely ask you your business, and check your bag.
Walk past a Jewish school. You will see the high gates and CCTV cameras. Walk
past a Jewish school in France, and you will see soldiers with automatic
weapons. They are not there to ward off imaginary monsters, but real
ones.
Not everyone in the public sphere has been silent to this truth. Since the
Paris attacks I have seen several commentators passionately speaking out
about the real and present threat to the Jewish community. Emma
Barnett, Jonathan Freedland, Danny Finkelstein, Nick Cohen, David
Aaronovitch. But that underlines the problem. It is mainly Jews that have
again been left to speak out for the Jews.
The reaction from outside the Jewish community follows the same pattern. Like
Simon Jenkins and Polly Toynbee, we try to hide behind a veil of
self-centered proportionality. Or, we cry “look over there!” Yes the Jewish
community is under threat, but what about the “revenge” attacks being
launched against the Muslim community? Or we deploy the “some of my best
friends are Jewish” argument. Yes some Jews are being targeted. But
look at what’s happening to the Palestinians. Should we really
be surprised? Yes, obviously we must condemn the “terrorists”. But don’t we
have an obligation to try to understand them as well?
And what lies at the heart of this response? If we’re honest, if we’re really
honest, it’s that those of us who are not part of the Jewish community have
subconsciously – and shamefully – come to the view that being a target of
terrorism is merely one of the occupational hazards of being a Jew.
The words on that poster on my office wall used to inspire me. But in the past
week they have come to chill me. Why? Because the full implications of them
have finally dawned on me.
Supermarket terrorist mentor's wife living in 4-bedroom UK house on government tab
Sylvie Beghal, the French-born wife of Islamist preacher Djamel Beghal, who mentored one of the Charlie Hebdo terrorists and the Paris Kosher supermarket terrorist, is living in a four-bedroom house in England on the British government's tab according to a report in Saturday's London Telegraph (Hat Tip: Tom Gross). Beghal himself is banned from the UK.
He has also been described as being too extreme for Osama Bin Laden....
No one should be surprised if Britain is the next country (after France) to go Islamic....
Those of you who recall the story from 10 days or so ago when it was disclosed that the United States had denied Israel Hellfire missiles for use in Gaza, and who are aware that Britain and Spain have placed an embargo on weapons sales to us, might be wondering whether Israel has sources for weapons other than the United States and Western Europe. Unfortunately, while we have such sales they are negligible.
According to Defense Ministry figures, around one-quarter of the
output of the Israeli defense industry is intended for IDF use. The rest
is exported.
Despite official Israel’s reluctance to get specific
about its arms trade, reports submitted by various states to the UN’s
Register of Conventional Arms shed some light on the matter. For
example, Ukraine’s official reports state that two years ago, Ukraine
sold Israel 193 missiles and 32 launchers. According to reports made as
part of the voluntary disclosure mechanism, in 2010 Ukraine sold Israel
four Strella (SA-7) missiles and two launchers, about 75 Igla missiles
of various models and 10 launchers for them. It is not clear why Israel
purchased so many Russian-made shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.
The assumption is that they are being acquired as part of Israel’s
development of systems to counter them, such as the aircraft-defense
system. As recently as February, Defense Ministry officials and Elbit
Systems announced the successful completion of tests of the Sky Shield
system, which is intended to protects civilian aircraft from
shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. Arms experts have said it likely
that Russian-made missiles were used in the test. Still, the number of
missiles Ukraine reported selling to Israel is relatively large even for
that purpose. Defense Ministry officials declined to comment for this
report.
Reports in the UN Register that were examined in recent
years point to some more interesting acquisitions, mainly for
Soviet-made arms that are not considered at the forefront of technology.
For example, in 2008 Ukraine reported that it sold Israel a launcher
for BM-21 rockets — a launcher that the Israeli army used in the past
after it was captured as booty in the Yom Kippur War and used during the
first Lebanon War. Hezbollah uses it to fire Grad rockets. In 2006, the
Czech Republic sold Tochka tactical missile systems to Israel. Two
years previously, Bulgaria sold Israel six 130 mm artillery systems
about which no further details were provided.
Against the backdrop of reports about Britain and Spain examining their
arms sales to Israel, an expert characterized the amount of arms that
Israel purchases from countries other than the United States as
“negligible.”
...
Israel has signed several significant defense contracts with other
countries in recent years. Germany provides Israel with submarines from
its HDW shipyards in Kiel. Israel has purchased six submarines so far,
three of which are in use by the Israel navy. The IDF has taken delivery
of two submarines, with additional deliveries scheduled through the end
of 2019.
Italy last year arranged to sell 30 M-346 training
aircraft to Israel. The first of these are already making their first
flights. As part of the deal, Israel sold Italy several defense
products, an Israeli-made satellite and a deterrent aircraft produced by
Israel Aerospace Industries in a deal estimated at $2 billion dollars.
Last
month, the Defense Ministry issued an international tender for the
purchase of “defense ships,” which will be used to protect the offshore
natural-gas drilling rigs in the Mediterranean Sea. According to an
Israeli Navy plan for the protection of the rigs that the defense
minister and the chief of staff approved about two years ago, four more
large vessels will be required to secure the area properly, at a cost of
roughly 100 million dollars per ship. The names of several foreign
shipyards — in Germany, Italy, the United States and South Korea — were
mentioned in the past as possible makers of the ships that would protect
the natural-gas fields.
There are two answers. In the short term, export less and use our own arms. That will help only when the arms in question are arms that we produce domestically. Obviously, there are things (like submarines) that we do not produce domestically, and for which we will still be dependent on other countries.
But in the long run we should be developing our own military industry more than we have been. If we have learned nothing else in the last six years, we should have learned that there are even situations where we cannot count on the United States. We should not be dependent on anyone. Not even the United States. What if Hillary Clinton - or possibly worse Elizabeth Warren is the next President? We would have 4-8 more years of pressure and unreliability. It's time that we learn to cope on our own. We're a big enough economy to pull it off.
Jewish housing starts in Judea and Samaria go 'poof' UPDATED
Haaretz is reporting that most of the 1,800 housing starts in Judea and Samaria that were announced last week have gone 'poof.'
Following pressure by Western European diplomats, the Civil
Administration decided on Wednesday to delay the recently announced
plans to move forward on construction of 1,800 settlement homes.
The
only plans approved by the Civil Administration's High Planning Council
concerned 381 housing units in Givat Ze'ev. Those involving
construction in Ariel, Har Bracha, Alfei Menashe, Oranit and other
settlements were put off, along with plans in the settlement outpost
Al-Matan.
Planning
council chairman Daniel Halimi said he received instructions for the
delays shortly before the meeting, and a source who attended the session
said, "Apparently the decision came from high up."
On
Tuesday, British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould and French
Ambassador to Israel Patrick Maisonnave told National Security Adviser
Yossi Cohen that their countries wanted Israel to hold off on advancing
plans for the 1,800 settlement homes, which had been frozen for many
months.
Gould
and Maisonnave told Cohen that Germany, Italy and Spain would be
conveying the same message, which the Italian and Spanish ambassadors
did to the Foreign Ministry later that day, while German Ambassador
Andreas Michaelis weighed in with Cohen early on Wednesday.
Israeli officials admit the delay but deny that it was the result of European pressure.
"Most of the deliberations set for today's original agenda were
discussed, except for a plan that was removed at the request of the
council and an additional plan that was postponed because of a
publishing process that was not implemented as asked," said the
officials.
Envision a pretzel soaked in warm water overnight floating around in a cup. Envision Prime Minister Netanyahu's backbone. Pretty similar, aren't they?
UPDATE 1:31 PM
I just found the retweet below in Barak Ravid's (the author of the report above) Twitter feed. Translation follows:
גורמי תכנון מודים: יש הנחייה לא להעלות שום תוכנית מחוץ לגושים לדיון בוועדת התכנון של המנהל. גורמים פוליטים אומרים זה בגלל ווטו של לפיד
— ilil shahar (@ilils1) June 12, 2014
Translation: Planning sources admit that there is an overall instruction not to bring up any plan for consideration in the [Israel Land] Authority's Planning Committee that includes houses outside the 'settlement blocs.' Political sources say that this is due to [Yair] Lapid's veto.
Thank you Naftali Bennett for giving Lapid so much power by refusing to go into the government without him a year an a half ago.
My daughter was saying over the weekend how it's hard to believe that this is the same place where we were in September, but it is. What's happening in Kiev - the US and the Europeans meekly protesting as Russia invades the Ukraine - ought to be a lesson to Israel about the efficacy of American guarantees, writes Aryeh Eldad.
"The Russian parliament has given Putin approval to use the military in the Ukraine,” wrote Eldad on Facebook Sunday.
“The Jews have no special fondness for the Ukrainians,” noted Eldad,
adding that this did not begin with Bohdan Khmelnitzky, the 17th century
Cossak leader under whom tens of thousands of Jews were murdered – nor
did it end with the SS guards who murdered Jews in the Nazi death camps.
And yet, he said, Israel should not be indifferent to the fact that Russia is gearing up to invade the Ukraine.
After the Soviet Union broke up, the world suddenly realized that the
Ukraine had become a nuclear power, he explained. “Hundreds of nuclear
warheads were stored on its territory, ready for use.”
"In a quick diplomatic move, the US and Britain signed an agreement
with Ukraine for the disarming of all its nuclear weapons, in exchange
for a signed contract that said that the two powers would guarantee
Ukraine's intactness and and security, and are committed to intervening
if and when its intactness is threatened.
"Today, Russia is threatening. It would seem that the US and Britain
should send armies to the Ukraine, to prevent a Russian invasion or
repulse it. It is clear that Britain and the US have no intention of
doing so. Russia knows this well, and that is why it is clear that the
western powers will ignore the security guarantees it gave Ukraine, and
allow Russia to run the crumbling Ukrainian state from outside or from
within.
"What do we care? You remember that 'security guarantees' will, of
course, be an inseparable part of any 'peace agreement' that the US
intends to force upon us and the Palestinians. These guarantees are not
worth a cent, of course,” Eldad added.
It's come to this: UK warns Russia to lay off Ukraine
It's come to this: The United States' prestige is so low that Britain has taken upon itself to warn Russia to lay off Ukraine.
Britain warned Russia on Sunday against intervening in Ukraine's
"complex" crisis, saying London wanted to contribute to an international
economic program aimed at shoring up the "desperately difficult"
situation of the Ukrainian economy.
...
In comments that may anger Moscow, British Foreign Secretary William
Hague said his government was in regular contact with the Russian
government to try to persuade it that closer ties between Ukraine and
the European Union should not worry it.
"If
there's an economic package, it will be important that Russia doesn't
do anything to undermine that economic package and is working in
cooperation and support of it," Hague told BBC TV.
When
asked if he was worried that Russia might "send in the tanks" to defend
the interests of Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine, Hague warned
against what he called "external duress" or Russian intervention.
"It
would really not be in the interests of Russia to do any such thing. We
have to keep up the communication with Russia as we are doing ... so
that the people of Ukraine can choose their own way forward. There are
many dangers and uncertainties."
...
Hague said the priority was to persuade Moscow that the fate of
Ukraine - a country that was part of the Soviet Union and has been
within Russia's sphere of influence for decades - was not what he called
"a zero-sum game" and that closer ties with the EU were not a bad
thing.
"It's
in the interests of the people of Ukraine to be able to trade more
freely with the EU. It's the interests of the people of Russia for that
to happen as well."
He
said he didn't know what Russia's "next reaction" would be, but he
pushed the Ukrainian opposition to move urgently to form a government of
national unity, agree arrangements for new elections, and to crack on
with shoring up the economy.
"While
all this has been happening, the Ukrainian economy is in a desperately
difficult situation," Hague said. "And they need an economic program
that the rest of us, through the International Monetary Fund and other
institutions, can support so that they can stave of an even more serious
economic situation."
Isn't it amazing how the American role in international affairs has diminished over the last five years. If you can call it a 'success,' it's the only one Obama has had in the foreign policy field.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague has warned Israel not to 'undermine' the P 5+1 agreement with Iran.
"We would discourage anybody in the world, including Israel, from taking
any steps that would undermine this agreement and we will make that
very clear to all concerned," Hague told parliament.
Hague, who gave an update on the nuclear talks in Geneva , added he had
not seen any signs that any country opposed to the agreement would try
to disrupt it "in any practical way" but said Britain would be "on its
guard".
Two Syrian warplanes tested British air defenses at the Akrotiri air base in Cyprus on Monday, but turned around and fled when British Typhoon warplanes were scrambled in response.
The dramatic confrontation came after President Bashar al-Assad’s air
chiefs sent two Russian-made Sukhoi Su-24s to probe our air defences.
The Syrian bombers refused to respond to repeated attempts by the control tower at the UK’s Akrotiri air base to contact them.
RAF
pilots flying the world’s most advanced combat jet were scrambled
before the Sukhois could enter our 14-mile air exclusion zone.
The
Typhoons – which can scream from runway standstill to seven miles high
in 90 seconds – soared into the sky to make visual contact with the
Syrian pilots.
But the moment the Syrians spotted our planes on their radar they high-tailed for home.
If the bombers had pressed on into our exclusion zone they would have been shot down, military experts said last night.
...
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “The MoD can confirm that
Typhoon air defence aircraft operated from RAF Akrotiri on Monday to
investigate unidentified aircraft to the east of Cyprus.
“The aircraft were flying legally in international airspace and no intercept was required.”
The
UK air base at Akrotiri is packed with US and French warplanes ready
to strike Syria when President Obama gives the go-ahead.
A military source told the Sunday People: “Recent intelligence reports have warned of an attack
on Akrotiri.
“The
RAF Typhoons were launched after sensitive airborne early-warning radar
picked up the ‘contacts’ flying low and fast.” The British typhoons are
part of a squadron of six sent to Cyprus to guard our bases there as
the Americans prepare for an attack.
A Navy Type 45 anti-aircraft
destroyer is also sitting off Cyprus to provide early warning of Syrian
fighters or missiles launched against the island.
Two French Navy Atlantique spy planes have also been moved to RAF Akrotiri.
Britain sold nerve gas to Syrian government 10 months AFTER uprising began
The Daily Record's Sunday Mail reports that Britain allowed British companies to sell nerve gas to Syria ten months after the Syrian uprising began.
Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were
granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.
The
chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin,
thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus
suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days
ago.
...
The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince
Cable’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last January –
10 months after the Syrian uprising began.
They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad’s regime.
Yesterday,
politicians and anti-arms trade campaigners urged Prime Minister David
Cameron to explain why the licences were granted.
Dunfermline and West Fife Labour MP Thomas Docherty, who sits on the
House of Commons’ Committees on Arms Export Controls, plans to lodge
Parliamentary questions tomorrow and write to Cable.
He said: “At
best it has been negligent and at worst reckless to export material that
could have been used to create chemical weapons.
“MPs will be horrified and furious that the UK Government has been allowing the sale of these ingredients to Syria.
“What the hell were they doing granting a licence in the first place?
“I would like to know what investigations have been carried out to establish if any of this material exported to Syria was subsequently used in the attacks on its own people.”
This is what happens when everyone insists on selling to a rogue regime just because formal sanctions are not in place. I expect to see similar hand wringing about Iran's nuclear program in the future.
British intelligence caught Syrian commanders telling captain 'fire chemicals or be shot'
Part of the evidence that the West has that the Assad regime carried out chemical weapons attacks against his people is conversations overheard by RAF eavesdropping in which a Syrian army captain was ordered by senior commanders to fire chemicals at civilians or be shot.
In one heated exchange, a regional commander was
overheard demanding the captain of an artillery battery in a
Government-held suburb of Damascus to fire chemical shells.
When
the officer protested, he was told “in direct terms” that failure to
comply would result in him facing a firing squad, and the chemical
weapons were then fired.
...
Last night the senior RAF officer said: “The
commander of the artillery battery told the regional commander that he
would not comply and there was a heated exchange. He was told in direct
language that unless the order was carried out, he would be shot. A
total of 27 chemical artillery shells were then fired at the suburb in a
14-minute period.”
The conversation was
monitored and recorded by British officers based at the remote
mountain-top RAF Troodos Signals Intelligence listening post in Cyprus
and within minutes details of the conversation had been relayed to GCHQ,
Whitehall and the Pentagon.
But don't expect British monitoring to happen again anytime soon.
Last night senior Ministry of Defence sources
confirmed that the Prime Minister was aware of several intercepts that
had been picked up by nuclear submarine HMS Tireless, by RAF spy planes
and by the Troodos listening station but they said the messages were
initially treated with “caution” by analysts, who feared they might be
fakes “planted” by rebels desperate for Western military support.
Thursday
night’s Commons defeat of Mr Cameron’s planned military action against
Syria led to the immediate recall of all British special forces in the
country.
Crucially, it also ended Britain’s
valuable help in the hunt for 10 senior leaders of Al Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsular (known as Aqab)who are said to have entered Syria
from Yemen to infiltrate rebel forces.
Aqab has
been co-coordinating and directing anti-government attacks in Syria
since April, using brutal violence to generate support among rebel
fighters.
British Labour party leader Ed Miliband is coming in for some sharp criticism within his own party for his handling of the vote in parliament last week not to participate in a US attack on Syria (Hat Tip: Gary P).
MPs have privately begun to voice concerns that their leader made a
catastrophic mistake by engineering the defeat of the Government’s motion in
the House of Commons on Thursday night.
Meanwhile senior figures inside the Government accused the Labour leader of
“stark raving hypocrisy”, “dishonourable behaviour” and “putting his party
before the national interest”.
Ministerial aides said that Mr Miliband consistently gave the impression of a
series of days that he would back a “consensual” approach with the
Government, only to suddenly change his mind.
Labour politicians have also acknowledged that Mr Miliband’s strategy faces
being undermined by every new atrocity committed by President Bashar
al-Assad’s regime.
One MP, who declined to be named publicly, said he began to regret his
decision to vote against military action within minutes of stepping out of
the Division Lobby – because television screens began to show new footage of
suffering Syrian innocents.
...
After they had left the Chamber, some of the more reflective Labour
politicians quickly found their consciences being pricked when, as if on
cue, television images of an apparent firebomb attack on children and adults
in a Syrian town near Aleppo began to appear on television screens inside
the Palace of Westminster.
“Just as we came out of the Chamber the news of that napalm attack was running
on the TV news, which looked like it could have only come from the regime,”
said one Labour backbencher.
“Horrific pictures, absolutely horrific. You’d help but wonder what on earth
we had just done.”
Another Labour MP admitted that every atrocity to emerge from Syria would now
give rise to a pang of doubt.
“We will all have this on our consciences,” he said. “It may have been the
right decision, but every time I see footage of another Syrian atrocity I
will wonder.”
Even Labour backbenchers who are normally supportive of Mr Miliband said the
party political approach adopted by their leadership had left them feeling
ashamed.
They admitted the catcalling and points-scoring which developed in the House
of Commons over a vote of such monumental, life-and-death importance had
been highly inappropriate.
“There were colleagues grinning, clapping, celebrating,” said one Miliband
loyalist.
...
When the Labour leader left Downing Street, Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg were
convinced the Opposition would largely back the Government’s motion.
“That was our biggest mistake – to trust Ed Miliband not to play party
politics with dead children,” said one senior Government source. “We were
genuinely astonished – shocked. The only thing we can think of is that the
Shadow Cabinet told him to u-turn and he did.”
Labour disputes this account of the Downing Street meeting. They say Mr
Miliband had made no final agreement to back the motion. A Labour source
said: “We were asked to a meeting. We attended and we listened to what was
said. That was the right and proper thing to do.”
When pressed why Mr Miliband gave no initial signal that he might not back the
motion, the source added: “If someone hands you a piece of paper at the end
of a meeting with a lot of words on it the proper thing to do is to read it
and consult with your party.”
At 4.30pm Mr Miliband chaired a 15-minute conference call of the Shadow
Cabinet, where Labour’s front-bench team unanimously agreed not to back the
Government motion.
A Labour spokesman said that the call was “business like”, but one party
insider admits that senior members of the Shadow Cabinet had been alarmed by
how little public support there had been for an attack on Syria.
At 5:15pm, the Labour leader called the Prime Minister back to say that he and
his party would not support the Government’s motion. A furious exchange
ensued between the two men.
“It was stark raving hypocrisy,” said a senior Government source. “Miliband
was putting his party before the national interest. It was thoroughly
dishonourable behaviour.”
A few minutes later the Leader of the Opposition posted a message on Twitter
announcing Labour’s position.
Miliband sounds like he'd fit right in with the American Democratic party.
These are not times for partisan politics nor are they times to make decisions based on polls. Unfortunately, with no great power to lead the world's democracies, that's exactly what's happening.
From Munich 1938 to Damascus 2013, nothing has changed
Iran isn't the only country watching the West doddle on Syria. So is Israel. Britain's backing out of a Syria strike, and Hussein Obama's obvious hesitation to do the job are going to encourage an Israeli attack on Iran.
But the Iranians are not the only ones watching. So is Israel.
Whether or not Israel decides to act against Iran could be determined in
large part by how the world acts now against Syria. And the British
parliament's vote Thursday against military action is not a great sign.
"The
international stuttering and hesitancy on [a] Syria [strike], just
proves once more that Israel cannot count on anyone but itself,"
Economy and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett wrote on his Facebook page on
Friday. "From Munich 1938 to Damascus 2013 nothing has changed. This is
the lesson we ought to learn from the events in Syria."
And
Bennett's post came even before Obama's address in which he said that
the US would conduct a limited military action against Syria, but only
if Congress approved it when it came back from its summer recess on
September 9.
"Trust us," the world – led by the US -- has urged
Israel for years on Iran. "We will deal with Iran, we will not allow
them to get nuclear weapons. Even if they do, there is little chance
they will use them. Nobody is that crazy."
Really? Syrian
President Bashar Assad is that crazy, using chemical weapons in broad
daylight against his own people, even though he knew he would be held
culpable.
Yet the world dithers.
...
The Iranians, watching this show, are surely calculating what action
they could expect if they run at full speed to nuclear capability. One
could not blame them for concluding that the French will speak tough,
the British will vote military action down in parliament. and Obama will
bring the matter to Congress for a vote if Congress is in session. If
not, he will wait patiently until Congress re-convenes to ask its
opinion.
That kind of international dallying is not the type of
behavior that will instill confidence in Israeli leaders that they can
count on the world when it comes to Iran.
Besides, if this is how
the world acts when some 1,429 people are gassed, how should we expect
them to act if Iran just crosses the nuclear threshold, but doesn't kill
anybody yet?
If gassing 1,429 people, including at least 426
children, as US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday, does not
lead to a military assault, will the crossing of the nuclear threshold –
when no one is killed – trigger a response?
A strike against Syria won't be a one-off and it won't be surgical
Unlike Israeli strikes against Syria like the one above, which was a one-time surgical strike. Eliot Cohen writes that an American strike against Syria will not be over in a day or two and will not be surgical. On the other hand, for the US not to strike Syria now would erode whatever prestige the US has left in the Middle East (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
The temptation here is to follow the Clinton administration’s course — a futile salvo of cruise missiles,
followed by self-congratulation and an attempt to change the topic. It
would not work here. A minority regime fighting for its life, as Bashar
al-Assad’s is, can weather a couple of dozen big bangs. More important,
no one — friends, enemies or neutrals — would be fooled. As weak as the
United States now appears in the region and beyond, we would look weaker
yet if we chose to act ineffectively. A bout of therapeutic bombing is
an even more feckless course of action than a principled refusal to act
altogether.
A serious bombing campaign would have substantial
targets — most plausibly the Syrian air force, the service once headed
by Assad’s father, which gives the regime much of its edge over the
rebels, as well as the air defense system and the country’s airports,
through which aid arrives from Iran. But should the Obama administration
choose any kind of bombing campaign, it needs to face some hard facts.
For
one thing, and despite the hopes of some proponents of an air campaign,
this would not be surgical. No serious application of air power ever
is, despite administration officials’ claims about the drone campaign,
which, as we now know, has killed plenty of civilians. A serious bombing
campaign means civilian casualties, at our hands. And it may mean U.S.
and allied casualties too, because the idea of a serious military effort
without risk is fatuous.
The administration would need
congressional authorization. Despite his professed commitment to
transparency and constitutional niceties, Obama has proved himself
reluctant to secure congressional authorization for the use of force, most notably with Libya in 2011.
Even if an authorization is conferred retroactively, it needs to be
done here because this would be a large use of force; indeed, an act of
war.
And it probably would not end cleanly. When the president
proclaimed the impending conclusion of the war with al-Qaeda, he
disregarded the cardinal fact of strategy: It is (at least) a two-sided
game. The other side, not we, gets to decide when it ends. And in this
case neither the Syrian government nor its Iranian patrons, nor its
Hezbollah, Russian and Chinese allies, may choose to shrug off a bombing
campaign. Chess players who think one move ahead usually lose; so do
presidents who think they can launch a day or two of strikes and then
walk away with a win. The repercussions may be felt in neighboring
countries; they may even be felt in the United States, and there is no
excuse for ignoring that fact.
Despite all these facts, not to act would be, at this point and by the administration’s own standards, intolerable.
The President who got the US outfled from Iraq and Afghanistan is now going to get the American military bogged down in an occupation of Syria, because he boxed himself into a corner and simply has no choice. While it's tempting to suggest that they ought to just launch a bombing campaign that destroys enough infrastructure to set Syria back a couple of centuries, and leaves al-Qaeda with a prize not worth having, the reality is that would kill so many people as to leave the US totally out of the picture in the Middle East.
Can Obama do nothing? Right now it sounds like the British and the French are willing to act without him, and that could mean that the US loses whatever leverage it has in the area.
The mess that is America's status in the Middle East is all Obama's making. He can't blame this one on George Bush (not that he won't try).
British government sources said talks between Western leaders were
ongoing and that any agreed upon military action could be exercised in
the coming week.
Cameron and Obama were due to speak on Monday or Tuesday in a continuation of talks held on Saturday between the two about the Syria issue.
US
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey was also scheduled
to meet with his British counterpart General Nick Houghton on Monday in
Jordan to discuss viable options.
An unnamed British government source told the Times that
the leading option for such an attack would be a "very targeted attack"
launched from warships in the Mediterranean. According to the source,
the UK was pushing for a launch date within the next ten days with the
aim to "prevent and deter" the Syrian regime from any future WMD
attacks.
Meanwhile, the UK has reportedly been preparing naval vessels for a possible US-led attack on Syria, according to London-based The Daily Telegraph.
...
"We have moved from ‘should we respond?’ to ‘how do we respond?’” the Times quoted a spokeswoman for Cameron as saying.
There's just one small problem: Obama is incapable of making any decisions that might hurt Muslims. So he's gone to play golf instead. What could go wrong?
US official: Syria destroyed evidence but little doubt of chem weapons attack
An American official has told the Jerusalem Post that Syria has destroyed evidence of a chemical weapons attack outside Damascus last Wednesday, but the United States has little doubt that the attack took place.
“If the Syrian government had nothing to hide and wanted to prove to
the world that it had not used chemical weapons in this incident, it
would have ceased its attacks on the area and granted immediate access
to the UN – five days ago," the official said.
"At this juncture,
the belated decision by the regime to grant access to the UN team is too
late to be credible, including because the evidence available has been
significantly corrupted as a result of the regime’s persistent shelling
and other intentional actions over the last five days."
Extensive evidence indicates that sarin gas was used against civilians in Ghouta on April 21, killing upwards of 1,000.
"Based
on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were
killed or injured, witness accounts, and other facts gathered by open
sources, the US intelligence community, and international partners,
there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used
by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident," the official
added.
Assad officials, including the foreign minister, gave rare
interviews to foreign media outlets on Saturday strongly denying claims
that its government had used chemical weapons against its own people on
Wednesday in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, despite Western officials
stating they have "little doubt" the attack occurred.
And as was the case with Libya and with the disclosure of the Iranian nuclear plant in Qom, it's the British and the French who are taking the lead, and not the Obama administration.
London and Paris have been working in close concert with the White House
on preparations. Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron said on Friday
that confirmation of chemical weapons use on such a mass scale would
disrupt international standards of warfare, and would require a "serious
response."
A line in the sand that caused the Middle East crises
The Sykes-Picot agreement was an initially informal deal between Britain and France, signed in 1916, which divided up the Middle East during World War One. This agreement has, in many ways, led to much of the trouble in the area today. Truthloader takes a very potted look at a line in the sand that threw a region into turmoil for decades.
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
