WarSclerotic

Syrian Rebel Leader Praises Minister Uri Ariel – Middle East – News – Israel National News.

Housing Minister Uri Ariel

Flash 90

One of the leaders of the Syrian rebel groups had praise on Sunday for none other than Israeli Housing Minister Uri Ariel of the Bayit Yehudi party.

Abu Adnan, one of the rebel leaders in northern Syria, spoke to Israel’s Channel One News and expressed his appreciation for Ariel’s comments regarding the chemical attack near Damascus.

“Allow me to send a message of thanks and appreciation to Housing Minister Uri Ariel for his humane and valuable statements and for his beautiful expression of emotion toward the children killed in Syria and toward the women being killed in Syria,” Abu Adnan told the channel’s Arab affair analyst Oded Granot.

“We appreciate this stance and thank him very much,” he added.

Last week Ariel said that, as Jews who suffered during the Holocaust, Israelis could not be silent over what was going on in Syria.

“Of all people, we, who cried out, and have been asking to this day, ‘how could the world have been silent?’ – We, as people; we, as Jews, cannot remain silent in the face of genocide, no matter who it is and where it is. And I say to ourselves – first of all, to ourselves, as Jews; as citizens of Israel; as a minister in the government of Israel, there will not be another genocide. We will not allow it,” said Ariel.

“The Jews in Zion and Jews the world over have an obligation – not a right, an obligation of the first degree – to alert and wake up the entire world, everywhere, in the UN, in the U.S. and Europe – we are obligated to do this because we experienced this as a nation, and we are the Jewish people. I am already acting and I will continue to act so that this awareness will reach everywhere and that with the grace of G-d, we will stop this horror,” he declared.

In Sunday’s interview, Abu Adnan also told Channel One that the rebels were disappointed in America for choosing to postpone the military strike in Syria by seeking approval from Congress, but that they believed Israel could be instrumental in convincing the world to act against the regime of President Bashar Al-Assad.

“We believe that Israel could assist us greatly in bringing down this regime,” he said. “We, as the Syrian people, have discovered that our first and primary enemy is the Assad family, Hezbollah and Iran. The main enemy is this regime and not Israel.”

Israel has more than once clarified that it is not a part of the civil war in Syria and does not take sides in the fighting. At the same time Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has warned Assad that if he chooses to retaliate to an American strike by attacking Israel, the Jewish state will strike back “fiercely”.

Despite Israel’s clarifications that it is not taking sides, Assad, likely in an effort to win the support of the Syrian people, has claimed that Israel is assisting the rebels fighting to topple his regime.

A commander in the Syrian opposition recently claimed the exact opposite, that Israel was collaborating with Iran and Hezbollah to keep Assad in power.

Obama seeks Syria support from former foe McCain | The Times of Israel.

Classified meetings between administration officials and congressmen planned this week on issue of attack on Damascus

Senator John McCain of Arizona talks about the US response to Syria on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation,’ in Washington, DC, on Sunday, September 1, 2013. (photo credit: AP/CBS News, Chris Usher)

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is inviting Senator John McCain to the White House, hoping his foe in the 2008 presidential election will help sell the idea of a US military intervention in Syria to a nation deeply scarred by more than a decade of war.

Having announced over the weekend that he’ll seek congressional approval for military strikes against the Assad regime, the Obama administration is now trying to rally support among Americans and their congressman and senators.

Monday’s meeting with McCain is meant to address concerns of those who feel Obama isn’t doing enough to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government for an attack in the Damascus suburbs last month that the US says included sarin gas and killed at least 1,429 civilians, more than 400 of whom were children. On the other side of the spectrum, some Republican and Democratic lawmakers don’t want to see military action at all.

Obama’s turnabout on Syria sets the stage for the biggest foreign policy vote in Congress since the Iraq war.

On Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry said the US received new physical evidence in the form of blood and hair samples that shows sarin gas was used in the August 21 attack. Kerry said the US must respond with its credibility on the line.

“We know that the regime ordered this attack,” he said. “We know they prepared for it. We know where the rockets came from. We know where they landed. We know the damage that was done afterwards.”

Kerry’s assertion coincided with the beginning of a forceful administration appeal for congressional support.

At Congress, senior administration officials briefed lawmakers in private to explain why the US was compelled to act against Assad. Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough also made calls to individual lawmakers.

Further classified meetings were planned from Monday to Wednesday. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee plans a meeting Tuesday, according to its chairman, Democratic Senator Bob Menendez. The Senate Armed Service Committee will gather a day later, said Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, the top Republican on the panel.

McCain, one of the most hawkish members of Congress on foreign policy, said Obama asked him to come to the White House specifically to discuss Syria.

“It can’t just be, in my view, pinprick cruise missiles,” the Republican told CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

In an interview with an Israeli television network, he said Obama has “encouraged our enemies” by effectively punting his decision to Congress. He and fellow Republican Senator Lindsey Graham have threatened to vote against Obama’s authorization if the military plan doesn’t seek to shift the momentum of the 2 ½ year civil war toward the rebels trying to oust Assad from power.

Obama is trying to convince Americans and the world about the need for action.

So far, he is finding few international partners willing to engage in a conflict that has claimed more than 100,000 lives in the past 2½ years and dragged in terrorist groups on both sides of the battlefield.

Only France is firmly on board among the major military powers. Britain’s Parliament rejected the use of force in a vote last week.

With Navy ships on standby in the eastern Mediterranean ready to launch missiles, Congress on Sunday began a series of meetings that are expected to continue over the next several days in preparation for a vote once lawmakers return from summer break, which is scheduled to end September. 9.

Senior administration officials gave a two-hour classified briefing to dozens of members of Congress in the Capitol on Sunday.

Lawmakers expressed a range of opinions coming out of the meeting, from outright opposition to strident support for Obama’s request for the authorization to use force.

Among Democrats, Representative Sander Levin said he’d approve Obama’s request and predicted it would pass. Representative Elijah Cummings said he was concerned the authorization might be “too broad.” Representative Bennie G. Thompson, the senior Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said the administration still has “work to do with respect to shoring up the facts of what happened.”

Among Republicans, Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers said she was concerned about what Congress was being asked to approve. Senator Jeff Sessions said the war resolution needed tightening.

“I don’t think Congress is going to accept it as it is,” Sessions said.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

Peres backs Obama’s Syria policy, says he’s sure the US will strike | The Times of Israel.

( Is Israel being smart or a sucker? – JW )

‘Weighing your moves is not the same as stuttering,’ says Peres. Obama reportedly warned Netanyahu he’d be seeking Congress’s okay

By Times of Israel staff September 2, 2013, 10:52 am

President Shimon Peres greets President Barack Obama at a reception held in Obama’s honor at Peres’s residence in Jerusalem on March 20, 2013. (Photo credit: Yossi Zamir/Flash90)

Israel’s president and one of his would-be successors on Monday both gave public backing to US President Barack Obama’s decision to seek Congressional authorization for an American-led strike at the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad over its use of chemical weapons.

President Shimon Peres told Army Radio that he was “certain that the United States will respond on Syria” for crossing Obama’s self-styled red line and killing what US Secretary of State John Kerry has said were more than 1,400 Syrians with the carefully planned use of sarin gas in attacks on eastern Damascus on August 21.

Peres defended Obama from criticisms that his eleventh-hour change of heart — opting Saturday to seek approval from Congress for an attack, when he had been planning an immediate strike until the previous day — showed hesitancy or confusion. “Weighing how to proceed is not the same as stuttering,” Peres said in an hour-long Rosh Hashana interview with the radio station. “It’s fine to give consideration to your moves.”

The president then offered an unstinting endorsement of Obama where Israel’s well-being is concerned, declaring, “I trust him on everything that affects Israel.”

Likud Knesset member Reuven Rivlin, a former Knesset speaker, previous presidential candidate and would-be Peres successor, also said Obama was entitled to consult Congress before authorizing military strikes on Syria.

Likud MK and former Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin (photo credit: Flash90)

“It is [Obama’s] right to weigh the considerations, but Israel must entrust its fate to itself,” Rivlin said in an interview with Israel Radio. He added that Obama could also seek congressional approval in the event of a possible strike on Iran, so Israel ought to learn from this incident.

Reports on Sunday and Monday noted that the White House alerted Israel ahead of time to Obama’s turnaround, with Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel briefing Israeli leaders. Haaretz reported Monday that Obama telephoned Netanyahu on Saturday four hours ahead of his White House Rose Garden statement — both so that Israel could adjust its security planning accordingly, and in order to prevent a wave of public criticism of the move from Israeli leaders. There was no confirmation of this report.

Few Israeli public figures have spoken out since Obama changed his mind Saturday and decided to go to Congress for approval of a strike. Labor’s leader Shelly Yachimovich praised Obama’s handling of the Syria crisis later Saturday, while several members of the right-wing Jewish Home Party slammed him for the delay.

“In Tehran, they’re opening the champagne, and switching into a higher gear en route to nuclear weapons,” the Jewish Home’s Housing Minister Uri Ariel said in a Facebook post on Sunday. “Facing real dangers, no one in the world will stand with us.” On Army Radio Sunday, Ariel further declared that “one doesn’t need to wait for tens of thousands more children to die in order to intervene.” He said Assad was a “murderous rabbit, and he needs to be taken care off, already.”

Netanyahu slammed Ariel for those comments at Sunday’s cabinet meeting, telling him that issuing personal attacks on Obama did not help Israel’s “national security.”

In an implied critique of Obama, former foreign minister Avigdor Liberman (Yisrael Beytenu), now the chairman of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, later Sunday lamented what he called the world’s “unprecedented” inactivity in the face of Assad’s brutality. “One hundred thousand people have been slaughtered in a country called Syria, and the world just keeps talking.” Liberman said numerous players were trying to draw Israel into the Syria conflict and that Israel was well-prepared. “We have all the answers. We know where Damascus, Brussels and Moscow are, and where Beirut’s Dahieh neighborhood (a Hezbollah stronghold) is, too.”

Officials in Jerusalem are concerned that the delay of more than a week before Congress meets for a vote could open up other avenues for Syria, including a possible transfer of its chemical weapons to Russia in an attempt to avoid a US strike, according to a report on Israel Radio Monday.

Kerry on Sunday said the US now has evidence of sarin gas use in Syria, adding that the “case is building” for a military attack.

Iran, Russia advise Assad to transfer chemical stockpile to Tehran – to avert US attack.

Iranian parliamentarian Ala-Eddin Borujerdi in Damascus

The Iranian parliamentary delegation visiting Damascus Sunday, Sept. 1, advised Bashar Assad to move his chemical stockpile out of Syria and deposit it in Tehran under Iranian and Russian military supervision, to save himself from an American military strike, debkafile’s exclusive military and Iranian sources reveal.

Chairman of the Majlis Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ala-Eddin Borujerdi, who headed the delegation, explained that Presidents Hassan Rouhani and Vladimir Putin had discussed the stockpile’s removal ad hoc, as the basis of a Iranian-Russian plan for presenting to US President Barack Obama at the G-20 summit meeting in St. Petersburg later this week.
After the Americans accept the plan and the crisis blows over, the stockpile could be quietly returned to Syria, the Iranian lawmaker explained.

Another option was for Iranian and Russian teams to destroy the stockpile in return for US-Arab League guarantees that the Syrian rebels would not use this process for strategic war gains. The chemical agents would be destroyed in stages in accordance with rebel compliance with such guarantees.
debkafile’s military sources explain Tehran’s quest for a deal on two grounds: One – Iran supplied Syria with most of the formulae and substances for the manufacture of the poison agents and fears exposure if they fall into American hands.

Another is anxiety lest an American military strike on Syria’s chemical stores – if it is allowed to go through – would serve as a precedent or prequel for a similar attack on Iran’s nuclear assets.
Tehran is therefore willing to put on an amenable face and meet the United States half way on the disposal of Syria’s chemical arsenal. The offer would be presented as good for President Obama and let him give the American people the glad tidings that he had managed to defuse the Syrian chemical crisis by procuring a joint Iranian-Russian guarantee to eliminate Syria’s chemical arsenal. He could then call off an attack Syria with honor, or postpone it indefinitely to avoid disrupting the process of Syria’s chemical disarmament.
Both the Russians and the Iranians saw an opening for their plan in a phrase President Obama used in his surprise announcement Saturday night, Aug. 31 that he would ask Congress to authorize a military attack on Syria before going ahead. It was this: “…the Chairman [of the Joint US Chiefs of Staff] has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or a month from now.”

The Russian-Iranian plan would turn those words back on the US president by offering him guarantees that if he was not satisfied that Syria’s chemical stocks were gone – either by transfer to Iran or destroyed – he had left himself with time to play with for reverting to his military option.

The Iranian lawmakers told Assad that Tehran is not fully in the picture of the secret Russian-US dialogue on Syria, but Tehran had reason to believe that the Russians had put out feelers to the Americans on the proposition and were not initially turned down.

Russian and Iranian intelligence experts on US politics expect Obama’s limited offensive plan for Syria to run into major obstacles in Congress. They hope the opposition will find added support for its counter-arguments in the Iranian-Russian proposition. And even if it is eventually turned down, the deliberations on its pros and cons would buy time for the Syrian ruler’s war effort.
The Iranian parliamentary delegation also included Javad Karimi Qodusi and Fath-o-Allah Hosseini, two other prominent members of the Majlis foreign affairs panel.

Obama’s Syria Decision Greeted Silently by Israel – NYTimes.com.

By JODI RUDOREN and ISABEL KERSHNER

JERUSALEM — Since reports surfaced of an apparent chemical attack outside Damascus, Israeli leaders have called for an American response, both on moral grounds and as a warning to Iran over its nuclear program. But on Sunday, after President Obama said he would delay a military strike to obtain Congressional approval, a new message emerged from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government: Do not say anything.

Israel’s ministers of defense and international affairs, who spoke out repeatedly last week, stayed silent on Sunday. Another member of Israel’s security cabinet canceled a news briefing scheduled for Monday, citing the delicate situation. Mr. Netanyahu himself issued a brief, bland statement saying Israel was “calm,” “self-assured” and “prepared for any scenario” before moving on to innocuous matters like wishing the world’s Jews a “good and blessed year.”

Behind closed doors, Mr. Netanyahu told his cabinet on Sunday that the situation was “evolving,” with “delicate matters” that he was managing “with discretion and responsibility,” and warned: “There is no room for private statements.”

“I ask that you not act without consideration and irresponsibly toward our ally in order to capture a moment of glory,” Mr. Netanyahu said, according to someone who was there and spoke on the condition of anonymity. “These statements do not serve the citizens of Israel.”

Israel has a great deal at stake in the American debate. Beyond the threats by Syria and its allies that they would retaliate against Israel for an American strike, Israel is gravely concerned about America’s waning influence in the Middle East. Israel sees Syria as a test case for Mr. Obama’s credibility in enforcing “red lines,” given his promise to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

At the same time, Israel has a powerful American lobby with bipartisan strength that could be uniquely positioned to help the White House shore up support in Congress.

Yet there were no outward signs on Sunday that Israel would attempt to influence the outcome, and numerous experts on the Israel-American relationship said it would be deeply dangerous to try.

“It would be a mistake to overplay the Israeli interest,” said Itamar Rabinovich, who was Israel’s ambassador to the United States and also its chief negotiator with Syria in the 1990s. “It’s bad for Israel that the average American gets it into his or her mind that boys are again sent to war for Israel. They have to be sent to war for America.”

Another former ambassador, Sallai Meridor, who served in Washington during the Iraq war, said Israel should share its analysis but not give advice, particularly if the debate breaks along party lines, as often happened during the Bush years. “The line may be hard to see, but you know if you crossed it,” Mr. Meridor said. “For a small nation like Israel, bipartisan support is a strategic asset.”

Both Mr. Obama and his secretary of state, John Kerry, have mentioned Israel’s needs as one justification for an attack on Syria. But some in Washington have already raised the specter of retaliatory missiles raining on Tel Aviv, as they did during the Persian Gulf war, as a reason not to strike. Michael B. Oren, Israel’s current ambassador to the United States, rebuffed that argument Sunday, saying in an interview, “Nobody can allege or assume that because of us America should not act.” Beyond that, Mr. Oren said, “the general disposition is not to be involved in this vote.”

A spokesman for the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the main pro-Israel lobby, said Sunday that the group “won’t have comment for now.” Another advocate for Israel in Washington said people were waiting to see the White House strategy for the vote and how the debate unfolded before deciding what to do. Part of the hesitation comes from Jerusalem’s ambivalence about what outcome it prefers in the Syrian civil war.

“The only thing that is clear is that Israel will take the heat either way,” a senior Israeli government official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of Mr. Netanyahu’s directive. “If we remain on the sidelines, it will be seen as defiant criticism of President Obama. And if we don’t, it will be seen as interference. There is nothing we can do to come out clean.”

While Israel and its advocates seemed paralyzed by Mr. Obama’s move, analysts here generally condemned the decision to wait for Congressional approval, saying it weakened American leadership in the Middle East and made it more likely that Mr. Netanyahu would order Israeli military action against Iran on his own. Several experts said it was a significant setback, after months in which Jerusalem and Washington had seemed more in accord on the Iran question.

“The punch line is that the more that Israel perceives the U.S. as hesitant, the more Israel will be pushed to deal alone with the Iranians, something that the U.S. really did not want,” said Michael Herzog, an Israel-based fellow of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “People ask, ‘If this is the case on a relatively simple thing like striking Syria, how will they act against Iran?’ It deepens the question marks.”

Ari Shavit, a columnist for the left-leaning daily newspaper Haaretz, said that Israel and others in the Middle East were being left with a “feeling of orphans,” wondering “if there is still a reliable parent in Washington who is really committed, who understands what’s going on and who is willing to act.”

Dan Gillerman, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, attacked Mr. Obama’s speech announcing that he would put the Syria question before Congress as “a very serious diplomatic and political fiasco reminiscent of the Carter days,” and said the enemies of Israel and the United States — especially in Tehran — were “gloating and celebrating.”

“In Israel there is a lot of worry about whether we can really count on the United States,” Mr. Gillerman said. “The behavior of the U.S. and what it projects over the last few weeks has cast a very dark shadow and very serious doubt over that.”

Is Iran willing to give up on Assad? – Alarabiya.net English | Front Page.

Obama unleashes horror in Jerusalem | The Times of Israel.

Israel wants to believe the US will yet intervene to stop Assad’s use of chemical weapons, undoing some of the damage caused by the president’s zigzag. For the leadership here, the alternative is too awful to contemplate

By David Horovitz September 1, 2013, 9:50 pm

Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama meet at the White House in 2011. (photo credit: Avi Ohayon/Government Press Office/Flash90)

PM implores ministers not to speak about Obama’s decision on Syria | JPost | Israel News.

▶ Sec. Kerry strains to justify Obama’s 180 on Syria. on Meet The Press – YouTube.

“He’s made his decision,. (but won’t do anything) now it’s up to congress.”

I feel bad for Kerry.  He seems to really care about the Syrian people and America’s importance to a sane and safe world.

Too bad he’s working for (yes we can as long as someone else is responsible) Obama.

Assad: American threats of attack on Syria will not stop our fight against US-backed terrorists | JPost | Israel News.

President Bashar Assad said on Sunday Syria was capable of confronting any external attack after US President Barack Obama said there should be a military strike on Syria.

“Syria … is capable of confronting any external aggression,” state television quoted Assad as saying at a meeting with Iranian officials.

“The American threats of launching an attack against Syria will not discourage Syria away from its principles … or its fight against terrorism supported by some regional and Western countries, first and foremost the United States of America.”

Syria generally refers to rebels fighting to topple Assad as “terrorists”.

Following Obama’s Saturday speech in which he said he would seek congressional authorization to launch a military attack on Syria, Damascus said that the US president was full of hesitation and confusion.

“It is clear there was a sense of hesitation and disappointment in what was said by President Barack Obama yesterday. And it is also clear there was a sense of confusion as well,” Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad said on Sunday.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said on Sunday that world opinion was against any international attack on Iran’s key ally Syria, citing the British parliament’s rejection of military action.

“The Americans don’t see the wave of hatred of people against their warmongering policies and continue to pursue military actions against Syria, even though these actions have been thwarted in the UN Security Council and the British parliament has stated its opposition to military activity,” Larijani said, according to the ISNA news agency.

Obama said on Saturday that he believed the US should take military action against Damascus for its apparent use of chemical weapons, but he would first seek congressional consent, a move likely to delay an attack for at least 10 days.

“A decision to wage war on Syria is a criminal decision and an incorrect decision. We are confident that we will be victorious,” Mekdad said.