WarSclerotic

Source: Do Palestinian Lives Matter?

Huffington Post

( The view from the American left… – JW )

Lawmakers seem incapable of grasping the fact that Palestinians are suffering, too.

Jessica Schulberg Foreign Affairs Reporter, The Huffington Post

Richard Drew/Associated Press Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas addresses the 70th session of the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 30, 2015.

WASHINGTON — It came as no surprise that the House Foreign Affairs Committee meeting on the current wave of violence in Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank was a decidedly one-sided discussion.

In a hearing titled “Words Have Consequences: Palestinian Authority Incitement to Violence,” committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.) and ranking member Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) reached a similar conclusion: The current instability is caused by Palestinian leaders encouraging their people to kill Israelis.

Royce cited Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ quote, “We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem.” Engel said the past month of stabbings, shootings and vehicular assaults is “the product of years and years of anti-Israel propaganda and indoctrination — some of which has been actively promoted by Palestinian Authority officials and institutions.”

“It’s heartbreaking,” said Engel, “to wake up seemingly every morning to a new report of a stabbing or a shooting of an innocent civilian in Israel.”

But there was no mention of the 21 Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces since Oct. 1, despite having no identifiable connection to terrorist attacks.

Lawmakers did not talk about the Israeli teen who stabbed four Arabs earlier this month in southern Israel because of his belief that “all Arabs are terrorists.”

No one mentioned that between January and July of this year, settler violence caused 42 casualties, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

In fact, one of the few lawmakers to mention settlements was Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), who accused the international community of applying a “false moral equivalence between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.”

“Some, very lamely, blame settlement activity by Israel as the justification for increased violence, instead of putting the blame where it should be — with the Palestinian Authority, with Abu Mazen,” she said, using another name for Abbas.

The congresswoman’s comments were likely a swipe at Secretary of State John Kerry, who suggested last week that Palestinian frustration over settlement expansion is fueling the violence.

No one in the House Foreign Affairs Committee seemed aware that a senior official at Shin Bet — Israel’s secret service — recently refuted claims that Abbas is inciting Palestinians to attack Israelis. As Haaretz reported earlier this month, the Shin Bet official said that Abbas is “instructing his security forces to prevent terror attacks as much as possible.”

Also absent from Thursday’s debate was any mention of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at the Zionist Congress on Wednesday, where he accused the Palestinian grand mufti of Jerusalem of inspiring Hitler’s decision to exterminate the Jewish people during the Holocaust.

Historians and the Anti-Defamation League have refuted Netanyahu’s version of history. His statement also compelled German Chancellor Angela Merkel to reiterate that Germans were responsible for the Holocaust. Arab-Israeli Knesset member Ayman Odeh accused Netanyahu of “rewriting history in order to incite against the Palestinian people.”

But the House Foreign Affairs Committee members’ omissions aren’t surprising — this was, after all, a hearing to address Palestinian incitement.

Much to the chagrin of several members of the committee, the State Department has avoided assigning blame to either side. “We want to stress publicly and privately the importance of preventing inflammatory rhetoric, accusations, or actions on both sides that can lead to violence,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Wednesday.

Report: Israeli aircraft flew over Iran on attack test flight The Wall Street Journal reports Israel executed a test flight over Iran in 2012 as part of plan to attack Iran’s nuclear facility in Fordow; US sent a second aircraft carrier to the area fearing an outbreak of war.

Yitzhak Benhorin

Published: 10.23.15, 12:45 / Israel News

Source: Report: Israeli aircraft flew over Iran on attack test flight – Israel News, Ynetnews

Israeli aircraft entered and left Iranian airspace in 2012 as part of a test flight for a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear facility at Fordow, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday

The report stated that “nerves frayed at the White House after senior officials learned Israeli aircraft had flown in and out of Iran in what some believed was a dry run for a commando raid on the site.” As a result, the US sent a second aircraft carrier to the area and put fighter jets on alert.

The newspaper wrote a comprehensive investigative report on the crisis of confidence that developed between the US and Israel under President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As part of the investigation, intelligence officials and analysts that spoke with the newspaper revealed the Israeli flight over Iran.

Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility (Photo: AFP)

One official said that the US monitored Israeli military activity and eavesdropped on Israeli bases in 2012 after they learned about the flight. New information came in every day but US officials said that some of the information was classified and US security agencies were unable to receive the majority of the messages.

The report states that US Air Force analysts came to the conclusion that Israel did not have the necessary armament and aircraft to demolish the Iranian reactors. This conclusion was transferred to the Israelis, who in response gave the Americans an outline of its own plan: transport aircraft would land in Iran with commando teams to blow the front doors of the nuclear plant at Fordow and sabotage it. Pentagon officials thought it was a suicide mission and pressured Israel to give early warning to the United States, but Israel did not commit itself to doing so.

The V-22 Osprey plane-helicopter the Israelis requested from the US (Photo: EPA)

US intelligence agencies intensified their satellite tracking of IAF planes according to the report. They found out that pilots were put on alert to attack on dark nights without moonlight. They tracked the IAF training for combat missions, including examinations of Iran’s air defense system in an attempt to trick it.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) which cited senior White House and Pentagon officials, wrote that in 2012 there was a sense that Israel was about to attack and the White House felt that there was an urgent need to promote a diplomatic solution.

The White House, the report noted, decided to leave Prime Minister Netanyahu in the dark regarding secret negotiations that were being conducted by the US with Iran in Oman. The fear was that Netanyahu would leak the existence of the talks and undermine them. Obama’s aides had very little good will towards Netanyahu who was perceived as a supporter of Republican candidate Mitt Romney during the 2012 elections. Obama left a meeting with Netanyahu with a sense that he wanted to attack on the eve of the presidential elections.

The WSJ cited defense sources in Washington who stated that Israeli officials discussed with their US counterparts the possibility of obtaining weapons for a possible attack. Topping the list was the V-22 Osprey, a plane-helicopter which fits in well with the Israeli plan to land commandos. Israeli officials were also interested in the possibility of procuring the Massive Ordnance Penetrator designed by the US to destroy bunkers at the Fordow facility.

Netanyahu wanted “somebody in the administration to show acquiescence, if not approval” for a military strike, said Gary Samore, who was Obama’s top adviser on the Iran nuclear issue during his first term. But the Americans replied that this was a serious error and the administration refused to supply Israel with military equipment required for attack.

The US tried hiding from Israel the first Oman conversations, revealing them only once Hassan Rouhani became president of Iran. Samore believed that it was wrong to leave Israel out of the picture for so long. The State Department’s nuclear expert Robert Einhorn said that it had a negative impact on Israel’s attitude towards the talks.

It was reported that following the incident the US government decided to send a second aircraft carrier to the region and put fighter jets on alert in case an Israeli attack will led to a regional war. However, the government now admits that the exceptional flight over Iran made them draw mistaken conclusions.

PA, Jordan to tell Kerry they want Muslim control over Jewish visits to Temple Mount Abbas and King Abdullah to present demand in upcoming talks with secretary in Amman, say restoring authority to Waqf would calm tensions

By Avi Issacharoff

October 23, 2015, 2:35 pm

Source: PA, Jordan to tell Kerry they want Muslim control over Jewish visits to Temple Mount | The Times of Israel

Won’t happen !

US Secretary of State John Kerry (left) meets with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Amman on November 13, 2014. (AFP/Nicholas Kamm/Pool)

ISIS Warns Jews in Hebrew, You’re Next to be Slaughtered

By: JNi.Media

Published: October 23rd, 201

Source: The Jewish Press » » ISIS Warns Jews in Hebrew, You’re Next to be Slaughtered

ISIS released a video in Israeli-Arabic-accented Hebrew, ranting and warning the Jews that Islamic State plans to come to Israel to slaughter and eradicate everyone until no Jews are left in Jerusalem, Israel and the world. They would first overrun Jordan, after which they would overrun Israel from every direction.

ISIS has been focusing a lot of attention on Israel lately, and local ISIS affiliated terror cells have been captured by Israeli security forces. A number of Israeli-Arabs have joined ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

This may be the first time that the Islamist organization has spoken directly to Israelis in Hebrew.

The clip shows a masked soldier wearing a uniform, with a rifle and a dagger, who speaks a fairly modern dialect, with an accent that shifts from heavily Arab, with an unusually soft R for an Arab speaker (which could suggest Israeli upbringing). Like most Arabs, he is unable to pronounce the P sound, and so he says Bashut instead of Pashut (simple), and Bachad’tem instead of Pachad’tem (you feared).

At the beginning of the video, he turns to the camera and says, “This is a serious and clear announcement to all the Jews, the first enemy of the Muslims. To all the Jews who conquered our country, the Muslims. The real war has not started yet, and everything you had before is simply called a child’s play compared to that which is going to happen to you in the near future, inshallah (God willing).”

Speaking of the current wave of terror, he expresses the hope that ISIS will arrive and destroy Israel. He promises the annulment of the Sykes-Picot borders, which, in 1916, divided the dying Ottoman between France and Great Britain. He boasts of having already eliminated the Syrian-Iraqi border, and foretells erasing the Syrian-Jordanian border, too—a direct threat against King Abdullah II of Jordan. He then promises removing the Syrian-Palestinian borders, too, which is a curious promise, because that could mean the end of the dream of Palestinian statehood (under Ottoman rule, Palestine was ruled by a governor who sat in Damascus).

He promises to eventually arrive in Israel to destroy it, to avenge its “crimes,” telling Israelis: “Do whatever you feel like in the meantime, until we get to you, and then we’ll destroy everything ten times over for the crimes your committed. And we promise you that soon there will not be a single Jew in Jerusalem and throughout the country. And we’ll continue on until we eradicate this disease worldwide.”

The above reference to Jews as a worldwide disease suggests the speaker is versed in 19th century anti-Semitic literature, probably in the texts published and distributed by the Saudi government, which rules over a publishing empire dedicated to Jew hatred.

He repeats a theme commonly used by Hamas culture, chiding Jews and Westerners for their love of life, as compared to the Arab Klingon-like infatuation with death and killing. “Look what happened to you,” he slams his Israeli viewers, “a few stabbings and running over by our brothers in Palestine, you fell over on your head and started to fear any driver traveling too fast. You’re even scared of any person who grabs something in his hand. Simply put, that is your level. Think about it even for a second, what will happen to you as soon as—inshallah—tens of thousands from all over the world will be coming to slaughter you and throw you in the trash without a return?”

The speaker is clearly an Israeli Arab, or an Arab from the territories who attended an Israeli educational institute or otherwise lived near Israeli Jews. He is likely the son of a middle class family, he appears poised and secure. His recitation is restrained, meaning that he knows and understands his target audience: excited Hamas videos in Hebrew are usually so over the top, and rife with humiliating pronunciation gaffes, they often go viral as comedy. This one is not for laughs.

“Proxy” War No More: Qatar Threatens Military Intervention In Syria Alongside “Saudi, Turkish Brothers”

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/22/2015 14:37 -0400

Source: “Proxy” War No More: Qatar Threatens Military Intervention In Syria Alongside “Saudi, Turkish Brothers” | Zero Hedge

Earlier this week, Saudi foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir had the following message for Tehran:

“We wish that Iran would change its policies and stop meddling in the affairs of other countries in the region, in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. We will make sure that we confront Iran’s actions and shall use all our political, economic and military powers to defend our territory and people.”

In short, Riyadh and its allies in Doha and the UAE are uneasy about the fact that the P5+1 nuclear deal is set to effectively remove Iran from the pariah state list just as Tehran is expanding its regional influence via its Shiite militias in Iraq, the ground operation in Syria, and through the Houthis in Yemen.

Thanks to the fact that Tehran has more of an arm’s length relationship with the Houthis than it does with Hezbollah and its proxy armies in Iraq, the Saudis have been able to effectively counter anti-Hadi forces in Yemen without risking a direct conflict with Iran, but make no mistake, Sana’a is not the prize here. Yemen is a side show. The real fight is for the political future of Syria and for control of Iraq once the US finally packs up and leaves for good. Iran is winning on both of those fronts.

Over the last several weeks, we and others have suggested that one should not simply expect Washington, Riyadh, Ankara, and Doha to go gently into that good night in Syria after years of providing support for the various Sunni extremist groups fighting to destabilize the regime. There’s just too much at stake.

As noted on Tuesday, Assad’s ouster would have removed a key Iranian ally and cut off Tehran from Hezbollah. Not only would that outcome pave the way for deals like the Qatar-Turkey natural gas line, it would also cement Sunni control over the region on the way to dissuading Tehran at a time when the lifting of crippling economic sanctions is set to allow the Iranians to shed the pariah state label and return to the international stage not only in terms of energy exports, but in terms of diplomacy as well. Just about the last thing Riyadh wants to see ahead of Iran’s resurgence, is a powergrab on the doorstep of the Arabian peninsula.

Thanks to Washington’s schizophrenic foreign policy, there’s no effective way to counter Iran in Iraq but as Mustafa Alani, the Dubai-based director of National Security and Terrorism Studies at the Gulf Research Center told Bloomberg earlier this week, “The regional powers can give the Russians limited time to see if their intervention can lead to a political settlement — if not, there is going to be a proxy war.”

That’s not entirely accurate. There’s already a proxy war and the dangerous thing about it is that thanks to the fact that Iran is now overtly orchestrating the ground operation, one side of the “SAA vs. rebels” proxy label has been removed. Now it’s “Iran-Russia vs. rebels” which means we’re just one degree of separation away from a direct confrontation between NATO’s regional allies in Riyadh and Doha and the Russia-Iran “nexus.” Here’s Bloomberg with more on the Saudi’s predicament:

Powerful Saudi clerics are calling for a response to the Russian move, even though the kingdom is already bogged down in another war in Yemen. Analysts say the Saudi government will probably speed up the flow of cash and weapons to its allies in the opposition fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad, who’s also supported by Saudi Arabia’s main rival, Iran.

While the Saudis may seek to direct their aid to “moderate forces” in Syria, “the definition of this word is subject to much debate,” said Theodore Karasik, a Dubai-based political analyst. Sending arms “is dangerous in the medium term because of how easily weapons can fall into the wrong hands,” he said.

And let’s not kid ourselves, there are no “wrong hands” as far as Riyadh and Doha are concerned. Sure, they’d rather not have ISIS running around inside their borders blowing up mosques but then again, those bombings simply provide more political cover for justifying an air campaign in Syria. Back to Bloomberg:

Extremist groups already hold sway over large parts of the country. The Saudis joined U.S.-led operations against Islamic State last year, and since then jihadist attacks in the kingdom have increased, many of them targeting minority Shiite Muslims in the oil-rich eastern province. Meanwhile, Assad accuses the Saudis and other Gulf states of arming rebel groups with ties to al-Qaeda.

Some Saudi thinkers advocate direct military engagement in Syria, just as the kingdom has done in Yemen. Nawaf Obaid, a visiting fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, is one of them.

“The Saudis are going to be forced to lead a coalition of nations in an air campaign against the remnants of Syrian forces, Hezbollah and Iranian fighters to facilitate the collapse of the Assad regime and assist the entry of rebel forces into Damascus,” Obaid wrote in an opinion piece published by CNN on Oct. 4.

And while some still see that outcome as far fetched not only because the Saudis are stretched thin thanks to falling crude prices and the war in Yemen, but because it would be an extraordinarily dangerous escalation, it looks as though Qatar is leaning in a similar direction. Here’s Sputnik:

Qatar who has been a major sponsor of jihadist groups fighting in Syria for years, now is actively considering a direct military intervention in the country, according to its officials.

Throughout Syria’s bloody civil war, the government of Qatar has been an active supporter of anti-government militants, providing arms and financial backing to so called “rebels.” Many of these, like the al-Nusra Front, were directly linked to al-Qaeda. That strategy has, of course, done little to put a dent in terrorist organizations in the region.

But as Russia enters its fourth week of anti-terror airstrikes, Qatar has indicated that it may launch a military campaign of its own.

“Anything that protects the Syrian people and Syria from partition, we will not spare any effort to carry it out with our Saudi and Turkish brothers, no matter what this is,” Qatar’s Foreign Minister Khalid al-Attiyah told CNN on Wednesday, when asked if he supported Saudi Arabia’s position of not ruling out a military option.

“If a military intervention will protect the Syrian people from the brutality of the regime, we will do it,” he added, according to Qatar’s state news agency QNA.

Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad was fast to warn the Middle Eastern monarchy that such a move would be a disastrous mistake with serious consequences.

“If Qatar carries out its threat to militarily intervene in Syria, then we will consider this a direct aggression,” he said, according to al-Mayadeen television. “Our response will be very harsh.”

Let’s just be clear. If Saudi Arabia and Qatar start bombing Iranian forces from the airspace near Russia’s base at Latakia, this will spiral out of control.

Iran simply wouldn’t stand for it and if you think for a second that Moscow is going to let Saudi Arabia fly around in Western Syria and bomb the Iranians, you’ll be in for a big surprise. Of course the first time a Russian jet shoots down a Saudi warplane over Syria, Washington will have no choice but to go to war.

Finally, we’d be remiss if we didn’t point out the absurdity in what’s being suggested here. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are essentially saying that they may be willing to go to war with Russia and Iran on behalf of al-Qaeda if it means facilitating Assad’s ouster. The Western world’s conception of “good guys”/ “bad guys” has officially been turned on its head.

And meanwhile:

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s public approval rating has reached a record 89.9 percent since he ordered his military to begin air strikes in support of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, according to a state-run polling center

For Saudis, Countermove Against Putin in Syria Carries Risks

Glen Carey

October 21, 2015 — 3:00 PM CDT Updated on October 22, 2015 — 7:04 AM CDT

Source: For Saudis, Countermove Against Putin in Syria Carries Risks – Bloomberg Business

Russia’s entry into the Syrian civil war has tilted the balance in favor of the government side, and there’s no risk-free way for Saudi Arabia — a key backer of the rebels — to tilt it back.

Powerful Saudi clerics are calling for a response to the Russian move, even though the kingdom is already bogged down in another war in Yemen. Analysts say the Saudi government will probably speed up the flow of cash and weapons to its allies in the opposition fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad, who’s also supported by Saudi Arabia’s main rival, Iran.

While the Saudis may seek to direct their aid to “moderate forces” in Syria, “the definition of this word is subject to much debate,” said Theodore Karasik, a Dubai-based political analyst. Sending arms “is dangerous in the medium term because of how easily weapons can fall into the wrong hands,” he said.

Waves of jihadists, most famously Osama Bin Laden, went to Afghanistan to fight Soviet forces after 1979, as the Saudis and U.S. provided them with weapons and cash. The effort succeeded: the Soviet Union was forced to pull out. Yet it ultimately backfired on the Saudis as militants returned home and turned their sights on the ruling family. Oil infrastructure, government officials and foreign workers were targeted. Saudi citizens also made up a majority of the Sept. 11 attackers.

Rebels in Damascus?

There are similar risks in Syria, where extremist groups already hold sway over large parts of the country. The Saudis joined U.S.-led operations against Islamic State last year, and since then jihadist attacks in the kingdom have increased, many of them targeting minority Shiite Muslims in the oil-rich eastern province. Meanwhile, Assad accuses the Saudis and other Gulf states of arming rebel groups with ties to al-Qaeda.

Some Saudi thinkers advocate direct military engagement in Syria, just as the kingdom has done in Yemen. Nawaf Obaid, a visiting fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, is one of them.

“The Saudis are going to be forced to lead a coalition of nations in an air campaign against the remnants of Syrian forces, Hezbollah and Iranian fighters to facilitate the collapse of the Assad regime and assist the entry of rebel forces into Damascus,” Obaid wrote in an opinion piece published by CNN on Oct. 4.

Already Stretched

Most analysts say that’s a far-fetched scenario because Saudi Arabia and its Gulf ally the United Arab Emirates are already stretched in Yemen. They’ve been bombing rebels for more than six months and deployed an expanding ground force, but have only managed to recapture southern regions of the country.

“It’s too soon for the Saudis or the Emiratis to be pivoting around to a different war,” said Yezid Sayigh, a senior associate at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut. “I really don’t think that the Gulf states actually have the ability to take on two active wars at the same time.”

Publicly, Saudi Arabia and Russia, who also compete as the world’s two biggest oil exporters, have tried to play down their differences.

Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir softened the Saudi position on Assad during a visit to Russia on Oct. 11, saying the Syrian leader could leave after a political transition, rather than before. Al-Jubeir also said talks with Putin were “constructive, frank and to the point.”

‘Collision Course’

The Saudi and Russian foreign ministers are set to join their U.S. and Turkish counterparts to discuss Syria at a Vienna meeting on Friday, days after Assad went to Moscow for his first official foreign visit since the war began more than four years ago. Putin called King Salman on Wednesday to discuss “the situation in the region,” the official Saudi Press Agency reported.

“It’s premature to assume that Saudi Arabia and Russia are on a collision course,” said Fahad Nazer, a political analyst at JTG Inc. in Virginia, who once worked at the Saudi Embassy in Washington.

The twin tracks of Saudi policy on Syria — talking to Russia and arming the rebels — are being handled separately by King Salman’s two top lieutenants, according to Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington and a former U.S. Mideast adviser on the National Security Council.

Mohammed bin Salman, the king’s son and defense minister, is in charge of talks with Russia, and has met Putin twice, including earlier this month in Sochi, “to try to fashion a deal on Syria,” Riedel said.

‘Just Like 80s’

Meanwhile, the heir to the throne and interior minister, Mohammed bin Nayef, who’s closer to the U.S., is in charge of the rebel supply line and “ratcheting it up now just like the 80s,” Riedel said in an e-mail.

Salman himself was directly involved in fundraising for the mujahideen in Afghanistan, Riedel wrote in a Sept. 29 analysis for Brookings. Since ascending the throne in January, he’s taken a more assertive line on regional conflicts.

There are powerful forces in the kingdom pushing him to do the same in Syria. Fifty-five Sunni scholars called for a jihad there, and described Putin’s military involvement as a coalition with Iran “making real war against the Sunni people and their countries,” language that echoed the Afghan conflict.

There are some signs that Saudi rulers may be responding to such pressures. The U.K.-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has detected an increase in arms flows to the rebels since Russia intervened, according to its head, Rami Abdurrahman. He wasn’t able to say who was providing them.

While direct confrontation is probably too risky, the Gulf states “can try to make Russia’s life difficult, the way they did in Afghanistan back in the old days,” said Gregory Gause, a professor of international affairs at Texas A&M University. “Of course, the consequences might be supporting people who will eventually turn on the Saudis.”