jta.org

The Anti-Defamation League accused European countries of “capitulating to Arab intimidation” in voting to recognize Palestine as a non-member state at the United Nations.

“They have acted without courage and capitulated to Arab intimidation and pressure,” ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman said in a statement.

The Czech Republic was the only member of the European Union that on Thursday that voted against recognizing the Palestinian Authority as a non-member state observer at the U.N. General Assembly. Only eight other nations voted ‘no,’ including Israel, the U.S., Canada and Panama.

Among the nations that voted yes were Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, and Greece. Other E.U. nations abstained.

The ADL statement singling out Europe was separate from another statement from the group, expressing regret at the vote. A wide array of U.S. Jewish groups condemned the vote, although several praised it, including Americans for Peace Now.

Previously, the Palestine Liberation Organization had the status of non-member observer entity.

“They were intimidated at a cost, and they have lost the credibility to play a serious role in bringing the Israelis and Palestinians together,” Foxman said.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday criticized the General Assembly’s vote as “unfortunate and counterproductive.”

Alon Liel, a former director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, called the European vote “a sucker-punch” to the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to Ynet, the Israeli news site.

He was among several hundred activists who celebrated the vote at a rally in Tel Aviv, the news site reported.

Thousands of flag-waving Palestinians set off fireworks and danced in the streets on Thursday to celebrate the vote, Reuters reported.

Published: 07 December, 2012, 19:32

TAGS:
Arms, Conflict, UN, Politics, Opposition, Syria

TRENDS:
Syria unrest

Ban Ki-Moon gestures as he speaks to the press during a visit to a UN-run school in the Zaatari Refugee Camp for Syrian refugees, Jordan, on December 7, 2012 (AFP Photo / Khalil Mazraawi)

UN chief Ban Ki-moon has said there are no confirmed reports that Damascus is preparing to use chemical weapons in the ongoing Syrian conflict. The statement comes amid speculation that loyalist forces are loading deadly nerve gas into aerial bombs.

­"Recently we have been receiving alarming news that the Syrian government may be preparing to use chemical weapons. We have no confirmed reports on this matter," Secretary-General Ban said while visiting Syrian refugee camps in Turkey on Friday, as Haaretz daily quotes him.

Ban stressed it would nevertheless be an “outrageous crime” with wide-reaching consequences if the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians.

This week, NBC reported that the Syrian military has loaded the deadly nerve gas Sarin into aerial bombs, which could then be dropped on rebels from Mig-23 or Sukhoi-24 aircraft.

ABC News also quoted unnamed American officials as saying that so far, the bombs have not been loaded onto planes. Over the last 48 hours, no major movement has been reported at Syria’s chemical weapons sites.

The news prompted comments from Washington, with US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton reiterating that the use of chemical weapons would be crossing “a red line.”

Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile became a topic of international concern this past July. Syria is reportedly in possession of nerve agents, including mustard gas, as well as the Scud missiles needed to deliver them. The country is one of six states that have not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, which outlaws their production.

Since July, President Bashar Assad’s government has repeatedly stated that chemical weapons will not be used on Syria, but he also has not excluded the possibility they might be deployed in the event of “a foreign attack.”

Both Moscow and Washington condemned the possible use of chemical weapons.

The proliferation or use of chemical weapons is “unacceptable" to Russia, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said on numerous occasions. Moscow has been pressing Damascus for regular guarantees its chemical weapons stockpiles have not been moved, are properly guarded and will not be used in any conflict.

US President Barack Obama has also warned Assad that if he makes “the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences” and he “will be held accountable.”

Washington is worried that Syria’s chemical weapons might fall into the hands of the Syrian rebels, some of whom have links to Al-Qaeda, Secretary of State Clinton said.

“Our concerns are that an increasingly desperate Assad regime might turn to chemical weapons or might lose control of them to one of the many groups that are operating within Syria,” Clinton told reporters on Wednesday.

But critics say, Washington"s continuous claims of Syrian preparations of chemical weapons are based on strategy, not real concerns. The situation in Syria is akin to the war in Iraq, Ibrahim Alloush of the Zaytouneh University in Jordan told RT.

“The purpose of drumming up these allegations about Syrians attempting or pondering the usage of chemical weapons is either to justify a military intervention directly in Syria, or to justify arming the rebels with qualitatively better weaponry, especially anti-aircraft missiles. Or, if things came to a political settlement, to impose the presence of international monitors, which should be in the best interests of Israel,” Alloush said.

The recognition of the Syrian opposition as the sole legitimate voice of the Syrian people is another “blatant” attempt on behalf of Western powers to further destabilize the Syrian government, Alloush told RT. The consequences of the Assad government’s dissolution could be dire, he added.

“The US and the NATO are trying to circumvent the legitimate process that has to take place through international law. They’re trying to bring about the change within Syria like they did in Iraq, or Libya, by undermining the legitimate government and bringing about chaos, fragmentation, bloodshed, civil war instead. It would be another Iraq – but on a larger regional scale,” he warned.

Published: 08 December, 2012, 05:30

TAGS:
Arms, Military, Politics, Terrorism, USA, War, Syria, Security, Army, Violence

TRENDS:
Syria unrest

Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell (AFP Photo / Chip Somodevilla)

Syria will never use chemical weapons against its own people, Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired US Army Colonel who was Chief of Staff to Colin Powell told RT. Instead, the reality is that US is “preparing the ground to intervene in Syria.”

­An act which would lead to a conflict “that would take at least a decade to settle – and there aren"t going to be too many victors at the end of that decade, just losers,” Wilkerson says, as Washington"s ultimate aim is to overthrow the Iranian leadership.

Simultaneously, some members of Congress are talking about "impeachment" of the US president for not consulting Congress before involving the country in conflicts.

RT: You were Colin Powell"s chief of staff when the decision was made to invade Iraq. In 2003, Powell made a speech that laid out the case for that war. Let"s take a listen to what he said. You helped prepare that speech, and have since described it as the biggest mistake of your life. Why?

Lawrence Wilkerson: Primarily because we – to the American people, to the international community and of course to the members of the US Security Council – presented that speech… it was not accurate, it was not true, it was not valid. We did not know that, but it was not just an intelligence failure. It was also the massive politicization of intelligence by the leadership in Washington.

RT: We"re currently seeing very similar rhetoric in the US in relation to Syria.  Will it end in war again?

LW: I would be highly skeptical of any of the intelligence rendered by the $140-billion-plus US intelligence community as to weapons of mass destruction in possession of another country. Period.

RT: Syria is not signed up the chemical weapons convention, one of the seven countries that isn"t. Does that suggest perhaps that it has a reason to get signed up to it, and it does have chemical weapons?

LW: Well I"m not violating any confidence or any great prohibition in the intelligence community to tell you that we have known for years, years that Syria has chemical weapons stockpiles, just like Iraq had chemical weapons stockpiles for a while. But the fact that President Assad will be moving them around and preparing for use against his own citizens within his own territory, I frankly find preposterous.

RT: Why is it then that the US really wants to pursue this, and is using it for various reasons, not just to justify only rhetoric, but perhaps a serious talk of a military invasion?

LW: Well, Syria"s question was just addressed by one of your previous commentators, and that is, why in the world would we put Patriot batteries on the Turkish border adhesively to protect Turkey with the largest and the most powerful army in the region, indeed one of the most powerful in the world?  Turkey needs no protection by us against that sort of thing, and it would be utterly stupid for Assad to attack Turkey in that way. So why are we doing those things that look like they"re not connected to the reality, unless the reality is that we"re preparing the ground to intervene in Syria.

RT: What would be the implications if the US were to intervene in Syria? Some are saying that the fallout will be far more dramatic that what we saw in Iraq – would you agree with that?

LW: I think, if we were to intervene in a substantial way, that is to say if we were to put the troops on the ground, marines, soldiers and so forth; and we were to do in Syria what we began to do in 2003 in Iraq, I think those people are absolutely right. I think it will even be even worse than Iraq. I think, again, it will be as a backdoor into Iran, which as you know is the real threat that we have been putting out there for years now.

And I think we"re looking into Syria and Iran being a combination that we would then take on – and you"re talking about a conflict that becomes regional and maybe even wider, because we"ve got Russia, we"ve got China, we"ve got other players; as I"ve just mentioned, the Turks. We"ve got a significant interest in that region if Iran and Syria are seriously threatened by the US invasion. And I think, you"re looking at a configuration that would take at least a decade to settle and there aren"t going to be too many victors at the end of that decade – just losers.

RT: Can it actually afford to get involved, and is there an appetite among the American people for yet another military conflict?

LW: Absolutely not, but I"m meeting with several congressman at the end of the week, and that is next week, and we"re going to talk about this very thing. For example about Libya, the way the Libyan operation was conducted without the consultation with the US Congress at all. There are some congressman that are so concerned about this that they"re mentioning words like impeachment and so worth, because you"re not supposed to take the American country to war without the permission of the Congress, the Constitution pretty much says that.

And yet we"re on this track where executives start wars on their own will, and I think this is the kind of thing that is really dangerous for this republic. Iran will give this a different patina, though, because you have a Congress that is really itching to go to war with Iran. So, I think you"re looking at a combination here – not just Syria, and ultimately the target is Iran.

RT: What is the answer then for Syria? Isn"t some intervention justified on humanitarian grounds? In fact, that justification was given for the intervention in Libya. In fact many say that is what brought the conflict to an end, disposed of colonel Gaddafi and ended the loss of innocent lives. Can you apply the same to Syria?

LW: Well, I would differ with that resolution in Libya. Libya still has enormous problems. We have a disconcerted Mali. We have the government being overthrown in Mali, we have Al -Qaeda operating in the North of Mali – all of that is partially a result of what we did in Libya. So, I would be very hesitant to classify Libya as a success. Syria and Iran would be classified even less as a success in my view. What you would have there, a I said, is a long-term occupation, increasing insurgency, increasing civil war-like fighting and so worth.

The answer in Syria, I think, as lamentable as the casualties are, is to let the Syrians settle the situation for the Syrians. There are a lot of Iranians on the ground fighting with Assad"s forces, advising with Assad"s forces. And since that is taking place, it makes better sense for us to take on Syria because we"re going to encounter the Iranians in Syria if we go into Syria. But this is not the time to be doing this.

RT: Do you think rebels could dispose of Assad?

LW: I think Assad"s days are numbered. I don"t know what those days are, I did not think he would last through 2012, and he is apparently going to do that. He may hang on to several factions in Syria that are powerful and still with him, but I still think the best resolution for Syria is a resolution brought about by the majority of the Syrian people.

If they can get their act together to the point where the opposition, as it were, to Assad is sodded enough, it has enough good leadership to topple him, than that is what should happen. But there should be no outside assistance, and that goes for Iran too. Iran should get its people out of Syria and let Syria handle its problems by itself.

ynet 

US President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle released a special Hanukkah message Friday, wishing Israelis and the Jewish people worldwide a happy holiday.

“Michelle and I send our warmest wishes to all those celebrating Hanukkah around the world,” the president said in a statement.

“This Hanukkah season we remember the powerful story of the Maccabees who rose up to liberate their people from oppression. Upon discovering the desecration of their Temple, the believers found only enough oil to light the lamp for one night. And yet it lasted for eight.

“Hanukkah is a time to celebrate the faith and customs of the Jewish people, but it is also an opportunity for people of all faiths to recognize the common aspirations we share.

“This holiday season, let us give thanks for the blessings we enjoy, and remain mindful of those who are suffering. And let us reaffirm our commitment to building a better, more complete world for all.

“From our family to the Jewish Community around the world, Chag Sameach.”

• Share
•  

timesofisrael.com

If the standoff over the Iranian nuclear program is not resolved diplomatically in the coming year, it will be resolved militarily by the end of 2013, two top US foreign policy officials told The Times of Israel on Thursday.

“I think there’s the stomach in this administration, and this president, that if diplomacy fails [to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons] — to use force,” according to Dennis Ross, a former Mideast envoy during the Clinton administration, and until November 2011 President Obama’s top advisor and planner on Iran in the National Security Council.

James Jeffrey, a former deputy national security advisor and, for the past two years, the US ambassador to Iraq, agreed with Ross’ assessment.

“I think [Obama’s] first choice will be a negotiated settlement. Failing that, I think that we’re going to strike,” Jeffrey said.

“One way or the other, these guys [the Iranian regime] are either going to stop their program or, before we’re halfway through 2013, they’re going to have enough [enriched nuclear materiel] to go critical in a few weeks,” he added. “I think if we don’t get a negotiated settlement, and these guys are actually on the threshold [of weaponization capability], as Obama said during the campaign, then the president is going to take military action.”

The two officials spoke with The Times of Israel at the gala dinner of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, held Thursday night at New York’s Waldorf Astoria Hotel. The event honored Ross and Elliott Abrams, a former deputy national security advisor to George W. Bush. Jeffrey, who was in attendance, recently joined the institute as a visiting fellow.

During an on-stage discussion with Ross and Abrams halfway through the evening, Washington Institute director Robert Satloff asked the former officials, “Will either America or Israel employ preventive military action against Iran’s nuclear program – yes or no?”

The two replied in unison, “yes.”

“Will this happen in 2013?” Satloff pressed.

“Yes,” said Ross.

“Yes, I agree,” added Abrams.

Obama’s “preference is to have diplomacy succeed,” Ross clarified to The Times of Israel after the panel discussion. But, he added, Obama is able and willing to carry out a military strike.

“If [Obama’s] position was going to be not to use force, he would have accepted the objective of containment [of a nuclear Iran]. He did not. He adopted the objective of prevention. That doesn’t mean you want force to be the case. What it means is, fundamentally, that if diplomacy doesn’t succeed you’re prepared to do it. And I believe he is.”

Asked if the Obama administration had an interest in pressing for a new Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative, Ross suggested the US had a more limited view of its role than in the past.

“I don’t think it’s the president’s view that somehow the United States can wave a magic wand and you can have peace,” he said. “If you go back to an interview he gave at the end of the first year [of Obama’s first term], he said [bringing the sides together to discuss peace] has proven more difficult than he hoped it would be.”

He insisted that “It’s very important to try to preserve a two-state outcome,” and that “I don’t think the administration will walk away, and I don’t think we should walk away. If you can create a set of circumstances where it looks like there’s an opportunity, I think the administration would make a major effort. But to assume the administration will make a major effort as if there’s an opening [when there isn’t one,] that remains to be seen.”