Kamala Harris: Balancing Loyalty and Change in Her Bid for the Presidency

[webfact]

Israel hits Syrian site said to be linked to chemical weapons

By Sarah Dadouch and Jeffrey Heller

 

FILE PHOTO: A United Nations (U.N.) chemical weapons expert, wearing a gas mask, holds a plastic bag containing samples from one of the sites of an alleged chemical weapons attack in the Ain Tarma neighbourhood of Damascus, Syria August 29, 2013. REUTERS/Mohamed Abdullah/File Photo

 

BEIRUT/JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel attacked a military site in Syria's Hama province early on Thursday, the Syrian army said, and a war monitoring group said the target could be linked to chemical weapons production.

 

The air strike killed two soldiers and caused damage near the town of Masyaf, an army statement said. It warned of the "dangerous repercussions of this aggressive action to the security and stability of the region".

 

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the war, said the attack was on a facility of the Scientific Studies and Research Centre, an agency which the United States describes as Syria's chemical weapons manufacturer.

 

It came the morning after U.N. investigators said the Syrian government was responsible for a sarin poison gas attack in April.

 

Syria's government denies using chemical arms. In 2013 it promised to surrender its chemical weapons, which it says it has done.

 

The Observatory said strikes also hit a military camp next to the centre that was used to store ground-to-ground rockets and where personnel of Iran and its ally, the Lebanese Hezbollah group, had been seen more than once.

 

An Israeli army spokeswoman declined to discuss reports of a strike in Syria.

 

Syria's foreign ministry has sent letters to the U.N. Security Council protesting against Israel's "aggression" and saying anyone who attacked Syrian military sites was supporting terrorism, Syrian state TV reported.

 

In an interview in Israel's Haaretz daily last month on his retirement, former Israeli air force chief Amir Eshel said Israel had hit arms convoys of the Syrian military and its Hezbollah allies nearly 100 times in the past five years.

 

Israel sees red lines in the shipment to Hezbollah of anti-aircraft missiles, precision ground-to-ground missiles and chemical weapons.

 

ISRAELI SIGNAL?

 

The reported attack took place on the 10th anniversary of Israel's destruction of a nuclear reactor in Syria.

 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to address the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 19, and is widely expected to voice Israel's concern over what it sees as attempts by Iran to broaden its military foothold in Syria and threats posed by Hezbollah.

 

Israeli officials have said that Russia, another ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Israel maintain regular contacts to coordinate military action in Syria.

 

Some Israeli commentators saw the latest strike - a departure from the previous pattern of attacks on weapons convoys - as a show of Israeli dissatisfaction with the United States and Russia.

 

Last month, Netanyahu met Russian President Vladimir Putin, but came away without any public statement from Moscow that it would curb Iranian influence.

 

Hezbollah and Israel fought a brief war in 2006 in which more than 1,300 people died. Both have suggested that any new conflict between them could be on a larger scale than that one.

 

Hezbollah has been one of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's most important allies in the war and last month its leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said he had recently travelled to Damascus to meet the Syrian president.

 

Israel is conducting military exercises in the north of the country near the border with Lebanon.

 

Yaakov Amidror, a retired Israeli general and former national security adviser, told reporters he assumed Thursday's strike was linked to Nasrallah's visit to Damascus.

 

"Weapons systems have been transferred from this organisation (the Scientific Studies and Research Centre) into the hands of Hezbollah during the years," he said.

 

HEZBOLLAH

 

In May, an official in the military alliance backing Assad said that Hezbollah drew a distinction between Israel striking its positions in Syria and at home in Lebanon. "If Israel strikes Hezbollah in Lebanon, definitely it will respond," the official said.

 

The Syrian army statement said the Israeli strike came at 2:42 a.m. (2342 GMT) from inside Lebanese airspace. It said it had been launched in support of Islamic State.

 

Jets flying over Lebanon overnight broke the sound barrier and Lebanese media reported that Israeli warplanes had breached Lebanese airspace.

 

The Observatory reported that seven people were killed or wounded in the strike.

 

"The factory that was targeted in Masyaf produces the chemical weapons and barrel bombs that have killed thousands of Syrian civilians," Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, said in a tweet.

 

The strike sent a message that Israel would not let Syria produce strategic weapons, would enforce its own red lines, and would not be hampered by Russian air defence systems in Syria, he added.

 

The U.N. Commission of Inquiry on Syria said on Wednesday a government jet dropped sarin on Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province in April, killing more than 80 civilians, and that government forces were behind at least 27 chemical attacks.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump said he had not heard a report that Syria had used chemical weapons again.

"But nothing would change. We would be extremely upset if he was using chemical weapons," he said in response to a question at a news conference in Washington. "As far as Syria is concerned, we have very little to do with Syria other than killing ISIS. What we do is we kill ISIS."

 

(Reporting by Angus McDowall and Sarah Dadouch in Beirut and Jeffrey Heller, Ori Lewis, Dan Williams and Maayan Lubell in Jerusalem; writing by Angus McDowall; editing by Angus MacSwan, Andrew Roche and Jonathan Oatis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-09-08

[Juan B Tong]

?

Edited September 8, 2017 by Juan B Tong

[Rancid]

In the old days that would be described as an unprovoked act of war. The fact that no evidence whatsoever has ever surfaced about Syrian chemical weapons (although ISIS being supplied has) suggests that was of course not the reason for the attack, just the excuse. Israel who also actively supported ISIS is reportedly unhappy their pet terrorists have all but lost their mercenary war in Syria, Hezbollah being involved would have hardly made that bitter pill any more palatable. Seems the widely published Greater Israel plan is far from being shelved.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Rancid said:

In the old days that would be described as an unprovoked act of war. The fact that no evidence whatsoever has ever surfaced about Syrian chemical weapons (although ISIS being supplied has) suggests that was of course not the reason for the attack, just the excuse. Israel who also actively supported ISIS is reportedly unhappy their pet terrorists have all but lost their mercenary war in Syria, Hezbollah being involved would have hardly made that bitter pill any more palatable. Seems the widely published Greater Israel plan is far from being shelved.

 

From the OP :

 

Quote

The U.N. Commission of Inquiry on Syria said on Wednesday a government jet dropped sarin on Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province in April, killing more than 80 civilians, and that government forces were behind at least 27 chemical attacks.

 

Israel support for certain factions and rebel groups near its border does not amount to "actively support ISIS", not by a long shot. Adding the "Greater Israel" drivel is just seasoning to your usual nonsense postings on these topics.

[Scott]

Off-topic post reported and removed.  

[Morch]

 

I think this relates, at least to a degree, to the recent agreement reached between Russia and the US concerning setting up demilitarized (or rather, regulated) zones near Syria's Southern borders. This had to do with curbing the presence of ISIS (and other Islamic terrorist organizations), and Iran's expansionist agenda. Negotiations were conducted without the official participation Israel (although concerns and positions were aired), the US not having much leverage, and Trump's administration in somewhat of a haste to settle things.

 

The end result of these negotiations was that zones would be "policed" by Russian troops, but without a clear definitions of what this entails. A good result for Putin & Assad, less so for Jordan and Israel, with question marks remaining as to how it will effect Iran's interests.

 

The other interesting bit concerns military coordination between Israel and Russia, and Russia's deployment of air defense systems supposedly making such attacks impossible (or very hard) to pull off. There is indeed a hotline, established a while back, between Israel and Russia in order to coordinate air operations and avoid mishaps - but hard to imagine it being used to coordinate something on this level. Then again, the US did notify Russia before its attack, so who knows.

 

The attack being carried out from Lebanese airspace may have something to do with Russia's presence, though. Not so much with regard to operational considerations, but inasmuch as it allows Russia to avoid a direct response. Russia is officially committed to defend Syrian airspace, not Lebanon's. Splitting hairs, but maybe enough to avoid an unwanted escalation.

[stevenl]

No real surprise here. Israel is one of the regional countries that will use the present situation to further its own cause, just like e.g. Turkey with bombings of Kurds.

[Jingthing]

5 hours ago, Rancid said:

In the old days that would be described as an unprovoked act of war. The fact that no evidence whatsoever has ever surfaced about Syrian chemical weapons (although ISIS being supplied has) suggests that was of course not the reason for the attack, just the excuse. Israel who also actively supported ISIS is reportedly unhappy their pet terrorists have all but lost their mercenary war in Syria, Hezbollah being involved would have hardly made that bitter pill any more palatable. Seems the widely published Greater Israel plan is far from being shelved.

A rancid post indeed, reeking of typical insipid Israel demonization bias. 

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No real surprise here. Israel is one of the regional countries that will use the present situation to further its own cause, just like e.g. Turkey with bombings of Kurds.

 

Could you name a country, any country, involved in this conflict, and not doing so to further its interests or protect them?

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Could you name a country, any country, involved in this conflict, and not doing so to further its interests or protect them?

No, but others like Israel and Turkey are pretending otherwise.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No, but others like Israel and Turkey are pretending otherwise.

 

Pretending how? Or rather, how were other countries "not pretending" with regard to their involvement and interests?

[johnnyonesock]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

A rancid post indeed, reeking of typical insipid Israel demonization bias. 

isnt that usually referred to as "antisemitism"?

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, johnnyonesock said:

isnt that usually referred to as "antisemitism"?

They're cousins. 

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Pretending how? Or rather, how were other countries "not pretending" with regard to their involvement and interests?

Turkey is pretending it is involved to stop ISIS, whereas one of their objectives, maybe even their main objectives, is to get rid of as many Kurds as they can.

Israel in reality is only in to stop Iran gaining influence, despite more human pretenses.

[Jingthing]

Just now, stevenl said:

Turkey is pretending it is involved to stop ISIS, whereas one of their objectives, maybe even their main objectives, is to get rid of as many Kurds as they can.

Israel in reality is only in to stop Iran gaining influence, despite more human pretenses.

Yeah, sure thing, dude, Israel being interested in checking the power of a regime openly dedicated to their annihilation is so inhuman! 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Turkey is pretending it is involved to stop ISIS, whereas one of their objectives, maybe even their main objectives, is to get rid of as many Kurds as they can.

Israel in reality is only in to stop Iran gaining influence, despite more human pretenses.

 

Thanks, but how's that different then Assad's regime, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or any other country involved in the situation? Most countries do not normally outright state their vested interests. Turkey or Israel aren't different.

[midas]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yeah, sure thing, dude, Israel being interested in checking the power of a regime openly dedicated to their annihilation is so inhuman! 

Why do countries usually need to get a UN Security Council vote before such a provocative act and yet Israel seems to be exempt from this requirement??

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, midas said:

Why do countries usually need to get a UN Security Council vote before such a provocative act and yet Israel seems to be exempt from this requirement??

 

Individual countries do not normally ask for UNSC approval before military engagements. There is no such requirement.

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, midas said:

I think you are wrong

 

‘No country can legally invade another country without the UN approval’

 

 

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/187156-us-syria-strike-illegal-un/

 

There was no invasion, though.

And even if one takes RT's pronouncements as gospel - it would still be needed to demonstrate that asking "UN approval" prior to military engagements is the global norm. This path is usually taken when it comes to to international coalitions, especially those involving Western countries. Can't recall you ever making a whole lot of this with regard to other countries.

[midas]

Based on these kind of provocative actions I'm beginning to think this article is 100% correct!

 

The Reasons for Netanyahu’s Panic

 

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/01/the-reasons-for-netanyahus-panic/

[midas]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There was no invasion, though.

And even if one takes RT's pronouncements as gospel - it would still be needed to demonstrate that asking "UN approval" prior to military engagements is the global norm. This path is usually taken when it comes to to international coalitions, especially those involving Western countries. Can't recall you ever making a whole lot of this with regard to other countries.

" Can't recall you ever making a whole lot of this with regard to other countries."

 

Because most other countries overall show some respect to the UN rather than simply ignoring them

[Jingthing]

17 minutes ago, midas said:

I think you are wrong

 

‘No country can legally invade another country without the UN approval’

 

 

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/187156-us-syria-strike-illegal-un/

That's rich coming from a Putin propaganda site. Crimea river, eh? 

[midas]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That's rich coming from a Putin propaganda site. Crimea river, eh? 

Ha ha really twisting the facts regarding that situation in Crimea? But one wouldn't expect anything else would one?

[Jingthing]

Just now, midas said:

Ha ha really twisting the facts regarding that situation in Crimea? But one wouldn't expect anything else would one?

Not from RT, no. 

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, midas said:

" Can't recall you ever making a whole lot of this with regard to other countries."

 

Because most other countries overall show some respect to the UN rather than simply ignoring them

 

Complete an utter BS.

Countries do not attack other countries? All (or even most) ask for UN approval beforehand?

[midas]

It should be very interesting to see what happens next.

 

Bearing in mind that Netanyahu has threatened to bomb the Presidential Palace in Damascus, and to disrupt and nullify the Astana cease-fire process  if Iran continues to “extend its reach in Syria.”  

 

How provocative is that?

 

 

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, midas said:

Based on these kind of provocative actions I'm beginning to think this article is 100% correct!

 

The Reasons for Netanyahu’s Panic

 

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/01/the-reasons-for-netanyahus-panic/

 

I was reading this thing, and thought it sounded like one of Crooke's tirades. Turned out it was exactly that.

Note that the premise and description of Putin and Netanyahu's meeting is based on Pravda's report. The two links to Israeli sources presented as corroboration do not follow the same tone, and one of them essentially quotes the Pravda bit. Crooke being Crooke, that doesn't matter much...on he goes.

 

The background, as much as it refers to Iran's future aspirations in Syria, and the understandings reached between Russia and the US was dealt with on a previous post, and on previous topics.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, midas said:

It should be very interesting to see what happens next.

 

Bearing in mind that Netanyahu has threatened to bomb the Presidential Palace in Damascus, and to disrupt and nullify the Astana cease-fire process  if Iran continues to “extend its reach in Syria.”  

 

How provocative is that?

 

 

That sounds very provocative. 

How provocative is this?

 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, midas said:

It should be very interesting to see what happens next.

 

Bearing in mind that Netanyahu has threatened to bomb the Presidential Palace in Damascus, and to disrupt and nullify the Astana cease-fire process  if Iran continues to “extend its reach in Syria.”  

 

How provocative is that?

 

 

 

As far as I understand, it wasn't Netanyahu which issued the threat, but another Israeli official. Again, this is based on a Pravda report, so who knows.

 

If it was as reported, then it is certainly provocative. Much in the same way as Israel sees Iranian expansionism and military presence in Syria.

[Jingthing]

It's similar to the difference between artistic nudes and porn. When it's porn you know it when you see it.