Group items tagged

The Syrian Army has seized two containers with poisonous sarin agent in a rebel hideout, SANA said citing sources. Meanwhile, Russia reportedly blocked the UNSC resolution set to slam Damascus’ offensive on the town of Qusair held by opposition forces. Syrian Arab News Agency reports that sarin, together with automatic rifles, pistols and homemade bombs (IEDs) was seized in the Faraieh neighborhood of the city of Hama. Sarin (or GB) is an extremely toxic, though colorless and odorless, substance that disrupts the nervous system, over-stimulating muscles and vital organs, if it comes into contact with skin. This potentially extremely harmful nerve agent was originally invented and manufactured to be used as a chemical weapon. According to UN Resolution 687, Sarin is classified as a weapon of mass destruction.

The threat of chemical weapons deployment in Syria has become a major international concern, with American President Barack Obama even saying previously that the use of chemical arsenal by the Syrian government would be a “red line” and might precipitate a foreign military intervention. However, in early May an independent UN commission came to the conclusion that Syrian rebels had used sarin nerve gas, while allegations of its use by the government have not yet received any official confirmation.

On Saturday a UN Security Council (UNSC) assembly failed to adopt a British-drafted resolution on the situation in Qusair, which the Syrian Army has blockaded and is said to be eliminating a large group of opposition forces that occupied the town several weeks ago.

The Arab League announced that it would re-table a draft resolution at the UN Security Council on Monday, calling for an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian and other Arab territories including the occupied Syrian Golan and the Lebanese Sheba Farms. The Arab League’s draft resolution calls for a full Israeli withdrawal from all of the territories Israel occupied during the 1967 war. That is, Palestinian territories including East Jerusalem, the Israeli occupied Syrian Golan as well as the Israeli occupied, Lebanese Sheba Farms area in southeastern Lebanon.

The Arab League perceives the draft resolution as part of a policy based on the notion that a resolution of the Israel – Palestinian conflict only can be found within the framework of a comprehensive resolution that includes other issues which arose as a consequence to the 1967 war. In December 2014 the UN Security Council rejected a similar, Jordanian-sponsored draft resolution that called for a full Israeli withdrawal within two years. The resolution was endorsed by eight concurrent votes, falling one vote short of the minimum of nine votes. Had the resolution received the necessary nine votes, stated the U.S. State Department, the United States would have made use of its veto right at the Security Council. It were the victors of WWII who “endowed themselves” with the veto right, practically subjugating all other UN member States to the political will of the permanent UN Security Council members.

The rejection of the draft resolution, in December, prompted the President of the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority to accede to some 20 international treaties, including the Rome Statute. On April 1, Palestine will become a member to the United Nations’s International Criminal Court (ICC). Neither the U.S., Russia, China or Israel have made their citizens subject to prosecution by the ICC.

During his visit to China the Philippines’ President Rodrigo Duterte calmly announced that his administration would say good-bye to American military and economic and social hegemony. The statement opened a Pandora’s box filled with surprises and at times wild speculations, allegations, denunciations, misrepresentations.

Speaking at an investment conference in the Great Hall of the People in the Chinese capital Beijing, China on Thursday, the Philippines’ President Rodrigo Duterte – no stranger to controversy – suggested that the Philippines were to leave the United States “sphere of influence” which the country became a part of since its independence in 1946. The country was drawn into this sphere within the context of the emerging global cold war headed by the Permanent UN Security Council (UNSC) members who more often than not used their UNSC mandate and veto right to carve the world’s smaller or less powerful nations up into hegemonic zones. Duterte didn’t mince words when he affirmed his and his administration’s separation from the United States military, social and economic hegemony. Duterte pointed out that there was no need for US troops in the Philippines and that there was no need for joint Philippine – US military exercises either. Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana declined to comment. However, National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr. told the press that President Rodrigo (Rody) Duterte meant what he said.

The Philippines has a mutual defense treaty with the US which has been in force since 1951 where both countries pledge to come to each other’s defense in the event of an armed attack. The abrogation of this military treaty requires the action of the Philippine Senate. Duterte implied that this treaty also ties that the Philippines to the US as a NATO appendage. He suggested that the Philippines have no need for being in that position and that his goodbye to the US’s military hegemony also means a departure from this indirect NATO membership and the associated obligations and risks; Including the risk that the country will again be drawn into a war that turns it into the battlefield of powers and alliances of global reach. Duterte’s departure from US-hegemony has widely been interpreted as the basis for an alliance with China. However, an objective analysis of the Duterte administration’s policy doesn’t indicate that the goal is to exchange one hegemon with another one. It does, however, suggest a non-aligned policy based on good neighborly relations with those who respect the Philippines sovereignty and independence.

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on Saturday, Dec. 31, 2016, unanimously adopted a resolution welcoming the ceasefire in Syria, brokered by Russia and Turkey.

The Council unanimously adopted the ceasefire brokered by Russia and Turkey that came into effect earlier this week, as an attempt to end the more than five-year-long war in Syria. The ceasefire is perceived as a first step in the attempt to re-launch attempts to find a political solution. The resolution also welcomes plans for talks to take place in Astana, Kazakhstan, with participants from Russia, Iran and Turkey, as well as representatives of the Syrian government and the opposition, ahead of the resumption of U.N.-brokered talks in Geneva in February. The government of Turkey had, prior to the adoption of the resolution by the UNSC assured that it would coordinate preparations for the talks in Astana with representatives of the governments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UK, the USA and other key supporters of the so-called “opposition”. Excluded from the ceasefire are the self-proclaimed Islamic State (a.k.a. ISIS, ISIL, or Deash), Jabhat al-Nusra (a.k.a. Jabhat Fatah al-Sham) and, ironically, also the Syrian Kurdish PYD and its military wings the YPG and the all-female YPJ. In remarks after the vote, several delegates on the Security Council welcomed the ceasefire but said the agreement contained gray areas and that its implementation was fragile. The original Russian draft was changed after last minute negotiations so the language was changed to welcome and support the deal to appease some council members and win unanimous support.

The U.N. Security Council (UNSC) will hold an emergency meeting on the Israeli plans to construct new settlements in East Jerusalem  on Wednesday. The meeting is in response to a request made by Jordan to Argentina's U.N. Ambassador Maria Cristina Perceval, who holds the UNSC's presidency this month. Jordan, the sole Arab nation on the council, cited Palestinian complaints about "the dangerously escalating tensions in Occupied East Jerusalem". Palestinians have protested against the plan of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to build some 1,000 new settlement homes for Israelis in East Jerusalem. The region is mostly populated by Arabs, and Palestinians seek to make it the capital of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Last week, U.N. General Secretary Ban Ki-moon said that the settlement activity was illegal. “It runs totally counter to the pursuit of a two-state solution," said Ban according to the AFP news agency. The international community has also rejected Netanyahu's plans. Earlier in October, the European Union said that the settlements plan "represents a further highly detrimental step that undermines prospects for a two-state solution." Even the U.S., a strong ally of Israel, has said that the settlements damages Israel’s relations with its Arab allies. However, Netanyahu has rejected the critics and has confirmed that he will expedite the plans to build the settlements. "We will continue to build in Jerusalem, our eternal capital," he said on Tuesday. The Security Council is rarely able to reach any agreement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the U.S. is a permanent veto-wielding member and usually prevents any measures critical of Israel. Even with the recent tensions between Netanyahu and the White House, a joint declaration from the council is not expected.

Israel’s Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has publicly called for “settling the Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights within the framework of the Israeli – Palestinian negotiations” adding that “part of this comprehensive bargain has to cover an understanding between Israel, the international community and the USA” and adding that “the Golan is part and parcel with Israel”.

The statement prompted a response by the Syrian government to the UN Secretary General and the President of the Security Council. The statement confirms information nsnbc received from a Palestinian intelligence expert in 2011 and 2012, who warned that Israel plans to permanently annex the Golan, parts of southern Lebanon and most of the West Bank, while planning to recognize a Palestinian State in the Gaza Strip plus micro enclaves in the West Bank. The statement also substantiates Christof Lehmann’s warnings about joint Israeli – US plans to that effect, issued in 2011, after the 66th Session of the UN General Assembly. During the 66th Session, US President Obama refused to recognize Palestine as a State, saying that “a solution for Palestine only could be found within the framework of a comprehensive solution for the Middle East“.

On Wednesday, the Syrian Foreign and Expatriates Ministry responded by sending two identical letters to the offices of the UN Secretary General and the President of the US Security Council, reports the Syrian news agency SANA. The letters inform the UN Secretary General and the UNSC President, that Lieberman made the statement on 31 January 2014, while visiting the occupied Syrian Golan. In the letters, the Syrian Foreign Ministry stressed that the Israeli Foreign Minister’s statements embody an insolent approach to the events in Syria and recklessness with regard to relevant UN resolutions, such as UNSC resolution 497 (1981) and others, which call on Israel to end the occupation of the Syrian Golan and all Arab lands which Israel has occupied since 1967. The Syrian government quotes Lieberman as claiming that: ” The dangers to security, linked to our capability to defend the North of the country, require a recognition of Isrel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights by the international community”. The Syrian Foreign Ministry stressed that Israel is sponsoring terrorism in Syria and that Israel seems as if it mistakenly believes that it can exploit its sponsorship of the terrorist war on Syria to achieve its expansionist ambitions. The Syrian Foreign Ministry also stressed that 47 years have passed since Israel’s occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights and that Israel has defied hundreds of resolutions and calls on ending the occupation and to stop its inhuman racial policies and its killing of civilians in the Israeli occupied territories.

As Egyptian President Sisi calls for more support in the fight against NATO-funded militias in Libya, the West’s refusal to back him raises the question of their ultimate aims in entering the region. The West is complicity in enabling ISIS to gain a strong foothold and further destabilise Libya, Syria and, potentially, Egypt.Western states are trumpeting ISIS as the latest threat to civilisation, claiming total commitment to their defeat, and using the group’s conquests in Syria and Iraq as a pretext for deepening their own military involvement in the Middle East. Yet as Libya seems to be following the same path as Syria – of ‘moderate’ anti-government militias backed by the West paving the way for ISIS takeover – Britain and the US seem reluctant to confront them there, immediately pouring cold water on Egyptian President Sisi’s request for an international coalition to halt their advances. By making the suggestion – and having it, predictably, spurned – Sisi is making clear Western duplicity over ISIS and the true nature of NATO policy in Libya.

On 29th August 2011, two months before the last vestiges of the Libyan state were destroyed and its leader executed, I was interviewed on Russia Today about the country’s future. I told the station: “There’s been a lot of talk about what will happen [in Libya after the ouster of Gaddafi] – will there be Sharia law, will there be a liberal democracy? What we have to understand is that what will replace the Libyan state won’t be any of those things. What will replace the Libyan state will be the same as what has replaced the state in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is a dysfunctional government, complete lack of security, gang warfare and civil war. And this is not a mistake from NATO. They would prefer to see failed states than states that are powerful and independent and able to challenge their hegemony. And people who are fighting for the TNC, fighting for NATO, really need to understand that this is NATO’s vision for their country.” Friends at the time told me I was being overly pessimistic and cynical. I said I hoped to God that they were right. But my experiences over a decade following the results of my own country (Britain)’s wars of aggression in places like Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq long after the mainstream media had lost interest, led me to believe otherwise.

Of course, it was not only me who was making such warnings. On March 6th 2011, several weeks before NATO began seven months of bombing, Gaddafi gave a prophetic interview with French newspaper Le Monde du Dimanche, in which he stated: “I want to make myself understood: if one threatens [Libya], if one seeks to destabilize [Libya], there will be chaos, Bin Laden, armed factions. That is what will happen. You will have immigration, thousands of people will invade Europe from Libya. And there will no longer be anyone to stop them. Bin Laden will base himself in North Africa and will leave Mullah Omar in Afghanistan and Pakistan. You will have Bin Laden at your doorstep.”

Baghdad may use all the available options, including an address to the UN Security Council, if Turkey fails to withdraw its troops from northern Iraq within 48 hours, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Abadi said Sunday. Numerous reports suggest that on Friday Turkey sent approximately 130-150 soldiers to northern Iraq. Turkish forces, deployed near the city of Mosul, are allegedly tasked with training Peshmerga, which has been involved in the fight against Daesh, also known as ISIL. "Iraq has the right to use all available options, including resorting to the UN Security Council in the absence of the withdrawal of these forces within 48 hours," Abadi said in a statement following the National Security Council meeting. According to the prime minister, the deployment of hundreds of Turkish servicemen on the Iraqi territory without the consent and knowledge of the Iraqi authorities is a violation of sovereignty and a breach of the principles of good neighborliness. Earlier on Sunday, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said Turkish troops were deployed in Iraq on the country’s Defense Ministry invitation.

From: • H <hrod17@clintonemail.com > Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2011 10:28 PM To: Oscar Flores Subject: Fw: tick tock on libya PIs print for me.

To: H Subject: FW: tick tock on libya Here is Draft

Secretary Clinton's leadership on Libya HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO, and in contact group meetings — as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime.

Judging by both the words, and deeds of the Obama White House and its political ‘diplomatic’ appointees led by perfidious John Kerry and caustic Samantha Power – all evidence to date points to the US wanting to escalate its war on Syria – while happily baiting a military confrontation, and ‘World War‘ scenario with Russia and its allies in the process.  If this latest leak is indeed true – and time will certainly tell whether or not it is, it would constitute one of the most egregious violations of both US and international law – by the United States government and its theocratic dictator partner in Saudi Arabia. Washington’s own anti-terror legislation expressly forbids colluding to provide logistical or material support for terrorist groups, and this US-Saudi venture would be the latest in a long list of violations…

Here’s what makes this a potential shocker: the operation allows for safe passage for 9,000 ISIS fighters on the proviso that they are transferred from Iraq to eastern Syria in order to help US plans for “regime change” there.  “At the time of the assault, coalition aircraft would strike only on a pre-agreed detached buildings in the city, which are empty, the source said.” “According to him [the source], the plan of Washington and Riyadh also provides that the rebels move from Mosul to Syria for the attack on the government-controlled town of troops.” Essentially, Washington and Saudi Arabia, will allow 9,000 ISIS (Islamic State) fighter FREE passage into Syria if they agree to join Washington’s “regime change” operations there. This could also include, “… eastern regions of Syria to follow a major offensive operation, which involves the capture of Deir ez-Zor and Palmyra,” the source added. Before you write this story off as some ornate Russian psychological operation, consider the long trend arch. The US along with its generous Gulf sidekicks, have already established a solid track record of aiding and abetting ISIS – not just in Syria, but in Iraq too. The record shows that the US is guilty on a number of counts…

If the Mosul leak is true, then it wouldn’t be the first time that the US has provided cover in the military pantomime the world has come to know as “the fight against ISIS.” When large ISIS convoys crossed the Syrian desert to invade and occupy the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra in May 2015, the US ‘Coalition’ airforce did nothing, and allowed ISIS to take and destroy part of the world’s great historic cultural heritage, along with the murder of scores of innocent civilians. Professor Tim Anderson from Sydney University states: “U.S. weapons with Israeli ammunition were used by Islamic State group when taking over Palmyra. The extremists also had U.S. military rations.” “The U.S., which since 2014 claimed to be conducting a war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and which had air power and sophisticated surveillance of the region, did nothing to stop the huge ISIS advance on Palmyra.” The US isn’t even shy about its laissez-faire policy with ISIS in the field, with the New York Times openly boasting, “Any airstrikes against Islamic State militants in and around Palmyra would probably benefit the forces of President Bashar al-Assad. So far, United States-led airstrikes in Syria have largely focused on areas far outside government control, to avoid the perception of aiding a leader whose ouster President Obama has called for.”

The Egyptian Parliament’s Arab Affairs Committee, on Friday, requested that the UN Security Council refers Tony Blair and George W. Bush to the International Criminal Court to try both for crimes against peace and war crimes related to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The request is likely to fail because the UK and USA have veto right at the Council. It will, however, shed light on the fact that citizens of permanent UNSC member States can act with impunity, and the urgent need to reform the UN.

"Israel has just opened the 'floodgates', and crossed a 'very, very thick red line'." These were the words of Nickolay Mladenov, United Nations' Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, in response to the passing of a bill at the Israeli Knesset on February 7 that retroactively legalises thousands of illegal settler homes, built on stolen Palestinian land. Mladenov's job title has grown so irrelevant in recent years that it merely delineates a reference to a bygone era: a "peace process" that has ensured the further destruction of whatever remained of the Palestinian homeland. Israeli politicians' approval of the bill is indeed an end of an era. We have reached the point where we can openly declare that the so-called peace process was an illusion from the start, for Israel had no intentions of ever conceding the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. In response to the passing of the bill, many news reports alluded to the fact that the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House, riding a wave of right-wing populism, was the inspiration needed by equally right-wing Israeli politicians to cross that "very, very thick red line". There is truth to that, of course. But it is hardly the whole story.

The political map of the world is vastly changing. Just weeks before Trump made his way to the Oval Office, the international community strongly condemned Israel's illegal settlements on Palestinian land occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.

That date, Trump's inauguration was the holy grail for Israel's right-wing politicians, who mobilised immediately after Trump's rise to power. Israel's intentions received additional impetus from Britain's Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May. Despite her government vote to condemn Israeli settlements at the UN, she too ranted against the US for its censure of Israel.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a bill, enabling the designation of foreign and foreign-funded NGOs as undesirables after the bill passed both the Lower and Upper House of Parliament.

The bill authorizes the designation of foreign and foreign funded non-profit as well as for profit NGOs as “undesirables” on grounds of “national security. The bill passed the second reading in Russia’s Lower House of Parliament (State Duma), last week and was approved by the Upper House of Parliament, the Federation Council. The bill had been proposed by legislators of the governing United Russia party of President Vladimir Putin, The passing of the bill in both houses of parliament and the signing of the bill by Putin was no surprise since United Russia has a majority in both chambers. The bill has been heavily criticized by foreign, particularly western media, western politicians and primarily western-based or funded NGOs, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, among many others. One of the NGOs that is certain to fall under the provisions of the bill is USAID.

he new law follows up on a law that was adopted in 2012 that obliged foreign-funded non-governmental organizations to register as “foreign agents”. The law provides for declaring foreigners and foreign-funded NGOs as“undesirable”. Persons who are violating the newly adopted law could face a fine up to 10,000 dollar to be paid in local currency and up to six years imprisonment. Supporters of the bill are referring to the risk that foreign-funded NGOs could pose to the Russian Federation’s national security while critics maintain that the wording of the legislation and especially the term “undesirable” is ambiguous and opens the floodgates for the abuse of the law to crack down on legal and legitimate dissent.

Ongoing tensions in East Jerusalem and the West Bank cannot be separated from the larger reality that remains unresolved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a senior United Nations official told the Security Council today. Briefing the Security Council on the situation in Jerusalem, Jeffrey Feltman, UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, acknowledged that recent heightened tensions over unilateral actions, provocations and access restrictions at holy sites in Jerusalem are contributing to a volatile situation, and stressed that further delay in negotiations and the pursuit of peace would only serve to deepen divisions and further exacerbate the conflict. “The status quo is not a viable option,” Mr. Feltman said. “Ignoring the calls from the international community for such negotiations for whatever excuse will only breed more violence in the region that has already seen too much of it.”

In his briefing, Mr. Feltman also said that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was “alarmed” by new reports about the advancement of planning for some 1,000 Israeli settlement units in occupied East Jerusalem, including about 400 units in Har Homa and 600 in Ramat Shlomo. This development follows Israel’s decision at the end of September to accelerate the progress of constructing some 2,600 residential units in Givat Hamatos, also in East Jerusalem. “The reality is that continued settlement activity in occupied Palestinian territory is doing significant damage to any possibility of a lasting peace between the two sides and is moving the situation ever closer to a one-state reality,” the Under-Secretary-General said. Reiterating the Secretary-General’s call for respect for the religious freedom of all, Mr. Feltman said the Secretary-General would be “closely following” developments in sacred places that have significance to millions of people around the world.

Noting that some members of the Council had again started discussing the possibility of adopting a new resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr. Feltman said the Council “might wish to consider if the current paradigm, almost 50 years into the conflict, does not require revisiting our engagement thus far, so as to salvage the decisions of the Security Council and the relentless efforts of the international community, and to ensure that words are translated into actions.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas signed the application for Palestine’s accession to the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court (ICC). Abbas signed the application on Wednesday, in response to the UN Security Council’s rejection of a Jordanian sponsored draft resolution on Tuesday. The resolution called for a fixed timeline for the end of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

The rejected resolution called for a 12-months timeline for a final peace accord between Israel and Palestine and the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian territories by the end of 2017.

The rejected draft resolution was harshly criticized by imprisoned Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti, other progressive Fatah members as well as by the PFLP and others. One of the major points of contention was that the proposed draft resolution, according to its Palestinian opponents, risked waving the right of return of displaced Palestinians.

Jordan late Wednesday submitted a draft United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an end to the Israeli occupation by 2017, on behalf of the Palestinian leadership. After a day of closed-door negotiations among Arab members of the United Nations, Jordan, which represents Arab countries on the Security Council, put the draft resolution "in blue," meaning the text of the draft has been finalized and could be put to a vote 24 hours later.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki said that the resolution submitted by Jordan was a French-sponsored version of the draft, not the one originally phrased by the Palestinians and the Arab League. The resolution sets a two-year deadline to reach a solution to the Palestinian issue, Al-Malki told Voice of Palestine Radio. "France said it wants to go to the Security Council with us because the proposal will deal with all the problems that existed over the past 20 years of negotiations," al-Malki said. "It believes a ceiling to end negotiations and end the occupation is the best process now, because direct negotiations have proven to be futile." Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Thursday that the submission of the draft amounted to an act of aggression.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is trying to censure Israel, Lieberman said, a process he added would have no benefit for the Palestinians but rather worsen the regional council. Such a measure will not advance steps toward a permanent agreement, Lieberman added, as without Israel's consent, nothing will change.

Check out this story by AP and compare the lame, pathetic and self-evident nonsense of these so-called "intelligence officials" offer with the hard fact based presentation of the Russian Air Force Chief of Staff. Here is the full article with my comments in blue. WASHINGTON (AP) — Senior U.S. intelligence officials said Tuesday that Russia was responsible for "creating the conditions" that led to the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, but they offered no evidence of direct Russian government involvement. The intelligence officials were cautious in their assessment, noting that while the Russians have been arming separatists in eastern Ukraine, the U.S. had no direct evidence that the missile used to shoot down the passenger jet came from Russia. The officials briefed reporters Tuesday under ground rules that their names not be used in discussing intelligence related to last week's air disaster, which killed 298 people. The plane was likely shot down by an SA-11 surface-to-air missile fired by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, the intelligence officials said, citing intercepts, satellite photos and social media postings by separatists, some of which have been authenticated by U.S. experts. But the officials said they did not know who fired the missile or whether any Russian operatives were present at the missile launch. They were not certain that the missile crew was trained in Russia, although they described a stepped-up campaign in recent weeks by Russia to arm and train the rebels, which they say has continued even after the downing of the commercial jetliner.

In terms of who fired the missile, "we don't know a name, we don't know a rank and we're not even 100 percent sure of a nationality," one official said, adding at another point, "There is not going to be a Perry Mason moment here." White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said the U.S. was still working to determine whether the missile launch had a "direct link" to Russia, including whether there were Russians on the ground during the attack and the degree to which Russians may have trained the separatists to launch such a strike. "We do think President Putin and the Russian government bears responsibility for the support they provided to these separatists, the arms they provided to these separatists, the training they provided as well and the general unstable environment in eastern Ukraine," Rhodes said in an interview with CNN. He added that heavy weaponry continues to flow into Ukraine from Russia following the downing of the plane. The intelligence officials said the most likely explanation for the downing was that the rebels made a mistake. Separatists previously had shot down 12 Ukrainian military airplanes, the officials said.

The officials made clear they were relying in part on social media postings and videos made public in recent days by the Ukrainian government, even though they have not been able to authenticate all of it. For example, they cited a video of a missile launcher said to have been crossing the Russian border after the launch, appearing to be missing a missile. But later, under questioning, the officials acknowledged they had not yet verified that the video was exactly what it purported to be. Despite the fuzziness of some details, however, the intelligence officials said the case that the separatists were responsible for shooting down the plane was solid. Other scenarios — such as that the Ukrainian military shot down the plane — are implausible, they said. No Ukrainian surface-to-air missile system was in range. (That is a lie as proven by the Russian satellite imagery and signal intercepts which prove that they Ukies had plenty of batteries freshly brought right next to the combat zone even though the Novorissians had just one Su-25 close air support aircraft in their entire inventory) From satellites, sensors and other intelligence gathering, officials said, they know where the missile originated — in separatist-held territory — and what its flight path was. But if they possess satellite or other imagery of the missile being fired, they did not release it Tuesday. A graphic they made public depicts their estimation of the missile's flight path with a green line. The jet's flight path was available from air traffic control data.

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urged President Obama on Thursday not to seek a United Nations endorsement of the emerging nuclear agreement with Iran without first giving Congress a chance to vote on it.The warning was the latest twist in an increasingly tense standoff between the White House and congressional Republicans over the potential deal, which would impose limits on Iran’s nuclear program in return for lifting economic sanctions.“There are now reports that your administration is contemplating taking an agreement, or aspects of it, to the United Nations Security Council for a vote,” Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, wrote in a letter to Mr. Obama, which was made public by his office.

“Enabling the United Nations to consider an agreement or portions of it” without allowing Congress to vote on the agreement would be “a direct affront to the American people and seeks to undermine Congress’s appropriate role,” Mr. Corker added.

The Obama administration does not plan to seek congressional approval for the potential accord, which is expected to last about 15 years.Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged in testimony to Mr. Corker’s committee on Wednesday that without a congressional vote, the deal would not be “legally binding” on the succession of United States presidents who would be charged with carrying it out. But he said he was confident that future presidents would uphold an agreement as long as Iran fulfilled its obligations under the accord.

New Zealand is preparing a UN Security Council resolution calling on Israel to freeze construction and home demolitions in the West Bank, as well as urging the Palestinians to desist from taking steps against Israel at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, as part of a series of confidence-building steps ahead of a hoped-for resumption of peace...

Translated from Arabic language Alrai Media (thanks to the reliable Fort Russ Russian news site), the senior Syrian officer at the operations room is quoted as saying: “Soon Syria will announce that any country using the airspace without coordinating with Damascus will be viewed as hostile and [we] will shoot the jet down without warning. Those willing to fight terrorism and coordinate with the military leadership will be granted safe corridors.” This may seem like a dangerous escalation. American fighter jets have been bombing Syrian territory since September 2014, having carried out thousands of air strikes allegedly against the Islamic State (IS) terror group (also known by its Arabic name Daesh). Since the Paris terror attacks last month, France has stepped up its air strikes in Syria too. In the past week, Britain and Germany parliaments have voted for their air forces to join the other NATO members in aerial operations. The US-led bombing coalition in Syria also includes Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Russia is the only country whose military aircraft are legally deployed in Syria because Moscow has the full consent of the Syrian government. All the others do not have consent from Damascus. So we have at least seven foreign powers deploying their warplanes to bomb Syrian territory – all in violation of international law.

It is irrelevant whether the US-led alliance claims to be fighting terrorists, or whether they claim it is in “self-defence” as France, Britain and Germany are. The Germany justice minister Heiko Maas, speaking after the Bundestag voted for military action this week, claimed that the United Nations Security Council resolution passed last month in the wake of the Paris attacks makes the German intervention legal. That UNSC resolution does not specifically sanction military action. In any case, the ultimate legal criterion is the position of the Syrian state authorities. Western governments and their media have done everything to discredit, demonise and delegitimise the Syrian government. That’s part of the US-led criminal enterprise for regime change in Syria. But the fact remains, Syria is a sovereign state fully entitled the legal rights of all other UN members. If the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad – which is the internationally recognised governing authority of Syria and retains its seat at the UN – does not consent to foreign military intervention, then that intervention is illegal, as Moscow and Damascus have repeatedly pointed out. Syria, with the S-300 missile system supplied by its Russian ally, now has the technical means to defend its borders and airspace from all intruders. It also has the legal right to defend the inviolability of its territory. After all, US President Barack Obama invoked this right with regard to Turkey after the shoot-down of the Russian Su-24. Obama said Turkey had “every right to protect its skies” (even though the evidence shows that the Russian fighter jet did not breach Turkish territory). In other words: what’s good for Turkey is good for Syria, as for any other nation.

Now, some might say it is a reckless move for Syria to train its skies with the powerful S-300. If a US, French, British or German warplane is shot down then that may ignite a full-on war with the American NATO military alliance. Russia would inevitably be dragged into the fight, which could slide into a world war between nuclear powers. But hold on a minute. That logic amounts to the US and its allies using such fear as a weapon to disarm others and to prevent sovereign states from exercising their rights. Such a dynamic is a blank cheque for powers to bully and oppress others. As Russian President Vladimir Putin has said time and again, the issue is one abiding by international law. Without respect for international law then the world resorts to the law of the jungle and barbarism, as Putin said in his recent state of the nation speech. What we have seen in recent years since the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001-2003 is the wholesale erosion of sovereignty. This has involved the overt deployment of military force and the covert use of “asymmetric war”, says American political analyst Randy Martin (who writes at crookedbough.com).