21 june 2019
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov
Russia says the United States is deliberately stoking dangerous tensions around Iran and pushing the situation to the brink of war.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on Friday called on Washington to weigh the possible consequences of a conflict with Iran, the RIA news agency reported.
The Russian diplomat touched on a report in the New York Times, saying it showed the situation was extremely dangerous.
The US paper reported on Friday that President Donald Trump had approved military strikes against Iran for downing an intruding American spy aircraft, but pulled back from launching them on Thursday night.
Trump initially issued a series of cataclysmic threats, insisting that the RQ-4 Global Hawk was flying over international waters when it was taken down by an Iranian missile.
However, the GPS coordinates released by Iran put the drone eight miles off the country’s coast, inside the 12 nautical miles from the shore, which is Iran's territorial waters.
US envoy, Saudi defense official discuss Iran
Following the downing of the RQ-4 Global Hawk drone, US Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook met Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman in Riyadh on Friday.
"Pleased to meet with United States Special Representative for Iran Mr. Brian Hook to explore the latest efforts to counter hostile Iranian acts and continuous escalation that threaten the region’s security and stability," the Saudi minister tweeted.
He said he had affirmed Riyadh's support for the US' "maximum pressure campaign" on Iran, and discussed what he called "Iranian attacks" on Saudi Arabia.
Khalid bin Salman was referring to attacks on two oil tankers in the Sea of Oman, which the US and some of its allies blame on Iran, but Tehran has denied any involvement in.
Russia says the United States is deliberately stoking dangerous tensions around Iran and pushing the situation to the brink of war.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on Friday called on Washington to weigh the possible consequences of a conflict with Iran, the RIA news agency reported.
The Russian diplomat touched on a report in the New York Times, saying it showed the situation was extremely dangerous.
The US paper reported on Friday that President Donald Trump had approved military strikes against Iran for downing an intruding American spy aircraft, but pulled back from launching them on Thursday night.
Trump initially issued a series of cataclysmic threats, insisting that the RQ-4 Global Hawk was flying over international waters when it was taken down by an Iranian missile.
However, the GPS coordinates released by Iran put the drone eight miles off the country’s coast, inside the 12 nautical miles from the shore, which is Iran's territorial waters.
US envoy, Saudi defense official discuss Iran
Following the downing of the RQ-4 Global Hawk drone, US Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook met Saudi Arabia’s Deputy Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman in Riyadh on Friday.
"Pleased to meet with United States Special Representative for Iran Mr. Brian Hook to explore the latest efforts to counter hostile Iranian acts and continuous escalation that threaten the region’s security and stability," the Saudi minister tweeted.
He said he had affirmed Riyadh's support for the US' "maximum pressure campaign" on Iran, and discussed what he called "Iranian attacks" on Saudi Arabia.
Khalid bin Salman was referring to attacks on two oil tankers in the Sea of Oman, which the US and some of its allies blame on Iran, but Tehran has denied any involvement in.
President Trump approved military strikes against Iran before dawn Friday but pulled back from launching them on Thursday night, the New York Times reports.
The paper cited military and diplomatic officials as saying that the US president had initially approved attacks on a handful of Iranian targets, like radar and missile batteries.
"The operation was underway in its early stages when it was called off," the Times said, citing what it called a senior administration official.
"Planes were in the air and ships were in position, but no missiles had been fired when word came to stand down," the official said.
The source said that US forces were woken up around 2 am local time "within the hour" of striking, then nothing happened. Plans to attack were said to have still been on by 6:30, even 7 pm EDT.
A Pentagon official told Newsweek that among the US' designated targets was the S-125 Neva/Pechora surface-to-air missile system and a Soviet system known to the NATO Western military alliance as SA-3 Goa.
The US military claims this weapon was used by the IRGC to down the Navy RQ-4A Global Hawk drone. However, Iran has officially stated that it used the domestically produced 3rd Khordad transporter erector launcher and radar, a variant of the locally-made Raad surface-to-air missile system.
Trump initially issued a series of cataclysmic threats, insisting that the RQ-4 Global Hawk was flying over international waters when it was taken down by an Iranian missile.
However, the GPS coordinates released by Iran put the drone eight miles off the country’s coast, inside the 12 nautical miles from the shore, which is Iran's territorial waters. tweet
Trump's decision to call of the strike came after intense discussions and debate at the White House among the president’s top national security officials and congressional leaders in the Situation Room, the paper said.
According to The New York Times, Trump’s national security advisers split about "whether to respond militarily" after Iran shot down a US surveillance drone for intruding into its airspace.
Senior administration officials said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, hawkish national security adviser John Bolton and CIA director Gina Haspel had favored a military raid.
"But top Pentagon officials cautioned that such an action could result in a spiraling escalation with risks for American forces in the region," the New York Times said.
According to the Times, congressional leaders emerged from the president’s classified briefing and urged Trump to de-escalate the situation. They called on the president to seek congressional authorization before taking any military action.
“This is a dangerous situation,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly said.
After firing off a volley of belligerent rhetoric, Trump has seemed to be looking for a way to avoid a potentially serious military crisis. Instead of directly accusing the leaders of Iran, Trump said it was an individual in Iran who was responsible for shooting down the drone.
“This is a new fly in the ointment,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on Thursday while meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau there.
"I think probably Iran made a mistake - I would imagine it was a general or somebody that made a mistake in shooting that drone down," Trump said. tweet
The news of the downing, however, was first announced by Iran which took responsibility for the strike and asserted that the high-altitude American drone was operating over Iranian air space.
In an apparent effort to find a way out of the dilemma, the US president downplayed the incident by emphasizing the aircraft had been unmanned. He claimed that if the drone had had a pilot "it would have made a big difference" to him.
"We had nobody in the drone. It would have made a big difference, let me tell you, it would have made a big, big difference" if the aircraft had been piloted, Trump said.
Meanwhile, sources tell Newsweek that numerous regional US military assets, including the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf, have been put on 72-hour standby.
The US Federal Aviation Administration also issued an emergency order prohibiting US operators from flying in an overwater area of Tehran-controlled airspace over the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman due to heightened tensions.
Trump is behind all the current escalation. Last year, Trump pulled the United States out of the 2015 nuclear pact with Iran, over the objections of China, Russia and American allies in Europe.
He has also imposed economic sanctions on Iran, trying to cut off its already limited access to international trade, including oil sales.
Earlier this month, the US government ratcheted up the stakes by sending an aircraft carrier strike group and B-52 bombers and at least 1,500 troops to the Middle East in a message to Iran.
Iranian officials have said the country is not after a war, but is ready for one.
Iran’s ability to target and destroy the high-altitude American drone, which was developed to evade the very surface-to-air missiles used to bring it down, surprised Pentagon officials.
They "interpreted it as a show of how difficult Tehran can make things for the United States as it deploys more troops and steps up surveillance in the region," the New York Times wrote.
The paper cited military and diplomatic officials as saying that the US president had initially approved attacks on a handful of Iranian targets, like radar and missile batteries.
"The operation was underway in its early stages when it was called off," the Times said, citing what it called a senior administration official.
"Planes were in the air and ships were in position, but no missiles had been fired when word came to stand down," the official said.
The source said that US forces were woken up around 2 am local time "within the hour" of striking, then nothing happened. Plans to attack were said to have still been on by 6:30, even 7 pm EDT.
A Pentagon official told Newsweek that among the US' designated targets was the S-125 Neva/Pechora surface-to-air missile system and a Soviet system known to the NATO Western military alliance as SA-3 Goa.
The US military claims this weapon was used by the IRGC to down the Navy RQ-4A Global Hawk drone. However, Iran has officially stated that it used the domestically produced 3rd Khordad transporter erector launcher and radar, a variant of the locally-made Raad surface-to-air missile system.
Trump initially issued a series of cataclysmic threats, insisting that the RQ-4 Global Hawk was flying over international waters when it was taken down by an Iranian missile.
However, the GPS coordinates released by Iran put the drone eight miles off the country’s coast, inside the 12 nautical miles from the shore, which is Iran's territorial waters. tweet
Trump's decision to call of the strike came after intense discussions and debate at the White House among the president’s top national security officials and congressional leaders in the Situation Room, the paper said.
According to The New York Times, Trump’s national security advisers split about "whether to respond militarily" after Iran shot down a US surveillance drone for intruding into its airspace.
Senior administration officials said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, hawkish national security adviser John Bolton and CIA director Gina Haspel had favored a military raid.
"But top Pentagon officials cautioned that such an action could result in a spiraling escalation with risks for American forces in the region," the New York Times said.
According to the Times, congressional leaders emerged from the president’s classified briefing and urged Trump to de-escalate the situation. They called on the president to seek congressional authorization before taking any military action.
“This is a dangerous situation,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly said.
After firing off a volley of belligerent rhetoric, Trump has seemed to be looking for a way to avoid a potentially serious military crisis. Instead of directly accusing the leaders of Iran, Trump said it was an individual in Iran who was responsible for shooting down the drone.
“This is a new fly in the ointment,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on Thursday while meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau there.
"I think probably Iran made a mistake - I would imagine it was a general or somebody that made a mistake in shooting that drone down," Trump said. tweet
The news of the downing, however, was first announced by Iran which took responsibility for the strike and asserted that the high-altitude American drone was operating over Iranian air space.
In an apparent effort to find a way out of the dilemma, the US president downplayed the incident by emphasizing the aircraft had been unmanned. He claimed that if the drone had had a pilot "it would have made a big difference" to him.
"We had nobody in the drone. It would have made a big difference, let me tell you, it would have made a big, big difference" if the aircraft had been piloted, Trump said.
Meanwhile, sources tell Newsweek that numerous regional US military assets, including the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf, have been put on 72-hour standby.
The US Federal Aviation Administration also issued an emergency order prohibiting US operators from flying in an overwater area of Tehran-controlled airspace over the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman due to heightened tensions.
Trump is behind all the current escalation. Last year, Trump pulled the United States out of the 2015 nuclear pact with Iran, over the objections of China, Russia and American allies in Europe.
He has also imposed economic sanctions on Iran, trying to cut off its already limited access to international trade, including oil sales.
Earlier this month, the US government ratcheted up the stakes by sending an aircraft carrier strike group and B-52 bombers and at least 1,500 troops to the Middle East in a message to Iran.
Iranian officials have said the country is not after a war, but is ready for one.
Iran’s ability to target and destroy the high-altitude American drone, which was developed to evade the very surface-to-air missiles used to bring it down, surprised Pentagon officials.
They "interpreted it as a show of how difficult Tehran can make things for the United States as it deploys more troops and steps up surveillance in the region," the New York Times wrote.
Following mediation by Jared Kushner, adviser and son-in-law of US President Donald Trump, Bahrain announced, on Wednesday, that it would allow six Israeli media outlets to cover the US-led “Bahrain Workshop,” scheduled for next week.
Bahrain does not have official diplomatic relations with Israel, and, for the first time, allows an Israeli media delegation to enter.
According to Haaretz newspaper, Bahrain agreed to allow the entry of Israeli journalists following the request of the White House staff responsible for the “Deal of the Century,” headed by Kushner, knowing that Haaretz was among Israeli media allowed to cover the Economic ‘Workshop’ in Manama, in order not to “turn it into a political one.”
The Israeli delegation was supposed to be headed by Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon, but was suspended after the White House announcement.
On the other hand, the White House invited Israeli businessmen to participate, but their names have yet to be officially published.
The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, on Tuesday, announced the participation of Israelis in the workshop, without specifying the names of those invited to participate.
“We welcome US initiatives that include regional solutions for a better future,” Netanyahu said. “We have clear and hidden relations with many Arab leaders, and there are wide-ranging relations between Israel and most of the Arab countries.”
According to the PNN, Reuters quoted a source familiar with the list of Israeli invitees as saying that the former coordinator of the Israeli government’s occupation of the occupied territories in 1967, Yoav Mordechai, who currently heads Novard International Consulting, will participate in the economic workshop.
The source added that Mordechai would attend the Manama conference, with his partner, in Novard. The source refused to mention the second man because he had also worked, for a long time, in the Israeli security services.
Bahrain does not have official diplomatic relations with Israel, and, for the first time, allows an Israeli media delegation to enter.
According to Haaretz newspaper, Bahrain agreed to allow the entry of Israeli journalists following the request of the White House staff responsible for the “Deal of the Century,” headed by Kushner, knowing that Haaretz was among Israeli media allowed to cover the Economic ‘Workshop’ in Manama, in order not to “turn it into a political one.”
The Israeli delegation was supposed to be headed by Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon, but was suspended after the White House announcement.
On the other hand, the White House invited Israeli businessmen to participate, but their names have yet to be officially published.
The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, on Tuesday, announced the participation of Israelis in the workshop, without specifying the names of those invited to participate.
“We welcome US initiatives that include regional solutions for a better future,” Netanyahu said. “We have clear and hidden relations with many Arab leaders, and there are wide-ranging relations between Israel and most of the Arab countries.”
According to the PNN, Reuters quoted a source familiar with the list of Israeli invitees as saying that the former coordinator of the Israeli government’s occupation of the occupied territories in 1967, Yoav Mordechai, who currently heads Novard International Consulting, will participate in the economic workshop.
The source added that Mordechai would attend the Manama conference, with his partner, in Novard. The source refused to mention the second man because he had also worked, for a long time, in the Israeli security services.
Tens of thousands of Jordanians on Friday marched in downtown Amman protesting against the US deal of the century and the Bahrain normalization workshop.
The march was organized by the Islamic Movement under the slogan "No for Normalization and Selling of Homeland". video
During the march, protestors carried banners and chanted slogans against the deal and the Manama workshop, and in support of Palestine and Jordan.
The march was organized by the Islamic Movement under the slogan "No for Normalization and Selling of Homeland". video
During the march, protestors carried banners and chanted slogans against the deal and the Manama workshop, and in support of Palestine and Jordan.
19 june 2019
Sheldon Adelson attends Friends of The Israel Defence Forces (FIDF) gala in California, US on 1 November 2018 [Photo by Shahar Azran/Getty Images]
Israel has been granted protection from its critics by the state of Florida in recent amendments to the Florida Educational Equality Act (FEEA), which includes provisions that suppresses free speech. Under new definitions of anti-Semitism adopted by the American state, limits have been placed on discussions of the plight of the Palestinian people and underscoring the brutality of Israel’s occupation.
The bill is likely to open the door for criminal charges to be levelled against human rights activists and critics that advocate a single democratic state in which Israeli Jews, Palestinians and all others are granted full, equal rights. Supporters of the Palestine cause face the prospect of being silenced on the grounds that calls for equality under a single democratic state is deemed to be an attempt to deny the Jewish people their right to self-determination and that such a call for non-discrimination questions Israel’s right to exist.
Florida signed the bill while its governor, Ron DeSantis, was on tour of Israel and the occupied territories. DeSantis, who has called Florida “the most Israel-friendly state in the country”, visited the US embassy in Jerusalem to ceremonially sign the new law. He also paid a visit to Ariel University, located in an illegal settlement, to receive an honour for “his dedication, leadership and commitment to the State of Israel.” Reports also confirm that he had met with Sheldon Adelson, a top funder of the Republican Party and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Amendments to the definition of anti-Semitism in Florida’s House Bill 741, include examples that conflate criticism of Israel with the universally accepted definition of anti-Semitism, the main characteristic of which is hatred for the Jewish people. The new provision sets limitations on the criticism of Israeli policy by insisting that “demonising Israel” or “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” is anti-Semitic.
Under the new provisions, focusing on the long history of human rights abuse committed by Israel can also fall foul of the law. Aiming criticism of Israel can be interpreted as “applying a double standard” and “requiring behaviour of Israel that is not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” Despite Israel being an occupying power and in violations of several UN resolutions and international law, “focusing peace or human rights investigations only on Israel” is cited as an example of anti-Semitism.
Further controversial examples of anti-Semitism include: “Delegitimizing Israel by denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination and denying Israel the right to exist.” Such a provision opens the door for the prosecution of anyone who called for an alternative political solution to the conflict, one that not only protected the rights of Jews to self-determination but also that of every other nation within historic Palestine.
Modern secular democracies, like the US, France and UK, which are based on the concept of civil nationalism have successfully cultivated a national identity that protects every human and political rights of multiple religious and ethnic groups who are citizens of the country. By contrast Israel, founded on the notion of ethno-Nationalism, is unable to extend such rights to non-Jews. Critics point to the Nation-State Bill and insist that the state of Israel, in fact, sanctions discrimination to insure that it remains an exclusive Zionist state.
The amendment uses language similar to the definition of anti-Semitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which has been pushed by Israel lobby groups. The controversial definition has been criticised by a number of academics and legal experts. Jewish academics, David Feldman, Brian Klug, Tony Lerman, have concluded that the IHRA definition is inadequate and unhelpful in numerous ways.
Concerns were also raised by the author of the IHRA code itself, Kenneth Stern. He disagreed with its expansion saying that the document was being used around the world to chill free speech. A legal opinion of the document was provided by Sir Stephen Sedley, Hugh Tomlinson QC and Geoffrey Robertson QC who explained in detail the failings of the document.
Civil rights groups have also warned that the Florida amendment will have a “chilling effect” on free speech. The new law will be “used as a tool to censor advocacy for Palestinian freedom, the redefinition [in the Florida law] chills free speech rights and suppresses badly needed debate about US and Israeli policies that abuse Palestinian rights,” said the civil rights group Palestine Legal.
Caveats within the bill, which claims that the amendment does not undermine the First Amendment of the US Constitution, have been dismissed. “Florida’s new anti-Semitism law dramatically undermines the Governor’s initiative to promote campus free speech. It labels criticisms of Israel as anti-Semitism, & will serve as a tool to suppress student & faculty speech around one of the most hotly debated topics of our time,” said the free speech advocacy organisation Fire.
~Middle East Monitor/Days of Palestine
Israel has been granted protection from its critics by the state of Florida in recent amendments to the Florida Educational Equality Act (FEEA), which includes provisions that suppresses free speech. Under new definitions of anti-Semitism adopted by the American state, limits have been placed on discussions of the plight of the Palestinian people and underscoring the brutality of Israel’s occupation.
The bill is likely to open the door for criminal charges to be levelled against human rights activists and critics that advocate a single democratic state in which Israeli Jews, Palestinians and all others are granted full, equal rights. Supporters of the Palestine cause face the prospect of being silenced on the grounds that calls for equality under a single democratic state is deemed to be an attempt to deny the Jewish people their right to self-determination and that such a call for non-discrimination questions Israel’s right to exist.
Florida signed the bill while its governor, Ron DeSantis, was on tour of Israel and the occupied territories. DeSantis, who has called Florida “the most Israel-friendly state in the country”, visited the US embassy in Jerusalem to ceremonially sign the new law. He also paid a visit to Ariel University, located in an illegal settlement, to receive an honour for “his dedication, leadership and commitment to the State of Israel.” Reports also confirm that he had met with Sheldon Adelson, a top funder of the Republican Party and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Amendments to the definition of anti-Semitism in Florida’s House Bill 741, include examples that conflate criticism of Israel with the universally accepted definition of anti-Semitism, the main characteristic of which is hatred for the Jewish people. The new provision sets limitations on the criticism of Israeli policy by insisting that “demonising Israel” or “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” is anti-Semitic.
Under the new provisions, focusing on the long history of human rights abuse committed by Israel can also fall foul of the law. Aiming criticism of Israel can be interpreted as “applying a double standard” and “requiring behaviour of Israel that is not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” Despite Israel being an occupying power and in violations of several UN resolutions and international law, “focusing peace or human rights investigations only on Israel” is cited as an example of anti-Semitism.
Further controversial examples of anti-Semitism include: “Delegitimizing Israel by denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination and denying Israel the right to exist.” Such a provision opens the door for the prosecution of anyone who called for an alternative political solution to the conflict, one that not only protected the rights of Jews to self-determination but also that of every other nation within historic Palestine.
Modern secular democracies, like the US, France and UK, which are based on the concept of civil nationalism have successfully cultivated a national identity that protects every human and political rights of multiple religious and ethnic groups who are citizens of the country. By contrast Israel, founded on the notion of ethno-Nationalism, is unable to extend such rights to non-Jews. Critics point to the Nation-State Bill and insist that the state of Israel, in fact, sanctions discrimination to insure that it remains an exclusive Zionist state.
The amendment uses language similar to the definition of anti-Semitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which has been pushed by Israel lobby groups. The controversial definition has been criticised by a number of academics and legal experts. Jewish academics, David Feldman, Brian Klug, Tony Lerman, have concluded that the IHRA definition is inadequate and unhelpful in numerous ways.
Concerns were also raised by the author of the IHRA code itself, Kenneth Stern. He disagreed with its expansion saying that the document was being used around the world to chill free speech. A legal opinion of the document was provided by Sir Stephen Sedley, Hugh Tomlinson QC and Geoffrey Robertson QC who explained in detail the failings of the document.
Civil rights groups have also warned that the Florida amendment will have a “chilling effect” on free speech. The new law will be “used as a tool to censor advocacy for Palestinian freedom, the redefinition [in the Florida law] chills free speech rights and suppresses badly needed debate about US and Israeli policies that abuse Palestinian rights,” said the civil rights group Palestine Legal.
Caveats within the bill, which claims that the amendment does not undermine the First Amendment of the US Constitution, have been dismissed. “Florida’s new anti-Semitism law dramatically undermines the Governor’s initiative to promote campus free speech. It labels criticisms of Israel as anti-Semitism, & will serve as a tool to suppress student & faculty speech around one of the most hotly debated topics of our time,” said the free speech advocacy organisation Fire.
~Middle East Monitor/Days of Palestine
