Israel hits Syrian port for second time this month

According to Reuters, Israel launched an air strike on Syria's main port of Latakia on Tuesday in the second such attack this month, setting ablaze the container storage area.

Official Syrian reports made no mention of any casualties. A source familiar with the operations of the Port, was quoted saying the strike hit a container area where allegedly large consignments of Iranian munitions were stored.

"These blasts and huge fires were caused by the explosions from the munitions stored in a warehouse close to commercial cargo," the source who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter told Reuters.

Syrian state news agency SANA quoted the head of the Latakia fire brigade as saying the containers targeted in the strike contained oils and spare parts for machines and cars.

Israel has mounted frequent attacks against what it says are Iranian targets in Syria, where Tehran-backed forces led by Lebanon's Hezbollah have deployed over the last decade in support of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria's civil war.

Israeli Defence Minister Benny Gantz, visiting an Israeli air-force base did not speak about the specific incident on Tuesday but warned his country would not allow Iran to use Syria to threaten Israel.

"I call upon the region's countries to stop Iran from violating their sovereignty and people. Israel will not allow Iran to funnel balance-breaching weapons to its proxies and threaten our citizens," Gantz said.

Another source alleged Tehran had in recent months transferred weapons by sea as it sought to dodge intensified Israeli strikes that struck eastern Syria near a weapons supply corridor along the border with Iraq.

The drone strikes disabled several large weapons convoys sent by Tehran from Iraq, he added in information confirmed by a Western intelligence source.

Iran has expanded its military presence in Syria in recent years where it now has a foothold in most state-controlled areas where thousands of its militias and local paramilitary groups are under its command, Western intelligence sources say.

Citing a military source, SANA said Israel had carried out the air strike targeting the container storage area causing a fire leading to "big material damages".

Fire fighters were working to extinguish the blaze, said Head of the Latakia fire brigade and. Syrian state TV footage showed flames and smoke in the container area.

Citing its correspondent, state-run broadcaster al-Ikhbariya said a number of residential buildings, a hospital and a number of shops and tourist facilities had been damaged by the power of the blasts.

Russia, which has been Assad's most powerful ally during the war, operates an air base at Hmeimim some 20 kms away from Latakia.

 

US war mongering to touch new highs

On Monday Joe Biden, President of United States signed a sweeping US$768 billion defense policy bill, setting up top lines and policy for the Pentagon. Biden signed the fiscal 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) after Congress scrambled to pass the annual bill earlier this month.

In a statement, the president said, “The bill provides vital benefits and enhances access to justice for military personnel and their families, and includes critical authorities to support our country’s national defense.”

The House passed the bill by an overwhelmingly bipartisan 363-70 vote in early December, and the Senate later passed the bill by a bipartisan 88-11 vote. 

Rep. Adam Smith, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that there’s a lot to be proud of in this bill.

The US$768.2 billion compromise bill came after efforts to pass an earlier version of the bill in the Senate hit several snags, including failures to reach agreements on which amendments would receive floor votes.

The NDAA provides US$740 billion for the Department of Defense, which is US$25 billion more than what the president requested for the agency for fiscal 2022.  It also includes US$27.8 billion for defense-related activities in the Department of Energy and another US$378 million for other defense-related activities. 

While passing the NDAA is an important step, the measure does not authorize any spending; meaning Congress still needs to pass an appropriations bill.

Earlier this month, Congress passed a short-term continuing resolution which funds the government through Feb. 18.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said earlier this month that passing a full-year continuing resolution, as opposed to a full-year appropriations bill, would be an unprecedented move that would cause enormous, if not irreparable, damage for a wide range of bipartisan priorities." 

Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, had warned that a full-year continuing resolution would put defense spending at US$35 billion less than what the NDAA provides for.

“We can all stand up here on the Senate floor and back at home, declaring our unwavering support for our troops and their families, and claiming to support a strong national defense, but until we put our money where our mouth is and provide the funding we say we support, those words ring hollow,” Leahy said in a statement. 

Among its provisions, the NDAA includes a 2.7 percent increase in military basic pay, which the White House recommended.

This year’s defense policy bill also includes major changes to how the military prosecutes certain crimes, like sexual assault. For those crimes, like rape, murder and manslaughter, the decision to prosecute would be made outside of the chain of command.

However, commanders would still have authority to conduct trials, pick jury members, approve witnesses and grant immunity.

The bill also weighs in on the military’s vaccine mandate, directing that service members who are discharged for not getting the COVID-19 vaccine get at least a general discharge under honorable conditions. 

But in his statement, Biden pointed to several provisions in the bill that he was against. Among them, he urged Congress to eliminate provisions that restrict the use of funds to transfer detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

He also opposed provisions that require sharing with Congress information regarding the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the threat of Iranian-backed militias to US personnel in Iraq and the Middle East.

The measures would include highly sensitive classified information, Biden said, that could reveal critical intelligence sources or military operational plans.

 

Gaza groups getting ready to face growing tension in West Bank

According to a report by The Jerusalem Post, the military wings of several Palestinian factions have launched a large-scale, joint maneuver in the Gaza Strip. This became evident amid growing tensions in the West Bank after Hamas and other Gaza-based factions called for stepping up attacks against Israel.

The move was made in the wake of unconfirmed reports that Egyptian mediation efforts to prevent an all-out military confrontation between the Palestinian groups and Israel have failed.

The maneuver, the second of its kind aims to raise military readiness for a possible confrontation with Israel and increase coordination between the factions, according to the “Joint Room of the Palestinian Resistance Factions,” which includes most of the armed groups in the Gaza Strip.

The maneuver will continue for several days at training sites, it said in a statement. At least 12 groups were taking part in the exercise, Palestinian sources said.

Earlier this month, Izzadin al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, held a military exercise called Shield of Jerusalem. The drill was held to mark the 34th anniversary of the founding of Hamas.

Late last year, the Gaza-based groups held a similar joint exercise in the Gaza Strip to exchange expertise and enhance combat preparedness.

The latest joint maneuver came one week after the armed wings of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) said they had reached an agreement to strengthen the resistance against Israel and increase coordination between the two groups. Hamas and PIJ praised the growing attacks against Israelis in the West Bank and Jerusalem, saying they came in response to settler terrorism and crimes of the Zionist occupation soldiers.

The groups also expressed full support for all forms of attacks against Israel.

Over the past two weeks, senior Hamas and PIJ officials held a series of meetings in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon to discuss preparations for a possible military confrontation with Israel.

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal and PIJ Secretary-General Ziyad al-Nakhalah, who met in Beirut two weeks ago, issued a joint statement in which they agreed on the importance of strengthening the resistance especially in the West Bank. 

They emphasized their adherence to the option of resistance as the only way to confront the occupation, liberate the land and restore rights of Palestinians.

Mustafa al-Sawwaf, a Hamas-affiliated political analyst, said the meetings and the joint maneuver aims to send a warning to Israel that the groups are ready to repel any aggression on the Gaza Strip.

 “This could be the last warning before the explosion,” he told the Quds News Network, adding that the warning was also directed toward the Egyptians, who have been acting as mediators to avoid another war in the Gaza Strip.

Mohammed Abu Askar, a senior Hamas official in the Gaza Strip, said the joint exercise was aimed at sending a message to Israel that the Palestinian factions are ready for a military confrontation.

Another Hamas official, Zaher Jabarin, said the West Bank is witnessing a massive popular uprising.  The Palestinians are ready to make sacrifices until they achieve victory, he said.

The Palestinian Authority, meanwhile, said the Palestinians will not allow the continued aggressions of the occupation and its settlers in the West Bank.

PA presidential spokesperson Nabil Abu Rudaineh accused Israel of playing with fire, adding that the situation in the West Bank has become unacceptable and intolerable.

The Palestinians possess all the means to defend their rights, and their capabilities and determination should not be underestimated, he said.

Abu Rudeineh said more than 250 Palestinians were injured in violent clashes with soldiers and settlers in the northern West Bank over the past 24 hours.

He also criticized the international community for remaining silent in the face of these repeated crimes.

Hussein al-Sheikh, Head of the PA’s General Authority of Civil Affairs and a member of the Fatah Central Committee, called on the international community to provide immediate protection for the Palestinians, who are being killed and are having their homes and lands burned by organized racist gangs.

The PA Foreign Affairs Ministry said it was astonished by the failure of the international community to speak out against the violence by the IDF and settlers.

The clashes that erupted in the village of Burka in the northern West Bank over the past two days prove that international protection for the Palestinians has become a necessity, the ministry said.

Does United States have a role in drone attacks in Yemen?

The world is fully aware of US drone attacks in Afghanistan, but most of the people have been kept unaware of US drone attacks in Yemen. Lately I read somewhere that the number of known and suspected US drone strikes in Yemen has dropped from dozens each year to single digits in 2021, these are still conducted.

The author mentioned that his uncle and cousin were collateral damage in the US assaults. To date, the US has not admitted to, much less apologized for, their deaths. His uncle Salem, was an imam who denounced Al Qaeda and mobilized resistance against them. His cousin, Waleed, was the sole police officer in the village. The author was with them moments before the first missile hit on August 29, 2012. The second missile followed immediately. There was fire everywhere and the sky turned black. As people ran towards the site of the strike, the third and fourth rockets exploded. Everything went dark.

The fact that President Biden declared an end to the “forever wars” and in almost the same breath promised further strikes is a reminder of how easily my loved ones and other victims of the forever drone wars are forgotten. The secrecy surrounding the program indicates that many of the names are often never even reported. The recent revelation that the US airstrike killed dozens of civilians in Syria is just one example of many.

He wrote, “I still have nightmares about being unable to protect my children from rockets. My wife wakes screaming her father’s name. But drones don’t just haunt our dreams, they hover over our villages. We stay close to home so when we hear the phantom buzz, we can quickly bundle our children inside. We turn on the radio to try to drown out the noise – and the fear.”

After recently killing ten members of a family in Afghanistan, the U.S. apologized and offered compensation. This was far from the first time a US drone had wiped out an entire family, though. There has never been apologies and compensation for the rest of the people.

What people have learnt is that when the media cycle moves on, the strikes continue as if the damage never happened. Faces are forgotten. And the killing continues with impunity. Nobody is held accountable. Nobody stops to ask: how long can this go on? 

President Biden is reportedly still carrying out a review of the program – a review that has now taken ten months and counting. Yet nobody has sought to interview me about my experiences. No official from this administration – or any previous administration – has ever asked me about Salem and Waleed, and the hole their deaths have left in our in our community.

For years the families have sought answers and accountability. With support from the human rights organization Reprieve, uncle of author Faisal travelled to the United States to address Congress in 2013.

A leaked memo confirmed that US officials knew Salem and Waleed were civilians. Still there was no official acknowledgement of the strike. When Faisal took the United States to court seeking only an apology, US officials fought against him. The court held they could not hear his case because the killing was a “political question.” 

Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote the killing of Salem and Waleed was a sign that US democracy was “broken” and congressional oversight over the program was “a joke,” highlighting the high number of civilians killed by the program. She also noted that in other democracies, courts have oversight over military action ordered by the executive. 

He continued, “A few months ago, Muznah phoned me begging me to come home because there was a drone overhead. I rushed back to find her huddled over our children, crying as she tried to shield them. The drone didn’t strike that day. But it could have. And it is this ever-present terror that traumatizes and makes normal life impossible.”

People feel overwhelming fear and anxiety for the future of my children. They deserve so much better. They want them to be able to go about their lives – to move around their home and village freely, without fear. To be able to watch fireworks not drone strikes. They don’t want their families to cry every time they hear a drone. They want their children to live in peace. They want America’s forever wars to be forever, truly over.

 

Russia-India ties face many odds

The year 2021 may prove to be an important milestone in the evolution of strategic relations between Russia and India. On December 06, 2021, Russian President Vladimir Putin flew into New Delhi on a one day state visit. 

The one-on-one meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which lasted three and a half hours, was aimed at restoring confidence between the two powers as time-proven and trusted strategic partners.

For Putin, the trip to India was only his second overseas visit since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic (the other was the first meeting with his US counterpart Joe Biden in Geneva). That fact alone signifies the importance of India to the Kremlin and the desire to keep relations close. But Putin’s brief visit to New Delhi was just part of broader high-level bilateral talks, which included an impressive entourage representing both countries.

The last time Putin and Modi met was in 2019 during the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok. After that, the two leaders avoided their interactions. The reason, they claimed, was the Covid-19 outbreak.

The relationship had been cooling long before Covid-19 struck. New Delhi felt that Moscow was taking advantage of India, playing upon its fears of China. The case of India’s purchase of a modified Russian cruiser turned aircraft carrier is one example. It led India’s comptroller and auditor-general to lament that India had paid 60% more for a second-hand aircraft carrier than a new one would have cost. Admiral Arun Prakash, a former chief of the Indian naval staff, was equally scathing in his evaluation of the Russian MiG-29K aircraft that were to be used on the aircraft carrier.

Russia, for its part, was unhappy with India’s growing ties with the United States. Between 2007 and 2020, India spent more than US$17 billion on military purchases from the US. Russia was particularly unhappy that India had entered into four ‘foundational’ security agreements with the US that cover the transfer of military information, logistics exchanges, compatibility and security.

At the same time, Russia’s relationship with China was growing through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and its ties to the Collective Security Treaty Organization, which was established to ensure the security of the Soviet Union’s successor states. Russia and China, seeing the US as a common antagonist, collaborated on technology transfers, Russia’s sale of energy products to China, and increased trade and tourism. They also engaged in joint military exercises and naval and air patrols.

That said, there remains the suspicion that Moscow is ‘passively facilitating’ New Delhi’s role in the Quad in order to restore equality in its strategic relations with Beijing. That could help revive, in turn, its stalled ‘new détente’ with the West.

India is suspicious of Russia’s developing relationship with Pakistan. New Delhi worries that Moscow is hyphenating its relationships with its two neighbouring enemies. That suspicion grew when Russia didn’t invite India to a meeting it convened with China, Pakistan and the US on the Afghanistan situation, a move that was seen as a deliberate snub in New Delhi.

India needs the potential security that Russia can provide. Little wonder, then, that it was prepared to purchase the S-400 air-defence system from Russia despite US pressure not to, and to offer an invitation to Putin to visit India, which he accepted.

The two countries launched ‘2+2’ ministerial consultations involving their foreign and defence ministers, making Russia the fourth partner with which India has the same format (the other three Quad members are Australia, Japan and the US).

They also signed another 10-year agreement on joint military–technical cooperation until 2031 and agreed to expand and deepen bilateral defence cooperation. Adding to that, Russia has reaffirmed its position as one of the principal providers of advanced military technology to the Indian military. Since 1991, India has acquired a comprehensive suite of weapons and platforms for all its fighting services worth some US$70 billion. The current value of India’s defence contracts with Russia is approximately US$15 billion.

Perhaps one of the most important outcomes for Russia was India’s reassurance that it is not siding with US strategic plans to form a regional political–military containment bloc. According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, the Indians ‘distanced themselves from the AUKUS bloc’. He said, ‘They are part of the Quad group, which brings together India, Japan, Australia and the US, and India … emphasises its interest in economic infrastructure and transport projects within this framework.’

Clearly, the talks didn’t eradicate all contentious points in the relationship. India is likely to remain concerned about Russia’s ties to China, Pakistan and the Taliban. Despite ambitious goals, the bilateral economic relationship won’t reach the levels of the ones that India enjoys with the US and China.

Even in the defence cooperation sphere, which is at the core of Russia–India strategic ties, some issues persist. For example, the two countries failed to finalize the reciprocal logistics support agreement, which was supposed to become an important stepping stone in closer military-to-military interaction.

The meetings in New Delhi came less than a week after the visit to Moscow of the president of Vietnam, a country with which Russia developed a comprehensive strategic partnership a decade ago. Both events highlight Russia’s more flexible approach towards its strategic engagement in the Indo-Pacific, despite the centrality of China in Russia’s Asia policy.

Putin’s meeting with Modi took place a day before the Russian president had his second major interaction with Biden, and just days before the US-led Summit for Democracy, to which Moscow was not invited. For Putin, it was important to show Washington and Brussels that Russia has a network of strategic partners it can call upon.

Recognizing that and Russia’s importance to India, New Delhi has tried to show Moscow that it’s not drifting away from the relationship. New Delhi recognizes that Moscow can’t fully trust Beijing, which makes the Indo-Russian relationship all the more important. India’s purchase of the S-400 missile system despite US pressure was meant to send exactly that message. The launch of the 2+2 ministerial consultations is likely to ease Russia’s concerns that New Delhi has been gradually drifting towards the US geopolitical orbit, confirming that India is ‘not in anyone’s camp’.

Islamabad-Tehran-Istanbul freight train service

The Islamabad-Tehran-Istanbul (ITI) railway project, or ECO freight train, was inaugurated with the first freight train moving on Tuesday during a ceremony attended by Iranian and Pakistani officials.

Pakistani Minister for Railways Azam Khan Swati, along with Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, and Adviser to the Prime Minister on Commerce Abdul Razak Dawood inaugurated the Islamabad-Tehran-Istanbul freight train at Margalla railway station, in Islamabad.

Iranian Ambassador to Pakistan Seyed Mohammad Ali Hosseini, as well as the ambassadors of Turkey, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan to Pakistan, in addition to the representative of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) were also present at the ceremony.

Addressing the ceremony, the Pakistani minister for railways said, "Launching of the container train from Pakistan to Iran and Turkey was a long-standing dream of the countries of the region, which has come true again”.

Terming the ITI freight train an important milestone in Pakistan’s history, the minister said that business-to-business contact among the business community would further enhance through this train. He said the service would further strengthen relations between the three countries.

Also, Pakistani Foreign Minister Qureshi appreciated the resumption of ITI freight train and said the service would play an important role in regional connectivity and promoting economic activity in the region.

Adviser to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Commerce Abdul Razak Dawood, for his part, said that ECO train as one of the most effective vehicles can help in expanding exports, imports and trade between member countries.

The length of the Islamabad-Tehran-Istanbul railway is 6,500 km, of which 2,570 km is in Iran, 2,000 km in Turkey and about 1,900 km in Pakistan, which takes less than half the shipping time and will also be safer and more economical as compared to road.

ITI freight train will be operated regularly on Tuesday of every week. The freight train had nine wagons initially, said a senior railway official.

As per present arrangement to start the train and the schedule agreed jointly by Turkey, Iran and Pakistan, the running time between Drence-Kapikoy (Istanbul) and Zahedan-Tabraiz (Iran) will be 90 hours each. From Zahedan to Islamabad, the train would take 135.5 hours.

 

Is two state solution the only option for peace in Middle East?

Lately, former adviser to Benjamin Netanyahu, Mark Regev, wrote about how the two-state solution is problematic when you have the Palestinians refusing to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state. He’s not wrong, but he’s also not providing realistic solutions for what that means.

It is becoming evident that there is no alternative to the two-state solution unless you either support an apartheid state, or don’t care about having a Jewish majority state. The only option for the survival of a Jewish and democratic state of Israel is a two-state solution where compromises will have to be made for peace.

Both Israelis and Palestinians are refusing to accept reality when it comes to a long-term solution, and in doing so, they have made it even more complicated and unpleasant to find a lasting agreement that respects the rights to self-determination of both peoples.

Palestinian rejectionism is the core reason for the lack of peace and a long-term solution. It is absolutely true that Palestinians have refused every opportunity for peace, and that public opinion is very much against a compromise that allows the state of Israel to exist side by side in peace with the Palestinians.

Fatah and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are cursed at and criticized as ‘collaborators’ with Israel. That being said, it also doesn’t really matter that it is unpopular because there is no alternative.

Palestinians who refuse to accept that the state of Israel is not going anywhere are perpetuating a fantasy that prevents them from moving forward in a healthy and prosperous society, and this will continue as long as public opinion pushes this narrative in schools, television, newspapers, and government.

Perhaps more problematic for the Palestinians than for the Israelis, the longer they wait to actually negotiate in good faith, the less they have to bargain with – a fact even Mahmoud Abbas agreed with when he stated in an interview that the Palestinians were wrong to reject the UN Partition Plan.

On the Israeli side, those who approach the conflict with a zero-compromise attitude about settlements are refusing to acknowledge the reality that Palestinians aren’t going anywhere. The idea that Palestinians should just up and leave to Jordan or any other Arab state is as offensive as it is unrealistic.

Regardless that the land historically belongs to the Jews, and that it is unquestionably part of historical Israel, none of that means that Jews must demand and settle all of it now.

While the Left exaggerates the role of settlements in the conflict, it is important to note that while new settlements (not settlement blocs) are not the obstacle to peace, they are an obstacle.

Palestinians refuse to acknowledge the State of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish (and democratic) state, but using that as an excuse to further develop settlements, or push policies that will make an eventual division more difficult, is paving the path toward conflict and bloodshed on both sides.

Furthermore, refusing to acknowledge the unimaginable damage that annexation (with or without full civil rights to Palestinians) would cause the state of Israel is irresponsible, no matter how far away or unpopular the two-state solution is today.

Opponents of my arguments would rightly point out that when Israel did give up land for peace all it got in return was violence, like in Gaza. Even more relevant, one could argue that if withdrawing to 1967 lines was the key to peace, why was there violence before 1967?

I am not claiming that a two-state solution will bring a warm peace between two peoples. There will still be conflict, likely for a very long time. But the status quo hasn’t brought peace either. Israel has had wave after wave of violence and terrorism, with or without occupation, and by continuing to push policies that make the two-state solution harder to achieve, we are laying the groundwork for worse conflict in the future. Israel can invest in resources that will protect the Jewish and democratic state with less territory instead of taking action to worsen the conflict down the road.

At a certain point, it doesn’t matter who is right or whose fault it was, it matters what can be done about it. Obsessing over Palestinians embracing terrorism and rejecting Israel’s right to exist isn’t going to bring us as Israelis any closer to peace.

The reality is that for Israel and the Palestinians, it is going to take a leader who is willing to commit political suicide to implement a two-state solution, and it is not going to be an easy path. It is, however, going to be even worse if both sides continue in the direction they have been for the past few decades.

No matter how unpopular is the two-state solution, it is still the only chance Israel has for remaining both democratic and Jewish. Israel cannot control what the Palestinians think or that they do not recognize Israel’s legitimacy, but it can take responsibility for its own future and pursue two states. Ultimately, Israel must decide what it wants.