Israel Smacks Down Syria & Russia;ADVANCED Russian Hardware Destroyed.Assists America Too.What’s The Calculus?Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

{re-blogged at Islam Exposed}

{re-blogged at Jews Down Under}

MANY have heard about the IAF’s lighting strikes into Syria, especially over the last few years. As always, they are not for nothing, irrespective of the whining from assorted (near and far) foes. Guaranteed, they are not training exercises to prove their mettle. That ship has sailed. In fact, the only air force that can compete with the IAF (at times, beat) is the USAF. {blogger’s note: this site is pro-American and pro-Israeli, make no mistake…but, bear in mind, there are various “sore loser” explanations in the link below}

“How badly did the United States Air Force Get Beaten By The Israeli Air Force During Red-Flag Exercises Or War-Games Exercises (that were not classified)?”

SO with the above understanding in mind, readers must recognize that nations are operating, as they should, in their own national interests. But it is equally intrinsic to realize when it is prudent to work together and when to go it alone, even parting company with an ally. This is a lesson PM Netanyahu too often shuns. In fact, the 2014 summer-long fiery war with Hamas should become EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE; it demonstrated that tying Israel’s strings to Obama Inc. evinced incalculable knock-on effects. The full blown evaluation can be found within the following interview. A relevant excerpt sets the tone:

Adina Kutnicki: Wolff, before we review the dangers associated with the newly-formed Muslim-American party, it must be reiterated: traditional American allies are caught up in a horrifying spider’s web through their association with the Obama administration. Poisonous.

Illustrative of said entangling, one has to internalize when it is in a nation’s best interests to align with a “best friend” and when prudence demands a “trial” separation, at least for the time being.

Basically, PM Netanyahu, MIT smartie that he is, hasn’t figured out this seemingly simple calculus. Along this trajectory, through his joined-at-the-hip actions with Barack HUSSEIN Obama (don’t be distracted by their public tussles – as media grabbing as they are – that’s not where the action/collusion is) Israel now finds herself “involved” with Sunni jihadists, the likes of which include Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and ISIS! Yup.

Trenchantly, there is a “quiet” war being fought on the Syrian side of Israel’s northern Golan border to capture key sites. It may very well blow up Israel’s Golan front. Currently, the struggle is between Assad’s henchmen and the aforementioned Sunni jihadists. These are the same “rebels” whom Obama Inc. has “surreptitiously” armed, ever since the administration entered into an absolutely illegal war in Libya. Its (hidden) basis was to arm Sunni terrorists to take over the region for the Muslim Brotherhood! Full circle.

Resultant, instead of PM Netanyahu opting out of choosing between one Islamic devil over another (Assad’s forces are inseparable from Iran’s proxy pawns), thereby, reacting to whichever side illegally fires from Syria into Israel with resolute IDF firepower, Israel is now – like it or not – aiding those who abet Hamas. Ditto, Assad/Iran have been doing likewise.

Assuredly, there are times when NOT choosing sides makes the most strategic sense. However, this is definitely not the case with the Kurdish issue. Alas, it was a relief that PM Netanyahu publicly stated his support for Kurdish independence from Iraq. As is said, even a broken clock can be right once in a while.

Stipulated, sans a scintilla of a doubt, under PM Netanyahu’s missteps, the dangers to Israel have never been greater….

IN this regard, this week’s Israeli airstrike into Syria wielded a two-edge sword; a dual track. Yes, as critical as this investigative journalist is of PM Netanyahu’s penchant for spinelessness, this go around he exerted proper hyper-muscle and secured Israel’s national interests – finally.

High-ranking American military sources revealed Monday, Dec. 8, that Israel’s air strikes near Damascus the day before wiped out newly-arrived Russian hardware including missiles that were dispatched post haste to help Syria and Hizballah frustrate a US plan for a no-fly zone over northern Syria.

The advanced weapons were sent over, as DEBKAfile reported exclusively Sunday, after Russian President Vladimir Putin learned that the Obama administration and the Erdogan government were close to a final draft on a joint effort to activate a no-fly zone that would bar Syrian air force traffic over northern Syria.

The Kremlin has repeatedly warned – of late in strong messages through back channels – that the establishment of a no-fly or buffer zone in any part of Syria would be treated as direct American intervention in the Syria war and result in Russian military intervention for defending the Assad regime.
According to the US-Turkish draft, American warplanes would be allowed to take off from the Turkish airbase of Incirlik in the south for operations against Syrian warplanes, assault helicopters or drones entering the no-go zone. Thus far, Ankara has only permitted US surveillance aircraft and drones the use of Incirlik for tracking the movements of Islamic State fighters in northern Syria.
The Obama administration was long deterred from implementing a no-fly zone plan by the wish to avoid riling Moscow or facing the hazards of Syria’s world-class air defense system.

But Washington was recently won over to the plan by a tacit deal with Damascus for American jets to be allowed entry to help Kurdish fighters defend their northern Syrian enclave of Kobani against capture by al Qaeda’s IS invaders.

However, the US administration turned down a Turkish demand to extend the no-fly zone from their border as far as Aleppo, Syria’s largest city, over which Syrian army forces are battling rebels and advancing slowly into the town.
The no-fly zone planned by US strategists would be narrow – between a kilometer and half a kilometer deep inside Syria. However Moscow is standing fast against any such plan and objects to US planes making free of Syrian airspace, a freedom they are now afforded over Kobani.
To drive this point home, the Russians delivered a supply of advanced anti-air missiles and radar, whose use by the Syrian army and transfer to Hizballah in Lebanon were thwarted by the Israeli air strikes Sunday.

Moscow reacted swiftly and angrily with a Note to the United Nations Monday accusing Israel of “aggressive action” and demanding “that such attacks should not happen again… Moscow is deeply worried by this dangerous development, the circumstances of which demand an explanation.”

The Assad regime has held back from reacting to past Israeli air raids for preventing advanced weaponry from reaching Hizballah. This time, spokesmen in Damascus warned that their government’s response would be clandestine and cause Israel “unimaginable harm.”

EXTRAPOLATING further – and despite the warning that Syria’s response would be clandestine and cause Israel “unimaginable harm” – the fact of the matter is that they never cease plotting to exert “unimaginable harm”. Israel is, as is said, damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t. But never mind. Its PRIMARY vested interest (by striking Syria, the transit route to Lebanon’s Hezbollah) is to ALWAYS keep advanced anti-missile hardware out of Hezbollah’s hands. In essence, these air strikes (and other clandestine operations) frustrate Iran’s proxy arm from causing grave damage to Israel. Significantly, said pre-emptive actions should be a no-brainer, even for Israel’s appeasement-oriented political leaders. Not only that, they are manifestly legal under international law, despite Russia’s (and Syria’s) shrill pronouncements before the U.N.’s anti-Israel gaggle of kleptocrats.

AS detailed by this site‘s close and valued contact, Professor Louis Rene Beres, in his joint analysis with U.S. Admiral Leon “Bud” Edney & General Thomas G. McInerney at Oxford’s University Press, anticipatory self-defense is codified:

Enter international law. Designed, inter alia, to ensure the survival of states in a persistently anarchic world – a world originally fashioned after the Thirty Years War and the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 – this law includes the “inherent” right of national self-defense. Such right may be exercised not only after an attack has already been suffered, but, sometimes, also, in advance of an expected attack.

What can now be done, lawfully, about relentless Iranian nuclear weapons development?  Do individual states, especially those in greatest prospective danger from any expressions of Iranian nuclear aggression, have a legal right to strike first defensively? In short, could such a preemption ever be permissible under international law?

For the United States, preemption remains a part of codified American military doctrine. But is this national doctrine necessarily consistent with the legal and complex international expectations of anticipatory self-defense?

To begin, international law derives from multiple authoritative sources, including international custom. Although written law of the UN Charter (treaty law) reserves the right of self-defense only to those states that have already suffered an attack (Article 51), equally valid customary law still permits a first use of force if the particular danger posed is “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation.” Stemming from an 1837 event in jurisprudential history known as the Caroline, which concerned the unsuccessful rebellion in Upper Canada against British rule, this doctrine builds purposefully upon a seventeenth-century formulation of Hugo Grotius.

Self-defense, says the classical Dutch scholar in, The Law of War and Peace (1625), may be permitted “not only after an attack has already been suffered, but also in advance, where the deed may be anticipated.”  In his later text of 1758, The Right of Self-Protection and the Effects of Sovereignty and Independence of Nations, Swiss jurist Emmerich de Vattel affirmed: “A nation has the right to resist the injury another seeks to inflict upon it, and to use force and every other just means of resistance against the aggressor.”

Article 51 of the UN Charter, limiting self-defense to circumstances following an attack, does not override the customary right of anticipatory self-defense.  Interestingly, especially for Americans, the works of Grotius and Vattel were favorite readings of Thomas Jefferson, who relied  heavily upon them for crafting the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.

We should also recall Article VI of the US Constitution, and assorted US Supreme Court decisions. These proclaim, straightforwardly, that international law is necessarily part of the law of the United States.

The Caroline notes an implicit distinction between preventive war (which is never legal), and preemptive war. The latter is not permitted merely to protect oneself against an emerging threat, but only when the danger posed is “instant” and “overwhelming.” Using such a literal framework, it could first appear doubtful that the United States may now construct a persuasive legal argument for preemption against Iran. This would be the case even if the planned American defense operation were carefully limited to exclusively nuclear military targets.

Nonetheless, we live in very different times. Grotius, Vattel and those later jurists who were focused on the Caroline could never have anticipated the genuinely existential risks soon to be posed by a nuclear Iran.  Understandably, the permissibility of anticipatory self-defense is far greater in the nuclear age than in prior centuries. Today, after all, it is easy to imagine, simply waiting impotently to suffer an enemy nuclear attack could be entirely irrational. Even suicidal.

A  special danger is posed by terrorist group surrogates. If not prevented from receiving nuclear weapons or fissile materials from patron states, such proxies (e.g., Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda) could inflict enormous harms upon targets that would be out of range of nuclear-tipped missiles.

The United States is not the only country at risk from Iranian nuclear weapons. Israel is at greater risk. There is, however, a long and respected international legal tradition that Great Powers have proportionately great responsibilities. This would suggest, from a management of world power standpoint, that America must remain ever-mindful of a potential nuclear threat to other, far smaller states.

MOREOVER, the international precepts outlined above are doubly applicable for distinct genocidal foes. Thus, how many times, how many ways, do Israel’s foes have to declare: it is their intent to destroy her, before pre-emption (against Iran, its proxy arms or others) becomes the only nation-saving option? Ten….50….100…

NOT to be lost in the discussion, this week’s  strike assisted the U.S. military in its quest to block Russia from imposing a “no-fly” zone over Syrian airspace, and all that it entails. Resultant, it became a win-win to strike.

CONCOMITANTLY, Israel’s leaders must steer clear of Obama Inc.’s “relationship” with ISIS and its attendant terror arms, thus, knowing when to “part company”!




One thought on “Israel Smacks Down Syria & Russia;ADVANCED Russian Hardware Destroyed.Assists America Too.What’s The Calculus?Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

  1. Pingback: Israel Smacks Down Syria & Russia.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s