Egypt's Morsi: 'Farce of Israeli aggression' against Gaza will end today

The “farce” of Israeli aggression will end on Tuesday, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi said, expressing certainty that Israelis and Palestinians will shortly reach a ceasefire.

“The efforts to reach a ceasefire between the Palestinians and Israelis will produce positive results within a few hours," state news agency Mena quoted Morsi as saying.

However, President Morsi did not provide any evidence or cite any sources to support his assertions.

The announcement comes ahead of several crucial talks on the Israeli-Gaza conflict held by high-profile international officials.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has arrived in Israel for peace talks on Tuesday. Later, the UN chief is expected to travel to Gaza to assess the humanitarian situation.

On Tuesday night, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due in Israel for talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. She is also expected to meet with officials from the Palestinian Authority, but not from Hamas, which is considered terrorist organization by the US.

Meanwhile, a delegation of top Arab officials led by Arab League chief Nabil Arabi is in Gaza in a show of solidarity with Palestinians. The delegates arrived through the Rafah border crossing near Egypt, and are set to meet with the Hamas government.

The delegation include representatives from more than 10 countries, including Egypt, Iraq, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia and Turkey, Hamas officials said.

Russian Media - Dangerous game: 'US almost daring Tehran to strike first'

With sanctions against Iran gradually showing their ineffectiveness, Washington is escalating the situation in the Persian Gulf, as if encouraging Tehran to attack first, a US politics professor told RT.

­Amid pressure mounting on Tehran, a major Indian company, United India Insurance Co., has agreed to provide insurance for tankers carrying oil from Iran. Insurances are vital for sea transportation. Without insurance, tankers are unable to deliver oil from one destination to another.

The decision of an Indian company means a serious blow to the effectiveness of the US sanctions against Iran in a bid to crank up the pressure over the country's nuclear activities. The sanctions target companies accused of breaching a European ban on buying oil from Tehran.

Simultaneously, to give their sanctions policies some military support, the US is sending fourth air carrier to the Persian Gulf region. It has also been announced that America deploys underwater drones to deal with sea mines Iran might plant in the Strait of Hormuz to block the vital route.

“The more warships the US moves [to the region], the more threatened Iran is going to feel and there is more chance of triggering some kind of mistake,” explains Patricia DeGennaro, professor of politics at New York University.

She says the act of sending more warships to the region is a dangerous game of “dare”.

“I don’t know what they are going to achieve by putting more warships in the region. This is a very bad move. Maybe they are trying to make Israel feel safer, but in fact again that is a very dangerous game that is almost daring somebody to strike first,” the professor believes.

­

‘Mrs. Clinton should better promote peace instead of war’

A naval clash in the Persian Gulf region is very real, DeGennaro told RT, because military communications do not often go as they are expected to.

“The Iranian military is organized a bit differently than the American military. They can get orders not normally understood… within a context of a country being threatened.”

“We should do more negotiations and more diplomacy,” the professor concluded. “I’d like to see Mrs. [Hillary] Clinton lead the State Department as Secretary of State instead of really promoting more war in the region.”

Western intelligence claims Iran might be just a year away from building a nuclear weapon, while Tehran denies allegations of developing nuclear power for military use. This confrontation need to be resolved given neither side wants to lose face, which means negotiations in the first place, believes Patricia DeGennaro.

“Let’s sit down and talk before we start pointing weapons at each other, which should really facilitate a really large scale conflict in the region.”

North Korea nuclear move 'world threat'

North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles and "pattern of provocations" are a serious threat to Asian and world security, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said.

North Korea released a statement at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations' annual conference in Cambodia saying Washington's "never-ending nuclear threat" against the North has forced Pyongyang to build atomic weapons.

Animosity runs high after a North Korean rocket launch in April that Washington and Seoul called a cover for a banned long-range missile test. North Korea said it was a satellite launch attempt.

Mrs Clinton said Pyongyang's new leadership should focus on its people's "needs and aspirations" so it did not "fall further behind".

The North's statement says its nuclear programme is a deterrent that reduces the risk of war.

Has Kofi Annan got it Wrong?

Russia and Iran must participate in Syria solution - Annan

Kofi Annan said on Saturday that despite Washington’s harsh rhetoric, there was ‘no alternative’ to Russia’s participation in a diplomatic solution to the Syrian crisis. He also said Iran was ‘an actor that cannot be ignored’.

In an interview with Le Monde on Saturday, UN special Syrian Envoy Kofi Annan said that the “evidence suggests his plans for peace had not yet succeeded”, and that there was “no guarantee” that negotiations would ever be successful.

He also, however, stressed that there was no other alternative besides cooperation on a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the crisis.

“Have we looked at the other alternatives? Do we have other options on the table? I said this to the UN Security Council, and add that this mission has no definite time frame, just like my own role.”

“We did not include a timetable in the plan, because we wanted to emphasize that the process should be conducted by the Syrians themselves.”

Annan also addressed the media fixation on the Russian position in the process, while wondering why countries like Iran, who is “an actor” in the situation, were being excluded from the process.

“What strikes me is that so many comments are made about Russia, while Iran is least mentioned… The unique focus only on Russia is very irritating to the Russians.”

Annan stated that Iran should be involved in the resolution of the crisis, and “cannot be ignored”, while western powers and other Syrian opposition movements have opposed any participation by Iran or Assad’s government in future negotiations for transition.

­

Competing rhetoric, competing arms shipments

Annan emphasized that western criticism of Russia and China was senseless “competition”, impeding a process which cannot move forward without international consensus. Annan clearly implied that there was "no alternative" to proceeding without Russia.

“The Russians, like many other countries implicated in this matter, have interests in Syria and the region. Once we agree in principle that there are also common interests, medium and long term, the question becomes: how can we protect these interests?” Annan stated.

Annan also alluded to governments around the world holding olive branches with one hand at the diplomacy table, but handing out aid and weapons to various sides in the Syrian conflict with the other.

“Little is known about other countries sending arms, money being spent, and the situation on the ground,” Annan said. “All these countries claim to want a peaceful solution, but they take individual and collective initiatives that undermine the resolutions of the Security Council.”

Washington has criticized Russia for selling arms to Assad, taking particular issue with a shipment of refurbished assault helicopters that was set to be delivered to Syria in June. The US, on the other hand, has continued to provide monetary “non-lethal aid” to rebels, which critics say is being used to buy weapons and arm the insurgency.

“Shouldn’t the countries [involved] find ways to work together to ensure that Syria does not rip itself apart, not spread problems to its neighbors, and to avoid a situation that creates instability in the region and for the world? Or will these countries continue on the path on which they have embarked, leading to a destructive competition in which everyone will eventually lose?” Annan asked.

“More than anything, we must think of the suffering of the Syrians and people of the region. I hope that reason will prevail, at least in regards to the defense of the interests of the concerned states. In this case, it is in the interest of Russia as well as other countries find a way to work together.”

­

War of words

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton made headlines on Friday at the friends of Syria meeting in Paris, where she rebuked Russia and China for backing Assad, claiming there would be "a price to pay".

“I do not believe that Russia and China are paying any price at all – nothing at all – for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime.  The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price,” Clinton warned.­

Russia has forcefully denied the allegations, saying that such verbal attacks can only escalate an already unstable situation.

“We categorically reject that such a question would even be posed regarding the current situation in Syria and Russia’s ‘backing’ of President Bashar Assad.” Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said in response to Clinton’s remarks.

“This is not a question of supporting certain political figures or leaders. This is a question of managing a crisis situation in the country within a normal political framework.”

­

Concessions to Russia?

Clinton’s harsh language came following a summit in Geneva on June 30th, where a resolution was agreed upon by all sides calling for negotiations, with participants in the transitional government to be agreed upon by ‘mutual consent’. While initial reports suggested that all parties present were pleased at the outcome, Clinton’s remarks may have served to undermine that progress by highlighting major differences in the interpretation of the document.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov praised the agreements of the communiqué the following Tuesday, saying they represent the best hope for achieving peace in the Arab nation.

"Geneva gives good chances and they should be used,” the minister stressed. “It is important that all players are pressing actively on all Syrian parties in order to make them stop the violence and get down to the table of negotiations."

However, even though there were no overt references stipulating negotiations without Assad in the resolution, Clinton said that no matter what language was used, Assad’s departure was implied, stating that he would never pass a “mutual consent test, given the blood on his hands.”

“The Geneva agreements should not be distorted in any way,” Lavrov responded. “They mean just what has been written in the communique, and we will try not to rewrite anything afterwards."

"Unfortunately, some representatives of the Syrian opposition began to state that the Geneva decisions are unacceptable for them," the minister said.

The Free Syrian Army (FSA), a resistance movement on the ground inside Syria, boycotted a meeting in Cairo in early July where some 250 delegates discussed an internationally backed transition plan following the Geneva summit. The armed rebels branded it a "conspiracy" and said the agenda lacked an aggressive stance.

The rebel FSA and some "independent" activists lashed out at the organizers of the two-day conference for “rejecting the idea of a foreign military intervention to save the people… and ignoring the question of buffer zones protected by the international community, humanitarian corridors, an air embargo and the arming of rebel fighters."­

The boycotters said they refused “all kind of dialogue and negotiation with the killer gangs… and we will not allow anyone to impose on Syria and its people the Russian and Iranian agendas.”

Annan refuted claims that concessions were made to Russia and China in the resolution, stating in the interview that such reactions to the document were "unfortunate".

“The Geneva resolution was drawn up by a group of nations, 80 percent of whom are members of the Friends of Syria Group that called for the removal of Bashar al-Assad on July 6th. That is why claims by the opposition that it has been "betrayed" or "sold out" are rather odd,” he concluded.

Clinton: Russia and China will 'pay price' for supporting Assad

US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton listens during a meeting of the "Friends of the Syrian People" at the MFA Conference Center July 6, 2012 in Paris, France.

 Russia rejects in the strongest possible terms allegations that it supports President Assad in the Syrian conflict. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Moscow and Beijing must 'pay a price' for backing Assad.

“I do not believe that Russia and China are paying any price at all – nothing at all – for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime.  The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price,” Clinton warned.­

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov  said the west is operating within a friend-or-foe framework that he called outmoded.

“We categorically reject that such a question would even be posed regarding the current situation in Syria and Russia’s ‘backing’ of President Bashar Assad. This is not a question of supporting certain political figures or leaders. This is a question of managing a crisis situation in the country within a normal political framework,” Ryabkov said.

“Unfortunately, we’re unable to get a basic understanding from our western partners. The west is still appealing to “friend-or-foe” terms. We considered such terminology to be a thing of the past,” Ryabkov explained.

Russia and China once again opted not to attend the “Friends of Syria” meeting. Neither Moscow nor Beijing believe the meeting in the French capital will be helpful in uniting the Syrian opposition “on a constructive basis”.

“We have frankly laid out the reasons why we have restrained from joining the mechanism, the very name of which has a contradiction between the word and the deed,” Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said earlier this week.

The US Secretary of State further criticized Russia for the maintenance of Syria’s Soviet-made helicopters. Two weeks ago Hillary Clinton lashed out at Russia for repairing three Syrian helicopters, saying their presence “will escalate the conflict quite dramatically.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry swiftly refuted the allegations.

“In 2008 there was a contract to repair them. They are still to be assembled after delivery'', Lavrov said. ''That entire process will take at least three months. So to speak about something we have just sold to Syria, which is then to be used in action, is not true at all,” he added.

French President Francois Hollande demanded Bashar Assad step down while delivering an opening statement at the Friends of Syria meeting on Friday. Hollande believes a transition of political power is the only way to end the 16-month conflict in Syria.

The Friends of Syria meeting comes just a week after a UN-led summit in Geneva where the international community endeavored to reach a consensus on the conflict. They agreed to get behind UN envoy Kofi Annan’s plan for a transition government in Syria.

However, Russia said that western powers were purposely distorting the terms of the agreement to push for the removal of Assad.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed that the agreement said Assad must leave office, whereas Moscow claims that the original accord made no allusion to the removal of the Syrian president.

­

“Falling out with Mrs Clinton can prove fatal”

­Mark Almond, a professor of international relations at Bilkent University in Turkey, said  that the US probably has its own solution for the Syrian problem and is not prepared for any sort of compromise.

“The rhetoric of Mrs Clinton recalls that of the Bush era,” the professor said. “There is a great deal of congeniality in international policy between George Bush and Barack Obama’s administrations,” he said.

“After all France, Russia and China opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003. (Then US Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice threatened (Then French President) Jacques Chirac by name that he would pay a price with the distraction of his reputation and public esteem,” Almond recalled.

“Mrs. Clinton is converting a regional problem, a crisis in Syria and its neighbors, into apotential global problem,” he said. “Those countries that do not agree with every word of Mrs Clinton are to be considered supporters of tyranny and enemies of the good. This is creating a much more dangerous global answer,” he continued. 

“Maybe Mrs. Clinton is simply speaking out of frustration at the fact that her policies have not yet achieved the goal of overthrowing Assad,” Almond argued, adding that Clinton is known for using harsh rhetoric towards people she does not like.

“Remember her comments on Gaddafi. She said ‘We came, we saw, he died’, which was broadcasted on American TV. Falling out with Mrs Clinton can prove fatal,” he concluded.

Russia, US in 'war of interpretations' over Syrian peace talks

Moscow and Washington interpret the Geneva agreements on the settlement of the situation in Syria differently, the Chairman of the State Duma's Foreign Affairs Committee, Alexei Pushkov, has said.

­"A war of interpretation broke out after the agreement on political transformation in Syria was signed in Geneva," he told reporters on Tuesday.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is convinced the agreement makes it clear to the current Syrian leadership that it must go, he said.

"Moscow, by contrast, said the agreement does not say a word about Assad's resignation and that he is not mentioned at all in it," the Russian lawmaker said.

Earlier, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stressed the Russian view that the final document of the Geneva conference on Syria does not call for the resignation of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"This does not follow from the document absolutely," he said at a press conference after the Geneva meeting, contradicting Clinton’s assertion that the document calls for Assad's resignation.

Pushkov warns that disagreement over the document’s meaning puts the US and Russia on a “collision” course.

"We are again witnessing a collision,” he said. “On the one hand we can see the United States and the so-called ‘Friends of Syria’ who want Assad to resign. On the other Russia and China are seeking an immediate end to the violence and the earliest possible beginning of talks between the Syrian government and opposition.”

The only common ground between the sides is the belief that the situation in Syria must be settled politically, he said, adding that the US is making Assad’s resignation a precondition of the talks.

"We advocate talks between the government and opposition, and the U.S. and others – talks with Assad's simultaneous resignation. In fact, they are advancing a precondition for the talks," he said.

Furthermore, the United States and its supporters actively dictate what the Syrian opposition's position should be, Pushkov said.

"The rebels have announced already that they will not start talks before Assad's resignation, which indicates that they obey the logic dictated from abroad," the Duma official said.

A similar type of confrontation ensued over various interpretations of the UN Security Council's resolution 1973 on Libya, he added.

An international conference on ways to resolve the deteriorating situation in Syria was held in Geneva on June 29

Clinton hopeful Syria meeting can be turning point

US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (L) and Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja give a press conference on June 27, 2012 after signing a General Security of Information agreement during their meeting in Helsinki.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday she has "great hope" that an upcoming Geneva meeting of world powers can be a turning point in the Syria crisis. Clinton said the U.S. supports U.N. envoy Kofi Annan’s plan for political transition in Syria.

Annan "has developed his own very concrete road map for political transition" from the Assad regime, Clinton said at a news conference at the start of her three-country European tour. "We believe it embodies the principles needed for any political transition in Syria that could lead to a peaceful, democratic and representative outcome reflecting the will of the Syrian people."

The violence in Syria has worsened since a cease-fire deal in April, and the bloodshed appears to be taking on more dangerous, sectarian overtones, the U.N. said Wednesday. The U.N.’s deputy envoy for Syria, Jean-Marie Guehenno, told the U.N. Human Rights Council that the violence in Syria has "reached or even surpassed" levels seen before the April 12 ceasefire agreement and that Annan’s six-point peace plan "is clearly not being implemented."

Reflecting the sense of urgency, senior diplomats said world powers plan to meet Saturday in Geneva to try to end the bloodshed. Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will be joined by diplomats from U.N. Security Council nations and possibly neighbors of Syria, the diplomats said. Clinton has not officially confirmed that she will attend the meeting, but said she is "keeping my calendar open."

Clinton said she had "great hope" the meeting can be "a turning point in the very tragic circumstances affecting the Syrian people at this time."

Syrian President Bashar Assad "has relied on the support of Russia and China in the Security Council to prevent the international community from taking unified action," Clinton said. Russia and China, two of the Security Council’s five permanent members, have twice shielded Syria from U.N. sanctions.

"If Kofi Annan is able to lay down a political transition road map that is endorsed by countries including Russia and China, for example, that sends a very different message," Clinton said. "That’s the first time the international community will have really evidenced a direction that I think Assad will have to respond to."

"If he is able to get people there who up until now have either been on the sidelines or actively supporting or protecting the Assad regime, then that gives heart to the opposition. It also disheartens a lot of the regime insiders," she said

US post-Assad Syria plan: Intervention in the cards?

Hillary Clinton has put forward a new plan to remove Syrian president Bashar al-Assad from power. Echoing recent US threats to take action on Syria independently of the UN, the plan’s announcement coincides with yet another tragic massacre.

As the violence in Syria worsens, Washington has been ramping up threats to intervene without UN approval in the absence of international consensus. US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, speaking to reporters after the Houla massacre, bluntly called on the UN Security Council to “assume its responsibilities”, saying that if the violence continues, “then members of this council and members of the international community are left with the option only of having to consider whether they’re prepared to take actions outside of the Annan plan and the authority of this council.”

“This council has a responsibility to act and act swiftly and surely,” Rice said. “And if we don’t, then we are all resigning ourselves to a third scenario, which we still hope to avoid.”

Now, as reports of a new massacre emerge from Syria, State Secretary Hillary Clinton has announced a new transition plan that would remove Assad from power completely, possibly signaling the US is ready to make good on its threats to go it alone.

In Istanbul, a meeting was held on the sidelines of the Coordination Committee of the Global Counterterrorism summit with top representatives from Turkey, France, the UK and Arab nations on Wednesday. Conspicuously absent were representatives from Russia and China, the two biggest opponents of foreign intervention in Syria. During the meeting, Hillary Clinton outlined a peace plan for Syria which included a full removal of Assad from power. The US State Department sees Syria without Assad as a prerequisite to any solution to the crisis, a position that Russia and China oppose.

“Tonight the secretary laid out a set of essential elements and principles which we believe should guide that post-Assad transition strategy, including Assad's full transfer of power," a US State Department official told reporters in Turkey.

The proposal completely ignores Kofi Annan’s six-point peace plan, approved by the UN and the international community. The plan, which called for an immediate cessation of hostilities, a Syrian-led dialogue to resolve the crisis, unrestricted access to humanitarian aid, and freedom of movement for journalists has been the only proposed solution that has met with Russian and Chinese approval. However, its effectiveness has been questioned, with neither the opposition nor Assad adhering to it.

Russia and China have steadfastly opposed any foreign intervention in Syria and support the Annan plan, repeating their position together at this week’s Russia-China political summit in Beijing.

Moscow has also called for Iran and Turkey to be brought into the Syria discussion, claiming any conversation without them would be too one-sided, and criticized the ‘Friends of Syria’ meeting to be held in Paris on July 6th, saying that without proper representation from all sides, such a summit would serve limited interests.

"We believe it is necessary to assemble a meeting of states with real influence on different opposition groups. There are not that many," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in Beijing.

That position has been echoed by Annan himself, as the international envoy announced he will be creating a “contact group” of world powers and key players in the region to come up with a new strategy for ending the conflict. The group would include Iran, and its final proposal must be approved by western countries, as well as Russia and China, the Associated Press reports.

“Moscow is not trying to keep Assad in power, his fate is in the hands of the Syrian people,” said Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Mikhail Bogdanov.

­

All in the timing?

Clinton’s announcement comes amidst the news of more tragic violence in Syria. In what is being called a new massacre, reports on Thursday claimed that some 100 people, many of them women and children, were killed in the Hama region. The opposition says that Syrian security forces are responsible, while Damascus has accused rebels of perpetrating the heinous massacre themselves to try and garner support for foreign military intervention. Neither story can be independently confirmed.

However, the timing of this new massacre has some analysts curious. Lajos Szadszi, a political and international affairs analyst told RT in an interview that the victims in Hama “may have been killed by rebels to blame it on the government and try to trigger an international intervention, which is something that the rebels want…There are members of the armed opposition inside Syria who are very unscrupulous. They don’t want to go back to a situation in which they might have to entertain the possibility of negotiating with the government in Damascus. They just want to remove the government by force.”

Washington has made its desire for larger intervention in Syria clear, with Senator John McCain publicly calling to arm the rebels last week. The US has a history of ignoring the UN Security Council if international consensus does not coincide with American interests.

“It’s been used by the United States, I think, as a fig leaf, to get multilateral approval on policies that the US wants to do,” Ivan Eland, Director of the Center on Peace and Liberty in Washington D.C. said of the Security Council.

“But if the UN doesn’t agree with the United States as in the case of Iraq or Kosovo, the United States just disregards it.”

While there is speculation that Hillary Clinton’s transition plan may be an attempt to gain Russia’s approval on a new course of action, it remains to be seen how far the US is willing to go without international support on Syria. (Who need Russia's approval, they will always support Assads slaughter machine to keep their only Naval base in the Mediterranean).