Why Is U.S. So Reluctant To Back Israel’s Claims Of Syria Shemical Weapons Use?

[Purveyor]

The declaration by the head of the Research Division at Military Intelligence, Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime has used lethal chemical weapons, apparently sarin gas, against the rebels, reverberated heavily on Tuesday in the foreign press.

For Brun, an intelligence officer with considerable skill in making public appearances, this was no slip of the tongue. The remark, made at the annual conference of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, brought to the surface a substantive diplomatic and intelligence dispute among those nations closely following events in Syria.

---CLIP

It seems that, once again, the Americans are reluctant to make an unequivocal determination out of fear that this would force them into taking action in the field, which they are not eager to do. This is the background on which Brun’s remarks must be understood, along with those of Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and Chief of General Staff Benny Gantz on the same issue on Monday.

Ya’alon, at a joint press conference with U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, stated in no uncertain terms that Israel would act to prevent the transfer of chemical weapons to irresponsible hands ? that is, either the deliberate transfer of such weapons from Assad to Hezbollah, or unplanned trickling of chemical weapons stores from the Syrian regime to its enemies, particularly radical Sunni jihadists? .

Gantz, meanwhile, in his address to the INSS conference, highlighted the need for international cooperation between Israel and its friends. That sounded like a declaration on strategy, but perhaps it also needs to be interpreted in the context of American caution with regard to Syria.

MORE...

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/why-is-u-s-so-reluctant-to-back-israel-s-claims-of-syria-chemical-weapons-use.premium-1.517222

[jberryhill]

1. Because we have no direct evidence?

When does "backing a claim" trump "knowing the truth"? If the US has no direct evidence, then the US has no direct evidence.

If a good friend of mine said they saw a ghost last night, then I wouldn't be in a position to say there was or wasn't a ghost or that my good friend saw one. It's not a matter of whether I generally believe them or trust them. It's a simple matter of I cannot confirm what I did not see myself.

[leveymg]

2. Why is Israel characterizing chlorine bombs used by the opposition as Syrian "nerve gas"?

Last edited Wed Apr 24, 2013, 06:34 AM - Edit history (1)

There's an awful lot of hedging, contradictory statements, and hemming and hawing coming from the Israelis. Meanwhile, here's what the NYT says on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/world/middleeast/israel-says-syria-has-used-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

In a briefing in Tel Aviv, an Israeli military official was vague about the exact nature of the evidence, saying that it was drawn from an examination of photographs of victims and some “direct” findings that he would not specify.

Secretary of State John Kerry suggested there were mixed messages emerging from Israel, saying that he spoke to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday morning and that the Israeli leader “was not in a position to confirm” the intelligence assessment. Israeli officials said they would not try to explain the apparent difference between Mr. Netanyahu’s statement and that of his top military intelligence officials.