Jacob's Soap Box

By Daniel Greenfield (Sultan Knish)

16 April 2012

My friend, Amos, drew my attention to Daniel Greenfield’s blog, Sultan Knish, and in particular to the following blog. I have found Daniel’s thought process and writing clear, concise and captivating; I recommend that you check out his blog.

In accordance with the terms and conditions set by Daniel Greenfield on his site, I bring here Daniel’s blog in full.

Hat tip to Amos (surname withheld).

Jacob

Last month I appeared at an event organized by the Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and the David Horowitz Freedom Center on the topic of “Israel in 50 Years” that explores how Israel will make it to 50 years from now. Below you can read some adapted excerpts from my talk and see the video of the remarks.

Before we begin, let me tell you a little about myself. I’m pro-Israel.

Now these days there’s all sorts of debate about what pro-Israel means. Is Obama’s pro-Israel? Is J-Street pro-Israel? Is Arafat’s ghost pro-Israel?

There are two kinds of pro-Israel. There’s the old-fashioned kind of pro-Israel people who think that Israel should survive and defend itself. And the new kind of pro-Israel who think that it shouldn’t.

I’m the old fashioned-kind of pro-Israel. I think it should survive. And now let’s discuss how it might do that.

Let’s begin with the crisis that is most on our minds. The bomb.

It took quite a while until the Soviet Union was able to store up enough intercontinental ballistic missiles to be able to wipe out the United States. It will take a lot less time until Iran has the capability to wipe out the State of Israel. One reason for this is Israel’s population density.

Israel is not only small; it’s smaller than all but three American states, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island, it’s also very densely populated. Israel has the 37th largest population density in the world. By comparison Japan, which has cubicle hotels, has the 32nd largest population density in the world. And if you eliminate islands, city states and principalities, then Israel has the 10th highest population density in the world. And it gets more claustrophobic from there.

About half of Israel’s population is wedged into the Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area in about 600 square miles. That’s not that much bigger than Los Angeles. (Imagine the Cold War if half of America had lived in Los Angeles.)  Tel Aviv is one of the 50 most overpopulated cities in the world. If a nuclear attack happens it will be there and it will likely mean the end of Israel.

That’s bad news, but it’s not the entire roll of bad news. Iran is not the end of the story.

Egypt has a nuclear program, it has engaged in illegal enrichment. And the country is very close to falling into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is every bit as fanatical when it comes to destroying Israel as Iranian leaders are.

Iran is important, but it’s not the endgame. If Israel is around 50 years from now it will be living in a region where its enemies will have nuclear weapons. This is a reality. The question is how will Israel make it to that point?

To understand that let’s pull back a little and examine the two categories of nuclear attack that Israel might face.

The first category is an overt attack, if Iran carries out a first strike and announces it to the world it achieves a special status in the Muslim world for doing what so many of them have tried to do. The West grumbles a bit, issues some condemnations and maybe offers to take in the Israeli survivors. This type of attack can obviously be averted by preemptively destroying the nuclear program, but if that fails, it can also be averted through deterrence. The decision making process on the Iranian side will depend heavily on whether they think an attack will result in the destruction of Tehran and other major cities.

Iran has a majority urban population. Tehran holds over 10 percent of Iran’s population. That doesn’t make it nearly as vulnerable as Israel, but enough of Iran’s elites, its intellectuals and its clerics are located in major cities. Destroying Tehran would not finish Iran, but it would deal it a mortal blow. The key word here is “If”. For this to work, Iranian leaders and the leaders of any other regional Muslim nuclear power need to absolutely believe that a nuclear attack on Israel will lead to mass destruction. Having nuclear weapons alone is not enough for nuclear deterrence. Israel must have the credibility of the Samson Option, of being willing to destroy entire cities in order to make a point.

Remember countries which are looking for any excuse to fight usually see their enemies as weak and cowardly. The Japanese thought that the United States could be backed into a corner by bombing Pearl Harbor. They were wrong, but they saw what they wanted to see, which was an America that was unwilling to fight and looking to avoid a direct confrontation.

Deterrence is not about more than how many bombs you have; it’s about whether the enemy thinks that you are willing to use them. Israel’s problem is that its deterrence factor has been on the decline for decades.

Every time Israel points out how moral its forces are, how its purity of arms risks the lives of Israeli soldiers to avoid Muslim civilian casualties, it’s sending the opposite message. Which is catastrophic since nuclear deterrence depends on a willingness to cause massive numbers of civilian casualties. The more it dithers about Iran’s nuclear program, the more it suggests that it might not respond with nuclear weapons to a nuclear strike.

The Catch 22 here is that when in response to international delegitimization, Israel gets wrapped up in showing how careful, how merciful and how humanitarian it is, that makes it more likely that it will have to fight just to prove that it still can. The cleaner Israel tries to be, the more it’s forced to get dirty just to show it can still fight. And the problem with a nuclear exchange is that by the time Israel proves that it can still fight, it’s already too late.

To get to that extra 50 and survive in a region where its enemies have nuclear weapons, it will need to demonstrate that it is capable of being dangerous, that it is capable of taking swift harsh action without apologizing for it. It will have to convince its enemies that it is a country that is capable of killing tens of millions of people, not to protect itself, but to avenge its own destruction.

That is the Samson Option which will be the only thing keeping the majority of the Jewish people alive when the region goes fully nuclear. It isn’t pretty, but it’s better than a second Holocaust and cities of ash.

* * * * * *

What do we really talk about when we talk about Palestine? We’re talking about state sponsored terrorism. Not by a fictional Palestinian state, which is an entity that never existed and consists of an invented people. We’re talking about state sponsored terrorism by Muslim countries.

The Middle East is full of convenient militias, armed gangs ready to be used by any country willing to pay them. Not all of those militias are aimed at Israel. Some are aimed at Iran. For example Israel has been reportedly using a militia like that to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists. But the money has really been coming in for militias aimed at Israel.

These militias, backed by everyone from the usual suspects like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to the Soviet Union and yes, the United States, operate under the guise of wanting a Palestinian state, but they don’t want anything of the kind. Their leaders want money and power. They don’t want to provide garbage pickup or police domestic violence complaints or any of the other tedious parts of governing. That, aside from all the terrorism, is why the Palestinian Authority is a complete disaster. The so-called Palestinian leaders are not out for a state, they’re out to cash in, tear down Israel and then retire to Paris. They’re not nationalists, they’re opportunists.

Palestine is homicidal opportunism and the peace process turned them into a serious existential threat to Israel. What Israel did was put Arafat and his cronies into a leadership position over a large number of Arab Muslims, gave them control of the educational system, and unsurprisingly they used it to build a terrorist state.

The terrorist state is a permanent crisis that Israel keeps trying to manage, but it’s unmanageable. Can the status quo continue for another 20 years, never mind another 50 years?

A constant state of terror creates domestic instability and negotiating with terrorists sends the message that Israel is not here to stay. If it’s willing to cut and run from Gaza, Judea, Samaria and even East Jerusalem, where isn’t it willing to cut and run from?

1967 is not a magic number; it’s not the source of the grievance. 1948 is. And it’s not even 1948, it’s 1917 and the Balfour Declaration, it’s 1897 and the First Zionist Congress. And it’s Mohammed’s massacre of Jews in 627. The history on this has no beginning. It’s virtually timeless.

The goal isn’t just to roll Israel back to 1967. That’s what the left, which associates victory with grievance, thinks. The goal is to roll back Israel to 1948 and then 1939 and then 1897. And there are plenty of Western governments who think that they would be better off if that happened, just as they thought that in 1939.

So now let’s fast forward to Israel in 2062. What do you see? Flying cars, food pills, a space elevator, everything made out of chrome? Everyone living in the matrix? Not likely. Israel is technologically advanced, but its survival will not hinge on technology, it will hinge on confronting its core crisis. Israel’s core crisis is the same as that of the West. It is the revelation that not even the most modern of states can survive without the use of ancient violence.

Violence is not a nice word. We’re not supposed to have it in a better world. Flying cars yes, jet bombers, no. But if the modern world is to survive, it will only survive by reevaluating the place of violence in the modern state.

Israel is at a tipping point in that regard. It is small, it is vulnerable and it is surrounded by the same enemies who are now threatening the rest of the modern world. It doesn’t have the comfort and luxury of many Western countries of denying that reality. But like them it’s trying to deny it anyway.

The Palestine gambit worked so well not because terrorist bombs brought Israel to its knees, but because the idea that Israel had become an oppressor undermined its self-image. In the same way terrorist supporters used Gitmo and Abu Ghraib to undermine America’s self-image after September 11.

* * * * * *

So back to 2062, what will Israel be like? It will be an adult country. What do I mean by that? As children and even as teenagers we see things in black and white. There are no compromises. Things are either one way or another. As we grow up, we see more things in shades of grey. We recognize that life is complex.

The modern State of Israel is young. It sees things in a way that is both cynical and idealistic, which is a quality that many of the parents in the audience will recognize in their own teenagers. This is the gateway to maturity.

Not all teenagers survive this stage. Hopefully Israel will. To make it to 2062 or 5822 in the Hebrew calendar, because we’re a good deal older than we seem, it is going to have to grow up.

For Jews in particular, reconciling idealism with realism can be very hard. We try to see the world as it should be. That’s one reason we give birth to so many utopian movements, to so many idealists, to so many geniuses who can’t seem to see the world for what it is. We are young and old at the same time. And we have to grow up.

So many Jews try to find solidarity with what they think is Palestinian idealism. But it’s not idealism, it’s cynicism. The Muslim world has used local Arabs and with the help of the Soviet Union manufactured an idealism for them. That idealism has no purpose except to destroy Israel and wipe out or subjugate its Jewish inhabitants.

The peace process is a mistake. A mistake that Israel made at the age of 43 which is a young age for a country. To make it to the more mature age of 114, it will have to leave it behind. It will have to leave some of its idealism behind. It will have to recognize that the purpose of a state is not to be ideal, but to be real.

Israel’s ideals are in conflict with its reality, with its survival. If its reality is to triumph, if it is to be around 50 years from now, with or without the flying cars, it will have to do it as a country that exists for the sake of its people, rather than for the sake of an idea. Nations are founded on the ideal, but they have to exist around the real.

To survive, Israel will have to grow up.

Terrorism succeeded by turning Israel’s strengths into weaknesses and the weaknesses of the terrorists into strengths. This is a form of Judo that exploits our weaknesses and we cannot defeat it without changing ourselves.

A good way to think of this is similar to a con game. To avoid being conned you have to know how con games work and change your natural reaction to the con. Israel has spent a great deal of time studying what terrorists do, but it has failed to change its reaction. So they know how the con works, but they still end up falling for it anyway. To stop yourself from being conned, you have to stop allowing your emotions to be exploited and stop responding in ways that can be taken advantage of.

The bottom line way to defeat terrorism is to change the ways we react to terrorism. Like con artists, terrorists take advantage of two particular set of responses. They take advantage of our sympathies and our willingness to believe in easy answers.

To defeat terrorism, Israel will have to change its character. It will have to close down some of its vulnerabilities. The Israel of 2062 will have become harder in some ways. It will have learned from its mistakes and recognized that some people cannot be reasoned with and that some problems cannot be solved. That life is about living with imperfection and finding satisfaction in making it through the day and the year.

* * * * *

Israel has benefited from a similar energy as the United States. Like America, Israel has been transformed by wave after wave of immigrants from different parts of the world bringing their own ideas and unique cultures along with them.

This energy has kept Israel from stagnating and helped break up its old time political establishment. Russian and Middle Eastern Jews have swung Israel to the right and they may have a major role to play in the transformation of Israel’s political structures in the next two decades. But the sources of immigration are also drying up.

Israel has tapped the immigrant pools of the former Soviet Union and the Middle East. It might be able to draw on a combined hundred thousand or two hundred thousand more. That leaves Europe, where Muslim violence is encouraging immigration. And North and South America.

At the same time there is a sizable Israeli expat population abroad creating a new diaspora that will eventually be ingathered again, repeating the cycle. It’s a different notion from the secular messianism of the old Zionism which assumed that all the Jews would move to Israel. Instead Israel has become part of the global Jewish migration, not perhaps as the final destination, but as a major gathering point and tribal encampment.

Jews from around the world move to Israel and their children and grandchildren become Israelis and then sometimes move away again, only to eventually return, bringing with them ideas and culture, and bearing them out again.

The Israeli immigrants of tomorrow are the grandsons and granddaughters of the Israelis of today. Immigration to Israel will not stop, because it is a cycle, with Israel as part of the cycle.

The Israel of 2062 will be a nation marked by this constant inflow and outflow, it will be at the center of a Jewish migration that carries with it art, science and economic creativity. The wandering Jew will not stop wandering, but Israel will be the beginning and end of his journey.

* * * * *

This siege mentality is a mild version of what happens on the battlefield and if events continue as they are, we will all be living this way soon enough. We’ll all be shell shocked all the time. Every time you go through the airport or deal with any of the new restrictions after September 11, you are already, to an extent, living the way that Israelis do. You are witnessing some of the compromises that get made under a siege mentality. And when the government all but bans criticism of Islam and appeases Muslim terrorists, that too is another aspect of the Israeli reality.

It has been said that Israel is the canary in the coal mine and that is true enough. We’re all living in the coal mine now. And it’s getting hard to breathe the air.

Terrorism is a constant pressure that is meant to wear us down, to get us to make bad decisions and make mistakes. Like any form of stress and worry, it degrades our long term thinking. That is why it is important to take our heads out of the bad air in the coal mine and look over the clouds to see what the future might be like.

We have made too many expedient decisions and compromised too much, until when looking back at Afghanistan and Iraq, we have trouble understanding how and why we made those decisions. In times of terror, we need perspective. We need to be able to see the future that the terrorists want to deny us. We need to see the promise of the future and the challenges, not as rhetoric but as reality, and in examining the future, we can free ourselves to make the decisions that have to be made today.

Will Israel be around in 50 years? The diplomats and peacemakers want us to believe that it’s up to the terrorists to decide that. And that’s a lie. It’s not up to the terrorists. The terrorists have already made their decision. It’s up to us.

If we want Israel to be there in 2062, it’s up to us to take a stand for the future.

__________

For by Thee I run upon a troop; and by my God do I scale a wall. (Psalms 18:30)

5 June 2010

The only criticism I have against Israel is that it held the activists in jails, had it been up to me, I would have held them in a park or a school in Shderot, the town that have suffered the brunt of the Hamas rockets for years  — Let them see and feel why the blockade on the Hamas is necessary — Oh well, it is too late for that now, they have been release.

As if on cue, the Israel Hate Brigade’s hysterics erupted as soon as it was known that the Israeli Navy Commando fighters were onboard the flagship of the so-called “Friendship Flotilla”, the “Mavi Maramara”,  long before any real facts had had came out, but hey, since when the Israel Hate Brigade needs facts? To the contrary, pesky facts achieve nothing but spoil a good sob story.

Firstly here are some the footage taken by the IDF and the Mavi Marmara’s CCTV:

Watch the full version of this clip here.

(You have to give it to them, to the activists; after the IDF uploaded some of the ship’s and activists own footage onto YouTube,  the activists  approached YouTube  and asked for “their” footage to be removed on a ground of …. copyrights – and I thought that ‘chutzpa’ is a Jewish trait).

The initial  catch phrase of the propaganda machine was “international waters”; according to them, Israel has broken International Law, by boarding a merchant ship outside its territorial waters — a powerful argument as it may be, it is simply wrong and misleading.

Indeed there is an International Law governing the circumstances under which a merchant ship may be stopped, inspected and forced into another port if necessary but as I explain here, you will see that Israel fully complied with International Law.

Before I explain, a few words about my credentials in maritime law;  those of my readers who know a bit  about me are aware of my professional background in shipping, both onboard ships and ashore. Although I am not a legal man per-se, my maritime career always required of me an in-depth knowledge of maritime law to be able to perform my duties  effectively, amongst those duties I served as a Maritime Arbitrator in disputes concerning maritime law on various occasions .

It is true that the United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea (UNCLOS), guarantees the freedom of navigation on the high seas. The “high seas” is the legal term that is usually (wrongly) referred to as “international waters”, that is, the area of the sea which is outside the territorial waters of any one country.

Had the Israeli Navy boarded a merchant ship on the high seas, or even inside Israeli territorial water,s without a proper cause, with a few exceptions, it would be deemed as act of piracy, and rightly so, but this is not so in the case of the Mavi Marmara incident.

One of such relevant exceptions, in this case, is  Maritime Blockade. A maritime blockade exists when a country declares a specific area of the sea closed to ALL SHIPPING.

The Allied blockades on Germany and Japan in WWII, JFK blockade of Cuba during the missiles crisis (but not afterward),  the UN blockade on (Saadam Hussein’s) Iraq, the US blockade on North Vietnam are all examples of recent histoeryy legal maritime blockades.

What is A Maritime Blockade?

Firstly, the rules that govern maritime (and aerial) blockades are separate from these that govern other military blockades,  albeit there are some legal relations between them.

The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994 defines the conditions which must be met for a maritime blockade to be legal under International Law:

Rule 93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States

In simple words; the blockade must be made known to everybody, including states that are not part of the conflict that led to the blockade. There are established procedures to issue such notices but I shall spare you the technicalities.

Rule 94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

The blockade must specific as to the area under blockade (normally by coordinates), the timings of start and end of the blockade (“until further notice” is a valid timing) and a period within which, ships of nations that are not part of the conflict (neutral nations) can freely leave the blockaded area.

Rule 95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

[My emphasis]

That means that the blockade must  be enforced, a blockade that is not strictly enforced automatically lapses. This also means that Israel, in this case, cannot allow some ships through the blockaded area but not others – it is “all or none” situation.

In fact the rule is even more specific;

Rule 100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.

[my emphasis]

“All states” means just that, the ban must be total and applied equally to ships of all flags.

If, say, the USA, which Israel (still) fully trusts, requests permission to deliver aid to Gaza by an American ship, granting such request would be in breach of Rule 100, and would jeopardise the very legality of the Israeli blockade on Gaza.

And indeed there was an America ship (actually more a yacht than a ship), “Challenger I”, in the “flotilla”, she too was stopped and brought to Ashdod, thankfully without incident. Turkey can jump and yell all it likes but it has no legal leg to stand on.

As a matter of interest, the “Mavi Marmara”, the ship that was attacked, does not fly a Turkish flag, she is registered under a flag of convenience (FOC) in Comoros, a pacific island nation, thus under the law, she is not even a “Turkish ship”.

The other ships/crafts that were detained by Israel, without incidents, fly the flags of: Greece (2), Turkey (1), Sweden (1) and Kiribati (1). Neither the USA, nor any of these other countries protested because it was their ships who breached  International Law by attempting to run a blockade knowingly.

Although it is outside the our topic, the futility knowingly and deliberately of running a blockade is exemplified by the fact that it is also in a breach of the vessel’s insurance policy thus any damage, whether direct or consequential, would not be covered by the underwrites. If Israel impund the ship, there could be no claim agaist the insurer of the ship.

Can A Ship Be Stopped And Boarded On The High Seas?

We heard the “International waters” argument ad-nauseam, partly through ignorance but mostly as a pure propaganda.

A Navy ship is permitted to stop a merchant ship that intends to break a blockade, by force if necessary, anywhere, including on the high seas, in or out the blockaded area, inside its own territorial waters, inside a territorial nations of other nations who are part of the conflic  but not in a neutral state’s territorial waters.

Rule 10. Subject to other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea contained in this document or elsewhere, hostile actions by naval forces may be conducted in, on or over:

…..

(b) the high seas; and

[my emphasis]

Can A Merchant Ship be stopped By Force?

As a rule, a neutral merchant ships (not part of the conflict) may not be stopped, let alone attacked, not even in territorial waters, without a proper cause. In other words, Israel, or any country for that matter, cannot stop a merchant ship even within its territorial waters without a proper cause.

One of such causes is attempt to break a blockade;

Rule 67: Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture.

[my emphasis]

Clearly, the “Mavi Marmara” fell under this rule; there was no question that the ship intended to breach the blockade on Gaza and, as it transpired, the ship intentionally and clearly resisted visit, search and capture.

A mere attempt to breach a blockade is not a proper cause for an attack, but;

Rule 98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

[My emphasis]

In simple words, if a ship does not resists boarding, she cannot be attacked; this was the precise situation with the other five ships in the flotilla. The procedure is simple; the Israeli Navy advise (not ask permission, just advise), that they are coming onboard, if there is no resistance there is cause for an attack.

The Legality Of The Blockade Itself

“Aha”, say the Israel Hate Brigade, “you are conveniently evading the rules that makes the blockade illegal altogether”. No, I am not, let us examine that rule;

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or

(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

[my emphasis]

The purpose of the blockade on Gaza has never aimed at the people of Gaza, If there is a sole purpose for the blockade on Gaza, and particularly the maritime blockade, it is intended to disrupt and prevent, as much as possible, Hamas ability to obtain weapon that are used against Israeli population.

As to the damage to civilian been excessive, no it is not! And certainly not the sea blockade, the sea blockade on Gaza cause little or no damage to its civilian population.

The Gaza Strip has never received its essential supplies by sea, NEVER!!!

All of Gaza essential supplies such as foods medicinal supplies, fuel, water, electricity, and what not have always transfered by land. The Gaza port is not a deep water port, in fact it is not a cargo port at all, it can only accommodate fishing boats and small craft; anything larger than that, say a cargo ship, has to be discharge on anchor on the open sea, and and brought ashore by barges.

Even as an open sea port, Gaza has extremely limited in its port facilities to and its ability handle cargo, I know, I was in the shipping business for forty years.

Gaza  would not survive a single day if it had to rely on its “port” for its essential supplies, The port of Gaza simply cannot handle Gaza total ,or even just its essential needs, much less when the Hamas, no doubt, would give priority to rockets and other military supplies from Iran and Syria, over foodstuff.

There is an alternative way, in fact the only way, to supply Gaza and that is by land, either through Israel or Egypt, as it has been for years. The question of whether the land blockade is too severe, is a different matter which I shall address later.

The calls to lift the sea blockade on Gaza are not about “starving children”, “oppressive occupation” and so on, it is about preventing Israel from defending itself.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of the Israel Hate Brigade’s lips service in countless instances saying something like “I don’t agree with Hamas launching rockets on Israel, but …..”;

Well, sir or madam, if you really disagree with what the Hamas is doing, what do you propose to do about it? I can be excused for disbelieving you, no you do not disagree with the Hamas, this is just a PC talk, it is empty of meaning, it intended to sounds good for the consumption of all the useful idiots out there.

The Israel Hate Brigade’s shrieks is not about helping the Palestinians, it is about weakening Israel ability to defend itself.

I leave you with a small quiz.

More information about what goes into Gaza here. Incidentally, the Israeli land blockade on the Hams is mirrored by Egypt but you wouldn’t know it, not from the corrupt bias main stream media anyhow.

Please Help to free Gaza! (from the Hamas)

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2010, all rights reserved

4 March, 2010

The mere mention of the word “Mossad” immediately ignites the imagination and with good reasons. In fact to many, particular those who know little about it, the Mossad has become a legend, a story in which the fiction tend exceed facts.

The recent assassination in Dubai of Mahmud Mabhouh, a founder and a senior commander in Izz A-Din Al-Qassam Brigades (the military branch of the Hamas) is an example.

The media, right around the world, was quick to point a finger at the Mossad, even before the Dubai police came up with, by now well publicised, an EDITED CCTV footage, allegedly depicting the Mossad agents movements, before and after the assassination, but not glimpse of “during”.

Israeli response was no different than its normal response as to alleged activity of the Mossad, “neither confirm nor deny”, a response you would expect of any government when asked about covert activities of their own security services.

Irrespective of whether this particular mission was carried out by the Mossad or not, it serves Israel’s interest to have the suspicion casted on the Mossad. Israel’s policy of “targeted elimination” ,as they call it,  intended to disrupt the operation of the terrorists, particularly their leadership ability to move freely. It serves Israel’s purpose that they all feel targeted, irrespective of whether they are or not.

True, initially this killing, at least on the face of it, seem to have the Mossad’s fingerprints all over it, but the more information comes out of Dubai AND if indeed that information is correct, a BIG IF, it looks less and less a Mossad operation.

Firstly, there is NO WAY under the sun that the Mossad (or the CIA or MI-5 or ASIO or any other competent security organisation for that matter) would send 27 agents into an Arab country on a covert mission, not even to capture or kill Bin Laden, NO WAY! 27 agents in a small place like Dubai is not a covert mission, it is a traffic jam.

Secondly, there is no way that any covert agents will stay back in Dubai for TWO DAYS after the mission was accomplished,  thereby tremendously increase the risk of being captured, it is sheer madness. One may argue that it was necessary to keep some agents back because the need to spread the departure of 27 operatives, but that only serve as one of the reasons why no one in his right mind would ever send 27 operatives on a covert mission.

(There is the more plausible possibility that there were 27 passports used by a much smaller team, but is not what the Dubai Police is saying.)

Thirdly, two of the agents (with Aussie passports) were reported leaving Dubai by a ferry to Bandar Abas (Iran) and travelled by land to Teheran to take a flight out. This is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire, Alice In Wonderland stuff!

A quick Google search reveals that indeed there is the only one ferry service from UEA and it goes to Iranian ports. The World Travel Guide Website also says about this service:

Ferry services operate to ports in Iran from Sharjah, although these are not recommended for tourists and timetables are erratic.

[Highlights are mine]

Would you plan evacuation of agents, not only via Iran, but also on a an erratic timetable when there are less risky routes such as crossing by land over to a less hostile country and flying from there?

The apparent concentration of the Dubai Police on Israel in a complete exclusion of any other scenario, points only to two possibilities: 1. Incompetence 2. Prior knowledge, or at least more knowledge than they (the Dubai Police) are willing to devalue.

According to the Israeli Debka Files (Hebrew) website, that has proven itself as reliable source when it comes to Israeli security, The Dubai Police has no single piece of evidence that can identify the perpetrators.

Repeating (Israeli) intelligence and anti-terror sources, the Debka Files says that the Dubai Chief of the Police, Lieutenant General Dhahi Khalfan Al Tamim, that they found the assassins’ DNA and fingerprints taken from Mabhouh’s room, but not in their own rooms, is strange to say the least. And even if he has such DNA and fingerprints, the sources say, it is utterly useless without a database to match such fingerprints and DNA.

I would add that if indeed, the perpetrators left DNA and fingerprints behind, it is not theirs own but intended to send the Dubai Police into a wild goose chase, apparently successfully so.

Much was said in the media about the speed in which the Dubai Police came up with CCTV footage, and the apparent oblivious attitude of the team to the security CCTV cameras. Some Israel haters went as far as citing that as a “proof” of the agents “incompetence”.

Not so, say the Debka sources, the team, according to them, had shown high electronic sophistication evident by their ability to enter Mabhouh’s room by electronically overcoming the security lock and latching the inside door bolt from outside the room ON CAMERA.

But, there is 19 minutes gap (between 8:24pm and 8:43pm) in the CCTV footage, the presume time of when the assassination took place. This indicates that the team in fact had the equipment to control the security cameras of the hotel and what is shown was only what the team wanted shown.

The reason, according to the Debka sources, is that whoever carry out that operation WANTED to show their ability to penetrate secured areas, even when it is secured by CCTV, anywhere in the middle east. In any event, the “terminators” were disguised from head to toe making the footage is useless for the purpose of identifying them.

If you look at the video on my site, towards the end, the woman is seen looking at the camera with a smile.

* * * * *

All that is not necessarily a proof that Israel was not involved in the assassination but it certainly shows that the information that comes out of Dubai is anything but a proof that it was a Mossad operation, No identities, no method, no murder weapon, no idea how they got into the room, nothing!

The question is Why? Is it just a populous claim, or is it a purposeful “engineering” of facts and there is more behind the “proofs” that came out? The answer is open to conjecture, your guess is as good as mine but I’ll give it a shot.

So far the only link to Israel lays in the forged passports the perpetrators said to have used. 15 of which bore the names of known Israeli citizens with dual nationality, living in Israel.

On the one hand, if it was the Mossad, it makes sense that it “borrow” identities of real people, people who are, for certain, not using their passport during the operation. One can assume that the Mossad has the ability to detect, through border control records when such person leaves Israel, thus may be using his or her non-Israeli passport, and warn its agents do dump such  identity. The question remains how the Mossad got the details of such passports.

Indeed Israel permits it citizen to have dual nationality, but the foreign nationality of an Israelis with dual nationality is null and void (by Israeli law) once the person is in Israel , they are Israeli citizens and only Israeli citizens, for all intent and purposes. I know, I am one such a person.

By law, Israeli citizens, must enter and leave Israel on their Israeli passports and at no time they are required to produce their foreign passports, Never, except when they enter Israel for the first time as “olim” (immigrants) and during their naturalisation process — yes it is a possibility but only if these people still holding the same passport they naturalised on, I don’t know if this is in fact the case here.

I can tell you with certainty, that in 35 years of having dual nationality, I have never been asked to produce my Australian passport in Israel, or my Israeli passport in Australia, for that matter.

But, passport details are held on many computers, other than immigration; travel agents, airlines, hotels, banks, you name it. Any competent security agency, not only the Mossad, has the capability of braking into such computers and pulling out such passports details. Is there another common denominators to all those passports?

Further many counties, but not Israel or Australia, require arriving passengers to declare ALL their nationalities, if they have more than one. Indonesia is one I am aware of (still I was not require to produce the passport I was not entering on).

In any event the speed in which these forged passport were traced into Israel, raise questions, at least.

Yet, as soon as it transpired that three of the forged passports are Australian, our illustrious Prime Minister and his Foreign Minister, paraded the Israeli ambassador in front of the waiting media into the Foreign Minister’s Office for “an explanation”. It could not have come at a better time for uncle Kev who was up to his eyeballs in a domestic scandal and it gave him a media respite.

“This is not an action of a friend” said the Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, revealing his conversation with the Israeli Ambassador, “I am not satisfied with Israel’s explanation” said the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, as if he got any explanation. There was no question in their mind, or so they gave the impression, that indeed it is the Mossad who forged the Australian passports, as the PM publicly dispatch the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to Israel to “investigate”.

(As earlier explained, the people in questions, by Israeli law, are Israeli citizen only, thus the government of Israel has the powers to prevent its citizens from being questioned by a foreign country — Israel did not take such action on this instance in a stark difference when, a few years back,  Israel was prevented from interviewing Australians with dual Israeli citizens. It was when Mr. John Howard was a PM and I doubt that he would have sent the AFP to Israel on such useless mission, but I am digressing).

The Australian mission to the UN was instructed to change Australia’s vote on the Goldstone report from “against” to “abstain” despite the fact that just a few weeks back Australia had voted “against” on a similar resolution.  It was also quite a departure from Australia’s usual pattern vote in unison with the USA on Middle East issues.

Naturally, the DFAT (Dept Of Foreign Affairs and Trade) denied that the vote was a punishment of Israel. Australia is one of the few avid friends Israel has, that has been true irrespective of the colour of our governments since the inception of Israel, thus if this vote was not “a punishment”, it represents a marked departure from an Australian long term standing policy.

It is no secret that Kevin Rudd is trying to get Australia a seat on the Security Council in the next rotation, it is also no secret that Mr. Kevin Rudd has personal aspiration for a UN high position (Secretary General, has been suggested) both which can only be achieved  with the support of the None Aligned Movement (NAM) bloc in the UN, which in turn is controlled by the  Organisation Of Islamic Conference (IOC) block, do you get the picture?

(You may care to get further information as to how the UN works in here.)

Whilst our foreign Minister says that “this was not an act of a friend” (or words to that affect) and the Australian abstention in the UN was not a “punishment”, what was it then? An act of a friend? Well Mr. Smith, with friends like you who needs enemies.

And … it had to come. Our version of the New York Time, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that ASIO (The Australian Security Organisation) is investigating Australian with dual Israeli citizenship. Quoting the AAP the Sydney Morning Herald said that:

ASIO began investigating dual Australian-Israeli citizens suspected of spying for Israel well before last month’s assassination of the Hamas operative Mahmud al-Mabhuh, intelligence sources say.

Give me a break!

I would be surprised if there are more than 15,000 Australian citizens with dual Israeli nationality living in Australia (the question is not asked in the census, not that I recall). Let us see; how does that stuck with the “M-word” on our lefty media? For crying out loud, there are probably twice that number of Australians with dual Lebanese nationality in our jails, but they are not Muslims, just “persons with Middle East appearance”.

* * * * *

And finally, back to Lieutenant General Dhahi Khalfan Al Tamim, the Chief of the Dubai Police; according to the New York Time blog of 2 March, 2010 the generals said  that

It is easy for us to identify [Israelis], through their face or when they speak any other language.

By their look general? I was born in Israel and I can’t do it! Israeli can be black (Ethiopian Jews), with a Scandinavian look and all in between, you must have some extra-perceptional abilities, sir.

True, I can generally pick up an Israelis when they speak English but only native Israelis, not those who immigrated into Israel. My ability to do it, as most native Israelis, comes from years being with NATIVE Israelis, we surely have a distinctive accent but it mostly taken as French (from my experience) for some reason, except for those people who spend a lot of time amongst NATIVE Israelis.

What is you reason sir? Where and when did you acquired that ability general? Hmmmm, food for thoughts, isn’t it?

© Copyright: Jacob Klamer 2010 – All rights reserved.

14 September, 2009

Recently I came across a snippet of news that on the advice of its fund’s Ethics Council , Norway state’s pension funds (previously Oil Fund) divested themselves from share holding in the electronic company Elbit Systems Ltd. Elbit is an Israeli hi-tech corporation heavily involved with defence projects.

The Norwegians cited the reason for divesting from Elbit that apparently, Elbit supplies components that are used in surveillance on the fence between Israel and the West Bank, the fence specifically built to block easy passage of suicide bombers into Israel.

You see, it is all about ethics, another term that has been hijacked by the loony left and liberal activism. No longer ethics is a set of values, axiomatically a force of good but it has become a spin intended to indoctrinate students of activists liberal professor into their political agenda, after all no one likes people who behave unethically.

Once upon a time ethics was about decent behaviour, personal or professional. These days the term imply activism, particularly, but not limited to, the environment.

Whilst originally ethical investments may introduced by the environmentalism movement in an attempt to encourage investment decisions towards companies which are doing the “right” thing by the environment, the eco-whackos quickly moved from encouragement to penalty, They no longer “pushing” investments in “worthy” enterprises but instead they “punish” those who they, the “ethics police”, consider unfriendly to their (environmental) cause.

About twelve out of some twenty six banned corporations from the Norwegian Pension Fund are American including Boeing, General Dynamic, Lockheed Martin and Wal-Mart. The reason vary from participation in the production of nuclear weapon, cluster bombs, land mines to alleged breaches of Human Rights and environmental “crimes” that cover both (real) pollution and carbon dioxide emissions.

To this impressive list of causes the Ethics Council now added a new cause, Palestinianism, a term coined by Bat Yeor, the author of the book Eurabia and describe the European anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Israel.

Heading the Corporate Governance of the Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM) until 2007 was Dr. Henrik Syse, a senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute (PRIO), a man with no qualification in banking or investment whatsoever who is suppose to look after a fund worth hundreds of millions of dollars, some ethic!

Question: What is common to environment, peace human rights and Palestinianism causes?

Answer: Marxism! But somehow, unlike Stalin’s one, an ethical Marxism, are you kidding me? Some ethics!

Once more we see is the infamous environmental watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside.

Let us just examine those causes and those who are pushing them;

One of the causes pushed by NBIM and its “peace scientist” head was anti- nuclear weapon. The Norwegian central bank took the high moral ground “punishing” American corporation that are alleged to be involved with the development of nuclear weapon whilst at the same time, Norway, as a member of NATO, is quite prepared to accept the outcome of such developments and stay under the nuclear umbrella provided by the USA to its allies, some ally, some ethics!

The front line jetfighter aircraft of the Royal Norwegian Air Force is the F-16 (Falcon) developed by General Dynamic and manufactured by Lockheed Martin, BOTH are excluded corporations by the investments Ethics Council of Norway. Do you get it? American corporations that are so crucial to Norway’s national defence are banned as unethical, some ethics!

Norway’s so-called Oil Fund (now renames “Pension Fund” has been established to preserve the wealth that comes from Norway’s North Sea oil and gas. The idea is that as oil is finite resource, thus the benefits it brings must be preserved by a special fund for future generations.

In order to avoid the new riches affecting the Norwegian economy (how?), by law the fund is prohibited from investing in Norway. In other words the people of Norway are denied their oil and gas wealth developed by their own tax money through a government owned (now privatised) Statoil, hopefully their children or grandchildren will. In other words, the current generation paid for the development of the resource but is not allowed to participate in the wealth it brings for ethical reasons, some ethics!

The echo-whackos call it sustainability, hardly a day pass that we don’t hear the word, what is sustainability? The concept is simple to explain, suppose you go to the supermarket to get your favourite bread, when you get to the bread shelves you see the last of loaves sitting lonely on the shelf. You are now suppose to leave that loaf of bread to someone “more deserving” who will come later, who that someone is or why that someone is more deriving then you is never explained, it is a question of sustainability and ethics, some ethics!

And let us not forget, the source of that investment funds, fossil fuels, the villain of global warming. Yes, I agree, global warming is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on human kind but I don’t go around selling oil then wagging fingers at corporation who use it describing them as unethical for burning fuel that I has sold them, some ethics!

And if we are talking about global warming (aka Climate Change) let just concentrate on one aspect of it, ethics. In a recent BBC’s HARDtalk program, Stephen Sackur interview the CEO of Greenpeace, Gerd Leipold, who incidentally calls himself “climate scientist” watch:

Global Warming Lies (aka emotionalism)

Now do you want to get more emotionalised, do you want to see some photo of “cute” polar bears? Perhaps some seals cubs? But never the two together because polar bear EATS seals cubs.

SOME ETHICS!

* * * * *

Let us now turn to Palestinianism. According to Bat Yeor, who coined the term, Palestinianism is

… the moral justification for the elimination of Israel

One does not have to look far into the histories of anti-Semitism in Europe and United State, to understand why Palestinianism has become so successful in Europe.

This is not to say that Israel is beyond criticism, nor anyone who criticise Israel is anti-Semite as not everyone who disagree with president Obama is racist but there is no doubt an anti-Semitism element ma

The divesting of $5 million out of Elbit represents less then 1% of Elbit’s capital, thus is financially meaningless but not so symbolically. It support the Arab propaganda that the wall represents some sort of apartheid.

Here is what apartheid looks like:

You will not find signe like this on any beach, or anywhere else in Israel for that matter. There are no laws in Israel forbidding sex between Jews and Arabs or segregating Arabs citizens in any shape or form. The fence was erected primarily to stop suicide bombers cross over into Israel, yes, to save innocents lives. Yet the Ethics Council seem to think that monitoring the fence is somehow unethical, some ethics.

(By the way, the fence has brought another benefit to Israel, a drastic decline in car theft. May I ask the ethics council what happened to their level of car theft since their gates were opened to Muslim immigration? Hmmm? Just asking!)

From a cultural point of view, Israel is largely a European county. It has more in common with Europe than with the Middle East, any feminist, homosexual, atheist, trade unionist, whether incorporated in one person or more, can walk the streets of Israel with safety, something they cannot do in any other country in the Middle East. Yet the Ethics Council find the fence that contributes to that safety objectionable, some ethics!

For crying out loud, we have just seen a female journalist arrested in Sudan for …. Wearing “inappropriate” trousers, This is the same country that arrested a British teacher because of “inappropriate” teddy bears. But you would not hear a peep from the ethics council about Sudanese Human rights, the reason is a question of ethics, some ethics!

* * * * *

It is fair to say that Norway is not alone in having either ethics council, supporting Palestinianism or displaying anti-Israeli sentiments. The situation is very across the border in “neutral” Sweden and to lesser extent across the water in Denmark and France with the rest of Europe not far behind.

Have you ever wonder why, despite Israel being culturally so close to Europe, is the European policy towards Israel so negative and different from America’s? The answer lies in three letters EAD, the Euro-Arab Dialogue. Bat Yeor describes the EAD as:

The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) began [in 1973] as a French initiative composed of representatives from the EC [now EU] and Arab League countries. From the outset the EAD was considered as a vast transaction: The EC agreed to support the Arab anti-Israeli policy in exchange for wide commercial agreements. The EAD had a supplementary function: the shifting of Europe into the Arab-Islamic sphere of influence, thus breaking the traditional trans-Atlantic solidarity.

In other words, the EAD does not only cements the Arab ant-Israel policy with Europe in exchange for oil (surprise, surprise), it also set European policy apart from America for the purpose of being apart, and oil and, of course ethics, SOME ETHICS!

If you never heard of EAD, do not despair, you are not alone the EU is doing its best to hide the EAD in an assortment of euphemisms and diplomatic jargon. One of the main reasons why Israel has never agreed that Europe be part of the peace talks is the EAD. You see, Israel interpretation of ethics is different.

Have I got the meaning of the word wrong?

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer, 2009 – All rights reserved.

21 June, 2009.

So there you have it, Mr. Netanyahu bowed to Obama pressure and acknowledged a two states solution or word to that affect, depending on the inspiration of the journalist or the talking heads. I wonder, how many so-called journalist actually listened to (or read transcript of) the speech, They got pre-occupied with one aspect of the speech, perhaps one and a half if we count those who mentioned the settlements too.

Some took the view that if there is an Obama angle in this, it must be historical. Our (Australian) foreign minister, Stephen Smith said on the ABC that:

[He] think[s that] the key point for the international community is for the first occasion we have an acknowledgement that a two-state solution is required as the basis for peace in the Middle East. [My highlighting]

First occasion? Are you kidding me? In his speech Bibi reminded his listeners that Israel agreed to a two state solution 61 years ago! It is in his speech, for crying out loud. I am reminded of the joke about an old man who goes to see his doctor, the following dialogue ensues:

Patient: Doctor, I thing that I suffer from Amnesia.

Doctor: How long you have been suffering from it?

Patient: Suffering from what?

On 29 November, 1947 the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed Resolution No 181, commonly known as the Partition of Palestine Plan that, among other sings said:

Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.[My highlighting]

This looks to me as two states solution as two state solution can be AND that the solution includes … a Jewish state. 1947 Messrs. Obama and Smith! Not 2009!

The leadership of the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine (the Ishuv) agreed to the plan whilst the Arab countries (repeat: Arab countries) rejected it, Note that the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, or their leadership, had no say on the matter. (also note that at that time there was no such thing as Palestinians, the inhabitants of area under the British Mandate of Palestine, were known as either Jews or Arabs).

As the last British soldier left Palestine on 15 May, 1948, the Jews of Palestine declare the State Of Israel within the partition boundaries. The same day, the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Trans-Jordan (Jordan), Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and a volunteers army called the Arab Liberation Army (note: no “Palestine” in sight) invaded the new country. Israeli War of Independence erupted.

All this is in the Netanyahu’s speech but the corrupt bumper sticker editors of the media would not mention it in a month of Sundays because it runs against the two state solution bumper sticker slogan advanced by the Grand Mufti of Washington DC in Cairo earlier this month.

Have no doubt my friend, the invading Arab armies aim was to annihilate the new independent nation of Israel and carve the spoils amongst themselves, not to create another Arab country. They opposed ANY NEW state, not only the Jewish one.

During the ensuing war some 700,000 Arabs left, BOTH the Jewish and the Arab areas of the partition plan, at the behest of the Arab countries. They were promptly rounded up in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. The Arab Refugee problem was born.

Since 1948 the world has known many refugees problems, Europe, Eastern Europe, India-Pakistan, Korea War, Vietnam War, Cambodia, some in Africa and even as late as ten years ago in Bosnia. All such refugees problems has been resolved except the Arab (later renamed Palestinian) refugee problem, why?

From its inception, the so-called Arab/Palestinian refugee problem was kept alive by the Arab government as a diversion from their shaky inept, often corrupt hold on their people. Whilst the Arabs are vocal when it come to Human Rights, they deny basic human rights to Palestinian living in their country.

Yet there some one million Arabs living inside Israel as full citizen with more rights that any other Arabs in the Middle East – there have never been any refugee camps for Arabs inside Israel albeit there were some for Jewish refugees, some from Arab countries, in the 1950’s

Despite Israel continuing declaration that it seek peace with its neighbours, the Arab countries not only steadfastly refused to recognise Israel but also had developed a common doctrine to annihilate Israel in a coordinated invasion as indeed they attempted and failed in 1967 and 1973.

Israel security policies were to meet such threats through a one command military (IDF) which rely on reserve manpower, competent intelligence organisation (Mossad, Shin Beth and the Military Intelligence) and development of military and aeronautical industries to reduce dependency on imports and reduce the effects of Arm embargoes.

Contrary to common belief, America’s relations with Israel were hostile to cold until 1968. Whilst the USA was the first county to recognise Israel, it also adhered to the international embargo on arms shipment to the Middle East in 1948/49 which was in fact an embargo against Israel only

The CIA assessment at the time was that the new state is unlikely to survive the (1948) war and if it did, having regard to its “socialist” background, in all probability it would join and be part of the Soviet bloc. America was “neutral”, the USA has no interest in risking its relation with the Arab world. The word “neutrality” has received a whole new meaning, George Orwell’s one.

Whilst it was quickly realised that the CIA (and the State Department) were wrong on both counts when Israel supported the West in the Korea War, it took a further 20 years before president Johnson agreed to sell American weapon to Israel.

Whilst the Arab countries were receiving weapons from the Soviet Union on a “never never” basis, Israel was forced to scrounge its weapon from whoever was prepared to sell it for cash.

For nearly 19 years (between 1948 and 1967) the West Bank was under Jordanian rule, the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian rule, both busting at the seams with Arab refugees, (that what they were called) yet not a peep about Palestinians let alone about a Palestinian state.

The Arab countries, quietly abandoned their doctrine to destroy Israel by a coordinated military invasion after their defeat in 1973 (Yom Kippur War). Indeed in 1979, Israel signed a peace agreement with Egypt and 1995 with Jordan.

* * * * *

In 1959, Yassir Arafat, together with four others, founded the Fatah organisation and introduced the term “Palestinians” to mean the Arab inhabitant of the West part pf the British Mandate over Palestine that included Jordan of today in it. The aim of the organisation was to provide a venue for the newly created Palestinian identity to take charge of its destiny, namely, taking back Falastin (Israel) by force (terror). It was not until January 1965 when the first terror attack took place as the Fatah failed to sabotage the (Israeli) National Water Carrier.

In 1964 the Arab countries created the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), a parent organisation for a number of Palestinian terror organisations, including the Fatah, also defining the Palestinian nation and it right for land of Falastin, being Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Have no doubt, the Palestinian terror is the forerunner of the Global Islamic terror. The Muslim terror, that has no equivalent in any other religion, born out of Muslim Brotherhood principles, and was surreptitiously developed as “fine art” with training, equipment and propaganda, by the Soviet Union (and China to a lesser degree). The relation between the Left and the Palestinian terror was forged in Soviet training camps.

As Communism itself survived the fall of the Soviet Union, so did the Socialist support to the so-called Palestinian cause. There is no single American university that respects itself that does not have department for Middle East Studies that are no more than a channel for vile Palestinian propaganda and sheer Anti-Semitism dressed up as “academic freedom”.

Since the 1960’s Israel has been warning the West against idolising terrorists in general and Muslim terrorists in particular and calling for international measure against Muslim terror. But with a very few exceptions, most western countries look at the problem as an Israeli only problem, not an international one … until it hit home and even then, the fault was not Islam’s.

No one symbolised such obtuse attitude as the deputy assistant commissioner of the (London) metropolitan police, Brian Paddick who said:

As far as I am Concerned, Islam and terrorists are two words that do not go together.

This is not politically correctness gone mad, this is not moral equivalence gone bad, this is mad!!! If such people are in charge of our safety from terror, God save us all!

Too often the terror apologisers tell us that the terrorist are only a small core of extremists. Have no doubt, Muslim terror is NOT an action of a few radical nutcases, Muslim terror is a well coordinated world-wide movement, it is also known as political Islam.

Political Islam, also referred to as radical Islam or Islamism (I hate this word, but this is another story) is the movement seeks to achieve a global hegemony of Islam, nothing short of that. The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaida, Taliban Wahhabism are all example of Political Islam.

Ehud Yaari, a well known Israeli commentator on Islam and the Arab-Israeli conflict explains that as the Arab countries have given up on destroying Israel (Iran is not an Arab country), Political Islam has stepped into the vacuum in the forms of the Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and alike. They brought with them a new doctrine, muqawama, a doctrine that many seem to loose sight of its effects.

Muqawama, which, incidentally, forms a part of the Hamas’s name, Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah (Islamic Resistance Movement), means “resistance” but the muqawama doctrine is characterised by a lot more than just resistance and its affects are felt far beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Muqawama has the following characteristics:

Fighting against a superior forces: The enemy is always powerful, such as the Israeli, American or Turkish military, depending on the circumstances

Fight not for territory: That may seem strange in the “two states solution” age but the aim is not territory, THE AIM IS BLOOD, plenty of it and on both sides including innocent civilians, children and women. The aim is a war of attrition by blood letting, the more blood spilled the better. The sensitivity of the enemy (us) to our casualties alone will cause public outcry for surrender.

Shahada: Martyrdom and death are objectives on their own right, the afterlife world is more important than the here and now. This is how suicide bombers are glorified.

Fight not for victory: Victory is only a long term objective. This is part of the doctrine to avoid frustrations due to lack of real achievement in the short run.

In fact muqawama doctrine has familiar tone to it, they don’t want to win, they want to fight.

* * * * *

When you examine events in the Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip, Southern Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and even Western Turkey in light of muqawama you quickly realise that the Islamic terror is a lot larger than “a few radical Islamists”

Further, if you understand muqawama, you would also understand why the Palestinian Authority, the so-called moderates (NOT the Hamas) was quick on their feet to reject Netanyahu’s speech not for what is in it, but for what is not.

If you have been watching the Palestinian leadership, all of them, you would note that every time it looks as if they are getting closer to achieving a state they run away from it, under one pretence or another – indeed they don’t want a state, they want to fight for one.

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2009

16 January, 2009

Here is math question for fifth grade:

There are about 900 people in the neighbourhood, half of them went to watch a football game. The number of kids watching the game represents one third of the total neighbourhood and the number of women and kids represent 40% that neighbourhood.

Question: How many of each men, women and children are at the game?

Answer: 90 men, 60 women and 300 children (all about)

What that got to do with anything?

If you have listen carefully to the Hamas propaganda parroted by the UN and the media you will learn over a number of bulletins that: Total casualties is 900 (as of Monday 12 January, 2009) half are civilians, one third are children and 40% are women and children.

In solving this simple arithmetic problem we learn that, according to the Hamas, the ratio of children fatality is two dead children for each non combatant adult fatality or four dead women and children for every man. Can some please offer an explanation for such disproportion?

If you believe the Hamath numbers please tell us why are there two dead children to each adult? what are there four dean women and children for every man? Where are the parents of those kids? and where are the husbands and fathers of those woman and children? why aren’t these disproportionate victims not in bomb shelters? There are many such question but don’t expect the media to ask them.

The media main concern is that Israeli casualties are not higher, plain and simple.

Unless anyone under the age 50 is defined as “child” the number of kids that were hurt are highly exaggerated or kids are being pushed forward to front the Israeli troops to achieve Hamas’s propaganda targets. The true facts of this conflict will come out eventually, as they did nearly seven years ago when Israel invaded the West bank town of Jenin.

* * * * *

In April 2002 after a spates of suicide bombing, Israel invaded the town of Jenin in the West Bank in an attempt to clean it out. The international hysteria that followed included “eyewitness” accounts of Israeli atrocity including 500 dead citizens, mass graves etc. etc. At the same time Israel said that according to reports by the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) the number is about 50, most of which are Hamas and other terror organisation fighters.

On April 18, in an article titled Jenin ‘Massacre Evidence Growing’ the BBC quoted , Prof Derrick Pounder of Dundee University, who they described as “A British forensic expert” saying:

I must say that the evidence before us at the moment doesn’t lead us to believe that the allegations are anything other than truthful and that therefore there are large numbers of civilian dead underneath these bulldozed and bombed ruins that we see

You would think that four months later, the true might finally come out, yet as late as 1 August 2002 the UN General Secretary issue a press statement SG2077 headed REPORT OF SECRETARY-GENERAL ON RECENT EVENTS IN JENIN, OTHER PALESTINIAN CITIES which, among other things, says that:

— Death toll: Four hundred ninety-seven Palestinians were killed and 1,447 wounded in the course of the IDF reoccupation of Palestinian areas from 1 March through 7 May 2002 and in the immediate aftermath. Most accounts estimate that between 70 and 80 Palestinians, including approximately 50 civilians, were killed in Nablus.

Eventually independent investigation has proven that the number of confirmed Palestinian casualties were 54, most of whom (40+) were terrorist. Even a weekly like the Time magazine, not exactly a pro-Israel publication, published the result for its investigation, it concluded that:

… there was no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers. But the 12 days of fighting took a severe toll on the camp. According to the U.N., 54 Palestinians are confirmed dead. An additional 49 are missing; it is unclear how many of them perished in the fighting and how many either fled or were captured by Israeli troops

[Emphasis provided]

* * * * *

The lesson from Jenin is clear; Palestinians exaggerate their casualties and the media is keen to cooperate spread any information that makes Israel look bad, what else is new?

You may have noticed, that this time there are no calls for investigation of “war crimes” by Israel as was the case during the Jenin operation, the loons have learned that investigation may prove, as it did in Jenin, no Israel wrong doing, which defeat their purpose.

All the reports from Gaza come from local “journalists”. Since the BBC’s Alan Johnston was kidnapped (and released) in Gaza, no foreign journalist is stationed in Gaza (or Ramallah for that matter), journalists seem to prefer the somewhat more secure environment of the Dan Hotel in Tel Aviv, the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and slum Israel from as far away from the Hamas as possible.

This is hilarious, although they parrot Hamas’s propaganda they still prefer to do it from the safety (and comfort) of Israel.

Israel has learnt from their misjudgment of the foreign press in the Lebanon War of 2006 and now bans the foreign press from Gaza area that has been declared a close military zone by the IDF. The bans were not apply to the Israeli press.

An appeal by the organisation of foreign journalists in Israel to the High Court failed on a ground that the Israeli law does not automatically provides equal rights to non-citizen, and the IDF has the legal power to decide who can enter a close military zone. You see, support for the Hamas is not regarded as a “human right” in Israel.

* * * * *

The Palestinian casualties allegedly come from hospital casualty records. It would be a matter of time before the number itself can be verified, particularly of the alleged disproportion of children victims.

However, hospitals can certify death from injury caused by a bullets, shrapnel, falling debris or explosion but they cannot determined if the bullet is from an Israeli gun or a Hamas purge act. Shrapnel can also come from Hamas rocket exploding during production or launching (so-called industrial accident), accidental trigger of Hamas’s mine or booby traps intended for the Israeli troops, and there are plenty of them around.

Here is a Palestinian school in Gaza that had been booby trapped from a neighbouring zoo. Although, the IDF disabled this particular booby trap, there are many other all over Gaza , as indeed was the case in Jenin.

Hamas Booby Trap a School And a Zoo

Why would the Hamas booby trap a whole school? Did they expect IDF using the class rooms for pottery lessons? or were the Hamas waiting for the schools to fill up with kids before they, the Hamas, detonate the charges and claim “Israeli bombing of schools”?

There is of course the possibility that the Hamas simply inflate the number of casualties and the proportion of children fatalities, I have no doubt that this is the case but as the Hamas, the TV networks and the UN all insist that I am wrong how about they explain why are children casualties are disproportionate to adult casualties?

If you accept the Hamath, why are there two dead kids for every adult or why are there four dead women and children for every man? Apparently, the UN who parrots that information on behalf of the Hamas has seen noting unusual about it. they are too busy demonising Israel.