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)

15 June, 2010

My first encounter with the US Immigration was in the summer of 1966. I was on my very first ship, a bulk carriers named “Har-Sinai” (Hebrew for “Mount Sinai”) as a deck cadet, we we have just arrived at Mobil Alabama, with 30,000 tons Iron Ore from Venezuela.

As happens with every ship arriving at any port, US Customs and Immigration were the first to board the ship with the local ship-agent as soon as the ships is moored. The two US Immigration officers checked the Crew-List against their “Black Book”, a very thick book with black cover that contained thousands upon thousands of names of people who are not permitted to enter the USA. If your name is not on in the black book, the immigration officer would then look at your Seaman’s Book (equivalent to Passport), see that it is current, ensures that the photo in your Seaman’s Book , matches your face and hen he would consult his “Green Book” to see whether you have been in the USA before and if so, whether  there are any marks against your name.

Only when you pass such scrutiny the officer will stamp your pre-printed shore-leave pass which entitled you to go ashore, be legally in the USA, but only within an specified area only and only whilst your ship is in port.

When all the shore-leave passes have been signed and stamped and after other customs and quarantine formalities are finalised the customs and immigration issue a clearance certificate for the ship, meaning stevedores (longshoremen) may come onboard, cargo work can commence, and crew may go ashore.

The immigration officers would then leave the ship with all the seaman’s book and passports (if any) that will be returned to the ship just before the ships sails and after ensuring and everybody is actually back onboard.

As this was my first time in the USA, I was finger-printed and photographed, just a standard procedure, I became another file number somewhere within the US immigration system. What about my “human right” I hear? Well, frankly it had never occurred to me; of course I could refuse, but it would have simply meant that I could not go ashore (and possibly raise some suspicion as to why I refuse to be figure-printed).

But there was another snag; one of the other Israeli seaman onboard, let us call him Shlomo (I cannot recall his actual name), also a first timer in the USA, was declined a shore-leave pass, the reason was that the immigration officer discovered a person with an Israeli nationality by the same surname as Shlomo’s in the Black Book — It transpired that Shlomo’s brother had jumped ship some two years earlier, subsequently captured and deported.

That was a sufficient reason to decline Shlomo’s a shore-leave pass. When Shlomo attempted to explain that he played no part in what his brother had done thus he should not be punished for it. The immigration officer explained that there is nothing in USA Law that says that he, the immigration officer, must grant shore-leave pass to anyone by right, shore-leave pass is purely a privilege, that he may grant or not and in fact he does not even required to have a reason for declining. Our ships-agent confirmed that there is no legal avenue by which the Immigration can be forced to grant a shore-leave pass. We are not US citizens, thus the protection of the Constitution of the USA does not apply to us (or words to that affect), It is the same way that any US Consulate anywhere in the world can, at least those days, decline entry visa into the USA at its sole discretion, he added.

As harsh as it was, it made perfect sense to me. I also knew that the slightest breach of the condition of the shore-leave pass will result in my name being placed in the “Black Book”, with all that that entails.

Shlomo was not allowed to leave the ship and indeed the Immigration turned up onboard a couple of times whilst we were in port to ensure that Shlomo is in fact onboard.

(I bumped  into Shlomo a few years later in a street in Haifa and he told me that, after I left the ship and after a few subsequent calls of his ships in the USA, he was finally granted a shore leave pass because of his “good behaviour”, meaning he did not try to leave the ship without a shore-leave pass).

* * * * *

Some two years later, I was already the Second Officer of another ship, a banana boat named “Har Bashan”. We were employed in the (Chiquita) bananas trades mostly from Central and South America to the US Gulf, US East Coast and Europe. The fact that I regularly call in US ports as an officer entitled me to permanent shore-leave pass  which somewhat simplified the immigration procedures I had go through when my ship call in US ports.

Click here to see a larger image

Carlos was one of the Able Seamen (AB) on the “Har Bashsan”; a Spaniard in his late thirties, a conscientious seaman and, by all accounts ,a dedicated family man. As the one who made the payslips onboard, I knew that Carlos withdrew just small amount of pocket money each (monthly) pay day whilst the balance of his wages was sent to his wife in Spain.

Carlos was also my semi-permanent lookout on my night watches on the bridge (from midnight to 4 am) when we were at sea. His main duty was watch for other ships and take the wheel if needed him to do so. On my daylight watches (noon to 4 pm) when the weather was fine and there was no or very light  shipping traffic around, Carlos would work on deck with the rest of deck crew whilst I was on bridge on my own; I could call on Carlos at any time to come up to the bridge, for a additional lookout or take the helm (wheel) if circumstances demand it. This was the procedures that was followed by all cargo ships those days (It was and is different for  passengers ships)

Carlos did not speak a word in English but with my pigeon Spanish we manage to communicate. We spent long nights on the bridge in “palavra” (seamen’s small talk) when there was nothing else for us to do apart from watching the empty sea and sky. We talked about our respective homes, ships that we had sailed on, places we had been in and so on. I would not describe our relation as “friends” by any mean but there was a definitely a mutual affinity between us.

On one of our call to the port of Baltimore, we have just completed discharging a ship-load of some 120,000 cartons of bananas and were getting ready to sail. Immigration were on board as usual, attempting to ensure that everybody is back onboard for sailing, a pure routine until we discovered that Carlos is not back onboard.

If Carlos had jumped ship, he would not be the first or the last to do so, nor  would he even  be the first on this ship, but knowing Carlos as I did, I told the immigration officer, that as the officer who is the closest to Carlos than any other officer onboard, it is totally out of character for Carlos to jump ship, something must have happen to him I speculated.

Using my Master Key, we entered Carlos’s cabin and inspected it; there were no signs that he had gone; in fact all signs pointed to the opposite. Carlos’s wife’s and kids’ photographs and a small Jesus on a cross icon were still next to his bed. His suitcase was there as what appeared to be all his cloths.

By then I had inspected enough cabins of seamen who had jumped ship to know the signs and what to look for. There are a number of tell-tell signs, profile if you wish, of people who jump ships; they are usually professionally unqualified, they “travel light”, they joined the ship recently and they jump ships on the first opportunity. In many cases they also leave a large unpaid “slopchest” (the ship’s duty-free “shop” for the crew) account behind them.

None of these tell-tell signs applied to Carlos. If anything, Carlos was the complete anti-thesis to a ship jumper.

True, it is not an exact science nor is it a conclusive proof that Carlos did not “do the run” but it was certainly put a great dent in the probability that he did. The immigration office who accompanied me to Carlos’s Cabin seemed to agree with my conclusion, although he did not actually say so.

The immigration officer then proceeded and called whomever he needed to call  and after a while he informed us that all the checks with all the police stations and hospitals in the Baltimore areas turned out nothing, no Carlos!

If Carlos had jumped ship he could never enter the USA again, that may also have severe implications of his ability get future works on other ships, Carlos had been at sea for long enough to realise the consequences of jumping ship, it simply made no sense.

After a short consultation with the Captain, he agreed to put back the sailing time by one hour — so long as we remain alongside the wharf, Carlos cannot be declared an illegal alien, his shore-leave pass is still valid. We hoped that somehow Carlos would turn up within the hour.

An hour turned into two, still no Carlos. The ship is now “off-hire” meaning the company that had hired the ship, United Fruit Company (UFC), is not paying hire for the ship itself,  the fuel we are burning or the port charges we incur whilst waiting for Carlos – it is now all on our shipowner, our employer’s, account.

We could wait no longer, not only we jeopardising UFC’ schedule, cost our owner money, but there was another ship waiting for our berth, meaning soon our owner would start paying the delay of that other ship too.

Two and a half hours after the original departure time, our ship was cleared to sail after we had gone through the formalities declaring Carlos as “missing seaman on departure – reason: unknown”. Pilot and tugboats were ordered, lines (the ropes and wires that tie the ship to the wharf) were off and we were on our way.

However, there was still one last chance, albeit a slim one; the geography of Baltimore is such that we still had about 12 hours steaming time down Chesapeake Bay ahead of us before we reach the open ocean, about 200 miles down the Bay, not far from Norfolk and Virginia Beach (Virginia).

Before they left the ships we had advised the immigration officers, that on the off-chance that they find Carlos within the next 10-12 hours and he is medically fit to re-join the ship, we were prepared to stop the ship, wait at a rendezvous place in the Bay and pick him up.

A few hours into our steaming down Chesapeake Bay, whilst I was on the bridge with the American Bay Pilot (who guided ships through the bay) and another seaman who  took Carlos’s place at the wheel, The pilot suddenly turn to me and asked if we are missing a sailor. When I confirm that indeed we do and gave him Carlos’s full name, the pilot advised that the immigration have got Carlos and they wish to bring him onboard. I immediately called the captain who was not on the bridge at the time as this was beyond my authority to agree or otherwise.

The captain came up to the bridge, gave his agreement and the pilot proceeded to arrange the rendezvous over his walky-talky.

We change course in accordance with the pilot’s advice and headed toward the rendezvous point. Some 45 minutes later, the pilot pointed at a Customs Boat, amongst the endless number of small boats and yachts in the vicinity of our ship, that was heading in our direction and said: “Here is you man, on that boat”. 15 minutes later the customs boat was alongside us and we could see Carlos standing on its deck, clearly with a sheepish look on his face, he knew that all the binoculars on the bridge are focused on him.  Carlos climbed the pilot ladder (a rope ladders usually used by pilots to get on and off ships) and got onto the ship’s deck.

He immediately proceeded to the bridge where the captain and I were waiting for him. He appeared highly excited, obviously embarrassed, perhaps worried about the consequences of the “troubles” he had caused, talking… well, sort of talking; “Santa Maria”, “Jesus Christos” and some other unmentionable words were only ones I could decipher from his hundred miles per second Spanish.

Eventually Carlos calmed down a bit and told us that he had gone ashore a few hours before we were due to sail to buy something in plenty of time to return to the ship before Sailing.

Not speaking English, Carlos did what he had done “Un millon veces antes” (millions times before) in every non-Spanish speaking port that he had ever been; He would write down the name of the wharf where the ships was as he left the ship and when the time comes for him to back to the ship he would get a cab and give the taxi driver his piece of paper with the name of the wharf on it and let taxi bring him back to his ship.

“Pero este taxista americano estupido” (But this stupid American taxi driver) in Carlos’s words, could not find the ship. After about two hours looking for the ship in all over Baltimore, Carlos realised that he was not going make it to the ship in time. He managed somehow to get the taxi driver to drop him at a police station where he found someone who spoke Spanish.

There was only one aspect in Carlos’s story that, that seemed stange to me. The wharf that we had just left did not have a name, just a number, it was called Pier 34 . “Carlos” I said “El muelle del barco en Baltiomre no tiene nombre, solo numero, numero treinta quatro, donde mirar el nombre?” (My Spanish for: “The wharf where the ship was in Baltimore does not have a name, just a number, number 34, where did you see a name?”)

“Por supuesto que tiene nombre” (Of course it has a name) Carlos objected, sounded slightly insulted that I doubt his word, “Hay una cartelera bien grande… justo afuera de las puertas de entrada… con el nombre… escrito en letras rojas…. es imposible de no verla… aqui, mirala por tu mismo!” (There is a big sign … just outside the gate … with a name .. red letters … you cannot possibly miss it …  here, look  for yourself!)” he said as handed me a piece of paper.

I took one look at the paper and could not hold myself, I burst into an uncontrollable laughter; on the paper, in Carlos’s handwriting were two words: “No Smoking”.

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2010

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

By Mila

23 March, 2010

I used to be an anti-American liberal. I used to look at the “horrors” of American foreign policy and what I used to call “ignorance” of the average American citizen as the root causes for all the world’s problems.  Even though I didn’t have a remote idea of what its foreign policy entailed, this was my mindset and outlook then. Somehow I knew it was evil. Don’t ask me how though…

In retrospect, I never really considered its foreign policy to be the main problem. In  reality I saw the way the American people were in general as the biggest problem. I viewed Americans as unhappy people who thought they were happy, as people who had very little to no morals and who were misfortunate to have been born in a sort of capsule that prevented them from understanding how things came to be in the world.

I viewed them almost as part of a machine that worked in a very schematic system and as long as the machine was working then they would have no need to be concerned with the affairs of the world. I viewed them as uncultured and as slaves of a materialistic system that eroded humanity and emboldened pride and arrogance.

When the average American used to say “we are the best” it would infuriate me. Now I look back and realize that where I’m from we also used to say, “we are the best”. In short, for me, the United States, whether its people knew it or not, was the cause of all the materialism that lacked any humanity, promoted ignorance, lacked any sort of culture, and was an exporter of immorality throughout the world.

Because of this view, I then began to put blame on the United States for basically anything. Not only did I blame the US for things it didn’t do right, but for things that it didn’t do at all. I went as far as to construct this entire philosophy in my head where the central pillar of evil was the United States.

Furthermore, because I despised the American way of life and the mentality of the American people, I linked the United States with all the problematic regions in the world. So for example, if Africa was poor it was because the United States was stealing its resources and preventing it from developing as it used it as a war field, especially during the cold-war. If Latin America was corrupt, then it was because the United States needed it to be corrupt for its own interest and because it had put puppet governments in order to fight the Soviets during the cold-war. It was because the American elites needed a place to hide their corruptive transactions and so they used Latin America as a playground. And the list goes on and on….

My vision of reality was so twisted that I would somehow find some esoteric and totally unrelated evidence to support my theories and philosophies about how evil the United States was. I looked at everything through the lens of hate. I was conditioned by hate. Hate is an emotion, so I was plainly being emotional and not using a single neuron in my brain or my heart for that matter. In reality, I was simply being hormonal about the United States.

A few years passed since I’ve been living in the United States by the time I arrived at the university. At the university the professors agreed with me and my anti-American views, however when they would teach the history of my own country that faced 56 coup d’état, military dictatorships, hyperinflation, a guerrilla-style warfare, and Soviet puppets as leaders, they would not know minimal facts and would teach a fictional story about it. A story so far from what really happened that it sounded like a fairy tale to me. They taught a story that was fueled with victimhood and resentment and not based on what really happened. Most of my International Relations professors had never been to the country and were just spouting nonsense based on anti-American sentiment.

I was born amid guerrilla warfare. In fact, the guerrilla started the year I was born and continued until I was 8 years old. The dirty war was primarily fought in my city. And north of the city where I lived is where most of the Soviet driven violence via guerrilleros (or red fighters as we called them) occurred.

Honestly, I don’t remember much. I do, however, remember that those who people today refer to as the “disappeared ones” were the Soviet red driven guerrilla fighters that today people feel pity for and regard as victims.

Anyhow, these university professors here in the US were teaching their students how the US helped the military dictatorship in my country of birth kill its own people. But I knew better than these professors. One day I raised my hand and asked the professor of my Problems in US Foreign Policy class to talk about the Soviet driven guerrillas (militias) and the bombings and kidnappings they would do instead of focusing on some fictional story where the US was the aggressor. The professor knew nothing about the Soviet militias, but somehow he knew all about the US’s “help” to the so-called military dictatorship of my country. I was amazed that he knew nothing of the USSR’s involvement, but somehow it was the US’s (Reagan’s) fault.

Well, just six decades prior to the guerrilla, my country was one of the top 10 richest countries in the world. It had and it still has resources to sustain itself, the entire continent of America (South, Central, and North), and all of Africa combined. It has abundant oil, natural gas, and all sorts of minerals. Its agricultural industry is extremely rich and flowing with different resources.

It was once a country with the potential to be a super-power. It was going on the right path. Industries began to develop; infrastructure was being built around the country, its financial system had begun to boom and banks would lend large amounts of money, our monetary value was actually competitive in the world market, and investors from all over the world would come in and do business with us and even establish a branch of their own business in our country.
The country had a lot of potential and it was realizing its potential, however something happened and the country began to decline.

What happened?

What began as an inoffensive campaign strategy of a politician who played the populous game to win mass support with hollow promises to the poor, turned into the rule of an arrogant socialist full of resentment.

Soon after he assumed power changes did begin to take place. The financial system was quickly taken over by a central bank run by the government, property begun to be disappropriated from the “rich” and supposedly given to the poor, however this socialist didn’t give the poor anything. He just stole from the “rich” without any regards for the poor. It was the so-called rich (who were once poor themselves) that gave the poor an opportunity to work, get an education, travel around the country with great transportation and infrastructure so they could themselves become entrepreneurs and small business men and eventually get out of poverty as well, etc. If it wasn’t for the “rich” the poor would not have a chance to get out of poverty.

It was a fomentation of a class warfare that did not exist.

This socialist “leader” was evermore gaining power as industries began to be run by the government and so more labor unions were now part of the government body and the vicious cycle began. Without the capital to produce and severe financial barriers, fees, and taxes by the government for production, caused the producers not to produce as much and so the entire economic engine began to malfunction. Unemployment rate in the double digits was as common as the air we breathed. The ripple effect had begun.

Less production means fewer jobs. Less jobs means less consumers. Less consumers means less economic growth in every aspect. Less economic growth means more dependency. More dependency means more government.

The socialist leader who had assumed power under the banner of change and “healer” of a “great” socio-economic injustice managed to destroy not only the economic system, but the nation as a whole. This is where the ripple effect can be seen not just in the economic sphere.

When the false premise of some social injustice is inculcated into the minds of people then the country’s society becomes extremely divided. As a result of that division, the society becomes weak. As society becomes weak, so do individuals. And in a society where individuals become weak, progress is rare to non-existent. It turns into a society where corruption reigns.

In order to cope, survive, and have a chance in a system that is corrupt, people then become corrupt themselves. Corruption is a primordial side effect of socialism. With corruption comes distrust. With distrust comes the lack of any opportunity for citizens to form a significant political resistance to these destructive, false, and unsustainable socialist agendas. With the lack of an organized group of individuals fighting these socialist agendas, the government begins to take more and more and in less than a generation, the nation can become completely dependent on literally self-righteous corrupt thieves in power. It happens fast, but it could only happen after a society has been brainwashed to think that it’s a society in need of a revolution of some sort. Kind of like a defiance of the status quo. Only in an already sickened with division, hate, and resentment society can this happen successfully.

In the end, nations become so sick and its citizens so deep in a hole in the ground that they don’t know how to get out of it anymore.

The ripple effect of these nefarious agendas is so huge and so cyclical. In other words, it makes a society fall into a vicious cycle that throws it into an endless and hopeless abyss. A society keeps falling and falling until it no longer knows in which direction it must go in order to climb back up.

When I go back to my country I am extremely happy to see family and friends, but I see a huge sign at the airport that says “welcome, just make sure you leave all your hopes behind.”

By knowing this transgression of events that took place in my country I realized that the United States was a place where one could breathe fresh air and not the polluted air of corruption, hopelessness, and surrender.

I began to grow out of the childish phase that the United States was the cause of all the problems in the world. I began to look at the American people, not as a whole, but rather as individuals and that’s when I realized the great values of the American people. I was wrong to look at them collectively. I should have known that it was different here and not look at what Hollywood, the media, the TV, or the politically correct trends told me how the Americans were.

I began to feel a lot of respect and a great love for this country. One of the things that made me realize how ignorant I had been was when one day I watched a program on TV. The program showed scenes of the only war my country fought with a foreign power in modern history. When they showed young men from my country being shot in the battle field I was crushed with anger and felt such a degree of patriotism that I had never felt before. I have never watched that war that had taken place when I was 6 years old until I saw those scenes on TV. Those scenes didn’t just show me that patriotism and a great pride in one’s nation is a healthy thing to have in a world that is increasingly becoming “nationless”, but they also made me understand why the American people felt so patriotic and proud.

What I used to view as arrogance, turned out to be healthy patriotism and a sense of pride in one nation’s deeds. Here I was feeling the same sense of patriotism and pain for my own country while I watched scenes from one small war. The only war my country fought with a foreign power in modern history. I thought to myself, how insensitive and blind I was not to see how the American people had fought in so many wars spilling blood all over the world with cemeteries throughout the world and receiving more body bags than any other nation in the world since its short 200 year-old history.  And to think that I was one of those who viewed the United States as the only evil one who used nuclear bombs, but failed to see how Japan had killed millions of civilians. It was then that I realized how unjust I had been and how unfair the world was and is incrementally becoming towards the United States.

It was the United States that has virtually showed societies that had fallen into that endless abyss where the top of that abyss was so they could climb back up. It was the United States that showed by example that a better system of life could be adopted and individuals could flourish.

What happened yesterday is a huge wound into this nation’s health. It is as if an already weakened nation was given not a cure or even treatment, but rather an injection containing huge amounts of the same virus it had been infected with.

I have no words to describe how betrayed I feel and how hurt I am by the democrat’s insult with this bill. And I see them laughing and smiling full of arrogance that it makes me sick; literally sick. Definitely a sickness they could never cure. I don’t even think those Americans who are still defending this catastrophic monster plan only because it falls under the Obama presidency really know what the consequences of it are.

I just had time to finish reading most of the bill and my jaw dropped to the floor in disbelief. I still can’t comprehend how this could have happened in the United States.

I read the bill and it is worse than the nationalized healthcare system we had in a third-world country.  In fact, it is a lot worse. And to think this is just their first step.

This must be stopped. And I mean by any means necessary. The government has literally turned against its people. What are people supposed to do then?

Anyway, thanks for listening. I’m just in shock that this is happening and here.

© Copyrights Mila, all rights reserved

18 March, 2010

God, please safeguard me from my friends and leave me to take care of my enemies on my own.

(Anon)

Have no mistake, the recent diplomatic rift between Washington and Jerusalem is not about peace, it is not about settlements, and it certainly not about Jo Biden being “insulted” — it is about  Obama! the Obama Middle East Doctrine.

Firstly, let us dispose of some disinformation perpetrated by the Obama administration and his shrieking liberal media.

On or about 9 March 2010, the District Planning Committee of the Municipality of Jerusalem, not the government of Israel, approved the construction of 1,600 new residential units in Ramat Shlomo, an existing northern Jewish suburb of Jerusalem. Ramat Shlomo IS NOT in East Jerusalem as we know it, a term normally used describe the old city of Jerusalem and its immediately surrounding villages, it far from it, albeit it is about 1 km. (0.5 mile) north of the green line.

The Prime Minister of Israel, does not need to be notified, approve or disapprove such decision any more than the President of the United States needs to be notified, approve, or otherwise, of construction of a new mall in Washington DC, let alone getting an approval from a foreign county.

What is it that makes every tin-pot liberal, thinks that he or she has the right to trash Israel’s sovereignty over its capital and within the same breath (or stroke of a keyboard) lecture us about interfering in the internal affairs of some failed rogue country in Africa or the Middle East?

It is clear, that the approval by the district planning committee of Jerusalem municipality has nothing to do with Jo Biden’s visit to Israel, dignitaries visits are not part of the consideration for issuing building licences. Jo has been reported to have accepted it but apparently, but that was not enough for the “don’t let a crisis go to waste” White House and the PC pro-Arab brigade of State Department who went on a massive unprecedented disinformation anti-Israel campaign, you would normally expect from the Huffington Post, not from an ally.

This crisis represents a fundamental shift from the American bi-partisan policy on Israel in general and on Jerusalem in particular which had largely supported the Israeli position. For those fools who had thought that Obama is a friend of Israel, here is your answer!

This rift is not between the people of America and the people of Israel, American public support for Israel viz-a-viz the Palestinians runs 8:1 in Israel’s favour and traverses the partisan political lines, but since when American public opinion counts when it comes to White House ideology?

The Obama doctrine of peace in Middle East is one of appeasement and recapitulation,  appeasement of Islam, recapitulation of the United State policies and a literal recapitulation of Israel, there is no other way to describe it.

The Obama doctrine is based on the debunked assumption that Muslim terrorism can be defeated by addressing the stated grievance of Muslims, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere. Had that been the case, there would have been no Al-Qaida today. Al-Qaida was founded by the “Afghan Arabs” who had come to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet invasion. Having defeated the Soviets, the core cause of their “grievances” the Afghan Arab did not go home, instead they decided to take on the world in general and America in particular.

The same applied to the Middle East. Every gesture of goodwill towards brought a wave of violence, Israel unilateral evacuations of South Lebanon and the Gaza Strip are a mere two examples among many.

Obama was and remains a “community organiser”, he thinks about the Middle East in terms of Saul Alinsky’s (another product of the Chicago left) of “the haves and have nots” whereas the “have nots”, in this case the Palestinians who need to be “organised” against the evil “haves”, Israel.

The failure of the peace process initiatives between Israel and the Palestinians were not due to lack of goodwill by successive American administrations or the intransigence of Israel on one issue or another, the blame lays squarely within the Palestinian camp.

The Palestinians do not want a state, they just want to fight for one! If you think that this is exaggeration, just read today’s paper and watch today’s news. It is Sept 2000 (second intifada) all over again, de ja vu.

Twice in the past 62 years, the Arabs of Palestine chose war instead of having their own state, the first time was in 1948 when they rejected the UN partition plan of Palestine and the second time in September 2000 when they violently repudiated the Oslo Accord, AFTER over 90% of their grievances had been addressed.

Although the Oslo Accord has been nullified by the Palestinians, it remain the only viable basis for a comprehensive peace in Middle East. The negotiations between Israel and Palestinians are now about what parts of the Oslo Accord are salvageable, not about wiping the slate clean and starting it again.

From Israel point of view, having failed in their attempt to destroy the Oslo Accord by brutal violence all across Israel (proper), the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians cannot expect a reward for their action, thus Israel needs much more convincing that indeed, this time the Palestinians actually want to live in peace side by side with Israel — unfortunately the last few days, once more prove the rule that they do not want a state.

Traditionally there were no disagreement between Israel and USA on this point … until Obama was elected, that is.

In his Cairo pandering speech last June (2009), Obama not only supported the Palestinians cherry-picking the Oslo Accord, but he handed them some cherries of his own, cherries that they had not have and had not asked for as a condition for negotiation.

In a typical moral-equivalent carefully crafted address he spoke in front invitees only audience, including representatives of the “Muslim Brotherhood”, the parent organisation of the Hamas, and he said (among other things):

The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop

[Emphasis and highlights are mine]

Oh, really Mr. President? “violates previous agreements”? let see what THE previous agreement really says about settlements.

Article V (3) of The Declaration Of Principles (aka The Oslo Accord) say that:

It is understood that [the permanent status] negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.

[square brackets and Emphasis added]

The teleprompter was not yet turned off as the Palestinians announced a new “pre-condition” for the resumption of the direct talks, indeed why not? Even the president of the United State agrees. The fact that they had agreed to put that issue aside for the interim period in the Oslo Accord became irrelevant. But, hey, this is the Middle East.

I want to make it clear that I have never supported the Jewish Settlement in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip (which is no longer relevant), I oppose it! but this is not the issue right now.

However,  Jerusalem is not the West Bank! Jerusalem is not a “settlement”, Jerusalem is Israel and Israel is Jerusalem!

* * * * *

Was the Obama Cairo speech, just a stupid comment by an inexperienced president, or was it part of the Obama Doctrine on the Middle East?

Events suggest the later. Although, clearly, Obama was absolutely wrong in his facts, he nevertheless  continue to pressure Israel to accept Obama’s created pre-condition for the resumption of the talks, and to cease construction in the West Bank settlements.

The Israeli government largely acceded to the American pressure albeit temporarily. Whether Israel agreed to halt construction in West Bank to help the president save face or for other reasons, I don’t really know, but what follows was taken straight out of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules For Radicals.

In his book, Alinsky has a chapter on “Tactics” (of the Organiser) in which he lists “rules”, in Rule Thirteen Alinsky says that:

The Price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

[Page 130 in paperback edition]

He goes on to explain:

You [the organiser] cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand saying “you are right — we don’t know what to do about this issue. Now tell us”

[brackets added]

Such tactic is also known as the “salami tactic” or “moving the goal posts”.

Having got an agreement to partially freeze construction in the West Bank, rather than go back to the Palestinians with “now, what about you mate?” the administration jumped on the “opportunity” and in order to avoid being “trapped by the enemy” moved to the next slice of the salami, Jerusalem.

Read on Mr. President, Alinsky continues:

The fourteen Rule: Pick the target, freeze, it personalise it, and polarize it.

The target, Alinsky explains, is picked on a basis of vulnerability, you don’t necessarily attack the party who is responsible for your grievance, you attack the most vulnerable to such attack.

In this context, you do not attack the District Planning Committee or the Municipality of Jerusalem, the body that approve construction, you attack the “right wing” Israeli government. You further personalise your attack with words such as “insult”, and use emotive terms such  “Jewish settlements”, “occupied territory”, “illegal occupation” and, most of all, you attack, attack, attack!

The Palestinians, whilst have a claim on part of Jerusalem, (which they did not have during the Jordanian rule of East Jerusalem), areas such as Ramat Shlomo have never been an issue, not until now when the administration created it.

Instead of trying to bridge over differences, the administration is in fact putting the sides further apart, but that is not all.

What followed the administration attacks on Israel (“addressing” Palestinians grievances) is an EXPECTED wave of incitement and violence by Palestinians, not much dissimilar to those we saw in September 2000, except that the current violence is totally White House driven.

According to the Jerusalem Post:

The armed wing of Fatah, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, on Tuesday called on the Palestinian Authority to give back the weapons it had confiscated from the group’s gunmen so that they could participate in the “Jerusalem Intifada.” The call came as both the PA and Hamas continued to accuse Israel of planning to destroy the mosques on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

De ja vu!

What we see is typical Arab reaction to what they rightly see as a weakening of American support of Israel, thus a weakness of Israel — anyone who knows anything about the Middle East mentality could have foreseen it coming. I have no doubt that Israel will stop this madness but, no doubt, with the usual accusation “disproportionate force”.

Welcome to the Obama Intifada (God forbid), to borrow a term from Melanie Phillips of the Spectator. The same old story; Palestinians attack Jews, Jews protect themselves, Palestinians play victims, UN condemns Israel,  De ja vu!

What left now for Israeli government to do is give Obama a bit of his own medicine, to take a page from Alinsky book too and put the president “outside his experience”, as Alinsky repeats through his book,  or as Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post who does not mince her words this time when she says in her latest article:

Bibi can tell Obama to stick it where the sun don’t shine and rally the Israeli public and Israel’s many  friends in America to his side and so make it impossible for Obama to carry on doing this with immunity. Or he can lick Obama’s boots and set the clock ticking faster towards the destruction of this country.

Caroline! this is not a ladylike talk, but you succinctly expressed my sentiments. Butt out Mr. President before you have your name ingratiating an intifada.

© Copyright Jacob Klamer, 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.