Jacob's Soap Box

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:

Apartheid sign on Durban beach

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.

Israel War of Independence 1948

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.

1 January, 2009

As expected the peace loving world did not disappoint. If you watch the BBC in recent days you quickly realise that unlike its rude American cousins, auntie, has class, and more important a genuine concern over the lack more Israeli casualties

How else would you interpret BBC anchormen and woman, mostly with distinct multicultural names and look to go with it (Charley, are you sure it is a British channel you put on? Looks a bit … Pakistani … or something) persistently question Israeli spokesmen and women about the “vast gap” in casualties between Israeli civilian that were killed by the Hamas rockets and those who were killed by Israel response.

You see? If only Israel could allow more civilian casualties on its side, that would make the war in Gaza more … appropriate?

How about bricking in all the bomb shelters In Shderot (except one reserved to BBC camera crews) and advise all its citizens that from now on, when the sirens are sounded in Shderot it is a call for all kids to get out of their homes, run down the street to the nearest civil defence post to collect their free lollies. Don’t worry about explosions, they are just rehearsals for New year celebrations.

Whilst the Israeli cabinet consider the BBC proposal, the world has been united, well, nearly, in its peace seeking mission. I think that we ought to examine them some of the criticism level on Israel to see if they have merits

The United Nation

As we know the Korean Secretary General of the UN, Ban-Ki Moon Issued a statement in which he said:

The secretary general is deeply alarmed by today’s heavy violence and bloodshed in Gaza, and the continuation of violence in southern Israel.

“[He] appeals for an immediate halt to all violence [and reiterates] previous calls for humanitarian supplies to be allowed into Gaza to aid the distressed civilian population.”

I think that Israel must learn from the secretary’s home country experience when South Korea was attacked. The way to handle the dispute is to get the US Army to acquire some UN flags and come to fight the Hamas – indeed, why waste your own ammunition if you can get the American to do it for you?

And don’t forget the royalties from MASH II.

Britain

The British Foreign Office issued as strong statement as follow:

The only way to achieve lasting peace in Gaza is through peaceful means. Whilst we understand the Israeli government’s obligation to protect its population we urge maximum restraint to avoid further civilian casualties.

Yes, the Brits have raised a number of good points, especially when they talk about “peaceful means” and “maximum restrain”.

Israel should follow the British example when they, the Brits experienced rockets attacks falling on London. If you are not sure what was that British “peaceful means” and “restraints” perhaps you care to check with the people of Dresden, Berlin Hamburg and some other German cities.

Russia

The Russian foreign Ministry:

Moscow considers it necessary to stop large-scale military action against Gaza, which has already led to major casualties and suffering among the civilian Palestinian population.

Israel could learn a thing or two from the Russians about how they avoid large-scales military actions in Georgia when provoked and how they put a superior military power to good use. If I remember correctly the Russian Army was helping with seasonal fruit picking in South Ossetia.

You are right Komrad Putin, when it come to dealing with Muslim extremists, Israel should definitely follow the Russian example of never to inflicting “major casualties and suffering”.

Israel is hereby undertakes that the scale of its military action, Hamas’s major casualties and suffering in Gaza shall never exceed those that were experienced by the Chechens. Da?

France

Good old France just called for a “pause” in the fighting to allow the Hamas to restock and regroup.

Does anyone recall France requesting a “pause” in rocket being launch into day case centres in Shderot? Anyone? Anyone? No, I can see no hands.

Be that as it may, Israel should take note and quickly study France’s Algerian War with the FLN (the Algerian Front de Libération Nationale) to see whether the is a lesson to be learnt.

Well, the FLN’s casualties were six times the French ones (approx 150,000 to 25,000) a definite case of … wala! a use of “disproportionate force”!!!

France is not alone! Vive le France!

The Arab League

Amr Moussa, the Arab League Secretary General said:

We are facing a continuing spectacle which has been carefully planned. So we have to expect that there will be many casualties. We face a major humanitarian catastrophe.”

Mr. Moussa, who incidentally is an Egyptian, represents a find organisation, with human right record from Egypt using Chemicals on Yemenite rebels, to Syrian wiping the town of Hama in Syria off the face of the earth in 1982. Israel does not use chemical weapons but wiping Gaza of the face of the earth? Well if you insist.

If you wish to cite more recent Arab human rights achievements how about Darfur, Mr Moussa? Sorry, As much as Israel wish to aspire to your organisation height of human right achievement, it pass.

Kleenex anyone?

1 November, 2008

I have no idea why my Google Desktop brought up an article from 6th June, 1967 in my news tracking but it certainly brought up a blast from the past.

It was one year to the day since I had completed my (compulsory) military service in the Israeli Navy. I was a young third officer on a merchant marine ship, named Har Bashan. Our usual employment was to carry Chiquita Bananas from Central and South America to the Gulf (of Mexico) ports, the US East Coast and to Europe.

On the day, 6th June, 1967, we were in a “port” named Turbo in the Gulf Of Darien in Colombia (I dare you to find it on the map) which was in fact an anchorage, about 2 miles away from shore, where ships were loaded bananas from barges.

You have to bear in mind prior to the Six Days War, Israel was not perceived as a militarily strong country, that war in fact changed the perception about Israel for ever. Nor had Israel particularly strong relations with the United States at the time who had more then their own share in Vietnam. Israel’s main supplier of arms were France and Britain (in this order) for which Israel paid in hard cash whilst the Soviets armed Egypt and Syria to the teeth mostly by grants and on the never never “loans”.

For the previous two weeks we were getting worrying news from home about the pending invasion of Israel by Egypt and Syria. Nasser’s grandstanding about the forthcoming elimination of the Zionist state and the return of the Arab refugees to their homes – the term Palestinians in the context of Arab refugees was not invented yet – the United Nation was quite, there was neither calls for “restraint” nor was anyone was labelled as “the aggressor”, just silence.

Despite the fact that the ship flew the Israeli flag, I was the only Israeli officer onboard, all other Israeli nationals were “ratings” (non ranking officers crew members) and there were not many of them either. The captain and Radio Operator (sparky) were Italians, the Chief Officer was Norwegian, the second Officer was Dutch, a (semi deaf) Irish Electrician and down in the Engine Room they were Spaniards, Italians and the odd Yugoslavian – a tower of Babylon. Perhaps my position on the ship symbolised the state of Israel those days, near TOTAL ISOLATION.

For the preceding ten or eleven days we had crossed the Atlantic Ocean on our way to Turbo. The only sources of news we had were the short waves services of the BBC and the Voice Of America (VOA). Kol Israel (Israel radio) in Jerusalem was out of range since we entered the tropics as it’s relative low output could not penetrate the atmospheric noise typical to that part of the world (the fact that Kol Israel beams its signal towards Europe and North America made compound the difficulty). Unfortunately the shop’s Italian Radio Officer (sparky) showed little interest in getting the Israeli national on board, the daily news bulletins from our home maritime shore station Haifa Radio.

The little news we got was not good, to put it mildly. The UN Peace Keeping forces in the Sinai Peninsula folded up and went hone at the first “request” by the ruler of Egypt, Colonel Gamal Abdul Nasser, leaving the Egyptian army a clear path to the border with Israel. I Israel there was a full and general call up of all the military reserves (all men till the age of 45 and beyond), the civil defence and volunteers literally dug up the country with trenches and shelters in schools yards, near residential buildings, in parks and around towns, villages and the kibbutzim.

The mood in Israel was sober indeed, every Israeli “knew” that this was going to be a bloody war with many civilian casualties, some went as far as doubt Israel ability to withstand a coordinated attack by Egypt and Syria, with a possibility of Jordan joining in, and a massive support they received from the Soviet Union, that may, it was thought, extend to sending their own troops to assist. A second Holocaust in 22 years was a distinct possibility in many people’s minds.

The tones of the BBC and the VOA progressively resembled obituary rather then news reporting. Its resonated as “oh well the experiment of a Jewish state was a good idea at the time, but”, of course no one said it out right out in that many words, or did they?

About a day or so before we arrived to Turbo, my immediate superior the Norwegian Chief Officer “declared”, with some satisfaction as I recall it, that there will be no Israel within a few days and added Israel is finished, kaput. Whilst I am not a betting man, I was willing to bet him that he was wrong and he took the bet. Until this day I don’t know whether it was my patriotism or my belief in Israel’s strong will to survive that made be bet. I was far from certain of collecting on the bet and not because I thought that should I win the Chief will not pay up.

We arrive at Turbo in early morning hours of 5th June, the day the war erupted. Because of a 7 hours time difference with Israel, we already knew that the war had started but no more then that. The BBC reported that the IDF (the Israeli Army) spokesman confirm that “there are military clashes in the south” (or words to that effect) and that there was a complete blackout on news from the front.

From the other side of the border, the Egyptian media reported that their forces reached a point two hours away from Tel Aviv. We knew not whether there are Soviet troops on the ground and/or Soviet pilot up in the air.

There was nothing coming from the United Nation or any of the then four “Great Powers”, USA, USSR, UK and France. Despite the lousy reception I had my short wave radio tuned to Kol Israel in Jerusalem just in case I decipher some useful news in the myriad atmospheric noises of the tropics and more important to confirm to myself that they, in Jerusalem, are still transmitting, a scary thought indeed. I also asked the sparky if he can still get 4XO (Haifa Radio) which he confirmed. Not much comfort but some hope, I thought.

The following day, 6th June, I suddenly heard it on the BBC from their man in Jerusalem, the report was much like to the Guardian story quoted below, down here. My initial reaction was a total disbelief, I truly thought and said it out loud that if Israel needs to revert to such exaggerations as the Arabs do, we are gone! it was a frightening few hours indeed.

As we all learned many times since that day, it was the United Nations that got me out of my misery. Sure enough the Soviets were calling for a cease fire, the Americans the Brits and the French declared that they are “neutral”, in the words of the Guardian:

President Johnson last night condemned the war as “needless and destructive” and gave first priority to trying to end it through the United Nations Security Council.

Yes! We are in business again.

Had it erupted today under similar circumstances, instead of needless and destructive the six days would have probably be worded as disproportionate or inordinate use of force or such UN politically correct Newspeak.

AS a side comment, it is interesting to note that there is no mention of the term Palestinians in the Guardian article below. The reason is simply that in 1967 the Arab refugees were just that Arabs, they became Palestinians with the raise of the Palestinian terror, but this is a whole separate subject.

*****

[Quote]

This article appeared in the Guardian on Tuesday June 06 1967 . It was last updated at 15:17 on January 06 2006.

Israel claims land and air successes as Britain and US declare neutrality

• The Guardian,
• Tuesday June 6 1967

Israel claimed early today than it had achieved victory in the air by destroying 374 Arab aircraft. It also claimed that Israeli ground forces had captured the towns of Rafah astride the main road from the Gaza strip to the Suez canal and El Arish, farther west.

A tank battle involving more armour that was used at Alamein was reported to be in progress between Israel and Egypt in the Sinai desert. After a day of confused reports this sector and the Gaza strip, in which Israel claimed to have made important advances, were emerging as key areas in the war.

Attempts were being made at the United Nations last night to sponsor a Security Council resolution agreeable to the four big Powers calling for a ceasefire, but the Soviet delegate said he had heard of no agreement. In Moscow the Soviet Government condemned Israel for an act of aggression and demanded that it should immediately and unconditionally stop all military action. Tass reported that the Soviet Government “reserves the right to take all the steps that may be necessitated by the situation” and resolutely supported the Arab Governments and peoples.

The American State Department declared US neutrality “in thought, word, and deed”; Mr Brown told the House of Commons that Britain’s concern was not to take sides but to restore peace to the area; and the French Government announced the suspension of arms shipments to the Middle East, where Israel is its main customer. The American statement of neutrality aroused controversy in Washington where the White House denied that it meant the US did not care what happened.

Reports from Tel-Aviv last night said that Israeli troops were advancing in the Sinai desert and had captured the southern end of the Gaza strip, thus cutting off the rest of the strip from Egyptian forces. The Egyptian Supreme Command said that its armour had penetrated into Israeli territory after fierce fighting in which it had beaten off Israeli attacks and “annihilated the enemy force.”

The scale of the fighting outside Sinai is not yet known. Official Israeli statements said the attack had been launched by the Arabs in the divided city of Jerusalem, and along the Syrian frontier near Dagania. Israel also claimed that Syrian aircraft had attacked the Haifa Bay region and the Megiddo had been bombed by Jordanians.

In the battle for control of the air Israel claimed to have destroyed 302 Egyptian, 20 Jordanian, and 52 Syrian aircraft. Egypt said that 70 Israeli aircraft had been destroyed during attacks on airfields in Cairo and in the Suez Canal zone while Damascus Radio claimed 54 Israeli aircraft shot down over Syria.

Each side claims that the other struck first. Israel alleges that the first onslaught came from Egyptian tanks and planes in the Negev early yesterday. Cairo claims that the fighting started when Israeli aircraft raided Cairo and other parts of Egypt at 9 o’clock local time.

Mr Eshkol said in a broadcast that he hoped all peace-loving nations “will not stand by but will understand the right of Israel to live its life without the sword of aggression hanging over its head.” General Dayan, the Defence Minister and architect of the Sinai campaign of 1956, said: “We have no aims of conquest. Our only aim is to foil the attempt of the Arab armies to conquer our country.”

The Arab oil-producing countries meeting in Baghdad unanimously decided to stop the flow of oil to any country taking part in an attack on any Arab State or its territorial waters.

President Johnson last night condemned the war as “needless and destructive” and gave first priority to trying to end it through the United Nations Security Council. For the time being it appeared that the United States would not intervene directly to try to halt the fighting.

At an emergency session of the Security Council which adjourned after 50 minutes, U Thant, the United Nations Secretary-General, reported that UN Emergency Force (UNEF) units in the Gaza had been fired on by Israeli planes and three Indian soldiers killed.

[Unquote]

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer (except attributable quotes)