Jacob's Soap Box

By Daniel Greenfield (Sultan Knish)

16 April 2012

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

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

Hat tip to Amos (surname withheld).

Jacob

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To survive, Israel will have to grow up.

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________

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

5 June 2010

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

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

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

Watch the full version of this clip here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is A Maritime Blockade?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[My emphasis]

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

In fact the rule is even more specific;

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

[my emphasis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…..

(b) the high seas; and

[my emphasis]

Can A Merchant Ship be stopped By Force?

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

One of such causes is attempt to break a blockade;

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

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

[my emphasis]

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

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

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

[My emphasis]

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

The Legality Of The Blockade Itself

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

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

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

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

[my emphasis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I leave you with a small quiz.

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

Please Help to free Gaza! (from the Hamas)

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2010, all rights reserved

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.

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?