Heliborne?

Heliborne?

On page 200 of the Goldstone Report we find this sentence:

706. The Israeli ground offensive from the east reached al-Samouni neighbourhood around 4 a.m. on 4 January 2009. In addition to the ground forces moving in from the east, there were, in all likelihood, heliborne398 troops that landed on the roofs of several houses in the area.

Should you wonder what that means, heliborne troops (and how would the Commission members have known?), you can follow footnote 398:

One witness told the Mission that on 5 January 2009, walking on Salah ad-Din Street towards Gaza, he saw by the roadside parachutes Israeli troops had used to land in the area.

Israel has not used parachutes in battle since 1956. I've never heard of parachutists in any army jumping from helicopters, because the two methods contradict one another. Parachutists jump from mid-altitude airplanes, and aim at large areas since they cannot be guided to precise points. Helicopters land troops on precise points; the troops jump out from a height of a foot, or three.

I haven't heard of Israeli troops being flown by helicopter into battle in Gaza, but who knows? Maybe it happened. If so, eyewitnesses would be able to tell about it in one, very clear case: if they saw the helicopters coming in, effectively landing, and then leaving troops behind them. It's that simple.

The story told by the witness is straight from some Arabian tall tale. I am totally at loss for an explanation as to why the fact finders would have wished to cast themselves as giving the time of day to such fabulists, but I'm at loss for an explanation about lots of things in their report. Keep in mind, however, that one of the four members was chosen for being a military man, and some of their staff were hired for their military expertize, so it's not that they didn't know better.

Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Climate Change and Wars

Climate Change and Wars

Remember that time the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize gang awarded an American politician because his politics were right? No, not two weeks ago. And no, not Jimmy Carter. The 2007 prize, Al Gore and the UN Climate Change Panel.

Well, somebody did some fact checking:

THE starkest views of climate change paint war as a looming threat. The
idea that violence will erupt as drought and rising sea levels displace people
from their homes is, in part, why the Nobel prize for peace was awarded in 2007
to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore. Yet a newly
published study analysing the historical connection between war and climate
throws into question the assumption that rising temperatures and violence go
hand in hand.

Rather, the researchers tell, if the technology to deal with change is there, the change need not be threatening:

The lesson, rather, is that the way to minimise the likelihood of
climate-induced conflict in the future is to continue the process of crop
improvement (for example, by taking advantage of the potential of genetic
engineering) so that heat- and drought-tolerant varieties are available; to make
farmers aware of these new crops and encourage their use; and to promote free
trade and non-agricultural economic development.

Though, truth be told, at the very end of the article there's still this bit of wishful thinking:

That way people will have no cause to fight, and tyrants no excuse to stir them
up.

Touching isn't it. The assumption that people fight only for rational reasons. Here, see if you can apply it on this list.

Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Suicide Murders Against Muslims

Suicide Murders Against Muslims

Jeffrey Goldberg tells an interesting story:

Nine years ago, I was in Cairo for an emergency meeting of the Arab League,
which had gathered to discuss the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada.
Most everyone at the meeting was supportive of the Palestinian right, such as it
is, to use suicide bombers to kill Israeli civilians. Even Amr Moussa, who was
soon to become the secretary-general of the League, argued to me that suicide
bombing represented a legitimate attempt at self-defense. When I saw Moussa in
Cairo, I argued with him about this support. It seemed to me that Arab leaders
would one day reap the whirlwind for their endorsement of this gruesome terror
tactic, and I told him so. But he argued back, saying that the tragic and unique
reality of Palestine -- the special "desperation" of the Palestinians -- meant
that the tactic of sucide bombing would never spread beyond the borders of this
one conflict.. He was wrong, of course, and many more Muslims have since died in
attacks committed by suicide bombers than have Jews or Christians.

So Amr Moussa sincerely felt the Israelis were (are?) uniquely evil, did he. Today the suicidists have added the Iranian leadership to their list of enemies so evil one should die to kill them. It's a very long list.

Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Educated Haredim

Educated Haredim

The academic year started this morning. My son who's at Tel Aviv U called me earlier - he hadn't taken his Notebook this morning, and could I please use his password to find his personal section on the university's website to look up the classroom he was supposed to be in, because the information on the board in the entrance to the building was clearly wrong.

I'm reasonably technically literate as old codgers go, but the way technology has changed the way we do things can still give me pause.

So it's good to see yet another little piece of evidence that our Haredi community is finally accepting their need to have academic qualifications. They're moving incrementally, not revolutionarily, but they're moving. This is important for all of us, on many levels. It will enahnce their ability to pay for themselves; it will enrich their lives; it will enrich ours, too, if this rapidly growing minority among us figures out how to combine modernity with tradition better than they've been doing.

Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Bombing Civilians

Bombing Civilians

The New York Times magazine has a long profile of Stanley McChrystal, written by Dexter Filkins, who made the effort of embedding with a number of American fighting units in Helmand last summer, before talking to the usual suspects Stateside.

He appears to be an impressive man, does the General. I especially liked this little snippet

Yet for all his asceticism, McChrystal displays a subtlety that suggests a wider
view of the world. “If you were to go into his house, he has this unreal
library,” Maj. Gen. Michael Flynn, McChrystal’s intelligence chief and longtime
friend, told me this summer. “You can go over and touch a binding and ask him,
‘What’s that one about?’ And he’ll just start. His bad habit is wandering around
old bookstores. He’s not one of these guys that just reads military books. He
reads about weird things too. He’s reading a book about Shakespeare right now.”

Indeed, weird.

President Obama hired him for his present job, and I'm unabashedly hoping Obama will let him try to do his job as he understands it. Still, here's a story about how the war in Afghanistan was waged for its first eight years, and apparently sometimes still is, in spite of the General's attempts to change things. It's a story about a standard morning conference with the five generals who serve directly under McChrystal - an American, a German, an Italian, an Dutchman and a Frenchman:

One by one, the generals scrolled through the events from the day before: a
roadside bomb in Khost, small-arms fire in Ghazni, a British soldier killed in
Helmand Province. Then one of the European generals started talking about an
airstrike. A group of Taliban insurgents had attacked a coalition convoy, and
the soldiers called for air support. A Hellfire missile, the European general
said, obliterated an Afghan compound. The general — he cannot be named because
of the confidentiality of the meeting — was moving on to the next topic when
McChrystal stopped him.
“Can you come back to that, please?” McChrystal said. McChrystal’s voice is higher than you would expect for a four-star general.
“Yes, sir,” the European general said.

“We just struck a compound,” McChrystal said. “I would like for you to explain to me the process you used to shoot a Hellfire missile into a compound that might have had
civilians in it.”
The European commander looked at an aide and muttered something. The killing of Afghan civilians, usually caused by inadvertent American and NATO airstrikes, has become the most sensitive issue between the Afghans and their Western guests. Each time civilians are killed, the Taliban launch a campaign of very public propaganda.
“Were there civilians in that compound?” McChrystal asked. He was leaning into the microphone on the table.
The commander started to talk, but McChrystal kept going. “Who made that
decision?” McChrystal said.
An aide handed the European general a sheaf of papers.
“I’m sorry, but the system is not responsive enough for us to get that kind of information that quickly,” the general said.
McChrystal’s face began to tighten. Generals tend to treat one another with the utmost deference.
“We bomb a compound, and I don’t know about it until the next morning?” McChrystal said. “Don’t just tell me, ‘Yeah, it’s O.K.’ I want to know about it. I’m being a hard-ass about it.”
The European general looked down at his papers. “It seems it was not a Hellfire missile but a 500-pound bomb,” he said.
McChrystal took off his reading glasses and looked around the room — at the video screens and the other American officers.
“Gentlemen, we need to understand the implications of what we are doing,” he said. “Air power contains the seeds of our own destruction. A guy with a long-barrel rifle
runs into a compound, and we drop a 500-pound bomb on it? Civilian casualties
are not just some reality with the Washington press. They are a reality for the
Afghan people. If we use airpower irresponsibly, we can lose this fight.”

A European general. We're not told his nationality, but I'd love to know how the ambassador of his nation voted last week at the UNHRC as it tore into Israel for the way it wages war.

Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

British Colonel: IDF Safeguarded Civilian Lives in Gaza - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

British Colonel: IDF Safeguarded Civilian Lives in Gaza - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Shared via AddThis

Murdered Minister Remembered at Mt. Herzl - Inside Israel - Israel News - Israel National News

Murdered Minister Remembered at Mt. Herzl - Inside Israel - Israel News - Israel National News

Shared via AddThis

Video: Canadian Chief of Staff in First Official Visit to Israel - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Video: Canadian Chief of Staff in First Official Visit to Israel - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Shared via AddThis

Arabs Hurl Insults at Olmert During Speech - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Arabs Hurl Insults at Olmert During Speech - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Shared via AddThis

Arab Israeli Seriously Injured in Fire Bomb Attack - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Arab Israeli Seriously Injured in Fire Bomb Attack - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Shared via AddThis

Swine Flu Vaccine Set to Arrive in Israel - Inside Israel - Israel News - Israel National News

Swine Flu Vaccine Set to Arrive in Israel - Inside Israel - Israel News - Israel National News

Shared via AddThis

Building Peripheral Support for Soldiers - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Building Peripheral Support for Soldiers - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Shared via AddThis

RubinReports: Freed Reporter Smashes U.S. Policy Myths About Afghanistan, Pakistan, Taliban

Freed Reporter Smashes U.S. Policy Myths About Afghanistan, Pakistan, Taliban

Please Subscribe to Rubin Reports so you don't miss a single article.

By Barry Rubin

When reality breaks into the mainstream media it can be of earthquake intensity. Such is the New York Times article by David Rohde, a journalist held prisoner by the Taliban for over seven months and finally released.

Rohde's conclusions aren't of much comfort for the Obama Administration, or for those who are naive about radical Islamists, or indeed for his fellow journalists. But his honest thinking out loud should affect their writings and policies.

During his captivity, Rohde writes:

"I came to a simple realization. After seven years of reporting in the region, I did not fully understand how extreme many of the Taliban had become. Before the kidnapping, I viewed the
organization as a form of `Al Qaeda lite,' a religiously motivated movement primarily focused on controlling Afghanistan."

But he came to understand from close observation as a prisoner:

"I learned that the goal of the hard-line Taliban was far more ambitious....They wanted to create a fundamentalist Islamic emirate with Al-Qaeda that spanned the Muslim world.

With some important differences--and minus the al-Qaida (my preferred spelling) link, the same points apply to Hamas, Hizballah, the Iraqi insurgents, and Iran's regime. These are not moderate forces and won't be persuaded to change. And with another step downward in intensity--they use tactics other than violence, for example--he is also describing the anti-Iran Muslim Brotherhood groups, the Turkish regime (Islamism in one country), and a lot of the Islamists operating in Europe and America under "moderate" cover.

Then there's Rohde's second point:

"I had written about the ties between Pakistan’s intelligence services and the Taliban while covering the region for The New York Times. I knew Pakistan turned a blind eye to many of their activities. But I was astonished by what I encountered firsthand: a Taliban mini-state
that flourished openly and with impunity."

Or, in other words (and as Indian analysts keep trying to explain to the West), large elements of the Pakistani regime, military, and intelligence are the Taliban's best allies, as well as the sponsors of a variety of Islamist terrorist groups targeting India.

Yet it is that very country, Pakistan, that U.S. policy wants to depend on to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida. Washington ignores Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism, deep involvement in the dreadful Mumbai attack and other operations into India, and laziness in battling the Taliban and al-Qaida.

This doesn't mean that the Obama Administration should escalate or keep fighting directly in Afghanistan--I think that's a bad idea--but has to wake up and deal with the realities of that area.

After all, when Rohde speaks of his illusions about the Taliban, he is describing the policy line being pursued by high-ranking U.S. officials who have spoken of a moderate Taliban (like Hizballah's or Hamas's fabled and mythical "political wings") or even how the Taliban as a whole can be courted in order to fight better against al-Qaida.

Rohde is no longer a prisoner of the Taliban, but Washington is still the prisoner of terrible ideas about foreign policy.

RubinReports: Freed Reporter Smashes U.S. Policy Myths About Afghanistan, Pakistan, Taliban

RubinReports: How and Why Engagement with Sudan Shows Precisely What’s Wrong with Obama Administration Foreign Policy

How and Why Engagement with Sudan Shows Precisely What’s Wrong with Obama Administration Foreign Policy

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE: RAISE MY MORALE AND DON'T MISS A SINGLE ARTICLE

By Barry Rubin

The Obama Administration apparently thinks that its policy of engaging repressive radical anti-American dictators has been working so well as to extend it now to Sudan. This is the meaning of the new policy to be on this issue October 19.

That country’s government, once accused of genocide in the south, is now said to have been doing the same thing in the west. Mass murder and ferocious repression—300,000 people have been killed; 2.7 million made refugees--has been so prevalent that the country’s president Omar al-Bashir is under an international indictment for war crimes and Sudan is on the State Department list as a country sponsoring terrorism.

Far from being inconvenienced by this fact, however, Sudan has been playing a leading role in the effort to do the same to Israel: that is, wipe it out while simultaneously accusing it of war crimes. Sudan is the current leader of the “non-aligned” group at the UN, the largest bloc of members, and one of the main countries pushing to indict Israel for war crimes.

So to anyone who understands how international affairs works it would appear:

A. That the United States is rewarding Sudan for its behavior.

B. That the United States has already reached an agreement with Sudan that it will act differently at home and in the UN before giving it a big concession.

C. The United States is afraid of Sudan.

None of the above points are true. Therefore, this raises a case study regarding the most important issue of all whose absence from the Obama Administration list of priorities is most noticeable on every issue:

What will the Sudanese government do for the United States? Imagine, in the same week that Khartoum has flouted U.S. interests by pushing the Goldstone report through the UN Human Rights Council, Washington is going to reward it with a renewed relationship.

This sounds familiar:

The U.S. government announced the withdrawal of a plan to put anti-missile missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland on the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland at a time when Russia’s leader rejects sanctions on Iran and reaffirms the rationale for annexing much of Poland in 1939.

The U.S. government agreed to engage Iran immediately following the stealing of an election there and the repression of peaceful dissidents.

So we see the same pattern:

--A major concession while receiving nothing in exchange.

--The timing of a concession at a moment when the other side is acting in a particularly aggressive manner.
This is justified, however, by what might well be called the administration’s “cookie” philosophy. This was expressed by retired Major General J. Scott Gration, who has been handling U.S. policy toward Sudan. The former general, who has no previous diplomatic experience—something he has in common with the president—explained, "We've got to think about giving out cookies,’ said Gration. `Kids, countries--they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement."

No, that’s not how things work. Reality is better expressed by a Sudanese dissident who said that U.S. rapprochement with the regime will give it confidence to crack down all the harder and, I might add, be more aggressive abroad. That’s precisely, by the way, the effect of the policy on Iran and elsewhere.

So how does the administration guard against such an outcome? It warns that the violence and humanitarian abuses must stop. But a verbal warning from a government eager to renounce toughness and eager to forget all trespasses against U.S. interests is not exactly credible.

You see, the argument is that engagement will make the lives of people in Sudan better and persuade the regime from stopping its sponsorship of terrorism. In principle, this is a reasonable argument but only if three conditions are met:

--Real pressure is applied.

--Concrete, material proof is presented by that country’s behavior before the benefits are provided.

--There is real evidence the regime wants to change its behavior.

All these conditions are lacking regarding Sudan, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria, and every other country the administration is coddling. One can add the Palestinian Authority to the list.

But here’s the problem: If the United States demands that these countries do something, they won’t. This has certain implications:

--U.S. policy toward them will appear to have failed, thus making the administration look bad.

--They will be angry and denounce Obama, thus undercutting his vaunted international popularity.

--The resulting friction might force the United States to engage in tough measures, which could be seen as imperialist bullying.

--Friction could lead to military measures, thus pressing the United States toward having to use force or the threat of force, which would damage the administration’s argument that “soft power” works.

I am not being cynical or joking in providing this list. Such things are the ideas and goals which paralyze the Obama Administration from the kind of policy needed in today’s world.

Equally, there is nothing either conservative or liberal in this analysis. It is the framework by which almost all previous American presidents have conducted foreign polic. If anything, liberals have historically been far more forthright in wanting to pressure repressive dictatorships. Yet here is a presidency supposedly built on compassion whose policy means that Sudan’s people will suffer even more.

RubinReports: How and Why Engagement with Sudan Shows Precisely What’s Wrong with Obama Administration Foreign Policy

THE ADVENTURES OF DEAN MARTIN AND JERRY LEWIS

Israel Matzav: Overnight music video

Israel Matzav: Overnight music video

Israel Matzav: 'Don't go breaking my....'

'Don't go breaking my....'

This is a little raunchy for this site - I hope you'll all forgive me.

It's from The Nose on Your Face....

Let's go to the videotape.









Israel Matzav: 'Don't go breaking my....'

ALF COVERS

Israel Matzav: Obama using Goldstone Report as a club against Israel

Obama using Goldstone Report as a club against Israel

Haaretz reports that the Obama administration is using the Goldstone Report as a club against Israel.

Even if the legal process that Goldstone initiated ends up being halted, and Israel is not put in the dock in The Hague, its hands have been tied. The world, led by Obama, will not let it initiate a Cast Lead II operation. Certainly not when a right-wing government is in power in Jerusalem led by Benjamin Netanyahu, whom the world loves to hate. Netanyahu's clumsy attempt, in his Knesset speech this week, to link the war in Gaza to opposition leader Tzipi Livni did not really succeed. He is in power and the world considers him responsible. The Americans and the Europeans are using the Goldstone report to punish Netanyahu for his refusal to freeze the settlements.

You can take that with a grain of salt, since it's Haaretz and it was written by Aluf Benn. But he's right that Obama and the Europeans may well use the Goldstone Report as a club against Israel. The good news is that there is almost no backing in Israel for a total 'settlement freeze' as demanded by Obama (not even from Livni by the way). If Netanyahu is going down, everyone else is going down with him.

Israel Matzav: Obama using Goldstone Report as a club against Israel

Israel Matzav: James Jones to speak at J Street gala

Israel Matzav: James Jones to speak at J Street gala