Tag Archives: Jerusalem Post

July 8, 2015 · 10:37

In the lull of news

As people brace themselves for the outcome of another Greek deadline, the US army will find itself cut by 40,000 troops and there seems to be ongoing talks between Iran and interested parties. The last one is the one that feels like it is largely ignored. There is nothing sexy on nuclear talks and unless you are Israel, most people do not care. Yet, is that the clear truth?

This is what the BBC gives us (at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33424502), “The so-called P5+1 – the US, UK, France, China and Russia plus Germany – want Iran to scale back its sensitive nuclear activities to ensure that it cannot build a nuclear weapon“, which sounds of course really nice on paper (and in theory). Yet, when we look at the quote “The sticking points are said to include the duration of limits on Iranian nuclear research and development, guidelines for international inspections and how sanctions will be lifted. Tehran is also demanding that the UN ban on the import and export of conventional arms and ballistic missiles be lifted as part of any deal”

We have to wonder for how long this ‘agreement’ will last and why we see ‘export of conventional arms and ballistic missiles‘, why is that? Perhaps certain Middle Eastern parties have been waiting on a Misagh-2 delivery? It might just be another model, so as we might understand that Iran would want to open options for import, the reasons for export are a little fuzzier as well as who would buy them? Russia? They have excellent missiles themselves and they supply them to nations all over the world too. So the question becomes, why allow for export? Especially when a captured stockpile of IS showed “26 of the recovered shells were made in Iran, an ally of Assad’s, and 18 were made in Syria itself, the report states” (at http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/10/06/where-does-the-islamic-state-get-its-weapons/). So certain parties are already getting arms somehow under an embargo, when the floodgate opens, the balance of power will shift in the Middle East, especially as certain parties are getting funded somehow (reference to Hamas). So even as we might not like, but could not openly object to Iran improving its defences (from Russian Stockpiles) there should remain a strong vigilant approach to not letting them export weapons of any kind.

In the Jerusalem Post we see the headline ‘Iranian official: US will remain our enemy despite emerging nuclear deal’, which is fair enough, and the quote “”Our enmity with them is over the principles and is rooted because we are after the truth and nations’ freedom, but they seek exploiting nations and putting them in chains” he explained further” is fair enough, we can’t all be friends, yet the problem is that its military commander stated ““This is the duty of the Muslim world to obey the order of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution (Khamenei) and arm the Palestinian people so that a powerful response will be given to the Zionist regime,” said Brig. Gen. Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, commander of the Army Ground Force” not too long ago (august 2014), which beckons the dangers of letting Iran export weapons. Consider that a mere lieutenant or a master sergeant can lose certain items in his depot at times, so how much can get ‘lost’ in a depot when a General is calling the shots?

Is that so far-fetched?

This is at the core if the issue, the heart of the matter is quite a different thing here.

You see, the core is about the enrichment. LiveScience had an interesting quote “Separating that type of uranium from the more common variety requires a great deal of engineering skill, despite the fact that the technology needed to do it is decades old. The challenge lies not in figuring out how to separate uranium, but in constructing and running the equipment needed for the task“, so if we accept “The key to their separation is that atoms of uranium-235 weigh slightly less than atoms of uranium-238” so if the approach of a centrifuge gives us “Each centrifuge pulls out a little bit of uranium-238, and then passes the slightly refined gas mixture onto the next tube, and so on, until many hundreds of thousands of spins later, the gas remaining in the tube is almost entirely composed of uranium-235” a clear explanation by Jeff Binder, the isotope production program manager at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Yet is that the only way? Stanford University has a course called Physics 241, where we see Uranium Enrichment by Misam Jaffer, who also gives us “Laser separation: The use of laser separation for uranium enrichment is based on the principle of differential photoexicitation of isotopes of uranium by the use of monochromatic radiation. One such process is the Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation (AVLIS) in which the laser light used photo ionizes a particular isotope while not affecting the others and changes its physical or chemical properties which are then utilized to separate the desired isotope, which in uranium enrichment is U-235. In doing so, the U-235 ions are positively charged and hence are attracted to a negatively charged plate and collected“, we will get all kinds of ‘experts’ telling us how this is not as efficient, or other words added into telling us on how this is not good enough. Yet, with Brig. Gen. Ahmad Reza Pourdastan in charge in Iran, ‘good enough’ is not the issue, the issue becomes, is it good enough to make a dirty bomb?

That is the fear Israel has been dealing with, because when missiles start flying from around Rafah, they will not need a hit, it just needs to get close enough to Beer Shiva, Ashkelon and Tel Aviv to make the issue evolve into something truly terrifying for the middle east, because at that point the US has absolutely no chance of getting a hold of the situation. the fact that some of the negotiating players have no clue (or do not care) regarding that danger is seen in the quote “Foreign ministers of the other powers started to return to Vienna on Sunday to help push for a swift deal“, please give me one example where a nuclear ‘swift deal‘ was ever a good idea, and in light of the glow in the dark consequences, should the word ‘swift’ be allowed to be used?

You see, the end quote “US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday that reaching an agreement is possible this week if Iran makes the ‘hard choices’ necessary, but if not, the United States stands ready to walk away from the negotiations” sounds nice, yet the reality is, is that the US has not had any clear defining diplomatic victories for a long time, in that light, the word ‘swift’ is not that reassuring and I feel 99.53324% certain (roughly) that it leaves Israel with not such a good feeling either, especially that any lifting of the embargo means that their Iron Domes might have to work overtime soon thereafter.

The last part is not just an assumption, with many newsreels on missile attacks on Israel in 2015 alone.

So how did we get from Iran to Israel? Simple, Iran is an open supporter of Hamas. In addition, the top leaders of the Iranian military are eager to carve their names in history in anti-Israel acts and Hamas is eager to oblige. The fact that ISIS is all over Gaza and the Sinai only makes matters worse. So as some might strip away parts of any embargo on Iran, they should also keep a keen eye on what they give away, because it seems that the issue is not just ‘what could aid Iran’, but these people are also contemplating (on a daily basis) ‘what could hurt the US and its ally Israel’, there is not too much on that side of the equation, which makes any ‘swift deal’ a worry for several players (read victims) involved.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, Ashkelon, Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation, BBC, Beer Shiva, Brig. Gen. Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, China, conventional arms, France, Gaza, Germany, Hamas, Iran, ISIS, Israel, Jeff Binder, Jerusalem Post, John Kerry, Misam Jaffer, nuclear weapon, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Physics 241, Russia, Sinai, Stanford University, Tel Aviv, UN, Uranium Enrichment, US, US Secretary of State John Kerry

December 30, 2014 · 14:42

Fur ball?

OK, I thought I was done for the year, you know, the last article when I threw a little lob ball in a less serious approach to reporting events. However, that part threw me a little fur ball, almost like coughing up the Cheshire cat.

It all started with the Jerusalem Post today, at least that is when I noticed the message. The title states: ‘Israel expects world community to oppose Palestinian efforts at UN, Netanyahu says‘ (at http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Israel-expects-world-community-to-oppose-Palestinian-efforts-at-UN-Netanyahu-says-386058), true, there are issues with the entire UN debacle to some extent; my emphasis is regarding the use of ‘some’. You see, as much as I oppose the entire anti-Semitic approach towards Israel. Having a strong anti-Palestinian view seems equally wrong; however, Palestine has created this issue whilst condoning whatever Hamas did to the largest extent, which is completely unacceptable either, none of those actions make sense. The quote “Israel will oppose conditions that will endanger our future” is very much central into this. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is very correct in that statement. Hamas has always and remains ‘dedicated’ to wiping out Israel, which beckon the thought why the EEC courts would rule against giving Hamas the ‘terrorist’ label. We could argue and speculate on how this is even acceptable. Did this grow out of fear on the Islamic state presence in both Gaza and Sinai? The fact that they are growing in Libya and even in other parts of North Africa is a nightmare scenario coming true (at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/27/islamic-state-opening-front-in-north-africa/). There have been unconfirmed reports of Islamic State in Algeria, but if so, if they could start getting any level of hold in Morocco, then they are just a footstep away from Spain. That should scare the EEC plenty, they have no funds left to manage any event, and giving up Israel means that they get a little time to ‘clean up’ their border issues. This would be a step that is delusional in many ways. You see, Israel remains essential to balance in the Middle East. The Economic Judges took little notice of that part of the equation; just on the formality of what a terrorist is, (apparently blowing up Sbarro filled with civilians is not a terrorist act). By the way, did anyone notice how there dos not seem to be any paper explaining the formality in that legality? Just the fact that is was ‘a formality’.

The second quote is the one that seems to be a little debatable: “Netanyahu said that Israel and western civilization were under attack from Iran and Islamic radicals, and that this attack also included Palestinian efforts to impose a solution that would endanger Israel’s security and place its future in danger“, one part should be (as I see it): “under attack from extreme supporters within the Iranian government and Islamic radicals“, which would be more correct. I do not believe all Iranian (at present) are like that, yet open support from Iran towards Hamas has been seen, these military elements seem to get some political protection, which proves my point (to some extent), yet I am not certain (or there is at least a decent level of doubt) that it does not blanket all political Iran as I see it. The fact that President Obama announced the possibility of an American Embassy in Tehran is not a bad thing, but these developments should be closely watched, because there is an issue. It is not the fact that this meeting was with Indiana Governor Mike Pence. The act that he is a Republican and that this meeting was absent of Democratic heavy weights might be fuel for speculation were the current Democratic administration stands. Especially as the White house was unwilling to confirm or deny it stance towards Israel. This has all the makings of a political issue that should be a moral one. Israel remains under siege from rockets on a nearly daily basis, it seems that people forget how the US reacted when there was some demolition going on in New York close to the corner of West Street and Liberty street. Let us not forget that this was ONE event. Israel has remained under attack for decades. Israel now has two generations under attack from rocket fire. These events cannot be compared, but perhaps the Americans can remember their anger on September 12^th, which is the feeling Israel has had for a long time. It wants to survive plain and simple. It’s neighbour will continue to attack Israel, whilst Israel wants to survive, yet, in fairness, I must look towards the other side too. I believe there can be a Palestine WITHOUT Hamas. That is an option, but Hamas does not want it, it wants to lead and to do that, it must remove Israel. It is not a puzzle, it is a simple equation, one denies the existence of the other solution, so I must side with Israel and as such, as long as there is Hamas, there can be no Palestine. A situation now worsened with the existence of Islamic state in that area.

There is another view that I must bring forth. I am not sure if I can agree with it as there are a few parts that touch on items I never looked at (it is not a small document at http://www.academia.edu/5145129/Gunning_-_The_Conflict_and_the_Question_of_Engaging_with_Hamas_in_EUISS_CP124_European_Involvement_in_the_Arab-Israeli_Conflict), but it has views that are not invalid. As such, I call to attention to the following part “They could, for example, spell out the rewards that would be forthcoming for a new unity government that would share responsibility for delivering basic services and the rule of law in both the West Bank and Gaza“, this is found on page 41. I am not stating that this is happening, but when we consider the events, it is not that far a stretch to see that this might be part of a path that the EEC is currently treading. If so, they will soon see the other side of a terrorist organisation. It remains nice and talkative as long as steps in their direction are made; when that stops when THEY need to show progress there will be delays, miss-communication and other events. Then those big business judges will see innuendo towards ‘give us the rest or else‘, then what? When THEIR ego is in play, what will they decide then? Let us not forget that they are gambling with the existence of the state of Israel. When they are told, there are 10 solutions to this and ‘no’ is not an option, whilst they contemplate what the other 8 options are, when they suddenly realise it was a binary question with a ‘no’ and a ‘yes’, the other 8 solutions never existed in the first place, then what? They might not have pulled the trigger, but they are skating towards the end of Israel for the simple comfort of mind that never existed. You see, terrorists are extremists, they only cater to the view of ‘self’, with no regard of any other view. Israel is trying to survive, plain and simple, a war that continued from 1945 onwards.

Yet, there was also a spark of visibility (in other areas), that gave me pause to consider other dimensions. Not in regarding to what goes boom, but in another direction. In the same way that we look at the EEC decision of Hamas, there is a Jewish issue that the Jerusalem post shows, which gives us another part of this cloak. It is seen at http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Rabbi-Meir-Mazuz-responds-to-Rabbi-Cohens-attack-on-Yishai-385989. As we see a needed separation of politics and Law, we see an equal need to separate state from church (as many have always seen it in the US and other places). The quotes were “Rabbi Shalom Cohen, he should be well, is a great Torah scholar, a righteous man and a great intellectual, but he does not come down to the people and, therefore, he does not understand the common people”, “He has never held public office and served most of his career as a rabbi in yeshiva and a yeshiva dean, not as a halachic arbiter dealing with the questions of Jewish law that are brought to senior rabbis for a ruling” and “Mazuz seemingly referenced one of Cohen’s recent outbursts in which he said during a prayer service at the Western Wall for the welfare of IDF soldiers during Operation Protective Edge that Israel did not need an army because “It is God almighty who fights for Israel.”“. Now I am not debating the issues as they are, I feel not qualified to do so, but there are issues as they have always been in almost any religion. I would not elect a Rabbi to political office, for the same reasons I would not vote for the election of a Catholic in that same category, each having a slight radical, absolute view. A woman’s ‘right to choose’ abortion would end pretty much immediately, also, there would be a diminished view for defence and an increase or humanitarian needs and diplomacy. Yet, Diplomacy without military power could be regarded as either pointless, or useless. Diplomacy requires a stick to fight with when ‘the’ word is ignored. It is counterproductive when we know that the stick remains ignored and the diplomatic view is ignored completely when we know that there is no stick in the first place. This is the damage that Julian Assange created, which too many ignored. The anti-American league had a field day when they saw WHERE the US had made commitments, knowing where the stick was, toppled many American diplomatic endeavour, whilst they remained in the dark where the other sticks were. That view is only emphasised when we see the Jewish elections. How can the people be served without their military need for defence? Is that not counter to the Torah? If we know that the IDF abides by what is seen as “The Torah establishes the boundaries of what is permitted and forbidden in war for both individual and for society“, which gives us how Hamas waged war, yet the ‘legalised’ view of the EEC disregarded that overall view and reacted to, what I regard to be an economic view of judgement, which gives us the escalating issues. The added incentive here is that no one has actually give any visibility on how the ruling was made, on what legal premise is was founded, is this not strange too?

So, as we consider on who makes rulings on how judiciary choices are made, we must consider that the players have their own agenda. Whether we should consider how the law is seen (by some) and when we see how economies ad terrorists make decisions, in a morally biased way how, is any of it regarded as legal? Is there a boundary between those who fell from a rocket and those who fell through economic ‘treason’? How does that reflect differently on the victim? There is a famous quote we see Lee Marvin make in the movie ‘The Big red one’ (one of my five all-time war movies). There he states “We don’t murder; we kill“, I am certain that it did not matter to the one whose live we end, only to our own morality to pull the trigger. A morality a terrorist or a stockbroker for that matter does not seem to have.

You see, the sniper kills (or murders) for the protection of others, the terrorist and stockbroker acts for the wealth (or survival) of self at the expense of (all) others, elements of the same sides of two different coins.

So as the fur ball coughs up a Cheshire Cat, we must worry for the future, we all seem to disregard certain values and adhere to choices of our own survival, even if that requires us to realign our morality, just the slightest. As Saruman the White becomes Saruman of many colours, we see the fading of white, the finding of what was actually right and we lose ourselves into a world where we remove the fences that were there to protect us all. What happens next? I do not know, or even pretend to know, but I do worry, because 2015 is likely to be a year of turmoil, a year where we had to focus on a better economy, a side that might be pushed aside for whatever escalation comes next.

Dangers of clarity

There is a level of danger when you see with too much clarity. This is a statement in the subjective, if we look at what we examine the statements we make ourselves, but it is seen in the objective we judge those same statements when stated by others. The initial crux is that both are of course subjective, as our views are set towards our judgement of whomever the other is who is making the statement.

Even in my case, no matter what evidence I add as a link, it is a link of a newspaper, online news presence or even online newscasts. As the reader regards that entity as a valid one, it remains objective or subjective and is rejected as we do not agree with it. That view does not change whether we use the Guardian, Sky News, the Jerusalem Post or the Haaretz.

One of the issues in play is the Arms deal that Russia seems to have completed with Egypt, whilst the funding is coming from Saudi Arabia. (at http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Egypt-seeks-Russian-arms-that-could-undermine-treat-with-Israel-344465 as well as http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/In-sign-of-warming-ties-Russian-military-delegation-visits-Egypt-348150)

Having too much clarity is at times just as dangerous as being too honest. If you consider that there is no such thing as being too honest, then mention to your wife that her behind is way big in that dress. Good luck getting diner or getting ‘some’ in general. No matter how good the connection is between people, being too honest tends to sour the milk, so to speak. Trust me, I have applied it as a deterrent to remain single and it has worked like a charm these last two decades.

The issues that is connected to this all is whether one of US ‘greatest’ allies in all this is now footing the bill for Egypt on Russian arms. The quote “Egypt completed a $2 billion arms deal with Russia, financed by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, an Egyptian newspaper reported last month” is at the heart of this.

So, what is linked to this? Why not a US arms deal? If we look at this, then this is just the economic boost America needs. My worry is that this is another signal that America is showing us how ‘great’ there economy is growing, but is that truly the case? Is this about something else? Perhaps this is payback for the frozen aid from the US, which was supposed to get lifted this year. The article has however two quotes that are also in play. The first one is “Egyptians see the US as an unreliable ally, stated the report, which led Egyptian army chief Field Marshal Abdel Fattah al-Sisi ‘to seek Moscow’s help in diversifying the country’s sources of military procurement’”, the second one is “Despite reassurances from Egyptian officials, the Russian weapons deal – if concluded – portends a gradual reduction in Washington’s ability to control the quality and quantity of weapons that Cairo receives, and to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region“.

This gives us two new issues that will give pressure in the Middle East. As the US state department is implied to have dropped the ball, the issue that US currency does not hold the value it held only 3 years ago gives us also two fears (which I will get back to in a moment). The second issue is that Egypt is feeling played and as such; Saudi Arabia is now stepping in to give leadership to the Middle East (or so is implied).

In the first part, the two fears are that as the Dollar is degraded in the mind of the oil producing nations, the fallout I expected to see later, might come a lot faster than even I imagined. The second fear is that if the influence of the US dwindles in the Middle East, the parties that remained ‘neutral’ in the Middle East are now likely to instigate terror attacks on the state of Israel and even on each other.

Now for the kicker in all this, there is information in the Israeli papers, but no one else seems to be onto this. Not the Guardian, not CNN, not Sky News, so is this arms deal real or not? According to the Canadians (at http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/general-dynamics-canada-wins-10b-deal-with-saudi-arabia-1.2537934), we see that Saudi Arabia has set up shop for themselves for a little over 10 billion spanning the next 14 years, so this gives another view. What is real and what is actually happening? I get that some papers will ‘drop’ a story, but will they ALL drop it? This is at the center of all of this.

So in the subjective we read “Israel is in danger“, in the objective it becomes “is Israel in danger“. A movie comparison might be Beetlejuice versus Candyman. From the Israeli papers we see a Wes Craven story play out, yet the absence of these news stories in pretty much all the large newspapers implies that we are watching a less frightening version by Tim Burton.

The larger issue here is that these events also contribute to the integrity of Israel. Both Israeli politics as well as Mossad, both have a responsibility here. It cannot be about allegations and unsubstantiated information on arms deals. This only intensifies the pressures that are already close to a breaking point. As the Ukrainian issues are evolving, the last thing we need are wild wild west stories on arms deals that do not exist (or do they?).

That part becomes question when we see the BBC news (at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26177792). The article was from Feb 13^th, not the worst runner up gift discussion when we consider that pesky cherub Valentine (Feb 14^th for the non-romantics under us). So the news was there, what is interesting that it gives credibility that this arms deal could be in a finalising stage, but then, why is no one looking at this? This is the deal I had not mentioned in my article ‘Setting the stage‘ on March 27^th, which means that if this is true, then the ‘financial pressure‘ posturing is even less sincere from the US and Europe in regards to the Crimean events.

Still, the actual truth is for now an unknown, which gets us back to the title. Clarity in these events will force us to view possible outstanding dangers, the only question remains is ‘who faces clarity and who is in real danger?’; consider how the truth of one event can change this around on several players.

Academic Discrimination?

The night was still young when my faithful iPad 1 was beeping me about an issue that had hit the Jerusalem Post (at http://www.jpost.com/International/92-universities-reject-academic-boycott-of-Israel-336771). I could not believe my eyes! A bucket of icy cold water could not have woken me any faster. I had to do some digging (not all sources are of the highest quality), so here is the rundown.

The Guardian had this headline “Why a boycott of Israeli academics is fully justified” (at http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/sep/12/boycott-israeli-academics-justified). And they call themselves academics?

Now, as a non-academic act, here is a wiki page (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks), showing a few issues with the entire endeavour. In addition, these are just the bombings. The list of Hamas ‘actions’ on other fronts are a lot longer and several governments would be very unwilling to confirm several of those acts on their soil. In addition, since 2010 close to 2500 rocket attacks had been made from Gaza by Hamas against Israel.

So, do these academics have ANY clue what they are doing, supporting or talking about? The fact that well over a 100 universities at this time all slammed the boycott brought by the ASA, might be an indication that the ASA could be in for a massive structural reshuffle. The fact that such an act of utter opposition to academic freedom even made it to a vote is already cause for concern in my view.

A quote from Dartmouth College by Paul Mirengoff stated “The ASA consists of approximately 5,000 members. 1,265 of them voted on the resolution, with 66 percent of them supporting it.”

So 66% of the 25% members that voted got this all carried?

The second quote “Among them are Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, New York University, Yale, and Dartmouth College.” (at www.powerlineblog.com) I reckon that under these circumstances, Mr Mirengoff should proudly mention his college next to those Ivy league big boys. Some of the names that Mr Mirengoff did not mention were Stanford, Brown, Duke and Georgetown, but he might not have had those names in any official way at that time. The list (as complete as can be) can be found here http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/12/list-of-universities-rejecting-academic-boycott-of-israel/

It is quite possible that at the time of my writing even more Universities and Colleges joined those ranks.

The issue that is even more paramount is the entire boycotting affair. Yes against Israel, but no opposition to Iranian or Russian Universities? How about Cuban Universities, like the University of Havana?

Now for my own ‘academic’ mistake! Should I have compared Palestinian Academics with Hamas? Is that just not as grievous an error? If we accept Reuters article of last June (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/02/us-palestinians-idUSBRE9510BK20130602) as a given, then there is a distance between some academics and Hamas and its goals, this does not mean that Hamas does not have within its ranks a fair number of distinguished academics (an assumption on my side). Any war has sides and an academic will just like others choose a side. His views and reasoning could be valid, sane and logical. So, when there is an alleged issue in Israeli Universities in regards to Palestinian scholars, then we need to see what actually is happening. The quote “the massive restrictions on academic freedom for Palestinian scholars” is misleading. Is there any restriction against scholars, or are there restrictions on those supporting Hamas? I do not claim to know the answer, or to even have a clue how that equation is in place (if it amounts to some equation that is in place). We do however have decades of acts by Hamas against Israel, most of it nicely mapped. The quote “Hamas and other Palestinian militant organizations contend that they will settle for nothing less than the dissolution of the entire Jewish state.” has reverberated over the media and the internet for almost half a century. It is interesting that the ASA has had little time to illuminate such a level of prosecution against Israel and its Jewish population.

In my view, academics need to remain outside of that entire political debacle for the simple reason that as long as there is one group that remains talking to each other, the option for any peaceful solution will remain a possible reality.