Tag Archives: Nahum Admoni

One failing director?

It does not happen often, it is actually rare to say the least. When I go back to the one I remember the best (former director Admoni), the ranks of Mossad have been nothing but exercises in excellence. when I think of them I remember the words of Robert Graves regarding General Tiberius (before he became emperor). “Every drill was a war, every war a bloody drill“, It is no different for Mossad, I reckon that Nahum Admoni, Shabtai Shavit, Meir Dagan and Tamir Pardo are perhaps the only men I have truly ever feared. Every security drill a war, every war a drill set to perfection, when the directors of the CIA, MI-6, DGSE, VAJA, FSB and GRU have nightmares, these are the 4 men that they dream about, each of them grilled for war, for subterfuge and all masters of intelligence gathering. Going up against them is like Boris Spassky or Anatoly Karpov offering you a game of chess that is unless you really pissed someone off, at which point it will be a smiling Bobby Fischer facing you. No matter how you slice it, you mess with Mossad at your own peril that is until recently. A case has been out in the open and I cannot fathom how Yossi Cohen left the game this open, and his pieces unprotected and setting them in the optional sunlight of direct peril.

I am talking about the Malka Leifer case. After the entire Catholic Anal Retentive Entertainment case (CARE), as nation after nation went berserk with the Catholic clergy, we now see another mess grow to fruition and even as the anti-Jewish sentiments have never been the fault of Israeli’s, Jews or the state of Israel, the antipathy that the Malka Leifer case is growing could have much larger repercussions. People who have always been open to a larger field of more religions, most of them fathers and mothers who are overly protective of their children; that group is confronted with rage, anger and confusion as we see that her extradition case has dragged on for five years, involved 57 hearings and more than 30 psychiatrists. Now we all heard and most of us can accept a second opinion, yet I feel certain that director Yossi (or director Yoshi when he is playing his Nintendo Switch) has no real explanation why the other 28 psychiatrists were needed, especially as most cases in the IDF get one psychiatrist at the most. So why we see Malka Leifer getting 5 years and 28 additional voices on a setting that could have been decided within 90 days with no more than 4 psychiatrists (two for each side) is a little beyond me.

The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/malka-leifers-case-is-shaking-the-australian-jewish-communitys-faith-in-israel) also gives us: “Dassi Erlich and her sisters, Nicole Meyer and Elly Sapper, have mounted a courageous campaign to have her extradited. Their advocacy has given the case a high profile within the local Jewish community“, in light of all this, we see not the case on the law, we see an optional pressure point against the state of Israel that Yoshi could have solved by putting Malka in a drop cloth and delivering her quietly at any Australian airport with a label ‘יהיה לך יום מקסים‘ attached to the package.

In this day and age where observation and deduction is the core stage for Mossad we see: “Leifer’s lawyers claim she suffers from paralysing anxiety and is mentally unfit to face court; yet despite clear-cut video evidence that she is going about her life as normal“, Malka is playing a game that has outreached its timeline and when we consider what she has been and what he is likely to become over the coming year, the case for Mossad is clear. You see, Mossad is responsible to keep the state safe, even as Malka is no danger, she is instilling anti-Israeli sentiments and that is a different matter, in this, as Mossad is by good luck exempt from the Constitutional Laws of the State of Israel, a more secure setting could be reached. In this, as we remember that extradition does not mean execution, it merely means that Malka Leifer has to face a court and a jury in a nation that does not have the death penalty. Can Yossi Cohen sit by and let pressures build that in the end will be poised and aimed at the wrong target? In the end, does Malka Leifer not get what she deserves? Having to personally face those she wronged? Perhaps that is the true fear that Malka faces, the mirror of accountability. It tends to paralyse to fear most people, which is not an acceptable form of defence in the first place, if that were true every taxpayer would get a lifelong reprieve from paying their taxation (that is a lovely idea though).

Yet the non-extradition is also a cloak of protection towards others, as we remember the small part “school management helped spirit her to Israel in 2008“, I feel certain that those so called ‘managers’ must equally be afraid on Malka entering a courtroom and their actions become open to scrutiny, yet that is one part that should not stop Director Cohen, if these managers are willing to do that, what other harm could they propagate? Is that not a valid question? I personally believe that extraditing does not give doubt to the state of Israel, inaction will give doubt, and you merely have to look at the Catholic impact to see that part.

That is when we get to the one debatable part. the quote “there has been an implicit acceptance by the heartland of Australian Jewry that the conflict is intractable, everyone’s hands are dirty and that Israeli governments should not be judged any more harshly than others around the world“, I do not disagree with that sentiment, but in equal matter, the stage of judgement of the inactions by the state of Israel is optionally building weights on the wrong side of the scales for the State of Israel and I believe that there is wisdom of removing all weights that are on the scales that support Israeli opposition, when the scales are set, you want to make sure that the playing field is equal or in favour for the State of Israel and in all this Malka Leifer has become too much of a counterweight to the agenda and needs of the State of Israel.

This should not be allowed to continue as it is.

 

 

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Ding, Ding! Round two

It is always nice to get to have additional entertainment at the same price. Some people are partially that gullible. So when I see: ‘Labour hits out at ‘false’ claims over Corbyn cemetery visit‘, I thought it was only fair to address the accusations and defence, one must after all be willing to stand ones ground.

So here I am looking for the setting that they claim is ‘false’.

We start with “the commemoration for the 74 people who had died was attended by “mainstream leaders”, including a Palestinian authority minister“. Well, that would be fine, but who are exactly those ‘mainstream leaders‘? The absence of names is a first indication that the entire setting was wobbly from the start. Yet now we get to the stuff that matters. They also state “None of those who carried out the Munich massacre are buried in the Palestinian cemetery at Tunis and there was no ceremony held for them“. This is important, as I basically used all kinds of journalistic sources (read: newspapers) for my findings. Yet now when we revisit: “a wreath-laying for individuals behind the group that carried out the Munich Olympic massacre“. Here we see the issue, you see. I decided to find all of them, which did not take that long. The mastermind Mohammad Daoud Oudeh is at the Martyrs Cemetery of the Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp on the southern outskirts of Damascus. This is supported by France 24 (at http://www.france24.com/en/20100703-mastermind-behind-munich-olympics-attacks-dies-abu-daoud-palestine-israel). So are we being duped again by the publications of the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Evening Standard? Let’s continue with the Attackers. Luttif Afif was buried in the Sidi Munaidess Cemetery, as were Yusuf Nazzal, Khalid Jawad and Afif Ahmed Hamid. The issue around Adnan Al-Gashey is a controversie. Mossad reported Al-Gashey died naturally in Dubai in the late 70’s. We see that in ‘Striking back : the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre and Israel’s deadly response, 2005‘, yet the documentary ‘One Day in September‘ gives that the Israeli Mossad ‘healthcare cancelation team‘ deleted his existence as well as Mohammed Safady who is as far as I can tell still alive at present. The other remaining member Jamal Al-Gashey is apparently hiding in North Africa (read: Egypt) in fear of his life, married with kids.

So in that respect, from the evidence that I was able to find, there is indeed no evidence (unless someone hands it to me) that any of those part of the Munich massacre were indeed in that cemetery and in that respect (for that element only) I do apologise, not for the sentiment, which will be illustrated below.

Is there an issue?

Yes! The setting is clear. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was created with the purpose of the “liberation of Palestine” through armed struggle, with the focus of violence aimed at Israeli civilians. We can accept that there needs to be a setting of a dialogue with anyone (even with terrorists), it is in the end the essential path towards ending any conflict. Yet attending the funeral event, even as it was condemned might not have been the best setting to do that. In addition, the attack (also known as operation Wooden Leg) was a response to the events of September 25th 1985 when during the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur, members of the PLO’s hijacked an Israeli yacht near Cyprus, and killed the Israeli tourists on board. The shock of this action was quite large in Israel. The attack was indeed condoned by the UN and nations all over the world, including America. The fact of the matter is that until now well over 171 suicide bombings have occurred in Israel killing well over 800 and close to a thousand were injured. That alone sets the stage to not attend the funeral. I do not think that there should be any condemnation for Jeremy Corbyn wanting to start talks in some way, but from my point of view the venue was poorly chosen.

The Guardian also treats us to “A column in a leading newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, warned on Monday that Corbyn’s actions, including a visit to the “grave of the person who planned the terror attack at the Munich Olympics”, were of deep concern“. I could accept that if we knew who was in that cemetery. As far as I could tell the perpetrators were almost all dealt with and none were in that place, neither was the mastermind. The names that do pop up were Atef Bseiso and Khalaf Bseiso. Here we start having an issue. It is my opinion that Khalaf Bseiso was in no way involved. It can be corroborated in two ways. The first is that all the people involved shouted their involvement from every rooftop in Europe (and Africa). That also included the mastermind and other shady figurines. There is close to nothing on Khalaf Bseiso, so little that I cannot tell if he ever accomplished anything as a PLO member. It is different with his brother Atef Bseiso. There are two opposing views; the first is from General Uri Sagi, a very able officer and tactician serving the IDF for 34 years, with a host of active operations, Most notably Operation Entebbe (you might have seen the movie with a youthful Charles Bronson). The opposition is Mossad director Nahum Admoni removed Atef Bseiso from that ‘endangered health’ list, from my personal view I would take the decision of director Admoni over that of General Sagi. Who or why in the background did change the plans does not matter, in that there is a decent amount of ‘evidence’ that Atef Bseiso was not part of it and in that regard, there is now no clear evidence that anyone from the Munich operation is in that cemetery.

The larger issue

It is my view that there is a much larger issue. We see: “Israel’s Labor party secretary general, Yehiel Bar, said: “The grave new discoveries about Corbyn are no surprise“, as well as ““The paradox is that the least anti-Semitic country in Europe is liable to fall into the hands of an anti-Semitic politician,” wrote Ben-Dror Yemini“, in light of the earlier quote by Yedioth Ahronoth we see the larger issue. I understand that we need to fight anti-Semitism, yet is the paint or the brush an anti-Semite setting?

Let it be said that I think that Corbyn is a mistake on many levels, but I will NOT falsely accuse him. There is no setting for the anti-Semite accusations. In this Al-Jazeera gives us “In an August 3 article for The Guardian, Corbyn wrote that anti-Semitism had no place in the party, but added: “It is unfortunately the case that this particular example, dealing with Israel and racism, has sometimes been used by those wanting to restrict criticism of Israel that is not anti-Semitic”“, I actually agree with that. If we cannot criticise our friends, we are not friends of them (merely my personal view). Over time Israel has had its set of bungles and errors, there is 100% statistical certainty that every nation in the world makes mistakes. I also understand that Israel ever since Adolf Hitler had his European tour (1939-1945) 65% of all Jews in the world were massacred, can you truly believe that this will not leave a mark for generations to come? So the fears of both Ben-Dror Yemini and Yehiel Bar are very understandable, yet it needs to be on the focus of evidence and the fact that the larger UK newspapers did not vet and validate their facts is a much larger issue still (I made that same mistake, and I am sorry for that), yet I can go by the excuse that I accepted some facts from ‘professionals’, so in that regard I have a small excuse. In light of all this, if the London school of Economics would be so kind to award me my honorary Master degree in International Journalism and Society I would be most graciously thankful, especially as I have surpassed the factual quality of George Osborne, Martin Ivens and their posse’s (or was that pussies?).

In all this the New Yorker (at https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-uk/jeremy-corbyns-anti-semitism-crisis) gives us another two parts. Parts that were mentioned before, but they are important. The first is seen with “On July 25th, Britain’s three leading Jewish newspapers published a joint article on their respective front pages, warning of “the existential threat to Jewish life in this country that would be posed by a Jeremy Corbyn-led government.” When I asked Pollard what that meant, he replied, “They wouldn’t set up camps or anything like that. But the tenor of public life would be unbearable because the very people who are the enemy of Jews, as it were, the anti-Semites, will be empowered by having their allies in government. There is a fear, a real fear of that.”“. You see, the fear is fine, we get that if WW2 does not make you afraid of any Jewish future nothing will, yet in opposition, where is the actual evidence of his anti-Semitism? His setting to be friendly with Palestine does not constitute evidence. It is optionally evidence of poor diplomatic choices, yet in all this, the UK had to move forward with the IRA at some point, a start had to be made and it is the job of UK politicians to do what is best for the UK and its citizens. It might include poor choices, but that does not make them essentially wrong. Someone has to make steps, yet in that I do remains in the setting that visiting that cemetery was truly the poorest of choices.

The second part is seen with “a terrible situation for a party that has been the natural home for most British Jews for the past hundred years. “Jews have no better friends in this country than the Labour Party,” the Jewish Chronicle reported, in 1920. As recently as 2014, Corbyn’s predecessor, Ed Miliband, another trenchant critic of Israel, spoke of his dream of becoming Britain’s first Jewish Prime Minister“. Here we see that a former Jewish speaker, former Labour party leader has been critical of Israel, as I stated before. Good friends will be critical of one another and can you honestly consider the setting of a Jewish politician as an anti-Semite?

So in round two we see that there are considerations that need to be made, but I do stay with the setting that I saw in my yesterday’s article, even the ‘diagnostic one’, although I will admit that a cat cornered will make the weirdest leap, yet equally we must accept that some of the leaps Jeremy made were slightly too weird for many to consider. I am happy that the Guardian informed us in all this, it is not too clear in some regards (as to the cemetery), but that ball is seemingly dropped by all the papers and it is my belief that they all have loads of explaining to do, but perhaps they can give the evidence of those buried at that cemetery and can be proven to have been part of the Munich massacre, I was unable to do that. My defence is that I am not a journalist and never claimed to have been one. So if I am proven correctly I would really appreciate the Chancellor of the London School of Economics to honour me with that honorary degree (as I do believe that I am a better journalist than those with the degree at present).

So I bid thee all a good day and remember we are still 111 hours away from Monday morning (or at least I am at this very moment).

#ItsOnlyWednesday

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

On the first day

On Friday Jonathan Freedland published an article on the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/01/disaster-texas-america-britain-yemen), the article is excellent. He is speaking his mind and rightly so. All the facts are correct and he is not playing some word game. Like other stuff he wrote top notch. Yet, I oppose him. Why?

Well, we can go from “it surely represents the most fundamental form of discrimination one can imagine: deeming the lives of one group of people to be worth less than those of another – worth less coverage, less attention, less sympathy, less sorrow“, he is right and it would be easy to just blame the media, like I have done on several occasions in the past. Yet the quote “The scale of the suffering in the Arab world’s poorest country is clear. Since it became the site of a proxy war in March 2015, 10,000 people have been killed, with 7 million made homeless. The UN is especially anxious about cholera, which has already killed 2,000 people and infected more than 540,000. It threatens to become an epidemic. That’s no surprise, given that sewage plants have been among the infrastructure bombed from the sky“. This is followed by “On the contrary, the Saudi government is armed to the hilt with weapons supplied by the UK and the US: £3.3bn worth of British firepower in the first year of this vicious war alone. And yet Yemen has barely registered in the western consciousness, let alone stirred the western conscience“. These two matters are merely the top of the iceberg. When we go back to 1957, we get the attempted assassination by MI6 and what was then laughingly known as the CIA. They fail. All British and French assets are nationalised. The UK intervention in early peace processes between Israel and Egypt. Iran 1953, we might see two sides in the story, one side is that US interventions caused the creation of the Islamic revolution and the blood baths that came afterwards. Is this the correct version? There are too many events involved, but it is a given certain that the events followed. It is merely a factor in a sea of events. Sudan 1998, here the Clinton Administration justified the attack by falsely claiming that it was a chemical weapons factory controlled by Osama bin Laden. Though the United States blocked the United Nations from investigating, independent reports leave little doubt that the plant was solely used for civilian medical items and there was no connection with the exiled Saudi terrorist. All speculations go out of the window; I find it interesting how it was the US that stopped the investigation. Equally the Obama administration refused to properly investigate the chemical attacks in Syria, willing to accept half-baked excuses, unwilling to get to the bottom of it all. This all is now starting to give us a pattern that related to the story.

So when we see “warnings that Yemen risks becoming the next Syria: its soil soaked in blood, rendered fertile for the next generation of violent jihadists” as well as “the children of Yemen are dying cruel deaths, while the rest of the world ignores them. They are not drowning in Texas or Mumbai. They are dying under a hot desert sun, killed by our allies – and by our inattention“, Jonathan is speaking the truth, yet I oppose!

You see, when we see in addition to the previous parts: “The collapse of leftist and nationalist Lebanese forces as a result of the U.S. intervention and the U.S.-backed Israeli invasion led to a power vacuum filled by extremist Islamic groups from below and an overbearing presence of the anti-American Syrian government from above. Combined with resentment at the enormous human costs of these interventions, Lebanon has turned from a staunchly pro-Western country to a center of anti-American sentiments“. Now, we must be honest in that when a glass is half full, it is equally half empty, so we can focus on one side or the other side. Yet the overbearing knowledge from the past is that the UK and US have been in a war for control. Either they were or no one else was. This is the setting we have seen for decades. As such we need to be aware of the ‘other’ side of the equation, but in my view the interventions of decades have been nothing but a failure and soon we will see that US and UK public opinion will shift against Saudi Arabia, merely because any long term success they book now will be counterproductive to anything these two players are trying to achieve. The UN has been privy and part of it to some extent. We could focus on resolution 425, when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978, later it did it again in 1982, I personally remember those days, I was in Israel when it happened. The interesting part was that the acts of the terrorist organisation and their movements were largely ignored by the UN and certain other officials, as well as the press. The report from Director Nahum Admoni of Mossad in 1983, who was seen as the ‘bad boy’ as the British press got a whiff of the Israeli nuclear plan, yet the fact that the Jonathan Pollard debacle where “Pollard was the only American who has received a life sentence for passing classified information to an ally of the U.S. In defense of his actions, Pollard declared that he committed espionage only because “the American intelligence establishment collectively endangered Israel’s security by withholding crucial information”. Israeli officials, American-Israeli activist groups, and some American politicians who saw his punishment as unfair lobbied continually for reduction or commutation of his sentence. The Israeli government acknowledged a portion of its role in Pollard’s espionage in 1987, and issued a formal apology to the U.S., but did not admit to paying him until 1998“, He was eventually released on Released November 20, 2015, after 28 years. Beyond that he had been denied basic rights between 19:00 and 07:00 every day since. In this we can draw two conclusions, not only that this involved a case with what the US calls ‘an ally’, it gives rise that on one side actual traitors have way more rights and that those actually in assault of the US like Bradley Manning, served less than 4 years and Edward Snowden who is still not in prison, not prosecuted or convicted. So either we can go all out and see how weird the US system is, or we can accept that the US (and UK) have been playing a very dangerous game in the middle east and anyone interfering there is locked up for life. So this is not about espionage, it is not about terrorism, it is about holding part of the power of the middle east, and so far the USA and the UK have shown just how illusionary it is to be involved in matters in the Middle East. Even if we start to consider the damage caused and inflicted, the game goes on there.

So on the first day of September Jonathan correctly shows us how little the media and all others care about Yemen, whilst in the same air partially ignores that Yemen is not even a player for the power plays on who has the right to speak at the power table of the Middle East. Both the USA and the UK want to have a permanent seat at that table and anything opposing that will be dealt with or ignored. By the way, when we look back at the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and the optional Mossad report, who in the end had been dealt with for that? Perhaps one of them became the current Minister of Defence for Iran (Hossein Dehghani Poudeh)? Yes, when it comes to terrorism and Hezbollah, we need to make certain that we have all the facts, so as we are told how bad things are in Yemen, we concur and do not disagree, but the 241 U.S. and 58 French peacekeepers who got blown up are perhaps sitting on a cloud wondering why France, the UK and the USA are talking to the current Defence minister of Iran. In addition, why a certain report from their ally Mossad director Nahum Admoni was just as easily cast aside and forgotten a little over 33 years ago.

I am merely speculating here!

So as we see certain changes in the alliance between Iran and Qatar, we see also that the game played there is becoming slowly but certainly a more hazardous situation, not just locally there, as Qatarians (or: stake holders from Qatar) seems pushed to sign over bank stakes to China (read: Chinese investors) we see that one wave is feeding another one, in what way? That I cannot really predict, the data is presently missing to make any speculation or assumption in that direction. What is a given is that the people with a seat at the table will be part of the profits when the Saudi privatisation waves hit and that is where actual power and wealth is handed out. An event that both the USA and UK are desperate to attend as it will dwarf what happened in Russia, the hundreds of billionaires created in Russia were nothing compared what Saudi Arabia will bring and the power players in the west hopes that those hundreds are friends of the west, not those embracing a strict Islamic way of life.

Greed is the eternal opponent of opportunity, never more so than at present.

So on that first day, who do you think will be trying to advise others on where to place their privatisation bets, it won’t be in Yemen, that’s for sure!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics

The comeback that should not be

That is the consideration I was contemplating this morning. This is all about former Defence Minister Ehud Barak and his outspoken views. The issue all over the papers are that Israel had not proceeded three times to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities.

So is this freedom of speech, is this treason or is this something else? You see, as a former Defence Minister he has certain duties. One of them is defending and keep safe the state of Israel. So was this a ‘military men and cowardly politician’ scenario as some people report? Without all the facts it would be poor judgement on my side to continue some view. Yet, my view, like that of some others who matter. I have been there, I saw Israel in July 1982. I saw Israel on other occasions and I saw on TV, like many others how Sbarro became the place of slaughter. The Israeli army has been ever vigilant in keeping Israel safe. So, why was Iran not attacked?

It could be a simple as the tactical setback that an attack would bring, it would be a direct problem for any Israeli to get anything done in the UN building and at that time, there was not enough evidence that the enrichment of Uranium was a clear and present danger at that particular moment in time.

These are all issues that matter, as former Defence Minister, Ehud Barak knows this. If he does not, he should never have been elected into that position. But that is a mess Mossad can take a look at. You see I remember them from 1984. Nahum Admoni was someone to bring the deadly chill of fear into your heart. I do not know anything about Tamir Pardo, but I feel decently certain that he has a more relaxed job and he is watching both the Syrian and Iranian areas with due diligence on an hourly basis. So is this just about another comeback of Ehud Barak? That is what I suspect. Of course Ehud Barak making these claims just after the rocket attacks from Syria is only one side to it. If attacks are now coming from there, there is every chance that more attacks will also come from Gaza. I cannot state for certain that one means the other, but there is every chance that Israel could face attacks form Sinai, which would make Eilat vulnerable, whilst attacks happen to the north at equal pace. This is what I feared all along. I illustrated this in ‘ISIS is coming to town!‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/06/23/isis-is-coming-to-town/). Yes, the article is a year old, but in my defence there was no clear reliable information on how strong ISIS was, what they had planned and what time line they used. So is there still a danger? Yes, there is and there always was. The issue is that pre-emptive actions will not make any difference, if anything, it could fuel extremist support. It could be for this very reason that the military held off. The main reason will remain that Israel is not committed to war, it is committed to peace and the defence of the state of Israel. Do you not think that Rafael Advanced Defence Systems could have come up with something a lot more offensive if war was on Israel’s mind? It has been the cornerstone of every issue playing. Israel only wants to stay safe, as such it has always been the Hamas covenant to eradicate the Jews that have been the foundation of the Gaza issues. After Adolf Hitler had his European tour 1939-1945, did you think that the Jewish people would ever accept such attack on their existence ever again? Think again, I say!

SO in that light, should Ehud Barak be regarded as a very dangerous man? A man who is willing to play fast and loose with the state of Israel, just to get one more comeback?

That is the part I am uncertain about without a lot more information, but consider the following quotes “For years, both he and Netanyahu issued veiled threats to attack if the world did not take action. Those threats, while often dismissed by commentators as bluster, were widely seen as a key factor in rallying international sanctions against Iran“. I was always in favour of an attack, should there be actual evidence that weapons grade Uranium was produced, but I was also adamant that Israel should not be the one doing the attack. In my view that would be the tinderbox that was not allowed to light the fuse. America yes (preferable no) and the EEC (or NATO) absolutely yes. The friends of Iran would have to see that the amount of nations willing to step in would make them reconsider alliances. The second quote is “Barak told his interviewer that both he and Netanyahu favoured an attack in 2010, but the military chief of staff at the time, Gabi Ashkenazi, said Israel did not have the operational capability“, which is very likely. You see in 2010, the Gaza area remained a growing concern, only an idiot starts a war on more than one front, so the assessment of Gabi Ashkenazi seems to have been the prudent one. Considering the growing attacks of missiles in 2010, 2011 and 2012 only gives additional evidence that not attacking seems to have been the wisest course of action. That view has not changed. As the dangers for Israel diversify, Israel needs to make changes to the policies they make, as such, any attack on Iran would have destroyed these options. Whatever aide might come from the NATO members after the missile launches from Syria, none of those would be an option if Israel had made any act of aggression against Iran. So in these views alone, I show the vision and deliberation Ehud Barak seems to lack even before he makes any headway towards a comeback, an issue I need not consider as I was never an Israeli elected official.

So if a non-Israeli can see this, even one who supports the total defence of Israel, what else is Ehud Barak not seeing and is that not the greater cause for concern?

It is the final quote in one article (Yahoo News) that gives us the heart of what should not matter “Barak ‘wants to remind people where he was, what he did, how important he was, how rational he was,’ said Reuven Hazan, a political scientist at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. ‘When Ashkenazi starts doing the political lecture circuit, Barak wants to be able to create and raise as many obstacles as possible.’” You see, as defence minister he was not that important, if push comes to shove, as a short term Prime Minister either Benjamin Netanyahu or Ariel Sharon would have surpassed him, as a defence minister he was passable, but in that light, both Meir Dagan and Tamir Pardo could have done his job too. Although in that light, Meir Dagan should have (if I noticed it correctly) gone slightly lighter on the pastries, he is likely to become his own worst enemy. I am willing to accept that this is the consequence of having a quick meeting at Gal’s bakery in Haifa every now and then.

In all this, the centre remains, Ehud Barak has been in a fortunate position, he was not unimportant for Israel. He was a civil servant, surpassed by many in their dedication to the defence of the state of Israel, in all this former Defence Minister Ehud Barak forgot that his biggest enemy was his own ego, a mistake that the media will take advantage of in the happiest method possible. The people of Israel and of other nations need to consider that Iran is, was and shall remain a danger to Israel. Knowing this is the most important detail here. What the press ignored is that possible aggressive actions would have been considered. Any nation, with any level of defence will ALWAYS consider an aggressive option, it is the quality of both its military and politicians at large to decide when such actions can no longer be avoided. As we see in the past, Israel never had to result to an all-out attack on Iran, which does not mean that this will not happen, it only means that when it does happen, no other alternative remained available. This is exactly why NATO must consider its actions in Northern Israel, for the mere reason to keep any offensive alternative at bay.

What a shame former Defence Minister Ehud Barak never realised this.

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics

A traitor as an ally

This was the first thought I had when I saw the news on the Iranian nuclear deal as it is being ‘stamped’ out. First let us take a look at some of the information, so that you all can see how I got to the conclusions I got to. The first one is the Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/iran-nuclear-deal-negotiators-announce-framework-agreement).

So let’s take a look at the miscommunicated truths we can clearly see. The first one is “In a joint statement, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, and the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, hailed what they called a “decisive step” after more than a decade of work“. There has not been a decade of work, the ‘work’ has been no more than 20 months. Before that, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in office, the man was such a sociopath, that he makes the average British skinhead sound like a docile conservative. So, this is not a plan of a decade, this is, as I see it a situation that has been a bad idea for well over a decade. Now we get to the Kerry sound bite: “The test is whether or not it will leave the world safer or more secure than it would be without this agreement. And there can be no question that the comprehensive plan that we are moving toward will more than pass that test” You see, as I see it, it will not leave the world safer and it currently puts Israel in clear and present danger, in addition, the danger to Europe will be illustrated as well.

The quote from the New York Times is “The president promised to increase security consultations and cooperation with Israel to “remain vigilant in countering Iran’s threats”“, when? You see, the issue is not just Iran, it is the Iranian military, who have been openly supporting Hamas. The news (at http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.646624), shows us the title ‘Hamas and Tehran boost ties as Meshal meets Iran’s Larijani in Doha‘, this is not a secret, the quote “Meanwhile, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said in an interview two months ago that Hamas sought to re-join the Iranian-Syrian axis” could be discusses in how good those relations are, but in this there is one non mentioned fact. The fact that these officials are talking is also a clear path that military officials will have been able to meet with them too. It only takes one ‘misplaced’ shipment for many houses to come crashing down. You see, some will state on how weird it is that only Israel is reporting on this, my issue is that the meeting between these parties was open, there were photos taken on March 10th through March 12th, which implies (no evidence), that they had all the options to meet with some of the ‘assisting’ military too. Is that such a far-fetched assumption? That news was shown by RT, IB Times and a few others, including American, yet the American sources all stopped around July 2014. It seems that freedom of information comes at a price there too. Now, there are plenty Israeli sources, all with photographs. It includes Debka (http://www.debka.com/), who had additional news recently regarding arms deals, but in light that one localised source is always debatable, I am willing to remain cautious on this. Let’s not forget that Israel also has a political path to walk, to state America has one and Israel does not have one is just ludicrous.

As for the current situation, I have no doubt that Hassan Rouhani is a decent person, who has the best intent for Iran in mind. Yet, in this situation, we must not forget that Iran has a ‘democratic’ election system, which means that in no more than 5 years a new president shall be elected. There is no guarantee that the next elected person will be a former diplomat and a moderate. If the next elected president is an extremist like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, than the future of Israel will move from debatable to non-existent in soon thereafter. Is it not interesting how a proclaimed axis of evil is suddenly an optional choice for between the sheets? Is that what American bankruptcy is getting us?

Now consider the Guardian quote: “Iran will cut its nuclear infrastructure to the point that western governments are satisfied it would take a year to ‘breakout’ and build a bomb, if Tehran chose to follow that path“, so this American administration is willing to be on a one year deadline, whilst they know that whatever hits next will be on the plate of the next administration? How is that anything less than treason? Are you the reader not aware that Iran got more done while it is a clear threat, whilst thawing between Cuba and America took decades, which in light of other events calls for additional questions!

So now we get to the good stuff, because I made a claim and it is important that I show reasoning, if not, it is just noise. You see, the danger from Iran goes a lot further then just Israel. Until recently, my mention would have been ‘If Hamas’, but now, as things escalate, we get ‘When Hamas successfully detonates a dirty bomb’, we get a different picture. What do you think will happen? If the wind is towards the west, which it most likely would be, we get a radioactive cloud that will hit all over the Mediterranean. Now we get a direct danger to the fishing industry for Greece and to a smaller Italy too. Greek tourism will be non-existent for decades to follow, the ‘glow in the dark scare’ will do that to tourism, which might be nice for Portugal. Turkey will also see the fall out here, but not as much as Cyprus and Crete. Once the current spread the radioactive love, there might be larger implications. Then we will suddenly see all kinds of phrased denials, but then it will be too late for Israel and America will get its low cost oil for decades. They only had to be willing to sell their ally Israel down the river.

So is my view too extreme? Not if we believe the New York Times (at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/world/middleeast/arab-leaders-agree-on-joint-military-force.html). The first paragraph is already a clear notion “The Arab states said on Sunday that they had agreed to form a combined military force to counter both Iranian influence and Islamist extremism“, in addition to this we see “While the Houthis have received financial support from Tehran, the Iranians do not seem to exert a strong influence over the group as they do, for example, with Hezbollah in Lebanon“. It is in part all about the financial support, the Arab league needs to counter extremism, that is getting support from Iran, and now, in the same breath America is seizing the pressure that could have made a real difference. I reckon we all have the same question, ‘what gives?’ which is a statement that is not asked my many in press positions. Is that not odd?

Yet, these thoughts alone are not enough and the facts are not all in my favour. You see, many (including me) would see the previous president Hojatoleslam Mohammad Khatami as a moderate too, but the danger that another Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets elected is too great to suddenly ease on any nuclear deal. Instead of the Cuban approach that is all about reducing tension, we see an unacceptable willingness to just cast it all aside, hoping that Iran keeps a decent form about it all and as such, Israel is placed in immediate harm. That, in my view is not an acceptable act from a true ally. The linked truth to this is that the pressure also includes to the other Arab nations, so what game is America playing, what does it have to gain and why, as such is it willing to risk its ally Israel? No one has a clear answer here!

Another linked statement from the Guardian is “The smiles in Lausanne are detached from wretched reality in which Iran refuses to make any concessions on the nuclear issue and continues to threaten Israel and all other countries in the Middle East“, the person speaking this was Yuval Steinitz, as both Minister of Strategic Affairs and Minister of Intelligence. I wonder what former Mossad director Nahum Admoni would think of all this? He was at the helm when Israel had its ‘lunch’ displayed all over the British press through Mordechai Vanunu. There is however another side to this, one quote from Yuval was “Israel cannot place its security in the hands of international forces instead of relying on the presence of IDF soldiers“. I partially have an issue there too, even though I very much understand the position Mr Steinitz has, the European community at large has felt diplomatically negative about that statement, diplomatically speaking it was the wrong thing to say, tactically speaking, it is an understandable quote, as in the last few decades parties all over all Israel’s neighbourly borders have been single minded regarding the annihilation of Israel.

These are all clear facts, we know that Iran, might be on an improved path, but there is no guarantee passed 2020, so why so eager to give them nuclear freedom? That is a plain reality, the information stated “There is a very rigorous transparency and inspection regime with access for international inspectors on a daily basis, high-tech surveillance of all the facilities, TV cameras, electronic seals on equipment, so we know remotely if any equipment has been moved” sounds nice in theory, but remotely, errors, failings and other issues would not be unheard of, in that ‘confusion’ many acts and miscommunications could and with some degree of certainty WILL happen, then what?  What options would be left to Israel? As stated, my issue is less with Iran and more with the willing extreme military officers that have been and are still supporting Hamas and as I see it, any other linked party willing to go against Israel. That path will become a lot clearer as the Arab axis becomes more visible against Iran, let’s not forget that Egypt is next to Israel so a dirty bomb would most definite have the consequence of a panic attack on Egypt too.

Even in America there are sides that to some extent agree with my views. The guardian had this quote “Republican senator Mark Kirk compared the agreement to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Adolf Hitler” (at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/03/obama-republicans-iran-nuclear-deal). Now if you think that Mark Kirk is so out of centre, then think again. He is Senator of Illinois, a state, where the Daley family stands strong, two of them former Mayors of Chicago for almost half a century, in addition to several other high placed governmental officials, so we can state with certainty that the Daley family does not suffer fools on any side of the political isle; In that environment Mark Kirk survives, so he is no loon! Another quote is “Tehran would have to remove the core from its heavy water reactor in Arak, making it inoperable. It would have to dilute or export at least eight tons of low-enriched uranium, leaving it with only 300 kg“. Here is my issue, at least 8 tons, means that numbers this inaccurate allows for a few hundred kilo’s to be shipped or stored in non-visible places, one of the fears that Israel validly has. In addition, Iran has played fast and loose with lives in the past. What happens when someone figures out to shift the core from steady state to mobile? Yes, the core can be removed, but the supporting system, the steam system and the cooling system will still be there. So what happens when someone MacGyver’s a removable mobile solution? Is that so far-fetched? It took me 10 minutes to come up with that idea, so is Israel that far out of bounds? When we look at the info from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Conversion-Enrichment-and-Fabrication/Uranium-Enrichment/, where we see “the centrifuge process uses UF6 gas as its feed and makes use of the slight difference in mass between U-235 and U-238. The gas is fed into a series of vacuum tubes, each containing a rotor 3 to 5 metres tall and 20 cm diameter. When the rotors are spun rapidly, at 50,000 to 70,000 rpm, the heavier molecules with U-238 increase in concentration towards the cylinder’s outer edge. There is a corresponding increase in concentration of U-235 molecules near the centre. The counter current flow set up by a thermal gradient enables enriched product to be drawn off axially, heavier molecules at one end and lighter ones at the other“. A tank engine is mobile and has the power to get the power shifted, it just needs to get shifted into a carbon coated caboose. Of course it is in reality not a simple 44 minute episode of MacGyver solution, but the overall view of static equipment is relied on too eagerly. My issue remains not with what is now, but what comes next in Iran and it seems to me that Israel is keeping that in mind, but why Is America and why are the European partners at large ignoring that?

So here we get the title, as Israel sees it, the nuclear changes pushed through, with so much ‘enthusiasm’ are more than dangerous and I reckon, when it goes pear shaped, in hindsight, when the event does actually happen, Europe at large will turn away from America for ever allowing such a dangerous event escalate to begin with. Then what will happen? Well, I can speculate on that (remember, pure speculation), whatever Global corporations that would like to remain in business will leave the United States, Google and Apple will announce themselves to be global and move to other shores. So Apple represented by 187 billion will move away, because the bulk of that is not coming from America, in addition Google’s 66 billion comes from all over the world. So a quarter of a trillion dollars will move away, whatever ‘deal’ America thinks it have will become obsolete and whatever economy it has will collapse overnight. I have not even considered another half a trillion that IBM, SAS and Microsoft represent. In a world of over 7 billion, 325 million do not add up to that much in the view of revenue eager corporations. When Europe sees the consequence of any fallout (pun intended) from this deal, how will they react? Nicely? 500 million that makes up the EEC and the Commonwealth that makes up for 2.3 billion, how incompetent, are the politicians pushing for this deal end up willing to be seen as?

Part of me, in all honesty would hope for the Iranian deal to work. All indication of Hassan Rouhani are positive. It is the person after this that is the problem. I am all for a better deal less restriction with Iran, as long as they are non-nuclear for the upcoming decades. That would already be progress. So as I see it, the administration on the way out, an administration that could go into history as one of the worst in recorded American history is playing a dangerous game, a game they will leave to others to pay for.

How is this the responsible act from any ally?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics, Science