Doc's Talk: Israel's Crisis At Sea - Another Storm Coming

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Israel's Crisis At Sea - Another Storm Coming

C. Hart
Israel is expecting the arrival soon of another flotilla of ships, this time Iranian sponsored. This follows on the heels of the Turkish IHH and Free Gaza sponsored flotilla that was stopped by Israeli naval commanders on May 31, 2010, when attempting to break Israel's blockade of Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government is not only concerned about the Iranian flotilla, but Israel's military is on high alert for the possible intrusion of a Lebanese fast boat. The fast boat may attempt to hinder Israel's naval operations at sea, at the same time that the Iranian ship is being intercepted. The fast boat, linked to Hizbullah, is expected to include female Islamic militants on-board. The Israeli government has stepped up its efforts to warn international activists not to board ships sailing from Iran or Lebanon, claiming it will endanger their lives, as Israel's navy forces plan to stop the ships in international waters before they reach Gaza.

Meanwhile, family members of the nine Turks killed by Israeli naval commandos on the Mavi Mamara ship, say they will join the next IHH sponsored flotilla that sails from Turkey to Gaza. Israel is concerned that Turkey may include a naval escort to accompany future aid ships on their voyage to Gaza.

This guerilla war at sea is a ploy to use "humanitarian" terrorism as a way of changing the political climate in the Middle East, influencing public opinion by trapping Israel in a diplomatic quagmire. It distracts from major issues such as stopping Iran's nuclear capabilities and trying to weaken Iran's goal of regional hegemony.

The Changing Geo-Political Map

The current axis of state-sponsored terrorism (Iran-Syria-Lebanon-Gaza), that has been a major concern for Israel, has now expanded to include Turkey.

Turkey has just downgraded relations with Israel and is set to cancel military contracts with the Jewish State. Until recently, Turkey was Israel's largest trading partner in the region, and its strongest business ally in the Middle East. At least $20 billion dollars of on-going projects in the energy, water, and agricultural sectors are currently at risk because of deteriorating diplomatic ties between Turkey and Israel.

While Turkish trade with Israel decreases, Turkish trade with Arab countries is steadily increasing. Last year, Turkey did $29 billion in trade with Arab League nations. Turkey's business with Islamic countries and economic ties to Islamic markets is luring Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan into forming new alliances. He is dependent on Islamic aid to keep him in power. The money coming into his coffers should help him with his reelection campaign in 2011, especially finances pouring in from Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is concerned that Iran's intent on becoming a nuclear superpower will give the Shiites throughout the Middle East increased power. This may very well weaken Sunni Arab influence in the region.

Despite the recent Islamic fundamentalism sweeping across Turkey, its reputation for being a secular, modern Islamic state with ties to Europe and the Arab world makes Erdogan a promising new star on the horizon. He could become a mediator in a future struggle between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia. The gap in the Shiite-Sunni divide narrows when Moslem interests are shared, specifically in efforts to weaken Israel, diplomatically and militarily. This is another reason Turkey is becoming a catalyst for greater unity among members of the Islamic radical front in the Middle East.

Turkey is currently in a strategic partnership with Iran, intent on strengthening Iran's proxy, Hamas. Turkey would like to overshadow Egypt's mediation efforts to reconcile Fatah and Hamas in order to unite Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. If these two groups unite, they will be a political force to contend with, and will put greater pressure on the international community to lift the Gaza blockade. The leverage Israel has over Hamas would evaporate, and the possible release of Israel's POW, Gilad Shalit, would diminish.

With the recent opening of the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and Gaza, that now allows Hamas militants to cross freely back and forth, it's expected there will be an increase in terror coordination between Hamas and its parent organization, the Moslem Brotherhood. This could cause greater instability within the Egyptian government. A weakening of Egypt's moderates could pave the way for increased terrorist infiltration into Israel through the porous Sinai border.

Egyptian authorities have agreed to allow three Iranian parliamentary members to visit the Gaza Strip. This is the first of its kind by a high-level Iranian delegation. Iranian Revolutionary Guards have already infiltrated Gaza through open border crossings in years past, with the intent of training and instructing Hamas fighters.

Iran has been able to deliver weapons to Hamas, in single components, through Gaza's tunnels. But, Egypt is clamping down on tunnel smuggling, which has resulted in fewer weapons reaching Hamas, as well as less money getting into the hands of its government. This has caused a financial crisis for Hamas, weakening its control of Gaza.

Several of the 40 violent operatives that were on board the Mavi Marmara ship during Israel's recent confrontation with the flotilla, had $10,000, each, in cash. Stacks of money were also found on-board in one of the operatives control rooms. It's probable that the funds were destined for Hamas. Now, with an Iranian delegation being given the green light to enter Gaza, it may be a way of getting millions of dollars into the hands of a cash-strapped Hamas, giving the terrorist organization a lifeline for keeping its government functioning.

The International Community Caters To Hamas

Meanwhile, members of the Obama Administration have recently hinted at future dialogue with Hamas, and Hamas has hinted at backchannel discussions already taking place with the U.S. European and Russian diplomats have been talking to Hamas and the perception is that, while nothing has changed in terms of the Hamas doctrine towards Israel, the international community has changed in that there is more of a willingness to negotiate directly with the terrorist organization.

Hamas wants its Islamic allies to have free access to Gaza's sea port in order to help arm its government with long-range Iranian missiles and other weapons. The kinds of arms that can be brought in by sea are much greater than those that can be smuggled in by land. Egypt is building an underground wall with plans to close the tunnels. This means less opportunity for Hamas to receive weapons by land, and it makes the opening of the Gaza sea port an important strategic goal for Hamas.

Hamas will continue to use humanitarian aid organizations to try and break the Gaza blockade, while the international community debates how much pressure to put on Israel to lift the blockade and open the sea port. There is some acknowledgment on the part of western diplomats that they are playing into the hands of Hamas. But, European and Arab governments are more concerned about riots on their streets from protestors who sympathize with Gaza's need for humanitarian aid for its population. Seeing biased media reports on their TV and computer screens, these protestors do not understand that sufficient aid is coming through Israel's border crossings to adequately feed Gaza residents.

This current crisis is already turning into a war of attrition, catching Israeli leaders by surprise. Israel's military was preparing for a war on its northern and southern borders with Iranian proxies, Hizbullah and Hamas. But, Israel's intelligence agencies did not accurately assess that its adversaries would use humanitarian terrorism as a way of entrapping the Jewish State at sea.

The European Union Emerges As A Key Player

The EU has been debating what to do about the flotilla crisis. Activists from at least 12 European nations were on the recent flotilla, so parliamentary members have a vested interest in calming tensions. Europe could now play a pivotal role in the Middle East in trying to ease the blockade by calling for EU monitors to be stationed at Israeli and Egyptian border crossings into Gaza.

The EU has also talked about a plan to use European monitoring forces at sea in an effort to investigate cargo ships before they come into the area of the Gaza sea port. Israel is opposed to this effort, claiming that international naval monitoring forces did not prevent the smuggling of arms to Hizbullah after the Second Lebanon War. So, why should Israel now trust the effectiveness of such forces to inspect cargo ships in Cyprus or anywhere else before reaching Gaza?

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already claimed that Israel will not allow the free flow of war material and contraband to Hamas via an open Gaza sea passage. Furthermore, if the blockade is lifted, Israel expects a resurgence of arms trafficking, along with an influx of terror groups into Gaza. Already, there is the potential for terrorists to freely move through the Rafah border crossing that has been indefinitely opened by Egypt.

Who Will Win The Battle At Sea During The Next Crisis?

The purpose of the recent flotilla event was to create an international upheaval that would isolate Israel and legitimize Hamas. If you look at Israel's current standing among the nations, the flotilla event was a success in that it did put Israel into greater diplomatic isolation. Round One, Hamas won. If the nations continue to engage Hamas, and play into the hands of humanitarian terrorists, Hamas is bound to win Round Two.

The world was quick to condemn Israel without considering the facts of what happened on the Mavi Marmara ship. As this war of attrition heats up again, Israel's ability to diffuse tensions at sea, will be the key to its effectiveness in diffusing tensions on the diplomatic front and in the public arena.

Israel's elite naval forces have learned that they are not only facing peace activists sailing on Mediterranean waters, but state-sponsored terrorist operatives. With greater intelligence information, along with experiences recently learned at sea, Israel's military will be more prepared to confront the next flotilla of ships expected to arrive close to Israeli-Gaza shores any day now.

C Hart is a news analyst reporting on political, diplomatic, and military issues as they relate to Israel, the Middle East and the international community.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/israels_crisis_at_sea_another.html at June 19, 2010 - 10:15:30 PM CDT

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk