| Wednesday,
June 2, 2010 I
asked Joel Rosenberg for his thoughts on the Israeli blockade fiasco.
Re: The latest disaster
I'm almost glad I didn't have the chance to comment
last night; you covered
most of the points I was going to make. Legally, I don’t think there’s
any issue – the special “Illegal for Israel Only” rules are a political
fiction, not a legal one.
I'm going to restrict myself to the areas where I
think we disagree, at least a little.
Trading off an ongoing relationship with Turkey for
letting these ships run the blockade would have been foolish . . . but as
Turkey goes more and more Islamist, that relationship is deteriorating,
anyway. I frame it a bit differently: is neutering the blockade worth
preventing a decrease in the slope of the deteriorating relationship? I
guess we’ll still see – Turkey is announcing that there will be further
attempts.
(This fiasco does, again, point to the cost of Camp
David, although not a major one. Turkey is where the IAF has been conducting
air combat practice, the Sinai long not having been available for that, for
oil, or as a buffer zone. I don’t really think that Gazans would be digging
hundred-mile smuggling tunnels. Yes, there were benefits; the cold peace
with Egypt and the US aid per the agreement; the latter a very mixed bag.
I’ll get back to that some other time. Short form: I think the Israeli
dependence on the US is in neither country’s interest, and I think the
failure of Camp David demonstrates that.)
Let's start with the details, and maybe move up to
some general observations.
Tactically, my thought was, well, huh? I'm trying to
think what would happen if, say, a USCG commander sent his boarding party
out to inspect a ship with paintball guns as their primary defensive weapons
. . . other than him, at best, being transferred to some new post being in
charge of the coastal defense of Hatton, North Dakota. (There’s a reason for
the forms and courtesies of such things – like, say, the warning shot across
the bow.)
I'm guessing that about the same thing is not going to
happen to the designated IDF scapegoat; Barak and Netanyahu will take the
heat. As they should.
Strategically: the blockade doesn't, as everybody
knows, prevent weapons from coming into Gaza; it does, though, limit them,
as well as all sorts of dual-use materials. (Concrete and steel can be used
to build fuhrerbunkers as well as sewers; Hamas has demonstrated that its
priority is the former, not the latter. Well, they were democratically
elected, kinda; who am I to suggest that they should not receive the
benefits of that choice?) To know whether or not it's worth it, we'd have to
know the benefits, as well as the cost, and we don't. How many missiles,
say, are being smuggled in through the tunnels? Would significantly more
(and more accurate and long-range) be coming in -- and launched -- if the
blockade was suspended? I don't know, you don't know, and the residents of
Ashdod and Ashkelon don't, either -- but their votes count, and ours don't.
Militarily, a blockade is, by itself, a compromise
(see, for example, the Cuban Missile Crisis, where it kinda sorta worked –
and was a compromise from OPLAN 312/316) when it’s not a preparatory step
for an attack (if Athens hadn’t surrendered to the blockade during the
Peloponnesian War, for example).
Me, I'm not a fan of it as a way to maintain stasis. I
think that the only thing that can, reliably, in the medium or long run,
stop the Hamas (or Hezbollah) missiles is counterbattery fire or major
punitive actions; we've discussed this before, and it hasn't changed. The
only effective countermeasure to the deployment of human body armor is to
ignore the human body armor, not to get more and more clever trying to
defeat it. You remember, I’m sure, the tape from Cast Lead, where the Hamas
activists would grab other folks’ kids when running around, to avoid being
targeted. Refuse to target hospitals, and they put command and control in
the hospitals. They’ve learned well since Arafat used to set up artillery
positions next to schools in South Lebanon. Arafat was, comparitively, a
piker.
That Israel was going to lose the CNN narrative was a
done deal, even before the IHH sent the flotilla on its way with the gentle
cries of "Khaibar, Khaibar ya Yahud Jaysh Muhammed Safayood" (trans.,
apparently: “Would you please be kind enough, Muhammed, to pass the
seafood?”), and the announcement by some of the “peace activists” that they
planned to either run the blockade or “achieve martyrdom.”
The one counterexample I can think of is from the 2000
Ramallah lynching, and that only “won” Israel the narrative temporarily, and
then only because an Italian journalist happened to catch one of the
killers, literally red-handed, on tape, without the tape being confiscated.
Kind of a high price to pay, all in all, for a few inches of ink and some
handwringing.
The one middle-term strategic conclusion I can draw
from this is that, like Oslo/Madrid/Camp David/the Lebanon withdrawal/the
Gaza withdrawal, etc., is that no compromise by Israel goes unpunished. The
only sensible strategy for Israel, at this point, is to put off further
compromises as long as possible, hoping for a new Administration that’s far
more like Bush 43 than the present, Bush-41-like administration.
The only sensible strategy for the US, at this point,
is to focus intently on minutia – maybe trying to get Hamas agree to a bag
limit for Jewish schoolchildren, while engaging Israel intensely on required
square footage for bomb shelters in new construction in Jerusalem – because
the real resolutions are distasteful, and the two-state solution a fantasy.
In terms of the Arabs of Gaza, Judea, and Samaria, and
the Jews and Arabs of Israel, the only viable peace plan is, and remains,
victory – either their unambiguous one, or Israel’s. And the path to that
runs, however circuitously, either through Khaybar or the Grave of a Hundred
Head.
Or, for that matter, both, if Tehran launches first.
Joel Rosenberg
I'm not sure we disagree on much, but that's
partly because I no longer think I know much about the situation.
As I said yesterday,
I'm only running for my reputation. The Israeli decision makers have
heavier stakes.
I once thought that Israel ought to "simply build
a fence enclosing the parts of Judea and Samaria that they want, and
retire to the other side after making it clear that recognizing Palestine
as a State did not mean they would t0lerate acts of war from the other
side of the fence." That would end the settlements dispute since there
wouldn't be any new settlements, and the 0nes Israel was keeping would be
on the Israeli side of the fence. They should pay compensation to the
owners of the territories seized, and abandon all settlements on the far
side of the fence.
I said "Simply" knowing full well there was
nothing simple about that policy. It would be complex, and both
politically and strategically difficult.
Like many Americans I cheered the Camp David
agreements. They did, after all, produce the tranquil period during which
I went to Israel and toured from Jerusalem to Jericho, visited Bethany,
motored up the Jordan Valley, and in fact produced some reports pretty
critical of the way Israel was treating Palestinians, particularly
Christians. In those days I thought I knew something about the situation,
and I did know more than most Americans. I had studied in advance of the
trip, and I knew what I was looking for. Interestingly, President Ezer
Weizman
agreed with many of my conclusions. It looked as if we might be headed for
an era of peace, and that the peace process might work. My friends at
Commentary disagreed, of course.
That failed. Israel abandoned Gaza, but continued
the blockade. That failed.
I am very glad I do not have to make decisions for
Israel.
The Grave of the Hundred Heads has come
up in our
discussions before.
============
The purpose of laws and regulation
Hello Jerry,
The following was the 'Quote of the Day' from 'DownsizeDC.com':
"Quote of the Day: "It will be of little avail to the
people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so
voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be
understood; if they be repealed before they are promulgated, or undergo such
incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what
it will be tomorrow." -- James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the
Constitution, 4th US President, Source: "Federalist" # 62 <https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/105>
"
Our current rulers understand those principles well
and are expanding the volume of the laws and regulations as rapidly as they
are able, while at the same time ensuring that NO ONE understands them. Or
CAN understand them. That policy, combined with the time honored principle
that 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse.' has already given them near
absolute, and more importantly, arbitrary power. Add the upcoming energy law
that will give them regulatory authority over every activity that either
produces or consumes energy and we will find ourselves in the situation
where everything not commanded is forbidden. Which was the object all along.
Bob Ludwick
It certainly appears that way sometimes. Perhaps
incompetence, perhaps Iron Law, but we do seem to be approaching that
point.
===========
Copyright suit against US Goverment
From Ansible 275:
“J. NEIL SCHULMAN, whose 1979 sf novel _Alongside
Night_ features 'the collapse of the American economy due to massive
government overspending', announced on 21 May that he plans a copyright
infringement suit against the US government for stealing his plot points and
using them in real life. Co-defendants will include the Federal Reserve
Bank, the European Union, the International Monetary Fund, General Motors,
and the country of Greece. Sample smoking gun: 'I have Europe issue a common
currency in my novel called the "eurofranc" -- the European Union then goes
and issues the "euro".'”
*************
The Navy is an organization designed by geniuses for
execution by idiots.
-Herman Wouk
The Caine Mutiny
I think we have noted this before, and that I
recommended Alongside Night some years ago. (Actually I made some
editorial suggestions to Neil before he published it). It's still
worth reading.
===========
Red Light Cameras
Between June 1, 2009 and January 10, 2010, the city of
Lakeland, Florida, took in over $1.5 million from red light camera fines,
which it shares with the Arizona based camera operator. There are no courts
used, a magistrate administers disputed fines, and the camera doesn't lie,
even when it does. Citations are mailed out several days after the fact to
the registered owner of the vehicle according to the license tag. The first
two are $125, on the third it doubles to $250. If one wishes to question the
citation, it amounts to viewing a video tape with the magistrate and
confirming the registration of the vehicle.
If one stops just beyond the line, still well out of
the flow of traffic and not yet within the crosswalk, one ran the redlight,
and pays the fine. If one is making a right turn, which is legal unless
specifically marked otherwise in this state, and one stops beyond the line,
still well out of the flow of traffic, in order to see oncoming traffic
because the other cars stopped at the light are no longer in one's line of
vision, one ran the light and pays the fine.
The vast majority of the citations issued are the
right-on-red variety. Interestingly enough, 6 eye witnesses, including two
reporters with video tape backup, asked to see the Arizona camera operator's
records regarding a number of city vehicles failing to stop for right turns
on red on two different dates. No such records could be produced by the
company, and even though the private video tape was irrefutable, no further
action was taken by the city.
If I stop behind the line, then move forward to see
any oncoming traffic in order to make a legal right turn on red and then
stop again to observe traffic, did I run the light? I can't argue my case in
court, because no court is used.
I don't drive in Lakeland much.
A lady was issued a citation for running a red light
in Lakeland, but the vehicle in question was parked at Disney World outside
Orlando at the time of the violation and well into the evening, verified by
a parking receipt and multiple witnesses. Evidently the technology needs a
little work.
Now we have a state law authorizing red light cameras.
I'm glad my home town has only one full-time red light. I can dodge it no
matter where I need to go.
Bruce
They are great revenue sources... The Iron Law
sees to the rest.
============
In response to your question of why the Master does
not have final say on the drilling vessels, it is because the foreign
drill rig does not have to meet US crewing requirements. Once a vessel
starts drilling there are at least 2 bosses the Master who is in charge of
the ship and the Offshore Installation Manager (OIM), who is the drilling
supervisor. Only US flagged drill ship/rig make the Master the OIM. Since
there are 2 US flagged drill ships/rigs the Glomar Explorer and the Q4000.
The Q4000 is the small MODU that is doing top kill/top hat work and is not
a drilling rig but a workover/construction rig and the Glomar Explorer is
the vessel that mined manganese nodules. There are no foreign flagged
vessels that the Master is the OIM.
The problem at Transocean is that it does not have a
marine department shore side so if they have any complaints they have to go
through the drilling department.
r/
JJ League
Interesting. There do seem to have been warnings
about the BP decisions on frugality over safety. They were ignored.
==========
the Iron Law as a WEAPON?
http://volokh.com/2010/06/01/
sabotage-or-how-dilbert-won-the-war/
For your reading...
Fascinating. Just fascinating.
cheerfully, Dr Bill
===============
f
g
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Wednesday
|
