Ahhh.... Harvard and its Sense of Rationality

"The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, fresh from having established itself as a headwater of anti-Israel agitation, is choosing to mark the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks in an astounding way — by hosting Mohammed Khatemi, a former president of Iran, an enemy state levying a terrorist war against America. Mr. Khatemi has been invited to speak on, of all things, "Ethics of Tolerance in the Age of Violence." The title insults the intelligence of all those who would attend. What in the world is a man who presided over the July 9, 1999, crackdown on Tehran University, where hundreds of students were arrested and tortured, doing speaking about "tolerance" at a university?"

See full text at the link below.
Khatemi at Harvard - August 31, 2006 - The New York Sun

The Global Range of Iran's Ballistic Missile Program - Uzi Rubin

In the article that can be reached by clicking the link below, author Uzi Rubin makes a compelling argument to support the contention that the Iranian missile program is more telling about that country's intentions than its nuclear program. He states that,"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that Islam should roll back 300 years of Western ascendancy. He was speaking in the name of Islam, not in the name of Iran. At the same time, there is talk about the greatness of Iran, with its 6,000-year-old civilization. The Iranians are trying to retrieve the old glory of the empire and at the same time become the leaders of world Islam. The development of long-range missiles is a key element in building up Iran's power to assume such a leadership position."

The Global Range of Iran's Ballistic Missile Program - Uzi Rubin:

Global Double Standard, As Usual -- and Its Repurcussions

The Wall Street Journal reports this morning that, "in Stockholm, about 60 governments and aid organizations were meeting in the hopes of raising $500 million to help Lebanon rebuild roads, bridges and homes left shattered by the 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah guerillas".

I truly have sympathy for those innocent Lebanese who had their homes and lives destroyed by the Hizbullah-led war with Israel, though we also must not forget that many of these people were fervent Hizbullah supporters and, in their own minds (as repeated for media cameras), soldiers in their own right, and therefore somewhat deserving of the punishment meted out to them.

But lets go to the bigger issue. World leaders unanimously agreed that this was a war begun by Hizbullah, as it invaded Israeli territory (Israel proper, not the "disputed" Sheba Farms) to kidnap a soldier, and bombarded Israeli civilians with missiles -- purposely bombarded civilians, I might add, and not as collateral damage to an attack targetting military personnel. World leaders agreed that Israel had a right to fight back to defend itself. Like Lebanon, Israel suffered significant damage to civilian population centers in the north of the country, as over 4,000 rockets and missiles rained down on Israeli Jewish and Arab alike, with the physical damage running into the Billions of dollars. This was a war begun by Hizbullah that enjoyed the direct support of at least several Arab or Islamic governments (to be technical about it, Iran is not Arab), no doubt subsidized by the hefty oil tax that is exacted upon us by the market for energy. While I was in Europe last week I soaked in some Arab satellite TV on numerous stations, and, like the Jewish community worldwide, they are actively running aid-raising campaigns to "rebuild" Lebanon. Clearly, the Arab world can monetarily provide for itself, should it choose to. Shouldn't the world be re-considering, "Who is the David and who is the Goliath"?

So here is my question: Who should the world be raising money for to "rebuild roads, bridges and homes left shattered by the 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah guerillas"? At the barest minimum, shouldn't the aid raised by these 60 nations be for the recovery of both Lebanon and Israel? The failure to do so undoubtably results from a variety of reasons, some tinged with anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic biases. Western liberal double standards undoubtably include the assumption that the sophisticated Israelis, backed by the all-powerful world Jewish community -- with Israel's only real friend, the United States -- are responsible enough to take care of itself, while the Arabs can't (even though they have all the money with $74 oil).

Against this background and trying better to understand the Israeli mindset, shaped as it is by the Holocaust and the world's treatment of Israel since at least the Six Day War, why exactly should Israel ever be expected to trust the world community's mouthpiece, the UN ,or its pieces of paper to protect Israel's existence? What other country is called upon constantly to rely upon the edicts of a world body to protect its existence?

I believe that this war has already led to a deep psychological groundshift in Israeli thinking across the spectrum, from the streets to the halls of power. Israelis are internalizing its perceived existential threat on the Israeli homefront, and the global political aftermath (reinforced by the blame game in Europe, calls for international peace conferences to be imposed on Israel, and finally, insensitive, one-sided actions like the aid conference issue raised above that treat Israel with the usual double standard). On one hand, some Western commentators will remind us that many Israelis "have come to realize" from this war that military action alone will never bring peace (but they never thought that -- after all, the Israelis withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005 in order to attain peace -- but it did not work). On the other hand, Israelis have seen the future, and realize, once again, that their survival is in their own hands.

The result: No doubt about it, Israel will attack Iran militarily in 2007 over the nuclear issue, with or without Western help.

Miscellaneous Predictions, Part 1 -- the Stock Market

Concerned Citizen: OK, now for somewhat of a digression from my reporting of my interpretation of the news. As many of you know, I recently returned from vacation, including a week in Tuscany where I had a bit more time to reflect on the world rather than react to it. In addition, upon my return, I have had the opportunity, during a relatively slow, pre-vacation week, to check back in with people of various professional stripes whose judgement and knowledge I trust. Based upon the foregoing, I am now going to put my neck on the line and make a couple of predictions:

Part 1. The Stock Market: Look for an up market during the next several months through to the election in November, particularly in midcap and smaller stocks (what else is new), with the first quarter of '07 starting to look ugly. Reasons for this prognosis, as explained below, are basically a relatively stable geopolitical environment for the next couple of months, stable interest rates, corporate earnings not getting smashed yet, and the desire of market participants to squeeze some more gain out of this market before the shit really hits the fan (sorry Mom):

--interest rate increase concerns put on hold for a while as Fed seems to believe that inflation is under control (I don't agree with this view for two reasons that should rear their ugly heads as we get into the Winter -- energy prices driven by foreign (read Chinese and Indian) demand growth, and real wage inflation starting to show itself in China -- take that Walmart!). Oil prices are stable for now, inventories are healthy, so far hurricane season has been nice to us, consumer demand has gone down gracefully, etc..., all keeping a cap on any explosive burst of inflation that could freak out the Fed and force its hand in the short term. With interest rates stable for now (but most people not expecting them to come down anytime soon), I expect the bullish stock market-driving adrenalin of further merger and acquisition activity to further drive the the stock market, before slowing economic activity leads to alot of overleveraged companies to start defaulting, which will end the ability to finance a lot of deals that are being done. Notice that I haven't said anything about the real estate bubble or the beginning of mortgage defaults... yet.

--hedge fund friends of mine (and who drives the equity markets' volatility, after all?) breathing a sigh of relief that this past earnings season wasn't a disaster, and trying to screw their confidence up to increase their long exposures to salvage this year's performance. I know several savvy managers building towards this approach right now. When I was growing up in the industry, before the hedge fund guys began to dominate the markets, the old sages at Oppenheimer used to tell me to look for "portfolio dressing" by mutual fund managers, heavy in cash, to give the more attractive equities (and usually, the broader indices) a boost in the last two weeks of December as mutual fund maangers wanted to show low cash and the "right names" in their year-end portfolios that they show to investors. In today's world, while hedge fund managers are scrutinized by many of their investors for "absolute returns" on a monthly basis, it is accepted lore that many investors and investment committees looking to make portfolio adjustments take a good annual look. Long/short hedgies have had, as a whole, a pretty anemic year, but they have shown the capability in the past of pulling their bacon out of the fire by creating a momentum-driven self fulfilling prophecy of a good 4th quarter. I expect that to happen here. You may ask why they would drive the market up to make money instead of driving it down to make money (hedgies, after all, much laud their ability to "go both ways")? There are alot of answers to this question, some very technical, and I have to get to work so I don't have time to answer it, but I will leave you with one basic human observation, and that is that people feel more comfortable being bullish than bearish, and its easier to go long than short.

--the geopolitical environment should be calm for the next couple of months. Firstly, expect a calm Middle East. Hezbullah, Iran's aircraft carrier for power projection against the West on Israel's border, will play nice for a while as it needs time to rebuild. It is worth noting that, despite the Arab world's great pride and respect for Hezbullah's success in surviving (and some say fighting to a standstill) the little Satan, it's image has been suffering in its host state of Lebanon, where people are furious and concerned about its ability to bring about the destruction and destabilization of that country. The angry words against Hizbullah about this by even mainstream Shiite leaders in Lebanon has not been reported in the West, but it is there and will keep Hezbullah under control until at least the first or second quarter of 2007, when military pressure on Iran over the nuclear issue will really heat up (more in Part 2 to this article, tonite or tomorrow morning). Additionally, Iraq will pretty much be status quo through the end of the year for a variety of reasons (see Part 2), and the dithering in the UN over Iran will work its way slowly enough through the Fall that I don't expect any major market-ruffling Iranian actions (only the same harsh words we have gotten acclimated to) before late November or December. Besides anything else, our enemies have come to understand that they will only strengthen Bush and the Republican Party in the November election if they do anything that reinforces the need for a "security-oriented" government. As incompetent as the Bush administration has been in the execution of its policies, Iran knows that it does not want to strengthen the only US political party that anyone reasonably expects to be capable of trying to stop Iran's nuclear objective. Similarly, the Bush administration is going to try to keep the military rhetoric down on Iran going into the November election, and pander to European multilateralism (while planning the likely military response in the background). Finally, Al Qaeda may have expended its capability to perpetrate the next market destabilizing terrorist action when the British foiled their London airliner action. As a footnote, I am not convinced they really meant to effect this terror attack before the November election anyway, for the reason set forth above regarding Iran's expected pre-election restraint.

So what am I doing with my money? Well I'm too risk averse to get crazy, unfortunately, and am not a disciplined-enough trader to do too much on an individual stock basis where I think we are looking at only a 3 month trending opportunity. I'm really merely a simpleminded long term value investor. That being said, I will probably start putting money on
in some index options, like the Russell 2000 and S&P 500, put more money into some areas I like long term (healthcare particularly, through the Vanguard and T Rowe Price funds -- pharmas particularly should benefit in the next six months as Medicare Part D starts increasing sales), and maybe for fun do a screen for some midcaps that have started showing some momentum (honey for the trending run-of-the mill hedge fund guy).

Part 2 will give more of my view on geopolitical trends during this 3 month period, and then more importantly, for the first 6 months of 2007, which are going to be scary as hell.

One More Article for Today on Terrorist-Media Theater Tricks | Jerusalem Post

Column One: Terrorist theater tricks | Jerusalem Post

Orchestrating Media Coverage in Lebanon: About Those Israeli "Chemical Weapons..." and More

Attached is a link from a blog sent to me by HonestReporting.com showing how a German Public TV report (subtitled) debunks Lebanese Shiite claims of Israel's use of chemical weapons to kill civilians in Lebanon. As usual, the Arabs bring out a white lab coated "doctor" to confirm their findings, which don't stand up, however, when analyzed in a German lab. Of course, damage had already been done, as sympathetic press outlets report the claim (mostly in Europe, where reporting of this outlandish, unsubstnatiated crap is commonplace). Click on the play button in the middle of the image on this link to see the YouTube video.
lgf: About Those Israeli "Chemical Weapons..."

Separately, see the link below for more coverage of a Lebanese "Red Cross official" directing TV coverage of an Israeli attack of civilians (including reloading the corpse in an ambulance until the cameraman "gets it right").
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vPAkc5CLgc&watch_response

These Muslims are shameless and despicable, along with their left wing, anti-globalist (their general, collective banner), self hating Western collaborators. We don't see much of this in the US, where the press is more responsible and less (outwardly) anti-Western, but in Europe this is a much bigger problem and shapes the political discourse.

In defense of Ehud Olmert | Jerusalem Post

While my views on this subject have been around for weeks, I thought it appropriate to give the other point of view -- that Olmert didn't do such a bad job in the recent war after all.

I can't speak to the apparent failure in Israeli military planning, intelligence and imagination to deal with a Hizbullah foe that it clearly knew was there, dug in, supported and trained at every level by Iran and Syria,and armed with over 10,000 rockets aimed at Israel. Hopefully that truth comes out and Israel and we learn from it, but it is clear that the failure happened on Ariel Sharon's watch. I suspect that a major cause of this failure will ultimately point to Ariel Sharon's politicization of the IDF's upper ranks with soldiers supporting his unilateral disengagement, coupled with his own politically tramatic experience in Lebanon and longer focus on Iran's nuclear capability (i.e., I have other things to worry about... I can't think about Lebanon).

As for the enclosed article's contention that Olmert perhaps didn't prosecute this war beligerrently enough from the beginning because he feared that the US would pull the plug of political support for it, if this indeed were true it represented both a failure by Israeli policymakers to:

1. read American public opinion going into our Fall elections (i.e., it served Bush's interests to have Israel facing Iran and Syria as part of a proxy war to remind Americans that Judeo-Christianity is in a war against evil -- and would you rather have the Democrats running things in such a war?), and

2. understand that initiating a strong groundbased strike would send a more effective deterrent message to an Arab world that has begun to believe that Israel has lost its political will to go "all out". Israeli casualties from such an action were going to happen no matter what, in order to achieve any semblance of the military objectives that were supposedly sought (but perhaps not really sought -- and have not been achieved). The political support for such action in Israel was there -- Israelis know in their DNA how to deal with their enemy and the importance of maintaining their "mad dog", unmeasured deterrent posture in the Arab world. And finally, if Olmert had striked hard on the ground decisively and subsequently lost American political support on the world stage for too robust a reaction (as the author suggests), Israel would be where it is right now, except perhaps it would have acheved some additional deterrence points and been more effective in destroying its enemy.

Bottom line, Olmert screwed up, and deserves to go.

In defense of Ehud Olmert | Jerusalem Post

Airline Travel in the Post-9/11 World

We just got back from vacation, and are back in blog-land. During our absence, a ceasefire was arranged in the Iranian-Israeli war (fought through the Hezbullah proxy, Iran's answer to the aircraft carrier for forward power projection). The French reneged on their promise to provide a robust presence in the toothless UNIFIL mission to Lebanon (and then, surprisingly, reneged on their renege -- you don't see THAT very often from the French), and Olmert is floundering, clueless and corrupt.

On the other hand, Tuscany and Rome were great. What wasn't great was the silly and non-confidence inspiring airport security (even the dumber-looking people in the check-in line seemed to be smirking and were less patient). More specifically, I continue to be puzzled by the seeming inability of our government, whe it comes to airport security, to figure out how to do something more proactive than fighting the last war against terrorists.

The attached Op-Ed from the Boston Globe is direct and to the point in laying out that, when it comes to airline safety, nail clippers (or nail polish, for that matter) don't make planes crash -- people do. While there are practical training and cultural problems in applying an Israeli approach to psychologically- driven screening of passengers, subjective and to some extent reliant upon profiling, it is clear that our numb-nut security personnel will never catch a determined MacGiver at the check-in line unless we are all forced to walk on the planes in our underwear. The Department of Homeland Security seems to finally understand this, albeit five years after 9/11, with the initiation of a pilot program at airports to actually observe people's behavior (and, might I use that dirty word, "profile" passengers). Too little, hopefully not too late.

In the meantime, the screeners at the airport will continue to confiscate sealed containers of my kids' chocolate milk and tubes of peanut butter (true story -- the screener wasn't sure whether to confiscate the peanut butter until they saw the word "Creamy" on the tube -- when I asked whether they would have confiscated it if we had brought "chunky" peanut butter instead, I received no response). On the other hand, be rest assured that your competent Homeland Security officials, whom you can depend upon to competently fight the past war with no creativity or imagination, will continue to allow the guy next to you in the check-in line to bring onboard his cell phone and laptop, with G-d knows what capabilities for destruction concealed in those devices (aside from the baseline destructive power of an exploding Sony-made laptop battery).

Until the day comes that Homeland Security grows political balls, or homeland security competence, lets hope that the British continue to listen in on the right phone calls to stop terrorists from doing their worst.

What Israeli security could teach us - The Boston Globe

Terrorist Arrests in US for Massive Cellphone Purchases

Concerned Citizen: Kudos to Joel, Mr. Law Enforcement, for this one.

This is one article you are unlikely to see anywhere in the national media -- the purchase of large numbers of cell phones (hundreds) from multiple retailers by persons with Arabic names who also happened to have in their possession "instructions on how to obtain private flights and airplane passenger information". As I have muttered to my wife -- and anyone else interested in listening -- airport security procedures continue to be a joke as long as one can bring his cellphone and laptop on the plane, because cellphones provide all the workings to detonate a device.

We can only surmise what these guys wanted them for -- it could simply have been for something "harmless" like black market smuggling (and the airplane info just a coincidence), or it could have been a lot worse. In any event, rest assured that we continue to be threatened by an enemy who is closer than we think, who very well might be a US citizen.

Local Links to Terrorist Arrests

If Hizbullah Accepts a Ceasefire Resolution from the UN, You KNOW That It Has To Be Bad for Israel

Concerned Citizen: Caroline is an excellent writer, is just to the right of me politically, and has written an excellent piece on the ceasefire and its terms, below. My headline for this entry says it all. In her analysis, which is tight and pursuasive, she raises the little considered issue (at least by the press) of what a Hizbullah victory in this war -- sealed in blood by the UN resolution -- means to our war in Iraq and the safety of our soldiers there. She claims the Hizbullah has been in the vanguard training Al Sadr's Shiite militia in southern Iraq (wholly believable as Iran's global terrorist proxy), and that moderate Shiites are going to be running for cover as a result of this war (according to Caroline, America blames Israel's inept prosecution of the war for its acceptance of this ceasefire -- hard to argue with this reasoning, if not the result). While this result can lead to further criticism by analysts that Bush and Condi were wrong in the first place to give Israel such a bright green light to pursue this war, it is hard to blame them too much for this -- never in Israel's history has its leadership so bungled the prosecution of a war on so many differnt levels.

I will try to write my next installment, my assessment of what is likely to happen over the next six months in the Israeli-Lebanese war (Hizbullah is part of the Lebanese government, after all), from Italy.

Ciao!

Comment: An unmitigated disaster | Jerusalem Post

Another Analysis On Israel's Failed Hezbollah War

Concerned Citizen: Below is an interesting strategic analysis forwarded to me by Bud and Phyllis, again reiterating how badly Olmert and his fellow political opportunists and incompetents have hurt Israel's deterrent capability. This damage to the Arabs' "fear factor" of Israel will necessitate, at some point in the future, an Israeli overreaction to provocation that will not be received by the world as well as Israel's reaction of a month ago, and could lead to much more dangerous consequences. Don't forget also that any surprise combat tactics or other tricks Israel may have had up its sleeve have now been revealed to its enemies, and will therefore be more easily countered in the next round of combat.

By the way, as to one point in the following article, I agree that it is likely, given the language of the Bush administration and moderate Arab regimes at the beginning of the war, that Israel at least got a "wink" of approval from Bush regarding the ability to bloody Assad's nose in Syria (remember, Assad's open help to the Iraqi insurgency has cost many of our soldiers' lives in Iraq).

Analysis: Government and IDF racked by unprecedented leadership crisis
By Jonathan Ariel
August 9, 2006


Relations between the country's political and military leadership are at the lowest point in the country's history, on the verge of a crisis. In addition, there is a growing lack of confidence between Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, the first CoS to hail from the air force, and many of his general staff colleagues from the ground forces, who say he and his "blue clique" [blue being the color of the air force uniform] do not fully appreciate the nature of ground warfare.

According to informed sources, there is an almost total breakdown in trust and confidence between the General Staff and the PM's office. They have described the situation as "even worse than the crises that followed Ben Gurion's decision to disband the Palmach, and Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan's cynical decision to place all the blame for the Yom Kippur fiasco on the IDF's shoulders".

Senior IDF officers have been saying that the PM bears sole responsibility for the current unfavorable military situation, with Hezbollah still holding out after almost a month of fighting.

This plan was supposed to have begun with a surprise air onslaught against the Hezbollah high command in Beirut, before they would have had time to relocate to their underground bunkers. This was to have been followed immediately by large scale airborne and seaborne landing operations, in order to get several divisions on the Litani River line, enabling them to outflank Hezbollah's "Maginot line" in southern Lebanon.

According to these officers, Olmert was presented with an assiduously prepared and detailed operational plan for the defeat and destruction of Hezbollah within 10-14 days, which the IDF has been formulating for the past 2-3 years.

This plan was supposed to have begun with a surprise air onslaught against the Hezbollah high command in Beirut, before they would have had time to relocate to their underground bunkers. This was to have been followed immediately by large scale airborne and seaborne landing operations, in order to get several divisions on the Litani River line, enabling them to outflank Hezbollah's "Maginot line" in southern Lebanon. This would have surprised Hezbollah, which would have had to come out of its fortifications and confront the IDF in the open, in order to avoid being isolated, hunted down and eventually starved into a humiliating submission.

This was exactly what the IDF senior command wanted, as Israeli military doctrine, based on the Wehrmacht's blitzkrieg doctrine, has traditionally been one of rapid mobile warfare, designed to surprise and outflank an enemy.

According to senior military sources, who have been extensively quoted in both the Hebrew media and online publications with close ties to the country's defense establishment, Olmert nixed the second half of the plan, and authorized only air strikes on southern Lebanon, not initially on Beirut.

Although the Premier has yet to admit his decision, let alone provide a satisfactory explanation, it seems that he hoped futilely for a limited war. A prominent wheeler-dealer attorney-negotiator prior to entering politics, he may have thought that he could succeed by the military option of filing a lawsuit as a negotiating ploy, very useful when you represent the rich and powerful, as he always had. Another motive may have been his desire to limit the economic damage by projecting a limited rather than total war to the international financial powers that be.

Whatever his reasons, the bottom line, according to these military sources, is that he castrated the campaign during the crucial first days. The decision to not bomb Beirut immediately enabled Nasrallah to escape, first to his bunker, subsequently to the Iranian embassy in Beirut.

The decision to cancel the landings on the Litani River and authorize a very limited call up of reserves forced the ground forces to fight under very adverse conditions. Instead of outflanking a heavily fortified area with overwhelming forcers, they had to attack from the direction most expected, with insufficient forces. The result, high casualties and modest achievements.

This is the background of yesterday's surprise effective dismissal of OC northern Command Maj. General Udi Adam. According to various media sources, Olmert was incensed at Adam's remarks that he had not been allowed to fight the war that had been planned. Adam allegedly made these remarks in response to criticism against his running of the war, and the results so far achieved.

Olmert's responsibility for inaction goes much further. The US administration had given Israel the green light to attack Syria. A senior military source has confirmed to Israel Insider that Israel did indeed receive a green light from Washington in this regard, but Olmert nixed it.

The scenario was that Syria, no military match for Israel, would face a rapid defeat, forcing it to run to Iran, with which it has a defense pact, to come to aid.

Iran, which would be significantly contained by the defeat of its sole ally in the region, would have found itself maneuvered between a rock and a hard place. If it chose to honor its commitment to Syria, it would face a
war with Israel and the US, both with military capabilities far superior to Iran's. If Teheran opted to default on its commitment to Damascus, it would be construed by the entire region, including the restless Iranian population, as a conspicuous show of weakness by the regime. Fascist regimes such as that of the ayatollahs cannot easily afford to show that kind of weakness.

As previously mentioned, Iran's military capabilities are no match for Israel's. Bottom line, all Iran could do is to launch missiles at and hit Israel's cities, and try and carry out terror attacks. If there is one thing history has shown, it is that such methods do not win wars. Israel would undoubtedly suffer both civilian casualties and economic damage, but these would not be that much more than what we are already experiencing. We have already irreversibly lost an entire tourist season.

Any Iranian and Syrian missile offensives would be relatively short, as they are further form Israel, and therefore would have to be carried out by longer range missiles. These, by their very nature are much bigger and more complex weapons than Katyushas. They cannot be hidden underground, and require longer launch preparations, increasing their vulnerability to air operations. In addition it is precisely for such kinds of missiles that the Arrow system was developed.

The end result would be some additional economic damage, and probably around 500 civilian casualties. It may sound cold blooded, but Israel can afford such casualties, which would be less than those sustained in previous wars (for the record, in 1948 Israel lost 6,000, 1% of the entire population, and in 1967 and 1973 we lost respectively 1,000 and 3,000 casualties).

The gains, however, would be significant. The Iranian nuclear threat, the most dangerous existential threat Israel has faced since 1948, would be eliminated. It would also change the momentum, which over the past two decades as been with the ayatollahs. This could also have a major impact on the PA, hastening the demise of the Islamist Hamas administration.

Instead, according to military sources, Israel finds itself getting bogged down by a manifestly inferior enemy, due to the limitations placed on the IDF by the political leadership. This has been construed by the enemy as a clear sign that Israel is in the hands of a leadership not up to the task, lacking the required experience, guts and willpower. In the Middle East this is an invitation to court disaster, as witness by Iran's and Syria's increased boldness in significantly upping the ante of their involvement in the war.

Some senior officers have been mentioning the C-word in private conversations. They have been saying that a coup d'etat might be the only way to prevent an outcome in Lebanon that could embolden the Arab world to join forces with Syria and Iran in an all out assault on Israel, given the fact that such a development would be spurred entirely by the Arab and Moslem world's perception of Israel's leadership as weak, craven and vacillating, and therefore ripe for intimidation.

Seeing the once invincible IDF being stalemated by Hezbollah's 3,000 troops is a sure way to radiate an aura of weakness that in the Middle East could precipitate attacks by sharks smelling blood.

Middle Israel: Lebanon II's Political Casualties

Concerned Citizen: Below is a link to a good article, the first good post-war political analysis article that I've seen. The world realizes that Hezbullah is a front for the Iranians, both of whom are extremely dangerous, and neither of them cares much about the Palestinians (who?). This was merely a battle in a proxy war between Islamofascism and the Judeo-Christian civilization.

With respect to Israel, Olmert's proposed unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank is history. Similarly, his premiership is likely finished for failing to realize what an amazingly broad cross section of Israelis realize -- that the deterrent posture of the IDF to the Arab world is all that stands between Israel and death, and Olmert's prosecution of this war seriously undermined that deterrence. see my prior article, "Why Israel is Losing this war..." at: http://commonsenseforaworldpopulatedbyhumans.blogspot.com/2006/07/why-israel-is-losi

Where is the strong, unifying and committed leadeship of a Churchill when the Western world really needs him?

Middle Israel: Lebanon II's political casualties | Jerusalem Post

Israeli Arabs in Support of Hezbollah -- With Citizens Like This, Israel Doesn't Need Enemies

Attached is a link that quotes prominent Arab Israelis and their views on the current Hezbollah war with Israel. Its tough to have citizens like this represented in your parliament.

On my last trip I got into a heated debate with a gentleman over the following issue, and the definition of "ethnic cleansing":

Israel has just over a million Arab citizens, many of whom do not particularly love Israel (as the attached article would indicate), though they love the economic opportunities and political and legal rights of living there. A good chunk of these people live in land in the southern Galilee that is contiguous to the northern West Bank. Most Israeli plans for dealing with the large Jewish population blocs on the West Bank call for Israel to give the West Bank to the Palestinians but retain a bit less than 10% of the West Bank lands which contain these blocs, in any final territorial resolution. It has been suggested by a significant Israeli political party (and others) that Israel do a "land swap", and "compensate" the Palestinians for this 10% "seizure" by giving them an equal amount of this Arab-populated Israeli sovereign territory, together with the Israeli Arabs occupying it.

Seems like a fair solution and everyone should be happy, no? The Left maintains that this is ethnic cleansing. I guess you are cleansing Israel of a portion of its citizenry that, by and large, is not loyal to its country, but at least you are not removing them from their land, which is very important to them -- you are just changing their sovereignty to that of their Palestinian brothers. There is a ton of legal precedent for this exact maneuver, in Europe after WW II and elsewhere. Surprisingly, public opinion polls among the Arabs that would be affected is very negative about this idea -- as much as they hate Israel, they like their lives in Israel just too much. What does that say about Arab society and Arab confidence in Palestinian self-government?

PMW - Latest Bulletins

WorldNetDaily: Israel enhancing nuke-capable submarines

Concerned Citizen: The world is in the midst of catching fire. Per the article below, the Germans are helping Israel make their German built subs nuke-capable, which I believe were gifts by the German government to Israel (thanks for the article, Mom). I also enclose a second link to another website that may confirm the story.
WorldNetDaily: Israel enhancing nuke-capable submarines
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/sub/index.html

World War III (I Never Thought I'd Quote Newt Gingrich on Anything)

Concerned Citizen: This is Part 1 in a series that will explore some recent events and our war with Islamic Fascism. Future installments will discuss how I believe we should specifically prosecute this war.

The Judeo Christian West hasn't won many battles in World War III (as Newt Gingrich terms it), but the Brits just chalked one up with their uncovering of the airline plot, that would have led to four to seven thousand deaths (or more) of innocent men, women and children.

While there is much for which President Bush deserves to be criticized, he has been right on the big themes, despite constant criticism from the Left, the Democratic Party and, of course, the hapless Europeans. He was right about:

-- the Axis of Evil (does anyone by now doubt that Iran, North Korea and Syria are bad people?),
-- the fact that when dealing with the regimes of Islamic countries, they are either "with us or against us" in this war,
--the best defense is a good offense -- the concept of pre-emptive war, and
--only total victory in this war is acceptable.

While the Bush administration has gotten a D to F grade on execution of this war and, perhaps more importantly, on leadership, communication and salesmanship to the world of the necessity of this war (where is Winston Churchill when we need him?!?), he has been right on the fundamentals. It is wonderful for well-meaning (and not so well-meaning) liberals to apply concepts of Western rationalism to the Islamic world and say "if only we could improve the lives of their young to show them a future, the fuel for this Islamic evolution would be deprived", or "we have to give Islamic moderates a chance to combat these ills in their own culture, and to do so we must make the following concessions to give them ammunition to show that we are people of good will, not hell bent on humiliating the Islamic (particularly the Arab) world"(while honor is an important and often illogical driver of behavior in all cultures, what type of sane civilization lets the concept of "humiliation" at any disagreement take on the unchallenged power that it possesses in Arab culture?). And to some extent, these views make some logical sense. For instance, while it is abundantly clear from their public declarations that the Palestinian situation is nowhere near the top of Iran's, Hezbollah's or Al Qaeda's list in their war against the Judeo-Christian world, some sort of mutually acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian mess would seem to Western-trained minds to be a salve to Arab "humiliation" at Western/Jewish Israel colonialism (or Israel "bibleism" (my term), which is more dangerous to Islamic ideology), and provide fuel to Arab moderates seeking to focus on inward-looking reforms in the Arab world. However, in reality this idea of compromise doesn't appear to work, other than if it accomplishes a total capitulation of Israel's right to exist (a position, by the way, that is at least informally propounded by the worst appeasers of Europe). Everytime that a concession has been offerred or made by the Israelis, it has been taken by the Arabs --starting with the radicals but quickly taken across the politicial spectrum -- as an act of "weakness" by Israel rather than of bravery and good intention, and Islamic radicalism is simply emboldened. Moderate Arabs are too weak or afraid to assert leadership in their own worlds and educate their people to understand that getting half the pie is better than none of it, or to negotiate for anything other total victory (i.e., the end to Israel), even if camoflaged by an incremental approach. Hence the moderates are not positioned to take credit for negotiating the Israeli concession which Israel seeks in its self interest, which results in the extremists being able to justifiably argue that they forced the concession as a retreat of the enemy Zionist forces, emboldening the Arab street to drive forward to total victory.

Similarly, we could (and probably should) remove our forces from Iraq tomorrow, and remove another Western irritant to the Arab psyche that is being so well manipulated by Al Qaeda and Shiite Iran today in the Islamic world. But again, if not negotiated by a moderate Iraqi governing body (which needs our troops there for its survival, after all), this withdrawal would be portrayed as a radical-empowering defeat of the West, and would embolden greater battles in the war against Judeo-Christian civilization. A Pan-Arab government conference led by relatively moderate Arab states appealing for our departure would be good too, but for similar reasons, I think they would be petrified for their own survival to give the extremists this result (perhaps all the talk of humiliation in the Arab world has a lot to do with an underlying inadequacy or insecurity in their manlihood?). This does not mean that we shouldn't tactically realign our forces out of Iraq (perhaps some sent to Iraqi Kurdistan) as part of the global war on Islamic Fascism (aka, "terrorism"), but WE can't view or treat such a retreat from Iraq as a retreat from this war.

Following the line of Islamic (particularly Arab) thinking that any concession by your adversary is a sign of weakness and moral decay, if we were to completely throw Israel over the side of the boat and get out of Iraq, I believe this would just embolden the Islamic world to more aggressively press its attack against Judeo-Christian civilization, in order to resieze Islamic glory that has lied dormant for most of a millenium, and do little to empower Arab or other Islamic moderates to reform their societies. This concept of total victory against non-Islamic culture is grounded in the Koran, in spite of all the BS about Islam being a "peaceful religion" that is spewed out in so many politically correct sound bites by politicians. The Koran and Islamic law treats all other peoples as subordinate peoples to be subjugated to one extent or another, and the only national-level accomodations with non-Muslims can be tactical truces along the pathway to ultimate Islamic dominance. Moreover, Islamic law is not permitted to evolve and adapt from these precepts for a modern world because, to do so, would involve violation of the words of the Koran. In contrast, while Judaism believes in the "chosenness" of the Jewish people, it generally funnels that concept towards bettering the world in general or, at worst, attempting to separate itself from -- not subjogate -- the world or any of its peoples (including the Palestinians -- the most far right of Israelis don't want the Palestinians or their souls, just the land beneath them that is promised to the Jewish people in the bible). Christianity, by and large, has had its reformation, abandoning the concept of bringing the non-Christian world by force to follow its stated, superior path.

The Islamic world needs its reformation. How is it to get there? What do the so-called Islamic moderates need to accomplish this? Can they? How can we help?

Good Article Cataloging the Range of "Reporting Fraud" in the Lebanon War

Concerned Citizen: Attached from our media fraud correspondent, Joel Seidemann.

New York Times 'used fraudulent photo' - News from Israel, Ynetnews

Analysis: Assad is crazy like a fox | Jerusalem Post

Concerned Citizen: I'm on my Syria kick today.

The link below is to a good article that discusses Syria's political calculus as a troublemaker, and illustrates why our Western views of influence and negotation don't necessarily apply in the Arab World (or even worse, backfire as displays of weakness and lack of resolve) -- especially if we are not willing to follow up our words with cold steel, as:

-- we were unwilling to do in reaction to Syrian meddling and murder of our soldiers in Iraq,
--we and the French were unwilling to do in reaction to Syrian meddling in Lebanon, and
--Israel appears unwilling to do in reaction to Syrian meddling in the Israeli-Hezbollah war.

As I have said before, we (the Judeo-Christian world) will lose the war against Islamic Fascism if we are not willing to fight a total war, as WWII was fought, to unconditional surrender or defeat of our enemies. Anything short of this merely encourages our enemies.


Analysis: Assad is crazy like a fox | Jerusalem Post

More Press distortions onthe Mideast -- AP Beirut photo faces questions

Concerned Citizen: Thanks to Joel Seidemann for this one.

This story, link below, focusses on two news photos, taken two weeks apart at different locations, showing the same woman supposedly mourning the destruction of her different homes. As one blog noted, "Either this woman is the unluckiest multiple home owner in Beirut, or something isn't quite right".

While you can't necessarily blame editors in London for getting bamboozled like this in an isolated incident, it is clear that in these news organizations are in a competitive thirst for copy, blood and vivid storytelling that support a "narrative" (often an inflammatory, anti-Israeli one). Last year a senior correspondent from a major US news magazine spoke to a group of which I was a member in Jerusalem. In response to a question the objectivity and balance of news presentation regarding Israel, he unapologetically told us that the public is interested in hearing a narrative, and often that narrative calls for the media to "take a view" to properly tell that story. Interesting --when I received journalism training in high school, I was taught that storytelling and opinions were the province of the editorial page and Hollywood, not news organizations.

I support an organization called Honestreporting (www.honestreporting.com) that focusses its efforts on calling out media organizations and holding them to a level of responsibility against such biased behavior. HR started during the Intifada, have close to 150,000 subscribers, and their watchdog activity has changed the way news organizations such as the BBC react to issues like this one. I urge you to support them.


AP Beirut photo faces questions - News from Israel, Ynetnews

Don't Hold Your Breath Over Syria Becoming a Solution to Anything http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2505

Concerned Citizen: They are at it again, the people who can't get it through their heads that by "reasoning" with, and making concessions to people with deeply rooted agendas and interests very different than yours, you can magically get what you want. the subject today is Syria. Read the two related articles below from the Washington Insitute, the second providing some added historical context.

Article or Op-Ed
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2505

Syrian Involvement in Lebanese War, from Debka

Concerned Citizen: See article below. This goes beyond resupply cooperation, and is entirely consistent with Syrian role in Iraq, as well as what we'v seen in other irredentist conflicts, e.g., Vietnam-Cambodia, etc...

I will be off line for next several days on a business trip. good luck

DEBKAfile’s military sources disclose: Hizballah’s rocket offensive against Israel is orchestrated from a rear command located in the Syrian town of Anjar

August 7, 2006, 12:41 PM (GMT+02:00)

While Israeli officials keep on insisting that Syria must be kept out of the conflict, the fact is that the Assad regime is already in it up to their ears – with a leading role in the Hizballah rocket attacks on northern Israel.

The command which coordinates the pace of those attacks is located at the Anjar base of the Syrian Army’s 10th Division opposite the Lebanese town of Az Zabdani. It is manned by Iranian and Hizballah officers, who take their orders from a Syrian military intelligence center in Damascus to which Iranian Revolutionary Guards intelligence officers are attached. It is headed by a general from one of Syria’s surface missile brigades. This joint command is provided with the most up-to-date intelligence and electronic data available to Syria on targets in Israel and IDF movements. The timing and tempo of Hizballah rocket strikes are set according to that information.

To keep the rockets coming without interruption, the joint Hizballah-Syrian-Iranian command is also responsible with keeping Hizballah supplied with an inflow of rockets and launchers. They use smuggling rings to slip the supplies into Lebanon by mule and donkey which ply the 5,000-7,000 feet mountain paths that straddle the Syrian-Lebanese frontier.

A senior Israeli officer told DEBKAfile: We can go on bombing Lebanon for many weeks, but that will not stop the rockets..

Peres: America, Russia and India are discovering suddenly they have no strategy for fighting terrorists, or even the right weapons

Shimon Peres, the leading dove -- but also the father of Israel's nuclear weapons program -- makes the inevitable statement. Why haven't any of these nations been successful at defeating terrrorism? Because each is fighting a foe with absolutist objectives, no concept of compromise and driven by a religious, "I'll happily die trying" faith. They are supported by population bases, including brainwashed children, that think the same way. Against such a foe, we must similarly apply an absolutist strategy in order to gain total victory, because "humane warfighting" and partial victories don't end the war, but merely prolong it and the suffering for all. This means, if we wish to win, we must be prepared to "go biblical" against our adversaries, destroying not only their military capabilities but also their civilizations, just as G-d ordered done to Amalek in the Bible. If the enemy hides behind its population base and civilian institutions, which is no less than an extension of their war machine, refueling it when it is degraded, then we must be prepared to utterly destroy that population base and those institutions. This is exactly what the Allies (including/especially the Soviet Union) did as a key strategy in order to shorten WW II, with massive and indiscriminate bombing and murder of the Axis civilians and their institutions. Humane civilized leaders like Roosevelt and Churchill may have been onto something.

This realization is not pretty, but the Islamist enemy is winning in virtually every theater of operation where we confront him, and that merely emboldens him to seek to kill our children. Humane, western liberals can make believe all they want that the Islamists on the other side can be reasoned with, and that dealing with them other than humanely merely creates more enemies. To the latter point the liberals are correct -- unless we utterly destroy the enemy, leaving what is left of their civilization to rethink the correctness of their ways. Islam needs such a defining event to cause its reformation. Otherwise it very well may lead us all to the abyss...

Reuters Caught Using Photoshop to Advance its Political Agenda on Lebanon

Concerned Citizen: This one comes from the heading, "don't always believe what you read -- or see". Reuters has been known to display a heavy hand in its news reporting, obviusly pushing forward a Euro-leftist political agenda, but you'd think that they would be better at using Photoshop to shroud Beirut in smoky destruction. More on this and other Press items from Honestreporting.com at teh second link below.

Thanks to Joel Seidemann for this one.

Reuters admits altering Beirut photo - News from Israel, Ynetnews
http://honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Bold_Distortions_and_Outright_Lies.asp

Differences In Values and Why this is a War Between Civilizations

Concerned Citizen: The article below was forwarded to me by a friend. Please read it carefully and then ask yourself whether anyone can honestly say that "we are all the same" when talking about Islamist Arab culture, and whether we are not, indeed, in a war between civilizations, between Judeo-Christian values and Islamist hatred and exclusionism. I have heard stories like these from people as diverse as Yemenis, Lebanese, Jordanians, Egyptians, Iranians (non-Arab, but still very much Islamic) and Palestinians. The unifying thread is hatred for non-Muslims and the need to achive supremacy over them. Thanks to Mitch Blank for this one.

Brigitte Gabriel is an expert on the Middle East conflict and lectures nationally and internationally on the subject. She's the former news anchor of World News for Middle East television.

Brigitte Gabriel’s speech at Duke University

"I'm proud and honored to stand here today as a Lebanese speaking for
Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. As someone who was raised in
an Arabic country, I want to give you a glimpse into the heart of the
Arabic world.

I was raised in Lebanon where I was taught that the Jews are evil, Israel
is the devil, and the only time we will have peace in the Middle East is
when we kill all the Jews and drive them into the sea.

When the Muslims and Palestinians declared jihad on the Christians in 1975,
they started massacring the Christians city after city. I ended up living
in a bomb shelter underground from age 10 to 17, without electricity,
eating grass to live, and crawling under sniper bullets to a spring to get
water.

It was Israel who came to help the Christians in Lebanon. My mother was
wounded by a Muslim shell and was taken into an Israeli hospital for
treatment. When we entered the emergency room, I was shocked at what I saw.
There were hundreds of people wounded, Muslims, Palestinians, Lebanese
Christians, and Israeli soldiers lying on the floor. The doctors treated
everyone according to their injury. They treated my mother before they
treated the Israeli soldier lying next to her. They didn't see religion,
they didn't see political affiliation; they saw people in need and they
helped.

For the first time in my life, I experienced a human quality that I know my
culture would not have shown to their enemy. I experienced the values of
the Israelis, who were able to love their enemy in their most trying
moments. I spent 22 days at that hospital; those days changed my life and
the way I believe information, the way I listen to the radio or to
television. I realized that I was sold a fabricated lie by my government
about the Jews and Israel, which was so far from reality. I knew for a fact
that if I were a Jew standing in an Arab hospital, I would be lynched and
thrown to the ground as shouts of joy of "Allahu Akbar" (God is great)
echoed through the hospital and the surrounding streets.

I became friends with the families of the wounded Israeli soldiers, one in
particular, Rina, whose only child was wounded in his eyes. One day, I was
visiting with her and the Israeli army band came to play national songs to
lift the spirits of the wounded soldiers. As they surrounded his bed
playing a song about Jerusalem, Rina and I started crying. I felt out of
place and started walking out of the room, and this mother held my hand and
pulled me back in without even looking at me. She held me, crying, and
said, "It is not your fault." We just stood there, crying, holding each
other's hands.

What a contrast between her—a mother looking at her deformed, 19-year-old
only child and still able to love me, the enemy—and a Muslim mother who
sends her son to blow himself up to smithereens just to kill a few Jews or
Christians.

The difference between the Arabic world and Israel is a difference in
values and character. It's barbarism versus civilization. It's democracy
versus dictatorship. It's goodness versus evil.

Once upon a time, there was a special place in the lowest depths of hell
for anyone who would intentionally murder a child. Now, the intentional
murder of Israeli children is legitimized as Palestinian "armed struggle."
However, once such behavior is legitimized against Israel, it is
legitimized everywhere in the world, constrained by nothing more than the
subjective belief of people who would wrap themselves in dynamite and nails
for the purpose of killing children in the name of god.

Because the Palestinians have been encouraged to believe that murdering
innocent Israeli civilians is a legitimate tactic for advancing their
cause, the whole world now suffers from a plague of terrorism, from Nairobi
to New York, from Moscow to Madrid, from Bali to Beslan.

They blame suicide bombings on the "desperation of occupation." Let me tell
you the truth. The first major terror bombing committed by Arabs against
the Jewish state occurred 10 weeks before Israel even became independent.
On Sunday morning, February 22, 1948, in anticipation of Israel 's
independence, a triple truck bomb was detonated by Arab terrorists on Ben
Yehuda Street in what was then the Jewish section of Jerusalem. Fifty-four
people were killed and hundreds were wounded.

Thus, it is obvious that Arab terrorism is caused not by "desperation" or
"occupation", but by the VERY THOUGHT of a Jewish state.

So many times in history in the last 100 years, citizens have stood by and
done nothing, allowing evil to prevail. As America stood up against and
defeated communism, now it is time to stand up against the terror of
religious bigotry and intolerance. It's time for everyone to stand up and
support and defend the State of Israel, which is the front line of the war
against terrorism.

Thank you."

DEBKAfile - Tehran Sends Archterrorist Mughniyeh to Rescue Hizballah

Concerned Citizen: Debka dispatches, which I have been reading since 9/11, are usually a combination of surprisingly well-informed fact (though it might not seem so at the time), rumor, fantasy and, most intriguingly, misinformation (this site, which is produced by former Mossad people in Israel, is supposedly followed by a wide range of news and government agencies around the world). Their report below would support the thinking that Hezbollah is now seeking a cease fire because it finally believes that it is losing, or at least that the marginal utility to them of continued fighting has gone negative.

The article below is therefore of interest to followers of this conflict.


DEBKAfile - Tehran Sends Archterrorist Mughniyeh to Rescue Hizballah

Lebanon: Myths and Facts Video

Lebanon: Myths and Facts

Deterrence and The Burden of Israeli Moderates

Concerned Citizen: David is a good writer and a nice guy, and this is a well-reasoned article on one of my favorite topics -- deterrence of terrorists and the ways to influence the behavior of non-state and quasi-state terrorist organizations. As David says in the article, "The more Israelis are willing to yield land, the more important deterrence has become." Since I believe that Israel's deterrent value has been damaged by Olmert's prosecution of this war, this means that Olmert has lost the one reason people voted for him (only 20% of the people, by the way) -- to "disengage" from much of the West Bank.

Article or Op-Ed

Our National Security Requires a Solution to Our Total Energy Dependence Upon Hydrocarbons

Concerned Citizen: This blog was originally intended to cover the broad range of subjects that are my passions (events in the Middle East have hijacked this goal for the past several weeks, but I am making a concerted effort to go back to my original goal).

Several of my interests intersect when it comes to energy policy (or un-policy, in the case of our current administration). Many of you have had to tolerate my rantings and ravings over the years about our need to break our dependence upon oil, particularly Mideast oil, for the obvious host of national security, and more recently, global warming reasons (this interest goes back to the energy crisis and Arab energy blackmail of the mid 70's, when I was already developing an interest in solar voltaic energy and nuclear solutions -- before anyone expected the Chinese and Indians to blow up our global energy demand budget). We made some progress on energy efficiency during the late 70's and early 80's (a tribute to Jimmy Carter, who I otherwise universallly despise), but quickly forgot about that priority as oil became cheap again (Retort to Mr. Gore: While we would expect little from the Texas-based Bush I and II administrations, what exactly was your Clinton administration doing for 8 years on this front?).

National security and maintaining our lifestyle and a clean Earth for our children are my highest priorities. Basically, this is how I see it:

1. I don't think its healthy to be paying a terrorism tax to Arabs and Persians through ever-higher oil prices, and I don't think it is a good idea to give them this leverge over our foreign policy (while I expect oil prices to dip in the early Fall when the spot market, and the hedge fund guys who contort it, wake up to the gargantuan crude inventories that have built up to historic levels, the secular price and supply/demand trend is not our friend).

2. I don't think it is such a good idea to be looking to the Russians or Venezualians as a savior either.

3. New hydrocabon sources will be found, but it is getting harder and harder to do so, and more expensive and intrusive to our environment.

4. We can no longer ignore the impact of global warming on the future of this planet. Sure the US has 100 years of coal, but from a global warming perspective we can't just burn all of it unless we invest in the solution of some very important technical issues regarding carbon sequestration (basically, this means capturing the carbon that is released in the smokestack when the coal is burned and pumping that carbon back into the ground to be "sequestered" forever, so it does not contribute to greenhouse gasses. feasibility has been proven, but scalability and expense has not).

5. The good news is that technology is our friend in solving these issues, IF we will have the willpower to invest in it and harness its potential. While Americans like simple, big, one-size-fits-all solutions, there will be no such thing here -- the press, politicans and other leaders should stress this fact if they want to best serve the Amercian people in solving these problems. From an investment and priorities perspective, we need a Manhattan Project and Mission to the Moon, coordinated multi-government program rolled up into one, with additional gigantic tax incentives for private industry to innovate and compensate for the fact that in the short term you will be going against the invisible hand of the market and compensating for the developemnt of economically inefficient technologies (but as long as they are energy efficient, we will be ahead in the long run -- investment for the future). There will inevitably be a lot of waste and theft, but that is the friction invlved in getting things done (isn't it better that someone other than Halliburton steal the money?).

The solution is a mulit-facetted one involving the following:

--conservation and greater efficiency in how we use energy, at every step of its usage in civilization,

--deployment of a range of alternative energies (solar, wind, hydro, tidal (my personal favorite), which will complement "always on" power supplies, like nuclear, sequestered coal, and reduced natural gas and oil electricity generation.

--development of a hydrogen-based energy carrier system. Contrary to popular belief, hydrogen is not an energy source but an energy carrier -- you don't just pull hydrogen from the ground and burn it -- man must use energy to produce hydrogen, which then is transported to where energy is needed and the energy is realesed from the hydrogen. Putting aside the media's scientifically illiterate musings about hydrogen as a "magic bullet" to our energy challenges (the "hydrogen based economy" article that I'm sure must have graced the covers of Time Magazine and Business Week at one point or another), hydrogen only makes sense if it takes less energy to produce hydrogen than the amount of energy it releases (and, as the SciAm article below discusses, nuclear power plants might be the answer here, IF.... see below).

-- development of hydrocarbon system energy replacements or supplements like ethanol (PS, we are not totally getting rid of oil usage for transportation for a long, long time). Again, a similar problem is presented here to that of hydrogen -- if you make ethanol from the production and harvesting of corn, under current processes you use more energy in its production than you get from the energy that is released by it. Work on more efficient growing and fermentation processes (looking to biochemistry for solutions) will hopefully shift this balance, as well as harvesting and usage of natural growing switchgrasses and other agricultual byproducts.

--Develop a new generation transmission system. Read the article from Scientific American linked below. An important solution to this puzzle that grabbed my consciousness decades ago was the challenge of normal temperature superconductivity, which would allow the transmission of electricity over long distances without the concomitant significant energy loss along the way. In my mind, this would allow nuclear power plants to be placed in the middle of the desert, where NIMBY rules wouldn't apply and the risk of massive loss due to accidents would be mitigated (we can debate the safety of next generation nuclear power some other time). This would also allow our different regional power grids to more efficiently share energy across time zones to better balance peak use periods, allowing less energy production wastage, and the building of fewer power plants of all types (especially fossil fuel plants). In other words, this would allow the sharing of periodic- production alternative energy generation -- i.e., sharing wind and sun-generated power from regions where current demand doens't require such energy, to those areas that do require it -- electricity generated by wind in California at day break can be more readily used in the Eastern time zones, which are already well into their busienss days.

The article linked below adds something to this superconductivity/national power carrier puzzle that I never thought of -- using this new energy carrier system to transport hydrogen, while at the same time using the hydrogen to cool the electrical carrier wires to maintain superconductivity of the electricity (basically, superconductivity relies on COLD wires).

Anyway, read the article below. If nothing else, some long term investment ideas should fall out of it. And please, forward this to your friends to "get the world out" (their is an email icon that you cna click at the bottom of this post).

Science & Technology at Scientific American.com: A Power Grid for the Hydrogen Economy -- [ ENERGY ] -- Cryogenic, superconducting conduits could be connected into a "SuperGrid" that would simultaneously deliver electrical power and hydrogen fuel

Tisha B'Av and Hezbollah

Tonite and tomorrow are the Jewish holiday of Tisha B'Av, which commemorates a variety of Jewish national calamities, including the destruction of both the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem. for more information on this holiday, see the article on the Aish site at http://www.aish.com/tishaBavOverview/tishaBavOverviewDefault/Tisha_BAv_-_The_Ninth_of_Av.asp

Arabs have notoriously sought to perpetrate major attacks against Israel on days of special religious significance -- the Yom Kippur War in 1973 being the most famous. Given the deeper than usual religious overtones to Israe's latest implacable enemy, the Islamist Hezbollah terrorist group, Israel should be expecting Hezbollah to perpetrate a "special surprise" against it tonite or tomorrow (e.g., missile attack on Tel Aviv, or chemical weapons attack closer in), which could lead to horrible loss of Israeli life, or an opportunity for Israel to eliminate some very meaningful targets and prove to the world who is the true enemy of civilization.

Let's pray that it is the latter. Lets also pray that the Western world, beyond the US, begins to realize the depth of evil and danger facing Judeo-Christian civilization at the hands of Islamists of all stripes, whether Sunnis or Shiites. Should we learn to live with the Iranians acquiring nuclear capabilities, as some of my friends (and much of Europe) suggest? I think not.

Op-Ed On Hezbollah's "Qana Calculus"

Concerned Citizen: See link to Op-Ed piece below, produced by a fellow at the Washington Institute For Near East Policy (www.washingtoninstitute.org), of which I am a trustee.

BTW, in coming days I will present my views regarding the near and middle term end game to the current conflict.

Article or Op-Ed

Arab Accountability

Below is a link to my first post, regarding the holding of Arab's accountable for their own actions, and the broader concept of democracy -- a subject upon which I will be writing more as soon as the Israeli-Lebanese war cools down.

http://commonsenseforaworldpopulatedbyhumans.blogspot.com/2006/07/on-treating-arab-populations-like.html

On Israel's Hedgemonic Position in the Mideast

DEBKAfile - Israel’s Surprise Raid of Baalbek Is No Panacea for Tactical Ills --But it Shows that Israel May Have Finally "Woken Up"

Concerned Citizen: Attached below is a link to an article prepared by Debka on the prosecution of Israel's war in Lebanon so far. As my loyal readers will see, I agree with most of it. What I would like to add is that while I have been very critical of Israel's mistakes until now, and believe that Israel faces a number of painful hurdles and challenges going forward, the Baalbek raid and recent broader military operations in the south of Lebanon will hopefully represent a turning point in Israel's pursuit of this war. Most importantly, not to sound like a broken record, we hope that bold military actions like this one, coupled with a bit of luck, will help re-establish Israel's deterrent capability in the Arab and Persian worlds.

Hopefully Israel has awoken from its slumber, and the Arab world will notice.

DEBKAfile - Israel’s Surprise Raid of Baalbek Is No Panacea for Tactical Ills

WSJ.com - Global View -- Israel is Losing this War

Concerned Citizen: I am back from vacation -- how the world and its strategic situation changes in a couple of weeks.

Unfortunately, I have written previously on this blog about what I thought was the feckless prosecution of this war against Hezbollah by Israel's incompetent leadership, and the terrible toll that I thought it would take on Israel's deterrent value vis a vis the Arabs, not to mention what it would do to Israel's international standing (which was goign to suffer no matter what -- and hence the 60 year old wisdom of Israel's leaders, until now, that you "take care of business" first, worry about the world's views of you second). As we have reported previously,

1. Israel's deterrent value could only be re-established by way of a decisive victory -- anything less would be protrayed in the Arab world as a Hezbollah victory, burnishing its (and Iran's, and Syria's) reputation. See my article of July 18th (!?!) on this blog (right-hand column) regarding deterrence ("Why Israel is Losing this War...").

2. In order to achieve this, any Junior ROTC candidate would tell you that airpower would not suffice, and that an overwhelming ground operation of some sort would have to be undertaken -- unfortunately with concomitant casualties.

Israel was given the green light by not only the US, but by Egypt, Jordan and SAUDI ARABIA(!!!) to try such a bold venture to severely bloody the nose of Shiite radicalism that increasingly threatens the Mideast and our ostensible allies there. Based upon the Arab world's prior experience with Israel, it would have expected such bold action and respected it, even if military actions alone would have not resulted in an ultimate resolution of this part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Instead, an inexperienced Israeli leadership, led by a hack mayor/lawyer, a labor leader and an inexperienced foreign minister, has shown a lack of confidence, and has pursued handwringing and hesitant incrementalism instead of bold action, telegraphing each of its actions in advance to its foes (for what purpose, we can't discern). Silly Israeli government dispatches, for public consumption, of the destruction of large amounts (50%, 70%, whatever) of Hezbollah's capabilities from the air, either bespeak gross negligence or wishful thinking, only strengthened the resolve of Israel's enemies who have become increasingly convinced of Israel's weakness of will. And at the end, Israel is on the verge of undertaking a large ground invasion anyway, but under much different circumstances now, devoid of any element of surprise.... Either way, Israel will have to face the issue of whether, or how much, to "stay in Lebanon", after the inevitable forced ceasefire is brokered (by the way, when Israel talks about the objective of clearing out a 1-2 mile buffer zone on its border with Lebanon, as if that will achieve a great deal for its security, why doesn't anyone ask how this will help against rockets and missiles with much greater ranges than that?).

I hate to sound shrill, but Israel has hurt itself. Hopefully, Israel has time to recover in this war from these mistakes, without causing greater casualties than would have otherwise occurred, and learns from this experience.

Watch for a change in Israel's government 6 months from now, when it will be OK for the Israeli people (and opposition politicians) to start aggressively asking questions about Olmert's prosecution of this war. It is worth noting that the Israeli people, whose children/soldiers would be put in harm's way by stronger military action, have been consistently and overwhelmingly supportive of a more robust response in this war, from its first days until now.

See the link to the Wall Street Journal article below for more on this subject.


WSJ.com - Global View

Iran as a Stabilizing Force and the French, Part 2

Because I couldn't help myself, attached are pictures of my wife with that charming scourge of civilization, Jacques Chirac, and his bonehead foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Balzy, who made the Iran comment referenced in the last post. My wife's relatively intimate meetings with both of them (in a group of 20 Jewish leaders who spent hours with them and their staff) led her away with the observation of their charming and reasonable nature. Welcome to the world of world-class (particularly French world-class) politicians, Asia.

I used to think the French were just amoral, but I have grown to appreciate that they simply have their own logic, much unlike my own -- another reminder to take heed of the guiding philosophy underneath the title of this blog.

French FM: Iran a 'stabilizing force' -- The Good, Old French

Concerned Citizen: Below is an interesting piece of analysis that, besides making for a good headline, gives insight into the French way of thinking, which relies upon trying to maintain balance, at whatever price it might ultimately cost.

And now for my French joke of the day (sorry Francophiles, I couldn't resist): Why are those beautiful French boulevards lined with trees? Because the Germans like to march in the shade.

French FM: Iran a 'stabilizing force' | Jerusalem Post