Nozette: Pollard, 2.0?

44 thoughts on “Nozette: Pollard, 2.0?”

1. Helena, I’m surprised by your position on this case. The defendant was approached by an undercover FBI agent and apparently asked to commit a crime. That looks very much like entrapment to me; would the defendant have contemplated committing a crime if he had not been asked to do so?
   I understand that the realities of counter-espionage may make these techniques necessary, but I hardly think that they ought to be applauded by someone who cares about human rights.

2. While there are problematic aspects to entrapment, there are ways to overcome the objections.
   In Culling Palestinians for Organ-Harvesting, I address the techniques used by former US Attorney Christie in uncovering NY-NJ corruption and a black market organ trade:

   Syrian-American Jewish convicted felon Dwek was tar baby initially for politicians corrupted by real estate interests. As the US attorney’s office investigated, it stumbled onto a Syrian American Jewish money laundering ring, which then led them to the NY-NJ ultra-Orthodox Jewish black market organ trading ring.

   Cammarano and the other two Hoboken mayoral candidates were the control to prove that FBI wasn’t using psychological methods that would entrap anybody.

   One candidate refused to meet with Dwek on principle. The second candidate told Dwek that he could contribute but that she would follow all the contribution reporting rules and that Dwek would get no special favors. Cammarano took the bait hook-line and sinker. He accepted the money, never reported it, and told Dwek, who was wired, that he would be Dwek’s best friend.

3. In Depth Report:
   The Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies
   Alexandria, VA | October 19, 2009
   … Nozette tells colleague that if the US Government tried to put him in jail (based on an unrelated criminal offense), Nozette would move to Israel or foreign country “A” and “tell them everything” he knows.
   6 Jan 2009: Traveled to a foreign country “A” with two computer thumb drives.
   28 Jan 2009: Returned to US without the two thumb drives.
   3 Sept 09: Nozette contacted via telephone by FBI undercover employee (UCE) posing as an Israeli Mossad officer. Nozette agrees to meet that day for lunch at a hotel on Connecticut Ave, NW, in Washington, DC. At meeting, Nozette discusses willingness to work for Israeli intelligence for money; tells UCE he had access to US satellite information. UCE arranges a communication system via a post office box and gives Nozette a ‘clean phone’. Nozette agrees to provide regular, continuing information; asks for Israeli passport and the “Right of Return” because his parents are Jewish…
   http://alethonews.blogspot.com/2009/10/us-scientist-charged-with-attempted.html

4. Joe in Australia is dead on target. I have no symphathy for the kid-glove treatment routinely meted out to Americans who spy for the Zionists, but entrapment is radically illegitimate.

5. Similar efforts have netted suspects over illegally supplying aircraft spare parts to Iran.
   Good to see the Zionists are now being targeted.

6. Helena,
   You say that the DOJ statement spelled out that, “The complaint does not allege that the government of Israel or anyone acting on its behalf committed any offense under U.S. laws in this case.” In other words, the FBI cold-called the guy. Israel never tried to recruit him and is not responsible for any of this.
   1. Pollard deserves to rot in prison. Though entrapped, Nozette committed a crime. He deserves to go to prison for it. I have zero sympathy for someone who agrees to spy on the United States on behalf of any other country.
   2. What concerns me is that Nozette was clearly entrapped. What led the FBI to go after Nozette in particular? Is he Jewish? (I have no idea). If so, is the FBI going around trying to entrap Jewish scientists who have access to sensitive information? Are they doing the same thing with Russian Orthodox scientists, Muslim scientists, Chinese scientists, Hispanic scientists and Protestant scientists of German heritage?
   3. You appear to approve of this. Would you also approve of entrapment if Nozette had been entrapped by the FBI into trying to spy for Russia or China or Iran or Saudi Arabia, or do you only feel that it’s okay because the FBI agent posed as an Israeli?
   4. Would you still approve if they were trying to entrap staff members of Human Rights Watch instead of American scientists?

7. You should celebrate, not mock, any prosecutor who reminds the public of the presumption of innocence.

8. You should celebrate, not mock, any prosecutor who reminds the public of the presumption of innocence.

9. You should celebrate, not mock, any prosecutor who reminds the public of the presumption of innocence.

10. You should celebrate, not mock, any prosecutor who reminds the public of the presumption of innocence.

11. You should celebrate, not mock, any prosecutor who reminds the public of the presumption of innocence.

12. Helena,
    Your entire article is nonsense. As the US government said and you admit, the Israelis are not accused of doing anything wrong. The man, evidently, needed money and he, not the Israelis, did something wrong.
    Now, so far as contacts between Israel and the US on the scientific front, Israel has by far the highest level of inventive conception, per capita, of any country in the world, including even the US. It is number 2 in the entire world – beaten only by the US – in total entrepreneurial activity regarding turning inventive ideas into business. And, per capita, Israel is number 1 in the world in that area. So, if there is scientific exchanges between the US and Israel, there is likely as much for the Israelis to give as they may get. Which is to say, when you write “the formerly “permeable membrane” between the US strategic-scientific community and the Israeli strategic-scientific community, that had benefitted the Israeli community so much over the past 16 years, suddenly doesn’t look quite so permeable any more,” your views are contrary to fact.

13. Dear N. Friedman, did you try to find out the story.
    The HuffPo Report indicates that the FBI became suspicious of Nozette while he worked for a wholly Israeli-government-owned company:

    An affidavit suggests why FBI agents posed as agents of the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad to conduct the sting operation.

    From 1998 to 2008, the complaint alleges, Nozette was a technical adviser for a consultant company that was wholly owned by the Israeli government. Nozette was paid about $225,000 over that period, the court papers say.

    Then, in January of this year, Nozette allegedly traveled to another foreign country with two computer thumb drives and apparently did not return with them. Prosecutors also quote an unnamed colleague of Nozette who said the scientist said that if the U.S. government ever tried to put him in jail for an unrelated criminal offense, he would go to Israel or another foreign country and “tell them everything” he knows.

    Obviously the FBI is primarily trying to determine whether there was a security breach, and if so, who the recipient of US government material was.
    At this point there is probably only a secondary interest
    (1) in playing hardball with the Israeli government or
    (2) in warning dual-loyal and simply venal Americans
    that the US government does not tolerate trade in US government secrets.

14. I suspect that Nozette had contacted someone from the Israeli government who in turn passed the contact information to the Americans.

15. Dear Marcus,
    Your interpretation of the indictment and the news reports would be more plausible if no thumb drives were missing. It is always possible that they were accidentally flushed down the toilette or otherwise destroyed, but at the moment nothing seems to exculpate the Israeli government or put it under suspicion.
    I did some consulting for a wholly Israeli-government-owned hi-tech company from 89-91. As I remember there was a lot of suspicion that Russian immigrants might be KGB agents.
    The Soviet Union has vanished from history, but the Russian Federation is not an improbable candidate for the other foreign country to which Nozette traveled.

16. Joachim,
    Your Huffington Post article does not suggest Israeli involvement in any wrongful activity. Working for an Israeli company is not a crime and threatening to run away to a third country is not a crime, even if the country might be Israel.
    It is logical to assume that the FBI, interested in enticing an individual believed to be inclined to spy (e.g., a person in financial difficulty), would entice that person towards a group where there was, at one time, a connection. That, to me, is the most logical explanation. But, that hardly suggests that the Israelis were doing anything wrong. Such a suggestion goes very far beyond the evidence.
    In any event, the last time the US went after someone really associated with Israel for spying for Israel, the evidence was so weak as to suggest politics, not illegality, was the motive for the complaint. That, after all, is why the indictments were dropped against the AIPAC official. No crime was committed.

17. The entrapment defense is well known and rarely successful because prosecutors are generally very leery of any case that even raises the issue. This case with its national implications was undoubtedly scrutinized not only by the the usual staff, but by senior justice department officials also (real, career professionals, not just the politically appointed hacks). While the story, as presented, certainly sounds like entrapment, I am sure the case would not have gotten this far unless there was much more to it. I do find it interesting that the indictment contains language specifically exonerating Israel; language that normally has no place in an indictment. So rather than take the usual optimistic view of Helena, I am disturbed that the Justice Department went so far out of its way and out of normal legal procedure to exonerate Israel. This sounds like a case that was too good not to indict, but that outsiders ( the White House) intervened in, to add the language so as not to offend Israel or stir up any anti- Israel feeling.

18. Dear N. Friedman,
    As I pointed out “at the moment nothing seems to exculpate the Israeli government or put it under suspicion,” and from what I read, I have the impression that there was a genuine security breach.
    I suspect from my own experience that the Russian Federation might be involved. Any such involvement would be almost as much a hot button issue as recruitment of an American scientist by the Israeli government.
    In addition, I do not believe from my own experience that all Israeli government-owned companies are Mossad fronts even though Nozette, who is Jewish, believed it, but one will find at such companies a lot of people that are active and reserve military, some of whom may be Israeli intelligence agents of one sort or another.
    To be honest, I have also run across such people at the Harvard Kennedy School, and I suspected that Piki Ish-Shalom (Pinky Friedman — what a joke!) was an Israeli intelligence agent. He was even a submarine commander like James Bond.
    I have to wonder if there might be more of a Harvard-MIT connection that the documents currently indicate.
    Nozette grew up in Rahm Emanuel’s old congressional district, which is a hotbed of extremist Zionism and dual loyalty. Jerusalem Post writer Caroline Glick grew up in the same neighborhood.
    I am amused that the UCE’s last name – Martell – is a variant of mine – Martillo.
    I have a comment up on my blog, and I will list relevant links at the end including the indictment: [Just World News] Nozette: Pollard, 2.0?
    I have to correct the claim that no crime was committed in the AIPAC/Rosen/Weissman/Franklin case.
    Franklin plead guilty. The judge kept raising the bar on evidence, and the government let him get away with it. The behavior of all parties implies not the absence of a crime but a corrupt effort by Zionist subversives within the DOJ and the US judiciary to shield the Israel Lobby and the State of Israel from scrutiny.

19. Joachim,
    Mr. Franklin may have committed a crime but that those involved with AIPAC committed no crime – which is all I said.
    Your assertion that the Judge in that case changed the law is not so. The Judge merely followed rather well settled law – which is why the case then fell apart. In any event, one would have to ask how a crime could really have been committed by the AIPAC employees in the case when it was the custom, at the time, of the US government to share information with Israel. Intent is, as you perhaps know, an element of the law. It was the job of Mr. Franklin to know what he could share, not the job of outsiders at AIPAC to know.
    I do not know what an “extreme” Zionist is. How would one distinguish an “extreme” Zionist from an ordinary Zionist? My impression is that you have no use for Zionists of any stripe so that the word “extreme” is superfluous.
    I do not see a case of dual loyalty, as you suggest. I merely see that you oppose Israel and thus see disloyalty in those who do not share your views. As you surely know, the majority of Americans support Israel and, were you to do some research, support for the idea of Israel by large segments of the American population pre-dated Israel by several centuries. Abraham Lincoln was a restorationist, as was Woodrow Wilson. They were not alone.
    Removing ourselves from unfounded accusations, countries pretty much all, including allies, spy on each other. When it comes to allies spying on each other, countries tend to turn a blind eye – except when making a stink serves a purpose, in this case the purpose perhaps being to limit the sharing of information by the US. Perhaps also, there are people in the US government who hoped to create hostility between the US and Israel.
    In conclusion, if there was nothing to put Israel under suspicion, then you agree with me that Helena’s article is basically nonsense.

20. nozette had passed much secret info to his real country and wanted to pass more. the fbi was onto him and intercepted not entrapped. nozette is a an agent for israel. he deserves to be hung.
    flee to israel or to country A. country A being israel.

21. “So, Obama’s Justice Department has finally decided to play some degree of hardball with Israel?”
    I doubt it.

22. Dear N. Friedman,
    I know all the masbir tricks. Don’t bother even to try.
    In addition I consider legal motions, decisions, affidavits, indictments, etc. light reading compared to the stuff I used to do as a grad student.
    There were people in the US attorney’s office and and the FBI, who believed that they could nail Rosen and Weissman either on the original charges or on charges of conspiracy to commit a crime with Franklin.
    There were problems with the behavior of Senior Bush administration officials, who acted to undercut the prosecution, and with Ellis’ decisions, which ignored certain aspects of settled case law vis-a-vis a crime vs conspiracy to commit a crime.
    While it is true that Franklin had the responsibility to know the security classification of the documents, Rosen and Weissman could still intend to obtain access to documents that were forbidden to them.
    One could analogize Franklin to a US government safe, into which Rosen and Weissman were breaking. They would have committed a crime even if they found that all the documents were freely available when they finally returned to their lair.
    In essence senior Bush administration Zionists were protecting Zionist subversion within the government as Obama administration Zionists have continued to do so to this day.
    It is an issue that should be brought into the open and that probably involves seditious conspiracy in time of war, obstruction of justice and numerous other violations.
    A non-extreme Zionist would be a non-Jew, who out of sympathy with Jewish suffering during the Holocaust, believes it is somehow legitimate to take Palestine from the native population and to give it to a bunch of E. Europeans.
    Such a person is typically very confused with regard to European history and with regard to basic ethics.
    I read through the indictment. There is certainly reason to suspect Nozette of dual loyalty as well as venality.
    I worked at two companies of the sort at which Nozette was working. While in my experience the they were probably not fronts for Israeli intelligence, there certainly were people that I suspected of such affiliation.
    I have the impression that Nozette was providing confidential US government information during the whole period of his consulting.
    Whether we should suspect the State of Israel of espionage really hinges on whether Nozette volunteered or was coaxed.
    I have no opinion one way or another from the indictment, but now that I have read Helena’s blog entry, the comments, and a lot of the online literature, she does not seem wrong to speculate that there might be a desire somewhere in the DOJ or elsewhere in the Obama administration to play hardball with the State of Israel.
    As for the everybody spies argument, you are just giving us a piece of the usual hasbarah logic which goes:
    We rock,
    They suck,
    You suck,
    everybody sucks.
    You just jumped to the end. In any case, willingness to spy for friends must be slapped down hard because if it isn’t enemies will pretend to be friends in order to get access to secrets.
    Issues of the US-Israel alliance are of less concern to me than to Helena — if I interpret her articles and books correctly.
    I am more concerned that the Israel Lobby is poisoning US political processes to make it hard for people like Helena to bring her ideas before the American public.
    To place impediments to open discussion of the US-Israel alliance the Israel Lobby uses tactics that long ago crossed the line into criminality, but because of Zionist subversives within the US government no legal action has been taken.
    As a consequence, there is now a set of laws in this country for Jewish Zionists and another for everyone else.
    Thus the Israel Lobby has put the core of the American system in jeopardy.
    Patriotic Americans must take action before the cracks Zionists have made in the system bring the whole edifice crashing down.

23. Joachim,
    I am glad that you know how to read legal material.
    Your view that the DOJ thought the government had a case tell me nothing. DOJ files lots of cases and in my experience of 30 years practicing law, I have yet to hear a DOJ attorney say before a Court says otherwise, “I have no case.” In fact, DOJ normally says it has a strong case until it is forced to back down, which appears to be what occurred in the case against the AIPAC officials.
    That said, I agree with your view that it is always possible for the AIPAC officials to have been engaged in espionage. However, that does not mean that they were, a possibility which does not seem to have fully registered in your head.
    Your assertions that my arguments are Hasbara – masbir, in your first rendition – is an invalid argument. What matters in an argument is whether the argument is sound, not its source. I gather that the reason for asserting hasbara is to score ad hominem points. Evidently, your excellent education overlooked that labeling an argument by its source is not a valid form of argument. In any event, I make my own arguments, so your assertions are factually wrong.
    Can a Jew be a non-extreme Zionist? And, why the distinction between Jews and non-Jews that is implicit your comments? You are sounding much like the infamous Marcos Garcia of Toleda, Spain who distinguished Christians by whether they have Jewish ancestry. I have no idea what you are saying. I do trust that you realize that Garcia’s argument was a heresy.
    By the way, what misreading of European history do you have in mind? My recollection is that Jews were not very well-treated in European history, not only before WWII but also during and after that war. Why ought persecuted Jews to have remained in Europe? Why ought Jews who moved to Arab lands agree to live as second class persons – which is how Jews lived under Arab rule? And, what gave the Arab states in the region the right to start a war of annihilation, to drive out or kill the Jewish population, both migrant and native, in order to prevent partition? Consider: had the Arabs accepted partition, there would not likely have been any displaced people.
    You seem to think that friends of Israel have no right to petition the government and that their influence crowds out other, more legitimate influences. I see something quite different. I do not see any subversion of the US government. I see people doing what is their right as American citizens. I see you making essentially the same arguments made about Jewish influence over the Roosevelt administration. It was not true then and it is not true now.

24. N. Friedman
    My recollection is that Jews were not very well-treated in European history
    As very well known what the Jews suffered in Europe (Spain, Franc, and East Europe) in additions been treated as second class citizens, they are not allowed to attend the public school or get educations, also they forced to live in separates area. Despite they suffer from doing business and working.
    This was the Jews status for decades inside Europe, comparing what the Jew were in Arab land it’s very different.
    As I an Arab and Iraqi from a family had very good relation with Iraqi Jews before WWII. I am speaking here about Iraq but may be some differences from other Arab land but I believe not worse than what Jews suffered in western world. In matter of education most Iraqi Jews are well educated and attending public schools like any Iraqi, bear in mind that the schools was few and it was attended by higher class citizens. To put in prospect during the Iraqi Monarchy the first Iraqi minister of finance was a Jew, this tells what the treatment of Jews in Iraq was.
    As part of their living, here I pass what my family (my father) what had of very joyful and memorable time with his lost Jews families and friends. They had their own shops and business also they working within the society of main town not isolated because they Jews. This was in a village area which called “Missyaib” this just north Hilla city (Babylon Now), Btw, Missayaib had a holy place for Jews.
    This was the picture of Jews living in Arab land before WWII.
    Before and after 1948 most the Jews from Arab land where encouraged to go to Palestine and start their holy land project, initially the Jew from Arab land have got and promoted for leading positions as they were well educated, so used them to create and administrated the holy land project.
    Why ought Jews who moved to Arab lands to agree to live as second class persons
    I think this is misleading statement, they moved as you said because their bad treatment in Europe….. so as any human on earth when you like to emigrates you looking for better place to live and to go to start a new life although it may not be perfect but sure its better than the place you leaving behind otherwise then the Jews will never go to Arab land then.
    What gave the Arab states in the region the right to start a war of annihilation, to drive out or kill the Jewish population, both migrant and native, in order to prevent partition?
    Another misleading statement here, the move have nothing to do with their full right to defend their land from foreigners and invaders as same as any other nations and humans. The move of Jews from Europe did not GAVE Arab the right to defend their land, its their full right.
    I guess this no one can argue this matter at all. I wonder the writer of this statement tell us if some one breaking his house to live on his garden is that give him the right to start war? Or he have full right to defend himself and his asset from the Intruder?

25. Helena — that sardonic ending re. presumption of innocence, well said:
    Absolutely. (I mean, isn’t that the same rule the US government applies when deciding whom to snuff out in the drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan??)

26. scott h – oh?
    The obvious difference is that Nozette lives in a sovereign state (USA) in which the police are able to arrest him.
    The drone attacks, in contrast, are part of an active war in which rebel armies (Taleban, al Qaeda) control territory and engage in active military combat against the national governments in question. The al Qaeda/Taleban leaders who are killed in these air strikes are military rather than judicial targets. They are military targets because their military campaign against the governments in question prevents the governments from exercising sovereignty over the territory in which these enemies are located. This makes it impossible for their governments to simply arrest and try these men. Otherwise, the men would certainly be arrested, questioned and tried.
    It’s ridiculous to compare the complaint against Nozette to military strikes al Qaeda terrorists engaged in active warfare against the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
    Of course, you are entitled to argue that involvement in these wars is itself wrong, but that’s not what you (and Helena) are saying. Instead, you’re implying that before striking enemy military and military-terrorist figures operating within enemy territory, a liberal democracy needs to try them in a court of law and prove them guilty. This is clearly not true in a legal sense, and it’s not even true in an ethical sense.

27. Nozette’s Israel connections:
    According to the criminal complaint, between 1998 and 2008 Nozette worked as a technical consultant for an aerospace company that was wholly owned by the Israeli state.
    During much of that time the company requested that Nozette provide it with technical data. Once a month, Nozette answered these questions. In return he received payments of approximately $225,000, according to the US government.
    On January 6, 2009, Nozette flew out of Dulles Airport, outside of Washington, to an unnamed foreign country. Security officers searched his luggage and found two small computer “thumb drives” in his possession.
    Upon his return three weeks later, US agents thoroughly searched his luggage. Those computer drives were nowhere to be found, according to the criminal complaint.
    Near the end of his initial conversation with the FBI agent who was posing as his new Mossad handler, Nozette also said this:
    “I thought I was working for you already. I mean, that’s what I always thought, [the foreign company] was just a front.”
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1021/p02s02-usfp.html

28. By your logic Howard, all that is necessary to justify an aerial attack on civilians is to assert that a person listed for assassination lived among them.
    This, of course, was the justification given, ex post facto, for the massacres in Gaza. It might equally well have been advanced as justification for the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre’s towers.
    According to the US military, the actual efficiency claimed for the drone attacks in Pakistan is in the order of 2%. Or, to put it another way, for every 2 persons, thought to be enemies, killed 98 others die.
    These assassination programmes are not only thoroughly immoral but, almost certainly, counter productive. Few things are of greater benefit, history shows, to an army, than to have its Generals replaced by eager and efficient young men. This, presumably is what is happening thabnks to the drone programme.

29. Salah,
    “As very well known what the Jews suffered in Europe (Spain, Franc, and East Europe) in additions been treated as second class citizens, they are not allowed to attend the public school or get educations, also they forced to live in separates area. Despite they suffer from doing business and working.
    This was the Jews status for decades inside Europe, comparing what the Jew were in Arab land it’s very different.”
    What is less remarked upon is that this situation for Jews in Europe was hardly unique for Jews. for example while the Tsarist regime imposed the restrictions you cite against Jews well into the nineteenth century, it should also be realized that until the 1860’s Ukrainian Slavs existed as serfs under conditions not far removed from American slavery, while German colonists throughout the East were only allowed to engage in agricultural pursuits under both Polish monarchy and Tsarist rule.

30. Dear Salah,
    I discuss Jewish Arabs at Collection: Non-Ashkenazi Jews. You may find the material interesting. I am quite knowledgeable on this topic, and I try to answer comments put on my blog.
    It would be unfair to Helena for me to deluge her blog’s comment stream with material that is off-topic with respect to her original blog entry.
    Joachim Martillo

31. Dear Atheo,
    I open a discussion of modern Russian Jewish political economics at Herzl and Normalizing Jewish Power. You may find the material interesting. I am quite knowledgeable on this topic, and I try to answer comments put on my blog.
    It would be unfair to Helena for me to deluge her blog’s comment stream with material that is off-topic with respect to her original blog entry.
    Joachim Martillo

32. Dear N. Friedman,
    Despite your assertion that US attorneys always claim to have a good case, I have been noticing a pattern of US attorneys and government regulators dropping the ball on cases where the accused are Jewish Zionists.
    I reference one such case in Gladwell Supports Hegemonic Zionist Discourse. Search for Miami SEC.
    [Unfortunately, records of the case seem to be vanishing from the Internet. It is not the first time that I have noticed articles vanishing from archives when the material contained is potentially embarrassing to Zionists.]
    Anyway, it will be interesting to see what happens in the case of Nozette. The Jewish blogosphere and press is already complaining about persecution as I noted in my blog’s entry discussing Nozette.

33. يهود العراق: الهجرة الجماعية والعودة

34. Dear Salah,
    It’s good that such an article appeared in an Iraqi newspaper, but it really wasn’t much of an article.
    Before 1865 Arabic-speaking Jews in Mesopotamia were basically ethnically and culturally hardly different from Arabic-speaking Muslims or Christians.
    In 1865 the Alliance Israélite Universelle opened a school in Baghdad so that French Jews could teach Baghdadi Jews how to be Jewish by French Jewish standards, which were not Zionist in that time frame.
    This school set the evolution of Mesopotamian Jewish identity off on its own course different from the evolutionary path that we see among other Iraqis.
    In the 19-teens an even more radical development took place as Zionists began to teach in Iraqi Jewish schools.
    I only skimmed the article, and I need to improve my Arabic, but there is a lot of other material that would need to be addressed in a thorough study as well as other noteworthy Jews of Iraqi descent like Islamophobe Steven Emerson’s sometime collaborator Rita Katz (née Gubbai), Oxford Professor Avi Shlaim, Israeli Sephardic Chief Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, Columbia Professor Ella Shohat, David Project anti-Arab hate-monger Eliad Moreh (Shmuel Moreh’s grand-daughter?), English-language author/journalist Rachel Shabi et al. who should be mentioned.
    If my Arabic were better, I would cover the descendants of Jewish Arabic communities much more on my blog for Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel because it is important to expose Zionist lies about Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Arabs.

35. (I mean, isn’t that the same rule the US government applies when deciding whom to snuff out in the drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan??)
    Helena doped Iraq from her list where sure US “snuff out” many innocents Iraqi for the last past 6.5 years.
    One incident last week US troops (remember they said US withdrawal from cities) went to a house and arrested a man but what they done they broke and demolished his house and arrested him.
    Isn’t every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.? which law that give them the right to demolish an suspected man house?
    This is like Israelis doing in occupied land as same as US also in occupied Iraq.
    US game of snuff out or working with devils well known, we all knew Da’awa Party were listed as a terrorist organization, but God knows how became US proxy group and friends in Iraq

36. bevin, thanks for your comments.
    During a war, it is quite legitimate under international law to bomb military targets in order to further military objectives, so long as (1) the means used to attack the targets are proportionate to the military value of the objective, and (2) one tries as much as possible to protect nearby civilians when one performs such an attack. These attacks on legitimate military targets are absolutely legal under the laws of war as they exist today.
    Of course, you can claim that these laws are immoral or unjust, but that’s a separate discussion. I’ll be happy to discuss this with you, if that’s what you want. But my point is that these strikes are legal given current international law.
    You might also claim that the war itself is bad, but that’s also a separate discussion. I agree with you that this war is bad. Unfortunately, the ones who insist on fighting a war instead of following democratic and peaceful processes are al Qaeda and the Taleban. Pakistan has EVERY right to fight back against these psychos. So does Afghanistan.
    (So do the Philippines, Iraq, Israel, Colombia, Turkey, etc., all of whom are fighting on and off wars with terrorist organizations that control territory and use it as a launch pad for attacks on civilians, and whose leaders and members cannot simply be arrested)
    Your attempt to extend this reasoning to the World Trade Center ignores the absolutely crucial difference under international law between an attack on a legitimate military target (even if it is placed among human shields), on the one hand, and the deliberate slaughter of civilians as the goal of a military strike on a civilian site. The WTC was a 100% civilian target containing no military forces, and crashing civilian airliners into it was absolutely illegal under the laws of war. Strikes against vital military command centers are legal, though the (rather fuzzy) ratio of force to benefit is crucial in determining how much force can be used.
    Do you see the difference now?
    The efficiency claimed for drone attacks in Pakistan may well be 2%, as you say (please provide your source), and if that REALLY means that 98 civilians are killed per 2 terrorists, as opposed to simply indicating that only 2% of the hits are successful, then that’s pretty poor. However, it may well be that given the use of human shields and the need to eliminate known “high-value targets”, there is little choice. We would have to discuss specific cases, I think, and even then deciding what kind of attack is “proportionate” to the military value of a particular objective, rather than being a disproportionately violent way to achieve that objective, is difficult if you and I don’t have all of the information about these particular al Qaeda/Taleban leaders and their importance within the al Qaeda/Taleban military units fighting against Pakistan and Afghanistan.
    As for your comment about the air strikes being counterproductive, there are cases where your comments are 100% accurate; there are also cases in which “taking out” an extremely talented terrorist / military leader leaves a much less talented crew in charge, or leaves a disorganized mess that rapidly spirals out of control. I don’t think that we can settle this one, but I suspect that the air strikes are not being used against leaders who are known to be inept; far better to leave them in charge.

37. Joachim,
    You really think that accusations against Israel’s friends are treated in an unusual manner – disappearing into the ether?
    I think that if you look a bit more carefully, you will discover that all sorts of accusations are made by the government and, when, as sometimes occurs, the accusations turn out to be nonsense, they disappear into the ether. In fact, if you look even more carefully you will discover that accusations against Israel’s friends (a) are not usually treated differently than accusations against others and (b)when they are, they tend to be treated more zealously by prosecutors than in other, less high profile, cases. Which is to say, I think you are confused.
    The case against the AIPAC officials comes to mind as it relates to item (b) above. The accusations were based on ambiguous evidence which was subject to multiple reasonable interpretations (hence, had there been a conviction, it would have been reversed on the same grounds that freed von Bulow, since, by definition and law, circumstantial evidence does not show guilt if there are multiple reasonable interpretations of such evidence even if the jury is convinced that one interpretation is better than the others). The government attempted to circumvent that problem by trying to change the law so that our system of guilt or innocence would be undermined. Hence and with very good reason, the Judge shut the government’s efforts down.
    Consider: you may know how to read legal documents. That does not mean you understand how law works.

38. Dear Howard,
    Your hasbarah would be more credible if the USA had not attacked purely civilian communications facilities in Serbia with the justification that they were legitimate military targets.
    The WTC was a major communications hub for the region.
    That said, I have opened a discussion of International Law vis-a-vis Palestine in Whither After Goldstone?.
    Because I have to spend so much time in dealing with Zionist shyster lawyer wannabes — I did in fact study International Law in a special program at the Harvard Law School — I am quite knowledgeable on this topic, and I try to answer comments put on my blog.
    It would be unfair to Helena for me to deluge her blog’s comment stream with material that is off-topic with respect to her original blog entry.

39. Joachim,
    Whatever you may know about International Law does not seem to extend to any knowledge regarding how US law works.
    And, as I noted: your constant use of terms such as Hasbara amount to ad hominem argumentation, which is not a valid form of argument.
    Hence, your opponents may be wrong but that does is determined by what they say, not on whether they say things similar to what Israeli propaganda asserts. Surely, your time at Harvard taught that small point to you.
    Again, I think your arguments are of a kind similar to Marcos Garcia. They make distinctions based on who is involved. And, like him, that form of argument is invalid.
    As for Judge Goldstone’s views, he says – his exact words -: “If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.” Obviously so, because his inquiry was extraordinarily cursory and, on top of that, had insufficient information regarding Israeli motivation.
    More than that, his report assigned to upper echelon officials legal failings that he had no way to know about. In that regard, you might read a fascinating book titled The Bitter Road to Freedom: A New History of the Liberation of Europe, William I. Hitchcock. It is about WWII and starts with the Normandy landings. Perhaps you might be interested in learning that as many civilians as soldiers were killed by the Allies on D-Day. Then, the Allies destroyed the town of Caen and much of its population, even though the Nazis had moved out of harms way. And, that was pretty much the norm from the time of the landing until the war ended. Which is to say, war is a horrible thing in which mistake is inevitable – in fact, the norm.
    Without a thorough investigation – something Goldstone acknowledges did not occur – there is no way to treat his report as other than the repeating of accusations along with some physical evidence that does not, taken alone, prove guilt, within the meaning of the laws of war. That is why he asserted that his accusations are insufficient to stand up in Court.

40. If Howard accepts that 2% military target, and 98% civilian, counts as a military target, then there’s no problem. Given the large number of military reservists in Israel, any target in Israel would be a military target. Sderot certainly. Even the twin towers of 9/11.

41. It’s well known that the Israeli army hides among civilians. . .
    Re Joachim’s comment about Nozette heading for a third country, likely Russia, let’s remember where Pollard’s secrets ended up: in the Soviet Union. The biggest coup for the Soviets was Pollard’s information on the silencing mechanisms of US submarines, which resulted in the submarines in question being retrofitted at a cost of billions to the US taxpayer. More aid for Israel.

42. Even the twin towers of 9/11.
    Alexno, do you really think that 2% of the workers at the WTC were military personnel? Having worked in and around those buildings for years I can tell you that’s completely absurd. In fact among WTC employees there were *no* reservists killed in either building among thousands dead.
    Sorry bevin, your 2% statistic doesn’t come from any military source but from outspoken drone critic David Kilcullen and civilian “public source” (ie pakistani press) estimates. The Long War journal did a study that claimed only 10% civilians were killed. New America foundation estimated 31-33 percent. Obviously its next to impossible to estimate these numbers as the relevant territories are off limits to civilian investigators.

43. Unlike some, I’m willing to consider new info and reverse my earlier position. The following explains to my satisfaction why the US government launched the sting operation that resulted in the arrest of Mr. Nozette.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/25/AR2009102502055.html
    Helena, Israel did not commit any wrongdoing (nor did India), and this arrest still has nothing to do with “getting tough with Israel.” Seems that the guy had told someone that he would go spill everything he knew to India or Israel. He got what was coming to him.
    @Joachim: I’ll go with N. Friedman’s response.
    Also, I’m not sure whether you’re calling me, personally, a “Zionist shyster wannabe” or whether the insult was directed elsewhere. Regardless, the fact that you resort to name-calling speaks poorly of you, whatever your qualifications may be. I’ve little interest in conducting a conversation with someone whose first inclination is to engage in ad hominem attacks and to call others names.
    @Alexno: your statements are both bizarre and ignorant. Proportionality is about measuring the military value of the military target vs. the force used to hit it. If the Hamas rockets were hitting a high-value Israeli military base specifically, or if Hamas were somehow locating and assassinating specific, high-value Israeli military officers, then while I would not be pleased, I would not identify such killings as war crimes.
    However, Hamas is not doing that. Firing Qassam rockets randomly into civilian cities in the hope of killing someone, where the planners cannot hope to hit any particular target and are simply shooting rockets in order to kill civilians, is an attack on civilians that has absolutely zero military value and therefore a war crime, pure and simple. Hamas and other groups have fired the explosive equivalent of over 350,000 military hand grenades at Israeli civilians.
    Even worse, Hamas has explicitly and repeatedly targets civilians. They have fired Grad rockets (which are quite accurate, unlike the Qassams) *specifically* at schools. Their leadership is the same group that specifically ordered suicide bombings of buses containing families, and of supermarkets and bakeries, NOT of military bases. In other words, they PERSISTENTLY hit civilian targets IN PREFERENCE to hitting military targets. There is no excuse for that, and indeed Hamas does not seek to make an excuse for it. Hamas leaders believe deeply and passionately that this kind of terrorism is perfectly okay as long as it is done in the service of revenge. They use this argument, publicly, to justify Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians. They clearly believe that this argument is flawless and that they are in the right. Their actions are informed by their beliefs; they kill Israeli civilians because they believe that it’s quite simply okay to do so.
    Similarly, putting civilians on the roof of a military installation or protect a military commander is a war crime, plain and simple. Hamas and PIJ have both bragged about doing this. Just another piece of evidence regarding their mentality; anyone who actually observes them, and is not deeply brainwashed, and is honest, will admit that these guys are war criminals plain and simple.
    Whereas the Israelis put their civilians in bomb shelters and reinforced rooms and build expensive warning systems to keep them safe from rockets, and Israelis phone ahead when possible to warn even Hamas men that a building full of weapons is going to be bombed. A very different mentality leads to very different actions.

44. I am grateful for whatever small favors come my way, and I’m glad to see that the US DOJ is at least trying to appear to take seriously the massive, and massively underpublicized, problem of Israeli espionage directed at the US.
    Perhaps one day we’ll actually see some bona fide Israelis engaged in espionage against the US arrested and charged?
    A middling start, a prosecution of Rosen and Weissberg would have been much better. But as I said, I’m grateful for any and all small favors in this area.

Comments are closed.