Return-Path: <lzkoch@attbi.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 09 Jan 2002 07:35:08 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 25544 invoked by uid 510); 9 Jan 2002 15:33:46 -0000 Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (204.127.198.39) by all.net with SMTP; 9 Jan 2002 15:33:46 -0000 Received: from CB348209-B.attbi.com ([12.248.10.50]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020109153326.BMD25243.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@CB348209-B.attbi.com> for <fc@all.net>; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:33:26 +0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020109080325.01ae1be0@mail.attbi.com> X-Sender: lzkoch@attbi.com@mail.attbi.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 09:35:07 -0600 To: fc@all.net From: "Lewis Z. Koch" <lzkoch@attbi.com> Subject: Re: Fwd: [iwar] [fc:Arms.Seizure.Backfires,.Wounds.Israel] In-Reply-To: <200201091352.g09Dqio15374@red.all.net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020109074410.01ac17e0@mail.attbi.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_11521386==_.ALT" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Fred: I have to respectfully disagree with you here. I think most, if not all of the journalists I've known these 40 years would, if confronted with the dispatch, cold, without any citation, dismiss it. "...of course it could be true..." you write. Of course ANYTHING can be true, but those stories without any semblance of real world citation can claim that little seen white elephants are running Tibet. Just because YOU haven't seen it doesn't make it impossible. I have no problem with you providing the list with the obvious self-serving thumbsuckers (hell, most thumbsuckers serve the purposes of person indulging.) But I do not think it provides any insight into the political/psychological mind set when the thumbsucker is just plopped down, as just another news story. I am going to "parse" several of the unsubstantiated claims in the report to show you what I mean: "Both the Palestinian Authority and Tehran have denied any connection to the Karine A, and a report in a prestigious British shipping journal contradicts Israeli allegations regarding the vessel's ownership." What we see above is the denial which is then tied to a "prestigious British shipping journal" which also "contradicts Israeli allegations regarding the vessel's ownership." OK -- what journal? -- who was the author of the article? --and what do we know or not know about his previous journalistic efforts? " Rather than validating Israel's claims of Palestinian duplicity, the incident has damaged Israel's credibility." According to who? This is a flat out claim, with no substantiation. " Audiences in the West, especially in Europe and the United States, are now more likely to question other Israeli charges against the Palestinians." Audiences? This is like "informed observers" which is a substitute for "a little voice inside my head." What other "charges?" Perhaps there will be the questioning if Israeli agents aren't pretending to be terrorists and blowing up Jews in terrorist bombing. "American and European distrust of Israeli allegations will give the Palestinian Authority more room to maneuver in the short term." According to whom? "PA leader Yasser Arafat can continue to argue that he wants peace and to cite Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's aggressive policies as the root cause of continuing violence in the Middle East." Here we are with the delicious "root cause." The perfect excuse to avoid confronting the reality -- which, at best, is mixed. "Israel had hoped to achieve a double whammy with the ship seizure. First, it sought to throw a wrench into peace talks. It aimed to ensure that the United States would not push Israel into negotiating a truce at a time when it has the upper hand with Arafat. Implicating Iran would advance yet another goal -- containment of the emerging Persian Gulf power. Immediately after announcing the capture of the vessel, Israel called on the European Union to declare Iran a state sponsor of terrorism. The United States already does so." Of course! As if Israel is the only government that seeks to take advantage of a situation which places an enemy at a distinct advantage, "But the seizure of the Karine A instead has mushroomed into a full-scale embarrassment for Israel." Full-scale? Irrefutable? Like an FBI agent being caught as a Soviet/Russian spy." "Several details undermine claims that the Palestinian Authority was directly involved in the purchase and smuggling of weapons. For example, the timing of the seizure provided a convenient means of thwarting progress toward peace talks during a four-day visit by U.S. envoy Anthony Zinni." Several details? We are provided with only one, "for example, the timing..." (We never do find out how did the Israeli's management to time the ships sailing to Zinni's visit. Did the Israeli's control the timing of the visit?) One example does not make "several." After more nonsense the article concludes: "Israel's credibility has taken a blow, giving the Palestinians leverage in the short term." What is the evidence that anyone in the non-Muslin world is taking this seriously. Yes, the likelihood is that a significant portion of the extremist Muslin world will buy into this -- but it most certainly does not give the Palestinians any "leverage" except in their dreams and fantasies. "Now the Palestinian Authority can ask Europe and the United States to pressure Sharon to come to the negotiating table. More important, few will take future Israeli claims about Palestinian." Few? For example, what nations have reversed their Israel-Palestine policy as a result of the arms shipment? What nations have even indicated they are considering revising their policy? The piece came to me (and the list) without additional citation, but as you sat, with a route apparently involving "STRATFOR. I think it likely that it came from one of the Palestinian news agencies - but I don't know." Here again, I'd like some more insight. How sound is STRATFOR intelligence briefings? For example, iDefense was often cited as a source about hackers. All their information was either false, exaggerated, or filed as an "exclusive" when it had already appeared in other places. Not unexpectedly, iDense went bankrupt. STRATFOR claims to be "the (sic) leading provider of global intelligence." Really? Says who. They mention Time magazine and "Brill's Content" as among those who extol their excellence." Time is notorious for not being able to tell a straight story and Brill's Content went out of business, they were so bad. STRATFOR can make it claims -- but I can tell you it's no RAND (even though the uses all caps for their name.) A review of their product places them more and more in the iDefense category as compared to RAND (or the old Hudson Institute when Herman ran it. STRATFOR. "A variety of journalists and editors also serve on the [STRATFOR]staff," its web site states. Which ones? It doesn't say. The Sierra Times.com calls itself "an Internet publications for real Americans." Well, I don't need the Texas-based Sierra Times to define for me what is or is not a real American." This is one of the places, according to a Google search, that runs STRATFOR's material. I really like being on your list. I just want to urge more sourcing. Thanks...all my best Lew At 05:52 AM 1/9/2002 -0800, you wrote: >It came to me without additional citation, but with a route apparently >involving STRATFOR. I think it likely that it came from one of the >Palestinian news agencies - but I don't know. > >I did think it was an interesting example of attempts at perception >management - or of course it could be true... > >FC > >Per the message sent by Lewis Z. Koch: > > Fred: > > > Could you provide the source for this report...it starts out > > without any "byline." > >... > > >Arms Seizure Backfires, Wounds Israel > > >2120 GMT, 020108 > >--This communication is confidential to the parties it is intended to serve-- >Fred Cohen Fred Cohen & Associates.........tel/fax:925-454-0171 >fc@all.net The University of New Haven.....http://www.unhca.com/ >http://all.net/ Sandia National Laboratories....tel:925-294-2087
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-12-31 02:15:02 PST