“Israel’s Nuke Launching Subs Can Be Detected by Uncle Sam”
6 November 2003
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Butte Fire Academy
Oroville, The State of California, The United States of America
The following copyright story from the “San Francisco Chronicle” by the publication’s veteran science writer, Edward Epstein, provides the first official information showing that Israel’s three new supposedly undetectable German-built diesel-powered nuclear weapons launching submarines can be detected by the most powerful military that the world has ever seen, the military of the United States of America.
An excerpt from the article reads:
"...it was necessary to help the Navy experiment with long-range, low-frequency sonar used to detect new quiet diesel-powered submarines... This system is a vital piece of equipment for our anti-submarine warfare."
Another excerpt that is even more insidous reads:
"The Navy appreciates the court seeing the national security need for even the limited use of the long-range, low-frequency sonar system,'' Surette said.
"This system is a vital piece of equipment for our anti-submarine warfare. With it, we can contact enemy subs long before they can endanger us.''
Senior American defense and intelligence officials have expressed their "irritation" with Israel's aquistion of nulcear weapons launching submarines to the London "Sunday Times."
As a former Swedish diplomat who spent a good part of his career in the Middle East succinctly put it to me, “Israel is the 51st American state.”
Anyone who believes that Israel is a hedge against another holocaust by virtue of its military power is sorely mistaken.
There is more than meets the eye to Noam Chomsky’s thesis that Israel serves American interests in the Middle East.
It would be hard to find a political scientist who would disagree with Chomsky’s thesis that Israel does in fact serve American interests in the Middle East.
However, the jury is still out on the reasons that Israel serves American interests in the Middle East.
One possibility is that Israel, the Jewish “safe haven,” only exists because it makes itself relevant to America’s interests in the Middle East.
“Zionism,” the concept of an autonomous Jewish safe haven has not just lost its relevance.
It is dead.
In other news, Prime Minister Menachem Begin is still dead.
Begin’s first words to former American President Jimmy Carter upon arriving at Camp David to negotiate the terms for Israel’s surrender of the Sinai, which would have made Israel independent in its oil and natural gas needs, seem particularly relevant:
“This is a first class concentration camp you have here Mr. President. Why don’t you just move us all here?”
Jews are no safer in the 51st American State of Israel than they are in the other American states in which they congregate: the State of New York, the State of California, the State of Massachusetts and the State of Illinois.
It is certainly reasonable to call into question exactly what the Israeli left, which opposes Israel’s serving American interests in the Middle East, is fighting for.
The moment Israel ceases to serve American interests in the Middle East is the moment that Israel has lost its relevance to America.
Ask former Panamanian President Manuel Noreiga or former Iraqi President Sadaam Hussein what happened when they decided to refuse to serve American interests in Central America and the Middle East respectively and lost their relevance to America.
As the Druze Arabs of Israel believe, “Serve and obey the master of the land in which you live.”
An interesting corollary would be the concept of serving and obeying the master of the world in which you live.
Following this hypothesis, one could consider seeing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in a different light.
As an actor somewhat akin to the Oxford-educated English butler in the haunting Merchant-Ivory film “Remains of the Day” played by genius actor Sir Anthony Hopkins.
It would certainly be an interesting alternative to the current perception of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as an actor akin to Jack Nicholson’s brilliant performance as the winter caretaker at the Overlook Hotel in Stanley Kubrick’s masterful psychological terror film “The Shining.”
“All the world’s a stage and all the men and women merely players.”
-William Shakespeare
Headline: House panel joins fight over whales, sonar
Sub-heading: Bill would make it harder to show harassment of marine mammals
Source Publication: “San Francisco Chronicle”
Publication Location: San Francisco, California
Author: Edward Epstein
Dateline: Washington, D.C.
Embargoed For: Thursday, November 6, 2003
Copy:
By adding just two words to a bill reauthorizing the 31-year-old Marine Mammal Protection Act, the House Resources Committee waded into a bitter battle Wednesday between the Navy and environmentalists and perhaps gave several industries the ability to operate more freely in the oceans.
The committee, chaired by Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, inserted "biologically significant'' into the definition of behavior disruptions of such mammals as dolphins, whale and seals that are classified as illegal harassment. Supporters of the change, which passed on a voice vote, said it was necessary to help the Navy experiment with long-range, low-frequency sonar used to detect new quiet diesel-powered submarines.
But detractors say the wording will make it harder for prosecutors to prove cases of harassment under the act because they'll find it difficult to show any specific action is "biologically significant'' to a single animal or a group of mammals.
Environmental groups sued the Navy in federal court in 2001 saying the sonar tests harmed or were responsible for the deaths of such mammals as whales and dolphins. U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth LaPorte in San Francisco sharply curtailed last August the geographic areas where the Navy could conduct the underwater sound tests, but ordered the sides to negotiate a compromise.
Subsequently, the Navy and the environmental groups agreed that the tests would be limited to stretches of the far western Pacific.
But all the while, the Pentagon said it would pursue legislation in Congress to exempt it from the marine mammal act's rules. While legislation to allow the testing is now before House-Senate conferees considering a Defense Department authorization bill, the issue also is being taken up by Pombo's committee and its consideration of the marine mammal protections act.
The Pombo committee's version is broader than that being considered in the Defense Department authorization bill because it isn't limited to Navy operations.
"We fine-tuned the definition,'' Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md., told the committee. "The definition of harassment is still a work in progress.''
An earlier version of the bill referred to a "significant alteration'' of mammal behavior as constituting harassment.
As an example of how every word counts for Capitol Hill legislators and lobbyists, here's how the committee-passed bill defines so-called Level B harassment:
"The term harassment means any act that disturbs or has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of biologically significant behaviors, including, but not limited to, surfacing, migration, breeding, care of young, predator avoidance, defense or feeding to a point where such behavioral patterns are significantly altered. ''
That language fits the bill, according to Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Riverside, "One of the biggest threats to the United States is quiet submarines,'' he said. "We need to train for proper techniques.''
But Michael Jasny, a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the committee-adopted wording potentially opens a huge loophole in a law that has worked well.
"It's extremely hard for us to say what's significant or insignificant,'' Jasny said. "We believe the current standard has worked sufficiently well.''
The current law concerns "disruption of behaviors'' without trying to define whether those disruptions are "biologically significant.''
Mark Palmer, assistant director of the Earth Island Institute's marine mammal project, said the new proposed definition poses a problem in protecting marine mammals.
"Biological significance is not a legal definition. Prosecutors will have to jump through another huge hoop,'' Palmer said.
Michael Stocker, a science adviser to Seaflow, a Sausalito-based group involved in ocean protection, said the House committee bill has more to do with commercial exploitation of the seas than military needs.
"This bill has been strung around national security and defense, but it will lower the bar to a degree that commercial and industrial interests won't be restricted,'' said Stocker.
Industries that operate at sea and have to protect mammal life include offshore oil, fishing and telecommunications interests.
Not surprisingly, Pombo sees things differently. The Tracy lawmaker, who has tangled regularly with environmental groups, said the current law has worked well in increasing the numbers of such species as gray whales and orcas,
but needs to be updated. He said the committee's version will continue to protect marine life.
"The proof is in the numbers,'' Pombo said. "This bill recognizes that marine life is thriving in our oceans and near our coastlines. However, the law needs work.''
He also pointed out that he has worked successfully to forge a bipartisan consensus on his often-fractious committee.
"Today, we sent good bipartisan policy to the floor,'' he said in a statement to the committee.
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has yet to come up with its version of a new marine mammal act. That means congressional action this year isn't likely.
Navy spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Joseph Surette said the Navy will obey the San Francisco court decision until the law is changed.
"The Navy appreciates the court seeing the national security need for even the limited use of the long-range, low-frequency sonar system,'' Surette said.
"This system is a vital piece of equipment for our anti-submarine warfare. With it, we can contact enemy subs long before they can endanger us.''
-30-
THE ARTICLE FROM THE “SAN FRANCISCO CHRONCLE” IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF EDWARD EPSTEIN. JONATHAN DALE RAPOPORT HAS NO CURRENT RELATIONSHIP WITH EITHER THE “SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE” OR EDWARD EPSTEIN.
THIS ARTICLE IS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF WRITER JONATHAN DALE RAPOPORT, A WRITER BASED IN THE EUROPEAN UNION MEMBER STATE OF THE KINGDOM OF SWEDEN.
STERLING LORD LITERISTIC REPRESENTS JONATHAN DALE RAPOPORT IN NEW YORK CITY.
IT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED TO COPY, REDESTRIBUTE, PUBLISH OR PLAGARIZE THIS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
ANY INDIVIDUAL, GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS OR ORGANIZATION WHO ENGAGES IN THE AFFORMENTIONED CRIMES WITH THIS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WILL BE INVESTIGATED BY PALLORIUM INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES IN NEW YORK CITY.
http://www.pallorium.com/ UPON COMPLETION OF THE INVESTIGATION THE OFFENDING PARTY OR PARTIES WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW AND SUBJECTED TO CIVIL LITIGATION.
DURING CIVIL LITIGATION NO OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT OFFERS WILL BE ACCEPTED.