Bayou Renaissance Man

The phrase "the fog of war" has become a cliché, but it remains as true as it's always been.  It appears to have dominated Israel's initial response to the October 7, 2023 terrorist attacks.  Ynet News has published an extended interview with the pilots of some of the attack helicopters who tried to respond effectively on that day.  Here's an excerpt.

Do you even have a battle plan for an attack like this from the south?

Lt. Col. E.: “Yes. Since the 2014 Gaza War, we’ve been training for infiltration incidents in our territory, but we never imagined a reference scenario of this magnitude of a number of communities being infiltrated simultaneously.”

To be clear: There was an infiltration scenario and firing at terrorists in our territory does exist. It exists in our understanding, but it’s very extreme in our understanding. To get there, you must know that this is your only option, because in a battle plan where a soldier encounters a terrorist, it’s better to shoot him than firing mortars with a 100 square meter fall out range. 

What do your pilots see at the Re’im gate?

“They see the battle going on there – people running back and forth between the gate and the trees. They construct a picture and realize that these are definitely neither civilians nor our forces. They shoot and hit a group of terrorists inside the trees next to the parking lot. They kill six or seven. Before finishing the battle, they’re sent to another incident taking priority, and they move south.”

The division doesn’t ask them to say and carry on firing at the terrorists?

“The division tell them to move, that there’s another incident taking higher priority. They transfer them to work with the Southern Brigade.” 

But if the division command falls, response capabilities are damaged

“Everyone’s goal is protecting the communities. I don’t know of a commander in the army who would put the division, brigade or outpost above the community. I just don’t."

This modus operandi, transferring helicopters every few minutes from one place to another, carries on all morning. “Every five or six minutes, we were receiving call-outs to another incident,” says Lt. Col. E. “You can’t construct a picture as to where the more urgent thing is, so you go where they tell you.”

In hindsight, is this system of going from one spot to the next an effective method?

“If we’d have stayed in the same place the whole time with other forces - and there were cases like that - we might have prevented something from happening. But it affects the overall aggregate of what was going on at each separate battle at the same time. You can’t foresee what you’ll prevent at a given point.”

His colleague from the 190th Squadron, Lt. Col. A. says this question is hard to answer before investigations are completed. “There were places that helicopters finished off the incident in an hour, while in other places, helicopters operated for hours without bringing the incident to an end. Why? Perhaps there were fewer terrorists there, or maybe it was harder to get our forces in.”

There's much more at the link.

Those who've been "up the sharp end" will recognize much of what the pilots have to say.  Another way of putting it is the old saying, "Order, counter-order, disorder".  An individual command post has a problem, so it orders forces to deal with it, not realizing that there's a bigger problem a few miles away and the forces it needs have just been ordered (by a different command post) to deal with that one.  The forces concerned can only do their best to deal with a hard-to-understand, fractured situation - and risk being court-martialed if they do it wrong, because most command posts (and individuals) are never going to blame themselves.  They'll use the fighting forces as scapegoats.

It's a problem that's been with any and all armed forces since the first organized command structure was developed.  It'll probably end with the heat death of the universe, but even that can't be guaranteed.

Peter

Over the past couple of days:

• An Iranian-made missile, launched from Iraq (probably by an Iranian surrogate terrorist group), struck an Israeli naval base at the port of Eilat on Monday, narrowly missing one of the Israeli Navy's newest and most modern warships.  This comes two years after Iranian TV showed its forces practicing to attack a mock-up of the same port, showing exactly the position struck by their missile this week, with a similar warship in the same location.
• On the same day, Israel bombed an Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, striking with such precision that the building was destroyed, but two other buildings on either side of it were left with minimal damage.  Three Iranian Revolutionary Guard generals were killed in the strike, along with several other senior advisers.  The attack was presumably a rapid and pointed response to the missile strike on Eilat.
• Iran has been supplying almost all the missiles that Houthi insurgents are firing at Western vessels around the entrance to the Red Sea.  Those attacks show no sign of diminishing.  Sooner or later, the supply will have to be interrupted at its source.
• The USA has been supplying Israel with the aircraft bombs and guidance kits it needs to continue its campaign in Gaza and elsewhere.  Recently the Biden administration has appeared to be slow-walking further deliveries of munitions, in order to apply pressure to Israel:  but it's also just announced the proposed sale of up to 50 of the latest-model F-15EX strike aircraft to that country.  That's a very mixed signal, to say the least.

I get the impression that the Biden administration has been not-so-gently informed by Israel that, if that country's military operations against Hamas, Hezbollah and other Iranian-sponsored terrorist groups are hampered by deliberately slowed weapons deliveries, then Israel will take up the option of stopping Iran's sponsorship of terrorism at the source by converting it into a radioactive glass-topped parking lot.  Whilst many Israelis might not want to do that, I think the Netanyahu administration is more than sufficiently determined to do whatever it takes to ensure Israel's security;  and I don't see the Israeli military arguing against that option.  Iran, and terrorists sponsored by Iran, are costing them too many lives.

Recent developments do nothing to make me feel more optimistic about the prospects for peace in the Middle East.  On the contrary, I think that region is closer to an all-out, devil-take-the-hindmost war than it has been for a very long time - and almost all parties to the dispute are absolutely adamant that they will not back down.  It's irresistible force versus immovable object.  Given the other geopolitical stresses on all the major powers right now . . . who knows where that could end?

Finally, remember that the religious fanatics running Iran see it as eminently desirable to bring about their version of the apocalypse, in order to expedite the return of the Twelfth Imam.  As far as they're concerned, a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel would be almost guaranteed to accomplish that - so they have nothing to lose.

Don't expect rationality, logic or statesmanship from Iran.  They no longer exist among that country's leaders . . . and that's a deadly dangerous reality.

Peter

I daresay by now most people have heard of the Israeli destruction of a clearly marked, position-broadcasting aid convoy in Gaza, in which seven aid workers were killed.  On the face of it, it looks to be a clear violation of every "law of war" (a misnomer if ever I heard one).  A tragedy indeed.  I don't think anyone in his right mind would dispute that.

Israel is being condemned from all sides for the attack.  To cite just one commenter:

The IDF murdered seven aid workers yesterday, three of whom were British special forces veterans, in three targeted drone strikes ... This isn’t self-defense. These attacks are not even taking place in Israel. No wonder Netanyahu is whining about how the whole world now hates Israel. Because it’s rapidly becoming impossible for any sane or impartial individual to not despise what the Israeli government and the Israeli military are doing.

More of the same can be found all over the Internet.

The attack should never have taken place, and was undoubtedly wrong.  I hope those responsible for it will face justice over their actions.  However, few people are looking below the surface.  There's more to this than you'd think.

First, Hamas has for years - no, for decades - used aid organizations and convoys as cover for its own movements.  This is beyond dispute.  Even worse, many of those aid organizations and their staff are openly partisan in their position, siding with Hamas and against Israel.  Indeed, after the October terrorism atrocities against Israel, it's known that UNRWA staff and aid workers actually assisted in holding some hostages prisoner and guarding them!  Those allegations cover almost all aid organizations in Gaza, and there's more than abundant evidence to prove them.  That being the case, you might say that any aid organization there - no matter how trustworthy and neutral it may actually be - starts out, as far as Israel is concerned, under a cloud of suspicion.  It's not a case of being regarded as innocent until proven guilty.  Rather, the assumption is that it's guilty unless and until it's proven innocent - and there won't be a lot of effort from Israel to prove that organization's innocence.  They've seen it too often.

Second, after the Israeli invasion of Gaza last year, Hamas continued to deliberately use aid vehicles and convoys to move its armed forces from place to place;  to resupply them;  and to move hostages to more secure areas to prevent Israel from freeing them.  This is beyond dispute.  There's video evidence of Hamas doing all those things;  indeed, there's video evidence of Hamas launching weapons (anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles, bombardment rockets, etc.) from the premises of aid organizations, hospitals, etc.  Again, Israel has become accustomed to this, and now regards such premises as automatically suspect.

I don't blame them.  In their shoes, I'd have done the same thing - and, in another part of the world where I fought in a different war, that's exactly what I did, and experience seldom proved me wrong.  The amount of foreign "humanitarian" aid we found in the possession of terrorists - sometimes feeding and supporting entire terrorist base camps - was staggering.  (Do some reading about the role of, say, Norwegian People's Aid, and see for yourself.  That's just one of many organizations that were involved, including Oxfam, the Red Cross, and other very big names in the aid field.)  The concept of "neutrality" was conspicuous by its absence among most of the aid organizations we encountered.  Israel is experiencing precisely the same thing.

That reality does not excuse the strike that killed those seven aid workers, and I'm not trying to do so here.  As I've already said, I hope those responsible face justice for their actions.  However, those actions have to be viewed against a backdrop where Israel's armed forces have learned, the hard way, that any and all aid organizations are to be considered partisan rather than neutral;  where those working for them, no matter what their nationality or motivation, are to be regarded in the same way;  and where their activities are seen as potentially hostile to Israel and/or pro-Hamas, regardless of whether or not they really are either of those things.  No amount of official guidance, or standing orders, or military restrictions, can completely overcome that pre-judgment of anything that operators on the ground, conditioned by months of intensive combat, observe during the course of their duties.  Perhaps only those who've been "seasoned" by combat conditions can understand that.  Those who've never experienced that stress probably can't.

I'm pretty sure that the operator(s) who fired and guided the missiles that killed those aid workers were convinced, in their own mind, that they'd detected Hamas members and/or sympathizers dropping off supplies (which might be food or medicines, but might also include weapons) to terrorists.  Hamas has used ambulances to do precisely that on previous occasions, and aid convoys and shipments too, so this would be nothing new.  The fact that the charity in question had informed Israel of this movement, and its vehicles were broadcasting their identity and location, makes precisely no difference where such suspicions are concerned.  The ambulances and aid vehicles Hamas had previously used to distribute supplies had been doing exactly the same thing.  In a very real sense, part of the responsibility for the deaths of those seven aid workers lies with Hamas for making such activities automatically suspicious in the eyes of the Israeli military.  If I'd been on duty that night, watching for enemy movement in my sector, I'd have presumed that too.  I'd have been pre-conditioned to do so by my enemy's own previous actions.

I think that's why those seven aid workers died.  They were in a place where it was difficult to move around safely at the best of times, and in the wartime conditions that now prevail there, it's actively dangerous.  I'm not going to say they should not have been there - that was their own choice, and I honor their courage in being willing to put their lives on the line for what they believed in - but by being there, they made the choice to put themselves in danger.  Tragically, that danger caught up with them.  It should not have done so . . . but it did.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is belligerent, defensive, not inclined to cut aid organizations and international opinion any slack.  I think there's much about him to dislike;  but, in this instance, he's correct to say bluntly that "It happens in war".  It does.  It's happened in almost any war you care to name, including wars fought by US forces, who have been in the past as guilty of targeting innocent aid workers in other countries as Israel is today in Gaza.

May those who died rest in peace.  May their sins be forgiven them, and their compassion for their fellow human beings be rewarded;  and may their families and co-workers receive what comfort they may.  May justice be done for their deaths, and may the example of their deaths help to prevent - or, at least, minimize - such tragedies in future.  Nevertheless, don't see this as a deliberate, planned massacre by Israel of aid workers.  I think it's simply the overwhelming realities "on the ground" in Gaza overriding discretion and other potential explanations.

If I'd been in those drone operators' shoes, I might have pulled the trigger myself.  In another war, on another continent, based on what I knew in that place at that time, I had to make similar snap operational decisions.  I'll never know for sure (in this life, at any rate) whether they were the right ones.

Peter

Following my first blog post this morning about new threats to our water supply, I've had a couple of e-mails pointing out that I didn't address the topic of water purification.

That wasn't the point of the post, of course:  if you don't already have water, you can't purify or filter it, after all!  However, I've addressed the topic of water purification in previous posts.  Here are two of them:

Emergency Preparation, Part 12: Water, hygiene and sanitation

Your questions answered on emergency water purification

Both go into a lot of detail about the subject.  The first dates from 2012, the second from last year.  I think you'll find the answers you need in one or both of them.

I'd also like to add two more points to this morning's discussion.  First, if you live in an apartment, particularly where there are lots of stairs to be climbed to get to your residence, make sure you store water while it's easy to get it up there (i.e. the elevators are working!).  If the power goes out, there won't be elevators any more, and you'll lift every pound of water the hard way.  It's worth doing that ahead of time.

Second, if storage space is very limited, look for nooks and crannies in which you can store 16oz. or 20oz. plastic bottles of water.  If you put one or two into back corners of a kitchen cupboard or clothes closet, you might be surprised how many you can fit into your living space.  Store them upright, to prevent leaks!  Put a couple more flats of water beneath your bed (setting them inside a shallow waterproof storage tote, to contain any leaks and stop the water soaking other things).  You won't be able to store as much water as you might like, but anything is better than nothing.

Hope this helps.

Peter

(EDITED TO ADD:  To the people who e-mailed me saying "What about me/us?  We can't lift a full 5-gallon bucket!", I can only say "Buy smaller buckets!"  Standard size 3½ gallon buckets use the same lids as 5 gallon buckets, and 2 gallon buckets have their own smaller lids [although some complain that they don't fit very well - in which case, make temporary covers out of cling wrap or some other material if necessary].  There's always a way!)

As if crumbling infrastructure, periodic drought and over-consumption weren't enough, our water supplies are now threatened by state-sponsored hackers.

The Biden administration on Tuesday warned the nation’s governors that drinking water and wastewater utilities in their states are facing “disabling cyberattacks” by hostile foreign nations that are targeting mission-critical plant operations.

. . .

The letter cited two recent hacking threats water utilities have faced from groups backed by hostile foreign countries. One incident occurred when hackers backed by the government of Iran disabled operations gear used in water facilities that still used a publicly known default administrator password ... The second threat was publicly revealed last month by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. Officials said that a hacking group backed by the Chinese government and tracked under the name Volt Typhoon was maintaining a foothold inside the networks of multiple critical infrastructure organizations, including those in communications, energy, transportation, and water and wastewater sectors. The advisory said that the hackers were pre-positioning themselves inside IT environments to enable disruption operations across multiple critical infrastructure sectors in the event of a crisis or conflict with the US. The hackers, the officials said, had been present in some of the networks for as long as five years.

There's more at the link.

This is actually a very serious threat.  If it were in their interest to cause massive internal disruption to the United States, to stop this country interfering with their operations elsewhere in the world (say, Iran in the Persian Gulf, or China in Taiwan), shutting down the clean water supply to major US cities would certainly require the US government to focus inward, rather than outward.  Tens of millions of citizens would be in jeopardy, and could not be ignored.  The armed forces would almost certainly have to be deployed to ensure distribution of alternative water supplies, and all sorts of technological resources would be required to repair and rebuild our water infrastructure.

I think Iran is a particular threat in that regard.  It's already got the maritime world over a barrel through its Houthi surrogates in the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea.  If Israel ends up going to war with Hezbollah as well as Hamas, and strikes Iranian forces deployed in Syria, does anyone imagine Iran won't try to respond in kind?  And wouldn't part of that response be to keep the US preoccupied with its own problems, including perhaps its citizens' water supplies?

Earlier this month I wrote about why we should be storing food.  (For some unknown reason, Google stuck a warning about sensitive content on that post, presumably because one of the sources I quoted referenced possible strings attached to government food supplies.  Don't let that worry you.  Read it anyway - it's important.)  In that article, I mentioned emergency water supplies, too.

Speaking of water storage, don't forget water to go with your food reserves.  Far too many people assume they'll be able to collect water from nearby streams or lakes if necessary.  I've personally run into more than one situation (in the Third World, so far) where local strongmen or gangs camped out next to such bodies of water and "taxed" anyone wanting to draw from them.  That "tax" might be monetary, or confiscation of supplies, or even demanding (sometimes forcibly taking) sex from any woman who can't pay them in other ways.  What makes you think that won't happen here, if things go from bad to worse?  Quite apart from that sort of risk, depending on the emergency, local water sources may be so tainted as to be unusable.  (Remember the train derailment and chemical spill in East Palestine, Ohio, a year ago?  The water in the area is still badly polluted, and nobody knows when [if?] it'll ever be safe to drink again.  That can, and probably will, happen elsewhere, too.)

(Money saving tip:  Buy bulk packs of food-grade 5-gallon buckets, plus lids for them, to store water.  This 10-pack, for example, works out at only $3.43 per bucket, which is a bargain in anyone's language.  Add low-cost lids for them (I like these for water storage, or the [sadly, much more expensive] Gamma Seal threaded lids for food storage) and a lid remover, and you're good to go.  The combination is much cheaper than buying made-for-purpose water storage containers, and every bit as useful.  Alternatively, if you want to buy water already sealed in a container, shop for the Sams Club 4-gallon jugs.  They're what I mostly use, and are a real bargain.  Keep a few flats of bottled water, too, for handing out to people needing to take water with them while doing other work.)

Again, more at the link.

I very strongly recommend that you pay as much attention to your emergency water supplies as you do to emergency food supplies.  Authorities are unanimous in saying the same thing.

FEMA recommends:

Store at least one gallon per person, per day. Consider storing at least a two-week supply of water for each member of your family. If you are unable to store this quantity, store as much as you can.

The CDC recommends:

• Store at least 1 gallon of water per person per day for 3 days for drinking and sanitation. Try to store a 2-week supply if possible.
• Consider storing more water than this for pregnant women, people who are sick, pets, or if living in a hot climate.

Ready.gov recommends:

Store at least one gallon of water per person per day for several days, for drinking and sanitation ... Take the following into account:

Children, nursing mothers and sick people may need more water.

A medical emergency might require additional water.

If you live in a warm weather climate more water may be necessary. In very hot temperatures, water needs can double.

I agree with all of them, except that I think one gallon per person per day is inadequate.  Remember, water will be needed for drinking, basic personal hygiene (cleaning teeth, washing hands and the essential bits), food preparation and cleaning up afterwards, laundering essential clothing (e.g. underwear), etc.  I reckon two gallons per person per day is more like a practical, realistic minimum to provide for all of those needs.  In hot climates during high summer, even that may be inadequate, particularly if you're physically active.  (Let me tell you, a north Texas summer with daytime temperatures well over 100 degrees will bake you dry!)

For a family of four, at two gallons per person per day, that equates to eight gallons of water per day, or fifty-six gallons per week.  That's just over eleven five-gallon buckets of water every week, or fourteen of those four-gallon Sams Club jugs.  It's inconvenient to store that much:  water is bulky, it's heavy, and it takes up space you'd probably rather use for other things - but without it, you'll be in a world of hurt.  I personally think that a week's supply of water for your household is a minimum requirement.  (I store more than that.)

If the water to your neighborhood was completely cut off for a week or more, how would you cope?  Where would you go to get water, and how would you do that if everyone else in your suburb was doing the same thing?  What containers would you use to get and store the water?  If you don't have them now, how do you expect to get them at short notice when everyone else is looking for them, too?  Water weighs eight pounds per gallon.  Are you fit and strong enough to carry a full five-gallon bucket weighing forty pounds from the water point to your home?  Can you do that over and over again, as often as necessary?  If you're not strong enough, do you have a garden cart or other means of transport for your containers?  Will you be able to stop others trying to steal your container(s) and/or cart(s)?

Friends, get those buckets and lids or other containers now, while you still can, enough of them for at least a week's supply of water for your household.  Fill as many as you can conveniently store in your home, and nest the others together to save space.  At the first sign that there might be a need for them, fill the rest.  Add a WaterBOB bathtub water container to your reserve supplies, and fill it as soon as it seems there may be a need for it;  or, at the very least, keep your bathtub as clean as possible and fill it if an emergency threatens.  (Make sure the plug or stopper doesn't leak!)  Together with your other containers, you'll be well set to survive a week or two without your regular water supplies.

Some may think I'm putting too much emphasis on this.  That depends on your perspective.  I've lived in the Third World, where interruptions in the water supply often (too often!) went hand-in-hand with sometimes severe, life-threatening social disruption and conflict.  It wasn't a talking point there - it was quite literally a survival measure.  If you had to go out to get water, you exposed yourself to real personal risk of harm.  If you had water at home, you didn't have to go out to get it;  so you were safer.  I still think of emergency supplies from that perspective.  It kept me alive back then.  I hope it won't have to again . . . but who knows?

You can live a few days, or even a couple of weeks, without food;  you'll be hungry, but won't suffer permanent harm.  Three days without water and you'll be dead, or nearly so.  Make sure you have reserve water supplies.  That's the bottom line.

Peter

(EDITED TO ADD:  Following reader questions, I've written a brief follow-up post to this one.  Please click over there to read it.)

... if the people of Gaza have learned nothing from hostilities so far, why should those hostilities be suspended?

The tweet refers to this poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.

As PJMedia asks:  "Have Gazans Learned Nothing?"

The disparity between the first two numbers is wide enough to sail a battleship through. "We didn't rape anybody to death or take any children hostage, but those Jews sure were asking for it!"

And 59% want Hamas to run the Gaza Strip after the war is over? That's like more than half of Germany, in the weeks before the Nazi surrender, looking at the rubble that was once a great country and concluding that Hitler deserved a second chance. Or the people of Japan in August of 1945 deciding that just riding out the nuclear destruction wouldn't be too bad.

. . .

Israel, it turned out, was far too lenient in its treatment of Gaza since abandoning the strip almost 20 years ago. Allowing aid to pour in, cities to be built, making medical care and jobs available in Israel for those who wanted them... all that kindness brought was an even greater determination among the people of Gaza to murder more Jews.

There's more at the link.

All I can say is, if that poll is correct and those are the feelings and wishes of most residents of Gaza, they're asking for all they're getting, and then some.  It's impossible - indeed, I suggest it's immoral - to ask Israel to back down from its hardline stance and halt its military operations when Gazans themselves continue to justify both by their intransigence.

Peter

As regular readers will know, I served for some years in the South African military, both full-time and reserve.  As part of that, I occasionally found myself in Rhodesia (today Zimbabwe), a nation that was fighting its own war against terrorism, a rather hotter war than ours most of the time.  It was an education (to put it mildly!) to see Rhodesian elite forces in action.  They were terrifyingly good.  Rhodesia lost its war in the end, overwhelmed by demographic factors and the vagaries of geopolitics, but the lessons learned there have continued to stand the Western world in good stead.  Some of its forces, particularly the Special Air Service, the Selous Scouts, and the Fireforce teams, remain world-famous, even legendary.

Jake Harper-Ronald was a Rhodesian who went to Britain to serve in the Parachute Regiment.  Returning to Rhodesia in the 1970's, he signed up for the Special Air Service and went on to serve in the Selous Scouts and with the Special Branch of the British South Africa Police.  Shortly before his death, he gave a detailed account of his life to a friend, which was later published as "Sunday Bloody Sunday: A Soldier's War in Northern Ireland, Rhodesia, Mozambique and Iraq".

The blurb reads:

Gold is forged in fire. Men in the furnace of adversity…

Step into the extraordinary life of Jake Harper-Ronald, a man whose childhood dream of becoming a soldier led him on an unparalleled journey. In 1966, he fulfilled his ambition as a conscript in the Royal Rhodesia Regiment, only to embark on a series of adventures that most soldiers can only imagine.

From early days in the elite Parachute Regiment in the UK to his pivotal role as the official photographer during the infamous 'Bloody Sunday' in Northern Ireland, Jake's path was one of courage and resilience. He left an indelible mark on history, capturing iconic moments through his lens that still resonate today.

Returning to Rhodesia in 1974, Jake's journey continued with the ultra-tough SAS and the Selous Scouts. His daring cross-border raids and contributions as a professional soldier showcased his unwavering commitment. Despite facing the trials of combat, he persevered, even transitioning to a top-secret Special Branch callsign and later joining Zimbabwe's Central Intelligence Organisation.

Jake's remarkable story unfolded further as he operated as an intelligence agent for global powers such as South Africa, Britain, and the US. His path was not without challenges; accusations of treason led to his time in solitary confinement at Goromonzi Detention Centre.

Undeterred, he emerged from adversity, and in 1989, MI6 enlisted his expertise to train and lead militias combating Renamo in Mozambique. His efforts were so impactful that his Special Forces unit was integrated into Mozambique's National Army.

Witnessing the harrowing realities of Mozambique, Jake's journey came full circle as he returned to Zimbabwe and ventured into the private security sector and then on to private military contracting in Iraq. Despite his health declining, his resolve remained unshaken until his passing in 2007 at the age of 59.

Immerse yourself in an incredible narrative of bravery, sacrifice, and tenacity as 'Sunday Bloody Sunday' chronicles the awe-inspiring life of Jake Harper-Ronald. This is more than a biography; it's a testament to the indomitable spirit of a true soldier and a captivating journey that will leave you inspired and in awe.

Harper-Ronald's story is so out of the ordinary that I wondered whether it could be real, or was a fictional mish-mash of real soldiers' stories.  There are Web sites where one can check to see whether an individual was, indeed, a member of the Rhodesian Special Air Service and/or the Selous Scouts, and he was verified by both of them.  I spent enough time in Rhodesia, and researching various things thereafter, that I could verify a lot of what he said about external operations:  therefore, I accept that his life story, sensational though it might be, is essentially true.

It's a long book, with an immense amount of detail.  However, there are nuggets of humor among the many tales he tells, some of which had me laughing out loud (and remembering a few war stories of my own).  I thought I'd collect some of them here this morning for your entertainment.  Here goes!

(Serving with the Parachute Regiment in Britain)

A certain corporal and I, sharing guard duty, had taken a fascination to the aerial sorties of the model aircraft club, that used a strip adjacent to the barracks to land their radio-controlled planes.

On Sundays, when they got together, we were entertained to impressive displays of air rallies that filled the sky, with expensive model aircraft whining overhead.

We always kept on hand four pellet guns back in the barracks, which we would use (to relieve the boredom) by engaging in small wars – much as I had done as a teenager in Rhodesia. The guns were relegated to the guardroom after someone inadvertently shot another Para through the cheek.

Bored to tears one Sunday, we decided to take pot shots at the aircraft as they flew above the depot, thinking that we could never do any damage to such fast-flying machines. Before long, four of us were banging away at a solitary aircraft as it gracefully dipped to turn over the entrance. We had created an effective four-barrelled anti-aircraft battery!

As the plane levelled after a turn, it gave a bit of a jig, pitched right and then left and headed away from the strip towards Basingstoke canal. We all gulped as we realised we had managed to sever one of its control cables with a pellet. We watched, panic-stricken, as the plane continued on its course and disappeared from sight.

On the strip a man ran after it, turning knobs and twiddling with joysticks. From where we stood we heard him swearing and cursing at his misfortune.

The airguns were hidden away immediately and we resumed our duties. As every minute passed we waited for the cops to arrive, wondering all the time if we’d been seen. Later that night, while sitting in the guardroom, the military police phoned to ask if we knew anything about the expensive missing aircraft. I took the call and naturally denied everything, although I thought I sensed a bit of disbelief in the policeman’s tone.

* * * * *

(During a parachute assault on a terrorist base in Mozambique)

Below me I could see ant-like figures running all over the show, some of them stopping to look up at us. Only they weren’t just looking, they were shooting. Although I was below 400 feet (122 metres) I could not make out any detail but I was acutely aware of streams of grotesque green ‘hornets’ reaching up, highlighted against the dark earth backdrop, searching for me. The fire continued until the ground came into focus and rushed up to meet me.

On landing I jettisoned my harness and brought my rifle to bear from where it was strapped down my side. I couldn’t have been too far away from the enemy and I expected a burst of fire to come my way any second.

Behind me, I glanced over my shoulder and noticed Vernon Conchie executing a perfect parachute landing about 20 metres to my right. Flaring just before he hit terra firma, he touched down on both feet – running in mid-air – anticipating the ground before him. His canopy folded as he turned and gathered up the lower rigging. Milliseconds passed and in one swift move he unbuckled both harnesses from his shoulders, his parachute billowing behind him with its new-found slack.

Before he even grabbed his rifle Vernon unhitched his trousers, dropped them to his ankles and squatted to take a dump. In seconds, having released his bowels, he ripped off his pockets, then his lapels and wiped his arse. In a follow-through motion he hitched his trousers and fastened them, then swiftly gathered his rifle and was potting off a few shots at some distant terrs before you could say presto. The way it unfolded I could see that he had rehearsed the manoeuvre during the descent. It was the most perfect defecation under fire that I have ever seen. In fact, I don’t imagine there have been too many others like it.

... That afternoon I asked Conchie about his defecation under fire. His simple answer summed up all our feelings during that parachute descent. ‘I just **** myself’ he said. ‘I thought I was going to get zapped before I landed.’

* * * * *

Bored to wits’ end one day and after a few friendly challenges in the bar, the ‘blues’ and the ‘browns’ decided to square off and have a rocket-building competition. There would be three teams and the winning team would be the recipient of a crate of beer bought by the losers. The competition rules were to design, construct and fly a rocket which would be judged by the policemen. We had a day to come up with our designs and we were to convene on the apron at 15:00 the next afternoon to show off our efforts. Points would be awarded initially for getting our contraptions off the ground and then for which rocket flew the furthest. Additional points were given for any unique design features.

... Major Kriel’s team had built a three-stage ignition rocket utilising Icarus flares taped together. It was an impressive sight, only a little unwieldy if anything ... With the major holding the rocket aloft, his head cowering in anticipation of launch, Dave Scales snuck up behind him and pushed the firing device. Instantly both men were hidden in a huge cloud of white smoke as the ungainly device lifted off. Struggling into the air, it wobbled on its axis as stage one found thrust.

At about 60 feet, when the fuel from the first compartment was spent, it had been intended that stage two would ignite, carrying the rocket to a higher altitude, where the ignition of stage three would kick in and carry it higher. Instead, like the Apollo disaster, it snaked left and right and then exploded in mid-air with a deafening crump. Fortunately, the designers had taken all the magnesium out of the flares or otherwise we might have been showered by its burning-hot contents.

Unfortunately, as planned, the other two stages did ignite; the tape that harnessed them together not having the integrity to hold true and they shot off horizontally all over the place. Stage two was a real peach and rocketed in the direction of the two Alouettes parked on the apron. As it raced toward them, trailing white smoke, we cringed at the thought of a direct hit and the resultant damage. The ‘blues’ were screaming their lungs out although I don’t know what good it might have done. Luckily it passed over the nearest chopper and burnt out in the long grass beyond. When we turned around we saw stage three rounding a nearby hangar and heading straight for us. We all dived for cover and it passed over us with feet to spare until it skidded harmlessly to a halt in the dirt. Meanwhile, the body of stage one had spun into the bush on the side of the apron which erupted into a raging bush fire. With the tenacity of bulldogs on a bone we set to beating the flames into submission with branches and whatever else we could find.

I couldn’t help thinking, while he was at the forefront of the battle against the flames, that Major Kriel would have had a hard time explaining the loss of two valuable helicopters. We eventually controlled the inferno after 15 minutes of madness, but with only metres of open ground to spare before it did any real damage.

* * * * *

Major Kriel had an inventive imagination and would have been well suited to the design department of an armaments manufacturing company. On a brief deployment to Grand Reef, he came up with an ingenious plan for a six-barrelled 60 mm mortar which could be buried in the earth after attacking a terrorist camp and then detonated remotely, or even by a delayed fuse, some time after the raiders had left. The idea was to cause alarm and mayhem when those terrorists who had escaped unharmed, came out from hiding to assess the damage of a raid.

The contraption he designed had six mortar tubes facing in slightly different directions, much like the smoke grenade dispensers on a tank. On initiation, the bombs would fire from detonators at the base of each tube, landing all over the terrorist camp. On test day, the major and I went around the base and told everyone that we were trying out a new weapon, so they wouldn’t be alarmed when they heard the bangs. The Fire Force troops were warned to remain near the billet side of the airstrip and not to venture onto the runway.

After walking to the end of the airstrip we dug a small hole and buried the tubes with earth, covering them until only the tops of the barrels were sticking out. The major then boosted each one with additional gunpowder from ammunition and secondaries from 60mm bombs, before putting in the bombs. We attached an electrical wire to the cluster of individual detonator wires and then moved off a safe distance so testing could commence. Some 50 metres off Major Kriel turned, quite satisfied with the distance between us and the mortar. I had my doubts and suggested we move a bit further and possibly take shelter in one of the bunkers on the edge of the strip. He heeded my reservation reluctantly and moved away until we settled into a bunker and peered out of a large aperture.

To add ceremony to the occasion, the major initiated a small countdown before attaching the wires to a car battery we had with us. The ruckus that followed was not the recognisable sound of simultaneous mortar fire, but an enormous explosion that sent dirt and debris flying for hundreds of metres. Even within the safe environs of the bunker I was suddenly stung by flying shrapnel, which zinged through the aperture and buried itself in my upper body. The wounds were superficial, but they were enough to remind me of how lucky we were to have retreated this far. Had the major fired the device from where he originally intended, I have no doubt we would have been mincemeat.

It took a few seconds for both of us to recover from the shock of the explosion. Staring out of the bunker I watched the dust settle and shook my head. A long whistle sounded from the major’s lips as he too just stared out vacantly. More seconds passed before we ventured toward the remnants of the multi-barrelled mortar where we found a crater in which you could have hidden a donkey. In the distance, clods of earth could be heard raining down on the corrugated iron roofs of the billets. Glancing in that direction we could see the air force personnel with their hands on their heads, panic-stricken. Before long they were running to their aircraft to inspect what damage had been caused.

Needless to say, Major Kriel was not popular for some time afterwards. The experiment had been a flop and any intimations of further attempts were shot down in flames.

There are many more incidents in Harper-Ronald's account of almost four decades in one uniform or another.  He lived a very adventurous life.

Peter

The ancient Greeks talked about hubris and nemesis.  An article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine defined those concepts as follows:

Hubris denotes over confidence, exaggerated pride. It can be associated with a lack of knowledge or interest in history, also with shaming or contempt of others.

Nemesis is the goddess of retribution and denotes the destruction, suffering or punishment that can follow in the wake of hubris.

The Greeks saw the two in a cause-and-effect relationship:  anyone displaying hubris was inviting the goddess Nemesis to exact retribution upon him.  The time-honored idiom "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad" describes, from a different perspective, the effects of hubris upon those doomed by it.

A perfect example of hubris in action, plus self-centered astonishment at the nemesis that has inevitably followed, may be found in the comments of a leader of Hamas during a recent television interview.  This is mind-bogglingly stupid.

Hamas invaded Israel with up to 3,000 terrorists;  embarked on a whirlwind of mass murder, deliberate rape of victims (female and male);  took scores, if not hundreds, of hostages;  and expected to get away with it???  Their complaints about Israel's reaction being unforeseeable, and the real criminal act as opposed to what they did, are unimaginably self-centered and blind to reality.  What did they think Israel would do about such an atrocity?  Roll over like a hurt child and cry into their blankies?  Demand sympathy from the rest of the world while doing nothing?  What, in Israel's track record since its independence in 1948, made them think that would be a likely response?

Apparently Hamas actually expected to be allowed to tear great chunks out of Israeli society and culture, leaving great bleeding wounds (literally as well as figuratively) in that nation, and yet escape retaliation.  Hubris in action.  They now face the utter destruction of the society they'd built in Gaza, and the ruin of their people.  Nemesis following hubris.  When Hamas complains about Israel "violating all international laws, treaties and norms", they apparently believe that it was quite all right for them to do so during their terrorist attacks, but that Israel was not allowed to respond in kind.  Looks like nothing much has changed in human nature since the ancient Greeks . . .

There's another, more modern proverb that fits Hamas' situation.  I'm not going to spell it out here, because it's rather profane, but I'm sure most of my readers know it by its acronym, F.A.F.O.  I rather think Hamas figured it didn't apply to them.  They know better now.

Peter

Details have emerged of a Druze woman who helped capture five Hamas terrorists and aided Israeli forces to kill or capture more than a hundred others during the terrorist attack on October 7th.  In the process, she fooled another Hamas terrorist over the phone into revealing where his forces were entering Israel and where they planned to attack next.

I'm not going to steal her thunder by trying to summarize the story here.  Instead, click over to one or both of these links for the details:

A remarkable story.  I hope those in her community who lived through the attack have shown, and continue to show, their gratitude.  Now, how about giving her a medal for heroism?  It took tremendous guts to do what she did, in the face of certain (and probably very slow and very painful) death if she hadn't been able to convince the terrorists that she was on their side.

Peter

It seems that "16 vessels of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, including an IRGC spy ship aiding Houthi operations, sustained significant damage after reported explosions".  No word on exactly where it happened, except that the report came from Iran.  From the smoke and flames, I suspect they won't be going anywhere soon.

Funny how little oopsies like that happen . . .

Peter

The Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel on October 7th have led to all sorts of soul-searching and drama within Israel.  How could they have happened without being detected?  Why was the initial response so limited, and why were so many innocent people murdered, raped and tortured almost without opposition until Israeli forces could mobilize and respond?  Were many of the victims actually killed by Israeli counterfire, particularly missiles launched by helicopters, rather than Hamas terrorists?  All these questions are swirling around in the ether, and there are few authoritative answers to be had.

Nevertheless, one thing almost everyone is agreed upon is that Israeli intelligence should have foreseen and warned about preparations for these attacks - but failed to do so.  Jewish News Service pins the blame on Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Directorate Chief Maj. Gen. Aharon Haliva.  I don't know whether its claims about him are true or false, but if true (and that's a big "if" - see below), they paint a bleak picture.

In the weeks since Oct. 7, more and more information has come out about why Hamas was able to pull it off. All of the information points to Haliva and his close subordinates.

The Field Observers unit at Nahal Oz base suffered the greatest losses there during Hamas’s assault. The unit, comprising female soldiers, is responsible for monitoring the footage from security cameras along the Gaza border around the clock and alerting forces on the ground and in the intelligence community to anything suspicious ... the two surviving members of the unit and a number of former members started coming forward to tell their story. In interviews with Channel 11, two women related that in the months before the invasion, they were warning it was in the works. The women saw Hamas terrorists training to take over kibbutzim and IDF bases. They watched terrorists practicing taking hostages and blowing up tanks. They saw terror commanders watching the drills. They saw spies probing the fence for weaknesses. They saw it all and reported it all. 

Rather than giving them medals, unnamed top-level officers in the intelligence corps ordered them to stop. When they continued reporting, the observers were warned that they would be disciplined and removed from the unit if they kept raising their concerns.

. . .

The observers weren’t the only ones silenced. Rafael Hayun, a civilian hacker who monitors open intelligence networks, worked for the IDF for years. The IDF provided Hayun with equipment to monitor Hamas’s internal communications. In late 2019, Hayun began reporting on Hamas training exercises involving invading Israel, penetrating the security fence at multiple points, taking over communities, committing mass murder and kidnapping. Over time, the training became more intense and detailed. Hayun alerted the units he was working with about Hamas’s activities in real time.

Five months before the assault, his colleagues in the IDF were ordered to seize all of his equipment and stop working with him. Around the same time, the IDF’s Intelligence Directorate Unit 8200 signals intelligence unit also stopped monitoring Hamas’s communications.

. . .

In a series of three, increasingly detailed and urgent reports over succeeding months, [an] NCO set out in granular detail how Hamas was preparing a broad invasion of Israel that included the invasion of IDF bases, border towns and kibbutzim. Her reports included all aspects of the invasion that took place on Oct. 7, including Hamas’s use of paragliders, pick-up trucks and motorcycles. She detailed Hamas’s plans to massacre and kidnap civilians and soldiers. She warned that their intention was to use provocations along the security fence in the weeks leading up to the operation to get the IDF used to breaches and so lull its commanders into complacency. She even secured Hamas’s own training manual for the operation. She was able to get the information in front of Unit 8200’s commander and a top officer in the Southern Command. They apparently did nothing.

Convinced by his subordinate’s reporting, her commander, an NCO with 30 years’ experience, canceled a family vacation because he heard Haliva would be visiting their base. He waylaid Haliva, and he and his subordinate presented her reports. Haliva dismissed their warnings and detailed information as hot air. Hamas, he insisted, was just pretending, to make an impression on its followers. He did not communicate her report to either the head of Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) or the IDF Chief of General Staff.

. . .

Since at least 2022, Haliva and his colleagues in the Intelligence Directorate and the top echelons of the IDF and the Shin Bet were convinced that Hamas was deterred. Hamas, they insisted both in public statements and in intelligence briefings to political leaders, was interested in providing economic prosperity to Gaza. In one speech, Haliva spoke derisively of an unnamed political leader (between the lines it was apparent he was referring to Netanyahu) who had questioned his judgment.

. . .

What Haliva failed to mention was his habit of ignoring everything the professionals told him and not sharing their information with his superiors. 

All of this would be bad enough. But it becomes even worse when seen in the framework of the 10-month insurgency the Israeli left waged against the Netanyahu government. That insurgency was led by Haliva’s family.

There's more at the link.

Sounds damning, doesn't it?  Unfortunately, given the heated nature of Israeli politics over the past few years, and the feverish war mentality that's (understandably) prevailed there since October 7th, one can't just take such reports at face value.  Where is the evidence for its claims?  I haven't seen any authoritative documentation of them yet.  Is the blame attached to Major-General Haliva motivated by opposition to his political views?  Is this report an attempt by pro-Netanyahu sources to discredit his opponents and deflect blame from him?  Right now, it's almost impossible to say.  It'll be months, if not years, before all the facts are known - and we may never know all of them, because I'm sure there will be those who want to cover up as much of the blame as possible.

We just don't know.  All we can say is that, if the events described in this report are true, heads need to roll - and possibly not just figuratively, either.  Anyone who ignored such reports is directly implicated in the consequences of that decision, and the blood of those murdered, tortured and raped on October 7th is on his or her hands.  Punishment needs to follow.

There are more questions.  If Hamas was so blatant, so open, in its preparations for the attack, why did no other major intelligence agency (here's looking at you, CIA) see what was coming and warn of it?  Why did United Nations personnel working in Gaza not report it up the line, so that their superiors were aware of it - and if they were aware of it, why was no warning published?  Is this yet another example of UN collaboration with those whose politics they support, while working against the interests of those the organization opposes?  If so, why should the UN ever again be permitted to operate in such areas?

Peter

Amid all the protests against Israel for its punitive action in Gaza, it's worth remembering why that action is taking place.  The Judean is publishing a series of articles with videos of what happened in Israel on October 7, showing in graphic detail what Hamas terrorists perpetrated on that day.

WARNING:  THIS SERIES IS BRUTAL, BLOODY AND GRAPHIC IN THE EXTREME.

IT'S NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART.

YOU SHOULD NOT WATCH IT IF YOU'RE SQUEAMISH.

The series page runs from the latest video to the earliest, so if you want to watch them in sequence, scroll down to the earliest entry and watch them from that starting point.

If you have any doubts about why Israel is doing what it's doing in Gaza, these videos will remove all doubt from your mind.  They also serve as a counterweight to the anti-Israeli propaganda that's being blasted from so many "woke" sources.  For that reason, I think it's worth clicking over to The Judean and watching the series . . . if you can stomach it.  I saw the same thing in Africa, many times over many years;  but even so, parts of the videos made me feel sick.  Be warned.

Peter

Today's award goes to a woman in Indianapolis who screwed up her own hate crime.

IMPD officers arrested a woman, who they labeled a “terrorist,” after she drove her car into a building that she thought was a Jewish school.

. . .

Ruba Almaghtheh, 34, was arrested on a preliminary charge of criminal recklessness.

According to a police report obtained by FOX59/CBS4, police were called to the building around 11:30 Friday night to investigate a hate crime. Officers said Almaghtheh backed her car into the building while several adults and children were inside.  

Almaghtheh told officers she was watching news coverage of the Israel-Hamas war on television and decided to plan an attack on the building because she was offended by the “Hebrew Israelite” symbol on the front of the building.  

Police said Almaghtheh passed by the building a couple times and called it the “Israel school.”

IMPD said she made reference to “her people back in Palestine” and told officers, “Yes. I did it on purpose.” 

However, the Anti-Defamation League defines the Israelite School of Universal and Practical Knowledge as an “extreme and antisemitic” sect of the Black Hebrew Israelites. The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the Black Hebrew Israelites as a hate group.

There's more at the link.

According to Wikipedia, "In 2017, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) listed the Black Hebrew Israelites as one of the 'black nationalist groups of concern', along with the Nation of Islam and others. The SPLC has also described the Black Hebrew Israelites as a hate group which supports racial segregation, Holocaust denial, homophobia, and promotes a race war, and as of December 2019, it 'lists 144 Black Hebrew Israelite organizations as black separatist hate groups because of their antisemitic and anti-white beliefs'."

A few days ago, a Jewish journalist posted video of a violent clash between Black Hebrew Israelite and pro-Hamas demonstrators, noting that "BHI believe they are the real Jews, and Jews like me are fake Khazarians.  Did not have this on my 2023 bingo card."  The BHI demonstrators weren't attacking the others to defend Israel, but because they regarded themselves as true Israelites and Israeli Jews as imposters and false believers.  It gets complicated.

Anyway, to get back to the original report, Ms. Almaghtheh apparently attacked the BHI building because she thought it was a Jewish property marked with a Jewish symbol.  In fact, she attacked an anti-semitic, racist, extremist group that appears to want to hurt Israel and Jews as much as she does.  Talk about a jihadi own goal!

Peter

Ghazi Hamad of Hamas' Political Bureau lays it on the line.

Hamad:  "Israel is a country that has no place on our land. We must remove that country, because it constitutes a security, military, and political catastrophe to the Arab and Islamic nation, and must be finished. We are not ashamed to say this, with full force.

"We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do this again and again. The Al-Aqsa Flood is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth, because we have the determination, the resolve, and the capabilities to fight. Will we have to pay a price? Yes, and we are ready to pay it. We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.

"The occupation must come to an end."

News anchor: "Occupation where? In the Gaza Strip?"

Hamad: "No, I am talking about all the Palestinian lands."

News anchor: "Does that mean the annihilation of Israel?"

Hamad: "Yes, of course ... The existence of Israel is illogical. The existence of Israel is what causes all that pain, blood, and tears. It is Israel, not us. We are the victims of the occupation. Period. Therefore, nobody should blame us for the things we do. On October 7, October 10, October 1,000,000 – everything we do is justified."

Kudos to MEMRI for publishing his comments (and the video report in which he made them) in such detail.  Now we know where Hamas stands . . . and where we stand - where all right-thinking people must stand.

There is no place in a civilized world for anyone who can speak so casually about the mass gang-rape and murder of women, and the mass slaying of children, as "justified".  Any person, and any organization, that can say such things so openly has self-defined as being in need of elimination, so that the rest of human society can rest easier at night.

It's as simple as that.  Israel needs no further justification to eliminate Hamas.  That organization has already provided enough, and more than enough, out of the mouths of Mr. Hamad and its other spokesmen.  As I've said before, there is a moral imperative upon Israel to do its utmost to protect innocent victims in Gaza . . . but that it must eliminate Hamas, even at the tragic cost of some innocent victims, is an overwhelming, pre-eminent priority.  Far too few people appear to realize that - even in Israel.

When someone says he's out to destroy you, you'd better believe him, and act on that belief, lest you find out the hard way he meant it . . . because after that discovery, you'll no longer be able to act.

Peter

The inimitable Neil Oliver discusses the Middle East crisis with retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor, joined by others in a panel discussion who contribute their thoughts.  It's a free-ranging and controversial discussion that covers ground most of the mainstream media in the USA are ignoring.  Indispensable and essential viewing, IMHO.

I think we're standing on very dangerous ground indeed right now.  If the Middle East conflict escalates into a regional war, it can have massive consequences for the world's energy supply;  for geopolitical relationships across Europe and Asia;  and possibly even a third World War, if things go far enough, because if Iran and Russia become embroiled, China can't (it dare not) be far behind.

God have mercy on us all.

Peter

There's a distinction in law between crimes, wrongdoing or evil acts that are either malum in se (i.e. bad/wrong/evil always because of their very nature, intrinsic to them) or malum prohibitum (i.e. bad/wrong/evil because some authority says so - the "wrongness" is not intrinsic to them as such).  Examples of malum in se would include murder, rape, theft, etc.  Examples of malum prohibitum would include speeding, tax evasion, and the like.

The trouble is, authorities love to define something as malum (evil, a crime, forbidden) and then punish people for committing it, even when there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the act concerned.  A good example is the furore over the January 6, 2020 protests in Washington D.C.  There's nothing intrinsically wrong with demonstrating;  in fact, the First Amendment to the Constitution specifically lists "peaceful assembly" as a right of the people.  However, by defining the mere presence of the demonstrators as an act of violent insurgency in itself, whether or not those present engaged in violence, the authorities have charged and convicted many of them of a crime or crimes.  Another common example is speeding.  There's nothing intrinsically wrong with traveling fast (although it may be foolish, and possibly dangerous to those doing it and/or other road users).  Nevertheless, if they're caught, they'll be punished because they've "done wrong" according to the letter of the law.

We see another very common use of malum prohibitum in wartime.  An occupier may declare it a crime for citizens of an occupied territory to be armed in any way.  That may have been legal prior to the occupation, but now it's not.  The citizens may need to hunt, or defend themselves or their livestock against predators, but nobody cares about that now.  They are to hand in their weapons and obey, or face the consequences, which may extend even to execution as "rebels" or "traitors" - despite the fact that they never swore allegiance to the occupying power and never owed it any loyalty.

Sadly, we're seeing it yet again in Gaza.  Israel has ordered everyone in the northern part of the territory to evacuate southwards, and has arbitrarily declared that anyone remaining "could be identified as sympathisers with a 'terrorist organisation' if they stayed put."  This ignores several critical facts:

1. There may be nowhere for them to go - southern Gaza is already full to overflowing with refugees, and has no space to take in any more.
2. There may be no transport for them to move south - the roads are often clogged by rubble as a result of Israeli bombardment, and many vehicles have already left.
3. Hamas, which rules Gaza, has forbidden people to leave, so trying to obey Israel's order to evacuate risks death at the hands of a ruthless organization that won't hesitate to execute disobedient citizens as a public warning to others to obey - or else.

I'm in no way a Hamas sympathizer, and agree that Israel must neutralize Palestinian terrorism in Gaza as a matter of national security.  However, for Israel to do it by essentially putting Gazans in a no-win hard place, where no matter what they do they risk death for themselves and their families, is not a solution at all.  It merely puts an official stamp on their deaths.  "They didn't obey us, therefore they were killed - but we couldn't help it.  It's their fault, because they could have obeyed."  Either Israel or Hamas could use precisely those words when they kill people, and according to the logic both sides employ, they'd both be right.  That's cold comfort to those killed in the process...

I know I'm pointing out the obvious here.  Nevertheless, it's important to keep this in mind, because when we read official propaganda from either or both sides, they're going to justify their actions on this basis as often as they can.  It's worth remembering that both sides in the coming Gaza battle will effectively be killing innocent people - those who have never themselves perpetrated violence or terrorism, but are trapped in the company of those that have.  It's not restricted to one side only.  I saw precisely the same in Africa, and experienced it personally.  I've seen entire villages burned down, and the residents made homeless, and their cattle killed and crops burnt, because they didn't warn about an ambush set up by terrorists near the village - despite the fact that the terrorists would have done the same to them, and worse, if they had warned the authorities about the ambush.  The villagers faced an impossible conundrum, and suffered for it.

Let's pray for all those caught up in such no-win situations.  There are going to be a lot of them in the near future, I fear.

Peter

Matthew Braken posted a link to this video on X (previously Twitter).  At 1m. 41sec. in the video, you can see a minivan try to get away from a horde of Antifa "demonstrators", only to be intercepted by highly organized and well-equipped rioters.  He notes:

Notice the three rapid-reaction ATVs that arrive at 1:41. This was just a street takeover today, but they have command and control via a hovering drone and inter-squad radio/cell phones, so imagine them when they have their AR-15s and arrive in your cul-de-sac for a "Hamas-style" operation. They are organized. When they escalate to Hamas terror tactics, it will be brutally effective. They already have the guns and the organization. In this video they doxxed the man's car license #, why? Sure, they can re-attack him at the riot, but they can also now find his home for retaliation. This is terrorism.

There's more at the link, including a detailed photographic analysis of what happened.  I highly recommend that you watch the video and read the original post.

Please note that the organizers of this "demonstration" had foreseen the need for such highly organized, well equipped, aggressive agents, and provided for it.  This was no casual gathering:  it was a professional operation, planned and executed with precision.  We've seen it before in left-wing progressive-dominated cities like Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland and elsewhere.  Now we're seeing it in many more cities.

IF YOU ARE CAUGHT IN SUCH A "DEMONSTRATION", YOU ARE AT RISK OF AN IMMEDIATE AND OTHERWISE UNAVOIDABLE THREAT TO YOUR SAFETY.

It's as simple as that.

All my previous warnings to get out of "big blue" American cities are reinforced by this video.  If you live in such an environment, the risks to your safety grow daily.  Get out if possible.  If you can't get out, or if you have to visit such cities from time to time, pay attention to the ever-growing need to be able to defend yourself and your loved ones against such organized criminality, if necessary.

This is what the organized left intends to bring to America's streets everywhere.  Plan, train and equip yourselves accordingly.

Peter

Some weeks ago I predicted that autonomous drones, without a "human-in-the-loop" to make kill/no-kill decisions, would soon be deployed.  Reader Vincent H. just sent me the link to this article.  (Thanks, Vincent!)

Saker is a young Ukrainian company founded in 2021 to produce commercial AI and drone solutions. The company decided to develop a military product after Russia invaded in February 2022.

. . .

Developed with remarkable speed and initially deployed in September 2023, the Saker Scout claims to be a tough, barebones-looking UAV with a prominent camera assembly hanging from its belly and an explosive charge strapped to its back. The Saker platform is distinguished, creators say, by its AI control system. The drones operate as an autonomous network in flight, hunting down camouflaged enemy vehicles with recon units and then sending in bomb-laden drones to make the kill.

Defense Express noted when the Saker Scout was unveiled in September that its advanced artificial intelligence was not cheap or easy to produce, but the drones themselves cost a relative pittance. Swarms of drones working together to find and eliminate targets without human intervention are very cost-effective compared to traditional infrared or radar-homing missiles. Taking human operators out of the equation makes the Saker airborne network very difficult to jam.

New Scientist noted that Saker Scouts can be piloted by human operators in the traditional manner, with the AI picking out 64 different types of Russian “military objects” and inviting the operator to commit bomb drones to attack them. Input from the drone groups is collated into Delta, the Ukrainian situational awareness computer system. Delta is a supercomputer that creates highly detailed real-time battlefield maps by collating input from various sensors and devices.

According to a Saker representative who spoke with New Scientist, the company’s drones have now been deployed in autonomous mode “on a small scale,” with human operators taken out of the loop. 

Military analysts greeted the long-anticipated arrival of killer robots with trepidation. Humanitarian groups worry that autonomous systems might be less scrupulous about avoiding civilian casualties, as they could act with lethal force against “false positive” targets without human oversight. Military experts fear the coming of autonomous weapons that might escalate a conflict very rapidly, leaving their human masters behind as they duel with each other at lightning speed.

There's more at the link.

I'm sure this isn't the only weapon of its kind out there.  By now there may be a dozen models or more, spread over several countries, that we don't know about.  I'll be very surprised indeed if major weapons producers such as Russia, China, the USA and Israel aren't among them.  Such weapons are just too useful to be ignored, and if one's enemies are using them, one has little choice but to respond in kind.

Tragically, this will mean that before long they'll be in terrorist hands as well.  Groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah are already using reconnaissance and explosive drones of their own, and Mexican drug cartels are using them to fly illegal narcotics across the border.  If you think that domestic terrorist groups in the USA (including Palestinian sympathizers) won't soon have them, too, or that the cartels will fail to see the possibilities of sending autonomous armed drone escorts along with their cargo carriers, to target Border Patrol and other agents trying to intercept them, you're living in a dream world.

That also means that our lives - literally everybody's lives - have become a lot less safe.  With no human being to make decisions as to whether or not something or somebody is a legitimate target, just being in the wrong place at the wrong time (like, for example, driving on a road that leads to a place where a drug cartel has arranged a pickup of narcotics) can be enough for an autonomous drone to make its own kill decision and take us out.  That's anything but a happy thought . . .

Peter

We're witnessing preparations in Israel for a massive counterstrike against Hamas after the latter's recent terrorist onslaught.  Tragically, many innocent people are very likely to be caught up in that counterstrike.  Many will probably be injured or killed.  Morally speaking, that's repugnant at the very least, if not actually forbidden, under the moral and ethical code of most (but not all) mainstream religious faiths - but it's going to happen, regardless.  Can it be justified?

This is a conundrum that's been faced many, many times before in human history.  Considerations of what's "right" have far too often been supplanted by what's "necessary", at least in the eyes of those taking the actions concerned.  They've looked for justification for their actions in many ways, and many of them claim to have found it, no matter how spurious it may be.  Some of the earliest examples can be found in the holy books of many religions, where you'll find claims that "God told us to kill the people at this place" or "God gave us this land to be our own, and told us to kill or enslave those already living there".  It's fairly likely that those statements wound up in those "holy books" several generations after the events in question, when justification was needed for actions that were anything but "holy".  That way, those questioning them could be accused of profaning God's revelation (as the tribe or clan or nation concerned saw it), and conveniently silenced instead of the "establishment" having to confront their doubts.

So-called "just war theory" is all about this dilemma.  Is it right/moral/ethical to go to war?  If so, what is the right/moral/ethical way to conduct that war?  What about treatment of the survivors after that war?  It's a vast subject, far too large to treat adequately in a brief blog article like this.  Go read the linked article, and follow the links it provides.  It was applied in various ways at different times, with results that often seem incongruous at best.  For example, at the sack of Béziers in 1209 AD:

Caesarius of Heisterbach relates this story about the massacre:

When they discovered, from the admissions of some of them, that there were Catholics mingled with the heretics they said to [the Papal Legate in command, the Abbot of Citeaux, Arnaud Amalric] "Sir, what shall we do, for we cannot distinguish between the faithful and the heretics." The abbot, like the others, was afraid that many, in fear of death, would pretend to be Catholics, and after their departure, would return to their heresy, and is said to have replied "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius – Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His" (2 Tim. ii. 19) and so countless number in that town were slain.

While there remains doubt that the abbot said these words – also paraphrased as "Kill them all; God will know His own", "Kill them all; God will sort his own", or "Kill them all and let God sort them out" – there is little if any doubt that these words captured the spirit of the assault, and that the Crusaders intended to slaughter the inhabitants. The Crusaders allowed the routiers to rampage and kill without restraint, sparing neither women nor children, but swiftly put a stop to looting.

Kill civilians without restraint, because you can't identify the guilty, but don't loot their belongings?  That's a rather warped application of allegedly Divine moral law, isn't it?

A more modern example may be found concerning the bombing campaign against Germany during World War II.  Bishop George Bell was outspoken in his opposition to the bombing of non-military targets.

In November 1939 he published an article stating that the Church in wartime should not hesitate

to condemn the infliction of reprisals, or the bombing of civilian populations, by the military forces of its own nation. It should set itself against the propaganda of lies and hatred. It should be ready to encourage the resumption of friendly relations with the enemy nation. It should set its face against any war of extermination or enslavement, and any measures directly aimed to destroy the morale of a population.

In 1941 in a letter to The Times, he called the bombing of unarmed women and children "barbarian" which would destroy the just cause for the war, thus openly criticising the Prime Minister's advocacy of such a bombing strategy. On 14 February 1943 – two years ahead of the Dresden raids – he urged the House of Lords to resist the War Cabinet's decision for area bombing, stating that it called into question all the humane and democratic values for which Britain had gone to war. In 1944, during debate, he again demanded the House of Lords to stop British area bombing of German cities such as Hamburg and Berlin as a disproportionate and illegal "policy of annihilation" and a crime against humanity, asking:

How can the War Cabinet fail to see that this progressive devastation of cities is threatening the roots of civilization?

He did not have the support of senior bishops. The Archbishop of York replied to him in the House of Lords: "it is a lesser evil to bomb the war-loving Germans than to sacrifice the lives of our fellow countrymen..., or to delay the delivery of many now held in slavery".

In strictly Christian terms, Bishop Bell was, of course, entirely correct.  Tragically, by then the events of the war had overtaken morality.  Britain got around the moral dilemma of bombing "innocent civilians" by an official policy of denying that there was any such thing.  Civilians worked in armaments factories or supported war production in other ways;  and if civilian housing was destroyed, it would require diversion of a large part of the German economy to repairing or replacing it, thereby affecting war production and weakening Germany's armed forces.  Therefore, bombing the civilian population was, in fact, an attack on Germany's ability to make war.  (The same rationale was applied to killing prisoners of war and slave laborers during attacks on German infrastructure.  Tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of them were killed during such air raids, but their loss was regarded as "collateral damage" - unintended, yet unavoidable, and justified under the circumstances.)

My parents lived through the Second World War, my mother enduring bombing as a civilian on the ground, my father as an officer in the Royal Air Force.  I was able to ask both of them for their opinion of Bishop Bell's position.  My mother put it something like this:  "The Golden Rule says to do unto others as you want them to do unto you.  The Nazis 'did unto us' when they bombed Warsaw, and Rotterdam, and Coventry, and London;  so I always reckoned that the Golden Rule gave us the right to 'do unto them' what they first 'did unto us'."  My father's response was somewhat more pungent and profane, but basically agreed with hers.  "They started it:  we finished it."

I imagine that a similar justification - classifying "innocent civilians" as no longer innocent, but instead as part of the problem - is driving Israel's preparations to deal with Hamas in the Gaza Strip.  From that perspective, if the local population supports Hamas, and - willingly or not - provides cover for its operations, then that local population is itself part of the terrorist problem, and must be dealt with as severely as the terrorists in order to eliminate the threat.  I don't think Bishop Bell would agree, and from a Christian moral perspective I don't either, but nobody's asking us for our opinions.

Tragically, in applying that perspective, Israel will be storing up yet more hatred against itself that future generations will express in one way or another.  When Israeli bombs or bullets kill Palestinian children, their siblings will remember, and hate those who did that.  They won't ask whether it was justified, or necessary, or moral . . . they'll just hate, and want revenge against those who did it.  It's been that way throughout recorded history.  I wrote about it after the Bataclan Massacre in 2015.  What I said then remains true today, and will remain true for all time, whether or not you agree with the ethical and moral issues involved.  That's just the way it is.  (The comments from readers after that post are also worth viewing, particularly those that disagree with me.  They have the right to their opinions, too.)

What it boils down to is what's possible rather than what's theoretically ideal.  It's absolutely not possible to deal with Hamas terrorists in isolation from the population in which they live and from which they derive their support.  Think of Mao Zedong's famous dictum that "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea".  In so many words, to get at the fish, you have to either remove it from the water, or remove the water from around the fish.  The same applies to dealing with the guerrilla/terrorist:  if he can't be distinguished from the people, you must remove all the people that are sheltering and supporting him.  We have to acknowledge that there are undoubtedly many individuals and families within that population who do not support violence and terrorism, and have never done anything to support it;  but their presence nevertheless offers protection to the terrorist, and provides him with cover and concealment.  To deal with him, it's unavoidable that we have to deal with "the sea in which he swims" - the people around him, innocent or not.

Tragically (and I mean that very sincerely), that means Israel has literally no choice but to deal with the entire population of Gaza as if they were all guilty.  I hope and pray it exercises as much restraint as possible;  but when you look at what the terrorists in Gaza did to Israel, the latter has no moral choice at all but to protect its citizens against further such atrocities.  That means the people of Gaza - all of them - are about to find themselves between a rock and a hard place, with no alternative but to be treated as guilty unless and until proven innocent.  Many of them will probably die before such a determination can be made, because in the middle of a war, you can't stop and put yourself at risk to find out.

That doesn't make it right.  That doesn't make it moral.  It does, however, make it inevitable.

Peter