…three Iranians were caught at an airport in Seychelles trying to use stolen Israeli passports. The Iranians were sent back on a flight to Nairobi, Kenya, from where they came.

Seychelles authorities passed the information to Israeli authorities, who found that the passports were stolen from Israelis who traveled to Thailand last year.

The general concern, which I fully share:

Israeli authorities fear that this was the precursor to a terror attack in the archipelago, which has been advertising heavily to attract Israelis on Passover vacation this year. Charter airlines now go directly to Seychelles from Israel.

Maariv also carries an attractive picture of the island:

I am not sure, though, about its relevance, but why not? In addition, Maariv claims that 15,000 (fifteen thousand) Israeli passports disappear every year. Wow…

Anyhow, I have decided to wait for a while with that story, and indeed, a new article in Ynet (in English this time) looks somewhat better researched.

In the past few weeks, more then 10 Iranian nationals were caught carrying forged Israeli passports, Israel’s leading newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported Wednesday. The information came from reports relayed to Israeli embassies in Japan, Thailand, and India. In the last several months, Pakistani and Turkish citizens were also caught with fake Israeli passports.

And the reason seems to be not necessarily related to the terrorism business, rather to business business:

The Israeli passport is considered to be one of the easiest passports to forge and can be purchased in Asia, and especially in Thailand’s markets, for anywhere from USD 500 to 2000. The Israeli passport is in great demand because people carrying it can enter Asian countries without a visa.

Of course, the threat of terrorists using same passports for their nefarious purposes shouldn’t be discounted. On the other hand, there is no need to exaggerate the situation, like Maariv had done, since:

In 2004, six hundred Israelis reported their passports stolen in Asia. In 2005, the number increased dramatically.

Still, it’s a far cry from 15,000. Another article, from Sky News Blogs, seems to settle (at least) the issue of the three Iranians caught in Seychelles:

A Israeli government source has told Sky News it understands the incident happened but does not believe there was any terror threat. The Iranians are believed to have been refugees who were using the passports in order to enter the Seychelles with a view to travelling on to a first world destination in search of a better life.

I would say that in a case like this we shouldn’t be too prissy and mind a few forged passports… like some other people I don’t want to mention here. The more the merrier, I would even add.

Now to the comic element of the story. From Ynet:

Another Iranian who was caught in Japan with a fake Israeli passport was caught when the name in his passport belonged to a female. The Iranian replaced the picture, but didn’t bother changing the name.

Beef up on your Hebrew next time, doofus…

And from that Sky News blog – its headline says: Forged Passports: Is It Catching On?

Such naivety from a seasoned journalist… surely forged documents are as old as the first clay tablet… nay, as a first stone tablet… oh well…

Cross-posted on SimplyJews

High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay underscored the need for an urgent independent inquiry into the killings of some 60 people – and the wounding and disappearance of dozens more – on the Egyptian side of its Sinai border with Israel since summer 2007, when the two countries agreed to bolster border controls.

“While migrants often lose their lives accidentally while traveling in over-crowded boats, or trying to cross remote land borders, I know of no other country where so many unarmed migrants and asylum-seekers appear to have been deliberately killed in this way by Government forces,” she said.

“It is a deplorable state of affairs, and the sheer number of victims suggests that at least some Egyptian security officials have been operating a shoot-to-kill policy. It is unlikely that so many killings would occur otherwise. Sixty killings can hardly be an accident.”

The tally is nine killed so far this year. I would point out that the year is only two months old. I would also point out that it is highly unlikely that Egypt either stops the killings, or launches an independent investigation into them. Or that the UN does anything beyond having Navi Pillay send out a press release on the issue. I would also point out that I will be very glad if I have to eat these words. But I doubt I will.

Europeans are big fat liars: So, they say they’re cutting trade with Iran, and yet, Germany, France, and Italy are going gangbusters with the regime that just hanged two protesters. Also Spain, Italy, Holland and Belgium. Say, how many of those countries are criticizing Israel over Gaza? What’s that you say? All of them? Big fat hypocrites. (Yeah, like we didn’t know that already.)

Palestinian rejectionism: It’s the new “moderate”: Mahmoud Abbas is in Russia stonewalling about peace talks. Nothing new, except for the mention of the 1947 partition plan. Oh, wait. That’s not new, either. He’s done that before. Never mind. Wait, this is new: Someone mentioned Abu Dis as the capital of Palestine? Hey. Works for me.

I know you are, but what am I? Khalid Mashaal, the man who sleeps in a different bed every night in Syria for fear of assassination by the Mossad, is mocking Israel for being unable to take Gilad Shalit out from under wherever Hamas is guarding him. And, um, yeah—like the Israelis don’t know that they’d get him back in tiny pieces if they raided the place. Weak? I think the word you’re looking for is “smart.” Say, have fun moving around from safe house to safe house, dude. (I love snark. Snark is my bestest friend. Okay, really, it’s not, but my friends are generally snarky.)

The media: Dogpile on Obama, dogpile on Obama! Looks like the media are starting to notice that the narrative is changing, and the second American revolution is well on its way to maturity. Tapper, of course, is the most even-handed journalist in the world today. (Exaggerate? Moi? Surely you jest.) Money quote: “In Massachusetts, even after a rough couple weeks the Democrat should be ahead.”

UN peacekeepers run away from Haitians: Okay, so the UN had enough peacekeepers to evacuate the medical staff from a hospital in Haiti, but they didn’t have enough to safeguard them? That gives me so much confidence in the UN, I’d love to see them utilized in the Palestinian territories. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) So what happened? All the doctors and nurses left, leaving Sanjay Gupta, the medical correspondent for CNN, to train his CNN crew in lifesaving techniques. All the patients survived the night, no thanks to the Belgians, the Canadians (left earlier), and the UN. Say, guess which country is the only nation to have sent a desperately-needed, fully-equipped field hospital to Haiti? Here’s a hint: It’s not a member of the OIC. (Yeah, it’s Israel.) Update: Sol has lots more about the Israeli hospital, including news of a new baby named Israel.

Scottie the Hottie has a good shottie: The polls are looking good for Scott Brown in Massachusetts. However, I will not be staying up late if this is a nail-biter. Hey, Sissy, best of luck! If I could vote in Massachusetts, I would.

Scott Brown up by 15? Holy crap. Pajamas Media commissioned a poll, and it’s not looking good for Martha Coakley in “the Kennedy seat.” You know, our Founders have to be rolling in their graves at the idea of inherited senate seats (are you listening, Joe Biden?). Byron York says the Dems are expecting her to lose. Think about that: Massachusetts is going to vote for a Republican candidate for Senate. Best line I’ve seen so far regarding the Coakley attack machine: “Hey, did you know that Scott Brown actually owns a time-share? Bastard.” (Allahpundit, of course.)

Oh, this won’t affect the daily operations of our capital at all: The Obama administration is thinking of trying al Qaeda terrorists in Washington. Because that’s just what DC traffic needs, more streets shut down. And gee, we can sure afford a few hundred million more in security costs, because it’s not like we have a trillion-dollar deficit or anything like that. Say it with me, folks: Morons.

They couldn’t use the telephone? A source is telling Ynet that the attack on the Israeli embassy convoy was a message to Jordan. You know, like a horse head in their bed. Who was the message from? Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda… so many terrorists to choose. Exit comment: Something about this AP description amuses me: “The explosion ripped through the right side of a curvy road cutting through hilly villages.” Probably the fact that I think it’s a pretty juvenile description.

Can we tell Turkey to eff off now? So Danny Ayalon apologizes to the Turkish ambassador, and that should be an end to it. Except the Turks are still pissed, and won’t forgive Israel. Gee, big surprise. And may I say, the “honor/shame” culture is about the most childish culture I can think of, next to tribalism. Say, what countries are the most tribal and practice honor/shame? What’s that you say? The ones responsible for nearly all of the world’s terrorism? No!

Remote-controlled bombs are now “Zionist style”: Who knew? The fact that the remote-controlled vehicle bomb is a favorite weapon of terrorists all over the world—including Iranian terrorists—doesn’t seem to sink in when you’re a demagogue, as is Mad Mahmoud.

Dogpile on the Israelis: And now, the Catholic bishops add their two cents to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. No word from them on Muslim treatment of Israeli Christians. Update: Oops, my mistake. They’re blaming the plight of Israel’s Christians on Israel. But of course.

Televangelist Pat Robertson said today during a broadcast on his Christian Broadcasting Network that quake-ravaged Haiti made a “pact to the devil.”

“And so the devil said, ‘OK, it’s a deal,’” Robertson said. “And they kicked the French out, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free.

“But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor.”

I have loathed this man since before he became a born-again Israel supporter. I watched his broadcasts when I was young, and he quite clearly told me I was going to hell because I didn’t believe what he believed.

Yeah, I don’t think so. I’m not the one that’s going to have a tough time after I’ve exited this world.

Those poor Haitians. Here’s a place to send donations.

The suspects have not been identified publicly, but Rokita said they were between the ages of 20 and 39 and that their past offenses were “either against property or against health and life,” implying that at least one of them has a record for violent crime.

Four of them are unemployed and one owns a small construction company, he said. He would not give any other details.

Barry Rubin has some thoughts on the significance the sign holds for the world today. Read the entire post. This summary does not do it justice.

Of course, the Germans lost World War Two and their anti-pragmatism hastened that defeat. This, too, is worth keeping in mind. That is a factor to be used in the setting of strategy by democratic states and in the thinking of their people. Assuming they will act in the opposite way will not, however, strengthen that resistance.

Yet the greatest threat to the West of all is the mistaken belief that if we are really polite and avoid giving offense, that if we make concessions or work really hard we will be free of their threat. We have set up our own signs at the entrances to our universities and foreign ministries that are the precise equivalent of Arbeit macht frei.

For instance:

To begin with, I believe that all nations – strong and weak alike – must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I – like any head of state – reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates – and weakens – those who don’t.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait – a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention – no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

That’s obviously a reference to Iraq. Earlier in the speech, he said this:

One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek;

It’s yet another stop on the Obama apology tour of the Blame Bush Administration. But it’s just a one-off in the context of the rest of the speech. This is the part that disturbs me:

To begin with, I believe that all nations – strong and weak alike – must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I – like any head of state – reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates – and weakens – those who don’t.

Is this is a call for a (doubtless) UN-sponsored, legally binding, international set of laws regarding the use of force? Something mor than the Geneva Conventions? This is what the rest of the world wants—a one-size-fits-all law on the use of force that they can then use to isolate, oh, say, Israel, using support documents like the Goldstone report. If this is not what Obama intends, this is how it would be used. Witness:

The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

The concept of “proportionate force” is what the world is using to accuse Israel of war crimes, but it isn’t used in a legal sense. The Goldstone report didn’t use it in a legal sense. It is used, generally, to say that Israel cannot respond to constant rocket fire by invading the area from which the rockets are fired and trying to destroy the rockets and the rocketeers.

But the problem is that in this modern-day world, the enemies are not abiding by the Geneva Conventions. Obama acknowledges it in his speech, but turns immediately away from the subject and starts the non-violence portion of his remarks:

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior – for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure – and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

Yeah, this would sound a lot better if he actually stood by his deadlines and words regarding sanctions on Iran. September was a deadline. So was October. And November. And December. Obama has done nothing but talk, and Iran continues its relentless drive for a nuclear weapon.

One last part about his speech was yet another slap at Israel.

… it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities – their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

He makes the problem with Israel about Arab tribalism, and Jewish religion. He does not call it a conflict between Muslims and Jews, which is not just more truthful, but a better description, as Iranians are not Arabs. He calls it a conflict between Arabs and Jews. When he does mention Islam, it’s all about al Qaeda, not about Hamas, whose charter calls for the supremacy of Islam and the end of Jews and quotes the Koranic section about the trees calling for Muslims to kill the Jews hiding behind them. He doesn’t mention the many references to Muslims refusing to have a Jewish nation in the Muslim “waqf.”

“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.”

In short, the speech is all Obama: Internationalist, naive, ignorant of any inconvenient facts of the issues discussed, and ultimately, toothless and impotent. There will be no follow-through with sanctions on Iran. The Russians and Chinese have already indicated they won’t be joining, and have instead signed new multi-billion dollar gas and oil deals with Iran. There will be a Lebanese seat on the UN Security Council, thus ensuring a Hezbullah say on anything regarding its Iranian masters. And the world will continue to attack Israel for settlements and turn a blind eye to the nuclear bomb being built by a nation with the power to shut the Straits of Hormuz.

Barack Obama: He’s like Jimmy Carter on steroids, but not in a good way.

Peacemaking takes strategic skill. But we see no sign that President Obama and Mr. Mitchell were thinking more than one move down the board. The president went public with his demand for a full freeze on settlements before securing Israel’s commitment. And he and his aides apparently had no plan for what they would do if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said no.

Most important, they allowed the controversy to obscure the real goal: nudging Israel and the Palestinians into peace talks. (We don’t know exactly what happened but we are told that Mr. Obama relied more on the judgment of his political advisers — specifically his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel — than of his Mideast specialists.)

The Washington Post editorial board came to this conclusion in July. But suddenly, pundits who were solidly behind Obama are noticing that the emperor is not as fully clothed as they described him to be:

The peace-process bubble burst two months ago at the United Nations, when Obama’s poorly executed attempt to launch final-settlement talks between Israelis and Palestinians collapsed. Arabs who were led by Obama’s rhetoric to believe that the United States would force Israel to make unprecedented unilateral concessions — like a complete end to all construction in Jerusalem — were bitterly disappointed.

But they are not the only victims of post-Cairo letdown. Arab reformers, who for most of this decade have been trying to break down the barriers to social and political modernization in the Middle East, have also begun to conclude that the Obama administration is more likely to harm than to help them.

“All Arab countries are craving change — and many of us believed Obama was a tool for change,” says Aseel al- Awadhi, a Kuwaiti member of parliament. “Now we are losing that hope.”

Fouad Ajami, writing in the Wall Street Journal, sums it up:

Mr. Obama’s election has not drained the swamps of anti-Americanism. That anti-Americanism is endemic to this region, an alibi and a scapegoat for nations, and their rulers, unwilling to break out of the grip of political autocracy and economic failure. It predated the presidency of George W. Bush and rages on during the Obama presidency.

And he backs it up with figures.

It was the norm for American liberalism during the Bush years to brandish the Pew Global Attitudes survey that told of America’s decline in the eyes of foreign nations. Foreigners were saying what the liberals wanted said.

Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama. In the Palestinian territories, 15% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 82% have an unfavorable view. The Obama speech in Ankara didn’t seem to help in Turkey, where the favorables are 14% and those unreconciled, 69%. In Egypt, a country that’s reaped nearly 40 years of American aid, things stayed roughly the same: 27% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 70% do not. In Pakistan, a place of great consequence for American power, our standing has deteriorated: The unfavorables rose from 63% in 2008 to 68% this year.

Even Chris Matthews is losing the thrill up his leg regarding the president:

Regarding President Obama’s controversial bow to the Emperor of Japan, Matthews asked, “I have never seen a bow that low. . . . God did he have to bow that low?”

It looks like the bloom is off the rose. Certainly, with his approval ratings below fifty percent, Americans have caught on to the fact that they elected the most liberal president in history, something that pundits insisted he wouldn’t be, because he ran on a centrist platform. But the moment he was elected, the man who is one of the most liberal senators in Congress immediately took a sharp left turn. Gee, who could have seen that coming? Oh. Wait. That would be me, and everyone else who voted for his opponents.

I’ll leave you with the SNL skit from last week. Obama has become mock-worthy, and that’s the biggest sign of all that our president is now considered just another politician.