I am a bit disturbed and perturbed that Left-Wing Jews are shooting themselves in the foot by working against shoring up the Jewish identity of Israel by propagandizing Israel’s public with typical lies about the new Nationality Law.
Apparently Leftists of all nations are supportive of the Multiculturalism that destroys the national identity and culture of all nations. I would not be surprised if Jews in America also supportive of a Leftist agenda to suppress the Jewish national identity in the Land of the Jews.
JewishPress.com has the story of how Israel’s Left is destroying their own nation.
In the week before the Saturday night rally in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square against Israel’s new Nationality Law, the organizers issued frequent announcements to the media, signed by the “headquarters of the struggle against the Nationality Law.”
According to the website Mida, the group behind the “struggle” is Anu (Us in Hebrew), a leftist NGO supported by the New Israel Fund, the European Union, UNESCO, and the Shoken fund, to name a few.
Anu is also behind an online funding campaign to raise money for the rally and the continued fight against the new law.
To remind you, the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, enacted July 19 by a majority of 62 to 55 with 2 abstaining, establishes the constitutionality of the three historic Zionist principles: the free return of the Jews to the land of our fathers; the free settlement of Jews everywhere in Israel; and the miraculously revived Hebrew as the official language of the Jewish State. Calling these principles racist and part of an apartheid policy is tantamount to attacking the very existence of a Jewish State.
But the Anu-supported “Struggle Headquarters” describes the new Basic Law (meaning it is constitutional) in a distorted way, with clear post-Zionist attitudes woven between the lines.
For one thing, the Struggle Headquarters does not distinguish between Israeli minorities who committed to military service and those who do not, presenting the protest as being shared by “Druze, Jews and Arabs.” This despite the yawning gap between the position of a large number of Israeli Arabs, who identify themselves as “Palestinians” and pray for the destruction of Israel, and the overwhelming majority of the Druze, who are proud of their country and fight for it in the battlefield.
The Struggle Headquarters propaganda maliciously misrepresents the law, using a false comparison between two Border Guard officers, one a Jew, the other a Druze, and stating that “the Nationality Law states explicitly: They are not brothers! They are not equal!”
The new law does no such thing, of course. It certainly does not violate the civil rights of Druze citizens, nor does it violate the equality between Jewish and Druze citizens.
The Struggle Headquarters intentionally lies to the public, suggesting the new law “officially cancels the principle of civil equality” and “justifies inequality in the distribution of national resources,” both utterly baseless claims.
They also claim the law “cancels the recognition of Arabic as an official language,” when the Nationality Law, which crowns Hebrew as the Jewish State’s official language, also explicitly uphold the special status given to the Arabic language.
Along with the above distortions, the Struggle Headquarters is also infected with post-Zionism: “The government, deliberately, violates the international right of minorities to national self-determination as minority groups,” the campaign declares, but fails to explain what is the basis for this so-called “international right.” That’s because no such right exists.
Minority rights, as applying to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples, are an integral part of international human rights law, designed to ensure that a specific group which is in a vulnerable, disadvantaged or marginalized position in society, is able to achieve equality and is protected from persecution. The concerns of international legal conventions on minority rights are not to prevent nation-states such as England, Denmark, France or Israel from remaining so, but to prevent the genocide of minorities in places like the former Yugoslavia or east Africa. In countries with a Western democratic tradition, minority rights are usually protected by affirmative action quotas.
And yet, the literature disseminated by the Struggle Headquarters say Israel must provide “national self-determination” to Israeli Arabs, many of whom identify themselves as “Palestinians.” This is a concept that promotes eliminating the uniqueness of the Jewish national identity of the State of Israel.
This post-Zionist outlook joins similar statements made by Druze former General Amal Assad, one of the leaders of the struggle against the Nationality Law, who believes the Jews do not have a unique right to the Land of Israel, as he put it recently on his Facebook page: “Where did you get the nerve to determine that the country belongs to the Jews? What is the foundation of the claim of the Jewish right and ownership of the land?”
Last week, it was the same Assad who caused the collapse of a meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu and the heads of the Druze community, when he declared that Israel is on its way to becoming an “apartheid state.”
One of the prominent figures in the “struggle against national law” is Dr. Ricki Tessler, a faculty member at the Hebrew University’s School of Education and chair of the Academic Forum on Civics Education. Tessler is the spearhead in the campaign to eliminate national-Zionist values from the teaching of civil studies, in favor of “universal” values that correspond to the values of a state of all its citizens.
In an interview with the Knesset TV channel, Tesler expressed her rage at the fact that the country’s civil studies books teach that “the government can make decisions because it is the majority,” protesting: “Where will all this lead us?”
In other words, Tessler is enraged by the most basic principle of democracy: majority rule.
ANU AND THE NIF
Anu is a federation of lefwing [sic] organizations, including Agenda, heavily sponsored by the New Israel Fund (80% of its budget came from NIF).
Agenda’s board included NIF’s Executive Director in Israel, Rachel Liel; MK Daniel Ben-Simon (Zionist Union); and former Israel TV news director and current mayor of the Druze town of Daliat al-Carmel, Rafik Halabi, who is one of the pillars of the protest against the Nationality Law; and the group’s director-general Anat Saragusti, who later ran B’Tselem US.
Between 2014 and 2017, Anu received more than $550,000 in grants from the NIF. The NGO also receives grants from the European Union and the UN, the specific amounts are not yet known.
Anu serves the leftist agenda, dedicating its official website and Facebook page to promoting leftwing demonstrations under the title “The People Are Fighting Corruption.” Anu provides organizational knowledge to expand the circle of participants in the demonstrations, offering an online demonstrations map, directing users to the locations of the demonstrations throughout the country, and providing updates via email on upcoming rallies.
To date, Anu has launched an extensive campaign to prevent the expulsion of illegal African infiltrators, spreading blatant lies such as that “the State of Israel expels tens of thousands into mortal danger”; demonstrations against the government’s natural gas outline; rallies against the demolition of illegal construction in Bedouin settlements in the Negev; and support for the Barbur Art Gallery in Jerusalem, which hosted members of extreme leftist, anti-Israel organizations in a venue that is public property belonging to the Jerusalem Municipality.
Among the more bizarre campaigns appearing on the organization’s website is “The struggle against brain-control crimes.” Anu claims that “university management retirees, together with subcontractors from intelligence organizations, fire electromagnetic radiation to establish remote brain control, to manage the citizens using microwave radiation.”
JNi.Mediaprovides editors and publishers with high quality Jewish-focused content for their publications.
JewishPress.com – Bringing you the news from Israel and the Jewish World
About Jewish Press
The Jewish Press is the largest independent weekly Jewish newspaper in the United States. The paper, founded by Rabbi Sholom Klass (1916-2000) and Mr. Raphael Schreiber (1885-1980), debuted as a national weekly in January 1960 and quickly won a following for its eclectic mix of Jewish news, political and religious commentary, the largest Jewish classifieds and special features — including puzzles, games and illustrated stories — for young readers.
For over five decades now The Jewish Press has championed Torah values and ideals from a centrist or Modern Orthodox perspective. The paper has been a tireless advocate on behalf of the State of Israel, Soviet Jewry, and agunot (women whose husbands refuse to grant them a religious divorce), and has taken the lead in urging a greater communal openness in addressing domestic violence and other social ills.
Known for its editorial feistiness, The Jewish Press was politically incorrect long before the phrase was coined. The paper over the years has been home to colorful and thought-provoking writers like Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis, Dr. Morris Mandel, Louis Rene Beres, Steven Plaut, Marvin Schick, Rabbi Dovid Goldwasser, Phyllis Chesler, Rabbi David Hollander, Paul Eidelberg, the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, as well as former editor Arnold Fine and current senior editor Jason Maoz.
In 2011, the JewishPress.com website and related Internet properties were relaunched as an independent, daily online newspaper, with breaking news and in-depth articles on Israel, the Jewish People and the world. The Internet edition is managed by Stephen Leavitt.
The American Left and global Left hate President Trump and his America First agenda to the point of irrational behavior. If you are an American patriot you should ask yourself, “Why?”
There are undoubtedly many valid answers as to the why. Here is one extremely valid reason for Leftist irrational behavior toward President Trump: To get sovereign-minded American patriots distracted from recent United Nations action at instituting a one-world government:
The writers describe the Covenant as a “living document,” a blueprint that will be adopted by all members of the United Nations. They say that global partnership is necessary in order to achieve Sustainable Development, by focusing on “social and economic pillars.” The writers are very careful to avoid the phrase, “one world government.” Proper governance is necessary on all levels, “from the local to the global.” (p.36)
Since this Draft Covenant has a Preamble and 79 articles, it is obviously intended to be a “world constitution for global governance,” an onerous way to control population growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,” economic control, consumption control, land and water use control, and re-settlement control as a form of social engineering.
The above quote is an exposé at the Canada Free Press (CFP) written by Dr. IleanaJohnson Paugh about the United Nations instituting a form of global Communism using the earth’s environment as an insidious pretext.
I am sure there are many Americans who have no idea nor care what “The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development” (DICED) is. They should. TheDraft Covenant is the “Environmental Constitution of Global Governance.”
The first version of the Covenant was presented to the United Nations in 1995 on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. It was hoped that it would become a negotiating document for a global treaty on environmental conservation and sustainable development.
The fourth version of the Covenant, issued on September 22, 2010, was written to control all development tied to the environment, “the highest form of law for all human activity.’
The Covenant’s 79 articles, described in great detail in 242 pages, take Sustainable Development principles described in Agenda 21 and transform them into global law, which supersedes all constitutions including the U.S. Constitution.
All signatory nations, including the U.S., would become centrally planned, socialist countries in which all decisions would be made within the framework of Sustainable Development.
In collaboration with Earth Charter and Elizabeth Haub Foundation for Environmental Policy and Law from Canada, the Covenant was issued by the International Council on Environmental Law (ICEL) in Bonn, Germany, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with offices in Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Federal agencies that are members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) include U.S. Department of State, Commerce, Agriculture (Forest Service), Interior (Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The same agencies are members of the White House Rural Council and the newly established White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities (Executive Order, March 15, 2012).
The Draft Covenant is a blueprint “to create an agreed single set of fundamental principles like a ‘code of conduct’ used in many civil law, socialist, and theocratic traditions, which may guide States, intergovernmental organizations, and individuals.”
The writers describe the Covenant as a “living document,” a blueprint that will be adopted by all members of the United Nations. They say that global partnership is necessary in order to achieve Sustainable Development, by focusing on “social and economic pillars.” The writers are very careful to avoid the phrase, “one world government.” Proper governance is necessary on all levels, “from the local to the global.” (p.36)
The Covenant underwent four writings, in 1995, 2000, 2004, and 2010, influenced by the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, by ideas of development control and social engineering by the United Nations, “leveling the playing field for international trade, and having a common basis of future lawmaking.”
Article 2 describes in detail “respect for all life forms.”
Article 3 proposes that the entire globe should be under “the protection of international law.”
Article 5 refers to “equity and justice,” code words for socialism/communism.
Article 16 requires that all member nations must adopt environmental conservation into all national decisions.
Article 19 deals with “Stratospheric Ozone.” Rex Communis is the customary international law regime applicable to areas beyond national jurisdiction: in particular to the high seas and outer space.” (p. 72)
Article 20 requires that all nations must “mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” If we endorse this document, we must fight a non-existent man-made climate change.
Article 31, “Action to Eradicate Poverty,” requires the eradication of poverty by spreading the wealth from developed nations to developing countries.
Article 32 requires recycling, “consumption and production patterns.”
Article 33, “Demographic policies,” demands that countries calculate “the size of the human population their environment is capable of supporting and to implement measures that prevent the population from exceeding that level.” In the Malthusian model, humans were supposed to run out of food and starve to death. In a similar prediction, this document claims that the out-of control multiplication of humans can endanger the environment.
Article 34 demands the maintenance of an open and non-discriminatory international trading system in which “prices of commodities and raw materials reflect the full direct and indirect social and environmental costs of their extraction, production, transport, marketing, and where appropriate, ultimate disposal.” The capitalist model of supply and demand pricing does not matter.
Article 37 discusses “Transboundary Environmental Effects and article 39 directs how “Transboundary Natural Resources” will be conserved, “quantitatively and qualitatively.”
According to the document, “conserve means managing human-induced processes and activities which may be damaging to natural systems in such a way that the essential functions of these systems are maintained.”
Article 41 requires integrated planning systems, irrespective of administrative boundaries within a country, and is based on Paragraph 10.5 of Agenda 21, which seeks to “facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources.” The impact assessment procedure is developed by the World Bank.
“Aquifers, drainage basins, coastal, marine areas, and any areas called ecological units must be taken into account when allocating land for municipal, agricultural, grazing, forestry, and other uses.” Agricultural subsidies are discouraged, as well as subsidizing private enterprises.
“Physical planning must follow an integrated approach to land use – infrastructure, highways, railways, waterways, dams, and harbors. Town and country planning must include land use plans elaborated at all levels of government.”
“Sharing Benefits of Biotechnology” is a similar requirement to the Law of the Sea Treaty which demands that final products of research and development be used freely, no matter who develops an idea or how much it costs to bring that idea to the market.
Article 51 reveals that we will have to pay for these repressive new requirements while Article 52 shows that we must pay 0.7 percent of GDP for Official Development Assistance. This reaffirms the political commitment made in Paragraph 33.13 of Agenda 21 in 1992.
Article 69 deals with settlement of disputes by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice, and/or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
Article 71 describes the amendment process, which is submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The UN Secretary-General would review the implementation of this document every five years.
Writers of the Draft Covenant are approximately 19 U.S. professors of Law, Biology, Natural Resources, Urban Planning, Theology, Environmental Ethics, two General Counsel Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, chair of the IUCN Ethics Working Group, two attorneys in private practice in the U.S., a judge from the International Court of Justice, a U.S. High Seas Policy advisor of the IUCN Global Marine Programme, foreign dignitaries, ambassadors, and 13 members of the UN Secretariat, including the Chairman, Dr. Wolfgang E. Burhenne. (2006-onwards)
Since this Draft Covenant has a Preamble and 79 articles, it is obviously intended to be a “world constitution for global governance,” an onerous way to control population growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,” economic control, consumption control, land and water use control, and re-settlement control as a form of social engineering.
Article 20 is of particular interest because it forces the signatories to DICED “to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” When President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, “climatologists” from Hollywood and millennials brainwashed by their professors that CO2 is going to destroy the planet and kills us all, took to microphones and podiums to express their displeasure with such a “criminal” decision.
It did not matter that the President explained in a very logical manner that this accord was nothing else than an economic scheme to steal and redistribute wealth from the United States to the third world while real heavy polluters like China and India were allowed to continue to pollute until 2030 when, at that time, they could be bribed to reduce their pollution and perhaps China would install smokestack scrubbers.
President Trump explained how many millions of American jobs would be lost and how our energy generation is getting cleaner while we are exploring other forms of energy. Once President Obama declared that the science has been settled, the science provided and the IPCC modeling had been adjusted to fit the globalist man made global warming agenda, so called anthropogenic.
Since none of Al Gore’s predictions of islands under water due to the melting of ice cap have turned out true, we have more ice than ever this year, the globalists changed the title of their global warming hoax to climate change. Who would object to that term? Everybody knows that climate changes but it is not because of humans spewing CO2 in the atmosphere. I don’t see any liberals who have stopped breathing and passing gas. But we do see Hollywood jet set everywhere sail in their expensive yachts, build mansions on the most beautiful beach side properties in the world, right after they chew humanity out for destroying the planet with our very existence and civilization.
How did man become the main perpetrator of climate change? How did we become so powerful that we can change climate with our very existence but, if we pay carbon taxes to the third world, we correct our guilt of existing, of breathing, and we turn climate into a favorable proposition for all – no hurricanes, no tornadoes, no droughts, no hail, no torrential rains, no earthquakes, no tsunamis, nothing but serene climate year after year.
The Club of Rome, the premier environmental think-tank, consultant to the United Nations and the alleged writer of U.N. Agenda 21’s 40 chapters, explained, “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy is the humanity itself.”
Environmentalists tell us that the science is “settled” yet 31,000 scientists have signed a petition against the theory that humans are causing climate change. There is certainly a need to reduce pollution of our oceans, rivers, soil, and air but humans are not causing climate change. Temperatures and CO2 concentrations were much higher when there was no industrial activity or even humans.
The Vostock ice core samples taken by a team of Russian and French scientists proved beyond any doubt that CO2 concentrations in deep ice were six times higher than they are today. There are more serious variables that affect the climate, including solar flares, volcanic activity on earth and in oceans, and oceanic currents. Then there is the deliberate government weather tampering by seeding clouds from flying airplanes with various chemicals in order to “mitigate the effects of global warming.”
Dr. David Frame, climate modeler at Oxford University said, “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” Prof. Chris Folland from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research explained, “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, also said, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about social justice and equality in the world.”
Timothy Wirth, President of the U.N. Foundation, said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
The sad thing is that many mayors around the country have decided to disobey President Trump’s decision on the Paris Climate Accord and reported publicly that they will continue their membership even though such a move is illegal under our Constitution. Art. VI, paragraph 2, states, …”and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Law of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
According to the Tennesseestar.com, the mayor of Nashville, Megan Barry, said that “The Constitution does not apply here in Nashville: ‘I am committed to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement . . . Even if the President is not.’”
Mayor Barry, who is joined by the mayors of Knoxville, Madeline Rogero, the mayor of Chattanooga, Andy Berke, and “187 U.S. mayors, mostly Democrats, representing 52 million Americans,” have decided to ignore Article I,Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits states governments, including towns in those states, from “entering into any treaty, alliance, and confederation.”
These dissenting mayors have not pledged their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution but to the Global Covenant of Mayors, one of the arms of implementation around the globe of U.N. Agenda 21, now morphed into Agenda 2030. Using grants from our own government, the Compact of Mayors and the European Union’s Covenant of Mayors have influenced initiatives at the local, city, and state governments, forcing their globalist agenda called “visioning” on the hapless population who are now forced to accept decisions made by mayors and boards of supervisors that are robbing them of freedom of movement, of their property rights, of the use of their cars, of farming, in the name of “transitioning to a low emission and climate resilient economy,” a pie in the sky goal. The real goal is to transform and redistribute the wealth of developed countries and to arrest their development by eventually curbing completely the use of fossil fuels and turning them into a more primitive society dependent on unreliable solar and wind power. Such a global society would have no borders, no sovereignty, no suburbia, no private property, no cars, and would be controlled by the United Nations umbrella of octopus NGOs.
There is no surprise that there is such a drive from the left to have a Convention of States (COS) in order to replace our U.S. Constitution with their own environmental constitution of the world, which is called The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development (DICED).
James Delingpole wrote in a recent article at breitbart.comthat “Global warming is a myth – so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in 2017.”
The scientific “consensus” about the global warming lie, cited by the left without hesitation, is not science and President Trump was right in pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate agreement, an agreement based on the pretense that the massive lie of global warming is true.
India alone needs $2.5 trillion between now and 2030 to comply with the requirements of the Paris Climate agreement, a sum which would come from the largest developed countries, mainly the U.S. And there are many other third world nations that would demand suchredistribution of wealth from us in order to “decarbonize” and reduce pollution.
Delingpole citesin the above article the quote given in an interview to Dr. Charles Battig on November 13, 2010. Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Co-Chair of Working Group 3, stated, “We [UN-IPCC] redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…”
Dr. CharlesBattig amply documents the advancement of Agenda 21 in the United States via ICLEI and gives successful examples of municipalities who were able to extricate themselves from the global warming hoax pushed at the local level by the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), an arm of U.N.’s many octopus Agenda 21 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who use federal grants, mayors, and local boards of supervisors to insinuate their own plans called “visioning” onto the local community who, most of the time, has no voting rights nor input into the plans.
Patrick Wood wrote in LinkedIn, Exposing: AGENDA 21, “It’s time to go tell your city leaders to kill climate change initiatives. #StopTechnocracy.” It is time that American mayors follow the U.S. Constitution and not the U.N.’s environmental Constitution called D.I.C.E.D.
Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler on Business, every Wednesday to Thursday at 10:49 AM EST
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh,Romanian Conservativeis a freelance writer, author, radio commentator, and speaker. Her books, “Echoes of Communism”, “Liberty on Life Support” and “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy,” “Communism 2.0: 25 Years Later” are available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle.
Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education. Visit her website,ileanajohnson.com
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017Canada FreePress.Com
About Us — Canada Free Press
Canada Free Press (CFP) is a proudly independent, 24/7 news site, updating constantly throughout the day. More than 100 writers and columnists file regularly to CFP from all corners of the globe. CFP rides on credibility and is edited by a lifelong journalist.
Canada Free Press does not sell, loan or give out its mailing list to anyone. You will receive a confirmation email back to the email you entered. You must respond to the email in order to receive our mail out of latest news and opinion.
Although we have been posting to the Internet for more than 14 years, on May 15, 2012 CFP celebrated its eighth anniversary as a daily. Espousing Conservative viewpoints, cornerstone of which focuses on love of God, love of family, love of country, CFP maintains a loyal and growing readership.
CFP senior journalist/editor Judi McLeod tries to answer each and every letter sent to CFP by readers. CFP’s main ongoing inspiration is to provide accurate and well-researched stories for a loyal readership that are not printed or posted elsewhere.
CFP’s Motto: “Because without America there is no Free World” is as meaningful today as it was when first adopted. America and the Free World must …READ THEREST
In the 1967 – 50-years ago – June 5 -10; Israel fought a war with at least four Arab nations amassing troops on Israel’s border. Begin counting from day one through the last day, you have the Six-DayWar.
Israel AGAIN defeated armies much-much larger than the Israel Defense Force (IDF). The Arab nations prepared for invasion for what they believed would be the utter destruction of Israel. Wisely, Israel utterly surprised the Egyptian military front by launching a preemptive attack which destroyed most of Egypt’s air force. Using the shock to Israel’s advantage, the IDF then launched their vastly outnumbered tanks and pushed Egypt out of the Sinai. Then Jordan and Syria launched their invasions unaware that Egypt had gotten their butts kicked in the Sinai. Although there was a less of a surprise, the IDF ultimately prevailed against Syria and Jordan. The Golan Heights was taken from Syria and the land conquered by Jordan in 1948 was taken back which included Israel’s heritage of uniting Jerusalem. Making Jerusalem whole allowed Jewish access to their most holy site left to them – the Western Wall still standing after the Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple circa 70 AD.
1/12 | In the first video of the mini-series, find out about the early steps that led to the 1967 Six Day War – a war that changed the future of Israel. Surrounded by enemy neighbors and only nine miles wide at its narrowest point, Israel was vulnerable.
In May of 1967, the state of Israel was only 19 years old. At its inception in 1948, five Arab armies had coordinated a military invasion to prevent the creation of the small Jewish country. But Israel’s War of Independence succeeded in repelling the forces bent on Israel’s destruction. Israel reclaimed sovereignty over the ancient Jewish homeland, making way for the establishment of a Jewish country after 2,000 years of statelessness and periods of persecution.
Yet despite Israel’s success in creating a new country, it did not enjoy peace with its neighbors. Terrorism and frequent attacks on three borders kept Israel in a perpetual state of alert.
To the north, from the Golan Heights, Syria shelled Jewish communities below on a regular basis. In the South and East, Arab terrorists from Egyptian-controlled Gaza and the Jordanian-controlled West Bank infiltrated and perpetrated attacks on Israeli civilians, killing 400 in the 19 years since Israeli independence.
The attacks reached the point that they were condemned as “deplorable” by then-Secretary General of the United Nations U Thant.
Although the Jewish state had been welcomed into the United Nations and hailed by the international community, its Arab neighbors rejected its very right to exist, preparing to resume a war for Israel’s destruction which they had halted 19 years earlier. The Arab buildup for all-out war was very near.
In this video – the first in a 12-part mini-series – you will learn about the regional atmosphere leading up to the 1967 Six Day War, and find out about the early steps that led to the war that changed the future of Israel.
This video was produced by Jerusalem U in partnership with The Jerusalem Post, the Jewish Federations of North America, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Jewish National Fund, the Israel Action Network, the European Jewish Congress and the Center for Israel Education. For more on the dramatic events and impact of the Six Day War, visit sixdaywarproject.org.
Thumbnail Photo Credit: Israel GPO/Moshe Milner
While the military victory was resounding, the Six-Day War created unresolved challenges that Israel grapples with to this day. The war also bolstered America’s pro-Israel community and helped to further reinforce the foundation of the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship and America’s pro-Israel community. Learn more: http://fal.cn/SixDayWarReflections
Adam Garfinkle wrote an essay for the Foreign PolicyResearch Institute (FPRI) reflecting on his historical view of the results of the Israeli victory in the 6-Day War.
The most important lesson of the June 1967 Arab-Israeli war is that there is no such thing as a clean war. That war was very short and stunningly decisive militarily; it has been anything but politically. From the Israeli point of view, military victory solved some serious near-term challenges, but at the cost of generating or exacerbating a host of longer-term ones—some of which may have come along anyway, some not, some of which may have been averted (or worsened) had Israeli postwar policy been different—and we cannot know for certain which are which. To ask whether what has transpired after the war “had to be that way” constitutes an aspiration to levitate the philosopher’s stone.
At any rate, of the war’s many consequences, three stand out as pre-eminent. First, major wars change the societies that fight and endure their consequences. The Six Day War changed the political, social-psychological, and, in at least one key case, demographic balances within all the participating states and a few others besides, with multiple and varying secondary and tertiary effects over the years. Second, despite the war’s after-optic of a smashing Arab loss, it was the best thing that ever happened to the Palestinian national movement. And third, the war catalyzed a redirection of U.S. Cold War policy in the Middle East (and arguably beyond) from one teetering on the edge of generic failure to one of significant success.
At this fiftieth “jubilee” anniversary of the war, buckets of ink will inevitably be spilled mooting and booting about such questions and many others; a lot already has been, and I am not reluctant to add to the bucket count. But before doing so, we all need to take a deep breath to inhale as much humility as we can—to remind ourselves what exactly we are doing and what we cannot do when we exhume moldering chunks of anniversarial history for reexamination.
We are so very attracted to anniversaries in the long parade of political history. We love to draw clear lessons from them, if we can—and if we can’t some others will claim to do so anyway. We are also attracted to thinking in terms of parsimonious eras with sharp lines of delineation between them; anniversaries of turning or tipping points help us mightily to draw such lines—which is precisely why we call them epochal. Wars, mostly hot but occasionally cold, figure centrally in the pantheon of such points.
The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War is all but universally considered to be epochal in this sense, so the recent ink flow is no wonder as journalists, scholars, memoirists, and others look for lessons and insight as to how those supposed sharp lines that divide eras were drawn. The subtitle of a new book furnishes a case in point: “The Breaking of the Middle East.”
There is a problem here—at least one, arguably more than one. Without yet having read this book, I cannot say for sure that this subtitle is not magnificently meaningful. But I can say for sure that it puzzles me. What does it mean to say that a region of the world is “broken”? Does it imply that before the 1967 Middle East War the region was somehow whole, a description that implies adjectives such as peaceful, stable, and nestled in the warm logic of a benign cosmos; and suggests that regional wholeness also meant that its state or regime units were seen as legitimate by their own populations and by other states and regimes? So on June 4, 1967, the Middle East was whole, and by June 11, it was well on its way to being broken?
All of which is to say that the penchant for reposing great significance in anniversaries is often distortive, because for many it reinforces the right-angled sureties and sharp distinctions—and presumed causal chains leading into our own time bearing those precious, sought-after lessons—that historical reality rarely abides. Only by rounding off the ragged edges, usually with a rasp composed of our contemporary concerns and convictions unselfconsciously pointed backwards, can such artificial categories be devised. Ambiguity annoys most people, and so they go to some lengths to duck it, in the case of getting arms around history by generating categories, boxes, and labels into which to shove obdurate facts. History, meanwhile, remains the sprawling entropic mess it has always been and will always remain.
To employ the anti-ambiguity rasp presupposes, too, that the craftsman commands cause and effect. We can, after all, only simplify a reality we presume to understand in its detail. When it comes to the Six Day War, that means presuming to know how it started and why, how it ended and why, and what the war led to thereafter in an array of categories: how the postwar geopolitical trajectory of the core Middle Eastern region and its periphery spilled forth; how the region’s relationship to the key Cold War superpower protagonists shifted; the war’s impact on the domestic political cultures of participants and near-onlookers; and more besides.
The problem here is that we know with confidence only some of these causal skeins, and, what is more (or actually less), some of what we know has not stayed constant over the past half century. At one point, say thirty years ago, we thought we understood the Soviet government’s role in fomenting the crisis by sending false reports of events in Syria to the Egyptian leadership; after the Soviet archive opened in the early 1990s, consensus on that point has weakened as revisionist interpretations have come forth. Nasser’s moving-target motives at various points in the crisis leading to war seemed clear for a time, until they no longer quite did. Several more examples of elusive once-truths could be cited.
Alas, every seminal event has a pre-context and a post-context: the convolutions of historical reality that give rise to an event and its causal afterflow. The further we get from the event, the greater the still-expanding post-context overshadows the pre-context, because we can see, for example, how various things turned out in 2017 in a way we could not have in, say, 1987. But so much else has happened that must, of necessity, dilute any construction of direct or preponderant causality.
Thus, did the war push Israeli society into becoming more religious, as many have claimed? Did it help shift Israeli politics to the Right by transforming the relationship of Orthodox Judaism to Zionism, leading Orthodox Israelis to engage on many political issues to which they had been formerly aloof? Or was that a deeper social-demographic trend that would have happened anyway, if differently, war or no war? So we face a paradox: the richer the post-context becomes for any epochal event, the poorer becomes our ability to isolate its downstream impact. As already suggested, we often enough make up for that poverty by exiling natural ambiguity before the demands of our current questions or biases. That is how we predict the past.
Scholars do try to isolate causal threads, of course, but differently because intellectual business models, so to speak, differ. Historians tend to seek out particularities; political scientists tend to search for general rules. Historians like their rocks fresh and jagged; political scientists like theirs rounded by patterns that flow through time. Each to their own intellectual aesthetic.
And the rest of us? How do we chase truth in history? Consider that if you pick up a history book and a memoir old enough to serve as an adjunct to it, you will have in your hands two different perspectives on the political world. An international political history of the 1930s written in the 2010s will take a passage of reality—say about the British, French, and American reaction to the 1935 Italian aggression against Ethiopia—and might spend two sentences or perhaps a paragraph on it. A memoir written in the 1950s by someone actually involved in debating and shaping that reaction will read very differently, recalling details, sideways connections to other issues, and nuances of policies and personalities bound to be lost in a general text if it aspires to be less than 10,000 pages long. In a history book such a mid-level event is likely to be framed as a consequence of larger forces that were leading to more portentous happenings (say, World War II); in a memoir it is more likely to be framed as both illustration of a synthetic historical moment, akin to a zeitgeist that is fully felt but is recalcitrant to reductionist analysis, and partial cause of what came after. Which do we read; which do we trust?
The answer is both, and wholly neither. How will the Six Day War figure in history books fifty years from now? There’s no way to know, because it will depend at least as much on what happens between now and then as it will on what happened in May and June 1967. But one thing we do know: As the post-context of the war doubles, the thinness and sameness of the description will grow, and be of little help in understanding how the main actors involved saw their circumstances. It will lose a sense of human verisimilitude. Details invariably give way to theme, and narratives grow shorter even as their truth claims grow larger. The thickness of memoirs will retain that sense of human verisimilitude. But what they provide in terms of broader context may suffer from too narrow an authorial aperture, and perhaps a bad memory in service to ego protection, if not other incidental causes of inaccuracy. As with many aspects of life, intellectual and otherwise, tradeoffs spite us in our search for clarity.
The point of all this? Anniversaries are shiny. They attract a lot of attention, much of it self-interested and sentimental enough to lure some people into excessive simplifications if not outright simplemindedness. If someone will bait the hook, someone else will swallow it. We witnessed exactly such a spectacle not long ago at the 100th anniversary of Sykes-Picot, and we’ll see it again a few months hence with the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. But as Max Frankel once said, “simplemindedness is not a handicap in the competition of social ideas”—or, he might have added, historical interpretations. If it gets you on TV talk shows to sell your book, no form of simplification is liable to remain out of bounds these days. After all, what is fake history if not a collection of aged fake news?
Never mind all that: I want people to read this essay, so rest assured that I know what happened and why, and what it all means even down to today. And now that I have donned sequins and glitter, I can be almost as brief and punchy as I am shiny, as is the current custom.
What did the war mean for the region? Plenty. It proved to remaining doubters that the Arabs could not destroy Israel by conventional force of arms. It helped establish Israel’s permanence in the eyes of its adversaries, the world at large, and, to an extent, in the eyes of its own people. That changed Israel’s domestic political culture. It no longer felt to the same extent like a pressure-cooking society under constant siege, and that, along with demographic and other subterranean social trends, ironically loosened the political grip of Israel’s founding generation of leaders, and the Labor Party. Less than a decade after the war Revisionist Zionists came to power for the first time, and now, fifty years later, Israel has the most rightwing government in its history. Did the Six Day War directly cause that? Of course not; but it was one of many factors that steered Israeli politics toward its current circumstances.
The war also began the occupation, first of Golan, the West Bank, and Gaza—in time a bit less of Golan and not of Gaza at all. If you had told typical Israelis in the summer of 1967 that fifty years later the West Bank would still be essentially occupied, neither traded for peace nor annexed, they would have thought you mad or joking. Israel as an independent state was 19 years and a few weeks old on June 5, 1967. The twentieth anniversary of the war in 1987 was about the midpoint of Israel’s modern history, half within-the-Green-Line and half beyond it. Now vastly more of Israel’s history has passed with the occupation as a part of it. Many more Israelis today cannot remember Israel in its pre-June 1967 borders than can—and that includes the Arabs citizens of the state as well as their ethno-linguistic kin living in the West Bank and Gaza.
In Israel there is a huge open debate, and a constant more private discussion beneath it, as to how the occupation has changed the nature of Israeli society. It is a difficult debate to set premises for, because in fifty years a lot is going to change in any modern society, occupation or no occupation. My view, like that of most Israelis I know, is that the occupation has been significantly corrosive of many Israeli institutions. They would like the occupation to end if it could be ended safely; but increasingly most agree that it can’t be, at least anytime soon. The remarkable fact is that, considering the circumstances, the damage to morale and heart, beyond institutions, has not been even worse. Israel’s moral realism has proved resilient. But the damage has not been slight, and of course it is ongoing.
As for the Arabs, the war crushed the pretentions of Arab Socialism and of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Within what the late Malcolm Kerr called “the Arab Cold War” it played in favor of the Arab monarchies against the military-ruled republics and hence generally in favor of the West; but it did not guarantee the safety of monarchical rule everywhere: Just 27 months later the Sanusi kingdom in Libya fell to a young army colonel named Muamar Qadaffi. None of the defeated Arab states lost its leader right away: not Nasser in Egypt, or King Hussein in Jordan, or Nurredin al-Atassi in Syria. But by the late autumn of 1970 Nasser was dead and al-Atassi had been displaced by Hafez al-Assad. Rulers also rolled in Iraq, and the very next year, with the British withdrawal from East of Suez, the United Arab Emirates came into being against its own will.
The war, therefore, was one element—more important in some places than others—in a general roiling of Arab politics (and I haven’t even mentioned stability-challenged zones like Yemen and Sudan), those politics being pre-embedded, so to speak, in generically weak states (again, some more than others). Not that Arab politics was an oasis of serenity before June 1967 either, as a glance at post-independence Syrian history will show. Indeed, the contention that the Six Day War, by hollowing out the pretensions of secular Arab nationalism for all to see, presaged the “return of Islam” with which we and many others struggle today is both true and overstated—in other words, too shiny. The frailties of secular nationalism among the Arab states preceded the war and would have multiplied on account of any number and kind of failures to come, war or no war.
In any event, the political impact of the Arab loss was mitigated by the “Palestine” contradiction that then lay at the heart of Arab politics. “Palestine” was, and remains to some extent, a badge of shame, for it epitomizes the failure of the Arab states to achieve its goals. Yet it is only a badge; the persistence of the conflict, sharply inflected by the 1967 loss, has served as a raison d’être for most ruling Arab elites, their unflagging opposition to Israel as a symbol of legitimacy. In the parlous context of inter-Arab politics, too, the conflict has served as the only thing on which all the Arab regimes could symbolically unite. Non-democratic Arab elites have used the conflict both as a form of street control internally, and as a jousting lance in their relations with other Arab states.
Yet by far the most important consequence of the Arab defeat in 1967 was to free the Palestinian national movement from the clutches of the Arab states. The theory before June 1967 was that the Arab states would destroy Israel in a convulsive, epic war, and then hand Palestine over to the Palestinians. The hysteria that overtook the Arab street leading to war shows how widespread this theory was, and the war itself showed how hollow a promise it was. So the Palestinians took matters into their own hands for the first time, seizing control of the Palestine Liberation Organization from its Egyptian sponsors and reversing the theoretical dynamic of liberation: Palestinians would liberate Palestine, and that victory would supercharge and unify the Arabs to face the hydra-headed monster of Western imperialism. The key bookends of this transformation as it manifested itself in Arab politics writ large were the Rabat Arab Summit of 1974, which passed responsibility for “occupied Palestine” from Jordan to the PLO, and the 1988 decision by King Hussein to formally relinquish Jordan’s association with the West Bank, which it had annexed and ruled for 18 years after the 1949 Rhodes Armistice agreements.
But how would the Palestinians themselves, led by the new and authentic PLO, liberate Palestine? They had in mind a revolutionary people’s war, an insurrection focused on the territories Israel newly occupied. It took its inspiration from lukewarm Maoism and its example from the Vietcong. The attempted insurrection in the West Bank failed miserably and rapidly; terrorist attacks mounted from east of the Jordan and across the border with Egypt became the next tactical phase as Palestinian nationalism’s organizational expression fractured. In time, Palestinian use of contiguous lands in Jordan and later in Lebanon to launch repeated terror attacks against Israeli civilians sparked civil wars in both countries. It did not bring about the “liberation” of even one square centimeter of “Palestine.”
Terrorism, however, did put the Palestinian issue “on the map” for much of the world, and now, fifty years later, Palestinians can have a state if their leaders really want one and are prepared to do what it takes to get it—the evidence so far suggesting that they don’t, and won’t. Nevertheless, looking back from fifty years’ hindsight, the Six Day War was about the best thing that could have happened for the Palestinians; that fact that they have not consolidated that windfall politically is their own doing, but everyone’s tragedy.
As to terrorism, it is true that the pusillanimous behavior of many governments in the 1970s, including some allied in NATO to the United States, helped the PLO shoot, bomb, and murder its way to political respectability. So one might venture that by helping to show that terrorism post-Six Day War can work at least to some extent, these governments bear some responsibility for the metathesis of nationalist, instrumentalist terrorism into the mass-murder apocalyptical kind we have witnessed more recently with al-Qaeda and ISIS. To me it’s another in a series of shiny arguments, more superficially attractive than fully persuasive. It is not entirely baseless, however.
But far more important than what the war did for the thinking of the Palestinians was what it did to the thinking of the Arab state leaders whose lands were now under Israeli occupation: Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Before the war, Arab support for “Palestine” was highly theoretical, highly ineffectual, and in truth amounted merely to a symbolic football the Arab regimes used to compete with one another in the ethereal arena of pan-Arab fantasies. Now, suddenly, the core national interests of three Arab states—including the largest and most important one, Egypt—became directly and ineluctably entwined with the reality as opposed to the symbol of Israel.
The Egyptians, particularly after Nasser’s death brought Anwar el-Sadat to power, got downright pragmatic. Israel had something these three states wanted—chunks of their land. And the Egyptian and Jordanian leaderships, at least, knew that a price would have to be paid to redeem that pragmatism. Complications aplenty there were, as anyone who lived through the dozen years after the 1967 War knows well. Nevertheless, this critical divide among the Arabs—between state leaders who could afford to remain only symbolically engaged and those who could not—shaped inter-Arab politics then and still does to some degree today. First Egypt in March 1979 and then Jordan in October 1994 paid the price and made peace with Israel. It seemed like forever passed between June 1967 and March 1979, but it was less than a dozen years—quick by historical standards.
While Egypt recovered the entire Sinai through its peace arrangement with Israel, Jordan did not recover the West Bank. The war had shifted the political demography of the Hashemite Kingdom, sending more Palestinians to live among East Bankers—some now refugees twice over and some for the first time. The consequence was to intensify Jordan’s internalization of its problem with Palestinian nationalism: It had lost land but gained souls whose fealty to the monarchy was presumably weak. The benefit of peace to Jordan in 1984, and hence its main purpose from King Hussein’s point of view, was therefore not to regain territory but to strengthen the stake that both Israel and the United States had in Jordan’s stability in the face of future challenge from any quarter, internal and external alike.
Syria, do note, did not follow the Egyptian and Jordanian path to peace, and so the Golan Heights remain for all practical purposes part of Israel. The reasons have to do with the complex sectarian demography of the country, and specifically with the fact that since 1970 Syria has been ruled by a minoritarian sect in loose confederation with the country’s other non-Sunni minorities. The Alawi regime has needed the symbolic pan-Arab mantle of the Palestinian cause more than any other Arab state, particularly as one with a border with Israel. Regime leaders anyway did not consider the Golan to be their sectarian patrimony, but more important, peace and normalization seemed to the Syrian leadership more of a threat to its longevity (and to its ability to meddle in Lebanese affairs) than a benefit. Now that Syria as a territorial unit has dissolved in a brutal civil war, the legacy of 1967 has been rendered all but moot.
Does that mean that Egypt and Jordan essentially sold out the Palestinians, making a separate peace? Well, much political theater aside, yes. But they really had no choice, and not selling out the Palestinians would not have gained the Palestinians what they wanted anyway. That, in turn, left the Palestinians with little choice. Eventually, the PLO leadership also decided to “engage” Israel directly, but without giving up what it still called the “armed struggle.”
Its partial pragmatism, tactical in character, gained the PLO a partial advance for the Palestinians through the truncated Oslo process: a kind of government with a presence in Palestine; some “police” under arms; a transitional capital in Ramallah; wide international recognition; and more. Withal, the “territories” remain under Israeli security control, and the Palestinian economy (jobs, electricity grid, water, and more) remains essentially a hostage to Israel’s.
This has given rise to perhaps the most underappreciated irony in a conflict replete with them: First Israel internalized the Palestinian nationalist problem in June 1967 by occupying at length the West Bank and Gaza, and then the PLO internalized its Israel problem by drifting via Oslo into essential dependence on Israel for basic sustenance and even security support (against Hamas, for example). Note that it was hard for Israel to bomb PLO headquarters in Tunis in October 1985, but very easy to send a tank column into downtown Ramallah ten years later. It’s all so very odd, you may think, but there you have it.
The Bigger Picture
Now to the larger, international scene. What the Six Day War showed was that Soviet patronage of the Arabs and arms sales to them could deliver neither victory to the Arabs nor reflected advantage for the Soviet Union. This devalued the allure of Soviet regional overtures reassured the Western-oriented Arab regimes and hence played directly into the portfolio of U.S. and Western interests: keep the Soviets out, the oil flowing, and Israel in existence (the latter construed at the time as a moral-historical obligation, not a strategic desideratum).
The Johnson administration figured the essence out, which is why in the aftermath of the war it did not do what the Eisenhower administration did after the Suez War of 1956: pressure Israel to leave the territories it had conquered in return for promises that, in the event, turned out to be worthless. It rather brokered a new document—UNSCR 242—calling for withdrawal from territories (not “the” territories) in return for peace.
But it was not until the War of Attrition broke out in 1969 around and above the Suez Canal—a direct follow-on to the Six Day War—that the new Nixon administration codified in policy this basic strategic understanding. To prevent and if possible roll back Soviet inroads in the Middle East, the U.S. government would guarantee continued Israeli military superiority—that was the start of the major U.S. military supply relationship to Israel that endures today (the younger set may not know it, but Israel won the Six Day War with a French-supplied air force). In short, nothing the Soviets could supply or do would help the Arabs regain their lands or make good their threats. The events of the Jordanian Civil War in September 1970, and the way Nixon administration principles insisted on interpreting and speaking about that civil war, only deepened the conviction and the anchors of the policy.
On balance, the policy worked well, despite one painful interruption. By July 1972, President Sadat had sent a huge Soviet military mission packing out of Egypt, and was all but begging the United States to open a new relationship. Egypt had been by far the most critical of Soviet clients in the Middle East, and Sadat’s volte face represented a huge victory for U.S. diplomacy. Alas, neither the victory-besotted Israelis nor the increasingly distracted Americans paid Sadat the attention he craved—so he taunted the Soviets to give him just enough stuff to draw Jerusalem and Washington’s eyes his way: He started a war in October 1973. This also worked, leading as already noted to the March 1979 peace treaty—a geopolitical and psychological game-changer in the region and, ultimately, beyond.
For most practical purposes, Israel’s role as an effective proxy for U.S. power in the Middle East endured through the end of the Cold War, although its benefits paid out quietly, more often than not in what trouble it deterred as opposed to actively fought. And the Israeli-Egyptian relationship—imperfect as it may be—still endures as a guarantee that there can be no more Arab-Israeli conventional wars on the scale of 1967 or even 1973. These are both, at least partially, strategic achievements born of the conjoining of Israeli power and American diplomacy, and—it bears mentioning—these are achievements that were constructed and made to endure pretty much regardless of the state of play in Israel’s relations with the Palestinians.
Obviously, the end of the Cold War put paid to the structure of this regional American strategy, its logic dissipated through victory. In that sense, the larger global strategic impact of the Six Day War ended when the Berlin Wall fell. While Israel remains a strategic partner of the United States in the post-Cold War environment, largely through intelligence sharing and other activities, its value as strategic proxy diminished as the focus of U.S. concerns moved east, toward Iraq and the Gulf. In the 1991 Gulf War, for example, Israel through no fault of its own became a complication for American policy—a target set for Iraqi scuds—not an asset, such that the U.S. government pleaded with its Israel counterpart not to use its military power against a common foe.
Amid the sectarian and proxy wars of the present moment in the region, Israeli arms lack any point of political entrée that can aid U.S. policy. Even when it comes to counterterrorism efforts, Israeli intelligence is indeed valuable but we will not see Israeli special forces attacking salafi terrorist organizations far from home. The last thing Israel needs is to persuade still more murderous enemies to gaze its way.
Only if the two parties come to focus on a common enemy—never the case during the Cold War, by the way, when for Israel the Arabs were the threat and for the United States the Soviets were the threat—could a truly robust U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership be born anew. And that common enemy, which could bring in also many Sunni Arab states and possibly Turkey as well, is of course Iran. But we are now very deep into the post-context of the Six Day War, more than six degrees of separation from any plausible causal skein leading back to June 1967.
A Smaller Picture
The war affected the political and social-psychological condition not only of state actors but of some others as well. As the Middle East crisis deepened in May 1967, I was a (nearly) 16-year old Jewish high school student in the Washington, D.C. area. Just like every American who was of age in November 1963 can remember where they were and what they were doing when they heard that President Kennedy had been assassinated, I suspect that just about every Jew of age anywhere in the world in May and June of 1967 can remember where they were and what they were doing when they heard that the war had started, and how they felt when it had ended.
We had been frightened, and afterwards we were relieved and even elated. It turned out that a lot of what we thought was true about the state of affairs at the time was incorrect. That was hardly a unique experience, but more important, over time the effects of the Six Day War on American Jewry and other Jewish communities outside Israel were dramatic—and the triangular relationship between Israel, American Jewry, and the United States has never since been the same.
Figuring it all out has borne its own challenges, surprises, and disappointments. Those on all three sides who thought they knew what was going on—who was dependent on whom, who could count on whom, who had political leverage over whom, and so on—learned better, often the hard way. But none of this has involved armies with modern weapons and high-level state diplomacies interacting; no, it is truly complicated and tends to generate narratives that are very, very shiny—so let’s just leave it at that.
If You Pick Up the Gun, You Roll the Dice
Let us conclude by returning to where we began, using another’s much earlier conclusion as our prooftext. On Saturday, June 3, 1967, Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol concluded a meeting of his inner cabinet with these words: “Nothing will be settled by a military victory. The Arabs will still be here.”
Eshkol (as well as the out-of-office but still prominent David Ben-Gurion) had counseled patience and restraint to Israel’s confident military leadership as the spring 1967 crisis grew, and only reluctantly came to the decision for war. Keenly sensing the ironies of history—Jewish history not least—he knew that the war would not be politically conclusive. He realized that whatever immediate threats needed to be extinguished, war would not deliver peace and security before, if ever, it delivered mixed and unanticipated consequences. He was right.
Not even the shrewdest statesmen are wise enough to foresee the consequences of a major war: When you pick up the gun, you roll the dice. That, I think, is no shiny lesson, but one more likely for the historically literate to recall the past’s many dull pains. May it help future leaders to control their own and others’ expectations if use force they must.
 I have written on the anniversary of the Six Day War before: See “Arab Loss Had Profound Effect on Politics in the Middle East,” Jewish Exponent, June 5, 1987; “1967: One War Won, a Few Others Started,” Newsday, April 30, 1998; and “Six Days, and Forty Years,” The American Spectator, June 5, 2007.
 Guy Laron, The Six-Day War: The Breaking of the Middle East (Yale University Press).
 See, for example, Isabella Ginor & Gideon Remez, Foxbats Over Dimona: The Soviets’ Nuclear Gamble in the Six-Day War (Yale University Press, 2007).
 On the former, note my “The Bullshistory of “Sykes-Picot”, The American Interest Online, May 16, 2016.
 For detail on what is meant by “pre-embedded” in “generically weak states,” see my “The Fall of Empires and the Formation of the Modern Middle East,” Orbis (Spring 2016).
 A point emphasized in Michael Mandelbaum, “1967’s Gift to America,” The American Interest Online, June 2, 2017.
 I have written of this triangular relationship elsewhere: “The Triangle Connecting the U.S., Israel and American Jewry May Be Coming Apart,” Tablet, November 5, 2013.
Israel Kicks Hostile Arab Armies’ Butts 50 Yrs. Ago
The Foreign Policy Research Institute, founded in 1955, is a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization devoted to bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the development of policies that advance U.S. national interests. In the tradition of our founder, Ambassador Robert Strausz-Hupé, Philadelphia-based FPRI embraces history and geography to illuminate foreign policy challenges facing the United States. More about FPRI »
Foreign Policy Research Institute · 1528 Walnut St., Ste. 610 · Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: 1.215.732.3774 Fax: 1.215.732.4401www.fpri.org
Check out this threat from the Palestinian Authority if the USA moves its embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem:
“If that takes place, the Palestinian side would have to sever its ties with the official staff of the illegal US embassy in Jerusalem,” claimed Fatah Central Committee member Nasser al-Kidwa, while speaking to the Palestinian newspaper Al-Quds.
“In addition to that, there is the issue of the Palestinian political representative’s office in Washington,” al-Kidwa continued. “It would also be necessary to close the office.”
Hmm … I don’t know about your response to that, but I say call the waaaambulance.
ERGO, the so-called Palestinian lies and threats can jump into a pig farm and wallow away. If the Palestine Authority, Hamas OR any other Islamic terrorist organization has a problem with America recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital City of Israel, it might be time for President Trump to help terrorists and their supporters to move somewhere else more historically common to their Islamic faith – ahem, OR ELSE!
A Palestinian official claimed that the Palestinian Authority would downgrade its relations with the US and file a complaint with the UN if Trump moves the US embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
A senior official in Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party said that the PA should downgrade its diplomatic relationship with the United States if President Trump follows through with his plan to move the US embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
“If that takes place, the Palestinian side would have to sever its ties with the official staff of the illegal US embassy in Jerusalem,” claimed Fatah Central Committee member Nasser al-Kidwa, while speaking to the Palestinian newspaper Al-Quds.
“In addition to that, there is the issue of the Palestinian political representative’s office in Washington,” al-Kidwa continued. “It would also be necessary to close the office.”
The official added that the PA would no longer accept the US as a mediator between Israel and the PA.
“It would be necessary for the Palestinian side to make clear that it no longer officially considers the United States an interlocutor and that it cannot cooperate with it directly or through the Quartet,” he said.
The Quartet, comprised of the US, European Union, UN and Russia was launched in 2002 at the height of the Second Intifada in the spirit of the “Road Map” vision of US President George W. Bush for a two-state solution between Israel and the PA.
Moreover, al-Kidwa suggested that the PA may launch a complaint against the United States of America at the United Nations Security Council. Such an initiative would not go anywhere since the US, as a permanent member of the Security Council, would veto any measures against itself.
Here’s an excerpt about the current delay forced upon the UN.
The UN Security Council postponed its vote on an anti-Israel resolution at the last minute at the request of Egypt, which proposed the draft in the first place.
The United Nations Security Council vote on a draft resolution calling for an end to Jewish construction in all areas desired by the Palestinian Authority for its hoped-for state – and in fact, calling for an end to all Jewish communities in those areas – has been postponed.
According to a Western diplomatic source quoted Thursday by Reuters, the vote was postponed “potentially indefinitely” in response to a request by Egyptian President Abdel el-Sisi. The original draft text of the resolution was circulated by Egypt on Wednesday evening, with the vote by the 15-member Council set for 3 pm ET Thursday.
The text of that resolution demanded that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem… “ It said the establishment of settlements by Israel has “no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law…. [and] are dangerously imperiling the viability of a two-state solution.”
Earlier in the day, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a statement on the PMO website and in a video, appealing to the Obama administration not to allow the … READ THE REST (UN Security Council Vote on Anti-Israel Resolution Postponed; By Hana Levi Julian; JewishPress.com; 12/22/16)
http://unitycoalitionforisrael.org/aa/alert.php?id=175 Please take time to take action today. We are asking President Obama to VETO any actions the UN Security Council against Israel and also to encourage President-Elect Trump to fulfill his promise to move the US Embassy in Israel to its rightful place in Jerusalem.
In the spirit of these holidays, we are expressing our joy and elation over the 16 point position paper on Israel (please take time to read it below) written by Jason Dov Greenblatt and David Friedman (Friedman recently chosen by Trump as US Ambassador to Israel).
We could not have expressed these 16 points any more clearly ourselves. The document is a windfall for friends of Israel who support Jewish sovereignty and security in the land. We express our gratitude for this strong stand being taken by the Trump Presidential Transition Team.
In light of the spirit of freedom both Chanukah and Christmas evoke, we want to call our readers to action over 2 issues raised in this key 16 Point Position Paper:
1 – Remind President Obama to VETO the French-introduced UN Security Council resolution proposing the recognition of a Palestinian state within 18 months OR to impose restrictions on Israel regarding any activity within the lands of Judea and Samaria (‘West Bank’). This resolution can take place at any moment and we must make our support for a veto of this resolution known!
2 – Encourage Donald Trump and his team to stand fast on moving the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The US Congressional Law, the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, sponsored by Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, long-time friend of Israel and UCI, was scheduled to be enforced by May of 1999. Let Donald Trump, our new Ambassador David Friedman, and Congress (who voted overwhelmingly for its passage) all know that we also strongly support this move!
Ambassador David Friedman and Jason Dov Greenblatt, Co-Chairmen of the Israel Advisory Committee to Donald J. Trump, should be lauded for their work in bringing about a 16 point masterpiece.
Read and sign the letter below. Copies will be sent to: President Obama, President Elect Donald Trump, Ambassador David Friedman, Jason Dov Greenblatt and your Senator and Representatives
– – –
We are also including the entire 16 Point Position Paper for you here:
THE 16 POINT POSITION PAPER by Mr. Trump’s Israel Advisory Committee
Jason D. Greenblatt, EVP/Chief Legal Officer of The Trump Organization, co-chairman of Mr. Trump’s Israel Advisory Committee & Co-Founder of InspireConversation.com – Nov 2, 2016
Joint Statement from Jason Dov Greenblatt and David Friedman, Co-Chairmen of the Israel Advisory Committee to Donald J. Trump
It has been an exhilarating election cycle. Approximately seven months ago, we were blessed to have been tapped by Donald J. Trump to be his top advisors with respect to the State of Israel. We have been fortunate to work with a talented team of people and have put together the below positions. Each of these positions have been discussed with Mr. Trump and the Trump campaign, and most have been stated, in one form or another, by Mr. Trump in various interviews or speeches given by him or on his social media accounts. For those of you who are true friends of the State of Israel, and for those of you who believe that the State of Israel and the United States of America have an unbreakable friendship, we urge you to read the below. We would like to express our gratitude to those individuals who have helped us over the past few months. We truly appreciate your efforts, friendship and guidance. We would also like to express our gratitude to our friend, a great friend of the State of Israel, Donald J. Trump, who gave us the tremendous opportunity to serve in this capacity. May God bless the United States of America and the State of Israel.
1 – The unbreakable bond between the United States and Israel is based upon shared values of democracy, freedom of speech, respect for minorities, cherishing life, and the opportunity for all citizens to pursue their dreams.
2 – Israel is the state of the Jewish people, who have lived in that land for 3,500 years. The State of Israel was founded with courage and determination by great men and women against enormous odds and is an inspiration to people everywhere who value freedom and human dignity.
3 – Israel is a staunch ally of the U.S. and a key partner in the global war against Islamic jihadism. Military cooperation and coordination between Israel and the U.S. must continue to grow.
4 – The American people value our close friendship and alliance with Israel culturally, religiously, and politically. While other nations have required U.S. troops to defend them, Israelis have always defended their own country by themselves and only ask for military equipment assistance and diplomatic support to do so. The U.S. does not need to nation-build in Israel or send troops to defend Israel.
5 – The Memorandum of Understanding signed by the American and Israeli Governments is a good first step, but there is much more to be done. A Trump Administration will ensure that Israel receives maximum military, strategic and tactical cooperation from the United States, and the MOU will not limit the support that we give. Further, Congress will not be limited to give support greater than that provided by the MOU if it chooses to do so. Israel and the United States benefit tremendously from what each country brings to the table. The relationship is a two way street.
6 – The U.S. should veto any United Nations votes that unfairly single out Israel and will work in international institutions and forums, including in our relations with the European Union, to oppose efforts to delegitimize Israel, impose discriminatory double standards against Israel, or to impose special labeling requirements on Israeli products or boycotts on Israeli goods.
7 – The U.S. should cut off funds for the UN Human Rights Council, a body dominated by countries presently run by dictatorships that seems solely devoted to slandering the Jewish State. UNESCO’s attempt to disconnect the State of Israel from Jerusalem is a one-sided attempt to ignore Israel’s 3,000-year bond to its capital city, and is further evidence of the enormous anti-Israel bias of the United Nations.
8 – The U.S. should view the effort to boycott, divest from, and sanction (BDS) Israel as inherently anti-Semitic and take strong measures, both diplomatic and legislative, to thwart actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with Israel, or persons or entities doing business in Israeli areas, in a discriminatory manner. The BDS movement is just another attempt by the Palestinians to avoid having to commit to a peaceful co-existence with Israel. The false notion that Israel is an occupier should be rejected.
9 – The Trump administration will ask the Justice Department to investigate coordinated attempts on college campuses to intimidate students who support Israel.
10 – A two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians appears impossible as long as the Palestinians are unwilling to renounce violence against Israel or recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Additionally, the Palestinians are divided between PA rule in the West Bank and Hamas rule in Gaza so there is not a united Palestinian people who could control a second state. Hamas is a US-designated terrorist organization that actively seeks Israel’s destruction. We will seek to assist the Israelis and the Palestinians in reaching a comprehensive and lasting peace, to be freely and fairly negotiated between those living in the region.
11 – The Palestinian leadership, including the PA, has undermined any chance for peace with Israel by raising generations of Palestinian children on an educational program of hatred of Israel and Jews. The larger Palestinian society is regularly taught such hatred on Palestinian television, in the Palestinian press, in entertainment media, and in political and religious communications. The two major Palestinian political parties, Hamas and Fatah, regularly promote anti-Semitism and jihad.
12 – The U.S. cannot support the creation of a new state where terrorism is financially incentivized, terrorists are celebrated by political parties and government institutions, and the corrupt diversion of foreign aid is rampant. The U.S. should not support the creation of a state that forbids the presence of Christian or Jewish citizens, or that discriminates against people on the basis of religion.
13 – The U.S. should support direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians without preconditions, and will oppose all Palestinian, European and other efforts to bypass direct negotiations between parties in favor of an imposed settlement. Any solutions imposed on Israel by outside parties including by the United Nations Security Council, should be opposed. We support Israel’s right and obligation to defend itself against terror attacks upon its people and against alternative forms of warfare being waged upon it legally, economically, culturally, and otherwise.
14 – Israel’s maintenance of defensible borders that preserve peace and promote stability in the region is a necessity. Pressure should not be put on Israel to withdraw to borders that make attacks and conflict more likely.
15 – The U.S. will recognize Jerusalem as the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish state and Mr. Trump’s Administration will move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.
16 – Despite the Iran Nuclear deal in 2015, the U.S. State Department recently designated Iran, yet again, as the leading state sponsor of terrorism, putting the Middle East particularly, but the whole world at risk by financing, arming, and training terrorist groups operating around the world including Hamas, Hezbollah, and forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The U.S. must counteract Iran’s ongoing violations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons and their noncompliance with past and present sanctions, as well as the agreements they signed, and implement tough, new sanctions when needed to protect the world and Iran’s neighbors from its continuing nuclear and non-nuclear threats.
Jason D. Greenblatt
EVP/Chief Legal Officer of The Trump Organization, co-chairman of Mr. Trump’s Israel Advisory Committee & Co-Founder of InspireConversation.com
Since July 1991, the Unity Coalition for Israel has convened an alliance of Christian and Jewish organizations actively working together to generate support for the State of Israel. With more than 200 autonomous partners, representing more than 40 million Americans, we are the largest network of Pro-Israel groups in the world. Through this grassroots coalition, we deliver a much-needed message to the media and Congress.
The mission of Unity Coalition for Israel is to focus the efforts of secular and religious organizations and individuals for whom the existence of the State of Israel is central and essential to the future of the free world. We educate these organizations and individuals on security issues and radical ideologies, including global Islamic terrorism, affecting not only Israel, but all of Western Civilization.
UCI reaches millions of people through more than 200 Christian & Jewish organizations, including churches, synagogues, prayer networks, think tanks and thousands of individuals. UCI maintains a clearinghouse to update the public by forwarding our daily newsletters, Urgent Action Alerts, Media Alerts, Press Releases and utilizing our two websites. Information is widely distributed throughout this vast network of staunch, reliable friends, keeping them informed concerning the latest issues pertaining to the war for the free world in which we are engaged.
We contact radio stations & TV networks by e-mail with the latest news and views not found in most secular media. Routine messages go to: 1,700 religious radio stations, 245 Christian TV stations, and all secular media. Emails are sent regularly to secular newspapers and magazines, 120 Christian newspapers, 70 Jewish newspapers.
Our Founder: Esther Levens
In 1991, Esther Levens, the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Unity Coalition for Israel (UCI), brought together more than 200 organizations to educate Americans and others about Israel, the Middle East and radical Islam. This Coalition, representing millions of people, has served as a clearinghouse for information on Israel, its history and culture, and that of the 22 Arab nations surrounding it. She has overseen this broad educational outreach to grassroots America by communicating with the secular and religious media, college campuses, the U.S. Presidential Cabinet, the U.S. Congress, the Israeli Knesset and other government officials.
Tony Newbill first goes over the Leftist Green Agenda of a sort Marxist path to control the population of the Earth and the environment that they believe can only sustain a certain amount of people to be safe for planet Earth sustainability.
The latter emails deals with a ritualistic Satanism, child-sex pedaling and its connection to the Clintons and those involved with the now dead Clinton campaign for POTUS. Although the First Amendment protects Satanism, some to the practices that include child-sex is not. Due to some illegal aspects of Satanism and the law, the Clintons or at the very least Clinton Staffers/Supporters should be back on the criminal investigation list. AND by the way, Crooked Hillary’s email server and her involvement with pay to play connected to the Clinton Foundation and her tenure as Secretary of State MUST NOT be taken off the investigation table.
I tend not to traffic too much in the “eco-fascist” theme, preferring to stick more narrowly to the substance of particular aspects of particular issues like climate change or air pollution. But sometimes the jackboot fits, and they should have to wear it.
I have noted at some length in the Claremont Review of Books a while ago the openly anti-democratic and pro-authoritarian views of some eco-alarmists, but that only makes them just like Thomas (China-Is-Awesome) Friedman, who for some reason is a respected figure. I quote, for example, a British analyst who said in a press interview a few years back that “When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it.” And also two Australian political scientists who wrote, among other things, “To retain an inhabitable earth we may have to compromise the eternal vicissitudes of democracy for an informed leadership that directs.” I love that euphemism “an informed leadership that directs” bit. And who would do the “informing”? So much for government by consent of the governed. Perhaps the movie version will be called An Inconvenient Democracy.
Lately I came across a several months old column from the Sydney Morning Herald that offers another example of the mendacity of the climate campaign that I can’t decide is either clueless or just pathetic. Richard Glover wrote:
Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies. Not necessarily on the forehead; I’m a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, “Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?”
But the eco-fascists never seem to learn. And so we learn that in the run-up to the 20th anniversary of the Rio UN Earth Summit that brought us the travesty of the Kyoto process that the would-be informed leadership that directs autocrats of the UN environmental community would like to tinker with the voting process of these UN summits so that recalcitrant nations like the U.S., China, India, Poland, etc., can’t block our salvation.
Oh, that’s not how they put it, but it isn’t hard to see through the euphemisms they use. The BBC’s environment writer Richard Black (and there are few journalists more in the bag for the greens than Black) gives … READ THE REST (Eco-Fascists Don Their Jackboots; By Steven Hayward; PowerLineBlog; 3/19/12)
What is the nature of morality? It is how we want our world to be.
We want it to be a good place live, not just for humans but for all life. Overpopulation is now eroding that good place to live.
So overpopulation is a moral issue and we have an obligation to do all we can to reduce the pressure that humans put on all other life.
Is it immoral to conceive a child?
Yes, if greed and arrogance or ignorance and bliss are the underlying factors. Some rich and famous people seem to … There is more Eco-Fascist drivel (JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT SEX WAS NO LONGER A MORAL ISSUE; BY RICHARD GLOVER; Less Is More; 4/20/09 04:22)
Here is the Truth about the so-called Water Shortage in California that the ECO-Fascists are pushing for control with Like Bolsheviks:
California’s central valley produces a quarter of America’s food, yet nearly a million acres have been forced out of production by federal laws and environmental lawsuits, costing thousands of jobs, with more to follow. When protecting species, should the human species be part of the balance? Take action at NAER.INFO
Of course, we know this is being done by Ideological Forces who see Zero Growth, here are some examples:
For 50 years the environmental movement has unsuccessfully argued that we should save the planet for moral reasons, that there were more important things than money. Ironically, it now seems it will be money — through the economic impact of climate change and resource constraint — that will motivate the sweeping changes necessary to avert catastrophe.
In financial terms, this would be like always spending 50% more than you earn, going further into debt every year. But of course, you can’t borrow natural resources, so we’re burning through our capital, or … There is more propaganda (The Earth is full; By Paul Gilding; CNN; Updated 4/8/13 9:39 AM ET)
ObamaCare architect, Jonathan Gruber has been removed from the Massachusetts Health Connector Board after calling the American people stupid.
The MIT economist professor was involved in the construction of ObamaCare visiting the White House on several occasions and has also made several controversial statements linking abortion to eugenics, the reduction of welfare, crime, and black births.
There are more than 7 billion people on the planet, and we’re adding 227,000 more every day. We’ve already witnessed the devastating effects of runaway human population growth on biodiversity: Species abundant in North America just two centuries ago — from the woodland bison of West Virginia and Arizona’s Merriam’s elk to the Rocky Mountain grasshopper, passenger pigeon and Puerto Rico’s Culebra parrot — have been wiped out by growing human numbers.
Most biologists agree that we’re in the midst of the Earth’s sixth mass extinction event; species are disappearing at the fastest rate since dinosaurs roamed the planet. This time, though, it isn’t because of geologic or cosmic forces — it’s because of our unsustainable human population growth and overconsumption. It’s clear that these issues need to … More Propaganda (WHY DO WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT POPULATION AND SUSTAINABILITY? – About Page; CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY)
As a fundamental that needs to be achieved due to Climate Change Overpopulation growth philosophy, and that a worldwide approach of Zero Growth needs to be achieved through Financial Oppression. But like we can see in Developed Nations, the Population fundamental that is the Ideologues’ reason to oppress Growth through the Central Banking system, has not considered the Fertility rates as the CIA worldbook shows in Developed Free Thinking societies:
Total fertility rate (TFR) compares figures for the average number of children that would be born per woman if all women lived to the end of their childbearing years and bore children according to a given fertility rate at each age. TFR is a more direct measure of the level of fertility than the crude birth rate, since it refers to births per woman.
So to reconsider that Education with Free Thinking solutions that focus on a clear vision about population growth and our effect on our world is being understood in Developed Nations, and that to allow a better local funding of financial effects on local economies through Local banking needs to be reconsidered. And this can allow for better reforms to Environmental Regulation and to Tort Reform that has been devastating to the way NGOs have used the Court system to Promote the Zero Growth Agenda rather than a Better Education system that Promotes Free Thinking Societies to engage in Real World solutions, like how Developed Nations show is working. This is how to Argue for Reforms with the Ideologues to be more Flexible in Policy.
In this Video, it has a Conversation with a Federal Judge that talks about the need to Change a Law that was created in 1992 which has allowed for the NGOs Sue and Settle strategy to inflict and destroy the Industrial Sector of our Great nation. In this Video, you will see the strategy that’s being used across the USA now since 1992 to destroy the Industrial Middle Class society that’s Transformed into a SERFDOM Society:
UPDATE: The Marina Abramovic institute has apologized to both Jay Z and Abramovic. In a statement issued Wednesday, the institute said the rapper did donate after all. The statement comes after “Picasso Baby” video producer Jeanne Greenberg Rohatyn came to Jay Z’s defense and read the receipt of the rapper’s donation to Artnet news.
EARLIER: The performance art world and the hip-hop community merged in 2013 when Marina Abramovic collaborated with Jay Z. Now, however, the Godmother of Performance Art isn’t very happy with the rapper.
… Abramovic appeared in the video and even had what seemed to be a poignant head-touching moment with the rapper, but now she says she’s “pissed by” the aftermath of their collaboration. In an interview with Spike magazine, Abramovic said she only worked with Jay Z on one condition: “That he would help my institute.” Yet she claims “he didn’t.”
I’ve written about a lot of disturbing stuff, but this is among the most repellent.
The truth is, this “art” contains yummy recipes like menstrual blood, urine, sperm mixtures. The “art” has hints of necrophilia, self-harm, masochism, sadism, dismemberment, torture, and pedophilia. You can see some examples of the “art” below the video. If you can stomach it, you can also watch a documentary about her “art.”
Is it actually a Satanic ritual? Maybe voodoo? Some kind of dark magic? As the video below states, “The ritualistic rape of children is a core part of high-level Satanic ritual worship.”
This very disturbing video provides some answers, although we are still without concrete evidence of anything criminal taking place.
Subject: Fwd: Tickets to Official Campaign Launch on June 13th
Not sure if this came to you July 9 Join? Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marina Abramovic
Subject: Re: Tickets to Official Campaign Launch on June 13th
Dear John, I am sorry but I will not be able to make it since I am in Australia for two big projects and will be back on July 6. I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to dinner on July 9 at my place together with Tony, whom I already invited. The dinner is at 7:30PM and the address is 497 Greenwich Street, apt 7B. Please let me know if you can make it. Warmly, Marina
… READ ENTIRETY (EMAIL ID 16498: “SPIRIT COOKING” ABRAMOVIC WAS INVITED TO HILLARY’S CAMPAIGN LAUNCH; Posted by FluffiPuff; Reddit; posted 11/4/16)
“So, we’re in hell,” Marina Abramović begins, leaning across the table, “and the devil is sitting around, being bored.”
She mentions removing a section from the book “because of all the problems I have recently.” I understand this as a reference to a controversial passage, since removed, from an early version of the book in which Abramović describes her first meeting aboriginal Australians in the Outback, with whom she lived for a year learning, meditating, and generating new ideas for her work. …
Yet here she is, in her publisher’s office, opening herself up to an interviewer she’s only met 15 minutes before. It’s both thrilling and a bit shocking. Marina Abramović, I am beginning to suspect, kind of doesn’t give a fuck. Not about her publisher, who would surely prefer her to avoid hairy topics. Not about the detractors, who have called her works “cheesy” (Roberta Smith in the New York Times), “exploitative” (performance artist Yvonne Rainer), and “Satanic” (right-wing misinformation site Infowars, in reference to a dinner party she threw). Not about the blow-ups, including criticism for having had three abortions because “[having children] would be a disaster for my work.” …
And yet, whether she’s withstanding razorblades to the stomach (Lips of Thomas, 1975), a bed of fire (Rhythm 5, 1974), a cross of ice (also Lips of Thomas), or the public in a kind of Stanford Prison Experiment scenario (Rhythm 0, 1974)—or, most famously, sitting silent and motionless across from visitors for eight hours a day over three months (The Artist Is Present, 2010), a performance that drew 750,000 attendees, a MoMA record for performance—Marina Abramović endures, outlasting everyone else through a …
Walk Through Walls begins in early childhood and hews to the general format of a hero’s journey, or perhaps a Portrait of the Performance Artist as a Young Woman and a No Longer Young Woman.… READ THE ENTIRITY of the Leftist praise for Marina Abramović if you can stand it (Marina Abramović Still Doesn’t Give a F**k; By James Yeh; Vice.com; 11/15/16)
Now take the Above Information on how these artists are using the artistic displays of sound and visual displays that demean and denounce Humanity, it shows that complacency sets into the resistance to the Threat of Government policies that would be what brings on Epigenetic Eugenics, The Population Control Of Today
In this video Luke Rudkowski interviews Mark Passio, researcher of the occult about today’s current population control program that is being used against the people. Mark gave a four hour talk on this subject at the Free Your Mind conference so this is only a synapsious [sic] of all the information he presented. We also talked about Marks past with the church of Satan, leaving the church and learning his expertise on the subject of the occult.
Epigenetics, the study of how environmental factors and lifestyle choices influence our genes, has flourished to become one of the most groundbreaking areas of science over the past decade. Studies have shown that, among other things, toxins, stress, socio-economic status, bullying, racism and the lifestyles of our parents and grandparents can all turn on or off certain genes in our DNA. The field is radically changing how we think about nature and nurture – giving it an impact far beyond the lab. [This first quoted paragraph added by Blog Editor. The next three are the paragraphs Newbill wants your attention to peruse.]
“To understand the darker implications of epigenetics, just think back through human history. There certainly is no shortage of war, famine, exploitation, destruction, epidemic and trauma. Knowing that some of this can leave a biological trace in our genes – which can even be transmitted to future generations – could be problematic.
Even in the 1920s, some believed that the environment could influence inheritance. Some focused on the fact that we could inherit the best of our civilization and become better humans, while others argued that certain populations had been exposed to various pathogenic environments (alcoholism, poverty, promiscuity, hot climate) for too long, becoming irreparably damaged. Their offspring, too, had to be treated with special care, as it was believed that the damage was likely transmitted across generations.
The latter idea in particular played into the hands of supporters of eugenics, a popular theory in the early 20th century. It was based on the belief that the quality of the human population could be improved if people with traits seen as undesirable could be stopped from reproducing. Some countries therefore launched eugenics programs prohibiting certain marriages and supporting forced sterilizations. Those seen as unfit to pass on their genes typically included people with mental or physical disabilities. However, such measures became increasingly out of fashion after World War II (though persisted until 1970s in many Western countries), as it became associated with Nazi Germany (in truth Nazis learned a good deal from American eugenics)”. (If we’re not careful, epigenetics may bring back eugenic thinking; By Maurizio Meloni; The Conversation; 3/15/16 10.00am EDT)
Now compare what was said back in the 1920s to today’s Academia and Artists circles of Society and we can say that it would seem that “Epigenetics”.
This is well under way in shaping Culture’s thinking today!!!!!
God Gives U.S. a 2nd Chance
11/25/2016 9:15 PM
I agree with everything in this Article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A new day had dawned, and the United States was being given by God a second chance to right the ship of state.
On the morning Donald Trump won the presidency, no one was happier than I. It seemed as if a black cloud had been lifted overhead. I had felt that the nation was overly inhabited not just by illegal aliens for the last eight years, but in fact had been seized by nearly every imaginable evil element from “outer space” – inter-stellar Muslims and black-Muslims, to anarchists, to atheists, to radical anti-male feminists and radical gay, lesbian and trangender [sic] activists, and last but not least to socialists and communists. While this may seem like an exaggeration, I felt that way nevertheless. Making matters worse was the arrogant anti-white, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian strut and attitude of our current president, one Barack Hussein Obama, a man so filled with not too disguised disdain, stoked by his even more hateful wife, Michelle, that I frankly did not feel welcome in the reshaped country he pursued relentlessly. On my numerous trips to Washington, D.C., it seemed as if the city had been hijacked and occupied by every subversive Barack and Michelle Obama could find to further their anti-American agenda.
Coupled with this was a sick feeling that should Hillary Clinton have won the presidency – along with her degenerate husband, Bill, as “First Pervert” and her lovely, criminally minded daughter, Chelsea, the greaser of the Clinton Foundation – the nation would surely go down for the count. And, along with the “Three Clinton Criminal Stooges,” would come the rodent-like felons around them, lowlifes like Harold Ickes, John Podesta, Cheryl Mills, Terry McAuliffe and many others. It would have been the end of the United States.
I am supportive of any new administration Trump constructs, but I am worried that our legal system will not be fully restored – because in the last 24 years, the lower federal courts have by and large been stocked with judges, mostly appointed by Presidents Clinton and Obama, who are political hacks. There a few exceptions, but the rest are few and far between. Their lack of moral and ethical honesty regrettably mirror the presidents who appointed them to the bench.
The testament to this is that it took illegal computer hacks and WikiLeaks to reveal the criminality of the Clinton crowd in the lead-up to the election, not court orders by the federal judges who had cases in Washington, D.C., administering to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed not just by me, but also my former group Judicial Watch, the Associated Press, the Daily Caller and a host of others. By and large, as I have previously written in my columns, these federal judges, almost exclusively Clinton and Obama appointees, had slow-rolled years of old records requests so only a handful of documents, at the Obama-Clinton State Department in particular, dealing in large part with the felonious Hillary’s private email server, would be disclosed to the citizenry before the elections.
And, this is why perhaps the most important task our new president can perform is not just to appoint honest and principled Supreme Court justices, but lower federal court judges who have the courage to represent the interests of the American people, not just the politicians who got them their jobs. But The Donald’s unnecessary recent pronouncement that his incoming Justice Department will not hold Hillary Clinton and her accomplices to account for their crimes sends a disquieting message to lower federal court judges that they can continue to cover up for the political elite.
So this Thanksgiving weekend let’s truly thank God that we have a new anti-establishment president, but let us also pray that he will have the courage to help restore the rule of law in a country that was intended to be a nation of laws and not men. To this end, Donald Trump must not only appoint honest judges, but also hold true to his campaign covenant to have the Clintons prosecuted as the poster boy and girl of a new legal order, one that fulfills the promise of 1776. For if the Clintons are allowed to get off scot-free once again, how can we expect these new federal judges to enforce the law when our chief executive, the one who appointed them, looks the other way? READ ENTIRETY!!! (THE CLINTONS MUST BE PROSECUTED! By LARRY KLAYMAN; WND; 11/25/16)
Lady Gaga & The song Perfect Illusion off her new album Joanne is proof she is back to her satanic work in the Illuminati controlled music industry. We clearly see her being possessed by Lucifer and his demons in this video. The elite even have her set up to preform [sic] at the 2017 Super Bowl halftime Show! When watching Lady Gaga’s music videos we must be careful. Lady Gaga proves once again that she is in love with witchcraft and the devil. She really hasn’t strayed too far at all from the Illuminati while taking 3 years off from making music. Even though Lady Gaga exposed the evils of the illuminati at one point, she went back up to her old tricks, in fear of her life. Once again the elite are blatantly trying to brainwash her fans with subtle MK ultra mind control programming. We must spread the word, and inform the masses of the massive experiment taking place on their minds, all in preparation for the new world order!
Remember when Julian Assange was leading America down the road of the corruption at the heart of the Clinton Foundation? Well, this is what he was going after. He was trying to make the American people aware of the depravity of those who represent them.
Infowars gives a brief synopsis of what took place and how it could be understood, including the symbolism, which is taken directly from unclassified FBI documents that list symbols and logos used by pedophiles to identify sexual preferences.
A warning to viewers, the following images are disturbing. This all began after Wikileaks founder Julian Assange released hundreds of thousands of secret documents detailing a corrupt DNC, a backstabbing Clinton foundation and the modus operandi of a clumsy criminal campaign attempting to attain the keys to the most powerful seat on Earth. But the real truth Assange was leading us to was hidden between the blurred lines of Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta’s released emails.
Fast forward past John Podesta’s brother Tony’s casual email exchange with Thalemic [sic] Spirit Cooking adherent Marina Abromovic [sic]. That was simply an introduction. The Rosetta Stone was needed next. A Verification that high level Washington D.C. Predatory Pedophiles were using a code to communicate child sex trafficking as casually as ordering a pizza. All hidden in plain view.
The FBI has long known the symbols pedophiles are using to operate. An FBI Unclassified document from wikileaks reveals “Symbols and Logos Used by Pedophiles to Identify Sexual Preferences…. to include those who sexually abuse children as well as those who produce, distribute, and trade child pornography, are using various types of identification logos or symbols to recognize one another and distinguish their sexual preferences. To specifically indicate the pedophile’s gender preference, members of pedophilic organizations encourage the use of descriptions such as “boylove”, “girllove”, and “childlove.” These symbols have been etched into rings and formed into pendants, and have also been found imprinted on coins. Investigators should also be attentive to pedophilia symbols advertised on Web sites. During examinations of computer files, investigators should be conscious of subjects who try to conceal child pornography by labeling them with symbols instead of the typical suggestive explicit names.
Now…clues. The menu from Comet Ping Pong. Notice the symbol of the ping pong paddles and its clever resemblance to the FBI documents symbol for Child Love. Hang on New York Times before you declare this fake news from your Ivory Tower. Now look at the symbol for Besta Pizza just two doors down from Comet Ping Pong Pizza, boldly using the symbol for boy lover as was recorded on the Unclassified FBI Document. The evidence begins to reveal that Besta Pizza and Comet Ping Pong Pizza maybe competing for the lucrative Washington D.C. Pedophile market right out in the open.
Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we’re reaching millions help us reach millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family: http://www.infowars.com/show
The Left and Secular Humanists interpret this clause as meaning religion (Founding Fathers meant Christian Church) and State must be absolutely separated from each other. No government in the Church and no Church in the government. But you can read the clause. Tell me where it is written that a separation must exist. YOU CANNOT because there is no such wording!
All the clause says is that the Congressional Branch of the Federal government shall make NO LAW establishing a state religion or as the Founders understood, no state Church established by the Federal government.
In fact, did you know that several of the original 13 States retained their Established Christian Church for some time after the U.S. Constitution became the law of the land for the United States of America? The Federal government was constitutionally forbidden from enacting any law pertaining to religion on State level because of the Disestablishmentarian Clause in the 1st Amendment and the 10th Amendment which states:
“The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.” – United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733([SCOTUS Decision of 2/14] 1931). – “About the Tenth Amendment”; Tenth Amendment Center)
It is a bit interesting that the Tenth Amendment Center in the quote above, that a 1931 SCOTUS decision is used as an affirmation of the purpose of the 10th Amendment. Why is it interesting? Because SCOTUS is the very reason that the Left has successfully utilized the term Living Constitution to make laws not authorized by the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution.
Of the Thirteen Original States after the Constitution was ratified in 1789, several had Established Churches even after the Civil War. Here is post-ratification State Established Churches with the year Establishment ended:
South Carolina – 1868 (Actually a SCOTUS decision ended all State support of Christian institutions in 1925 to be retroactive to 1868: “14th Amendment to US Constitution was ratified by South Carolina in July 1868. The US Supreme Court ruled that this amendment ended state support of religion in all US states in ruling of Gitlow v. New York, 1925” [The link within the quote is by the Blog Editor])
I believe most of these states disestablished soon after the Constitution was ratified but was involved in some kind Church oriented support via organizations until the end date list above. In all cases it was the state legislature that ended Church Establishment and not SCOTUS. Primarily in the early 20th century SCOTUS began extra-constitutionally whittling away at the religious freedoms of the Christian Church influencing government on the local, state and federal level.
Here is an excerpted short scope on how SCOTUS evolved to acquire more power than intended by the Framers of the Constitution:
Marbury v. Madison, 1803
“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
With these words, Chief Justice John Marshall established the Supreme Court’s role in the new government. Hereafter, the Court was recognized as having the power to review all acts of Congress where constitutionality was at issue, and judge whether they abide by the Constitution.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857
“The Constitution does not consider slaves to be U.S. citizens. Rather, they are constitutionally protected property of their masters.”
Chief Justice Roger Taney authored this opinion— one of the most important and scorned in the nation’s history. Dred Scott, a slave, had moved with his master to Illinois, a free state. He moved again to a slave state, Missouri, and filed suit to gain freedom, under that state’s law of “Once free, always free.” Taney held that Scott had never been free at all, and cited Constitutional grounds for placing the slavery decision in the hands of the states. In trying to put an end to the slavery controversy, Taney instead sped the nation toward civil war. The decision was later overturned by the Thirteenth Amendment.
Roe v. Wade, 1973
The Constitutionally implied right to privacy protects a woman’s choice in matters of abortion.
Norma McCorvey sought an abortion in Texas, but was denied under state law. The Court struck down that law, on grounds that it unconstitutionally restricted the woman’s right to choose. The opinion set forth guidelines for state abortion regulations; states could restrict a woman’s right to choose only in the later stages of the pregnancy. Later modified but not overruled, the decision stands as one of the Court’s most controversial.
Court finds that a New Jersey law which included students of Catholic schools in reimbursements to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
State’s moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether “pure” moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.
Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987) Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of “creation science” in all instances in which Uncons[titutional] evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.
I find it ironic that an atheistic group like the Secular Web provided the information I needed to demonstrate the manipulation by SCOTUS of the 1st Amendment Disestablishmentarian Clause away from the Founding Fathers’ Original Intent.
You have to realize that the Leftist transformation agenda implemented strongly by Obama would continue if Crooked Hillary is elected by either adoring Dem voters and/or duped anti-Trump voters. A Crooked Hillary Administration would certainly nominate more SCOTUS Justices that would adhere to the Living Constitution principles over Original Intent principles. It is the Living Constitution principles is what has allowed SCOTUS to successfully erode the U.S. Constitution as the Founding Fathers intended it as a tool of limited government by We The People as opposed to the ruling elites of the Establishment from both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
The elitist Establishment is very supportive of the globalist agenda of the United Nations. It is my humble opinion the Left of America and the globalist Left of the UN is using Islam as a tool to completely disenfranchise Christianity as the moral influence of the Western World. This is the reason the Multiculturalists of Europe, the American Left and the UN is hot to encourage Muslim migration to Western nations. The Leftist gamble to use Islam as a tool is dangerous to the point of idiocy.
The purists of Islam – often called Radical Islam by blind PC Westerners – have their own agenda. These adherents of the literal wording of the Quran, Hadith and Sira desire to establish a global Caliphate under the submission principles of Sharia Law. There is no room for Western Liberty or the U.S. Bill of Rights in Islam. Western principles of Liberty and the rule of Law are absolutely contrary to Islamic principles of submission. By the way, the Arab to English of Islam is peace is a lie. The phrase is better rendered Islam is submission is the more accurate translation.
And more recently I discovered from Eagle Rising that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Evidently UN globalism is dictating to sovereign nations how they teach Christianity to children in private and public schools. In this report on the UNCRC is saying children experiencing compulsory Christian rituals is violating their freedom of conscience:
… the CRC said that demanding that children engage in daily acts of Christian worship at school may go against their “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”
“The Committee is concerned that pupils are required by law to take part in a daily religious worship which is ‘wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character’ in publicly funded schools in England and Wales, and that children do not have the right to withdraw from such worship without parental permission before entering the sixth form,” …
Here is just another in a long line of examples of why the United States needs to not only defund the United Nations, but remove ourselves from it and the organization from our soil. In a recent paper put out by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the CRC said that demanding that children engage in daily acts of Christian worship at school may go against their “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”
Britain must stop forcing children to attend Christian school assemblies because it undermines their human rights, a United Nations committee has said in a controversial new report.
The authors called on ministers to repeal a law demanding a daily act of Christian worship at schools because it may contradict a child’s “freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.
The report was produced by an 18-person group of “independent experts” of “high moral character” including representatives from Bahrain, Russia and Egypt.
Critics dubbed the demand “ludicrous” and said the government should responded by “respectfully” putting the report “in the bin”.
It was just one of 150 recommendations about where Britain could be contravening the UN Charter on the Rights of the Child.
“The Committee is concerned that pupils are required by law to take part in a daily religious worship which is ‘wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character’ in publicly funded schools in England and Wales, and that children do not have the right to withdraw from such worship without parental permission before entering the sixth form,” reads a portion of the report.
Surely, Oliver Cromwell is rolling over in his grave as he was one who defended Protestant Britain from King Charles’ tyranny and treason.
“The Committee recommends that the State party repeal legal provisions for compulsory attendance at collective worship in publicly funded schools and ensure that children can independently exercise the right to withdraw from religious worship at school,” the report added.
Britons called the report “ludicrous” and “mad.”
“The collective act of worship is not an indoctrination exercise,” Parliament Minister David Burrowes told The Telegraph. “It is recognizing and respecting the Christian heritage of the country and giving people an opportunity to reflect before the beginning of the day. The UN should spend more time doing its main job of preventing war and genocide rather than poking its nose in other countries’ classrooms. We can respectfully put those kind of reports in the bin where they belong.”
However, some in the UK were all too happy with the report, namely anti-theists.
The British Humanist Association Director Pavan Dhaliwal said, “The UK state fails its young people in far too many ways today. Almost uniquely among economically developed countries, it segregates them in schools along religious lines. We are pleased to see the UN agree with us that UK law needs to change.”
So, parents have been sending their kids to school knowing full well that this has been going on, but don’t have a problem with it because they hold to Christianity, right? On what authority does the UN act to even recommend interfering or giving advice or counsel to anyone regarding children, Christianity, education or parenting? They just simply are attempting to usurp authority.
The United Nations Said Teaching Christianity to Kids is Wrong for This Reason
Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, husband to his wife, father of 10, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the brand new Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle.
Yurki posted this video on the comment section of my About Page to the NCCR blog. The video is about an animation discussion between an anti-Israel teddy bear and a pro-Israel teddy bear. The information learned demonstrates the antisemitic attitude the United Nations has toward Israel, yet other nations commit atrocities that make accusations look like a day in the park and the UN says absolutely nothing. Sadly my own nation of the USA is on the list summary list of nations that gets a pass for some wrong doing:
It’s not that I am unsympathetic toward innocent civilians that perish in this war paradigm prosecuted by Islamic terrorists; however part of that paradigm is either hiding among innocent civilians or those civilians are not so innocent because they are supportive of Islamic terrorist goals incorporating hate-Americans and hate-Jews strategies. Ergo winning a war in this paradigm means breaking eggs to make a successful omelet.
Israel is the sole focus of the United Nations, to the misfortune of millions of people who are suffering.
Other videos in series:
I hate Israel – Racism
I hate Israel – Zionism
I hate Israel – East Jerusalem
I hate Israel – Murderers
I hate Israel – Wars
I hate Israel – Right of Return
I hate Israel – Gaza Blockade
I hate Israel – Security Wall
I hate Israel – I don’t hate Jews
I hate Israel – Displaced People
I hate Israel – Persecuting Christians
I hate Israel – Assassinations
I hate Israel – I wish it would go away
Syria Hypocrisy – Asma Al-Assad on violent rampage
Turkey Hypocrisy- Erdogan threatens Israel
Jordan Hypocrisy – Queen Rania on Palestinians and UNRWA
Jews and US Foreign Policy
Remembering the 1972 Israeli Olympic Athletes (Evanescence)
The 2002 Massacres of Netanya and Jenin
The 2011 Massacre of the Fogels in Itamar
Drive, Saudi Arabia (The Cars)
The al-Assad Show Goes On (Queen)
Mad World, Arab-Israel Conflict (Tears for Fears)
IDF and Hamas trade shots (Pat Benatar)
Obama to Israel: Go Your Own Way (Fleetwood Mac)
Fragile Beauty in the Far East (Bon Jovi)
Freewill, Arab Spring (Rush)
God is a Zionist (Joan Osborne)
It is my opinion that Israel should straight out annex Judea-Samaria (what the hate-Israel crowd calls the occupied West Bank) and invite the Arabs who cannot accept the existence of a Jewish State to leave Israel.
I get more and more vehement in this opinion of annexing Israel’s own land due the representatives of the fake Palestinian people constantly clamoring for their own sovereign state based on the myth there always has been a Palestinian people and that the Jews lost any to right to exist on their ancient homeland long-long ago.
When will the way-too-tolerant comprehend that encapsulating Israel with a sovereign nation of vicious Jew-haters will not bring peace but rather more than likely begin a war will engulf the entire world into another World War? My GOD! Just LOOK at English translations of pro-Palestinian nationhood media that fills their listeners full of Jew-hatred and that Israel’s existence will be terminated just like prophet Mo terminated the Arabian Jews of Banu Quraiza and Khaybar (See Also HERE and HERE).
It may sound politically incorrect but more Jewish refugees were expelled from Muslim nations after the 1948 Israel war of independence than actual Arabs that fled at the behest of the invading Arab armies or out of fear of becoming a war casualty. The invading Arab armies DID NOT come to create a Palestinians State, rather the invasion’s purpose was to divvy up and annex their own slices of land they hoped to own from the defunct British Mandate for Palestine. A Mandate by the way set up as a future home for Jews after WWI as defined by the 1917 Balfour Declaration. Note World War I ended in 1918 and Hitler’s Final Solution for European Jews was not officially discovered until the end of World War II in 1945. After the Final Solution count it was discovered nearly 6 MILLION Jews were murdered for their faith.
The British tried in vain to get local Arabs to follow a path of state-building similar to that of the Zionists once they envisioned the division of western Palestine in the 1920s.
But the failure – in fact, the refusal of Palestinian Arabs to develop as a society under the tutelage of the British – had been an enduring feature of indigenous Arabs in Palestine for generations.
… Professor Kenneth Stein of Emory College, a scholar of land tenure systems under the Ottoman Turks and the British Mandate, points to the lack of social cohesion, coupled with a long history of unscrupulous money lenders, real estate brokers, and dishonest village leaders (mukhtars) robbing Palestinian villagers of their lands well before the arrival of the first Zionist:
“By 1947, Palestinian Arab society had become highly susceptible to insecurity and flight. Indeed, a combination of reasons caused hundreds of thousands of Arabs to leave Palestine after November 1947, not the least of which was the internal societal changes that led to slow disintegration of communal bonds. Although Palestinians became refugees in [the] 1947-48 period, the origins of their social collapse can be partially attributed to the fractious nature of Arab society and its steady dissolution over the previous century.”5
… Aryeh Avneri, who traced the demographic history of western Palestine over the centuries in his book Claim of Dispossession: Jewish Land Settlement and the Arabs. Indeed, the Arab narrative, which speaks of perpetual residence in Palestine for 1,300 years, does not stand up to scrutiny. For 250 years the population remained almost static – rising from 205,000 Muslims, Christians, and Jews in 1554 to only 275,000 in 1800. Other historic documents from 1830 onward demonstrate that an increase in Arab immigration was registered with the influx of the first Zionist settlers in 1880, yet the population still ebbed and flowed.
By the time the British Mandate for Palestine was drawing to an end with a United Nations Partition Plan further dividing land between Jews and Arabs including the City of David holy first to Jews – Jerusalem, the Arab States that had formed sovereign nations under the direction of Britain and France had put away their petty squabbles long enough to be unified on one matter. That one matter was kill the Jews in their own homeland and divide what was out of the spheres of influence the invading armies managed to carve out. After all, Arab Muslims outnumbered Jews that made an effort to reestablish their national homeland.
Before the end of the British Mandate Jews were forced to form underground militias for self-protection. Some of those militias developed the image of being terrorists because of the brutal and vicious manner of revenge reprisals when Jews were attacked by Islamic Supremacist Arab Nationalists.
These Jewish militias united to confront the invading Arab armies of the newly declared independent Israel in 1948. Still the Jewish forces were very outnumbered by the united Arab invading armies.
A combination of Israeli determination and the mutual mistrust existing between the objectives of each Arab nations sending an invasion force resulted largely in an Israeli victory ended by armistices rather than peace treaties. The only invading army able to claim success was Transjordan’s (now Jordan) Arab Legion. The Arab Legion’s key to success was that army’s Officer Corps was primarily British led particularly its Commander in Sir John Bagot Glubb, Lieu.-General (Glubb Pasha).
Except for the Arab Legion, the invading armies were defeated roughly displacing 600,000 Arabs who had visions of returning to their homes Judenfrei. It is quite interesting that about a million Jews were expelled (See Also HERE) from Muslim nations between the late 1920s through about 1970. About 600,000 of those expelled Jews occurred around the 1948 Israeli War of Independence.
It is the descendants of these displaced Arabs in 1948 and later when Israel took back East Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria (renamed the West Bank by Jordan after formal annexation in early 1950s) while Jordan refused Judea-Samaria Arab into that nation. Jordan was simply following the example of other Arab nations NOT allowing repatriation of fellow Arabs thus creating refugees.
Again it is ironic that the roughly 800,000 Jews out of a million refugees expelled from Muslim nations settled in Israel and peacefully assimilated into the Jewish State of Israel.
AND YET an Arab refugee problem created by Islamic Supremacist Muslim Arabs refused to do their duty and repatriate and assimilate their created refugee problem. It is ironic that after 1948 the Arabs living in the Jordanian annexed West Bank (really Judea-Samaria) were NOT EVER given full Jordanian citizenship rights.
The Arab League forbade any Arab country from accepting these refugees or settling them in normal housing, preferring to leave them in squalid camps. Former UNRWA Director Ralph Galloway stated in 1958: “The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die.” (The Refugee Issue; By Rabbi Shraga Simmons; Aish.com)
The Arab nations surrounding Israel had an agenda in creating an Arab refugee problem. These Arabs were to be used as a tool for continued Arab invasions to officially create a fabricated Palestinian State. A state by the way I don’t believe the then Arab Legion organization had any real intention of creating a sovereign state for Arab calling themselves Palestinians. Just like the 1948 Arab invaders had no intention of creating another Arab State.
Arab nations continued to invade tiny Israel up to 1973, losing every time. This is when the Arab League nations realized they’d need to find another way to terminate Israel. The new agenda was to defeat Israel from within. The Arab Legion gave a new name to the Arab refugees and called them Palestinian nationals – a people occupied by oppressive Israel.
The Arab Legion and later Palestinian terrorist organizations (sadly legitimized into PA) also tweaked the disinformation strategy by revising history that Palestinians have lived as a people in the Holy Land for over a thousand years – unlike the Jews. Since a significant amount of the Arab population immigrated to the then Ottoman controlled Levant more closely associated with an Ottoman version of a province which we can call Syria. Indeed, the newest Islamic terrorist organization now calling itself the Islamic State (IS) hooked their original name to the acronym ISIS or ISIL depending on whose translation one goes by. The acronym in English stood for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The name confusion comes designating an English translation for the last Arab word in the acronym. Without translating the last world acronym comes out as the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham. Sham was difficult to translate so it sometimes became Syria and sometimes Levant. (For more clarity on the meaning of the ISIS acronym goHERE)
A significant amount of the refugee descendants come from as much first and second generation immigrants as the immigrant Jews that came and bettered living conditions in the region. Ship these descendants of immigrants back to their region of origin which today are the legacies of European carved out Muslim nation-states.
So, just for clarity’s sake let me state one more time: ANNEX JUDEA-SAMARIA and escort Jew-hating Arabs (even if it is both Muslim and Christian Jew-haters) to other Jew-hating Middle Eastern nations. AND trust me, if any follower of Islam considers themselves devoted to the Quran there is an element of Jew-hatred even if it is hid unwittingly with the moniker of Moderate Muslim. AND it is also a sad truth that Christians living in Muslim nations have received the same Jew-hating propaganda for centuries even though (or perhaps because of) their own Christian existence has been molded by the Sharia rules of the dhimmi (See Also HERE) which forces a Christian to admit and submit that Islam is a superior way of life. The Jew-friendly Christians today are Evangelical and Charismatic-Pentecostal Christians that tend to view Israel’s existence as at least one sign of a returning Jesus Christ who will establish the Kingdom of God on earth.
Admittedly this kind of Jew-friendly Christian does not necessarily fill Jews with trusting confidence. Jews view Evangelicals as proselytizing Christians. And both secular and religious Jews don’t really appreciate the proselytizing when they have managed to survive even a thousand years of too oft violent persecution from Christians.
In my case I am more than willing to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Jews; however it is my opinion that Jews will return en masse to God through Jesus when the Lord returns for His own – the Jew first and then the Gentile.
Intro to ‘UN and U.S. wake up to protect Ahmadiyyas’
Editor John R. Houk
July 6, 2014
Pakistani Christians are the ignored minority in Pakistan. Shamim Masih writes about Western governments and Western Christians being more concerned about the plight of other non-Muslims minorities and of Shia Muslim minorities more than Pakistani Christians. Ignoring Christians in Muslim majority lands is a heinous act founded upon political correctness and the Left Wing denigration of the Christian faith to rid the world of the Biblical world view that used to be the mainstay of Western culture.
The Ahmadiyya (Ahmadi, Qadiani or Lahori) consider themselves to be Muslims yet the majority Sunni Muslims in Pakistan have legally declared them to be non-Islamic. For Sunnis this places Ahmadis on the same level as Shias. Shia Muslims don’t like Ahmadis for the same reasons the Sunnis do not. Since all three groups consider themselves Islamic, I can imagine all hold Christianity in disdain. Ahmadis seem to be more peace oriented Sunni or Shia Islam yet they still consider Christianity a devilish religion. They just don’t embrace the convert or die principle of the two largest sects in Islam.
Here is an excerpt about Ahmadis which really began as a late 19th century movement originating in present day Pakistan but then was British ruled India:
The Ahmadis are a Muslim sect which was founded in Qadian, Punjab, in the nineteenth century. Its founder was Mirza Ghirlam Ahmad, a Muslim who claimed prophetic status as the Mahdi or Messiah, in succession to Krishna, Jesus Christ and Mohammed. The Ahmadis accept four of the five basic principles of Islam, namely prayer five times a day, the Ramadan fast, the Pilgrimage to Mecca (Haj) and alms-giving. They do not accept the fifth principle, that of the Jihad or Holy War against non-believers. Many Muslims regard them as heretics and refuse to accept them as a legitimate part of Islam.
Today Ahmadis are found all over the world but the core community is in Pakistan: estimates vary from half a million to six million people out of a total population of over 96 million, but three million to four million is the most commonly accepted figure. During British rule of undivided India many were employed in government service and after partition many crossed the border from Indian Punjab into Muslim West Pakistan, where they continued to play a prominent part in the civil and diplomatic services and in industry and commerce.
ISLAMABAD: We learnt the story from The Bible, when Abram heard that his brother (Lot) was taken captive, He brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people. Genesis 14: 14-16 (KJV)
When Abram learned that Lot was a prisoner, he immediately tried to rescue his nephew. It would have been easier and safer not to become involved. But with Lot in serious trouble, Abram acted at once and rescued him. The U.S. based organization “The Human Rights Watch” reportedly asked Sri Lanka not to deport members of Pakistan’s minority Ahmadiyya community until the UNHCR had full access to them and determined their need for international protection. At least 142 Pakistanis, mostly Ahmadiyyas, arrested in police sweeps in Sri Lanka in June 2014 are being detained and are at risk of deportation, the Human Rights Watch said. “Sri Lankan authorities are threatening Pakistani minority group members with deportation at the very time when persecution of these groups is escalating in Pakistan,” said Bill Frelick, refugees’ director at Human Rights Watch.
It is good to know in the prevailing situation when the persecution on the basis of faith is reaching a high degree. A U.S. organization raised its voice to protect Pakistani minorities, but why they [did] particularly mentioned the Ahmadiyyas? Let me [be] clear [about] this; it is not the first time that U.S. people raised their voice for Pakistani minorities especially Ahmadiyyas not Christians. It’s common practice that the UN and U.S. ignore Pakistani Christians. Christians from Gojra, Kurian village, Joseph Colony, Lahore, Peshawar and other cities are seeking asylum in different countries but their applications were rejected. Despite registering with UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, these Christians have been given a shut-up call. Most of [the Christians] went [tried to go to other nations] or [are] willing [to leave], to save their lives and avoid future persecution. During the Gojra, Joseph colony and Lahore incident – [attacks on Christians], none of the survivors were given protection or IDPs [International Displaced Persons] status from UNHCR, neither [has the] U.S. has raised any voice for this poor segment of the society. On the other hand, hundreds of the Shia Hazara [Pakistan’s Shias Under Attack] community and Ahmadis are travelling to Europe, Australia, America and UK on regular a basis. Hundreds of the families were displaced during Rimsha blasphemy case and many of them are still living in tents in Islamabad slum area. They were not given the IDPs status at that time.
I have given the example of Abraham; he went there to save his nephew Lot, we as Christians are brothers. When we accept Christ as savior thus we become the sons of Abraham (father of the nations). But U.S. Christians (especially talking about the ruling class) has never been lenient towards Christians. The U. S. government and USAID have always been adding aid to the Muslim world, which means adding fuel to fire. While poor Pakistani Christians are still in pitiable conditions. In response these radical Muslims in [the] shape of Taliban are attacking [Christians]. Let me make it clear that all U.S. people are not in favor of Muslims; recently U.S.
Pakistani Christians have beenfacing discriminatory laws and persecutionfor the last two and half decades. The law and order situation is getting worse day by day. One can imagine; when Pakistan has failed to save its own sensitive installations from the hard-core terrorists, how come they protect the weak segment of the society when they are not even willing? The situation becomes more pathetic when the foreign office disowns refugees “detained” in Sri Lanka. Spokesperson Tasnim Aslam [Foreign Affairs Spokesperson] was unsympathetic to the plight of the detained refugees in Sri Lanka, saying: “These people (asylum seekers) obtained asylum in Sri Lanka by badmouthing Pakistan. If they are in trouble, I have no idea.” “I don’t know of any operation being conducted by Sri Lankan authorities against Pakistani refugees,” she added. [No Respite]
In this situation, Christian countries should know and realize the sensitivity of the issues Pakistani Christians are facing. UN, U.S. and EU should honor its international obligations and allow their institutions to ensure that no Pakistani Christian is deported to face the risk of persecution or torture. Sometime we must get involved in a messy or painful situation in order to help others. We should be willing to act immediately when other need our help.
Edited by John R. Houk
All info enclosed by brackets is from the editor. All links not enclosed by links are from shamim Masih.
Editor:For Americans especially, I have discovered the best way to donate to Shamim Masih is via Western Union sending to a Western Union agent in Islamabad.
FOR USD TRANSFER. Intermediary Bank: MASHREQ BANK, NEW YORK Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC: MSHQUS33 Beneficiary Bank: JS BANK LIMITED Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC: JSBLPKKA Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank: 70008227 Title Of a/c Shamim Masih Beneficiary Account Number: 405527
Top of Form
IBAN # pk80jsbl9530000000405227
FOR GBP TRANSFER. Intermediary Bank: MASHREQ BANK, LONDON Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC: MSHQGB2L Beneficiary Bank: JS BANK LIMITED Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC: JSBLPKKA Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank: 00010855 Title Of a/c Shamim Masih Beneficiary Account Number: 405527 IBAN # pk80jsbl9530000000405227
FOR EURO TRANSFER. Intermediary Bank: MASHREQ BANK, LONDON Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC: MSHQGB2L Beneficiary Bank: JS BANK LIMITED Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC: JSBLPKKA Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank: 10847 Title Of a/c Shamim Masih Beneficiary Account Number: 405527 IBAN # pk80jsbl9530000000405227 Bottom of Form