DICED is UN’s Environmental Constitution for the World and our own Constitution Will Be Diced


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. Ileana Johnson Paugh about the United Nations instituting a form of global Communism using the earth’s environment as an insidious pretext.

JRH 6/9/17

Please Support NCCR

*****************

DICED is UN’s Environmental Constitution for the World and our own Constitution Will Be Diced

 

By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh 

June 8, 2017

Canada Free Press

 

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. The Draft 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.com that “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 such redistribution of wealth from us in order to “decarbonize” and reduce pollution.

Delingpole cites in 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. Charles Battig 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.

______________

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh — Bio and Archives |

 

Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler on Business, every Wednesday to Thursday at 10:49 AM EST

 

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, Romanian Conservative is 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 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.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 THE REST

 

Israel Kicks Hostile Arab Armies’ Butts 50 Yrs. Ago


John R. Houk

© June 6, 2017

 

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-Day War.

 

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.

 

The Six Day War Project has a great video setting up the scene leading to 1967:

 

VIDEO: Why Did Israel Go To War? | Six Day War Project #1

 

Posted by Jerusalem U

Published on May 17, 2017

 

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.

See all the videos as they are released: http://www.sixdaywarproject.org/.

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.

Like the Six Day War Project on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sixdaywarproject

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
———–

Subscribe and check out more awesome JerusalemU videos!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU63EiU7Y-8xcRntPIRVrzA?sub_confirmation=1
GET SOCIAL @ JERUSALEM U:
https://www.jerusalemu.org/
https://www.facebook.com/JerusalemU
http://instagram.com/Jerusalem_U
http://twitter.com/Jerusalem_U

———–

Are you Jewish and aged 16-28? You could be eligible for READ THE REST

 

If you are a bit impatient to educate yourself at the Six Day War Project, here is a 6:45 abbreviated 6-Day War documentary that will provide the highlights:

 

VIDEO: 50 Years Later: Remembering the Six-Day War

 

Posted by AIPAC

Published on May 24, 2017

 

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 Policy Research Institute (FPRI) reflecting on his historical view of the results of the Israeli victory in the 6-Day War.

 

JRH 6/6/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

The Six Day and Fifty Years War

 

By Adam Garfinkle

June 5, 2017

Foreign Policy Research Institute

 

Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, Chief-of-Staff Yitzhak Rabin, Gen. Rehavam Zeevi R and Gen. Narkis in the old city of Jerusalem – Source: Government Press Office/Flickr

 

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.[1] 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.

 

Shiny Anniversaries

 

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.”[2]

 

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.[3] 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.[4] 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?

 

Shining On

 

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).[5] 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.[6] 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.[7]

 

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.

_____________

[1] 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.

 

[2] Guy Laron, The Six-Day War: The Breaking of the Middle East (Yale University Press).

[3] See, for example, Isabella Ginor & Gideon Remez, Foxbats Over Dimona: The Soviets’ Nuclear Gamble in the Six-Day War (Yale University Press, 2007).

[4]  On the former, note my “The Bullshistory of “Sykes-Picot”, The American Interest Online, May 16, 2016.

[5] 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).

[6] A point emphasized in Michael Mandelbaum, “1967’s Gift to America,” The American Interest Online, June 2, 2017.

[7] 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

John R. Houk

© June 6, 2017

____________

The Six Day and Fifty Years War

 

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: 1.215.732.4401 www.fpri.org

 

Copyright © 2000–2017. All Rights Reserved.

 

Despite UNESCO’s bias, Jews won’t abandon Israel’s holy Jewish sites


Two members of the Simon Wiesenthal Center writing for The Hill, deliver a scathing yet entirely correct article of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) decision to rob Jews of their ancient heritage inherent in Israel as if that heritage never existed.

 

JRH 5/4/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

Despite UNESCO’s bias, Jews won’t abandon Israel’s holy Jewish sites

 

 Western Wall Jewish Heritage

 

By RABBI ABRAHAM COOPER AND RABBI YITZCHOK ADLERSTEIN, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS

05/03/17 05:20 PM EDT

The Hill

 

Forget fake news. UNESCO is promoting an entire fake universe.

 

Like so many other UN agencies with an assured anti-Israel majority, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) regularly votes to deny some aspect of Israel’s legitimacy. Their diplomatic machinations at UNESCO serves as the backbone of much of the Muslim world’s refusal to recognize the Jewish people’s historic links to Israel, the Holy Land.

 

To legitimate their denial of the past and today’s reality of a Jewish state with more than 8 million citizens, history itself must be re-written, holy sites rebranded. That’s where the Orwellian leveraging of the agency whose raison d’etre is supposed to be the protection of history and culture — not its eradication — comes into play.

 

UNESCO’s new resolution, timed to coincide with Israel’s 69th Independence Day on Tuesday, May 2, rejects Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem, including modern West Jerusalem.

 

The resolution passed with 22 nations supporting the measure, 10 opposing it, 23 countries abstaining, and three absent.

SimonWiesenthalCntr

@simonwiesenthal

It’s not just Trump, Europe forgets the Holocaust’s Jewish victims by Rabbi Abraham Cooper & Dr. Harold Brackman… http://fb.me/5sdBG0OuS 

 

In its text, Rachel’s Tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarchs where Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rivka, Jacob and Leah are buried were repackaged as Muslim mosques. To her credit, Irina Bokova, UNESCO’s Director-General, has been a consistent critic of the charade. “To deny, conceal, or erase any of the Jewish, Christian or Muslim traditions runs counter to the reasons that justified its inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage list,” she insisted last year. But Madam Bokova’s term shortly expiries and Israel’s opponents could soon have a firmer grip.

 

What is particularly galling was the role Germany reportedly played in enabling fellow European Union members to be free to support for this outrage.

 

If the German Foreign Minister or any other European diplomat thinks this cynical maneuver which further fuels dreams of an alternative universe sans Israelis will impact Jews in Israel or around the world, they are dead wrong.

 

Jerusalem is the heart of the Jewish people. Centuries ago, long before anyone heard of Mohammed, Jews understood the importance of the city that King David built and made his capital. They built two temples there, which became focal points for their religion and their peoplehood, maintaining that centrality, even in times that it lay in ruins. “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand fail me,” spoke the prophet.

 

In their unparalleled, 2,000-year exile before returning home in modern times, Jews never left Jerusalem. A small group remained in the Holy Land throughout; the rest, scattered literally around the world, were united by the shared prayers offered three times a day for the return to Zion. Jews survived the Crusades, TorquemadaChmielnicki and Hitler without ever diluting their passion for Jerusalem.

The Israel Project

@israelproject

TIP President and CEO @JoshBlockDC: UNESCO can’t be allowed to deny Jewish link to Temple Mount http://buff.ly/2dEcFH8  via @thehill

 

The Jewish people will not abide by the ballot box stuffing of morally bankrupt regimes at UNESCO and they won’t forget when Arab were custodians of Jerusalem’s Old City, seized during the 1948 war of independence. Synagogues in the Old City were razed. Tombstones became latrines. Jews were barred from visiting holy sites. Christians took note of the mindset of the conquerors and reacted with horror at the thought that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher could become the next Palmyra.

 

Indeed, anyone concerned with the protection of educational, scientific, and cultural treasures of others, should look at Israel’s record. It may be the only country in the Middle East in recent years where the Christian population has consistently increased. The Jerusalem municipality gives out free Christmas trees to its Christian citizens each year. (If it only gave out one, that would be more than the number of Christians and Jews allowed to visit Mecca!) When different Christian sects come to blows occasionally over the administration of their holy sites, it is the Israeli police whom they call in to restore peace.

 

Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem is the only guarantee that holy places will be preserved for everyone.

 

Reality and mutual respect, not fantasy, are the first building blocks of trust and treaties. It is a toss-up as to who has done more damage with the latest UN Middle East fiasco — Arab regimes that continue to deny that the Jewish people has risen from the ashes, or dapper European diplomats who think they can still denigrate cowering Jews. Take note Berlin and Brussels. Those days are over.

 

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

 

__________________

Rabbi Abraham Cooper is Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein is the Wiesenthal Center’s Director of Interfaith Relations.

 

THE HILL 1625 K STREET, NW SUITE 900 WASHINGTON DC 20006

 

| 202-628-8500 TEL | 202-628-8503 FAX

 

THE CONTENTS OF THIS SITE ARE ©2017 CAPITOL HILL PUBLISHING CORP., A SUBSIDIARY OF NEWS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

Erroneous Vilification of Neocons & Zionists


John R. Houk

© April 28, 2017

 

Futuret left a comment to my post “Trump Profits, Deep State, Jews Run America & Neocons” with only a link: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/04/26/the-satanists-who-destroyed-the-middle-east-are-back-in-washington/

 

The link’s title: “The Satanists who destroyed the Middle East are back in Washington”. The article is a hit piece against Neocons and Israel. Why? Prominent Neocons got caught passing classified info to Israel pertaining to the USA’s plans toward Iran’s nuclear program under the Bush Administration.

 

Jonas E. Alexis caption for Wolfowitz: Satanist Paul Wolfowitz

 

I do not find too much to condemn since I am a Christian Zionist as far as motive goes. President Bush took zero action to hamper Iran nuke aspirations in his lame duck year before the end of his second term in Office. And hindsight tells us that President Obama did nothing either other than a fake deal that enabled Iran to weaponize nukes after a period of time long after Obama would be gone from the geopolitical scene.

 

The Neocon accused had pure motives yet broke the law and were prosecuted. The accused received light sentences obviously because there was little damage to American National Security. The largest damage was knowing how Bush was going to deal with Iran which was do NOTHING. And Israel still withheld military action against Iran similar to their actions against Saddam Hussein’s nuclear plant at Osirak.

 

Paul Wolfowitz was not even prosecuted and went on to lead the World Bank until lust busted him for nepotism toward his girlfriend. Wolfowitz resigned from the World Bank and again not prosecuted. (See HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.)

 

Being a Neocon and a Zionist Jew are not crimes, particularly when the politics is Conservative rather than Marxist. Sadly, many Jewish Zionists are secular and Marxist oriented abandoning the faith of their fathers. Abandoning the Jewish faith is what has troubled Jews since Moses first led the Hebrew tribes out of Egyptian captivity. Jews have paid a price for abandoning God every time. But that is a different blog post.

 

Vilifying Wolfowitz for being a Neocon and a pro-Israel Zionist smacks of the kind of Antisemitism that falsely accuses all Jews of world domination ala the fake Protocols of Zion.

 

It is a little rough to call Wolfowitz a Satanist just because of being a Neocon that put America first and desired to attack Iraq out of protecting U.S. National Interests.

 

Dems, Republicans, Conservatives & Leftists all read the America (& foreign) Intelligence reports that concluded crazy Saddam Hussein was developing nukes and chem weapons. The Intelligence proved exaggerated (not completely wrong).

 

After the Iraq war about 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium were secretly removed by the U.S. from Iraq and transported to Canada. Most Leftist pundits and fact checkers will tell you that the yellowcake had been sitting around in containers since before 1991 and the 1st Gulf War. Ergo, Saddam Hussein’s massive amount of yellowcake had not been weaponized.

 

The Leftist denial largely came forth because they didn’t want on their face over the anti-Bush slogan: “Bush lied, people died.”

 

Check this out the process to weaponize yellowcake:

 

The power of the atomic nucleus can be harnessed in one of two ways: Fusion, when two hydrogen atoms fuse together, and fission, when the nuclei of larger atoms are split open. Both release tremendous amounts of energy, and both are used in nuclear weapons. In nuclear energy plants, scientists rely on nuclear fission. Plants split open molecules of highly enriched Uranium. Uranium ore is found in the Earth’s crust and mined in Canada, Australia, Niger, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Namibia. In order to get it to become “highly enriched”, it has to be processed, and this is where complicated chemistry and physics come into play. First it’s made into “yellow cake” uranium through a number of chemical reactions, and then it’s centrifuged until the final fuel is at least 5 percent U235 and 95 percent U238. This highly radioactive combination of the two uranium isotopes is extruded into tiny ceramic pellets which are embedded into metal rods.

 

The rods are placed into the core of a nuclear reactor, which is where the fission takes place within a highly controlled containment structure. … (How Uranium Becomes Nuclear Fuel; By TRACE DOMINGUEZ; Seeker.com; 5/2/15)

 

Here is a simpler example of weaponizing yellowcake:

 

1 Uranium ore The mildly radioactive ore is mined from underground or open cast deposits. Iran has mines at Gchine on the Persian Gulf and at Saghand, in the middle of the country.

 

2 Yellowcake When ore comes out of the ground it can be less than 1% uranium oxide. Uranium oxide is leached out of the ore with strong acids or alkaline solutions and dried to ‘yellowcake’, which is more than 80% uranium oxide. Iran has mastered this process.

 

3 Conversion Yellowcake is processed into a gas, uranium hexafluoride. Iran’s conversion plant is at Isfahan.

 

4 Enrichment Uranium hexafluoride can be fed into centrifuges which separate out the most fissile uranium isotope U-235. Low enriched uranium for civilian reactors has a 3%-4% concentration of U-235. ‘Weapons-grade’ uranium is 90% enriched.

 

5 Fuel fabrication The uranium hexafluoride can be converted back to uranium oxide, which is pressed and baked into pellets. The pellets are put in metal rods, which are used in a reactor. Iran has yet to master this stage.

 

6 Reactor The fission of U-235 produces energy which heats water into steam that drives turbines. Iran has a research reactor in Tehran and an industrial-scale one at Bushehr.

 

7 Reprocessing Uranium and plutonium can be removed from the spent fuel, and reused. The plutonium can also be used to make weapons. (Weapons-grade uranium process explained; By Julian Borger; The Guardian; 12/5/10)

 

Saddam Hussein the means to weaponize nukes but appears not the patience for the complicated process to take place. The world can thank Israel for hampering that process. Israel bombed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear plant:

 

Thirty-five years after Operation Opera – the Israeli air attack that destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor at Osirak, retired IAF officers and Mossad agents revealed hitherto unknown details of the operation on Friday.

 

In an exposé aired on Channel 10, Col. (Ret.) Ze’ev Raz, who led the June 7, 1981 raid, said that … (35 years on, IAF pilots recall daring mission to bomb Saddam’s nuke reactor; By TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF; Times of Israel; 6/4/16 6:34 am)

 

The only way for Saddam Hussein to weaponize his yellowcake is with a little help from a potential ally – hmm … like Russia.

 

Speaking of Russia and Iraq. It was a proven fact that Saddam Hussein has a very active chemical weapons program.

 

Discover The Networks (DTN) has a detailed account of the mystery of Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons ranging from the exaggerated intelligence reports that inspired President G.W. Bush to invade Iraq through about 2006 when actual chemical weapon cache was located in Iraq. Again, the Left has downplayed chemical weapons discovery as old or defective, but I do not completely buy it. Here are the last few paragraphs of the DTN report:

 

Eventually, Wurmser said, Sunni insurgent groups did gain access to the shells in 2005. “There were to my memory at least two attacks on our soldiers using chemical weapons-rigged shells as [improvised explosive devices]. Fortunately, they were ineffectively weaponized and soldiers were wounded but not killed.”

Wurmser, however, grew more frustrated over time. “After waiting a year—during which we asked that the source of the batches be traced and followed to the location where the shells were being retrieved—we continued to see the trickle, but then discovered nobody was making any effort to track the source to the location of retrieval,” he said. “Instead, we were continuing to try to buy up some of the stuff in the market.”

After the U.S. found thousands of the old chemical-weapons shells, Wurmser and others at one point argued that they had an obligation to declare the stocks of chemical weapons under the Chemical Weapons Convention and destroy them. The United States was, after all, the occupier of Iraq and had assumed the country’s sovereign responsibilities as a signatory to the convention.

“It was all for nothing; Rove wanted the issue buried,” Wurmser said. (WMD: PRE- AND POST-INVASION INTELLIGENCE; DTN)

 

At least pertaining to Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons, I find this Conspiracy Theory very credible:

 

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein’s weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.

 

John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, “almost certainly” removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

 

“The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units,” Mr. Shaw said. “Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units.”

 

Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.

 

Most of Saddam’s most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.

 

The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam’s weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX, is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said.

 

The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said.

 

Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita could not be reached for comment.

 

The disappearance of the material was reported in a letter Oct. 10 from the Iraqi government to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

 

 

A second defense official said documents on the Russian support to Iraq reveal that Saddam’s government paid the Kremlin for the special forces to provide security for Iraq’s Russian arms and to conduct counterintelligence activities designed to prevent U.S. and Western intelligence services from learning about the arms pipeline through Syria.

 

The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said.

 

 

The Russian weapons were then sent out of the country to Syria, and possibly Lebanon in Russian trucks, Mr. Shaw said.

 

Mr. Shaw said he believes that the withdrawal of Russian-made weapons and explosives from Iraq was part of plan by Saddam to set up a “redoubt” in Syria that could be used as a base for launching pro-Saddam insurgency operations in Iraq.

 

The Russian units were dispatched beginning in January 2003 and by March had destroyed hundreds of pages of documents on Russian arms supplies to Iraq while dispersing arms to Syria, the second official said.

 

Besides their own weapons, the Russians were supplying Saddam with arms made in Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria and other Eastern European nations, he said.

 

“Whatever was not buried was put on lorries and sent to the Syrian border,” the defense official said.

 

Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.

 

 

Also, an Arabic-language report obtained by U.S. intelligence disclosed the extent of Russian armaments. The 26-page report was written by Abdul Tawab Mullah al Huwaysh, Saddam’s minister of military industrialization, who was captured by U.S. forces May 2, 2003.

 

The Russian “spetsnaz” or special-operations forces were under the GRU military intelligence service and organized large commercial truck convoys for the weapons removal, the official said.

 

Regarding the explosives, the new Iraqi government reported that 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or high-melting-point explosive, and 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or rapid-detonation explosive, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, were missing.

 

The material is used in nuclear weapons and also in making military “plastic” high explosive.

 

… (Russia tied to Iraq’s missing arms; By The Washington Times; 10/28/04)

 

See also: “Are Syria’s Chemical Weapons Iraq’s Missing WMD? Obama’s Director of Intelligence Thought So.” (By MARK HEMINGWAY; Weekly Standard; 4/10/17 11:45 AM)

 

Under the failed Neocon paradigm of nation-building to transform a despotic nation into a nation of laws, in which citizens were able to choose between war or the prosperity of a Western economy, would benefit U.S. National Interests.

 

The reason the paradigm failed in Iraq (& for the most part Afghanistan), is Islam. Islamic theopolitical brainwashing has existed for several centuries. Islamic brainwashing washed the Christian ethics that dominated the Middle East prior to Islamic imperialism that began in the late 600s AD.

 

Such brainwashing would take another several centuries of deprogramming to eliminate the violent and intolerant social structure of Islam. Iraq was a learning experience. Only nations amenable to Western principles would ever successfully be molded (Germany & Japan).

 

Calling Neocons evil merely because nation-building among Muslim nations is quite erroneous! Equally erroneous is vilifying Neocons for being pro-Israel as if being a Conservative Zionist is evil.

 

I am not pleased with Zionist that have a Marxist slant. Those Zionists are leading Israel to destruction much like the American Left is leading America to destruction. The curse is Marxist-Communism and not Neoconservatism or Zionism.

 

JRH 4/28/17

Please Support NCCR

White House: ‘Massive’ Evidence Shows Sarin Came from Assad Base


For those of you buying the Sarin attack is a false flag hoax, the Trump Administration is declassifying the evidence from whence sarin was loaded at Shayrat Airfield on Su-22 fixed-wing aircraft. Flown over Khan Shaykhun and released on the civilian residents.

 

There is even the appearance that – SURPRISE – Russia and Iran has spreading disinformation about the sarin attack. This would be where conspiracy theorists have picked up false flag data and then proceeded to spread the Russian/Iranian propaganda.

 

The U.S. has confirmed the agent used in the attack was sarin, from testing on the victims and from symptom reports as well as “leakage around the actual weapon that we think the sarin came from.” Emergency personnel suffered exposure symptoms from coming into contact with contaminated victims.”

 

The above quote is from PJ Media article that I am cross posting below.

 

JRH 4/11/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

White House: ‘Massive’ Evidence Shows Sarin Came from Assad Base

 

By BRIDGET JOHNSON

APRIL 11, 2017

PJ Media

 

Syrian Civil Defense workers tend to children in the aftermath of a chemical weapons attack on Khan Shaykhun, Syria, on April 4, 2017. (Syrian Civil Defense photo)

 

WASHINGTON — White House officials said today that the U.S. has amassed a mountain of evidence confirming that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used sarin against the town of Khan Shaykhun last week, and indicated they’re still trying to determine if Russia knew about the attack beforehand.

 

A declassified summary of the intelligence report on the attack that killed dozens and injured hundreds one week ago today found that the Syrian and Russian assertion that the nerve agent must have come from terrorist or rebel forces also has no basis in fact.

 

New information coming in “continues to be clear and consistent with our understanding of the attack,” a senior White House official told reporters on background today.

 

The declassified information was compiled from open-source materials ranging from videos to on-the-ground accounts, geospatial intelligence, U.S. signals intelligence, and physiological samples from attack victims.

 

The attack came from Su-22 fixed-wing aircraft out of the Shayrat airfield hit in subsequent U.S. strikes, the report says; the planes were in the Khan Shaykhun area for 20 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack came in, and left soon after. The administration also has “information that suggest that personnel historically associated with the chemical weapons program were at Shayrat airfield in late March preparing for this attack,” and these people were there again on the day of the attack.

 

The U.S. has confirmed the agent used in the attack was sarin, from testing on the victims and from symptom reports as well as “leakage around the actual weapon that we think the sarin came from.” Emergency personnel suffered exposure symptoms from coming into contact with contaminated victims.

 

A hospital treating attack victims was struck by conventional weapons about six hours after the chemical attack.

 

On hoax theories, the White House official said the “absolute massive data we have in all the different vehicles — we’ve gotten it from open-source videos, to victim accounts, to imagery, to signals intelligence, is just too massive for really any — any intelligence organization to fabricate in that short a period of time; we just think that’s not a feasible explanation.” Intel agencies have confirmed that videos distributed of the attack were filmed at the time and in the locations claimed.

 

“Across the board starting in 2013 [with the Ghouta sarin attack] and then since, we’ve seen both the Russians and the Syrians have a very clear campaign to try to obfuscate the nature of attacks, the attackers, and what has happened at any particular incident,” the official said.

 

“They’ve thrown out a bunch of potential agents, a bunch of potential responsible or accountable parties. And often their own information is inconsistent with their own narrative. They certainly have dismissed the allegations of a chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun. They called it a ‘prank of a provocative nature.’ But again, we don’t think it’s remotely possible for the Syrians or the Russians to have fabricated this much information so fast and so consistently on this attack.”

 

The official added that the Russian theory that a conventional regime strike hit a chemical weapons depot is “inconsistent” with the facts, stressing terrorist groups or rebels are not known to have sarin and “we don’t see a building, again, with that chemical residue we would expect if the Russian narrative was true.” The chemical weapon landed in the middle of a street.

 

It’s “quite clear to us, that in this case, this is not a terrorist holding of sarin, or a terrorist use of sarin, but we do know that the Syrian regime has sarin,” the official said.

 

Another official said the White House is “still looking into what we think the intelligence-community assessment or other is about Russian knowledge of, involvement, etc.”

 

The official said there’s “not a consensus on our side” yet “about the extent or how to interpret the information that we have and continue to get,” adding that historically and especially in the past two years of conflict Russia and Syria are two militaries that “operate very closely, even down to an operational and a tactical level.”

 

“And so considering the fact that there were Russian forces co-located with Syrian forces at the Shayrat airfield in addition to many other installations — many other Syrian regime installations around the country,” the official added. “We do think that it is a question worth asking the Russians about how is it possible that their forces were co-located with the Syrian forces that planned, prepared, and carried out chemical weapons attack at the same installation and did not have foreknowledge.”

 

“…We don’t know the tactical intentions of the Russians on that day, on any operations that they may have been involved in.”

 

The officials would not comment on the existence of any U.S. signals intelligence that would indicate collusion between the Russians and Syrians or a direct order from Assad to attack the town.

 

The first White House official said they “take very seriously the possibility that Syria may have additional agents elsewhere” and are “working with our intelligence community to understand every piece of information they have about where such munitions might be located, who might be a hold of them.”

 

“And I can tell you that that’s going to be part of what we try to figure out, where we go from here.”

 

Officials theorized that the chemical weapons strike was conducted because, even though a civilian neighborhood was the target, Khan Shaykhun was one of the support areas in the rear of the opposition front lines advancing on Hama since March. The city includes a key airbase for Assad’s forces.

 

“At that point, the regime, we think, calculated that with its manpower spread quite think trying to support both defensive operations and consolidation operations in Aleppo and along that north-south spine of western Syria, and also trying to support operations which required it to send manpower and resources east toward Palmyra, we believe that the regime probably calculated at that point that chemical weapons were necessary in order to try to make up for the manpower deficiency,” an official said.

 

“…We believe certainly that there were — there was an operational calculus that the regime and perhaps its Russian advisers went through in terms of the decision-making.”

 

______________

Copyright © 2005-2017 PJ Media All Rights Reserved.

 

About PJ Media

 

Since its inception in 2005, PJ Media has been focused on the news that matters — from the insightful commentary provided by our all-star lineup of columnists to our writers’ quick takes on breaking news and trending stories. The media company’s founders — Academy Award Nominee Roger L. Simon, Charles Johnson (Little Green Footballs) and Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) — brought together a tightly knit band of bloggers into an integrated website that has evolved into a reliable source for original, unique, and cutting-edge political news and analysis.

 

We’ve been there through primaries and general elections; the U.S. border crisis; doctored climate change data; the gunrunners’ scandal; Department of Justice voter fraud and the Ground Zero mosque — stories that others in the media initially passed by.

 

As a company, we’ve always felt a special connection to the values which make America special, as well as a dedication to keeping America great for our children and our children’s children. That’s why our main focus is on the three main areas that will have the most impact on the future of America: politics, parenting and lifestyle.

 

PJMedia.com, the cornerstone of PJ Media, LLC, provides useful and helpful content for everyday Americans — especially parents who are trying to raise their kids in a very confusing and uncertain world. The website offers news and  READ THE REST

 

The Only Moral Choice


Intro to ‘The Only Moral Choice

John R. Houk Editor

By Justin O. Smith

Posted 4/10/17

 

Syria is an enigma to American Foreign Policy, National Interests and National Security. Just about any action along a policy choice is a damned if we do or damned if we don’t.

 

There is no doubt that Bashar Assad is a brutal and nefarious dictator that butchers the Sunni majority in his nation. YET much of the Sunni majority is fractured under the control of Islamic terrorist entities that are just as if not more so brutal than Assad. AND the Sunni rebel militias that claim no affiliation to the Islamic terrorists are less organized and/or unreliable in their moderate assertions.

 

Military action taken by President Trump against the Assad controlled airbase that launched a chemical weapon attack on the civilians of Khan Sheikhoun was quite proportional as a warning against continued chemical WMD attacks.

 

AND YET Syria took advantage of Russia and Iran’s version of a redline warning against the U.S. claiming (or pretending) they’d retaliate for their little/widdle client if more military action is forthcoming.

 

I do like Justin Smith’s analysis of the Syrian enigma as relating President Trump’s proportional response to a chemical weapon attack.

 

JRH 4/10/17

Please Support NCCR

******************

The Only Moral Choice

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 4/9/2017 1:29 PM

 

Making the only moral choice and protecting the United States vital interests, President Donald Trump ordered the first direct U.S. attack on Syria in six years, in response to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s use of a sarin gas nerve-agent on his own people and the images of little children dying and foaming at the mouth, on April 6th 2017. While President Trump seemed to act solely out of humanitarian concern, his decision sent a clear message around the world and to all America’s enemies, that the United States is back, strong as it ever once was, and willing to act with its military might should it prove necessary.

 

On Tuesday, April 4th, U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies tracked Syrian SU-22 jets leaving Al Shayrat Airbase, for Idlib Province, where one jet dropped a sarin bomb in the middle of Kahn Sheikhoun. Eighty-seven people were killed, including 26 children, and 546 more were deathly sick and injured.

 

Approximately 600,000 Syrians have been killed by conventional warfare in the Syrian Civil War, but Assad’s use of sarin changed the entire world’s view of the situation. The horrors of chemical weapons used in WWI have long convinced civilized nations to ban their use through treaties such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, because they kill everyone within range in a most horrific manner.

 

Unlike former President Obama, whose fear created failed policies, President Trump did something tangible to respond to Assad’s atrocities, even after Russia warned the United States against any strike on Syria at the United Nations, and at 8:40 p.m. EST 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from the destroyers USS Ross and USS Porter. They hit Al Shayrat’s infrastructure in Homs Province, air defense systems and ammunition bunkers, and they destroyed approximately 25 aircraft of the 7th Wing of the Syrian Air Force.

 

After the cruise missile strikes, President Trump stated: “No child of God should suffer such horror. … It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. … We pray … for the souls of those who passed … Good night and God Bless America and the entire world.”

 

Most of the world’s nations embraced President Trump’s missile strike as a necessary move, and Prime Minister Theresa May’s office said the action was “an appropriate response to the barbaric chemical weapons attack.” France, Italy and Israel also welcomed the strikes.

 

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “President Trump sent a strong and clear message today that the use and spread of chemical weapons will not be tolerated. Israel fully supports President Trump’s decision and hopes that this message of resolve in the face of the Assad regime’s horrific actions will resonate not only in Damascus, but Tehran, Pyongyang and elsewhere.”

 

While an originalist reading of Constitution has many in the public and in Congress questioning President Trump’s authority to use immediate military force to counter foreign threats, President Trump’s action against Assad’s heinous sarin attack, undertaken as a second step to prevent the spread and repeated use of chemical weapons, is perfectly consistent with the Constitution, especially so, since U.S. troops are in nearby proximity. In the relevant part of the War Powers Act passed by Congress in 1973, the President is permitted to launch a military act on his own, as long as he notifies or consults Congress within 48 hours. Trump acted within these guidelines.

 

However, America would do well to recall that U.S. Presidents like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are responsible for the rise of the Islamofascists, like the Ayatollah Khomeini and the subsequent Iranian nuclear program, embedding Hamas in the Palestinian territories; and most recently, Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed the Arab [Islamic, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda] Spring and their “democracy” initiative, which has toppled one strong man after another, undoing the entire Middle East and paving the way for the Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria and creating general chaos.

 

Without oil resources, Syria has never really been of too much concern to the United States, other than being a thorn in our side due to its alliance with Iran, support of Islamofascist Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists and its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, confirmed in 2007. It doesn’t seek to control the Persian Gulf or dominate the region, unlike Iran.

 

It should be noted here, that generals of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard have said they stand prepared to retaliate against America for its strike on Al Shayrat. They claim to have thousands of Iranian “sleeper agents” in the U.S. just waiting for a call to arms.

 

Assad’s opposition is primarily the Islamofascists of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic State, and if they gain control of Syria, the country and its people will face even more heinous atrocities. The Syrian Free Army is no much better, being comprised of anti-American, pro-Hamas Muslims, who are content to accept U.S. funding, if it can place them in control of Syria.

 

Due to the Muslim Brotherhood’s own brutal nature, their brutality has been met with extreme overkill measures, since the Baath Party rose to power in Syria in 1963. In 1982, a Sunni Islamist rebellion was murderously crushed by Bashar’s father, Hafez Assad, that left 20,000 people dead. Bashar’s insane use of sarin gas is the last crime against humanity by a desperate despot.

 

Prior to the uprising in Deraa [aka Daraa] in March 2011, Syria had become a proper nation-state with a sense of Saryana (Syrianhood) that had never before existed, and it was evident it Syria’s literature, television, journalism and its own version of Arabic. Assad’s regime had improved access to higher education and health care services, and he had helped to create a new urban middle class with Western-style political aspirations. Agriculture and handicraft industries had revived and were unrestrained by the government. And the Christian population flourished under Assad’s secular authoritarian regime. This all changed through international interference.

 

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said President Vladimir Putin views the U.S. strike as an “aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law [that] deals a significant blow to Russia-U.S. relations”.

 

Just how wonderful has Russia turning a blind-eye to Syria’s sarin stock been for U.S.-Russia relations? Russia supposedly assisted in the destruction of Assad’s chemical weapons stores, but since 2015, Russia has repeatedly obfuscated evidence of new chemical attacks by Assad’s regime.

 

A few hours before the strike, United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley stated: “Russia cannot escape responsibility for this. They chose to close their eyes to the barbarity. They defied the conscience of the world.”

 

Both America’s and Russia’s interests center more on ending the Syrian Civil War than on any one particular political future for Damascus; but, the sarin attacks have renewed calls for Assad’s removal. Of greater importance, the focus of America and the free world and Russia must be unified on eradicating the Islamic State [Daesh] and the Islamofascists who are destabilizing the entire region.

 

President Trump acted contrary to the popular consensus and what most presidents would have done. He attacked Syria solely for humanitarian reasons. Now he must clearly articulate the mission ahead and America’s interests in this war, since there isn’t any nation with the capacity to fix Syria’s problems. Getting rid of Assad will most assuredly be hard and have serious consequences, but America’s new, strong and determined President Trump has shown his willingness to effectively counter the world’s dictators, and he will not tolerate egregious, inhuman chemical weapons attacks on innocent civilians.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links and text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Muslim Boy Rapists get Wrist Slap in Idaho?


John R. Houk

© April 7, 2017

 

Mysteriously WND has removed this title from their online publication: “Truth emerges in sex assault of 5-year-old by Muslim refugees”. The link that came with the email update times out. Searching the WND website will tell you the article is non-existent. (I discovered today just before posting, the email alert link with the above title now goes to a WND article dated 4/5/17. WND stamped a 4/7/17 update on it and stuck with the 4/5 title which is “TOWN WHERE MUSLIMS ASSAULTED 5-YEAR-OLD WANTS MORE REFUGEES: WND, Breitbart vindicated in case that brought accusations of fake news”. This is an informative article but I still am disappointed WND didn’t use the “Truth emerges ” title.)

 

I did a Google Search of the same title hoping someone else picked up the WND title – NOTHING – ZIP – ZERO showed up. What did show up is a lot of labeling of the story of a 5-year old little girl from Idaho being raped by three Muslim refugee boys was fake news.

 

5-yr old victim of Muslim Boy Refugee rapists

 

I found a  GOPUSA.com article on the subject dated 4/6/17at 6:55 am entitled, “Refugee Minors Plead Guilty to Sexual Assault of Child Age 5”. The GOPUSA.com pages sources a Twin Falls newspaper: The Times-News (Twin Falls, Idaho). Unfortunately, the source link does not go The Times-News by name, rather the link goes to the GOPUSA Staff page.

 

After Googling “The Times-News,” I found a local website called MagicValley.com. The GOPUSA title does not work there. However after doing MagicValley.com search on the 5-year old rape victim, a very informative story does come up but under the title, “Prosecutor: Boys in Fawnbrook case plead guilty”. This title is not close to the WND title or the GOPUSA title. AND note there is no inkling Islam, Muslim or Refugees.

 

I have to wonder what reason caused WND to remove their title.

 

Then Lo & Behold, I found a Pamela Geller article entitled, “BREAKING: Sad Update to Five-Year-Old Idaho Girl Raped by Muslim Migrants.” The article website is at TruthFeed.com. It is similar to the WND title yet still different. The Truth Feed article goes to a point and then the very end reads “You can read more here.” The read more goes to PamelaGeller.com but it is a past post on the 5-year old victim entitled, “Pamela Geller, WND: Idaho State officials mistreat girl, 5, raped by Muslim migrants.” The Geller article is dated 11/21/16.

 

On a lark, I did a search on the WND title at the Geller website and came up empty handed. The Geller article from Truth Feed came up with nothing as well.

 

I am sensing more cover-up to the benefit of the Muslim Refugee boy rapists. But in full disclosure, the boys’ guilty pleas were essentially a slap on a wrist coupled with the fact they are minors. My guess is they will be reunited with their Refugee families and their records hidden from the public. As minors, there is a strong probability their sealed juvie records will be expunged sometime during their adulthood between ages 18 and 21.

 

The five-year old victim is stuck with psychiatrist/medical bills that may or may not help her in her adult life. Meaning, she needs prayer.

 

I was cross posting the Geller article from Truth Feed but I found a more detailed report from Mad World News (MWN). The MagicValley.com article will be first followed by MWN. If there is a cover-up, both articles may disappear. Since MagicValley.com is a local newspaper with an online presence, there is a good chance the article will be archived only accessible to subscribers.

 

JRH 4/7/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

Prosecutor: Boys in Fawnbrook case plead guilty

 

By ALEX RIGGINS (ariggins@magicvalley.com)

Apr 4, 2017

MagicValley.com

 

TWIN FALLS — Three boys involved in a June assault on a 5-year-old girl at the Fawnbrook Apartments in Twin Falls pleaded guilty Tuesday to felonies.

 

The victim’s family and their lawyer approved the settlements reached in each of the three cases, Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs said in a statement.

 

“I am pleased that we were able to resolve this case in a way that was approved and agreed to by the victim’s family,” Loebs said. “This continues to be a serious and sad case, but it was resolved properly.”

 

“We agreed to the plea bargains. That by no means implies my clients were, or are, fully satisfied with the outcome of these cases or the prosecuting attorney,” Mark Guerry, the attorney representing the victim’s family, said in emails to the Idaho Statesman.

 

“After 10 months their right to some form of justice was long overdue. … They were prepared to testify at a trial or enter into to plea agreements months ago. More importantly, no convictions or mere words in statements could ever mitigate the unrelenting trauma and grief their little daughter now suffers as a result of this vicious sexual assault.”

 

The incident touched off months of turmoil in Twin Falls after the story was spun into a fake news account that exaggerated or flat-out falsified many of the details, including that a knife was present, the attack was perpetrated by a Syrian gang of adult men, that a rape had occurred and that the attack was celebrated by the perpetrators’ families as city officials orchestrated a cover-up.

 

In fact, police and prosecutors said, there was no rape, no knife was present, and the incident involved young boys. Officials characterized the incident as a sexual assault and say each say each agency involved followed proper protocol.

 

The boys were charged not long after the June 2 incident, and later that month their families were evicted from the apartment complex.

 

A GoFundMe page started by the mother of the victim has raised more than $72,000, with a goal to raise $100,000. The mother, who refers to her family in the third person when posting on the site, added her most recent update Tuesday morning.

 

“Today is the day!” the post said. “We find out what happens and when the kids start there (sic) sentence and what they get charged with. Please pray!!!! Also if you can share the campaign and donate so we can reach the goal for this family. They deserve justice and praying that happens today.”

 

After an investigation, two boys ages 14 and 10 were detained and charged. A third boy involved in the incident, age 7, was charged later. The youngest boy is from Iraq and the two older boys, who are brothers, are from Eritrea, an African country. The boys are from refugee families, but its unclear how long they’ve been in the community.

 

What actually happened during the incident remains unclear because the case was sealed to the public, typical in juvenile cases, especially those involving allegations of sexual misconduct.

 

Prosecutors said one of the boys touched the girl in the laundry facilities of Fawnbrook, a low-income housing complex in Twin Falls, while another boy recorded the assault on a cellphone video camera.

 

One boy pleaded guilty to felony exploitation of a child and misdemeanor battery. A second boy pleaded guilty of aiding and abetting felony lewd conduct and aiding and abetting misdemonear battery. The third boy pleaded guilty to a charge of accessory to the commission of a felony.

 

The boys will be sentenced at a later date. Loebs declined to say what the possible sentences are in the case.

 

The 14- and 10-year-old boys charged in the assault were released from juvenile custody in late June.

 

“As I said last summer, just like with any other case this is going to be handled by the justice system, and this is the next step in that process,” Mayor Shawn Barigar said shortly after hearing the news Tuesday.

 

From the beginning, refugee opponents accused police of mishandling the investigation. Those claims garnered the attention of national figures on the far right, including Brigitte Gabriel, head of Act for America, who came to Twin Falls to speak about what she perceives as a coordinated Muslim plan to take over Western societies.

 

But Police Chief Craig Kingsbury said Tuesday his officers handled the case like they do any other report of lewd conduct with a child.

 

“I’ve always felt that we followed proper protocol and procedure,” Kingsbury said.

 

In June, the police chief outlined the way such cases are generally handled and said his officers don’t interview juvenile victims or perpetrators of sex crimes. Those interviews are left to “properly trained forensic interviewers” at St. Luke’s Children at Risk Evaluation Services.

 

“The questions and question formulation when interviewing young victims is so important,” the chief said in June. “We don’t want to do anything that’s going to re-victimize — we don’t want this child to have to tell that story more than once, if we can help it — and we also don’t want to do anything that’s going to jeopardize the prosecution if an officer or detective were to improperly formulate questions.”

 

“There are no winners or losers in cases like this,” Kingsbury said Tuesday. “I think we just need to continue to focus on the victim, and victims in these types of incidents, especially here in April, child abuse prevention month. We need to do right by all our child victims.”

 

The assault happened in the wake of local debate over whether to close the College of Southern Idaho Refugee Center and at a time when refugee resettlement was a topic of debate in the presidential race and internationally, and the story spread quickly in the right-wing and anti-Muslim blogosphere. Authorities released some details about the case — a highly unusual step in a sexual assault case in which everyone involved is a minor — in an apparent effort to quell the outcry and counter inaccurate versions of the story that were circulating.

 

Many of these sources accused the city, law enforcement and local media of trying to cover up what had happened, and city officials were inundated with angry phone calls and emails and a handful of violent threats. Chobani, whose factory employs many refugees, was another target of anti-refugee anger, with some seeking to link the refugee program’s existence to the labor needs of Chobani and other large local employers.

 

By the end of the summer, Lee Stranahan, a reporter for the conservative news website Breitbart, and Julie DeWolfe, a vocal resettlement critic in Twin Falls, started a group aimed to fight globalism with populism and planned to start a “microbusiness incubator.” But plans for the “Make Your Hometown Great Again” group apparently never came to fruition.

 

College of Southern Idaho Refugee Center director Zeze Rwasama said Tuesday afternoon he hadn’t heard the latest news about the Fawnbrook case.

 

But he said the center took the case “very seriously” and condemns that kind of behavior.

 

“Whatever happened is not what we — as people helping the refugees resettle — something that we would think that it’s OK,” Rwasama said. “It is not.”

 

After the Fawnbrook case, the Refugee Center partnered with a behavioral agency to hold therapy groups with school-aged refugee children who’d recently arrived in Twin Falls “so they understand that type of behavior isn’t acceptable,” Rwasama said.

 

It was part of a program children regularly attend on Wednesdays after school.

 

Whenever something happens like the Fawnbrook case, the Refugee Center’s action is to “create a program that would give some more education to the kids,” Rwasama said. “We want to prevent any behavior that may be violating the law.”

 

Clarification: An earlier version of this story identified Chobani founder Hamdi Ulukaya as a Muslim. WhileUlukaya was raised in a Kurdish village in Turkey, a Muslim-majority country, he has not publicly identified as a Muslim. 

 

Times-News Reporters Julie Wootton and Nathan Brown and Idaho Statesman staff contributed.

 

+++

Parents Of Idaho Girl Molested By Muslims Tortured By New SICK Surprise

 

By Rebecca Diserio

March 28, 2017

Mad World News

 

In June 2016, a five-year-old Twin Falls, Idaho girl was sexually assaulted by three Muslim boys, aged 7, 10, and 14 years old while the oldest videoed the attack. They stripped her and urinated in her mouth while molesting her in ways that shocked the small Idaho community. Now, the parents are speaking out about the court case, revealing a new sick surprise that is causing them a lot of grief. This will piss you off.

 

Lacy Peterson and her husband Levi have endured nearly 10 months of hell since the horrendous incident that brought them into the news when their special needs daughter, Jayla, was molested by three Muslims boys at the Fawnbrook Apartments in Twin Falls, Idaho.

 

Lacy & Jayla Peterson

 

The molestation was witnessed by Jolene Payne, an 89-year-old retired nurse who saw a 14-year-old boy from Sudan filming the assault in progress inside the laundry room. Two other boys, ages 7 and 10 from Iraq, were inside the room with the little girl, all three with their clothes off, while the older boy shot the video.

 

Although leftist media tried to cover the heinous crime, denying a rape occurred and calling many outlets “fake news” for covering it, Breitbart has most recently reported, “New allegations against ten-year-old boy who was involved in the June 2 attack were revealed in court on Thursday afternoon, alleging the boy both anally and orally penetrated the five-year-old, in addition to urinating on her. Previously, it had only been known that a seven-year-old boy had orally penetrated the girl and urinated on her.”

 

You would think that after your precious daughter endured something that no little girl ever should, justice would be swift and harsh. In a sick twist, that’s not what happened. The parents report that something happened that they never saw coming. Not only have they had to endure the molestation and rape to their daughter, but the powerful liberals in the community have sided with the Muslim refugees who allegedly sexually assaulted her.

 

These liberal nutjobs want everyone to embrace the Muslim refugees. Right after it happened, the liberal media helped the leftist mayor by reporting it was not “Syrians,” and even going as far as to say it “did not happen.” Sure, it was not Syrians, the 7 and 10-year-old are from Iraq and the 14-year-old is from Sudan. However, the fact remains that they are Muslim refugees. And now, we are finding out that the innocent child was, indeed, raped.

 

The case is set for a pre-trial hearing on Monday, March 27th, and one Twin Falls city councilman, Chris Talkington, went so far as to brand the concerned citizens who want to stop taking Muslim refugees into their community as “white supremacists.”

 

Shawn Barigar, the mayor of Twin Falls, also came to the defense of the refugees, giving an extended lecture to residents at a city council meeting, warning them against spreading false information. The only people spreading false information are the liberal nutjobs like this councilman, mayor, and mainstream media.

 

We have been treated horribly,” Lacy Peterson said. “The way I feel, our case has been pushed under the rug and soon to be forgotten about. Since June, we moved into a house that we can hardly even afford. We were totally fine in the apartments until now.”

 

She continued, “I don’t think it’s fair that us Americans get to struggle and work hard and live paycheck-to-paycheck and pray to make bills,” adding, “And the refugees get to have everything handed to them.” It’s sick to think that a little American girl would be vilified by her own community. What is wrong with these scumbags who refuse to support this little girl who needs their help?

 

This story is so important to the liberal rags that the failing New York Times just sent a reporter to Twin Falls to cover the trial. Get ready for the spin from the left as they turn their backs on the little American girl in favor of the Muslim refugees just to make a point. This all goes back to their agenda to keep our borders open and deny President Donald Trump any type of travel ban.

 

What idiots they truly are, hurting a little girl in this case and sacrificing American safety, all so the United States ends up just like Europe, ripe with Muslim ghettos where terrorists live who want us dead. Only then will they be truly satisfied; that’s how these liberal rats roll.

 

_____________

Muslim Boy Rapists get Wrist Slap in Idaho?

John R. Houk

© April 7, 2017

____________

Prosecutor: Boys in Fawnbrook case plead guilty

 

© Copyright 2017 Times-News, 132 Fairfield ST W Twin Falls, ID

__________________

Parents Of Idaho Girl Molested By Muslims Tortured By New SICK Surprise

 

Copyright © 2017 | Mad World News, LLC

 

About Mad World News

 

Mad World News is firmly devoted to bringing you the truth and the stories that the mainstream media ignores. Together we can restore our constitutional republic to what the founding fathers envisioned and fight back against the liberal media.