Open a Criminal Investigation of Barack Hussein Obama


Cliff Kincaid writes about the stealth threat of Communism still pervasive in America and gives a huge amount of credit to Barack Hussein Obama for this stealth infusion.

 

Kincaid mentions Sebastian Gorka as a person exposing Communism intrusion from China and the infusion of Stealth Islamic jihadism in the USA. But Kincaid criticizes Gorka for not including Russia (former USSR) in this Marxist makeover being secretly paved into the American consciousness.

 

I’m a Gorka fan so I not really hip to criticizing him. I would be more inclined to ask Gorka to add the Russian influence to the other outside anti-American influences. I have no doubt Gorka would side with that.

 

JRH 10/17/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Open a Criminal Investigation of Barack Hussein Obama

 

By Cliff Kincaid

October 16th, 2017

America’s Survival

 

Investigate Obama

 

It’s suddenly big news that there are perverts in Hollywood. The really big news is that former President Barack Hussein Obama’s communist and terrorist-support network remains a state secret. Attorney General Jeff Sessions won’t touch it.

 

Until we come to grips with Obama, our first Marxist president with radical Muslim sympathies, we are adrift as a nation. He ran for office as a committed Christian,” a monumental deception to conceal his record of service to the communist cause, Muslim background, and grooming by suspected Soviet espionage agent Frank Marshall Davis.

 

Obama Committed Christian Lie

 

As the world marks the 100th anniversary of the 1917 Russian revolution, America should take note of our own communist revolution – the eight years of the Obama presidency and his leadership of the global anti-Trump “resistance.”

 

WND story says former Trump White House aide Sebastian Gorka believes radical Islamic jihadists, China and radical leftists pose the greatest threats to U.S. national security, but that “they will be defeated by President Trump and his supporters who are restoring America’s global dominance and reclaiming the country’s culture.”

 

Based on the record so far, this is as likely as Hollywood coming completely clean about Harvey Weinstein’s perversities.

 

Russia is not even on the list of Gorka’s top three threats! Yet Russia is behind the Jihadists, is in an alliance with Red China, and still backs the radical leftists.

 

Gorka tells WND, “The immediate term threat is the Shia-jihadis – this is Iran, this is the Republican Guard, Hezbollah. If they get nuclear weapons, that’s a game changer and that’s why it’s so important the president decertified the Iran deal.”

 

Yet, Iran’s nuclear weapons program is made possible by Russia. Why no mention of that? And why didn’t Trump cancel the Iran deal as he promised to do?

 

In the first place, Obama should have been impeached. Under United Nations auspices, he ordered the bombing of Libya, in order to depose a ruler, Gadhafi, who had given up his weapons of mass destruction and was fighting al Qaeda. The massacre of Americans in Benghazi by Jihadists resulted from this illegal and unconstitutional war. All of this benefited the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, Obama issued a secret 2011 Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11, supporting this radical Islamist group throughout the Middle East.

 

National security reporter Bill Gertz said, “The directive, according to officials familiar with its contents, outlined how the administration would seek to support the Muslim Brotherhood around the world despite the Islamist supremacist organization providing the ideological underpinning for jihadist terrorism for both al Qaeda and its successor, the Islamic State.”

 

PSD-11, which is still secret, should be released by the Trump Administration and declared exhibit number one in a criminal investigation of Barack Hussein Obama.

 

Trump was supposed to turn things around. In Afghanistan, Gorka tells WND that Trump’s speech sending more American soldiers to their deaths in an endless conflict didn’t use the words “radical Islamic terrorism.” He was upset about that omission. But Trump also didn’t mention Russia’s role in sending arms to a Taliban faction killing our troops.

 

This is what we called the Red Jihad, a book quoting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as saying that Soviet/Russian support for international terrorism made radical Islam into the threat it is today. He explains that, “without the support offered by the Soviet bloc and the Arab world, international terrorism would revert to its earlier, localized manifestations before the 1960s and would hardly dominate the global scene.”

 

If you want to defeat radical Islam, engineer regime change in Russia, which is still the global center of revolutionary violence against America.

 

Domestically, Sebastian Gorka mentions in the WND interview the influence of Obama associates Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in academia, but ignores how their communist terrorist networks spawned the Obama candidacy and presidency. These networks, nurtured even today by Bill Ayers in his new book, Demand the Impossible: A Radical Manifesto, are promising an uprising of some sort on November 4. The Refuse Fascism group, which is behind the November 4 protests, is a front of the Revolutionary Communist Party and its founder, former Ayers and Dohrn associate Bob Avakian.

 

As we document in Comrade Obama Unmasked, Obama supported America’s enemies at every opportunity, including the communist regime in Cuba, the communists running South Africa, and even the FARC narco-terrorists in Colombia.

 

Obama Questionable Christian

 

But he stands out during his eight years in office as the real Russian agent, who was passive when Russia invaded Ukraine and Syria, gave Russia a nuclear weapons advantage over the U.S., and awarded the Russians special trading privileges. Working with Russia, he conceived the Iran nuclear deal.

 

However, on his way out the door, in a classic Marxist dialectical maneuver, his CIA director John Brennan launched an investigation of President Trump as a Russia agent. It was a stroke of genius that put Trump on the defensive, gave the liberal news media months of joy, and resulted in multiple Russia-gate investigations, including by a former FBI director determined to get Trump.

 

On the 100th anniversary of the Virgin Mary Fatima revelations about Russia’s threat to world peace, we also learn from Dr. Paul Kengor’s new book that the Soviets were behind the May 13, 1981, attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II.  The book, A Pope and a President: John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and the Extraordinary Untold Story of the 20th Century, says Reagan’s CIA director Bill Casey confirmed the Soviet role, in the face of official CIA resistance to the finding.

 

Until the reality of Obama’s communist support is examined and the secret role of Russia in global conflict exposed, the former president and America’s enemies will have the upper hand.

 

But Gorka and Trump seem clueless. “China has the most leverage to deal with North Korea,” Gorka told WND. “And the fact that the president and Ambassador Haley at the U.N. have managed to convince China that even if you’re in a competition with us, you will not profit by having a nuclear war on your border and they joined us with Russia – it’s a big deal – in the tightest sanctions package against North Korea in history, that tells you how big a problem North Korea is. China may be our long-term enemy, but they don’t [want] a war in their back doorstep either.”

 

Does he really think another in an endless series of U.N. resolutions will make any difference? The U.N. is another communist front, designed by a Russian agent working in our State Department by the name of Alger Hiss. Have we forgotten?

 

Working through the U.N. is a dangerous dead end.

 

Our book The Sword of Revolution conclusively demonstrates that the “Sino-Soviet split” was a fraud. What’s more, the “collapse” of Red Russia was itself a fraud, too. Together, China and Russia, combined with Obama’s inaction during his two terms, have made a nuclear North Korea a reality.

 

What’s more, China is still communist. An article in China Daily, entitled, “Adapting Marxism called crucial,” explains how Marxism is guiding the country’s future. Here’s a quote:

 

President Xi Jinping, also general secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee… said that as a party upholding Marxism, the CPC should make sure its theories keep up with the times. Drifting away from or betraying Marxism will lead to the Party’s losing its soul and direction as it moves forward, Xi added. Marxism is unsurpassed in achieving great heights and having a huge influence, he said.

 

The reliance on China to deal with its nuclear client, North Korea, is another dead end.

 

The key failure involves the inability or unwillingness to investigate Obama’s global network and what his anti-American policies were designed to do.

 

In terms of the threat within, consider that the FBI website still features wanted posters of two fugitives: Donna Borup and Elizabeth Anna Duke, both members of the May 19th Communist Organization.

 

Filmmaker Joel Gilbert, a speaker at our upcoming November 10 National conference on Obamunism, has cited evidence that Obama was a member or supporter of the May 19th Communist Organization, an above ground support group for the Weather Underground based in New York City from 1978-1985.

 

He notes that the May 19 Communist Organization was described by Obama pal and former communist terrorist Bill Ayers as providing “a sea for the guerillas to swim in.”

 

Some May 19 members committed acts of violence and terrorism, such as the 1981 Nanuet Brinks robbery and murders, the bombing of South African offices in 1981, and the U.S. Capital bombing in 1983, notes Gilbert. He adds, “I spoke with a former FBI informant who told me the May 19th Communist Organization had a weapons training camp in the Catskill Mountains, run by former Black Panthers. In addition, some May 19 members were sent to Cuba for several weeks each year with the Venceremos Brigades, a continuation of the SDS/Weather Underground program begun in the sixties, for explosives training from Cuban intelligence, DGI.”

 

Here’s the big revelation: “A former May 19 member I spoke with identified Obama as participating in their public protests and meetings. In his ‘Dreams’ book, Obama mentions transferring to Columbia to pursue his interest in activism and recounts attendance at some events similar to those sponsored by May 19.”

 

This might help explain why Borup and Duke are still on the loose. And why Obama never demanded the extradition of Black Liberation Army cop-killer Assata Shakur and FALN bomb-maker William Morales from Cuba.

 

In addition to the focus on Obama, our November 10 conference will expose the Red Pope, Francis, who was Obama’s collaborator after a George Soros-engineered coup forced Pope Benedict to resign. The old joke, “Is the Pope Catholic?,” is not funny anymore. This pope is not Catholic; he’s a communist.

 

George Neumayr, author of The Political Pope, examines the communist ideology driving Jesuit Pope Francis and the movement for world government in the ASI TV program “The Red Pope: Enemy Occupation of the Vatican.”

___________________

America’s Survival, Inc. is recognized as a 501 (C)3 organization by the IRS. Your donation is tax-deductible to the full extent of the law.

 

© America’s Survival, Inc.

 

About America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI)

 

America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI) is recognized as a 501 (C) 3 educational organization. ASI President Cliff Kincaid is editor of the ASI web sites www.usasurvival.orgwww.stopglobaltaxes.org, and www.religiousleftexposed.com  ASI  is on Facebook and Twitter and has a YouTube channel featuring videos from ASI conferences and other events.

 

ASI specializes in exposing the United Nations, international organizations and extremist movements. We are currently working to re-establish committees or subcommittees to investigate internal security problems.

 

Office telephone: 443-964-8208

Email: Kincaid@comcast.net

Mailing Address:

America’s Survival. Inc.
P.O. Box 146
Owings, MD 20736

 

DONATE TO ASI

 

Flight of the Hwasong-14


Justin Smith discusses the acts of war conducted by North Korea that includes nuclear ICBM nuclear provocations.

 

JRH 7/10/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Flight of the Hwasong-14

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 7/9/2017 3:50 PM

 

Hwasong-14 & Kim Jong UN

 

America can no longer afford to hurl ineffective economic sanctions at North Korea, that are too often violated by nations like China, while North Korea and its malevolent dictator, Kim Jong Un, prepare to let nuclear armed missiles fly at their leisure. The United States government and President Donald Trump must give some hard, serious and real consideration on striking at the heart of Pyongyang North Korea, Kim Jong Un’s regime and all North Korean missile launch sites and nuclear facilities, since placing our country’s fate in the hands of a murderous and unstable dictator, who has murdered senior officials and family members on a whim, and a regime capable of reckless behavior would be beyond egregious and a monumental mistake.

 

On July 4th 2017, North Korea conducted a missile test of the Hwasong-14 that was a success in many ways. There is little reason to question North Korea’s claim that the missile reached an altitude of over 1700 miles and hit a target 580 miles away, in light of the fact that North Korea placed two satellites in space in 2012. This demonstrated that, at a lower altitude and straighter trajectory, Anchorage Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Japan and even Queensland Australia are within range of Pyongyang’s nuclear missiles, once it perfects the process of miniaturizing the nuclear warheads. Washington was also served a warning.

 

An intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launched from North Korea would hit Los Angeles within thirty minutes. Riki Ellison, chairman of the nonprofit Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, asserts that North Korea already has miniaturized warheads capable of delivering 20 kilotons of destruction, similar to the bomb detonated over Nagasaki during WWII, and many other experts predict that Kim Jong Un will have the capability to hit America’s West Coast before President Trump completes his first term.

 

A nuclear armed and unpredictable rogue state, North Korea will not be deterred along similar lines as the former Soviet Union and China have been. They have less to lose than any previous nuclear power, and Pyongyang will most certainly attempt nuclear blackmail at best. In the worst case scenario, Pyongyang will give nukes to our Islamic enemies and third party terrorists, to insert in our harbors and cities.

 

North Korea has pursued nuclear weapons, since the day it acquired nuclear technology from the Soviet Union in the 1950s. It is too close to success to stop. And besides, Kim Jong Un’s survival depends on a viable nuclear weapons system.

 

According to Sue Mi Terry, a former CIA analyst, who met with North Koreans and a group of Western experts last month in Sweden, at the Asia Society, “The North Koreans emphasize over and over, denuclearization is completely off the table … they say it’s not negotiable.”

 

Last month, Michael Auslin, from the Hoover Institute, bluntly told a group of journalists in Washington, “Negotiations won’t work“.

 

This rogue nation knows no bounds, when it comes to committing acts of evil. Not only did they slowly murder [HERE and HERE] Otto Warmbier, a U.S. citizen and college student, over an eighteen month period, the Kim Family regime has committed numerous flagrant violations of the July 7th 1953 Korean War Armistice. This regime killed thirty-one U.S. Airmen, when it shot them down in South Korean airspace in 1969, and thirty-five North Korean soldiers hacked U.S. Captain Arthur Bonifas and First Lieutenant Mark Barrett to death in 1976, near the Demilitarized Zone. Also, in 1968, this regime captured the USS Pueblo in international waters and held 82 Navy crewmen for eleven months. And North Korea has never met with any meaningful consequences for their acts of war.

 

North Korea was already blatantly defiant and violently aggressive without nukes and a missile delivery system. Just imagine how far Kim Jong Un will go, once he has a fully operational nuclear arsenal at his fingertips.

 

Does anyone really believe a nuclear armed North Korea won’t exact a heavy price from the free world?

 

An April 15th 2017 editorial in the Chinese Communist newspaper, the ‘Global Times, essentially stated that Beijing would not militarily intervene, if Washington conducts a preemptive strike against North Korean nuclear facilities. However, China won’t accept a non-communist regime in North Korea or U.S. troops crossing the 38th Parallel. If the U.S. strikes the Kim regime, China would likely focus on instituting a pro-China regime and possibly seizing North Korea’s missile and nuclear sites, rather than a war with U.S.-South Korea joint military forces.

 

The Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) is less than forty miles from Seoul’s 25 million inhabitants and lined with 8,000 pieces of North Korean artillery and rocket launchers. Within the first hour of any renewed conventional war between the two Koreas, North Korea has the ability to unleash the equivalent of 300,000 tons of TNT on Seoul, possibly killing as many as 100,000 people. For this reason, during a May 2017 press conference, Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated, “If this goes to a military solution, it’s going to be tragic on an unbelievable scale”.

 

Seoul has much to lose, however, any military move against North Korea doesn’t necessarily have to be the tragedy some U.S. officials have suggested it would be. And while America may be bound by treaty to defend South Korea, our leaders and President Trump cannot allow South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s conciliatory policy towards North Korea to place the U.S. in the untenable position of accepting a capable nuclear armed North Korea and any consequences that follow.

 

On Wednesday, the Fifth of July, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley told the U.N. Security Council that our “considerable military forces” were an option. Continuing, Nikki Haley stated, “We will use them if we must, but we prefer not to go in that direction”.

 

A preemptive strike is not a good option, and nobody assumes it would be easy. People will die on both sides, but North Korea’s nuclear threat is one that must be destroyed, before it grows too much stronger, or exponentially more lives will be lost in its wake years hence. America can do it without near the tragic results for Seoul that Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis states, if the U.S. will resolve to drop tactical nukes and MOABs on the nuclear facilities, the launch sites at Sohae and Tonghae [aka Donghae] and the eight thousand pieces of artillery and military units along the Demilitarized Zone simultaneously.

 

One should note that prior to the signing of the Armistice in 1953 and the cease-fire that followed, President Dwight D. Eisenhower considered using nukes against North Korea to end the war. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles agreed that the United States should not shrink from using nuclear weapons, especially if their use prevented a greater loss of life over time, but he did favor limited use.

 

Kim Jong Un arrogantly fired Hwasong-14 on America’s Independence Day, in utter contempt of any objections from either China or the Free World. America answered with U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer bombers and South Korean and Japanese jet fighters joint flights over the Korean Peninsula on July 7th 2017, the sixty-fourth anniversary of the signing of the Korean War Armistice.

 

Is it not apparent to the world that America is one of the last nations standing between tyrants and freedom?

 

War should never be a first, second or even third choice. The Land of the Free, America cannot and must not tolerate a nation that enslaves and murders its own people and citizens from other nations. The Home of the Brave, America cannot and must not lapse into a fool-hardy and cowardly repose in the face of a fat boy tyrant, who called the Hwasong-14 test a “gift to the American bastards”. America must not find Herself firing off more sanctions on the day Kim Jong Un detonates a bright glowing nuke over one of our cities. Stopping North Korea requires war.

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text within brackets and all source links by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

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.

 

Multiculturalism Destroying Europe – Is USA Next?


John R. Houk

© June 5, 2017

 

There is a problem in cities spread across Europe with Muslim enclaves. These enclaves are a Third-World Muslim brutality transplanted into Europe. The Muslim brutality is so pervasive that they are often dubbed as No-Go Zones for non-Muslims, too often even applying to police authority.

 

SADLY, America’s Left Stream Media have thrown themselves into full scale Multiculturalist denial of the facts demonstrating No-Go Zones in European Muslim Enclaves is a painful reality. Dear God, even the Conservative to Left Stream Media in Fox News issued an apology for airing the No-Go Zone phenomena in European cities.

 

European Multiculturalist’s most hated Counterjihadist Fjordman wrote the facts back in April 2017:

 

In January 2015 The New York Times denied that there are “no-go-zones” — areas that are not under the control of the state and are ruled according to sharia law — dominated by certain immigrant groups in some urban areas in Western Europe. The American newspaper mentioned this author, alongside writers such as Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes, for spreading this alleged falsehood. The article was published shortly after Islamic terrorists had massacred the staff of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris on January 7, 2015. Other established media outlets such as the magazine The Atlantic also dismissed claims of no-go-zones.

 

Fox News issued an unusual on-air apology for allowing its anchors and guests to repeat the suggestion that there are Muslim “no-go zones” in European countries such as Britain and France.

 

Regarding the subject of “no-go-zones,” this is largely a question of semantics. If you say that there are some areas where even the police are afraid to go, where the country’s normal, secular laws barely apply, then it is indisputable that such areas now exist in several Western European countries. France is one of the hardest hit: it has a large population of Arab and African immigrants, including millions of Muslims.

 

 

In an essay published in February 2016, Stockholm police inspector Lars Alvarsjö warned that the Swedish legal system is close to collapse. The influx of asylum seekers and ethnic gangs has overwhelmed the country and its understaffed police force. In many suburbs, criminal gangs have taken control and determine the rules. The police, fire brigades and ambulance personnel in these areas are routinely met with violent attacks.

 

 

In December 2016, the American Jewish documentary filmmaker Ami Horowitz told the story of his venture into Husby. A few seconds after they arrived, five men approached them. They said “You guys gotta get out of here right now.” The film crew, being Swedish, turned around and ran for it. Horowitz decided to stay and try to figure this thing out with the men.

 

… READ ENTIRETY (No-Go Zones Europe: Combating Fake News; By Fjordman; Gatestone Institute; 4/1/17 5:00 am)

 

Edmund Kozak writing for Lifezette spells out Ami Horowitz’s story of a Swedish No-Go Zone:

 

Filmmaker Ami Horowitz recently encountered the all-too-real brutality to be found in a Muslim “no-go” zone in Sweden.

 

“When they dragged me into that building, that’s really when I thought, ‘They’re going to end my life here,’” Horowitz told LifeZette. Horowitz painted a vivid picture of the extent of the danger of Muslim no-go zones in Sweden — even the police fear them, he said.

 

 

As Horowitz noted, liberals love to pretend that Muslim no-go zones — Muslim neighborhoods to which even the authorities are afraid to venture and in which Sharia law is the rule and non-Muslims are attacked on sight — are little more than a figment of paranoid conservative imaginations. But as Horowitz would find out for himself, they are very much a horrifying reality.

 

“Literally moments after I stepped into the town, a gang of five clearly Islamic men approached my crew, and they attacked me without provocation,” he continued. “They repeatedly punched, kicked and choked me, as a number of bystanders watched. Eventually they dragged me into a building, which at the time I assumed was to finish me off. Once inside the apartment building vestibule, they resumed their vicious attack. But seconds later someone opened an apartment door directly above us, and it luckily spooked them enough to run away,” wrote Horowitz.

 

 

While it is nearly impossible to gauge the full extent of the no-go zone problem, it is safe to say there are hundreds of no-go areas scattered throughout Europe. A March 2016 report published by the Hungarian government found 900 areas across Europe.

 

In France alone, where no-go areas are euphemistically referred to as “zones urbaines sensibles” — sensitive urban zones — the government counts over 750 such zones. In Sweden, the number could be “as high as 50, [but] the police who I spoke with … estimated there to be about 20-30,” Horowitz said.

 

In the United Kingdom, “you have to have extra vigilance in certain parts [of London] when you are working,” a London police officer told Breitbart News in December 2015. Also in December 2015, a police officer from Lancashire in northern England told the Daily Mail that, “there are Muslim areas of Preston that, if we wish to patrol, we have to contact local Muslim community leaders to get their permission.”

 

Germany also has its problems with no-go zones. In July 2015, a routine traffic stop in Gelsenkirchen turned into a nightmare when officers tried to carry out their duty. “During the arrest, the two officers were surrounded by about 50 members of a large family who suddenly appeared on the side streets,” local news reported.

 

The mob tried to intimidate the officers into dropping the arrest, but when that failed, a 15-year-old attacked the officers from behind and started choking one. The situation only returned to calm after backup arrived. “It was only with the summoned reinforcements that the police were able to put the situation back under control and arrest the youthful attacker,” the report said.

 

“Every police commissioner and interior minister will deny it. But of course we know where we can go with the police car and where, even initially, only with the personnel carrier,” Bernhard Witthaut, then-head of Germany’s police union, said … READ ENTIRETY (Hundreds of Muslim ‘No-Go’ Zones Take Root in Europe; By Edmund Kozak; Lifezette.com; 12/13/16 7:42 AM)

 

It does not take a rocket scientist that violence and murders against Europeans are largely the end result of carte blanche immigration of Muslims. These same Muslims have not and will not assimilate into the Western Culture. Thanks to the errors of Multiculturalism these Muslims are encouraged to retain the Medieval mentality that Islam is stuck in globally.

 

This Medieval mentality has bred a Muslim hatred into second and third generation Muslims descended from first generation immigrants. Islam teaches superiority over all things non-Muslim. Hence, in refusing assimilation logically leads to resentment of 21st century Westerners not inclined to submit Medieval cultural thinking.

 

These next-gen Muslims then are attracted to the concepts of what Westerners call Radical Islam. Enter Islamic terrorism into a European society that Multiculturalist politicians are in self-deceived denial which if continues, will likely result in the END of Western heritage that will be subsumed into an Islamized continent.

 

This Multiculturalist idiocy MUST NOT be allowed to metastasize in America! I wish I could use the phrase “not gain a toe-hold” in America, but thanks to the Obama years, Medieval-minded Muslim have already been brought in en masse to enlarge American-hating Muslim communities that have already formed non-assimilation zones in the U.S. of A.

 

VIDEO: John Guandolo Moment: The Jihadist-Leftist Matrix Unveiled.

 

Posted by The Glazov Gang

Published on Jun 3, 2017

 

John Guandolo Moment: The Jihadist-Leftist Matrix Unveiled.
President (“Understanding The Threat”)
—————————————————————–
Please support The Glazov Gang because we are a fan-generated show and need your help to keep going. Make a contribution or set up a monthly pledge. Thank you!

https://www.gofundme.com/GlazovGang

PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr… [TinyURL version: http://tinyurl.com/y942kvef]

Follow Us Here:
Site: http://jamieglazov.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang
TWITTER: https://twitter.com/JamieGlazov
YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheFMPMG

 JRH 6/5/17 (Hat Tip: The Counter Jihad Report)

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

Islam’s Conquest of America One Town at a Time

 

By John Guandolo

June 5, 2017

Understanding The Threat

 

From Minneapolis (MN) to Hamtramck (MI) to Falls Church (VA) to Paterson (NJ) and many other towns and cities across the fifty states, the Islamic Movement is quietly conquering America.

 

The federal government sleeps, many state governments – including those controlled by Republicans – do their best to accommodate muslims waging Civilization Jihad against America, and the hard-left Marxists – including nearly all of the local and national media – are collaborators in the enemy’s efforts.

 

As UTT has previously reportedMinneapolis, Minnesota is currently enemy-held territory and will require force to take back.

 

Somali Muslims in Minneapolis

 

Hamtramck, Michigan is a small suburb of Detroitistan, and is the first town in America to have a majority muslim city council.  This formerly Polish-Catholic town has been overrun by sharia-adherent muslims who have already achieved accommodations for sharia in the community.

 

Falls Church, Virginia is home to the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas’ Dar al Hijra Islamic Center.  The Muslim Brotherhood leader of Dar al Hijra, Sheikh Shaker Elsayed (former President of the MB’s Muslim American Society), recently gave a lecture promoting female genital mutilation.  Dar al Hijra is a jihadi factory whose property is owned by the MB’s bank NAIT (North American Islamic Trust).

 

Al Qaeda’s Anwar al Awlaki was the Imam of the Dar al Hijra beginning in January 2001 and serving for over a year there.

 

The community around Dar al Hijra has been taken over by sharia-adherent muslims.  Law enforcement calls the two twin apartment buildings in the area “Taliban Towers,” and the number of jihadis in this area of Northern Virginia, only minutes from the nation’s capital, is significant.

 

Historically, Paterson, New Jersey has been a melting pot of Irish, Germans, Dutch, Italians, Eastern Europeans and others.  Christians and Jews made a home in this town approximately 20 miles outside of New York City.

 

Now, estimates put the number of muslims in Paterson at over 30% of the total population.  This number – possibly over 40,000 – makes Paterson, New Jersey the town with the one of the highest concentrations of muslims in the United States.  Many Turks and Syrians are a part of the muslim community, but the majority are Palestinians/Hamas.  Many citizens are concerned for their safety and security.

Muslims on the streets of New York City near Trump Tower on June 1, 2017

 

What do these four communities – Paterson, Falls Church, Minneapolis, and Hamtramck – have in common?

 

  • Muslims concentrated their efforts in these communities, built up their numbers, and then asked for accommodations.  Once their numbers were significant enough, they made DEMANDS of local officials to accommodate sharia.

 

  • Islamic leaders (read: Muslim Brotherhood et al) purchased numerous plots of land in these communities – often with funds from Saudi Arabia – and began building of Mosques/Islamic Centers, Islamic schools, etc.

 

  • Once the mosques were built, land immediately around the mosque was purchased for muslims and, over time, muslims began occupying the land around the mosque up to a radius of approximately 3 miles.

 

  • Islamic organizations (read: Muslim Brotherhood) began outreaching to local Christian and Jewish leaders, as well as law enforcement and elected officials with positive results.  The majority of Pastors and Rabbis stood/stand with jihadis (“terrorists”) and publicly defend them because the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Interfaith Outreach” efforts work; many elected officials believe they “have to” meet with jihadi leaders to show how “progressive and open minded” they are; and law enforcement remains unaware of the grave threat growing like a cancer in their communities.

 

  • Collaborators in the media wrote/write glowing stories about how wonderful the muslims are and defend them right up to and, in some cases, after they kill Americans (eg New York Times defending Anwar al Awlaki after the U.S. government killed him because he was the Al Qaeda leader in Yemen).

 

 

  • Elected officials defend and even promote the jihadis. Example: Mayor Jones in Paterson, NJ raised the Palestinian flag over the City Hall and declared “Palestinian-American Day.”

 

Jihadis celebrating “Palestinian-American Day” in Paterson, NJ

 

Al Qaeda jihadi Anwar al Awlaki (R) and citizen Patricia Morris (L) who organized a “vigil” at the MB/Hamas Dar al Hijra Islamic Center after the 9/11/01 attacks on the United States

 

Cities which stand up against this onslaught, at least under the previous administration, find themselves fighting a lawsuit from the Department of Justice and U.S. Muslim Brotherhood groups.  In Bernard Township, NJ the town council said no to Islamic leaders’ request to build an Islamic center/mosque for a number of reasons.  The DoJ and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Center of Basking Ridge sued and forced the city to allow the mosque be built.

 

As each day goes by the problem gets worse and the enemy digs in and enhances their fighting positions in the United States.

 

UTT encourages all Americans to pay attention to what is going on around them in their community.  The enemy is inside the wall.  A muslim representing an Islamic organization has a 99.9% probability of being a jihadi because all of the prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are jihadi/hostile as a matter of fact.  Islamic leaders may give a friendly appearance, but they want what ISIS an Al Qaeda want – an Islamic state under sharia.

 

What are you doing to prevent your town from surrendering to the jihadis in your community?  Are you holding your leaders accountable?  Are you boldly speaking truth?  Do you understand the threat?

 

Sheriffs and Pastors are the most important people in this war.  We will attain victory when sheriff’s and their deputies understand the threat and aggressively go after it.  Law Enforcement can only do this if the citizens also understand the threat.  Pastors are the key to ensuring that happens, so they must speak truth in love to open the eyes of the American people.

_________________

Multiculturalism Destroying Europe – Is USA Next?

John R. Houk

© June 5, 2017

__________________

Islam’s Conquest of America One Town at a Time

 

Copyright 2017. Understanding the Threat. All rights reserved.

 

UTT Mission

 

Understanding the Threat provides threat-focused strategic and operational consultation, training, and education for federal, state, and local leadership and agencies in government, the private sector, and for private citizens. UTT is the only organization in America which is training leaders, elected officials, law enforcement, military personnel, and citizens, about the Global Islamic Movement and the jihadi networks in communities around the nation.  UTT is also the only organization showing security professionals and state leaders how to locate and map out jihadi organizations, locate jihadis, and dismantle the network at the local and state level. While UTT briefs and teaches about many of the threats external and internal to the United States, its primary concern is the threats to the Republic and the West in general from the Global Islamic Movement.

 

About John Guandolo

 

John Guandolo is the Founder of UnderstandingtheThreat.com, an organization dedicated to providing strategic and operational threat-focused consultation, education, and training for federal, state and local leadership and agencies, and designing strategies at all levels of the community to defeat the enemy.

 

Mr. Guandolo is a 1989 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy who took a commission as an Officer in the United States Marine Corps. He served with  READ THE REST

 

Clair Lopez at CPAC: Civilization Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood in the USA and Canada


clair-lopez-former-cia

Clair Lopez educated listeners about the reality of Islamic Civilization Jihad in action against the USA and Canada at CPAC.

 

JRH 2/27/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Clair Lopez at CPAC: Civilization Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood in the USA and Canada

stealth-jihad 

By Baron Bodissey

Originally Gates of Vienna

February 26, 2017

The Counter Jihad Report

 

Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert who focuses on national defense, Islam, Iran, and counterterrorism issues. She is a former career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, and is now a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy.

 

Ms. Lopez spoke at a CPAC event on Thursday. Below is a video of the brief talk she gave about stealth Islamization and sharia in North America:

 

VIDEO: Claire Lopez FULL SPEECH- CPAC 2017

 

Posted by Right Side Broadcasting

Published on Feb 23, 2017

 

_________________

About The Counter Jihad Report

 

There is an urgent need for the public to become informed about the Global Islamic Jihad Movement. We must demand from our leaders that they become familiar with Islamic Law and jihadist ideology so that our counterterrorism policies can better protect us from this growing threat.

 

This blog is mainly a news aggregating site but also includes an extensive library of resources for studying Islam and networking with other Counter Jihad activists. My goal has been to pull from a variety of the most trusted and reliable sources to educate the public on the counter jihad movement. The many RSS feeds and counterjihad twitter feed in the sidebar are meant to provide a time saving jumping off point to access all the headlines and breaking news.

 

My Interest in Islamic Jihad stems from the 1983 Hezbollah truck bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in which my cousin, Ken Haas, was killed. Ken left a career as a philosophy professor to work for the CIA and was the Station Chief in Beirut. He and his wife of one year had just finished lunch in Ken’s office at the Embassy and kissed good-bye. She had driven back to their apartment where she heard the explosion. After several agonizing days READ THE REST

 

Palestinians threaten to downgrade US relations if Trump moves embassy to Jerusalem


call-whine1-1-for-wambulance

Check out this threat from the Palestinian Authority if the USA moves its embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem:

 

“If that takes place, the Palestinian side would have to sever its ties with the official staff of the illegal US embassy in Jerusalem,” claimed Fatah Central Committee member Nasser al-Kidwa, while speaking to the Palestinian newspaper Al-Quds. 

 

“In addition to that, there is the issue of the Palestinian political representative’s office in Washington,” al-Kidwa continued.  “It would also be necessary to close the office.”

 

Hmm … I don’t know about your response to that, but I say call the waaaambulance.

 

Perhaps President Trump should stop American taxpayer money to the no-people Arabs pretending to be a people who have never existed until the Yasser Arafat and Arab nations’ strongmen picked out the name from a hat. ORIGINALLY the British Mandate of Palestine was instituted for Jews to set up a Jewish State after WWI.

 

ERGO, the so-called Palestinian lies and threats can jump into a pig farm and wallow away. If the Palestine Authority, Hamas OR any other Islamic terrorist organization has a problem with America recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital City of Israel, it might be time for President Trump to help terrorists and their supporters to move somewhere else more historically common to their Islamic faith – ahem, OR ELSE!

 

JRH 1/24/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Palestinians threaten to downgrade US relations if Trump moves embassy to Jerusalem

 

By Jonathan Benedek

January 23, 2017

World Israel News

 

palestinians-protest-against-trump-jerusalem-embassy

Palestinians protest against Trump. (Nasser Ishtayeh/Flash90)

 

A Palestinian official claimed that the Palestinian Authority would downgrade its relations with the US and file a complaint with the UN if Trump moves the US embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. 

 

A senior official in Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party said that the PA should downgrade its diplomatic relationship with the United States if President Trump follows through with his plan to move the US embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

 

“If that takes place, the Palestinian side would have to sever its ties with the official staff of the illegal US embassy in Jerusalem,” claimed Fatah Central Committee member Nasser al-Kidwa, while speaking to the Palestinian newspaper Al-Quds. 

 

“In addition to that, there is the issue of the Palestinian political representative’s office in Washington,” al-Kidwa continued.  “It would also be necessary to close the office.”

 

The official added that the PA would no longer accept the US as a mediator between Israel and the PA.

 

“It would be necessary for the Palestinian side to make clear that it no longer officially considers the United States an interlocutor and that it cannot cooperate with it directly or through the Quartet,” he said.

 

The Quartet, comprised of the US, European Union, UN and Russia was launched in 2002 at the height of the Second Intifada in the spirit of the “Road Map” vision of US President George W. Bush for a two-state solution between Israel and the PA.

 

Moreover, al-Kidwa suggested that the PA may launch a complaint against the United States of America at the United Nations Security Council. Such an initiative would not go anywhere since the US, as a permanent member of the Security Council, would veto any measures against itself.

________________

World Israel News © Copyright 2017

 

About WORLD ISRAEL NEWS

 

News from Israel and Around the World

 

World Israel News (WIN) is a brand new online news outlet that presents readers with important news from Israel and around the world.

 

Our audience consists of people who are concerned about Israel and seek the truth. They want to know what’s really happening in Israel and how these events can impact the world.

 

The goal of this website is to provide easy access to the latest news from Israel, presented in a truthful, honest way, with a focus on maximizing the user experience.

 

Constructive debate and exchange of ideas about the Jewish State is warmly welcomed.


We encourage our readers to participate openly and honestly.

 

It’s important to constantly improve the World Israel News website. Therefore, feedback and suggestions are greatly encouraged and appreciated!

 

Click here to contact us.

 

Robert Spencer on Fox and Friends Discusses the Brussels Jihad Massacre


Robert Spencer promoting ISIS book

I discovered a Robert Spencer interview that was on the morning show Fox and Friends. Contrary to what Leftist Multiculturalists and Muslim Apologists might tell you, Spencer is quite the expert on all things Islam. He has taken that expertise to make a career out of exposing the dangers of Islam to Western Culture.

 

In this roughly three-minute video Spencer speaks of the idiocy lf Europe promoting the acceptance of Muslim refugees particularly those displaced by ISIS. Obama is in the same road that is happening in Europe in which numerous Islamic terrorist attacks and rapes are occurring. The context of the conversation is the recent ISIS attack via recruited Muslims in Brussels, Belgium where about thirty victims died and nearly 300 were injured by the bombs set off.

 

JRH 3/24/16 (Hat Tip: The Eaglesperch on the Google Community Anti-Islam)

Please Support NCCR

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

VIDEO: Robert Spencer on Fox and Friends Discusses the Brussels Jihad Massacre

 

 

Posted by JihadWatchVideo

Published on Mar 24, 2016

 

On March 24, 2016, Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer appeared on Fox and Friends to discuss the jihad massacre in Brussels and the likelihood of a similar attack happening on American soil.

 

Add Insult to Injury


Shamim Masih is a Christian Pakistani Human Rights activist and journalist. In this submission not only talks about the continuing cruel persecution of Christians in Pakistan but also highlights the plight of Pakistani Christians fleeing Pakistan being abused in Thailand. The fleeing Christians are tossed into Thai prisons and treated in nearly the same conditions Jews suffered in Nazi concentration camps during the Holocaust.

Below is a video that sums up Pakistani Christian persecution in their homeland and continued persecution experienced as fleeing refugees:

VIDEO: “THE HIDDEN TRUTH” Pakistani Christians in Thailand IDC jail by VOPCAR

 

Posted by Shakeel Maqbool Malik

Published on Mar 27, 2015

JRH 1/12/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Add Insult to Injury

Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire

By Shamim Masih

Sent: 1/11/2016 4:57 AM

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan is predominantly a Muslim country with its 97 percent of population adhering to Islam and the religious minorities make just a fraction of the population with varying estimates a few percent of the total population. The Constitution of Pakistan guaranteed the rights and protection of the all its citizens. Pakistan’s Founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, apparently promised freedom for the other religious minorities in his address to the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947 and Christians along with other religious minorities agreed and believed his promise. But unfortunately it didn’t come true and Pakistan is now not known as a responsible democracy. Recently many banned organization have been openly speaking against the rival sects, and other religions, resulting in the murder of many innocents from religious minorities. Pakistan has had a growing hatred problem and most of it is being driven from within the urban/semi-urban centers. Although Article 20 of the constitution deals with the “Freedom” to profess religion and to manage religious institutions and 36 is about the protection of minorities and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of minorities but the unfortunate reality is it has gone worse because of the growing violence against the religious minorities in Pakistan.

Based on the 10 incidents which took place in one month (October 2015), only in Punjab, USCIRF urged the U.S. State Department to enlist Pakistan among nine nations as “Countries of Particular Concern” (CPC) – a designation for those nations considered to be the worst violators of religious freedom. These include governments that “engage in or tolerate” systematic ongoing and unspeakable violations of religious freedom.

In the recent years, attacks on religious minorities have increased. Pakistan Islamic persecution of Christian’s may not be on the level of ISIS; nonetheless it is still quite horrific. The long sufferings in the country have been worsened by a sense of deprivation among the locals, and an inclusive political system is unable to achieve sustainable peace and stability. Thus many Christian families like Hindus have fled to other countries seeking protection and rights to live like other human beings. But this is very unfortunate that Pakistani Christians are not being welcomed in Europe like the EU welcomed million Muslims.

Samina Faisal – Pakistani Christian

According to BPCA, Samina, a Christian woman who had fled violence-ridden Karachi and sought refuge in Thailand. Samina died on Christmas Eve after she was arrested after her visa expired. She was arrested as part of an ongoing wave of arrests of foreigners deemed to have overstayed their visa and was detained in horrific conditions. Most Pakistani Christians, asylum seekers who were given that status by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHCR), but because Thailand refuses to sign the relevant Refugee Protocols that most other nations have, it does not recognize that status, and treats such Pakistani Christians as illegal immigrants. Therefore thousands of Pakistani Christians are either living in prisons or hiding places and if found are badly treated.

While I am writing this story, another man, Bashir Masih, reportedly died there. Sources confirmed that there are more than 200 people still in the lock ups. And many more are living a miserable life in hidden places fearing arrest at any time. Australia, Canada and many European countries have granted immigration visas to thousands of Pakistani and Afghans in the recent years. But the visa applications of Christians are turned down in thousands in the last year – 2015. In fact these applications are rejected without citing any convincing reasons, in fact many of the reasons [based] on frivolous grounds, which surprisingly cannot be challenged at any forum. Will the situation remain the same for Pakistani Christians?

Be Blessed,

Shamim Masih

The best way to SUPPORT Shamim’s Christian advocacy in Pakistan is via Western Union sending money with this LINK to a Western Union agent in Islamabad. Include Shamim’s phone – +92-300-642-4560

Correspondent, Pakistan Today – (About Pakistan Today), Blogger and Human Rights Activist

_____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links are by the Editor. Text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

© Shamim Masih

No Syrian Refugees to the U.S.


One of the biggest errors of the Obama Administration (OUT OF MANY ERRORS) is not only allowing but encouraging Muslim immigrants allegedly fleeing violence in their home nations. Brigitte Gabriel of ACT for America has sent out an email to raise grassroots support against Obama’s most recent plan to bring Syrian Muslim refugees into the USA. If any Syrians are allowed into our nation when ONLY Christians should immigrate who appreciate the USA rather than the hate-America Muslims with their typical rage.

JRH 11/9/15

Please Support NCCR

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

 

No Syrian Refugees to the U.S.

Send a Strong Message to Congress Today

By Brigitte Gabriel

Sent: 11/9/2015 7:05 AM

Sent by ACT for America

This is a dangerous time, and American citizens must be ready to take action to protect the country — now.

A refugee invasion is currently taking place in Europe and transforming the continent into Eurabia right before our very eyes.

Each day we see more of the devastating impact that hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees are having in welcoming countries. Many of these “refugees” are neither Syrian nor refugees. Many of them do not even speak Arabic, cannot tell you where they came from in Syria, and have no official documents. They make up their own names and there is no way to accurately vet them.

They are Afghans fleeing the Taliban; Eritreans fleeing their own oppressive government; and many thousands more hail from Iraq, Pakistan, and sub-Saharan Africa.

And to top it all off, ISIS has declared that they have already smuggled 4,000 of their members into Europe as refugees.

Areas housing the refugees have seen an increase in refugee rape, theft, gang activity, intimidation, and organized crime. German media are now reporting that thousands of these so-called “refugees” have already disappeared and are now in Germany — unaccounted for.

This is but a foreshadowing of what will take place in our nation soon, if our government is foolish enough to follow suit – and President Obama and his Administration already have announced plans to increase the number of refugees accepted by the U.S. to at least 100,000 next year.

Click HERE to see information about terrorists who came to the U.S. as refugees, only to commit terror attacks against Americans – including the Tsarnaev Brothers/Boston Bombers.

We must stop this insanity. If the citizens of this nation band together to speak a resounding “NO” to our elected officials – we can.

But we need your help.

ACT for America has successfully stopped other out of control policy trains by using the petition as a tool, gathering over 100,000 signatures.

There is power in numbers.

Please take just a few minutes of your valuable time, RIGHT NOW, to sign our Open Letter to the U.S. Congress – expressing your strong opposition to allowing ANY Syrian refugees into the United States.

Your name, along with tens of thousands of others who sign the petition, will be hand delivered to the leadership in the U.S. Congress by our Director of Government Relations. They will receive our message, loud and clear.

Silence and inactivity by the American grassroots will turn the U.S. into the same refugee nightmare that Europe and other nations are currently experiencing – a situation that won’t be easily rectified.

We must say “NO” NOW! We must stop any effort to bring tens of thousands of Syrian refugees into the U.S. – NOW – before it’s too late.

You can help make a difference by signing our Open Letter.

And, if you haven’t already, please join our growing Refugee Resettlement Working Group, so you can learn more about what you can do back home in your community to address this dangerous issue.

Our Working Group just held an important conference call with U.S. Representative Brian Babin, who has introduced legislation to stop Syrian refugees from coming to the United States. The Working Group will be actively supporting this bill and others like it, and will be working on other important tasks as well during the days ahead – all geared toward stopping this flood of refugees.

Please sign our open letter TODAY and forward this important message to everyone you know.

And always remember, if EACH of us does just a little, TOGETHER we can accomplish a lot.

Thank you.

Always devoted,

Brigitte Gabriel

DONATE to ACT for America

_______________________________

ACT for America
869 Lynnhaven Parkway,
Suite 113, #411
Virginia Beach, VA23452

 

About ACT for America

 

  • ACT for America is the largest and the only grassroots organization dedicated to national security and defeating terrorism. Today, ACT for Americahas expanded to 890 chapters and 280,000 members with a goal of 2,500 chapters and 1,000,000 members by the end of the decade.

 

  • ACT for Americais a non-partisan organization whose mission appeals to every American concerned about national security and terrorism -a powerful, organized, informed and mobilized voice.

 

  • ACT for Americaeducates citizens and elected officials to help impact national security policy & stands ready to take action as the only national security grassroots organization in America.

 

Who We Are

 

We are all Americans first -citizens who put their differences aside and came together to secure our country. Every American has one thing in common – “we are all interested” in keeping our homes, communities, states, and nation safe. What makes ACT for America different is that our members and supporters come from every background, age, gender, race, social status, political point of view, and lifestyle choice. Remember, national security is not a conservative, liberal, or libertarian issue – it’s an American issue.

 

What We Do

 

ACT for America is continuing to expand its nationwide volunteer chapter network that trains citizens to recognize and help prevent criminal activity and terrorism in the United States while preserving civil liberties protected by the United States Constitution.

 

ACT for America focuses on activities that enhance the national security standing of the United States — such as educating elected officials from the school board level to Congress. Many of these officials go on to pass vital legislation to this end. ACT has driven the education process towards the successful passage of 37 bills in 19 states over the last six years.

Russia Enters Syria – Is it Geopolitics or Prophecy?


A rebel group in Syria said to be backed by the US, claimed that Russian warplanes have hit its positions in the centrre (sic) of the country.

John R. Houk

© September 30, 2015

Pertaining to Israel, I have to be upfront. My view of the Jewish State is through the lens of the Holy Bible. As a Christian that means I am labelled a Christian Zionist. The kind of guy that Orthodox Jews mistrust due to history and the viewpoint that Christian evangelism is a threat to Judaism. I am also the kind of guy Left Wing (sometimes called Liberal and sometimes called Progressive) Jews loathe due to a non-secular pigeon-holing Israel in Biblical terms rather than a secular homeland for Jews to escape centuries of global antisemitism. Frankly I’m not claiming to know an Israeli/Jewish middle ground of the acceptance Christian Zionist friendship. I just pray a growing trust for Christians supporting Israel grows. At the same time I advise Jews – particularly Israeli Jews – to be wary of Western Leftists and of Progressive (Leftist) Christians who have disowned Biblical essentials and the reality of God Almighty.

NIV Quotes:

Ezek 39:27-29 “When I have brought them back from the nations and have gathered them from the countries of their enemies, I will show myself holy through them in the sight of many nations.” 28 “Then they will know that I am the LORD their God, for though I sent them into exile among the nations, I will gather them to their own land, not leaving any behind.” 29 “I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out my Spirit on the house of Israel, declares the Sovereign LORD.”

Amos 9:13-15 “The days are coming, declares the LORD, when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman and the planter by the one treading grapes. New wine will drip from the mountains and flow from all the hills. 14 I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. 15 I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them, says the LORD your God.”

Jer 30:2 “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you. 3 The days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will bring my people Israel and Judah back from captivity and restore them to the land I gave their forefathers to possess,’ says the LORD.”

Jer 31:10 “Hear the word of the LORD, O nations; proclaim it in distant coastlands: ‘He who scattered Israel will gather them and will watch over his flock like a shepherd.”

Jer 33:7 “I will bring Judah and Israel back from captivity and will rebuild them as they were before.”

Ezek 37:21-27 …..“I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. 22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms.” (Quotes taken from: Israel: The Greatest Sign; By Ken Marineau; Bible Probe for Christians and Messianic Jews)

Stratfor bills itself as a geopolitical intelligence firm and as such does not look geopolitically through a Biblical lens. From Stratfor I have learned the strategic importance of Israel from history to the present. A Stratfor email was sent out that I believe is no coincidence of the timing of Putin’s Russia demanding the USA to stop bombing inside Syria. Russia is deploying troops to Syria AND so far its own strafing is occurring where ISIS is not in control. Could it be that Russia is engaging the Syrian rebels trying to topple Bashar al-Assad – the same rebels not connected to the brutal Islamic terrorists of ISIS and al Nusra?

Does Secretary of State John Kerry (representing Obama Administration) sound clueless to Russian intentions or what?

VIDEO: Kerry: US Welcomes Russia Strikes if Target IS

 

Published by Associated Press

Published on Sep 30, 2015

Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the United States is prepared to welcome Russia’s actions in Syria if they are directed at the Islamic State group and al-Qaeda. (Sept. 30)

Subscribe for more Breaking News:
Get updates and more Breaking News here:

The Associated Press is the essential global news network, delivering fast, unbiased [cough] news from every corner of the world to all media platforms and formats.

AP’s commitment to You can read the rest of the lame self-promotion

Is Russia jockeying itself to be the prophetic invaders from the north of Israel that ironically lines up with the Stratfor analysis of the geopolitical importance of Israel? Here is the Stratfor tease from the PDF:

Israel exists in three conditions. First, it can be a completely independent state. This condition occurs when there are no major imperial powers external to the region. We might call this the David model.

Second, it can live as part of an imperial system — either as a subordinate ally, as a moderately autonomous entity or as a satrapy. In any case, it maintains its identity but loses room for independent maneuvering in foreign policy and potentially in domestic policy. We might call this the Persian model in its most beneficent form.

Finally, Israel can be completely crushed — with mass deportations and migrations, with a complete loss of autonomy and minimal residual autonomy. We might call this the Babylonian model.

Below is the Stratfor PDF reformatted for blogging:

JRH 9/30/15

Please Support NCCR

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

The Geopolitics of Israel: Biblical and Modern

STRATFOR PDF

Downloaded 9/30/15

Notification Sent: 9/29/2015 9:42 PM

This study was originally published by Stratfor in 2008 as the first in a series of monographs on the geopolitics of globally important countries.

Introduction

The founding principle of geopolitics is that place — geography — plays a significant role in determining how nations will behave. If that theory is true, then there ought to be a deep continuity in a nation’s foreign policy. Israel is a laboratory for this theory, since it has existed in three different manifestations in roughly the same place, twice in antiquity and once in modernity. If geopolitics is correct, then Israeli foreign policy, independent of policymakers, technology or the identity of neighbors, ought to have important common features. This is, therefore, a discussion of common principles in Israeli foreign policy over nearly 3,000 years.

For convenience, we will use the term “Israel” to connote all of the Hebrew and Jewish entities that have existed in the Levant since the invasion of the region as chronicled in the Book of Joshua. As always, geopolitics requires a consideration of three dimensions: the internal geopolitics of Israel, the interaction of Israel and the immediate neighbors who share borders with it, and Israel’s interaction with what we will call great powers, beyond Israel’s borderlands.

Table of Contents

Introduction 2

Table of Contents 3

Israel in Biblical Times 4

Israeli Geography and Borderlands 6

Israeli Geography and the Convergence Zone 11

Internal Geopolitics 13

Israel and the Great Powers 15

The Geopolitics of Contemporary Israel 16

Israel in Biblical Times

Israel has manifested itself three times in history. The first manifestation began with the invasion led by Joshua and lasted through its division into two kingdoms, the Babylonian conquest of the Kingdom of Judah and the deportation to Babylon early in the sixth century B.C.

FIRST MANIFESTATION (1200 BCE)

 

The second manifestation began when Israel was recreated in 540 B.C. by the Persians, who had defeated the Babylonians. The nature of this second manifestation changed in the fourth century B.C., when Greece overran the Persian Empire and Israel, and again in the first century B.C., when the Romans conquered the region.

SECOND MANIFESTATION

The second manifestation saw Israel as a small actor within the framework of larger imperial powers, a situation that lasted until the destruction of the Jewish vassal state by the Romans.

Israel’s third manifestation began in 1948, following (as in the other cases) an ingathering of at least some of the Jews who had been dispersed after conquests. Israel’s founding takes place in the context of the decline and fall of the British Empire and must, at least in part, be understood as part of British imperial history.

THIRD MANIFESTATION (1948)

 

 

Israeli Geography and Borderlands

At its height, under King David, Israel extended from the Sinai to the Euphrates, encompassing Damascus. It occupied some, but relatively little, of the coastal region, an area beginning at what today is Haifa and running south to Jaffa, just north of today’s Tel Aviv. The coastal area to the north was held by Phoenicia, the area to the south by Philistines. It is essential to understand that Israel’s size and shape shifted over time. For example, Judah under the Hasmoneans did not include the Negev but did include the Golan. The general locale of Israel is fixed. Its precise borders have never been.

Thus, it is perhaps better to begin with what never was part of Israel. Israel never included the Sinai Peninsula. Along the coast, it never stretched much farther north than the Litani River in today’s Lebanon. Apart from David’s extreme extension (and fairly tenuous control) to the north, Israel’s territory never stretched as far as Damascus, although it frequently held the Golan Heights. Israel extended many times to both sides of the Jordan but never deep into the Jordanian Desert. It never extended southeast into the Arabian Peninsula.

Israel consists generally of three parts. First, it always has had the northern hill region, stretching from the foothills of Mount Hermon south to Jerusalem. Second, it always contains some of the coastal plain from today’s Tel Aviv north to Haifa. Third, it occupies area between Jerusalem and the Jordan River — today’s West Bank. At times, it controls all or part of the Negev, including the coastal region between the Sinai to the Tel Aviv area. It may be larger than this at various times in history, and sometimes smaller, but it normally holds all or part of these three regions.

Israel is well-buffered in three directions. The Sinai Desert protects it against the Egyptians. In general, the Sinai has held little attraction for the Egyptians. The difficulty of deploying forces in the eastern Sinai poses severe logistical problems for them, particularly during a prolonged presence. Unless Egypt can rapidly move through the Sinai north into the coastal plain, where it can sustain its forces more readily, deploying in the Sinai is difficult and unrewarding. Therefore, so long as Israel is not so weak as to make an attack on the coastal plain a viable option, or unless Egypt is motivated by an outside imperial power, Israel does not face a threat from the southwest.

Israel is similarly protected from the southeast. The deserts southeast of Eilat-Aqaba are virtually impassable. No large force could approach from that direction, although smaller raiding parties could. The tribes of the Arabian Peninsula lack the reach or the size to pose a threat to Israel, unless massed and aligned with other forces. Even then, the approach from the southeast is not one that they are likely to take. The Negev is secure from that direction.

The eastern approaches are similarly secured by desert, which begins about 20 to 30 miles east of the Jordan River. While indigenous forces exist in the borderland east of the Jordan, they lack the numbers to be able to penetrate decisively west of the Jordan. Indeed, the normal model is that, so long as Israel controls Judea and Samaria (the modern-day West Bank), then the East Bank of the Jordan River is under the political and sometimes military domination of Israel — sometimes directly through settlement, sometimes indirectly through political influence, or economic or security leverage.

Israel’s vulnerability is in the north. There is no natural buffer between Phoenicia and its successor entities (today’s Lebanon) to the direct north. The best defense line for Israel in the north is the Litani River, but this is not an insurmountable boundary under any circumstance. However, the area along the coast north of Israel does not present a serious threat. The coastal area prospers through trade in the Mediterranean basin. It is oriented toward the sea and to the trade routes to the east, not to the south. If it does anything, this area protects those trade routes and has no appetite for a conflict that might disrupt trade. It stays out of Israel’s way, for the most part.

Moreover, as a commercial area, this region is generally wealthy, a factor that increases predators around it and social conflict within. It is an area prone to instability. Israel frequently tries to extend its influence northward for commercial reasons, as one of the predators, and this can entangle Israel in its regional politics. But barring this self-induced problem, the threat to Israel from the north is minimal, despite the absence of natural boundaries and the large population. On occasion, there is spillover of conflicts from the north, but not to a degree that might threaten regime survival in Israel.

The neighbor that is always a threat lies to the northeast. Syria — or, more precisely, the area governed by Damascus at any time — is populous and frequently has no direct outlet to the sea. It is, therefore, generally poor. The area to its north, Asia Minor, is heavily mountainous. Syria cannot project power to the north except with great difficulty, but powers in Asia Minor can move south. Syria’s eastern flank is buffered by a desert that stretches to the Euphrates.

Therefore, when there is no threat from the north, Syria’s interest — after securing itself internally — is to gain access to the coast. Its primary channel is directly westward, toward the rich cities of the northern Levantine coast, with which it trades heavily. An alternative interest is southwestward, toward the southern Levantine coast controlled by Israel.

THE GOLAN HEIGHTS

As can be seen, Syria can be interested in Israel only selectively. When it is interested, it has a serious battle problem. To attack Israel, it would have to strike between Mount Hermon and the Sea of Galilee, an area about 25 miles wide. The Syrians potentially can attack south of the sea, but only if they are prepared to fight through this region and then attack on extended supply lines. If an attack is mounted along the main route, Syrian forces must descend the Golan Heights and then fight through the hilly Galilee before reaching the coastal plain — sometimes with guerrillas holding out in the Galilean hills. The Galilee is an area that is relatively easy to defend and difficult to attack. Therefore, it is only once Syria takes the Galilee, and can control its lines of supply against guerrilla attack, that its real battle begins.

To reach the coast or move toward Jerusalem, Syria must fight through a plain in front of a line of low hills. This is the decisive battleground where massed Israeli forces, close to lines of supply, can defend against dispersed Syrian forces on extended lines of supply. It is no accident that Megiddo — or Armageddon, as the plain is sometimes referred to — has apocalyptic meaning. This is the point at which any move from Syria would be decided. But a Syrian offensive would have a tough fight to reach Megiddo, and a tougher one as it deploys on the plain.

On the surface, Israel lacks strategic depth, but this is true only on the surface. It faces limited threats from southern neighbors. To its east, it faces only a narrow strip of populated area east of the Jordan. To the north, there is a maritime commercial entity. Syria operating alone, forced through the narrow gap of the Mount Hermon-Galilee line and operating on extended supply lines, can be dealt with readily.

There is a risk of simultaneous attacks from multiple directions. Depending on the forces deployed and the degree of coordination between them, this can pose a problem for Israel. However, even here the Israelis have the tremendous advantage of fighting on interior lines. Egypt and Syria, fighting on external lines (and widely separated fronts), would have enormous difficulty transferring forces from one front to another. Israel, on interior lines (fronts close to each other with good transportation), would be able to move its forces from front to front rapidly, allowing for sequential engagement and thereby the defeat of enemies.

Unless enemies are carefully coordinated and initiate war simultaneously — and deploy substantially superior force on at least one front — Israel can initiate war at a time of its choosing or else move its forces rapidly between fronts, negating much of the advantage of size that the attackers might have.

There is another aspect to the problem of multifront war. Egypt usually has minimal interests along the Levant, having its own coast and an orientation to the south toward the headwaters of the Nile. On the rare occasions when Egypt does move through the Sinai and attacks to the north and northeast, it is in an expansionary mode. By the time it consolidates and exploits the coastal plain, it would be powerful enough to threaten Syria. From Syria’s point of view, the only thing more dangerous than Israel is an Egypt in control of Israel. Therefore, the probability of a coordinated north-south strike at Israel is rare, is rarely coordinated and usually is not designed to be a mortal blow. It is defeated by Israel’s strategic advantage of interior lines.

Israeli Geography and the Convergence Zone

Therefore, it is not surprising that Israel’s first incarnation lasted as long as it did — some five centuries. What is interesting and what must be considered is why Israel (now considered as the northern kingdom) was defeated by the Assyrians and Judea, then defeated by Babylon. To understand this, we need to consider the broader geography of Israel’s location.

Israel is located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, on the Levant. As we have seen, when Israel is intact, it will tend to be the dominant power in the Levant. Therefore, Israeli resources must generally be dedicated for land warfare, leaving little over for naval warfare. In general, although Israel had excellent harbors and access to wood for shipbuilding, it never was a major Mediterranean naval power. It never projected power into the sea. The area to the north of Israel has always been a maritime power, but Israel, the area south of Mount Hermon, was always forced to be a land power.

The Levant in general and Israel in particular has always been a magnet for great powers. No Mediterranean empire could be fully secure unless it controlled the Levant. Whether it was Rome or Carthage, a Mediterranean empire that wanted to control both the northern and southern littorals needed to anchor its eastern flank on the Levant. For one thing, without the Levant, a Mediterranean power would be entirely dependent on sea lanes for controlling the other shore. Moving troops solely by sea creates transport limitations and logistical problems.

It also leaves imperial lines vulnerable to interdiction — sometimes merely from pirates, a problem that plagued Rome’s sea transport. A land bridge, or a land bridge with minimal water crossings that can be easily defended, is a vital supplement to the sea for the movement of large numbers of troops. Once the Hellespont (now known as the Dardanelles) is crossed, the coastal route through southern Turkey, down the Levant and along the Mediterranean’s southern shore, provides such an alternative.

There is an additional consideration. If a Mediterranean empire leaves the Levant unoccupied, it opens the door to the possibility of a great power originating to the east seizing the ports of the Levant and challenging the Mediterranean power for maritime domination. In short, control of the Levant binds a Mediterranean empire together while denying a challenger from the east the opportunity to enter the Mediterranean. Holding the Levant, and controlling Israel, is a necessary preventive measure for a Mediterranean empire.

Israel is also important to any empire originating to the east of Israel, either in the Tigris- Euphrates basin or in Persia. For either, security could be assured only once it had an anchor on the Levant. Macedonian expansion under Alexander demonstrated that a power controlling Levantine and Turkish ports could support aggressive operations far to the east, to the Hindu Kush and beyond. While Turkish ports might have sufficed for offensive operations, simply securing the Bosporus still left the southern flank exposed. Therefore, by holding the Levant, an eastern power protected itself against attacks from Mediterranean powers.

CONVERGENCE ZONE

The Levant was also important to any empire originating to the north or south of Israel. If Egypt decided to move beyond the Nile Basin and North Africa eastward, it would move first through the Sinai and then northward along the coastal plain, securing sea lanes to Egypt. When Asia Minor powers such as the Ottoman Empire developed, there was a natural tendency to move southward to control the eastern Mediterranean. The Levant is the crossroads of continents, and Israel lies in the path of many imperial ambitions.

Israel therefore occupies what might be called the convergence zone of the Eastern Hemisphere. A European power trying to dominate the Mediterranean or expand eastward, an eastern power trying to dominate the space between the Hindu Kush and the Mediterranean, a North African power moving toward the east, or a northern power moving south — all must converge on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean and therefore on Israel. Of these, the European power and the eastern power must be the most concerned with Israel. For either, there is no choice but to secure it as an anchor.

Internal Geopolitics

Israel is geographically divided into three regions, which traditionally have produced three different types of people. Its coastal plain facilitates commerce, serving as the interface between eastern trade routes and the sea. It is the home of merchants and manufacturers, cosmopolitans — not as cosmopolitan as Phoenicia or Lebanon, but cosmopolitan for Israel. The northeast is hill country, closest to the unruliness north of the Litani River and to the Syrian threat. It breeds farmers and warriors. The area south of Jerusalem is hard desert country, more conducive to herdsman and warriors than anything else. Jerusalem is where these three regions are balanced and governed.

Photos: Source: Lehava Taybe via Israeli Pikiwiki project* – Source: Israel Defense Force** – Source: Avishai Teicher via Israeli Pikiwiki project*

[*Images provided under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license. These images have not been altered in any way other than cropped to fit available space. Terms of the license can be viewed here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/deed.en

**Image provided under the Creative Commons 2.0 Generic license. Terms of the license can be viewed here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 2.0/deed.en]

 

There are obviously deep differences built into Israel’s geography and inhabitants, particularly between the herdsmen of the southern deserts and the northern hill dwellers. The coastal dwellers, rich but less warlike than the others, hold the balance or are the prize to be pursued. In the division of the original kingdom between Israel and Judea, we saw the alliance of the coast with the Galilee, while Jerusalem was held by the desert dwellers. The consequence of the division was that Israel in the north ultimately was conquered by Assyrians from the northeast, while Babylon was able to swallow Judea.

Social divisions in Israel obviously do not have to follow geographical lines. However, over time, these divisions must manifest themselves. For example, the coastal plain is inherently more cosmopolitan than the rest of the country. The interests of its inhabitants lie more with trading partners in the Mediterranean and the rest of the world than with their countrymen. Their standard of living is higher, and their commitment to traditions is lower. Therefore, there is an inherent tension between their immediate interests and those of the Galileans, who live more precarious, warlike lives. Countries can be divided over lesser issues — and when Israel is divided, it is vulnerable even to regional threats.

We say “even” because geography dictates that regional threats are less menacing than might be expected. The fact that Israel would be outnumbered demographically should all its neighbors turn on it is less important than the fact that it has adequate buffers in most directions, that the ability of neighbors to coordinate an attack is minimal and that their appetite for such an attack is even less. The single threat that Israel faces from the northeast can readily be managed if the Israelis create a united front there. When Israel was overrun by a Damascus-based power, it was deeply divided internally.

It is important to add one consideration to our discussion of buffers, which is diplomacy. The main neighbors of Israel are Egyptians, Syrians and those who live on the east bank of Jordan. This last group is a negligible force demographically, and the interests of the Syrians and Egyptians are widely divergent. Egypt’s interests are to the south and west of its territory; the Sinai holds no attraction. Syria is always threatened from multiple directions, and alliance with Egypt adds little to its security. Therefore, under the worst of circumstances, Egypt and Syria have difficulty supporting each other. Under the best of circumstances, from Israel’s point of view, it can reach a political accommodation with Egypt, securing its southwestern frontier politically as well as by geography, thus freeing Israel to concentrate on the northern threats and opportunities.

Israel and the Great Powers

The threat to Israel rarely comes from the region, except when the Israelis are divided internally. The conquests of Israel occur when powers not adjacent to it begin forming empires. Babylon, Persia, Macedonia, Rome, Turkey and Britain all controlled Israel politically, sometimes for worse and sometimes for better. Each dominated it militarily, but none was a neighbor of Israel. This is a consistent pattern. Israel can resist its neighbors; danger arises when more distant powers begin playing imperial games. Empires can bring force to bear that Israel cannot resist.

Israel therefore has this problem: It would be secure if it could confine itself to protecting its interests from neighbors, but it cannot confine itself because its geographic location invariably draws larger, more distant powers toward Israel. Therefore, while Israel’s military can focus only on immediate interests, its diplomatic interests must look much further. Israel is constantly entangled with global interests (as the globe is defined at any point), seeking to deflect and align with broader global powers. When it fails in this diplomacy, the consequences can be catastrophic.

Israel exists in three conditions. First, it can be a completely independent state. This condition occurs when there are no major imperial powers external to the region. We might call this the David model.

Second, it can live as part of an imperial system — either as a subordinate ally, as a moderately autonomous entity or as a satrapy. In any case, it maintains its identity but loses room for independent maneuvering in foreign policy and potentially in domestic policy. We might call this the Persian model in its most beneficent form.

Finally, Israel can be completely crushed — with mass deportations and migrations, with a complete loss of autonomy and minimal residual autonomy. We might call this the Babylonian model.

The Davidic model exists primarily when there is no external imperial power needing control of the Levant that is in a position either to send direct force or to support surrogates in the immediate region. The Persian model exists when Israel aligns itself with the foreign policy interests of such an imperial power, to its own benefit. The Babylonian model exists when Israel miscalculates on the broader balance of power and attempts to resist an emerging hegemon. When we look at Israeli behavior over time, the periods when Israel does not confront hegemonic powers outside the region are not rare, but are far less common than when it is confronting them.

Given the period of the first iteration of Israel, it would be too much to say that the Davidic model rarely comes into play, but certainly since that time, variations of the Persian and Babylonian models have dominated. The reason is geographic. Israel is normally of interest to outside powers because of its strategic position. While Israel can deal with local challenges effectively, it cannot deal with broader challenges. It lacks the economic or military weight to resist. Therefore, it is normally in the process of managing broader threats or collapsing because of them.

The Geopolitics of Contemporary Israel

Let us then turn to the contemporary manifestation of Israel. Israel was recreated because of the interaction between a regional great power, the Ottoman Empire, and a global power, Great Britain. During its expansionary phase, the Ottoman Empire sought to dominate the eastern Mediterranean as well as both its northern and southern coasts. One thrust went through the Balkans toward central Europe. The other was toward Egypt. Inevitably, this required that the Ottomans secure the Levant.

For the British, the focus on the eastern Mediterranean was as the primary sea lane to India. As such, Gibraltar and the Suez were crucial. The importance of the Suez was such that the presence of a hostile, major naval force in the eastern Mediterranean represented a direct threat to British interests. It followed that defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I and breaking its residual naval power was critical. The British, as was shown at Gallipoli, lacked the resources to break the Ottoman Empire by main force. They resorted to a series of alliances with local forces to undermine the Ottomans. One was an alliance with Bedouin tribes in the Arabian Peninsula; others involved covert agreements with anti-Turkish, Arab interests from the Levant to the Persian Gulf. A third, minor thrust was aligning with Jewish interests globally, particularly those interested in the refounding of Israel. Britain had little interest in this goal, but saw such discussions as part of the process of destabilizing the Ottomans.

The strategy worked. Under an agreement with France, the Ottoman province of Syria was divided into two parts on a line roughly running east-west between the sea and Mount Hermon. The northern part was given to France and divided into Lebanon and a rump Syria entity. The southern part was given to Britain and was called Palestine, after the Ottoman administrative district Filistina. Given the complex politics of the Arabian Peninsula, the British had to find a home for a group of Hashemites, which they located on the east bank of the Jordan River and designated, for want of a better name, the Trans-Jordan — the other side of the Jordan. Palestine looked very much like traditional Israel.

The ideological foundations of Zionism are not our concern here, nor are the pre- and post- World War II migrations of Jews, although those are certainly critical. What is important for purposes of this analysis are two things: First, the British emerged economically and militarily crippled from World War II and unable to retain their global empire, Palestine included. Second, the two global powers that emerged after World War II — the United States and the Soviet Union — were engaged in an intense struggle for the eastern Mediterranean after World War II, as can be seen in the Greek and Turkish issues at that time. Neither wanted to see the British Empire survive, each wanted the Levant, and neither was prepared to make a decisive move to take it.

Both the United States and the Soviet Union saw the re-creation of Israel as an opportunity to introduce their power to the Levant. The Soviets thought they might have some influence over Israel due to ideology. The Americans thought they might have some influence given the role of American Jews in the founding. Neither was thinking particularly clearly about the matter, because neither had truly found its balance after World War II. Both knew the Levant was important, but neither saw the Levant as a central battleground at that moment. Israel slipped through the cracks.

Once the question of Jewish unity was settled through ruthless action by David Ben Gurion’s government, Israel faced a simultaneous threat from all of its immediate neighbors. However, as we have seen, the threat in 1948 was more apparent than real. The northern Levant, Lebanon, was fundamentally disunited — far more interested in regional maritime trade and concerned about control from Damascus. It posed no real threat to Israel. Jordan, settling the eastern bank of the Jordan River, was an outside power that had been transplanted into the region and was more concerned about native Arabs — the Palestinians — than about Israel. The Jordanians secretly collaborated with Israel. Egypt did pose a threat, but its ability to maintain lines of supply across the Sinai was severely limited and its genuine interest in engaging and destroying Israel was more rhetorical than real. As usual, the Egyptians could not afford the level of effort needed to move into the Levant. Syria by itself had a very real interest in Israel’s defeat, but by itself was incapable of decisive action.

The exterior lines of Israel’s neighbors prevented effective, concerted action. Israel’s interior lines permitted efficient deployment and redeployment of force. It was not obvious at the time, but in retrospect we can see that once Israel existed, was united and had even limited military force, its survival was guaranteed. That is, so long as no great power was opposed to its existence.

From its founding until the Camp David Accords re-established the Sinai as a buffer with Egypt, Israel’s strategic problem was this: So long as Egypt was in the Sinai, Israel’s national security requirements outstripped its military capabilities. It could not simultaneously field an army, maintain its civilian economy and produce all the weapons and supplies needed for war. Israel had to align itself with great powers who saw an opportunity to pursue other interests by arming Israel.

David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister (Public domain)

Josef Stalin, first Secretary-General of the Soviet Union (Public domain) – Robert Schuman, French prime minister, 1948 (Public domain)

Israel’s first patron was the Soviet Union — through Czechoslovakia — which supplied weapons before and after 1948 in the hopes of using Israel to gain a foothold in the eastern Mediterranean. Israel, aware of the risks of losing autonomy, also moved into a relationship with a declining great power that was fighting to retain its empire: France. Struggling to hold onto Algeria and in constant tension with Arabs, France saw Israel as a natural ally. And apart from the operation against Suez in 1956, Israel saw in France a patron that was not in a position to reduce Israeli autonomy. However, with the end of the Algerian war and the realignment of France in the Arab world, Israel became a liability to France and, after 1967, Israel lost French patronage.

Israel did not become a serious ally of the Americans until after 1967. Such an alliance was in the American interest. The United States had, as a strategic imperative, the goal of keeping the Soviet navy out of the Mediterranean or, at least, blocking its unfettered access. That meant that Turkey, controlling the Bosporus, had to be kept in the American bloc. Syria and Iraq shifted policies in the late 1950s and by the mid-1960s had been armed by the Soviets. This made Turkey’s position precarious: If the Soviets pressed from the north while Syria and Iraq pressed from the south, the outcome would be uncertain, to say the least, and the global balance of power was at stake.

The United States used Iran to divert Iraq’s attention. Israel was equally useful in diverting Syria’s attention. So long as Israel threatened Syria from the south, it could not divert its forces to the north. That helped secure Turkey at a relatively low cost in aid and risk. By aligning itself with the interests of a great power, Israel lost some of its room for maneuver: For example, in 1973, it was limited by the United States in what it could do to Egypt. But those limitations aside, it remained autonomous internally and generally free to pursue its strategic interests.

Celebrating the Camp David Accords, September 1978: Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, U.S. President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian President Anwar El-Sadat (Source: Bill Fitz-Patrick, public domain)

The end of hostilities with Egypt, guaranteed by the Sinai buffer zone, created a new era for Israel. Egypt was restored to its traditional position, Jordan was a marginal power on the east bank, Lebanon was in its normal, unstable mode, and only Syria was a threat. However, it was a threat that Israel could easily deal with. Syria by itself could not threaten the survival of Israel.

Following Camp David (an ironic name), Israel was in its Davidic model, in a somewhat modified sense. Its survival was not at stake. Its problems — the domination of a large, hostile population and managing events in the northern Levant — were subcritical (meaning that, though these were not easy tasks, they did not represent fundamental threats to national survival, so long as Israel retained national unity). When unified, Israel has never been threatened by its neighbors. Geography dictates against it.

Israel’s danger will come only if a great power seeks to dominate the Mediterranean Basin or to occupy the region between Afghanistan and the Mediterranean. In the short period since the fall of the Soviet Union, this has been impossible. There has been no great power with the appetite and the will for such an adventure. But 15 years is not even a generation, and Israel must measure its history in centuries.

It is the nature of the international system to seek balance. The primary reality of the world today is the overwhelming power of the United States. The United States makes few demands on Israel that matter. However, it is the nature of things that the United States threatens the interests of other great powers who, individually weak, will try to form coalitions against it. Inevitably, such coalitions will arise. That will be the next point of danger for Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint session of the U.S. Congress in March 2015 — warning of dangers to Israel if Washington reaches an accord with Iran. (Public domain)

In the event of a global rivalry, the United States might place onerous requirements on Israel. Alternatively, great powers might move into the Jordan River valley or ally with Syria, move into Lebanon or ally with Israel. The historical attraction of the eastern shore of the Mediterranean would focus the attention of such a power and lead to attempts to assert control over the Mediterranean or create a secure Middle Eastern empire. In either event, or some of the others discussed, it would create a circumstance in which Israel might face a Babylonian catastrophe or be forced into some variation of Persian or Roman subjugation.

Israel’s danger is not a Palestinian rising. Palestinian agitation is an irritant that Israel can manage so long as it does not undermine Israeli unity. Whether it is managed by domination or by granting the Palestinians a vassal state matters little. Nor can Israel be threatened by its neighbors. Even a unified attack by Syria and Egypt would fail, for the reasons discussed.

Israel’s real threat, as can be seen in history, lies in the event of internal division and/or a great power, coveting Israel’s geographical position, marshaling force that is beyond its capacity to resist. Even that can be managed if Israel has a patron whose interests involve denying the coast to another power.

Israel’s reality is this. It is a small country, yet must manage threats arising far outside of its region. It can survive only if it maneuvers with great powers commanding enormously greater resources. Israel cannot match the resources and, therefore, it must be constantly clever. There are periods when it is relatively safe because of great power alignments, but its normal condition is one of global unease. No nation can be clever forever, and Israel’s history shows that some form of subordination is inevitable. Indeed, it is to a very limited extent subordinate to the United States now.

For Israel, the retention of a Davidic independence is difficult. Israel’s strategy must be to manage its subordination effectively by dealing with its patron cleverly, as it did with Persia. But cleverness is not a geopolitical concept. It is not permanent, and it is not assured. And that is the perpetual crisis of Jerusalem.

________________________________

Russia Enters Syria – Is it Geopolitics or Prophecy?

John R. Houk

© September 30, 2015

________________________________

The Geopolitics of Israel: Biblical and Modern

 

www.Stratfor.com

221 West 6th Street

Austin, TX 78701

 

About Stratfor

 

Stratfor is a geopolitical intelligence firm that provides strategic analysis and forecasting to individuals and organizations around the world. By placing global events in a geopolitical framework, we help customers anticipate opportunities and better understand international developments.

 

We have two core offerings: online subscriptions and custom consulting services. Subscribers gain a thorough understanding of world events through full access to our analysis, published around the clock. Clients get direct access to our analysts and to our global networks, enabling them to better assess geopolitical risk, make strategic investments and expand into challenging regions.

 

Founded in 1996 by author George Friedman, Stratfor brings customers an incisive new approach to examining world affairs. Stratfor taps into a worldwide network of contacts and mines vast amounts of open-source information. Analysts then interpret the information by looking through the objective lens of geopolitics to determine how developments affect different regions, industries and markets.

 

Vision

 

Stratfor’s vision is to be the most respected provider of predictive intelligence services. Our core philosophy centers on the understanding that transformative world events are not random and are, indeed, predictable.

 

Building on nearly 20 years of experience as the world’s premier geopolitical intelligence firm, Stratfor develops constraint-based narratives for key trends around the globe — placing today’s events in context and forecasting tomorrow’s new developments well before they appear in the headlines.

 

Mission

 

Stratfor’s mission is to provide a strategic advantage for our clients and subscribers.

Stratfor produces accurate forecasts and intelligence reports for the globally engaged. The success of Stratfor’s predictive intelligence service is measured by our client’s ability to identify opportunities, make better decisions and manage risk through information that is timely, relevant and — above all else — actionable.

 

The Stratfor Difference

 

  • Analysis and forecasting capabilities for more than 175 countries

 

  • Unparalleled expertise in the world’s most complex environments

 

  • Clients get direct access to a team of experts

 

  • Accurate forecasting using proven geopolitical methodology

 

  • Multinational professionals who speak 29 languages and live in every region

 

  • Trusted partner of leading Fortune 500 companies, financial institutions, natural resource firms, nonprofits and high-net worth individuals

 

  • Proven track record maximizing investment opportunities

 

  • No political agenda and no national bias

 

  • Live subscriber support

 

“Whenever I want to understand the details behind world events, I turn to Stratfor. They have the most detailed and insightful analysis of world affairs and are miles ahead of mainstream media.”Muneer A. Satter; Satter Investment Management, LLC