Archive | October 2017

Balfour’s greatest of gifts

by Caroline Glick


This week Israel’s judo team was harassed and discriminated against by UAE officials when they tried to board a flight from Tel Aviv to Istanbul, en route to Abu Dhabi to participate in the Judo Grand Slam competition.

Apropos of nothing, UAE told the Israelis they would only be permitted to enter the UAE from Amman. And once they finally arrived at the competition, they were prohibited from competing under their national flag. Lowlights of the UAE’s shameful bigotry included the forcing Tal Flicker to receive his gold medal under the international Judo association’s flag with the association’s theme song, rather than Israel’s national anthem playing in the background and the sight of a Moroccan femail judoka literally running away from her Israeli opponent rather than shake hands with her.

The discrimination that Israel’s judokas suffered is newsworthy because it’s appalling, not because it is rare. It isn’t rare. Israeli athletes and performers, professors, students and tourists in countries throughout the world are regularly discriminated against for being Israeli Jews. Concerts are picketed or canceled. Israelis are denied educational opportunities and teaching positions.

Israeli brands are boycotted and Israeli shops are picketed from Montreal to Brooklyn to Johannesburg.

The simple act of purchasing Israeli cucumbers has become a political statement in countries around the world.

And of course, there is the world of diplomacy, where the nations of the world seem to have flushed the news of Israel’s establishment 70 years ago down the memory hole. The near-consensus view of UN institutions and to a growing degree, of EU institutions, not to mention the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, is that the Jewish exile should never have ended. The Jews should have remained scattered and at the mercy of the nations of the world, forever.

In the face of the growing discrimination Israelis suffer and rejection Israel endures, how are we to look at the centennial of the Balfour Declaration, which we will mark next Thursday? One hundred years ago, on November 2, 1917, Arthur Balfour, foreign secretary of Great Britain, detonated a bomb whose aftershocks are still being felt in Britain and worldwide.

That day, Balfour issued a letter to Lord Walter Rothschild, the leader of the British Jewish community.

The letter, which quickly became known as the Balfour Declaration, effectively announced the British Empire supported an end of the Jewish people’s 1,800-year exile and its return to history, as a free nation in its homeland – the Land of Israel.

In Balfour’s immortal words, “His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object.”

The Palestine Arab leadership at the time rejected his statement. Shortly thereafter the Arabs initiated a terrorist onslaught against the Jewish community in the Land of Israel that has continued, more or less without interruption, ever since.

And nothing has changed since then. The Palestinians have not moved an inch in a hundred years. PLO chief and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas now demands that Britain officially renounce the Balfour Declaration and apologize for having issued it as if Lord Balfour was still foreign secretary and David Lloyd George was still prime minster.

Their growing chorus of supporters at the UN, throughout the Islamic world, and in Europe is similarly stuck in 1917.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t believe that the enduring Arab and international rejection of Israel’s right to exist mitigates the significance of the Balfour Declaration. Next week he will travel to London to participate in the centennial commemorations of the Balfour Declarations at the side of British Prime Minister Theresa May.

May said on Wednesday that she is “proud” to commemorate the declaration. In her words, “We are proud of the role that we played in the creation of the State of Israel and we certainly mark the centenary with pride.”

This was certainly nice of her. But May also felt it necessary to tip her hat to the Balfour haters. So she added, “We must also be conscious of the sensitivities that some people do have about the Balfour Declaration and we recognize that there is more work to be done. We remain committed to the two-state solution in relation to Israel and the Palestinians.”

This bring us back to the Palestinians, and the UAE, and the protesters who will be screaming out against Balfour and David Lloyd George from one end of Britain to the other next week demanding their declaration be withdrawn and history rolled back.

These people are not fringe elements. They have lots of people in positions of power in Britain who agree with them.

main opposition party is being led by an ardent Israel-basher. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn announced Monday that he will not be participating the Balfour centennial ceremonies. And that makes sense.

It would be awkward for a man who was elected and reelected after calling Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists his “friends,” to be celebrating Britain’s role in establishing the state his friends are working to destroy.

Corbyn’s boycott, and his very rise to power, are clear signs that Balfour’s legacy is a mixed bag.

Except that it isn’t a mixed bag.

At a very deep level, Israel owes its existence to the Balfour Declaration. This is true not because the Balfour Declaration changed the way the world viewed the Jews. It manifestly did not – not in its own time, and not today.

In fact it is richly ironic that the Palestinians and their supporters blame the British for the establishment of Israel. Shortly after the Balfour Declaration was issued, British authorities, particularly on the ground in the Middle East, did everything they possibly could to cancel it.

In 1920, British military officers asked the local Arab strongman Haj Amin al-Husseini to incite a pogrom in Jerusalem over Passover. Husseini’s thugs murdered four Jews and wounded many more. The purpose of the pogrom was to convince the British Parliament to cancel the Balfour Declaration.

The plan didn’t work. Lloyd George and Balfour and their colleagues weren’t interested in abandoning their three year old declaration.

Two years later the League of Nations established the British Mandate for Palestine on the basis of the Balfour Declaration. But the seeds of doubt were duly sown.

Almost immediately after the League of Nations issued the Mandate, the British carved off three-quarters of the territory earmarked for the Jewish national home to create Trans-Jordan.

It was largely downhill from there.

The Mandate required Britain to fulfill the promise of the Balfour Declaration, by among other things facilitating mass Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel. Yet, with each successive wave of Arab terrorism against the Jews, the British issued restrictions on Jewish immigration and limitations on the right of Jews to purchase land that grew harsher with each iteration. These actions paved the way for the 1939 White Paper which abrogated the Balfour Declaration in all but name. It renounced Zionism, and effectively ruled out any possibility of a viable Jewish state being established by blocking Jewish immigration and land purchase.

It also sealed the fate of the Jews of Europe, by denying them the ability to flee to the one place on earth that wanted them – their home.

British antagonism to Jews and their national liberation movement only grew in the postwar years. News of the Holocaust didn’t move the British to fulfill their commitment under the Balfour Declaration. Instead, they threw Holocaust survivors into prison camps in Cyprus and raised the Arab Legion, the most powerful Arab military force in the 1948-49 War of Independence. Britain only recognized Israel in 1950.

So again why is Netanyahu making the trip to London? On the face of it, aside from Germany, no country is less deserving of Jewish gratitude than Britain.

But not everything is cut and dried.

For while it is true that the Balfour Declaration didn’t change the world, or even the British, it changed the Jews.

After 1,800 years of dispersion and hopelessness, here was the British Empire saying that the time had come for the Jews to reconstitute themselves as a free nation in their land.

Theodor Herzl had held the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, 20 years earlier. Zionist pioneers laid the cornerstone for Tel Aviv and established the first kibbutz eight years earlier.

These were all significant milestones.

But until Great Britain announced it supported Zionism, the vast majority of Jews thought the national liberation movement was doomed to fail just like all of its messianic predecessors.

Suddenly, Balfour made it practically possible to achieve the goal of national liberation. Under the League of Nations Mandate, Jews were given a legally binding international charter for the reconstitution of their national homeland.

Just as importantly, if not more importantly, the Balfour Declaration ignited the imaginations and passions of Jews throughout the world. For the first time since the fall of Betar, Jews, dispersed throughout the nations dared to believe that the reconstitution of Israel could happen in their lifetimes.

True, for 6 million Jews in Europe, it was not realized in time. But here too the Balfour Declaration was significant. The legitimacy that the Balfour Declaration conferred on Zionism in the eyes of world Jewry gave the Jews an answer to Hitler. As the Nazis rose to power, for the first time, the Jews knew what they needed to do. For the first time, the majority of world Jewry embraced Zionism.

After the Holocaust, that support became a demand. And due to the Balfour Declaration, the nations of the world – particularly the US – were empowered to stand up to the British government and demand that it step aside and allow the Jews to establish their state.

The Balfour Declaration didn’t change the way non-Jews felt about the Jews. It empowered the Jews to change their fate. And it gave license to the nations of the world to support them – if only fleetingly in most cases – and so allowed history to change in a revolutionary way for the Jewish people.

Israel’s first prime minister David Ben-Gurion famously said, “It doesn’t matter what the gentiles say. It matters what the Jews do.”

Ben-Gurion’s statement was harsh. But it was also accurate, by and large. Generally speaking, the nations of the world have not supported the Jews, not in the Diaspora and not in Israel. Jewish survival has always been more a function of Jewish action than gentile sympathy.

But while accurate in the general sense, the routine hostility of the nations of the world mustn’t make us overlook the enduring significance of their acts of friendship. The Balfour Declaration didn’t change the whole world. It changed the Jewish world. It didn’t change the Jewish world by creating a state for us. It changed the Jewish world by helping us to believe that we could fulfill our longing to return to Zion. And once we believed it, we did it.

So Netanyahu is right to travel to London to show his appreciation for the Balfour Declaration – protests or no protests. Indeed, he would be right to go to London even if Corbyn were prime minister and no one greeted him at the airport. By showing our enduring appreciation for what the British government did for the Jews a hundred years ago, we may inspire new unknown Balfours to stand with us tomorrow, even as the chorus of Balfour-haters drones on and on and on.

8 Reasons ‘Transgenderism’ Is Politics, Not Science

Joseph Farah
Posted with permission from WND

Somebody has to state the obvious when it comes to the political agenda of “transgenderism.”

There’s no science behind it. There’s no common sense behind it. There’s no morality behind it.

Yet, our society has embraced the idea of allowing gender-confused small children to determine for themselves whether they are boys or girls and want to choose chemical castration and/or sterilization – ignoring the dire medical and health risks such procedures pose.

That’s why I appreciate Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, for speaking out boldly against the advance of political correctness and for sound medical practices.

“Chemical castration is what you’re doing when you put any biologically normal child on puberty blockers,” she said recently. “It’s treating puberty like a disease, arresting a normal process which is critical to normal development and bad for kids.”

I’m not a doctor, but this seems like simple common sense to me. What about you?

She continues: “Sterilization: not good for kids. Prepping them for what will likely result in a case in girls a double mastectomy at 16 – not how you treat depression or anxiety, and I have plenty of experience treating teenagers with depression, anxiety, even suicidal depression. Indoctrinating pre-school kids with the lie that you can be trapped in the wrong body, again, that’s disrupting their normal reality testing and cognitive development. Those things are abusive.”

Again, isn’t this just self-evident? Or shouldn’t it be? Does one really need a medical degree to see the truth?

Here’s more straight talk from Dr. Cretella: “As to the studies, there are two that I am aware of that claim affirming your child’s gender confusion is good for them. Number one, it assumes that coaching a child into a fixed-false belief is mentally healthy. Science doesn’t allow you to assume your conclusion. Number two, those studies are extremely small. Number three, those studies are very short term. And number four, the control group of ‘mentally healthy children’ are the siblings, most of them are siblings of the trans-identifying child. Oh, and there’s a number five, the parents were the ones evaluating the mental health of the children. This is not science. … I don’t think you need to have an M.D. or a Ph.D to know that’s not science – that’s ideology masquerading as science.”

How did we get to the point in our society when parents and teachers and health professionals are resorting to pseudo-scientific experimentation on children?

It’s hard to believe how fast we are traveling down this slippery slope of gender indoctrination.

Our laws are being change to accommodate this madness, but, as Dr. Cretella points out, innocent children are being physically and emotional abused by this insidious ideology that has infiltrated the medical establishment.

“As explained in my 2016 peer reviewed article, ‘Gender Dysphoria in Children and Suppression of Debate,’ professionals who dare to question the unscientific party line of supporting gender transition therapy will find themselves maligned and out of a job,” Dr. Cretella has charged.

Her credentials affirm her expertise in this area.

“I speak as someone intimately familiar with the pediatric and behavioral health communities and their practices,” she writes. “I am a mother of four who served 17 years as a board certified general pediatrician with a focus in child behavioral health prior to leaving clinical practice in 2012. For the last 12 years, I have been a board member and researcher for the American College of Pediatricians, and for the last three years I have served as its president. I also sat on the board of directors for the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity from 2010 to 2015. This organization of physicians and mental health professionals defends the right of patients to receive psychotherapy for sexual identity conflicts that is in line with their deeply held values based upon science and medical ethics. I have witnessed an upending of the medical consensus on the nature of gender identity. What doctors once treated as a mental illness, the medical community now largely affirms and even promotes as normal.”

But what are the facts?

“The transition-affirming view holds that children who ‘consistently and persistently insist’ that they are not the gender associated with their biological sex are innately transgender,” she writes. “The fact that in normal life and in psychiatry, anyone who ‘consistently and persistently insists’ on anything else contrary to physical reality is considered either confused or delusional is conveniently ignored.”

Yet, the new “transition-affirming protocol” advises parents to treat their children as the gender they desire, and to place them on puberty blockers around age 11 or 12 if they are gender dysphoric. If by age 16, the children still insist that they are trapped in the wrong body, they are placed on cross-sex hormones, and biological girls may obtain a double mastectomy.

Needless, these are risky, life-changing decisions being made by children. Some surgeons have even been advocating for genital reassignment surgeries for minors, according to Dr. Cretella.

This is where the cultural establishment is leading us at a mind-numbing pace. The media love it and embrace it. The education system is jumping on the freight train. The medical community is already largely on board. And the legal system is running point.

Another example is the news that Saturday a drag queen dressed as a satantic-looking witch read books to young children at the Michelle Obama Library in Long Beach, California, as part of the library’s celebration of “LGBTQ History Month.”

Here are eight hard facts Dr. Cretella offers to anyone willing to listen to the other side in this debate – and there very much is another side that needs to be explored for the sake of our children.

1. Twin studies prove no one is born “trapped in the body of the wrong sex.”

2. Gender identity is malleable, especially in young children.

3. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria have not been proven safe.

4. There are no cases in the scientific literature of gender-dysphoric children discontinuing blockers.

5. Cross-sex hormones are associated with dangerous health risks.

6. Neuroscience shows that adolescents lack the adult capacity needed for risk assessment.

7. There is no proof that affirmation prevents suicide in children.

8. Transition-affirming protocol has not solved the problem of transgender suicide.

I strongly recommend everyone read her complete findings and share them with everyone you know.

This crazy cultural tide needs to be reversed – with real science, real common sense and real morality.

Stop the child abuse now.

Water, Science & The Bible

Joseph Farah
Posted with permission from WND

Editor’s note: Today’s commentary is based on a talk Farah is giving to Chuck Missler’s Koinonia Institute in Idaho this weekend.

Maybe you saw the headlines in January of this year.

The news reports were all based on a study published by Earth and Planetary Science Letters based on new research by Zdenek Futera at the University College Dublin in Ireland and several collaborators. It backs up previous work by others published in 2014 in the Scientific American and the theory known as “primary water.”

Why am I telling you all this?

Because the theory and the studies hold at least three world-shaking consequences:

  • That far from Earth having a limited amount of fresh water for its teeming population, there may be an unlimited amount deep beneath its mantle.
  • That virtually unreported in these findings is the fact that, if correct, this theory and these findings would seem to confirm the biblical account of the great Flood in the time of Noah.
  • They could also provide a glimpse into future biblical prophecies about the period known as the “Kingdom of God” on Earth that the Bible predicts will occur after the return of Jesus the Messiah.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Let’s first look at what this startling news would mean for an increasingly fresh water-starved world. Here’s what secular scientists are saying about this discovery.

While about 71 percent of the earth is covered with water, 96.5 percent of it is saline and undrinkable ocean water. Surface water is constantly being recycled through evaporation and rainfall. Even the water we use from wells is mostly recycled as part of this process.

But if, as more scientific studies suggest, “primary water” deep beneath the mantle or crust of the Earth exceeds the amount found in all the planet’s oceans, there is hardly a shortage. If it can be extracted to the surface through natural processes or through deep-well drilling, supplies would be unlimited for a thirsty world.

“It’s actually the confirmation that there is a very, very large amount of water that’s trapped in a really distinct layer in the deep Earth,” said Graham Pearson, lead author of the 2014 study and a geochemist at the University of Alberta in Canada. “It translates into a very, very large mass of water, approaching the sort of mass of water that’s present in all the world’s oceans.”

Get Joseph Farah’s “The Restitution of All Things: Israel, Christians and the End of the Age.”

More scientists and researchers are coming to the conclusion that some of this “primary water” is still breaking through to the surface as a result of earthquakes just as the Genesis account of the Flood explained how the entire world was once covered with water. They are also theorizing that the vast reserves of highly pressurized “primary water” are actually causing quakes – again, just as the biblical Flood account described in Genesis 7:11 when “all the fountains of the great deep [were] broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.”

Of course, many people today consider that account simply a myth, legend, superstition.

What does science say?

It’s left with two options for what accounts for all of the Earth’s water:

  • It came from extraterrestrial sources – namely comets and asteroids;
  • The Earth itself is actually manufacturing water

The latest studies pointing to vast reserves of fresh water – or “primary water” – are being used to lend credence to the second option. Why? Because the previous theory could not begin to explain how water equivalent to or exceeding the water in all of the Earth’s oceans could have found itself deep beneath the planet’s mantle.

So maybe there is another explanation – God made the water.

Which option is easier to accept?

  • Comets and asteroids loaded with unimaginable amounts of water bombarded the Earth and left it, alone among the other observable planets in the solar system and beyond, with vast quantities of surface water. And, then there is the problem of where that water was created.
  • The Earth itself is a vast water-creating machine. And, then there is the problem of how that just happened naturally – without direction through chance.
  • Or God actually did create everything as the Genesis account says – the universe, the Earth and all life itself.

Each answer requires a certain degree of faith, I think you will agree.

As I was considering all this, I was gratified to find at least one scientist thinking along the same lines as me. His name is Andrew Snelling, a Ph.D geologist from Australia who serves as director of research for Answers in Genesis. He, too, noticed these recent studies and came to conclusions similar to my own.

“It is ironic that secularist scientists are still seeking to explain where the Earth’s water came from,” he writes. “For many years now, they have endeavored to fill in the difficult-to-explain pieces of their ‘story’ about how our home Earth ‘just happened’ to become so habitable for life over the course of its supposed billions-of-years history. Secularists believe the Earth condensed from clumpy matter flung out of the solar nebula 4.56 or so billion years ago. It was thus originally a hot, molten blob that cooled. They used to suggest that most of the water came from inside this cooling Earth, but not enough to fill the oceans we have on the Earth’s surface today. A once popular theory was that comets (which are essentially large, dirty snowballs) collided with the Earth and deposited their water on its surface.”

But that explanation, as I wrote, could not possibly explain oceans of water deep beneath the surface of the planet. With the new evidence for just that, a new explanation was needed – especially because the discovery would, in fact, lend scientific credence to the Genesis account of Creation and the explanation for the Flood. After all, the Flood account specifically says that much of the water broke free from deep inside the Earth.

“Of course, these same secularists and Bible skeptics say, as predicted in 2 Peter 3:3-6, that there never was a global flood on the Earth, even though it is still 70 percent covered in water, which averages more than two miles deep,” writes Snelling. “But ironically, they also say that, due to the many evidences of massive water erosion on Mars, there was a watery flood ‘of Biblical proportions’ on that planet in the past, even though that planet’s surface is dry today!”

Snelling, too, sees the recent studies as evidence of the biblical Flood account.

“The Bible’s description of that outbursting event is merely confirmed by the latest findings of the secular scientists,” he writes. “So the waters that came from inside the Earth, combined with the waters in the original, created oceans to produce the Genesis Flood.”
But there’s more in the Bible to suggest the waters of the deep could again break through the surface in the future – not for the purpose of destroying life on the planet but, instead, reviving it in a Garden of Eden-like setting.

I write about this in my new book, “The Restitution of All Things: Israel, Christians and the End of the Age.”

The Bible has much more to say about water than it does in Genesis.

Both Old Testament and New speak about something called “living waters.”

Jeremiah 2:13 says, “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.”

Later, in Jeremiah 17:13, we learn that this fountain of living waters is God Himself that has been forsaken: “O Lord, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living waters.”

In Zechariah 14:8, a prophetic book about the Day of the Lord, what Christians believe to be the Second Coming of Jesus the Messiah, we learn, “And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.”

There’s more detail on the flow of these living waters provided in Ezekiel 47 as waters rush out from under the threshold of the Temple in Jerusalem toward the east. This will not be trickle of water like we see today in the Jordan. It will be river that cannot be passed over. It run eastward and go down into the Judean desert and into the Dead Sea. “And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live whither the river cometh” (Ezekiel 47:9).

While we know these “living waters” are of God and could be produced entirely supernaturally, we also know that God uses what He has created in the natural world for His own purposes. Could it be these waters are just waiting to break forth on His timing?

Everyone has heard of the Dead Sea, the lowest point in the world. It’s truly lifeless, with a mind-blowing salinity level of more than 34 percent – 10 times saltier than ocean water and about twice as salty as Utah’s Great Salt Lake. Tourists from all over the world come to the Dead Sea today to experience its healing properties of the minerals, the very low content of pollens and other allergens in the atmosphere, the reduced ultraviolet component of solar radiation and the higher atmospheric pressure. They also come to float haplessly in the water that won’t allow you to sink.

There’s a historic town near the Dead Sea. It served as a refuge for David when he was running from King Saul, who was trying to kill him. It’s called En Gedi, as it was then. It’s a rocky, mountainous oasis in the midst of a wilderness today. But it, too, will take on new life when Jesus returns – becoming an abundant fishing village where today no fish are found.

It seems En Gedi will become lakefront beach property.

Ezekiel 47:10-12 tells us: “And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many. But the miry places thereof and the marishes thereof shall not be healed; they shall be given to salt. And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.”

Thus, the Dead Sea will be resurrected like the land of Israel and the nations during Jesus’ earthly reign as King.

But that’s not all these living waters will bring. Ezekiel 47:8-9 tells us the mountains of Israel will be tilled and sown and shoot forth branches and yield abundant fruit. But it will also cleanse people of their sins, an illustration of why believers partake in the ritual of baptism – today, just as they did in the time of Jesus and John the Baptist.

wndb-Farah-Restitution-of-All-Things-COVER“Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you,” we’re told in Ezekiel 47:25.

God promises to give Israel a new heart and a new spirit that will cause the nation to walk in His statutes and keep His commandments (Ezekiel 47:26-27). And that is the literal fulfillment of what Christians call the New Covenant – which was prophesied in Jeremiah 31 long before it was mentioned in the Greek Scriptures.

Israel will become what it was always designed by God to be – a light to the nations. These “living waters” will manifest not just spiritually but literally and physically.

All this blessing will cause people to say: “This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are become fenced, and are inhabited” (Ezekiel 47:35).

Could it be that “living waters” are already stored abundantly deep beneath the Earth’s mantle, just waiting to be released to a thirsty world during “the restitution of all things”?

1973 Yom Kippur War — The Real Reason

On Saturday, 6 October 1973 at 2:00PM local time the Yom Kippur War began. Egypt launched a surprise attack against Israeli positions in the Sinai while northeast of the Sea of Galilee Syria began its assault against Israel in the Golan Heights. That time zone is 8 hours ahead of the U.S. Central Time Zone so it was on that Saturday morning that the news broke that there was yet another Mid-East war with Israel once again fighting for her survival. But this was about more than just guns and bullets; it was essentially spiritual warfare.
King Hussein of Jordan had learned a stinging lesson back in 1967 and decided he would essentially stay out of this fight, though Arab unity required him to send at least token assistance to the effort. In fact, just a couple weeks earlier he reportedly met with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir and informed her that Egypt and Syria were poised for an attack.

The belligerent’s reason for the war was the Arab defeat in the previous three wars they had fought with Israel, but primarily it was an effort by Egypt to win back the honor which it resoundingly lost in the 1967 Six Day War. But, in the end they failed miserably and were once again humiliated on the battlefield, though Egypt tried to make it a victory by emphasizing that they had Israel on the ropes at the start. They embarrassingly ignore the fact that at the end the Israelis had crossed the Suez Canal, had completely cutoff and surrounded the Egyptian Third Army whose annihilation was imminent and were poised to take Cairo, while in the north the IDF had beaten back Syria and was within easy artillery range of Damascus.

In the Arab mind it was the perfect day for the attack to begin. Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, is the holiest day on the Jewish calendar. Added to this was the fact that Muslims were celebrating their holy month of Ramadan, and absolutely nothing could have been sweeter to them than beginning the annihilation of Israel on Yom Kippur and combining it with Ramadan. And for the first couple of days it looked like Egypt and Syria were going to do just that.

Even most secular Jews observe Yom Kippur by fasting, being off from work, etc. And that inclusiveness means that even the Israel Defense Forces were at something less than their usual hyper-vigilant state of readiness. IDF active duty troops were taking things easy that day, and reserve forces were at their civilian jobs. To the Arabs, Israel was a ripe fig ready for the picking, and they planned to savor every moment of it.  At left are IDF troops captured by Syria at the start of hostilities.

Israel’s prime minister at that time was Golda Meir. She was born in Kiev, Ukraine in 1898 and came to the U.S. as a child where she was educated and later became a teacher. She married and she and her husband went to Israel in 1921 where they lived on a kibbutz. Though she had a superficial cultural connection with Judaism and the Old Testament, politically she was a socialist and religiously she was an atheist.

In early October of 1973 Meir had been informed that an Egyptian/Syrian attack seemed imminent. One of her top advisors, General Moshe Dayan–himself an atheist–did not believe the reports. Others of her key advisors counseled her to not order a preemptive strike as Israel did in the 1967 Six Day War for fear that such a move would not make it easy for Israel’s ally, the U.S., to support the war. That was a correct assumption, for then U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, also a Jew, stated later that if Israel had made a first-strike against the belligerents the Jewish State would not have gotten so much as a nail.

In the first week of October some in the military were advising that extra troops should be sent to the border with Egypt, but that did not happen. It wasn’t until 5:00AM on October 6th that Chief of Staff General David Elazar recommended a full and immediate mobilization of forces along with a preemptive strike. He was overruled. A few hours later Prime Minister Meir authorized a partial activation of reserve troops, but she still refused to allow a preemptive strike. Thus when the assault began Israel was caught unprepared.

In the years and months preceding the war Egypt regularly issued threats, massed troops on the border and made various kinds of aggressive gestures toward Israel. But nothing of any consequence ever happened in any of those things. You see, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was simply making Israel’s leadership believe that he was all about brinkmanship, but that he was not really wanting to go to war. He was essentially crying wolf, and it worked.

As a result of U.S. assistance finally going to Israel in their war effort the Arabs hit the U.S. with an oil embargo which caused spiking gas prices and long lines at gas stations. Many of the gas pumps in those days were the old hand-reset analog type and were limited in what could be set as the price-per-gallon because anything over about $.60/gallon was thought to be highly improbable. When the price got to $1.24/gallon many pumps were re-set to read $.62/gallon with a piece of white tape placed over the price/gallon that read, “price per half gallon”. It didn’t take long for the usual anti-Israel sentiment of those days to morph into outright hatred for Jews in general and the State of Israel in particular.

It would seem to most casual observers that after the Israeli victory in the 1967 Six Day War that the Arab nations surrounding Israel would come to a point of reconciliation regarding Israel’s existence – the “live and let live” idea. But, Satan saw to it that such reconciliation did not happen. So the conflict raged on, sometimes running hotter than at other times. But at no time was the Arab’s seething hatred toward the Jewish State very far below the surface, and every opportunity to bring disrepute upon and to cause political damage to Israel was exploited to its fullest. This was not a difficult thing to foster since most nations in the U.N. were at best cold toward Israel, and in many instances openly hostile.

Yes, the United States was an Israeli ally in 1973, and to some degree is still an ally even today. But, there were powerful voices inside the vast government bureaucracy back then, as there are today, who would rather see the Jewish State just go away. They believe the world would be much more stable, that the west would benefit from a Israel-free world and that these things would surely usher in an unprecedented measure of world peace. However, nothing could be farther from the truth. The U.S. and western civilization will be hated by the Muslim world without regard to the existence of Israel, and should the west ever become Islamic that same Muslim world will continue its slaughter of each other as it has done for centuries.

For years after the Yom Kippur War the U.S. based much of its combined-arms strategy and tactics on the lessons learned therein, having in mind a possible conventional fight with the Soviet Warsaw Pact in Europe. That much most everyone knows. But in reality this war was about much more than mere tank, artillery and infantry battles. Everything about that war was rooted in religion, from the pre-war rhetoric to its purpose and even to its timing.

Satan cares nothing about global labels, buzz-words and talking points regarding refugees, land, absurd Islamic claims or anything else associated with what has happened in the Middle East in the last 100 years. The only thing he cares about is keeping Jesus the Messiah from fulfilling His promises to the Jewish people about their Jewish State thus preventing His return to this earth in order to rule over it. His number one priority in reaching that goal is the annihilation of the Jewish State. And it almost happened in 1973.

Though we certainly cannot be dogmatic about such things, it is possible that the 1973 war will go down as the last major Middle East war prior to the fulfillment of the Psalm 83 war. If this is correct even the most skeptical observer should see clearly that the final conflict of the ages–which is to be fought in Israel–is not going to be for political reasons but for spiritual reasons. If this one fact were believed by those in Washington the entire policy for dealing with Israel and her sworn enemies would be vastly different. And the bottom line for the U.S. would be that we would come in line for God’s blessing instead of His curse. This, however, is not even understood by the overwhelming majority of Christians much less career politicians, no matter their political party. Thus the world’s march toward Armageddon will continue unabated.

Global political thinking categorizes motives for conflict in terms of land, natural resources, vengeance and other kinds of primitive, base logic. And that is no doubt true in most cases of war. But when war involves Israel all that goes out the window. You see, God never promised Ireland to the Irish or America to the Americans, but He has made an unconditional promise to Abraham and his descendants through Isaac that the land of Israel will forever belong to the Jews. And that includes much more area than what the Twelve Tribes conquered under Joshua; it includes the land from Egypt to the Euphrates River in modern Iraq (Genesis 15). And it is that promise that Satan must defeat if he is to have this earth.

Every war Israel has ever fought has been deeply rooted in the spiritual realm, and that applies to the Yom Kippur War. At the two-day mark no one in their right mind would have given two-cents for Israel. It appeared obvious that they would be overrun, and in less than a week Israel would be wiped out after having a modern existence of just 25 years. But God had other plans. Regarding how He sees the puny efforts of those who wish to foil His plan, “He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them.” (Psalm 2:4)

All this is true, but equally true is the fact that a time is soon to come when the vaunted IDF will be powerless to prevent the destruction of the Jewish State and the annihilation of the Jewish people. This will happen as the seven-year tribulation draws to a close and the Jews are at their end. By this time 66% of them will have died and the surviving remnant will be set for destruction. When they are without hope of any kind Jesus will return from heaven, and He will destroy all who came against Jerusalem with a word from His mouth. The remnant of Jews will at that time finally accept as their Messiah the One they asked to be crucified 2000 years ago. At the same time He will rescue that remnant and establish His millennial reign on this earth.

Israel’s wars have all been fought for physical survival, but they have all been spiritual at their core and that is exactly why she was victorious in the face of impossible odds in 1973. If Israel had been a Gentile nation it would have all been over in a few short days. But Israel is not a Gentile nation. It is under the protective hand of God though the overwhelming majority of her citizens refuse to accept this fact. But their acceptance of it has absolutely nothing to do with God’s unconditional promise to Abraham and his descendants. One day soon they will see this truth, but it is going to take unthinkable horrors to bring them to that point. DLM

Iran’s very good week

by Caroline Glick


You have to hand it to the Iranians. They don’t play around. Just hours after President Donald Trump gave his speech outlining the contours of a new US policy toward Iran, senior Iranian officials were on the ground in Iraq and Syria not only humiliating the US, but altering the strategic balance in Iran’s favor.

Last Friday Trump said that from now on, the nuclear deal his predecessor Barack Obama concluded with the Iranian regime would be viewed in the overall context of Iran’s many forms of aggression. Iran’s support and direction of terrorism, its subversion of neighboring regimes, regional aggression, weapons proliferation, development of ballistic missiles and harassment of maritime traffic will no longer be dealt with in isolation from Iran’s nuclear program.

Trump pledged that it will henceforth be US policy to ensure that Iran is made to pay a price for all its aggressive actions, including its breaches of the nuclear deal.

Among other things, Trump singled out Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps for its role in sponsoring and engaging terrorism. He came within a hair’s breadth of defining the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization. But words to one side and actions to the other.

On Saturday morning, Maj.-Gen. Qasem Soleimani, who commands the Qods Force, responsible for the IRGC’s international terrorist operations, landed in Iraq’s Kurdish city of Kirkuk.

The Kurds have been autonomous in Iraq since 1992 and have exercised de facto sovereignty over Iraqi Kurdistan since 2003. One of their chief disputes with the central government in Baghdad was control over the oil rich city of Kirkuk, adjacent to autonomous Kurdistan. Kurds make up a large majority of the population of the city.

That dispute seemed largely settled three years ago when in the summer of 2014, Kurdish Peshmerga forces took over the oil town and other areas south of their official territory. The Kurds moved in after government forces fled Kirkuk and other areas, in the face of Islamic State’s offensive.

The Kurds played a key role in the anti-ISIS campaign.

Both in Iraq and Syria, the Kurds have been the US’s only reliable ally. Iraqi regime forces, like the Shi’ite militia that fight alongside them, are controlled by Iran.

Masoud Barzani, the president of the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq and the head of the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), thought that ISIS’s defeat in Iraq and Syria was the right time to call in the US debt to the Kurds for the central role they have played in the fight to defeat ISIS.

And so on September 25, he held a referendum on Kurdish independence. Nearly 93% of Iraqi’s Kurds voted in favor.

Support for independence is so overwhelming that even the Talabani family supported the referendum.

For generations, the Barzanis and Talabanis have vied for control of Iraqi Kurdistan. And whereas the Barzanis have enjoyed longstanding warm ties with Israel and the US, for the past generation, the Talabanis have grown close to Iran.

Jalal Talabani, the head of the Talabani clan, served in the ceremonial position of Iraqi president from 2005 until 2014. He was the leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan or PUK party.

Talabani, who died two weeks ago, opposed Kurdish independence.

On Saturday, flanked by the Iraqi Shi’ite militia commanders – two of whom are on the FBI wanted terrorists list – Soleimani told the Talabanis to support the restoration of Iraqi government control – that is, Iranian control – over Kirkuk.

Ala Talabani, Jalal’s niece, told an Arabic television station that Soleimani came to pay his respects to her late uncle. According to The Washington Post, Ala Talabani praised Iran’s role in Iraq and said, “Soleimani advised us that Kirkuk should return to the law and the constitution, so let us come to an understanding.”

In other words, he offered them a deal.

In an article in The American Interest, Jonathan Spyer, director of the Rubin Center at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, said the deal was concluded the next day between one of the Shi’ite militia leaders and Bafel Talabani, Jalal’s eldest son. Based on Kurdish media accounts, Spyer wrote that the deal involves establishing “a new authority in the Halabja-Sulaymaniyah-Kirkuk area to be jointly administered by the Iraqi government and the ‘Kurds’ (or rather the PUK) for an undefined period.”

Spyer summarized, “The federal government would manage the oil wells of Kirkuk and other strategic locations in the city, while also overseeing the public-sector payroll.”

So two days after Trump’s speech, the Iranians and the Talabani family agreed to split Iraq’s Kurds in two and set up an Iranian puppet in the new governing authority, killing any thought of an independent Kurdistan.

So far, the deal has gone off without a hitch. The Peshmerga forces in Kirkuk, which are loyal to the Talabani family, abandoned their posts on Monday when the Soleimani-controlled combined force of US-armed and -trained Iraqi government forces and Shi’ite militias took over Kirkuk and other areas.

Despite Trump’s stated position in favor of weakening Iranian power and influence, and despite the fact that the occupation of Kirkuk was directed by the IRGC, which Trump just sanctioned, the Americans to date seem fine with this outcome.

According to Kurdish and US commentators, Iran or no Iran, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi wouldn’t have dared to order the strike on Kirkuk without US agreement.

It’s true that the US has never gone out on a limb for its Kurdish allies. Despite the fact that 1,700 Peshmerga fighters were killed fighting – and defeating ISIS – over the past three years, and despite the fact that an independent Kurdistan would constitute a severe blow to Iran’s hegemonic ambitions in the region, the US vocally opposed last month’s referendum. Following the vote, US officials told reporters that since Barzani ignored their position, they feel they owe him no loyalty.

And indeed, the US couldn’t be more disloyal than it is today – siding with Iran against America’s only dependable ally in Iraq.

The implications of Iran’s successful strategic offensive against the Kurds are disastrous for the US. Iran’s establishment of a Kurdish satrapy in Iraq harms the US in three ways.

First, America’s only stable Iraqi ally is now destabilized. For the past several years, the Barzanis and Talabanis had managed to more or less bury the hatchet, each content with their own sphere of influence. Now, they are once again at each other’s throats. Even if the Americans never asked them to do it, Iraq’s Kurds protected America’s interests in Iraq. And their prosperity and stability were viewed as an American achievement.

Now that is a thing of the past.

Second, Iran’s successful neutralization of the Kurds clears away the only major obstacle to Iranian hegemony over Iraq. This development has major implications for the region. If there is no safe base for operations against Iran in Iraq, any plan to block Iran’s regional rise has become far more complicated.

And finally, the US’s reputation and its strategic credibility in the region and beyond have just taken a massive hit. Until Soleimani’s forces marched into Kirkuk, it was possible to believe that the US’s recent preference for Iran over its own allies was a function of Obama’s radical worldview.

Now that Trump is in office, the policy was effectively over.

In the face of the US’s betrayal of the Kurds to the benefit of Iran, that position is no longer credible. Trump can claim till he’s blue in the face that he has abandoned Obama’s Iran policy, but so long as Iraqi government forces control Kirkuk – for Iran – his claims only discredit him.

The consequences of the US’s acceptance of Iran’s Kurdish gambit are already being felt on the ground. On Thursday, the Washington Post reported that Syrian Kurds, who just this week led the forces that defeated ISIS forces in Raqqa, are now concerned that the US will abandon them as well. Syrian Kurds now exercise autonomy. But with ISIS now defeated, Syrian Kurds fear the US will withdraw its forces from Syria and allow them to be overrun by Assad regime forces controlled by Iran and Hezbollah.

Luckily, not everything is black. Israel isn’t the US. But it is more powerful than the Kurds. And Israel is doing what it can to both help them and curb Iran’s expanding power. This, even as Trump seems incapable of translating his positions into policies on the ground.

The same day Iranian-backed forces were taking control of Kirkuk, Israel both destroyed a Russian- made anti-aircraft battery in Syria in retaliation for Syria’s targeting of IAF jets, and welcomed Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu to Israel for his first visit in office.

Israel’s willingness to attack the Syrian battery the day Shoigu arrived made clear that Russian support for its Syrian client is not unconditional.

This was brought home yet again and more powerfully the next day. On Tuesday, Maj.-Gen.

Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff of the Iranian military, made an official visit to Damascus.

While he was there Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Russian President Vladimir Putin to talk to him about Iran’s nuclear weapons program and its increased presence in Syria. Netanyahu also beseeched Putin to support Kurdish independence in Iraq.

Interestingly, it was Putin’s office, not Israel, which revealed the call had taken place.

Russia’s willingness to accept Israeli air strikes in Syria and to openly work with Israel indicates that Iran may have overstepped the boundaries. It is possible that Russia is not interested in having an empowered Iranian ally. Given past Russian practice, it is likely that Russia would like to see Iran weakened and therefore more dependent on Moscow.

Then there are the Germans and British. Whereas German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Theresa May came out strongly for maintaining the nuclear deal with Iran, both leaders indicated this week that they are willing to take a stronger stand against Iranian support for terrorism, missile development and regional expansion. Netanyahu reportedly has spoken at length to both leaders, and to a host of others, in recent days lobbying them to support the anti-Iranian Kurdish regional government.

By not abandoning the Kurds and by continuing to press for the West – including the Trump administration – to support Barzani and his government, and by pushing back against Iran’s empowerment in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, Netanyahu is trying to exploit and expand Iran’s weaknesses. He does this even as Iran’s strengths become more obvious and Iran’s power rises against an America that remains strategically adrift.

Netanyahu’s actions alone will not stop Iran.

But they do make it clear that Iran’s rise is not unstoppable. There are plenty of actors with plenty of reasons to oppose Iran’s empowerment. And once they see the danger Iran poses to them, working together and separately, they can help to cut it down to size.

At some point, the Americans may come to their senses and finish off the job.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

The Calm Before the Storm

By Matt Ward

North Korea is being manipulated masterfully by Iran. Odd bedfellows though they are, Iran and North Korea are well established allies, and current events in East Asia cannot be separated from events occurring in Syria and the Middle East at the same time.

It is an open secret that Iran and North Korea have more than merely a diplomatically cordial relationship. They actively share common strategic goals, and these shared goals have brought them increasingly close together. As recently as last month, a delegation from Pyongyang, led by parliamentary speaker Kim Yong Nam, who ranks as the second most important person in the North Korean hierarchical system, spent ten days in Tehran as guests of the government. While there, the North Koreans met with the heads of the Iranian army and intelligence agencies, as well as Iranian leaders in industry. The discussions across the board, from military to industrial talks, were identical as to how they could deepen mutual cooperation across all spheres to enable both parties to meet their wider strategic goals.

On the surface, the relationship they share seems to be an odd one; Iran is a Shiite theocracy who views themselves as the only true defenders of Islam, while North Korea is a virulently atheistic regime. Neither Iran nor North Korea share commonalities ethnically; neither do they share any borders. What they do share, most importantly, is commonality in their geopolitical objectives.

In allying itself with North Korea, even though they are so diametrically opposed in all other spheres, Iran has been able to continue to develop its own regional hegemonic and nuclear ambitions. Iran is using North Korea because the relationship allows them to progress more rapidly towards fulfilling their own nuclear ambitions, and because it furthers their own dominance in the Middle East, especially in Syria. Being in a relationship with North Korea has allowed them to manipulate events in East Asia, so as to take the pressure off themselves at home.

What makes this alliance particularly robust and functional is that both Iran and North Korea are also bonded by a mutual loathing for America and Americanism. Hating America actively binds them both together.

In real terms Iranian – North Korean cooperation focuses primarily in two areas: nuclear weapons development and ballistic missile technology. This cooperation is longstanding. Michael Green, former senior director for Asia at the National Security Council, relates that during nuclear talks held with the United States as long ago as March 2003, the head of the North Korean delegation confirmed that Pyongyang had a “nuclear deterrent” and threatened to “expand,” “demonstrate,” and “transfer” the deterrent unless the United States ended its hostile policy [1]. Many at the time believed this reference of “transferring” this “nuclear deterrent” was in reference to Iran.

Iran seeks North Korean cooperation in the development of its nuclear weapons program, and North Korea seeks Iranian help in developing its Intercontinental Ballistic Missile systems. North Korea has the bomb, and Iran has the reliable means to deliver it; so they are helping each other by swapping their “know how [2].

This is where the Presidency of Barack Obama will come back to haunt this world, sooner rather than later. Obama, towards the end of his second term, released significant funds to the Iranian regime, and loosened what had previously been a tight system of sanctions against Iran, hailing it at the time as a mark of the success of the Iranian Nuclear Accord. It was a fallacy.

Suddenly Iran, flush with cash, used the money to buy considerable amounts of weaponry from North Korea, thereby providing Pyongyang with the financial resources it so desperately needed to ignore the international sanctions that were being arrayed against it. More importantly, loosening sanctions and releasing funds to Iran indirectly allowed North Korea to continue funding its own nuclear weapons program, a program now reaching fulfillment in our own day [3,4].

Relaxing sanctions has also meant that it is exceptionally difficult for the United Nations, or other leading international agencies like the IAEA, to detect the subtle cooperation and financial transactions that have been taking place between Iran and North Korea, all which might indicate breaches of international accords or giveaway tell-tale signals indicating their own nuclear threshold status. All thanks to Barack Obama.

Iran has not been standing idly by while the world has been captivated by North Korea. Last week, on September 22nd, Iran released a film in which it claimed to have test-fired a new, highly advanced ballistic missile system. This new weapon, the Khoramshahr, is estimated to have a range that exceeds 2,000km, finally putting all of Israel well within range.

The Khoramshahr can, according to the Iranian release, carry multiple warheads, and is also – unlike other crude variations – exceptionally accurate, because it has advanced live-video guidance systems contained within its nose cone. This means that the missile could be manually guided onto a target remotely. The Khoramshahr, if the release is true, would constitute an entirely different level of threat to Israel than any that has come before.

Yet despite this obvious breach of the Iranian Nuclear Agreement, sidetracked by the burgeoning crisis occurring in East Asia, it has barely even been covered by the main news media in the West. Indeed, the US military has even asserted that this launch did not take place and has immediately dropped the matter, dismissing it out of hand. But this is not the view the Israeli intelligence services and the Israeli military take; they could not disagree more with the US assessment. They believe the test was a legitimate one, and that a threshold is about to be crossed by Iran, a threshold that may force them to soon take action.

Israel is fast approaching the point where strong speeches voicing condemnation against Iranian encroachments into Syria, or about their weapons programs, are not enough. The danger to Israel is becoming too great. Very soon Iran is going to reach the point, as will North Korea, where they actually will have a reliable and deliverable nuclear weapons system. When that point is reached, Iran will become the biggest existential threat to the continued existence of Israel as a nation state since its founding in 1948.

At this point the only silver lining is Donald Trump. Unlike Obama’s misguided, and some might say negligent approach to the Iranian threat, the indications are that President Trump is about to embark upon a different approach. There is increasing speculation, fueled by the President himself, that he is about to take some form of definitive action; either by challenging the North Korean nuclear program directly or in decertifying the Iranian nuclear deal.

The world is bracing itself for what is about to come; and much of what may shortly follow is entirely unpredictable. But about one thing we can be certain: If Trump does end the Iranian Nuclear Accord or takes any direct form of action against North Korea, this really could be the calm before the storm. A real Pandora’s box may be about to be opened.







The new Democratic Party

by Caroline Glick


Since 2015, Britain has been one election away from having an antisemitic prime minister backed by antisemitic voters. If current trends in the Democratic Party continue, in the not-so-distant future, the United States might be in the same position.

Two years ago, Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of Britain’s main opposition Labor Party. That officially put an end to Tony Blair’s alignment of the Labor Party with the political center in Britain, both in economic and in foreign affairs.

Corbyn is an antisemite. He refers to Hezbollah and Hamas – two terrorist groups that openly support the genocide of world Jewry and the annihilation of the Jewish state – as “our friends.” He has shared stages with Hamas terrorists and Holocaust- deniers. Since his ascension to leadership of the Labor Party, he has overseen the mainstreaming of antisemitic actions and rhetoric by his party members and supporters.

Shortly after Corbyn’s election, repeated, well-publicized acts of antisemitism by senior Labor Party members forced Corbyn to call for an investigation of the phenomenon. He appointed his ally Shami Chakrabarti to oversee the effort.

The Chakrabarti report – first presented at a Labor Party conference convened last June for that purpose – was not merely a whitewash. It effectively denied that it is possible to be concerned with antisemitism without being racially insensitive to other minority groups. In other words, concern for antisemitism is a form of racism in and of itself.

As for Corbyn himself, he couldn’t be clearer about his feelings. His remarks at his conference on antisemitism were antisemitic.

Corbyn insisted that it’s wrong “to assume that a Jewish friend is wealthy, part of some kind of financial or media conspiracy or takes a particular position on politics in general, or on Israel and on Palestine in particular.”

After all, not all Jews are bad, rich Jews who run the media and support Israel.

If that wasn’t enough, Corbyn then proceeded to allege that Israel is as evil as Islamic State. In his words, “Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel and the Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those various self-styled Islamic states and organizations.”

Since then, according to Jewish Labor Party members, Corbyn has refused to take any steps to diminish the increasingly strident antisemitic rhetoric and character of his party.

This then brings us to the American Democratic Party.

Over the past week, two incidents occurred that indicate that the party of Harry Truman and Bill Clinton is becoming increasingly comfortable with blaming the Jews.

First, last Thursday, Obama loyalist and former CIA operative Valerie Plame approvingly shared a fiercely antisemitic article on her Twitter feed.

The article, “America’s Jews are Driving America’s Wars,” was written by Philip Giraldi, a fellow former CIA officer and outspoken Jew-hater.

Giraldi’s piece included all the classic antisemitic tropes: Jews control the media and culture; they control US foreign policy; and they compel non-Jewish dupes to fight wars for Israel, to which the treacherous Jews of America are loyal.

Giraldi recommended barring Jews from serving in government positions and participating in public debates related to the Middle East. And, he added, if an American Jewish Israel-backer refuses to recuse himself, the media should duly label him, “Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the State of Israel.”

Such a label, he contended, “would be kind of like a warning label on a bottle of rat poison.”

Plame, who ultimately issued a contrite, defensive apology for circulating Giraldi’s anti-Jewish screed, initially justified her decision to repost the article and say it was “thoughtful.”

She added, “Many neocon hawks ARE Jewish.”

And she should know.

Plame rose to fame in 2003, when she was at the center of a chain of events that led to the delegitimization of Jewish neo-conservatives in the Bush administration through a campaign of antisemitic innuendo and legal persecution.

In 2003, Plame’s husband, former diplomat Joe Wilson, published an article in The New York Times in which he falsely denied White House claims that Saddam Hussein had sought to purchase uranium yellow cake from Niger for the purpose advancing his nuclear program.

Apparently in retaliation for his false allegations, then-deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage leaked to syndicated columnist Robert Novak that Wilson’s wife Valerie was a CIA officer. Plame was a covert operative at the time, making Armitage’s leak a crime.

The Justice Department appointed special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to oversee the investigation and prosecute the leak. Fitzgerald knew almost from the outset that Armitage was the source of the leak.

Yet he failed to prosecute him.

Instead, Fitzgerald went on a fishing expedition to root out then-vice president Richard Cheney’s Jewish chief of staff Scooter Libby. After a multiyear investigation, Libby, who did not leak Plame’s identity, was indicted and convicted on a specious count of perjury.

The effect of Libby’s indictment, prosecution and conviction was to place all his fellow Jews in the Bush national security team under constant and deeply antisemitic scrutiny. This defamation of Jewish American security experts in many ways paved the way for Barack Obama’s wholesale use of antisemitic undertones to defend his nuclear deal with Iran.

As Omri Ceren from the Israel Project recalled in a long series of Twitter posts after Plame circulated Giraldi’s article, Obama and his advisers repeatedly argued that “lobbyists” and Israel were seeking to convince lawmakers not to act in the US’s best interest. Instead they tried to manipulate senators into defending Israel and oppose Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, to the detriment of America. These exhortations, made repeatedly by Obama and his surrogates were then expanded upon and made explicit by their political allies in places like the Ploughshares Foundation, which served as focal points of Obama’s media campaign on behalf of the Iran nuclear deal.

Until she resigned on Sunday, Plame served on the Ploughshares board of directors.

Plame’s wing of the Democratic Party is not explicitly antisemitic. Obama never said, “Jews are undermining US national security.” Instead, he attacked Israel and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. He attacked “lobbyists” and foreign interests.

Plame’s mistake last week was that, in tweeting a link to Giraldi’s article, she moved beyond Obama’s dog-whistle approach.

In a way, she can be excused for crossing the line, because the rising force in her party has little problem openly trucking in Jew-hatred.

That force, of course is the Bernie Sanders radical leftist wing of the party.

Around the same time that Plame was tweeting her way into ill-repute, Iran was showing off a medium- range ballistic missile capable of hitting Israel and Europe and Sanders was giving a foreign policy speech in Missouri.

Israel was a key focus for Sanders, who is now in charge of the Democratic Party’s outreach efforts.

Sanders said the US is “complicit” with Israel’s “occupation” of Judea and Samaria and Gaza. He said that he would consider cutting off US military aid to Israel. He argued the US should take a more evenhanded approach to Israel.

No similar statements have ever been made by any major presidential contender or political leader in either party.

And yet, they have raised no outcry among his fellow Democrats.

Sanders’s rise has unleashed forces in the party such as former Nation of Islam spokesman Rep.

Keith Ellison and BDS activist Linda Sarsour. Both have been outspoken in their antisemitism. Both routinely defame and delegitimize American Jews who support Israel. And both are all but unanimously embraced as leaders by their partisan colleagues.

Since Donald Trump’s election, most of the media coverage of US politics has centered on cleavages within the Republican Party. But while it is true that the Republican Party is dysfunctional, the Democratic Party is transforming into something never before seen in mainstream US politics.

In 2016, the party of Bill Clinton ceased to be the party of the working class. Hillary Clinton abandoned her husband’s Rust Belt base, referring to his voters as “deplorables.”

Today, the two predominant branches of the party are the Obama branch – which is comfortable with antisemitic dog whistles – and the Sanders branch, which is comfortable with Corbyn-style Jew-baiting and open discrimination of pro-Israel Jews.

Absent a major restructuring of the party’s makeup, Plame’s forced resignation from Ploughshares may be remembered as the high-water mark in the new Democratic Party’s efforts to root out antisemitism from its ranks.TwitterGoogle+PinterestEmailSumoMe

Why Did God Choose Little Egypt?

By Daymond Duck

On Aug. 21, 2017, there was a total solar eclipse over the U.S. and because God used darkness to warn Pharaoh to repent and to let His people go (Ex. 10:21-29), some Jewish Rabbis believe the eclipse was a warning to the U.S. for its citizens to repent of their sins.

The eclipse reached its maximum coverage of the sun over the U.S. in an area of southern Illinois called “Little Egypt.” That area is called “Little Egypt” partly because it has a river system that is much like the Nile Valley in Egypt.

Egypt subjected the children of Israel to slavery. And during the Civil War, there was illegal slavery in southern Illinois.

Several cities (Karnak, Cairo and Thebes) and some businesses (King Tut’s Gas Station) in “Little Egypt” have Egyptian names.

A second total solar eclipse will cross the U.S. on Apr. 8, 2024. It will also reach its maximum coverage of the sun over “Little Egypt.”

This brings up a question: Why did God choose “Little Egypt” to receive the first dose of maximum darkness and why did He choose it to receive a second dose about seven years from now?

If darkness in Egypt was a warning to Pharaoh to repent, is darkness in “Little Egypt” a warning to the U.S. for its citizens to repent?

Without question, repentance is needed and it is a good thing. But some question any connection between the eclipse and repentance in the U.S. so I suggest that we look at some interesting facts.

Just know that God loves people, but He loves their souls more. Know that God brings good out of everything and He uses problems to draw people to Him before they perish or have even greater problems.

Know that more people in Texas, Louisiana and Florida have probably talked to God longer and harder since the eclipse than they did before. Know that many have a greater understanding of the power of God. Know that many now realize that they were taking God and their blessings for granted.

Many people are suffering and they will suffer more, but if just one person got saved that soul is worth more than all the property damage that occurred.

The eclipse didn’t last three days, but three days after the eclipse tropical storm Harvey became a hurricane. It struck the Texas Coast a few hours later.

The first Plague in Egypt was water turned into blood, dead fish, stinking and unsanitary water (Ex. 7:14-25). During the flooding in Texas and Louisiana, raw sewage and chemicals got into the water. In some places, strong contamination caused the water to stink and receding water left behind dead fish and animals that quickly started to stink.

The third Plague in Egypt was lice (The root word means gnats or mosquitoes).

Health officials in Texas and Louisiana warned that stagnant water will provide millions of places for mosquitoes to breed. They called for aerial spraying to control mosquitoes that spread diseases (Zika, Cholera, etc.).

The fifth plague in Egypt was the death of the cattle, horses, camels, donkeys and sheep (Ex. 9:1-7). Hurricane Harvey killed many animals.

The seventh Plague in Egypt was hail (Ex. 9:13-35). God said hail would fall unlike anything that has ever happened before or anything that will ever happen again. Some did not believe God’s warning because Egypt is a very dry country with less than one inch of rain per year.

Because of the warm temperatures, Florida rarely gets hail, but it does happen. In fact, on Sept. 10, 2017, it was reported that hail had fallen in Tampa and Miami during hurricane Irma.

The ninth Plague in Egypt was darkness (Ex. 10:21-29). Although it was a different matter, the Dept. of Homeland Security said at its peak on Sept. 11, 2017, about 15 million Floridians were without electricity. Three-fourths of the state was in darkness. In an amazing turn around, the electricity (and light) was restored to about 10 million homes in just 2 days.

The tenth Plague in Egypt was the death of the first-born son and animals (Ex. 11:1-12:30). Following the death of multitudes, Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron by night. He ordered the Jews to leave Egypt. “And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, that they might send them out of the land in haste; for they said, We be all dead men” (Ex. 12:33).

As Hurricane Irma approached, everyone that could was urged to leave Florida. The roads were jammed.

When the Israelites left Israel, Pharaoh pursued them (Ex. 14:1-31). Pharaoh thought he had them trapped against the Red Sea. The Israelites were afraid, but Moses said, “The Lord shall fight for you.” God told Moses to lift his rod and stretch it over the Red Sea and divide it. Moses did and God sent a strong east wind that made the waters go back so that the Israelites could cross on dry ground.

Many skeptics deny that this happened. Some suggest the Jews crossed in shallow water, an earthquake or a landslide dried up the water, etc.

The Bible says the Lord did it. And many conservative theologians and preachers accept it as a historical fact. Some things in the Bible may not make sense to us.

But it is wrong to question the Bible.

At Tampa Bay, Florida, strong winds from the northeast blew the water out of the Bay. People walked on land that is usually under water. It proves that God could send a strong east wind to divide the Red Sea and let the Jews cross on dry ground if He wanted to (Ex. 14:21-22). A similar event also happened in the Bahamas.

Also, at Tampa Bay, two Manatees got stranded on dry ground because the water receded so fast. People put the Manatees on tarps and drug them 100 yds. back to the water.

There are other fascinating things:

One, the rod of Moses turned into a snake (Ex. 7:8-12) and there were snakes in the flood waters in Texas, Louisiana and Florida.

Two, the children of Israel complained about their need for drinking water on at least two different occasions (Ex. 17:1-7; Num. 20:9-12) and some of the flood victims complained about a lack of water.

Three, hurricane Jose looked like it was going to strike the Caribbean, but it turned away and wandered around in the southwest Atlantic for several days; and the children of Israel looked like they were going to enter the Promised Land, but they turned away and wandered around in the wilderness for forty years.

Even though the citizens of Florida were urged to evacuate, some decided to stay and have a “hurricane party.” Menu favorites included cold beer and hot wings. Some lifted their drinks in the air and shouted, “Happy Hurricane.”

Concerning His return, Jesus said, “But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be” (Matt. 24:37-39).

Did God choose “Little Egypt” to remind the U.S. that He sent Ten Plagues on Egypt?

Did God choose “Little Egypt” to remind the U.S. we have been taking our blessings for granted and He can take them away anytime He wants to do it?

Did God choose “Little Egypt” to remind the U.S. that He is in control and no nation has enough wealth, weapons or whatever to resist Him?

Has God sent or allowed birth pang like disasters (increasing in frequency and strength) to remind the U.S. of an important sign of our Lord’s return?

Understand that as bad as it was, the flooding in Texas, Louisiana and Florida was a little puddle compared to the great Flood in Noah’s day and what our nation has gone through is nothing compared to what will happen in the Tribulation period.

Or maybe the writer is looking for the wrong meaning. It maybe that God is saying it’s time for Jews living in the USA to leave for the Promised Land.

Gut Instinct :: By Matt Ward

On March 8, 1983 U.S. President Ronald Reagan, in a speech to the National Association of evangelicals in Orlando, Florida referred to the Soviet Union for the first time as the “Evil empire.” In his developing “roll back” strategy against the encroachments of communism, Reagan openly called for the West to begin the process of “writing the final pages of the history of the Soviet Union.”

These comments unsettled many in Moscow, and caused abject terror throughout the Soviet military. Yuri Andropov, the ailing Soviet leader, was already by this point utterly convinced that the Unites States of America was planning to launch an imminent and massive preemptive strike on the Soviet Union. The aim of the U.S. strike, so Andropov thought, was to bring the Soviets down to their knees and therefore secure the West’s hegemony in what the West believed was an approaching post-communist new world order.

It was something Andropov was determined, at all costs, to either avoid or react effectively to. He had resolved that when this U.S. first strike did come, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction would mean that there would be nothing left of America to survive what he saw as such an impetuous attack.

The Soviet military therefore acted accordingly, and began to enshrine a belief in a “U.S. preemptive first strike” as standard and accepted Soviet military thinking of the time. In 1983, the Soviets did not believe it was a question of “if” the U.S. would attack, but “when.”

So, on the morning of September 26, 1983, Lt. Col Stanislav Petrov took his seat as Commander of the top secret Soviet military command center, located just outside of Moscow. It was to be a day he would never forget. Only a small handful of men since the dawn of time can genuinely lay a claim to having affected the course of human history, Lt. Col Stanislav Petrov can certainly make such a claim. Petrov’s cool head single handedly saved the whole world from certain annihilation that late September morning.

At age 44, Petrov’s job was simple—he was to monitor the Soviet Union’s early warning satellites and act accordingly in the event of a hostile United States launch. He was doing just that when his radar screens showed that five Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles had been launched by the U.S. and were racing towards the Soviet Union.

All his training and all Red Army protocol demanded that he act in a very defined and specific way – pick up the telephone and order an immediate and full nuclear counter strike against the United States. But he didn’t. Petrov did not order the counter strike because his “gut instinct” told him that the warnings were a hoax, a malfunction of some sort, a glitch. So, for twenty minutes he waited, and sweated. He waited to see if he was correct. Holding out against the most enormous pressure, Petrov refused categorically to initiate the Soviets retaliatory launch protocols and thereby trigger a certain nuclear Armageddon. Twenty-five minutes later, when the bombs did not start to fall, he realized at last, that he was right.

It later emerged that the false alarm was the result of a Soviet satellite mistaking the reflection of the sun’s rays off the tops of clouds for a missile launch. The world had a lucky escape that day; another morning with another man or woman in charge and human history could have been irrevocably different.

This past week at the United Nations, President Donald Trump gave one of the most important speeches of his presidency so far. Using the most unequivocal and direct language, President Trump addressed the burgeoning issue of North Korea head on, and in the clearest language possible threatened to “…totally destroy North Korea.”

Trump is right in making such a public statement. It is necessary to be absolutely unequivocal in a time such as this. At this point it seems obvious that Kim Jong Un wants to acquire nuclear weapons so badly, and achieve the ability to hit the United States with them so much, that sanctions, threats and other types of economic incentives will no longer work.

Pyongyang is not going to abandon its goal of achieving a deliverable nuclear weapons system. As a result, short of direct intervention, North Korea will get deliverable nuclear weapons soon. A North Korean nuke is practically a forgone conclusion at this point. North Korea, Japan, the South Korean’s and the world need to know where Trump and America stand.

Now they do, and it couldn’t be more clear.

Yet huge danger lays just up ahead. This North Korean nuclear device will pose at least three significant problems for the United States and her allies. The most immediate threat is also the most obvious one; that North Korea may try to use this device against the United States of America directly. This is perhaps the most unlikely outcome of the three, at least at this point.

The other two consequences for the West are much more understated and subtle, yet no less dangerous for it. The immediate victim of a viable North Korean weapon will be the alliance system that currently exists in East Asia. The day that sees North Korea get a deliverable nuke, will be the same day that U.S. influence in the region begins to plummet.

South Korea and Japan depend exclusively on the United States for their own security, and currently sit underneath the U.S. nuclear umbrella. This is the reason Japan and North Korea have not, up until this point, sought their own nuclear arsenal. As a North Korean nuclear weapon becomes a present day reality, this will increasingly lead others to question the credibility of the United States’ own commitment to defend Japan and South Korea.

Would the U.S. really launch a full retaliatory nuclear strike against North Korea, risking their own cities and millions of their own citizens lives, to defend Japan or South Korea? Would the United States risk New York in order to save Seoul? Japan and South Korea are not sure, and neither is Kim Jong-un.

It is this “de-coupling” of the U.S. alliance system, and the decline of US influence in East Asia, that would be the first significant victim of a viable North Korean nuclear weapon. It was this exact same fear that led Britain and France during the Cold War to seek their own independent nuclear arsenals, rather than to rely exclusively on the U.S. nuclear umbrella and the promise of future U.S. retaliation should the Soviet Union invade or attack western Europe.

It is likely, therefore, that a North Korean nuclear weapon would also see the beginnings of a general and widespread East Asian nuclear arms race. This nuclear arms race, in turn, leads us into the third significant danger posed by a North Korean weapon.

There is a significant danger that at some point in the future, because relations are so poor and distrust is so prevalent, that Japan, South Korea or the United States through human error or by design, might become locked into a cycle of mutual military escalation that would inevitably end in a nuclear exchange. This is perhaps the greatest danger the world will face in the event of fully nuclear North Korea.

It is highly likely that once North Korea has a viable weapon that they will act much more recklessly towards South Korea or Japan, with non-nuclear conventional weaponry. In North Korean minds it would be unlikely that the United States would intervene in a regional conflict between themselves and Japan or South Korea, as they would at that point have the ability to counter the United States at a nuclear level.

Consider any one the most recent provocative actions by North Korea against the South or against Japan, including firing ICMB’s over the sovereign territory of another independent nation, any of which could spark a rapid escalation. This escalation cycle would be very hard, or even impossible to stop or escape from.

The most pertinent question now is exactly how will nuclear weapons affect the behavior of North Korea on the international stage? Nobody knows for sure, but the unspoken fear is that a nuclear weapon would lead North Korea to act more provocatively, especially towards their most immediate neighbors and empower them to take bigger risks. It is how we handle just such lower-level provocations that will shape the future of East Asia and even the world.

Currently, the United States and the West lack any type of real understanding with North Korea in the way we had with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The doors, on both sides, are firmly shut and they are locked. There is no communication or last lines of communication to be used in a crisis. There is, therefore, no margin at all for error.

On its current course, North Korea will acquire a viable and deliverable nuclear weapon soon. Equally, at some point in the near future it is almost certain that North Korea will probe and provoke Japan, South Korea or the United States again, especially when emboldened by a nuclear status they genuinely believe will give them parity with the United States of America.

When that provocation does come, one hopes there will be men and women with cool heads and sound minds, like that demonstrated by Lt Col Stanislav Petrov in 1983, men and women who will pull us all back from the brink. My gut reaction though tells me that this will probably not be the case. East Asia and the world, are about to become much more dangerous places.

“For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows” (Matthew 24:7-8).