The Six Day War

 

The Six-Day War

June 5–10, 1967

by Eli E. Hertz | June 6, 2013

 

In rememberance of the Israeli victory against all odds in 1967 against 5 Arab aggressor nations, we are posting the following article from Eli Hertz

Arab Losses Caused by Unlawful Acts of Aggression in 1967

In June 1967, the combined armies of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan attacked Israel with the clear purpose expressed by Egypt’s President: “Destruction of Israel.” At the end of what is now known as the Six-Day War, Israel, against all odds, was victorious and in possession of the territories of the West Bank, Sinai and the Golan Heights.

International law makes a clear distinction between defensive wars and wars of aggression. Egypt’s blockade of the waterway known as the Strait of Tiran, which prevented access to Israel’s southern port of Eilat, was an act of aggression that led to the Six-Day War in 1967. More than six decades after the 1948 War and four decades since the 1967 Six-Day War, it is hard to imagine the dire circumstances Israel faced and the price it paid to fend off its neighbors’ attacks.

In 1967, the combined Arab armies had approximately 465,000 troops, more than 2,880 tanks and 810 aircrafts, preparing to attack Israel at once. Israel, faced with the imminent threat of obliteration, was forced to invoke its right of self-defense, a basic tenet of international law, enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Israel launched a surprised pre-emptive air strike against Egypt on June 5, 1967.

Who Starts Wars Does Matter

UN Charter Article 51 clearly recognizes “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations” by anyone.

Arabs would like the world to believe that in 1967, Israel simply woke-up one morning and invaded them, and therefore Israel’s control of the Golan Heights, West Bank and Sinai is the illicit fruit of an illegal act – like Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1991.

Arab leaders ‘bundle’ the countries who fought Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War into one “entity” in order to cloud the issues. They point to Israel’s surprise pre-emptive attack on Egypt as an act of unlawful aggression, and add that this “unlawful aggression” prevents Israel from claiming the Territories under international law.

Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) states the following facts:

“The facts of the June 1967 Six Day War demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt’s prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR’s use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF). It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated. The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest.”

Egypt in 1967

Before Israel’s pre-emptive and surprise attack on the Egyptian Air Force, a series of belligerent acts by the Arab state justified Israel’s resort to arms in self-defense in accordance with the Law of Nations.

The Egyptians were responsible for:

– The expulsion of UN peacekeepers from Sinai – stationed there since 1956 to act as a buffer when Israel withdrew from Sinai;

– The closure of Israel’s outlet from the Red Sea in defiance of the Geneva Conference of 1958 on free navigation “through straits used for international navigation between one part of the high seas and … the territorial sea of a foreign nation” (For 16 years Egypt illegally blocked Israeli use of the Suez Canal);

– The failure of the international community to break the blockade; and

– The massing of Egyptian forces in Sinai and moving them toward Israel’s border.

In 1956, when Egypt provoked Israel by blockading the Red Sea – crippling her ability to conduct sea trade with Africa and the Far East – the major Western powers negotiated Israel’s withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula, and agreed that Israel’s rights would be reserved under Article 51 of the UN Charter if Egypt staged future raids and blockades against Israel.

In 1967, Egypt’s closing of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships before June 5, was an unlawful act of aggression. The Israeli response was a lawful act of self-defense under Article 51 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3314.

Israel’s enemies and critics ignore or conveniently forget the facts, as Arabs and their sympathizers continue to blame Israel for ‘starting’ the 1967 war.

Were the acts by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1967 against Israel aggressive enough to warrant Israel’s exercise of her right to self-defense?

The answer can be found on the official website of the Jordanian Government14 under the heading “The Disaster of 1967.” It describes the events of the days prior to June 5, 1967 and clearly indicates that Jordan, at least, expected Egypt to launch the offensive war against Israel. Israel did not enter the West Bank until it was first attacked by Jordan:

“On May 16, Nasser shocked the world by asking the United Nations to withdraw its forces from Sinai. To the surprise of many, his request was honored two days later. Moreover, the Egyptian president closed the Straits of Tiran on May 22. Sensing that war was now likely, [And] … in response to the Israeli attack [on the Egyptian Air Force], Jordanian forces launched an offensive into Israel, but were soon driven back as the Israeli forces counterattacked into the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem.”

In fact, Jordan was an illegal occupier of the West Bank from 1948 to 1967, and the undisputable aggressor in the Six-Day War of 1967. Thus, Israel acted lawfully by exercising its right of self-defense when it redeemed and legally occupied Judea and Samaria, known also as the West Bank.

Israel had clarified to Jordan through UN diplomatic channels that it should stay out of the war. It stated simply: “We shall not attack any country unless it opens war on us.” King Hussein of Jordan sent a reply via the UN envoy that “since Israel had attacked Egypt, [Israel] would receive his reply by air” – a message that came in the form of Jordanian air raids on civilian and military targets, shelling Jerusalem with mortars and long-range artillery on Ben-Gurion Airport, then extending the front to shelling Israel’s “narrow hips” under the mistaken belief that the Arabs were winning. Had Jordan heeded Israel’s message of peace instead of Egypt’s lies that the Arabs were winning the war, the Hashemite Kingdom could have remained neutral in the conflict, and Eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank would have remained in Jordan’s possession. Jordan was far from a ‘minor player’ in the Arabs’ war of aggression as their narrative implies. I srael lost 183 soldiers in battle with Jordanian forces.

Judge Sir Elihu Lauterpacht wrote in 1968, just one year after the 1967 Six-Day War:

“On 5th June, 1967, Jordan deliberately overthrew the Armistice Agreement by attacking the Israeli-held part of Jerusalem. There was no question of this Jordanian action being a reaction to any Israeli attack. It took place not with-standing explicit Israeli assurances, conveyed to King Hussein through the U.N. Commander, that if Jordan did not attack Israel, Israel would not attack Jordan. Although the charge of aggression is freely made against Israel in relation to the Six-Days War the fact remains that the two attempts made in the General Assembly in June-July 1967 to secure the condemnation of Israel as an aggressor failed. A clear and striking majority of the members of the U.N. voted against the proposition that Israel was an aggressor.”

Judge Schwebel’s writings lead to the conclusion that under international law, Israel is permitted to stay in the West Bank as long as it is necessary to her self-defense.

Defensive Wars and Wars of Aggression

International law makes a clear distinction between defensive wars and wars of aggression. All of Israel’s wars with its Arab neighbors were in self-defense.

Judge Schwebel, wrote in What Weight to Conquest:

“(a) a state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense;

“(b) as condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense;

“(c) Where the prior holder of territory [Jordan] had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title. “… as between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt.”

UN “Inadmissibility of the Acquisition of Territory by Force”

Most UN General Assembly Resolutions regarding Israel read at the start: “Aware of the established principle of international law on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force.”

Judge Schwebel, explains that the principle of “acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible” must be read together with other principles: “… namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.”

Simply stated: Arab illegal aggression against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel can not and should not be rewarded. Judge Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice, argued in 1968 that:

“… Territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the ‘unlawful’ use of force. But to omit the word ‘unlawful’ is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor’s charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This cannot be regarded as reasonable or correct.”

Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on the Law of Nations, stated:

“Territorial Rights Under International Law. … By their [Arab countries] armed attacks against the State of Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, and by various acts of belligerency throughout this period, these Arab states flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members to refrain from threat or use of force against Israel’s territorial integrity and political independence. These acts were in flagrant violation inter alia [among other things] of Article 2(4) and paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the same article.”

// //

War in Gaza

Over the last week we have seen the violence of Hamas escalate, shooting hundreds of rockets into Israel. Israel has retaliated, killing Hamas’ top military officer (Baruch HaShem) and setting off the Palestinians and Hamas to retaliate with more death from the sky.  On the positive side, only a few deaths resulted, most being destroyed by Israel’s missile defence system.

Israel has begun buildup for a ground invasion called operation Amud HaAnan – Clouds of Glory, an ancient term referring to the Clouds of Glory which enveloped the Children of Israel and covered them throughout their journeys in the wilderness, is being undertook  to protect our Israeli citizens in the south. Some believe this to be a trigger event for the coming Redemption (may it come quickly) and the appearance of Mashiach.

On our Blog page we have for some time now posted our Creed of the Redemption – “Strengthen weak hands and give support to failing knees. Say to those of impatient heart, ‘Be strong; do not fear; Behold, your God will come with revenge, with Divine retribution. He will come and save you.’ ” Yeshayahu 35.3.  We believe that HaShem is now answering those pleas and is preparing the way for the appearance of the Son of David – Melech Mashiach.

The Torah reminds us that HaShem is a Master of War.  The children of Israel reained undefeated before their enemies as long as they listened to HaShem.  May the stony  hearts of Israel’s leaders now become the hearts of flesh that Ezekiel spoke of and allow HaShem to lead the way. A recent article by the JewishPress.com quoted Rabbi Kook who reminds us of one of our most precious prayers:

“The Master of wars, sower of righteousness, Who causes salvation to sprout, the
Creator or cures, awesome in praise, the Master of wonders, Who renews His
goodness every day the act of Creation, cause a new light to shine upon Zion,
and may we all be privileged to see its light”

Pray for Israel’s success and that HaShem’s name may be sanctified in the sight of the nations in the coming days, weeks and years.

I will lift up my eyes to the mountains; From where shall my help come? My help comes from HaShem, who made heaven and earth. He will not allow your foot to slip; He who guards you will not slumber. Behold, He who guards Israel will neither slumber nor sleep. Hashem is guardian; HaShem is your protection on your right hand. The sun will not strike you by day, Nor the moon by night.  HaShem will protect you from all evil; He will keep your soul.  HaShem will guard your going out and your coming in From this time forth and forever

Ron Paul is Right on Iran and the Israeli’s Agree

Most of our political leaders who are running for President in 2012, Democrat and Republican alike, are drumming up support for a military strike on Iran.  These political ‘talking heads’ are suggesting that Iran is an existential threat to Israel and the US and are preparing the public for a war against Iran.   Ron Paul says that Iran is not an existential threat to Israel and can handle the Iranians themselves and both Prime Minister Netanyahu and the head of the Mossad agree.

While it is obvious that Iran is a threat to Middle East peace, it is no match for the Israelis and any declarations of an existential threat seem to be coming mainly from the American Military Industrial Complex to expand their failing empire.

See the YouTube video “Intelligence Officer: Ron Paul is Right”

PM Netanyahu’s Speech at the UN General Assembly – January 2012

PM Netanyahu’s Speech at the UN General Assembly

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland. I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people. The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events. Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth. Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.
Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942 , after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments. Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie? A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie? This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie?And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie? One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife’s grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?
Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries. But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency? A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You’re wrong. History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries.
In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times. Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death. The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day.
Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet. What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet. I am proud that my country Israelis at the forefront of these advances – by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.
But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after an horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind. That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction. The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge?
Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom? Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world’s most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism? Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world? The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?
Ladies and Gentlemen, The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted. For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one. In 2005, hoping to advance peace,Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza . It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn’t get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.
Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country’s civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians -Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers. That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel , by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas. We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy’s civilian population from harm’s way. Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn?Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.
By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice. Delegates of the United Nations, Will you accept this farce? Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat. If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity. And in condemning Israel , this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace.Here’s why. When Israel left Gaza , many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense. What legitimacy? What self-defense?
The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us -my people, my country – of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty! Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists? We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israelis again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.Ladies and Gentlemen, All of Israel wants peace.
Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein. And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel , will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace. In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples – a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it. We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state. Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people.
 The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel . This is the land of our forefathers. Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more.” These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city, in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem . We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland. As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.
But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel . That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. We don’t want another Gaza , another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv. We want peace. I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran , that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order. The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.
Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the “confirmed unteachability of mankind,” the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them. Churchill bemoaned what he called the “want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”
I speak here today in the hope that Churchill’s assessment of the “unteachability of mankind” is for once proven wrong. I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history — that we can prevent danger in time. In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.

Rumors of Gog Magog

The world is perhaps standing on the edge of the abyss and is virtually on brink of another major war. One which may kick off in Iran. Though sources may disagree on when the conflict would begin, most are convinced that it will begin.  And will surely draw Russia into the conflict.

In a report on Pravda.ru,  Anton Krivenyuk of the Georgia Times  believes the war may begin when Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear weapons capability. The United States has been drumming up ‘war fever’ here in the USA and the Obama regime’ will support the attack. If it happens, the new large-scale regional war will become inevitable.

Therefore, many countries in the region will support Iran either directly or by implication. In particular, it goes about China. Chinese President Hu Jintao stated that if the USA or any other country attacked Iran, China would take responsive measures immediately. As for Moscow, sources at Russia’s Defense Ministry said that the forces in the region had already been mobilized in case of a possible war.  In a previous post we demonstrated the gematrial connection between China and Iran [See Article Here].

The Southern Caucasus borders on Iran. Russia’s borders are near the country too. Armenia and Azerbaijan  border on Iran as well.  Georgia Times and a scientist of politics of the Tbilisi State University (Georgia) tried to predict what consequences the armed conflict may lead to for separate countries of the region.

Georgian scientist of politics, Solomon Lebanoidze, is pessimistic about the future of the region. As he said in an interview with Georgia Times, the war in Iran is very likely to happen. “It may happen that this war may grow into World War III. No one is going to stay aside. There are many nuances here that will not give any country of the Caucasus an opportunity to remain a serene harbor,” the expert said.

It will not be possible for Russia not to be involved in the conflict and may form a military alliance with China in case of the conflict. The alliance may gradually develop into the anti-Western coalition of forces against Israel and the USA, if they get involved in the war too.

In the Tanakh, China is called – Sin.  It’s gematria is 120 (not using the sofit form of the Nun).  China has a long standing relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran.  China has been helping them since the 1980′s with their nuclear program under the supposed umbrella of peaceful usage.  Iran’s president, Ahmadinejad  also has a gematria value of 120.   In Gematria Ketana, the zero is dropped making it the value of 12, which is the gematria of GOG.   The word time in the last day prophecy is and also equals 120 (12).

Iran’s threat to use nuclear weapons against Israel makes the likelihood of an Israeli first strike more probable, which may be Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic end game.  If he can get Israel to strike Iran first before ‘Arab Spring Fever’ can erupt in his country, where an estimated 70% of Iranian citizens despise the regime, then an Islamic holy war will erupt in the region.  However it will remain to be seen if it will be the foretold Gog U’Magog Wars.

Ron Paul the Thinking Man’s Candidate

Blowback on American Foriegn PolicyMany of you may wonder why I spend so much time promoting Ron Paul for the Presidency of the United States.  After all this blog is supposed to be about the prophesies about Israel.   As I have stated over and over again, I firmly believe a Ron Paul presidency will bring about a paradigm shift in American foreign policy and bring an end of the American Empire (the exact opposite of what the Constitution and our Framers envisioned) and free Israel’s hands to do what is needed for it’s own survival.

Many evangelical Christian and a large majority of the American Jewish population believe that Ron Paul is either a racist, anti-Semite or many other unflattering monikers that are being thrown around.   The sad thing is that they have failed to really understand what drives Ron Paul at his core.  Instead of listening to what he is really saying, many people are simply REACTING to language they have been programmed to react to.  The most efficient means of silencing a person, or putting them on the defensive, is to label them something heinous and force them to defend that label. The labels one could use to achieve this are vast, but there are three particular labels that will almost always stop a person dead in their tracks. Those three labels are “racist”, “anti-Semite” and “homophobe”. And for the most part, the indiscriminate use of these labels are a product of America’s growing level of political correctness.

Obviously that isn’t the case with serious claims of racism, as that has been a point of authentic contention for several decades and the occasions of racism in this country are well documented and many. African Americans have been battling true racism for a very long time and it is an issue that should be taken very seriously. If a person truly has espoused racist beliefs and has made those beliefs public, that person should be taken to task on those beliefs and ousted publicly. Unfortunately, there is a huge contingent of politically ignorant people in the world that take their zeal for what they perceive to be political correctness too far, and that has resulted in the unfair labeling of a great many people as racists. When this happens, the most egregious of all crimes against minorities is perpetrated, and that is the marginalization of true racism.

Ron Paul on Racism

Ron Paul has been coming under attack recently for “racist newsletters” that were written in his name over twenty years ago. I should say, he is coming under attack again. This issue was also raised in the last Presidential election, although not as forcefully at that time because Ron Paul  didn’t stand a real chance of winning the Presidency.  So the matter was dropped.

I have looked at much of the so called proof of Ron Paul’s ‘evils’ and much of it is politically motivated.  Instead of calling him racist or anti-Jewish or anti-Israel simply based on the REACTIVE language that is used against him by his political enemies (including the bought and paid for Media), one should ask themselves why is RP against certain legislation or foreign policies.

The so-called racist Ron Paul newsletters were published for over ten years. If you assume that one newsletter was published per month and consisted of, on average, 4 pages of content, then it is safe to assume roughly 480 pages worth of material per year. You can subsequently assume that over the course of ten years there was roughly 4000 separate articles contained within the complete body of work. So out of 4000 articles, or likely more, the establishment was only able to dig up 5-6 quotes that could even be considered mildly incendiary by any standards and no worse than “politically incorrect” by most. To make matters worse, when you research these quotes in full, you begin to realize that at least half of them have been cut & pasted in a manner that distorts the meaning of the quotes, reducing the number of potentially “racist” quotes to three or four. That’s what the establishment has on Ron Paul. That’s the amount of dirt they can get on Mr. Consistent, four quotes over the course of two decades. The man has said repeatedly that he didn’t write these words, but he has also taken full responsibility for them because it happened under his watch (not like the so-called leaders of today who try to pass the buck – leaders like Barack Obama). He has not denied that, he has owned it. But he won’t own the quotes themselves, because they are not his. I take him at his word. He has earned that in my eyes, and it makes the most logical sense.

On the floor of the House of Representatives on June 4, 2004, Ron Paul said, “The civil rights act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom.” Paul said he objected to the Civil Rights Act because of its infringement on private property rights.  He said that while he would favor repealing Jim Crow laws, the United States “would be better off” without government intruding on and policing personal lives.    In his speech to Congress explaining his opposition, he said, “The forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty… The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country.  The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrock of free society.” 

The underlying core value that steers libertarian Congressman Paul’s thinking and decisions is liberty and freedom.  If liberty or freedom are in anyway diminished by any piece of legislation, it is a sure thing that he will be against it.   Dr. Paul said it best in a 2008 interview with Bill Moyers Journal on PBS:

“Libertarianism is the enemy of all racism, because racism is a collectivist idea that you put people in categories. You say, well blacks belong here, and whites here, and women here and we don’t see people in forms..or gays. You don’t have rights because your gays, or women or minorities, you have rights because you’re an individual. So we see people strictly as individuals. We get these individuals in a natural way. So it’s exactly opposite of all collectivism and it’s absolutely anti-racism because we don’t see it in those terms.”  (See YOUTUBE Video)

Black Man Defends Ron Paul

NAACP Nelson Linder speaks on Ron Paul and racism 

The Media is trying it’s best to show Ron Paul as a racist and edited a interview with him to try to discredit him.   The first video is CNN’s edited version which landed on the airwaves, while the unedited version shows Ron Paul in a very good light.

Edited CNN Interview with Ron Paul

Unedited CNN Interview with Ron Paul

Ron Paul’s Anti-Semitism?

The RJC (Republican Jewish Coalition) announced this month that congressman Ron Paul would not be among the six guests invited to participate in its Republican Presidential Candidates Forum. “He’s just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization,” said Matt Brooks, executive director of the RJC, adding that the group “rejects his misguided and extreme views.”

Paul’s exclusion caused an uproar, with critics alleging that his stand on Israel had earned the RJC’s ire; an absolutist libertarian, Paul opposes foreign aid to all countries, including the Jewish state. “This seems to me more of an attempt to draw boundaries around acceptable policy discourse than any active concern that President Dr. Ron Paul would be actively anti-Israel or anti-Semitic,” wrote Reason editor Matt Welch. Chris McGreal of the Guardian reported that Paul “was barred because of his views on Israel.” Even Seth Lipsky, editor of the New York Sun and a valiant defender of Israel (and friend and mentor of this writer), opined, “The whole idea of an organization of Jewish Republicans worrying about the mainstream strikes me as a bit contradictory.” [Source – the Weekly Standard.com]

Congressman Ron Paul, who is leading the polls in advance of next Tuesday’s Republican caucuses in Iowa, denies allegations that he has promoted anti-Semitism, saying that this would be “a betrayal of my own intellectual heritage….Any kind of racism or anti-Semitism is incompatible with my philosophy,” Paul said in an interview with Haaretz.

When asked for his reaction to his exclusion from the function held by the Republican Jewish Coalition, Ron Paul stated:

 Well, it was a bit surprising and disappointing. I believe that Israel is one of our most important friends in the world. And the views that I hold have many adherents in Israel today. Two of the tenets of a true Zionist are “self-determination” and “self-reliance.” I do not believe we should be Israel’s master but, rather, her friend. We should not be dictating her policies and announcing her negotiating positions before talks with her neighbors have even begun.”

Ron Paul on September 11

One of Ron Paul’s controversial positions is that American support for Israel was one of the reasons for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  While this may be a controversial position, it shouldn’t be.  It is quite clear that the Jihadists believe this and have openly said so.  Many people I know both fellow Jew and non-Jew believe that American support for the secular Israeli government has spawned the anti-Zionist terrorist agenda.   I believe that this understanding is strengthened by the Hebrew Scriptures, which shows that in the End of Day’s the nations of the world will turn against Israel.  Since 911 more and more of Israel’s former allies have turned against her, continuing to fulfil the prophesies of the Tanakh.

Ron Paul has openly said that he viewed Israel as “one of our most important friends in the world” and that he supports Israel right to attack Iran in self-defense.   In fact when Israel attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, almost the entire U.S. Congress voted to condemn the act. Ron Paul was one of the few dissenters: he voted against the condemnation and in favor of Israel’s right to self-determination.

Blowback from American Foreign Policy

Definition of Blowback by the CIA:  – the unintended consequences of foreign operations that were deliberately kept secret from the American public

The last area of concern is a perceived idea that Ron Paul is dead wrong on American foreign policy.  This idea is promulgated by the idea that America only acts for the good of other nations.  This idea is absolutely false and shows the level of ‘media brainwashing’ that has occurred in America in the last century.   It is our ‘Empire-Driven’ foreign policy that has created the so called War on Terror.  Ron Paul is right on target when he says that it is our occupation of other countries that incites other nations and people’s against America.  Most our our war dead are results of foreign intervention.   While the American government calls them wars necessary to American national security and uses the bought and paid for Media to sell the American Public on them, the reality is that these wars or ‘police-actions’ are nothing more than Empire building.

The ills that our nation is suffering today through the War on Terror are directly connected to events in Iran in 1953.  The Prime Minister of Iran, Muhammed Mozadek, accused the British of ripping off Iran of it’s national resources and demanded that Iran receive it’s fair share of the profits from British endeavors.  The British reacted by collaborating with the American government of President Eisenhower, who promptly declared the Iranian prime minister a communist and sent the CIA into Iran to destabilize his government.  The result is that the Shah was placed into power who ruled Iran with an oppressive regime’ and became a puppet to the Western powers.  Within two decades, the people revolted and established the Islamic Republic of Iran (the Iranian Revolution of 1979), who became the West’s arch-enemy and responsible for much of the terrorism in the world today.

Please see the video on Ron Paul and Foreign Policy

In Closing

While I cannot say for sure that Ron Paul will be the best President America has ever elected, I believe that he is the only candidate that brings certain ingredients to American Politics that it is sorely lacking – INTEGRITY and MORAL CHARACTER.  America has lost her way.  We cannot afford to elect more of the same types of bought and sold politicians that America has produced in the last 75 years.  America needs real change, not the change promoted by the Buffon-in-Charge Barack Obama, may his name be forever purged from our thoughts.  As a result of political correctness and character assassination by political and activist hitmen, the good name of Ron Paul has been run through the mud.   Hopefully, men and women of integrity can see through the lies and deception and go on to support an idea whose time has come.

Vote For Ron Paul in 2012