Dr. David Martin is emerging as an oft vilified individual
for his sharing of Anti-Medical Tyranny data. When you read the
Globalist-Narrative Search Engine listings pertaining to Dr. Martin, notice
they attack him personally (as in character assassination) or say nay to
the data he shares, AND I have not read or heard anyone refute his data with
data that is not itself based on skewed or completely false-science.
PLEASE! I need more Patriots to step up. I need Readers
to chip in $5 - $10 - $25 - $50 - $100. PLEASE YOUR generosity is NEEDED.
PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty:
In a September [posted in October on Rumble] 2023
lecture in Dornach, Switzerland, Dr. David E. Martin detailed how it is known
that SARS-CoV-2 is a man-made biological weapon whose development began 58
years ago.
Dr. Martin said that the “coronavirus” virus was first
described in 1965. Two years later, healthy British military personnel were
infected with coronavirus pathogens from the US “as part of our biological
weapons program.”
In 1992, Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, took a pathogen that used to infect the gut and lungs and altered
it with a chimaera to make it infect the heart, causing cardiomyopathy.
This research was part of the effort to develop an HIV vaccine.
The covid injections were 19 years in the making by the time
they were rolled out. These injections were rolled out despite the mRNA
spike protein being publicly referred to as a bio-weapon almost 20 years ago.
In 2005, the mRNA spike protein was presented at a conference organised by
DARPA and Miter Corporation as a “technology that enables biological warfare.”
Towards the end of his lecture, Dr. Martin summarised some
of the key points in the timeline of the conspiracy to commit global genocide:
·2002 – US scientists developed the weapon.
·2003 – US Centres for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) patented the weapon in its first commercial application
(SARS).
·2005 – mRNA spike protein was declared a
biological “belligerent” technology.
·2016 – Proceedings of the published National
Academy of Sciences article ‘SARS-Like W1V1-COV
Poised for Human Emergence’. W1V1-COV refers to the first
covid-like virus that was produced by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The
article states that the virus is ready for release and describes in detail how
it can best be released.
He also exposed more outrageous covid crimes that include
collusion, racketeering and criminal conspiracy murder.
To avoid criminal investigation or responsibility, the GAVI
Vaccine Alliance’s research projects have been placed under the World Health
Organisation (“WHO”) and, according to the WHO Charter, they cannot be
investigated or prosecuted for crimes committed. GAVI, based in Geneva,
Switzerland, also enjoys diplomatic immunity and cannot be prosecuted by the
local authorities.
You can read a more detailed description of Dr. Martin’s
lecture published by TKP HERE.
If you are unable to watch the video above on Rumble, you
can watch it on BitChute HERE.
Who is Dr. David Martin?
The following is according to
a biography uploaded on the World Intellectual Property
Organisation (“WIPO”) website.
Dr. David Martin is the founding CEO of M∙CAM
Inc. M∙CAM
is the international leader in intellectual property-based financial risk
management. From auditing patent quality for governments and patent offices to
providing state-of-the-art actuarial risk management systems and solutions to
the largest banks and insurance companies, M∙CAM
has established a global standard in patent quality and commercial validity
assessment and management.
A spokesperson for global intellectual property
accountability and quality reform, Dr. Martin has worked closely with the
United States Congress, and numerous trade and finance regulatory agencies in
the United States, Europe and Asia, in advocating and deploying infrastructure
to support growing reliance on proprietary rights in business transactions. M∙CAM has supported the
modernisation of intellectual property, tax, and accounting laws through its
work with oversight agencies and policymakers.
Dr. Martin has founded several for-profit and non-profit
companies and organizations and serves on several boards. He was the founding
CEO of Mosaic Technologies Inc., a company that developed and commercialized
advanced computational linguistics technologies, dynamic data compression and
encryption technologies, electrical field transmission technology, medical
diagnostics, and stealth/anechoic technology. He was a founding member of
Japan’s Institute for Interface Science & Technology. He founded and served
as Executive Director of the Charlottesville Venture Group. He has served as a
board member for the Research Institute for Small and Emerging Business
(Washington D.C.), the Academy for Augmenting Grassroots Technological
Innovations (India), the IST (Japan) the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of
Commerce (Virginia), and the Charlottesville Industrial Development Agency
(Virginia).
As a former Assistant Professor at the University of
Virginia’s School of Medicine, Dr. Martin founded the University’s first
wholly-owned, for-profit, research and development and technology transfer
corporation. Engaged in domestic and international technology transfer,
clinical research, and financing, this company pioneered new techniques of
innovation management that have become industry standards. In 1999, Dr. Martin
was appointed by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia to serve on the
Joint Commission on Technology and Science and has served the General Assembly
and Virginia’s Centre for Innovative Technology on numerous occasions.
Dr. Martin’s work with the Batten Institute at the Darden
Graduate School of Business Administration at the University of Virginia and
his related work at the Indian Institute for Management in Ahmedabad India has
brought unprecedented curricular focus to areas of intangible asset risk
management, finance, and accounting standards. In addition to his academic
work, Dr. Martin has closely advised intellectual property-based finance and
investment programs in India, China, Denmark, the European Union, the United
Kingdom, South Africa, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States, and the
United Arab Emirates.
Dr. Martin has publications in law, medicine, engineering,
finance and education. He maintains active research in the fields of linguistic
genomics and fractal financial risk modelling, as well as continuing his over
15 years of research in cellular membrane ionic signalling.
I am a bit disturbed and perturbed that Left-Wing Jews are
shooting themselves in the foot by working against shoring up the Jewish
identity of Israel by propagandizing Israel’s public with typical lies about
the new Nationality Law.
Apparently Leftists of all nations are supportive of the Multiculturalism
that destroys the national identity and culture of all nations. I would not be
surprised if Jews in America also supportive of a Leftist agenda to suppress the
Jewish national identity in the Land of the Jews.
JewishPress.com has the story of how Israel’s Left is
destroying their own nation.
In the week before the Saturday night rally in Tel Aviv’s
Rabin Square against Israel’s new Nationality Law, the organizers issued
frequent announcements to the media, signed by the “headquarters of the
struggle against the Nationality Law.”
According to the website Mida, the group behind the
“struggle” is Anu (Us in Hebrew), a leftist NGO supported by the New Israel
Fund, the European Union, UNESCO, and the Shoken fund, to name a few.
Anu is also behind an online funding campaign to raise money
for the rally and the continued fight against the new law.
To remind you, the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of
the Jewish People, enacted July 19 by a majority of 62 to 55 with 2 abstaining,
establishes the constitutionality of the three historic Zionist principles: the
free return of the Jews to the land of our fathers; the free settlement of Jews
everywhere in Israel; and the miraculously revived Hebrew as the official
language of the Jewish State. Calling these principles racist and part of an
apartheid policy is tantamount to attacking the very existence of a Jewish
State.
But the Anu-supported “Struggle Headquarters” describes the
new Basic Law (meaning it is constitutional) in a distorted way, with clear
post-Zionist attitudes woven between the lines.
For one thing, the Struggle Headquarters does not distinguish
between Israeli minorities who committed to military service and those who do
not, presenting the protest as being shared by “Druze, Jews and Arabs.” This
despite the yawning gap between the position of a large number of Israeli
Arabs, who identify themselves as “Palestinians” and pray for the destruction
of Israel, and the overwhelming majority of the Druze, who are proud of their
country and fight for it in the battlefield.
The Struggle Headquarters propaganda maliciously
misrepresents the law, using a false comparison between two Border Guard
officers, one a Jew, the other a Druze, and stating that “the Nationality Law
states explicitly: They are not brothers! They are not equal!”
The new law does no such thing, of course. It certainly does
not violate the civil rights of Druze citizens, nor does it violate the
equality between Jewish and Druze citizens.
The Struggle Headquarters intentionally lies to the public,
suggesting the new law “officially cancels the principle of civil equality” and
“justifies inequality in the distribution of national resources,” both utterly
baseless claims.
They also claim the law “cancels the recognition of Arabic
as an official language,” when the Nationality Law, which crowns Hebrew as the
Jewish State’s official language, also explicitly uphold the special status
given to the Arabic language.
Along with the above distortions, the Struggle Headquarters
is also infected with post-Zionism: “The government, deliberately, violates the
international right of minorities to national self-determination as minority
groups,” the campaign declares, but fails to explain what is the basis for this
so-called “international right.” That’s because no such right exists.
Minority rights, as applying to ethnic, religious or
linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples, are an integral part of
international human rights law, designed to ensure that a specific group which
is in a vulnerable, disadvantaged or marginalized position in society, is able
to achieve equality and is protected from persecution. The concerns of
international legal conventions on minority rights are not to prevent
nation-states such as England, Denmark, France or Israel from remaining so, but
to prevent the genocide of minorities in places like the former Yugoslavia or
east Africa. In countries with a Western democratic tradition, minority rights
are usually protected by affirmative action quotas.
And yet, the literature disseminated by the Struggle
Headquarters say Israel must provide “national self-determination” to Israeli
Arabs, many of whom identify themselves as “Palestinians.” This is a concept
that promotes eliminating the uniqueness of the Jewish national identity of the
State of Israel.
This post-Zionist outlook joins similar statements made by
Druze former General Amal Assad, one of the leaders of the struggle against the
Nationality Law, who believes the Jews do not have a unique right to the Land
of Israel, as he put it recently on his Facebook page: “Where did you get the
nerve to determine that the country belongs to the Jews? What is the foundation
of the claim of the Jewish right and ownership of the land?”
Last week, it was the same Assad who caused the collapse of
a meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu and the heads of the Druze
community, when he declared that Israel is on its way to becoming an “apartheid
state.”
THE LEADER
One of the prominent figures in the “struggle against
national law” is Dr. Ricki Tessler, a faculty member at the Hebrew University’s
School of Education and chair of the Academic Forum on Civics Education.
Tessler is the spearhead in the campaign to eliminate national-Zionist values
from the teaching of civil studies, in favor of “universal” values that correspond to the
values of a state of
all its citizens.
In an interview with the Knesset TV channel, Tesler
expressed her rage at the fact that the country’s civil studies books teach
that “the government can make decisions because it is the majority,”
protesting: “Where will all this lead us?”
In other words, Tessler is enraged by the most basic
principle of democracy: majority rule.
ANU AND THE NIF
Anu is a federation of lefwing [sic] organizations,
including Agenda, heavily sponsored by the New Israel Fund (80% of its budget
came from NIF).
Agenda’s board included NIF’s Executive Director in Israel,
Rachel Liel; MK Daniel Ben-Simon (Zionist Union); and former Israel TV news
director and current mayor of the Druze town of Daliat al-Carmel, Rafik Halabi,
who is one of the pillars of the protest against the Nationality Law; and the
group’s director-general Anat Saragusti, who later ran B’Tselem US.
Between 2014 and 2017, Anu received more than $550,000 in
grants from the NIF. The NGO also receives grants from the European Union and
the UN, the specific amounts are not yet known.
Anu serves the leftist agenda, dedicating its official
website and Facebook page to promoting leftwing demonstrations under the
title “The People Are Fighting Corruption.” Anu provides organizational
knowledge to expand the circle of participants in the demonstrations, offering
an online demonstrations map, directing users to the locations of the
demonstrations throughout the country, and providing updates via email on
upcoming rallies.
To date, Anu has launched an extensive campaign to prevent
the expulsion of illegal African infiltrators, spreading blatant lies such as
that “the State of Israel expels tens of thousands into mortal danger”;
demonstrations against the government’s natural gas outline; rallies against
the demolition of illegal construction in Bedouin settlements in the Negev; and
support for the Barbur Art Gallery in Jerusalem, which hosted members of
extreme leftist, anti-Israel organizations in a venue that is public property
belonging to the Jerusalem Municipality.
Among the more bizarre campaigns appearing on the
organization’s website is “The struggle against brain-control crimes.” Anu
claims that “university management retirees, together with subcontractors from
intelligence organizations, fire electromagnetic radiation to establish remote
brain control, to manage the citizens using microwave radiation.”
___________________
JNi.Mediaprovides editors and publishers with high quality
Jewish-focused content for their publications.
JewishPress.com - Bringing
you the news from Israel and the Jewish World
About Jewish Press
The Jewish Press is the
largest independent weekly Jewish newspaper in the United States. The paper,
founded by Rabbi Sholom Klass (1916-2000) and Mr. Raphael Schreiber
(1885-1980), debuted as a national weekly in January 1960 and quickly won a
following for its eclectic mix of Jewish news, political and religious
commentary, the largest Jewish classifieds and special features — including
puzzles, games and illustrated stories — for young readers.
For over five decades now The
Jewish Press has championed Torah values and ideals from a centrist or Modern
Orthodox perspective. The paper has been a tireless advocate on behalf of the
State of Israel, Soviet Jewry, and agunot (women whose husbands refuse to grant
them a religious divorce), and has taken the lead in urging a greater communal
openness in addressing domestic violence and other social ills.
Known for its editorial
feistiness, The Jewish Press was politically incorrect long before the phrase
was coined. The paper over the years has been home to colorful and
thought-provoking writers like Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis, Dr. Morris Mandel,
Louis Rene Beres, Steven Plaut, Marvin Schick, Rabbi Dovid Goldwasser, Phyllis
Chesler, Rabbi David Hollander, Paul Eidelberg, the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, as
well as former editor Arnold Fine and current senior editor Jason Maoz.
In 2011, the JewishPress.com
website and related Internet properties were relaunched as an independent,
daily online newspaper, with breaking news and in-depth articles on Israel, the
Jewish People and the world. The Internet edition is managed by Stephen
Leavitt.
The American Left and global Left hate President Trump and
his America First agenda to the point of irrational behavior. If you are an
American patriot you should ask yourself, “Why?”
There are undoubtedly many valid answers as to the why. Here
is one extremely valid reason for Leftist irrational behavior toward President
Trump: To get sovereign-minded American patriots distracted from recent United
Nations action at instituting a one-world government:
The writers describe the
Covenant as a “living document,” a blueprint that will be adopted by all
members of the United Nations. They say that global partnership is necessary in
order to achieve Sustainable Development, by focusing on “social and economic
pillars.” The writers are very careful to avoid the phrase, “one world
government.” Proper governance is necessary on all levels, “from the local to
the global.” (p.36)
…
Since this Draft Covenant has
a Preamble and 79 articles, it is obviously intended to be a “world
constitution for global governance,” an onerous way to control population
growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,”
economic control, consumption control, land and water use control, and
re-settlement control as a form of social engineering.
The above quote is an exposé at the Canada Free Press (CFP) written by Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh about the United Nations instituting a form
of global Communism using the earth’s environment as an insidious pretext.
I am sure there are many Americans who have no idea nor care
what “The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development” (DICED)
is. They should. The Draft Covenant is the
“Environmental Constitution of Global Governance.”
The first version of the Covenant was presented to the United Nations in 1995
on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. It was hoped that it would become a
negotiating document for a global treaty on environmental conservation and
sustainable development.
The fourth version of the Covenant, issued on September 22,
2010, was written to control all development tied to the environment, “the
highest form of law for all human activity.’
The Covenant’s 79 articles, described in great detail in 242
pages, take Sustainable Development principles described in Agenda 21 and
transform them into global law, which supersedes all constitutions including
the U.S. Constitution.
All signatory nations, including the U.S., would become
centrally planned, socialist countries in which all decisions would be made
within the framework of Sustainable Development.
In collaboration with Earth Charter and Elizabeth Haub Foundation for
Environmental Policy and Law from Canada, the Covenant was issued by the
International Council on Environmental Law (ICEL) in Bonn, Germany, and the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with offices in Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Federal agencies that are members of the International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) include U.S. Department of State, Commerce,
Agriculture (Forest Service), Interior (Fish and Wildlife, National Park
Service), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The same agencies are
members of the White House Rural Council and the newly established White House
Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities (Executive Order, March 15, 2012).
The Draft Covenant is a blueprint “to create an agreed
single set of fundamental principles like a ‘code of conduct’ used in many
civil law, socialist, and theocratic traditions, which may guide States,
intergovernmental organizations, and individuals.”
The Covenant underwent four writings, in 1995, 2000, 2004,
and 2010, influenced by the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable
Development, by ideas of development control and social engineering by the
United Nations, “leveling the playing field for international trade, and having
a common basis of future lawmaking.”
§Article 2 describes in
detail “respect for all life forms.”
§Article 3 proposes that the
entire globe should be under “the protection of international law.”
§Article 5 refers to “equity
and justice,” code words for socialism/communism.
§Article 16 requires that
all member nations must adopt environmental conservation into all national
decisions.
§Article 19 deals with
“Stratospheric Ozone.” Rex Communis is the customary international law regime
applicable to areas beyond national jurisdiction: in particular to the high
seas and outer space.” (p. 72)
§Article 20 requires that
all nations must “mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” If we
endorse this document, we must fight a non-existent man-made climate change.
§Article 31, “Action to
Eradicate Poverty,” requires the eradication of poverty by spreading the wealth
from developed nations to developing countries.
§Article 32 requires
recycling, “consumption and production patterns.”
§Article 33, “Demographic
policies,” demands that countries calculate “the size of the human population
their environment is capable of supporting and to implement measures that
prevent the population from exceeding that level.” In the Malthusian model,
humans were supposed to run out of food and starve to death. In a similar
prediction, this document claims that the out-of control multiplication of
humans can endanger the environment.
§Article 34 demands the
maintenance of an open and non-discriminatory international trading system in
which “prices of commodities and raw materials reflect the full direct and
indirect social and environmental costs of their extraction, production,
transport, marketing, and where appropriate, ultimate disposal.” The capitalist
model of supply and demand pricing does not matter.
§Article 37 discusses
“Transboundary Environmental Effects and article 39 directs how “Transboundary
Natural Resources” will be conserved, “quantitatively and qualitatively.”
§According to the document,
“conserve means managing human-induced processes and activities which may be
damaging to natural systems in such a way that the essential functions of these
systems are maintained.”
§Article 41 requires
integrated planning systems, irrespective of administrative boundaries within a
country, and is based on Paragraph 10.5 of Agenda 21, which seeks to
“facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest
sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and
integrated management of land resources.” The impact assessment procedure is
developed by the World Bank.
“Aquifers, drainage basins, coastal, marine areas, and any
areas called ecological units must be taken into account when allocating land
for municipal, agricultural, grazing, forestry, and other uses.” Agricultural
subsidies are discouraged, as well as subsidizing private enterprises.
“Physical planning must follow an integrated approach to land use –
infrastructure, highways, railways, waterways, dams, and harbors. Town and
country planning must include land use plans elaborated at all levels of
government.”
“Sharing Benefits of Biotechnology” is a similar requirement to the Law of the
Sea Treaty which demands that final products of research and development be
used freely, no matter who develops an idea or how much it costs to bring that
idea to the market.
§Article 51 reveals that we
will have to pay for these repressive new requirements while Article 52 shows
that we must pay 0.7 percent of GDP for Official Development Assistance. This
reaffirms the political commitment made in Paragraph 33.13 of Agenda 21 in
1992.
§Article 69 deals with
settlement of disputes by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International
Court of Justice, and/or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
§Article 71 describes the
amendment process, which is submitted to the Secretary-General of the United
Nations. The UN Secretary-General would review the implementation of this
document every five years.
Writers of the Draft Covenant are approximately 19 U.S. professors
of Law, Biology, Natural Resources, Urban Planning, Theology, Environmental
Ethics, two General Counsel Representatives from the Environmental Protection
Agency, chair of the IUCN Ethics Working Group, two attorneys in private
practice in the U.S., a judge from the International Court of Justice, a U.S.
High Seas Policy advisor of the IUCN Global Marine Programme, foreign
dignitaries, ambassadors, and 13 members of the UN Secretariat, including the
Chairman, Dr. Wolfgang E. Burhenne. (2006-onwards)
Since this Draft Covenant has a Preamble and 79 articles, it is obviously
intended to be a “world constitution for global governance,” an onerous way to
control population growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic
equity and justice,” economic control, consumption control, land and water use
control, and re-settlement control as a form of social engineering.
Article 20 is of particular interest because it forces the
signatories to DICED “to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” When
President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord,
“climatologists” from Hollywood and millennials brainwashed by their professors
that CO2 is going to destroy the planet and kills us all, took to microphones
and podiums to express their displeasure with such a “criminal” decision.
It did not matter that the President explained in a very
logical manner that this accord was nothing else than an economic scheme to
steal and redistribute wealth from the United States to the third world while
real heavy polluters like China and India were allowed to continue to pollute
until 2030 when, at that time, they could be bribed to reduce their pollution
and perhaps China would install smokestack scrubbers.
President Trump explained how many millions of American jobs
would be lost and how our energy generation is getting cleaner while we are
exploring other forms of energy. Once President Obama declared that the
science has been settled, the science provided and the IPCC modeling had been
adjusted to fit the globalist man made global warming agenda, so called
anthropogenic.
Since none of Al Gore’s predictions of islands under water due to the melting
of ice cap have turned out true, we have more ice than ever this year, the
globalists changed the title of their global warming hoax to climate change.
Who would object to that term? Everybody knows that climate changes but it is
not because of humans spewing CO2 in the atmosphere. I don’t see any liberals
who have stopped breathing and passing gas. But we do see Hollywood jet set
everywhere sail in their expensive yachts, build mansions on the most beautiful
beach side properties in the world, right after they chew humanity out for
destroying the planet with our very existence and civilization.
How did man become the main perpetrator of climate change? How did we become so
powerful that we can change climate with our very existence but, if we pay
carbon taxes to the third world, we correct our guilt of existing, of
breathing, and we turn climate into a favorable proposition for all – no hurricanes,
no tornadoes, no droughts, no hail, no torrential rains, no earthquakes, no
tsunamis, nothing but serene climate year after year.
The Club of Rome, the premier environmental think-tank, consultant to the
United Nations and the alleged writer of U.N. Agenda 21’s 40 chapters,
explained, “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy
to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global
warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers
are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and
behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy is the humanity itself.”
Environmentalists tell us that the science is “settled” yet 31,000 scientists
have signed a petition against the theory that humans are causing climate
change. There is certainly a need to reduce pollution of our oceans, rivers,
soil, and air but humans are not causing climate change. Temperatures and CO2
concentrations were much higher when there was no industrial activity or even
humans.
The Vostock ice core samples taken by a team of Russian and
French scientists proved beyond any doubt that CO2 concentrations in deep ice
were six times higher than they are today. There are more serious variables
that affect the climate, including solar flares, volcanic activity on earth and
in oceans, and oceanic currents. Then there is the deliberate government
weather tampering by seeding clouds from flying airplanes with various
chemicals in order to “mitigate the effects of global warming.”
Dr. David Frame, climate modeler at Oxford University said, “The models are
convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” Prof. Chris Folland
from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research explained, “The data
doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing
them on the climate models.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, also said, “No
matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest
opportunity to bring about social justice and equality in the world.”
Timothy Wirth, President of the U.N. Foundation, said, “We’ve got to ride this
global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be
doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
The sad thing is that many mayors around the country have decided to disobey
President Trump’s decision on the Paris Climate Accord and reported publicly
that they will continue their membership even though such a move is illegal
under our Constitution. Art. VI, paragraph 2, states, …”and
all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State
shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Law of any State to
the Contrary notwithstanding.”
According to the Tennesseestar.com, the mayor of Nashville, Megan Barry, said
that “The Constitution does not apply here in Nashville: ‘I am committed to
meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement . . . Even if the President is not.’”
Mayor Barry, who is joined by the mayors of Knoxville, Madeline Rogero, the
mayor of Chattanooga, Andy Berke, and “187 U.S. mayors, mostly Democrats,
representing 52 million Americans,” have decided to ignore Article I, Section 10 of
the U.S. Constitution which prohibits states governments,
including towns in those states, from “entering into any treaty, alliance, and
confederation.”
These dissenting mayors have not pledged their allegiance to the U.S.
Constitution but to the Global Covenant of Mayors, one of the arms of
implementation around the globe of U.N. Agenda 21, now morphed into Agenda
2030. Using grants from our own government, the Compact of Mayors and the
European Union’s Covenant of Mayors have influenced initiatives at the local, city,
and state governments, forcing their globalist agenda called “visioning” on the
hapless population who are now forced to accept decisions made by mayors and
boards of supervisors that are robbing them of freedom of movement, of their
property rights, of the use of their cars, of farming, in the name of
“transitioning to a low emission and climate resilient economy,” a pie in the
sky goal. The real goal is to transform and redistribute the wealth of
developed countries and to arrest their development by eventually curbing
completely the use of fossil fuels and turning them into a more primitive
society dependent on unreliable solar and wind power. Such a global society
would have no borders, no sovereignty, no suburbia, no private property, no
cars, and would be controlled by the United Nations umbrella of octopus NGOs.
There is no surprise that there is such a drive from the left to have a
Convention of States (COS) in order to replace our U.S. Constitution with their
own environmental constitution of the world, which is called The Draft
International Covenant on Environment and Development (DICED).
James Delingpole wrote in a recent article at breitbart.com that “Global
warming is a myth – so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers
published in 2017.”
The scientific “consensus” about the global warming lie, cited by the left
without hesitation, is not science and President Trump was right in pulling the
U.S. out of the Paris Climate agreement, an agreement based on the pretense
that the massive lie of global warming is true.
India alone needs $2.5 trillion between now and 2030 to comply with the
requirements of the Paris Climate agreement, a sum which would come from the
largest developed countries, mainly the U.S. And there are many other third
world nations that would demand such redistribution of wealth from
us in order to “decarbonize” and reduce pollution.
Delingpole cites in the
above article the quote given in an interview to Dr. Charles Battig on November
13, 2010. Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Co-Chair of Working Group 3, stated, “We [UN-IPCC] redistribute de facto the
world’s wealth by climate policy…
One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is
environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy
anymore…”
Dr. Charles Battig amply documents the
advancement of Agenda 21 in the United States via ICLEI and gives successful
examples of municipalities who were able to extricate themselves from the
global warming hoax pushed at the local level by the International Council on
Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), an arm of U.N.’s many octopus Agenda
21 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who use federal grants, mayors, and
local boards of supervisors to insinuate their own plans called “visioning”
onto the local community who, most of the time, has no voting rights nor input
into the plans.
Patrick Wood wrote in LinkedIn, Exposing: AGENDA 21, “It’s
time to go tell your city leaders to kill climate change initiatives.
#StopTechnocracy.” It is time that American mayors follow the U.S. Constitution
and not the U.N.’s environmental Constitution called D.I.C.E.D.
Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler
on Business, every Wednesday to Thursday at 10:49 AM EST
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh,Romanian
Conservative is a
freelance writer, author, radio commentator, and speaker. Her books, “Echoes of
Communism”, “Liberty on Life Support” and “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental
Piracy,” “Communism 2.0: 25 Years Later” are available at Amazon in paperback
and Kindle.
Her commentaries reflect
American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education. Visit her
website, ileanajohnson.com
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C.
107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research,
critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use'
exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those
of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright
1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada
Free Press.Com
About Us -- Canada Free
Press
Canada Free Press (CFP) is a
proudly independent, 24/7 news site, updating constantly throughout the day.
More than 100 writers and columnists file regularly to CFP from all corners of
the globe. CFP rides on credibility and is edited by a lifelong journalist.
Canada Free Press does not
sell, loan or give out its mailing list to anyone. You will receive a
confirmation email back to the email you entered. You must respond to the email
in order to receive our mail out of latest news and opinion.
Although we have been posting
to the Internet for more than 14 years, on May 15, 2012 CFP celebrated its
eighth anniversary as a daily. Espousing Conservative viewpoints, cornerstone
of which focuses on love of God, love of family, love of country, CFP maintains
a loyal and growing readership.
CFP senior journalist/editor
Judi McLeod tries to answer each and every letter sent to CFP by readers. CFP's
main ongoing inspiration is to provide accurate and well-researched stories for
a loyal readership that are not printed or posted elsewhere.
CFP's Motto: "Because
without America there is no Free World" is as meaningful today as
it was when first adopted. America and the Free World must …READ THE REST
In the 1967 – 50-years ago – June 5 -10; Israel fought a war
with at least four Arab nations amassing troops on Israel’s border. Begin
counting from day one through the last day, you have the Six-Day
War.
Israel AGAIN defeated armies much-much larger than the
Israel Defense Force (IDF). The Arab nations prepared for invasion for what
they believed would be the utter destruction of Israel. Wisely, Israel utterly
surprised the Egyptian military front by launching a preemptive attack which
destroyed most of Egypt’s air force. Using the shock to Israel’s advantage, the
IDF then launched their vastly outnumbered tanks and pushed Egypt out of the
Sinai. Then Jordan and Syria launched
their invasions unaware that Egypt had gotten their butts kicked in the Sinai.
Although there was a less of a surprise, the IDF ultimately prevailed against
Syria and Jordan. The Golan Heights was taken from Syria and the land conquered
by Jordan in 1948 was taken back which included Israel’s heritage of uniting
Jerusalem. Making Jerusalem whole allowed Jewish access to their most holy site
left to them – the Western Wall still standing after the Romans destroyed the
Jewish Temple circa 70 AD.
The Six Day War Project has a
great video setting up the scene leading to 1967:
1/12 | In the first video of the
mini-series, find out about the early steps that led to the 1967 Six Day War -
a war that changed the future of Israel. Surrounded by enemy neighbors and only
nine miles wide at its narrowest point, Israel was vulnerable.
In May of 1967, the state of Israel was only 19 years old. At its inception in
1948, five Arab armies had coordinated a military invasion to prevent the
creation of the small Jewish country. But Israel’s War of Independence
succeeded in repelling the forces bent on Israel’s destruction. Israel
reclaimed sovereignty over the ancient Jewish homeland, making way for the
establishment of a Jewish country after 2,000 years of statelessness and
periods of persecution.
Yet despite Israel’s success in creating a new country, it did not enjoy peace
with its neighbors. Terrorism and frequent attacks on three borders kept Israel
in a perpetual state of alert.
To the north, from the Golan Heights, Syria shelled Jewish communities below on
a regular basis. In the South and East, Arab terrorists from
Egyptian-controlled Gaza and the Jordanian-controlled West Bank infiltrated and
perpetrated attacks on Israeli civilians, killing 400 in the 19 years since
Israeli independence.
The attacks reached the point that they were condemned as “deplorable” by
then-Secretary General of the United Nations U Thant.
Although the Jewish state had been welcomed into the United Nations and hailed
by the international community, its Arab neighbors rejected its very right to
exist, preparing to resume a war for Israel’s destruction which they had halted
19 years earlier. The Arab buildup for all-out war was very near.
In this video - the first in a 12-part mini-series - you will learn about the
regional atmosphere leading up to the 1967 Six Day War, and find out about the
early steps that led to the war that changed the future of Israel.
This video was produced by Jerusalem U in partnership with The Jerusalem Post,
the Jewish Federations of North America, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs,
the Jewish National Fund, the Israel Action Network, the European Jewish
Congress and the Center for Israel Education. For more on the dramatic events
and impact of the Six Day War, visit sixdaywarproject.org.
Thumbnail Photo Credit: Israel GPO/Moshe Milner
-----------
Are you Jewish and aged 16-28? You could be eligible for …READ
THE REST
If you are a bit impatient to educate yourself at the Six Day War Project, here
is a 6:45 abbreviated 6-Day War documentary that will provide the highlights:
While the military victory was
resounding, the Six-Day War created unresolved challenges that Israel grapples
with to this day. The war also bolstered America’s pro-Israel community and
helped to further reinforce the foundation of the U.S.-Israel strategic
relationship and America’s pro-Israel community. Learn more: http://fal.cn/SixDayWarReflections
Adam Garfinkle wrote an essay for the Foreign
Policy Research Institute (FPRI) reflecting on his historical
view of the results of the Israeli victory in the 6-Day War.
Defense
Minister Moshe Dayan, Chief-of-Staff Yitzhak Rabin, Gen. Rehavam Zeevi R and Gen.
Narkis in the old city of Jerusalem -Source: GovernmentPress Office/Flickr
The most important lesson of the June 1967 Arab-Israeli war
is that there is no such thing as a clean war. That war was very short and
stunningly decisive militarily; it has been anything but politically. From the
Israeli point of view, military victory solved some serious near-term
challenges, but at the cost of generating or exacerbating a host of longer-term
ones—some of which may have come along anyway, some not, some of which may have
been averted (or worsened) had Israeli postwar policy been different—and we
cannot know for certain which are which. To ask whether what has transpired
after the war “had to be that way” constitutes an aspiration to levitate the
philosopher’s stone.
At any rate, of the war’s many consequences, three stand out
as pre-eminent. First, major wars change the societies that fight and endure
their consequences. The Six Day War changed the political,
social-psychological, and, in at least one key case, demographic balances
within all the participating states and a few others besides, with multiple and
varying secondary and tertiary effects over the years. Second, despite the
war’s after-optic of a smashing Arab loss, it was the best thing that ever
happened to the Palestinian national movement. And third, the war catalyzed a
redirection of U.S. Cold War policy in the Middle East (and arguably beyond)
from one teetering on the edge of generic failure to one of significant
success.
At this fiftieth “jubilee” anniversary of the war, buckets
of ink will inevitably be spilled mooting and booting about such questions and
many others; a lot already has been, and I am not reluctant to add to the
bucket count.[1] But
before doing so, we all need to take a deep breath to inhale as much humility
as we can—to remind ourselves what exactly we are doing and what we cannot do
when we exhume moldering chunks of anniversarial history for reexamination.
Shiny Anniversaries
We are so very attracted to anniversaries in the long parade
of political history. We love to draw clear lessons from them, if we can—and if
we can’t some others will claim to do so anyway. We are also attracted to
thinking in terms of parsimonious eras with sharp lines of delineation between
them; anniversaries of turning or tipping points help us mightily to draw such
lines—which is precisely why we call them epochal. Wars, mostly hot but
occasionally cold, figure centrally in the pantheon of such points.
The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War is all but universally
considered to be epochal in this sense, so the recent ink flow is no wonder as
journalists, scholars, memoirists, and others look for lessons and insight as
to how those supposed sharp lines that divide eras were drawn. The subtitle of
a new book furnishes a case in point: “The Breaking of the Middle East.”[2]
There is a problem here—at least one, arguably more than
one. Without yet having read this book, I cannot say for sure that this
subtitle is not magnificently meaningful. But I can say for sure that it
puzzles me. What does it mean to say that a region of the world is “broken”?
Does it imply that before the 1967 Middle East War the region was somehow
whole, a description that implies adjectives such as peaceful, stable, and
nestled in the warm logic of a benign cosmos; and suggests that regional
wholeness also meant that its state or regime units were seen as legitimate by
their own populations and by other states and regimes? So on June 4, 1967, the
Middle East was whole, and by June 11, it was well on its way to being broken?
All of which is to say that the penchant for reposing great
significance in anniversaries is often distortive, because for many it
reinforces the right-angled sureties and sharp distinctions—and presumed causal
chains leading into our own time bearing those precious, sought-after lessons—that
historical reality rarely abides. Only by rounding off the ragged edges,
usually with a rasp composed of our contemporary concerns and convictions
unselfconsciously pointed backwards, can such artificial categories be devised.
Ambiguity annoys most people, and so they go to some lengths to duck it, in the
case of getting arms around history by generating categories, boxes, and labels
into which to shove obdurate facts. History, meanwhile, remains the sprawling
entropic mess it has always been and will always remain.
To employ the anti-ambiguity rasp presupposes, too, that the
craftsman commands cause and effect. We can, after all, only simplify a reality
we presume to understand in its detail. When it comes to the Six Day War, that
means presuming to know how it started and why, how it ended and why, and what
the war led to thereafter in an array of categories: how the postwar
geopolitical trajectory of the core Middle Eastern region and its periphery
spilled forth; how the region’s relationship to the key Cold War superpower
protagonists shifted; the war’s impact on the domestic political cultures of
participants and near-onlookers; and more besides.
The problem here is that we know with confidence only some
of these causal skeins, and, what is more (or actually less), some of what we
know has not stayed constant over the past half century. At one point, say
thirty years ago, we thought we understood the Soviet government’s role in
fomenting the crisis by sending false reports of events in Syria to the
Egyptian leadership; after the Soviet archive opened in the early 1990s,
consensus on that point has weakened as revisionist interpretations have come
forth.[3] Nasser’s
moving-target motives at various points in the crisis leading to war seemed
clear for a time, until they no longer quite did. Several more examples of
elusive once-truths could be cited.
Alas, every seminal event has a pre-context and a
post-context: the convolutions of historical reality that give rise to an event
and its causal afterflow. The further we get from the event, the greater the
still-expanding post-context overshadows the pre-context, because we can see,
for example, how various things turned out in 2017 in a way we could not have
in, say, 1987. But so much else has happened that must, of necessity, dilute any
construction of direct or preponderant causality.
Thus, did the war push Israeli society into becoming more
religious, as many have claimed? Did it help shift Israeli politics to the
Right by transforming the relationship of Orthodox Judaism to Zionism, leading
Orthodox Israelis to engage on many political issues to which they had been
formerly aloof? Or was that a deeper social-demographic trend that would have
happened anyway, if differently, war or no war? So we face a paradox: the
richer the post-context becomes for any epochal event, the poorer becomes our
ability to isolate its downstream impact. As already suggested, we often enough
make up for that poverty by exiling natural ambiguity before the demands of our
current questions or biases. That is how we predict the past.
Scholars do try to isolate causal threads, of course, but
differently because intellectual business models, so to speak, differ.
Historians tend to seek out particularities; political scientists tend to
search for general rules. Historians like their rocks fresh and jagged;
political scientists like theirs rounded by patterns that flow through time.
Each to their own intellectual aesthetic.
And the rest of us? How do we chase truth in history?
Consider that if you pick up a history book and a memoir old enough to serve as
an adjunct to it, you will have in your hands two different perspectives on the
political world. An international political history of the 1930s written in the
2010s will take a passage of reality—say about the British, French, and
American reaction to the 1935 Italian aggression against Ethiopia—and might
spend two sentences or perhaps a paragraph on it. A memoir written in the 1950s
by someone actually involved in debating and shaping that reaction will read
very differently, recalling details, sideways connections to other issues, and
nuances of policies and personalities bound to be lost in a general text if it
aspires to be less than 10,000 pages long. In a history book such a mid-level
event is likely to be framed as a consequence of larger forces that were
leading to more portentous happenings (say, World War II); in a memoir it is
more likely to be framed as both illustration of a synthetic historical moment,
akin to a zeitgeist that is fully felt but is recalcitrant to
reductionist analysis, and partial cause of what came after. Which do we read;
which do we trust?
The answer is both, and wholly neither. How will the Six Day
War figure in history books fifty years from now? There’s no way to know,
because it will depend at least as much on what happens between now and then as
it will on what happened in May and June 1967. But one thing we do know: As the
post-context of the war doubles, the thinness and sameness of the description
will grow, and be of little help in understanding how the main actors involved
saw their circumstances. It will lose a sense of human verisimilitude. Details
invariably give way to theme, and narratives grow shorter even as their truth
claims grow larger. The thickness of memoirs will retain that sense of human
verisimilitude. But what they provide in terms of broader context may suffer
from too narrow an authorial aperture, and perhaps a bad memory in service to
ego protection, if not other incidental causes of inaccuracy. As with many aspects
of life, intellectual and otherwise, tradeoffs spite us in our search for
clarity.
The point of all this? Anniversaries are shiny. They
attract a lot of attention, much of it self-interested and sentimental enough
to lure some people into excessive simplifications if not outright
simplemindedness. If someone will bait the hook, someone else will swallow it.
We witnessed exactly such a spectacle not long ago at the 100th anniversary
of Sykes-Picot, and we’ll see it again a few months hence with the 100th anniversary
of the Balfour Declaration.[4] But
as Max Frankel once said, “simplemindedness is not a handicap in the
competition of social ideas”—or, he might have added, historical
interpretations. If it gets you on TV talk shows to sell your book, no form of
simplification is liable to remain out of bounds these days. After all, what is
fake history if not a collection of aged fake news?
Shining On
Never mind all that: I want people to read this essay, so
rest assured that I know what happened and why, and what it all means even down
to today. And now that I have donned sequins and glitter, I can be almost as
brief and punchy as I am shiny, as is the current custom.
What did the war mean for the region? Plenty. It proved to
remaining doubters that the Arabs could not destroy Israel by conventional
force of arms. It helped establish Israel’s permanence in the eyes of its
adversaries, the world at large, and, to an extent, in the eyes of its own
people. That changed Israel’s domestic political culture. It no longer felt to
the same extent like a pressure-cooking society under constant siege, and that,
along with demographic and other subterranean social trends, ironically
loosened the political grip of Israel’s founding generation of leaders, and the
Labor Party. Less than a decade after the war Revisionist Zionists came to
power for the first time, and now, fifty years later, Israel has the most
rightwing government in its history. Did the Six Day War directly cause that?
Of course not; but it was one of many factors that steered Israeli politics
toward its current circumstances.
The war also began the occupation, first of Golan, the West
Bank, and Gaza—in time a bit less of Golan and not of Gaza at all. If you had
told typical Israelis in the summer of 1967 that fifty years later the West Bank
would still be essentially occupied, neither traded for peace nor annexed, they
would have thought you mad or joking. Israel as an independent state was 19
years and a few weeks old on June 5, 1967. The twentieth anniversary of the war
in 1987 was about the midpoint of Israel’s modern history, half
within-the-Green-Line and half beyond it. Now vastly more of Israel’s history
has passed with the occupation as a part of it. Many more Israelis today cannot
remember Israel in its pre-June 1967 borders than can—and that includes the
Arabs citizens of the state as well as their ethno-linguistic kin living in the
West Bank and Gaza.
In Israel there is a huge open debate, and a constant more
private discussion beneath it, as to how the occupation has changed the nature
of Israeli society. It is a difficult debate to set premises for, because in
fifty years a lot is going to change in any modern society, occupation or no
occupation. My view, like that of most Israelis I know, is that the occupation
has been significantly corrosive of many Israeli institutions. They would like
the occupation to end if it could be ended safely; but increasingly most agree
that it can’t be, at least anytime soon. The remarkable fact is that,
considering the circumstances, the damage to morale and heart, beyond
institutions, has not been even worse. Israel’s moral realism has proved
resilient. But the damage has not been slight, and of course it is ongoing.
As for the Arabs, the war crushed the pretentions of Arab
Socialism and of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Within what the late Malcolm Kerr called
“the Arab Cold War” it played in favor of the Arab monarchies against the
military-ruled republics and hence generally in favor of the West; but it did
not guarantee the safety of monarchical rule everywhere: Just 27 months later
the Sanusi kingdom in Libya fell to a young army colonel named Muamar Qadaffi.
None of the defeated Arab states lost its leader right away: not Nasser in
Egypt, or King Hussein in Jordan, or Nurredin al-Atassi in Syria. But by the
late autumn of 1970 Nasser was dead and al-Atassi had been displaced by Hafez
al-Assad. Rulers also rolled in Iraq, and the very next year, with the British
withdrawal from East of Suez, the United Arab Emirates came into being against its
own will.
The war, therefore, was one element—more important in some
places than others—in a general roiling of Arab politics (and I haven’t even
mentioned stability-challenged zones like Yemen and Sudan), those politics
being pre-embedded, so to speak, in generically weak states (again, some more
than others).[5] Not
that Arab politics was an oasis of serenity before June 1967 either, as a
glance at post-independence Syrian history will show. Indeed, the contention
that the Six Day War, by hollowing out the pretensions of secular Arab
nationalism for all to see, presaged the “return of Islam” with which we and
many others struggle today is both true and overstated—in other words, too
shiny. The frailties of secular nationalism among the Arab states preceded the
war and would have multiplied on account of any number and kind of failures to
come, war or no war.
In any event, the political impact of the Arab loss was
mitigated by the “Palestine” contradiction that then lay at the heart of Arab
politics. “Palestine” was, and remains to some extent, a badge of shame, for it
epitomizes the failure of the Arab states to achieve its goals. Yet it is only
a badge; the persistence of the conflict, sharply inflected by the 1967 loss,
has served as a raison d’être for most ruling Arab elites,
their unflagging opposition to Israel as a symbol of legitimacy. In the parlous
context of inter-Arab politics, too, the conflict has served as the only thing
on which all the Arab regimes could symbolically unite. Non-democratic Arab
elites have used the conflict both as a form of street control internally, and
as a jousting lance in their relations with other Arab states.
Yet by far the most important consequence of the Arab defeat
in 1967 was to free the Palestinian national movement from the clutches of the
Arab states. The theory before June 1967 was that the Arab states would destroy
Israel in a convulsive, epic war, and then hand Palestine over to the
Palestinians. The hysteria that overtook the Arab street leading to war shows
how widespread this theory was, and the war itself showed how hollow a promise
it was. So the Palestinians took matters into their own hands for the first
time, seizing control of the Palestine Liberation Organization from its
Egyptian sponsors and reversing the theoretical dynamic of liberation:
Palestinians would liberate Palestine, and that victory would supercharge and
unify the Arabs to face the hydra-headed monster of Western imperialism. The
key bookends of this transformation as it manifested itself in Arab politics
writ large were the Rabat Arab Summit of 1974, which passed responsibility for
“occupied Palestine” from Jordan to the PLO, and the 1988 decision by King
Hussein to formally relinquish Jordan’s association with the West Bank, which
it had annexed and ruled for 18 years after the 1949 Rhodes Armistice
agreements.
But how would the Palestinians themselves, led by the new
and authentic PLO, liberate Palestine? They had in mind a revolutionary
people’s war, an insurrection focused on the territories Israel newly occupied.
It took its inspiration from lukewarm Maoism and its example from the Vietcong.
The attempted insurrection in the West Bank failed miserably and rapidly;
terrorist attacks mounted from east of the Jordan and across the border with
Egypt became the next tactical phase as Palestinian nationalism’s
organizational expression fractured. In time, Palestinian use of contiguous
lands in Jordan and later in Lebanon to launch repeated terror attacks against
Israeli civilians sparked civil wars in both countries. It did not bring about
the “liberation” of even one square centimeter of “Palestine.”
Terrorism, however, did put the Palestinian issue “on the
map” for much of the world, and now, fifty years later, Palestinians can have a
state if their leaders really want one and are prepared to do what it takes to
get it—the evidence so far suggesting that they don’t, and won’t. Nevertheless,
looking back from fifty years’ hindsight, the Six Day War was about the best
thing that could have happened for the Palestinians; that fact that they have
not consolidated that windfall politically is their own doing, but everyone’s
tragedy.
As to terrorism, it is true that the pusillanimous behavior
of many governments in the 1970s, including some allied in NATO to the United
States, helped the PLO shoot, bomb, and murder its way to political
respectability. So one might venture that by helping to show that terrorism
post-Six Day War can work at least to some extent, these governments bear some
responsibility for the metathesis of nationalist, instrumentalist terrorism
into the mass-murder apocalyptical kind we have witnessed more recently with
al-Qaeda and ISIS. To me it’s another in a series of shiny arguments, more
superficially attractive than fully persuasive. It is not entirely baseless,
however.
But far more important than what the war did for the
thinking of the Palestinians was what it did to the thinking
of the Arab state leaders whose lands were now under Israeli occupation: Egypt,
Jordan, and Syria. Before the war, Arab support for “Palestine” was
highly theoretical, highly ineffectual, and in truth amounted merely to a
symbolic football the Arab regimes used to compete with one another in the
ethereal arena of pan-Arab fantasies. Now, suddenly, the core national
interests of three Arab states—including the largest and most important one,
Egypt—became directly and ineluctably entwined with the reality as opposed to
the symbol of Israel.
The Egyptians, particularly after Nasser’s death brought
Anwar el-Sadat to power, got downright pragmatic. Israel had something these
three states wanted—chunks of their land. And the Egyptian and Jordanian leaderships,
at least, knew that a price would have to be paid to redeem that pragmatism.
Complications aplenty there were, as anyone who lived through the dozen years
after the 1967 War knows well. Nevertheless, this critical divide among the
Arabs—between state leaders who could afford to remain only symbolically
engaged and those who could not—shaped inter-Arab politics then and still does
to some degree today. First Egypt in March 1979 and then Jordan in October 1994
paid the price and made peace with Israel. It seemed like forever passed
between June 1967 and March 1979, but it was less than a dozen years—quick by
historical standards.
While Egypt recovered the entire Sinai through its peace
arrangement with Israel, Jordan did not recover the West Bank. The war had
shifted the political demography of the Hashemite Kingdom, sending more
Palestinians to live among East Bankers—some now refugees twice over and some
for the first time. The consequence was to intensify Jordan’s internalization
of its problem with Palestinian nationalism: It had lost land but gained souls
whose fealty to the monarchy was presumably weak. The benefit of peace to
Jordan in 1984, and hence its main purpose from King Hussein’s point of view,
was therefore not to regain territory but to strengthen the stake that both
Israel and the United States had in Jordan’s stability in the face of future
challenge from any quarter, internal and external alike.
Syria, do note, did not follow the Egyptian and Jordanian
path to peace, and so the Golan Heights remain for all practical purposes part
of Israel. The reasons have to do with the complex sectarian demography of the
country, and specifically with the fact that since 1970 Syria has been ruled by
a minoritarian sect in loose confederation with the country’s other non-Sunni
minorities. The Alawi regime has needed the symbolic pan-Arab mantle of the
Palestinian cause more than any other Arab state, particularly as one with a
border with Israel. Regime leaders anyway did not consider the Golan to be
their sectarian patrimony, but more important, peace and normalization seemed
to the Syrian leadership more of a threat to its longevity (and to its ability
to meddle in Lebanese affairs) than a benefit. Now that Syria as a territorial
unit has dissolved in a brutal civil war, the legacy of 1967 has been rendered
all but moot.
Does that mean that Egypt and Jordan essentially sold out
the Palestinians, making a separate peace? Well, much political theater aside,
yes. But they really had no choice, and not selling out the Palestinians would
not have gained the Palestinians what they wanted anyway. That, in turn, left
the Palestinians with little choice. Eventually, the PLO leadership also
decided to “engage” Israel directly, but without giving up what it still called
the “armed struggle.”
Its partial pragmatism, tactical in character, gained the
PLO a partial advance for the Palestinians through the truncated Oslo process:
a kind of government with a presence in Palestine; some “police” under arms; a
transitional capital in Ramallah; wide international recognition; and more.
Withal, the “territories” remain under Israeli security control, and the
Palestinian economy (jobs, electricity grid, water, and more) remains
essentially a hostage to Israel’s.
This has given rise to perhaps the most underappreciated
irony in a conflict replete with them: First Israel internalized the
Palestinian nationalist problem in June 1967 by occupying at length the West
Bank and Gaza, and then the PLO internalized its Israel problem by drifting via
Oslo into essential dependence on Israel for basic sustenance and even security
support (against Hamas, for example). Note that it was hard for Israel to bomb
PLO headquarters in Tunis in October 1985, but very easy to send a tank column
into downtown Ramallah ten years later. It’s all so very odd, you may think,
but there you have it.
The Bigger Picture
Now to the larger, international scene. What the Six Day War
showed was that Soviet patronage of the Arabs and arms sales to them could deliver
neither victory to the Arabs nor reflected advantage for the Soviet Union. This
devalued the allure of Soviet regional overtures reassured the Western-oriented
Arab regimes and hence played directly into the portfolio of U.S. and Western
interests: keep the Soviets out, the oil flowing, and Israel in existence (the
latter construed at the time as a moral-historical obligation, not a strategic
desideratum).
The Johnson administration figured the essence out, which is
why in the aftermath of the war it did not do what the Eisenhower
administration did after the Suez War of 1956: pressure Israel to leave the
territories it had conquered in return for promises that, in the event, turned
out to be worthless. It rather brokered a new document—UNSCR 242—calling for
withdrawal from territories (not “the” territories) in return for peace.
But it was not until the War of Attrition broke out in 1969
around and above the Suez Canal—a direct follow-on to the Six Day War—that the
new Nixon administration codified in policy this basic strategic understanding.
To prevent and if possible roll back Soviet inroads in the Middle East, the
U.S. government would guarantee continued Israeli military superiority—that was
the start of the major U.S. military supply relationship to Israel that endures
today (the younger set may not know it, but Israel won the Six Day War with a
French-supplied air force). In short, nothing the Soviets could supply or do
would help the Arabs regain their lands or make good their threats. The events
of the Jordanian Civil War in September 1970, and the way Nixon administration
principles insisted on interpreting and speaking about that civil war, only
deepened the conviction and the anchors of the policy.
On balance, the policy worked well, despite one painful
interruption. By July 1972, President Sadat had sent a huge Soviet military
mission packing out of Egypt, and was all but begging the United States to open
a new relationship. Egypt had been by far the most critical of Soviet clients
in the Middle East, and Sadat’s volte face represented a huge
victory for U.S. diplomacy. Alas, neither the victory-besotted Israelis nor the
increasingly distracted Americans paid Sadat the attention he craved—so he
taunted the Soviets to give him just enough stuff to draw Jerusalem and
Washington’s eyes his way: He started a war in October 1973. This also worked,
leading as already noted to the March 1979 peace treaty—a geopolitical and
psychological game-changer in the region and, ultimately, beyond.
For most practical purposes, Israel’s role as an effective
proxy for U.S. power in the Middle East endured through the end of the Cold
War, although its benefits paid out quietly, more often than not in what
trouble it deterred as opposed to actively fought.[6] And
the Israeli-Egyptian relationship—imperfect as it may be—still endures as a
guarantee that there can be no more Arab-Israeli conventional wars on the scale
of 1967 or even 1973. These are both, at least partially, strategic
achievements born of the conjoining of Israeli power and American diplomacy,
and—it bears mentioning—these are achievements that were constructed and made
to endure pretty much regardless of the state of play in Israel’s relations
with the Palestinians.
Obviously, the end of the Cold War put paid to the structure
of this regional American strategy, its logic dissipated through victory. In
that sense, the larger global strategic impact of the Six Day War ended when
the Berlin Wall fell. While Israel remains a strategic partner of the United
States in the post-Cold War environment, largely through intelligence sharing
and other activities, its value as strategic proxy diminished as the focus of
U.S. concerns moved east, toward Iraq and the Gulf. In the 1991 Gulf War, for
example, Israel through no fault of its own became a complication for American
policy—a target set for Iraqi scuds—not an asset, such that the U.S. government
pleaded with its Israel counterpart not to use its military
power against a common foe.
Amid the sectarian and proxy wars of the present moment in
the region, Israeli arms lack any point of political entrée that can aid U.S.
policy. Even when it comes to counterterrorism efforts, Israeli intelligence is
indeed valuable but we will not see Israeli special forces attacking salafi terrorist
organizations far from home. The last thing Israel needs is to persuade still
more murderous enemies to gaze its way.
Only if the two parties come to focus on a common
enemy—never the case during the Cold War, by the way, when for Israel the Arabs
were the threat and for the United States the Soviets were the threat—could a
truly robust U.S.-Israeli strategic partnership be born anew. And that common
enemy, which could bring in also many Sunni Arab states and possibly Turkey as
well, is of course Iran. But we are now very deep into the post-context of the
Six Day War, more than six degrees of separation from any plausible causal
skein leading back to June 1967.
A Smaller Picture
The war affected the political and social-psychological
condition not only of state actors but of some others as well. As the Middle
East crisis deepened in May 1967, I was a (nearly) 16-year old Jewish high
school student in the Washington, D.C. area. Just like every American who was
of age in November 1963 can remember where they were and what they were doing
when they heard that President Kennedy had been assassinated, I suspect that
just about every Jew of age anywhere in the world in May and June of 1967 can
remember where they were and what they were doing when they heard that the war
had started, and how they felt when it had ended.
We had been frightened, and afterwards we were relieved and
even elated. It turned out that a lot of what we thought was true about the
state of affairs at the time was incorrect. That was hardly a unique
experience, but more important, over time the effects of the Six Day War on
American Jewry and other Jewish communities outside Israel were dramatic—and
the triangular relationship between Israel, American Jewry, and the United
States has never since been the same.[7]
Figuring it all out has borne its own challenges, surprises,
and disappointments. Those on all three sides who thought they knew what was
going on—who was dependent on whom, who could count on whom, who had political
leverage over whom, and so on—learned better, often the hard way. But none of
this has involved armies with modern weapons and high-level state diplomacies
interacting; no, it is truly complicated and tends to generate
narratives that are very, very shiny—so let’s just leave it at that.
If You Pick Up the Gun, You Roll the Dice
Let us conclude by returning to where we began, using
another’s much earlier conclusion as our prooftext. On Saturday, June 3, 1967,
Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol concluded a meeting of his inner cabinet
with these words: “Nothing will be settled by a military victory. The Arabs
will still be here.”
Eshkol (as well as the out-of-office but still prominent
David Ben-Gurion) had counseled patience and restraint to Israel’s confident
military leadership as the spring 1967 crisis grew, and only reluctantly came
to the decision for war. Keenly sensing the ironies of history—Jewish history
not least—he knew that the war would not be politically conclusive. He realized
that whatever immediate threats needed to be extinguished, war would not
deliver peace and security before, if ever, it delivered mixed and
unanticipated consequences. He was right.
Not even the shrewdest statesmen are wise enough to foresee
the consequences of a major war: When you pick up the gun, you roll the dice.
That, I think, is no shiny lesson, but one more likely for the historically
literate to recall the past’s many dull pains. May it help future leaders to
control their own and others’ expectations if use force they must.
[1] I
have written on the anniversary of the Six Day War before: See “Arab Loss
Had Profound Effect on Politics in the Middle East,” Jewish Exponent,
June 5, 1987; “1967: One War Won, a Few Others Started,” Newsday,
April 30, 1998; and “Six Days, and Forty Years,” The American Spectator,
June 5, 2007.
[2] Guy
Laron, The Six-Day War: The Breaking of the Middle East (Yale
University Press).
[3] See,
for example, Isabella Ginor & Gideon Remez, Foxbats Over Dimona:
The Soviets’ Nuclear Gamble in the Six-Day War (Yale University Press,
2007).
[4]
On the former, note my “The Bullshistory of “Sykes-Picot”, The American
Interest Online, May 16, 2016.
[5] For
detail on what is meant by “pre-embedded” in “generically weak states,” see my
“The Fall of Empires and the Formation of the Modern Middle East,” Orbis (Spring
2016).
[6] A
point emphasized in Michael Mandelbaum, “1967’s Gift to America,” The
American Interest Online, June 2, 2017.
[7] I
have written of this triangular relationship elsewhere: “The Triangle
Connecting the U.S., Israel and American Jewry May Be Coming Apart,” Tablet,
November 5, 2013.
________________
Israel Kicks Hostile Arab
Armies’ Butts 50 Yrs. Ago
The Foreign Policy Research
Institute, founded in 1955, is a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(3)
organization devoted to bringing the insights of scholarship to bear on the
development of policies that advance U.S. national interests. In the tradition
of our founder, Ambassador Robert Strausz-Hupé, Philadelphia-based FPRI
embraces history and geography to illuminate foreign policy challenges facing
the United States. More about FPRI »
Foreign Policy Research
Institute · 1528 Walnut St., Ste. 610 · Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel:
1.215.732.3774 Fax: 1.215.732.4401 www.fpri.org
