Category Archives: News Articles

This Week in History: Jewish right to aliya becomes law

Posted on by
By: Michael Omer-Man – The Jerusalem Post

Nearly 25 months after the Declaration of Independence, the Knesset codified one of the most fundamental principles of Zionism – the right of Jews to make aliya (to immigrate to the State of Israel). Although the 1948 Declaration of Independence opened the gates of the country “for Jewish immigration and for the ingathering of the exiles,” the declaration held no force of law. Thus, on July 5, 1950, the Knesset passed the Law of Return granting every Jew “the right to come to this country as an oleh” (a Jewish immigrant to Israel).

The modern State of Israel was established to fulfill the national self-determination of the Jewish people in its historic homeland. Members of the Zionist movement, which envisioned the establishment of the state, began emigrating from the Diaspora decades before the establishment of the state. The governments of the Ottoman and British Empires, however, in the name of ethnic and civic stability, severely limited Jewish immigration to the land of Israel.

While small numbers of Jews were allowed to settle in the land, many more were turned away, especially in the period leading up to the establishment of the state. At that time, during and after the Second World War, the numbers of Jewish refugees wishing to immigrate were at their highest ever.

With the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 as the national home of the Jewish people and the Declaration of Independence opening the gates of Jewish immigration, hundreds of thousands of Jews made their way to Israel. But the young country had no immigration law, which meant that the ability of Jews to immigrate had not yet been legally enshrined as a right. The 1950 Law of Return fulfilled that need, officially recognizing that “Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh,” providing a small number of exceptions.

After July 5, 1950, all Jews were eligible for immigration and received citizenship upon arrival in the country.

Aside from guaranteeing Jews in the Diaspora the right to immigrate, however, the state itself stood to benefit from the Law of Return. As the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel needed to ensure a Jewish demographic majority in order to maintain its Jewish character alongside its democratic government. By guaranteeing the right of Jewish immigration, the state was actually encouraging Jews to immigrate, thereby increasing the Jewish majority.

The original law was written ambiguously. While explicitly granting a specific right to Jews, it did not provide a definition for Jewishness. Only 20 years later would it be amended to specify who qualified as a Jew, an amendment that for the purposes of the law expanded the definition of a Jew to a large number of people who were not Jewish under halacha. The amendment made anybody with one Jewish grandparent or anyone married to a Jew eligible for immigration.

The 1970 amendment to the Law of Return has been attributed to several different interests and concerns. The expanded definition it adopted was the definition of Jewry first codified in the Nuremberg Laws by Nazi Germany. One explanation for this expansion is that as the homeland of the – historically persecuted – Jewish people, the State of Israel should allow immigration by anyone who could be ostensibly persecuted for being Jewish. Therefore, it is said, the Nazi definition of Jewishness was adopted.

Another explanation is that following the capture of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Six Day War, it became more apparent than ever that Palestinians posed a significant demographic threat to the Jewish majority in Israel. The growing awareness of the demographic threat, it is said, drove the government to expand eligibility for immigration under the Law of Return in order to encourage mass immigration from eastern bloc countries where assimilation was widespread.

The 1970 amendment, however, created a new set of problems for those immigrants who arrived under its expanded eligibility. Being Jewish enough to immigrate according to the standards of the government did not make one Jewish according to the officially empowered rabbinate, which controls several key components of legal affairs in Israel, primarily family law. The most publicized problem these immigrants face is their inability to marry and divorce in the State of Israel.

The Law of Return is also controversial for another reason entirely, not for its expanded inclusion but rather for its exclusion. Some claim that the guaranteed right for Jews to immigrate is discriminatory to non-Jews and therefore runs counter to the democratic value of equality under the law. However, it is argued that the Law of Return – and the principle behind it – is the same principle of self-determination that led to the creation of the state as the national homeland of the Jewish people. Zionism and its manifestation – the State of Israel – is predicated on the right of Jews to immigrate.

Legally speaking, one of the most often-cited contemporary explanations of why the Law of Return does not negate the equality guaranteed in democracy is a principle called, “the special key,” articulated by former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak.

Barak argues that while Jews are given the privilege of immigration, their privileged status ends there. In a 2008 Haaretz interview, Barak explains, “Israel is a home to which a Jew, as a Jew, is given a special key with which to enter – a golden key, which is not given to others. But once you enter the home, all those who reside in it are equal, non-Jews, too.”

Please note: These stories are located outside of Prophecy Today’s website. Prophecy Today is not responsible for their content and does not necessarily agree with the views expressed therein. These articles are provided for your information.

Security and Defense: Looking back to the future

Posted on by
By: Yaakov Katz – The Jerusalem Post

A few months after taking up his post as the IAF’s ninth commander in October 1977, Maj.-Gen. David Ivry was invited to a special meeting.

Sitting around the table were defense minister Ezer Weizman and representatives of the IDF Operations Directorate and the Mossad. The participants were sworn to secrecy as they began speaking about the country’s options in the face of Saddam Hussein’s continued construction of a 70-megawatt, uranium-powered French reactor near Baghdad.

At the time, Israeli efforts were focused on the diplomatic track, getting France to cut off its assistance to Iraq. Israel remained unconvinced by France’s promise that it would retain supervision over the rector and ensure that it was not used to develop a nuclear weapon.

For the IDF, it was a period of peacemaking.

Anwar Sadat had recently visited Israel, and the air force was beginning to plan the evacuation of its bases from the Sinai Peninsula – including Etzion, the one that would be used two years later to launch the attack in Iraq.

Nevertheless, it was time to prepare a military option.

But to do so, Ivry had to come up with a good excuse for why his staff needed to prepare a bombing mission in Iraq. Luckily for him, around the same time, there were intelligence reports that a Soviet Tupolev 22 supersonic bomber was going to land at Iraq’s Habinia Airfield.

He told his staff that the government was considering attacking the airfield, and to prepare a way to get there.

In the 30 years since Operation Opera – Israel’s bombing of the Osirak reactor on June 7, 1981 – Ivry has given few interviews. In honor of the 30th anniversary of the historic bombing last month, he agreed to sit down with The Jerusalem Post this week and retell the story.

Ivry, 77, is today president of Boeing Israel.

Since completing his term as IAF commander, he has served in some of the country’s most senior and sensitive defense-diplomatic positions. He was deputy IDF chief of General Staff, director-general of the Defense Ministry, chairman of Israel Aerospace Industries, head of the National Security Council and ambassador to the United States.

He remembers the operation like it was yesterday, and the interview with the former fighter pilot is a stark reminder of the many challenges Israel faces as it evaluates its options to stop Iran’s race for nuclear power.

The considerations, debates and military complications in the years leading up to the 1981 operation are similar to those the government and IAF of 2011 face as they consider military options to stop Iran. Throughout the interview, on more than one occasion, there is a sense that Iraq is Iran and Hussein is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

A few weeks after being instructed to draw up the plans, Ivry’s staff – despite some members’ claims that it was impossible – presented him with a number of creative ideas how to get IAF Phantom and Skyhawk fighter jets to Iraq. 1979 was spent modifying the midair refueling systems on the IAF’s Hercules transport aircraft so they could service Phantoms, and technology was developed so Skyhawks could refuel one another.

“In general, the plans were not all that attractive because of the refueling problem,” Ivry says.

The real breakthrough came later that year, when US secretary of defense Harold Brown came to Israel. It was a few months after the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and the US had 75 F-16 fighter jets that were on order for the Iranian Air Force but could no longer be delivered. Israel was in negotiations for its own first order of 75 F-16s and was in the middle of ironing out questions about integrating Israeli technology into the planes.

“Weizman called and asked that I join him in the meeting,” Ivry recalls. “I came in, and he asked if the IAF would be interested in receiving the Iranian F-16s. I said yes.”

The answer was not simple, since it meant that Israel would receive planes that did not have its own ingenious technology, but in the back of his mind, Ivry was thinking about Osirak and how the F-16s could solve Israel’s refueling problems.

The first planes arrived in July 1980 – had Israel turned down the offer, it would have begun to receive its order in 1982 – and Ivry immediately ordered his pilots to begin testing the aircraft’s range, and to push them to the max.

In the beginning of 1981, Ivry got the green light from Prime Minister Menachem Begin to move ahead with the attack. The plan was to attack on a Sunday, when the facility would be mostly empty and the French scientists would not be at work. The attack would be at dusk so that if needed, Israel would have a long night to rescue downed pilots.

Ivry presented the plans to the cabinet on a number of occasions. He was aware that he needed to project confidence. As the commander of the IAF, all eyes were on him in the meetings. He had to believe in the plan, convince the chief of General Staff at the time, Raful Eitan, and then explain to the cabinet how it would work.

“If the IAF commander says it’s not possible, then there is no operation,” he explains.

But not all of the country’s defense chiefs were in favor of the strike. The Mossad chief at the time, Yitzhak Hofi – like Meir Dagan, who recently voiced opposition to attacking Iran – was against it, as was the head of Military Intelligence, Maj.-Gen. Yehoshua Sagi.

The major concern was the fallout of the strike – the effect it would have on the peace process with Egypt, how it would impact relations with France and the US, and the assessment that ultimately a strike would only set back Saddam’s nuclear program by two to three years.

Ivry did not spend much time thinking about the philosophy behind the need for the strike. While Begin spoke about preventing a second Holocaust and termed Osirak an existential threat for Israel, Ivry focused on the fine details of the plan, reviewing how the planes would get there, at what angle they would come in for the bombing, and how they would fly back home.

The possibility of nuclear weapons in Saddam’s hands, he explains, was simply a reality with which Israel could not live.

“If you decide that nuclear weapons in Iraq is an existential threat, then there are not a lot of questions that need to be asked,” he says.

The first date given for the bombing was May 10.

Ivry and the pilots flew down to Etzion Air Force Base. The planes were loaded with the bombs, and the pilots were beginning to ignite the engines when Ivry got a call to stop. The head of the opposition at the time, Shimon Peres, was against the bombing, and Begin needed more time.

The next date set was June 7. On Friday, June 4, the commander of the US Navy’s Sixth Fleet was changing command, and Eitan wanted Ivry to fly with him to Naples. They left on Thursday night and returned Friday afternoon. With them on the plane was the US military attaché to Israel, who had caught a ride to the ceremony.

“On the way back, I radioed Tel Aviv and spoke with the head of operations, who gave me the code word that we had a green light for the operation for Sunday,” he says. “After we landed, the attaché went to his weekend, and I went to Jerusalem for one last meeting with Begin, Eitan and [Foreign Minister Yitzhak] Shamir.”

What also helped in preventing the world from realizing what was happening was the international crisis that had evolved following Syria’s deployment of sophisticated surface-to-air missile systems in Lebanon. Begin had promised that Israel would attack if they were not moved.

“Everyone thought we were busy with Lebanon, and this was to our advantage, even though it also insulted some of our allies since they were caught completely off guard,” Ivry says.

The day of the operation, Ivry and Eitan spoke with the pilots. Eitan spoke about the significance of the operation. Ivry focused on the details – the route, the altitude, the way to evade Iraqi air defense systems and what direction to come in and bomb the target.

“We knew that the planes would get there and succeed in bombing the reactor,” Ivry says. “Our biggest concern was about the return flight and whether a plane would be shot down. Since the planes did not have any fuel to spare, they would not have been able to use their thrusters to maneuver if they were intercepted.”

Just after 5:35 p.m., the leader of the eight F-16s that had flown 1,600 km. from the Etzion Air Force Base in the Sinai Peninsula broke radio silence and said the words “Everyone Charlie” – the call that meant all the planes had dropped their bombs and were heading back home.

For Ivry, the Osirak bombing was not the IAF’s greatest aerial achievement under his command.

That title would go to the 1982 bombing of the 17 surface-to-air missile systems that Syria had deployed in Lebanon, without losing a single aircraft – one of the most impressive operations carried out by a Western country to suppress Soviet air defense systems.

The bombing of the reactor resonated more for the deterrence it created for Israel.

“It was a few years after the Entebbe operation and helped show the world that Israel could really go anywhere it needed to,” Ivry explains.

Ten years later, US Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney presented Ivry with a photo of the bombed-out reactor taken by a US satellite after the First Gulf War.

At the bottom of the photo, which hangs in Ivry’s Tel Aviv office as a constant reminder of the threats and challenges that Israel continues to face, Cheney wrote: “With thanks and appreciation for the outstanding job you did on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981, which made our job much easier in Desert Storm!” When it comes to Iran, one would expect the man who commanded the bombing of Osirak to be more forthcoming. But Ivry is careful with what he says.

He insists that the government needs to exhaust all available options before using military force, diplomacy and sanctions. Otherwise, he says, the people will never forgive their leaders.

But, he says, those who claim that delaying the program by only a couple of years is not worth the risk, could be wrong.

“The situation can evolve in between,” he explains. “The same was said about Saddam, and in the end he never got it.”

Please note: These stories are located outside of Prophecy Today’s website. Prophecy Today is not responsible for their content and does not necessarily agree with the views expressed therein. These articles are provided for your information.

Obama Must Face Pakistan’s Brewing Nuclear Crisis

Posted on by
By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

A confluence of five indicators escalates risk to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.  President Obama must help mitigate the brewing crisis before it becomes a horrific nightmare.

First, Pakistani Islamist groups have become the world’s most significant terrorist threat and capable of obtaining nuclear weapons, according to a new report by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).  The Pakistani Neo-Taliban (PNT), the label given to the coalesced terrorist groups, has “conducted the most sophisticated, ambitious and operationally complex terrorist attacks in this century,” said Charles Blair, director of the Terrorism Analysis Project for FAS and author of the June 2011 report.

Blair states the PNT took root in Pakistan’s tribal areas after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.  “They [the Pakistanis] didn’t think that when the Taliban and al-Qaeda came into the tribal areas that they would target the Pakistani state,” Blair said.  But terrorist attacks inside Pakistan spiked at 1,916 incidents in 2009 and now Pakistan finds itself “in the midst of a civil war against many of these same forces.”

The PNT has become a “threat to the very existence of Pakistan” said U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus in 2010, and according to Blair the PNT has a global agenda and is a “highly capable group that can seek and will seek nuclear weapons.”

Second, the physical security of Pakistan’s atomic arsenal warrants close examination, especially in light of America’s undetected airborne raid on Osama bin Laden’s lair in Abbottabad on May 2.  What does this security breach say about Pakistan’s nuclear insecurities, especially with regard to non-state actors such as the PNT?

The FAS report identified several PNT attacks conducted on or near Pakistani nuclear facilities.  The most recent incident was against Pakistan’s naval station Mehran on May 22.  Militants stormed the base with rocket launchers and hand grenades and killed 10 troops.  That well-fortified facility is 15 miles from Masroor Air Base, a depot for nuclear weapons.

But a senior U.S. State Department official believes Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is safe from extremists, according to a report in the Indian Express.  “We don’t think there is any renewed concern … .  Those [nuclear] assets remain under much tighter security than what we saw in Pakistan’s naval base,” said Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake.

Blake’s confidence is ill-placed.  The Baltimore-based Maldon Institute reported on nuclear thefts tracked by Shaun Gregory, the director of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at the University of Bradford in Britain.  Gregory’s report identifies attacks at a nuclear missile storage facility, a nuclear air base, and the nuclear weapons complex at the Wah Cantonment, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons assembly point.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani insist their 100-odd atomic weapons are completely secure, and the U.S. has given Pakistan an estimated $100 million since 9/11 to harden its arsenal, train its people and improve surveillance.  But Gregory insists that despite “elaborate safeguards, empirical evidence points to a clear set of weaknesses and vulnerabilities in Pakistan’s nuclear safety and security arrangements.”

Third, one of those “vulnerabilities” is the cadre that oversees Pakistan’s atomic arsenal.  Pakistan’s military has traditionally been secular, but according to John McLaughlin, the former deputy director at the CIA, Pakistan’s security forces have become increasingly diverse.  There is evidence it is infiltrated at all levels by violent Islamists.

But Pakistani officials insist their nuclear personnel reliability program is stringent.  Retired Gen. Khaled Ahmed Kidwai, director general of the Strategic Plans Division, which oversees Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, told the New York Times, “Our security systems are foolproof.”

But how “foolproof” are Kidwai’s assurances if bin Laden, the world’s most wanted terrorist, can successfully “hide” in a Pakistani military town for five years without detection?  Obviously that incident humiliated Pakistan’s security forces and prompted some housecleaning.

Last month, Pakistani Brig. Gen. Ali Khan was taken into custody over accusations of ties with Hizb ut-Tahrir, a prohibited organization bent on achieving a worldwide Islamic theocracy (caliphate).  Then on June 22, Pakistani officials interrogated four army majors with alleged connections to Khan.  Are these actions for show, or has Pakistan really become serious about Islamists among its security forces?

Apparently, some security officials with Islamist sympathies have escaped the housecleaning.  In late May, Syed Saleem Shahzad, a Pakistani journalist who covered national security and terrorism, was found dead, his face horribly beaten, according to the New York Times.  He reportedly received repeated threats from the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s chief intelligence agency.

Shahzad disappeared from Islamabad two days after he published an article suggesting the militant attack at naval station Mehran was retaliation for the navy’s attempt to crack down on al-Qaeda militants in the armed forces.

Fourth, Pakistan is expanding its atomic arsenal at a much faster rate than any other nation.  A soon-to-be-published study by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, as reported by the Indian Press Online, states Pakistan could possess close to 200 atomic warheads within a decade that is more than Britain.

Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar, Pakistan’s minister of defense, tried to justify the larger atomic arsenal even as the domestic Islamist threat grows.  He explained India, Pakistan’s archenemy, was more financially capable of carrying on a prolonged war than Pakistan, according to the news agency Press Trust of India.  Therefore, one must surmise, Pakistan will make up the difference with atomic arms.

Finally, Pakistan has a history of nuclear proliferation.  “Those things that I fear in the future,” Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Associated Press, include “the proliferation of that [Pakistani nuclear weapon] technology, and it’s the opportunity and the potential that it could fall into the hands of terrorists.”

Pakistan acknowledges its scientists passed sensitive nuclear information to members of al-Qaeda, and in the 1970s A. Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan’s atomic bomb, covertly sold nuclear information and equipment to Libya, North Korea and Iran.  But it feigned ignorance of Khan’s proliferation activities until 2003, even though those transactions required extensive military logistical support.

These indicators of a brewing nuclear crisis coincide with a very strained U.S.-Pakistan relationship.  For example, Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S., Husain Haqqani, told a May 2011 U.S. National Defense University audience that many Pakistanis consider America their “principal national security threat,” and, according to Dawn, a Pakistani newspaper, some Pakistani military officials believe the U.S. is determined to “denuclearize” their country.

President Obama must act quickly to mitigate Pakistan’s brewing nuclear crisis.  He should engage in a frank discussion with Pakistan’s senior leaders, offer positive inducements such as financial loans and aid, and security guarantees to leverage action to shore up nuclear surety.

But failing Pakistan’s immediate action, Obama must be prepared to curb aid and expand our operations against terrorist targets in Pakistan.  He must also be prepared to secure Pakistan’s atomic arsenal before it falls into the hands of Islamic jihadists with or without Islamabad’s cooperation, to prevent a hellish nuclear catastrophe in that country, the region and across the globe.

Please note: These stories are located outside of Prophecy Today’s website. Prophecy Today is not responsible for their content and does not necessarily agree with the views expressed therein. These articles are provided for your information.

Nabil Al-Araby, 75, is New Head of Arab League

Posted on by
By: Chana Ya’ar – Arutz Sheva

The man who helped unseat former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and subsequently served as foreign minister has now become the new point man for the Arab world.

Nabil Al-Araby, 75, took office Sunday after having been elected secretary-general of the Cairo-based Arab League by the body’s membership in May.

The former Egyptian foreign minister succeeded Amr Moussa, running as a presidential candidate in upcoming Egyptian national elections after protesters toppled Mubarak’s 31-year-long regime in February.

In his first media interview since taking on his new role, Al-Araby described his future plans to the state-run Al-Ahram news agency.

Among the items on his agenda are a probe into human rights abuses by Libyan government forces, and an attempt to persuade Syria to take on reforms and transition to democracy.

Acknowledging that deep changes have taken place in the region, Al-Araby also expressed his believe that an independent Palestinian state should be recognized. He added that Israelis should withdraw from Palestinian Authority territory.

From 2001 to 2006, Al-Araby served as a judge on the International Court of Justice at The Hague. He also served as the Egyptian representative to the United Nations in New York from 1991 to 1999, and as its ambassador to India, according to the official Egyptian State Information Service.

A less-than-cordial neighbor to Israel, Al-Araby was behind the recent push by Egypt to retroactively hike the price paid by the Jewish State for its gas since 2008.

Please note: These stories are located outside of Prophecy Today’s website. Prophecy Today is not responsible for their content and does not necessarily agree with the views expressed therein. These articles are provided for your information.

Who Is The Muslim Brotherhood?

Posted on by
By: Arutz Sheva

The MB has has tried to portray itself as moderate and democratic.  But at its core it is anything but. The Brotherhood is a wolf in sheep`s clothing.

Israel National News thanks StandWithUs for helping bring the Muslim Brotherhood to our readers in its own words:
The Muslim Brotherhood logo fits its motto:

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur`an is our law.
Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu akbar!”

The Brotherhood`s goal is to turn the world into an Islamist empire. The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, is a revolutionary fundamentalist movement to restore the caliphate and strict shariah (Islamist) law in Muslim lands and, ultimately, the world. Today, it has chapters in 80 countries. “It is in the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” -Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna

The Brotherhood wants America to fall. It tells followers to be “patient” because America “is heading towards its demise.” The U.S. is an infidel that “does not champion moral and human values and cannot  lead humanity.”-Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Badi, Sept. 2010

The Brotherhood claims western democracy is “corrupt,””unrealistic” and “false.” -Former Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Mahdi Akef

The Brotherhood calls for jihad against “the Muslim`s real enemies, not only Israel but also the United States. Waging jihad against both of these infidels is a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded.” -Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Badi, Sept. 2010

The Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat in 1981 for making peace with the hated “Zionist entity.” It also assassinated Egypt`s prime minister in 1948 and attempted to assassinate President Nasser in 1954.

Hamas is a “wing of the Muslim Brotherhood,”according to the Hamas Charter, Chapter 2. The Charter calls for the murder of Jews, the “obliteration” of Israel and its replacement with an Islamist theocracy.

The Brotherhood supports Hezbollah`s war against the Jews. Brotherhood leader Mahdi Akef declared he was “prepared to send 10,000 jihad fighters immediately to fight at the side of Hezbollah” during Hezbollah`s war against Israel in 2006.

The Brotherhood glorified Osama bin Laden and mourned his death. Osama is “in all certainty, a mujahid (heroic fighter), and I have no doubt  in his sincerity in resisting the occupation, close to Allah on high.” -Former Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Mahdi Akef, Nov. 2007

The Brotherhood “sanctioned martyrdom operations in Palestine….They do not have bombs, so they turn themselves into bombs. This is a necessity.” -Muslim Brotherhood Spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Dec. 17, 2010

The Brotherhood advocates violent jihad: The “change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life,” said Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Badi in a September 2010 sermon.11 Major terrorists came out of the Muslim Brotherhood, including bin Laden`s deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (mastermind of the 9/11 attacks).

The Brotherhood advocates a deceptive strategy in democracies: appear moderate and use existing institutions to gain power. “The civilizational-jihadist process…is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and `sabotaging` its miserable house…so that it is eliminated and God`s religion is made victorious overall other religions,” reads a US Muslim Brotherhood 1991 document. It believes it can conquer Europe peacefully: “After having been expelled twice, Islam will be victorious and reconquer Europe….I am certain that this time, victory will be won not by the sword but by  preaching and [Islamic] ideology.” -Muslim Brotherhood Spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, “Fatwa,” 2003

The Brotherhood uses democracy, but once in power it will replace democracy with fundamentalist shariah law because it is the “true democracy.” “The final, absolute message from heaven contains all the values which the secular world claims to have invented….Islam and its values antedated the West by founding true democracy.” -Former Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Mahdi Akef, Nov. 2007

The Brotherhood`s view of women`s rights is to subjugate and segregate women: The ideal society would include “a campaign against ostentation in dress and loose behaviour…segregation of male and female students; private meetings between men and women, unless within the permitted degrees of relationship, to be counted as a crime for which both will be  censured…prohibition of dancing and other such pastimes.” -Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, “Five Tracts”

The Brotherhood supports Female Genital Mutilation: “[the Americans] wage war on Muslim leaders, the traditions of its faith and its ideas. They even wage war against female circumcision, a practice current in 36 countries, which has been prevalent since the time of the Pharaohs.” -Former Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Mahdi Akef, 2007

The Brotherhood will not treat non-Muslim minorities, such as Coptic Christians, as equals. “Allah`s word will reign supreme and the infidels` word will be inferior.” -Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Badi, Sept. 2010

The Brotherhood refuses to commit to continuing the Israel-Egypt peace treaty.  Muslim Brotherhood leaders have said that “as far as the movement is concerned, Israel is a Zionist entity occupying holy Arab and Islamic lands…and we will get rid of it no matter how long it takes.” -Former Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Mahdi Akef, 2005 and 2007

The Brotherhood has anti-Semitic roots. It supported the Nazis, organized mass demonstrations against the Jews with slogans promoting ethnic cleansing like “Down with the Jews!”and “Jews get out of Egypt and Palestine!” in 1936; carried out a violent pogrom against Egypt`s Jews in November 1945; and made sure that Nazi collaborator and Palestinian Mufti al- Husseini was granted asylum in Egypt in 1946.

 The Brotherhood remains virulently anti-Semitic.”Today the Jews are not the Israelites praised by Allah, but the descendants of the Israelites who defied His word. Allah was angry with them and turned them into monkeys and pigs….There is no doubt that the battle in which the Muslims overcome the Jews [will come]….In that battle the Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them.” -Muslim Brotherhood Spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Please note: These stories are located outside of Prophecy Today’s website. Prophecy Today is not responsible for their content and does not necessarily agree with the views expressed therein. These articles are provided for your information.

Obama’s European Missile Defense Malpractice Paves Way for Iran Nukes

Posted on by
By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

President Obama is guilty of national security malpractice because he replaced a proven missile defense system destined for Europe with one that will not work, but does appease Russia.  Also, Obama’s decision alienated a key ally who now refuses to cooperate, and at the same time Iran—our primary missile threat—is dangerously close to reaching atomic-tipped ballistic missile status.

U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R.-Ala.), according to Aviation Weekly, said the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board concluded that Obama’s proposed missile defense system for Europe, which relies on achieving an early intercept capability, is “simply not credible.”  Portions of the board’s forthcoming study were unveiled during a Senate hearing on June 15.

Shelby said Obama’s promised early intercept capability “was the central justification … to cancel the third site in Europe.”  That site, which was proposed by President George W. Bush, would have deployed the same proven Boeing Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system used in Alaska and California.

However, “Now it looks like the nation may be left with an inadequate defense in Europe and no boost-phase intercept capability,” Shelby said.  And the Pentagon is not reevaluating Obama’s new Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) in light of the Pentagon board’s damaging report, according to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Gates testified that Obama’s PAA “will give us a missile-defense capability several years earlier than would have been the case with the third site in Europe.”  He pointed out that “the third site in Europe was not going to happen because the Czech Republic was not going to approve the radar.”  But that was not necessarily the case two years ago, before Obama canceled the deal.

The Bush administration reached agreements to base the GMD in Poland (missile silos) and the Czech Republic (radars) in 2008.  A year later Obama canceled Bush’s plan, which evidently soiled relations with those nations, based on subsequent negative comments in the media.  But the cancellation evidently pleased the Russians, who charged the Bush plan was directed primarily against them.  And Obama’s cancellation sufficiently appeased Moscow to earn him a quid pro quo campaign-promise achievement, the Russia-U.S. new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty ( START II), which was signed in April 2010.

At the time Obama canceled the Bush plan, he pledged to consider both Poland and the Czech Republic for future basing facilities under his new plan.  But last week Czech Defense Minister Alexander Vondra said his country is stepping away from Obama’s new plan because it is frustrated by its minor role, which may not be the whole story, especially given Russia’s renewed influence among Western Europeans.

To make matters worse for those concerned about missile defense, Iran is racing toward the development of an atomic-tipped ballistic missile arsenal in spite of international efforts to isolate the rogue.  Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that “Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons.”  Tehran also continues to “expand the scale, reach and sophistication of its ballistic missile forces, many of which are inherently capable of carrying a nuclear payload,” Clapper said.

The United Nations’ nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), draws a similar conclusion with its report dated May 24, 2011.  The nine-page report states that its own inquiries show “the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

The IAEA also reports that Iran has increased production of low-enriched uranium (LEU) and continues to enrich uranium to the 20% level, representing 85% of the work needed to produce weapons-grade material.  It already has enough LEU, if further enriched, for several bombs, and more is being produced daily.  And Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted to the IAEA that his country’s nuclear project has “no brake and no reverse gear.”

Consider four consequences of Obama’s decision to cancel Bush’s European-based GMD in light of these new developments.

First, America is less safe because Obama discarded a tested system for one still on the drawing board that may never work.  Admittedly, the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3), linked to the shipboard Aegis radar system, which is part of Obama’s phased approach, is a proven anti-missile system, but not a replacement for the GMD (long-range intercept) or ready for the promised early intercept mission.  Rather, Obama’s plan relies on the creation of a souped-up variant of the SM-3 called Block IIB that isn’t expected to be available until 2020, if ever.

Second, Obama’s kowtowing to Russia on missile defense guarantees a stalemate and long-term missile vulnerability.  The Russians will never be satisfied with an American anti-missile system in Europe.  Unless Moscow can call the shots, which Washington must refuse.  Besides, last week, Russia’s presidential envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, dismissed the U.S. claim that Iran poses a missile threat to Europe.

Third, Iran will take advantage of our new system-development time to further refine its ballistic-missile capability.  Tehran has already accelerated its missile development efforts.  In February 2009, Iran launched its first satellite, the Omid, which used a two-stage space rocket.  At the time, U.S. officials admitted “grave concern” over that achievement because the same capabilities could be applied toward developing intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of targeting the U.S.

The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative states that Iran’s now twice-successful Safir satellite launch vehicle, if converted into a ballistic missile, would likely be able to carry a 1,100-pound warhead 1,875 miles (reaching Berlin), or a 2,200-pound warhead approximately 1,250 miles (covering the entire Middle East).  Put that capability into perspective.

The warhead’s weight and explosive yield depend on the technology used.  The “Fat Man” atomic bomb that destroyed Nagasaki in 1945 weighed 10,300 pounds and produced an explosive yield of 21 kilotons.  By comparison, modern atomic weapons can weigh just a few hundred pounds and produce an explosive yield equal to hundreds of kilotons.

Today, Iran is experimenting with all the technologies necessary to produce a powerful nuclear warhead, and the missiles to deliver those weapons.  The question for the West is not whether, but when, Iran will field such a weapon.

Finally, “There is a real risk that Iran’s nuclear program will prompt other countries to pursue nuclear options,” National Intelligence Director Clapper testified.  That risk is rapidly becoming reality.  At least 10 Middle East countries have plans to build nuclear power plants.  The six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council set up a nuclear exploratory commission in 2007, and Saudi Arabia is working with the U.S. to obtain “a nuclear capacity.”  Remember, spent reactor fuel, which includes plutonium after chemical processing, can be used to fabricate the heart of a nuclear weapon.

Obama’s decision to scrap a proven for an unproven missile defense system is evidence of national security malpractice.  That decision must be reversed, starting with a clear-eyed assessment of the Iranian threat, our allies’ willingness to cooperate on a missile defense system, and our proven technological capabilities in view of the Pentagon’s forthcoming Defense Science Board report.

Please note: These stories are located outside of Prophecy Today’s website. Prophecy Today is not responsible for their content and does not necessarily agree with the views expressed therein. These articles are provided for your information.

Obama’s Delicate Challenge: Quit Afghan War, Avoid Nightmare Scenario

Posted on by
By: Robert Maginnis – Human Events

President Obama’s Afghan war strategy is a failure, and now his administration is scrambling to find a course of action that avoids igniting a Central Asian nightmare while protecting him politically. 

The nightmare scenario occurs if Western forces prematurely abandon Kabul to a Taliban-dominated government that reverts to its old ways.  That could fuel Islamic extremism across the entire region, especially in next-door nuclear-armed Pakistan .  

The alternative extreme is to stay the course in Afghanistan.  That could mean decades of fighting, which Obama knows is politically untenable.  Nearly 60% of Americans want the U.S. to withdraw from Afghanistan, according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll.  Obama understands his reelection may hang in the balance. 

He also understands there might be enough political support for a middle-ground exit strategy that avoids the nightmare scenario.  The quest to find that fresh strategy explains the raging debate over Obama’s promise to begin withdrawing troops this July.  He made that promise in December 2009 when he first announced his war strategy.

It appears he is using that promise as an opportunity to revise his three-part strategy.  Specifically, last week he set the stage for a change by claiming the U.S. has achieved “a big chunk” of its strategic objectives, inluding killing al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.  Therefore it is time the Afghans “take more responsibility,” Obama said, but he knows the Afghans are not ready because of the facts on the ground.

The first part of Obama’s 2009 strategy was a 30,000-troop surge to secure key population centers in that Texas-sized country.  For the past year, our 100,000 troops secured centers in the south and east, but those gains are tenuous because the Taliban forces slip away, find safe harbor and then attack targets of opportunity.

The flip side of our tenuous security gains is Obama’s plan to simultaneously strengthen “the capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.”  Unfortunately, Afghan forces are not ready to “lead,” and won’t be by 2014 when Obama says the security turnover will be completed.

Their unreadiness is illustrated by our handover of swaths of the Nuristan and Kunar provinces in eastern Afghanistan.  Those forces are unable to hold back the Taliban, according to a senior aide to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who spoke with the London Daily Telegraph last week.  This shouldn’t be a surprise to Obama.

Afghan security problems are legion, and they will need assistance for many years ahead.  A 2011 Government Accountability Office report on Afghan security forces found serious challenges, including poor leadership and high rates of attrition, absenteeism and illiteracy that inhibit training.  The agency said that as of last fall, no Afghan army unit was assessed as capable of conducting its mission independent of coalition assistance, and that “international backing of the ANA [Afghan National Army] will be needed for years to come—at least a decade.”

U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, the commander of NATO training in Afghanistan, has confirmed the need for a long-haul commitment, National Public Radio reported.  Caldwell’s NATO boss told him “that the training mission will be there well past 2014.”  The U.S. funds 92% of Afghan training, which runs to $11 billion this year.

The second part of Obama’s failing strategy is building “a more effective civilian” effort, which includes a self-sustaining economy and a less corrupt Afghan government that enjoys the population’s trust.  Both aspirations are many years away.

Afghanistan’s serious corruption problem was the topic de jour at Ryan Crocker’s confirmation hearing last week.  He is President Obama’s choice to be the new ambassador to Afghanistan.  Crocker soberly testified that “enormous challenges remain.  Governance, rule of law, including corruption, which undermines the credibility of the Afghan state …” 

Crocker must know Obama’s strategy calls for a credible Afghan government that has the support of the people and is capable of administering the country after Western forces leave.  But a U.S. government assessment found that “pervasive, entrenched and systemic corruption” permeates Afghanistan and that country is ranked as the second-most-corrupt country in the world, according to Transparency International’s corruption perception index.

Also, Afghanistan’s economy is totally dependent on foreign spending.  The World Bank estimates that 97% of Afghanistan’s gross domestic product is derived from spending related to the international military and donor community presence.  The country, according to a June 2011 U.S. Senate report on aid to Afghanistan, could sink into a severe economic depression when foreign troops leave in 2014 “unless the proper planning begins now.”

Part of Afghan’s economic problem is how the U.S. spends its aid money.  The Senate report indicates most of the $18.8 billion in U.S. aid to Afghanistan went to short-term stabilization programs instead of longer-term development projects that create enduring jobs.  The report questions the “efficacy of using aid as a stabilization tool” and suggests the “unintended consequences [such as corruption] of pumping large amounts of money into a war zone cannot be underestimated.” 

The third leg of Obama’s strategy is “the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership in Pakistan.”  He continued, “We are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust.”  But Pakistan has not earned America’s trust.  

Pakistan welcomes our aid dollars, but tepidly fights Taliban insurgents who use that country as a sanctuary, and it turns a blind eye to known terrorists such as Osama bin Laden.  It complains about our drone attacks on known terrorist lairs and just recently asked 100 U.S. military trainers tasked with helping that the army cope with its insurgency to leave.  

Over the weekend, CIA Director Leon Panetta was in Islamabad to rebuild a trusting, constructive relationship with Pakistan.  But, according to the Washington Post, recently the U.S. provided Pakistan with the specific locations of insurgent bomb-making factories only to see the militants learn their cover had been blown and quickly vacate. 

Clearly Obama’s Afghan war strategy is a failure if success means handing over the fight to a fully ready Afghan partner beginning next month.   But because we lack the will to continue that fight for decades, it behooves us to change course to help the region avoid an Islamic extremist nightmare scenario.

Obama’s middle-ground strategy must begin with an announcement that all American forces will leave by July 2014, and the first installment will be 10,000 forces next month.  This will get Kabul and Islamabad’s attention that we are leaving, but with the following caveats.

Our strategy should be a transition to a counterterrorism fight over the next six months, and in the meantime, we should hand over the security of the population centers to Afghan forces.  We can continue our aid program to help seed real jobs, and security forces training should be limited to the current force.  We must expect the Kabul government to work with Pakistan to negotiate an end to hostilities with the Taliban enemy.  Finally, Pakistan must be on notice that we are leaving, but that we will continue to assist if they cooperate with the Afghans and aggressively pursue terrorists and insurgents.

Obama must end America’s role in the Afghan war.  Pouring more blood and treasure into that fight has no clear nexus with American interests.  This middle-ground strategy provides enough time to avoid the nightmare scenario if the Afghans and Pakistanis get serious.

Please note: These stories are located outside of Prophecy Today’s website. Prophecy Today is not responsible for their content and does not necessarily agree with the views expressed therein. These articles are provided for your information.

The Coming Single World Currency

Posted on by
By: Larry Edelson – Daily Trade Alert

Wow, what confusion in the markets, eh? One day the Dow Industrials are up 100 points or so, the next day it’s down sharply. One day gold is down $15, the next day, it’s up $12.

One day silver is collapsing again, another trading day, it’s roaring higher. One day the bond market is soaring higher signaling deflation, the next day it’s cratering, worried about inflation.

I’ve been around these markets a long time. Thirty-three years to be precise. I’ve traded tens of billions of dollars, mostly in the wild and wooly futures markets. And quite frankly, I have never seen such volatility, in any market. Period. It’s amazing.

But it’s also not surprising. The post-Bretton Woods fiat monetary system is breaking down. A new global financial architecture and monetary system is desperately needed. Everyone knows it.

That’s never been more true than it is today. Not just because of the massive debt crisis that is affecting the developed world, but because the emerging markets — which represent fully 84% of the world’s population — are growing like never before.

The problem is, the wild swings we’re seeing in the markets will not abate. They are bound to increase in the weeks, months and years ahead. Until the authorities around the world realize themselves that the world is changing.

Until then, the fact of the matter remains that your wealth and the wealth of your children and grandchildren are totally and unabashedly at risk.

Today, though, I want to take a step back from the day-to-day swings in the markets and do another Q&A column, culling some recent questions from readers.

This way, I can help you keep the bigger picture in focus. Plus, you’ll know what others are thinking and asking, and, of course, what my answers are (or at least my visions of the futures are). So let’s get started …

Q: How would a future single world currency impact the price of gold once it’s introduced?

A: The question should not be how it will affect its price, but its value. Let me clarify: Suppose gold is trading at $7,000 per ounce just before a new world currency is introduced. And let’s suppose that one new world currency unit equals $1,000 U.S. dollars. An ounce of gold would then be valued at a price of seven new world currency units.

In other words, the value and purchasing power of gold remain the same; the only thing that changes is the denomination of the currency.

You might think, “well, then nothing has really changed.” And in the strict sense of the matter, that would be true.

But, a single world currency would not be introduced in a vacuum. It would (most likely) be introduced based upon a basket of internationally traded commodities. So its purchasing power — and value — would be equivalent to whatever it is at that time.

Also, and no matter what, one must realize that when a new world currency is finally introduced, it will be in the context of a wildly inflated world; in other words, asset prices will have inflated because of the depreciation that’s being deliberately unleashed by central bankers to push up asset prices relative to private and public debt levels.

Then, the system gets reset, or rebooted, if you will, to reflect a new balance sheet, if you will.

In the end, a new monetary system and a single world currency for international trade will be a good thing. Unfortunately, getting there will be the hard part as there is simply no one in Washington or any other government in the world that will fess up to what they’re doing: Inflating asset prices.

So it remains up to you to see through it, and protect and grow your wealth.

Q: Larry, since gold has been going up since 2000/2001 above the rate of inflation, does that mean we have been in a deflationary period ever since? Does this make the deflation/inflation argument mute?

A: Excellent questions! In the sense that gold now buys you much more of many other assets, especially stocks and real estate, the answer would be YES, for those particular assets. Indeed, they have deflated relative to the price of gold.

Naturally, other asset prices, such as the price of oil or food in general, have inflated along with the price of gold.

Bottom line #1: All asset prices and value are relative, and …

Bottom line #2: Inflation and deflation are two sides of the same coin. One does not exist without the other.

However, that does not make the argument mute, because in order to protect and grow one’s wealth, one has to know which asset prices are inflating, versus which are deflating.

Q: Do you think Keynes idea of the “Bancor” as the world international trading currency [is viable]? Is it possible for governments to give up their monopoly on money entirely?

A: Actually, I think central banks, especially the U.S. central bank, should give up their monopoly on money and credit. The ability to create money and credit should be a function of the government and not a central bank.

Having said that, a government’s ability to create and control money and credit needs to be removed from those in power and pegged to an objective medium of exchange.

The best way to do that is to use a commodity-basket, which will rise and fall in value according to the natural expansion and contraction of global economic growth and other factors, such as global population growth and more.

The IMF, the World Bank and the United Nations all endorse similar proposals, but none of them have gone far enough yet in working out the details.

Q: Since the exchanges have the ability to raise margins, like they did recently with silver, can’t they squash market rallies whenever they want, no matter what the commodity, or stock market, for that matter?

A: Short term, yes. Long term, no. Long-term trends are far more powerful than any exchange, government, and central bank.

Q: Larry, gold seems to be in trouble here. Are you concerned?

A: Not in the least bit. Yes, gold could and probably will pullback. But keep the long term in view. Gold is real money whose value is going to continue to appreciate in the years ahead.

Q: It was recently revealed that George Soros dumped some $800 million of gold. Since he’s getting out, shouldn’t we be?

A: No. First, no one really knows for sure how much gold he has, therefore, we don’t know whether he sold all of it, most of it, or a modest amount.

Second, we don’t know what he’s doing with the gold he sold. In fact, most of the gold he sold was via shares in the SPDR Gold Trust ETF. He could have been selling that gold and switching to actual physical gold that he’s storing in his own bank. Or, buying gold miners.

Keep in mind that you almost never get the full story from the press, no matter who issues the news, or who they are talking about. Nor do you ever get the full story from any investors, especially big ones like George Soros.

Bottom line: Never make any decisions based on news reports alone.

Q: The dollar is rallying again as the euro sovereign debt crisis erupts anew. Does this mean we are just seeing the dollar and the euro seesaw lower over time, due to both countries’ problems?

A: You are precisely correct. Both the euro and the dollar are losing purchasing power and in bear markets. Sometimes the U.S. dollar loses more, and sometimes the euro takes the lead.

Q: Larry, the Chinese yuan is not appreciating as quickly as you thought. What gives?

A: True, the yuan is not moving up as quickly as I expected. But I have no doubt it will. At the recent pow-wow in Washington, Beijing agreed to …

Increase its domestic savings interest rates to coax Chinese savers into saving even more.

Use “other methods” to help the U.S. boost its exports and put a lid on domestic Chinese inflation. That’s code speak for moving to more rapidly appreciate the yuan against the dollar.

Q: I watch your UWD videos, Larry, but the markets move so fast these days. Where’s support and resistance now in gold and silver?

A: Keep your eyes on the $1,477 level in gold as important support. If it gives way, expect to see a pullback to $1,425. On the resistance side, gold will find some selling between $1,525 and $1,545.

In silver, major support lies at $32. I expect that to soon give way, leading to a decline to $30, then $28 and quite possibly $23. Resistance lies at the $39 to $40 level.

Q: You have not written much about Asia lately. Why and what’s your view?

A: Great question! The simple reason is that with all the action in gold and silver over the past few weeks, and so many of my readers heavily invested in the precious metals, that’s where the urgency is.

But I am as bullish as ever on Asian economies, and emerging markets in general. The weakness in the dollar — and the euro — continues to drive investment capital into emerging markets. And consumers in emerging markets continue to drive economic growth throughout the developing world.

I have a good portion of my own net worth invested in emerging markets. And those investments are thriving.

Best wishes, as always,

Larry Edelson

Please note: These stories are located outside of Prophecy Today’s website. Prophecy Today is not responsible for their content and does not necessarily agree with the views expressed therein. These articles are provided for your information.

Operation ‘Opera’ Took Out Saddam’s Reactor: 30 Year Anniversary

Posted on by
By: INN Staff – Arutz Sheva

Thirty years ago Tuesday, on Sunday, June 7, 1981, eight IAF F-16s and and six F-15s took off from the IAF’s Etzion Base in northern Sinai. Their destination was the Iraqi nuclear plant at Al-Tuweitha, near Baghdad.

The youngest F-16 pilot was Captain Ilan Ramon, 25. He volunteered to fly last in the attack formation — the most dangerous position — because he had no wife or children.

The strike made history and denied Iraq’s Saddam Hussein his dream of nuclear weapons. He was eventually toppled and executed after the US led a coalition force into Iraq.  

An animation created in 2003, in the months leading up to the coalition’s invasion, tells the story of that strike. By a stroke of chance, it was put online just days after the tragic death of Ilan Ramon, Israel’s first astronaut, on board the space shuttle Columbia.

The animation by Gil Ronen was viewed at the time by over 250,000 people, including numerous people within the US political leadership and defense establishment — the same ones who decided to finish the job Israel had started 22 years earlier and rid the world of the danger that Saddam Hussein would ever use weapons of mass destruction against other countries. 

Israel bombed a site it claimed was a fledgling nuclear reactor in Syria several years ago.  The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, recently corroborated Israel’s claim, but condemned Israel for destroying the site instead of filing a complaint.

Click here to view the animation.

Please note: These stories are located outside of Prophecy Today’s website. Prophecy Today is not responsible for their content and does not necessarily agree with the views expressed therein. These articles are provided for your information.