Is Jerusalem the Capital of Israel – Should it Be? Part One

New Era World News and Global Intelligence Report. This article could easily be entitled: Is President Trump a Dispensational Zionist or just Theologically Illiterate?

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS UNLEASHED an international and global sunami with his recent declaration that Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel. Every nation on earth (including the Vatican) except the United States and Israel has been opposed to the idea ever since Zionist nationalists cooperated with the British government to repopulate Palestine with Jewish immigrants in the wake of World War I. Prior to post-war British involvement, Jewish immigrants had already been returning to the Levant during the nineteenth century.  Unlike later Zionist inspired and British supported immigrants, these earlier settlers came for religious motives; they were Orthodox Jews devoted to the Torah.  They were not nationalist zealots willing to forcibly remove indigenous Muslim and Christian Arabs from their millennial homeland, nor were they part of the political-eschatological maneuver engineered by Zionist adepts, men and women who are experts at pretending to be Jews but are not (Rev 3:9; Rev 2:9). Consequently, it should not be surprising that an increasing number of authentic Orthodox Jews are voicing their opposition to Zionist occupation of the Levant.

l

More Detailed Versions: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMQ9C6vni0w) and (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awCOSRg-gks)

According to scholars writing for the Middle East Research Project:

“Most of them (pre-Zionist Jewish settlers) observed traditional, orthodox religious practices. Many spent their time studying religious texts and depended on the charity of world Jewry for survival. Their attachment to the land was religious rather than national, and they were not involved in—or supportive of—the Zionist movement that began in Europe and was brought to Palestine by immigrants”.

In the first decades of the twentieth century Britain and France (assisted by the United States and what would later become Saudi Arabia) cooperated to defeat the Ottoman Empire and Germany in World War I. “By the end of 1916, the French had spent 1.25 million gold francs in subsidizing the (Arab) revolt. (against the Ottoman Empire)” Likewise, “by September 1918, the British were spending £220,000/month to subsidize the revolt.”  Britain promised their Hashemite (Arab) allies that following the war they would help the Arabs establish an independent state under indigenous rule in land carved from the defeated Ottoman Empire. Unfortunately for the Arabs, British authorities were simultaneously colluding with Zionist illusionists. Despite Arab hopes, by 1917, the same year the Mother of God appeared at Fatima, the British government inspired by its Foreign Minister, Lord Arthur Balfour, issued the “Balfour Declaration” thereby proclaiming its determined intent to establish a  “Jewish national home in Palestine.”

Successful establishment of a nationalist Zionist project in the Levant required the cooperation of French adepts who complemented Balfour’s efforts by concluding the so-called “Sykes-Picot Agreement”.  According to this agreement, former Ottoman controlled territories in the Levant were to be monitored by British and French forces who were to act as peace ministers in the newly manufactured Jewish and Arab enclaves.  This agreement was immediately confirmed by the League of Nations. Britain obtained what was referred to as a “mandate” (the legal instrument that contained the internationally agreed-upon terms for administering the territory on behalf of the League of Nations) over what is today

  • Jordan
  • Iraq and
  • Israel including the Gaza Strip and the West Bank of the Jordan River.

France, on the other hand, received the mandate over

  • Syria (an ancient Christian region) including the Golan Heights  and
  • Lebanon (having a Christian majority)

.

Image result for british mandate

.

Britain decided that the land west of the Jordan would be referred to as Palestine, and the area east of the ancient river would be referred to as “Transjordan”, which constituted three-fourths of the territory included in the Mandate to be ruled as per agreement by a Hashemite prince (Hashemite and Saud families vied for power throughout the region). Thus, King Faysal’s brother, Abdallah (Arab leader who assisted British against Ottoman Turks in WWI), became ruler of Transjordan – Faysal became King of Iraq after being defeated in Syria. The Sauds would consolidate power south to the Arabian Sea.

Despite assurances to its Hashemite allies to establish an independent Arab State, British authorities appeared to be more interested in the Zionist project, even if it meant disrupting the indigenous Palestinian population that had resided there for nearly two thousand years.

Naturally, Arab Palestinians insisted upon self-rule in Palestine as they enjoyed in Transjordan, so too did the newly arriving Zionists in Palestine; nonetheless, although the Palestinians whose ancestors had lived upon and cultivated the land since the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, although these same Palestinians had the stronger claim to self-rule, their claims were prejudicially ignored. Arabs living in Palestine therefore opposed the British Mandate because it thwarted their aspirations for self-rule. They understood that “the last thing the Zionists really wanted was that all the inhabitants of Palestine should have an equal say in running the country.”

Chaim Weizmann (Zionist leader and first president of Israel) had convinced Winston Churchill that representative government in Palestine (equal voting among Arabs and Jews) would have meant the end of the Jewish hopes for a National Home in Palestine. Thus, Churchill could be heard saying,

“The present form of (autocratic) government will continue (in Palestine) for many years. Step by step we shall develop representative institutions leading to full self-government, but our children’s children will have passed away before that is accomplished.” (David Hirst, “The Gun and the Olive Branch).

Jean Jacques Rousseau expressed a similar political astuteness over a century earlier. Although he seemed an advocate of representative government, no such government could exist in France until through annihilation, demographics favored a new secular elite and through education the people had been primned to vote the “correct” way.

Locating Jews on land previously belonging for centuries and millennia to Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) was probably not a good idea. Cognizant of this fact, British authorities were careful to name the area “Palestine” not “Israel”.  The more populous indigenous farmers of Palestine were poor and defenseless peasants. Nonetheless, Zionist settlers had the support of international Jewish organizations and of the British government. Consequently, the land was plagued with continual but lopsided conflict, conflict that favored Zionist settlers to the detriment of native Palestinians.

The League of Nations Mandate created so much trouble for the British that following World War II they asked the region be transferred to the newly established United Nations. Thus, before the League of Nations mandate terminated in 1948 the United Nations had already adopted Resolution 181 (November  29, 1947), which dealt with the future of Palestine. It envisaged the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states in Palestine, with Jerusalem being transferred to UN trusteeship.  British-Zionist forces operating within the UN did not wait long to implement their vision; on the last day of the League Mandate, they decided that Palestine (not including Transjordan) should be further divided to better represent the interest of both parties, i.e, Jews and Arabs. They therefore proclaimed their intent to create two States one Jewish, the other Arab. At this time the Jews, who owned roughly six percent of the land in Palestine, were bequeathed nearly 55% of the land, a massive increase from the British mandate.

This ideological imbalance in favor of the Jews was waged against the Palestinians from the beginning. Despite the fact that Palestinians outnumbered Jews nearly 2-1, the UN delegated the latter over half of the available land.  However, in recognition of their spiritual patrimonies, the UN was quick to re-affirm the League of Nations mandate that Jerusalem remain an International City a holy site sacred to Muslims, Jews and Christians. Jerusalem was therefore declared as an “International City”. It has been recognized by every nation on earth including the Vatican and the United States ever since, that is until President Trump made his recent announcement.

The recognition of Jerusalem as an international city was more than a gesture; it is an international spiritual, religious and political necessity. Nonetheless, it was not enough to keep temporal peace. Because their Christian and Muslim ancestors had labored for centuries to cultivate their land and make it fruitful, because militant Zionists had no legal right to these lands and rested their case on some specious outdated and already fulfilled prophecies, and because Christians and Muslims Arabs outnumber Zionists nearly 2-1, the Palestinians were understandably distraught with the UN plan. UN backed British-Zionists had crafted a plan that permitted unwelcome Jewish foreigners to dispossess rightful owners of land that had been in Christian and Muslim hands for centuries, a plan that made Christians vagabonds in their own homeland, a plan that justified property confiscation by religious zealots backed by international dollars and British military power, by a plan lacking all moral support, justified by Social-Darwinism, by a supposedly outdated Law of the Jungle: “might makes right”, because of these things, the Palestinians rightfully felt persecuted. But that was only the beginning – the newly arriving Zionists would not respect the boundaries designated by the United Nations.

ASIDE: The bond between Israel and England is deeply etched in English lore, in its music and cultural mores. If anyone doubts the British resolve to back the Zionists, the link between Zionism and British Masonry (the architects of King Solomon’s earthly temple), let him consider the unofficial British National Anthem, esp 1:01 and 2:08-2:28 in the musical video below:

.

Thus, within days of the UN partition, fighting broke out. Jewish nationalists backed by International Zionist Organizations, British support, and modern weaponry supplied through Czechoslovakia, simply out gunned their poorly equipped and under-trained peasant opponents. Not only did the Zionists occupy territories assigned to them by the UN, they continued an offensive assault throughout the West Bank claiming unprotected or poorly protected territories beyond established UN borders and thereafter claimed to legally incorporate them (despite their being in violation of International law) as part of Israel.  It was not until then (1948-49) that Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Jordan (all but Egypt under French and British influence) responded militarily in an unsuccessful attempt to rescue Arabs from Zionist seizure and control.

Palestine had been home to both Christians and Muslims for nearly two thousand years. Thus, the nomenclature “Arab” should not be misconstrued to mean Muslim; it means both Muslim and Christian peoples of Arab descent.  Palestine is the land where Christ preached the eternal Gospel, where He suffered and died; it is the site where death was defeated: “O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting” (1 Cor 15:55)?  It is the land in which Christ established His everlasting Kingdom, the New Israel. Thus, when Zionist nationalists lashed out against Palestinians in the name of God, they were (and are) spilling Christian blood, while Dispensational Protestant Preachers, who forge unbreakable bonds between America and England, spin out an odd sort of eschatology calling for ever more money to be sent to support Israel against Christians.

.

Political-Zionist Cooperation: John Hagee Evangelical Pastor Crying for Military and Financial Support of Israel says Jewish people don’t need Christ.

As a result of Zionist intransigence, the Palestinian state planned by the UN never materialized and no one stood up against this flagrant violation of International Law. Instead, in the aftermath of the 1947 onslaught, Palestine was again divided, this time into three parts, each governed by a different authority designated by a boundary referred to as the “Green Line’. Israel expanded, grabbing nearly 20% of the land designated for the Palestinians; they now occupied nearly 80% of the entire land of Palestine despite substantial numeric inferiority. According to the UN’s 1947 partition plan, Jerusalem was to be an international city. However, the 1949 UN sponsored armistice cut the city in two; Jordan was assigned East Jerusalem (including the old walled city home of major Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religious sites), the West Bank or “Hill Country”  abutting the Jordan River and extending westward into the craggy regions of Palestine. Egypt assumed control of Gaza Strip. The Golan Heights remained in Syrian hands.

Despite the fact that Israel was referred to as a “state” no such designation was afforded the increasingly marginalized Palestinian Christians and Muslims.

Although no one manifestly assented  to the idea that “might makes right”; it was certainly the determining principle in this early act of Israeli aggression. Despite UN Resolutions to the contrary, lands seized from nearly 700,000 fleeing Palestinian civilians were never returned to their rightful occupants who were forced by Jewish immigrants to become fleeing refugees thereby affirming the accusation of hypocrisy hurled by Jesus at the Jews (Matt 7: 1-6).

“The first UN General Assembly Resolution—Number 194— affirming the right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property, was passed on December 11, 1948. It has been repassed no less than twenty-eight times since that first date. Whereas the moral and political right of a person to return to his place of uninterrupted residence is acknowledged everywhere, Israel has negated the possibility of return… [and] systematically and juridically made it impossible, on any grounds whatever, for the Arab Palestinian to return, be compensated for his property, or live in Israel as a citizen equal before the law with a Jewish Israeli” The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict, pg 12).

Article 11 expressly “Resolves”:

 that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible

Zionists did not like being made refugees but had (and continue to have) little problem making others suffer the same plight. Lord Balfour had little problem dealing with charges of hypocrisy. According to him,

In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country…The four powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.” (Edward Said, “The Question of Palestine” pg. 16”).

.

Image result for "west bank" map

Furthermore,

“No British officers, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms” (If America Knew).

Zionist leaders in Israel have been imbued with perverse ideas; they have relentlessly and illegally displaced Syrian and Palestinian people from the Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza. As early as 1921, Dr. Eder, a Member of the British Zionist Commission, made known that from the beginning:

“The Zionists made no secret of their intentions, for  a member of the Zionist Commission, boldly told the Court of Inquiry, ‘there can be only one National Home in Palestine (not the promised two states), and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish preponderance as soon as the numbers of the race are sufficiently increased.’ He then asked that only Jews should be allowed to bear arms” (The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict, pg 7).

Even David Ben-Gurion, founder of the State of Israel and its first Prime Minister, following an attempted Palestinian revolt recognized the hypocrisy of Zionism, what today we might call “Fake news”:

“…in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us,’ but he urged, ‘let us not ignore the truth among ourselves.’ The truth was that ‘politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside’.”

The British commitment to Zionism, even under false pretenses was clearly recognized by American intellect Noam Chomsky who reported that,

“The revolt was crushed by the British, with considerable brutality” (The Fateful Triangle, pg 98).

In the aftermath, Mahatma Gandhi declared that although the Zionists claimed that God had for-ordained their military conquest of Palestine,

“A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They (the Zionists) can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs… As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds” (Virtual Jewish Library).

Echoing Ben-Gurion, Menahem Begin, founder of Likud and the sixth Prime Minister of Israel (before the creation of the state of Israel, the leader of the Zionist militant group Irgun), Begin eching Gurion informs us

“…how ‘in Jerusalem, as elsewhere, we were the first to pass from the defensive to the offensive…Arabs began to flee in terror…The Israelis now allege that the Palestine war began with the entry of the Arab armies into Palestine after 15 May 1948. But that was the second phase of the war; they overlook the massacres, expulsions and dispossessions which took place prior to that date (committed by the Zionists) and which necessitated Arab states’ intervention” (The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict, pg 10).

Fake News is not something new; it has been operative for quite a while. Jordan’s King Abdullah let the cat out of the bag when he informed Western sources that the Palestinians never stood a chance; their forces he said were “ill equipped and lacked any central command to coordinate their efforts”. Moreover, he promised the British and the Israelis that

“His troops, the Arab Legion, the only real fighting force among the Arab armies, would avoid fighting with Jewish settlements. Yet Western historians record this as the moment when the young state of Israel fought off “the overwhelming hordes’ of five Arab countries. In reality, the Israeli offensive against the Palestinians intensified” (If America Knew).

Concluding Part One, it may be stated that following the self-admitted 1947-48 Israeli aggression, Israel again showed its hypocrisy by refusing to concede to the Palestinians what it declared as a right for itself:

“Palestinians were trying to save by negotiations what they had lost in the war—a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Israel, however… Israel [preferred] tenuous armistice agreements to a definite peace that would involve territorial concessions and the repatriation of even a token number of refugees. The refusal to recognize the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and statehood proved over the years to be the main source of the turbulence, violence, and bloodshed that came to pass” (Israeli author, Simha Flapan, “The Birth Of Israel).

Vatican response to President Trump’s decree on Jerusalem:

.

 

Short of Israel becoming a Christian State (something New Era is closer to forecasting), President Trump’s unilateral move is more than misguided; it is politically anti-peace and theologically anti-Christian.

Part Two Continued




Russian President Vladimir Putin Announces He Will Run For Reelection In 2018

New Era World News and Global Intelligence

EARLIER TODAY RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN (age 65), with the majority United Russia Party behind him, announced his intent to seek a second term in the upcoming March 18, 2018 presidential election:

“I will be proposing my candidacy for the position of President of the Russian Federation…Russia will move only forward, and no one will ever stop it in its progress.”

Following a thunderous reception from an assembly of car factory workers in Nizhny Novgorod, Putin replied:

“Thank you for this reaction, first of all, thank you for your work. Thank you for your attitude toward your work, the enterprise, the city, the country. I am sure that we will succeed.”

l

“I will put forth my candidacy for the post of president of the Russian Federation,” Putin said in Nizhny Novgorod on December 6

l

Putin previously served two consecutive terms as president from 2000 to 2008 after which the then new President, Dmitry Medvedev, appointed him as Prime Minister. Putin was then elected president for a third time in 2012 and has kept his intention to seek a fourth term in 2018 close to his chest until earlier today.

A recent Romir-Gallup poll reveals that if the election were held within a week from now Putin would win an overwhelming victory garnering 75 percent of votes. Popular as he is, he will not run uncontested. Nonetheless, he is expected to win by a comfortable margin. “No other candidate is expected to break through the 10 per cent barrier.”

Those who have already lined up to oppose him include: Ksenia Sobchak, a self-described underdog  who plugs herself as “the against-all candidate.” She will be joined by unlikely opposition journalist Grigory Yavlinsky representing the Democratic Yabloko Party.  A more well known candidate Vladimir Zhirinovsky, long time Putin opponent and leader of the Liberal Democratic Party will oppose Putin for the sixth time. Other potential presidential candidates include: musician and political analysts Ekaterina Gordon running as an Independent, political scientist Andrei Bogdanov, and Russian Tycoon Sergei Polonsky.

In order to qualify as a candidate for president, each potential candidate must secure 100,000 signatures.

l

Ksenia Sobchak

sobchak

Ms. Sobchak is a the socialite daughter of late St. Petersburg Mayor Anatoly Sobchak best known as a seasoned journalist with very little political experience. Nonetheless, She has already launched a campaign website on which she has announced her candidacy. According to Sobchak, she has already garnered 2,000 signatures toward the required 100,000  to be eligible to run for president.

l

Grigory Yavlinsky

Yavlinsky

Mr. Yavlinski is a seasoned politician and economist best known for his leadership of the social-liberal Yabloko Party and as the author of Russia’s  500 Days Programme, which he drafted to help the former Soviet Union transition to a market economy. Yavlinsky has previously run for president two times. In 1996 he finished fourth against Boris Yeltsin garnering 7% of the vote and then again in 2000 against Vladimir Putin, a race in which he finished third with 6% of the vote. Yavlinski does not support Russian annexation of Crimea and believes the nation should admit that it violated international norms in doing so. He recently announced that he will beat Putin in 2018.

l

Vladimir Zhirinoivski

zhirinovski

Mr. Zhirinovsky is also a seasoned politician who as leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), will represent the party for the sixth time.  Zhirinoivski is a colonel in the Russian army, a member of the Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe, and Vice-Chairman of the State Duma (lower house Russian Legislature). He has been described as “fiercely nationalist”  and “a showman of Russian politics, blending populist and nationalist rhetoric, anti-Western invective and a brash, confrontational style.”

The LDPR is opposed to both socialism/communism and neoliberal capitalism. In the 2011 LPDR earned 11% or 50 of the 450 seats in parliament.  The LDPR has a reputation for being authoritarian and fiscally leftist. Zhirinovsky is infatuated with the idea of  a “renewed Russian Empire” and the rebirth of a “Greater Russia”.

l

Ekaterina Gordon

gordon

Katya Gordon is a song writer, human rights activist, and seasoned attorney and who heads her own law firm: Gordon & Sons, which specializes in family law. She received two “Golden Gramophone” awards and in 2016 she received the “Best Duo” version of the “Muz-TV Award“.

On October 30, 2017, she announced her intention to participate in the presidential elections in 2018.

Taking a jab a female opponent Ksenia Sobchak, Gordon sarcastically knocked Sobchak’s reputation as a glamorous socialite to her own advantage with the Russian people:

“I am not a representative of glamour, I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth”

Among Candidates Comments in this Video: “I am not a representative of glamour, I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth”

Running on a “pro-women” platform, she touts her emotionally packed experiences, experiences that have been etched into her legal psyche following a half decade of defending women’s and children’s rights as the motivation for her feminist platform.

“I know how our judicial system works in practice,” Gordon stressed. “We are a country of single mothers whom no one cares about.”

l

Andrei Bogdanov

Bogdanov

Mr Bogdanov is a seasoned politician with strong political and historic ties to the West.  Since 2014 he has served as Chairman of the Communist Party of Social Justice; he is a Freemason and Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Russia (a post he will hold until 2020), and a 33° Scottish Rite Adept. In 2008 he ran for president and received nearly a million votes, which is roughly 1.3% of the Russian electorate.

As a Freemason, Bogdanov favors European integration, liberalism, and less state involvement in the economy. 

l

Sergei Polonsky

Image processed by CodeCarvings Piczard ### FREE Community Edition ### on 2017-11-08 16:59:04Z | |

Mr. Polonsky is a successful Russian businessman who owns Mirax Group, one of Russia’s largest real estate companies.  He was one of the richest men in Russia prior to the 2007 financial crisis. On 12, July 2017 he was found guilty of fraud, but the judge ruled that too much time had elapsed since commission of the crime for the court’s decision to be implemented; consequently, Polansky simply “walked away”.

A Moscow court convicted one of Russia’s most flamboyant tycoons, Sergei Polonsky, of fraud on Wednesday, and yet the property developer who symbolized the excess of the oil-fueled boom times walked away a free man.”

 

Despite Bogdanovov’s Masonry and Yavlinsky’s show of bravado, none of these candidates has what it takes to defeat the incumbent come March 2018.  Putin is an extremely popular political leader whose success in foreign policy, whose desire to increase domestic production and expansion of trade with Asia to offset Western Sanctions, as well as his willingness to take on the globalist financial elite and the purveyors of liberalism, have made him a champion among the vast majority of Russian people. His re-election seems an easy forecast – that is, if he continues to outwit would-be assassins.

 

 




US Foreign Policy Fail in Syria Will US Israel-Russia Policy Bring Peace or Further Failure?

New Era World News and Global Intelligence

RUSSIA’S ENTRY INTO THE SYRIAN conflict turned the tide in favor of Bashar al Assad.  Syrian government forces backed by Russian air power and joined by allied forces from Iraq (as well as Iran and Lebanon) have resulted in the near final defeat of ISIS in Syria.  Following the route of Terrorist forces in Bukamal (an East Syrian city situated on the Euphrates River in the Deir ez-Zor Governorate just over the border from Iraq), only a few isolated terrorist forces remain in Idlib Province and in small numbers scattered elsewhere waiting to be mopped up. As reported on October 11

“As a consequence of Russia’s decisive involvement, the six year war and propaganda effort waged by the United States and allied nations has failed; the war in Syria is basically over.”

New Era was not the only news and intelligence agency forecasting an end to the war in Syria, most analysts have been forecasting an end for months, an end contrary to that desired by war hawks in the United States who bragged the US is: “The best military in the world” a military that can beat any “two bit terrorist organization” and as such will smash Assad, remove this “butcher” from power and “bring Vladimir Putin (like a dog) to heel”.

Audio of Warhawk Senator John McCain on Syria: (See 2:20 – 3:00  and  4:04 – 4:21) – How Far are the Hawks from Reality?

Now, with a Syrian victory at hand, it appears as though Assad will remain in power and the people of Syria will exercise their democratic rights to determine who their future leader will be by recourse to a national election.

Near conclusive as this end might be, it does not sit well with conservative and liberal war hawks in American government representing the interests of the American military establishment. They are now joining in chorus to tell the public that Assaad is incapable of winning the war due to massive casualties suffered by his military exacerbated by extensive damage to the country’s vital infrastructure.

According to the Washington Post

“The government of Bashar al-Assad, lacking manpower, reliant on allies and almost broke, is no longer capable of a military win in Syria’s civil war, U.S. officials said Monday, pushing back against Russian and Syrian assertions that victory is only a matter of time.”

Warlords in the Trump administration seem to think that Assad’s military has withered and that the war fought in his favor was due to allied forces from Iraq, Iran and Lebanon that might no longer be interested:

“When we look at what it would take to make a victor’s peace sustainable in any country, the Syrian regime does not have it…They’re not wealthy, they’re not rich in manpower, they’re not rich in other capabilities, and the grievances, if anything, are sharper now than they were at the beginning of this conflict.”

US hawks are making this the new pillar of justification for ongoing involvement, the reason for maintaining troops and weapons in Syria despite overt formal requests made by the Syrian government for them to leave.

The US-Jewish neo liberal military-economic-financial alliance is uncomfortable with the new geopolitical landscape inadvertently created by US foreign policy initiatives in the Middle East: With Assad in control of Syria buttressed by an ongoing alliance with Lebanon (and a new alliance with both Iraq and Iran), an Iranian land bridge has been created stretching from Persia to the disputed Golan Heights on the Israeli border. To make matters worse, the US has alienated Turkey by supporting the Kurds (whom the Turks consider terrorists) in Northern Syria and Iraq.  Thus, any future scenario pits the United States, Israel and terrorist  Kingpin Saudi Arabia against Russia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and probably Turkey which has worked with Russia and Iran as a peace broker in the region along with China whose interest in the conflict has peaked due to massive economic outlays planned and already implemented in Syria (2 billion dollars planned) and the broader Levant and Middle East.

As noted by the Asian Times;

“Few remember that before the war China had already invested tens of billions of US dollars in Syria’s oil and gas industry. Naturally the priority for Damascus, once the war is over, will be massive reconstruction of widely destroyed infrastructure. China could be part of that via the AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank). Then comes investment in agriculture, industry and connectivity – transportation corridors in the Levant and connecting Syria to Iraq and Iran (other two Obor hubs).”

l

“What matters most of all is that Beijing has already taken the crucial step of being directly involved in the final settlement of the Syrian war – geopolitically and geo-economically. Beijing has had a special representative for Syria since last year – and has already been providing humanitarian aid”

Given the unexpected input from Russia and China and the alliance between Iran and Iraq as well as the movement of Turkey away from the UN and toward Russia-China, the political and military situation in the Middle East and around the globe has outgrown the ability of the United States to respond effectively.  The US is beset with problems in Latin America, North Korea, South Asia and elsewhere.  US troops remaining in Syria are vulnerable because they are interpreted by indigenous forces as a destabilizing factor that has been overcome but refuses to leave.

The real problem for the US in the region is the ongoing request for continued support from the Zionist State of Israel against an emergent Iran, its significantly strengthened nemesis now cooperating with both Iraq and Turkey (as well as Russia and Lebanon) due to American and NATO foreign policy blunders. As noted by Newsweek

“Moscow’s entrance to the conflict, along with growing jihadist influence among rebel groups, forced the U.S. to realign its position and settle on a new, informal goal: stopping Iran. The U.S., now led by maverick President Donald Trump, suspects Iran is seeking to establish a long-term foothold to build an international corridor of influence stretching from Tehran to Beirut and Washington is struggling to stop it.”

As regards the Middle East, the real challenge for the Unites States is the structure of its international relations with Israel.  Will America remain the guarantor of Zionist expansionist ambitions, disregard the two state solution favored by the United Nations, the Vatican and an increasing array of other nations as well as a growing number of supporters within the United States in opposition to the pro-Zionist forces governing Israel or will it continue to support destabilizing voices coming forth from the Knesset who claim that the capital of Israel is Jerusalem, a diplomatic reality shunned even by the Vatican, which supports the right of the Palestinian people to their own homeland?

As noted by the Guardian

“Israel’s mutant version of Jerusalem is far larger than any historical iteration of the city. It contains Palestinian towns, villages and refugee camps, as well as Israeli settlements….Jerusalem is not divided, impoverished and ungoverned because international law makes it so: it is a situation that flows from the territorial ambitions unleashed by war. Successive Israeli governments have been unable to cope with problems they have created, and lacked the political will to make a peace that will see Palestinians controlling their own lives. Rather than honestly own the situation, Israel’s leaders have tried to muddy the legal framework that defines the state of the city.”

Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel will most likely be the most egregious mistake in tune with a long series of recent foreign policy blunders that have eroded peace, destabilized the region and worked satisfactorily to the Zionists, but to the detriment of everyone else in the region (except perhaps Saudi Arabia, who like Israel wants Iran neutered). According to the Palestinian Authority, if President Trump signs an act recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel:

“It will derail the last hope of peace,  and degrade US influence in the world, as countries including Turkey have warned…. Recognising Israel’s current version of Jerusalem would create enormous and new insoluble problems without addressing the real issues that beset the city.”

Thus, even the Times of Israel reports:

“Trump is eager to broker an Israeli-Palestinian final-status deal, and he knows that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital could be “the kiss of death” to the peace process, as Palestinian officials have warned.”

The PLO continues to that Israel should withdraw from Palestinian territories seized during the 1967 Six-Day War, after which Israel proclaimed ownership of East Jerusalem. Then in 1980, Jewish authorities declared that the entire city of Jerusalem was the capital of Israel.  This declaration however, went unrecognized by the Vatican, the United States, Russia and by a majority of UN states and other international organizations.

Perhaps the United States should be a little humble and take a lesson from Russia, which in April, 2017, compromised by not recognizing all of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, but only its Western part? The Russian maneuver leaves intact significant ground for diplomatic wiggle room. By recognizing only the Western part of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Russia seems to have denied Israel’s claims to the Eastern part, including the Old City, which Jewish forces captured in 1967 and subsequently effectively annexed.

Russia’s statement, specifically said that Moscow views

“East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state.”

If he wants to avoid angering and further destabilizing the Arab world and hopes to keep alive his dream of brokering the “ultimate” Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, “Trump could choose a similar formulation.”

Will President Trump join hands with President Putin to broker peace in the Middle East or continue committing the US to  an increasingly inept foreign policy hinged on support of Zionist expansion to the detriment of the Palestinians and other Secular states and Islamic government in the Middle East?  New Era continues to forecast that Mr. Trump will choose the path of peace?

If not, the US will continue committing one foreign policy embarrassment after another, in this case losing Turkey as a long standing ally, an ally that we have already pushed into the Russian camp by supporting the Kurds and now risk pushing even further over the the broader issue of Jerusalem. The President of Turkey,  Recep Tayyip Erdogan, recently indicated what recognizing Jerusalem would do to US relations with Turkey. According to Fox News:

“Erdogan, while speaking to Parliament, said such a step by President Trump would force Turkey to cut off all diplomatic ties with Israel. He pledged to rally other Muslim countries to oppose any move to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.”

Likewise, the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, a coalition of Muslim countries, stated that “the move would constitute ‘naked aggression’ against the Arab and Muslim world.”

Perhaps the Muslims and emerging Christian and popularity forces in Europe are correct, NeoLiberalism is an Emperor with no Clothes.  It is time for America to put its moral cloak back on and to help lead the peace process in accord with the peace promise made by Our Lady Fatima, a promise that President Trump seems mystically aware of:

l